From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com  Sat Mar  1 03:22:50 2008
From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:22:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fq9ip3+8fse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8CA4962AA2A0BC0-810-118A@FWM-D27.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181800

Betsy Hp:






The other thing is, IMO, the *only* place JKR tells us not all 

Slytherins are bad is in her interviews.  It's really hard to find 

places in the text that support her theory.  The Gryffindors 

certainly hate all Slytherins on sight, and they're never put in a 

position to learn anything different.  Neither is their behavior 

towards Slytherins ever questioned.  Whereas Slytherins behaving 

badly is clearly seen as such.



It's strange, and I'm not sure why she did it, but it's like JKR 

wrote one book (or series) and but then interviews about an entirely 

different set.  Unless we're going with the esoteric what appears to 

be isn't and what seems to not be is reading (and if you're confused 

by that phrase you begin to see the issue of doing that sort of 

reading <eg>) we're left with a series in which certain people are 

just evil from birth (or age eleven) and some people are good and 

here's a series where they battle.



Which leaves for a fun story (if you like the good guys and JKR's 

style of writing) but not a deep one.





Oryomai:
If I can bless you with another gem, I agree.? As much as I always believed that the Slytherins came back to fight, it is almost impossible to prove Good!Slytherin though canon alone.

As I said in an offlist email to CJ, JKR wanted the readers to know that the Slytherins did come back to fight.? She's been telling us all these little details in interviews because she could not fit them in the seven books.? I personally would rather have seen longer books than more interviews later.

I think she has an entirely different idea of the books than many of her readers do.? This is also true of us readers as we can interpret entirely different things than she does.? It's what makes the books fun!

Oryomai

    











 



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




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  1 09:29:48 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:29:48 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Bagman_=96_A_Death_Eater_or_Not=3F_=96_You_(Generic)_Decide_(GoF_CH_7-9_Post_DH_look)?=
In-Reply-To: <fq9m4b+1toi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqb7mc+uv8c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181803

> > > Mike:
> > > And Goddlefrood thought he really was a Death Eater.

> > Goddlefrood:

> > Because he was, there's nothing to refute that unless and  
> > until the Encyclopaedia says otherwise.

> Carol:

> We know that he wasn't with the DEs who were baiting the 
> Muggles at the QWC; he was dealing with the goblins to 
> whom he owed money. 

Goddlefrood, having substantially rearranged and partially 
rewritten earlier posts, presents the case for Bagman being 
a Death Eater:

When Bagman says "Damn them!" in the passage quoted below, 
he is  referring to his fellow muggle-baiting Death Eaters. 
I am of the view that he was upset because either he was 
missing the fun, or he did not wish attention to be drawn 
to his Dark Lord's return until the time was right, knowing 
as he did about the events that had been set in motion for 
Voldemort's return.

In GoF, Chapter 10 (The Dark Mark) Bagman is encountered 
emerging from the tress close to where the Dark Mark is 
conjured very soon before that conjuring. IMO, we are only 
*supposed* to believe that he is hiding from or negotiating 
with the Goblins as a blind. The relevant passage is:

'The words were hardly out of his mouth, when Ludo Bagman 
emerged from behind a tree right ahead of them.
Even by the feeble light of the two wands, Harry could see 
that a great change had come over Bagman. He no longer looked 
buoyant and rosy-faced; there was no more spring in his step. 
He looked very white and strained.
"Who's that?" he said, blinking down at them, trying to make 
out their faces. "What are you doing in here, all alone?"
They looked at each other, surprised.
"Well ? there's a sort of riot going on," said Ron.
Bagman stared at him. "What?"
"On the campsite
some people have got hold of a family of 
Muggles
"
Bagman swore loudly. "Damn them!" he said, looking quite 
distracted, and without another word, he Disapparated with 
a small pop.
"Not exactly on top of things, Mr. Bagman, is he?" said 
Hermione, frowning.
"He was a great beater, though," said Ron, leading the way 
off the path into a small clearing, and sitting down on a 
patch of dry grass at the foot of a tree. "The Wimbourne 
Wasps won the league three times in a row while he was with 
them."' 

(Page 114, Bloomsbury hardback edition [All following quotes 
and page numbers from same edition])

Shortly after this the Dark Mark appears and as we later 
find out Barty Crouch Jnr. had conjured it. Is it not 
possible, even probable, that Bagman was meeting Crouch 
Jnr. either in furtherance of the plot or to have it 
explained to him and to warn him off from having Bertha 
Jorkins searched for too closely? It's unlikely that anyone 
can refute this, circumstantial though it is. Circumstantial 
evidence has led to many an incarceration before now and is 
often compelling. There is more, naturally, for which read 
on.

Bagman actually arrives where the Ministry wizards have just 
stunned Winky and Barty Jnr. and we are told:

`Comprehension dawned suddenly on Bagman's round, shiny face; 
he looked up at the skull, down at Winky and then at Mr. Crouch.
"No!" he said. "Winky? Conjure the Dark Mark? She wouldn't know 
how! She'd need a wand for a start!"' 

(GOF Chapter Nine ? The Dark Mark, page 119)

>From this I take it that LB knows how to conjure the Dark Mark 
and it is suggestive of his knowing the ways of the Death Eaters 
and probably that he is one.

Mr. Weasley, a few pages later (page 128) then helpfully tells 
us:

"But I'll tell you this 
 it was only the Death Eaters who ever 
knew how to conjure it."

Further indicating that a person who, as LB clearly seemed to 
immediately, knew how to conjure the Dark Mark is a Death Eater.

Much later in the book, and without wishing to pre-empt Alla 
in any way, Voldemort in the graveyard when speaking to Lucius 
Malfoy says something quite unusual, it is on page 564 of Chapter 
Thirty Three ? The Death Eaters:

"And yet you ran from my Mark, when a faithful Death Eater sent 
it into the sky last summer?" 
 "Yes, I know all about that, 
Lucius 
 you have disappointed me 
 I expect more faithful 
service in future."

How did Voldemort know that Lucius ran from the Dark Mark? I 
suggest that LB informed him at some point because LB himself 
joined the muggle-baiting Death Eaters. He only rejoined the 
Ministry wizards quite some time after they had arrived at 
the scene of the crime of conjuring the Mark. He would know 
that the Death Eaters dispersed when the Mark was seen in 
that circumstance.

> Carol:
> We know that he was trying to help Harry win the TWT, not 
> because he was in on the plan to kidnap Harry, but because 
> he had given the goblins Leprechaun gold. 

Goddlefrood:

Throughout the Triwizard Tournament Bagman tries to assist Harry 
so noticeably that even the usually unobservant Harry wonders why 
he is not trying to assist the other champions. Bagman would do 
this not only to get some gold, but also because he wants Harry 
to win and go to Voldemort.

In Chapter Seventeen ? The Four Champions, after fake Moody 
has been talking about how Harry got into the Quatriwizard 
Tournament with his thoughts that someone is out to kill Harry 
on page 245 it says: `Ludo Bagman, who was looking very anxious 
indeed 
 "Moody, old man 
 what a thing to say!"'

In my view LB is here trying to deflect suspicion away from 
what fake Moody outlined as the circumstances behind Harry's 
entry into the Tournament and the reasons for it. It seems to 
me that Bagman and fake Moody are deliberately attempting to 
direct us to look for alternative suspects (and of course at 
this point of the book Karkaroff and Snape have not been 
cleared from suspicion).

He also disappears before the Death eaters congregate, as 
George tells us in Chapter 37 (The Beginning) on page 635 
of the Bloomsbury hardback edition:

"So Bagman had to run for it. Right after the third task." 

This would give him time to get outside the Hogwarts grounds 
and Apparate to the Little Hangleton graveyard with the other 
Death Eaters. Misdirection is given in that George speculates 
that Bagman ran because of the Goblins, whereas it is equally 
plausible that he did not want to miss his master's return.

Another matter relevant to Bagman potentially being a Death 
Eater is when he is present during the choosing of the 
Triwizard Tournament champions, which actually turns into 
a Quatriwizard Tournament. He is described as looking rather 
excited when Harry is chosen as the fourth champion. Now 
obviously we are supposed to think that this is because 
Bagman foresees getting good odds on Harry so he could 
pay off the Goblins, and this may be partly true, however 
it also fits that he would be excited because the plan is 
now beginning to work and he knows that if he is able to 
guide Harry through the tasks successfully he would not 
only please Voldemort but also be able to clear his gambling 
debts.

In fact it makes perfect sense that Bagman would be happy for 
Harry to win the Tournament and help him with the tasks, as he 
subsequently attempts to do, in order that he fulfil his duty 
to the Dark Lord *and* win his bet. If the plan were known to 
Bagman, as I believe it was, then he would consider that the 
bet could not lose, as he would know that Harry must win for 
the plan to succeed and Bagman is obviously confident that it 
will.

Who says he was not in the graveyard? This point is far from 
proven. I do not accept that we are aware who all was actually 
present in the graveyard. Snape in "Spinner's End" mentions 
Yaxley, the Carrows, Greyback and Rookwood, later we meet 
Gibbon (when dead admittedly). None of these, except possibly 
Rookwood, are referred to in the graveyard scene. This is 
suggestive that several DEs were present who had not yet 
been identified, and may never be.

The gates of Hogwarts are the boundary and according to JKR's 
map are not far from the Quidditich pitch. Apparition is not 
shown to be an energy sapping process. Bagman disappeared after 
the third task, but it would be at lease half an hour or an hour 
before the DEs appeared in the graveyard. (Voldemort being reborn 
and talking to Harry before their arrival for instance).

Objections were raised regarding Veritaserum and Barty Jnr. 
not mentioning LB while under its influence, objections that 
are easily answered. Barty Jnr. only answers direct questions 
under Veritaserum. No one questioning him suspects LB and he 
is, therefore, not asked any questions regarding LB. This 
would explain why LB is not mentioned by Barty Jnr. LB may 
well have disappeared as soon as Harry and Cedric did, while 
pausing only long enough to ascertain what the goblins' 
decision on the winner was.

> Carol:

> We know that he was always dim; there's no reason not to 
> believe that he was taken in by "old Rookwood." 

Goddlefrood:

The first mention of LB is during the discussion regarding 
Bertha Jorkins's disappearance in Chapter 5 (Weasley's Wizard 
Wheezes) by Percy who says "Oh, Bagman's likeable enough, of 
course." (page 58, Bloomsbury hardback edition). He is first 
met at the Quidditch World Cup. The quote from Percy is 
suggestive of Bagman's being not terribly bright, likeable, 
but not the full quid, as `twere.

Barty Crouch Snr.'s opinion of people must be considered and 
further supports my contention of there being more to LB and 
his previous history than met the eye. In Chapter 21 (The House
-Elf Liberation Front) Winky says: "Mr. Bagman is a bad wizard! 
My master isn't liking him, oh no, not at all!" Crouch Snr.'s 
suspicions seem to be correct as he is correct about his own 
son. As the head of the Department of Magical law Enforcement 
during Voldwar I he is in a prime position to know the 
culpability of the Death Eaters. From this statement of 
Winky's I take it that Crouch Snr. is far from believing 
Bagman was a dupe, which is confirmed by his reaction during 
Bagman's trial in the Pensieve. There's definitely more to it 
than just some annoyance that Ludo escaped imprisonment. I 
believe Barty Senior knew some things about Bagman that were 
ultra vires the proceedings against him in the Pensieve.

There is more significance in Winky's statement than may 
first appear. I contend that Bagman in some way was closely 
linked to Crouch Jnr., hence Crouch Snr's intense dislike of 
Bagman. This also links back to Bagman in the woods at the 
Quidditch World Cup. If I am right, and I believe I am, at 
least about Bagman being involved in the plot in book 4, 
then it would make sense that Crouch Jnr. and Bagman were 
closely associated and meeting prior to Bagman emerging from 
the woods at almost exactly the same spot Crouch Jnr. conjured 
the Dark Mark.

We are also handed information about LB by Rita Skeeter in 
Chapter Twenty Four ? Rita Skeeter's Scoop. Rita was at LB's 
trial and would know of the circumstances leading up to it. 
She comments on page 391 "he was always a bad liar."

This certainly could lead one to the conclusion that Rita 
disbelieved LB about his excuse at his trial, if not for 
other possible lies. I conclude from this that Rita supports 
me in my contention that LB is and was a Death Eater, despite 
her not always being the most reliable source. It is persuasive 
circumstantial evidence.

Rita further says on page 392 "I know things about Ludo Bagman 
that would make your hair curl
".

Surely this could not only be referring to his being a dupe 
in passing information to Rookwood. There must be far more 
to it than that and it adds further support to the conclusion 
that LB is a Death Eater.

Moving to Chapter Thirty - The Pensieve when Harry is 
questioning Dumbledore about all he has seen on page 524 
we find this exchange:

"Er," he said, "Mr. Bagman 
"
" 
 has never been accused of any Dark activity since," said 
Dumbledore calmly.

It transpires that this is exactly what Dumbledore says 
regarding Severus Snape as well. With what we know of 
Severus we could not possibly say that he (Severus) was 
not a Death Eater. We do now know that Severus renounced 
his Death Eater ways.

To me this quotation is further support for LB being a 
Death Eater and yes I know it would apply equally to all 
Death Eaters from Voldemort's fall until his return, as 
they have been very careful not to be locked away like 
so many of their fellows. Why should Bagman be any different?

> Carol:

> We know that the "big blond Death Eater" of HBP is Thorfinn 
> Rowle, not Ludo Bagman. 

Goddlefrood:

We do, and I haven't suggested otherwise since DH was released, 
I wonder why you bring it up. I can read, IOW.

> Carol: 

> I see no evidence to indicate that he was ever a DE.

Goddlefrood:

Some other loose ends in support:

Bagman is put across as unconcerned about Bertha's disappearance, 
however in light of this article I contend that Bagman knew all 
about the plot to kidnap and kill Harry throughout the fourth 
book and the references to his problems with the Goblins, while 
undoubtedly genuine, are misdirection on Ms. Rowling's part to 
cast suspicion away from Bagman.

The relevant quotation at this point is: "Mr. Crouch has taken 
a personal interest ? she worked in our department at one time, 
you know, and I think Mr. Crouch was quite fond of her ? but 
Bagman just keeps laughing and saying she probably misread the 
map and ended up in Australia instead of Albania." This is said 
by Percy in Chapter 5 on page 58. Now of course Bagman would try 
to delay anybody's attempts to locate Bertha, or at least her 
remains, until after the plot was carried out. Bagman does 
eventually send a search party, but reluctantly and no doubt 
he would be able to send the searchers to the wrong location 
anyway.

There's quite a bit of evidence, albeit circumstantial, let 
others be the Judge, we having both had our say.

> Carol, who thinks that Ludo is still running from the Goblins 
> as of DH

Goddlefrood, who thinks it odd that Bagman was not mentioned at 
all after GoF and also thinks Bagman could be on the run from 
the Goblins still, even if he is or was ever a Death Eater.

NB - It bothers me not one whit either way if Bagman is a Death 
Eater, the case for the prosecution is merely hereby presented.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar  1 15:50:09 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:50:09 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fq9ip3+8fse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqbtvh+kle0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181804

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> The other thing is, IMO, the *only* place JKR tells us not all 
> Slytherins are bad is in her interviews.  It's really hard to find 
> places in the text that support her theory.  The Gryffindors 
> certainly hate all Slytherins on sight, and they're never put in a 
> position to learn anything different.  Neither is their behavior 
> towards Slytherins ever questioned.  Whereas Slytherins behaving 
> badly is clearly seen as such.

Pippin:
Only if the reader is applying a ridiculous double standard, IMO. Theo
Nott never so much as hexes someone for fun, never mind Unforgivable
Curses, and yet he doesn't qualify as a decent person? Gimme  a break!

We have exactly the same basis for disbelieving Voldemort's claim that
Hagrid was raising werewolf cubs as we do for disbelieving his claim
that the Slytherins joined him -- an interview never backed up by the
text. And yet no one ever insisted that they were going to go on believing
Hagrid  kept werewolves until JKR made it clear in the books that he never
did. Why is this being treated differently? 

 I submit that JKR is more interested in getting the reader to notice and 
question unconscious assumptions than in "correcting" our impression of 
Hagrid or Slytherin House. It's not as if there are real half-giants or
Slytherins who will suffer if the readers don't catch on.

Once Harry has realized that  Slytherins who once supported Voldemort
may no longer do so,  knowing who was in Slytherin and who wasn't can
no longer tell him what he wants to know:  is this someone I can trust? DH
is all about judging  the contents of people's characters by getting to know
them. Unthinking hate will never get you close enough. The anti-hate 
message in that is plain enough, IMO.  

 So why should Harry note that Slytherins came back or sat at
the House Tables with the other students? It wouldn't matter to him.
JKR runs into the same difficulty with her treatment of women's status:
in a society where it's taken for granted that witches and wizards are
equals, no one is likely to remark on the fact. 

Pippin




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar  1 17:01:10 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:01:10 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqbtvh+kle0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqc24m+mse7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181805

> > Betsy Hp:
> > The other thing is, IMO, the *only* place JKR tells us not all 
> > Slytherins are bad is in her interviews.  It's really hard to 
find 
> > places in the text that support her theory.  The Gryffindors 
> > certainly hate all Slytherins on sight, and they're never put in 
a 
> > position to learn anything different.  Neither is their behavior 
> > towards Slytherins ever questioned.  Whereas Slytherins behaving 
> > badly is clearly seen as such.
> 
> Pippin:
> Only if the reader is applying a ridiculous double standard, IMO. 
Theo
> Nott never so much as hexes someone for fun, never mind Unforgivable
> Curses, and yet he doesn't qualify as a decent person? Gimme  a 
break!

Magpie:
I think she means that in canon the Slytherins, when they are shown 
at all, are mostly shown being generally either something either 
nasty or suspicious. After all the information we have there's really 
no reason for a reader to be trying to prove to themselves that Theo 
Nott is decent because after all we never saw him specifically doing 
anything worse than conferring with three nasty students. 

Pippin:> 
> We have exactly the same basis for disbelieving Voldemort's claim 
that
> Hagrid was raising werewolf cubs as we do for disbelieving his claim
> that the Slytherins joined him -- an interview never backed up by 
the
> text. And yet no one ever insisted that they were going to go on 
believing
> Hagrid  kept werewolves until JKR made it clear in the books that 
he never
> did. Why is this being treated differently? 

Magpie:
Because Voldemort's statement about Hagrid is a throwaway slam at 
Hagrid that's referring to his penchant for having stupid pets. Where 
as Voldemort is just talking to Lucius about their situation after we 
saw them leave the school as Voldemort asked. 

Pippin:> 
>  I submit that JKR is more interested in getting the reader to 
notice and 
> question unconscious assumptions than in "correcting" our 
impression of 
> Hagrid or Slytherin House. It's not as if there are real half-
giants or
> Slytherins who will suffer if the readers don't catch on.

Magpie:
What are these "unconscious" assumptions you keep talking about that 
JKR is so subtly getting us to notice or question? She created 
Slytherin, she shows them in a bad light all the time en masse or 
individually. I don't have any unconscious assumptions about them--
she's the one who made them up and showed them this way. What's the 
big trick here, that JKR cleverly gave me all this information that 
Slytherins are bad and I fell for it by drawing the obvious 
conclusion that Slytherins are fairly rotten? As you say, there are 
no "real" Slytherins to suffer if I don't catch on. Therefore it's 
very reasonable to draw generalizations from what I actually see. I'm 
not sure what you mean about falling for anything about Hagrid. 
Hagrid is shown to be good.

Pippin: 
  So why should Harry note that Slytherins came back or sat at
> the House Tables with the other students? It wouldn't matter to him.
> JKR runs into the same difficulty with her treatment of women's 
status:
> in a society where it's taken for granted that witches and wizards 
are
> equals, no one is likely to remark on the fact. 

Magpie:
Why should Harry notice anything? Because that's how we know what's 
going on. The line says shopkeepers and family of non-Slytherins 
returned with Slughorn and there's no reason for Harry to notice that 
any more than he should notice there being Slytherins there. Of 
course Harry would remark on that fact if it happened. It would be 
downright remarkable.

-m




From cookydclown at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  1 17:34:08 2008
From: cookydclown at yahoo.com (cookydclown)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:34:08 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqc24m+mse7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqc42g+9qeo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181806

> Magpie:
> Why should Harry notice anything? Because that's how we know what's
> going on. The line says shopkeepers and family of non-Slytherins
> returned with Slughorn and there's no reason for Harry to notice
that
> any more than he should notice there being Slytherins there. Of
> course Harry would remark on that fact if it happened. It would be
> downright remarkable.
>


But they were lead By Slughorn, A Slytherin.  Snape, Though ill
Tempered, protected Harry and Served Dumbledore Faithfully.
Slytherins Have a built in prejudice for Muggle borns and Half
Bloods, that why the Revelation of Snape being Half blood was
surprising.
Like the song from South Pacific says "They Have to Be Taught"  most
Slytherins are Taught to hate Less than Pure bloods.

cookydclown.



From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar  1 20:38:48 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:38:48 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqc42g+9qeo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqceso+jjk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181807

> > Magpie:
> > Why should Harry notice anything? Because that's how we know 
what's
> > going on. The line says shopkeepers and family of non-Slytherins
> > returned with Slughorn and there's no reason for Harry to notice
> that
> > any more than he should notice there being Slytherins there. Of
> > course Harry would remark on that fact if it happened. It would be
> > downright remarkable.

cookiedclown:
 
> But they were lead By Slughorn, A Slytherin.  Snape, Though ill
> Tempered, protected Harry and Served Dumbledore Faithfully.
> Slytherins Have a built in prejudice for Muggle borns and Half
> Bloods, that why the Revelation of Snape being Half blood was
> surprising.
> Like the song from South Pacific says "They Have to Be Taught"  most
> Slytherins are Taught to hate Less than Pure bloods.


Magpie:
Yes, I know. Harry identified any Slytherins that were involved. 
Snape was a DE who was in love with Lily and gave his life trying to 
make up for killing her and to protect Harry. Slughorn was a lower 
level racist who also loved Lily. However Slytherins wind up hating 
less than Purebloods--and they seem to have other problems besides 
that--that's who they are in this universe. It doesn't really matter 
how they get taught the bad things they are since nobody's doing 
anything to teach them anything different. That's not where the story 
goes. Far from having unconscious prejudice against Slytherins, my 
own default setting is to think they're no different from anyone else 
and that *everyone* in this universe suffers from some of the same 
problems they have and just deal with it by projecting it onto the 
Other that are the Slytherins. But the way the story played out the 
Slytherin does mean you're starting out a sleazier person.

-m





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Mar  1 20:56:06 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:56:06 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqbtvh+kle0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqcft6+cvsm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181808

> > Betsy Hp:
> > ...  The Gryffindors 
> > certainly hate all Slytherins on sight, and they're never put in a 
> > position to learn anything different.  Neither is their behavior 
> > towards Slytherins ever questioned.  Whereas Slytherins behaving 
> > badly is clearly seen as such.

> Pippin:
> Only if the reader is applying a ridiculous double standard, IMO. Theo
> Nott never so much as hexes someone for fun, never mind Unforgivable
> Curses, and yet he doesn't qualify as a decent person? Gimme  a break!

Kemper now:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Theo may not have been shown hexing anyone but he was also not shown
rallying with Harry or denouncing the Dark Lord.  

I would be more likely to buy an absence of Slytherins if some
Gryffindors thought the Dark Lord had the right idea.  Maybe.

Kemper




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  1 21:12:47 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:12:47 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqbtvh+kle0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqcgsf+ogoe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181809

> > Betsy Hp:
> > The other thing is, IMO, the *only* place JKR tells us not all 
> > Slytherins are bad is in her interviews.  It's really hard to find 
> > places in the text that support her theory.  The Gryffindors 
> > certainly hate all Slytherins on sight, and they're never put in a 
> > position to learn anything different.  Neither is their behavior 
> > towards Slytherins ever questioned.  Whereas Slytherins behaving 
> > badly is clearly seen as such.
> 
> Pippin:
> Only if the reader is applying a ridiculous double standard, IMO. Theo
> Nott never so much as hexes someone for fun, never mind Unforgivable
> Curses, and yet he doesn't qualify as a decent person? Gimme  a break!

Montavilla47:
As far as the text is concerned, he barely qualifies as a person at all, 
decent or not.  As I recall, the only mention of him at all beyond his 
sorting is... one of the Slytherins sitting at a table.  There is mention
of a weedy-looking Slytherin who can see Thestrals, but it's only in
an interview that we learn that that person is Theodore Nott.  

There's also that deleted scene between him and Malfoy.  But that
is not only extra-textual, we don't even know what went on beyond
the dark-side discussion of Harry Potter.  

Pippin:
> We have exactly the same basis for disbelieving Voldemort's claim that
> Hagrid was raising werewolf cubs as we do for disbelieving his claim
> that the Slytherins joined him -- an interview never backed up by the
> text. And yet no one ever insisted that they were going to go on believing
> Hagrid  kept werewolves until JKR made it clear in the books that he never
> did. Why is this being treated differently?

Montavilla47:
The thing about Voldemort's claim in this case is that, even if Hagrid 
wasn't literally raising werewolf cubs under his bed, the gist of it is 
true.  We all accept that Hagrid likes dangerous (sorry, "int'restin'") 
creatures.  If it were possible to raise werewolf cubs under your bed,
Hagrid would probably have tried.  The only reason that statement
became untrue later was that JKR changed the rules about werewolves
in order to create Remus Lupin.

Which makes me think that Lupin was one of those characters, like
Luna, who just showed up on her doorstep.  If so, what a happy 
occurance!  Until HBP, Lupin was a wonderful character.

Pippin:
>  I submit that JKR is more interested in getting the reader to notice and 
> question unconscious assumptions than in "correcting" our impression of 
> Hagrid or Slytherin House. It's not as if there are real half-giants or
> Slytherins who will suffer if the readers don't catch on.
> 
> Once Harry has realized that  Slytherins who once supported Voldemort
> may no longer do so,  knowing who was in Slytherin and who wasn't can
> no longer tell him what he wants to know:  is this someone I can trust? DH
> is all about judging  the contents of people's characters by getting to know
> them. Unthinking hate will never get you close enough. The anti-hate 
> message in that is plain enough, IMO.  

Montavilla47:
So many of the things you say make such good sense, Pippin, that I truly
want to believe them.  But then when I return to the book, I just don't see
them.  I only half-see them.  I could agree that DH is about Harry learning
not to judge people based on assumptions.  Supposedly, that's the 
arc of the Dumbledore story, and that should play out with the Snape
storyline.

But, we never really see any development along that line.  There's a hint of
it in the Ministry scene, where Harry is literally walking in the shoes of a 
Death Eater (and, like Snape, trying to protect people while maintaining 
his cover).  But we don't ever get the sense that Harry processes this 
experience into more than "Ooo, that was scary.  Lucky we didn't get
caught!"

He didn't, as Snape did, have to stand by and watch someone he knew
get killed while he did nothing to stop it.

Although he was seething with rage at Snape by the end of HBP, he 
didn't give the man more than a passing thought, and didn't even have
time to question the trustworthiness of the Prince's Tale.  So, it really
couldn't have been about Harry learning to trust Snape.

Nor was it about Harry learning to judge the trustworthiness of 
the D.A.  He doesn't trust them, or McGonagall, with anything 
approaching information.  Instead, they all simply trust him--as 
everyone else in the Wizarding World has been doing without question.

If the book is about learning to trust people, then what Harry
seems to learn is that he can't trust anyone except Ron and 
Hermione.  And he can't really trust Ron, unless they have a 
steady supply of food.

Of course, Harry trusts Narcissa to lie for him--but does he 
really have a choice at that point?  It's not even that he trusts
her, it's that she asks a question and he tells her something
that is likely to make her lie... or something.  I still don't 
understand that self-centered reason for lying, since she's
as likely to get into the castle if she tells the truth.

So, what is this trust and judgment?  Is it trusting Dumbledore
despite his pique at Dumbledore not telling him that they
were once sort of neighbors?   Is it trusting Snape's memories
when he knows that they *must* be true?  It's not people
that Harry ultimately puts his trust into.  It's a piece of wood.

Pippin:
>  So why should Harry note that Slytherins came back or sat at
> the House Tables with the other students? It wouldn't matter to him.
> JKR runs into the same difficulty with her treatment of women's status:
> in a society where it's taken for granted that witches and wizards are
> equals, no one is likely to remark on the fact. 

Montavilla47:
In order to establish the equality of gender, it's not necessary to 
have someone remark on the fact (although, it would be perfectly
in character for Hermione to give us a run-down on the herstory
of witches).  It's only necessary to show the equality. 

I don't fault JKR that much for her depiction of women.  She makes
plenty of mention of witches in the workforce and positions of power.
They play on the sports teams (although, in gender-neutral world,
I don't know why there would need to be an all-female Quidditch
team).  

I wasn't around for the criticism I've heard was voiced prior to 
OotP (which supposedly answered the criticism by introducing
the powerful and just Amelia Bones and the hip Tonks).  But, one 
can't help noticing a disturbing trend in HPB, in which the 
female characters tend to fall apart if romantically thwarted, 
or that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the 
most powerful, ideal state for a woman.  There is only one
working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
that Marietta comes to grief.

Likewise, with the Slytherins, we don't necessarily need Harry
exclaiming, "Wow!  I guess I was wrong about the Slytherins, 
they're A-Okay!"  All we'd really need was for that extra-
textual mention of the Slytherins returning with Slughorn
to be textual.  It wouldn't be a very *strong* message about
learning to love your enemy, but it would be there.

As it is, the message is basically what JKR stated in her
Emerson/Melissa interview.  The Slytherins aren't *all*
horrible.  And even if they are, you can't just kill them. That
wouldn't be right.

Montavilla47




From cookydclown at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  1 21:59:59 2008
From: cookydclown at yahoo.com (cookydclown)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:59:59 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqceso+jjk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqcjkv+b59b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181810

You Know, I would Love to See JKR take the story of the 2nd potter son
further in DH. 19 years later, Albus Severus Potter (ASP nice initials
for someone in a snake house) was worried about being put in Slytherin
House. While Harry did confide in his son that the sorting hat takes
your choices into account, He also told Lil' Al that all it would mean
is Slytherins would get a good student.  So, at least we know Harry
Mellowed in his adulthood.

Lets not forget, not all Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws are
Saints.  Many HPs and RCs left the castle too.  The Weasly Twins and The Marauders caused some trouble.  Yes, it has been said that we see
the Wizarding world through the eyes of Harry and Harry has a
prejudice against Slytherins.  Does this make all Slytherins Bad?

cookydclown



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  1 23:23:35 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:23:35 -0000
Subject: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fq9gv3+7jqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqcohn+3tl3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181811

---  "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  SnapesSlytherin@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello all!
> > 
> > I remember the near violent list debate a while ago about 
> > whether the Slytherins came back or not at the end of DH in 
> > order to help the fight.? ...
> > 
> > ...
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> When we debated this, I was alway sure that in her own mind,
> JKR was convinced the Slytherins did return to fight, but the
> real question is, directly or indirectly, did she make it clear
> in the story. And, I think the answer is No.
> 
> ...
> 
> As I said, one casual indirect in-passing mention would have
> solved it all.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>

bboyminn:

Sorry, don't mean to answer my own post, but rather address some
of the concerns brought up by others.

First, it is unfair to compare disliking Slytherins with the
claim that Hagrid was raising werewolves (condensed version,
but if you've read the other posts, you understand). Hagrid
raising werewolf clubs is a physical impossibility since
werewolves are people, and people don't have 'cubs'. 

Slytherin, on the other hand deserves all the animosity directed
at them because they provoke it. Or at least, those who do
provoke it spoil it for the others. I've always said that we
can not say that all Slytherins are bad because we have not
seen all Slytherins. Even if we confine that to Slytherin
students, it remains true. Harry didn't even know Theodore
Knots name despite having been in class with him for years. One
would think that Harry would have heard someone speak his name.
But JKR says the Theo Knot is something of a loner, not prone
to getting involve with groups and gangs.

Also, consider that Theo must not have ever been "in Harry's 
face" or Harry would have known who he was. The same is true
of the other Slytherins, how much do we or Harry know about
Blaise Zabini or any of the many unnamed Slytherins? Not much 
until he meets a few on the train in Slughorn compartment. From
that encounter, Harry dislikes them based on their attitude and 
demeanor, not on the fact that they are Slytherin, though I'm 
sure that didn't help. 

So, by the same path of logic that I conclude Hagrid did not
keep werewolf cubs, I conclude that not all Slytherins are 
bad.

As far as Gryfindor being seen as saints in the eyes of the 
other students, I highly doubt it. We see that they are 
quick enough to turn on Harry and Gryffindor when it suits
them, or when there is the slightest element of doubt.

We don't see into the Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw common rooms,
and we are not privileged to the conversions that go on there.
But I have not doubt that both those Houses consider all the 
other House to be somewhat smug and self-aggrandizing. But 
Slytherins are agressive in the smugness and self-servingness, 
and that rallies the other Houses against them. 

I think this is especially true of Hufflepuff, who likely feel
generally put-upon, I have no doubt of long conversation about
how this House or that House are so smug and full of themselves,
while we, the Hufflepuffs, are the REAL people. We do all the 
work; they take all the credit. But again, when it comes time
to rally, they do rally against Slytherin because they are the 
most aggresively smug and self-serving, not to mention annoying,
of them all.

As to how the books ended up without some ever so slight hint
of redemption of Slytherin students, and Slytherin citizens in
general, I think it is because JKR knows these characters so
deeply. She see their full lives off the page, so she knows
them intimately, and knows their true loyalties and beliefs.
But she forgot that WE don't know that. We only saw what she
wrote, and I think she made a real mistake by not making it
clearer that /general/ Slytherins has a hand in Voldemort and
the DE's down fall. I can see where half a sentence in one of
two or three places would have been enough to redeem Slytherin,
but it simply wasn't there, and the book is less because of
it.

So, while I have never considered all Slytherins bad, I still 
need that hint of redemption to be satisfied.

Steve/bboyminn




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 03:06:28 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:06:28 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqcgsf+ogoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqd5jk+iqtd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181812

Montavilla47:
<SNIP of the whole post>
There is only one
working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
that Marietta comes to grief.

Alla:

Two and one of them is really powerful, those that we know about that 
is.

I think that if Tonks did not die in the battle, I think she would have 
counted as working mom too.  That is three for me.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 04:01:45 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:01:45 -0000
Subject: Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy
In-Reply-To: <fq1p1c+ave0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqd8r9+qm9s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181813

> > zanooda said:
>  
> > I was wondering: if DD had died from the cave poison, were 
> > we supposed to think that it was LV who killed him?
>
>  --- and later zanooda said ---
>
> Yeah, maybe it would :-). OTOH, DD didn't expect to die from the
> potion, at least that's what he told Harry.

Mike:
See now, you've called the cave's green goo both potion and poison. 
What I want to know is what makes us think this stuff was "poison"? 
Dumbledore didn't expect to die from it. Kreacher *didn't* die from 
it. 

Everything we know says the potion caused a nasty reaction of 
recalling past indiscretions and an intense thirst. It was this 
thirst thing, dipping into the lake and activating the inferi, that 
was supposed to cause death. The boat was supposed to allow only one 
wizarding passenger so nobody would be available to help the person 
that drank the potion. 

Why would it be made poisonous? Could it have included a poison if it 
had all those other qualities? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking 
Voldemort and his ego would have enjoyed the idea of first torturing 
then have the inferi finish the trespasser off, and no need for a 
backup for his brilliant trap. HE would think it undefeatable.



> > zanooda:
> > Or only the direct killing/defeat counts for the wand to 
> > recognize the new master?

> a_svirn:
> 
> Or would it be "dying on his own terms"? After all, he made 
> sure that Harry force-fed him.

Mike:
I don't give wands credit for quite the degree of sentience that 
Ollivander seemed to credit them. I think Ollie was a bit of a 
romantic (and, let's face it, a wand geek) prone to exaggerate wand 
capabilities.

My Take: 
Wands absorb the magic imprint of the wizard the uses them. They also 
recognize other wands that they encounter, especially other wands 
that act magically upon them. 

So when Harry's wand met it's brother in a duel, had a Priori 
Incatatum interaction with it and the wizard that wielded it, it 
could recognize both Voldemort and his wand. (When Harry forced the 
beads back into LV's wand, Harry's Phoenix-core wand was magically 
connected with and read Voldemort's magical imprint.) That's why 
Harry's wand recognized LV in the "Seven Potters" encounter.

Had Harry tried to fight LV with his Phoenix-core wand I don't think 
the Elder wand would have recognized Harry as it's master. The Elder 
Wand never had any encounter with Harry's PC wand. But Draco's 
Hawthorn wand had caused the Elder wand to be removed from it's 
master, it was magically acted upon. That's why Harry's Expelliarmus 
worked. When Harry's magic stream hit the stream from LV and the EW, 
the EW recognized it's master. That not only reversed the AK, the 
Expelliarmus was allowed through and obeyed by the EW.



> zanooda:
> 
> Can it still be considered "dying on his own terms" if he didn't 
> intend to die at all? More like an accident, maybe :-)?

Mike:
Because of my above basis belief, I don't think the EW would have any 
way of recognizing a new master if DD had died from either the cave 
potion or from the ring curse. I think that gives the wand too much 
credit for logical thought and knowledge. How in the hell would a 
wand know who made a potion that it's master died from? Especially if 
it's master didn't know.

Therefore, yeah, if Dumbledore had died from the potion it would be 
like dying intestate for the purposes of the EW, IMO.

As to Dumbledore's Plan:
In "King's Cross" Dumbledore said he expected Voldemort to eventually 
go after the EW. So it makes no sense that he intended Snape to 
*have* the EW. Take temporary possession, maybe. 

Harry was the one that said "you meant [Snape] to end up with the 
Elder Wand, didn't you?" DD admits that was intention, yet I'm not 
sure to what extent he expected Snape to *use* or even keep the EW. 
I've reread this chapter several times and nowhere does DD explain 
the plan to have the EW go fallow from his non-defeat. Harry sussed 
that part out later. Was he correct? If this was "all in his head", 
was he possibly making assumptions that were not exactly in "the 
Plan"? 

Why would DD intend for Snape to "end up with" the Elder Wand if he 
also had been sure that Voldemort would set out to find it? Did 
Dumbledore ever explain this to Snape? Did Snape even know that 
Dumbledore had the EW?

My take, again, is that Dumbledore intended that the EW would end up 
where it actually did end up, in his tomb. Furthermore, I think all 
Dumbledore could hope for was that Voldemort wouldn't actually figure 
out DD was the last owner and master of the EW, wouldn't find the 
wand, and wouldn't kill Snape in an attempt to become the EW master, 
before the rest of the Plan played out. He knew he was taking a 
chance, but what other choice did he have?

I've been hard on DD in the past for his ridiculous penchant for 
secrecy as well as his poor leadership style. But this is one place 
where I can't really fault him. His intention was good, and there 
really wasn't any right answer to this EW dilemma. I *don't* think he 
intended to set Snape up, even though that's what happened.

Mike




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 04:08:24 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:08:24 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
Message-ID: <fqd97o+m697@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181814

"On the other side of the Hall Draco Malfoy's eagle owl had landed on 
his shoulder, carrying what looked like his usual supply of sweets 
and cakes from home" - p.194


Alla:

Oh yeah, I never ever bought Malfoys being strict parents to Draco 
and especially fanfics where Draco is portrayed as abused by Lucius. 
This quote is one of the reason why. I think JKR always showed Draco 
as being extremely spoiled, adored child. IMO of course.




"Indeed, whenever Harry saw the two of them together - at mealtimes, 
or when they passed  in the corridors - he had the distinct 
impression that Snape was avoiding Moody's eye, whether magical or 
normal" - p.210


Alla:

In light of Snape being loyal to the light, I suddenly realized that 
I am not quite sure why would he be avoiding Moody's eye if he has no 
clue that Moody is a Fake one here.

I mean, if he thinks Moody is the real Moody, why would he care much 
if Moody does not trust him, no scratch that, why would he worry much 
as long as he knows that Dumbledore trusts him?

Now, if he suspects that Moody maybe Fake, Snape avoiding him makes 
sense, I guess, but he does not suspect, his surprise at the end 
seems to be real.


"The dormitory was completely silent, and had he been less 
preoccupied, Harry would have realized that the absense of Neville's 
usual snores meant that he was not the only one lying awake" - p.227


Alla:

How wonderfully she writes Neville's distress after that lesson, I 
think.

No hysterics, or anything, just show Neville not being able to sleep. 
Love it.


"We'll try that again, Potter and the rest of you, pay attention - 
watch his eyes, that's where you see it - very good, Potter very good 
indeed! They'll have trouble controlling you" - p.232

Alla:

I need a refresher again. I do remember discussions about why Fake 
Moody taught Harry how to fight Imperius. I remember not very 
convincing to me argument that he wanted to see that somebody can 
control a curse he could not, but if he is actively trying to give 
Harry to his master, why would he do it?







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 05:10:26 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:10:26 -0000
Subject: Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy
In-Reply-To: <fqd8r9+qm9s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqdcs2+s5p1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181815

> Mike:
> See now, you've called the cave's green goo both potion and poison. 
> What I want to know is what makes us think this stuff was "poison"? 
> Dumbledore didn't expect to die from it. Kreacher *didn't* die from 
> it. 

zgirnius:
In the wizard world one does not necessarily die of poison. (Heck, as 
an excellent post-HBP post I cannot locate stated, this is not even 
true in RL. A substance that causes pain and adverse physical 
symptoms is classed as a poison even if it is not invariably fatal. A 
potion/poison which is not invariably fatal, may still be pretty 
predictably fatal to vulnerable subclasses of the general population 
(such as terminally ill old men, e.g. Dumbledore). And a 'fatal' 
poison may not always be if treated in time in the right way (an 
antidote or bezoar, most likely, in the case of the WW). Which is all 
to say, just because Dumbledore did not have time to die of the 
potion, and Kreacher never did, does not mean it was not poisonous.

Dumbledore, after all, qualifies his assessment about what the potion 
will do by stating that he doubts it will kill him immediately, a 
phrasing which leaves open the possibility that it would do so 
eventually. And, after drinking it, he passes out and cannot be 
revived without repeated use of magic. Can we really say it would not 
have killed him, if Harry had not been there to save him?

It is just as possible that the Inferi are a second line of defense 
against a young and healthy, or magically well-protected, wizard who 
avoids dying of the poison.

>Mike:
> Everything we know says the potion caused a nasty reaction of 
> recalling past indiscretions and an intense thirst. 

zgirnius:
In the instance of Kreacher, we don't have details. In the instance 
of DD, it also caused somewhat deep unconsciousness, followed by 
(after magical resuscitation) signs of increasing physical 
debilitation (at least, no other factor of which I am aware explains 
this latter symptom of Dumbledore, causing over time a weakening so 
severe he was no longer able to stand up, even while leaning on a 
wall.)

> Mike:
> Because of my above basis belief, I don't think the EW would have 
any 
> way of recognizing a new master if DD had died from either the cave 
> potion or from the ring curse. I think that gives the wand too much 
> credit for logical thought and knowledge. How in the hell would a 
> wand know who made a potion that it's master died from? Especially 
if 
> it's master didn't know.

zgirnius:
Even using the logic I snipped, the wand should know, in both 
instances, that its master was magically defeated, if not by whom. 
Because it senses its master, as you suggest. This would seem to me 
enough to prevent the destruction of its power. 

I agree it may not instantly know who its new master is. (Just as in 
DH, possibly, when Harry seized Draco's wand while the EW sat in DD's 
tomb, it did not instantly know it had a new master - it may have 
still 'thought' of Draco and his wand as the victorious combo that 
won it. Until it 'met' that familiar wand and learned Harry had won 
*it*.)

Again using your logic, it would recognize Voldemort's yew/phoenix 
core wand once it met it again, as the wand that killed its master by 
creating a potion/curse.




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 05:44:47 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:44:47 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqd97o+m697@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqdesf+8vr3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181816

> GoF:
> "Indeed, whenever Harry saw the two of them together - at 
mealtimes, 
> or when they passed  in the corridors - he had the distinct 
> impression that Snape was avoiding Moody's eye, whether magical or 
> normal" - p.210
 
> Alla:
> In light of Snape being loyal to the light, I suddenly realized 
that 
> I am not quite sure why would he be avoiding Moody's eye if he has 
no 
> clue that Moody is a Fake one here.
> 
> I mean, if he thinks Moody is the real Moody, why would he care 
much 
> if Moody does not trust him, no scratch that, why would he worry 
much 
> as long as he knows that Dumbledore trusts him?
> 
> Now, if he suspects that Moody maybe Fake, Snape avoiding him makes 
> sense, I guess, but he does not suspect, his surprise at the end 
> seems to be real.

zgirnius:
Not sure what to snip, and I will probably respond to all of it 
anyway...First, was he surprised at the end that Moody was dodgy in 
any way, or that Moody was the (supposedly) deceased Barty Crouch, 
Jr.? We have discussed in the past that after having ihs warnings 
brushed aside, and then being proved somewhat wrong in the previous 
year, Snape may have wanted to have more than vague suspicions of yet 
another loyal Order member to take to Dumbledore. All of which put 
together could explain being cautious around "Moody" AND not 
expressing any suspicions, and still being surprised in the end.

Second, in Ch. 13-16, GoF, did Snape really know that Dumbledore 
trusts him? Or was this a matter regarding which he could have been 
in some doubt? In "The Egg and the Eye" (jumping ahead) he angrily 
asserts Dumbledore trusts him. This could be a bluff. It could also 
reflect a change from the start of GoF: that later chapter is after 
the Yule Ball and thus after the "we sort too soon" conversation 
of "The Prince's Tale", in which Dumbledore sounds Snape out about 
his intentions in light of Voldemort's impending return, and seem 
impressed with Snape's resolve to resume his spying.

Third, if DD trusts both Moody and Snape, and Snape trusts DD's 
judgment of Moody, but Moody does not trust *Snape* and Snape knows 
it...Snape might be avoiding confrontation. Moody is supposed to be 
there to help keep an eye on things during the TWT, and having him 
waste lots of time on Snape is counterproductive.

> GoF:
> "We'll try that again, Potter and the rest of you, pay attention - 
> watch his eyes, that's where you see it - very good, Potter very 
good 
> indeed! They'll have trouble controlling you" - p.232

> Alla:
> I need a refresher again. I do remember discussions about why Fake 
> Moody taught Harry how to fight Imperius. I remember not very 
> convincing to me argument that he wanted to see that somebody can 
> control a curse he could not, but if he is actively trying to give 
> Harry to his master, why would he do it?

zgirnius:
My answer...why not? Voldemort does not need to successfully cast 
Imperius on Harry. He's going to kill him, not suborn him. And there 
may be Bella-like reasoning occuring as well - surely Harry cannot 
resist the Imperius of VOLDEMORT, the most powerful Dark Wizard that 
ever lived...





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 07:03:59 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:03:59 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqd5jk+iqtd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqdjgv+jdna@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181817

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP of the whole post>
> There is only one
> working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
> that Marietta comes to grief.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Two and one of them is really powerful, those that we know about that 
> is.
> 
> I think that if Tonks did not die in the battle, I think she would have 
> counted as working mom too.  That is three for me.

Montavilla47:

Which is the second?

About Tonks, I wouldn't call her a working mother, since
we don't hear anything about holding a job after she
becomes pregnant.  Coming to fight in the battle,
whether commendable or not, is volunteering.  It's not
a career.






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 07:27:59 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:27:59 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqd97o+m697@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqdktv+hj53@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181818

 
> "Indeed, whenever Harry saw the two of them together - at mealtimes, 
> or when they passed  in the corridors - he had the distinct 
> impression that Snape was avoiding Moody's eye, whether magical or 
> normal" - p.210
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> In light of Snape being loyal to the light, I suddenly realized that 
> I am not quite sure why would he be avoiding Moody's eye if he has no 
> clue that Moody is a Fake one here.
> 
> I mean, if he thinks Moody is the real Moody, why would he care much 
> if Moody does not trust him, no scratch that, why would he worry much 
> as long as he knows that Dumbledore trusts him?
> 
> Now, if he suspects that Moody maybe Fake, Snape avoiding him makes 
> sense, I guess, but he does not suspect, his surprise at the end 
> seems to be real.

Montavilla47:

My take on Snape on GoF is that he's totally weirded out by Moody. 
He's been working faithfully for Dumbledore for thirteen years now,
and he thinks that Dumbledore trusts him--even if there are rumors
floating around the staffroom about him.

But suddenly, Dumbledore hires an ex-auror who starts searching 
Snape's office (claiming that it's on Dumbledore's orders), beating up
his students, and practically accusing Snape of trying to kill Harry.

So, Snape has got to be wondering whether Dumbledore really
trusts him at all.  Plus, he's got this dark mark getting showing
up on his arm.  

He's probably getting flashbacks to the first war.  


> "We'll try that again, Potter and the rest of you, pay attention - 
> watch his eyes, that's where you see it - very good, Potter very good 
> indeed! They'll have trouble controlling you" - p.232
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I need a refresher again. I do remember discussions about why Fake 
> Moody taught Harry how to fight Imperius. I remember not very 
> convincing to me argument that he wanted to see that somebody can 
> control a curse he could not, but if he is actively trying to give 
> Harry to his master, why would he do it?

Montavilla47:
I don't know, unless he thought that resisting Imperius might help
in the tournament?






From falkeli at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 11:59:31 2008
From: falkeli at yahoo.com (hp_fan_2008)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:59:31 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Bagman_=96_A_Death_Eater_or_Not=3F_=96_You_(Generic)_Decide_(GoF_CH_7-9_Post_DH_lo?=
In-Reply-To: <fqb7mc+uv8c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqe4r3+9j90@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181819

Goddlefrood:
> When Bagman says "Damn them!" in the passage quoted below <Quiddich
World Cup>, he is  referring to his fellow muggle-baiting Death
Eaters. I am of the view that he was upset because either he was
missing the fun, or he did not wish attention to be drawn to his Dark
Lord's return until the time was right, knowing as he did about the
events that had been set in motion for Voldemort's return.

HP Fan 2008:

I don't believe that, at this point, anyone but Wormtail and LV knew
the plan.

Goddlefrood:

> Bagman actually arrives where the Ministry wizards have just 
stunned Winky and Barty Jnr. and we are told:
> 
> `Comprehension dawned suddenly on Bagman's round, shiny face; he
looked up at the skull, down at Winky and then at Mr. Crouch. "No!" he
said. "Winky? Conjure the Dark Mark? She wouldn't know how! She'd need
a wand for a start!"' 
> 
> (GOF Chapter Nine ? The Dark Mark, page 119)
> 
> From this I take it that LB knows how to conjure the Dark Mark and
it is suggestive of his knowing the ways of the Death Eaters and
probably that he is one.

HP Fan 2008:

And it seems to me like one of those things that might be obvious.

Goddlefrood:

> Much later in the book, and without wishing to pre-empt Alla in any
way, Voldemort in the graveyard when speaking to Lucius Malfoy says
something quite unusual, it is on page 564 of Chapter Thirty Three ?
The Death Eaters:
> 
> "And yet you ran from my Mark, when a faithful Death Eater sent it
into the sky last summer?" 
 "Yes, I know all about that, Lucius 
 you
have disappointed me 
 I expect more faithful service in future."
> 
> How did Voldemort know that Lucius ran from the Dark Mark? I suggest
that LB informed him at some point because LB himself joined the
muggle-baiting Death Eaters. He only rejoined the Ministry wizards
quite some time after they had arrived at the scene of the crime of
conjuring the Mark. He would know that the Death Eaters dispersed when
the Mark was seen in that circumstance.

HP Fan 2008:

More likely that Barty Crouch Jr. told Voldemort. He was aware of what
was going on at the time.

Goddlefrood:

> Throughout the Triwizard Tournament Bagman tries to assist Harry so
noticeably that even the usually unobservant Harry wonders why he is
not trying to assist the other champions. Bagman would do this not
only to get some gold, but also because he wants Harry to win and go
to Voldemort.

HP Fan 2008:

Who would have told him? Barty Crouch Jr. dislikes those dark wizards
who had turned their backs on Voldemort after his first downfall; were
Bagman a death eater, Barty Crouch Jr. would have undoubtedly
mistrusted him. Bagman would have known no more than other former
death eaters, who wanted Harry to lose.
 
Goddlefrood:

> He also disappears before the Death eaters congregate, as George
tells us in Chapter 37 (The Beginning) on page 635 of the Bloomsbury
hardback edition:
> 
> "So Bagman had to run for it. Right after the third task." 
> 
> This would give him time to get outside the Hogwarts grounds and
Apparate to the Little Hangleton graveyard with the other Death
Eaters. Misdirection is given in that George speculates that Bagman
ran because of the Goblins, whereas it is equally plausible that he
did not want to miss his master's return.

HP Fan 2008:

This may be, but it probably came to him as a surprise. If he knew
more, he probably would have tried to have someone take his place,
just as Barty Crouch Sr had done (or so everyone thought).

Goddlefrood:

> Rita further says on page 392 "I know things about Ludo Bagman that
would make your hair curl
".
> 
> Surely this could not only be referring to his being a dupe in
passing information to Rookwood. There must be far more to it than
that and it adds further support to the conclusion that LB is a Death
Eater.

HP Fan 2008:

Actually, I think that this refers to his gambling habits.


             HP Fan 2008




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sun Mar  2 13:13:58 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:13:58 -0000
Subject: Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy
In-Reply-To: <fqdcs2+s5p1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqe96m+ipdi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181820

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
> > Mike:
> > See now, you've called the cave's green goo both potion and poison. 
> > What I want to know is what makes us think this stuff was "poison"? 
> > Dumbledore didn't expect to die from it. Kreacher *didn't* die from 
> > it. 

 DD was already dying , wasn't he from the curse on the ring so he was 
correct in saying that the poison wouldn't kill him .He knew it had to 
be done to obtain the locket and that he was the best person at the 
time to do it for the reason I mentioned above

Jayne





From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sun Mar  2 13:19:47 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:19:47 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqd5jk+iqtd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqe9hj+esh9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181821

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP of the whole post>
> There is only one
> working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
> that Marietta comes to grief.
> 
> >
Sorry to be obtuse but who is the working mother you are talking about 
and who is Marietta ?

Jayne
Forgetting things in her old age




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 13:56:16 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:56:16 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqdjgv+jdna@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqebm0+8ula@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181822

> Montavilla47:
> 
> Which is the second?

Alla:

Rowena Ravenclaw.


Montavilla47: 
> About Tonks, I wouldn't call her a working mother, since
> we don't hear anything about holding a job after she
> becomes pregnant.  Coming to fight in the battle,
> whether commendable or not, is volunteering.  It's not
> a career.


Alla:

I would not call her a working mother because she came to fight in 
the battle. I call her working mother because I did not hear anything 
about her leaving Aurorat after she became pregnant. Not for one 
second I assumed that she did because she stayed with a kid who was 
not even one year old yet.

I know several women in RL who left their job in the middle of their 
pregnancy and came back few months after child was born.




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Mar  2 14:11:18 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:11:18 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqebm0+8ula@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqeci6+dohh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181823

 
> > Montavilla47: 
> > About Tonks, I wouldn't call her a working mother, since
> > we don't hear anything about holding a job after she
> > becomes pregnant.  

> Alla:
> ... I call her working mother because I did not hear anything 
> about her leaving Aurorat after she became pregnant. Not for one 
> second I assumed that she did because she stayed with a kid who was 
> not even one year old yet.


Kemper now:
I guess I assumed she left because her pregnancy was an abomination in
the eyes of those in power.  If DH was book aimed at adults, I could
see those in power attempting to force an abortion on Tonks, allowing
her to live to set an example for others.

Kemper




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Mar  2 14:13:36 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:13:36 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqe9hj+esh9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqecmg+ei3n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181824


> > Montavilla47:
> > There is only one
> > working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
> > that Marietta comes to grief.

> Jayne:
> Sorry to be obtuse but who is the working mother you are talking about 
> and who is Marietta ?


Kemper now:
Marietta is the one who betrayed the DA in OP.  Her mom worked for the
MoM.

Kemper





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 14:14:12 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:14:12 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqeci6+dohh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqecnk+rgn2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181825

> Kemper now:
> I guess I assumed she left because her pregnancy was an abomination in
> the eyes of those in power.  If DH was book aimed at adults, I could
> see those in power attempting to force an abortion on Tonks, allowing
> her to live to set an example for others.


Alla:

Oh, that is possible I agree. I am not talking about temporary forced 
leave by people in power though, I am talking about Tonks leaving work 
to stay home because she wanted to, you know?

I think if she left the way you describe, she always hoped to return 
after the light wins. IMO of course.




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Mar  2 14:23:58 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:23:58 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqecnk+rgn2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqed9u+a3nt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181826


> > Kemper:
> > I guess I assumed she left because her pregnancy was an abomination
> > in the eyes of those in power.  If DH was book aimed at adults,
> > I could see those in power attempting to force an abortion on Tonks,
> > allowing her to live to set an example for others.
 
 
> Alla:
> Oh, that is possible I agree. I am not talking about temporary forced 
> leave by people in power though, I am talking about Tonks leaving
> work to stay home because she wanted to, you know?
> 
> I think if she left the way you describe, she always hoped to return 
> after the light wins. IMO of course.

Kemper now:
I see.  Then I think you're right, she seems more the working mom
should she have lived.  She would still want to fight the Dark as an
Auror... as I read her, anyway.

Kemper





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar  2 14:50:28 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:50:28 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
Message-ID: <fqeerk+rv4k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181828

Re: Did the Slytherins come back? 



> Montavilla47:>
> I wasn't around for the criticism I've heard was voiced prior to
> OotP (which supposedly answered the criticism by introducing
> the powerful and just Amelia Bones and the hip Tonks). But, one
> can't help noticing a disturbing trend in HPB, in which the
> female characters tend to fall apart if romantically thwarted,
> or that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the
> most powerful, ideal state for a woman. There is only one
> working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
> that Marietta comes to grief.

Potioncat:
You know, I find Tonks's breakdown as unbelieveable as Snape's pining
for Lily --a man's reaction to unrequited love. He was able to
channel it into a purpose at least.

Slughorn may be speaking for the author when he comments on the
danger of obsessive love. But I never understood just what "shock" it
was that caused Tonks's Patronus to change.

We don't really know other characters well enough to know who has a
working mother and who doesn't. I don't think it was JKR's intent to
toss that theme into the book. But if you just look at the Trio, both
Lily and Mrs. Granger had jobs. That's 2/3. I'm including Lily's role
in the Order, which she seems to have continued until she had go into
hiding with James. Mrs. Granger is a dentist. From an extra-textual
(who came up with that? I love it!) viewpoint we also have Ginny and
Hermione.


Montavilla47:
or that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the
> most powerful, ideal state for a woman.

Potioncat:
The good/protective mother of HP is in contrast to the bad/absent
father.

How about, motherhood is a powerful state and an important role? A
young child sees her (his) mother as incredibly powerful and magical.
Men in battle call out for "Mother". But it isn't to say that a woman
is somehow lacking for not being a mother.





From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sun Mar  2 15:45:35 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:45:35 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqecmg+ei3n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqei2v+i64v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181829

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> > > Montavilla47:
> > > There is only one
> > > working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
> > > that Marietta comes to grief.
> 
> > Jayne:
> > Sorry to be obtuse but who is the working mother you are talking 
about 
> > and who is Marietta ?
> 
> 
> Kemper now:
> Marietta is the one who betrayed the DA in OP.  Her mom worked for 
the
> MoM.
> 
> Kemper
> Yes of course. Thanks

Jayne





From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sun Mar  2 15:50:28 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:50:28 -0000
Subject: Working mothers in the series WAS: Re: Did the Slytherins come back?
In-Reply-To: <fqed9u+a3nt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqeic4+q272@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181830

--- snip>  
> > Alla:
> > Oh, that is possible I agree. I am not talking about temporary 
forced 
> > leave by people in power though, I am talking about Tonks leaving
> > work to stay home because she wanted to, you know?
> > 
> > I think if she left the way you describe, she always hoped to 
return 
> > after the light wins. IMO of course.
> 
> Kemper now:
> I see.  Then I think you're right, she seems more the working mom
> should she have lived.  She would still want to fight the Dark as an
> Auror... as I read her, anyway.
> 
> Kemper
>
IMHO that would depend on if Remus was still alive.She would not have 
coped very well IMHO without him.

Jayne




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 17:13:21 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:13:21 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqeerk+rv4k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqen7h+u514@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181831

Montavilla47:

First off:  Thanks, Alla, for reminding me about Rowena 
Ravenclaw.  I had forgotten about her.  Of course, her
daughter comes to grief as well.  Partially because she's
envious of her mother and steals her diadem, and partially
because her mother is insensitive enough to send Helena's
murderous ex-boyfriend to look for her.

But maybe I'm being unfair to cite the negative outcomes
for children who have working mothers.  After all, we have
negative outcomes for children of non-working mothers.
Draco becomes a Death Eater (or does he?  We never do 
know if he gets the mark) in spite of his mother's devotion.
Percy becomes estranged from his family despite his
mother's love.

And I'm not trying to bash JKR about her portrayal of
either mothers or non-mothers.  I'm just pointing
out that she seems to be a lot of power into mother
love--the other side of which is that women without
children tend end looking inconsequential and those
who divide their attention between work and children
end up with bad kids.

> > Montavilla47:>
> > I wasn't around for the criticism I've heard was voiced prior to
> > OotP (which supposedly answered the criticism by introducing
> > the powerful and just Amelia Bones and the hip Tonks). But, one
> > can't help noticing a disturbing trend in HPB, in which the
> > female characters tend to fall apart if romantically thwarted,
> > or that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the
> > most powerful, ideal state for a woman. There is only one
> > working mother in the entire series, and it's because of her
> > that Marietta comes to grief.
> 
> Potioncat:
> You know, I find Tonks's breakdown as unbelieveable as Snape's pining
> for Lily --a man's reaction to unrequited love. He was able to
> channel it into a purpose at least.
> 
> Slughorn may be speaking for the author when he comments on the
> danger of obsessive love. But I never understood just what "shock" it
> was that caused Tonks's Patronus to change.

Montavila47:
I agree with you.  But what is one to do?  The entire Tonks/Lupin
storyline is unsatisfying.  We get these two characters with great
potential.  I didn't really need Lupin to have a big storyline, I would
have been happy for him to stick around being sensitive and 
reliable.  There are lots of characters who do that sort of thing 
in a series and people love them.  

And then there's Tonks, who bounces in all pink with her 
super metamorphagous skill.  But everything she is just falls
into the dung heap once she hits HPB.  She doesn't become 
deeper for her grief over Lupin (and maybe a bit of Sirius).  For 
Harry, she simply becomes annoying.  

And then, when she gets happy again, she nearly fades away
completely.  It's like she's a Victorian women who must go
into confinement during her pregnancy.

Pippin:
> We don't really know other characters well enough to know who has a
> working mother and who doesn't. I don't think it was JKR's intent to
> toss that theme into the book. But if you just look at the Trio, both
> Lily and Mrs. Granger had jobs. That's 2/3. I'm including Lily's role
> in the Order, which she seems to have continued until she had go into
> hiding with James. Mrs. Granger is a dentist. From an extra-textual
> (who came up with that? I love it!) viewpoint we also have Ginny and
> Hermione.

Montavilla47:
Ah, thank you!  Mrs. Granger is indeed a working mother.  And, unless
you take the view that Hermione is a ruthless, amoral overlord-in-the-
making (which goes against JKR's intention), then we do have an
example of a woman who successfully manages career and child.

I think I came up with extra-textual.  It seemed like the most 
accurate term.

> Montavilla47:
> or that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the
> > most powerful, ideal state for a woman.
> 
> Potioncat:
> The good/protective mother of HP is in contrast to the bad/absent
> father.
> 
> How about, motherhood is a powerful state and an important role? A
> young child sees her (his) mother as incredibly powerful and magical.
> Men in battle call out for "Mother". But it isn't to say that a woman
> is somehow lacking for not being a mother.

Montavilla47:
I can agree with that.  As I said in my original post, I'm not trying to
knock JKR about her portrayal of women.  It's a bit conservative in 
the overall picture it presents, but it's not that offensive.  







From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar  2 17:58:16 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 2 Mar 2008 17:58:16 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/2/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1204480696.11.37445.m56@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181832

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 2, 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/20080302/95384501/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 20:15:38 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:15:38 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the RoR
In-Reply-To: <fqa4uo+pnv8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqf1ta+37gq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181833

Beatrice:
> > In thinking about HOW LV might have gotten the diadem into the
castle and hidden it in the RoR,  I found myself thinking about
Hermione's purse in DH.
> 
> Good thinking. Or Hagrid's purse -- it must be common.  Same
> technology as in Arthur Weasley's (borrowed) tent.

Carol respons:

Very small quibble: Hagrid's purse is made of mokeskin, which means
that it can shrink at will (FBWFT), and it can only be opened by its
owner (DH, the chapter on Harry's birthday). It doesn't have an
unlimited capacity, however. Harry pubs the Snitch, the broken wand,
and the broken mirror fragment in there (and, IIRC, one other item),
but he couldn't fit in all their clothes or a teakettle or Phineas
Nigellus's portrait, much less the tent and tentpoles. I do agree that
the spell on Hermione's beaded bag is the same as the spell on the
tent (it's also apparently used on Slughorn's office when he holds his
Christmas party in HBP).

As for the spell(s) on the RoR, which can become anything anyone wants
it to be (except that it can't provide food, or, presumably, money), I
think that's a different matter altogether. Yes, a stretching charm
(or whatever the expansion charm is called) would be involved, but I
think the magic is much more complex--not something that Hermione
could accomplish, unlike the beaded bag.

Carol, apologizing for not looking up the exact quotes for the
mokeskin purse




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 20:52:25 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:52:25 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Bagman_=96_A_Death_Eater_or_Not=3F_=96_You_(Generic)_Decide_(GoF_CH_7-9_Post_DH_lo?=
In-Reply-To: <fqb7mc+uv8c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqf429+f0oo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181834

> Goddlefrood, having substantially rearranged and partially 
rewritten earlier posts, presents the case for Bagman being a Death Eater:
<snip>
> In GoF, Chapter 10 (The Dark Mark) Bagman is encountered emerging
from the tress close to where the Dark Mark is conjured very soon
before that conjuring. IMO, we are only *supposed* to believe that he
is hiding from or negotiating with the Goblins as a blind. <snip>

Carol:
Or, conversely, we're supposed to start suspecting him as a red
herring villain here and later.

Goddlefrood: 
> Shortly after this the Dark Mark appears and as we later find out
Barty Crouch Jnr. had conjured it. Is it not possible, even probable,
that Bagman was meeting Crouch Jnr. either in furtherance of the plot
or to have it explained to him and to warn him off from having Bertha
Jorkins searched for too closely? It's unlikely that anyone can refute
this, circumstantial though it is. <snip>

Carol:
We know exactly who was working with Barty Jr. and LV: Wormtail, in
whose arms Baby!mort arrives at the Crouch home. They are responsible
for keeping Crouch Sr. under control and for attacking the real Moody,
whose identity Barty Sr. steals. There's no room for DE!Ludo in this
little plot, and no indication of his involvement.

Goddlefrood:
> Mr. Weasley, a few pages later (page 128) then helpfully tells us:
> 
> "But I'll tell you this 
 it was only the Death Eaters who ever 
knew how to conjure it."
> 
> Further indicating that a person who, as LB clearly seemed to 
immediately, knew how to conjure the Dark Mark is a Death Eater. <snip>

Carol:
Why should we think that Ludo knows any more about it than Mr.
Weasley, ot that he knows the incantation? He knows that it takes a
wand, and the only known casters are DEs, so naturally, Winky wouldn't
know how to cast it, as Ludo rightly points out. And, apparently, it
isn't only DEs who know how to cast it, since non-DE Slughorn admits
that he forgot or didn't have time to cast one when he's making it
look like he's been kidnapped by DEs.

Goddlefrood:
> How did Voldemort know that Lucius ran from the Dark Mark? I 
suggest that LB informed him at some point because LB himself joined
the muggle-baiting Death Eaters. He only rejoined the Ministry wizards
quite some time after they had arrived at the scene of the crime of
conjuring the Mark. He would know that the Death Eaters dispersed when
the Mark was seen in that circumstance. <snip>

Carol:
Barty Jr. is present and casts the Dark Mark. If anyone recognized
Lucius under his mask and robes, it's most likely him. (Ludo was in
the forest with the Goblins, whom we see cackling over their
[Leprechaun] gold--how else did they get it if Ludo didn't give it to
them?) Either that or LV know Lucius well: he's the person most likely
to organize a spot of Muggle-baiting. Or maybe Wormtail was on hand in
rat form, observing the event. (Or it's a Flint.) 


> > Carol:
> 
> > We know that the "big blond Death Eater" of HBP is Thorfinn 
Rowle, not Ludo Bagman. 
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> We do, and I haven't suggested otherwise since DH was released, I
wonder why you bring it up. I can read, IOW.

Carol:
Of course you can, but I thought that the big blond DE was the heart
of your previous argument and that his being otherwise identified
pretty much shot down your argument. My apologies. I didn't mean to
offend you. (It was just one additional point I wanted to make in my
counterargument.) <snip>

Carol responds:
Forgive me for not responding in detail to all of your points. I just
want to add that, of all the HP books, each of which contains a
mystery of some sort, GoF is the most like a detective novel, with
every person in the room with Harry after his name comes out of the
goblet as a possible suspect. We know that Harry didn't put his own
name in the cup, but all of the other people (except, of course, the
champions and maybe Madam Maxime and Professor McGonagall) are in some
sense suspects. Sirius Black turns Harry's suspicions toward ex-DE
Karkaroff, Fake!Moody turns them to Snape (hinting that he, too, is an
ex-DE). Bagman's attempts to help Harry make him a suspect, as does
his behavior throughout the book. If we're watching Fake!Moody, he,
too behaves suspiciously, from the Transfiguring of a student to the
eagerness to teach Unforgiveable Curses to the borrowing of the
Marauder's Map (not to mention helping Harry at every turn). However,
as is the case with every book, the mystery for that book (as opposed
to ongoing mysteries like Snape's loyalties) is solved. We know that
Barty Jr. put Harry's name in the goblet; Bagman had nothing to do
with it or he would have een mentioned while Barty was under the
influence of Veritaserum. Bagman's behavior is fully explained by his
debt to the Goblins (and by his foolishness in trying to repay that
debt in Leprechaun gold. Ludo is not even mentioned in any of the
later books. If he were a DE, we would have seen him in HBP and/or DH.

Carol, for whom the only remaining mystery for Ludo is what happened
to him and whether the Goblins killed him






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar  2 21:17:42 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:17:42 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Bagman_=96_A_Death_Eater_or_Not=3F_=96_You_(Generic)_Decide_(GoF_CH_7-9_Post_DH_lo?=
In-Reply-To: <fqf429+f0oo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqf5hm+gquj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181835



> Goddlefrood:
> > Mr. Weasley, a few pages later (page 128) then helpfully tells us:
> > 
> > "But I'll tell you this 
 it was only the Death Eaters who ever 
> knew how to conjure it."
> > 
> > Further indicating that a person who, as LB clearly seemed to 
> immediately, knew how to conjure the Dark Mark is a Death Eater. 
<snip>

Potioncat:
Which still leaves me wondering, in HBP, why did DD mention that 
Slughorn hadn't cast a Dark Mark over his house? (which gave it away 
to DD that it wasn't DEs) And why was Slughorn's answer, "I didn't 
have time." If he could cast it, he was a DE and if he couldn't cast 
it, time wouldn't matter.

> 
> Carol responds:
> Forgive me for not responding in detail to all of your points. I 
just
> want to add that, of all the HP books, each of which contains a
> mystery of some sort, GoF is the most like a detective novel, with
> every person in the room with Harry after his name comes out of the
> goblet as a possible suspect. <snip>

Potioncat:
I had to snip a really good section here. But I'm only saying "I 
agree." JKR did such a good job making Ludo a red herring, that most 
us continued to distrust him past GoF. To a certain extent, the same 
thing happened with Remus back in PoA.

We don't know what happened to Bagman. How about Fudge? Do we hear 
anything at all about Fudge in DH?




From whybnormal at wowway.com  Sun Mar  2 18:41:52 2008
From: whybnormal at wowway.com (Tom Kish)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:41:52 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqen7h+u514@eGroups.com>
References: <fqeerk+rv4k@eGroups.com> <fqen7h+u514@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01e601c87c95$15730550$6701a8c0@KICKASSSYSTEM>

No: HPFGUIDX 181836

> Montavilla47:
> I'm not trying to bash JKR about her portrayal of
> either mothers or non-mothers. I'm just pointing
> out that she seems to be a lot of power into mother
> love--the other side of which is that women without
> children tend to end up looking inconsequential and
> those who divide their attention between work and
> children end up with bad kids.


Whybnormal

I think the point that all of you have missed is that through the series J.K.R. repeats that a person is responsible for their own choices. According to the reasoning that you guys are using Harry should have ended up like Voldemort.  Harry was raised without parents like Voldemort, but instead of an orphanage like Voldemort, Harry was raised in a home where, instead of having unfeeling caregivers, he had family who showed him nothing but scorn and outright dislike.  Now I ask you who would be more justified growing up angry at the world and wanting revenge?

Harry's choice to care about people and to do his best to protect them made him who he was.  Percy Weasley's ambition to succeed at the ministry made his decisions for him. Voldemort's lust to be somebody made his decisions for him.  At the bottom of it all is love for others or lack thereof.



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  2 22:45:07 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:45:07 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqd97o+m697@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqfalj+760i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181837

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

> I need a refresher again. I do remember discussions about why Fake 
> Moody taught Harry how to fight Imperius. I remember not very 
> convincing to me argument that he wanted to see that somebody can 
> control a curse he could not, but if he is actively trying to give 
> Harry to his master, why would he do it?


My favorite one: Fake!Moody needed Harry to win the tournament, so he 
taught him how to resist Imperius curse, fearing that Karkaroff will 
use it on Harry in order to assure Krum's victory.

My second favorite one: Crouch Jr. missed doing Unforgivable curses, 
and he used his DADA lessons as an opportunity to use at least 
Imperius  without arising suspicion.

I think there were more explanations, but I can't remember right 
now :-).


zanooda






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Mar  2 23:23:23 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:23:23 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqen7h+u514@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqfctb+uja8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181838

Montavilla:
> And I'm not trying to bash JKR about her portrayal of
> either mothers or non-mothers.  I'm just pointing
> out that she seems to be a lot of power into mother
> love--the other side of which is that women without
> children tend end looking inconsequential and those
> who divide their attention between work and children
> end up with bad kids.

Jen: I wanted to add Alice Longbottom to the list of working moms.  

I was pleased that JKR didn't decide to cast only moms who got paid 
for their work as the powerful ones in the story, including leaving 
some ambiguous such as Luna's mom.  It also struck a positive note 
for me to have mother love portrayed as something powerful and 
important, since there are plenty of negative portrayls of the 
suffocating mothers who wound with their 'love.' 

As for inconsequential women without children, McGonagall, Bellatrix, 
Trelawney & Umbridge all played consequential roles in the story.

Montavilla:
> But, one can't help noticing a disturbing trend in HPB, in which the
> female characters tend to fall apart if romantically thwarted, or
> that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the most 
> powerful, ideal state for a woman. 

Jen: Hehe, I thought they were all falling apart in their various 
ways.  The guys looked a little different doing it, but Ron got all 
manly because he'd never kissed anyone, and Dean was down after Ginny 
broke up with him (didn't he shatter his glass when she & Harry 
kiss?).  Cormac turns lecherous when Hermione rebuffs him.  Harry's 
got his roaring monster, lol.  I'm not sure anyone got a pass in HBP 
when it came to being thwarted by romance, much as I wish JKR would 
have canned about 3/4's of it.

Jen, glad that JKR didn't explain Slughorn's two perfect Felix days.  





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar  2 23:40:31 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:40:31 -0000
Subject: ShriekingShack/CauldronThickness/Birds/Florian/Mothers/GoFSnapeMoody/Ludo
Message-ID: <fqfdtf+9rdo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181839

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181730>:

<< BTW, how did Malfoy, Snape and LV get into the Shack? They didn't
seem to be using the passage from the willow. >>

Did they Apparate? The Shrieking Shack is not on Hogwarts campus, so
Hogwarts's Anti-Apparation charms don't matter.

Montavilla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181761>:

<< But what incentive is there for manufacturers to keep a safe
thickness? The Wizarding World doesn't seem to have a very strong
system of civil litigation. Why should the manufacturers care if x
number of people are harmed or killed in cauldron accidents?

Moreover, a thin-bottomed cauldron is advantageous for the
cauldron-makers, since it means that wizards will need to replace
their cauldrons more often, thus expanding the market. >>

*Some* manufacturers might choose a business strategy of making safely
thick cauldrons, advertising them as safer and higher quality, and
selling them for a higher price.

As cauldron thickness is a lot easier for the customer to check than
is lead in the paint or melamine in the food, they might just put the
higher price on the higher quality cauldron and trust customers to
know the difference.  If the wizarding public is too dim to figure
that out, their government does have the option of another way to
protect them other than just banning cauldrons less than a stated
thickness: the government can require that cauldrons for sale are
marked with their thickness and durability information, and the
government can distribute pamphlets explaining how to choose a sturdy
cauldron.

I might oppose the ban. IIRC PS/SS mentioned a solid gold cauldron. I
suppose that is not just a luxury to show off one's wealth, but
actually required for some potions. If the potion requires a solid
gold cauldron because it will dissolve *anything* else, then risking a
leak would be a bad idea. But if the potion requires a solid gold
cauldron for magical reasons, and I wanted to make that potion, my
budget urges me to choose a very thin solid gold cauldron indeed -- as
close to gold leaf as will do the job.

I don't know if cauldrons are produced in a sufficiently mass or
standardized way that the wizarding version of CONSUMER REPORTS
(CONJUROR REPORTS?) could warn that a certain brand and model of
cauldron, or Mr Fabricius Irons's cauldrons made between May of 2006
and September of 2007 are excessively prone to breakage, and should be
avoided.

But some previous listie suggested that the running theme of cauldron
leaks was a class-warfare issue, with only the more prosperous
wizarding folk able to afford thick, sturdy cauldrons, and the lower
(half? quarter? two-thirds?) stuck with dangerous thin cauldrons, with
results shown by Neville's melting cauldrons in Potions Class, and the
Leaky Cauldron inn given that name because its original founder meant
it to be a working class hangout where they could conspire to
overthrow the bourgeoisie	...

Mike wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181743>:

<< I don't think there are owls available in all parts of the world. I
could easily imagine wizard inhabitants of the tropics having other
bird species as their post carriers. I like Carol's idea of parrots or
macaws. How about a toucan? >>

Zanooda replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181750>:

<< I found out that owls are very wide-spread and live on all the
continents of the world, except Antarctica, and also on large islands.
If Sirius went to hide in Africa - there are like 40 species of owls
living there, including the Barn owl - a lot to choose from :-)!
http://www.owlpages.com/owls.php?location=Africa
I'm not sure that this link works, but, anyway, owls live everywhere,
which came as a surprise - they seemed so "un-african" to me :-)!  >>

I was going to suggest
<http://www.owlpages.com/owls.php?location=The+World>! :)  

I like to think that Sirius waited in the Caribbean, which also
includes the Barn Owl in its repertoire. It seems they get around.

Altho' owls are available pretty much everywhere, the wizards who live
in a place might not have domesticated owls as postal birds, or not
owls large enough to cross an ocean, and they domesticated some other
kind of bird for long post routes and heavy packages.

Macaws were my first thought, toucans my second. I have no idea if
toucans are long-distance flyers. I can't imagine that Harry would
have called flamingos 'colorful tropical birds' instead of calling
them 'flamingos'. Allegedly, they're from Kenya, which was part of the
British Empire.

Why do owls seem 'un-African' to you? If you thought they needed long
cold winters, that excludes a lot of places besides Africa.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181782>:

<< Anyone have any ideas regarding what happened to Florian Fortescue
and why?(snip) Was he a Muggle-born, >>

Rowling said the bad guys killed him, but I don't know why. If he was
a Muggle-born, then he probably wasn't related to the Headmaster
portrait in OoP: << 'Blatant corruption!' roared the portrait of the
corpulent, red-nosed wizard on the wall behind Dumbledore's desk. The
Ministry did not cut deals with petty criminals in my day, no sir,
they did not!' Thank you, Fortescue, that will do,' said Dumbledore
softly. >>

My own vague idea was that Florian Fortescue was one of the good guys
who fought the bad guys in Vold War I ... he wasn't in Real!Moody's
group photo of the old-time Order of the Phoenix, so maybe he was an
Auror then, and retired to his ice cream shop after LV dissolved.
Maybe some of the resurgent DEs might have wanted to kill him as
revenge for him having arrested them or their relatives last time out.
I suspect that he was taking action during HBP to oppose LV's coup
d'etat, and they killed him to end this interference. Action? Maybe
finding people who had been put under Imperius and releasing them from
it. Maybe gathering evidence for legal cases against whoever had cast
Imperius on them. 

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181812>:

<< [There are] two [working mothers in the series] and one of them is
really powerful. >>

I thought you meant Alice Longbottom, an auror, but wondered why she
would be 'really powerful', so I wondered if you meant Lily Potter. It
never occurred to me that you meant Rowena Ravenclaw ... for one
thing, we don't know if she raised her daughter before, during, or
after she was a schoolmistress.

Kemper wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/18182>:

<< I see. Then I think you're right, [Tonks] seems more the working
mom should she have lived. She would still want to fight the Dark as
an Auror... as I read her, anyway. >>

Jayne replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181830>:

<< IMHO that would depend on if Remus was still alive. She would not
have coped very well IMHO without him. >>

One hopes for little Teddy's sake that if Dora had lived while Remus
died, Dora would have been able to pull herself together for her
baby's sake. And it is possible that she would have. It is possible
that her awareness of her duty to her baby, and her love and concern
for her baby, would get herself to get up enough will-power to take
care of him and eventually even go back to work to support him. It is
also possible that being on the receiving end of the all-consuming,
ever-demanding, entirely exploitative love that babies have for their
caretakers would satisfy her obsessive need to be loved by poor Remus.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181814>:

<< In light of Snape being loyal to the light, I suddenly realized
that I am not quite sure why would he be avoiding Moody's eye if he
has no clue that Moody is a Fake one here. >>

GoF keeps telling us that Real!Moody didn't believe in former Death
Eaters. Fake!Moody's "I say there are spots that don't come off,
Snape. Spots that never come off" was in character for Real!Moody, who
muttered at Karkaroff's plea bargain hearing: "Let's hear his
information, I say, and throw him straight back to the Dementors."

I suppose Snape expected that Moody would take the opportuntity of a
year at Hogwarts to try to build a legal case for sentencing Snape to
Azkaban, even after so many years, and if he couldn't get the Ministry
to bring Snape to trial, he could publish his information and get a
lot of people fired up against Snape.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181834>:

<< only remaining mystery for Ludo is what happened to him and whether
the Goblins killed him >>

Is killing him the most profitable thing they could do with him?





From terri_mares at hotmail.com  Sun Mar  2 21:51:55 2008
From: terri_mares at hotmail.com (terri_mares)
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:51:55 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqdktv+hj53@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqf7hr+lj7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181840

Montavilla wrote:
>
> > "Indeed, whenever Harry saw the two of them together - at
mealtimes,
> > or when they passed  in the corridors - he had the distinct
> > impression that Snape was avoiding Moody's eye, whether magical
or
> > normal" - p.210

Terri:
I think that Moody (Barty) watched Snape because he was, like us, not
sure if Snape was on the side of the Light or the Dark.  Snape tried
to avoid Moody's eyes becuase he thought it was the real Moody.

Snape liked being Dark.  He didn't want Dumbledore to ever tell
anyone, ever, that he was protecting Harry.  See DH p. 679.  Snape
wants DD's word that he shall never reveal the best of Snape, we see
it.  He does not want Moody to know of his light side.

Montavilla wrote:
> > "We'll try that again, Potter and the rest of you, pay attention -

> > watch his eyes, that's where you see it - very good, Potter very
good
> > indeed! They'll have trouble controlling you" - p.232
> >


Terri:
When Moody was "teaching" Harry the curse, I don't think Barty was
really "teaching."  I think he was pretending to be Moody, so he used
that as an excuse to get close to Harry and learn all he could,
including, how suseptible (sp?) he was to the imperious curse. He did
after all have to keep up the appeqrence of being Proffessor Moody.
Plus, he probably found it fun toying with Harry.  Barty being so
dark was probably thinking how great it was to be able to cast the
imperious curse on his master's greatest enemy.

This is my first post ever on this list.  Please be kind.

Terri




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  3 01:33:41 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:33:41 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqfctb+uja8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqfkhl+oeeh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181841

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
>
> Montavilla:
> > And I'm not trying to bash JKR about her portrayal of
> > either mothers or non-mothers.  I'm just pointing
> > out that she seems to be a lot of power into mother
> > love--the other side of which is that women without
> > children tend end looking inconsequential and those
> > who divide their attention between work and children
> > end up with bad kids.
> 
> Jen: I wanted to add Alice Longbottom to the list of working moms.  
> 
> I was pleased that JKR didn't decide to cast only moms who got paid 
> for their work as the powerful ones in the story, including leaving 
> some ambiguous such as Luna's mom.  It also struck a positive note 
> for me to have mother love portrayed as something powerful and 
> important, since there are plenty of negative portrayls of the 
> suffocating mothers who wound with their 'love.' 
> 
> As for inconsequential women without children, McGonagall, Bellatrix, 
> Trelawney & Umbridge all played consequential roles in the story.

Montavilla47:
Thanks, Jen, for Alice.  I had forgotten that she was an honest-to-
goodness Auror.  

I am also glad that non-working mothers were powerful in the 
story.  Any objection I have to Molly's moment of triumph over
Bellatrix is not that she suddeny acquires mad dueling skillz, but
that she unwittingly (she is, after all, ignorant of Muggle culture),
starts quoting Ripley in Aliens.  It's just jarring is all.

But, I dunno.  I still think that McGonagall is just sort of shunted
aside in the story, when the readers were all ready to embrace her
as Dumbledore's replacement.  Trelawney is depicted as a fool,
and Umbridge and Bellatrix are hateful hags.


> Montavilla:
> > But, one can't help noticing a disturbing trend in HPB, in which the
> > female characters tend to fall apart if romantically thwarted, or
> > that throughout the series, motherhood is shown as the most 
> > powerful, ideal state for a woman. 
> 
> Jen: Hehe, I thought they were all falling apart in their various 
> ways.  The guys looked a little different doing it, but Ron got all 
> manly because he'd never kissed anyone, and Dean was down after Ginny 
> broke up with him (didn't he shatter his glass when she & Harry 
> kiss?).  Cormac turns lecherous when Hermione rebuffs him.  Harry's 
> got his roaring monster, lol.  I'm not sure anyone got a pass in HBP 
> when it came to being thwarted by romance, much as I wish JKR would 
> have canned about 3/4's of it.
> 
> Jen, glad that JKR didn't explain Slughorn's two perfect Felix days.
>

Montavilla47:
I gotta say, Jen, that I almost put in an earlier post that it's *men*
who should be offended at gender treatment in the series, because
all of them are seriously wanting in some way.

And yeah, Lupin unthwarted in love is even worse than Tonks when
she's depressed.  So go figure. :)

A slight correction.  It's not explicit, but I always thought that Cormac
became lecherous and *then* Hermione rebuffed him.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar  3 02:37:12 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:37:12 -0000
Subject: ShriekingShack/
In-Reply-To: <fqfdtf+9rdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqfo8o+mnup@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181842


>
> Potioncat wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181730>:
> 
> << BTW, how did Malfoy, Snape and LV get into the Shack? They didn't
> seem to be using the passage from the willow. >>

>Catlady answered: 
> Did they Apparate? The Shrieking Shack is not on Hogwarts campus, so
> Hogwarts's Anti-Apparation charms don't matter.


Potioncat:
That crossed my mind too. But isn't the Womping Willow on Hogwarts 
grounds? If anyone can just Apparate into the shack, they can take the 
tunnel into Hogwarts and by pass all the charms. 





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Mar  3 03:04:45 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:04:45 -0000
Subject: ShriekingShack/
In-Reply-To: <fqfo8o+mnup@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqfpsd+10crm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181843

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> That crossed my mind too. But isn't the Womping Willow on Hogwarts 
> grounds? If anyone can just Apparate into the shack, they can take the 
> tunnel into Hogwarts and by pass all the charms.
>
I suppose Dumbledore planned that the rumors of very nasty ghosts in
the Shrieking Shack would prevent people from Apparating into it, and
the Whomping Willow would prevent them from exiting the tunnel into
Hogwarts.




From dananotdayna at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar  3 05:39:06 2008
From: dananotdayna at sbcglobal.net (Dana King)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:39:06 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
Message-ID: <fqg2tq+sajk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181844

This message is a Special Notice for all members of

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/HPforGrownups

In addition to being published onlist (available in webview),
this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes)
to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices."
If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact
the List Elves at (minus that extra space)

HPforGrownups- owner @yahoogroups.com
Note: Dananotdayna is the author of this ChapDisc, gav_fiji only
posted it

----------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,
Chapter 15, The Goblin's Revenge


"The sword of Gryffindor was hidden they knew not where, and
they were three teenagers in a tent whose only achievement was
not, yet, to be dead."

So succinctly does this quote from The Goblin's Revenge sum
up the dreary, hopeless mood of this chapter that I had to
lead with it. Chapter 15 opens with Harry's burial of Mad Eye
Moody's magical eye. Safety precautions and Ron's need for a
bacon sandwich motivate their move to the outskirts of a small
town. It turns out to be infested with dementors, however, and
Harry finds himself unable to produce a Patronus to defend
himself. Ron's hunger has made him quite ornery, and it is
Hermione who realizes that Harry is handicapped because he
is wearing the Horcrux. They decide to wear it in shifts and
move on to a farm where they procure food. They learn over the
subsequent days and weeks that Harry (thanks to the helpful
preparation the Dursleys provided) is best able to cope with
hunger and discomfort, and Ron's mood is most vulnerable to
these challenges.

Ron becomes ever more demoralized as Harry and Hermione
struggle to generate ideas without any new information.
Harry keeps insisting the next likely place to look for
a Horcrux is Hogwarts, but Ron and Hermione doubt his
logic. So instead they go to London to search the orphanage
where Riddle spent his childhood, but Harry's instincts
are validated, because the orphanage has long since been
demolished.

During the agonizingly fruitless daily moves, Harry keeps
seeing flashes of the merry face of the blond thief whenever
his scar flares up ? a sign that Voldemort is obsessed with
learning the identity of this person. Harry is now developing
a sense that Ron and Hermione are talking about him behind his
back and losing faith in him, and he keeps these flashes and
his thoughts about them to himself. He suspects they regret
joining him on this mission.

During a spat between Ron and Hermione (where we learn some
interesting laws about the Transfiguration of food), Harry
hears something outside the tent. With the aid of the
extendable ears, they discover that a party settled at
the nearby riverbank consists of Griphook and Gornuk the
Goblins, Ted Tonks, Dean Thomas and Dirk. The men are
fugitives because of their blood status. The goblins, who
consider themselves outside of Voldwar II, have removed
themselves from wizarding society after being put upon by
Death Eaters. They reveal that Griphook (before leaving
Gringotts) had stored for Snape a mock up of the sword
of Gryffindor, and he is deeply tickled at the fact that
he left Snape in the dark about this fake artifact. Snape
had ostensibly brought it to Gringotts for safe keeping
after Ginny and some other students tried to liberate it
from the headmaster's office. Snape allegedly had the
students cruelly punished.

The conversation then turns to speculation about Harry Potter,
his being defamed by the Daily Prophet, and Dean's insistence
that The Quibbler is the only source of reliable information.
Dean also points out that Harry's ability to avoid capture is
reason enough to keep faith in him.

As soon as this band of fugitives moves out of extendable
earshot, the trio consults the portrait of Phineas Nigellus
Black about Gryffindor's sword. He reveals that Neville and
Luna were Ginny's accomplices, that their punishment was a
Forbidden Forest assignment with Hagrid, and that the last
time he witnessed the sword being removed from its case was
when Dumbledore used it to destroy the ring Horcrux. Harry
and Hermione quickly put all the pieces together to surmise
that the fake sword in the vault at Gringotts had been
purposefully left in the case by Dumbledore so that they
could use the real sword (put away for Harry somewhere)
to destroy the remaining Horcruxes. Ron doesn't share in
their excitement over the new information, which he judges
to be not at all useful. His smoldering bad mood ? worsened
by wearing the Horcrux ? erupts into a bitter tirade about
the futility of their wanderings and Harry's failure to lead
them toward any progress or accomplishment. He is infuriated
by his friends' apparent lack of concern about the welfare
of the Weasleys. Harry's ire is raised by Ron's mutinous
criticism of him and Hermione, and he invites Ron to go home
to his Mummy.

Hermione casts Protego to create a barrier between them before
they can attack each other, but their connection has already
been severed. Harry commands Ron to leave the Horcrux. Ron
expects Hermione to leave with him, and he interprets her
loyalty to the mission as a rejection of him. Ron storms
out and disapparates; Hermione falls apart. Harry covers
her with Ron's blankets and broods in his bunk as rain pounds
the tent.

Questions for Discussion:

1. The chapter opens with the burial of Moody's eye. Might this
be viewed as foreshadowing of the death of the trust among the
trio at the close of the chapter?

2. Hermione's suggestion that it is too dangerous to wear the
Horcrux is overruled by Harry who insists it must be worn in
shifts for security. Would the evil influence of the locket
have been lessened or avoided if Hermione's instinct had not
been summarily rejected and the Horcrux had been stored on
their persons in her beaded bag or Harry's moleskin bag?

3. Harry's belief about the importance of identifying the
thief and his hypothesis about Hogwarts being a likely place
to locate a Horcrux are also rejected. Were the weeks of
wandering and wondering worse for the trio than the risks
of following these leads?

4. Ron's intuition about the danger of speaking "Voldemort"
is repeatedly met with skepticism and derision as well. What
themes about faith, trust and open-mindedness can be articulated
based on these scenarios in the chapter?

5. What ? besides the corrosive effects of the Horcrux ? could
account for the paralysis created by Harry, Ron and Hermione
not taking each other's instincts seriously?

6. If food is the first of five principal exemptions to Gamp's
Law of Elemental Transfiguration, what could the other four
exemptions be? And what could be the basis for these exemptions
? the direct interaction between the element and the physical
body of a human?

7. Can the Weasley's ability to provide ample food while still
living in relative Wizarding poverty point to possibilities for
the other four exemptions?  (Ever so much more intriguing than
questions about the uses for dragons blood)

8. Did you, at Phineas Nigellus Black's revelation that
Snape "punished" Ginny, Neville and Luna by sending them
on a field trip with Hagrid, marvel at Harry still not
grasping Snape's possible (probable? obvious?) loyalty
towards Dumbledore's cause??? Why or why not?

9. The characterization of the Goblins as a separatist, self-
interested race is very reminiscent of the dwarf races in both
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia.
Do any other fictional or real-world equivalents or parallels
come to mind?

10. The brief mention of the exploits of my beloved "other
trio" made me wish Rowling could have found a way to depart
a bit more often from her Harry-centric narrative. Are there
any other "off-camera" scenes you would wish you could have
read?

~Dananotdayna

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Next Chapter Discussion, Chapter 16, Godric's Hollow, March 17



From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Mar  3 06:41:11 2008
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:41:11 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqfkhl+oeeh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqg6i7+fgpr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181845

Montavilla47:
> But, I dunno.  I still think that McGonagall is just sort of shunted
> aside in the story, when the readers were all ready to embrace her
> as Dumbledore's replacement.  Trelawney is depicted as a fool,
> and Umbridge and Bellatrix are hateful hags.

Jen:  I was thinking about women without children who were 
consequential, since that was the criteria, not how they were 
characterized.  Plenty of readers dismiss Molly and Lily - the two 
characters most closely aligned with the mom role imo - as unlikable 
or even downright hated.  I don't believe that changes their 
importance to the story. 

> Montavilla47:
> I gotta say, Jen, that I almost put in an earlier post that it's
> *men* who should be offended at gender treatment in the series,
> because all of them are seriously wanting in some way.

Jen: Personally I think it harkens back to society judging men by 
their actions and women by intangibles, like whether they are likable 
or not.  (This is on my mind at the moment from reading how poll 
results are characterizing the different candidates in the 
presidential race in the US.)  I thought that JKR did a good job of 
*not* going there, making the actions of her women matter & have 
consequence to the story regardless of where they stood on the 
working/child-bearing/likability continuum.  From Lily's sacrifice, 
to Petunia taking Harry in, to all of Hermione's saving-the-day 
moments, to McGonagall sticking it out at Hogwarts during that last 
year - those actions made a difference for the story and for Harry's 
journey.  They play an equally important role to the actions of 
Dumbledore & Snape for instance, and in Lily's case, one decision 
drives the whole shebang.  


Montavilla47: 
> And yeah, Lupin unthwarted in love is even worse than Tonks when
> she's depressed.  So go figure. :)
> 
> A slight correction.  It's not explicit, but I always thought that 
Cormac became lecherous and *then* Hermione rebuffed him.
>

Jen: Right, that's right.  I re-read and it goes even further back:  
Hermione only takes McLaggen to the party to make Ron jealous.  
Perhaps I was hasty calling him lecherous as he seemed to think he 
was on a legitimate date and could kiss his date under the 
mistletoe.  How completely ghastly of him. ;)




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  3 10:19:26 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:19:26 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqen7h+u514@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqgjbe+54b7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181846

> Montavilla47:
> But maybe I'm being unfair to cite the negative outcomes
> for children who have working mothers.  After all, we have
> negative outcomes for children of non-working mothers.
> Draco becomes a Death Eater (or does he?  We never do 
> know if he gets the mark) in spite of his mother's devotion.

a_svirn:
Does it matter? Would his actions be more contemptible if he had the 
mark? I don't think so, especially since he didn't really have any 
choice in the matter. It would have been Voldemort's choice. 

> Montavilla47: 
> And I'm not trying to bash JKR about her portrayal of
> either mothers or non-mothers.  I'm just pointing
> out that she seems to be a lot of power into mother
> love--the other side of which is that women without
> children tend end looking inconsequential and those
> who divide their attention between work and children
> end up with bad kids.

a_svirn:
Try as I might I don't see any direct correlation between mother's 
Love and child's morals. Take orphans for instance: Riddle is the 
evil personified, Harry is the good personified. Neither one of them 
knew what's it like to be loved by a mother (or a father for that 
matter). Neville is a good guy too, but then he had his grandmother 
to love him. The same with career ? Lily didn't work, but then, 
neither did Merope. And to muddle the picture further neither did 
James (nor, for all we know, did Tom Riddle Sr.) 

> Montavila47:
><snip> The entire Tonks/Lupin
> storyline is unsatisfying.  We get these two characters with great
> potential.  <snip> 
> 
> And then, when she gets happy again, she nearly fades away
> completely.  It's like she's a Victorian women who must go
> into confinement during her pregnancy.

a_svirn:
I think it is a bit unjust. I too find the entire Lupin/Tonks 
storyline unsatisfying, but as for her "confinement", what else could 
she have done? She couldn't very well continue to work for the 
Ministry, could she? As for the Order, the whole organization seemed 
to have gone into "confinement", albeit with less satisfying results. 
a_svirn.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  3 11:10:25 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 11:10:25 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <fqg2tq+sajk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqgmb1+ava8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181847

> Chapter 15, The Goblin's Revenge
> 
> 
> Questions for Discussion:
> 
> 1. The chapter opens with the burial of Moody's eye. Might this
> be viewed as foreshadowing of the death of the trust among the
> trio at the close of the chapter?

a_svirn:
I never thought of it. What strikes me, though, is this curious 
preoccupation with what is considered in canon "proper" burial 
ceremonies. OK for Dobby, but the Eye's burial is no less grotesque 
than that of Aragog. And why not use magic? It is as though the 
author is at pains to point out that Dumbledore's funeral was 
*im*proper in some way. 

 
> 3. Harry's belief about the importance of identifying the
> thief and his hypothesis about Hogwarts being a likely place
> to locate a Horcrux are also rejected. Were the weeks of
> wandering and wondering worse for the trio than the risks
> of following these leads?

a_svirn:
I am not sure Harry's conviction can be called a "hypothesis". After 
all he had no idea *where* in Hogwarts, and none of them came up with 
the obvious suggestion of interviewing the Ravenclaw's ghost. As for 
the thief I think it was perfectly reasonable to for Harry to try to 
puzzle out his identity. Besides, it wasn't like he had anything 
better to do. They were stuck as far as the Horcruxes were concerned. 

> 4. Ron's intuition about the danger of speaking "Voldemort"
> is repeatedly met with skepticism and derision as well. What
> themes about faith, trust and open-mindedness can be articulated
> based on these scenarios in the chapter?

a_svirn:
Well, it *did* sound like a superstition. And all role models in 
Harry's life ? Sirius, Lupin and most of all Dumbledore used 
Voldemort's name. For Harry to suddenly stop using it would be like 
giving ground. 

 
> 5. What ? besides the corrosive effects of the Horcrux ? could
> account for the paralysis created by Harry, Ron and Hermione
> not taking each other's instincts seriously?

a_svirn:
Danger? Privations? Being isolated, not knowing what was happening to 
their friends and families? Feeling out of their depth, unequal to 
their task? Any of the above would be daunting, but the combination 
is really overwhelming. 
> 
> 6. If food is the first of five principal exemptions to Gamp's
> Law of Elemental Transfiguration, what could the other four
> exemptions be? And what could be the basis for these exemptions
> ? the direct interaction between the element and the physical
> body of a human?

a_svirn:
I think the whole thing is nonsense. If I can turn a table into a 
pig, why cannot I have pork chops? That Gamp business is among 
Rowling's sloppier inventions. 
> 
> 7. Can the Weasley's ability to provide ample food while still
> living in relative Wizarding poverty point to possibilities for
> the other four exemptions?  (Ever so much more intriguing than
> questions about the uses for dragons blood)

a_svirn:
I don't think the Weasleys live in poverty. They are not affluent, 
but they make ends meet. 

> 
> 8. Did you, at Phineas Nigellus Black's revelation that
> Snape "punished" Ginny, Neville and Luna by sending them
> on a field trip with Hagrid, marvel at Harry still not
> grasping Snape's possible (probable? obvious?) loyalty
> towards Dumbledore's cause??? Why or why not?

a_svirn:
I don't see how Harry could possibly grasp anything of the sort. He 
had seen Dumbledore's murder with his own eyes after all. Besides, 
his own memorable detention in PS was by no means a walk on the 
beach. 
> 
> 9. The characterization of the Goblins as a separatist, self-
> interested race is very reminiscent of the dwarf races in both
> Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia.
> Do any other fictional or real-world equivalents or parallels
> come to mind?

a_svirn:
The Jews of the anti-Jewish propaganda. Insulated, avaricious, 
spiteful, blood-thirsty, and dishonest. And yet ? in charge of the 
Gentile's finances. 

a_svirn, thanking Dananotdayna for interesting questions. 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  3 14:37:07 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:37:07 -0000
Subject: Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy
In-Reply-To: <fqd8r9+qm9s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqh2ej+sn4n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181848

zanooda said:
> >  
> > > I was wondering: if DD had died from the cave poison, were 
> > > we supposed to think that it was LV who killed him?
> >
> >  --- and later zanooda said ---
> >
> > Yeah, maybe it would :-). OTOH, DD didn't expect to die from the
> > potion, at least that's what he told Harry.
> 
> Mike:
> See now, you've called the cave's green goo both potion and poison. 
> What I want to know is what makes us think this stuff was "poison"? 
> Dumbledore didn't expect to die from it. Kreacher *didn't* die from 
> it. 
> 
> Everything we know says the potion caused a nasty reaction of 
> recalling past indiscretions and an intense thirst. It was this 
> thirst thing, dipping into the lake and activating the inferi, that 
> was supposed to cause death. The boat was supposed to allow only one 
> wizarding passenger so nobody would be available to help the person 
> that drank the potion. 
> 
> Why would it be made poisonous? Could it have included a poison if it 
> had all those other qualities? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking 
> Voldemort and his ego would have enjoyed the idea of first torturing 
> then have the inferi finish the trespasser off, and no need for a 
> backup for his brilliant trap. HE would think it undefeatable. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree with zanooda that the potion is also a poison (both poisons
and antidotes are apparently taught in Potions class). Yes, it causes
the victim to relive his worst memories and want to die, but we also
see it weakening Dumbledore, who at one point looks like he's going to
die, and it causes such torment (beyond thirst--I think it must feel
as if the person's insides are on fire) that he screams in agony and
says something like, "I want to die! KILL ME!" If it were only thirst,
he would be able to wait to get back to the shore, past the Inferi. I
think that he would have died in agony had Harry not splashed the few
drops of water on his face (at least one drop of which must have
gotten into his mouth). Neither Kreacher nor Regulus could endure the
thirst, burning pain, or whatever agony the potion/poison caused. both
were forced to drink the water. (Kreacher, fortunately, escaped the
consequences of doing so.) Dumbledore is still so weak that he needs
Harry to side-along-apparate him to Hogsmeade and twice asks him to
summon Snape. He tells Harry in his usual understated manner, "That
potion was no health drink." It's only the stimulus of the Dark Mark
that gives him the energy to fly to the tower. After that, he quickly
loses stamina again; the strain of talking to Draco and then the DEs
causes him to slip farther down the wall he's leaning against for
support. Amycus comments that DD looks like he's dying.

All in all, I'd say that, yes, that potion was a poison, and DD might
well have died from it had he not forced himself to stay alive long
enough to be killed by Snape (which was still important to his plans
even without the Elder Wand--he still didn't want Draco to kill him
and he still needed Snape alive and trusted by LV).

> Mike:
> I don't give wands credit for quite the degree of sentience that 
Ollivander seemed to credit them. I think Ollie was a bit of a 
romantic (and, let's face it, a wand geek) prone to exaggerate wand 
capabilities.
> 
> My Take: 
> Wands absorb the magic imprint of the wizard the uses them. They
also recognize other wands that they encounter, especially other wands
that act magically upon them. <snip>

Carol:
I'd say that Ollivander is also right about some wands being more
powerful than others and about wands being particularly suited for,
say, Charms or Transfiguration. It also seems clear from SS/PS that
the wand does choose the wizard, and, at least some of the time (and
JKR is not consistent here), a wand that has no affinity for a wizard
and that has not been won by him doesn't work as well as his own wand.
Also, of course, a wand (in the hands of a somewhat skilled wizard,
old enough, experienced enough, and powerful enough to have mastered
nonverbal spells) can understand intention, not just spoken
incantations. And a wand can sense a wizard's emotions (sparks coming
out of Snape's wand when he's angry in PoA). I know you don't credit
JKR's interviews, and neither do I in general, but the interview
segment in which she refers to wands as "quasi-sentient" is
interesting in showing how she "intends" us to view wands. If you want
to disregard interviews, then we're left with our authority on wands,
Ollivander, whose remarks after a long life spent studying wands I see
no reason to disregard. (The man can tell what the core of a wand is,
and, IIRC, exactly how long it is, not to mention the wand wood, which
he probably recognizes instantly, just by looking at it, not just the
wands he made himself, however long ago, but even wands he's never
seen before, like Krum's, which he also recognizes as a Gregorovitch
creation. And, of course, he knows about Priori Incantem and the Elder
Wand, but not the legend of the Deathly Hallows. If we can't trust him
as an authoritiy on wands, we're left with no one.)

Mike:
> I've been hard on DD in the past for his ridiculous penchant for 
secrecy as well as his poor leadership style. But this is one place 
where I can't really fault him. His intention was good, and there 
really wasn't any right answer to this EW dilemma. I *don't* think he
 intended to set Snape up, even though that's what happened.

Carol responds:
Exactly.

Carol, happy to agree with Mike on one point, at least!





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  3 15:07:22 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:07:22 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqgjbe+54b7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqh47a+u2l3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181849

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Montavilla47:
> > But maybe I'm being unfair to cite the negative outcomes
> > for children who have working mothers.  After all, we have
> > negative outcomes for children of non-working mothers.
> > Draco becomes a Death Eater (or does he?  We never do 
> > know if he gets the mark) in spite of his mother's devotion.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Does it matter? Would his actions be more contemptible if he had the 
> mark? I don't think so, especially since he didn't really have any 
> choice in the matter. It would have been Voldemort's choice. 

Montavilla47:
I don't think it really matters.  It was just something that struck
me as I was writing the post.  We never did find out if Draco
wore the dark mark.  Then I started to wonder if, if Draco had
gotten the dark mark, if he would have been standing on that
platform in the epilogue, or if he would have been in Azkaban
instead.

Another thing I wonder about that dark mark.  Do you think
that Snape went around thinking "All is well" for the years
up to GoF because his dark mark didn't hurt? Maybe so. :)

> > Montavilla47: 
> > And I'm not trying to bash JKR about her portrayal of
> > either mothers or non-mothers.  I'm just pointing
> > out that she seems to be a lot of power into mother
> > love--the other side of which is that women without
> > children tend end looking inconsequential and those
> > who divide their attention between work and children
> > end up with bad kids.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Try as I might I don't see any direct correlation between mother's 
> Love and child's morals. Take orphans for instance: Riddle is the 
> evil personified, Harry is the good personified. Neither one of them 
> knew what's it like to be loved by a mother (or a father for that 
> matter). Neville is a good guy too, but then he had his grandmother 
> to love him. The same with career ? Lily didn't work, but then, 
> neither did Merope. And to muddle the picture further neither did 
> James (nor, for all we know, did Tom Riddle Sr.) 

Montavilla47:
Yes, people are definitely making excellent points.  I concede 
completely.  Although, I would say that Harry did have a loving
mother and father for one year of his life.  I think that may have
had a lot to do with the different choices he made.

> > Montavila47:
> ><snip> The entire Tonks/Lupin
> > storyline is unsatisfying.  We get these two characters with great
> > potential.  <snip> 
> > 
> > And then, when she gets happy again, she nearly fades away
> > completely.  It's like she's a Victorian women who must go
> > into confinement during her pregnancy.
> 
> a_svirn:
> I think it is a bit unjust. I too find the entire Lupin/Tonks 
> storyline unsatisfying, but as for her "confinement", what else could 
> she have done? She couldn't very well continue to work for the 
> Ministry, could she? As for the Order, the whole organization seemed 
> to have gone into "confinement", albeit with less satisfying results. 
> a_svirn.

Montavilla47:
I was being unclear.  I don't think it was JKR's intention at all to
advocate a Victorian approach to pregnancy.  I was just struck as
I read the book how Tonks seems to vanish completely.  She's
there for the trip from Privet Drive to the Burrow.  The next time
you see her, she's there for a couple minutes, and then she's
climbing over the fence to get away.  I don't believe we see her
at the wedding?  Or do we?  I can't remember.

Then, although we see and hear from Lupin occasionally, and
we see order members Arthur, Bill, and Fleur, and we run 
into Ted Tonks again, we never see Tonks until she shows up
for the fight at the end, after having given birth.

Of course, we don't Ginny either, except as a dot.  It's probably
nothing to do with any squeamishness about pregancy and
probably more to do with not wanting any cheerful young
ladies around during the general angst.  (Hermione doesn't 
count.  She's a young lady, but she's anything but cheerful.)





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  3 15:21:30 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:21:30 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqd97o+m697@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqh51q+rrsi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181850

Alla quoted:
> "On the other side of the Hall Draco Malfoy's eagle owl had landed
on his shoulder, carrying what looked like his usual supply of sweets
and cakes from home" - p.194
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh yeah, I never ever bought Malfoys being strict parents to Draco
and especially fanfics where Draco is portrayed as abused by Lucius.
This quote is one of the reason why. I think JKR always showed Draco
as being extremely spoiled, adored child. IMO of course.

Carol responds:
I never thought that Draco was abused, but there's definitely a
contrast between Lucius's treatment of him, for example, in CoS where
he orders Draco not to touch anything and tells him he should be
ashamed to get marks lower than those of "a girl of no wizarding
family" (quoted from memory) and Narcissa's Petunialike indulgence.
She's the one who doesn't want her son to go to Durmstrang because
it's too far from home. Until Lucius is arrested, Draco is always
saying things like, "Wait till my father hears about this," as if he
views his father as a symbol of power and authority (and, of course,
he's extremely upset by Lucius's arrest). I'd say that it's a
combination of soft mother, strict father (IMO, he loves his mother
and respects his father, at least until his arrest--though perhaps
there's a bit of respect for Narcissa and love for Lucius, as well). 

Alla quoted: 
> "Indeed, whenever Harry saw the two of them together - at mealtimes,
or when they passed  in the corridors - he had the distinct 
impression that Snape was avoiding Moody's eye, whether magical or 
normal" - p.210
> 
Alla:
> 
> In light of Snape being loyal to the light, I suddenly realized that
I am not quite sure why would he be avoiding Moody's eye if he has no
clue that Moody is a Fake one here.
> 
> I mean, if he thinks Moody is the real Moody, why would he care much
if Moody does not trust him, no scratch that, why would he worry much
as long as he knows that Dumbledore trusts him?
> 
> Now, if he suspects that Moody maybe Fake, Snape avoiding him makes
sense, I guess, but he does not suspect, his surprise at the end 
seems to be real.

Carol:
That's a tough one and I don't know the answer. However, I think that
anyone except maybe Dumbledore feels uncomfortable under the magical
eye, and Snape knows that the real Moody doesn't trust him, so that
makes him uncomfortable, too. And yet Snape can out-Occlumens
*Voldemort*, so it's odd that he would be discomposed by the man he
thinks is Moody. If he suspected "Moody" to be an imposter, I think
he'd be deliberately making eye contact, at least with the normal eye,
to use Legilimency on him. That he doesn't do so suggests that he
attributes Fake!Moody's very real dislike of him as "a Death Eater who
walked free" to his lack of punishment rather than an unwillingness to
acknowledge and suffer for his "master." Anyway, as intelligent as
Snape is and as touchy as his relationship with "Moody" is and as
skilled at Legilimency and Occlumency as Snape is, it's clear that he
doesn't suspect Moody as being anything but the paranoid, half-crazy
ex-Auror that everyone else, even Dumbledore, thinks he is. Otherwise,
Snape would surely have reported to DD that "Moody" had the Marauder's
Map (which DD doesn't know about until the end of GoF).

Alla quoted: 
> "The dormitory was completely silent, and had he been less 
preoccupied, Harry would have realized that the absense of Neville's 
usual snores meant that he was not the only one lying awake" - p.227
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How wonderfully she writes Neville's distress after that lesson, I 
think.
> 
> No hysterics, or anything, just show Neville not being able to sleep. 
> Love it.
> 
Carol:
Yes, a very subtle slip outside the usual Harrycentric point of view.
We're shown what Harry *isn't* aware of. Fortunately, he overcomes his
blindness to Neville's distress later in the book when he sees his
first Pensieve memory and learnss why Neville was raised by his
grandmother.

Alla quoted: 
> "We'll try that again, Potter and the rest of you, pay attention - 
watch his eyes, that's where you see it - very good, Potter very good
indeed! They'll have trouble controlling you" - p.232
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I need a refresher again. I do remember discussions about why Fake 
Moody taught Harry how to fight Imperius. I remember not very 
convincing to me argument that he wanted to see that somebody can 
control a curse he could not, but if he is actively trying to give 
Harry to his master, why would he do it?

Carol responds:
First, I don't think that teaching Harry to resist the Imperius Curse
was his original intention. And he didn't really *teach* Harry so much
as allow him to teach himself (and perhaps part of him got a sadistic
pleasure just from casting that curse on the Boy who Lived, just as he
surely received sadistic pleasure from the prolonged Crucio of the
spider). I think our clue is "They'll have trouble controlling you!"
Who could "they" be? IMO, people who don't want Harry to win the
tournament and have no scruples about casting an Imperius Curse on
him. I think he means primarily Karkaroff and secondarily Krum and
Snape (both of whom he'd be misjudging if I'm correct). Certainly,
he's not talking about anyone controlling Harry after he's been
Port-Keyed to Voldemort, whom Barty assumes is more than a match for
Harry. But, as usual, his words have a double meaning; "they" *seems*
to refer to Voldemort and his DEs, just as his resentment of DEs who
"walked free" seems to refer to DEs whose crimes went unpunished (as
the real Moody would feel).

Carol, who thinks that Fake!Moody must have used Draco's eagle owl to
communicate with Voldemort as there's also an eagle owl in Harry's
dream and he sees one returning to the castle not long before, IIRC







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar  3 15:45:13 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:45:13 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqh47a+u2l3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqh6e9+dhrt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181851

 
> Montavilla47:

> 
> Another thing I wonder about that dark mark.  Do you think
> that Snape went around thinking "All is well" for the years
> up to GoF because his dark mark didn't hurt? Maybe so. :)

Potioncat:
I think Draco had the mark. If not during HBP, certainly over the 
summer before DH. He's in meetings with the DEs and LV and serving like 
a full DE.

The whole reason for Snape's promise to protect Harry after Lily's 
death, was because DD knew LV was still in existance. Snape wouldn't 
have had reason to promise if he didn't think so too. 

He may have gotten comfortable. He may have started to develop 
compassion. He may have started to see the real error of his ways. But 
I don't think he ever thought "all is well." 





From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Mon Mar  3 15:48:32 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 06:48:32 -0900
Subject: Draco and Dark Mark (Was: Working mothers)
In-Reply-To: <fqh47a+u2l3@eGroups.com>
References: <fqh47a+u2l3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <46321730-37FF-45E3-BA29-F0CEF4556C8B@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181852


On 2008, Mar 03, , at 06:07, montavilla47 wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>>
>>> Montavilla47:
>>> Draco becomes a Death Eater (or does he?  We never do
>>> know if he gets the mark) in spite of his mother's devotion.
>>
>> a_svirn:
>> Does it matter? Would his actions be more contemptible if he had the
>> mark? I don't think so, especially since he didn't really have any
>> choice in the matter. It would have been Voldemort's choice.
>
> Montavilla47:
> I don't think it really matters.  It was just something that struck
> me as I was writing the post.  We never did find out if Draco
> wore the dark mark.  Then I started to wonder if, if Draco had
> gotten the dark mark, if he would have been standing on that
> platform in the epilogue, or if he would have been in Azkaban
> instead.

I think it matters whether Draco got the Dark Mark or not, because
of the consequences to him.  Personally, I think he did get the
Dark Mark, because of the new sense of entitlement he exhibits
in the first part of HBP.  He is full of the fervor of someone who
recently joined a group that has power in people's eyes.  At that
point, like Regulus, he has not realized what it can do to him and
to his family.

The thing is, once he figured out how much VM was trying to
utterly destroy his family, he couldn't get out and he knew it.  His
circumstances were different - his family KNEW about his involvement
and would be punished for its failure.  And Draco never does show
the courage that Harry shows.  (He was correctly NOT placed in
Gryffindor.)

And, as to the last question: whether he would have been standing
on the platform in the epilogue, I would also say, yes, he would.  If
Snape had lived and had had a reason to be there, he would be, so
would Ludo Bagman, both of whom had Dark Marks.  Furthermore,
I think Harry would be the one to insure that he was able to get there.
Harry could testify that Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore and that the
only reason he continued with his promise to try was that he truly
thought that it was the only way to save his family.

I think Draco's eventual redemption is BECAUSE of his mother.
She showed unwavering love towards him and towards his
father.  It is Draco's love of his family that helps him see the
problems with Voldemort's world.

Laura Walsh
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



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




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Mar  3 17:55:01 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:55:01 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
References: <fqh47a+u2l3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <012501c87d57$b5617930$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 181853

Montavilla47:
I don't think it really matters.  It was just something that struck
me as I was writing the post.  We never did find out if Draco
wore the dark mark.  Then I started to wonder if, if Draco had
gotten the dark mark, if he would have been standing on that
platform in the epilogue, or if he would have been in Azkaban
instead.

Another thing I wonder about that dark mark.  Do you think
that Snape went around thinking "All is well" for the years
up to GoF because his dark mark didn't hurt? Maybe so. :)

Shelley:
Having a Dark Mark alone wouldn't have been enough to send someone to 
Azkaban. He family ended up turning on Voldemort, and if they showed real 
repentance in the end (especially with all their money, if it was used to 
rebuild and/or help some of the children of the murdered parents), then I 
could see Harry, if he did indeed become Head of the Auror department, put 
in a good word for Draco and his family.

There's a scene where the trio is taken captive, and they are sent back to 
the Malfoy Manor- Draco's job is to identify Harry, Ron and Hermione. But, 
he doesn't, and he acts rather noncommittal at that point. It's the adults 
who absolutely finger the girl as Hermione, then deduce that the red head 
must be Ron, and if they had Ron and Hermione, then the puffy faced one must 
be Harry. You get a feeling that Draco, after being forced to torture people 
at Voldemort's request, really isn't for that lifestyle. Like it sounded all 
cool and everything from a distance, but seeing Voldemort up-close, started 
changing his mind.

We see Draco at the Room of Requirement trying to capture Harry (the only 
way to end the battle), but again, he's concerned about the diadem, and 
about keeping Harry alive. He asks his two buddies to show restraint. Crabb 
casts Crucio, and aims an Avada Kedavra at Hermione and again at Ron, and 
starts the Fiendfyre which eventually kills him. It seems that Crabb in 
particular, has a lust for the Darkest of Arts, but not the brains to know 
how to use them. Malfoy doesn't just run for his life when the fire comes, 
he's trying to do as Harry is doing- making sure to take someone with him.

And then Narcissa lies to Voldemort, after Harry tells her that he son is 
still alive. Her act saves Harry from being killed a 2nd time. The Malfoys 
entered the castle with Voldemort, but instead of fighting with Voldemort, 
they merely look for Draco. Draco's parents have a change of heart in the 
end, a change of heart that could have kept them from Azkaban as well. The 
Death Eaters that remained Death Eaters until the end either got death 
themselves or Azkaban, but the Malfoys all stopped being Death Eaters while 
Voldemort was still alive. So, I think they received leniency- punished 
lightly if they were punished at all. I also think that if you looked on the 
arms of the Death Eaters, the Mark would be gone. That Mark tied them to 
Voldemort, and when Voldemort died, I think that connection would have died 
with him. Spell ended, mark fade into nothing at all but normal skin. So, if 
my theory is correct, they could have looked for a Mark on Draco, and it 
wouldn't be there, because it would be on none of the Death Eaters anymore. 




From groenima at hotmail.com  Mon Mar  3 15:03:00 2008
From: groenima at hotmail.com (groenima)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:03:00 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <fqgmb1+ava8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqh3v4+v2s9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181854

> >
> > 1. The chapter opens with the burial of Moody's eye. Might this
> > be viewed as foreshadowing of the death of the trust among the
> > trio at the close of the chapter?
>
> a_svirn:
> I never thought of it. What strikes me, though, is this curious
> preoccupation with what is considered in canon "proper" burial
> ceremonies. OK for Dobby, but the Eye's burial is no less grotesque
> than that of Aragog. And why not use magic? It is as though the
> author is at pains to point out that Dumbledore's funeral was
> *im*proper in some way.
>

These burial scenes all make me think of the times my children have
buried pets.  There's no option, of course, for a "real" funeral, but
they still have a need to express their sadness and sense of loss and
love and  want to mark the death correctly by imitating the real
thing.

And I think it was important to them to bury the eye because it had
been used in such an ugly and disrespectful way by the other side.  As
for the lack of magic...perhaps it's because magic led to the person
dying?  Or that they recognize that once a wizard has died, he/she is
as human as anyone else?  Maybe using magic is, in some way, showing
off something you have that the other person doesn't, any more, and
so it's more respectful to do without it?

groenima.





From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Mon Mar  3 15:44:59 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:44:59 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: 15, The Goblin's Revenge
References: <fqg2tq+sajk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005101c87d45$ac0d0910$70ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1>

No: HPFGUIDX 181855

>8. Did you, at Phineas Nigellus Black's revelation that
>Snape "punished" Ginny, Neville and Luna by sending them
>on a field trip with Hagrid, marvel at Harry still not
>grasping Snape's possible (probable? obvious?) loyalty
>towards Dumbledore's cause??? Why or why not?

Well, I didn't expect Harry to figure out any potential good aspects 
of Snape until confronted with something like the memory dump to come 
near the end of the book.  However, this was the moment when I felt 
that I knew for the first time where Snape's true loyalties were.  Up 
till that disclosure I could never make up my mind.  There were so 
many good arguments for both the "evil Snape" and the "Dumbledore's 
Man Snape" theories, I could never decide between them.  But when I 
read about the punishment of Ginny, Neville and Luna by sending them 
into the forbidden forest with Hagrid I KNEW.  For one thing, it 
showed that Hagrid was still at Hogwarts, as game keeper at least and 
possibly as teacher.  Snape hadn't gotten rid of such a loyal 
Dumbledore supporter as Hagrid when he became headmaster under a Lord 
V. controlled ministry, and this form of punishment was the perfect 
method for Snape the double agent but loyal to Dumbledore and his 
plans.  Apparently nasty and dangerous enough to satisfy the death 
eaters without doing any lasting harm with Hagrid and Fang to watch 
over them.

Jerri





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  3 20:01:27 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:01:27 -0000
Subject: Tonks's pregnancy (Was: Working mothers in the series )
In-Reply-To: <fqecnk+rgn2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqhlen+ld8a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181856

Kemper wrote:
> > I guess I assumed she left because her pregnancy was an
abomination in the eyes of those in power.  If DH was book aimed at
adults, I could see those in power attempting to force an abortion on
Tonks, allowing her to live to set an example for others.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, that is possible I agree. I am not talking about temporary
forced leave by people in power though, I am talking about Tonks
leaving work to stay home because she wanted to, you know?
> 
> I think if she left the way you describe, she always hoped to return
after the light wins. IMO of course.
>
Carol responds:
I think that Kemper is right. Tonks had barely learned that she was
pregnant when the MoM was taken over by Yaxley and other Death Eaters
(along with an Impeirused puppet minister). I doubt that she could
have kept her job even as the wife of a werewolf, much less the
prospective mother of a half-werewolf. Under normal circumstances,
pregnant Aurors could probably keep their jobs, and I see no reason
for Tonks to *choose* not to keep hers (or at least work in an office
to avoid endangering the child while she's pregnant). After all, her
spell-casting ability (or office skills, if any) would not be affected
by pregnancy. (I'm not sure about Metamorphmagus abilities: would
Tonks be limited to posing as some other pregnant woman?) However,
with the DEs in charge of the MoM, neither she nor her unborn child
would be safe. She might even be considered a criminal for marrying
and becoming pregnant by a so-called part-human.

If we accept OoP rather than GoF as our authority for Alice
Longbottom, she was apparently still an Auror when her son was a
toddler (no indication whether she took a leave of absence shortly
before or after the birth), but the department hadn't been taken over
by the enemy then, and her child, unlike Tonks's child, was a
Pure-Blood. Again, Alice may have transferred to a desk job to protect
her unborn child from dangerous spells (or avoid being killed in
action herself, which would take the child along with her), but
there's no indication that she stopped being an Auror. But I doubt
that Tonks would have had any such option.

IOW, we can't judge working mothers by Tonks, whose predicament is
unique. (I don't know of any other Aurors married to werewolves; I
doubt that it's happened before.) Even if she weren't pregnant, I
can't see her keeping her job with DEs in charge of the Ministry.

Carol, counting Alice Longbottom as another working mother despite
appearances to the contrary in GoF




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Mon Mar  3 20:39:10 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:39:10 -0000
Subject: Draco and Dark Mark (Was: Working mothers)
In-Reply-To: <46321730-37FF-45E3-BA29-F0CEF4556C8B@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fqhnle+lhfv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181857

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh <lwalsh at ...> 
wrote:
>
> snip> 
> > Harry could testify that Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore and that the
> only reason he continued with his promise to try was that he truly
> thought that it was the only way to save his family.
> 
> I think Draco's eventual redemption is BECAUSE of his mother.
> She showed unwavering love towards him and towards his
> father.  It is Draco's love of his family that helps him see the
> problems with Voldemort's world.
> 
> Laura Walsh
> -- 
> Also I think that Harry  Ron and Hermoine saving his life twice could 
have helped. He had no reason to ever think that they would do this

Jayne
Being Charitable to Draco




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Mon Mar  3 23:09:17 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:09:17 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <fqg2tq+sajk@eGroups.com>
References: <fqg2tq+sajk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3B523555-0663-4871-BFE2-B5388814D43B@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181858


On 2008, Mar 02, , at 20:39, Dana King wrote:

> Questions for Discussion:
>
> 1. The chapter opens with the burial of Moody's eye. Might this
> be viewed as foreshadowing of the death of the trust among the
> trio at the close of the chapter?

To me, it represented closure, instead of foreshadowing.
Moody was gone; his body was dealt with by the Death
Eaters, with the exception of the eye.  The eye was the
only thing left to Harry to bury, but since even the eye was
not really a part of Moody's body, but rather a useable
device, the burial needed to be secret.  I think it foreshadows
the Elder Wand more than the death of trust.  The eye is
buried anonymously, where no one but Harry knows.  The
Elder Wand was buried with Dumbledore, a fact that people
can know and figure out - and which plays and important
part in the rest of the story.

> 2. Hermione's suggestion that it is too dangerous to wear the
> Horcrux is overruled by Harry who insists it must be worn in
> shifts for security. Would the evil influence of the locket
> have been lessened or avoided if Hermione's instinct had not
> been summarily rejected and the Horcrux had been stored on
> their persons in her beaded bag or Harry's moleskin bag?

If the Horcrux is put in Hermione's beaded bag, she is, in
effect, carrying it all of the time.  The same could be said
for Harry's moleskin bag.  In addition, there would be a great
danger in putting the Horcrux in Harry's bag.  What if Harry
were unconscious or somehow unable to retrieve the
Horcrux when it became possible to destroy it?  The question
I have is why does the distribution of wearing the Horcrux
have to be equal?  Since it affects Ron more strongly, why
not shorten his wearing shifts?  It doesn't seem to bother
Hermione or Harry as much.

> 3. Harry's belief about the importance of identifying the
> thief and his hypothesis about Hogwarts being a likely place
> to locate a Horcrux are also rejected. Were the weeks of
> wandering and wondering worse for the trio than the risks
> of following these leads?

I think they might have been more willing to follow these
possibilities if Harry had been able to suggest a reason or
a goal.  If he had suggested talking to the Ravenclaw ghost
or even talking to Nearly Headless Nick about Ravenclaw
or Gryffindor history, Ron and Hermione might have gone
along.  As for identifying the thief, what COULD they have
done?

> 9. The characterization of the Goblins as a separatist, self-
> interested race is very reminiscent of the dwarf races in both
> Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia.
> Do any other fictional or real-world equivalents or parallels
> come to mind?

The fairies in the Artemis Fowl books are similar.

Laura Walsh
-- 
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 Mar  4 00:00:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:00:09 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <fqg2tq+sajk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqi3e9+9vd5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181859

> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,
> Chapter 15, The Goblin's Revenge
> 
> "The sword of Gryffindor was hidden they knew not where, and
> they were three teenagers in a tent whose only achievement was
> not, yet, to be dead."

> <snip admirable summary: I loved your starting with that quotation
and "extendable earshot." :-)>

Carol comments:

I would add that we know a few things about Dirk Cresswell, whose last
name you didin't provide. He was the former head of the Goblin Liaison
Office (which partially explains the presence of the two Goblins in
the party--note that he translates a comment in Gobbledygook for Ted
and Dean--and he was one of Slughorn's ex-Slug Club members (Carol
grants points to Slughorn for recommending a Muggle-born). One of the
men who speaks to Runcorn!Harry on the elevator credits Runcorn with
revealing Cresswell's family tree and hopes to get his job. (I can
find the page numbers for this info if anyone wants them.)

Questions for Discussion:
> 
> 1. The chapter opens with the burial of Moody's eye. Might this be
viewed as foreshadowing of the death of the trust among the trio at
the close of the chapter?

Carol responds:

I didn't get that feeling at all. It's the closest thing in the book
to a Christian burial (Harry marks the grave with a crude cross). i
thought it was a moving and significant gesture from Harry (though he
didn't share it with the others). Possibly, it helped to assuage his
guilt for taking the eye and revealing their presence; OTOH, I can see
why he didn't want Umbridge to have the eye and didn't want to use it
himself, useful as it might have been if they'd figured out a way to
use it. I think he was making up to it, or to the dead Mad-eye, for
the degradation of being used by the foul Umbridge to spy on her own
people. I don't see any foreshadowing; mor like closure. Harry didn't
get a chance to bury Hedwig or say good-bye to her (or to his
godfather earlier). At least he can do a bit for all that remains of
Mad-Eye. I think we see in this scene, as we do when Harry digs
Dobby's grave, that honoring and decently burying the dead helps to
heal the survivors, and a private ceremony is as good as if not better
than a splendid funeral like Dumbledore's. IOW, ritual, especially in
relation to death, serves a deep-seated human need.
> 
> 2. Hermione's suggestion that it is too dangerous to wear the
Horcrux is overruled by Harry who insists it must be worn in shifts
for security. Would the evil influence of the locket have been
lessened or avoided if Hermione's instinct had not been summarily
rejected and the Horcrux had been stored on their persons in her
beaded bag or Harry's moleskin bag?
> 
Carol:
Forgive me, but it's mokeskin, as zanooda pointed out to me soon after
DH came out. Hagrid's birthday present to Harry can only be opened by
the owner, but I'm not sure that it would protect Harry from the evil
influence of the Horcrux. It might not even be large enough to hold a
locket the size of a chicken's egg (only flatter??) with the items it
already had in it. And possibly putting it in the beaded bag isn't the
best idea, either, since, as Harry knows from experience, Horcruxes
don't respond to Summoning Charms, and it would be hard to find it by
fishing around among all those other items (which is why he resorted
to a summong charm for the Dittany). And, yet, it does seem like a
really stupid idea (not to mention to reminiscent of a certain ring
worn on a chain around the neck of a certain Hobbit) to wear the
thing. Are they afraid of losing it? Surely, they're not going to
fight over who gets to put it in their pocket. I would think that
putting it inside a pillowcase or medicine cabinet safely in the tent
but away from their bodies would be safest--unless, of course, Snape
hadn't delivered the Sword of Gryffindor and it had been in the tent
when the Snatchers caught them. That would have been disastrous!

> 3. Harry's belief about the importance of identifying the thief and
his hypothesis about Hogwarts being a likely place to locate a Horcrux
are also rejected. Were the weeks of wandering and wondering worse for
the trio than the risks of following these leads?

Carol:
Well, the identity of the thief isn't really a lead as far as the
Horcrux hunt is concerned. It ties in with the Hallows (and knowing
what Voldemort is up to). At least Harry knows that Voldemort is both
sidetracked from his takeover of Hogwarts and then the British WW and
perhaps WW!Europe after that, and stymied as well. (And he'd have
stayed that way if only they hadn't made their later excursion to GH!)
As for Hogwarts, I'm not sure that they could have gotten in without
Aberforth's help. I can just see them charging into snape's office
under the Invisibility Cloak, to be greeted by DD's Portrait and Snape
together. (Snape would, of course, guess who had invisibly opened the
door.) I suppose that snape could have treated the three of them to a
Pensieve excursion, minus the crucial self-sacrifice memory to gain
Harry's trust and simply handed him the real Sword of Gryffindor, but
it wouldn't make much of a story, would it?
> 
> 4. Ron's intuition about the danger of speaking "Voldemort" is
repeatedly met with skepticism and derision as well. What themes about
faith, trust and open-mindedness can be articulated based on these
scenarios in the chapter?

Carol:
Obviously, the Horcrux is spreading discord, but part of the problem
can be traced to Dumbledore's teaching Harry not to fear Voldemort's
name. I think, and I'm probably alone in this thought, that the fear
had a basis, not in superstition like "Speak of the devil, and he'll
appear," but in speaking Voldemort's name leading to discovery by DEs
or LV himself. Even if there was no jinx last time (and I suspect
there was), anyone who spoke Voldemort's name would instantly reveal
himself to any DE within earshot as an enemy. But Ron has been urging
them not to say Voldemort's name without any intuitive sense that it's
jinxed for years now, and both Harry and Hermione simply tune him out
(one more reason for Ron to feel like a useless third wheel). Probably
they should have gone along with Ron for the sake of peace, but he was
being such a whiny little jerk that I can see why they didn't. Score
one point for the Horcrux.
> 
> 5. What ? besides the corrosive effects of the Horcrux ? could
account for the paralysis created by Harry, Ron and Hermione not
taking each other's instincts seriously?

Carol:
Harry's history of being wrong, drastically so in the case of Sirius
Black's supposed captivity in the MoM, can't have helped. Neither can
lack of food, lack of a plan, and lack of guidance from Dumbledore,
whose legacy (a children's book, a Deluminator, and an old Snitch)
must seem frustratingly useless. Isolation (no way to correspond with
friends or even hear or read the news), and in Ron's case, fear for
his family, makes matters even worse. Even without the Horcrux, their
morale would be at its nadir at this point. (Well, not quite. I don't
want to jump ahead, but Ron's departure, grumpy though he was, doesn't
help matters, and they get worse before they get better.)
> 
> 6. If food is the first of five principal exemptions to Gamp's
> Law of Elemental Transfiguration, what could the other four
> exemptions be? And what could be the basis for these exemptions
> ? the direct interaction between the element and the physical
> body of a human?

Carol:
Don't ask me to provide a pseudoscientific basis! But I'll bet that
another of the exceptions is money (or gold, silver, gems, and
anything else of similar worth). Leprechaun gold doesn't last, and
Hermione's fake coins are worthless except as a means of
communication. If money and other sources of wealth could be conjured,
there would be no need for Goblins to mint coins and no need for any
Witch or Wizard to go without the necessities of life. Lupin wouldn't
look thin and sickly (he's healthier at Hogwarts) and wear shabby
robes. the Weasleys wouldn't have to scrimp and buy used books and
robes. Witches and Wizards wouldn't even need to work if they could
conjure money without earning it. (what that would do to the economy,
I can't begin to guess.) I don't think that they can conjure potions,
either, or there would be no need for cauldrons and the exact art and
science of potion-making, to paraphrase someone we're all familiar
with. As for furniture, clothing, and shelter, we see both DD and
McGonagall conjuring chairs, but I don't think that such conjured
furniture would last. And if a skilled Wizard can conjure a shelter,
why are Dirk Cresswell and Ted Tonks hiding in the open? And if robes
can be conjured, why does Remus Lupin dress so shabbily? (Someone
should have taught that man some "householdy" spells so that he could
at least mend them neatly!) So that's five: Food; money/gems/valuable
minerals; clothing; shelter; permanent furniture--in short, the
necessities of modern life. Oops, that leaves no room for potions!

Let's say that I'm wrong about furniture and shelter. Could Hogwarts
(and its plumbing) have been conjured? Might the purple chairs that DD
conjured at the MoM have been permanent if he hadn't vanished them? If
so, then what about living things? Will Hermione's conjured birds keep
on flying and singing or fade away like Leprechaun gold? I vote fade
away. And I doubt that conjured flowers like the orchids that
Ollivander sent from Fleur's wand have a permanent existence, either.)

Revised list: Food, money (and gems, gold, etc.), potions, living
things (plant or animal--and, of course, you can't conjure people!,
and one I haven't mentioned before: Wands. Which would mean that, if
you know how, you can conjure houses, furniture, and clothing. Which
makes me wonder why the Weasleys and Lupin don't do exactly that. Is
it be a matter of skill and power that only the specialists can
master? Otherwise, surely Dirk and Ted could have conjured a shelter
for themselves and Dean and the Goblins--and, of course, hidden it
with spells that a girl who should still be at Hogwarts can teach herself!

> 7. Can the Weasley's ability to provide ample food while still
living in relative Wizarding poverty point to possibilities for the
other four exemptions?  (Ever so much more intriguing than questions
about the uses for dragons blood)

Carol:
Well, I don't think that sauce that comes from Mrs. W's wand has any
nutritional value, and they have a garden and chickens. they probably
grow the potatoes and sprouts and what-not. (Maybe not the satsuma
that Mr. W. was peeling in HBP.) And Mrs. Weasley can magically knit
socks and sweaters, but she has to have yarn. And, again, we have
those second-hand robes, which makes me think that clothes should go
back on the list. I think, frankly, that you can conjure just about
anything, but making it real and permanent is another matter. 

> 8. Did you, at Phineas Nigellus Black's revelation that Snape
"punished" Ginny, Neville and Luna by sending them on a field trip
with Hagrid, marvel at Harry still not grasping Snape's possible
(probable? obvious?) loyalty towards Dumbledore's cause??? Why or why not?

Carol:
Well, I was still struggling my own conflicting emotions, really
needing and wanting Snape to be DDM and yet fearing that I had been
tricked and that I was fooling myself by explaining away his killing
of DD and George's ear and the information that he gave LV about
Harry. But the unexplained "cruel" punishment that didn't leave any
lasting damage had me intrigued, and when I found that it was
detention with Hagrid, I'm sure I laughed out loud and called HRH
morons for not figuring it out. Such an obvious clue! Such willful
blindness! And yet, I had my own moments of misreading Snape, too, and
fearing that they were right. (Advice to anyone who's listening; Never
wait in line till one a.m. to buy a 759-page book, start reading it at
2 a.m., and keep reading it with almost no break till you finish it!
It does not make for sane and sensible reactions.)

> 9. The characterization of the Goblins as a separatist, self-
interested race is very reminiscent of the dwarf races in both
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. Do any
other fictional or real-world equivalents or parallels come to mind?

Carol:
I'm not sure that I agree with you regarding Tolkien's Dwarves, who
are (at least in LOTR) figures of fierce dignity, secretive but not
greedy unless driven by some force (the Seven rings of the Dwarves?).
Gimli is both a representative of his "race" and a distinct
individual, and his friendship with Legolas is both amusing and
touching. Griphook (and to a lesser degree, Gornuk, whom we don't
really get to know) seems sneaky, conniving, glad to see a wizard
(seemingly) tricked by Goblins. He's distinctly unlikeable, and his
attitude toward other species is somewhere between hostility and
contempt. Goblins in general are, apparently, clever, malicious, and
ugly. I can't imagine an ancestor of Flitwick's marrying one (but then
I can't imagine Hagrid's father marrying a giantess, either). They're
not as bad as Tolkien's Orcs in LOTR, but they're not far from the
Goblins of "The Hobbit" (except that, mercifully, they don't sing!).
Griphook reminds me of Rumpelstiltskin, greedy and merciless (though
his just reward is not death but simply being magically robbed of the
sword that he unjustly claimed. (BTW, I know that some readers feel
sympathy for the Goblins, but I'm not one of them. They're simply
stereotyped fairytale beings used for JKR's own purposes, not
characters in whom I have any sort of emotional investment.
> 
> 10. The brief mention of the exploits of my beloved "other trio"
made me wish Rowling could have found a way to depart a bit more often
from her Harry-centric narrative. Are there any other "off-camera"
scenes you would wish you could have read?

Carol:
I would love to have seen Snape's welcoming speech and the efforts he
made to protect the students without blowing his cover, but, of
course, that would have ruined the plot. And, anyway, I'd rather
imagine them myself than have JKR's version. George's reaction to
Fred's death, maybe, but that might have been too painful. (Maybe
that's why she chose not to have him present?) Some memorial services,
maybe, so that we'd see the characters we were mourning properly
honored. I'd also like to know what Amycus Carrow taught the younger
students who didn't yet have "the nerve or the ability," to quote the
fleeing Prince of HBP.

Carol, thanking Dananotdayna for a fine and thought-provoking chapter
discussion





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 00:04:59 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:04:59 -0000
Subject: Wand Lore / Luna / Alchemy
In-Reply-To: <fqd8r9+qm9s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqi3nb+gj52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181860

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:

> See now, you've called the cave's green goo both potion and poison. 
> What I want to know is what makes us think this stuff was "poison"? 


Well, Mike, I usually call the "green goo" :-) potion, and I only
called it "poison" because I was answering a post (Potioncat's, iirc)
where it was  called "poison" :-). However, I don't see why we can't
suspect that the goo was poisonous, and I agree with both Zara and
Carol - it's very probable that DD could have died from the potion. 

We don't know what would have happened to DD if he was alone in the
cave, with no one to give him water - unlike Kreacher, he lost
consciousness after drinking the goo (Harry had to use "Rennervate"
spell on him) and he couldn't get to the water by himself. What if the
green goo was a poison, with water being the only antidote? Maybe DD
would have died if Harry wasn't there.

We also don't know what would have happened later, maybe the goo was
some slow acting poison, and DD would have died anyway, just not
immediately. Snape killed him before we could find out :-).


zanooda, thinking that the cave potion could easily be a poison :-)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 00:22:25 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:22:25 -0000
Subject: ShriekingShack/CauldronThickness/Birds/Florian/Mothers/GoFSnapeMoody/Ludo
In-Reply-To: <fqfdtf+9rdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqi4o1+r80v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181861

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:

> I like to think that Sirius waited in the Caribbean, which also
> includes the Barn Owl in its repertoire.


zanooda:

Isn't the Caribbean too far away from England? Can a hippogriff fly
such a long distance? And wouldn't Sirius want to be closer, just in
case? I thought he was somewhere in the Northern Africa, or maybe on
some islands, like Canary or Madeira :-).


> Catlady:  
 
> Why do owls seem 'un-African' to you? If you thought they needed 
> long cold winters, that excludes a lot of places besides Africa.


zanooda:

I have no idea why I thought owls were northern birds. Just ignorance,
I suppose :-).




From CatMcNulty at comcast.net  Mon Mar  3 14:52:29 2008
From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (Cat)
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:52:29 -0000
Subject: Working mothers
In-Reply-To: <fqeic4+q272@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqh3bd+rotm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181862

Let us take a moment to revere the most impressive and powerful mother
of all (creator of the entire Wizarding World) JKR herself!

~ Cat




From cookydclown at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 00:07:58 2008
From: cookydclown at yahoo.com (cookydclown)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:07:58 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <3B523555-0663-4871-BFE2-B5388814D43B@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fqi3su+761n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181863

> > Questions for Discussion:
> >
> > 1. The chapter opens with the burial of Moody's eye. Might this
> > be viewed as foreshadowing of the death of the trust among the
> > trio at the close of the chapter?

Cooky:
I see it more of a comfirmation of how serious their situation is.
Moody was a tough survivor of many dark attacks.  There was still the
hope he survived the flight from Privit Dr and was laying low till he
was needed.  This was just comfirmation they were on their own.


> > 2. Hermione's suggestion that it is too dangerous to wear the
> > Horcrux is overruled by Harry who insists it must be worn in
> > shifts for security. Would the evil influence of the locket
> > have been lessened or avoided if Hermione's instinct had not
> > been summarily rejected and the Horcrux had been stored on
> > their persons in her beaded bag or Harry's moleskin bag?

> Laura:
> If the Horcrux is put in Hermione's beaded bag, she is, in
> effect, carrying it all of the time.  The same could be said
> for Harry's moleskin bag.  In addition, there would be a great
> danger in putting the Horcrux in Harry's bag.  What if Harry
> were unconscious or somehow unable to retrieve the
> Horcrux when it became possible to destroy it?  The question
> I have is why does the distribution of wearing the Horcrux
> have to be equal?  Since it affects Ron more strongly, why
> not shorten his wearing shifts?  It doesn't seem to bother
> Hermione or Harry as much.

Cooky:
I agree, but I must also point out how much it cost them to get that
locket in the first place.  The Death of Dumbledore, Weeks of
planning, a large supply of their polyjuice potion, and the loss of
their refuge At 12 Grimmauld Pl.  I don't think Harry wanted to take
the chance it got lost or left behind.


> > 3. Harry's belief about the importance of identifying the
> > thief and his hypothesis about Hogwarts being a likely place
> > to locate a Horcrux are also rejected. Were the weeks of
> > wandering and wondering worse for the trio than the risks
> > of following these leads?

> Laura:
> As for identifying the thief, what COULD they have done?

Cooky:
Again I agree, the Blond thief had no tie in to the Horcruxes at that
time.  As for returning to Hogwarts, with it being a Hot Bed of DH
activity, the Trio being quickly recognized, limited escape routes,
not to mention endangering their friends, Hogwarts would (and was)
the last place they should go.  Besides  do you think Harry could
have gotten within spitting distance of Snape and not attack?


> > 9. The characterization of the Goblins as a separatist, self-
> > interested race is very reminiscent of the dwarf races in both
> > Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia.
> > Do any other fictional or real-world equivalents or parallels
> > come to mind?

Cooky:
Maybe the Quakers, Or Hasidic Jews



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 00:49:04 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:49:04 -0000
Subject: ShriekingShack
In-Reply-To: <fqfo8o+mnup@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqi6a0+8c4g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181864

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

> BTW, how did Malfoy, Snape and LV get into the Shack? They didn't
> seem to be using the passage from the willow.


zanooda:

Couldn't they just use the front door? All the windows and doors in
the SS used to be boarded and maybe protected by magic, too, but
obviously not anymore, because in DH the room where LV is talking to
Malfoy and Snape is described as having  "all the windows boarded
except for one" (p.641 Am.ed.). If a window could be "un-boarded", so
could a door :-).





From cookydclown at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 00:30:46 2008
From: cookydclown at yahoo.com (cookydclown)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:30:46 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <fqg2tq+sajk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqi57m+vg74@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181865

I knew I missed a few

> Dananotdayna:
> 5. What ? besides the corrosive effects of the Horcrux ? could
> account for the paralysis created by Harry, Ron and Hermione
> not taking each other's instincts seriously?

FEAR. Till now there was always someone to give them advice,
back them up, keep them on the right path, patch them back
together but not this time. While the Horcrux did feed on
that fear it did not create it

> 6. If food is the first of five principal exemptions to Gamp's
> Law of Elemental Transfiguration, what could the other four
> exemptions be? And what could be the basis for these exemptions
> ? the direct interaction between the element and the physical
> body of a human?

I can only think of 2. The first being gold. While we know a
philosopher's stone can make gold and the Elixer of life it
is rare. Perhaps the SS is the exception to the exception.
The second - Sentient life, a thinking creature. We have
seen wizards make Animals out of object but not whole people.

> 7. Can the Weasley's ability to provide ample food while still
> living in relative Wizarding poverty point to possibilities for
> the other four exemptions?  (Ever so much more intriguing than
> questions about the uses for dragons blood)

They had a vegetable patch, hogs and chickens. And they loved
each other. I think they are like most lower middle class
families - they did without but they never starved. They had
their priorities so most of the Galleons went to food

> 8. Did you, at Phineas Nigellus Black's revelation that
> Snape "punished" Ginny, Neville and Luna by sending them
> on a field trip with Hagrid, marvel at Harry still not
> grasping Snape's possible (probable? obvious?) loyalty
> towards Dumbledore's cause??? Why or why not?

Snape never showed interest in Hagrid and the Forbiddon Forest
is still dangerous, probably more so now that the Centaurs and
Giant spiders are not friendly with Hagrid. Even Ron worried
for Ginny. IMO I think Harry assumed Snape underestimated Hagrid

> 10. The brief mention of the exploits of my beloved "other
> trio" made me wish Rowling could have found a way to depart
> a bit more often from her Harry-centric narrative. Are there
> any other "off-camera" scenes you would wish you could have
> read?

Oh I would love a whole other book about what happened in the
Castle that year

Cooky



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 02:38:32 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:38:32 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqdesf+8vr3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqicn8+umv6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181866

zgirnius:
Not sure what to snip, and I will probably respond to all of it
anyway...First, was he surprised at the end that Moody was dodgy in
any way, or that Moody was the (supposedly) deceased Barty Crouch,
Jr.? We have discussed in the past that after having ihs warnings
brushed aside, and then being proved somewhat wrong in the previous
year, Snape may have wanted to have more than vague suspicions of yet
another loyal Order member to take to Dumbledore. All of which put
together could explain being cautious around "Moody" AND not
expressing any suspicions, and still being surprised in the end.

 Alla:

Hmmm, you make interesting points. So are you basically saying here 
that Snape may have indeed suspected Moody of being an impostor but 
was worried that after Sirius' fiasco Dumbledore will tell him to go 
jump in the lake?

What are you basing this on? No, not the psychological justification 
for Snape not going to Dumbledore with his suspicions if he had any, 
I can see that, but the idea that he indeed **had** those suspicions?

I mean, you are arguing that he was only surprised at the identity of 
the impostor, but not at the fact that Moody was an impostor? Again, 
I am just not sure where you are seeing this in canon.


Zgirnius:
Second, in Ch. 13-16, GoF, did Snape really know that Dumbledore
trusts him? Or was this a matter regarding which he could have been
in some doubt? In "The Egg and the Eye" (jumping ahead) he angrily
asserts Dumbledore trusts him. This could be a bluff. It could also
reflect a change from the start of GoF: that later chapter is after
the Yule Ball and thus after the "we sort too soon" conversation
of "The Prince's Tale", in which Dumbledore sounds Snape out about
his intentions in light of Voldemort's impending return, and seem
impressed with Snape's resolve to resume his spying.


Alla:

Curious. As I said, I can totally see Dumbledore being angry at Snape 
after Sirius' fiasco, I have read the idea that the fact that Moody 
was patrolling the corridors instead of Snape sorta shows that, I am 
sure I brought it even here at one time, but do you think Dumbledore 
indeed took away his trust that lightly?

I mean, not that I would put it past Dumbledore and not that I would 
have trusted Snape who did not give a d*mn about Potters even when he 
came to Dumbledore, but supposedly Dumbledore accepted his promise 
and gave him a chance, you think he forgot all that or indeed deep in 
his heart he thought that once a Death eater, always a death eater?

Now if Dumbledore was indeed trusting Snape all the time, but Snape 
is just not sure about it, being insecure or something and now here 
is DD old friend, who may whisper stuff in Dumbledore's ear about 
him, yeah I guess I can see that.




Zgirnius:
Third, if DD trusts both Moody and Snape, and Snape trusts DD's
judgment of Moody, but Moody does not trust *Snape* and Snape knows
it...Snape might be avoiding confrontation. Moody is supposed to be
there to help keep an eye on things during the TWT, and having him
waste lots of time on Snape is counterproductive.

Alla:

I really like that, but for someone who is sure of DD's trust, Snape 
seems to me to be a little too defensive.

Oy, I think he is afraid of Moody, but again why?


Carol:
That's a tough one and I don't know the answer. However, I think that
anyone except maybe Dumbledore feels uncomfortable under the magical
eye, and Snape knows that the real Moody doesn't trust him, so that
makes him uncomfortable, too. And yet Snape can out-Occlumens
*Voldemort*, so it's odd that he would be discomposed by the man he
thinks is Moody. If he suspected "Moody" to be an imposter, I think
he'd be deliberately making eye contact, at least with the normal eye,
to use Legilimency on him.  <SNIP>


Alla:

Right, again I am just wondering why so uncomfortable, maybe Moody 
knows something compromising about Snape, but it would be good pre 
DH, Snape knows that he is loyal, etc, why not look at Moody and 
laugh at him? Or whatever, just look at him, since Snape does not 
seem to ever laugh.

I do not know though about if he suspected, he would use a 
Legilimency, I mean, how does he know that the other person cannot do 
legilimency as well and use it on him?



zgirnius:
My answer...why not? Voldemort does not need to successfully cast
Imperius on Harry. He's going to kill him, not suborn him. And there
may be Bella-like reasoning occuring as well - surely Harry cannot
resist the Imperius of VOLDEMORT, the most powerful Dark Wizard that
ever lived...


Alla:

Because it is  a weapon? Why hand Harry a weapon?

Zanooda:
My favorite one: Fake!Moody needed Harry to win the tournament, so he
taught him how to resist Imperius curse, fearing that Karkaroff will
use it on Harry in order to assure Krum's victory.

<SNIP>


Alla:

Love and second one too.








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 03:38:02 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:38:02 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqicn8+umv6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqig6q+pibj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181867

>  Alla:
> Hmmm, you make interesting points. So are you basically saying here 
> that Snape may have indeed suspected Moody of being an impostor but 
> was worried that after Sirius' fiasco Dumbledore will tell him to 
go 
> jump in the lake?

zgirnius:
I deliberately used vaguer phrasing. I see no evidence for the 
specific suspicion that "Moody" was a fraud. A less specified "bad 
feeling" about "Moody" might be behind the avoidance behavior you 
originally asked about.

> Alla:
> Curious. As I said, I can totally see Dumbledore being angry at 
Snape 
> after Sirius' fiasco, I have read the idea that the fact that Moody 
> was patrolling the corridors instead of Snape sorta shows that, I 
am 
> sure I brought it even here at one time, but do you think 
Dumbledore 
> indeed took away his trust that lightly?

zgirnius:
At which point do you think Snape knew that he had won that trust? 
Some time before Lily's death in VW1? When he agreed to help protect 
Harry? Looking at the two VW1 scenes of Snape and DD in DH, I can see 
where Snape might not have considered himself to have Albus's trust 
at all in either of them. 

I'm not suggesting Snape thought he had lost that trust after PoA, 
I'm suggesting he, in Ch. 13-16 of GoF, did not know he had ever 
enjoyed it. I think he is smart and cynical enough to understand his 
potential usefulness to DD, so DD simply keeping him around is not a 
basis for deciding he is trusted.

After all, in the Yule Ball conversation, Dumbledore seems to express 
an expectation that Snape will run away like Karkaroff when Voldemort 
comes back.

> Alla:
> I mean, not that I would put it past Dumbledore and not that I 
would 
> have trusted Snape who did not give a d*mn about Potters even when 
he 
> came to Dumbledore, but supposedly Dumbledore accepted his promise 
> and gave him a chance, you think he forgot all that or indeed deep 
in 
> his heart he thought that once a Death eater, always a death eater?

zgirnius:
I don't think the last, he should know better based on his own life 
story. But I certainly don't think that he trusted Snape the moment 
Snape said "Anything" in that first memory. I would expect he waited 
to see what Snape would actually do, and whatever it was Snape did in 
VW1, was at least enough to incline him favorably towards continuing 
the experiment. (Which he did in various ways - hiring Snape, asking 
Snape to help him protect Harry, and testifying on Snape's behalf at 
the Ministry).

Even if at this point Dumbledore did trust Snape, though, would you 
say that the scenes we see, depict Dumbledore acting in a way which 
would allow Snape to determine that he was trusted?

> Zgirnius:
> Third, if DD trusts both Moody and Snape, and Snape trusts DD's
> judgment of Moody, but Moody does not trust *Snape* and Snape knows
> it...Snape might be avoiding confrontation. Moody is supposed to be
> there to help keep an eye on things during the TWT, and having him
> waste lots of time on Snape is counterproductive.

> Alla:
> I really like that, but for someone who is sure of DD's trust, 
Snape 
> seems to me to be a little too defensive.
> 
> Oy, I think he is afraid of Moody, but again why?

zgirnius again:
I guess you have me convinced Snape was *not* sure. <g> So it could 
just be a matter of Moody's exact knowledge of his Death Eater past, 
and worry over whether Moody can stir up any suspicions about him and 
Karkaroff, or what have you, in Dumbledore's mind.

> Alla:
> Right, again I am just wondering why so uncomfortable, maybe Moody 
> knows something compromising about Snape, but it would be good pre 
> DH, Snape knows that he is loyal, etc, why not look at Moody and 
> laugh at him? Or whatever, just look at him, since Snape does not 
> seem to ever laugh.

zgirnius:
Ah! Light bulb moment. Moody is someone who knows Snape was a DE, 
whom Snape associated with as a DE, and some of Snape's DE history, 
from his work as an Auror in VW1. This is not compromising in the 
sense that it could be used to drive a wedge between Snape and DD, or 
get Snape arrested, since I am sure DD knows at least as much as 
Moody about Snape's career by this point. But, if Snape regrets not 
merely helping to cause Lily's death, but the whole DE thing, Moody 
is someone who knows the worst of which he is capable, and does not 
know or credit just how serious Snape is/has been/will be about 
making up for it. Perhaps he is just an uncomfortable person to be 
around for this reason.

> Alla:
> Because it is  a weapon? Why hand Harry a weapon?

zgirnius:
Being a good DADA teacher is by definition handing his class weapons. 
Famous ex-Auror Alastor Moody could arouse suspicion if he was not a 
good teacher. He cannot be a Quirrell, a Lockhart, or an Umbridge. At 
the least, he must cover, and allow students to practice, advanced 
material, which would allow talented and motivated students (which 
Harry is, in DADA) to learn it. It's merely a matter of which weapons 
to hand him.

Resisting Imperius is handy, but Harry got a lot more mileage out 
of "Expelliarmus!". Whatever Rowling would have chosen to teach Harry 
in the class we were shown, would be a spell that would come in 
handy, it's parsimony. Unless 'Moody' taught nothing. The 
Unforgivables were a thing for 'Moody' to teach that met the 
usefulness criterion, while also being a subtle clue.







From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 03:57:47 2008
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:57:47 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the RoR
In-Reply-To: <fqa4uo+pnv8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqihbr+3th9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181868


> Tal:
> Good summary. Makes me wonder:
> 
> 1. Can you make a horcrux from 'cold' murders (murders that already
> happened sometime before) -- or has it be hot? How hot?

Beatrice:  Well, I can't really answer this question, but I suspect 
that it has to happen shortly after a murder is committed.  While the 
soul may never heal completely it might be able to mend a bit over 
time.  Particularly, if the perpetrator regrets his actions - not 
that LV could or does.  Well, maybe his attempt on Harry, but for 
purely selfish reasons...
> 
> 2. What is the feeling of having your own horcrux around? LV's
> horcrux has negative vibes to the trio - how about the creator 
themself? Does is feel 'nice' ? Why does LV keep just one of his 
(Nagini) around?

Beatrice:  I would speculate that the soul bit would be more friendly 
to LV than anyone else.  But I think that he would feel it burn with 
anger as the locket burns Harry in DH.  Unlike the trio, LV wouldn't 
find carrying it around much of a burden.
> 
> 3. What is the closest RL equivalent? How about serial killers'
> 'souvenirs'?  What makes serial killers collect souvenirs? Do they
> 'give him strength' (not necessarily magical, could be psychological
> or emotional)

Beatrice:  Yeah, I always thought that LV's collection of objects was 
very similar to that phenomonem.  I think that JKR actually mentioned 
this in an interview somewhere.

After thinking about my first response for a couple of days, I 
actually had another thought about how he might have gotten back into 
the ROR to hide the diadem.  In HBP, DD mentions that LV was staying 
at the Hogshead with some of his Death Eaters the night of the 
interview.  If LV knew about the RoR, could he have known that the 
RoR could form a passageway into the Hogshead?  Okay, okay, I know it 
is a long shot, but it is an interesting possibility...

;) Beatrice going to do what she should have been doing all 
along...grading papers.  ugh.
> 
> well ....
> 
> tal
>





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 15:21:33 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:21:33 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <fqgmb1+ava8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqjpdt+opfe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181869

---  "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> > 6. If food is the first of five principal exemptions to 
> > Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration, what could the 
> > other four exemptions be? And what could be the basis for
> > these exemptions ? the direct interaction between the 
> > element and the physical body of a human?
> 
> a_svirn:
> I think the whole thing is nonsense. If I can turn a table 
> into a pig, why cannot I have pork chops? That Gamp business 
> is among Rowling's sloppier inventions. 
> 

bboyminn:

I think the 'exception' to Gamp's Law are based in the 
underlying principle that most things that are transformed or
conjured are not permanent. You can convert rocks into bread,
but in a few hours the bread is going to turn back into rock,
and then you will have one big tummy ache. 

In short, you can't create something out of nothing. More 
importantly you can't create something substantial out of
nothing. Consequently, you can't create true food, air,
water, gems, precious metals, or other things of value with
any permanence.

Certainly, Hermione could have transformed tree bark into
bacon, and rocks into bread, and thereby given Ron a 
momentary joy of tasty food, but down the road there would 
have been extremely high consequences for having done so. 

So, I think the general underlying principle is that you
can't create something out of nothing, and as a result 
most cross-elemental transfigurations are temporary. 

Other transfigurations in which substances keep their 
elemental properties and merely change form, are probably
more permanent. When Dumbledore created the fake Sword, he
took real metal and real glass and merely changed it's 
shape and form, but the component elements remained the 
same. 

If conjuring and transfiguration were real and complete,
then wizards would just magic up gold coins when they needed
to buy something. They could conjure food and clothing out of
nothing. The same for houses, furniture, or any other material
need. JKR created these exceptions because she wanted to set
functional limits on the world she created.

Steve/bboyminn





From shamil3235 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 07:46:26 2008
From: shamil3235 at yahoo.com (shamil baseet)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:46:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Question about R.A.B and horcruxes
Message-ID: <600326.14478.qm@web45107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181870

Hey guys, I'm slightly new. By that I mean I'm new to this group but not to Yahoo groups and I hope this hasn't been discussed yet. I have been dying to know if any of it makes sense or even if I'm on to something.
 
Page 609 in the book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince:
 
Harry found and figured out that the locket that he and Dumbledore had risked their lives for hours before Dumbledore's death was a fake locket with a message inside signed only with R.A.B.
 
Which is my first clue: obviously this Person's intials are R.A.B.
 
There are other clues within the short note when he pronounced
himself a man by calling himself HE.
 
Second clue: this Person was a Man.
 
And that he knew he would be dead before the Dark Lord read the note.
 
Third clue: he is dead obviously before or during the time that
Voldemort was creating or had finished splitting his soul.
 
Notice how he called him Dark Lord not Tom Riddle, not He Who Must
Not Be Named, and not Lord Voldemort, meaning he himself was a Death
Eater because they are the only ones who call him by that name.
 
Fourth clue: he is a Death Eater.
 
After thinking for a short time of how many Death Eaters were
traitors obviously dead way before the most recent book I thought
about the Blacks and Sirius' Brother Regulus.
 
The book didn't really say what he did to become a traitor to the
Death Eaters but seeing how Dumbledore knew and he had said to Harry
that he has known about these Horcruxes for years makes me think that
maybe Sirius or Regulus had told him about these Horcruxes before one of them died.
 
In the end of the note it said he'd faced death in hope that Voldemort would be MORTAL once more so if he had gotten the locket and Dumbledore had gotten the Family's Ring and Harry the diary from his second year, could Regulus have gotten to the Cup or Something related to Ravenclaw or Gryffindor and of course that would only leave The Snake, Nagini?

shamil baseet



From parantap.samajdar at gmail.com  Tue Mar  4 11:07:45 2008
From: parantap.samajdar at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 11:07:45 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
Message-ID: <fqjai1+sta9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181871

Hi all,

I am new passive member of this group.  I enjoy the discussions very
much, but this is the first time I am posting in this group.

After going through the whole series twice, I still have some
questions which are not answered properly in the books.

As I joined bit late in the group, I don't know whether the questions
I have are already discussed or not.  Forgive me if these are very stupid questions or just dead horses.

1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his dead body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he disappeared?

If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in wizarding
world guess that something happened to him and started celebrating?
Voldemort is very secretive about his whereabouts even to his   followers- so what made people guess so early that he is not    powerful anymore?

2. Was there really any long term "Plan" by DD? It seems to depend on
winning too many jackpots by Harry.  Harry shows great heroism - and
no doubt fortune favours the brave - but plans should not depend on
fortune alone.

3. Voldemort is so focused on defeating Harry that he goes abroad on a long journey in search of the elder wand. And still he doesn't bother to use the old connection between Harry and himself to know Harry's whereabouts when he has already used it so successfully? But
suddenly Harry can use the same connection like Television without
even letting Voldemort know?

This are the major points which really disturb the reading of the books for me.  If any explanation is possible, thanks for sharing in advance.

samajdar parantap








From reets67 at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  4 13:41:58 2008
From: reets67 at hotmail.com (pathgrrl)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:41:58 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince
Message-ID: <fqjjj6+k0le@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181872

Hi,

I was reading an Ashwinder fan-fiction by StormySkize (As the Pages
Turn), and she brings up that Irma Pince possibly is Snape's mother due
to the fact that if you rearrange her name it becomes 'I'm a Prince.'
Honestly I was a bit taken back at first but read her response to my
review...

Author's Response: I thought that we would find out that Madam Pince
WAS Eileen Snape. There's even, in book six, a reference to Madam
Pince's 'hooked nose.' Alas, JKR never explained what happened to poor
Eileen ... sigh. Maybe her "encyclopedia" will make the connection.


As you all know book 6 was 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.'
What's your opinion?

pathgrrl




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 17:35:44 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:35:44 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 13-16 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fqicn8+umv6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqk19g+53d2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181873


> Zgirnius:
> Second, in Ch. 13-16, GoF, did Snape really know that Dumbledore
> trusts him? Or was this a matter regarding which he could have been
> in some doubt? In "The Egg and the Eye" (jumping ahead) he angrily
> asserts Dumbledore trusts him. This could be a bluff. It could also
> reflect a change from the start of GoF: that later chapter is after
> the Yule Ball and thus after the "we sort too soon" conversation
> of "The Prince's Tale", in which Dumbledore sounds Snape out about
> his intentions in light of Voldemort's impending return, and seem
> impressed with Snape's resolve to resume his spying.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Curious. As I said, I can totally see Dumbledore being angry at Snape 
> after Sirius' fiasco, I have read the idea that the fact that Moody 
> was patrolling the corridors instead of Snape sorta shows that, I am 
> sure I brought it even here at one time, but do you think Dumbledore 
> indeed took away his trust that lightly? <snip>

Carol responds:
I see no reason for DD to stop trusting Snape. He knows snape's
reasons for distrusting Lupin, who did, after all, forget his potion
and endanger three students, including Harry, partially verifying
snape's suspicions. As for the "slip" at breakfast, Lupin's
resignation was already inevitable at that point. And Snape's distrust
of Sirius Black (if not his hatred) had been shared by DD himself
until right before the Time-turning incident. DD doesn't know about
the Marauder's Map, but he does know that Snape followed Lupin after
Lupin failed to take his potion, that Snape was trying to capture and
turn in a "murderer" and a werewolf, that he conjured the stretchers
and brought in not only the "murderer" but the three kids (still in
danger from the werewolf and any returning Dementors). Why on earth
would DD's trust in Snape be altered?

And by the time of the scene with Fake!Moody, Snape has already
reported his own and Karkaroff's Dark Marks returning and Karkaroff's
plans to flee in contrast to his own plans to stay. What I read in
"Dumbledore trusts me!" is not fear that he's wrong but defensiveness
and resentment. He knows that the real Moody doesn't trust him and
that this Moody (whom he thinks is real) has searched his office,
ostensibly looking for Dark artifacts, and he knows that this Moody is
prowling the halls, which has always been *his* job (perhaps
self-imposed), so I think he's a bit jealous, too. I'm sure he feels
that Harry doesn't need the extra protection ostensibly provided by
"Moody" because he can do that himself. 

But "Sometimes we sort too soon," however shocking it may originally
have been to Snape, is a sort of compliment, with DD as much as saying
that Snape is courageous enough to be a Gryffindor. I really don't
think that Snape has any doubts about DD's trust in him, only
resentment of Moody's being hired for a job or jobs that he knows he
can do (DADA and protecting Harry). That's assuming, of course, that
he doesn't know about the jinx on the position. (Maybe he does know it
and can hardly wait for it to take effect!)

Alla" 
> Now if Dumbledore was indeed trusting Snape all the time, but Snape
is just not sure about it, being insecure or something and now here 
is DD old friend, who may whisper stuff in Dumbledore's ear about him,
yeah I guess I can see that.

Carol:
I don't think it's so much that Snape is afraid of what "Moody" will
say about him (what can he say that DD doesn't already know? He's not
actually keeping Dark artifacts in his office) as being reluctant to
offend or confront Dumbledore's old friend, another person whom
Dumbledore trusts and relies on. Also, while he had reason to distrust
Quirrell and keep an eye on him, knew from Day One that Lockhart was
an incompetent phony, and thought that the man he knew to be a
werewolf was helping his friend the "murderer" and supposed betrayer
of the Potters get into the castle to murder Harry, he has no real
reason to doubt "Moody." He does, however, know that the real Moody
hates him and that the old ex-Auror is paranoid. Possibly, he's being
careful not to provoke him. "Moody's" turning Draco into a ferret and
his demonstrating the Unforgiveable Curses to the students, actually
using the Imperius Curse on them, may not have aroused his suspicions
that Moody is an imposter, but they could make Snape doubt the old
man's sanity. Even though Snape is an expert duellist, it's best not
to provoke a fellow teacher prone to such dangerous behavior.
> 
Alla:
> 
> I really like that, but for someone who is sure of DD's trust, Snape 
> seems to me to be a little too defensive.
> 
> Oy, I think he is afraid of Moody, but again why?

Carol:
He's definitely defensive, but, again, I think it's more resentment
and jealousy on the one hand and reluctance to provoke DD's unstable
friend than actual fear. Notice that Snape tells Filch to shut up; he
doesn't want Moody to know his concerns about Harry possibly stealing
Polyjuice ingredients from his office. It's none of his business. He
also tells "Moody" that he has every right to prowl the hallways and
that Moody has no authority over him. He doesn't argue when Moody
tells him to go back to bed, but, IMO, that's becausehe knows that the
real Moody won't harm Harry. True, Harry won't get detention for being
out of bed, but he'll get his egg back and Snape can deal with the
stolen Polyjuice ingredients himself later (or so he thinks).
> 
Carol earlier:
> That's a tough one and I don't know the answer. However, I think
that anyone except maybe Dumbledore feels uncomfortable under the
magical eye, and Snape knows that the real Moody doesn't trust him, so
that makes him uncomfortable, too. And yet Snape can out-Occlumens
*Voldemort*, so it's odd that he would be discomposed by the man he
thinks is Moody. If he suspected "Moody" to be an imposter, I think
he'd be deliberately making eye contact, at least with the normal eye,
to use Legilimency on him.  <SNIP>
 
Alla:
> 
> Right, again I am just wondering why so uncomfortable, maybe Moody
knows something compromising about Snape, but it would be good pre 
DH, Snape knows that he is loyal, etc, why not look at Moody and 
laugh at him? Or whatever, just look at him, since Snape does not seem
to ever laugh.
> 
> I do not know though about if he suspected, he would use a 
Legilimency, I mean, how does he know that the other person cannot do
legilimency as well and use it on him? <snip>
> 
Carol:
I think that Snape would simultaneously use Occlumency and Legilimency
on anyone he looked in the eye (except Voldemort, where subtle,
undetectable Legilimency would be essential). There's no indication
that either the real or the fake Moody knows Legilimency, but even if
they did, they'd be no match for our superb Occlumens. I'm quite sure
that he's not concerned about his thoughts and motives being detected.
(Side note: I'm pretty sure that Fake!Moody *was* reporting Snape's
words and behavior, but not to Dumbledore. LV's loyal DE at Hogwarts,
who seems to have used the eagle owl to communicate with Voldemort,
may well have included information on Snape (such as his loyalty to
DD) that contributed to LV's belief that Snape had "left him forever").

Anyway, I'm sure that the last thing Snape fears is anyone performing
Legilimency on him. He can hoodwink Voldemort, the greatest Legilimens
of all time, after all. (And we see just how formidable Voldemort's
Legilimency is in DH.) But Legilimency and Occlumency aside, I think
that magical eye would make Snape uncomfortable, and he has no reason
to look Mad-Eye in the eye because he doesn't suspect him of anything
worse than paranoia and possible mental instability. If Snape
suspected him of being an imposter disloyal to DD, he'd endure that
magical eye looking through him, just as he endures Voldemort's
intrusions into his mind later.

Carol, wondering how Snape felt about the real Moody once he learned
that the "Moody" who taught DADA was a fake




From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 17:47:16 2008
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:47:16 -0000
Subject: Question about R.A.B and horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <600326.14478.qm@web45107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqk1v4+f379@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181874

Dear Shamil, This topic has been discussed on this site you may want 
to do a search for RAB at the top of the page to look at some of the 
comments.  I assume that you either have not read the Deathly 
Hallows, or that you are from a country where the Deathly Hollows has 
yet to be published.

Your ideas are spot on, or at least your first couple of points are.  
I don't want to ruin the last book for you, but all of these 
questions are answered within the last novel.  

Nice deductions.  I hope that you can read the last book soon.  You 
may want to exercise some caution when reading the posts on this 
site, because there are a lot of posts that will spoil the plot of 
the last book for you.

Happy reading, Beatrice

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, shamil baseet <shamil3235 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Hey guys, I'm slightly new. By that I mean I'm new to this group 
but not to Yahoo groups and I hope this hasn't been discussed yet. I 
have been dying to know if any of it makes sense or even if I'm on to 
something.
>  
> Page 609 in the book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince:
>  
> Harry found and figured out that the locket that he and Dumbledore 
had risked their lives for hours before Dumbledore's death was a fake 
locket with a message inside signed only with R.A.B.
>  
> Which is my first clue: obviously this Person's intials are R.A.B.
>  
> There are other clues within the short note when he pronounced
> himself a man by calling himself HE.
>  
> Second clue: this Person was a Man.
>  
> And that he knew he would be dead before the Dark Lord read the 
note.
>  
> Third clue: he is dead obviously before or during the time that
> Voldemort was creating or had finished splitting his soul.
>  
> Notice how he called him Dark Lord not Tom Riddle, not He Who Must
> Not Be Named, and not Lord Voldemort, meaning he himself was a Death
> Eater because they are the only ones who call him by that name.
>  
> Fourth clue: he is a Death Eater.
>  
> After thinking for a short time of how many Death Eaters were
> traitors obviously dead way before the most recent book I thought
> about the Blacks and Sirius' Brother Regulus.
>  
> The book didn't really say what he did to become a traitor to the
> Death Eaters but seeing how Dumbledore knew and he had said to Harry
> that he has known about these Horcruxes for years makes me think 
that
> maybe Sirius or Regulus had told him about these Horcruxes before 
one of them died.
>  
> In the end of the note it said he'd faced death in hope that 
Voldemort would be MORTAL once more so if he had gotten the locket 
and Dumbledore had gotten the Family's Ring and Harry the diary from 
his second year, could Regulus have gotten to the Cup or Something 
related to Ravenclaw or Gryffindor and of course that would only 
leave The Snake, Nagini?
> 
> shamil baseet
>





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 18:23:53 2008
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:23:53 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <fqjai1+sta9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqk43p+2uha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181875

Samadjar Wrote:
> 
> 1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his 
dead body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he 
disappeared?
> 
> If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in wizarding
> world guess that something happened to him and started celebrating?
> Voldemort is very secretive about his whereabouts even to his   
followers- so what made people guess so early that he is not    
powerful anymore?

Beatrice:  This is a good question.  There doesn't seem to be a 
specific answer in the texts.  I would however assume that LV's body 
was not found in the ruins.  The body may have be obliterated by the 
force of the rebounded spell.  I suspect that no body was found, 
which is why Dumbledore, et al concluded that LV was still alive, but 
in a weakened state.  I would also argue that there was not body 
because no one indicates that a body was found - this for example 
would be a great argument for Fudge to make in OotP.  He could use 
this fact as proof that LV was dead.
> 
> 2. Was there really any long term "Plan" by DD? It seems to depend 
on
> winning too many jackpots by Harry.  Harry shows great heroism - and
> no doubt fortune favours the brave - but plans should not depend on
> fortune alone.

Beatrice:  Well, some things were planned.  But I suspect that DD put 
a lot of trust in people, particularly Harry and Snape.  I think that 
he is a great judge of character and that he had a lot of faith that 
things would go the way he hoped.  I suspect that DD formulated a 
plan as he went along and was elated when things fell into place.  

Here are some things in no particular order that I think were pre-
planned: 1. Harry's blood protection through Petunia.  2. DD death at 
the hands of Snape (although not planned until the summer between 
books 5 and 6). 3. Harry sacrificing his own life.   Again, I think 
that DD knew it had to happen, trusted Harry to do the right thing - 
but was thrilled when LV used Harry's blood in GOF, because it meant 
that Harry could live.  There are tons more, but I don't have that 
much time.

I think inessence DD is a great judge of character.  He is able to 
see with a great deal of confidence what people might do based on 
their characters and past history.  While I am sure that even he 
might admit that there is always a chance that people could do the 
unexpected, he makes excellent descisions based on his understanding 
of human nature.  (Of course, it doesn't hurt that JKR writes the 
story line).  One of the things, however, that I admire about these 
novels (and I am sure some people will take issue with this) is that 
these characters are pretty consistant.  Which means that JKR does a 
pretty good job of developing the characters and then keeping their 
actions / decisions appropriate for their own psychology AND keeping 
them in line with the plot... I wwould be happy to explain this 
further, but it will have to wait until I have more time.  
> 
> 3. Voldemort is so focused on defeating Harry that he goes abroad 
on a long journey in search of the elder wand. And still he doesn't 
bother to use the old connection between Harry and himself to know 
Harry's whereabouts when he has already used it so successfully? But
> suddenly Harry can use the same connection like Television without
> even letting Voldemort know?

Beatrice:  Well, no he doesn't use the connection, because he KNOWS 
that it works both ways.  In order to use the connection, he has to 
open the line of communication so to speak and that might allow Harry 
access to his own plans.  Again, I think that LV foolishly 
underestimates Harry and this demonstrates his own lack of 
understanding about the connection between them.  

LV assumes that Harry will have no choice but to reveal himself at 
some point.  He believes this because he thinks Harry is weak and 
foolish because of his compassion for others.  LV is focused not 
really on finding Harry, because he is confident that this will 
happen eventually.  He assumes that Harry is simply on the run / in 
hiding.  He NEVER considers that Harry and DD have figured out about 
the horcruxes.  IF he did, he might feel more urgency to find Harry.

LV focuses his efforts on ruling the WW and gathering tools to end 
Harry's life when the confrontation occurs.  In his mind, he has 
nothing to gain from reading Harry's thoughts, but everything to 
lose.  LV is like DD in one respect:  He expects people to act in a 
certain way based on their love / feelings for others.  But unlike 
DD, LV misunderstands this facet of human nature.  DD sees that this 
can be a source great strength; LV sees it as the worst kind of 
weakness.  And a weakness he can exploit.  

I think one of the primary differences is that LV makes his 
observations based on pure conjecture.  EG.  He sees a mother give up 
her life for her child.  Because he fears / hates death, he sees her 
love and sacrifice as a foolish weakness.  In his mind, "what idiot 
would die for someone else?"  What he fails to see is that in love it 
is sometimes necessary to make horrible sacrifices for those we care 
about.  (As a parent, I can tell you that I would subject myself to 
the worst horrors imaginable to save my child.  I don't consider 
myself a brave person.  I am just a mother who would do anything to 
prevent her child from being harmed, if I could help it). This is why 
he doesn't recognize Lily's sacrifice for what it is, he doesn't 
understand the nature of true love and sacrifice.  Dumbledore does.  
Because he has loved and been loved, he knows its power.

So in this way LV underestimates Harry.  He sees Harry as hiding to 
save his own life and foolishly thinks that Harry's only goal/option 
is to challenge LV face to face and hope that he wins.  LV thinks 
that this is foolish, but then he repeats the same mistake:  He 
allows Harry to die for the whole WW (kind of like Christ).  LV still 
hasn't learned anything about love in the end...oops, I kind of went 
way beyond your question.

Beatrice: ranting and raving, but only slightly off topic.  
> 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 18:36:37 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:36:37 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the RoR
In-Reply-To: <fqihbr+3th9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqk4rl+iqk0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181876

Tal wrote:
> > <snip> Makes me wonder:
> > 
> > 1. Can you make a horcrux from 'cold' murders (murders that
already happened sometime before) -- or has it be hot? How hot?
 
Beatrice responded:

> Well, I can't really answer this question, but I suspect that it has
to happen shortly after a murder is committed.  While the soul may
never heal completely it might be able to mend a bit over time. 
Particularly, if the perpetrator regrets his actions - not that LV
could or does.  Well, maybe his attempt on Harry, but for purely
selfish reasons...

Carol:
A failed murder attempt wouldn't damage the soul, would it? But it's
clear that, even without the Horcruxes, LV's soul was unstable because
he'd committed so many, and evidently the piece from Lily's (or, less
likely, James's) murder just flew off and hit Harry in the head in,
IMO, the place that the AK had just exploded out of.

However, it does seem that he used "fresh" murders for the creation of
Horcruxes (not necessarily"significant" murders as DD suggests,
though). Here's the list that JKR provides in a webchat,
extracanonical, I realize:

The diary - Moaning Myrtle
The ring - Tom Riddle Sr.
The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner
The locket - a Muggle tramp
The diadem - an Albanian peasant
Nagini - Bertha Jorkins 

(I've changed the order given on Mugglenet to reflect the probable
order in which they were created.) If LV resorted to murdering a
Muggle tramp to create the locket Horcrux, symbol of his descent from
Salazar Slytherin himself, it looks as if the "old" soul bits from the
elder Riddles (who were at least also his ancestors and killed in part
for revenge) could no longer be used. Same with the Albanian peasant,
hardly significant enough for his precious Ravenclaw Horcrux, but
sufficient to provide a soul bit.

Tal:
> > 2. What is the feeling of having your own horcrux around? LV's
horcrux has negative vibes to the trio - how about the creator 
> themself? Does is feel 'nice' ? Why does LV keep just one of his 
> (Nagini) around?
> 
Beatrice: 
> I would speculate that the soul bit would be more friendly to LV
than anyone else.  <snip> Unlike the trio, LV wouldn't find carrying
it around much of a burden. <snip>

Carol:
And yet LV no longer wore the ring (or, perhaps, carried the diary in
his pocket) after making it a Horcrux. And imagine a blurry-faced LV
wearing both the ring and the locket (perhaps under his robes),
carrying the diary in his pocket, drinking from the Hufflepuff cup
(which he'd need to keep with him at all times), and wearing the
tarnished Ravenclaw tiara. The cup and the tiara, at least, were large
enough and conspicuous enough that he needed a safe place to hide
them. In fact, I suspect that he returned to Britain specifically to
hide the Horcrux, with the application for the DADA position as a
reason for being in Hogwarts (though he did really want the DADA
position, having already applied for it at age nineteen). He
disappeared again, to do what I don't know, immediately afterwards.

At any rate, he didn't want to keep the Horcruxes with him. He wanted
to keep them magically protected and safe, out of the sight of curious
DEs and anyone else who might wonder about his "souvenirs." The diary
he could keep with him until he found a suitable keeper who could
return it to Hogwarts at the proper time. Possibly he chose Lucius
after Lucius became a father and intended for Draco to take the diary
back to Hogwarts at some point. (?) I've already speculated on the
hiding places and their timing. The Prophecy seems to have spurred him
to hide any Horcruxes that he still had with him, including the locket
and the diary. As for Nagini, she didn't need to be hidden. She could
be controlled. And unlike the other Horcruxes, most of which could be
stolen by anyone aware of their history or magical properties or just
for the gold or silver that they were made of, Nagini could fend for
herself, she could not easily be hidden, and she could be controlled
and used for purposes other than keeping LV "alive" (his soul
"anchored" to the earth) by her mere existence. Only when he realized
that she was his last Horcrux (the others had been stolen, if not
destroyed) did he feel the need to protect her and keep her with them.

So to return to the question of how they made LV feel, they were
important to him either for their connection with Hogwarts or their
connection to his Slytherin heritage (Nagini could fall into the
second category), and perhaps wearing them would give him a feeling of
pleasure or wholeness, but he seems to have been more concerned with
preserving and protecting them than with whatever sensation he felt
when he wore or used them. As for Nagini, I think that she was his
"dear Nagini" even before she became a Horcrux. Her venom was one of
the ingredients in the potion that gave him his fetal form. That bond
would have become even closer as he drank her "milk" to sustain him.
Whether the venom itself had magical properties or he was, in a sense,
drinking bits of his own soul is unclear, but Nagini is the only
living creature that LV fully trusts and for whom he feels affection.
It's as if she's his alter ego, his "mother," and his familiar at the
same time. I think that being with her and giving her the gruesome
privilege of eating his victims gave him a grim sort of pleasure,
rather like the satisfaction he himself felt after committing a
"necessary" murder.

Carol, feeling more repulsed than fascinated by LV and his Horcruxes 





From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 19:15:15 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:15:15 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's
 death
In-Reply-To: <fil7i8+beri@eGroups.com>
References: <fil7i8+beri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181877

Carol blessed us with this gem On 29/11/2007 10:18:

> The only alternative was to fly out, with
> as many decoys as feasible, 

Can anyone tell me why, instead polyjuicing six people to look like 
Harry, they didn't just polyjuice Harry to look like someone else (say, 
Duddykins and let him drive away with the Dursleys)? Or better yet, 
polyjuice seven people to look like Harry, *and* polyjuice Harry to look 
like someone else?

Or just keep him at Hogwarts and not send him back in the first place?

On page 47 Moody says, "We're choosing to break it [the protective 
charm] early...." Why does the spell need to be broken early? The 
breaking of the charm will presumably be detected by the MoM, so 
wouldn't it be better to leave it intact?

Moody explains they can't get Harry out via conventional methods because 
Thicknesse has made it illegal to connect Harry's house to the floo 
network or to Apparate out. No indication that the MoM is actually 
blocking Apparation, just that it's illegal. So hang the legalities and 
Apparate out anyway. If the MoM could trace Apparation, the Trio 
couldn't have stayed lost for so many months waiting for Harry to make 
up his mind.

Moody also describes the Trace to Harry as the charm that detects 
"magical activity" "around" under-seventeens. Huh??? The whole 
kit-n-kaboodle of 'em just just flew in under a basketful of 
Disillusionment spells. That's not magical activity? Hagrid riding a 
flying motorcycle. That's not magical activity? Moody's packing a six-er 
of polyjuice. That's not magical activity? They're about to break Lily's 
protective charm. That's not magical activity? Thestrals and flying 
broomsticks aren't magical activity? The Dursleys' house is ground zero 
in a hurricane of swirling "magical activity". If the MoM hasn't 
realized something's up at Privet Drive by now, they're not going to 
notice one Apparation more or less.

Or does Moody really just mean wand use? But that doesn't work either, 
because they detected Dobby's wandless magic.

CJ, whose given up counting holes in Moody's plan

P.S. I've recently had a complaint about the attribution line my e-mail 
reader inserts: "_____ blessed us with this gem On...." (see above); the 
impression was that it drips with sarcasm.

Does it strike anyone else that way? It's certainly not intended 
sarcastically, but if it strikes anyone else that way, I'll have to 
change it.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 19:26:50 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:26:50 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <fqk43p+2uha@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqk7pq+bfkb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181878

Samadjar wrote:
> > 
> > 1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his 
dead body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he 
disappeared? <snip>

Beatrice responded:
> This is a good question.  There doesn't seem to be a specific answer
in the texts.  I would however assume that LV's body was not found in
the ruins.  The body may have be obliterated by the force of the
rebounded spell.  I suspect that no body was found, which is why
Dumbledore, et al concluded that LV was still alive, but in a weakened
state.  I would also argue that there was not body because no one
indicates that a body was found - this for example would be a great
argument for Fudge to make in OotP.  He could use this fact as proof
that LV was dead. <snip>

Carol comments:
I agree that it's a good question that isn't satisfactorily resolved
in the books. However, LV himself says that he was "torn from his
body," which suggests that his lifeless body was left in Godric's
Hollow and that he could not return to it. I think that the body had
to be there for Fudge et al. to know who had killed the Potters and
for the WW at large to celebrate his seeming death. Even the DEs claim
that they thought he was dead, and probably not just on the basis of
their fading or faded Dark Marks. Only Bellatrix and her little gang
of three seem to have believed, without knowing about the Horcruxes,
that LV wasn't dead.

DD, in contrast, must have already suspected that Voldemort was making
Horcruxes. He knew about the murders that Tom Riddle had committed;
knew about his magpielike tendency to collect souvenirs of his
murders, knew that he had stolen the ring, the cup, and the locket;
and knew that his appearance had been drastically altered by some Dark
magic that he had performed on himself. He had (belatedly) confiscated
the books on Horcruxes and was, according to Slughorn, fiercely
opposed to teaching about Horcruxes at Hogwarts. Almost certainly, he
not only suspected but *knew* that Voldemort wasn't dead, as he told
young Snape, but he didn't tell anyone why he thought so. Just how he
could convince anyone, other than his desperate and distraught young
Potions teacher, that Voldemort would return is unclear, but
McGonagall and others seem to have accepted his judgment without
question. As Hagrid says early on, there wasn't enough human in him
left to die.

Samadjar wrote: 
> > 3. Voldemort is so focused on defeating Harry that he goes abroad
 on a long journey in search of the elder wand. And still he doesn't 
bother to use the old connection between Harry and himself to know 
Harry's whereabouts when he has already used it so successfully? But
suddenly Harry can use the same connection like Television without
even letting Voldemort know?
 
Beatrice responded:

> Well, no he doesn't use the connection, because he KNOWS that it
works both ways.  In order to use the connection, he has to open the
line of communication so to speak and that might allow Harry access to
his own plans.  Again, I think that LV foolishly underestimates Harry
and this demonstrates his own lack of understanding about the
connection between them. <snip>

Carol comments:
I don't quite agree. I don't think that the connection works both ways
since LV doesn't have a scar that lets him into Harry's mind and, DD's
fears to the contrary, he can't really read Harry's mind. He can,
however, plant visions in it, but he has no need to do so at the
moment. It's not as if Harry can lead him to the Elder Wand. He may
know that Snape gave Harry Occlumency lessons, and, if so, he may
assume that Harry is using Occlumency against him as he used it
against Harry after the MoM fiasco. I don't think that he feels or
senses Harry's accidental intrusions into his mind or really
understands how the scar connection works, and, as you say, he
underestimates Harry. I'm sure he has no idea that Harry is aware of
his pursuit of the Elder Wand, for example, or the murders of
Gregorovitch and Grindelwald, and even if he did know, I'm not sure
that he would care since DD is dead and Harry is on the run and the
British WW is pretty much under the DEs' control. What can Harry and
his little friends do except hide under such circumstances? He has no
idea that they're hunting Horcruxes and have actually destroyed the
locket. And he can't just read Harry's mind at will. As Snape tells
Harry back in OoP, Legilimency usually requires eye contact, and LV
has never actually read Harry's mind through the scar connection. Even
when Harry seems to feel himself turning into a snake and wanting to
bite Dumbledore, I think it's the soul bit rather than Voldemort
himself that DD sees in Harry's eyes.

I also think that, for some reason (perhaps the destruction of three
of his Horcruxes), Voldemort is weaker in DH than he's been in
previous books (though, of course, he doesn't lose his ability to kill
and torture until Harry's self-sacrifice). When the Battle of Hogwarts
resumes after Harry's "death," only one Horcrux, Nagini, remains. Then
Neville kills her and LV is not only mortal but has only one-seventh
(or rather one-eighth) of a soul. He's still a formidable Wizard,
whether he's using the Elder Wand of which he's not the master or his
own (which wouldn't work against Harry but is powerful otherwise), but
somehow, he seems diminished. If he'd stayed in Britain, investigated
Hogwarts and found that Snape was subtly working against him, and
concentrated on securing his power base before expanding to Europe and
beyond, he might have been successful even after the Horcruxes were
destroyed, as long as he had Nagini and Harry was alive. Ironically,
seeking the wand that he thought would cement his power (and destroy
the Chosen One) helped to bring about his doom.

Carol, following her own thoughts and undoubtedly straying from the
question at hand





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 20:06:57 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:06:57 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <fqk43p+2uha@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqka51+9dm8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181879

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> wrote:

> I would however assume that LV's body was not found in the 
> ruins.  The body may have be obliterated by the force of the 
> rebounded spell.  


This is not exactly true. The body is mentioned sometimes in the
books. For example, DD says about LV in "King's Cross" chapter: "He
left more than his body behind" (DH, p.709 Am.ed.) - meaning that he
left not only his body, but also the soul bit in Harry. 

I don't know how DD convinced the authorities that, even though they
found the body, LV was not completely dead. DD's reputation of the
greatest wizard of the world might have helped, I guess :-). 

The fact is, DD *did* manage to convince whoever was the minister back
then, because the Aurors were sent to look for LV after his "death".
He himself said so in GoF: "I knew that the Aurors were still abroad
and searching for me" (GoF, p.653 Am.ed.). This means that at least
someone believed DD and took action.


zanooda






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 20:20:52 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:20:52 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181880

Carol earlier:
> 
> > The only alternative was to fly out, with as many decoys as feasible, 
> 
Lee responded:
> Can anyone tell me why, instead polyjuicing six people to look like
Harry, they didn't just polyjuice Harry to look like someone else
(say, Duddykins and let him drive away with the Dursleys)? Or better
yet, polyjuice seven people to look like Harry, *and* polyjuice Harry
to look like someone else?
> 
> Or just keep him at Hogwarts and not send him back in the first place?

Carol responds:
Last question first: DD has made sure that the protection at Privet
Drive, the strongest that he can give to Harry, is still in place
until his seventeenth birthday by having Harry return there during the
summer holiday. There's no such magical protection at Hogwarts, which
DD knows that LV is planning to take over, anyway, *and* he knows that
he's likely to die. (He may even be planning to have Snape take his
place as headmaster at that point, in which case, Harry certainly
wouldn't be returning to Hogwarts even if he weren't hunting Horcruxes!)

Nor can they Polyjuice Harry to look like Dudley since Dudley also has
to leave Privet Drive. Why they didn't Polyjuice Harry to look like
one of the guardians, preferably one that the guardians wouldn't be
likely to pursue, I don't know.

Lee: 
> On page 47 Moody says, "We're choosing to break it [the protective 
charm] early...." Why does the spell need to be broken early? The
breaking of the charm will presumably be detected by the MoM, so
wouldn't it be better to leave it intact?

Carol:
They're counting on the element of surprise rather than letting it
break on its own at a predetermined time. (That's what makes Snape's
information *seems* so valuable to LV.)
> 
Lee:
> Moody explains they can't get Harry out via conventional methods
because Thicknesse has made it illegal to connect Harry's house to the
floo network or to Apparate out. No indication that the MoM is
actually blocking Apparation, just that it's illegal. So hang the
legalities and Apparate out anyway. If the MoM could trace Apparation,
the Trio couldn't have stayed lost for so many months waiting for
Harry to make up his mind.

Carol:This part is harder to answer. Of course, the Dursleys' house
wouldn't be part of the Floo Network, anyway, and it would require the
help of someone in that department to connect it (as happened in GoF),
so that option really is out, but why not Apparate directly to the
Weasleys or some other safe house, or have, say, Mad-Eye or Lupin
side-along Apparate Harry just to be sure? Yes, the MoM would know
that it had happened, but, as you say, I don't see why they didn't
have Harry Apparate out, with or without help, a day or two before his
birthday. I'll have to think some more about that one.
> 
Lee:
> Moody also describes the Trace to Harry as the charm that detects 
"magical activity" "around" under-seventeens. Huh??? The whole
kit-n-kaboodle of 'em just just flew in under a basketful of 
Disillusionment spells. That's not magical activity?

Carol:
The Disillusionment Charms must have been performed before they
arrived. But then they had to be lifted at 4 Privet Drive, so the
Order must have been counting on the protective Charm once their
presence had been detected.
 
Lee:
> Hagrid riding a flying motorcycle. That's not magical activity?
Mooody's packing a six-er of polyjuice. That's not magical activity?

Carol:
I don't think those two count. Neither do the brooms or the Thestrals.
The charms on the motorcycle (and the brooms) were performed long
before, and carrying and drinking a potion of any kind probably isn't
detectable. It's only spells that can be detected, as I understand it.

Lee:
 They're about to break Lily's protective charm. That's not magical
activity? Thestrals and flying broomsticks aren't magical activity? 

Carol:
Of course, breaking the protective charm will be detected, and Moody
anticipates a couple of DE scouts waiting for that to happen. (No need
for the MoM to alert LV.) That's why Harry has his Order escort and
the decoys, so that when they summon LV and the other DEs, the bad
guys won't know whom to pursue. As for Thestrals and broomsticks, no,
I don't think that's detectable magical activity, unlike Apparation,
which requires a wand.

Lee:
The Dursleys' house is ground zero in a hurricane of swirling "magical
activity". If the MoM hasn't realized something's up at Privet Drive
by now, they're not going to notice one Apparation more or less.

Carol:
Again, it's not the MoM they're worried about. It's the DEs who are
undoubtedly watching the place. (Of course, they don't know that the
date of Harry's escape has already been revealed as part of DD's plan
to reinforce LV's trust in Snape.

At any rate, regardless of detection, nothing can harm Harry or anyone
at 4 Privet Drive until the protective charm is broken.

Lee: 
> Or does Moody really just mean wand use? But that doesn't work
either, because they detected Dobby's wandless magic.

Carol:
More like charms and other spells, which require wands for Wizards but
can be performed wandlessly by a House-Elf. It's still a hover charm,
regardless of whether a House-Elf or a Wizard performed it.

Lee:
> CJ, whose given up counting holes in Moody's plan

Carol:
I don't think there are quite as many holes as you're counting, but I
do wonder why Apparition, legal or illegal, wouldn't work.

Lee: 
> P.S. I've recently had a complaint about the attribution line my
e-mail reader inserts: "_____ blessed us with this gem On...." (see
above); the impression was that it drips with sarcasm.
> 
> Does it strike anyone else that way? It's certainly not intended 
sarcastically, but if it strikes anyone else that way, I'll have to
change it.

Carol:
I realized after it had appeared a few times that it must be
automatically inserted. Let's just say that it does sound slightly
sarcastic, and a person reading it for the first time in connection
with his or her own post might feel mildly offended despite your not
intending any offense. At any rate, whatever charm or originality the
attribution may once have had has been lost through overuse, IMO.

BTW, if you post from the list, you won't have to worry about your
e-mail reader acting on its own a la Harry's wand.

Carol, thanking Lee for asking about that attribution line, which I do
think should be changed unless he goes with my alternate suggestion





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  4 20:31:55 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:31:55 -0000
Subject: Seven Potters (WAS Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqkbjr+u1p7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181881

> CJ:
> Or better yet, 
> polyjuice seven people to look like Harry, *and* polyjuice Harry to 
look 
> like someone else?

zgirnius:
As Moody explains to Dung, the Harrys are in less danger. So it would 
make more sense to keep Harry as one of the Harrys, as they did.

> CJ:
> Or just keep him at Hogwarts and not send him back in the first 
place?

zgirnius:
Is Hogwarts, minus Dumbledore, safe? Why do you think so?

> CJ:
> On page 47 Moody says, "We're choosing to break it [the protective 
> charm] early...." Why does the spell need to be broken early? The 
> breaking of the charm will presumably be detected by the MoM, so 
> wouldn't it be better to leave it intact?

zgirnius:
They are not doing special maic to break it early. They are breaking 
it early in the sense that Harry is choosing to leave the place where 
his mother's sister dwells forever earlier than the charm will 
naturally expire (7/31 of the same year). Waiting until 7/31 to do so 
(i. e., not breaking the charm early) loses the element of surprise 
Moody thinks he will have by breaking it early. He would be flying 
straight into the arms of waiting DEs. (He is anyway, of course, but 
he does not know that.)

> CJ:
> Moody explains they can't get Harry out via conventional methods 
because 
> Thicknesse has made it illegal to connect Harry's house to the floo 
> network or to Apparate out. No indication that the MoM is actually 
> blocking Apparation, just that it's illegal. So hang the legalities 
and 
> Apparate out anyway. If the MoM could trace Apparation, the Trio 
> couldn't have stayed lost for so many months waiting for Harry to 
make 
> up his mind.

zgirnius:
Scrimgeour knew where Harry was staying. If laws were broken getting 
Harry out of 4 PD, the Ministry would know where to find the 
lawbreakers, unless they went into hiding. Moody's way, Harry did not 
become a fugitive until after the fall of the Ministry.

> CJ:
> Moody also describes the Trace to Harry as the charm that detects 
> "magical activity" "around" under-seventeens. Huh??? 
<snip>
> Or does Moody really just mean wand use? But that doesn't work 
either, 
> because they detected Dobby's wandless magic.

zgirnius:
I took 'magical activity' to mean 'making new magic'. People coming 
in under preexisting spells, or using premade potions, would not 
count. Nor would the presence of powerful magical artifacts, or 
magical creatures. Harry keeps an Invisibility Cloak in his house 
that never sets off detectors, I always presumed because the magic of 
its making was not done in his presence. He also owns, and keeps at 
home, a couple of high-quality Quidditch brooms, which I again 
presume never set off alarms because they were charmed and made 
before. He owns a magical owl that can deliver wizard mail, ditto. I 
don't see why Harry leaving (and a piece of magic therefore going 
kaput) would activate a spell that detects magical activity.

> CJ: 
> Does it strike anyone else that way? It's certainly not intended 
> sarcastically, but if it strikes anyone else that way, I'll have to 
> change it.

zgirnius:
Speaking for myself, it can come across that way, particularly if you 
happen to be disagreeing with the poster so introduced. <g>\

Just adding: Moody's plan did not include Polyjuice. HIS plan was to 
et a large troop of Order members to guard Harry as he left. I 
presume the idea was that they would outnumber any small contingent 
of DEs they would run into patrolling the area into which they flew. 
This would provide protection from Harry and, with numbers, the Order 
could expect to fare well in any skirmish that resulted. 

Of course in tandem with DD's plan to give away the date, this would 
have been a bloodbath, hence plantin the idea of decoys.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar  4 23:33:09 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:33:09 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <fqk43p+2uha@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqkm7l+4cd0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181882

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> wrote:

Samadjar Wrote:

> > 1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his 
> > dead body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he 
> > disappeared?
 
> > If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in wizarding
> > world guess that something happened to him and started celebrating?
> > Voldemort is very secretive about his whereabouts even to his   
> followers- so what made people guess so early that he is not    
> powerful anymore?
 
Beatrice:  This is a good question.  There doesn't seem to be a 
> specific answer in the texts.  

Geoff:
There is an interesting series of comments which Hagrid makes to 
Harry in PS which might give food for thought:

'(Harry) - "But what happened to Vol - sorry - I mean, You-Know-Who?"
"Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter 
kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That's the biggest myst'ry, see... 
he was gettin' more an' more powerful - why'd he go? Some say he 
died......

...Most of us reckon he's still out there somewhere but lost his powers. 
Too weak to carry on...."'

(PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.46-47 UK edition)

The implication being that there was no body at Godric's Hollow. The 
other presumptions probably followed because Voldemort's activity just 
ceased - abruptly and inexplicably.




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 02:07:12 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:07:12 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqk4rl+iqk0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqkv8g+ilg7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181883

> Carol:
> 
> However, it does seem that he used "fresh" murders for the 
> creation of Horcruxes (not necessarily "significant" murders as
> DD suggests, though). Here's the list that JKR provides in a
> webchat, extracanonical, I realize:
> 
> (I've changed the order given on Mugglenet to reflect the probable
> order in which they were created.)
> 
> The diary - Moaning Myrtle
> The ring - Tom Riddle Sr.
> The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner
> The locket - a Muggle tramp
> The diadem - an Albanian peasant
> Nagini - Bertha Jorkins 

Mike:
Thanks for re-ordering the list into chronological order, Carol. This 
now points out another problem with JKR interviews. (BTW, check out 
my vote in the polls. If JKR is giving us backstory she used when 
writing the story, or it comes from her notes, or I'll count that as 
canonical. So I don't reject ALL of her interview information. The 
question is, does this information fall under those parameters? Or 
was this another *off-the-cuff* comment?) OK, back to the problem:

I agree with you, Carol, Voldemort must have been using relatively 
fresh murders to make Horcruxes. If you remember, I argued pre-DH 
that the Horcrux must be made at the time of the murder, but there 
was never any canon to uphold or refute my position. This list would 
indicate that Voldemort must have needed to create the Horcrux 
proximate timewise to the murder, if he used such a rag-tag group for 
creation. 

Also, that indeed Dumbledore was wrong about his "significant murder" 
speculation.So, was DD's speculation simply a red herring, or was it 
a cheat? That is, when Dumbledore said those words, weren't we 
suppose to assume that he had *some* knowledge to back up those 
statements? When has Dumbledore ever taken a shot in the dark like 
this; with no real knowledge to back up his pronouncement?

A second problem: By this Horcrux creation timeline (with which I 
agree if those are indeed the "Horcrux murders"), Tom would have made 
his second Horcrux *BEFORE* his conversation with Slughorn. It was 
made clear in DH, imho, that Tom already knew how to make a Horcrux 
before that conversation, but according to DD (as told by Harry) what 
Tom *needed* to know was whether one could split ones soul more than 
once. Now why would he *need* to know this AFTER he had already made 
two Horcruxes?



> Carol:
> The Prophecy seems to have spurred him to hide any Horcruxes that
> he still had with him, including the locket and the diary. As for
> Nagini, she didn't need to be hidden. She could be controlled.

Mike:
I concur with your speculation on the prophecy impetus. And I bow to 
your wisdom in picking Nagini as a Horcrux, I thought she was a red 
herring. I still wonder if the story about LV's Four Founders 
obsession was fruitful. True, he did get Helga's cup and Salazar's 
locket, and Rowena's diadem came out in DH. But I don't understand LV 
giving up that four-fold quest in favor of using Nagini, no matter 
how "dear" to him the snake was.


> Carol:
> So to return to the question of how they made LV feel, they were
> important to him either for their connection with Hogwarts or their
> connection to his Slytherin heritage (Nagini could fall into the
> second category),

Mike:
Right, but why would he need another connection to his heritage if it 
would cause him to fail in his quest to make one each from something 
of the four founders? Tom Riddle doesn't strike me as the type to 
give up on such an important quest so easily. At the time he made 
Nagini a Horcrux, as far as he knew, he still had five intact 
Horcruxes. What was the rush? And if there was a rush because of the 
prophecy, why didn't he make one before he went to GH?

Put another way, it was always his plan to take over Hogwarts, and 
indeed he succeeded. If it was also always his plan to abolish the 
house system, it seems using the Sorting Hat as his fourth and final 
in the founder set would be highly significant on two fronts. And he 
abandoned all that to make Nagini? And he did it while he was in his 
frail Baby!Mort condition? It just doesn't make sense, from 
Voldemort's point of view, imho?



> Carol:
> <snip> and perhaps wearing them would give him a feeling of
> pleasure or wholeness, but he seems to have been more concerned
> with preserving and protecting them than with whatever sensation
> he felt when he wore or used them.

Mike:
I still wonder if having them close by would be painful. That is, 
would a soul piece in close proximity to his primary, albeit terribly 
fractured, main soul attempt to rejoin the main piece? Clearly soul 
pieces have a sort of sentient quality to them. The diary even tried 
to reform itself into human form. Would that desire to become human 
again manifest as a pull on that fractured unstable soul within 
Voldemort's body?

Mike, wondering if JKR's "Scottish Book" is going to have any 
backstory fill-in, or if it is simply going to explain technicalities 
that she didn't have time to explain in the books




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Mar  5 02:24:42 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 19:24:42 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
References: <fqkm7l+4cd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <026701c87e68$162c26f0$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 181884

> Samadjar Wrote:
>
>> > 1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his
>> > dead body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he
>> > disappeared?
>
>> > If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in wizarding
>> > world guess that something happened to him and started celebrating?
>> > Voldemort is very secretive about his whereabouts even to his
>> followers- so what made people guess so early that he is not
>> powerful anymore?
>
> Beatrice:  This is a good question.  There doesn't seem to be a
>> specific answer in the texts.
>
> Geoff:
> There is an interesting series of comments which Hagrid makes to
> Harry in PS which might give food for thought:
>
> '(Harry) - "But what happened to Vol - sorry - I mean, You-Know-Who?"
> "Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter
> kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That's the biggest myst'ry, see...
> he was gettin' more an' more powerful - why'd he go? Some say he
> died......
>
> ...Most of us reckon he's still out there somewhere but lost his powers.
> Too weak to carry on...."'
>
> (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.46-47 UK edition)
>
> The implication being that there was no body at Godric's Hollow. The
> other presumptions probably followed because Voldemort's activity just
> ceased - abruptly and inexplicably.

Shelley:
In Deathly Hallows, we get a further answer. (I don't have my book handy for 
the chapter and exact quote.) In Voldemort's memory of the killing night, he 
says something to the effect of "he knew he couldn't stay in that home in 
the broken state he was in", and so that answer is correct- there was no 
"body" to be found could verify that Voldemort died, because Voldemort 
himself decided to leave the house before he was discovered to be broken. 
This was the basis for people saying that he wasn't dead, but would be back 
one day.  But, everyone knew that his reign of terror had stopped, and those 
who were spying on the faithful Death Eaters knew even they were searching 
for their leader, with no luck. Even they didn't know where he went. They 
were confused, because they were now leaderless.
 




From lmkos at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  5 02:47:59 2008
From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:47:59 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:
  Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
References: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com>
 <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1JWjgN-00044V-7c@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181885


>Lee:
> > Moody explains they can't get Harry out via conventional methods
>because Thicknesse has made it illegal to connect Harry's house to the
>floo network or to Apparate out. No indication that the MoM is
>actually blocking Apparation, just that it's illegal. So hang the
>legalities and Apparate out anyway.

Lenore:
I totally agree.  They could have easily had the Seven Apparitions,
or the Fourteen Apparitions.  So what, if the Ministry knew about them?
And they could all head in different directions, so that no one really
knew where Harry was.  I admit I haven't even wanted to think very
closely about this part of the story execution, because it annoyed
me so much from the first.

Lenore:
The entire Seven Potters plan strikes me as less than brilliant,
and I personally would expect a much more effective plan from our
dear Moody, (who is one of my favorite characters and one which
I had hoped would be developed further).  Fortunately, their DE
pursuers were also lacking in efficiency and competence;
otherwise, the whole plan could have ended in a complete debacle.

(Actually, I was surprised that anyone on Moody's team showed
up alive. It looked like a doomed mission to me.)

Lenore:
OTOH, Lee's attribution did not bother me in the slightest.  I don't
understand how anyone could see anything sarcastic in it.  That
seems quite a stretch to me!  It reminded me a bit of books I've
enjoyed which have a certain oriental flavor (in the broadest sense).
I felt that Lee meant it in that gracious sense and that's how I have
always read it.

Lee:
 > P.S. I've recently had a complaint about the attribution line my
e-mail reader inserts: "_____ blessed us with this gem On...." (see
above); the impression was that it drips with sarcasm.
 >
 > Does it strike anyone else that way? It's certainly not intended
sarcastically, but if it strikes anyone else that way, I'll have to
change it.

Lenore:
It would bother me if member pressures were to cause this group
to lose any of its variety, which is truly its spice.  Surely, Lee's line
costs nothing in terms of tolerance.  We have people from all
over the world, with whatever cultural (or otherwise) variability they
share with us and, for me, that adds to the group, and is definitely
not something that needs to be policed or changed.  We've been
tolerant of far worse, have we not?.
Lenore





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 04:33:51 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:33:51 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqkv8g+ilg7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fql7rf+dhfq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181886


> > Carol:
> > 
> > However, it does seem that he used "fresh" murders for the 
> > creation of Horcruxes. ...
> > 
> > (I've changed the order given on Mugglenet to reflect the probable
> > order in which they were created.)
> > 
> > The diary - Moaning Myrtle
> > The ring - Tom Riddle Sr.
> > The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner
> > The locket - a Muggle tramp
> > The diadem - an Albanian peasant
> > Nagini - Bertha Jorkins 

> Mike:
> Thanks for re-ordering the list into chronological order, Carol. 
> ...
 
> > Carol:
> > The Prophecy seems to have spurred him to hide any Horcruxes that
> > he still had with him, including the locket and the diary. As for
> > Nagini, she didn't need to be hidden. She could be controlled.
 
> Mike:
> I concur with your speculation on the prophecy impetus. And I bow to 
> your wisdom in picking Nagini as a Horcrux, I thought she was a red 
> herring. I still wonder if the story about LV's Four Founders 
> obsession was fruitful. True, he did get Helga's cup and Salazar's 
> locket, and Rowena's diadem came out in DH. But I don't understand 
> LV giving up that four-fold quest in favor of using Nagini, 
> no matter how "dear" to him the snake was.

Kemper now:
If he feared for his Horcruxes as reasonably suggested by Carol, why
didn't he create the seventh Horcrux prior to that Halloween?
Was Harry suppose to be the 7th murder for the 7th Horcrux?
If so, what was the object to encase the soul?
I wonder if LV found something of Gryffindor's.  Rowena's daughter,
the Grey Lady, has existed almost as long if not longer than Hogwarts.
 I imagine she has much information.  Perhaps she gave up more than
the diadem.  But as I type this, the Bloody Baron seems the most
accessible to young Tom Riddle.  

Kemper, who wonders why Hogwarts a History isn't more accurate with
Helena and the Baron floating around or living since the beginning 




From jelly92784 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 04:53:17 2008
From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:53:17 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <fqkm7l+4cd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fql8vt+r9j3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181887

Samadjar Wrote:
1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his dead
body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he disappeared?

If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in wizarding
world guess that something happened to him and started celebrating?
Voldemort is very secretive about his whereabouts even to his
followers- so what made people guess so early that he is not powerful
anymore?
  
Geoff:
There is an interesting series of comments which Hagrid makes to Harry
in PS which might give food for thought:
 
'(Harry) - "But what happened to Vol - sorry - I mean, You-Know-Who?"
"Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter 
kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That's the biggest myst'ry,
see... he was gettin' more an' more powerful - why'd he go? Some say
he died......

...Most of us reckon he's still out there somewhere but lost his
powers. Too weak to carry on...."'
(PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.46-47 UK edition)

The implication being that there was no body at Godric's Hollow. The 
other presumptions probably followed because Voldemort's activity just 
ceased - abruptly and inexplicably.

Janelle: I've been looking for a reference to something else that
Hagrid says to Harry about what happened after his parents were
killed, but I can't remember when he says it or if this is movie
contamination, but somewhere before Harry learns about the
unforgivable curses Hagrid tells him that people came out of "trances"
(and now that I write it I feel like it could have even been Sirius or
Mr. Weasley that had this conversation with Harry).  I took this to
mean that people who had been under the imperius curse had come out of
it, which could have been used as evidence that Voldemort's power had
gone - leading to the early celebrations.




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 04:59:39 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:59:39 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <026701c87e68$162c26f0$6701a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fql9br+4fnl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181888


> > Samadjar Wrote:
> >
> > 1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his
> > dead body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he
> > disappeared?
> >
> > If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in
> > wizarding world guess that something happened to him 
> > and started celebrating?

> > Geoff:
> > There is an interesting series of comments which Hagrid makes to
> > Harry in PS which might give food for thought:
...snip quote...
> > The implication being that there was no body at Godric's Hollow.

> Shelley:
> In Deathly Hallows, we get a further answer. 
> ...In Voldemort's memory of the killing night, he says something
> to the effect of "he knew he couldn't stay in that home in the
> broken state he was in", and so that answer is correct- there was no 
> "body" to be found could verify that Voldemort died, because Voldemort 
> himself decided to leave the house before he was discovered to be
broken. 

Kemper now:
IF you can supply the quote when you get a chance...
In King's Cross, DD says of Voldemort:
He had rendered his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he
committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parent,
the attempted killing of a child.  But what escaped from that room was
even less than he knew.  He left more than his body. ...

DD seems under the impression that there was a body.  But maybe the
rebounded AK amplified with the love sacrifice left the body, charred
beyond recognition as is suggested if Quirrell continued choking Harry
and, later, when Harry grabbed at Quirrell's face.

Kemper




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 06:39:22 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:39:22 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqkv8g+ilg7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqlf6q+tcah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181889

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:

> I agree with you, Carol, Voldemort must have been using relatively 
> fresh murders to make Horcruxes.
> <SNIP> 
> A second problem: By this Horcrux creation timeline (with which I 
> agree if those are indeed the "Horcrux murders"), Tom would have 
> made his second Horcrux *BEFORE* his conversation with Slughorn.


zanooda:

Maybe a murder needs to be fresh not in the sense of "recent", but in
the sense of "latest", each consecutive murder erasing the previous
one for the purpose of Horcrux-making. For example, LV could use
Myrtle's death to make a H-x even twenty years later, if he didn't
kill anyone else between her murder and the diary H-x creation (yeah,
right :-)), but didn't repent either. To use Myrtle's murder to make a
H-x LV only needed to do it at any time between her murder and his
father's murder.

The same with the ring - he could make it a H-x at any time between
his father's murder and the next murder - I don't know if it was
Hepzibah Smith or that Albanian peasant, or the tramp. This way the
ring doesn't need to be a H-x when LV talks to Slughorn, because he
(LV) didn't kill anyone yet after his father (although he needed to
kill him *after* the grandparents). 

LV didn't have to make the ring a H-x right after or very soon after
the murder. But, if he wanted the ring H-x to be made out of his
father's death, and not out of any other, he needed to turn it into
H-x *before* he killed someone else. I'm not sure that it's the right
idea, because it's late and my head doesn't work well :-).


> Mike: 

> And I bow to your wisdom in picking Nagini as a Horcrux, I 
> thought she was a red herring. 


zanooda:

Yeah, me too :-). Never believed she was a H-x. We were right about
Harry!Horcrux though :-).




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Wed Mar  5 06:49:17 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:49:17 -0900
Subject: Peter and the Finger
Message-ID: <C37DE48E-3873-4CC9-8403-2A7927D616F2@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181890

I was listening to PoA and was at the part where Pettigrew
points at someone.  When he does so, he has to point with
his middle finger, as his index finger is missing.  I hadn't
realized what image that would project.  I am sure she
meant it, as it is fairly explicit.  I suppose this has been
discussed before, but it was the first time I noticed and I
had to laugh.

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



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




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Mar  5 07:00:08 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 00:00:08 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
References: <fql9br+4fnl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003101c87e8e$8d5a72b0$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 181891

>> > Samadjar Wrote:
>> >
>> > 1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his
>> > dead body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he
>> > disappeared?
>> >
>> > If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in
>> > wizarding world guess that something happened to him
>> > and started celebrating?
>
>> > Geoff:
>> > There is an interesting series of comments which Hagrid makes to
>> > Harry in PS which might give food for thought:
> ...snip quote...
>> > The implication being that there was no body at Godric's Hollow.
>
>> Shelley:
>> In Deathly Hallows, we get a further answer.
>> ...In Voldemort's memory of the killing night, he says something
>> to the effect of "he knew he couldn't stay in that home in the
>> broken state he was in", and so that answer is correct- there was no
>> "body" to be found could verify that Voldemort died, because Voldemort
>> himself decided to leave the house before he was discovered to be
> broken.
>
> Kemper now:
> IF you can supply the quote when you get a chance...
> In King's Cross, DD says of Voldemort:
> He had rendered his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he
> committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parent,
> the attempted killing of a child.  But what escaped from that room was
> even less than he knew.  He left more than his body. ...
>
> DD seems under the impression that there was a body.

Shelley again:
Two thoughts about that quote:
1) It's based on Dumbledore's guesswork. While he's often right, guesswork 
isn't necessarily fact. By contrast, Voldemort's memory is first-person 
documentation of what really happened that night.
2) There was a body at the time of the Horcrux split, but the question was 
"was there a body left at the house that others could find when they found 
Harry alive?" The answer is yes to the first, and I think no to the second.

Now, onto the quote. Chapter 17, Bathilda's Secret.
scene set up: Harry and Hermione miraculously escape from Nagini by jumping 
out a window. Voldemort revels in the pain of the moment- being so close to 
killing Harry and failing again. He relives that entire scene of killing 
Harry's parents, and then to (attempted) killing of (baby)Harry.
(page 345 in my book, hardback, American version)

"He pointed the wand very carefully into the young boy's face: He wanted to 
see it happen, the destruction of this one, inexplicable danger. The child 
began to cry: It had seen that he was not James. He did not like it crying, 
he had never been able to stomach the small ones whining in the orphanage--
"Avada Kedavra!"
And then he broke: He was nothing, nothing but pain and terror, and he must 
hide himself, not here in the rubble of the ruined house, where the child 
was trapped and screaming, but far away... far away...."

So, Voldemort did not leave behind a body to remain for others to discover- 
he dragged whatever sorry-ass part of himself that remained in flesh 
(Vapormort, or however else you want to think of him- that baby in the 
King's Cross station that Harry imagined after he died, who knows what he 
really looked like?) off to hide somewhere else. What Dumbledore explains 
him leaving behind was not his body at the house, but that very second in 
time where Voldemort became a Harry-horcrux and a less than human body who 
was held to this earth by the Horcruxes he had made.

I guess you could read that the soul-Voldemort is what escaped, and the 
body-Voldemort remained, but then how would Dumbledore ever start to guess 
that Voldemort wasn't really dead, and that Harry was a Horcrux? If there 
was a body, everyone would just think that Voldemort was dead for good, but 
we know that the Death Eaters searched for him, and immediately the smarter 
Wizards knew he wasn't gone for good. The real question is "hide himself"- 
hide merely his soul, or hide the body blasted by the spell as well? 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar  5 07:50:11 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:50:11 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <fql8vt+r9j3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqljbj+9gfs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181892

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jelly92784" <jelly92784 at ...> wrote:
>
> Samadjar Wrote:
> 1. What happened to Voldemort's body in Godrics Hollow?  If his dead
> body was found in the ruins, then why did people think he disappeared?
> 
> If his body was not there - on what basis did everyone in wizarding
> world guess that something happened to him and started celebrating?
> Voldemort is very secretive about his whereabouts even to his
> followers- so what made people guess so early that he is not powerful
> anymore?
>   
> Geoff:
> There is an interesting series of comments which Hagrid makes to Harry
> in PS which might give food for thought:
>  
> '(Harry) - "But what happened to Vol - sorry - I mean, You-Know-Who?"
> "Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter 
> kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That's the biggest myst'ry,
> see... he was gettin' more an' more powerful - why'd he go? Some say
> he died......
> 
> ...Most of us reckon he's still out there somewhere but lost his
> powers. Too weak to carry on...."'
> (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.46-47 UK edition)
> 
> The implication being that there was no body at Godric's Hollow. The 
> other presumptions probably followed because Voldemort's activity just 
> ceased - abruptly and inexplicably.
> 
> Janelle: I've been looking for a reference to something else that
> Hagrid says to Harry about what happened after his parents were
> killed, but I can't remember when he says it or if this is movie
> contamination, but somewhere before Harry learns about the
> unforgivable curses Hagrid tells him that people came out of "trances"
> (and now that I write it I feel like it could have even been Sirius or
> Mr. Weasley that had this conversation with Harry).  I took this to
> mean that people who had been under the imperius curse had come out of
> it, which could have been used as evidence that Voldemort's power had
> gone - leading to the early celebrations.

Geoff:
Oh, that's in the same conversation from which I quoted....

'(Hagrid) "Some say the died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he 
had enough human left in him to die. Some say he's still out there, 
bidin' his time, like, but I don't believe it. People who was on his side 
came back ter ours, Some of 'em came outta kinda trances. Don' 
reckon they could've done if he was comin' back."
(PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.46 UK edition)




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 09:44:55 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:44:55 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's
 death
In-Reply-To: <E1JWjgN-00044V-7c@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com> <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com> <E1JWjgN-00044V-7c@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <47CE6B97.2040107@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181893

Lenore ******* ** **** **** *** On 05/03/2008 10:47:

Lee:
> So hang the legalities and Apparate out anyway.

Lenore:
> I totally agree. They could have easily had the Seven Apparitions,

A nit first (not so much picking, just pointing out): it's apparAtion, 
not apparItion. And yes, most of my fingers are pointing back at myself; 
that is, when they're not busy hitting the backspace key as I, too, 
mistype the word.

Lenore:
> The entire Seven Potters plan strikes me as less than brilliant,

Well, I don't think JKR is going to go down in history for the 
cleverness of her plots. We'll leave that to Agatha Christie.

Lee:
> a complaint about the attribution line my

Lenore:
> It would bother me if member pressures were to cause this group
> to lose any of its variety, which is truly its spice. Surely, Lee's line
> costs nothing in terms of tolerance.

Thanks for the defense, Lenore. However, I wasn't offended or off-put at 
all, just caught by surprise. In fact, several others have now echoed 
the original complaint.

I feel like I'm staring at one of those SIRDS MagicEye images that were 
so popular ten years ago. Everyone around me is telling me they see an 
image but I, stare as I might, can't see it. I believe it's there, 
because everyone else says so, but blimey if I can see it.

In any case, I'm neither offended myself nor feeling pressured over it. 
I'm really finding it interesting as an example of the disconnect 
between what an author writes and what an audience might perceive in 
spite of the author's best intentions. Perhaps this is the same 
disconnect that exists between JKR's interviews and the canon.

In any case, I'm not terribly attached to my attribution line, so 
changing it isn't a matter of much import. I try to maintain civility in 
all my posts. I'd like to avoid unintentionally sabotaging my own efforts.

Well, gotta go. My daughter's been demanding ice cream for the last half 
hour, and she won't be put off any longer :-)

CJ




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Mar  5 13:50:47 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 06:50:47 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
References: <fqljbj+9gfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c87ec7$eb529a30$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 181894

>> Janelle: I've been looking for a reference to something else that
>> Hagrid says to Harry about what happened after his parents were
>> killed, but I can't remember when he says it or if this is movie
>> contamination, but somewhere before Harry learns about the
>> unforgivable curses Hagrid tells him that people came out of "trances"
>> (and now that I write it I feel like it could have even been Sirius or
>> Mr. Weasley that had this conversation with Harry).  I took this to
>> mean that people who had been under the imperius curse had come out of
>> it, which could have been used as evidence that Voldemort's power had
>> gone - leading to the early celebrations.
>
> Geoff:
> Oh, that's in the same conversation from which I quoted....
>
> '(Hagrid) "Some say the died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he
> had enough human left in him to die. Some say he's still out there,
> bidin' his time, like, but I don't believe it. People who was on his side
> came back ter ours, Some of 'em came outta kinda trances. Don'
> reckon they could've done if he was comin' back."
> (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" pp.46 UK edition)

Shelley:
And, that same "coming out of trances" is mentioned in Deathly Hallows after 
Voldemort died.
Chapter 36, The Flaw in the Plan (page 744-745 US hardback edition)

"He (Harry) must speak to the bereaved, clasp their hands, witness their 
tears, recieve their thanks, hear the news now creeping in from every 
quarter as the morning drew on; that the Imperiused up and down the country 
had come back to themselves, that Death Eaters were fleeing or else being 
captured, that the innocent in Azkaban were being released at that very 
moment, and that Kingsley Shacklebolt had been named temporary Minister of 
Magic...."

It's true that the Imperiused coming back to themselves would be a sign of 
his death of the one that had ordered it, but it also would be a sign of 
loss of control of that spell, or the lack of need for it any more. If the 
Death Eaters had lost all connection to Voldemort that first time, and 
feared his death, then they would attempt to cover their tracks of 
association with Voldemort in hopes of slipping under the radar so that they 
wouldn't be punished. So, I think Hargrid was wrong in assuming that the 
Imperiused being lifted couldn't have happened if Voldemort was coming back- 
he just misestimated the time it would take Voldemort to regain a body and 
his control again. Hagrid was thinking immediate return, but the truth was 
that the connection was broken with the Death Eaters so much that some of 
them even thought he might have been dead, and that Voldemort was reduced to 
almost nothing, and that recovery wouldn't be an easy process. 




From jnferr at gmail.com  Wed Mar  5 13:52:49 2008
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:52:49 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <C37DE48E-3873-4CC9-8403-2A7927D616F2@acsalaska.net>
References: <C37DE48E-3873-4CC9-8403-2A7927D616F2@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40803050552k6bc8e07aka17530f44cf139a1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181895

Laura:
>
> I was listening to PoA and was at the part where Pettigrew
> points at someone.  When he does so, he has to point with
> his middle finger, as his index finger is missing.  I hadn't
> realized what image that would project.  I am sure she
> meant it, as it is fairly explicit.  I suppose this has been
> discussed before, but it was the first time I noticed and I
> had to laugh.


montims:

In Britain, this gesture is not common, except for those that like to adopt
Americanisms - it is the traditional V sign that is offensive - so offensive
in my mind, at least, that I think I have never used it...


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




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Mar  5 14:09:36 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:09:36 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's death
References: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com> <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com> <E1JWjgN-00044V-7c@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <002201c87eca$8c06d250$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 181896

> Lenore:
> The entire Seven Potters plan strikes me as less than brilliant,
> and I personally would expect a much more effective plan from our
> dear Moody, (who is one of my favorite characters and one which
> I had hoped would be developed further).  Fortunately, their DE
> pursuers were also lacking in efficiency and competence;
> otherwise, the whole plan could have ended in a complete debacle.
>
> (Actually, I was surprised that anyone on Moody's team showed
> up alive. It looked like a doomed mission to me.)


Shelley:
But we see later that this plan wasn't Moody's, but Dumbledore's planted 
suggestion to Snape into Mundungus's head.

Chapter 33, The Prince's Tale (page 688, American Edition)
"And the scene shifted. Now, Harry saw Snape talking to the portrait of 
Dumbledore behind the desk.

"You will have to give to Voldemort the correct date of Harry's departure 
from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so will raise 
suspicion, when Voldemort believes you will be so well informed. However, 
you must plant the idea of decoys; that I think, ought to ensure Harry's 
safety. Try Confunding Mundungus Fletcher." "

It goes on to show Snape planting the suggestion into Mung: "You will 
suggest to the Order of the Phoenix," Snape murmured, "that they use decoys. 
Polyjuice Potion. Identical Potters...... "

Yes, I would have thought Moody would have had a better plan, or tried to 
buck this one, especially coming from Mundungus! I was shocked when I 
learned that Dumbledore had created this plot. It wasn't one of Rowling's 
most creative moments in writing, for sure. 




From lmkos at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  5 14:47:37 2008
From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:47:37 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: 
  Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <002201c87eca$8c06d250$6701a8c0@homemain>
References: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com>
 <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
 <E1JWjgN-00044V-7c@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
 <002201c87eca$8c06d250$6701a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <E1JWuvG-0006Sg-0B@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181897


> > Lenore:
> > (Actually, I was surprised that anyone on Moody's team showed
> > up alive. It looked like a doomed mission to me.)
>
>Shelley:
>But we see later that this plan wasn't Moody's, but Dumbledore's
>planted suggestion to Snape into Mundungus's head. (snip)
>Yes, I would have thought Moody would have had a better plan, or
>tried to buck this one, especially coming from Mundungus!

Lenore:
My impression was that Moody made the decision to accept the
supposedly improved version of the Relocate Harry Mission.  If
he was in charge then, yes, the plan became his responsibility,
moreso than Dumbledore, Snape, or Mundungus-- regardless
of their interference in the matter. IMO, of course.

Lenore




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Wed Mar  5 17:19:51 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:19:51 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40803050552k6bc8e07aka17530f44cf139a1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C37DE48E-3873-4CC9-8403-2A7927D616F2@acsalaska.net> <8ee758b40803050552k6bc8e07aka17530f44cf139a1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F78CC4E2-A505-40D4-A1FC-AFEF705BA7E4@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181898


On 2008, Mar 05, , at 04:52, Janette wrote:

> Laura:
>>
>> I was listening to PoA and was at the part where Pettigrew
>> points at someone.  When he does so, he has to point with
>> his middle finger, as his index finger is missing.  I hadn't
>> realized what image that would project.  I am sure she
>> meant it, as it is fairly explicit.  I suppose this has been
>> discussed before, but it was the first time I noticed and I
>> had to laugh.
>
>
> montims:
>
> In Britain, this gesture is not common, except for those that like  
> to adopt
> Americanisms - it is the traditional V sign that is offensive - so  
> offensive
> in my mind, at least, that I think I have never used it...
So does that mean it was only intended for American
audiences?  By the time PoA was written, she must
have known she had a huge American readership.

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



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




From lmkos at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  5 17:19:15 2008
From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:19:15 -0700
Subject: Slippery perception in HP (was Dumbledore and other leaders)
In-Reply-To: <47CE6B97.2040107@yahoo.com>
References: <47CD9FC3.2060109@yahoo.com>
 <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
 <E1JWjgN-00044V-7c@elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
 <47CE6B97.2040107@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <E1JWxHe-0003D9-Fc@elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181899


>Lee:
> > So hang the legalities and Apparate out anyway.
>Lenore:
> > I totally agree. They could have easily had the Seven Apparitions,
Lee:
>A nit first (not so much picking, just pointing out): it's apparAtion,
>not apparItion.

Lenore:
You are quite correct.  I was surprised to see my own mistake;
my focus must have been elsewhere at the time.

[snip]
Lee:
Thanks for the defense, Lenore. However, I wasn't offended or off-put
at all, just caught by surprise. In fact, several others have now echoed
the original complaint.
>I feel like I'm staring at one of those SIRDS MagicEye images that were
>so popular ten years ago. Everyone around me is telling me they see
>an image but I, stare as I might, can't see it. I believe it's there,
>because everyone else says so, but blimey if I can see it.

Lenore:
If a poster *believed* you were placing a subtle snarky message
which was *personally* directed to them, or to something they
had written, then I could understand how they might be peeved.

But that still seems a stretch to me, and it presupposes that one's
deductive perception of someone else's intention is mostly, or
usually, or always correct.  A coworker once came to work in a
very angry mood toward me because she had had a dream in
which I had done something suspicious.  I kept pointing out to
her that it was HER dream but, there again, was that huge
disconnect between perception (hers) and intention (mine).

Perception is both fascinating and problematic for such reasons.
It is what makes us all bonkers.

Lee:
>I'm really finding it interesting as an example of the disconnect
>between what an author writes and what an audience might perceive
>in spite of the author's best intentions. Perhaps this is the same
>disconnect that exists between JKR's interviews and the canon.

Lenore:
This topic really is pertinent to the HP series itself, apart from the
interviews. I've wanted to start a thread on it many times. I got interested
in the HP books in the first place because I noticed how utterly confused
and tangled the characters' perceptions were, and I thought JKR must
really be going somewhere with that. I thought it would make a powerful
point if she could show the reader just how slippery perception can be.

Was she making that very point by showing the story mostly through the
Harry filter, which was rarely reliable?  It might be interesting to recall
instances where JKR clearly shows a cause-and-effect relationship
between faulty perception and imprudent action   After the Ministry
battle in OoP, Harry does question the path his perceptions and
actions took. But would he have done that if Sirius had not died?

The other situation which pops into my mind at the moment actually
makes the opposite point--that faulty perception doesn't do any harm,
nor does it have much effect on outcomes  That was when Hermione
was 100 percent certain that Snape was cursing Harry's broom. She
hurried to interrupt his spell and, indeed, she did interrupt the curse
at the same time (thanks to a mysterious Benevolent Fate apparently
predestined for the Trio alone). <g>

It has bothered me that Hermione and Harry were allowed to hold
incredible distortions of perception, and events would still unfold
just fine for them... but that is not quite how the mind works. IMO.
Lenore




From anita_hillin at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 17:40:54 2008
From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:40:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Florian Fortescue
In-Reply-To: <fq7hmn+djg7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <617129.32068.qm@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181900



Carol <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> queried:                               Anyone have any ideas regarding what happened to Florian Fortescue and
 why? [akh then committed a serious act of snipping]
 
 Carol, wondering why JKR included him in the story unless it's just to
 show that Diagon Alley in HBP isn't what it used to be in earlier books
 
 
     
         akh responds, not knowing if others have already said this:

In one interview I read on The Leaky Cauldron web site, Jo says she had intended to involve Fortescue in a plot line that, ultimately, she had to abandon.  What she doesn't explain is at what point she decided to abandon it.  Perhaps it was prior to HBP, in which case she needed to dispense with him somehow and decided to kill him off in the general melee in Diagon Alley.  

The other possibility is that she still hoped to finish his trajectory as of HBP, which included some sort of reappearance, but she realized his story line was bogging down the plot, so she left him presumed dead.  

I'd be interested to know if she would remove such specific early references to him if she were to revise the early books in light of her final outcomes.  

akh, who will soon have to blame her inability to remember where she read things on old age and not on powerful medicines





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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar  5 17:56:12 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:56:12 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <F78CC4E2-A505-40D4-A1FC-AFEF705BA7E4@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fqmmrs+oal3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181901

 
> > Laura:
> >>
> >> I was listening to PoA and was at the part where Pettigrew
> >> points at someone.  When he does so, he has to point with
> >> his middle finger, as his index finger is missing.  I hadn't
> >> realized what image that would project.  I am sure she
> >> meant it, as it is fairly explicit.  I suppose this has been
> >> discussed before, but it was the first time I noticed and I
> >> had to laugh.

Potioncat:
There is a world of difference between "shooting the bird" or "giving 
the finger" and pointing at someone. Even if it had been an Anerican 
author, I wouldn't think anything of it. Since this isn't a British 
gesture, I don't think JKR intended anything, and possibly wasn't even 
aware of any potential misunderstanding.

My daughter's very strict 3rd grade teacher frequently pointed with her 
middle finger. It caused the kids some distress as they didn't dare 
laugh.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar  5 18:02:04 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:02:04 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince
In-Reply-To: <fqjjj6+k0le@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqmn6s+qpkt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181902

 "pathgrrl" <reets67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> I was reading an Ashwinder fan-fiction by StormySkize (As the Pages
> Turn), and she brings up that Irma Pince possibly is Snape's mother 
due
> to the fact that if you rearrange her name it becomes 'I'm a Prince.'
> Honestly I was a bit taken back at first but read her response to my
> review...
> 
> Author's Response: I thought that we would find out that Madam Pince
> WAS Eileen Snape. There's even, in book six, a reference to Madam
> Pince's 'hooked nose.' Alas, JKR never explained what happened to poor
> Eileen ... sigh. Maybe her "encyclopedia" will make the connection.

Potioncat:
There was some thoughts along that line after HBP. You might try a 
search for old posts if you're interested. (good luck.)

I never bought it. For one reason, we were shown a hooked-nose man in 
Snape's memory which surely was his father or grandfather. Eileen was 
never described as having a hooked-nose. Nothing in the story gives us 
any reason to think Eileen is at Hogwarts.

As for the anagram. Well, Draco Malfoy comes out as "Lord of a YMCA." 
(As first noticed by Ginger.)

Besides, I like Eileen, and I don't like Filch or Madam Pince.







From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 18:50:55 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:50:55 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's
 death
In-Reply-To: <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
References: <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47CEEB8F.5090106@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181903

Lee responded:
> Or just keep him at Hogwarts and not send him back in the first place?

Carol responds:
> DD has made sure that the protection at Privet Drive ... is still 
 > in place until his seventeenth birthday by having Harry
 > return there during the summer holiday.

Yes, this was the explanation as DD gave it. Moody gave a different 
explanation:

"Your mother's charm will only break under two conditions: when you come 
of age, or you no longer call this place home.... You and your aunt and 
uncle are going your separate ways tonight ... so this time when you 
leave, there'll be no going back...."

Moody's and DD's explanations are almost, but not quite, the same. DD's 
explanation seems to imply there's some sort of residency requirement -- 
that Harry has to physically reside at Privet Drive for at least a small 
part of each year (could Harry have stayed over one summer at Hogwart's 
and still returned the next?) He is, in essence, homesteading; it's his 
physical presence which determines whether the place is still home.

Moody's explanation, OTOH, implies that Harry's intent, rather than 
physical presence, is the key, and DD/Moody's plan sets out to create a 
situation in which Harry is intentionally abandoning Privet Drive for 
the purpose of breaking the charm. Seems unnecessary. Why not just take 
Harry away without the intentional abandonment stuff, and allow the 
charm to expire naturally later? Intentionally breaking the charm seems 
to do nothing more than deliberately and unnecessarily tip off the MoM.

> Nor can they Polyjuice Harry to look like Dudley since Dudley also has
> to leave Privet Drive.

But Dudley can leave any time once Harry's gone -- say, three or four 
days later. By the time the DEs figure out what's happened, Harry's long 
gone. Nor does it seem like they'd waste a lot of time on Dudley once 
they discovered he wasn't Harry.

Carol:
> The Disillusionment Charms must have been performed before they
> arrived. But then they had to be lifted at 4 Privet Drive, so the
> Order must have been counting on the protective Charm once their
> presence had been detected.

But the issue is not protection -- it's secrecy. The moment the MoM 
figures out there's something up inside Privet Drive -- whether they can 
get in or not -- every DE in England is parked outside the place waiting 
for the charm to lift (or to be deliberately broken).

Lee:
> Hagrid riding a flying motorcycle. That's not magical activity?
> Mooody's packing a six-er of polyjuice. That's not magical activity?

Carol:
> I don't think those two count. Neither do the brooms or the Thestrals.

Well, obviously JKR, at least, wasn't thinking of them as "magical 
activity". It then becomes a question of what constitutes the "magical 
activity" that triggers the Trace. Is it only at the moment the spell is 
cast? And does it only involve certain types of spells? Then it would 
sound like, Trace or no, there's an awful lot an underage wizard could 
get away with.

Lee:
> ...complaint about the attribution line...

Carol:
> Let's just say that it does sound slightly sarcastic

Thanks for the candid feedback. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I 
feel like the odd-fellow-out at a MagicEye viewing; I'm staring at my 
attribution line until I'm bug-eyed and I still can't see the sarcasm, 
but everyone else says it's there, so I've no choice but to believe them.

> BTW, if you post from the list, you won't have to worry about your
> e-mail reader acting on its own a la Harry's wand.

I download all my e-mail and reply offline, so it'd be a bit of a hassle 
having to go online especially to reply to HPfG posts). Besides,
the text editor I use for off-line replying has a number of useful 
features that posting from the list doesn't: line counts, word counts, 
spell-checking, and the nifty ability to automatically reformats ">" 
paragraphs, which saves me a bunch of time having to do it manually. 
Besides, trying to compose long messages in that tiny little textbox is 
just too confining.

OK, one and all. I've changed my attribution line (took long enough to 
find the setting) to:

<Name> had this to say on <date>

Any objections :-) ?

CJ




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 19:14:28 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:14:28 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqlf6q+tcah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqmrek+6ot3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181904

> zanooda:
> 
> Maybe a murder needs to be fresh not in the sense of "recent", but 
> in the sense of "latest", each consecutive murder erasing the 
> previous one for the purpose of Horcrux-making. <snip>
>
> but didn't repent either. To use Myrtle's murder to make a
> H-x LV only needed to do it at any time between her murder and
> his father's murder.

Mike:
OK, I'll buy this. Nice plot hole filler, Mila. :) Of course, 
combine this with the people LV used to make the Horcruxes, 
and it not only kills DD's "significant" murder theory, it makes 
designating whose murders LV used to make them pointless. He just
needs to have murdered *someone* - and not feel any remorse so 
there is no soul healing - to create a Horcrux. And per DD, he's
killed enough to make an army of Inferi.

So I reiterate, what was the purpose of DD's statement about LV's 
reserving Horcrux making for significant murders? But even worse,
JKR used DD's statement to show he had figured out how many 
Horcruxes Voldemort had made, that he was one short when he went 
to kill Harry at GH, and that therefore he decided to make Nagini 
his 6th Horcrux. (Him not knowing about the Harry!Crux.) 

Now that it appears there was nothing to this "significant" murder 
theory, why should I believe that Dumbledore knew which murders LV 
used to create Horcruxes? And without that knowledge, how am I 
suppose to believe that Dumbledore knew how many Horcruxes were made 
pre-GH and that that left him one more to make with Nagini?

You (generic) can say that DD used more than Horcrux count to figure 
out Nagini!crux, and you'd be right. But IF he hadn't known that LV 
had one more to make, he wouldn't have been looking for the clues 
that led him to conclude Nagini was one.

OK Mila, fill that plot hole! <wink>

Mike, sorry to be finding more plot holes and may have to re-think 
whether this murder-horcrux information should be considered canon.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 20:33:46 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:33:46 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <47CE6B97.2040107@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqn03a+c0t8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181905

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

> A nit first (not so much picking, just pointing out): it's 
> apparAtion, not apparItion. 


zanooda:

I would certainly agree with you, "ApparAtion" (with "a") seems more 
correct, but shouldn't we follow the author on this? In the books it's 
always "ApparItion" (with "i"), in both British and American editions, 
so I think we should write it as JKR writes it, even if the 
word "apparition" reminds me strongly of ghosts :-).




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 21:17:45 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:17:45 -0000
Subject: Some questions on the series as a whole ...
In-Reply-To: <026701c87e68$162c26f0$6701a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fqn2lp+7hgu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181906

Shelley wrote:
> In Deathly Hallows, we get a further answer. (I don't have my book
handy for the chapter and exact quote.) In Voldemort's memory of the
killing night, he says something to the effect of "he knew he couldn't
stay in that home in the broken state he was in", and so that answer
is correct- there was no "body" to be found could verify that
Voldemort died, because Voldemort himself decided to leave the house
before he was discovered to be broken. This was the basis for people
saying that he wasn't dead, but would be back one day.  But, everyone
knew that his reign of terror had stopped, and those who were spying
on the faithful Death Eaters knew even they were searching for their
leader, with no luck. Even they didn't know where he went. They were
confused, because they were now leaderless.
>
Carol:
If you mean that he left the scene in his own body, I don't think so.
I mean, I think that Vapromort left his body at Godric's Hollow. His
soul was, in his own words (GoF), *ripped* from his body. 

The quote you're looking for in in "Bathilda's Secret":

"And then he broke. He was nothing, nothing but pain and terror, and
he must hide himself, not here in the rubble of the ruined house,
where the child was trapped and screaming, but far away" (DH Am. ed. 345).

I take his inability to stay there to mean that he couldn't return to
his *broken* body and had to seek refuge somewhere that had available
bodies (snakes and small animals) to possess. We know that he has no
body when Quirrell encounters him, and he's revaporized when he leaves
Quirrell's body. He remains in that state, strong enough to possess
snakes and small animals but otherwise helpless, until Wormtail finds him.

The Death Eaters, as we learn in the graveyard scene in GoF, knew that
Voldemort had taken measures to make himself immortal (measures which,
the older DEs would know, altered his appearance greatly). But only
Bellatrix and her team (the Lestrange brothers and Rabastan) seem to
have believed that those measures succeeded. Until informed otherwise
by DD, the young Snape thinks him dead. In "Spinner's End," Snape
lists a group of others, including Lucius Malfoy, Yaxley, the Carrows,
and the quasi-DE Greyback, who also believed LV to be dead.)

I can't imagine the whole WW (other than the loyal DEs) celebrating
the seeming death of Voldemort unless they had an identifiable body as
evidence of his destruction, or the DEs believing him dead without
similar evidence. (It's not clear to what extent their Dark Marks
faded, but the fading must have been significant if not complete.) Had
his body not been at Godric's Hollow, the MoM would have only DD's
word that Voldemort himself had killed the Potters and tried to kill
Harry. (The only other indication would be the absence of a Dark Mark,
which would have meant that DEs did it, hardly sufficient evidence
that baby Harry had somehow thwarted the Dark Lord himself.)

My own reading is that the repelled AK burst out of Harry's forehead,
creating the lightning-shaped cut, and its renewed force ripped
Voldemort to pieces, leaving him with no inhabitable body, including
his own corpse. (He seems not to have even considered possessing
Baby!Harry. Had he done so, he would probably have encountered the
piece of his own soul that had entered, as I read now read it, through
the cut on Harry's forehead).

The problem is, of course, how DD could convince anyone that
Voldemort, despite evidence to the contrary, wasn't dead (without
going into the matter of Horcruxes, that is). Slughorn would have
suspected it, and Hagrid seems to have concluded that "there wasn't
enough human in him to die," but despite Hagrid's claim that "most
people" didn't think LV was dead, I think he's mistaken. The original
Order members (those who still survived) would be among the few to
hold that belief, IMO. Fudge only believes  (or half-believes, given
his unwillingness to believe that LV has returned) that Voldemort is
still alive because "Dumbledore says he is" (HBP Am. ed. 8).

Note that Harry is the only Wizard who's ever survived an AK;
Voldemort is never given credit for doing so, which suggests to me
that his body was destroyed, "broken" by the force of the rebounded
AK, which seems also to have partially blown up the house. (the
alternative is that his body was vaporized, but how would anyone know
that he had killed the Potters if that were the case? Wormtail wasn't
about to report it. And how would anyone know that he hadn't just
walked away, whole and unharmed, when he failed to kill Harry? How
would they even know that the scar on Harry's forehead was from an AK
that failed to kill him? Why would anyone believe DD, the only person
who could provide that information, if there were no body to identify?

Carol, noting that the SS/PS evidence seems to suggest that LV has
merely disappeared (McGonagall's word), but the later evidence,
notably GoF and DH, suggests that he appeared to be dead 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 21:33:41 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:33:41 -0000
Subject: Question about R.A.B and horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <600326.14478.qm@web45107.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqn3jl+3o74@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181907

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, shamil baseet <shamil3235 at ...> 
wrote:

> There are other clues within the short note when he pronounced
> himself a man by calling himself HE.


Just out of curiousity: did you read HBP in translation? To what 
language, if it's not a secret? The point is, RAB never called 
himself "HE" in the note, and it's impossible to even know if it was 
a man or a woman who wrote it, because in English there is just no 
difference. 

In many languages, however, there is a difference, so you can tell - 
that's why I thought you read a translation. For example, in Russian 
there is a difference between feminine and masculine in the past 
tenses, and you just know if it's a man or a woman. They translated 
the note into Russian as if RAB was a man, but it was risky - what if 
he turned out to be a woman :-)? After all, they gave Scabbers a 
feminine name and called him "she" all the time, and later it turned 
out Scabbers was a man, LOL!

You can answer off-list, if you prefer :-).


zanooda, still interested in HP translations ...




From anita_hillin at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 21:51:20 2008
From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magical objects vs Magic WAS Dumbledore and other leaders
In-Reply-To: <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <990216.93532.qm@web55105.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181908



                               
 Lee asked:
 > Hagrid riding a flying motorcycle. That's not magical activity?
 Mooody's packing a six-er of polyjuice. That's not magical activity?  

...Thestrals and flying broomsticks aren't magical activity? 
 
 
 Carol answered:

 I don't think those two [Hagrid and Polyjuice] count. Neither do the brooms or the Thestrals.  The charms on the motorcycle (and the brooms) were performed long  before, and carrying and drinking a potion of any kind probably isn't detectable. It's only spells that can be detected, as I understand it.
 
As for Thestrals and broomsticks, no, I don't think that's detectable magical activity, unlike Apparation, which requires a wand.
 
Lee added: 
 > Or does Moody really just mean wand use? But that doesn't work
 either, because they detected Dobby's wandless magic.
 
 Carol responded:
 More like charms and other spells, which require wands for Wizards but
 can be performed wandlessly by a House-Elf. It's still a hover charm,
 regardless of whether a House-Elf or a Wizard performed it.


akh jumps in:
I think COS supports Carol's position that it's the spell that's detectable, not the object or creature.  The very fact that Harry was accused of performing magic outside of Hogwarts implies that the MOM had no idea Dobby was in the house.  Dobby's PRESENCE didn't set off any alarms, just his use of magic. We also have no  evidence that the flying Ford Anglia was detected until it was seen later by Muggles in London.  If it were detectable at 4 Privet Drive, it most certainly would have been when Fred, George and Ron came to rescue Harry. 

Likewise, the presence of a magical creature would have been detected when the Dementors appeared in Little Whinging in OOP, if magical presence were enough to set off the alarms.  Fudge may have been in on Umbridge's nefarious plot (although I doubt it), but we know there were honest judges at the trial, too.   JKR may have some inconsistencies in the DH  scene, but I don't think this particular instance is one of them.

akh,  who hopes she attributed the right incidents to the proper books, since she's writing this from work (and of course I always hope I make sense!)







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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 21:57:07 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:57:07 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqlf6q+tcah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqn4vj+naji@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181909

zanooda:
> 
> Maybe a murder needs to be fresh not in the sense of "recent", but
in the sense of "latest", each consecutive murder erasing the previous
one for the purpose of Horcrux-making. <snip> To use Myrtle's murder
to make a H-x LV only needed to do it at any time between her murder
and his father's murder.

Carol responds:
Excellent suggestion. If you're right, Tom must have killed the older
Riddles in front of Tom Sr. to torture him emotionally before
murdering him. (Maybe he already hoped to make the ring into a second
Horcrux and deliberately saved his murder for last, but I suspect that
causing his father anguish before he killed him was the primary motive
for saving him till last--again, if you're right, and I think you are.)
> 
zanooda:
> The same with the ring - he could make it a H-x at any time between
his father's murder and the next murder - I don't know if it was
Hepzibah Smith or that Albanian peasant, or the tramp. 

Carol:
It was almost certainly Hepzibah's. He was still working at Borgin and
Burke's when he found out about the cup and the locket, and he killed
her, framed Hokey, and stole the future Horcruxes at that point. (DD
says in HBP that he doesn't think that Tom committed any murders
between Hepzibah and the Riddles, and Tom's appearance suggests that
he hadn't yet made the Ravenclaw Horcrux.) He certainly hadn't yet
killed the Muggle whose murder he used for the locket Horcrux because
it was obtained at the same time as the cup, for which he used
Hepzibah's murder. I assume that he made the cup Horcrux as soon as
possible after the murder, probably the moment he had safely
Disapparated. but he'd have to commit another murder to make the
locket Horcrux. Possibly he was in such a hurry to make that Horcrux
that he killed the first person he saw. At that point, he could not
possibly go back to work at Borgin and Burkes; his altered appearance
would give him away instantly to his Dark Arts expert employers. I'm
guessing that he fled to Albania; exactly when he made the Ravenclaw
Horcrux is unclear, but it had to have been before the DADA interview
some ten years later.

zanooda:
This way the ring doesn't need to be a H-x when LV talks to Slughorn,
because he (LV) didn't kill anyone yet after his father (although he
needed to kill him *after* the grandparents). 

Carol:
Right. He has already killed them or he wouldn't have the ring, but I
don't think he'd be wearing the ring, or asking those questions, if he
had already made a second Horcrux. (I've already dealt with the father
being killed after the grandparents, which as you say must be the case
if he used that soul bit to make the ring Horcrux.)

zanooda:
> LV didn't have to make the ring a H-x right after or very soon after
the murder. But, if he wanted the ring H-x to be made out of his
father's death, and not out of any other, he needed to turn it into
H-x *before* he killed someone else. I'm not sure that it's the right
idea, because it's late and my head doesn't work well :-).
> 
Carol:
I'm sure you're correct. and, in any case, he had no reason at that
point to kill anyone else. (Myrtle was killed to "carry on Salazar
Sytherin's noble work" and his father was killed for revenge (with the
older Riddles thrown in for good measure, either to destroy his Muggle
heritage, not just the Riddle name but his father's maternal bloodline
as well or to torment Tom Sr. or both). But he had no motive to kill
anyone else until greed (not really a strong enough term to describe
his lust to possess those particular artifacts) drove him to murder
again. The other two murders (I'm not counting Bertha here) were
committed solely to create fresh soul bits for the Horcruxes. The soul
bits form the older Riddles were evidently inaccessible, as you
speculated.

> > Mike:  
> > And I bow to your wisdom in picking Nagini as a Horcrux, I 
thought she was a red herring. 

Carol:
Thank you. Only I thought that she must have been made a Horcrux
before GH to account for the transformation in his appearance between
the DADA interview and his second return, at which point he seems to
have already been snakelike. I still can't account for that one.
> 
zanooda:
> 
> Yeah, me too :-). Never believed she was a H-x. We were right about
Harry!Horcrux though :-).

Carol:
And I resisted Harry!crux with every argument I could come up with. I
still don't think he was a true Horcrux since no encasing spell was
performed on him. Accidental Horcrux or quasi-Horcrux or something
like that, but he doesn't act like the diary or locket Horcruxes, or
Nagini (who must already have had some sort of affinity with
Voldemort), and I don't think it's solely because he had his own
"pure" soul. I think it's also because he wasn't a true, spell-encased
Horcrux.

Carol, hoping that JKR will provide a well-thought-out, complete,
canon-consistent explanation and backstory for Voldemort (and for the
duel between DD and Grindelwald, while I'm at it)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 22:57:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:57:46 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <47CE6B97.2040107@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqn8ha+6d3m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181910

Lenore:
> > I totally agree. They could have easily had the Seven Apparitions,
> 
> A nit first (not so much picking, just pointing out): it's apparAtion, 
> not apparItion. And yes, most of my fingers are pointing back at
myself; that is, when they're not busy hitting the backspace key as I,
too, mistype the word.
>
Carol responds:
I don't know about the UK editions, but the American editions are
inconsistent in their terminology.

The concept is introduced in PoA or possibly earlier, but I can't find
the noun form at the moment. (Anybody have a relevant quote handy?) 

In GoF, it's "Apparition": "It's not easy, Apparition, and when it's
not done properly, it can lead to complications" (Mr. Weasley, GoF Am.
ed 66).

In OoP, it's apparently "Apparation," although the only quote I can
find is Dumbledore's "If you proceed downstairs into the Department of
Mysteries, Cornelius, you will find several escaped Death Eaters
contained in the Death Chambers, bound by an anti-Disapparation Jinx 
 . . . ." (OoP Am. ed. 817). (If anyone has a better reference, please
provide it!)

In HBP, the references are easier to find, thanks to *Apparition*
lessons, for example: "If you are seventeen years of age, or will turn
senventeen on or before the 31st August next, you are eligivle for a
twelve-week course of Apparition Lessons from a Ministry of Magic
Apparition instructor" (HBP Am. ed. 354) and "The upshot of this was
that the sixth years' first Apparition lesson . . . took place in the
Great Hall instead of in the grounds" (381).

In DH, it's still "Apparition": "Even now, he [Yaxley] could be
bringing other Death Eaters in there [12 GP] by Apparition" (DH Am.
ed. 271.

I'm sure that I've seen "Apparation" used by itself, either in PoA or
OoP or both, but I can't find the relevant quotes now. The noun form
"Apparition" sounds to me like one of JKR's linguistic jokes (cf. the
Disillusionment charm, which, BTW, ought to be the Illusionment Charm,
but IMO, she couldn't resist having Mad-Eye say, "I've got to
Disillusion you.") It's unlikely to be the invention of an editor.
However, "Apparation" in OoP (and PoA?) could be an editor's
correction, considering that "Apparation" is the logical spelling for
the noun form of "Apparate."

Carol, curious to see how the British editions compare to the American
editions on this minor point





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  5 23:34:08 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:34:08 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqmrek+6ot3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqnalh+mauv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181911

Mike wrote:
> OK, I'll buy this. Nice plot hole filler, Mila. :) Of course, 
combine this with the people LV used to make the Horcruxes, and it not
only kills DD's "significant" murder theory, it makes designating
whose murders LV used to make them pointless. He just needs to have
murdered *someone* - and not feel any remorse so there is no soul
healing - to create a Horcrux. And per DD, he's killed enough to make
an army of Inferi.
> 
> So I reiterate, what was the purpose of DD's statement about LV's 
reserving Horcrux making for significant murders? But even worse, JKR
used DD's statement to show he had figured out how many Horcruxes
Voldemort had made, that he was one short when he went to kill Harry
at GH, and that therefore he decided to make Nagini his 6th Horcrux.
(Him not knowing about the Harry!Crux.) 
> 
> Now that it appears there was nothing to this "significant" murder
theory, why should I believe that Dumbledore knew which murders LV 
used to create Horcruxes? And without that knowledge, how am I 
suppose to believe that Dumbledore knew how many Horcruxes were made
pre-GH and that that left him one more to make with Nagini?
> 
> You (generic) can say that DD used more than Horcrux count to figure
out Nagini!crux, and you'd be right. But IF he hadn't known that LV 
had one more to make, he wouldn't have been looking for the clues that
led him to conclude Nagini was one. <snip>

Carol responds:
I'm sure I've posted on this topic before in relation to when DD
started suspecting that Tom Riddle was making Horcruxes, so I'll be as
concise as possible.

Dumbledore knew that Tom had taken Morfin's ring when he framed him
for the Riddle murders. He knew that Tom had stolen both the locket
and the cup (and killed Hepzibah to get them). He knew that Tom knew
the history of the locket and would have considered it his own, and
his taking the Hufflepuff Cup as well suggests that he would also seek
out a Ravenclaw and a Gryffindor Horcrux. (He also knew that the
Gryffindor Sword was safe as long as he was alive and it was in his
keeping.) He could tell by looking at Tom during the DADA interview
that his appearance had changed drastically since he stole the future
Horcruxes from Hepzibah. DD would know suspect that the three known
objects and possibly a fourth belonging to Ravenclaw had been made
into Horcruxes at that time. CoS showed him a fourth (or fifth)
Horcrux, the diary. And, of course, he suspected that Harry's scar was
an accidental Horcrux. But he needed Slughorn's memory to know exactly
how many Tom had intended to make. So, if he made six Horcruxes (the
seventh soul bit being his own tattered soul; he didn't know about
Harry), DD would know about the diary, the ring, the locket, and the
cup. He would suspect "something from Gryffindor or Ravenclaw,"
probably Ravenclaw given that the knew the sword was safe. That's five
of the six: one short of the magic number. I see no problem with that
deduction at all.

DD's "significant murders" theory is, as you say, mistaken, but it
does seem likely that Voldemort, once he learned about the Prophecy,
would have wanted to use Harry's murder to make a Horcrux. He wouldn't
need to have an object at hand; he could wait until he'd also killed
Dumbledore (another significant murder) and steal the Sword of
Gryffindor to complete his collection. However, after he was
vaporized, he seems to have given up on obtaining the Sword of
Gryffindor and decided to finish the job once he had a rudimentary
body, making Nagini his seventh Horcrux, the magic number seven being
even more important than the objects (or creatures!) used and much
more important, DD to the contrary, than the identity of the victims.

DD suspected from the close connection between Voldemort and Nagini
("but in essence divided") that she was more than just his pet snake,
possessed for the occasion. She was most likely a Horcrux. And, it
seems, he was right.

Carol, noting that DD was also mistaken about the manner of Frank
Bryce's death (I think he was fed to Nagini after he was AK'd, but he
wasn't killed by her)--or maybe JKR just forgot how Frank died





From dananotdayna at sbcglobal.net  Wed Mar  5 23:08:29 2008
From: dananotdayna at sbcglobal.net (dannanotdayna)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:08:29 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40803050552k6bc8e07aka17530f44cf139a1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fqn95d+ctjh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181912

> Laura:
>
> > I was listening to PoA and was at the part where Pettigrew
> > points at someone. When he does so, he has to point with
> > his middle finger, as his index finger is missing. I hadn't
> > realized what image that would project. I am sure she
> > meant it, as it is fairly explicit.
<SNIP>

> montims:

> In Britain, this gesture is not common, except for those that
> like to adopt Americanisms - it is the traditional V sign that
> is offensive - so offensive in my mind, at least, that I think
> I have never used it...


Sorry, I have to ask; my curiosity is piqued. The index
and middle finger sign Americans use for peace or victory
is offensive in England? I have to go Google British sign
language, because that sign is also part of the ASL alphabet.

Is it's meaning analagous to our "FU" finger?

I'll also toss in my two cents that I would be really surprised
if JKR meant Pettigrew's pointing to have a double meaning. When
she wants to toss in something colorful, she isn't really sneaky
about it. We got "effing" and "Bitch" in DH and a bit of an
eyebrow-raising conversation between Harry and Ginny, to boot.

~Dananotdayna



From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Thu Mar  6 01:24:48 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 16:24:48 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <fqn95d+ctjh@eGroups.com>
References: <fqn95d+ctjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <A68C8AC4-7945-4F4D-A837-8A4EA9258117@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 181913


On 2008, Mar 05, , at 14:08, dannanotdayna wrote:

>> Laura:
>>
>>> I was listening to PoA and was at the part where Pettigrew
>>> points at someone. When he does so, he has to point with
>>> his middle finger, as his index finger is missing. I hadn't
>>> realized what image that would project. I am sure she
>>> meant it, as it is fairly explicit.
> <SNIP>
>
>> montims:
>
>> In Britain, this gesture is not common, except for those that
>> like to adopt Americanisms - it is the traditional V sign that
>> is offensive - so offensive in my mind, at least, that I think
>> I have never used it...
>
>
> Sorry, I have to ask; my curiosity is piqued. The index
> and middle finger sign Americans use for peace or victory
> is offensive in England? I have to go Google British sign
> language, because that sign is also part of the ASL alphabet.
>
> Is it's meaning analagous to our "FU" finger?
>
> I'll also toss in my two cents that I would be really surprised
> if JKR meant Pettigrew's pointing to have a double meaning. When
> she wants to toss in something colorful, she isn't really sneaky
> about it. We got "effing" and "Bitch" in DH and a bit of an
> eyebrow-raising conversation between Harry and Ginny, to boot.
>
> ~Dananotdayna

Well, perhaps it comes from my own oversensitivity.  As a
substitute teacher with 11 and 12 year olds, everything seems
to take on the context of sexual innuendo or offensive symbolism.
But, whether intended or not, it certainly does bring up an image
in my mind - similar to the effect of having to shake hands with
one of my teachers who had lost all of the fingers on his right
hand except one (in WW II).

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



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




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Mar  6 01:36:37 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:36:37 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <fqn95d+ctjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqnhr5+v9kv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181914

Dananotdayna:
> Sorry, I have to ask; my curiosity is piqued. The index
> and middle finger sign Americans use for peace or victory
> is offensive in England? I have to go Google British sign
> language, because that sign is also part of the ASL alphabet.
> 
> Is it's meaning analagous to our "FU" finger?
> 
> I'll also toss in my two cents that I would be really surprised
> if JKR meant Pettigrew's pointing to have a double meaning. When
> she wants to toss in something colorful, she isn't really sneaky
> about it. We got "effing" and "Bitch" in DH and a bit of an
> eyebrow-raising conversation between Harry and Ginny, to boot.

Magpie:
Yes, two fingers, I think with the fingernails pointed outwards towards 
the other person=what in the US is done with just the middle finger.

But I agree--not only is it too subtle to really much stand out, 
pointing with your middle finger doesn't mean anything in either 
country. Unless you're being coy--like a kid might point with his 
middle finger to pretending to be flipping off the teacher without the 
teacher realizing or whatever, but Peter isn't doing that here and 
isn't American anyway. 

I assume the two-fingered version is what Draco gave Ron in HBP that 
Ron then repeated to Harry telling him about it.

-m





From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 03:02:57 2008
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:02:57 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <fqnhr5+v9kv@eGroups.com>
References: <fqn95d+ctjh@eGroups.com> <fqnhr5+v9kv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40803051902s11819afdi5876981a61122e54@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181915

>
> Magpie:
> Yes, two fingers, I think with the fingernails pointed outwards towards
> the other person=what in the US is done with just the middle finger.
>
> But I agree--not only is it too subtle to really much stand out,
> pointing with your middle finger doesn't mean anything in either
> country. Unless you're being coy--like a kid might point with his
> middle finger to pretending to be flipping off the teacher without the
> teacher realizing or whatever, but Peter isn't doing that here and
> isn't American anyway.
>
> I assume the two-fingered version is what Draco gave Ron in HBP that
> Ron then repeated to Harry telling him about it.


montims:

http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/the-v-sign/a-harvey-smith-to-you/vox-pop
shows
the V sign.

Holding up your index and middle fingers with your palm facing you is very
offensive, especially if you make jabbing motions up and down;  with the
palm facing out is the victory sign.  To this Brit at least...


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




From cookydclown at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 02:22:45 2008
From: cookydclown at yahoo.com (cookydclown)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:22:45 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <A68C8AC4-7945-4F4D-A837-8A4EA9258117@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fqnkhl+rro3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181916

> > Dananotdayna
>
> > Sorry, I have to ask; my curiosity is piqued. The index
> > and middle finger sign Americans use for peace or victory
> > is offensive in England? I have to go Google British sign
> > language, because that sign is also part of the ASL alphabet.


I thought the index and pointer finger gesture came from Bowmen in the
middle ages.  A rumor was spread by an enemy that the bowmen were so
bad at that their job that they lost their fingers.  So, when the
enemy approached the Bowmen showed them their fingers in that gesture
to prove their expertise.

Cooky




From tkjones9 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 04:41:09 2008
From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:41:09 -0000
Subject: Kinda dumb question
Message-ID: <fqnsl5+h3oq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181917

I was watching COS the other day and a quote from Ron made me think. I
know the movies are not always accurate to the books and that can be
the simple answer but I'm not sure if he says the same thing in the
book or not. They are in the bathroom make the polyjuice potion and
Ron says something along the lines of "Lucious opened it when he was
here at Hogwarts and now that Draco is here he can open it too." My
question is...I thought Lucious was at school with Snape, James, Lily,
Sirius, and Lupin. A year or two ahead but at school with them no?
This quote would make Lucious in the age range of LV as opposed to the
age range of the rest of the parents we meet in the series (Molly,
Arthur, James, Lilly etc...) Ok I'm babbling and I'm not even sure if
I phrased this right. PLEASE HELP!!! lol :-)

TKJ




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 05:10:12 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:10:12 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  -  Apparition/Apparation
In-Reply-To: <fqn8ha+6d3m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqnubk+8nhh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181918

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

> The concept is introduced in PoA or possibly earlier, but I 
> can't find the noun form at the moment. (Anybody have a relevant 
> quote handy?)


zanooda:

I think the concept of Apparition/Apparation was introduced in CoS, 
but there was no noun form there: "They know how to Apparate! You 
know, just vanish and reappear at home!" (p.69, Am.ed.) Wasn't the 
noun form used for the first time in GoF? I can't find it in PoA ;-(. 
It seems to me that it's Apparition everywhere, except for OotP, but 
there it's Disapparation, not Apparation. IMO, Disapparition would 
sound even worse than Apparition :-).



> Carol, curious to see how the British editions compare to 
> the American editions on this minor point


zanooda:

It seems to me they are the same in this respect, although I couldn't 
of course check every single use of the word :-).





From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 05:44:01 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:44:01 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's
 death
In-Reply-To: <fqn03a+c0t8@eGroups.com>
References: <fqn03a+c0t8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47CF84A1.20500@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181919

CJ
> A nit first (not so much picking, just pointing out): it's
> apparAtion, not apparItion.

zanooda:
> In the books it's always "ApparItion" (with "i")

Ack! You're right. It's "a" in the verbal form, but "i" in the nominal. 
Though in my defense, JKR uses the nominal form only sparingly (by my 
count, the verb occurs sixty one times in books 1-5, vs. only five 
nominals, one of which has nothing to do with the spell), making it hard 
to spot.

Guess next time I take it upon myself to correct someone else, I should 
get my "i"s checked first.

CJ

P.S. Hey, all you Thunderbird experts: I've changed my attribution line 
several times, but Thunderbird keeps changing it back. Anyone know where 
the setting is?




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 05:54:21 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:54:21 -0000
Subject: Kinda dumb question
In-Reply-To: <fqnsl5+h3oq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqo0ud+eseg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181920

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" <tkjones9 at ...> wrote:

> I was watching COS the other day and a quote from Ron made me think. I
> know the movies are not always accurate to the books and that can be
> the simple answer but I'm not sure if he says the same thing in the
> book or not. They are in the bathroom make the polyjuice potion and
> Ron says something along the lines of "Lucious opened it when he was
> here at Hogwarts and now that Draco is here he can open it too." My
> question is...I thought Lucious was at school with Snape, James, Lily,
> Sirius, and Lupin. A year or two ahead but at school with them no?
> This quote would make Lucious in the age range of LV as opposed to the
> age range of the rest of the parents we meet in the series (Molly,
> Arthur, James, Lilly etc...) Ok I'm babbling and I'm not even sure if
> I phrased this right. PLEASE HELP!!! lol :-)


I don't know about the movie, but in the book, when Ron said his line 
about Lucius, he didn't know yet that the Chamber was opened 50 years 
ago. It goes like this:

1. Harry finds out from Dobby that the Chamber was opened before  ("The 
Rogue Bludger", p.178 Am.ed.), but not "when".

2. The next day Harry tells Ron and Hermione that the Chamber was 
opened before, and Ron says his line about Lucius, not knowing yet when 
exactly the Chamber was opened ("The Dueling Club", p.184).

3. Harry and Ron find out that the Chamber was opened 50 years ago, 
from Draco: "Of course, it was fifty years ago, so it was before his 
(Lucius's) time ..." ("The Polyjuice Potion", p.223).

So don't worry, Lucius is *not* the same age as LV :-). Hope it helps,


zanooda




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 06:27:28 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 06:27:28 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <fqnhr5+v9kv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqo2sg+h9fc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181921

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

> Yes, two fingers, I think with the fingernails pointed 
> outwards towards the other person=what in the US is done 
> with just the middle finger.


Oh, I understand now what Molly ment when she said to Ron in HBP "if I 
see you do that again I'll jinx your fingers together". I thought she 
wanted to "glue" together all his fingers so that he couldn't show his 
middle finger, but now I see that she threatened to glue together his 
index and middle fingers so that he couldn't do this not very 
appropriate V sign :-).

zanooda




From whiggrrl at erols.com  Thu Mar  6 04:17:30 2008
From: whiggrrl at erols.com (FlaviaFlav)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:17:30 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince
In-Reply-To: <fqjjj6+k0le@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqnr8q+dj9g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181922

> pathgrrl
>
> I was reading an Ashwinder fan-fiction by StormySkize (As the Pages
> Turn), and she brings up that Irma Pince possibly is Snape's mother
> due to the fact that if you rearrange her name it becomes 'I'm a
> Prince. <snip>


FlaviaFlav:

I had a theory that Madam Pince would turn out to be Snape's
grandmother (Eileen's mother). Pince is more than once described in
terms of a vulture, and Neville's Boggart creates a connection between
Snape, grandmothers, and vultures. According to this theory,
Dumbledore took Pince into Hogwarts for her protection and as a
guarantee for Snape's good behavior. Rowling might have dropped this
thread, trusting to "The Prince's Tale" to establish that he's one of
the good guys.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 07:18:28 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:18:28 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magical objects vs Magic WAS Dumbledore and other
 leaders
In-Reply-To: <990216.93532.qm@web55105.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <990216.93532.qm@web55105.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <47CF9AC4.1070306@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181923

Lee asked:
> Hagrid riding a flying motorcycle. That's not magical activity?
> Mooody's packing a six-er of polyjuice. That's not magical activity?

Carol answered:
> I don't think those two [Hagrid and Polyjuice] count.

akh jumps in:
> I think COS supports Carol's position that it's the spell that's 
> detectable, not the object or creature.

It could be. However, what I had in mind was the operation of the spell, 
not just its initiation. For example, Hagrid's motorcycle flies because 
presumably somewhere in the past someone waved a wand over it and 
chanted the proper incantation. Though the spell was initiated in the 
past, it continues to operate in the present, else Hagrid and the bike 
would fall out of the sky. Ditto for, e.g., brooms.

So it would appear only the casting of a spell constitutes detectable 
"magical activity", not its continued operation. Additionally, we see 
that the Trace doesn't detect magical creatures, potions, 
transfigurations (e.g., of the polyjuice variety) or Canary Custards 
(OK, I just made up that last one), nor can it distinguish precisely who 
cast the spell, which is why Dobby's magic is attributed by the MoM to 
Harry. This Trace is starting to sound pretty useless ;0)

So if I'm an underage wizard hankering to do magic, the safest bet is to 
do it at someplace like Diagon Alley, which is shoulder-to-broomstick 
with witches.

> JKR may have some inconsistencies in 
> the DH scene, but I don't think this 
 > particular instance is one of them.

Perhaps, but at this point the expression "death of a thousand 
qualifications" springs to mind.


CJ




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar  6 07:38:29 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:38:29 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40803051902s11819afdi5876981a61122e54@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fqo71l+fpfp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181924

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette <jnferr at ...> wrote:

> montims:
> Holding up your index and middle fingers with your palm facing you is very
> offensive, especially if you make jabbing motions up and down;  with the
> palm facing out is the victory sign.  To this Brit at least...

Geoff:
Precisely. Look at pictures of Churchill in the Second World War. I 
sometimes jokingly refer to the rude version as a "reversed oscillating 
Victory sign".
:-)




From floribelole at yahoo.com.ph  Thu Mar  6 07:30:05 2008
From: floribelole at yahoo.com.ph (floribelole)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:30:05 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
Message-ID: <fqo6ht+7hlq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181925

Was Ariana raped?

floribelole



From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 13:14:01 2008
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:14:01 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqn4vj+naji@eGroups.com>
References: <fqlf6q+tcah@eGroups.com> <fqn4vj+naji@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40803060514p62268803sb3415f9d1ada23f8@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181926

> Carol:
> And I resisted Harry!crux with every argument I could come up with. I
> still don't think he was a true Horcrux since no encasing spell was
> performed on him. Accidental Horcrux or quasi-Horcrux or something
> like that, but he doesn't act like the diary or locket Horcruxes, or
> Nagini (who must already have had some sort of affinity with
> Voldemort), and I don't think it's solely because he had his own
> "pure" soul. I think it's also because he wasn't a true, spell-encased
> Horcrux.


montims:

Oh my goodness.  Duh.  Is THAT why DD didn't think Harry could be killed by
LV or anyone/thing else, and why he was so reckless with him in the game
plan?  Of course!  A horcrux can only be destroyed in a certain way, using
certain "tools".  Ironically, if it hadn't been for Fawkes, Harry would then
have been out in the first test (and LV one horcrux down), as the basilisk's
venom is one of those tools...


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




From gloworm419 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 13:28:30 2008
From: gloworm419 at yahoo.com (Gloria)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:28:30 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fqo6ht+7hlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqorhu+ilrp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181927

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "floribelole" <floribelole at ...>
wrote:
>
> Was Ariana raped?



I think she was. In the book, it only said that the boys attacked her;
but they were older and I tend to think they did rape her.
Anyone else have an opinion?

Gloria



From nymphadoratonks91 at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Mar  6 14:32:54 2008
From: nymphadoratonks91 at yahoo.co.uk (Andrea Shaw)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:32:54 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
Message-ID: <36037.23309.qm@web28302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181928




--- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups. com, "floribelole" <floribelole@ ...> 
wrote:
>
> Was Ariana raped?

I don't think she was. Think it too much for the books and their younger audience. Good theory.  I would have to think about it for defo. 

Andrea X








From parantap.samajdar at gmail.com  Thu Mar  6 12:28:17 2008
From: parantap.samajdar at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:28:17 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <fqkav4+m2rs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqoo11+5mj8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181929

Another question that comes to mind in this context is: why everyone
else did not apparate like Mundungus when they were under attack , especially when Mundungus could do it while under attack from Voldemort himself.

The real answer to this question is - in my view - to make the
movie plot compatible. :-) Having a quick clear exit won't give the
spectacular chase and fight sequence at the start of the movie...

In the entire HP series - I believe action packed DH will be the only
one whose movie version will be better than the book version .

~samajdar



From loptwyn at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 14:52:26 2008
From: loptwyn at yahoo.com (Alice)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:52:26 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <fqoo11+5mj8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqp0fa+k1dq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181930

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samajdar_parantap"
<parantap.samajdar at ...> wrote:
>
> Another question that comes to mind in this context is: why everyone
> else did not apparate like Mundungus when they were under attack ,
>especially when Mundungus could do it while under attack from
>Voldemort himself.
>

I would think that the reason the others didn't apparate was to
protect Harry.  Except for the Hagrid-Harry party, the only purpose
the others had in being out there flying around was to act as decoys
and distract Voldemort from the real Harry, who was not supposed to be
able to apparate without alerting the (Death-Eater controlled)
Ministry.  And when Mundungus does apparate, that does indeed tip off
the pursuing Death Eaters that he was not the real Harry.

Alice
>:>




From anita_hillin at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 16:27:45 2008
From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:27:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Kinda dumb question
In-Reply-To: <fqnsl5+h3oq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <196792.56878.qm@web55105.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181931



Tandra <tkjones9 at yahoo.com> queried:

                               I was watching COS the other day and a quote from Ron made me think. ...They are in the bathroom make the polyjuice potion and Ron says something along the lines of "Lucious opened it when he was here at Hogwarts and now that Draco is here he can open it too." My question is...I thought Lucious was at school with Snape, James, Lily, Sirius, and Lupin. A year or two ahead but at school with them no?
 This quote would make Lucious in the age range of LV as opposed to the
 age range of the rest of the parents we meet in the series (Molly,
 Arthur, James, Lilly etc...) Ok I'm babbling and I'm not even sure if
 I phrased this right. PLEASE HELP!!! lol :-)
 
akh reasons:
First, I think this question means you're paying attention, and as a former teacher, I appreciate that!  I think we're looking at chronology here.  Not having my books at hand, I'm not sure if Ron says that in the book, but at least within the context of the movie, the trio doesn't know that the chamber was opened fifty years ago yet. They discover that when they talk with Draco as Polyjuiced!Crabb and Goyle, so pre-polyjuice, any speculation is fair.  

It's interesting that, while this specific speculation isn't accurate, Lucius does have a hand in opening the Chamber of Secrets.



akh, who had to ponder the COS movie for a few minutes before remembering the chronology...






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




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Mar  6 17:13:32 2008
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:13:32 -0000
Subject: Harry in a dangerous profession?
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200802200917.AA17071743@mbc.edu>
Message-ID: <fqp8ns+mbjq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181932

--- Louise lfreeman wrote:
>
> 
> My 11 year old and I just finished re-reading DH ...  He 
> said he planned to put the Elder Wand back in the grave, then plan 
> on dying a natural death, so the power of the wand would be broken.
> 
> But Harry became the master of the Elder Wand by simply yanking 
> Draco's hawthorne wand out of his hand, not by killing or even 
> magically disarming him.  So, it would seem that if anyone managed 
> to get Harry's phoenix feather wand away from him, they would 
> instantly become the Elder Wand master.  In that case, it would 
> seem that becoming an Auror would be an exceptionally high-risk 
> profession.  Harry's skilled, but does he really think he can get 
> through an entire career chasing Dark wizards without being 
> defeated in a duel or disarmed even once?
> 
> ... he should 
> hide the Elder Wand in a less obvious place.  Or couldn't he, as 
> the Elder Wand master, choose to break it? (and bury the pieces 
> with Dumbledore, like the ballad Hagrid and Slughorn sang at 
Aragog's funeral?)

aussie:
Let me guess. Your 11 year old asked you that question. Kids are 
like that.

All the headmasters would have heard that plan of Harry's, and could 
have told their heirs how to get the Elder Wand - and that may have 
occured to Harry.

What if he got Ginny to disarm him to be the rightful owner of the 
Elder Wand? A Quidditch player would be less likely to be dueling 
and loose the Elder Wand to someone else. Harry, being so connected 
to Ginny, could have just had his Phoenix feather wand loaned back 
and use it pretty much as normal.

Harry would have to agree, "Behind every great man, is a witch ... 
with a deadly wand"

aussie




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Mar  6 17:27:47 2008
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:27:47 -0000
Subject: Kinda dumb question
In-Reply-To: <fqo0ud+eseg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqp9ij+7q4g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181933

> "Tandra" wrote:
> 
> > ... They are in the bathroom make the polyjuice potion and
> > Ron says something along the lines of "Lucious opened it when he 
> > was here at Hogwarts and now that Draco is here he can open it 
> > too." My question is...I thought Lucious was at school with 
> > Snape, James, Lily, Sirius, and Lupin. A year or two ahead but 
at school with them no?
> > This quote would make Lucious in the age range of LV as opposed 
> > to the age range of the rest of the parents we meet in the 
> > series (Molly, Arthur, James, Lilly etc...) 
> > ... PLEASE HELP!!! lol :-)
> 
> zanooda
> 
> ... in the book, when Ron said his line about Lucius, he didn't 
> know yet that the Chamber was opened 50 years ago. It goes 
> like this:
> 
> 1. Harry finds out from Dobby that the Chamber was opened before  
> ("The Rogue Bludger", p.178 Am.ed.), but not "when".
> 
> 2. The next day Harry tells Ron and Hermione that the Chamber was 
> opened before, and Ron says his line about Lucius, not knowing yet 
> when exactly the Chamber was opened ("The Dueling Club", p.184).
> 
> 3. Harry and Ron find out that the Chamber was opened 50 years 
> ago, from Draco: "Of course, it was fifty years ago, so it was 
> before his (Lucius's) time ..." ("The Polyjuice Potion", p.223).
> 
> So don't worry, Lucius is *not* the same age as LV :-). Hope it 
helps,
> 

aussie: 

I agree with zanooda. And as to how the parents cross pathes in 
Hogwarts ...

Lucius was a Prefect when Snape enters Hogwarts. Snape knew more 
Dark Spells in his first year than most other students, so would 
have been supported by Malfoy.

Arthur may have also been at Hogwarts during Lucius time there, 
although maybe a few years older that Malfoy. They seem to have a 
special interest in each other.




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Mar  6 17:38:49 2008
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:38:49 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince
In-Reply-To: <fqnr8q+dj9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqpa79+jdv2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181934

> > pathgrrl
> >
> > ... Irma Pince possibly is Snape's mother
> > due to the fact that if you rearrange her name it becomes 'I'm a
> > Prince. <snip>
> 
> 
> FlaviaFlav:
> 
> I had a theory that Madam Pince would turn out to be Snape's
> grandmother (Eileen's mother). Pince is more than once described in
> terms of a vulture, and Neville's Boggart creates a connection between
> Snape, grandmothers, and vultures. 

aussie:
Eileen was a student of both Slughorn and Dumbledore. 

Also, many of the notes in the Potions book may have come from Eileen 
herself since the book was 50 years old. Mdm Pince saw the book and 
hated scribbling in books. She didn't recognise her handwritting there 
at the time.

As for being the granny, Eileen's mother would be 90 years old or 
more ... hardly Filch's idea of a date unless he was very hard up to 
find a witch (OK, Filch may have thought that way)

aussie




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 18:50:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:50:09 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <36037.23309.qm@web28302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqped1+tf9i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181935

"floribelole" wrote:
> >
> > Was Ariana raped?
>
Andrea X responded: 
> I don't think she was. Think it too much for the books and their
younger audience. <snip>

Carol responds:
I don't think she was. Ariana was only seven, IIRC. I don't think that
the Muggle boys were that much older, maybe ten. Maybe they threw
rocks at her or banged her head against a wall. Granted, JKR left
their action vague and older readers are free to imagine rape, but
there's nothing to imply that the attack was sexual, only traumatic. I
think they got carried away with their violence and nearly killed her,
a mob mentality reaction. But just as Draco is unable to kill, I think
that most boys, however angry and scared and carried away by the
desire to punish a kid who's different, are unable to commit rape. I
doubt they even considered it, especially given the era.

You can do a search of the site for more in-depth discussion of this
topic.

Carol, who thinks we should look at the actions of the Muggle bullies
in the books for our clue as to the behavior of these particular boys




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 19:31:12 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:31:12 -0000
Subject: Harry in a dangerous profession?
In-Reply-To: <fqp8ns+mbjq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqpgq0+h337@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181936

Louise lfreeman wrote:
> >
> > 
> > My 11 year old and I just finished re-reading DH ...  He said he
planned to put the Elder Wand back in the grave, then plan on dying a
natural death, so the power of the wand would be broken.
> > 
> > But Harry became the master of the Elder Wand by simply yanking
Draco's hawthorne wand out of his hand, not by killing or even 
magically disarming him.  So, it would seem that if anyone managed to
get Harry's phoenix feather wand away from him, they would instantly
become the Elder Wand master.  In that case, it would seem that
becoming an Auror would be an exceptionally high-risk profession. 
Harry's skilled, but does he really think he can get through an entire
career chasing Dark wizards without being defeated in a duel or
disarmed even once? <snip>

Carol responds:
The Elder Wand is only in danger if the Dark Wizards not only Disarm
Harry but defeat him by keeping and claiming his
holly-and-phoenix-feather wand. (Obviously, a Stupefy or a Petrificus
Totalus doesn't count or hardly anyone in the books would be the
master of his or her own wand!) And then, of course, they'd have to
find the Elder Wand. They wouldn't know that it had been put back in
the tomb (which Harry could ensure was better protected than it was
against Voldemort). Most if not all of the DEs who were present at the
Battle of Hogwarts would be dead or in Azkaban, in any case, so no one
who knew its history would be likely to steal it. In fact, Bellatrix
is already dead and Voldemort alone, his DEs dead or defeated, when LV
talks about stealing the wand from DD's tomb. I can't imagine any of
the students or their parents (including the Malfoys) wanting anything
to do with the Death Stick. And how will new bad guys find out about
it? I don't think that any Daily Prophet reporters were present for
that conversation!

Carol, who does think that Harry should learn nonverbal spells and
some of those fancy parries that Snape used in HBP before he fights
any more Dark Wizards but doesn't think that the Elder Wand will be
found again





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 19:36:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:36:09 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince
In-Reply-To: <fqpa79+jdv2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqph39+kb5c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181937

aussie:
> Eileen was a student of both Slughorn and Dumbledore. 
> 
> Also, many of the notes in the Potions book may have come from
Eileen herself since the book was 50 years old. <snip>

Carol responds:
The handwriting in the book matches the handwriting on Severus's DADA
exam (a clue to the Prince's identity, along with Snape's Potions
expertise). There's no indication that any of the notes are Eileeen's,
only that she once owned the book and passed it to her son.

Carol, agreeing that Eileen Pince and Irma Pince are neither the same
person nor related





From lougarry33 at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Mar  6 19:04:11 2008
From: lougarry33 at yahoo.co.uk (Suzanne Sinclair)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 19:04:11 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's death
Message-ID: <387563.60577.qm@web27407.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181938

Shelley:

> It goes on to show Snape planting the suggestion into Mung: "You 
> will suggest to the Order of the Phoenix," Snape murmured, "that 
> they use decoys.  Polyjuice Potion. Identical Potters..... . "
>
> Yes, I would have thought Moody would have had a better plan, or 
> tried to buck this one, especially coming from Mundungus! I was 
> shocked when I learned that Dumbledore had created this plot. It 
> wasn't one of Rowling's most creative moments in writing, for sure.


Suzanne (belatedly de-lurking):

I thought I read somewhere that the whole multiple-Harry-decoys idea was an in-joke by JKR on Daniel Radcliffe.

If I remember correctly, after he appeared naked in the West End in 'Equus' she teased him mercilessly and put in the scene in which many Harrys immodestly strip naked so that when it was filmed many Dans would have to appear simultaneously naked.

I could be wrong, though.




From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  6 23:27:01 2008
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape)
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:27:01 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <36037.23309.qm@web28302.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqpuk5+9gvt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181939

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Andrea Shaw 
<nymphadoratonks91 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups. com, "floribelole" 
<floribelole@ ...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Was Ariana raped?
> 
> I don't think she was. Think it too much for the books and their 
younger audience. Good theory.  I would have to think about it for 
defo. 
> 
> Andrea X
>

Remembering my own sexual naivete at that age, I imagine the youngest 
readers will skim right over the reference and not even think of 
rape. 

So, yes, I think she was raped.  It's hard to believe she would have 
been so traumatized by a beating, no matter how brutal.

Snape's Witch




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 01:19:40 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:19:40 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqmrek+6ot3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqq57c+3mr2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181940

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:

> So I reiterate, what was the purpose of DD's statement about LV's 
> reserving Horcrux making for significant murders?


zanooda:

Two possibilities: either DD was mistaken, or else JKR forgot 
about "significant murders" when she came up with her list of murders 
in the interview :-). I admit that I was disappointed with Muggle 
tramps and peasants on her list. It used to fit so well, important 
object - important murder - important hiding place. And now ... . LV, 
using Muggles to create his precious Horcruxes? What's the rush? 
Couldn't he just take the diadem back to England and kill 
someone "important"? Couldn't he find someone a little more suitable 
to kill for the locket/H-x?


> Mike:

> But even worse, JKR used DD's statement to show he had figured 
> out how many Horcruxes Voldemort had made, that he was one short 
> when he went to kill Harry at GH, and that therefore he decided to 
> make Nagini his 6th Horcrux. 


zanooda:

I think DD figured out the number of H-xes using the information 
about the objects, not about the murders. Carol wrote about it very 
well, so I won't go in there :-). I just think that DD "guessed", as 
he puts it, which murder was used for which H-x, and all these 
murders *were* important (Myrtle, Riddle Sr. and Hepzibah Smith), so 
he deduced (wrongly, apparently) that *all* the murders must be 
important. He didn't know  who was murdered for the locket, and he 
knew nothing at all about the diadem.

As for why LV was so much in a hurry to make Nagini a Horcrux (I 
think you asked about it, but I can't find where :-)) - I also think 
it was strange to do such a thing when he was barely alive himself, 
and it was stupid to make the snake a H-x at all :-). But, you know 
what, LV was obsessed with number 7, right? Maybe he thought that 
completing the process (creating the last H-x) will give him some 
super-protection. That's all I can offer as an explanation for now :-
).








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 04:01:23 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:01:23 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look
Message-ID: <fqqemj+durl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181941

Alla:

I really do not have much that jumped at me as new in those chapters, 
but rather than skip further, I figured I post anyways, maybe 
somebody else will see more. :-)






"Yes, someone wanted him dead, someone had wanted him dead ever since 
he had been a year old... Lord Voldemort" - p.283


Alla:

Just wondering how the fact that Harry indeed supposed to get rid of 
Voldemort was supposed to be so surprising in the later books.

I mean, yes, I know, he did not know that he was a Chosen one yet, 
but it is not like he did not know that Voldemort is after him for 
some reason.

I am sure I asked this in the past, but I am still not sure sometimes.


"Well, of course I knew you hadn't entered yourself," she said when 
he'd finished telling her about the scene in the chamber off the 
Hall. The look on your face when Dumbledore read out your name" - 
p.289


Alla:

Okay, Hermione is very intelligent, we all know that, but sometimes I 
sincerely doubt that fourteen year old can read people so well. Her 
reading of Cho comes to mind. Or maybe she is indeed that sensible as 
well. 


"Snape's eyes met Harry's, and Harry knew what was coming. Snape was 
going to poison him"  - p.301


Alla:

Heeee.


"The prospect of talking face-to-face with Sirius was all that 
sustained Harry over the next fortnight, the only bright spot on the 
horizon that had never looked darker" - p.313

Alla:

Love how she made their relationship totally believable to me and 
therefore so totally sad and believable how Harry grieved in OOP.
Sob.


"The article that had appeared ten days ago, and Harry still got a 
sick, burning feeling of shame in his stomach every time he thought 
about it. Rita Skeeter had reported him saying an awful lot of things 
that he could not remember ever saying in his life" - p.314


Alla:

Harry, love him as I am, makes plenty of mistakes over the period of 
seven books and he lies often as well (HBP good example), but it is 
quotes like this that make me believe that he is a good kid, mistakes 
and all.

He is ashamed of lies that Rita printed about him. I like that :)




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Mar  7 04:31:24 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:31:24 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
References: <fqo6ht+7hlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013601c8800c$1aca7d60$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 181942

Shelley:
That's what I interpreted as happened to her. The boys weren't simply 
teasing her, that's for sure. They had taken it too far, far enough for a 
father to not care how much he hurt these boys. From my experience knowing 
rape victims and their family reactions, I'd say that fits perfectly to 
explain her father's revenge. AND, they wouldn't ever take Ariana to see a 
healer, indicating the shame the family would have suffered if the world had 
known what those boys did to her. So, yeah, I think so. Anything less 
doesn't fit the extent to which this family never spoke of it.


> Was Ariana raped?
>
> floribelole 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 04:36:50 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:36:50 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Cheat by JKR? (Was Tom Riddle and the RoR)
In-Reply-To: <fqn4vj+naji@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqqgp2+3f0s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181943

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

> > zanooda:

> > The same with the ring - he could make it a H-x at any time 
> > between his father's murder and the next murder - I don't 
> > know if it was Hepzibah Smith or that Albanian peasant, or 
> > the tramp. 
 
> Carol:

> It was almost certainly Hepzibah's. He was still working at 
> Borgin and Burke's when he found out about the cup and the 
> locket, and he killed her, framed Hokey, and stole the future  
> Horcruxes at that point.(DD says in HBP that he doesn't think 
> that Tom committed any murders between Hepzibah and the Riddles, 
> and Tom's appearance suggests that he hadn't yet made the 
> Ravenclaw Horcrux.) He certainly hadn't yet killed the Muggle 
> whose murder he used for the locket Horcrux because
> it was obtained at the same time as the cup, for which he used
> Hepzibah's murder.


zanooda:

Right, right, of course he couldn't have killed the muggle before 
Hepzibah, I really shouldn't post at one in the morning :-). But I'm 
still not very sure in which order the diadem and the cup murders 
were committed. I mean, Harry believed that LV went to Albania to 
retrieve the diadem right after he finished school, and I kind of 
tend to agree with him on this one. 

Imagine being the only one in the world to know where a legendary 
object is hidden, and not to get it or at least not to check if it is 
still there! It's been a thousand years, anything could happen! I 
personally would go and get it at the first opportunity :-).

I know that you base your assumption on the fact that LV's appearance 
didn't change enough for three Horcruxes when he worked at B&B, but 
we don't really know how all this appearance change thing works. 
Maybe it doesn't happen gradually, maybe for some time the body 
manages to stay barely changed, but at some point (after three H-
xes :-)?) the soul becomes so unstable that suddenly all goes 
downhill really quickly :-).

 
> Carol:

> I'm sure you're correct. 


zanooda:

Oh, I'm not so sure, it's still one big "maybe". We don't know what 
JKR will write about it in the encyclopedia - maybe it's something 
totally different. But it feels nice to speculate again :-).




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Mar  7 04:38:47 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:38:47 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's death
References: <387563.60577.qm@web27407.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <015b01c8800d$22a99b50$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 181944

> Suzanne (belatedly de-lurking):
>
> I thought I read somewhere that the whole multiple-Harry-decoys idea was 
> an in-joke by JKR on Daniel Radcliffe.
>
> If I remember correctly, after he appeared naked in the West End in 
> 'Equus' she teased him mercilessly and put in the scene in which many 
> Harrys immodestly strip naked so that when it was filmed many Dans would 
> have to appear simultaneously naked.
>
> I could be wrong, though.

Shelley:
I had heard that same thing too- was it in an interview done with Radcliff 
that I read it? I can't remember. I thought he had said that Rowling and he 
were sitting in a cafe eating dinner or something (or met after one of his 
play nights when she came to see the play?) when she learned across the 
table and mentioned to him that he had a nude scene in the books as well.

It certainly would explain the whole Harry-decoys plot. 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 04:58:39 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 04:58:39 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS:  Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <015b01c8800d$22a99b50$6701a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fqqi1v+fnk2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181945

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" <k12listmomma at ...> 
wrote:

> I had heard that same thing too- was it in an interview done 
> with Radcliff that I read it? I can't remember. I thought 
> he had said that Rowling and he were sitting in a cafe eating 
> dinner or something (or met after one of his play nights when 
> she came to see the play?) when she learned across the 
> table and mentioned to him that he had a nude scene in the 
> books as well.
> 
> It certainly would explain the whole Harry-decoys plot.



I thought she was talking about "King's Cross" chapter, not about "The 
Seven Potters". I don't think they get completely naked in "The Seven 
Potters", they probably just take off their tops or something - I'm 
sure they at least keep their underwear :-). In "King's Cross", 
however,  Harry is completely naked.


zanooda, thinking that maybe the decoys plan wasn't thought out well, 
but "The Seven Potters" chapter was definitely fun to read :-).






From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 05:46:56 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:46:56 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqfctb+uja8@eGroups.com>
References: <fqen7h+u514@eGroups.com> <fqfctb+uja8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803062146m32e89637g843736f52313a03b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181946

montavila47:
And then there's Tonks, who bounces in all pink with her
super metamorphagous skill. But everything she is just falls
into the dung heap once she hits HPB. She doesn't become
deeper for her grief over Lupin (and maybe a bit of Sirius). For
Harry, she simply becomes annoying.
And then, when she gets happy again, she nearly fades away
completely. It's like she's a Victorian women who must go
into confinement during her pregnancy.

Lynda:
I always read these threads with a bit of apprehension, being one of those
working women who always wanted kids but never had any. My closest friend
fits into this category as well.  We manage quite well without them,
but "borrow" other people's kids fairly often. Most of my friends both work
and have kids. They aren't high-powered superwomen. They are often tired,
overworked stressed-out, although they will all state resoundingly that they
would give up neither motherhood nor their jobs. My two friends who don't
work, well, they are also often tired, overworked and stressed out, and
wouldn't go to work outside of the home for what they believe are very
concrete, logical reasons. So I don't see that writing a series of books in
which some of the women who have kids stay home to raise their families
rather than go out and work is a problem. Babysitters get expensive. I
should know. I've been a nanny or a babysitter in some form for most of my
adult life. I cost less than daycare, but more than a lot of dual income
families can easily afford, and since I make more than $14.00 an hour at my
regular job in the schools I'm not easily snaggable anymore. Perhaps this is
a case of Rowling being practical. Could the Weasleys really have afforded a
babysitter? If Tonks had lived, maybe she would have gone back to work.
Come to think of it, she did!

Lynda


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




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 05:50:35 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:50:35 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The Goblin
In-Reply-To: <fqi3e9+9vd5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqql3b+pbap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181947

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

> Forgive me, but it's mokeskin, as zanooda pointed out to me 
> soon  after DH came out. 


Exactly, and I still don't know what JKR had in mind when she wrote 
this. If "moke" is a lizard, it is not supposed to be furry! "Moke" can 
also mean "donkey", and I really, really wish that she explained on her 
website what she meant by "mokeskin", because it just bugs me - what 
is "moke", a lizard or a donkey?

Alla, may I ask you a favor? Could you please check how they 
translated "mokeskin" into Ukrainian? Is it "donkey skin" or what? It's 
interesting to know how translators everywhere dealt with "moke". 
It's "donkey" in Russian :-).


zanooda, still puzzled by the whole furry lizard business ...




From erinellii at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 06:16:28 2008
From: erinellii at yahoo.com (Erin)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:16:28 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fqpuk5+9gvt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqqmjs+9u1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181948

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" 
<snapes_witch at ...> wrote:
 > So, yes, I think she was raped.  It's hard to believe she would have 
> been so traumatized by a beating, no matter how brutal.


I never would have thought of rape, myself... the way I read it, the 
boys were scared of her, they wanted to kill her to stop her doing 
magic, basically.  I didn't see them as viewing her as human, even, 
more like they tried to kill her like an animal.

I always assumed she sustained brain injuries during the beating, which 
would account for her problems afterward.





From parantap.samajdar at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 08:16:26 2008
From: parantap.samajdar at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:16:26 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <fqp0fa+k1dq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqqtkq+83sd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181949

Alerting the ministry of what ????

Harry is shooting curses left and right ... they are under attack from 
their worst enemies.I dont think it was a proper time to worry about 
the trace.

The purpose of the decoy was already served - DEs were sufficiently 
confused.Instead of fighting , it would certainly make more sense to 
get away from the scene as fast as possible.




From nymphadoratonks91 at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Mar  7 12:52:52 2008
From: nymphadoratonks91 at yahoo.co.uk (Andrea Shaw)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:52:52 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
Message-ID: <712588.7493.qm@web28306.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181950


> snapes_witch:
> So, yes, I think she was raped. It's hard to believe she would have 
> been so traumatized by a beating, no matter how brutal.

Andrea:
Im sorry but I really think rape is going that little bit to far. They can plenty of reasons. But for me rape is to far a strech.



From cottell at dublin.ie  Fri Mar  7 15:15:28 2008
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:15:28 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fqo6ht+7hlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqrm6g+2vvv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181951

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "floribelole" <floribelole at ...>
wrote:
>
> Was Ariana raped?
> 
> floribelole

Mus:

For a very close literary parallel, see Virginia Andrews' My Sweet
Audrina, which features a young child who is attacked and raped by
three boys near her home and sequestered at home, whose psychological
integrity is wrecked and whose family is shattered.

To my knowledge, this connection was first made here:
http://community.livejournal.com/deadlyhollow/10771.html

As to the suggestion that rape can't feature in a book for children,
I'd counter that the series at this point is not intended only for a
child audience, and that while depicting rape on the page would be out
of kilter in the book like this, implying it in such a way that it
would blow past a child reader but be perceived by an adult is a
different thing.  Your average child reader will interpret Rita
Skeeter's suggestions of impropriety in the relationship between Harry
and Dumbledore as favouritism; an adult will realise - and was surely
intended to realise - that she's making a very different and much
darker accusation.




From lougarry33 at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Mar  7 17:06:45 2008
From: lougarry33 at yahoo.co.uk (Suzanne Sinclair)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:06:45 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Mokeskin WASA: Re: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The
Message-ID: <681991.49000.qm@web27404.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181952

Carol:

> Forgive me, but it's mokeskin, as zanooda pointed out to me 
> soon after DH came out. 

zanooda:

Exactly, and I still don't know what JKR had in mind when she wrote 
this. If "moke" is a lizard, it is not supposed to be furry! "Moke" can 
also mean "donkey", and I really, really wish that she explained on her 
website what she meant by "mokeskin", because it just bugs me - what 
is "moke", a lizard or a donkey?

Suzanne:

In 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' a moke is described as a silver-green lizard with the ability to shrink at will.  Moke skin is therefore highly prized by wizards for use as moneybags and purses as they shrink as a starnger approaches.

Does this help?





From grednam2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 14:09:28 2008
From: grednam2000 at yahoo.com (Edna Nathan)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 06:09:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803062146m32e89637g843736f52313a03b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <614120.78125.qm@web56902.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181953


> Lynda:
> ...snip...
> Babysitters get expensive.
> ... snip ...
> Perhaps this is
> a case of Rowling being practical. Could the
> Weasleys really have afforded a
> babysitter? If Tonks had lived, maybe she would have
> gone back to work.
> Come to think of it, she did!


Edna:

I think that if Molly Weasley wanted to work outside
the home, she would have once Ginny started going to
Hogwarts,  Her oldest kids were on their own and the
younger ones lived at school all year except for
Christmas and Summer vacation, maybe even Easter. Once
Fred and George left school to start their business,
Ron and Ginny were the only ones their parents had to
support. Arthur worked all day and came home in the
evening. Molly had all that time to herself. As for
Tonks, I think she loved her job too much to give it
up. She probably did give it up when she had the baby,
but when the war started, she may have felt that she
had to fight. She also knew that Remus had a hard time
keeping a job because he was a werewolf. I think JKR 
shows us a variety of mothers, each with different
personalities and circumstances.

I'm a bit curious here, what schools do young witches
and wizards go to before they're old enough to go to
Hogwarts? 




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



From lougarry33 at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Mar  7 17:23:15 2008
From: lougarry33 at yahoo.co.uk (Suzanne Sinclair)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 17:23:15 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
Message-ID: <596895.35330.qm@web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181954

zanooda:

I thought she was talking about "King's Cross" chapter, not about "The 
Seven Potters". I don't think they get completely naked in "The Seven 
Potters", they probably just take off their tops or something - I'm 
sure they at least keep their underwear :-). In "King's Cross", 
however, Harry is completely naked.

Suzanne:

Maybe it was both.  JKR may even have said 'a couple of nude scenes'.  The reason I thought it was 'Seven Potters' is that in that chapter Harry is embarrassed:

"He watched as his six doppelgangers rummaged in the sacks, pulling out sets of clothes, putting on glasses, stuffing their own things away.  He felt like asking them to show a little more respect for his privacy as they all began stripping off with impunity, clearly much more at ease with displaying his body than they would have been with their own."

That's the bit that made it sound like a tease to me.  And I'd rather think of it as teasing than bad plotting!


     



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 18:23:26 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:23:26 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803062146m32e89637g843736f52313a03b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fqs16u+g4ee@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181955

> >>Lynda:
> I always read these threads with a bit of apprehension, being one   
> of those working women who always wanted kids but never had any.
> <snip>
> So I don't see that writing a series of books in which some of the 
> women who have kids stay home to raise their families rather than  
> go out and work is a problem.
> <snip>
> Could the Weasleys really have afforded a babysitter? If Tonks had 
> lived, maybe she would have gone back to work.
> Come to think of it, she did!

Betsy Hp:
As Edna points out, for most of the time we know Molly, she's sitting 
at home alone.  For one year she has ten year old Ginny, but after 
that, not even Arthur is home that often (most of the time we know 
Arthur he's buried at work).

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.  The Weasleys 
have a farm-ish like home and Molly could well be busy tending live-
stock and the garden, etc.  Or she could be planted on the couch 
listening to the wireless, reveling in the freedom to do nothing 
after several years with a solid set of children under foot.  And 
more power to her, is my opinion.  Again, Molly can do as she likes.

The trend *I* don't like in the series is the implicit idea that 
sexual attraction (either being or having) is only okay with an eye 
towards future breeding.  That a girl can't crush on a boy simply 
because he's attractive, she's got to be thinking he's future husband 
material.

Couples without children are futureless and generally treated as 
having something wrong with them.  Single people are okay, but only 
if they take a vow of chastity.  McGonagall is a classicly sexless 
old-maid type.  Trewlawny is the pathetic type of old-maid: 
interested in sex, but unable to land a man.

Lavender is a bad girl in her dating of Ron without wanting to marry 
him (making out rather than picking out china) and ends up ravaged by 
a werewolf (an old sign of rampant sexuality).  Ginny is a good girl 
with her sexual aggression and attractiveness because she's got her 
cap set for a husband (Harry).

Dumbledore, being gay and therefore not a breeder, is a bad boy when 
he's crushing on a boy, but okay when he shuts himself up in a school 
with the implied vow of chastity that goes along with it.  (Though, I 
think you can read a certain amount of... tragedy, maybe? in his not 
having a wife and child and subsequent loneliness.)

I think JKR gets Tonks knocked up so quickly after her marrage to 
Lupin to show us that yes, Tonks is a good girl.  She's sexual for 
the right reasons.  And I find it hilarious that JKR "punishes" Pansy 
by not showing her married with children in the epilogue.  (The 
amusement comes from me reading the epilogue and picturing Pansy 
enjoying her twenties or pursuing a career, when apparently I should 
have been thinking, "Hah! You didn't marry your high-school 
boyfriend! Loser!")

Anyway, I think that's part of the reason the series left me cold in 
the end.  Not that I don't think people should have kids, just sex is 
okay even if doesn't end in children.  The other view leaves me a 
bit... cold, I guess.

Betsy Hp (a bit rambly, sorry)




From s.hayes at qut.edu.au  Fri Mar  7 20:19:08 2008
From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:19:08 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <596895.35330.qm@web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <596895.35330.qm@web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC63459@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 181956

zanooda:

I thought she was talking about "King's Cross" chapter, not about "The
Seven Potters". I don't think they get completely naked in "The Seven
Potters", they probably just take off their tops or something - I'm
sure they at least keep their underwear :-). In "King's Cross",
however, Harry is completely naked.

Suzanne:

Maybe it was both. JKR may even have said 'a couple of nude scenes'. The reason I thought it was 'Seven Potters' is that in that chapter Harry is embarrassed:

"He watched as his six doppelgangers rummaged in the sacks, pulling out sets of clothes, putting on glasses, stuffing their own things away. He felt like asking them to show a little more respect for his privacy as they all began stripping off with impunity, clearly much more at ease with displaying his body than they would have been with their own."


Sharon:
I agree it was a bit of a tease Suzanne, but when i read that I had pictured Hermione and Fleur as Harrys in frilly pink knickers and bras! It made me giggle at the time.



From dongan51 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 20:24:41 2008
From: dongan51 at yahoo.com (Liz P)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:24:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Seven (nude) Potters
Message-ID: <885018.10853.qm@web63905.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181957

Sorry to snip everything but I broke my right hand and am having issues typing.

My question:

Please someone explain to me how, if they changed into Harry's clothes, when they arrived at the burrow and were changing back into themselves, what clothes did they have on?
The way I read it is that they had on their own. Am I wrong?

Liz


      



From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 20:43:50 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:43:50 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fqped1+tf9i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqs9e6+iv16@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181958

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> "floribelole" wrote:
> > >
> > > Was Ariana raped?
> >
> Andrea X responded: 
> > I don't think she was. Think it too much for the books and their
> younger audience. <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> I don't think she was. Ariana was only seven, IIRC. I don't think 
that
> the Muggle boys were that much older, maybe ten. 

a_svirn:
I assumed she was, though, when I read the story. I don't see what 
her age has to say to anything, and we are not told what the boys' 
ages were. What makes me think that she was raped, not just beaten, 
is her father's reaction. Why would he pay the price of the lifetime 
sentence in Azkaban merely because his daughter was badly beaten by a 
bunch of small prepubescent boys? There would be other ways to punish 
them. I think, if Percival Dumbledore proffered no explanations for 
his actions, it was because he was trying to keep what he must have 
considered damaging information about his daughter secret. 
a_svirn.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 21:09:54 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:09:54 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fqs9e6+iv16@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqsav2+rnqs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181959

a_svirn:
> I assumed she was, though, when I read the story. I don't see what 
her age has to say to anything, and we are not told what the boys' 
ages were. What makes me think that she was raped, not just beaten, is
her father's reaction. Why would he pay the price of the lifetime 
sentence in Azkaban merely because his daughter was badly beaten by a
bunch of small prepubescent boys? There would be other ways to punish
them. I think, if Percival Dumbledore proffered no explanations for
his actions, it was because he was trying to keep what he must have
considered damaging information about his daughter secret. 

>
Carol responds:
I think that a father whose child had been, say, hit in the head with
rocks and traumatized, or who had been nearly killed in any way, but
react just as Percival did. Surely, he would be outraged by *any*
serious injury to his little daughter (or son)? "Attack" doesn't have
to mean "rape," nor is rape the only cause of trauma in a child or
other helpless victim.

Carol, who thinks that readers are free to assume what they like and
hopes that JKR chooses *not* to tll us what happened




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Fri Mar  7 21:19:52 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:19:52 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death
In-Reply-To: <fqqtkq+83sd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqsbho+4d33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181960

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samajdar_parantap" 
<parantap.samajdar at ...> wrote:
> > snip> 
> The purpose of the decoy was already served - DEs were sufficiently 
> confused.Instead of fighting , it would certainly make more sense to 
> get away from the scene as fast as possible.
>
Of course  it would have been easier if Harry had not been too nice to 
Stan S. I have to agree with Lupin here that he should have stunned him.
Also I was interested in the pairing up of protectors and false Harrys. 
I think they were just right

Jayne De lurking





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 21:28:12 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:28:12 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fqsav2+rnqs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqsc1c+ecv0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181961

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> a_svirn:
> > I assumed she was, though, when I read the story. I don't see 
what 
> her age has to say to anything, and we are not told what the boys' 
> ages were. What makes me think that she was raped, not just beaten, 
is
> her father's reaction. Why would he pay the price of the lifetime 
> sentence in Azkaban merely because his daughter was badly beaten by 
a
> bunch of small prepubescent boys? There would be other ways to 
punish
> them. I think, if Percival Dumbledore proffered no explanations for
> his actions, it was because he was trying to keep what he must have
> considered damaging information about his daughter secret. 
> 
> >
> Carol responds:
> I think that a father whose child had been, say, hit in the head 
with
> rocks and traumatized, or who had been nearly killed in any way, but
> react just as Percival did. Surely, he would be outraged by *any*
> serious injury to his little daughter (or son)? 

a_svirn:
Yes, he would. But would he want to keep the fact of the said attack 
secret? What for? 
a_svirn.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar  7 21:37:33 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:37:33 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <596895.35330.qm@web27412.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqscit+gm64@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181962

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Suzanne Sinclair <lougarry33 at ...> wrote:
>
> zanooda:
> 
> I thought she was talking about "King's Cross" chapter, not about "The 
> Seven Potters". I don't think they get completely naked in "The Seven 
> Potters", they probably just take off their tops or something - I'm 
> sure they at least keep their underwear :-). In "King's Cross", 
> however, Harry is completely naked.
> 
> Suzanne:
> 
> Maybe it was both.  JKR may even have said 'a couple of nude scenes'.  The reason I 
thought it was 'Seven Potters' is that in that chapter Harry is embarrassed:
> 
> "He watched as his six doppelgangers rummaged in the sacks, pulling out sets of 
clothes, putting on glasses, stuffing their own things away.  He felt like asking them to 
show a little more respect for his privacy as they all began stripping off with impunity, 
clearly much more at ease with displaying his body than they would have been with their 
own."

Geoff:
I've always read it as them being completely nude. I can't see 
why Harry is getting hot under the collar if they're only going 
shirtless.




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Fri Mar  7 21:43:11 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:43:11 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqscit+gm64@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqsctf+llh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181963

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> I've always read it as them being completely nude. I can't see 
> why Harry is getting hot under the collar if they're only going 
> shirtless.
>
Can't see them like that on film though worse luck (VBG )   as it is 
for a younger audience. They will have to work something out

Jayne
de lurking again




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Mar  7 21:55:19 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:55:19 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqscit+gm64@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqsdk7+oukj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181964

> Geoff:
> I've always read it as them being completely nude. I can't see 
> why Harry is getting hot under the collar if they're only going 
> shirtless.

Magpie:
I can considering they were presumably stripping down to their 
underwear. That would be enough. I can't imagine they'd be getting 
naked in front of each other since it's not like co-ed changing is 
common at Hogwarts. I think Harry would feel ridiculous watching a 
dozen versions of himself in boxers, much less panties...and I doubt 
they'd need to change underwear anyway.

-m





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Mar  7 23:20:17 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:20:17 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqsdk7+oukj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqsijh+il5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181965


> > Geoff:
> > I've always read it as them being completely nude. I can't see 
> > why Harry is getting hot under the collar if they're only going 
> > shirtless.
> 
> Magpie:
> I can considering they were presumably stripping down to their 
> underwear. That would be enough. I can't imagine they'd be getting 
> naked in front of each other since it's not like co-ed changing is 
> common at Hogwarts. I think Harry would feel ridiculous watching a 
> dozen versions of himself in boxers, much less panties...and I doubt 
> they'd need to change underwear anyway.


Kemper now:
Unless Ginny and Hermione are wearing granny-panties, I think
polyjuiced into Harry, they might experience some discomfort.  Of
course, there might be spillage in those as well.    

If not already wearing boxers, it would be best to go commando.

fwiw and it's not worth much,
Kemper




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 23:48:12 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:48:12 -0000
Subject: Mokeskin WASA: Re: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, T
In-Reply-To: <681991.49000.qm@web27404.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqsk7s+thqk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181966

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Suzanne Sinclair
<lougarry33 at ...> wrote:

> In 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' a moke is described 
> as a silver-green lizard with the ability to shrink at will.  Moke 
> skin is therefore highly prized by wizards for use as moneybags and 
> purses as they shrink as a starnger approaches.


Exactly! The problem is, Harry's pouch is furry in the book - that's
what confuses me :-). In "The Will of Albus Dumbledore" chapter Hagrid
gives Harry "... a small, slightly furry drawstring pouch" (p.120
Am.ed.). Lizard skin must be smooth, right? That's the confusing part
:-)! Thank you for answering, Suzanne!


zanooda




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 00:57:55 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 08:57:55 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other
 leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqp0fa+k1dq@eGroups.com>
References: <fqp0fa+k1dq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47D1E493.80600@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181967

samajdar_parantap:
> Another question that comes to mind in this context is: why everyone
> else did not apparate like Mundungus

Alice:
> I would think that the reason the others didn't apparate was to
> ... distract Voldemort from the real Harry

So why didn't *everyone* (including the real Harry) just apparate the 
moment they were was clear of Privet Drive?

Alice:
 > And when Mundungus does apparate, that does indeed tip off
 > the pursuing Death Eaters that he was not the real Harry.

How? Do the DEs think Harry doesn't know how to apparate?

CJ:
 > Or just keep him at Hogwarts and not send him back in the
 > first place?

Carol responds:
 > DD has made sure that the protection at Privet
 > Drive, the strongest that he can give to Harry, is still
 > in place until his seventeenth birthday

But Harry's birthday is in July, which means Harry's only got a month of 
protection left at the Dursleys', anyway. Moving him back to Privet 
Drive merely delays the inevitable, *and* puts Harry in extra danger 
once the charm does break. Staying at Hogwart's could hardly have been 
any more dangerous than the Seven Harrys plan. If the Order didn't want 
to keep Harry at Hogwart's, it should have moved him directly into 
hiding at the end of term and sent a decoy back to Privet Drive instead.

Lee:
 > The breaking of the charm will presumably be detected by
 > the MoM, so wouldn't it be better to leave it intact?

Carol:
 > They're counting on the element of surprise rather than
 > letting it break on its own at a predetermined time.

I dunno. Just doesn't make sense. Since Snape had leaked the date to LV, 
the only surprise the Order has was in the decoy Harrys, not the timing. 
Charm or no charm, Harry was leaving that evening. The DEs knew, the 
Order knew they knew, and all the contrivances for breaking the charm 
were just useless extra complications to an already over-complicated 
plan. Whether the charm breaks or no was utterly inconsequential.

Carol:
 > Again, it's not the MoM they're worried about. It's the DEs
 > who are undoubtedly watching the place.

Exactly. The only thing the MoM can do is alert LV. But as LV already 
knows, and Privet Drive is already surrounded by DEs, the Ministry is, 
or should be, utterly irrelevant to the Order at this point. So why'd 
Moody even bring it up? Again, just say hang the MoM and is legalities 
and apparate out anyway. Or keep Harry in the house until after the DEs 
have scattered in pursuit of the decoys. Or polyjuice Harry -- or better 
yet *all* of the decoys -- to look like one of the DEs (imagine the 
confusion in the DE ranks). Or, as samajdar_parantap suggested, apparate 
the moment they're clear of the house.

--CJ (who thinks there may be more holes here than he originally 
suspected, and who's beginning to think it was colossally stupid to send 
Harry back to Privet Drive at all, instead of directly into hiding)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar  8 01:12:55 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:12:55 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqsijh+il5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqsp6n+ie2v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181968

> > Magpie:
> > I can considering they were presumably stripping down to their 
> > underwear. That would be enough. I can't imagine they'd be 
getting 
> > naked in front of each other since it's not like co-ed changing 
is 
> > common at Hogwarts. I think Harry would feel ridiculous watching 
a 
> > dozen versions of himself in boxers, much less panties...and I 
doubt 
> > they'd need to change underwear anyway.
> 
> 
> Kemper now:
> Unless Ginny and Hermione are wearing granny-panties, I think
> polyjuiced into Harry, they might experience some discomfort.  Of
> course, there might be spillage in those as well.    
> 
> If not already wearing boxers, it would be best to go commando.

Magpie:
They knew what they were there for, didn't they? (Ginny wasn't there; 
you must mean Fleur.) Maybe they came in boxers.

Basically, what I can't buy is Ron not reacting to Hermione being in 
Harry's naked body in front of him. 

-m




From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  7 23:59:18 2008
From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220)
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:59:18 -0000
Subject: Mokeskin WASA: Re: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 15, The
In-Reply-To: <681991.49000.qm@web27404.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqsksm+ldge@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181969

zanooda:
>
> Exactly, and I still don't know what JKR had in mind when she wrote
> this. If "moke" is a lizard, it is not supposed to be furry! "Moke"
> can also mean "donkey", and I really, really wish that she explained
> on her website what she meant by "mokeskin", because it just bugs me -
> what is "moke", a lizard or a donkey?
>


Jenni from Alabama responds:

Yes, it's a mokeskin. But this is the Wizarding World we're talking
about here! So, why can't a lizard be furry... there.



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 02:22:34 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:22:34 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <47D1E493.80600@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqst9a+5666@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181970


Carol earlier:
>  > They're counting on the element of surprise rather than letting
it break on its own at a predetermined time.
> 
Lee responded:
> I dunno. Just doesn't make sense. Since Snape had leaked the date to
LV, the only surprise the Order has was in the decoy Harrys, not the
timing. Charm or no charm, Harry was leaving that evening. The DEs
knew, the Order knew they knew, and all the contrivances for breaking
the charm were just useless extra complications to an already
over-complicated plan. Whether the charm breaks or no was utterly
inconsequential.

Carol again:
I think I see where you're confused. The Order did *not* know that LV
knew the date and time of the escape Saturday next at nightfall").
They had planted the false rumor (which Yaxley repeated to LV and
Snape contradicted) that Harry would not be moved until the thirtieth,
the night before his birthday, and that he would be accompanied by
Aurors. The Order had no way of knowing that Snape knew (through
Confundungus?) and had leaked the date and time. They were, in Snape's
words, "eschewing any form of transport that is controlled or
regulated by the Ministry," and they were, as I sat, counting on the
element of surprise, moving him before the date that the Confunded
Dawlish had reported.

While they are at 4 Privet Drive, they are protected by the charm
until it breaks as Harry leaves for the last time. They expect to
encounter a few stray DEs, but not the thirty or so they actually
encounter, or LV himself.

No, it's not a perfect plan, but I think I've figured out why Harry
didn't just Apparate, with or without a companion, and the heck with
the MoM knowing that he'd gone since they wouldn't be able to trace
him. He needed his trunk and Hedwig's cage, which is why the fake
Harrys also had trunks and cages with fake birds, hopefully
undetectable by DEs on brooms at high speeds focusing on people. Now
granted, DD seems to have sent Harry's trunk and Hedwig's cage on
ahead to the Burrow in HBP, but possibly the other members didn't know
how to do that.(?)

Regarding the supposedly nude Harrys--I'm sure they wore their own
underwear, sufficiently large that it would fit them when they turned
into Harry if they were smaller than he was. (It will be funny to see,
in the MWMNBN, a Harry in a Fleur-style negligee looking 'orrible.
:-D) The only scene in which Harry is specifically described as nude
is "King's Cross," and even then the directors will probably keep him
clothed. The idea of giving Harry a nude scene, even if it applied to
the Seven Potters and I don't think it does, is hardly sufficient
reason for the Order's plan as modified by DD. I think that JKR wanted
an exciting scene in which Moody and Hedwig would be killed and in
which the flying motorcycle could play a spectacular (and near-fatal)
role (not to mention George's losing an ear to Snape's Sectumsempra,
which helps to maintain the illusion of DE!Snape).

Someone commented that anyone would Apparate if LV tried to kill them,
but the Harrys (including Mundungus) weren't supposed to be in danger
of being killed because the few DEs they expected to meet would be
under orders not to kill him. I think they hoped to be sufficiently
spread out and nearly to their goals before the DEs brought
reinforcements and called in LV, who supposedly would not expect them
to move until the thirtieth. Again, no one in the Order knew that
Snape was (somehow) communicating with Mundungus, much less that he
and Portrait!Dumbledore were working together. Consequently, they had
no way of knowing that the date and time had been leaked.

Carol, who thought that Harry in the sidecar as it rapidly fell toward
the ground was straight out of a cartoon--until Hedwig's death took
all the (dark) comedy out of the scene




From whybnormal at wowway.com  Sat Mar  8 01:58:28 2008
From: whybnormal at wowway.com (Tom Kish)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 20:58:28 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Warrington and Apparating
In-Reply-To: <fprrr0+4ras@eGroups.com>
References: <fprrr0+4ras@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01e601c880bf$e7703ae0$6701a8c0@KICKASSSYSTEM>

No: HPFGUIDX 181971

> DrKnow

> My question: as Hermoine ceaselessly reminds us, "you can't
> apparate into or out of Hogwarts." But Draco clearly states that
> Montague "nearly died" by apparating out of the cabinet and into
> Hogwarts. This seems like a clear violation of the magical rules
> established by JKR. So what gives? Did Montague apparate into
> Hogwarts or is there some other explanation that isn't clear to
> me after several readings of the series?

> If JKR has explained this, I'd love to see the reference. If this
> subject has been thoroughly canvassed, please refer me to the
> appropriate thread and I'd be glad to read up on this.


Draco also states that Montague would find himself in between Hogwarts and Borgin & Burkes.  Sometimes he would hear what was going on inside Hogwarts and other times he would hear what was going on inside Borgin & Burkes.  I can only assume what happened is that one of the times that the anti-apparition enchantment was taken off for apparition lessons would have allowed him to apparate out of the chest while on the Hogwarts side.

Whybnormal




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 04:20:17 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 12:20:17 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other
 leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqst9a+5666@eGroups.com>
References: <fqst9a+5666@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47D21401.4020001@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181972

Carol earlier:
> They're counting on the element of surprise

Lee responded:
> The DEs knew, the Order knew they knew....

> Carol again:
> I think I see where you're confused. The Order did *not* know that LV
> knew.

I'll stand corrected here. But I'm not sure it saves the plan; if 
anything, I think it just tightens the noose around DD's neck. Snape 
leaked the info under DD's orders, so DD had to know Privet Drive would 
be surrounded by an army of DEs (and almost certainly LV himself) the 
night they moved Harry. And he let Harry and the Order walk into that 
trap unwarned? DD deliberately created a highly dangerous situation and 
then just let his generals fend for themselves? And it cost Moody his life.

> They were, in Snape's words, "eschewing any form of transport 
 > that is controlled or regulated by the Ministry,"

It still doesn't explain why. According to Moody, the MoM had merely 
declared apparating out of Privet Drive illegal, they weren't blocking 
it. But since when did Moody (or any of the Order) give a flying fig 
about the MoM?

> They expect to encounter a few stray DEs, but not the 
 > thirty or so they actually encounter, or LV himself.

That DD would deliberately create a dangerous situation and then not 
prepare his own people for it is inexcusable, as far as I can see. OK, 
we learned that DD has a penchant for secrecy, but this cuts straight to 
his competence and qualifications as a leader. Being cautious with your 
secrets is one thing; but DD's inability to trust nearly got Harry 
killed (it DID kill Moody) and nearly lost the war.

> I think I've figured out why Harry didn't just Apparate ... 
 > He needed his trunk and Hedwig's cage

Hmm ... but that means the six decoys -- Harry's best friends among them 
-- and half the Order directly risked their lives for an old suitcase 
and a bird cage. Hang the luggage and apparate out. Send it via parcel 
post if you like. Moody, for one, would've been better off :-)

> Regarding the supposedly nude Harrys--I'm sure they wore their own
> underwear, sufficiently large that it would fit them when they turned
> into Harry if they were smaller than he was.

Would the girls have Harry-sized underwear of their own? I understand 
this scene was JKR's private joke to Daniel Radcliffe, so we probably 
shouldn't examine it too closely. But I feel as if the women stripped 
off a little too readily. It was still strictly speaking their own 
bodies they were displaying; their sense of modesty would still be 
objecting, "Hey, I'm standing in a roomful of men in my skivvies (or 
less?)."

> is "King's Cross," and even then the directors will 
 > probably keep him clothed.

I'm sure they will. And at most we'll see seven Harrys in boxers in the 
Seven Harrys scene; even putting Daniel in bra and panties would be a 
bit much for a children's movie (or a movie with a large underage 
viewing audience). You could, in fact, I think, just skip the 
clothes-changing entirely without serious damage to the story line; 
perhaps just having the decoys show up in Harry-like attire.

 > I think that JKR wanted an exciting scene in which Moody and
 > Hedwig would be killed

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I'm afraid I just don't think it was set up 
very well.

> Someone commented that anyone would Apparate if LV 
 > tried to kill them, but the Harrys (including Mundungus)
 > weren't supposed to be in danger

Certainly they weren't expecting the level of danger they encountered, 
but it doesn't explain why they didn't apparate out the minute they 
discovered it. In fact, I would expect Moody should have given a 
standing order to that effect before they left. In fact, again, I think 
the plan *should have* been (assuming they were heedful of the MoM's 
rule against apparating out of Privet Drive) to get Harry clear just far 
enough to apparate. The longer Harry (and the others) are in their air, 
the greater their exposure and the greater the risk. If you can't 
apparate out of the Dursleys' (and Moody didn't say they couldn't, only 
that it was illegal), then get out of their and apparate at the earliest 
possible moment.

CJ




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sat Mar  8 10:40:04 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:40:04 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqst9a+5666@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqtqe4+phis@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181973

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Carol earlier:
> >  > snip> 
> Someone commented that anyone would Apparate if LV tried to kill 
them,
> but the Harrys (including Mundungus) weren't supposed to be in 
danger
> of being killed because the few DEs they expected to meet would be
> under orders not to kill him. SNIP.
> 
> Carol, who thought that Harry in the sidecar as it rapidly fell 
toward
> the ground was straight out of a cartoon--until Hedwig's death took
> all the (dark) comedy out of the scene
>
Where would it have been safe to apparate to during the chase.?Also 
they would have all had to do this as anyone left would be the real 
Harry as he and Hagrid couldn't do that. IMHO it was safer to keep 
going and try and confuse the DE which as i said before would have 
worked if Harry had been less kind to Stan S.

Hope that is not to confusing
Jayne
Going off line till after the rugby has finished




From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 14:04:29 2008
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:04:29 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqsp6n+ie2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqu6dd+n04m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181974

> > > Magpie:
<SNIP>
> I think Harry would feel ridiculous
watching
> a
> > > dozen versions of himself in boxers, much less panties...and I
> doubt
> > > they'd need to change underwear anyway.
> >


Hello everyone! This is my first post, dont understand SNIPPING, but
it's fun reading this stuff.
When the 7 Potters changed clothes, they just changed outer garments
to resemble Harry and throw DE's off the scent.

"He watched as his six doppelgangers rummaged in the sacks, pulling
out sets of clothes, putting on glasses, stuffing their own things
away. He felt like asking them to show a little more respect for his
privacy as they all began stripping off with impunity, clearly much
more at ease with displaying his body than they would have been with
their own."

Of course Harry would have been embarassed showing arms and legs and
undies in front of everyone.
If I remember correctly, when they landed at the Burrow, there were
bags of their stuff that someone had brought along, so they could
have changed back. Am I not remembering correctly?

Susan, having fun






From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 14:37:48 2008
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:37:48 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <fqo71l+fpfp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqu8bs+efst@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181975


 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette <jnferr@> wrote:
>
> > montims:
> > Holding up your index and middle fingers with your palm facing
you is very
> > offensive, especially if you make jabbing motions up and down;
with the
> > palm facing out is the victory sign.  To this Brit at least...
<SNIP>

Hello everyone!
 snip - hope I did this right!

Anyway, in the movie, I think Peter pointed with his middle finger
just to make us aware that he DIDNT have an index finger. Simple as
that, especially since I dont remember anything in the book about
this 'gesture'.
Susan




From cookydclown at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 14:01:43 2008
From: cookydclown at yahoo.com (cookydclown)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:01:43 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqsijh+il5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqu687+jm57@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181976

> Kemper now:
> Unless Ginny and Hermione are wearing granny-panties, I think
> polyjuiced into Harry, they might experience some discomfort.


 Ginny Wasn't there, it was Fleur.

Cooky




From cookydclown at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 13:57:28 2008
From: cookydclown at yahoo.com (cookydclown)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:57:28 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqsdk7+oukj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqu608+t8ip@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181977

> > Geoff:
> > I've always read it as them being completely nude. ...


I was wondering if Miss Rowling rewrote this scene after seeing D.
Radcliffe in "Equus"
Cooky





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar  8 15:40:57 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:40:57 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqtqe4+phis@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fquc29+92nm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181978

Jayne:
> Where would it have been safe to apparate to during the chase.?Also 
> they would have all had to do this as anyone left would be the real 
> Harry as he and Hagrid couldn't do that. 

Magpie:
I think it would have been safe to do it anywhere during the chase--
why wouldn't it have been safe? If Hagrid can't apparate that's a 
very good reason to bring somebody other than Hagrid--obviously you'd 
just bring 7 people who could apparate. Then Harry and whoever he was 
with would apparate together.

Jayne:
IMHO it was safer to keep 
> going and try and confuse the DE which as i said before would have 
> worked if Harry had been less kind to Stan S.

Magpie:
I don't see how Moody would have been saved by Harry being less easy 
on Stan. It still seems like apparating would have been much safer 
than to keep going to try to confuse the DEs. When the DEs didn't 
know which was the real Potter they just shot at all of them--which 
they couldn't do if they disappeared in the blink of an eye.

-m




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Mar  8 16:55:27 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:55:27 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <47D21401.4020001@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqugdv+r7c1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181979

> > Carol: 
> > is "King's Cross," and even then the directors will 
>  > probably keep him clothed.

> CJ:
> ... at most we'll see seven Harrys in boxers in the 
> ...scene; even putting Daniel in bra and panties would be a 
> bit much for a children's movie (or a movie with a large underage 
> viewing audience). You could, in fact, I think, just skip the 
> clothes-changing entirely without serious damage to the story line; 
> perhaps just having the decoys show up in Harry-like attire.

Kemper now:
In Shrek 2, Pinocchio is caught wearing a pink thong the implication
is that he likes to wear girl's underwear... and more power to him. 
(Are there any other transgendered cartoon characters?  I want to say
'no')  

Even though it would be amusing, I'm sure many scenes will be pared
down or left out.


> > Carol:
> > Someone commented that anyone would Apparate if LV 
> > tried to kill them, but the Harrys (including Mundungus)
> > weren't supposed to be in danger

> CJ:
> Certainly they weren't expecting the level of danger
> they encountered, 
> but it doesn't explain why they didn't apparate out the minute they 
> discovered it. In fact, I would expect Moody should have given a 
> standing order to that effect before they left. 
> In fact, again, I think the plan *should have* been  
> (assuming they were heedful of the MoM's rule against
> apparating out of Privet Drive) to get Harry clear just far 
> enough to apparate. The longer Harry (and the others)
> are in their air, 
> the greater their exposure and the greater the risk. If you can't 
> apparate out of the Dursleys' (...), 
> then get out of their and apparate at the earliest 
> possible moment.

Kemper now:
I've wondered why people don't apparate when they are being attacked
and are out numbered or skilled (The Prewets, the Potters).  After
Spinner's End, I thought maybe that if a witch/wizard is near someone
that apparates that they can then follow the apparator. It is what
Bellatrix seems to do when following Narcissa.  Bellatrix has no idea
where Snape lives but somehow is able to follow Narcissa (or that's my
impression).

This would be my thought on why the 7 Potters and their guardians
don't apparate.  Of course, I'm most likely wrong.  

Kemper




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 17:04:29 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:04:29 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqsctf+llh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqugut+qbrm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181980

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" <jaynesmith62 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
> <gbannister10@> wrote:
> 
> > I've always read it as them being completely nude. I can't see 
> > why Harry is getting hot under the collar if they're only going 
> > shirtless.
> >
> Can't see them like that on film though worse luck (VBG )   as it is 
> for a younger audience. They will have to work something out
> 
> Jayne
> de lurking again
>

Montavilla47:

I imagine we'll be seeing a lot of strategic staging and reaction
shots from the "real" Harry.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 19:15:23 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:15:23 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 21-23  post DH look
Message-ID: <fquokb+q9c1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181981

"Lovely... I don't suppose you like to give an interview, would you? 
Share some of your experience of magical creatures? The Prophet does 
a zoological column every Wednesday, as I'm sure you know. We could 
feature these - er- Bang-Ended Scoots" - p.370.


Alla:

Am impressed, Rita is actually good at some parts of her job. How 
nicely she lures Hagrid in. Unethical lady, IMO, but skilled.


"Hermione's words about Krum kept coming back to him. "They only like 
him because he's famous!" Harry doubted it very much if any of the 
girls who had asked to be his partner so far would have wanted to go 
to the ball with him if he hadn't been a school champion. Then he 
wondered if this would bother him if Cho asked him" - p.389.


Alla:


Not that I dislike Harry being honest with himself here, quite the 
contrary, but I now wonder if he let Hermione's words get to him too 
much. I mean, is it really true that nobody would have asked him had 
he not been one of the champions? But I guess Harry experienced 
enough school turning on him to feel sceptical.


"Staring nastily around at them all, he informed them that he would 
be testing them on poison antidotes during the last lesson of the 
term.
"Evil, he is," Ron said bitterly that night in the Gryffindor common 
room. "Springing a test on us the last day. Ruining the last bit of 
term with a whole load of studying" - p.392


Alla:

Heee, now with the closed canon I have two sided reaction while 
reading this quote.

Nothing in the last book made me change my mind that Snape would 
indeed enjoy poisoning Neville's toad with antidote or without it, 
nothing made me change my mind that he would indeed enjoy seeing 
students swallowing poisons and being scared whether they will 
survive it.

BUT of course now I know that Snape will not actually kill the 
students, just do mental torture on them ( in my opinion of course), 
so that remark of Ron about ruining the last day of term with 
studying makes me laugh.

Because if I close my eyes and imagine that Ron is talking about any 
other teacher, well I think we all encountered such "evillness" LOLOL.


"He found it hard to concentrate on Snape's Potions test, and 
consequently forgot to add the key ingredient - bezoar - meaning that 
he received bottom marks" - p.396.

Alla:

Oh, look bezoar :-)  Nice long term memory Harry, hehe.


"He- er- just asked Fleur Delacour to go to the ball with him," said 
Ginny. She looked as though she was fighting back a smile, but she 
kept patting Ron's arm sympathetically.

***********

"I asked her to go with me just now, Harry said dully," and she told 
me.
Ginny suddenly stopped smiling" - p.398-399


Alla:

I know I said it before, but every time I see new hint, I am just 
getting more and more convinced - no, to me there is no "new Ginny" 
anymore in book 5 and 6, I am very happy with foreshadowing of that 
Ginny through the books now.







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Mar  8 19:20:05 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:20:05 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqu608+t8ip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fquot5+ii9u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181982

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cookydclown" <cookydclown at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Geoff:
> > > I've always read it as them being completely nude. ...
> 
> 
> I was wondering if Miss Rowling rewrote this scene after seeing D.
> Radcliffe in "Equus"
> Cooky

Geoff:
Well, he's got nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed by...

I know, I saw "Equus".
:-))





From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 20:10:44 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:10:44 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other
 leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqtqe4+phis@eGroups.com>
References: <fqtqe4+phis@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47D2F2C4.5070309@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181983

Jayne:
> Where would it have been safe to apparate to during the chase.?

Safe - probably not. But then neither was there anything safe about NOT 
apparating, and letting DEs take potshots at you, either. Didn't 
Mundungus Fletcher manage to apparate out (Did he apparate? I can't find 
a specific mention of it)?

Jayne:
 > Also they would have all had to do this as anyone left
 > would be the real Harry as he and Hagrid couldn't
 > do that.

I'm also wondering what Hagrid was doing there. As much as I like the 
guy, LV isn't too far off the mark calling him an "oaf". Brings to mind 
a description of Samwise Gamgee: He's a stout fellow, who'd leap down a 
dragon's throat to save you, if he didn't trip over his own feet first.

To Carol:

I've found a partial answer to some of my earlier questions at the 
beginning of chapter 6:

"Well, you can't do anything about the" -- Ron mouthed the word 
Horcruxes -- "till you're seventeen. You've still got the Trace on you."

The implication here is Harry can be traced (ahem, *Traced*) by the MoM. 
Does this mean he can be traced even through an Apparation? If Harry had 
Disapparated (legalities notwithstanding) out of Privet Drive, would the 
Ministry be able to see where he Apparated to? That might explain why 
Apparating wasn't an option for Harry on that particular night (though 
it would have been nice for Moody to have made that clear, instead of 
dragging red herrings across the discussion). And so, since the Order's 
intent was to surprise the DEs by moving Harry early, they couldn't wait 
until the Trace broke.

It still doesn't explain why Harry was sent back to Privet Drive in the 
first place, instead of a safehouse, or what in the Wizarding World DD 
was thinking setting him and half the Order up for a suicide mission, or 
why the Order couldn't, say, have polyjuiced Harry into Dudley and snuck 
him out with the Dursleys. But at least it may explain why he didn't 
just Apparate.

In re-reading chapters 4 and 5, however, another thought has occurred to 
me. The Order has at least a dozen safehouses scattered around England, 
hidden behind magical shields even LV can't penetrate, at least if the 
Weasleys' house was any indication.

So why didn't they just turn Privet Drive into another safehouse? It 
would appear the Order's magical protection around the safehouses was at 
least as effective as Lily's charm in keeping out the baddies, so why 
not wrap up the Dursleys' place while they were at it?

CJ -- still scratching his head, though maybe not so much in that one 
spot anymore.




From grednam2000 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 19:43:45 2008
From: grednam2000 at yahoo.com (Edna Nathan)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 11:43:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: lifelong partners only?  was Working mothers
In-Reply-To: <fqs16u+g4ee@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <874317.64306.qm@web56914.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181984

(snip)
> Betsy Hp:
(snip)
> The trend *I* don't like in the series is the
> implicit idea that 
> sexual attraction (either being or having) is only
> okay with an eye 
> towards future breeding.  That a girl can't crush on
> a boy simply 
> because he's attractive, she's got to be thinking
> he's future husband 
> material.

Edna:
I remember in my youth that when girls crushed on a
boy they usually were thinking of marrying him, even
using their last names in secret. When boys crushed on
a girl, they just knew they wanted to be with them,
not necessarily marry them. 19 years later in the
epilogue,  Neville is still single and living happily
at Hogwarts as the Herbology teacher. He became a
hottie in DH, but has not yet found his soul mate.

Betsy Hp: 
> Couples without children are futureless and
> generally treated as 
> having something wrong with them.  Single people are
> okay, but only 
> if they take a vow of chastity.  McGonagall is a
> classicly sexless 
> old-maid type.  Trewlawny is the pathetic type of
> old-maid: 
> interested in sex, but unable to land a man.

Edna:
IMO, Couples without children either can't have any,
or are perfectly happy without them. It's their
married friends with children who would like to push
them into joining them in parenthood. We don't know
much about McGonagall's life, she may have had someone
once or twice in her life. Trelawny desperately needs
someone in her life, but staying at Hogwarts and
getting drunk isn't going to get her a man. She needs
to get a makeover and get herself into AA, she might
meet someone there.
> 
Betsy HP:
> Lavender is a bad girl in her dating of Ron without
> wanting to marry 
> him (making out rather than picking out china) and
> ends up ravaged by 
> a werewolf (an old sign of rampant sexuality). 
> Ginny is a good girl 
> with her sexual aggression and attractiveness
> because she's got her 
> cap set for a husband (Harry).

Edna:
At age 15 and 16, kids are discovering their sexuality
and snogging is a big deal. I think Lavender wanted a
snogging partner and zeroed in on Ron and then became
obsessive with him. There are some girls who fall in
love for the sake of being in love. Ginny is a girl
who knows what she wants and is forced to be patient.
She waited 4 years to get Harry.

Betsy HP:
> Dumbledore, being gay and therefore not a breeder,
> is a bad boy when 
> he's crushing on a boy, but okay when he shuts
> himself up in a school 
> with the implied vow of chastity that goes along
> with it.  (Though, I 
> think you can read a certain amount of... tragedy,
> maybe? in his not 
> having a wife and child and subsequent loneliness.)

Edna:
I don't think JKR views a persons sexuality as being
bad or good, people can't help what they feel inside.
She views intolerance as bad and tolerance as good.
Death Eaters are bad because they do not tolerate
anyone who is different than they are. People who are
accepting of other people no matter how different they
may be are good. I think Dumbledore lived a loveless
life because he did not trust himself. The first and
last time he fell in love Arianna died. He was so
blinded by love that he did not see it coming. His
brother blames him and he must blame himself for it
too. The wizarding world should be extremely greatful
that Dumbledore devoted his life to them.
 
Betsy Hp:
> I think JKR gets Tonks knocked up so quickly after
> her marrage to 
> Lupin to show us that yes, Tonks is a good girl. 
> She's sexual for 
> the right reasons.

Edna:
I think Tonk's got pregnant right away simply because
Remus was not a young man.

Betsy Hp:
 I find it hilarious that JKR
> "punishes" Pansy 
> by not showing her married with children in the
> epilogue.  (snip)

Edna:
I don't think Pansy was an important enough character
to put in the eplogue. We know that Draco had a wife,
but we don't know who she is. Luna, Seamus, dean and
the Patil sisters were also left out of the epilogue.
They probably didn't have children. Remember that it
takes place on platform 9 3/4. Only wizards with
children going to hogwarts were there.



From ikutsu7474 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 20:35:30 2008
From: ikutsu7474 at yahoo.com (Patty)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:35:30 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqscit+gm64@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqutai+oomd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181985

This was possibly the funniest part of the book. Considering I have the
worst mind, and my imagination grew quite filthy I am quite sure that I
blushed alot thinking of 6 people disquised as Harry running nude in
the house. But I'm glad for this chapter because at the time I was in
my basement for several hours and managed to read books 5 through 7
during the time down there due to a tornado warning. I must say that
I'd like to give JKR one heck of a hand-shake for writing such a
captivating series since I never even noticed that the tornado warning
was over and the blasted thing had passed on away from my house finally.

I could only imagine how she were to react to the images and thoughts
in my head upon reading that particular chapter. >:-)

ikutsu7474



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 21:09:08 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:09:08 -0000
Subject: Peter and the Finger
In-Reply-To: <fqu8bs+efst@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fquv9k+i0s6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181986

Susanfullin wrote:
> Anyway, in the movie, I think Peter pointed with his middle finger
just to make us aware that he DIDNT have an index finger. Simple as
that, especially since I dont remember anything in the book about this
'gesture'. 

Carol responds:
Sigh. I was going to stay out of this thread, but I came across the
following passage yesterday in my dozenth rearead of HBP:

"For a moment, Harry thought Gaunt was making an obscene hand gesture,
but then realized that he was showing Ogden the ugly, black-stoned
ring he was wearing on his middle finger, waving it before Ogden's
eyes" (HBP Am. ed. 207). So it appears that both harry and JKR are
quite familiar with this "American" gesture.

As for Peter pointing with his middle finger, which happens in PoA
("Harry saw that he used his middle finger because his index was
missing," PoA Am. ed. 367), I think it's as innocent as "tall man"
(the middle finger) in the children's game, "Where is Thumbkin?" Not
that Wormtail himself is innocent, but his middle finger is. He's
pointing at Sirius Black (and accusing him of murder) as he pleads his
own "innocence" and pleads for help. An obscene gesture under those
circumstance would not have helped his already weak cause.

Carol, who was looking for the reference in DH before she remembered
that it had to occur before he received his sliver hand in the
graveyard scene of GoF




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 21:31:07 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:31:07 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fquc29+92nm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqv0ir+h6s6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181987

Magpie:
> I think it would have been safe to do it anywhere during the chase--
> why wouldn't it have been safe? If Hagrid can't apparate that's a 
> very good reason to bring somebody other than Hagrid--obviously you'd 
> just bring 7 people who could apparate. Then Harry and whoever he was 
> with would apparate together.

Carol responds:
Mundungus Disapparated because LV was pointing his wand at him
intending to kill him. His Disapparation caused the spell to hit, and
kill, Mad-Eye. Had LV been aiming at one ot the other fake Harry's,
I'm sure they would have attempted to fight back rather than
disapparating and giving away the fact that they weren't Harry.
Unfortunately, they would almost certainly have been killed in place
of Mad-Eye.

The thing is, they weren't expecting LV himself to be there. And I'm
sure that Mad-eye knew the risk he was taking, drawing the bulk of any
DEs who might be present after himself and escorting the cowardly
Mundungus.

Assuming that Voldemort had come after a different pair, say Fred and
Arthur (who were on brooms and, by Mad-eye's logic, more likely to be
mistaken for the real Harry than the riders on Thestrals), were they
both supposed to Apparate simultaneously if one was attakced rather
than stay to fight? It's one thing for a broom to go speeding to earth
out of the sky, as several of them must have done (along with the
bodies of Moody and any Stunned DEs), but the trunks would have fallen
out of the sky as well, endangering anyone who happened to be below
them. (Talk about violating the Statute of Secrecy, although I'm sure
that was the least of their concerns.) 

BTW, I wonder how a person Disapparates from a broom. Aren't you
supposed to turn on your heel or something like that? Hard to do when
you're flying.

Carol, pretty sure that the Order members were under orders not to
Disapparate, and not just for fear of alerting the MoM but for fear of
endangering each other and innocent people on the ground





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar  8 22:04:03 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:04:03 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqv0ir+h6s6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqv2gj+7a2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181988

Magpie:
> > I think it would have been safe to do it anywhere during the 
chase--
> > why wouldn't it have been safe? If Hagrid can't apparate that's a 
> > very good reason to bring somebody other than Hagrid--obviously 
you'd 
> > just bring 7 people who could apparate. Then Harry and whoever he 
was 
> > with would apparate together.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Mundungus Disapparated because LV was pointing his wand at him
> intending to kill him. His Disapparation caused the spell to hit, 
and
> kill, Mad-Eye. Had LV been aiming at one ot the other fake Harry's,
> I'm sure they would have attempted to fight back rather than
> disapparating and giving away the fact that they weren't Harry.
> Unfortunately, they would almost certainly have been killed in place
> of Mad-Eye.

Magpie:
Apparating is safer, then, isn't it? The person who lived was the one 
who apparated. A fake Harry might have attempted to fight back 
(wouldn't Harry himself fight back? Why would that give them away?), 
but it would be much smarter, it seems to me, to apparate as well. If 
Mad-Eye and Mundungus had both apparated neither one would be dead. 

Carol:> 
> The thing is, they weren't expecting LV himself to be there. And I'm
> sure that Mad-eye knew the risk he was taking, drawing the bulk of 
any
> DEs who might be present after himself and escorting the cowardly
> Mundungus.

Magpie:
I can't remember now--why was Mundungus there? If he's so cowardly 
and they want people who, faced with somebody who's about to kill 
them, prefer to try to fight than just disappear, why force him to 
come? Why is Moody drawing more danger to himself than necessary at 
all?

Carol:> 
> Assuming that Voldemort had come after a different pair, say Fred 
and
> Arthur (who were on brooms and, by Mad-eye's logic, more likely to 
be
> mistaken for the real Harry than the riders on Thestrals), were they
> both supposed to Apparate simultaneously if one was attakced rather
> than stay to fight?

Magpie:
Why not? Why is it so important for the characters that they stay and 
fight? Why not just apparate as soon as the DEs appeared to begin 
with? The point is to get from one place to another. Why not use 
their power to do that in the blink of an eye?

Carol:
 It's one thing for a broom to go speeding to earth
> out of the sky, as several of them must have done (along with the
> bodies of Moody and any Stunned DEs), but the trunks would have 
fallen
> out of the sky as well, endangering anyone who happened to be below
> them. (Talk about violating the Statute of Secrecy, although I'm 
sure
> that was the least of their concerns.) 

Magpie:
I don't think these are the kinds of things that would be concerning 
them at this point anyway. A dead body falling out of the sky with 
luggage might have hit somebody too. Who told them to load up with 
luggage to begin with anyway? If they just all Apparated quickly that 
would be that. Stick the luggage in a purse like Hermione's or shrink 
it. We never hear anything about protecting anybody on the ground.


Carol: 
> BTW, I wonder how a person Disapparates from a broom. Aren't you
> supposed to turn on your heel or something like that? Hard to do 
when
> you're flying.

Magpie:
I assume you can turn whatever way you turn and the heel is just to 
help beginners to get it. 

Carol:
> 
> Carol, pretty sure that the Order members were under orders not to
> Disapparate, and not just for fear of alerting the MoM but for fear 
of
> endangering each other and innocent people on the ground

Magpie:
But that's a stupid order. They wouldn't be endangering anybody on 
the ground if they just apparated to begin with and didn't bring a 
load of full-sized trunks to drop. A crashlanding motorcycle is just 
as dangerous as a dropped trunk. Harry's already breaking his trace 
using magic--not to mention they're having an air battle which is 
pretty noticable in itself. It seems like the main reason for not 
apparating is to have an exciting air battle at the beginning of the 
book. It makes perfect sense for Rowling as an author, but for 
Dumbledore as leader it's ridiculous.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  8 22:25:43 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:25:43 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <47D2F2C4.5070309@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fqv3p7+54jf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181989

Lee wrote:

> I'm also wondering what Hagrid was doing there. As much as I like
the guy, LV isn't too far off the mark calling him an "oaf". Brings to
mind a description of Samwise Gamgee: He's a stout fellow, who'd leap
down a dragon's throat to save you, if he didn't trip over his own
feet first.

Carol responds:
OTOH, voldemort probably had a similar opinion and thought that Hagrid
was the least likely escort for Harry (not to mention that he probably
did think that Harry would be flying on a broom).
> 
Lee:
> 
> I've found a partial answer to some of my earlier questions at the
beginning of chapter 6:
> 
> "Well, you can't do anything about the" -- Ron mouthed the word 
Horcruxes -- "till you're seventeen. You've still got the Trace on you."
> 
> The implication here is Harry can be traced (ahem, *Traced*) by the
MoM. Does this mean he can be traced even through an Apparation? If
Harry had Disapparated (legalities notwithstanding) out of Privet
Drive, would the Ministry be able to see where he Apparated to? 

Carol:
That makes sense. In fact, Moody himelf says that they're going to use
"the only mans of transport left to us, the only ones the Trace can't
detect because you don't have to cast spells to use them: brooms,
thestrals, and Hagrid's motorbike" (DH Am. ed. 47). that would also
explain why they don't use Side-Along Apparation, which would also be
detected. (And I know it isn't mentioned, but I think they needed a
way to bring along Harry's trunk and Hedwig's cage; there'd be no
going back for them once the protective charm broke.)

Lee:
> And so, since the Order's intent was to surprise the DEs by moving
Harry early, they couldn't wait until the Trace broke.

Carol:
Right. Which is why the Order members can't cast spells around him,
either.
> 
Lee:
> It still doesn't explain why Harry was sent back to Privet Drive in
the first place, instead of a safehouse, or what in the Wizarding
World DD was thinking setting him and half the Order up for a suicide
mission, or why the Order couldn't, say, have polyjuiced Harry into
Dudley and snuck him out with the Dursleys. But at least it may
explain why he didn't just Apparate.

Carol:
They couldn't Polyjuice him as Dudley because the real Dudley had to
be removed, along with his parents, before the protective charm broke.
Two Dudleys in the same car would look suspicious, right? (Maybe as
Dudley's friend Piers, but they didn't know about him. or he could
ride under the Invisibility Cloak until they got to the safe house
where the Dursleys were staying and Port-Key from there.) 

As for staying at a safe house while the protective charm is still in
place, why risk it? A safe house isn't as safe as the Dursleys while
the charm is in effect. Dedalus Diggle's house is set on fire
(fortunately, he's not there), and, later, Ted Tonks and his wife are
tortured and Ted is forced to flee. Evidently, safe houses aren't all
that safe--unlike the protection on the Dursleys' house, which is
based on Lily's blood sacrifice and is absolute as long as Harry calls
the place "home." Even the Weasleys' protections are broken through
once the DEs are united with the MoM employes (who are either
"converted," to use LV's word, or Imperiused). They crash the wedding,
remember? Nothing of the sort ever happens at the Dursleys'.

As for the "suicide mission," I think that the Order was merely trying
to "eschew" the Floo Network and Apparition and that, had it not been
for Dumbledore, Harry would not have had multiple escorts. The
polyjuiced Harrys became necessary as decoys (chiefly to protect Harry
himself) once DD decided that Snape should reveal the time and date to
preserve his cover and LV's trust in him. Had they gone along with
what must have been the original plan, a few Order members escorting
the real Harry, it would indeed have been a suicide mission. 

Lee: 
> In re-reading chapters 4 and 5, however, another thought has
occurred to me. The Order has at least a dozen safehouses scattered
around England, hidden behind magical shields even LV can't penetrate,
at least if the Weasleys' house was any indication.

Carol:
He can't immediately penetrate the protective shield surrounding the
Tonks's house, the one that Harry goes to, but the DEs and the MoM
officials later break through the protection and both the Weasleys'
and the Tonks's. It's only a safeguard to protect Harry and the others
long enough to Port-Key to the Weasleys', apparently. (I'm not sure
how the Dursleys remained safe; maybe no one was interested in them
after Harry left their house.) And it seems naive of the Weasleys to
think that the Burrow would be safe for Harry once the MoM fell--good
thing he left when he did.
> 
Lee:
> So why didn't they just turn Privet Drive into another safehouse? It
would appear the Order's magical protection around the safehouses was
at least as effective as Lily's charm in keeping out the baddies, so
why not wrap up the Dursleys' place while they were at it?
> 
Carol:
I disagree. Dumbledore's charm (not Lily's though it was based on her
"blood") seems to have been impenetrable, in contrast to the so-called
safe houses, not to mention that Harry needed to leave the Dursleys
and return to the WW when (or just before) that protection expired.
There would be no point in placing protections on the Dursleys' house
once everyone had evacuated. (I hope they had good insurance, though.
I imagine that the DEs trashed or even burned the house once Harry had
escaped!)

Carol, who thinks that Harry is lucky to have escaped at all and
wonders why Hermione's charms worked so well when nothing short of a
Fidelius Charm seems to have protected anyone else
> CJ -- still scratching his head, though maybe not so much in that one 
> spot anymore.
>





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sun Mar  9 00:41:10 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:41:10 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Florian Fortescue
In-Reply-To: <617129.32068.qm@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
References: <fq7hmn+djg7@eGroups.com>
	 <617129.32068.qm@web55114.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803081641r6292aaf0xcbaadec4f2bc8226@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181990

akh:
I'd be interested to know if she would remove such specific early references
to him if she were to revise the early books in light of her final outcomes.



Lynda:
This is one of those things that simply does not bother me. In a long series
of books such as the HP books there are bound to be a lot of incidental
characters, some of them with larger parts than others. They are there just
to provide body to the story and although they may have very well-worked-out
backstories, the readers might never know them. We don't need to. At the
same time, the story would suffer with a lack of those characters.

Lynda


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




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  9 02:26:14 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:26:14 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqv3p7+54jf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fqvhs6+npue@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181991

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

> They couldn't Polyjuice him as Dudley because the real Dudley had to
> be removed, along with his parents, before the protective charm 
> broke.


Besides, I really can't imagine the Dursleys agreeing to leave their 
precious Diddykins at home so that polyjuiced Harry could ride with 
them. They also wouldn't allow Dudley (and he wouldn't agree himself) 
to drink the Polyjuice potion to transform into Dedalus Diggle, for 
example:-). 

Interesting that Dedalus and Hestia intended to Apparate with the 
Dursleys ("...we shall be driving, say ten miles or so, before 
Disapparating to the safe location ..."). This means, first, that 
Muggles can Side-Apparate with wizards, and, second, that Dedalus and 
Hestia would need to convince the Dursleys to "do magic" and, more 
than that, to abandon their luggage and their car - I can't even 
imagine how they managed to do this. Confundus charm :-)?


zanooda




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar  9 06:22:32 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:22:32 -0000
Subject: Chapter 15/Trace on "Voldemort"/Goblins/Caribbean/YuleBallPartner
Message-ID: <fqvvn8+p2i2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181992

Dana summarized Chapter 15 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181844>:

<< With the aid of the extendable ears, they discover that a party
settled at the nearby riverbank consists of Griphook and Gornuk the
Goblins, Ted Tonks, Dean Thomas and Dirk. (snip) As soon as this band
of fugitives moves out of extendable earshot >>

I kept yelling at them to make contact with these allies!

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181859>:

<< part of the problem can be traced to Dumbledore's teaching Harry
not to fear Voldemort's name. I think, and I'm probably alone in this
thought, that the fear had a basis, not in superstition like "Speak of
the devil, and he'll appear," but in speaking Voldemort's name leading
to discovery by DEs or LV himself. Even if there was no jinx last time
(and I suspect there was), anyone who spoke Voldemort's name would
instantly reveal himself to any DE within earshot as an enemy. >>

If there was a Trace on saying "Voldemort" last time, and the members
of the Order of the Phoenix were all taught by Dumbledore to say
"Voldemort", that might account for so many of them being killed by
the bad guys. Deaths due to following Dumbledore's guidance. Do you
think it's possible that there was a Trace on saying "Voldemort" and
Dumbledore didn't know it? Despite having spies and little silver
gadgets that appear to be magic detectors?

<< Goblins in general are, apparently, clever, malicious, and ugly. I
can't imagine an ancestor of Flitwick's marrying one >>

Maybe there was no marriage involved. Maybe a beautiful witch agreed
to sleep with four ugly Goblins in exchange for a very valuable piece
of Goblin-made jewelry. Wouldn't Goblins find humans as ugly as humans
find Goblins, and therefore not be so interested in sleeping with humans?

Zanooda wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181861>:

<< Isn't the Caribbean too far away from England? Can a hippogriff fly
such a long distance? >>

Buckbeak wouldn't have had to fly all the way there, only to someplace
where Sirius and he could board a ship.

Alla  wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181981>:

<< Harry doubted it very much if any of the girls who had asked to be
his partner so far would have wanted to go to the ball with him if he
hadn't been a school champion. Then he wondered if this would bother
him if Cho asked him" - p.389.

Not that I dislike Harry being honest with himself here, quite the
contrary, but I now wonder if he let Hermione's words get to him too
much. I mean, is it really true that nobody would have asked him had
he not been one of the champions? But I guess Harry experienced
enough school turning on him to feel sceptical. >>

The quote doesn't say that nobody would have asked him, it says that
none of the girls who had asked him so far would have asked him. I
think that's true -- as far as I can tell, none of them even know him,
but they know that he's a Triwizard Champion and he and his partner
will open the Ball. 

If Cho had asked him to be her partner at the Ball, it wouldn't have
been just because he was a Triwizard Champion. Because OoP showed that
she fancied him and she pursued him when his only claim to fame was
teaching the Defense Association.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  9 14:42:40 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:42:40 -0000
Subject: Chapter 15/Trace on "Voldemort"/Goblins/Caribbean/YuleBallPartner
In-Reply-To: <fqvvn8+p2i2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr0t10+a6c2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181993

---  "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:

> 
> Zanooda wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181861>:
> 
> << Isn't the Caribbean too far away from England? Can a 
> hippogriff fly such a long distance? >>
> 
> Buckbeak wouldn't have had to fly all the way there, only 
> to someplace where Sirius and he could board a ship.
> 

bboyminn:

Can Buckbeak fly all that way??? Well, Monarch Butterflies fly
all the way from Minnesota to Mexico and South America. If a 
Butterfly can do it, I'm sure a hippogriff can.

As to where Sirius was, I'm thinking Congo or Madagascar are
most likely, though if there is a thriving trade in these
exotic birds, then he would have had to be no farther away
than North Africa (Morocco, Monoco, etc...).

For Sirius to hang out in Madagascar, is about like someone
from the USA hanging out in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. That's
along way, but doable. Still, I'm more inclined to think he
was is some "don't ask, don't tell" part of North Africa. 

Steve/bboyminn




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar  9 16:57:21 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 9 Mar 2008 16:57:21 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/9/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1205081841.55.43976.m44@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181994

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 9, 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/20080309/807b4763/attachment.html>

From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  9 17:19:35 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:19:35 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fqqemj+durl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr1677+be1a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181995

> Alla:
> 
> I really do not have much that jumped at me as new in those
> chapters, but rather than skip further, I figured I post anyways,
> maybe somebody else will see more. :-)

Mike:
Me either, Alla. But there is one or two favorite re-caps and a 
question. All these quotes are from pp 325-8, US Ed.
-----

"... and then [Harry's] mouth fell open.

*Dragons* "

Mike:
All the lead up to the TWT indicates it's going to be exciting. But 
we have no real idea how hard it's going to be. I mean, kids are 
going to exagerate the dangers. I expected that life was a little 
more precious in the modern age than it was for previous tournaments 
of centuries past. Besides, Dumbledore already told us there were new 
safety measures in place for this tournament. So when Harry's jaw 
drops and we see that one word, DRAGONS, I'm like, whoa maybe this 
isn't going to be so watered down as I thought. How the hell is Harry 
going to defeat THAT? He doesn't know near enough magic!
-----

"Really romantic date, Hagrid," said Charlie, shaking his head.

Mike:
Hee! Well sure, Hagrid could be a goof around the kids, he might be 
just trying to relate. Maybe he's different around grown-ups, 
especially ones that he's taken a liking to? Nope! That's our Hagrid!
-----

"The wizard who had warned Hagrid not to come any closer turned, and 
Harry realized who it was: Charlie Weasley."

Mike:
Now we know that the rumor was true, there was a dragon guarding some 
of the high security vaults in Gringotts. Is that what Charlie is 
doing with the dragons in Romania, training some of them for highly 
specialized jobs? I only remember people like Ron saying Charlie 
"works" with dragons, I don't remember anybody saying he "trains" 
them, but I might have missed that. 

I always thought of Charlie's job as a sort of magical gamekeeper, 
much like Hagrid's job at Hogwarts until he gets the CoMC teaching 
post. (Strike that, Hagrid still does his gamekeeping duties even 
after he gets the teaching post). But if it's a "job", who's paying 
Charlie and his mates to look after dragons? Qui bono, who benefits 
and therefore who gets something out of this group doing stuff with 
dragons besides the group themselves?




From bekkio at gmail.com  Sun Mar  9 17:19:08 2008
From: bekkio at gmail.com (Bekki Olivieri)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 10:19:08 -0700
Subject: The Portal - JIM DALE IS PRESENTING AT PORTUS!
Message-ID: <561bdbfa0803091019o76cd386buf0d5dd5b1820acf3@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181996

**SPECIAL NOTICE - APPROVED BY THE HPfGU ELVES**

The Portus staff has had their lips sealed for the last few months (a
very hard thing to do!), but we can no longer keep quiet. It is with
the utmost pleasure and greatest honor that we divulge our most
guarded secret?

Jim Dale, the voice of Harry Potter, will be joining us this July at
Portus in Dallas, Texas! We're more excited than a gaggle of
Leprechauns at the Quidditch World Cup!

To celebrate, we are offering a special springtime registration
discount for Jim Dale fans. Register by March 15th and use the special
promotional code WELUVJIM, and you will receive a regular Portus
registration for $180. That's a $40 savings! Imagine all the extras
you can add on to your registration with savings like that.*

For more information about Portus and the Jim Dale presentations,
click here: http://community.livejournal.com/portus_2008/4708.html



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  9 20:45:04 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:45:04 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr1677+be1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr1i8g+ollq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181997

Mike wrote:
> Now we know that the rumor was true, there was a dragon guarding
some of the high security vaults in Gringotts. Is that what Charlie is
doing with the dragons in Romania, training some of them for highly
specialized jobs? I only remember people like Ron saying Charlie 
"works" with dragons, I don't remember anybody saying he "trains"
them, but I might have missed that. 
> 
> I always thought of Charlie's job as a sort of magical gamekeeper, 
much like Hagrid's job at Hogwarts until he gets the CoMC teaching 
post. (Strike that, Hagrid still does his gamekeeping duties even
after he gets the teaching post). But if it's a "job", who's paying
Charlie and his mates to look after dragons? Qui bono, who benefits
and therefore who gets something out of this group doing stuff with
dragons besides the group themselves?

Carol responds:
First, thanks, Mike, for bringing up a topic that we haven't discussed
to death!

I don't think that Charlie and his friends train dragons for
Gringotts. I think that the poor, abused dragon that we see in DH
(kept confined and out of the light so long that it's nearly blind) is
"trained," using a cruel variation on Pavlovian conditioning, by
Goblins who teach it to associate the sound of the clankers with
brutal mistreatment. (I don't know whether the goblins had other
dragons as well; HRH don't see any, but, if they exist, I'm sure
they're subject to the same mistreatment.) How the Goblins obtained
their dragon(s), I don't know. I can't imagine someone like Charlie
and his friends selling a dragon to the Goblins if they knew the
treatment it would receive.

That aside, the dragons seem to live mostly on a dragon preserve in
Romania, perhaps one of the few places where they can safely be kept
from Muggle view (and Muggles kept safe from them!). Between the
pressure of large Muggle populations and the Statute of Secrecy,  
dragon populations are probably dwindling (much like giant
populations). I see Charlie's job as something like that of a Muggle
researcher studying a dangerous endangered animal like, say, the
Siberian tiger. They would want to provide ideal breeding and living
conditions for the dragons, keep the population healthy, study their
habits, and so on. Occasionally, as with Norbert in SS/PS or the TWT
in GoF, they'd be called upon to transport dragons, but that can
hardly be their primary job. (They might also supply dragon skin,
dragon blood, and dragon heartstring to merchants and manufacturers,
but I don't want to think about that part.)

As for who pays them, surely it's the MoM (not necessarily just the
British version)--the same people who pay Wizarding researchers to
maintain the Hall of Prophecy and to study Death, Love, Time, the
Mind, and other mysteries. 

Carol, who vaguely remembers some researcher in the Wizard of the
Month archives who was killed by the creatures she was studying
(Trolls?) a la the author of "Born Free," who was (ironically) mauled
to death by a lion, IIRC

Carol, 





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  9 21:42:46 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:42:46 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr1i8g+ollq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr1lkm+f1kv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181998

> Carol:
I see Charlie's job as something like that of a Muggle
> researcher studying a dangerous endangered animal like, say, the
> Siberian tiger. They would want to provide ideal breeding and living
> conditions for the dragons, keep the population healthy, study their
> habits, and so on. Occasionally, as with Norbert in SS/PS or the TWT
> in GoF, they'd be called upon to transport dragons, but that can
> hardly be their primary job. (They might also supply dragon skin,
> dragon blood, and dragon heartstring to merchants and manufacturers,
> but I don't want to think about that part.)

zgirnius:
On a positive note, perhaps the magical ingredients/substances to 
which you refer, may be obtained from a dead, dying, or severely 
injured dragon which is not able to live on its own anymore. (As 
Sluggie could still harvest the venom of the recently deceased 
Acromantula, Aragog). The Siberian tiger RL analogy brings up another 
function Charlie and Co. may have - they may act analogously to 
National Park rangers who prevent poachers from irresponsibly killing 
off the endangered animals for a quick Galleon to be made off selling 
the parts to shady dealers.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 10 02:36:29 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:36:29 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr1i8g+ollq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr26re+a8id@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 181999

> > Mike wrote:
> > But if it's a "job", who's paying Charlie and his mates to
> > look after dragons?

> Carol responds:
> First, thanks, Mike, for bringing up a topic that we haven't
> discussed to death!

Mike: My pleasure!


> Carol responds:
> I don't think that Charlie and his friends train dragons for
> Gringotts. I think that the poor, abused dragon that we see in
> DH (kept confined and out of the light so long that it's nearly
> blind) is "trained," using a cruel variation on Pavlovian
> conditioning, by Goblins who teach it to associate the sound of
> the clankers with brutal mistreatment. 
> -<snip>-
> How the Goblins obtained their dragon(s), I don't know. I can't
> imagine someone like Charlie and his friends selling a dragon to
> the Goblins if they knew the treatment it would receive. 

Mike:
Oh I quite agree. Charlie's group would never be a party to what 
the Goblins did to that poor dragon, not imo. I also think you've 
got the method of training down correctly. I don't know how long 
dragons in the Potterverse live, but I'd imagined that the Gringotts
dragon had been there for a very long time. Possibly pre-dating the 
formation of the group Charlie is now with. Gringotts undoubtedly
got their dragon through less than upstanding means. Doesn't speak 
very well for the Goblins, does it?

Going into this series I suppose I had JRRT's version of dragons 
in mind, sentient and highly intelligent dragons. Now, I'm not sure
that JKR's version are even as smart as hippogriffs. I still don't
approve of what the Goblins obviously did and were doing to that 
dragon, but I suppose they treated it the same way people treat 
pitt bulls in RL.

[An aside, probably best answered on OTC, why didn't Tolkien have 
dragons after The Hobbit? Not a one in the Trilogy. Geoff? Anyone?]


> Carol responds:
> 
> That aside, the dragons seem to live mostly on a dragon preserve
> in Romania, perhaps one of the few places where they can safely
> be kept from Muggle view (and Muggles kept safe from them!).

Mike:
Ron told us that they are dying out, much like the Giants. They are 
rare but not extinct in Britain. He also told us about the MoM 
dispatching Obliviators whenever a Muggle  caught sight of a real 
dragon and lived to *try* to tell about it.


> Carol:
> I see Charlie's job as something like that of a Muggle
> researcher studying a dangerous endangered animal like, say,
> the Siberian tiger. They would want to provide ideal breeding
> and living conditions for the dragons, keep the population
> healthy, study their habits, and so on.
> <snip>
> 
> As for who pays them, surely it's the MoM (not necessarily just
> the British version)--the same people who pay Wizarding
> researchers to maintain the Hall of Prophecy and to study Death,
> Love, Time, the Mind, and other mysteries. 

Mike:
OK, this is a good explanation. I can buy this. I can also see the 
value to wizarding society to not only keep the dragons sequestered, 
away from Muggle eyes, but judging by the praise Dumbledore received
on his Chocolate Frog card (12 uses of dragon blood), the study of 
dragons and their qualities must be of value to wizards.



> > Mike wrote:
> > Qui bono, who benefits and therefore who gets something
> > out of this group doing stuff with dragons besides the
> > group themselves?

> Carol:
> (They might also supply dragon skin, dragon blood, and
> dragon heartstring to merchants and manufacturers,
> but I don't want to think about that part.)

zgirnius:
On a positive note, perhaps the magical ingredients/substances to
which you refer, may be obtained from a dead, dying, or severely
injured dragon which is not able to live on its own anymore. (As
Sluggie could still harvest the venom of the recently deceased
Acromantula, Aragog). 

Mike:
This was also on my mind. There seems to be a thriving market in the 
wizarding world for parts of dragons that would require their death. 
Dumbledore's blood (though maybe he only got a couple of pints from 
the live ones), Ollivander's heartstrings, the twins dragon-skin 
jackets, etc. Are there enough dragons and do they die from natural 
causes fast enough to keep all these users in sufficient supply of 
their *materials*?



zgirnius:
The Siberian tiger RL analogy brings up another function Charlie 
and Co. may have - they may act analogously to National Park 
rangers who prevent poachers from irresponsibly killing off the 
endangered animals for a quick Galleon to be made off selling the 
parts to shady dealers.

Mike:
I'd like to think this was the case, Zara. Yet going back to my 
question about dragon intelligence in the Potterverse, do we know
that they don't raise them simply as stock? The treatment they 
receive in GoF does not indicate otherwise, however much the 
"handlers" may look kindly upon their charges. They can be doing 
this responsibly, unlike the approach the poachers take. Culling
the varieties they have too many of, the sick and/or dying, etc.
But that would make them less like Park Rangers and more like 
ranchers.

All of the GoF dragons were nesting mothers with a brood of eggs. 
There seemed to be sufficient quantity to more than re-stock the 
preserves allotment of dragons. And I'd imagine that the preserve 
Charlie works on is not boundless, so they must have a limit to 
their quantity. Would they be doing that by selling off the excess 
to merchants, or releasing the excess into the wild?

Mike, who wants to think the best of Charlie and his mates, but 
isn't encouraged by the attitudes that predominate in the WW towards
even sentient beings, much less the seemingly non-sentient.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 10 02:47:07 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:47:07 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr1i8g+ollq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr27fb+mcko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182000

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

> I don't think that Charlie and his friends train dragons for
> Gringotts. I think that the poor, abused dragon that we see in DH
> (kept confined and out of the light so long that it's nearly 
> blind) is "trained," using a cruel variation on Pavlovian 
> conditioning, by Goblins who teach it to associate the sound 
> of the clankers with brutal mistreatment.


zanooda:

I absolutely agree, the dragon has terrible slashes across its 
muzzle, and Harry notes that it was trained to fear hot swords - 
sounds really cruel, I can't imagine anyone who loves animals to do 
this, even if we are talking about ferocious beasts like dragons.


> Carol: 

> How the Goblins obtained their dragon(s), I don't know. I 
> can't imagine someone like Charlie and his friends selling 
> a dragon to the Goblins if they knew the treatment it would receive.


zanooda:

I suppose they could have bought a dragon egg illegally, just like 
Hagrid did - there must be a black market for this kind of thing. 
Even if not an egg, they needed to acquire the dragon when it was 
small enough - they wouldn't be able to get a full-grown dragon 
inside Gringotts.


> Carol:

> I see Charlie's job as something like that of a Muggle
> researcher studying a dangerous endangered animal like, say, the
> Siberian tiger.


zanooda:

Exactly, Charlie's occupation was even described like this for the 
first time in SS/PS: "Charlie's in Romania studying dragons". This 
could mean of course that he was just continuing his COMC education 
there, but anyway, I think you are right and research is definitely 
part of Charlie's job. 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 10 04:07:30 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:07:30 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fqv2gj+7a2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr2c62+cphf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182001

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

> 
> Magpie:
> Why not? Why is it so important for the characters that they stay and 
> fight? Why not just apparate as soon as the DEs appeared to begin 
> with? The point is to get from one place to another. Why not use 
> their power to do that in the blink of an eye?

Pippin:
If everyone disapparated except the real Harry, the DE's would have known
which one was him. Harry was under orders not to apparate because it would
give him away through the trace. It turned out that the Ministry was not
as ready to arrest him as the Order feared. But they had no way of knowing
that. 


> Magpie:
 It makes perfect sense for Rowling as an author, but for 
> Dumbledore as leader it's ridiculous.
>

Pippin:

In a way, I agree.

 I think we are supposed to see Dumbledore, and Gryffindors in
general,  as a little too keen on sacrificing   for the greater good, 
and a little too arrogant about deciding which goods ought to be 
considered lesser. 

Aberforth says as much, doesn't he? 

Dumbledore expected some Order casualties, since he ordered Snape
not to give himself away to prevent them. Snape's mission and Harry's
life were the greater good.  And Moody seemed to think 
that if Mundungus  got himself killed for the Order, it would be the 
most worthwhile thing he ever did. But Moody and Dumbledore
were mistaken. 

If  Mundungus hadn't saved himself, the locket might never have been 
found, and Voldemort would have remained immortal. 

It's not that Dumbledore *wanted* some of his people to die. But he
was always just a little to ready to see suffering as a price that had to be 
paid, I think. He put his trust in sacrifice as if there was a sort of magic to 
it, which there indeed there is, but only if the victim *chooses*. 

Dumbledore had a tendency to take people's choices for granted, especially 
Gryffindors. 

I think this weakness in Gryffindor is inherent in their strength, and it's  
what JKR was talking about when she said that the Slytherins were needed 
for balance. If everyone was like the Gryffindors, they would all be
willing to bravely fight a losing battle, but no one would have gone to 
Hogsmeade for help.  


But... if everyone saw Slytherins as cowards and traitors, no one would 
have trusted Slughorn enough to come back with him. *That* , to return 
to the subject of an earlier thread, is why it's important that the townspeople 
and the parents of the students who stayed behind followed Slughorn. 

What was remarkable was not that the Slytherin students would follow 
Slughorn, but that other people did.

Pippin




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar 10 12:01:22 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:01:22 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr26re+a8id@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr37ui+g1ap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182002


> Mike:
>snip 
> Going into this series I suppose I had JRRT's version of dragons 
> in mind, sentient and highly intelligent dragons. Now, I'm not sure
> that JKR's version are even as smart as hippogriffs. I still don't
> approve of what the Goblins obviously did and were doing to that 
> dragon, but I suppose they treated it the same way people treat 
> pitt bulls in RL.

Potioncat:
I never once thought of the dragons as sentient. I guess it depends 
on which sets of dragon-lore the reader is most familiar with. Does 
anyone have FBAWTFT? I've only ever gotten it from the library. IIRC, 
dragons are rated as Multiple-X beasts. Meaning very dangerous. There 
were certain legal restrictions as I recall. The MacFusty clan 
manages the ones (flock, herd?) in the Hebrides, and there's some in 
Wales as well.
 
> > Carol: 
> > As for who pays them, surely it's the MoM (not necessarily just
> > the British version)--the same people who pay Wizarding
> > researchers to maintain the Hall of Prophecy and to study Death,
> > Love, Time, the Mind, and other mysteries. 

Potioncat:
Me too--sort of like Park Rangers...or the British equivilent. Was 
there a brochure on dragonkeepers in OoP?

> 
> Mike:
> This was also on my mind. There seems to be a thriving market in 
the 
> wizarding world for parts of dragons that would require their 
death. 
> Dumbledore's blood (though maybe he only got a couple of pints from 
> the live ones), Ollivander's heartstrings, the twins dragon-skin 
> jackets, etc. Are there enough dragons and do they die from natural 
> causes fast enough to keep all these users in sufficient supply of 
> their *materials*?

Potioncat:
We are civilized, aren't we? What would  be so bad about managing the 
flock of dragons, choosing some for slaughter? I know---it's the 
Bambi factor. But venison is very good. So is rabbit. Just don't try 
to serve a cute deer or bunny to my kids. (or to me either, for that 
matter, though I used to eat both.)

Oh, I just realised--if you're thinking of sentient dragons, it would 
be very bad. I just don't think that's what JKR had in mind. 


>MIke:  
> All of the GoF dragons were nesting mothers with a brood of eggs. 
> There seemed to be sufficient quantity to more than re-stock the 
> preserves allotment of dragons. And I'd imagine that the preserve 
> Charlie works on is not boundless, so they must have a limit to 
> their quantity. Would they be doing that by selling off the excess 
> to merchants, or releasing the excess into the wild?

Potioncat:
Well, if that's typical---I'd say there may be too many dragons! But 
here we have a case of Maths. Or it could be like birds who lay a 
number of eggs, but the chances of even one chick surviving to 
adulthood is rather small. So I think we have a good chance that the 
handlers have to do some culling, dragons die, and perhaps some are 
raised as stock. Also, I'd almost think a dragon heart string would 
have be very fresh---and not from a sick dragon. Just guessing of 
course. 

The Hebridean Black dragon is described as bat-like. For the longest 
time I was sure Snape was more dragon than bat, and that Hebridean 
Blacks would play in the story some way. I was so convinced, that 
when I saw the DH book cover with the dragon, my first thought 
was "The artist got the color wrong."

And, one story on myself. TMTMNBN-CoS was on TV the other day. It was 
the DADA Pixie class scene. I watched as the dinosaur skeleton came 
crashing down. Yep. Dinosaur. And suddenly, after all these years of 
wondering why there was a dinosaur skeleton in DADA class I realised, 
it's a dragon. Doh!






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 10 13:52:38 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:52:38 -0000
Subject: The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fr2c62+cphf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr3ef6+j8t2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182003

> > Magpie:
> > Why not? Why is it so important for the characters that they 
stay and 
> > fight? Why not just apparate as soon as the DEs appeared to 
begin 
> > with? The point is to get from one place to another. Why not use 
> > their power to do that in the blink of an eye?
> 
> Pippin:
> If everyone disapparated except the real Harry, the DE's would 
have known
> which one was him. Harry was under orders not to apparate because 
it would
> give him away through the trace. It turned out that the Ministry 
was not
> as ready to arrest him as the Order feared. But they had no way of 
knowing
> that. 

Magpie:
I did mean Harry should of course also also apparate. Harry's 
already breaking his trace by doing magic during the chase.

> > Magpie:
>  It makes perfect sense for Rowling as an author, but for 
> > Dumbledore as leader it's ridiculous.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> In a way, I agree.
> 
>  I think we are supposed to see Dumbledore, and Gryffindors in
> general,  as a little too keen on sacrificing   for the greater 
good, 
> and a little too arrogant about deciding which goods ought to be 
> considered lesser. 
> 
> Aberforth says as much, doesn't he? 

Magpie:
Definitely. They're all a bit nuts that way imo--though they seem to 
live in a world where everyone agrees with them. Imo, the Slytherins 
really don't create a good balance for them at all, since not only 
do they seem to underneath share the same bias about courage, they 
inferior. 

Pippin:
> But... if everyone saw Slytherins as cowards and traitors, no one 
would 
> have trusted Slughorn enough to come back with him. *That* , to 
return 
> to the subject of an earlier thread, is why it's important that 
the townspeople 
> and the parents of the students who stayed behind followed 
Slughorn. 
> 
> What was remarkable was not that the Slytherin students would 
follow 
> Slughorn, but that other people did.

 
Magpie:
I don't think anybody had to much count on Slughorn one way or the 
other. They were also following Charlie Weasley. Any Slytherin 
students who followed Slughorn followed him out of the castle and 
away from the fight. Everybody else heard what was happening and ran 
in to fight.

-m




From colleen.nilson at verizon.net  Mon Mar 10 15:14:55 2008
From: colleen.nilson at verizon.net (colleennilson)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:14:55 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fqutai+oomd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr3j9f+d8qs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182004

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Patty" <ikutsu7474 at ...> wrote:
>
> This was possibly the funniest part of the book. Considering I have the
> worst mind, and my imagination grew quite filthy I am quite sure that I
> blushed alot thinking of 6 people disquised as Harry running nude in
> the house.
>
> I could only imagine how she were to react to the images and thoughts
> in my head upon reading that particular chapter. >:-)



ikutsu7474: I'm glad I'm not the only one!  My first thought was that
I would have found an excuse to go to the bathroom, just for a peek
*blushes and hides face*  I thought it was cute that Ron got jealous
when Hermione said Harry looked like he tasted yummy (a la the potion).

Slinking back to my den of iniquity,
Colleen




From saritat at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 10 17:20:57 2008
From: saritat at yahoo.com (sarita)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:20:57 -0000
Subject: Deathly Hallows:Ariana Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fqo6ht+7hlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr3qlp+s964@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182005

"floribelole" wrote:
> Was Ariana raped?


Personally, I tend to think she was. But certain points with this
statement of an opinion need clarification:

1) I'm sure the point in the book was *meant* to be ambigious, and JKR
will/can never ever say otherwise, as people would have a real big
problem of such things being officially aluded to in a book for (also)
children. JKR doesn't necessarily have a *clear* picture of what
actually happened, either. (But I think *she* does.)

2) I think there are plenty of ways for the attack to be sexual in
nature without any penetration or at least actual intercourse. Therefore:

3) It makes no difference how young she was or how young the boys
were. These things (= young, pre-teenish or teen boys attacking a
younger girl in some way sexual) have happened, and they've been
written about in the papers but they're hushed up pretty fast. People
can be cruel. Young people, too.


I have no problem with people reading this as violence without sexual
connotations, but I hope we can all agree to disagree. I don't think
anyone is more right, and certainly JKR will most probably never shed
light on this.

Sarita



From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Mar 10 17:36:53 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:36:53 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqs16u+g4ee@eGroups.com>
References: <2795713f0803062146m32e89637g843736f52313a03b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fqs16u+g4ee@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803101036r41b2606icb92ee1ef68b46aa@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182006

Oh, I get all that. I really do. I just look at it and say, hey everybody
has a different view of life. When I was married I chose not to have kids
(long story) and I was fine with that. I do not see that a fictional society
in which people tend to marry shortly after finishing school, and then the
woman leaving the work force is either bad or good, its simply the way that
writer chose to structure that fictional society. By the same token, neither
do I see those characters she created who are without partners as being a
judgment on that segment of society. It's simply the way she structured a
fictional world, not reality.

Lynda


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 10 19:37:57 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:37:57 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr37ui+g1ap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr42ml+uint@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182007

Potioncat wrote:
> I never once thought of the dragons as sentient. I guess it depends 
> on which sets of dragon-lore the reader is most familiar with.


Carol responds:
Or how you're defining "sentient." Clearly, they're aware of sense
impressions, which is how I define the term. They can see, hear, feel,
smell, and presumably taste. They're also capable of primitive
emotions, such as fear and anger and the instinct, if they're female,
to protect their young/eggs. Whether, say, conjured birds are
sentient, I don't know, but even a hedgehog partially Transfigured
into a pincushion curls up in pain when a pin is stuck in it, if I
remember McGonagall's words correctly. Anyway, while the dragon at
Gringotts is no Smaug--it can't talk or hoard treasure and it isn't
cunning--it's clearly a beast, in other words, not a being like a
Goblin or even a Dementor--it's as sentient as, say, a lion or other
fierce wild animal in RL. And, as I noted earlier, it can learn to
associate the sound of the clankers with torture (hot swords against
its muzzle), a cruel form of Pavlovian behavioral conditioning.

If you mean that you never thought of JKR's dragons as cunning beasts
with humanlike intelligence, I agree, but sentience doesn't
necessarily imply intelligence. Even a frog is sentient, conscious of
its surroundings via its senses and able to interpret sense
impressions, but not *self*-conscious like a human being.

Potioncat:
> Does anyone have FBAWTFT? I've only ever gotten it from the library.
IIRC, dragons are rated as Multiple-X beasts. Meaning very dangerous.
There were certain legal restrictions as I recall. The MacFusty clan 
manages the ones (flock, herd?) in the Hebrides, and there's some in 
Wales as well.

Carol:
I do. they're rated XXXXX, the most dangerous classification. You're
right about the MacFusty clan, which manages the Hebridean Blacks. I
can't find any reference to "herds" or whatever (I'm sure the correct
term isn't "flock"!), but I only skimmed the relevant pages, including
the Introduction (which answers some of Mike's questions, as does the
short section on the Romanian Longhorn), so I no doubt missed some
things on this rereading (and I'd forgotten quite a bit of what I'd
previously read, including the Macfusty clan).
>  
Carol earlier: 
> > > As for who pays them, surely it's the MoM (not necessarily just
the British version)--the same people who pay Wizarding researchers to
maintain the Hall of Prophecy and to study Death, Love, Time, the
Mind, and other mysteries. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Me too--sort of like Park Rangers...or the British equivilent. Was
there a brochure on dragonkeepers in OoP?

Carol:
Nope. Just Healing, Muggle Relations, Wizard banking, training
security Trolls, and various careers with the Mom, specifically, the
department of Magical Accidents and Catastrophes (OoP Am. ed. 656-57).
No doubt there's a pamphlet on dragon keeping (Charlie must have read
one), and one on Aurors, for that matter, but they aren't mentioned
because, as usual, HRH are interrupted in the middle of reading them,
in this case by the Ministers of Mayhem, Fred and George. 
> 
> > Mike:
> > This was also on my mind. There seems to be a thriving market in
the wizarding world for parts of dragons that would require their
death. <snip> Are there enough dragons and do they die from natural
causes fast enough to keep all these users in sufficient supply of 
their *materials*?
> 
> Potioncat:
> We are civilized, aren't we? What would  be so bad about managing
the flock of dragons, choosing some for slaughter? I know---it's the 
Bambi factor. But venison is very good. So is rabbit. Just don't try
to serve a cute deer or bunny to my kids. (or to me either, for that
matter, though I used to eat both.)

Carol:
The Bambi factor? I don't think that the apparent sweet innocence or
helplessness of dragons has anything to do with it.  But, granted,
many of us eat meat and wear leather shoes (however opposed we may be
to fur coats). I guess it's the idea of raising a wild *magical*
creature only to slaughter it that's troubling. And there's something
sublime (to use Edmund Burke's word, borrowed from Longinus) about a
dragon as opposed to a mundane cow or chicken. They're rare, they're
magical, they're dangerous, and it seems as wrong to hunt them for the
magical properties of their blood or horns as it does to kill a
Siberian tiger for its hide (or a unicorn for its blood even though
dragons, unlike unicorns, aren't "pure"). 

I gather from FBAWTFT that certain species, such as the Romanian
Longhorn (endangered because its horn is valuable as a potion
ingredient) are being bred to increase their numbers. No doubt it's
the more common varieties whose hide, blood, heart, etc. (but not
eggs) are legal tradeable substances.
> 
> Oh, I just realised--if you're thinking of sentient dragons, it
would be very bad. I just don't think that's what JKR had in mind. <snip>

Carol:
Again, I'm puzzled by your use of "sentient." If the dragons were as
wily and evil as Tolkien's dragons, especially Glaurung in "The
Silmarillion" and "the Children of Hurin," not even Charlie would want
to study and protect them. (Hagrid might, but that's Hagrid, innit?)
and I don't think anyone is thinking of them as gentle creatures like
Puff, the magic dragon or Pete's dragon, sought after by greedy,
unscrupulous people who want to sell his parts for cash.

But say that dragons had the intelligence of Buckbeak and at least
some capacity for loyalty. It would seem wrong to kill them for their
magical properties then, wouldn't it? Is that what you mean by
"sentient"? Does Norbert(a) really "know" his (her) "mummy" (Hagrid)?
I rather doubt it. Buckbeak (annoyed though I am with him for
attacking Snape) is at least capable of forming attachments to certain
humans. I don't think that JKR's dragons have that capacity.
 
Carol, who thinks that the MacFustys may harvest their dragons like
cattle but can't imagine Charlie doing it




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Mon Mar 10 20:08:43 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:08:43 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Seven Harrys (was Re: Dumbledore and other leaders  WAS: Moody's death)
In-Reply-To: <fr3ef6+j8t2@eGroups.com>
References: <fr3ef6+j8t2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <67CE4318-9126-4259-B050-8DC8FC21EEA7@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 182008


On 2008, Mar 10, , at 05:52, sistermagpie wrote:

>>> Magpie:
> I did mean Harry should of course also also apparate. Harry's
> already breaking his trace by doing magic during the chase.
>

Well, there is a lot of magic being done, but since the MoM
can't tell who is doing it and since they would be aware that
there are a lot of wizards and witches in the area, they probably
can't tell specifically if HARRY is doing magic.

When Harry does side-along apparition with Dumbledore, the
trace doesn't seem to be activated.  I.e., Harry goes with DD
to the cave and back and the trace doesn't seem to know that
Harry apparated.  So, it would seem that, apparating after they
had been already detected wouldn't have added any danger.

I think it should have been part of the plan:  all 7 Harrys and
their guides try to get to their assigned port key places.  If you
are attacked, immediately apparate there instead.

Laura W.
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



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




From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Mar 10 22:42:24 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:42:24 -0400
Subject: GOF post DH look, Dragons
In-Reply-To: <1205148393.2811.72526.m46@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1205148393.2811.72526.m46@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8CA511724975CB8-5AC-D16@FWM-D37.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182009



Carol wrote:
I don't think that Charlie and his friends train dragons for
Gringotts. I think that the poor, abused dragon that we see in DH
(kept confined and out of the light so long that it's nearly blind) is
"trained," using a cruel variation on Pavlovian conditioning, by
Goblins who teach it to associate the sound of the clankers with
brutal mistreatment. (I don't know whether the goblins had other
dragons as well; HRH don't see any, but, if they exist, I'm sure
they're subject to the same mistreatment.) How the Goblins obtained
their dragon(s), I don't know. I can't imagine someone like Charlie
and his friends selling a dragon to the Goblins if they knew the
treatment it would receive.

That aside, the dragons seem to live mostly on a dragon preserve in
Romania, perhaps one of the few places where they can safely be kept
from Muggle view (and Muggles kept safe from them!). Between the
pressure of large Muggle populations and the Statute of Secrecy, 
dragon populations are probably dwindling (much like giant
populations). I see Charlie's job as something like that of a Muggle
researcher studying a dangerous endangered animal like, say, the
Siberian tiger. They would want to provide ideal breeding and living
conditions for the dragons, keep the population healthy, study their
habits, and so on. Occasionally, as with Norbert in SS/PS or the TWT
in GoF, they'd be called upon to transport dragons, but that can
hardly be their primary job. (They might also supply dragon skin,
dragon blood, and dragon heartstring to merchants and manufacturers,
but I don't want to think about that part.)

As for who pays them, surely it's the MoM (not necessarily just the
British version)--the same people who pay Wizarding researchers to
maintain the Hall of Prophecy and to study Death, Love, Time, the
Mind, and other mysteries. 

Carol, who vaguely remembers some researcher in the Wizard of the
Month archives who was killed by the creatures she was studying
(Trolls?) a la the author of "Born Free," who was (ironically) mauled
to death by a lion, IIRC.

Julie:
I agree with your assessment, Carol. I've always seen Charlie?in a
researcher/conservationist type job. With a little adventure thrown in ;-)

Regarding Joy Adamson, although initial reports said she was killed by a 
lion, it was shortly discovered that she was murdered (the marks on her
body being too sharp and bloodless to have come from an animal). A
local young man was eventually convicted of her murder. Ironically her
husband was also murdered a few years later protecting a tourist from 
a poacher. Which just goes to show that working in the field?of wild animal 
conservation is far more likely to get you killed by humans than by the 
animals themselves (Dian Fossey being another example).

Julie


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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 11 00:56:52 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:56:52 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr42ml+uint@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr4lck+ondj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182010

 
> Carol responds:
> Or how you're defining "sentient." Clearly, they're aware of sense
> impressions, which is how I define the term. 

Potioncat:
Incorrectly from the looks of it---your definition, Webster's 
definition and the context of the novel it appeared in tonight 
(what's the chances?) are all different than what I thought when I 
first read it decades ago in Science Fiction. (And the book isn't 
Science fiction, but does take place in Wales.)


> 
> Carol:
> I do. they're rated XXXXX, the most dangerous classification. You're
> right about the MacFusty clan, which manages the Hebridean Blacks. I
> can't find any reference to "herds" or whatever (I'm sure the 
correct
> term isn't "flock"!), but I only skimmed the relevant pages, 
including
> the Introduction (which answers some of Mike's questions, as does 
the
> short section on the Romanian Longhorn), so I no doubt missed some
> things on this rereading (and I'd forgotten quite a bit of what I'd
> previously read, including the Macfusty clan).

Potioncat:
Well, I had my own reasons for remembering the Macfusty clan. In 
fact, I once forgot that only in my imagination, is Florence a 
Macfusty.

How about a Fright of dragons? But the Blacks are solitary and 
wouldn't fly all together. So maybe there's no word for a group of 
dragons...other than "Wow!" or "Take cover!"


> 
> Carol:
> The Bambi factor? I don't think that the apparent sweet innocence or
> helplessness of dragons has anything to do with it. 


Potioncat:
But Hagrid thinks they're sweet!

Just to be clear, I meant us, not the WW, as imposing a Bambi factor, 
but I intended more your line---something special about dragons that 
doesn't go with raising them for slaughter. 


>  
> Carol, who thinks that the MacFustys may harvest their dragons like
> cattle but can't imagine Charlie doing it


Potioncat:
Is that what FBAWTFT says, or does something imply it? I always 
thougth of it as a preserve where the dragons were protected, but 
where products might be used if a dragon died or needed to be put 
down.  (I'm not sure I said it that way in my previous post.) 






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 02:22:15 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:22:15 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr42ml+uint@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr4qcn+dvc4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182011

> > Potioncat wrote:
> > I never once thought of the dragons as sentient.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Or how you're defining "sentient." <snip, rearrange, snip>
> but not *self*-conscious like a human being.
> 
> If you mean that you never thought of JKR's dragons as cunning 
> beasts with humanlike intelligence, I agree,

Mike:
My bad, and I dragged PC with me. I was the one that mis-used 
"sentient", when I meant self-aware or as you said self-conscious. 
Seems I've been mis-using that term for some time.


> > PC:
> > Oh, I just realised--if you're thinking of sentient dragons,
> > it would be very bad [harvesting for parts]. I just don't
> > think that's what JKR had in mind.

Mike:
See, told ya I messed PC up. ;)
Anyway PC, I agree that's not the way JKR portrayed *her* dragons.

My thing was that I went into this series expecting dragons to be 
more like Tolkien's version, when clearly they are not. Instead,
they are what Carol said they were:

> Anyway, while the dragon at Gringotts is no Smaug--it can't
> talk or hoard treasure and it isn't cunning--it's clearly 
> a beast, in other words, not a being

Mike:
Which led me to speculate on what all they did with them on the 
Romanian reserve.


> > > Mike:
> > > There seems to be a thriving market in the wizarding world
> > > for parts of dragons that would require their death. <snip>
> > > Are there enough dragons and do they die from natural causes
> > > fast enough to keep all these users in sufficient supply of
> > > their *materials*?

> > Potioncat:
> > We are civilized, aren't we? What would  be so bad about
> > managing the herd of dragons, choosing some for slaughter?
 --and--
> > 
> So I think we have a good chance that the handlers have to do
> some culling, dragons die, and perhaps some are raised as stock.

> Carol:
> I guess it's the idea of raising a wild *magical* creature 
> only to slaughter it that's troubling. 
>  -<snip, rearrange again>-
> and it seems as wrong to hunt them for the
> magical properties of their blood or horns


Mike now:
But why not? If they are indeed beasts, as you called them, what's 
wrong with culling the herd and selling off the unwanted/unneeded 
extras? Wouldn't any attempt at keeping the merchants supplied with 
marketable dragon parts at reasonable prices make poaching seem less
a profitable venture, especially since taking on dragons is so 
dangerous?


> Carol:
> I gather from FBAWTFT that certain species, such as the Romanian
> Longhorn (endangered because its horn is valuable as a potion
> ingredient) are being bred to increase their numbers.

Mike:
See, there you go. They breed them as we in the RL would raise
prime breeds of cattle. Once they get their numbers back up, what 
would be so wrong with responsibly supplying the potioneers with 
their valuable horns, instead of making those potion makers rely 
on poachers and other less savory means?


> Carol, who thinks that the MacFustys may harvest their dragons
> like cattle but can't imagine Charlie doing it

Mike:
What's so wrong with Charlie doing it too? Factoring in Gamp's Law, 
even wizards can't conjure food for an overgrowing dragon herd. 
Instead of letting the herd get too large and thereby becoming 
undernourished, or worse, starving, wouldn't it be better to 
harvest them? It would supply the reserve with what I'm sure are 
much needed resourses, i.e. money.


> Potioncat:
> Also, I'd almost think a dragon heart-string would have be very
> fresh---and not from a sick dragon. Just guessing of course.

Mike:
I agree, PC. Another reason for groups like Charlie's to 
responsibly harvest not just the sick and dying, but the 
healthy and overrepresented breeds.


> Carol:
> No doubt it's the more common varieties whose hide, blood,
> heart, etc. (but not eggs) are legal tradeable substances.

> > Potioncat:
> Or it could be like birds who lay a number of eggs, but the
> chances of even one chick surviving to adulthood is rather small.

Mike:
I think the handlers, at least Charlie's group, would step in much 
like our RL zookeepers do and help raise the young from egg onward. 
This would ensure a much higher survival rate, and would be *one* 
logical reason as to why trading in dragon eggs is illegal. Besides 
the danger of trying to raise your own dragon (even if you're 
Hagrid), most common wizards wouldn't have the knowledge or the 
wherewithall to properly raise a dragon from egg. Which would mean 
more wasted eggs, less dragons.



> > Potioncat:
> > Does anyone have FBAWTFT? 
> 
> Carol:
> I do. They're rated XXXXX,

Mike:
Is that like super-porn? (Sorry, I couldn't resist) <veg>

> Carol:
> but I only skimmed the relevant pages, including the
> Introduction (which answers some of Mike's questions,

Mike:
Wait, I have more. I don't have a copy of FB. 

> Carol:
> And there's something sublime about a dragon <snip>
> They're rare, they're magical, they're dangerous,

Mike:
They're magical? In what way? I've seen that they can breath fire,
I suppose that should be considered magic. But flying I don't. Are 
they magical because of their ability to resist magic, like Giants, 
as Sirius explained. Is it just that their blood, horns and such
have magical properties that can be used for potions or whatever?

Or can they *do* magical things? Educate me, please!


> Carol:
> But say that dragons had the intelligence of Buckbeak and at
> least some capacity for loyalty. It would seem wrong to kill
> them for their magical properties then, wouldn't it?
>
> Buckbeak is at least capable of forming attachments to certain
> humans. I don't think that JKR's dragons have that capacity.

Mike:
Do you think dragons were as intelligent (or as self-aware) as 
hippogriffs? Was it just their nature to not bond with humans, 
like hippogriffs seemingly could? Or were they a lower form of
life than hippogriffs? What does FBAWTFT tell us?



> > Potioncat:
> > Was there a brochure on dragonkeepers in OoP?
> 
> Carol:
> Nope.  <snip>
> No doubt there's a pamphlet on dragon keeping (Charlie must
> have read one), 

Mike:
I just wanted to add in here that I wish we would have gotten
more of Charlie and his dragons. I would really liked to have
seen Charlie and his mates play a bigger part. Especially if 
it would have been with the dragons, say, kicking some Giant 
butt!

Mike, wondering if Charlie was allowed to ride his dragons, seeing
as how the Trio got to ride one




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 11 13:22:43 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:22:43 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr4qcn+dvc4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6133+t96k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182012


> 
> Mike:
> My bad, and I dragged PC with me. I was the one that mis-used 
> "sentient", when I meant self-aware or as you said self-conscious. 
> Seems I've been mis-using that term for some time. 

>Potiocat:
That's right. It's all Mike's fault!

 

> 
> Mike:
> They're magical? In what way? I've seen that they can breath fire,
> I suppose that should be considered magic. But flying I don't. Are 
> they magical because of their ability to resist magic, like Giants, 
> as Sirius explained. Is it just that their blood, horns and such
> have magical properties that can be used for potions or whatever?
> 
> Or can they *do* magical things? Educate me, please!

Potioncat:
I'm not Carol, but here's my thoughts. They're magical from our point 
of view. I mean, just like unicorns and wangdoodles and other things 
that don't really exist, or that we've been Obliviated into 
forgetting. And, all those things you said too. 
> 
> 
> > Carol:
> > But say that dragons had the intelligence of Buckbeak and at
> > least some capacity for loyalty. It would seem wrong to kill
> > them for their magical properties then, wouldn't it?
> >

Potioncat:
But even in the RW there's a world of difference between a dog and a 
wolf. And in this case, I think, we're looking at the difference 
between a mammal-bird and a reptile.

I couldn't quite get the hippogriff---what does FBAWTFT say? Is it a 
beast? Was Buckbeak's loyalty similar to Rin Tin Tin's.











From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 16:41:54 2008
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:41:54 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
Message-ID: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182013

Beatrice:  Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important 
message(s) or themes do you think are the most important in the 
novels?  And along those lines which messages and themes do you hope 
that readers take away from the series?

My own response:  There are so many great things in these novels that 
it is difficult to choose one.  I know that many people have 
difficulty with some of the content of the last installment.  But, I 
hope that people get the message of forgiveness in these books.  I 
was particularly struck by the way in which Harry offered Voldemort 
forgiveness and through forgiveness possible redemtion for his 
twisted, mangled soul.  Of anyone in the wizarding world, Harry has 
more right than most to refuse Voldemort forgiveness, but he offers 
it just the same, even if LV is too evil to take him up on it.  

This moment for me is one of the most important in the novel.  It 
isn't just a model for how the wizarding world should go forth, but 
also how Harry will be going on with his own life after.  Perhaps, 
too, it is such a great lesson for our own world.  I think that this 
kind of redemption marks this whole novel and some people find 
redemption, some refuse it, and some are denied the opportunity.  I 
could start a thread on this issue to expand my explaination, but in 
this thread I just wanted to touch on the many different themes and 
possibly start some different threads debating / discussing them.

  




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Tue Mar 11 16:48:57 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:48:57 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6d5p+i7ho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182014

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Beatrice:  Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important 
> message(s) or themes do you think are the most important in the 
> novels?  And along those lines which messages and themes do you 
hope 
> that readers take away from the series?
> 
> My own response:  There are so many great things in these novels 
that 
> it is difficult to choose one.  I know that many people have 
> difficulty with some of the content of the last installment.  But, 
I 
> hope that people get the message of forgiveness in these books.  I 
> was particularly struck by the way in which Harry offered Voldemort 
> forgiveness and through forgiveness possible redemtion for his 
> twisted, mangled soul.  Of anyone in the wizarding world, Harry has 
> more right than most to refuse Voldemort forgiveness, but he offers 
> it just the same, even if LV is too evil to take him up on it.  
> 
moment for me is one of the most important in the novel.  It 
> isn't just a model for how the wizarding world should go forth, but 
> also how Harry will be going on with his own life after.  Perhaps, 
> too, it is such a great lesson for our own world.  

 snip
>
Mine is enduring friendship, trust and loyalty. This is shown in the 
relationshp between Harry Hermoine and Ron through out the books.They 
disagree often , but always are there for each other.

Jayne 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 17:05:07 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:05:07 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6e43+qu0e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182015

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Beatrice:  Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important 
> message(s) or themes do you think are the most important in the 
> novels?  And along those lines which messages and themes do you 
hope 
> that readers take away from the series?
<SNIP>


Friendship, OMG, I will never be able to forget Trio's friendhip. I 
said it many times, but I will say it again, it is to me one of the 
most touching friendships in literature.

Loyalty, definitely, it is something that very near and dear to me as 
well.

I think death and acceptance of death is also a major theme.

Great topic and I am looking forward to participating in more 
detail :)

Alla







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 18:44:47 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:44:47 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803101036r41b2606icb92ee1ef68b46aa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fr6juv+7lji@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182016

> >>Lynda:
> Oh, I get all that. I really do. I just look at it and say, hey 
everybody has a different view of life. <
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's true of course.  I'm just pointing out that JKR's view is a bit 
of throw-back (almost Victorian, I think).

> >>Lynda:
> By the same token, neither do I see those characters she created who 
are without partners as being a judgment on that segment of society. 
It's simply the way she structured a fictional world, not reality. <

Betsy Hp:
Oh, it's certainly *not* reality (frankly, it's one of the more 
unrealistic things about the series as far as I'm concerned).  It's 
hard for me to not see it as a judgement though.  I mean, the very 
consistency of it is fairly damning, I think.  And that JKR speaks of 
punishing a character she doesn't like by preventing her having a 
husband and children in the epilogue tells me that she wrote this sort 
of stuff deliberately.

Betsy Hp




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 19:00:01 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:00:01 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr4lck+ondj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6krh+ra5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182017

> > Carol, who thinks that the MacFustys may harvest their dragons
like > cattle but can't imagine Charlie doing it
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Is that what FBAWTFT says, or does something imply it? I always 
> thougth of it as a preserve where the dragons were protected, but 
> where products might be used if a dragon died or needed to be put 
> down.  (I'm not sure I said it that way in my previous post.)
>
Carol responds:
All FBAWTFT says about the clan MacFusty is that they're traditionally
responsible for "the management of their native dragons." "Management"
might (or might not) include the managed slaughter of dragons who have
served their purpose (surplus males, maybe, if only a few are needed
for breeding, as with chickens and cattle, or older females past their
egg-laying years but still healthy). After all, someone has to provide
dragon hide and dragon blood and all those other supplies for Wizards
who need or want them. (Fred and George wear black dragon-leather
jackets to DD's funeral, so chances are that those jackets came from
Hebridean Blacks managed by the MacFustys. (I don't know how far the
Hebrides are from Hogwarts, but they're both in Scotland, right?) The
other possibilities are Hungarian Horntail or Norwegian Ridgeback, but
sinece those breeds are fiercer and their native lands more distant
than the Hebrides, the Hebridean Black seems a more likely source of
jacket leather.)

Carol, who knows that forest management includes "harvesting" trees
and suspects that "dragon management" includes "harvesting" dragons
(but  thinks that, whatever the case with the MacFustys, Charlie is
more of a researcher than a rancher)




From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 19:25:26 2008
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:25:26 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6mb6+3uo3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182018


 Beatrice wrote:
 Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important message(s) or 
themes do you think are the most important in the novels?  And along 
those lines which messages and themes do you hope that readers take 
away from the series?


The power of love..kinda dull perhaps, but I think we often forget the 
power of it, and the scope and scale of love:

Familial love, love in friendship, love of community, obsessive love, 
love of power, even love of nature(bless Hagrid) etc...I must admit 
that I felt along the lines of Harry when DD kept mentioning love, but 
by the end of the series--I got it from a more Dumbledorian 
perspective!  Not the easiest thing to do in a story that is not about 
romance or family alone.

I'd also have to note that mainting the ability to laugh and enjoy the 
humor in both the mundane and complex. I can never help but chuckle to 
myself everytime I think of the twins exit from Hogwarts in OOP, or 
Harry's telling Snape that there was no need to address him as sir, or 
to all the ditties Peeves shares with us.  I'd even say that it's 
Harry's ability to see the absurdity and humor in the Dursleys 
behavior that allowed him to survive their treatment the way he did.

Of course there were more themes but these are the two most resonant 
with me.

Doddie





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 20:07:19 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:07:19 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr4qcn+dvc4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6opn+hpum@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182019

Carol earlier:
> > I guess it's the idea of raising a wild *magical* creature only to
slaughter it that's troubling. 
> >  -<snip, rearrange again>-
> > and it seems as wrong to hunt them for the magical properties of
their blood or horns
> 
> 
> Mike now:
> But why not? If they are indeed beasts, as you called them, what's 
wrong with culling the herd and selling off the unwanted/unneeded
extras? Wouldn't any attempt at keeping the merchants supplied with 
marketable dragon parts at reasonable prices make poaching seem less a
profitable venture, especially since taking on dragons is so
dangerous? <snip>

Carol responds:
As you may have gathered from my previous post, I do think that
"dragon management" of the commoner breeds does involve choosing some
dragons for slaughter, and I picture the MacFusty clan as dragon
ranchers.But Charlie is in Romanai primarily to *study* dragons (and,
occasionally, to "handle" them by transporting them and their eggs
safely, etc.). He seems to me to have a different temperament from his
brothers, a nice combination of Gryffindor courage, Ravenclaw
curiosity and need to know, and Hufflepuff willingness to work hard,
without any desire for wealth like Fred and George. (whether he has
any Slytherin ambition, I'll leave to others to decide.) Anyway, I
like Charlie, and although I'm sure he would kill a dragon if he had
to, I can't imagine him doing so willingly. I think that's someone
else's job. (Or maybe it's just me--my head understands the practical
aspects of culling the dragon herds and making a legitimate profit
from the regulated trade in dragon parts, but my heart likes the idea
of the dragons being protected and preserved for posterity--like the
beautiful but potentially deadly Siberian tiger.)

> > Carol:
> > but I only skimmed the relevant pages, including the Introduction
(which answers some of Mike's questions,
> 
> Mike:
> Wait, I have more. I don't have a copy of FB. 

Carol:
You need to buy one--proceeds to charity and all that! :-P!! (And you
get to read Harry's and Ron's graffiti, not to mention that QTTA comes
with it.)
> 
> > Carol:
> > And there's something sublime about a dragon <snip> They're rare,
they're magical, they're dangerous,
> 
> Mike:
> They're magical? In what way? I've seen that they can breath fire, I
suppose that should be considered magic. But flying I don't. Are they
magical because of their ability to resist magic, like Giants, as
Sirius explained. Is it just that their blood, horns and such have
magical properties that can be used for potions or whatever?
> 
> Or can they *do* magical things? Educate me, please!
> 
Carol responds:
Well, I'd say that breathing fir in itself qualifies them as magical,
and, as, Potioncat says, they're among the beasts whose existence is
kenp secret from Muggles because Muggles don't believe in them. But I
think their magic, aside from breathing fire, consists mostly, as you
say, in the magical properties of their blood, horns, hide, etc., just
as magical herbs and fungi are magical primarily because of their
properties as potion ingredients. They're also very resistant to
Wizard magic (it takes several Stunning Spells to knock one out, as we
know from GoF). But as for magical abilities, they don't talk, they
can't turn invisible, and, as you say, flying is not a magical
ability, so it must be the magical properties of dragon parts that
cause JKR, her alter ego Newt Scamander, and the WW in general to
consider them magical creatures. That and their association in the
Muggle mind with Wizards and magic.

 
> > Carol:
> > But say that dragons had the intelligence of Buckbeak and at least
some capacity for loyalty. It would seem wrong to kill them for their
magical properties then, wouldn't it?
> >
> > Buckbeak is at least capable of forming attachments to certain
humans. I don't think that JKR's dragons have that capacity.
> 
> Mike:
> Do you think dragons were as intelligent (or as self-aware) as 
> hippogriffs? Was it just their nature to not bond with humans, 
> like hippogriffs seemingly could? Or were they a lower form of
> life than hippogriffs? What does FBAWTFT tell us?

carol responds:
I wouldn't call hippogriffs self-aware. That's a human trait, shared
in the WW by "beings" such as House-Elves, Goblins, Centaurs, and
Merpeople, and in RL, to some small extent, by certain ape species (a
few apes have been known to recognize their own reflections, unlike,
say, a cat, which thinks it sees another cat in the mirror). But
hippogriffs seem to have some degree of intelligence, recognizing
their masters and the whole business of bowing and, in essence,
agreeing to be touched or ridden. Dragons seem to be untameable; the
old half-blind one that HRH escaped on didn't know he was being
ridden. They have the animal instinct to defend themselves and protect
their young, but that's true of virtually any animal. (If it matters,
a hippogriff is part bird, part mammal whereas a dragon is all
reptile, so a dragon might be "lower" in that respect. Then, again,
Nagini is a reptile, and horrible as she is, she's intelligent in her
way and communicates with the Wizard formerly known as Tom Riddle.)
Anyway, I'd class JKR's dragons below her hippogriffs in terms of
intelligence though I'd be open to arguments to the contrary. All that
FB says on the subject is that hippogriffs can be tamed though the
taming should be attempted only by experts. They're rated as XXX
rather than XXXXX.

Both dragons and hippogriffs are defined (naturally) as "beasts,"
meaning that they don't have sufficient intelligence to understand the
laws that regulate the magical community and represent themselves.
(Acromantulas and Manticores were classified as beasts despite their
intelligence and ability to speak a human language because of their
brutal natures; Sphinxes can speak only in riddles and respond
violently to those who get them wrong, so they were also classified as
beasts. You can read about the ghosts, who ended up being classified
as Spirits rather than Beings because they're "has beens" (a JKRian
joke, I'm sure), Merpeople, Centaurs, etc. to see why they were
classified as beasts despite what Umbridge would call "near-human
intelligence." Anyway, "self-awareness," to use your term, is clearly
lacking in both dragons and hippogriffs. I can't see either of them
representing their own interests in a court of Wizarding law.

Carol, who thinks that Ron and Harry need to learn how to use commas
correctly!
> 
> 
> 
> > > Potioncat:
> > > Was there a brochure on dragonkeepers in OoP?
> > 
> > Carol:
> > Nope.  <snip>
> > No doubt there's a pamphlet on dragon keeping (Charlie must
> > have read one), 
> 
> Mike:
> I just wanted to add in here that I wish we would have gotten
> more of Charlie and his dragons. I would really liked to have
> seen Charlie and his mates play a bigger part. Especially if 
> it would have been with the dragons, say, kicking some Giant 
> butt!
> 
> Mike, wondering if Charlie was allowed to ride his dragons, seeing
> as how the Trio got to ride one
>





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 20:35:39 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:35:39 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6qer+2pup@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182020

Beatrice wrote:  

> Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important message(s)
or themes do you think are the most important in the novels?  And
along those lines which messages and themes do you hope that readers
take away from the series?
> 
><snip> But, I hope that people get the message of forgiveness in
these books.  <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree that forgiveness and redemption are among the more important
themes or motifs in the series, as is death, mentioned by Alla. But to
me the most interesting motif (recurring image or idea) is perception
or rather misperception--arriving at incorrect conclusions based on
the evidence of our senses combined with inadequate understanding
and/or preconceptions, prejudices, and misinformation. Sometimes, it's
a matter of coincidence, as in Snape's looking at Harry seeming to
cause the pain in his scar. Sometimes, it's drawing the wrong
conclusions based on what is seen or heard (Harry's eavesdropping on
Snape in SS/Ps and HBP, Sirius Black's "murder" of Pettigrew and the
twelve Muggles," Harry's supposedly urging the conjured snake to bite
Justin Finch-Fletchley, Snape's "murder" of Dumbledore, etc.).
Sometimes it's misjudging a character (Fake!Moody, Neville, Luna,
Snape). I love the way Harry slowly sees things and people more
clearly as the books go along, culminating with his new understanding
of Snape in DH and symbolized, IMO, by his missing glasses in "King's
Cross."

Aside to Betsy_HP in a different thread: Regarding JKR's penchant for
punishing characters she doesn't like (which does, I admit, rather
interfere with Harry's forgoing of revenge in favor of forgiveness), I
don't think that Pansy is being punished by not being given a husband
and child. We don't know whether she marries or not or whom she
marries; we just know that she didn't marry Draco. JKR has carefully
structured the epilogue so that it focuses only on the Potters and the
Weasleys, with a glimpse of Draco and his wife and son and references
to other characters, living and dead, of interest to those families
and to the reader. But note the fog that obscures almost everyone,
including Teddy and Victoire, from Harry's (and the narrator's) view.
Through it, JKR gives us the illusion that the few people mentioned
are almost alone on the platform. But for all we know, Gregory Goyle
and Ernie Macmillan and Theo Nott and Dean Thomas and Lavender Brown
(not actually attacked by Fenrir Greyback) and scores of other
characters are also putting their children on the train at that
moment. We just don't see them because JKR has used the fog to conceal
all but a few characters from the reader's view.

BTW, my apologies to everybody for inadequate snipping in the
hippogriff/dragon post! :-0

Carol, hoping that Rose Weasley does marry Scorpius Malfoy, helping to
heal the Gryffindor/Slytherin feud




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar 11 21:40:41 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:40:41 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr6u8p+eorl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182021

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> wrote:
>
> Beatrice:  Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important 
> message(s) or themes do you think are the most important in the 
> novels?  And along those lines which messages and themes do you hope 
> that readers take away from the series?
> 
> My own response:  There are so many great things in these novels that 
> it is difficult to choose one.  I know that many people have 
> difficulty with some of the content of the last installment.  But, I 
> hope that people get the message of forgiveness in these books.  I 
> was particularly struck by the way in which Harry offered Voldemort 
> forgiveness and through forgiveness possible redemtion for his 
> twisted, mangled soul.  Of anyone in the wizarding world, Harry has 
> more right than most to refuse Voldemort forgiveness, but he offers 
> it just the same, even if LV is too evil to take him up on it.  
> 
> This moment for me is one of the most important in the novel.  It 
> isn't just a model for how the wizarding world should go forth, but 
> also how Harry will be going on with his own life after.  Perhaps, 
> too, it is such a great lesson for our own world.  I think that this 
> kind of redemption marks this whole novel and some people find 
> redemption, some refuse it, and some are denied the opportunity.  I 
> could start a thread on this issue to expand my explaination, but in 
> this thread I just wanted to touch on the many different themes and 
> possibly start some different threads debating / discussing them.

Geoff:
One thought springing immediately to mind is one I have constantly 
quoted in my four and a half years of membership - Dumbledore's 
famous remark:

'"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than 
our abilities."
(COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition)

This of course is something which I hold as a cornerstone of my own 
Christian faith but it is something which Harry uses to great effect - 
sometimes not always the desired one(!) - throughout the books and 
which also gives me food for thought with people I would like to have 
seen fully redeemed such as Draco.






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 12 04:23:02 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:23:02 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr6krh+ra5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr7lr6+v7rm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182022

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

> Fred and George wear black dragon-leather jackets to DD's 
> funeral, so chances are that those jackets came from
> Hebridean Blacks managed by the MacFustys. 


Fred and George seem to have leather jackets for every occasion :-) - 
at the end of OotP they are wearing dragon hide jackets of lurid 
green color (Welsh green?). Bill wore boots of dragon hide in GoF, 
color unknown. It seems that dragon hide clothes and shoes are 
considered to be cool, but they are expensive. 

Dragon hide is also used for protection - dragon hide protective 
gloves are on the list of things required at Hogwarts, and students 
are mentioned wearing them in Herbology and Potions in HBP. They 
might need the gloves for COMC as well (skrewts :-)), but I can't 
remember if they ever wore them in Hagrid's class. Hagrid also 
brought a roll of dragon skin as the third present to the giants, 
which means that it is considered very valuable.

I was trying to recall where else in the books dragon hide is 
mentioned, but only "powdered dragon claw" comes to mind somehow - 
Ron believed it was supposed to make you smarter :-). But I think 
that wizards definitely eat dragons, remember this woman in SS/PS 
talking about dragon liver prices? Hagrid used a dragon steak to heal 
his bruises in OotP (and iirc, it was greenish in color - yuck), but 
I don't believe it was sold for this purpose :-).


zanooda, who enjoys remembering small things like that without any 
real purpose ...




From hisero13 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 11 20:53:43 2008
From: hisero13 at yahoo.com (Orson Hiser)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6mb6+3uo3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <284088.33362.qm@web45216.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182023


> Beatrice wrote:
> Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important message(s)
> or themes do you think are the most important in the novels? And
> along those lines which messages and themes do you hope that
> readers take away from the series?



Love and loyalty to your friends can defeat any evil.  At least that
is what I always got out of them.

Orson





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 12 22:32:47 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:32:47 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr7lr6+v7rm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr9lmf+6u3i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182024

zanooda wrote:
> <snip> Dragon hide is also used for protection - dragon hide
protective gloves are on the list of things required at Hogwarts, and
students are mentioned wearing them in Herbology and Potions in HBP.
They might need the gloves for COMC as well (skrewts :-)), but I can't
remember if they ever wore them in Hagrid's class. <snip>

Carol responds:
Neither can I. I imagine that with his own tough skin, inherited from
his giantess mother, he doesn't think much about the danger of burns
and cuts to his students (unlike Sprout and Snape, who are preapred
for emergencies). I recall reading something in FB about the Swedish
Short-Snout's hide being especially suitable for protective clothing,
but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.

zanooda:
> I was trying to recall where else in the books dragon hide is 
mentioned, but only "powdered dragon claw" comes to mind somehow - 
Ron believed it was supposed to make you smarter :-). 

Carol:
And the twelve uses of dragon's blood (not counting splattering your
walls with it to fool Dumbledore while you turn yourself into a
chair). And don't forget that dragon heartstrings (whatever a
heartstring is) are used in wands.

zanooda:
But I think that wizards definitely eat dragons, remember this woman
in SS/PS talking about dragon liver prices? Hagrid used a dragon steak
to heal his bruises in OotP (and iirc, it was greenish in color -
yuck), but I don't believe it was sold for this purpose :-).
> 
Carol:
I thought that the woman was buying dragon liver as a potion
ingredient. And I wouldn't be surprised if dragon meat was sold for
the purpose Hagrid used it for, or to feed exotic (color-blind!) pets,
rather than to be eaten by humans. Who would eat meat with a greenish
tinge? (Of course, Muggles have been known to use raw steak on black
eyes. I wouldn't waste good meat, myself. I'd rather look like half a
panda!)
> 
> zanooda, who enjoys remembering small things like that without any 
real purpose ...

Carol, who is remembering something infinitely more annoying, the
lyrics to "Money, Money, Money by the Pound," a song from "Pete's
Dragon" about the uses of dragon parts (liver, heart, blood, and tears
among them)





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 13 00:36:52 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:36:52 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6u8p+eorl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr9sv4+i12g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182025

> Geoff:
> One thought springing immediately to mind is one I have constantly 
> quoted in my four and a half years of membership - Dumbledore's 
> famous remark:
> 
> '"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more
than  our abilities."
> (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition)
Just> 
> This of course is something which I hold as a cornerstone of my own 
> Christian faith but it is something which Harry uses to great effect
- > sometimes not always the desired one(!) - throughout the books and 
> which also gives me food for thought with people I would like to
have  seen fully redeemed such as Draco.
>

Pippin:
Well, Harry has lots of friends, but who else is there to be friends
with Goyle? I'm not sure Draco is in so much need of redemption anyway
-- given the choice of saving his friend, his wand, or the diadem of
wisdom (shades of the judgement of Paris!) we know what Draco chose.
He's obviously still got some issues, but then so does Ron.  

How many of us thought, as we contemplated how the books might end,
that among the things a more tolerant WW would have to tolerate would
be a certain measure of disunity? But at least Harry has learned
some respect for Slytherin courage (he already respected their skill
and their power) and for Snape's memory and service to Hogwarts
(ditto.)And Draco shows some respect for Harry, too. At least they've
learned not to pick fights with each other. It's not Harry's fault if
Al finds legend more compelling than truth. Harry was the same way at
that age. But *we* don't have to be. 


What I love is the interplay between legend and reality in the books.
I think it's important that Hermione has to learn again as an adult
what she knew as a child in CoS -- that legends always have a basis in
facts. Looking at stereotypes in that light, perhaps it isn't *so*
strange to discover that even the hurtful ones can't be completely
dismissed, hard as that might make it to cast our favorites as  the
good guys (another stereotype, and one that may be just as harmful if
it keeps us from recognizing a wrong.) 

Just as I was finally feeling sorry for Petunia (gosh, if I had a
sister like that, I'd hate her too! Looks, brains, personality *and*
magic? Does life have to be that unfair?), it turns out that Muggle
persecution is a real threat to wizards. Flame freezing charms are all
very well, but what happens if you don't know how to do one? Or you
get caught without your wand?

House-elves  aren't just like us.

Even the nicest werewolf can show his wolf side in human form.

A true Gryffindor can be a coward. 

Just because a wizard doesn't use dark magic doesn't mean he *can't*.

Life in the WW would be a lot more enviable if those things had been
untrue.

But Slytherins, even if Harry's right to think they're a hard lot,
still have more in common with him than they do with Voldemort. Unlike
Voldemort, they want to be loved -- they're just not very good at
being lovable. Not if selfishness gets on your nerves.


Of course, some people are more annoyed by arrogance...Gryffindors may
make more attractive heroes than Slytherins, but heroes can be just as
dangerous. Though the text overplays  Draco's  panic for comic effect
when Harry is trying to save the diadem, the subtler laugh is on Harry.

There was no need at all to save the !@#$ thing from the flames. 

Pippin









From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 00:50:45 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:50:45 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <fr9lmf+6u3i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fr9tp5+ui2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182026

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

> I thought that the woman was buying dragon liver as a potion
> ingredient.


That may be, especially if we take into account the fact that she was 
standing outside an Apothecary at the time :-).


> Carol:

> Who would eat meat with a greenish tinge? 


zanooda:

Hmm, if you know it's *supposed to be* this color ... :-). People eat 
those cheeses that look moldy or are greenish, don't they? Camembert, 
roquefort etc. If they love it, they love it :-)! After all, Fang 
attempted to eat that dragon steak when Hagrid dropped it. Can we 
trust his taste :-)?




From andie1 at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 13 01:39:27 2008
From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:39:27 -0000
Subject: Wand Allegiance
Message-ID: <fra0kf+ku73@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182027

Wow! It's been a while since I've been on here, but I was listening 
to Deathly Hallows in my car today, and something occurred to me.  I 
figured this was the best place to put my "probably not so original 
and totally already discussed at length without my knowledge" idea 
out there and hope you guys aren't too brutal with the "we've already 
discussed this" responses... :)

With that said, here goes...

Harry constantly complains about the wand that he is forced to use 
after his own was broken accidentally by Hermione.  It does not work 
for him properly; likewise Hermione complains about Bellatrix's wand 
after leaving her own behind at Malfoy Manor.  However, after talking 
with Ollivander and learning about wand allegiance, 
couldn't "winning" a wand be "fixed"?  Could the wands be "tricked" 
into giving allegiances? or do the wands know better?  

Technically, this idea would not have helped Harry, as they did not 
know of the rules of wand allegiance when he was struggling with the 
wand that Ron took from the Snatchers, but I'm going to use this 
example anyway...

Ron "won" the wand from the Snatchers.  So, what's to stop Harry from 
borrowing Hermione's wand and "disarming" Ron while Ron holds the 
Snatcher's wand?  Would the wand have then worked for him and given 
him it's allegiance?  Again, I realize that this is impossible 
because they were not privy to this information at that time; 
however, what about Hermione?

Harry wrestled both Draco's and Bellatrix's wands from Draco, so 
technically, both of those wands had given him their allegiance.  If 
Hermione needed a wand that worked for her, couldn't she have 
borrowed Ron's wand and disarmed Harry while he was using Bellatrix's 
wand; thus "tricking" the wand into giving Hermione it's allegiance 
so it would then work properly for her?  I realize that Hermione 
certainly wouldn't even want allegiance from a wand with such a 
brutal history, but I'm just talking theory here.

Would Bellatrix's wand resist Hermione if they had tried something of 
the sort, knowing that she was a Muggleborn?  Like House Elves, would 
wands automatically adopt the beliefs of their "masters"? 

Just wondering what other well-read HP fans thought about this one...

Andrea :) 




From andie1 at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 13 01:53:43 2008
From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:53:43 -0000
Subject: Voldemort, Dumbledore, and Grindlewald - OH MY!
Message-ID: <fra1f7+er5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182028

Voldemort made a point to visit Grindlewald at Nurmenguard (sp?), and 
I really am wondering why...

Was he like the ONLY person in the Wizarding World who did not hear 
of Dumbledore's defeat of the Dark Wizard Grindlewald?  What, did 
Voldie never read a Chocolate Frog card?  Poor deprived child... 

Shouldn't Voldie have known that he wouldn't get the wand from 
Grindlewald since Dumbledore defeated him all those years ago?  

OR...

Did he just want information?  Proof that Dumbledore did have the 
Elder Wand after winning it from Grindlewald?  I thought he KNEW that 
Grindlewald had it through his legilimency performed on Gregorovich?

Was it just writer's license so that the reader could see Grindlewald 
and Nurmengard?  Prove that Grindlewald perhaps loved Dumbledore 
still by trying to protect his tomb from Voldemort's greedy fingers?

Inquiring minds want to know... :)

Andrea




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 02:04:45 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:04:45 -0000
Subject: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
Message-ID: <fra23t+7mbu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182029

Not all of `em," said Hagrid hoarsely. "Not all of `em wan me ter 
stay." "Really, Hagrid, if you are holding out for universal 
popularity, I'm afraid you will be in this cabin for a very long 
time," said Dumbledore, now peering sternly over his half-moon 
spectacles.  "Not a week has passed since I became headmaster of this 
school when I haven't had at least one owl complaining about the way 
I run it.  But what should I do?  Barricade myself in my study and 
refuse to talk to anybody?" ? p.454

Alla:

LOL. Dumbledore never tried out for universal popularity for sure.


"Hiding, are you?" he said softly. "I'm coming to get you, Peeves
 
You've done and stolen a Triwizard clue, Peeves
. Dumbledore'll have 
you out of here for this, you filfy, pilfering poltergeist" ? p.468

Alla:

I am pretty sure I asked this question before, but I do not remember 
the answer. Why does the word filfy seems to be one of the strongest 
curse words in the series? I mean, we hear "you and your filfy 
father" from Snape, we hear "filfy mudblood", Harry tells Snape to 
take his filfy hands off the cloak, etc.


"Did I hear that correctly, Snape?" he asked slowly. "Someone broke 
into your office?" "It is unimportant," said Snape coldly.  "On the 
contrary," growled Moody, "it is very important.  Who'd want to break 
into your office?"
"A student, I daresay," said Snape.  Harry could see a vein 
flickering horribly on Snape's greasy temple.  "It has happened 
before.  Potion ingredients have gone missing from my private store 
cupboard ... students attempting illicit mixtures, no 
doubt...." "Reckon they were after potion ingredients, eh?" said 
Moody.  "Not hiding anything else in your office, are you?"
Harry saw the edge of Snapes sallow face turn a nasty brick color, 
the vein in his temple pulsing more rapidly.
"You know I'm hiding nothing, Moody," he said in a soft and dangerous 
voice, "as you've searched my office pretty thoroughly yourself."
Moodys face twisted into a smile. "Auror's privilege, Snape. 
Dumbledore told me to keep an eye -" "Dumbledore happens to trust 
me," said Snape through clenched teeth.  "I refuse to believe that he 
gave you orders to search my office!"
"Course Dumbledore trusts you," growled Moody.  "Hes a trusting man, 
isn't he? Believes in second chances.  But me - I say there are spots 
that don't come off, Snape.  Spots that never come off, d'you know 
what I mean?"
Snape suddenly did something very strange.  He seized his left 
forearm convulsively with his right hand, as though something on it 
had hurt him.
Moody laughed. "Get back to bed, Snape."
"You don't have the authority to send me anywhere!"  Snape hissed, 
letting go of his arm as though angry with himself.  "I have as much 
right to prowl this school after dark as you do!" "Prowl away," said 
Moody, but his voice was full of menace.  "I look forward to meeting 
you in a dark corridor some time.... You've dropped something, by the 
way. ..." With a stab of horror. Harry saw Moody point at the 
Marauders Map, still lying on the staircase six steps below him.  As 
Snape and Filch both turned to look at it, Harry threw caution to the 
winds; he raised his arms under the cloak and waved furiously at 
Moody to attract his attention, mouthing "It's mine!  Mine!"
Snape had reached out for it, a horrible expression of dawning 
comprehension on his face - "Accio Parchment!"
The map flew up into the air, slipped through Snapes outstretched 
fingers, and soared down the stairs into Moody's hand.
"My mistake," Moody said calmly.  "It's mine - must've dropped it 
earlier -" But Snape's black eyes were darting from the egg in 
Filch's arms to the map in Moody's hand, and Harry could tell he was 
putting two and two together, as only Snape could. . . .  "Potter," 
he said quietly.
"What's that?" said Moody calmly, folding up the map and pocketing 
it.  "Potter!" Snape snarled, and he actually turned his head and 
stared right at the place where Harry was, as though he could 
suddenly see him.  "That egg is Potters egg.  That piece of parchment 
belongs to Potter.  I have seen it before, I recognize it!  Potter is 
here!  Potter, in his Invisibility Cloak!"
Snape stretched out his hands like a blind man and began to move up 
the stairs; Harry could have sworn his over-large nostrils were 
dilating, trying to sniff Harry out - trapped. Harry leaned backward, 
trying to avoid Snapes fingertips, but any moment now-"There's 
nothing there, Snape!" barked Moody, "but I'll be happy to tell the 
headmaster how quickly your mind jumped to Harry Potter!"
"Meaning what?"  Snape turned again to look at Moody, his hands still 
outstretched, inches from Harry's chest.
"Meaning that Dumbledore's very interested to know who's got it in 
for that boy!" said Moody, limping nearer still to the foot of the 
stairs.  "And so am I, Snape . . . very interested...." The 
torchlight flickered across his mangled face, so that the scars, and 
the chunk missing from his nose, looked deeper and darker than ever.
Snape was looking down at Moody, and Harry couldn't see the 
expression on his face. For a moment, nobody moved or said anything.  
Then Snape slowly lowered his hands.  "I merely thought," said Snape, 
in a voice of forced calm, "that if Potter was wandering around after 
hours again ... it's an unfortunate habit of his ... he should be 
stopped.  For - for his own safety."
"Ah, I see," said Moody softly. "Got Potter's best interests at 
heart, have you?" There was a pause.  Snape and Moody were still 
staring at each other, Mrs. Norris gave a loud meow, still peering 
around Filch's legs, looking for the source of Harry's bubble-bath 
smell.
"I think I will go back to bed," Snape said curtly.
"Best idea you've had all night," said Moody.  "Now, Filch, if you'll 
just give me that egg-" "No!"  said Filch, clutching the egg as 
though it were his firstborn son.  "Professor Moody, this is evidence 
of Peeves' treachery!" ? p.472-473

Alla:

I did ask the question about why Snape would seem to be apprehensive 
of Moody Barty in one of the recent recaps, I know and I actually 
really liked one of  Zara's suggestions that Moody is a living 
reminder to Snape of the very worst he was capable of, of his deepest 
falling, etc, I like that, and  I am just bringing this whole scene 
because to me it is such a delight to reread after closed canon, it 
sort of shines with new colors.

I mean, of course even after the end of GoF I and I am sure many 
people already read it differently. We cannot read it anymore as 
Barty having any honest concern about Harry, since we know he did 
not, and when he talks about hating DE who went free, well, we know 
that it is not an old Auror talking, etc.

But after DH, to me the most fun is to reread innuendos about Snape 
having Harry's best interests in heart. I mean, I am definitely not 
saying that Snape has Harry's best interests in heart, quite the 
contrary, but  heeee, he definitely seem to have Harry's safety and 
staying alive at heart.

And hmmm, how does Snape know that Moody searched his office before 
if he shows up on the map as Crouch?

"It turned out that Hagrid knew quite as much about unicorns as he 
did about Monsters, though it was clear that he found the lack of the 
poisonous fangs disappointing" ? p.484

Alla:
Yeah, I think Hagrid had some potential for good teacher, sigh.





"You has to eat this, sir!" squeaked the elf, and he put his hand in 
the pocket of his shorts and drew out a ball of what looked like 
slimy, grayish-green rat tails.  "Right before you go into the lake, 
sir - gillyweed!"
"What's it do?" said Harry, staring at the gillyweed.
"It will make Harry Potter breathe underwater, sir!"
"Dobby," said Harry frantically, "listen - are you sure about this?"
He couldn't quite forget that the last time Dobby had tried to "help" 
him, he had ended up with no bones in his right arm.
"Dobby is quite sure, sir!"  said the elf earnestly.  "Dobby hears 
things, sir, he is a house-elf, he goes all over the castle as he 
lights the fires and mops the floors.  Dobby heard Professor 
McGonagall and Professor Moody in the staffroom, talking about the 
next task. . . . Dobby cannot let Harry Potter lose his Wheezy!" ? 
p.491


Alla:

Okay, so far I had been deliberately ( as I mentioned before) and 
with utmost delight avoiding mentioning house elves in my summaries ( 
or quotes, or something), but this I just have to ask since it is 
sort of surprising to me. Dobby hears the things, eh?

How exactly Dobby eavesdropped on Minerva and  Fake Moody? Is it the 
nobody makes the postman the prime suspect of the murder sort of 
thing? That nobody would pay attention to house elf?
But I would think that young Barty due to being with Winky all the 
time before would be the person to pay very close attention to house 
elves near him and that he would have noticed Dobby, unless Dobby was 
invisible?
Can house elves become invisible at will?

"Dumbledore could speak Mermish" ? p.505

Alla:
Love, how she drops hints about Dumbledore's academic talents. Have 
we met another person in the series but him who can do so?







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 02:40:06 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:40:06 -0000
Subject: Wand Allegiance
In-Reply-To: <fra0kf+ku73@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fra466+t9k0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182030

grindieloe wrote:
<snip>
> Harry wrestled both Draco's and Bellatrix's wands from Draco, so 
technically, both of those wands had given him their allegiance.  If 
Hermione needed a wand that worked for her, couldn't she have borrowed
Ron's wand and disarmed Harry while he was using Bellatrix's wand;
thus "tricking" the wand into giving Hermione it's allegiance so it
would then work properly for her?  I realize that Hermione certainly
wouldn't even want allegiance from a wand with such a brutal history,
but I'm just talking theory here.

<snip>

carol responds: I'm snipping most of your interesting post to comment
on this one section. I don't think that wresting Bellatrix's wand from
Draco had any effect on the wand's allegiance. Draco wasn't its
master, after all, and it was Ron who Disarmed Bellatrix. But he chose
Wormtail's new wand, which he had clearly and fairly won. We know that
wand allegiance is tricky, and I would guess that a wand that has been
with a Dark witch for some thirty-two years, performing extended
Crucios and who knows what other Dark magic, will lightly shift its
allegiance to a young wizard who snatches it out of another young
wizard's hand after that young wizard has snatched it up, saving it
for his Disarmed aunt. I think Draco's snatching it up more or less
negates the Expelliarmus, and its allegiance (if it wavered at all)
has gone back to Bellatrix. Harry and Ron, and especially Hermione,
who wasn't even involved in the scuffle, would have to do something
drastic (spectacularly defeat Bellatrix?) to affect the allegiance of
her wand. After all, as Ollivander says, subtle laws affect wand use,
the wand chooses the wizard, and that wand had formed a very strong
bond with Bellatrix, learning from her and she from it. I'd say that
the wand itself had become as close to evil as a wand other than the
Elder Wand can be, in the sense that it was Bellatrix Lestrange's wand
and had formed a bond with her (stronger than Harry's bond with his
holly wand because she was more than twice his age), had been used to
perform terrible spells, and was by this time highly suited to
performing exactly that type of spell. I can see that wand resisting
allegiance to Bellatrix's enemies even if it were fairly won.
Certainly, Hermione could sense that it was an "evil" wand and felt
very uncomfortable using it, and not just because it had belonged to
Bellatrix but because of the feeling of the wand itself. Her wand is
not the Elder Wand, the only one that seems to choose its master
*solely* on the basis of the former master being defeated rather than
a wizard/wand bond.

I realize that this is my own reading of the wand motif, and that
other posters don't necessarily agree with me.

Carol, who recently quoted Ollivander in a post on wand's being
sentient and can find the post if necessary




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar 13 02:46:42 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:46:42 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fra4ij+5knf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182031

"Beatrice23" wrote:
>
> Beatrice:  Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important 
> message(s) or themes do you think are the most important in the 
> novels?  And along those lines which messages and themes do you 
hope 
?? that readers take away from the series?

Potioncat:
I'm taken by the wording of this question, which no one else seems to 
have reacted to. My first reaction was, "I'm not Jo. Why would I want 
anyone to take anything from the series? And who am I to impose such 
a hope?"

That is, I can tell you what I got from reading the books, but I'm 
not so sure I have hopes that others have the some response. But 
since I wasn't able to fire off a pithy reply, I had some time to 
think. What if I were recommending the books now to someone. What 
would I expect to happen? What would the person get out of it? For 
one thing, if someone started reading now, they wouldn't have the 
long waits between books. They wouldn't have to dig deep and ponder---
unless they chose to---and certainly, there wouldn't be a huge group 
of fellow fanatics to discuss the possibilities with. That in itself 
will change the experience. 

So, on a somewhat superficial level---I'd like to see the great 
enjoyment of the written word. The sudden "Ah ha" at the puns and 
plays on words. It was a glorious fun series to read! That's what I 
would hope someone would get out of it. A great time.  Because it was 
a great time---even if not all of it was fun.

I've read the responses to the question. Very good and thoughtful 
ones.  I know that as a group we've disagreed on messages--intended 
and accidental, on satisfaction with the ending, on just about 
everything.

Several have mentioned friendship. Certainly JKR values friendship 
and loyalty---or I should say courage and friendship/loyalty. There's 
a sentence or two toward the end of DH, from a chapter we've hashed 
over a few times. The Slytherin table is empty, the Ravenclaw has 
only a few members left. There are more Hufflepuffs and most of the 
Gryffindors chose to stay. There it is, lined up for us. In JKR's 
world ambition and wit do not compare to courage and loyalty.

I think it was Geoff who recalled the DD quote about choices. Another 
DD quote that frequently comes to my mind is the one about doing what 
is right, not what is easy.  That's the sort of courage that JKR 
seems to value above others. And sometimes that quote comes to mind 
when I am facing a decision. Sometimes it can be darned hard to 
determine what is right and whether something is just easy.

So, while I've formed these ideas, and I see others have different, 
or similar ones, my best hope would be that a new reader would have 
as much fun as I've had. 

Potioncat, looking forward to joining in on the other replies to this 
question.






From jferer at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 02:54:36 2008
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:54:36 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fr3j9f+d8qs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fra51c+nk8p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182032

Colleen: "I'm glad I'm not the only one!  My first thought was that  I
would have found an excuse to go to the bathroom, just for a peek 
*blushes and hides face*  I thought it was cute that Ron got jealous 
when Hermione said Harry looked like he tasted yummy (a la the potion)."

JKR isn't the most, er, "innocent" writer in the world, is she? She's
never minded a dodgy bit here and there. The humor of that scene
struck me, too.

Jim Ferer




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 02:56:49 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:56:49 -0000
Subject: Voldemort, Dumbledore, and Grindlewald - OH MY!
In-Reply-To: <fra1f7+er5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fra55h+81b8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182033

grindieloe wrote:
>
> Voldemort made a point to visit Grindlewald at Nurmenguard (sp?),
and I really am wondering why...
> 
> Was he like the ONLY person in the Wizarding World who did not hear 
> of Dumbledore's defeat of the Dark Wizard Grindlewald?  What, did 
> Voldie never read a Chocolate Frog card?  Poor deprived child... 
> 
> Shouldn't Voldie have known that he wouldn't get the wand from
Grindlewald since Dumbledore defeated him all those years ago?  

Carol responds:
Dumbledore's Chocolate frog card says nothing about where Grindelwald
is now or even whether he's still alive, only that DD defeated him in
1945. And even if they had Chocolate Frog cards when Tom Riddle was a
child, and even if DD had a card in those days, the card couldn't have
said anything about a duel that hadn't happened yet. 1945 is the year
that Tom left school at age eighteen.

As for knowing that he wouldn't get the wand from Grindelwald, I'm
sure he knew that GG didn't have it. He wanted information, not the
wand itself. He probably expected to invade Grindelwald's mind as he
had Gregorovitch's or torture him to force him to tell him everything
he knew about that wand. I doubt that he expected to learn its
whereabouts, only whether GG was still its master and, if not, whether
DD was. That's assuming that he knew about the famous duel, and I
don't see why he wouldn't.

Nurmengard may have been difficult to find, however. I'll bet that its
location, like that of Durmstrang, was not common knowledge. (It would
certainly have to be hidden from the Muggles!)

grindielow:
> 
> OR...
> 
> Did he just want information?  Proof that Dumbledore did have the 
Elder Wand after winning it from Grindlewald?  I thought he KNEW that
 Grindlewald had it through his legilimency performed on Gregorovich?
<snip>

Carol responds:
I think you've forgotten an important step in the process. He didn't
know who the merry-faced thief in Gregorovitch's memory was until
Harry dropped the photo of young Grindelwald at Godric's Hollow. After
that, he must have found out GG's identity exactly the same way Harry
did, by reading Rita Skeeter's book. Gregorovitch himself had no idea
who the thief was. Grindelwald, knowing the wand's history, wouldn't
brag about being the Elder Wand's master, as Gregorovitch had.

Grindelwald lies and says that he never had the wand. Clearly, it
wasn't common knowledge. In fact, had Harry not dropped that photo, LV
might never have figured out who the thief was.

Carol, wishing that Harry had never gone to Godric's Hollow





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 02:58:06 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:58:06 -0000
Subject: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fra23t+7mbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fra57u+juc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182034

> Alla:
> And hmmm, how does Snape know that Moody searched his office before 
> if he shows up on the map as Crouch?

zgirnius:
Snape does not have the map. I think he knows someone searched his 
office, and presumed it was Moody. He's the new teacher, it fits his 
persona as the paranoid ex-Auror, and perhaps Snape feels other 
similar suspects are ruled out. (Crouch Sr. due to lack of access, 
Karkaroff because, well, why? Igor knows Snape was a Death Eater, and 
Igor is planning to run away rather than involve himself in any of 
the upcoming excitement anyway).

> Alla:
> Yeah, I think Hagrid had some potential for good teacher, sigh.

zgirnius:
Like Severus, he kbnows his subject matter. <eg>

> Alla:
> But I would think that young Barty due to being with Winky all the 
> time before would be the person to pay very close attention to 
house 
> elves near him and that he would have noticed Dobby, unless Dobby 
was 
> invisible?

zgirnius:
I think you are right that Barty Jr. is very aware of House Elves. He 
deliberately brought up the subject of gillyweed in a conversation 
with Minerva because he knew Dobby was listening, in order to help 
Harry win the TWT. He admits it to Harry in the scene in "Moody's" 
office after Harry return sfrom thre graveyard.

> GOF:
> "So what could I do? Feed you information from another innocent 
source. You told me at the Yule Ball a house-elf called Dobby had 
given you a Christmas present. I called the elf to the staffroom to 
collect some robes for cleaning. I staged a loud conversation with 
Professor McGonagall about the hostages who had been taken, and 
whether Potter would think to use gillyweed. And your little elf 
friend ran straight to Snape's office and then hurried to find you..."

> Alla:
> Love, how she drops hints about Dumbledore's academic talents. Have 
> we met another person in the series but him who can do so?

zgirnius:
Dirk Cresswell, a talented Muggleborn who was a former protege of 
Slughorn, speaks Gobbledygook. So knowing the language of another 
intelligent magical species is not an unprecedented accomplishment, 
though I can think of no one else who knows Mermish specifically.






From jferer at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 03:06:13 2008
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:06:13 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fr6coi+56cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fra5n5+vsac@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182035

Beatrice: "Looking back at the Harry Potter series, what important
message(s) or themes do you think are the most important in the
novels? And along those lines which messages and themes do you hope
that readers take away from the series?

"...I hope that people get the message of forgiveness in these books.
I was particularly struck by the way in which Harry offered Voldemort
forgiveness and through forgiveness possible redemption for his
twisted, mangled soul."

Thanks for writing this. The powerful messages in JKR's story are by
far the most important thing she did beyond just a great story. The
entire series is a powerfully moral story.

I think your forgiveness theme is part of a larger one: love in all
its forms. Harry practices universal love and particularly love for
his friends. No matter what, he acts as love would dictate. Like
another character in another tale, Aslan, Harry gave himself to death
to protect others. He practically always acts as compassion would have
him act. The fact he isn't a plaster saint and struggles sometimes to
do the best thing only makes him greater to me: if it was easy, he'd
just be a flat goody two-shoes.

Jim Ferer




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 03:12:19 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:12:19 -0000
Subject: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fra57u+juc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fra62j+ap5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182036

Alla:
> > And hmmm, how does Snape know that Moody searched his office
before if he shows up on the map as Crouch?
> 
> zgirnius:
> Snape does not have the map. I think he knows someone searched his
office, and presumed it was Moody. He's the new teacher, it fits his 
persona as the paranoid ex-Auror, and perhaps Snape feels other
similar suspects are ruled out. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree regarding the map. Harry still has it at this point. (Lupin
returned it to him before he left the school.) However, my impression
is that Snape *know* that "Moody" searched his office. Possibly, Barty
Jr. made a point of doing so, with DD's knowledge, with the excuse
that Snape was an ex-DE. Snape would have grudgingly allowed it, if
only to prove that he *didn't* have anything in his office that
shouldn't be there. And Barty, of course, would have stolen potion
ingredients while he was there.
> 
zgirnius:
> I think you are right that Barty Jr. is very aware of House Elves.
He deliberately brought up the subject of gillyweed in a conversation
with Minerva because he knew Dobby was listening, in order to help 
Harry win the TWT. He admits it to Harry in the scene in "Moody's" 
office after Harry return sfrom thre graveyard.
,snip quote>

Carol responds:
Right. It's not Dobby eavesdropping, exactly. "Moody" summoned him so
that he'd overhear the conversation. My question is what he means by
"staged." Was McGonagall actually there, or did Crouch!Moody imitate
her voice and pretend to have a conversation with her that he made
sure Dobby overheard?

Alla:
> > Love, how she drops hints about Dumbledore's academic talents.
Have we met another person in the series but him who can do so [speak
Mermish]?
> 
> zgirnius:
> Dirk Cresswell, a talented Muggleborn who was a former protege of
Slughorn, speaks Gobbledygook. So knowing the language of another
intelligent magical species is not an unprecedented accomplishment,
though I can think of no one else who knows Mermish specifically.

Carol:
If Percy is right that Mr. Crouch could speak about a hundred
languages (I don't recall the exact figure), it seems likely that
Mermish was one of them. However, he wasn't present at the Second Task
(Percy had taken his place), so we don't know for sure.

Carol, thinking that learning so many languages with so little reward
requires a great deal of ambition and wondering whether Barty Sr.
(and, for that matter, Barty Jr.) was a Slytherin





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Mar 13 03:13:08 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:13:08 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
References: <fr9tp5+ui2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002901c884b8$2ae0bec0$6701a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182037

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
>> I thought that the woman was buying dragon liver as a potion
>> ingredient.
>
>
> That may be, especially if we take into account the fact that she was
> standing outside an Apothecary at the time :-).
>
>
>> Carol:
>
>> Who would eat meat with a greenish tinge?
>
>
> zanooda:
>
> Hmm, if you know it's *supposed to be* this color ... :-). People eat
> those cheeses that look moldy or are greenish, don't they? Camembert,
> roquefort etc. If they love it, they love it :-)! After all, Fang
> attempted to eat that dragon steak when Hagrid dropped it. Can we
> trust his taste :-)?

Shelley:
And we have to remember that cooked meat looks a lot different from raw, and 
in one of Molly's prize stews, I bet it would be yummy!

I just think that with all the uses for the other parts (claw, hide, 
heartstring) that the meat would have to be eaten, otherwise, you are just 
chopping up a perfectly good dragon and wasting all that meat, which is the 
bulk of the dragon. If you think Chinese society, they use every part of a 
tiger or exotic animal in medicinal tonics and herbs, and I can't imagine a 
dragon would be any different.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar 13 03:23:20 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:23:20 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 17- 20 post DH look - DRAGONS
In-Reply-To: <002901c884b8$2ae0bec0$6701a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fra6n8+ehpo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182038

 
> Shelley:
> And we have to remember that cooked meat looks a lot different from 
raw, and 
> in one of Molly's prize stews, I bet it would be yummy!
> 
Potioncat:
Come to think of it, there would be a great advantage to cooking 
something that cleans the oven while it's roasting.

(one of the 12 uses of dragon blood is an oven cleaner)




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Mar 13 05:07:42 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:07:42 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fr6juv+7lji@eGroups.com>
References: <2795713f0803101036r41b2606icb92ee1ef68b46aa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fr6juv+7lji@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803122207v31f257aaqe8654b641bf65ce5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182039

Perhaps it is. I don't listen to or read her interviews much, except for
what I have time to when I find links for something. I only meant, from my
own reading of the books, the partnerships or lack thereof did not seem
judgmental to me. From what I've seen around me, many of my friends have
partners, many don't most have kids, but some don't. And for the most part,
we're happy with our lives even if they didn't turn out the way we thought
they would in school. Do some people judge us for our personal choices? Yes.
But, its not worth my while to do the same to them. Burns up a lot of energy
that can be better used in other ways too. So I tend to  reserve quick
judgment and not let the little (or in this case--fictional) things get to
me.

Lynda


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




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Mar 13 05:12:01 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:12:01 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803122207v31f257aaqe8654b641bf65ce5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2795713f0803101036r41b2606icb92ee1ef68b46aa@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fr6juv+7lji@eGroups.com>
	 <2795713f0803122207v31f257aaqe8654b641bf65ce5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803122212w379c5080sb2fef80a343f60cf@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182040

Betsy,
I just recalled a line from the Pride and Prejudice move (the A&E version).
I quote the movie rather than the book because I don't have a copy at hand.
Jane and Elizabeth are discussing Charlotte's choice to marry Mr. Collins
and Elizabeth is very upset with her friend. At whice point Jane tells
her "Not everyone is the same, Lizzie!" I think that is always a good thing
to remember.

Lynda

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Lynda Cordova <moosiemlo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it is. I don't listen to or read her interviews much, except for
> what I have time to when I find links for something. I only meant, from my
> own reading of the books, the partnerships or lack thereof did not seem
> judgmental to me. From what I've seen around me, many of my friends have
> partners, many don't most have kids, but some don't. And for the most part,
> we're happy with our lives even if they didn't turn out the way we thought
> they would in school. Do some people judge us for our personal choices? Yes.
> But, its not worth my while to do the same to them. Burns up a lot of energy
> that can be better used in other ways too. So I tend to  reserve quick
> judgment and not let the little (or in this case--fictional) things get to
> me.
>
> Lynda
>
>
>



-- 
2


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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar 13 07:48:21 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:48:21 -0000
Subject: Seven (nude) Potters
In-Reply-To: <fra51c+nk8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fram85+chrt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182041

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at ...> wrote:
>
> Colleen: "I'm glad I'm not the only one!  My first thought was that  I
> would have found an excuse to go to the bathroom, just for a peek 
> *blushes and hides face*  I thought it was cute that Ron got jealous 
> when Hermione said Harry looked like he tasted yummy (a la the potion)."
> 
> JKR isn't the most, er, "innocent" writer in the world, is she? She's
> never minded a dodgy bit here and there. The humor of that scene
> struck me, too.
> 
> Jim Ferer

Geoff:
A bit like Ron's reference to the seventh planet in the Solar System in a 
Divination lesson....
:-)





From grednam2000 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 07:25:15 2008
From: grednam2000 at yahoo.com (Edna Nathan)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fra5n5+vsac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <827394.72074.qm@web56913.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182042

--- Jim Ferer <jferer at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Beatrice: "Looking back at the Harry Potter series,
> what important
> message(s) or themes do you think are the most
> important in the
> novels? And along those lines which messages and
> themes do you hope
> that readers take away from the series?

Edna:
Tolerance, loyalty, bravery, sacrifice, love &
friendship. I keep flashing a picture in my mind of
poor Harry starving to death in his room during the
time that Dudley was on a diet. Hermione and Ron sent
him food. They cared about each other very deeply. I
often wonder if the sorting hat put those three in
Gryffindor for this reason. It wanted to put Harry in
Slytherin, Hermione in Ravenclaw, and Ron probably
should have been put in Hufflepuff. Come to think of
it, I would like to know much more about that sorting
hat. I know it was Gryffindor's hat. I loved the books
immensely. I hope that readers take with them a
wonderful memory of a great adventure.

Edna



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar 13 11:07:47 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:07:47 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <fra5n5+vsac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frb1u3+obs5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182043

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at ...> wrote:

Jim Ferer:
> I think your forgiveness theme is part of a larger one: love in all
> its forms. Harry practices universal love and particularly love for
> his friends. No matter what, he acts as love would dictate. Like
> another character in another tale, Aslan, Harry gave himself to death
> to protect others. He practically always acts as compassion would have
> him act. The fact he isn't a plaster saint and struggles sometimes to
> do the best thing only makes him greater to me: if it was easy, he'd
> just be a flat goody two-shoes.

Geoff:
Although I agree with you in much of what you say, I would not 
compare Harry with Aslan. C.S.Lewis intended Aslan represent Christ 
 in a children's tale designed to introduce them to the truth of 
Christianity, so he is a Christ figure.

Harry is not.

He could, like many of us, be described as a Christ-like figure in that 
he seeks the good of others and goes out of his way to try to achieve 
this. No real Christian is a flat goody two-shoes; we all struggle to do 
the best thing. Harry epitomises that in the books which is why I 
identify so much with him.

My other point is that although Harry was prepared for, and expected, 
death in the tremendously powerful chapter 34 of DH, he didn't die; 
that is borne out in canon.

Although, let me add the proviso that some of the above is entirely my 
personal interpretation with which you may or may not choose to agree,




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 13:40:54 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:40:54 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803122212w379c5080sb2fef80a343f60cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <frbat6+2daq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182044

> >>Lynda: 
> Perhaps it is. I don't listen to or read her interviews much,       
> except for what I have time to when I find links for something. I   
> only meant, from my own reading of the books, the partnerships or   
> lack thereof did not seem judgmental to me.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Since you've not included any of my text, I'm not *exactly* sure what 
you're responding to.  The consistency of JKR's treatment of single 
and childless folk, I think?

> >>Lynday:
> Do some people judge us for our personal choices? Yes. But, its not 
> worth my while to do the same to them. Burns up a lot of energy
> that can be better used in other ways too. So I tend to  reserve    
> quick judgment and not let the little (or in this case--fictional) 
> things get to me.

Betsy Hp:
Okay.  I'm looking at the text in a semi-critical and analytical 
manner (because I enjoy doing so and that's how I tend to engage with 
any sort of story-telling medium -- it's why I like repeat viewings 
<g>) and in doing so I've observed that any character who doesn't 
view sex as a means of breeding, any girl who doesn't date a boy with 
an eye towards marrying him, has their view shown to be quite wrong.  
In a moral sense.

It's not a "quick judgment" on my part.  It's me making use of my 
keen observational skills and highly developed intelligence. <rbg>  
That JKR's interviews support my analysis of the text is just added 
smug for my smug-pie. <rrbg>

> >>Lynda:
> I just recalled a line from the Pride and Prejudice move (the A&E   
> version). I quote the movie rather than the book because I don't    
> have a copy at hand. Jane and Elizabeth are discussing Charlotte's 
> choice to marry Mr. Collins and Elizabeth is very upset with her   
> friend. At whice point Jane tells her "Not everyone is the same,   
> Lizzie!" I think that is always a good thing to remember.

Betsy Hp:
If only JKR had done so!  What a different set of books these would 
have been. :D

Betsy Hp  (all opinions expressed in this post are mine and mine 
alone. please feel free to disagree.)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 13 13:43:07 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:43:07 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <827394.72074.qm@web56913.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <frbb1b+89l5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182045

> Edna:
> Tolerance, loyalty, bravery, sacrifice, love &
> friendship. I keep flashing a picture in my mind of
> poor Harry starving to death in his room during the
> time that Dudley was on a diet. Hermione and Ron sent
> him food. They cared about each other very deeply. I
> often wonder if the sorting hat put those three in
> Gryffindor for this reason. It wanted to put Harry in
> Slytherin, Hermione in Ravenclaw, and Ron probably
> should have been put in Hufflepuff. 

Magpie:
No it didn't actually want to put them in those places. Harry said 
not Slytherin and it just said he would do well there--I believe in 
an interview JKR now says it was reading Tom Riddle there anyway. 
Hermione obviously belongs in Gryffindor, the hat just took a bit of 
time deciding, iirc. And Ron never mentioned belonging anywhere but 
Gryffindor.

Accordin to the author, the hat is never wrong (whatever that 
means). But the three of them all seem dyed in the wool Gryffindors 
to me.

-m (mostly staying out of this thread because I think the books are 
often giving exactly the opposite messages that they claim to be 
giving--right versus easy? If it's easy and the right person does 
it, it's right!)




From lealess at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 15:52:51 2008
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:52:51 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
Message-ID: <frbikj+6npk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182046

Could someone explain to me why a wand would not switch allegiance 
from someone who gives himself up to be killed to the killer?  After 
all, it wasn't the soul piece that decided to let Voldemort kill it.  
It was Harry.  That seems a clear defeat to me.  Does the wand really 
care about who he allowed himself to be killed for?  I know there's 
some kind of explanation, probably to do with Voldemort passing out or 
someting, but it keeps eluding me.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 13 15:54:18 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:54:18 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frbat6+2daq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frbina+jkmr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182047

> Betsy Hp:

<snip> I've observed that any character who doesn't 
> view sex as a means of breeding, any girl who doesn't date a boy with 
> an eye towards marrying him, has their view shown to be quite wrong.  
> In a moral sense.

> It's not a "quick judgment" on my part.  It's me making use of my 
> keen observational skills and highly developed intelligence. <rbg>  
> That JKR's interviews support my analysis of the text is just added 
> smug for my smug-pie. <rrbg>

Pippin:
Then may I humbly ask that you apply  said skills and 
intelligence to explain how  your theory  accounts for Cho Chang, 
Mme Maxime, the Patil sisters, or Fleur Delacour, all of 
whom were able to enjoy a good snog without having set their cap 
for someone or being  morally deficient?  

Fleur does get married, but she was 'extremely busy" with Roger 
Davies before she'd even met Bill. 

Then of course there's Merope, who would clearly
have been better off if she'd  gone for a roll in the hay instead
of a family.

BTW,  if JKR sees not getting to marry Draco as a punishment,
it would seem her opinion of him isn't as low as some think <g>.

Pippin




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 16:21:48 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:21:48 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frbikj+6npk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frbkas+19v2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182048

> Lealess:
> Could someone explain to me why a wand would not switch allegiance 
> from someone who gives himself up to be killed to the killer?  After 
> all, it wasn't the soul piece that decided to let Voldemort kill it.  
> It was Harry.  That seems a clear defeat to me.  Does the wand really 
> care about who he allowed himself to be killed for?  I know there's 
> some kind of explanation, probably to do with Voldemort passing out 
or 
> someting, but it keeps eluding me.

zgirnius:
The general question might be thornier (see e. g. Harry's 
interpretation of the plan Dumbledore made with Snape. Perhaps what 
would really have happened if it had gone as planned, is that the Elder 
Wand *would* have been Snape's. Or not. Personally, I can see it going 
either way.)

But in the specific case of the Elder Wand and Harry, it seems pretty 
clear. Since Harry did not die, and Harry retained his own wand (that 
is, the wand he won from Draco), he was quite simply, not defeated by 
Voldemort. A wand that chooses the more powerful wizard would prefer 
Harry, who can survive a Killing Curse, over Voldemort, who can't even 
cast one successfully.






From lealess at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 17:19:05 2008
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:19:05 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frbkas+19v2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frbnm9+7cor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182050

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
>> Lealess:
>> Could someone explain to me why a wand would not switch allegiance
>> from someone who gives himself up to be killed to the killer?
>> After all, it wasn't the soul piece that decided to let Voldemort
>> kill it. It was Harry. That seems a clear defeat to me. Does
>> the wand really care about who he allowed himself to be killed
>> for? I know there's some kind of explanation, probably to do with
>> Voldemort passing out or something, but it keeps eluding me.
>
> zgirnius:
> The general question might be thornier (see e. g. Harry's
> interpretation of the plan Dumbledore made with Snape. Perhaps what
> would really have happened if it had gone as planned, is that the
> Elder Wand *would* have been Snape's. Or not. Personally, I can see
> it going either way.)
>
> But in the specific case of the Elder Wand and Harry, it seems
> pretty clear. Since Harry did not die, and Harry retained his own
> wand (that is, the wand he won from Draco), he was quite simply,
> not defeated by Voldemort. A wand that chooses the more powerful
> wizard would prefer Harry, who can survive a Killing Curse, over
> Voldemort, who can't even cast one successfully.
>

OK, that makes sense. I just sort-of saw an analogy with
Draco's "winning" of the wand in the first place. Essentially,
Dumbledore seemed to be giving himself up to be killed by Draco, no
matter what Dumbledore thought of his powers of persuasion or Draco's
nerve. When Draco lowered his wand, what happened to the allegiance
then? Why wouldn't the wand switch its allegiance back to Dumbledore? 
It's hard for me to see Draco as the more powerful wizard, in any
event... he just had the element of surprise.

Confusing the matter for me is that the Harry/Voldemort meeting in
the forest was predicated on what Harry should have known were false
premises, that Voldemort would spare others in exchange for Harry.
It seems futile, to give your life for a lie and loyalty to
Dumbledore. It seems the wand would have transferred its allegiance
to Voldemort the moment Harry gave himself up to be killed. Did it
then switch back?

Wand Lore obviously makes me go gaga. And as you say, the
whole "plan" to have Snape possess the Elder Wand presents thorny
questions.

lealess





From jferer at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 17:46:35 2008
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:46:35 -0000
Subject: Looking Back Question...
In-Reply-To: <frb1u3+obs5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frbp9r+9l4f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182051

Geoff: "Although I agree with you in much of what you say, I would not
compare Harry with Aslan. C.S.Lewis intended Aslan represent Christ in
a children's tale designed to introduce them to the truth of
Christianity, so he is a Christ figure."

I don't want to run afoul of the restrictions on religious discussion
here, but I've always felt Lewis, who wanted Aslan to stand for
Christ, succeeded in making Aslan stand for all martyrs. Many had done
what Aslan did: give themselves up for others. Harry was certain he
would die and let Voldemort "kill" him to protect his friends and
fellow students.  And while I know Harry didn't in the event die, he
freely accepted death for the sake of others and didn't even know he
wasn't dead for a while. The comparison with Aslan doesn't have to be
perfect to be fair.

So we're really not far apart in this interpretation. Any differences
in opinion don't change the power of love as a theme that runs all
through the tale.

Jim Ferer




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 19:59:48 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:59:48 -0000
Subject: Is Harry a Christ figure? (Was: Looking Back Question...)
In-Reply-To: <frb1u3+obs5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frc13k+rfba@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182052

Geoff wrote:
> Although I agree with you in much of what you say, I would not 
> compare Harry with Aslan. C.S.Lewis intended Aslan represent Christ 
>  in a children's tale designed to introduce them to the truth of 
> Christianity, so he is a Christ figure.
> 
> Harry is not.
> 
> He could, like many of us, be described as a Christ-like figure in that 
> he seeks the good of others and goes out of his way to try to achieve 
> this. No real Christian is a flat goody two-shoes; we all struggle
to do 
> the best thing. Harry epitomises that in the books which is why I 
> identify so much with him.
<snip>

Carol responds:
"Christ figure" is a term from literary criticism that *does not*
indicate a one-one-one allegorical equivalence between the Christ
figure and the character. Aslan is not a Christ figure as an
allegorical representation of Christ. There is really no other way to
read him.

A Christ figure, in contrast, is a (human) character who resembles
Christ in some respect. Very often, the character sacrifices himself
for the greater good. Sometimes, he dies and is in some way
resurrected. Those are not the only possible characteristics of a
Christ figure, but they're the primary ones.

LOTR spoilers follow. If you haven't read the book, seen the films, or
otherwise learned the major plot points of LOTR, be warned. The
following paragraph gives them away.

*
* 
*
*
* 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

LOTR *can be read* as having either one or two Christ figures. It
isn't necessary to interpret the books in this way, but it's possible.
Frodo, who, admittedly, doesn't die but certainly sacrifices his
health and happiness for the greater good and ends up going to the
Uttermost West is one, and Gandalf, who falls into the abyss and
returns in glorified form, having in effect died and been resurrected
(even though he's an angelic figure who can't die in the normal human
sense) is the other.

Here are some definitions of "Christ figure" from around the web:

"It is a character that conveys some aspect of Christ - redeeming,
sacrificial, avenging (apocalyptic), etc. No Christ figure will ever
be a perfect representation, so we ought not to get hung up on how
they miss the mark, only on how they hit the mark."

http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopic=5814

"A Christ figure is a literary technique that authors use to draw
allusions between their characters and the bibilical Jesus Christ.
More loosely, the Christ Figure is a spiritual or prophetic character
who parallels Jesus, or other spiritual or prophetic figures.

"In general, a character should display more than one correspondence
with the story of Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible. For instance,
the character might display one or more of the following traits:
performance of miracles, manifestation of divine qualities, healing
others, display loving kindness and forgiveness, fight for justice,
die and rise again. Christ figures are often martyrs, sacrificing
themselves for causes larger than themselves. In postmodern
literature, the resurrection theme is often abandoned, leaving us with
the image of a martyr sacrificing himself for a greater good. It is
common to see Christ figures displayed in a manner suggestive of
crucifixion as well; this technique is more noticeable in films than
in literature."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_figure

"Today's Christ-like hero [the term "Christ figure" is used earlier in
the article] suffers for the sins of the world and prepares himself
(often struggling with this considerably) to deliver salvation,
usually through fighting or violent confrontation and often with an
incredible arsenal of weapons."

http://sfgirl-thealiennextdoor.blogspot.com/2007/10/christ-figure-in-moviesbooks-grace-or.html

(That Harry sacrifices himself rather than fighting, and even on the
second go-round uses Expelliarmus rather than killin LV--*and* offers
him a chance for redemption, makes him, IMO, more of a Christ figure
than the more militant heroes this writier is talking about.)

Here's an article on Harry in CoS as Christ figure (using Wikipedia's
definition of the term):

http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=4703159&postcount=545

"For the purposes of this essay, a Christ figure will be defined by:
metaphorical or literal death and resurrection done for the purposes
of self-sacrifice in order to further a higher cause and save or
inspire people, being marked as the chosen one or as special . . . . "

http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/62816.html

At any rate, "Christ figure" is to "Christ" as "father figure" is to
"father." (We can view a number of characters, from Mr. Weasley to
Dumbledore, along with Sirius black and Remus Lupin, and, arguably,
Severus Snape, as father figures to Harry, yet none of them is
literally his father.)

The concept of Christ figure in literature is related to, and possibly
derived from, the concept of biblical typology. (A "type" of Christ is
a person in the Old Testament who is identified in the New Testament
as behaving in a way "typical" of Christ, or prefiguring Christ.
"Type" in this sense means a pattern or model (rather than "kind" or
"variety," as modern speakers use the word, similar to the sense of
"type" in "stereotype."

http://www.gotquestions.org/typology-Biblical.html

To return to HP itself before the List Elves suggest that we take the
discussion to OT chatter, a number of writers, for example Alan Jacobs
in "The Youngest Brother's Tale," have argued that Harry, even in DH,
is *not* a Christ figure: 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/005/1.47.html

(IMO, those who hold that view are thinking of Aslan and allegory
rather than understanding the term as meaning a character who
*resembles* Christ in important respects.)

Here's a link to a discussion on belief.net giving John Killinger's
reasons for believing that Harry is a Christ figure, including
suffering, saving, mark of wounding, and even spending three days in a
coma after battling Voldemort (the Satan figure) in SS/PS. Killinger
is not, of course, arguing that Harry *is* Christ, only that he
parallels Christ in significant ways (more so, perhaps, than he
realized when he wrote the article pre-DH). *However, Killinger seems
to be under the delusion that JKR loves Tolkien's works and may be
overestimating his influence on her writing).

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/116/story_11681_1.html

It's worth noting, too, that such motifs as the descent into the
Underworld, which we see in almost every book in the HP series, are
common to heroes in all mythologies, and involve everyone from
Odysseus to Bilbo Baggins, so that parallel in itself doesn't make
Harry a Christ figure.

It can also be argued, as I think Geoff prefers, that Harry is a kind
of Everyman or Pilgrim, the "type" of a Christian rather than of
Christ himself (cf. Everyman in John Bunyan's "The Pilgrim's Progress"
if you can endure straight-out allegory.

At any rate, the parallels are there for those who wish to see them
and can be argued away (for example, Harry is called "the Chosen One,"
but he's chosen by Voldemort, not by God, who plays no apparent role
in the books despite Christian imagery in DH) by those who don't.
Harry as christ figure is an interpretation--IMO, a legitimate
interpretation supportable by canon--but it's not the only possible
interpretation, nor is it in any way a definitive one.

Carol, who was interested to see as she skimmed through the excerpts
from Googled articles, references to both Snape and Voldemort as
possible Christ figures!







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 20:39:36 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:39:36 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frbat6+2daq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frc3e8+fj91@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182053

Betsy Hp wrote:
> <snip> Okay.  I'm looking at the text in a semi-critical and
analytical  manner <snip> and in doing so I've observed that any
character who doesn't view sex as a means of breeding, any girl who
doesn't date a boy with an eye towards marrying him, has their view
shown to be quite wrong.  
> In a moral sense. <snip>

Carol responds:

What about Ginny, who calls Ron a hypocrite for his double standard
(it's okay for him to snog Lavender publicly but not for Ginny to snog
Dean)? Surely, we're supposed to side with Ginny in this respect?

I don't think that Ginny is condemned for, in essence, playing the
field (Michael Corner, Dean, and possibly someone else that I'm
forgetting) before settling for her true love, Harry. (I don't care
for Ginny, so I'm not arguing from emotions here but from what I see
on the page.)

Yes, Hogwarts students tend to marry their Hogwarts sweethearts (they
seem to have limited opportunities for finding marriage partners
anywhere else--exactly how a few of them end up with Muggles is still
hard for me to fathom). However, that limitation applies to boys as
well as girls.

I don't think most readers would agree with Ron's old-fashioned double
standard (and BTW, he's not doing anything with Lavender beyond
snogging her, any more than Harry does with Cho and, later, Ginny.
They can't enter the girls' dormitory and they never enter the boys'
dormitory with any girl except Hermione, who never snogs anyong there
(regardless of what Lavender might think that Ron and Hermione were
doing). Hermione laughs at Ron for using Mrs. Weasley's old-fashioned
term, "scarlet woman." And we're led to believe that she did kiss
Viktor Kru, for which neither Ginny nor Harry condemns her. (Ron is
only jealous and doesn't dare state his reasons for snubbing Hermione
out loud. Nor does he, once he gets his head together after recovering
from the poisoning, ever bring it up again.)

Lavender doesn't strike me as a "bad" girl, only a very silly one, who
considers herself Ron's girlfriend, worries about his "feelings" and
whether he considers their relationship "serious." She is, IMO, not
punished for publicly snogging Ron. Greyback doesn't succeed in
injuring her (she's "feebly stirring" after being thrown from the
balcony when he tries to attack her, but he's hit first by Hermione's
spell and then by Trelawney's crystal ball before he can bite her).
Lavender is not mentioned as one of the dead on the tables in the
Great Hall, so I think we can conclude that she survived.

We do not see any "slutty" girls (maybe Bellatrix's apparent lust for
Voldemort comes close, but as he seems to be asexual, I'm sure that
it's not consummated.) Morfin uses the term to refer to his sister,
who loves a Muggle, but she marries with him and Tom is not born until
a year after their marriage. (I won't get into the ethics of poor
abused Merope tricking the handsome Tom into marrying her.) the love
potions that Romilda Vane and other girls try to use on boys merely
cause the boys (judging by Ron) to become infatuated with them; their
intention is to get a date for Slughorn's party, not to have a
one-night stand. We just don't see that sort of behavior in the books,
 however unrealistic that may seem by RL standards.

We don't know that Pansy (whose behavior with Draco isn't all that
different from Ginny's with Harry near the end of HBP before DD's
death) isn't a "good girl" who wants to marry Draco. I rather suspect
that that's her goal (and I see nothing wrong with wanting to marry
the boy you're dating when you're old enough, as opposed to merely
going out with them to have a date for social events or get in some
snogging or whatever other reason girls and boys date in their
mid-teens). The difference between Pansy and Ginny in this respect is
that the boy Ginny loves loves her in return. (Pansy could have
married Theo or Blaise or Gregory Goyle or even someone from another
House for all we know. It's safe to say that she didn't marry Vincent
Crabbe, but that's as much as we can safely say.)

Anyway, no one condemns Cho for kissing Harry, only for continuing to
be friends with Marietta. (Admittedly, Ginny resents Cho's continuing
interest in Harry in DH, but I see no difference between Ginny's
jealousy regarding Harry and his regarding her. All of the "good" kids
seem to suffer from that particular affliction, particularly Ron but
also Hermione with her bird attack.)

JKR said somewhere that she didn't want Hermione to become pregnant as
a teenager. I think she also didn't want her characters engaging in
sex in part because she's not writing a realistic novel and in part
because they had more important concerns--like Voldemort. And I think
that Ron's and Hermione's waiting until they're ready (and, no doubt,
married) is refreshing. Why not wiat until emotional maturity catches
up with hormones? It has less to do with moriality, IMO, than with
common sense.

Carol, who agrees with Ginny that her brothers are hypocrites but is
nevertheless glad that the "sex" among Hogwarts students is limited to
snogging and writhing like eels in a comfortable chair, fully dressed




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 21:06:52 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:06:52 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frbnm9+7cor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frc51c+hehm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182054

Lealess wrote:
> OK, that makes sense. I just sort-of saw an analogy with Draco's
"winning" of the wand in the first place. Essentially, Dumbledore
seemed to be giving himself up to be killed by Draco, no matter what
Dumbledore thought of his powers of persuasion or Draco's nerve. When
Draco lowered his wand, what happened to the allegiance then? Why
wouldn't the wand switch its allegiance back to Dumbledore? 
> It's hard for me to see Draco as the more powerful wizard, in any
event... he just had the element of surprise.

Carol responds:
I'm pretty sure that DD still firmly intends to be killed by Snape and
knows perfectly well that Draco isn't going to kill him. But the wand,
which is on the ground outside, doesn't know any of that, only that
Draco has disarmed the great DD. And being the Elder Wand, not forming
a bond with any owner and concerned only with power, it's giving its
allegiance to the presumed victor. (No doubt if Draco had actually
caught the wand, which perhaps DD prevents through sheer will power,
it would soon have seen just how unworthy he was, but it never got
that opportunity. And if it had tried to give its loyalty back to
Dumbledore, surely it would have discovered that, less than an hour or
so later, he was dead.) BTW, young Grindelwald might not yet have been
more powerful than Gregorovitch. He, too, had the element of surprise.
(How Gregorovitch became master of the wand, I don't even want to know.)
> 
Lealess:
> Confusing the matter for me is that the Harry/Voldemort meeting in
the forest was predicated on what Harry should have known were false
premises, that Voldemort would spare others in exchange for Harry. It
seems futile, to give your life for a lie and loyalty to Dumbledore. 

Carol responds:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Harry goes to his "death"
because he knows that Voldemort has to destroy the soul bit. If Harry
tries to kill LV, the soul bit (and the as-yet undestroyed Horcrux in
Nagini) will keep LV alive; he'll just become Vapor!mort again. Harry
thinks that the best he can do is die, destroying the soul bit, and
hope that someone else (Ron, Hermione, or Neville) will kill Nagini,
making Voldemort mortal. So Harry is sacrificing himself for the
greater good. DD knows the power of this act of love and hopes that it
(plus the shared drop of blood) will save Harry, but neither Snape in
the memory nor Harry, who thinks that DD has betrayed him, has any
clue that Harry will survive the AK that kills the soul bit. (It's not
loyalty to DD that motivates him; he doesn't call up DD to accompany
him to his "death," only his parents and their closest friends.)

Lealess:
It seems the wand would have transferred its allegiance to Voldemort
the moment Harry gave himself up to be killed. Did it then switch back?
> 
Carol:
Why would it do that? LV was not its master to begin with, and he
didn't really kill Harry. Moreover, LV himself is near death at that
point, the tattered remnants of his soul going along with Harry's
spirit to King's Cross to lie untouched under a bench while Harry
converses with Dumbledore. Both Harry and LV are out cold, suspended
between life and death. The wand doesn't even know at this point that
its true master is Harry. It probably still thinks that its master is
Draco until the "resurrected" Harry explains the situation to LV in
the wand's hearing. At that point, IMO, it transfers its loyalty from
Draco to Harry. LV was never its master, either before or after he
"killed" Harry. (I'm not sure whether the near-proximity of the three
Hallows played into the outcome at all, nor am I sure exactly why LV's
soul went along with Harry's on its journey to King's Cross, but I
think that they were tied together by the shared drop of blood.)

Lealess:
> Wand Lore obviously makes me go gaga. And as you say, the whole
"plan" to have Snape possess the Elder Wand presents thorny questions.

Carol, who wishes that the Elder Wand had never entered the plot at
all, for Snape's sake and that of the story as a whole





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 22:14:18 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:14:18 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frbnm9+7cor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frc8vq+uihj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182055

> Lealess:
> Essentially,
> Dumbledore seemed to be giving himself up to be killed by Draco, no
> matter what Dumbledore thought of his powers of persuasion or 
Draco's
> nerve. 

zgirnius:
Dumbledore cast an offensive spell, a curse, and then Draco disarmed 
him. I think at the moment Draco did so, the Elder Wand was his, and 
nothing that happened the rest of that evening had any further effect 
on the wand. So its new master did not wish to murder Albus? Why 
should the wand care? It does not have to pass with a killing, as its 
previous two transfers of loyalty, to Grindelwald and then to Albus, 
demonstrate.

> lealess:
> It's hard for me to see Draco as the more powerful wizard, in any
> event... he just had the element of surprise.

zgirnius:
In my opinion, arranging that element of surprise is an aspect of 
being a more powerful wizard. That evening, Dumbledore made a choice 
to protect Harry first, and then protect himself, but I think given 
more time or faster reflexes, he would have chosen to do both. The 
fact is that for whatever reason, he was not fast enough or prescient 
enough to handle Draco that night.

> lealess:
> Confusing the matter for me is that the Harry/Voldemort meeting in
> the forest was predicated on what Harry should have known were false
> premises, that Voldemort would spare others in exchange for Harry.

zgirnius:
Harry was not going to die in the sincere belief it would cause 
Voldemort to leave his friends alone. He was going to die because he  
believed it was the only way to destroy the bit of Voldemort's soul 
inside of him. 

> lealess:
> It seems the wand would have transferred its allegiance
to Voldemort the moment Harry gave himself up to be killed. Did it
then switch back?

zgirnius:
This I have problems with. You are suggesting the wand could detect 
Harry's intent to be killed, which I might buy. But if it is reading 
his intent, surely it should realize that Harry's decision is 
anything but a weak surrender? Harry was going to his death in 
furtherance of a plan to defeat Voldemort, a plan Harry believed was 
not possible while he lived.

It is my opinion that if Harry had truly and permanently died in the 
Forest, the Elder Wand would not have passed to anyone. For me, they 
key is the element of intent and mutual prearrangement. With all the 
facts as they stood regarding the soul bit, Harry and Dumbeldore had 
basically tricked Voldemort into believeing Voldemort should klill 
Harry. If Voldemort had done so, he would have been taking the bait 
just as surely as he did when he failed to kill Harry. Thus, no 
defeat of Harry, as I see it.

> lealess:
> Wand Lore obviously makes me go gaga. And as you say, the
> whole "plan" to have Snape possess the Elder Wand presents thorny
> questions.

zgirnius:
The only way in which I find wand lore thorny, is the dearth of 
evidence with which to beat people who disagree with be about it over 
the head. I personally find the whole "Snape killing Dumbledore to 
end the power of the Elder Wand" thing quite natural and satisfying.

To me what makes a clear difference between Snape's situation and 
Draco's, is (again) the prearrangement of the events by Snape and 
Dumbledore. Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him for a ogical reason 
(preferring a quick, clean AK to being mauled by Greyback). 
Dumbledore had further reasons for wanting it done, all very much 
focused on his long-laid plans to defeat the most powerful Dark 
Wizard to ever live.  If Snape had killed an armed and undefeated 
Dumbledore as they had agreed, why would this be a defeat? Snape 
would be fulfilling Dumbledore's will, and carrying out a plan of 
Dumbledore's to defeat Voldemort that would continue to unfold after 
Dumbeldore's death, through the agency of Harry and Snape. I do not 
see the defeat in that.






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 13 23:37:56 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:37:56 -0000
Subject: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fra62j+ap5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frcdsk+je9v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182056

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

> However, my impression is that Snape *know* that "Moody" 
> searched his office. Possibly, Barty Jr. made a point of 
> doing so, with DD's knowledge, with the excuse that Snape 
> was an ex-DE. 


zanooda:

I also think that Crouch!Moody searched Snape's office openly as soon 
as he arrived at Hogwarts, with or without DD's permission. Sirius 
said later that Moody (the real one) probably "searched every single 
teacher's office" (GoF p. 532, Am.ed.), so this would be quite in 
character. I'm not sure that DD would have allowed *that* though.

 
> Carol responds:

> Right. It's not Dobby eavesdropping, exactly. "Moody" summoned 
> him so that he'd overhear the conversation. My question is what 
> he means by "staged." Was McGonagall actually there, or did 
> Crouch!Moody imitate her voice and pretend to have a conversation 
> with her that he made sure Dobby overheard?


zanooda:

I've always believed that the conversation was real. Dobby was in the 
same room, if Mcgonagall wasn't really there, how could he not 
notice :-)? Crouch summoned Dobby to the staff room to collect some 
dirty robes, and then started talking to McGonagall on purpose.


> Carol:

> If Percy is right that Mr. Crouch could speak about a hundred
> languages (I don't recall the exact figure), it seems likely that
> Mermish was one of them. 


zanooda:

According to Percy, Barty Crouch spoke over two hundred languages, 
including Mermish, Gobbledegook and Troll (p. 89). I don't know how 
anyone can learn so many languages, some of then very exotic, if 
languages are not his/her profession. Maybe there is some magic 
involved :-)?




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 14 00:18:18 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:18:18 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frc8vq+uihj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frcg8a+dhiv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182057

> zgirnius:
> The only way in which I find wand lore thorny, is the dearth of 
> evidence with which to beat people who disagree with be about it over 
> the head. I personally find the whole "Snape killing Dumbledore to 
> end the power of the Elder Wand" thing quite natural and satisfying.

Pippin:
Bravo!  It was a very Dumbledore-ish thing to do, very much in 
character as well as showing how greatly he relied on Snape.


I think the wand also fills a necessary and useful role as a metaphor
for physical power -- it shows that when Dumbledore was talking about
love as the superior power he did not mean it only in a spiritual sense.
He was talking about power in the physical world as well. It's a 
more, well, militant view of love than some of us are used to, I think. 

Though the Elder Wand was only a piece of wood, it came to Harry through
Dumbledore's trust in the essential goodness of two people whom Harry
had always regarded as his enemies: Draco Malfoy and Severus Snape. They
proved themselves worthy of that trust. Like Harry, Draco stood over his
helpless enemy and found that he could not kill. Like Harry, Snape did
what he had promised even though it was revolting to him.

Some fans get all hung up about what Snape was supposed to do with
the wand if he got it -- but to me, the point is  that Dumbledore
trusted Snape to do whatever was necessary. If the plan had worked and
the wand had no power any more, then Snape could simply have given it 
to Voldemort, who would hardly suspect that Snape could 
destroy so powerful a magical object.   If the plan didn't work, 
then Dumbledore could trust Snape to continue the quest for a way to 
destroy it. 

I suppose by the time  Snape first snuck back  to consult with
DD's portrait, the wand had  already been entombed and portrait!DD 
judged it  best to leave it there. Voldemort was bound to discover where it
had been bestowed, and if it was missing it would throw suspicion on
Snape or even worse, on Draco. 

Pippin




From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Mar 14 04:17:03 2008
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:17:03 -0400
Subject: "Filthy"-- Re: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA5OS/Hznbq0uZc6r9Ahhd4gEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 182058

To answer the question as why 'filthy' seams to be used as an 
opprobrious epithet, I think that JKR means us to substitute 
another word beginning with the same consonant, one which one 
really can't use in a children's book. I don't think I need to 
be more explicit.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. 
Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only 
the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch



From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Mar 14 05:29:11 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:29:11 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Filthy"-- Re: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA5OS/Hznbq0uZc6r9Ahhd4gEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <021801c88594$5650a980$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182059

> To answer the question as why 'filthy' seams to be used as an
> opprobrious epithet, I think that JKR means us to substitute
> another word beginning with the same consonant, one which one
> really can't use in a children's book. I don't think I need to
> be more explicit.
>
> Bruce Alan Wilson


Is that it, or it is a "British" thing? Kind of like "bloody"? Seems to me 
that it's more "Brit" than a replacement for a vulgar word with the same 
starting letter.

Someone British- can you shed light on these words?

Shelley





From Schlobin at aol.com  Fri Mar 14 05:57:55 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:57:55 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fqfkhl+oeeh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frd453+10rt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182060


> Montavilla47:
> 
snip
> 
  Any objection I have to Molly's moment of triumph over
> Bellatrix is not that she suddeny acquires mad dueling skillz, but
> that she unwittingly (she is, after all, ignorant of Muggle culture),
> starts quoting Ripley in Aliens.  It's just jarring is all.
> 

Thanks! I thought I was the only person who did NOT like the line.
It immediately brought up Aliens. But I don't like the word that rhymes 
with snitch because it is so specifically misogynist, and one woman 
calling another woman it promotes internalized misogyny and horizontal 
hostility.

Susan




From michellerogers97 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 06:52:54 2008
From: michellerogers97 at yahoo.com (michellerogers97)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 06:52:54 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frbikj+6npk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frd7c6+ohe2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182061

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

> Could someone explain to me why a wand would not switch
> allegiance from someone who gives himself up to be killed
> to the killer? After all, it wasn't the soul piece that
> decided to let Voldemort kill it. It was Harry. That seems
> a clear defeat to me. Does the wand really care about who
> he allowed himself to be killed for?
<SNIP>


I think some of us are giving this wand a little too much
personification.

" . . . the possessor of the wand must capture it from its
previous owner, if he is to be truly master of it," said
Xenophilius.  DH21

One must merely capture the wand, not be the more powerful
wizard (or witch). The wand's allegiance goes to the guy who
took it - it doesn't care how it was taken - just that it was
and by whom.

michellerogers97



From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Fri Mar 14 10:14:59 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:14:59 -0000
Subject: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frcdsk+je9v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frdj73+d2fn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182062

snip
> zanooda:
> 
> According to Percy, Barty Crouch spoke over two hundred languages, 
> including Mermish, Gobbledegook and Troll (p. 89). I don't know how 
> anyone can learn so many languages, some of then very exotic, if 
> languages are not his/her profession. Maybe there is some magic 
> involved :-)?
>
But is Percy's say so reliable at that ime as he was obbssed with Barty 
Crouch and the Ministry. He could well have been exagerating to make 
his boss look good

Jayne
A bit dubious re Percy




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Mar 14 11:53:52 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:53:52 -0000
Subject: "Filthy"-- Re: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <021801c88594$5650a980$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <frdp0g+16p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182063


 
> Shelley:
> Is that it, or it is a "British" thing? Kind of like "bloody"? 
Seems to me 
> that it's more "Brit" than a replacement for a vulgar word with the 
same 
> starting letter.
> 
> Someone British- can you shed light on these words?
> 
> Shelley


Potioncat:
I think you're right. I'm not British, but I remember the 
word "dirty" being used with insults. "You dirty rat" comes to mind. 
It was also used a lot when the final word had a racial or ethnic 
meaning.

I say remember, because these days the f-word has replaced less rude 
insults as a first line attack. 









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 14:43:34 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:43:34 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frbina+jkmr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fre2um+opdl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182064

> >>Pippin:
> Then may I humbly ask that you apply  said skills and 
> intelligence to explain how  your theory  accounts for Cho Chang, 
> Mme Maxime, the Patil sisters, or Fleur Delacour, all of 
> whom were able to enjoy a good snog without having set their cap 
> for someone or being  morally deficient?

Betsy Hp:
Up until she gets married, Fleur is not considered a good girl.  The 
Patil sisters, like Lavender, are considered flighty, Cho Chang is 
painted as completely untrustworthy by Ginny in the final battle of 
Hogwarts (Ginny's extreme worry about Cho being the one to take Harry 
to the Ravenclaw dorms).  Mme Maxime did dodge a bullet in not 
settling down with Hagrid, but she's hardly a main player.

Now I'll freely admit I have a hard time figuring out how JKR wants 
us to see her characters (besides her obvious wish that we like the 
big three).  And I've generally gotten it wrong in the past.  But I 
think we're supposed to see Ginny and Hermione as judging people 
correctly for the most part.  So if either of those two girls judge 
another girl as morally deficient (and they are two rather judgy 
girls) I figure JKR wants us to agree. For example, I think we're 
supposed to think Ginny quite the clever young thing for switching 
Luna in as Harry's Ravenclaw guide.
  
> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Then of course there's Merope, who would clearly have been better   
> off if she'd  gone for a roll in the hay instead of a family.

Betsy Hp:
I think we're supposed to see Merope's lust (or as JKR would call it, 
love) as a bad thing that set this whole trainwreck in motion.  That 
she tried to force it into the marriage sphere was, I think, JKR's 
attempt to paint Merope as a tragic victim as well.  (She *tried* to 
be a good girl.)

> >>Pippin:
> BTW,  if JKR sees not getting to marry Draco as a punishment,
> it would seem her opinion of him isn't as low as some think <g>.

Betsy Hp:
Well, Draco's a boy.  JKR prefers boys to girls as far as I can 
tell. :)

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> What about Ginny, who calls Ron a hypocrite for his double standard
> (it's okay for him to snog Lavender publicly but not for Ginny to   
> snog Dean)? Surely, we're supposed to side with Ginny in this      
> respect?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Whenever Ginny says anything, I think we're supposed to side for her; 
but Ginny only snogged other boys to be worthy of her true love.  The 
boy she picked out when she was 10 (if not earlier).  So 
Ginny's "playing the field" was okay because it made her more ready 
for the marriage bed.  Ditto with Hermione.

But neither Ginny nor Hermione seemed all that sexually interested in 
the boys they dated before their husbands.  Ginny dumped both her 
boys, and Viktor annoyed Hermione more than anything.  And we know 
Hermione was interested in Ron when she dated Viktor, hence her 
yelling at Ron to ask her first next time.

Combine that with the fact that girls can enter the boys dorms 
whenever they like and you've got a series of books that seems to 
deny the existance of female sexuality as a natural thing.  Which is 
a throw-back view, IMO.

Betsy Hp (all my opinion! <g>)




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 15:37:12 2008
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:37:12 -0000
Subject: Last call for CA 2008 CFP submissions
Message-ID: <fre638+gfv3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182065

Yes, that's right, the time has come. Submissions for the Convention 
Alley 2008 CFP must be in by the end of the day tomorrow. I know you've 
got that idea just itching to be presented, so now is the time. 

Send us your ideas for papers, panels or round table discussions. 
Submissions should be sent to convention_alley at yahoo.ca

There's still lots of discussion to be had and we look forward to 
hearing your thoughts and ideas!

Sheryll Townsend
Convention Alley 2008





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 14 15:39:34 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:39:34 -0000
Subject: "Filthy"-- Re: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <021801c88594$5650a980$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fre67m+amih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182066

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" <k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
>
> > To answer the question as why 'filthy' seams to be used as an
> > opprobrious epithet, I think that JKR means us to substitute
> > another word beginning with the same consonant, one which one
> > really can't use in a children's book. I don't think I need to
> > be more explicit.
> >
> > Bruce Alan Wilson

Shelley:
> Is that it, or it is a "British" thing? Kind of like "bloody"? Seems to me 
> that it's more "Brit" than a replacement for a vulgar word with the same 
> starting letter.
> 
> Someone British- can you shed light on these words?

Geoff:
I'd be inclined to agree with Shelley that it is more a British (or 
English) thing. I can 't see JKR even expecting the reader to substitute 
the f-word for her use of "filthy" because she has been very judicious 
with her avoidance of bad language, certainly in the earlier books. 

As a result, one thing which annoys me in the films is that Ron is 
portrayed as a bit of a foul mouth; fiery temper doesn't always go 
hand in hand with swearing. I have - or perhaps had - a name for 
being rather short-tempered but my only foray into the world of 
what I would call extreme bad language was in my teens when 
using the f-word and various other "x"-words established your 
street cred.

Listening surreptitiously to the teenagers I meet up with today, I 
don't hear these words in every second sentence. I often think 
they are used by people who feel less able to express themselves 
in standard English - I hope that doesn't sound patronising or 
snobbish.

"Filthy" and, or for that matter, "dirty" are used to express a 
deep dislike for something but I think there is a deep conservative 
element to many British folk, including young people which 
makes them use these in preference to the hugely pejorative 
and confrontational f-word and its stablemates.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 16:29:08 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:29:08 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fre2um+opdl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fre94k+j6ps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182067

> > >>Pippin:
> > Then may I humbly ask that you apply  said skills and 
> > intelligence to explain how  your theory  accounts for Cho Chang, 
> > Mme Maxime, the Patil sisters, or Fleur Delacour, all of 
> > whom were able to enjoy a good snog without having set their cap 
> > for someone or being  morally deficient?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Up until she gets married, Fleur is not considered a good girl.

Alla:

She is not? I never doubted Fleur's moral sufficiency before she is 
married.

But I take it your argument is that canon does not consider her to be 
a good girl, not the reader?

Where? Are you talking about her fights with Molly by any chance? Or 
something else?



BettyHp:
 The 
> Patil sisters, like Lavender, are considered flighty, Cho Chang is 
> painted as completely untrustworthy by Ginny in the final battle of 
> Hogwarts (Ginny's extreme worry about Cho being the one to take 
Harry 
> to the Ravenclaw dorms).  <SNIP>


Alla:

Cho untrustworthy? 
I always read it as sign of Ginny's extreme jealousy and nothing 
more, did not even come to me that it can be read as judgment of Cho, 
but just my opinion.









From grednam2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 14:38:23 2008
From: grednam2000 at yahoo.com (Edna Nathan)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frd453+10rt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <246794.80201.qm@web56904.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182068

Montavilla47:
> > Any objection I have to Molly's moment of triumph over
> > Bellatrix is not that she suddeny acquires mad dueling skillz, but
> > that she unwittingly (she is, after all, ignorant of Muggle 
> > culture), starts quoting Ripley in Aliens.  It's just
> > jarring is all.

Susan McGee:
> Thanks! I thought I was the only person who did NOT like the line.
> It immediately brought up Aliens. But I don't like the word that 
> rhymes with snitch because it is so specifically misogynist, and 
> one woman calling another woman it promotes internalized
> misogyny and horizontal hostility.
 

Edna:
I was very disappointed when I read that part. I loved that Molly killed Bellatrix, but I did not like the "B" word  being used even in a situation like that because it's supposed to be a children's book. I think the "B" word that rhymes with dastard is also used in
the book. I hope these words don't get used in the upcoming films.

Edna





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 14 16:55:18 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:55:18 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fre2um+opdl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frealm+h2li@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182069

Betsy:
> Combine that with the fact that girls can enter the boys dorms 
> whenever they like and you've got a series of books that seems to 
> deny the existance of female sexuality as a natural thing.  Which is 
> a throw-back view, IMO.

Magpie:
That little detail is bizarre, isn't it? I think when it comes to this 
the books are like a nexus of all sorts of unexamined stereotypes that 
lead...somewhere...but are probably a mix of different things.

I mean, when do we ever see boys chasing girls? I can think of only a 
few examples--McLaggen tries to snog Hermione at the party, Viktor 
morphs into a bit of a womanizer who only wants hot babes. Fred 
actually asks Angelina to the ball iirc. In James/Lily James seems to 
be the one who's actually going after her (though she already likes 
him and seems to be waiting for him to get it right). McLaggen is the 
only one I can think of who's actually characterized as a guy trying 
to get into a girl's pants.

Usually we've got girls chasing after boys like Beatles groupies--we 
see boys liking girls back, but if you're looking for real OTT stuff, 
I think it's mostly girls doing the chasing. Off the top of my head:

Crowds follow Harry, trying to get him under the mistletoe. 

Crowds ask Harry to go to the GoF ball with them.

The love potions are marketed to girls (because what guy would want a 
girl to think she was in love with him for any amount of time?!). 

Harry is given a dose of a potion by unattractive and aggressive 
Romilda, who also wants to know what he's got under his clothes. 

Myrtle is a peeping Tom and a bit of a lech. 

Tom Riddle grosses himself up allowing himself to be pawed by also 
unattractive Hepzibah. 

Ugly Merope traps Tom Riddle Sr. as a love slave for months. 

Cho initiates everything in her relationship with Harry, even though 
he's liked her before, and not vice-versa. 

Hermione and Ginny plot and discuss for years to get their men.

Lavender goes after Ron and continues chasing him after he's lost 
interest.

Iirc Fleur's eyeing Bill is the start of their relationship 
(apparently she starts plotting them). 

Tonks will get Remus to marry her even if she has to demand it at a 
hospital bed, and their whole relationship is mostly Remus running and 
Tonks chasing. 

Girls are trying to get Sirius' attention in the Pensieve. 

Girls chase Viktor. 

Bellatrix pants after an uninterested Voldemort. 

Parvati and Lavender crush on Firenze (who's lower half is a horse...).

Why, since this is the way the world works, did anybody think the 
girls were the ones who needed to be protected with the staircase? 
It's like it's all part of the "game" girls play ("you know what I'm 
talking about!") where the smart ones manipulate things so they seem 
like they're being pursued when it's all part of the plan. It's girls 
who are sexually aggressive, addled by hormones, made stupid by lust. 
Guys in canon, by contrast, are quite passive, befuddled and 
uninterested until some girl manipulates them into feeling differently 
and then they're not responsible for their actions.

There are times where guys obviously find a girl attractive, but not 
on this level. In fact, the closest the boys ever get to this level is 
when they're dealing with Veelas, who seem to embody some sort of 
lesson about this sort of thing (the way they turn into harpies once 
you're attracted, how the boys shouldn't judge on looks alone, how 
it's fake magic) that is never really needed by the boys in life. Or 
else when they're under the influence of love potions where again it's 
really the girl sending out some magical force that takes away the 
boy's will.

-m




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Mar 14 17:43:31 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:43:31 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frealm+h2li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fredg3+6svq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182070


> Magpie:
> ... McLaggen is the 
> only one I can think of who's actually characterized as a guy trying 
> to get into a girl's pants.
> 
> ...It's girls who are sexually aggressive, 
>  addled by hormones, made stupid by lust. 
> Guys in canon, by contrast, are quite passive, befuddled and 
> uninterested until some girl manipulates them into feeling 
> differently and then they're not responsible for their actions.
> 
> There are times where guys obviously find a girl attractive, but not 
> on this level. In fact, the closest the boys ever get to this level is 
> when they're dealing with Veelas, who seem to embody some sort of 
> lesson about this sort of thing (the way they turn into harpies once 
> you're attracted, how the boys shouldn't judge on looks alone, how 
> it's fake magic) that is never really needed by the boys in life. Or 
> else when they're under the influence of love potions where again 
> it's really the girl sending out some magical force  
> that takes away the boy's will.

Kemper now:
I would like to add Ron to the mix.  While Fleur is part Veela, she
does not change into a harpy.  Though, I could concede that her
character to the reader is undesirable.  (and really, what an
underwhelming witch, Beauxbatons must be the short broom school) He
asks her to the Ball.  
Also, iirc, he makes suggestive comments to girls about seeing Uranus.
This innuendo suggests that Ron flies a freak flag... which isn't to
say that buttsex is freaky, but it goes against puritan norms... in
the US anyway. 
But Ron's innuendo is much more agreeable because of his character. 
While if McLaggen said something similar, it would be considered
lecherous, lewd and lascivious... or just plain old deviant. 

Kemper, putting the gu in hpfgu




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 14 18:44:29 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:44:29 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frealm+h2li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <freh2d+ahgk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182071


>
> Betsy:
> > Combine that with the fact that girls can enter the boys dorms 
> > whenever they like and you've got a series of books that seems to 
> > deny the existance of female sexuality as a natural thing.  Which is 
> > a throw-back view, IMO.
> 
> Magpie:
> That little detail is bizarre, isn't it? I think when it comes to this 
> the books are like a nexus of all sorts of unexamined stereotypes that 
> lead...somewhere...but are probably a mix of different things.
> 

Pippin:
My goodness, you're kidding, right? I mean, you do at least allow for the
possibility that JKR is making fun of what Hermione calls the "old-fashioned"
ideas behind the staircase by showing us in exaggerated ways that girls
do indeed have sexual interest in boys?

It also shows us that social changes do take place in the WW.


Betsy Hp:
Up until she gets married, Fleur is not considered a good girl. The
Patil sisters, like Lavender, are considered flighty, Cho Chang is
painted as completely untrustworthy by Ginny in the final battle of
Hogwarts (Ginny's extreme worry about Cho being the one to take Harry
to the Ravenclaw dorms). Mme Maxime did dodge a bullet in not
settling down with Hagrid, but she's hardly a main player.

Pippin:
But this does not establish your thesis that flighty equals bad. Molly
feels that Fleur is not serious, but that only bothers her 
because she feels that Bill is. Ginny thinks they  both enjoy a good
time, and mostly dislikes Fleur because she's so full of herself (and
because Harry can't hide how attractive he finds her.)

There's nothing untrustworthy about Cho's behavior. Officially, Ginny and 
Harry were no longer a couple. Cho may have had long odds against her,
but if she'd wanted to get Harry interested in her again, she'd have been
well within her rights to try. 

Pippin




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 14 19:36:54 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:36:54 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <freh2d+ahgk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frek4m+ggu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182072

> > Magpie:
> > That little detail is bizarre, isn't it? I think when it comes 
to this 
> > the books are like a nexus of all sorts of unexamined 
stereotypes that 
> > lead...somewhere...but are probably a mix of different things.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> My goodness, you're kidding, right? I mean, you do at least allow 
for the
> possibility that JKR is making fun of what Hermione calls the "old-
fashioned"
> ideas behind the staircase by showing us in exaggerated ways that 
girls
> do indeed have sexual interest in boys?

Magpie:
Of course I got that the staircase is supposed to be funny because 
it's the type of thing a school would do. But it's not just modern 
kids faced with something built for a time when there were different 
expectations for nice girls. It's sitting there conflicting with an 
often equally exaggerated portrayal female sexuality--which also 
contains plenty of ideas that are pretty old. In another book it 
would *just* be a funny joke on the idea that when the stairs were 
built girls were assumed to not have those kinds of thoughts so boys 
would only chase them. But it comes across a little differently when 
the book itself portrays the sexes as being very unequal on these 
terms, only it's the poor boys who are sought after by the girls. It 
doesn't seem like social change either. I would more guess that the 
boy-crazy has always been a female problem. Though Slytherins mix it 
up a bit--I'd forgotten the Bloody Baron. There's an example of a 
girl-chaser.

Pippin:
> It also shows us that social changes do take place in the WW.

Magpie:
The books just tend to mirror the Muggle world on that, even when 
the WW should probably have its own history. They have social change 
because they're a riff on us and our history. 

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 19:47:51 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:47:51 -0000
Subject: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frdj73+d2fn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frekp7+tghg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182073

zanooda:
> > 
> > According to Percy, Barty Crouch spoke over two hundred languages,
including Mermish, Gobbledegook and Troll (p. 89). I don't know how 
anyone can learn so many languages, some of then very exotic, if 
languages are not his/her profession. Maybe there is some magic 
involved :-)?

Jayne responded:
> But is Percy's say so reliable at that ime as he was obbssed with
Barty Crouch and the Ministry. He could well have been exagerating to
make his boss look good <snip>

Carol responds:
That being the case, you might consider what Ludo Bagman has to say on
the subject.

Ludo is looking for Mr. Crouch to help him understand what his
Bulgarian "opposite number" (the head of the Bulgarian Magical Sports
and Games Department) is saying. According to Ludo, Mr. Crouch speaks
"about a hundred and fifty languages."

At that point, Percy steps in, correcting the figure to "over two
hundred," and specifying "Mermish and Gobbledegook and Troll." (Fred
dismisses the ability to speak Troll as something anyone can do but
says nothing to contradict the number of languages that Mr. Crouch can
speak, nor does Mr. Weasley.) (GoF Am. ed. 89).

It seems clear that Mr. Crouch is extremely intelligent, a gifted and
powerful wizard who would probably have become the Minister for Magic
hed not his son (also, for all his faults, gifted and intelligent, one
of the few wizards that we know for certain received twelve OWLs) been
revealed as one of the DEs who Crucio'd the Longbottoms into insanity.
While the numbers (150 or more than 200) may be exaggerated (rahter
like the narrator's assertions that Hagrid's hands are as large as
trash bin lids or Slughorn takes up a quarter of the sweet shop whose
name, oddly, escapes me at the moment), but I see no reason to doubt
that Mr. Crouch speaks a large number of languages, including
Bulgarian and Mermish.

Whether magic has anything to do with it, I can't say. Maybe he simply
has a prodigious capacity for memorization (like Hermione and Snape
and presumably Dumbledore, who also knows a large number of languages,
including Mermish).

As for Percy, he is certainly overzealous regarding Mr. Crouch and the
MoM (and later, seriously mistaken regarding Dolores Umbridge and the
supposed nonreturn of Voldemort, not to mention his understandable
failure to reaize that his boss was under the Imperius Curse), but I
can't recall his ever telling an actual lie or even a half-truth, a la
Snape and Dumbledore.

Carol, suspecting that Barty Sr. speaks all the relevant languages of
fellow magical beings, along with a good number of European languages




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 20:16:12 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:16:12 -0000
Subject: "Filthy"-- Re: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frdp0g+16p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fremec+f087@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182074

Shelley wrote:
> > Is that it, or it is a "British" thing? Kind of like "bloody"? 
Seems to me  that it's more "Brit" than a replacement for a vulgar
word with the same  starting letter.
> > 
> > Someone British- can you shed light on these words?

Potioncat responded:
> I think you're right. I'm not British, but I remember the word
"dirty" being used with insults. "You dirty rat" comes to mind. It was
also used a lot when the final word had a racial or ethnic meaning. <snip>

Carol responds:
I'm not British, either, but I love words and find British/American
differences, etymology, and similar subjects fascinating.

I checked all the lovely British-to-American sites that I bookmarked,
but none of them was helpful. (One had "filthy" meaning "extremely,"
as in "filthy rich," and two had "filth" as a highly uncomplimentary
term for the police, but that's it.)

It seems to me that the British find the term "filth," which can mean
"refuse" (i.e., garbage) or feces or anything foul and disgusting,
more offensive than Americans, who associate it with dirt (garden
soil) or the various kinds of dirt that children get on their hands
and clothes. americans don't go around using "foul," either, unless
they mean a foul ball in baseball or a foul smell. (I can't imagine an
American child calling a schoolmate a "foul, loathsome, evil little
cockroach" as Movie!Hermione did).

Note "Mud-blood" ("dirty blood") as an insult. Surely, the "dirt"
involved (and, IIRC, the British refer to "mud" as "dirt," whereas,
for Americans, mud is wet and dirt is dry) in this insult relates to
impurity and uncleanness and, by extension, general foulness (and, by
extension, the stench that Draco and his mother seem to associate with
Muggle-borns.)

IMO, the British, whether Wizards, don't need "filthy" as a euphemism
for the adjective form of the f-word. They have "frigging" and
"effing" to serve that purpose already. "Filthy" is an insult in
itself. It may be helpful to look at the definitions for the noun
form, "filth," which go back to the twelfth century:

1: foul or putrid matter; especially: loathsome dirt or refuse 2a:
moral corruption or defilement b: something that tends to corrupt or
defile

(all definitions from Merriam-Webster Online)

Given these definitions, Snape's calling James Potter "your filthy
father" needs no association with the f-word (that unimaginative
all-purpose and now near-meaningless insult) to sting: "Your foul,
putrid, loathsome, corrupt, defiled father" is, I think, pretty much
what he intends by the words. (James, of course, was a Pure-blood, so
Snape is presumably referring to his moral nature as corrupt and his
personality as foul and loathsome--and given James's behavior when
Severus knew him, I can see why he would hold that view.)

Carol, waiting for our British friends to respond to this thread and
supply any needed corrections to our American perspective









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 14 21:00:47 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:00:47 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <fre2um+opdl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frep1v+s5j5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182075

Betsy Hp:
> Up until she gets married, Fleur is not considered a good girl.

Carol responds:
Really? Ginny doesn't like her, and neither she nor her mother wants
Bill to marry her, but "not a good girl"? Strange that the Weasleys
let her stay in their house, then. And, yes, she and Bill flirt rather
sickeningly at the dinner table, but no one comments on their behavior
as immoral. (In one of the funnier DH moments, Harry sees Poly-juiced
Fleur's expression and hopes that "such a soppy, slavish look would
never appear on his face again."

Before that, Fleur is a TWT champion, which must mean that she's a
highly skilled witch (despite being rather inept at handling
Grindylows and the bad--or perhaps good--luck of being Stunned by
Crouch!Moody in the Third Task. Certainly, the famous Viktor Krum
doesn't turn up his nose at her wedding invitation. Yes, she has Veela
blood, which causes the boys to be attracted to her and the girls to
be jealous of her, and, yes, she's French (with all the traditional
English-French rivalry that entails), and, yes, she's annoying until
she movingly and fiercely displays her loyalty to her brave but
mangled future husband, but "a bad girl"? I don't know where in canon
you find any such thing. (She's far from the only girl who engages in
public snogging, and she's never condemned for it, IIRC.)

Betsy_HP:
  The 
> Patil sisters, like Lavender, are considered flighty, 


Carol:
They are? Parvati occasionally behaves in a silly way with her friend
Lavender, but Ravenclaw Padma does nothing more than grudgingly accept
Ron as a date for the Yule Ball, leave him to dance with the
Baauxbatons boys on their invitation (as does Paravati before her),
and complain about it afterwards. she's also, like Parvati, a member
of the DA. But if she's as giggly as Parvati, we don't see it, and
even Parvati is bored by Lavender's behavior with "Won-Won." (I'll
grant you Lavender, impressed by Prefect!Ron's nicking a confiscated
Fanged Frisbee and giving Ron that absurd necklace and all the rest,
but even she seems to have been a competent DA member. I don't recall
any complaints about her abilities, at any rate.

Betsy:
Cho Chang is 
> painted as completely untrustworthy by Ginny in the final battle of
Hogwarts (Ginny's extreme worry about Cho being the one to take Harry
 to the Ravenclaw dorms).  

Carol:
Ginny isn't concerned with Cho's untrustworthiness. The film to the
contrary, *she* didn't betray the DA to Umbridge. (I won't get into
Marietta or Cho's reasons for supporting her here, but her loyalty to
her friend resembles HRH's to each other--and even they haver their
moments of, erm, disagreement.) She (Ginny) is concerned with Cho's
attractiveness and obvious continued attraction to Harry. she doesn't
want them alone together. Much better to have Luna, who is Harry's
friend but purely on a Platonic level, than Cho (who might tearfully
remember Cedric, and there would go all of Harry's resolve!). IMO, of
course, Ginny's feelings for Cho parallel Ron's for Viktor Krum, a
former rival who might still be attractive to Harry/Hermione.

Betsy:
Mme Maxime did dodge a bullet in not settling down with Hagrid, but
she's hardly a main player.

Carol:
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're saying here. She does find
comfort in Hagrid's arms at DD's funeral, but that's the last we see
of her. (I was worried that she'd show up for Fleur's wedding and
attract too much attention with that house-sized carriage of hers, but
I guess that JKR just wrote her out of the story, so to speak. And
those of us who don't consider JKR's interviews as canon are free to
speculate that Hagrid and Madame M. married and settled down together
after both retired. OTOH, he prefers the simple life with "interestin'
creatures" and she likes luxury and elegant food, so they're not the
ideal couple.) 
> 
Betsy:
> Now I'll freely admit I have a hard time figuring out how JKR wants
us to see her characters (besides her obvious wish that we like the 
big three).  And I've generally gotten it wrong in the past.  But I 
think we're supposed to see Ginny and Hermione as judging people
correctly for the most part.  

Carol:
If that's the case, Hermione's judgment of Cho is highly sympathetic
(and, I think right on the money). However, both of them are shown to
be wrong, along with Harry, about Fleur, who truly loves Bill. Mrs.
Weasley's offer of the tiara, not understood by HRH or Ron, is
immediately understood as a peace offering by Fleur, and both women
break down in tears and hug each other. that moment seemed to me to
show that everyone except Bill was wrong about Fleur. (Hermione is
wrong about Tonks, as well, thinking that she blames herself for
Sirius Black's death and completely failing to grasp that she's pining
for Lupin. Snape figures it out, though!)

As for Hermione and Ginny being generally right, they disagree rather
significantly over Harry's use of Sectumsempra, though admittedly,
they're not talking about people there. And Hermione is wrong about
Lockhart; I can't recall whether Ginny also likes him. (As for Snape,
Hermione is right about him--though perhaps wrong about the HBP--until
Snape "murders" Dumbledore, at which point she and almost everyone
present accepts Harry's version of events. (There's some doubt about
Hagrid, who certainly doubts the story when he first hears it, and
slughorn, who doesn't hear the whole story.)

Harry, the protagonist, is wrong about Snape throughout the books,
about Quirrell, about Draco (though Draco's motives in the RoR in DH
are not entirely clear), about Sirius Black, about Crouch!Moody, about
Neville and Luna and even Ginny, about Kreacher, even about Dumbledore
in some ways. Ron is generally wrong along with him. Hermione is
closer to right than the boys regarding Snape and Kreacher (and is, I
think right in her psychoanalysis of Depressed!Sirius and of the
tearful Cho Chang), but all of them are wrong on more than one occasion.

I don't think that any character (unless we're being factual
information from a book or discussing Snape's loyalties) is intended
as the voice of the author, any more than the (sometimes) unreliable
narrator is. Each reader can and should decide for him or herself
regarding the correctness of the various characters' judgments.

If we look to anyone as the voice of the author, perhaps it should be
Harry in the Epilogue--a Harry who has learned that Slytherins can
have courage and named his second son, the one with Lily's eyes, after
Dumbledore and the formerly hated Snape.

Carol, who thinks that we should look at the changes in Harry's view
of the other characters as the story progresses (even Hermione starts
out misunderstood; she's the first for whom his [and Ron's] blinders
are taken off)

So if either of those two girls judge 
> another girl as morally deficient (and they are two rather judgy 
> girls) I figure JKR wants us to agree. For example, I think we're 
> supposed to think Ginny quite the clever young thing for switching 
> Luna in as Harry's Ravenclaw guide.
>   
> > >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > Then of course there's Merope, who would clearly have been better   
> > off if she'd  gone for a roll in the hay instead of a family.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think we're supposed to see Merope's lust (or as JKR would call it, 
> love) as a bad thing that set this whole trainwreck in motion.  That 
> she tried to force it into the marriage sphere was, I think, JKR's 
> attempt to paint Merope as a tragic victim as well.  (She *tried* to 
> be a good girl.)
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > BTW,  if JKR sees not getting to marry Draco as a punishment,
> > it would seem her opinion of him isn't as low as some think <g>.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, Draco's a boy.  JKR prefers boys to girls as far as I can 
> tell. :)
> 
> > >>Carol:
> > <snip>
> > What about Ginny, who calls Ron a hypocrite for his double standard
> > (it's okay for him to snog Lavender publicly but not for Ginny to   
> > snog Dean)? Surely, we're supposed to side with Ginny in this      
> > respect?
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Whenever Ginny says anything, I think we're supposed to side for her; 
> but Ginny only snogged other boys to be worthy of her true love.  The 
> boy she picked out when she was 10 (if not earlier).  So 
> Ginny's "playing the field" was okay because it made her more ready 
> for the marriage bed.  Ditto with Hermione.
> 
> But neither Ginny nor Hermione seemed all that sexually interested in 
> the boys they dated before their husbands.  Ginny dumped both her 
> boys, and Viktor annoyed Hermione more than anything.  And we know 
> Hermione was interested in Ron when she dated Viktor, hence her 
> yelling at Ron to ask her first next time.
> 
> Combine that with the fact that girls can enter the boys dorms 
> whenever they like and you've got a series of books that seems to 
> deny the existance of female sexuality as a natural thing.  Which is 
> a throw-back view, IMO.
> 
> Betsy Hp (all my opinion! <g>)
>





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 14 21:48:27 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:48:27 -0000
Subject: "Filthy"-- Re: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fremec+f087@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frerrb+aqak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182076

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

> Carol:
> I'm not British, either, but I love words and find British/American
> differences, etymology, and similar subjects fascinating.

> IMO, the British, whether Wizards, don't need "filthy" as a euphemism
> for the adjective form of the f-word. They have "frigging" and
> "effing" to serve that purpose already. 

Geoff:
I cannot recall hearing a British person use "frigging" - I've seen it far
more in fan fiction coming from US writers than anywhere else....

"effing" - yesss... but you don't hear it over much; you're more likely to 
hear the real thing nowadays if you hear anything.

But, as I said previously, the young people I've been associated with 
in recent years tend not to go down that road. Perhaps, as with me 
when I was in my mid-teens, that sort of language was kept away 
from adults and just to prove our status with our peers but the 
novelty wore off eventually.




From jenlundq at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 14 17:32:31 2008
From: jenlundq at hotmail.com (pwrmom2)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:32:31 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frbnm9+7cor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frecrf+po50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182077

> lealess:
> I just sort-of saw an analogy with Draco's "winning" of
> the wand in the first place. Essentially, Dumbledore
> seemed to be giving himself up to be killed by Draco, no
> matter what Dumbledore thought of his powers of persuasion
> or Draco's nerve. When Draco lowered his wand, what
> happened to the allegiance then? Why wouldn't the wand
> switch its allegiance back to Dumbledore? It's hard for me
> to see Draco as the more powerful wizard, in any event...
> he just had the element of surprise.
>
> Confusing the matter for me is that the Harry/Voldemort
> meeting in the forest was predicated on what Harry should
> have known were false premises, that Voldemort would spare
> others in exchange for Harry.  It seems futile, to give your
> life for a lie and loyalty to Dumbledore. It seems the wand
> would have transferred its allegiance to Voldemort the moment
> Harry gave himself up to be killed. Did it then switch back?


Pwrmom2:
   I wonder if we are actually adding more to it than JKR
intended.  My personal opinion is the wand was flat out
following who was taking it away from whom as its rightful
owner.  Draco had taken the wand away from Dumbledore, using
Expelliarmus, so even though Dumbledore eventually "talked him
down" therefore winning that particular battle with Draco, the
fact was Draco had managed to take the wand away from DD before
he was killed by Snape.  Harry then managed to take Draco's
wand away from him...even though it wasn't the Elder wand, I
think the lore is that the one who manages to "win" a wand away
from the other wizard is the winner, so even though the Elder
wand was buried with DD, it was still following the path of
who's taking whose wand.  Voldemort took the wand from DD's
body, but we all agree that didn't matter since the wand had
been won by Draco.   As for Harry giving himself up to Voldemort,
his wand (Draco's) was never taken away from him, therefore the
Elder wand recognized its true owner, which is why it never
worked properly for Voldemort and turned on him in the end.

   Also, if I understand it correctly, Voldemort passed out
because when he killed Harry, he was killing his horcrux, so
it affected him, my guess is due to proximity, plus their blood
was actually mixed.  Voldemort had Harry's blood in him so they
were joined together not just by the whole horcrux spell but
the spell that brought Voldemort back.  In addition, maybe the
Elder wand was giving him an extra kick back since it was ticked
off that it would be used against its rightful master (that's
my own imaginitive opinion, I admit).





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Mar 14 23:10:56 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:10:56 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
References: <fredg3+6svq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004a01c88628$aa971120$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182078

> Kemper now:
> I would like to add Ron to the mix.  ....<snip>
> Also, iirc, he makes suggestive comments to girls about seeing Uranus.
> This innuendo suggests that Ron flies a freak flag... which isn't to
> say that buttsex is freaky, but it goes against puritan norms... in
> the US anyway.
> But Ron's innuendo is much more agreeable because of his character.


Um, at least in my part of the world, the joke about Uranus isn't a butt sex 
comment, but more of a grade school (elementary school- under 5th or 6th 
grade) comment, once these kids connect that Uranus, the planet, sounds like 
the body part that is used in pooping. This comment Ron makes to Lavender 
just shows him to be deftly immature, not that he's interesting in anal sex, 
or wanting to see her rear end at all. I think Rowling wasn't trying to put 
in a hidden sexual spin on that comment of Ron's, because that doesn't fit 
the level of innocence of the rest of the series.

Shelley 




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 03:25:50 2008
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:25:50 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <004a01c88628$aa971120$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <frffju+dlmb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182079

> > Kemper now:
> > I would like to add Ron to the mix. ....<snip>
> > Also, iirc, he makes suggestive comments to girls about seeing 
> > Uranus. This innuendo suggests that Ron flies a freak flag...  
> > which isn'tto say that buttsex is freaky, but it goes against 
> > puritan norms... in the US anyway.
> > But Ron's innuendo is much more agreeable because of his
> > character.

> Shelley:  
> Um,... the joke about Uranus isn't a butt sex comment, but more
> of a grade school (elementary school- under 5th or 6th grade)
> comment, once these kids connect that Uranus, the planet, sounds
> like the body part that is used in pooping. This comment Ron makes 
> to Lavender just shows him to be deftly immature, not that he's 
> interesting in anal sex, or wanting to see her rear end at all. I  
> think Rowling wasn't trying to put in a hidden sexual spin on that 
> comment of Ron's, because that doesn't fit the level of innocence
> of the rest of the series.

Kemper now:
Except Ron isn't in 5th of 6th grade... he's in the US equivalent of
9th grade.  And at 14 and a half years old, Ron knows that this
particular body part can be used for more than just pooping.  

I agree that the comment shows Ron's lack of tact, but I suspect that
he would in fact be interested in checking out her bare butt, if not
stemming Lavender's rose.  

Obviously, the series does not focus on the sexuality of the kids;
however, I think JKR does suggest that Ron has some pent up sexual
angst (not based on his comment with regards to a planet).

Kemper




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 05:46:33 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:46:33 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frd453+10rt@eGroups.com>
References: <fqfkhl+oeeh@eGroups.com> <frd453+10rt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803142246g1437ba50q1fa21f1791c5feae@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182080

 Montavilla47:
>
snip
>
Any objection I have to Molly's moment of triumph over
> Bellatrix is not that she suddeny acquires mad dueling skillz, but
> that she unwittingly (she is, after all, ignorant of Muggle culture),
> starts quoting Ripley in Aliens. It's just jarring is all.
>
Thanks! I thought I was the only person who did NOT like the line.
Susan

Lynda replies: That makes sense. At least at first. But then, a niggling
part of my brain remembers that certainly that phrase or one very similar
has been used--in point of fact, I remember my own mother, who refuses to
watch Aliens, knows nothing of the movie and is not a woman prone to even
the slightest form of swearing (seriously I never heard even darn or dang
from her growing up) taking on a family member who chose to verbally attack
a child using those very words. When I asked her about the incident, she
simply said I'm tired of it and she had it coming.

Lynda


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




From reggosse at gmail.com  Sat Mar 15 04:23:38 2008
From: reggosse at gmail.com (John Apple)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:23:38 -0000
Subject: Wow
Message-ID: <frfj0a+34en@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182081

 Why would anybody care if JR is Christian or not.  What a
pile of shit, I read the books because I like them.  Simple.

John




From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 15 08:53:25 2008
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:53:25 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803142246g1437ba50q1fa21f1791c5feae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <frg2q5+mfol@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182082

Montavilla47 wrote:
  Any objection I have to Molly's moment of triumph over
Bellatrix is not that she suddeny acquires mad dueling skillz, but
 that she unwittingly (she is, after all, ignorant of Muggle 
culture), starts quoting Ripley in Aliens. It's just jarring is all.
> >
> Thanks! I thought I was the only person who did NOT like the line.
> Susan
> 
> Lynda replied: That makes sense. At least at first. But then, a 
niggling part of my brain remembers that certainly that phrase or 
one very similar has been used--in point of fact, I remember my own 
mother, who refuses to watch Aliens, knows nothing of the movie and 
is not a woman prone to even the slightest form of swearing 
(seriously I never heard even darn or dang from her growing up) 
taking on a family member who chose to verbally attack a child using 
those very words. When I asked her about the incident, she simply 
said I'm tired of it and she had it coming.
> 
> Lynda

Doddie here:

  Upon my re-reads, I remembered the Alien movie as well...and then 
became frustrated that JKR didn't put better cursewords/phrases to 
use...LOL

Granted, I'm a former sailor....but if someone had threatened the 
life of any one of my children...B*tch would be the last thing I'd 
call/Say to them. (more likely along the lines that I'd kick her in 
her Berk and wear it as a slipper)

As for the working mother aspect of things...there is probably no 
mother in the WW that has more work to do than Molly...Laundry for 
nine, AND all the kids seem to appreciate her cooking to boot...(not 
to mention Harry loves her cooking, and we never see/hear Hermione 
or even Fleur complain...)  Also, we must not forget all of her 
knitting, not to mention homeshchooling...at the very least she may 
be the most powerful witch in the series...she doesn't only keep the 
twins in check, but earns their respect too...a massive feat..(they 
do break McConogals rules regularly, and they do think that DD is 
something of a "Brilliant Nutter"...

Doddie,
(who thinks no wonder why Ron got that howler...she was dead 
frightened that Ron was following the path of the twins! Cheers to 
Molly...truly the James Brown of the WW! LOL)





From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 15 09:03:12 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:03:12 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frfj0a+34en@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frg3cg+id6c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182083

> John:

> Why would anybody care if JR is Christian or not.

Goddelfrood:

And why would anyone ever have cared who shot him? ;-)




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Mar 15 12:35:36 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:35:36 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frfj0a+34en@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frgfqo+acs9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182084

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "John Apple" <reggosse at ...> wrote:
>
>  Why would anybody care if JR is Christian or not.  What a
> pile of shit, I read the books because I like them.  Simple.
> 
> John

Geoff:
Well, after noting Goddlefrood's superb comment about shooting 
and returning to your post, I do care that "herself" is a Christian 
and I think there are a large number of group members who would 
agree with me.

JKR is in the same group of writers as Tolkien and Lewis in that her 
faith has influenced the way in which she has developed the story 
and its outcomes and I, as a Christian, appreciate that. Without that 
input, Harry could have had a very different story to tell. I, too, read 
the books because I like them. Simple.

I appreciate that you are fully within your rights to express your 
own view - as am I - but, in passing,  I feel that you may be guilty 
of breaching the group rules of etiquette (Section 2.1) in your choice 
of language to express yourself.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 15 17:04:39 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:04:39 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frek4m+ggu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frgvj7+rf01@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182085


> Magpie:
> Of course I got that the staircase is supposed to be funny because 
> it's the type of thing a school would do. But it's not just modern 
> kids faced with something built for a time when there were different 
> expectations for nice girls. It's sitting there conflicting with an 
> often equally exaggerated portrayal female sexuality--which also 
> contains plenty of ideas that are pretty old. In another book it 
> would *just* be a funny joke on the idea that when the stairs were 
> built girls were assumed to not have those kinds of thoughts so boys 
> would only chase them. But it comes across a little differently when 
> the book itself portrays the sexes as being very unequal on these 
> terms, only it's the poor boys who are sought after by the girls. It 
> doesn't seem like social change either. I would more guess that the 
> boy-crazy has always been a female problem. Though Slytherins mix it 
> up a bit--I'd forgotten the Bloody Baron. There's an example of a 
> girl-chaser.

Pippin:
It's the old expectations for nice girls, which modern kids still
encounter in favorites like the Narnia books, which JKR is countering.
 Grownup Queen Susan of Narnia was allowed her suitors as long as she
wore long skirts and was safely subject to male authority, but back in
the real world when Susan Pevensey was more  interested in nylons,
lipstick and invitations than in her lost life as a Queen (which she
had been told was over forever),  she was not only dubbed no longer a
friend of Narnia, she was punished with the loss of her entire family. 

So Ginny and Hermione get to giggle over the idea of love potions (but
not use them) and it's okay for Ginny to wear a low cut gown, for
Hermione to use hair products and for Fleur to be "extremely busy"
with nice boy Roger Davies. They aren't punished as Susan was for
showing an interest in sex, nor is it implied that sexual innocence is
a higher state than sexual knowledge. Fleur's beauty as she goes to be
wed gains the power to make her surroundings as beautiful as she is.

But JKR is not making the wizarding world a utopia, so along with 
acceptance of female sexual interest as natural, there's a satiric
inversion -- "boys will be boys" has become "girls will be girls."
Love potions are introduced as a giggly sort of joke, but we find out
eventually that if the WW thinks that its girls are too innocent or
too harmless to abuse anyone, it's mistaken. 

> Magpie:
> The books just tend to mirror the Muggle world on that, even when 
> the WW should probably have its own history. They have social change 
> because they're a riff on us and our history. 

Pippin:
Yes, but not everyone sees the real world as making social progress.
There is a conservative point of view, you know, which assumes that
people were more moral and more civilized in the past. 


Pippin




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 15 17:43:50 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:43:50 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frgvj7+rf01@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frh1sm+6geo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182086

> >>Magpie:
> > Of course I got that the staircase is supposed to be funny       
> > because it's the type of thing a school would do. But it's not    
> > just modern kids faced with something built for a time when there 
> > were different expectations for nice girls. It's sitting there   
> > conflicting with an often equally exaggerated portrayal female   
> > sexuality--which also contains plenty of ideas that are pretty   
> > old. 
> > <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> It's the old expectations for nice girls, which modern kids still
> encounter in favorites like the Narnia books, which JKR is         
> countering.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But she's not, in the end.  Female sexuality is still a "bad thing".  
Hermione and Ginny (our "good girls") are interested in sex as a 
means to get children.  And only with their husbands.  

As Magpie points out, the series is full of girls with a strong sex 
drive but it's not painted as a positive.  It's something boys (with 
their oddly diminished sex drives) have to run and hide from.  And 
it's something that adversely affects the girls unless they sublimate 
it into being a good little (breeding) wife.

It's like that old question that used to be asked back when I was in 
junior high (made famous by "The Breakfast Club"), "Are you a slut or 
a prude?"  There was no middle ground for an unmarried girl.  I don't 
see this as a step forward, myself.  Nor do I find it particularly 
modern.

> >>Pippin:
> So Ginny and Hermione get to giggle over the idea of love potions   
> (but not use them) and it's okay for Ginny to wear a low cut gown,  
> for Hermione to use hair products and for Fleur to be "extremely   
> busy" with nice boy Roger Davies. They aren't punished as Susan was 
> for showing an interest in sex, nor is it implied that sexual      
> innocence is a higher state than sexual knowledge.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I strongly disagree. Fluer was not looked at in a positive manner 
within GoF.  It's only when she lands Bill, sticks by Bill and then 
fades into being his happy little housewife, that Fluer is seen as 
somewhat positive.  Her Veela nature is brought under control.  But 
before then she was a dangerous sexual female making a fool out of 
Ron and belittling Harry.  (Fortunately, we also see that she was 
really, really weak.  The weakest of the champions, so nothing to be 
too scared of.)

Ginny and Hermione, as good girls, are not sexually interested in any 
boy other than the ones they plan to marry.  As you say, they'd never 
dream of actually *using* the potions.  That's something a slut would 
do, not a good girl on a hunt for a husband.  (Unless the future 
husband needed an extra push, I guess.)

Betsy Hp




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 15 18:27:25 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:27:25 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frgvj7+rf01@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frh4ed+ggvn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182087

> Pippin:
> It's the old expectations for nice girls, which modern kids still
> encounter in favorites like the Narnia books, which JKR is 
countering.
>  Grownup Queen Susan of Narnia was allowed her suitors as long as 
she
> wore long skirts and was safely subject to male authority, but back 
in
> the real world when Susan Pevensey was more  interested in nylons,
> lipstick and invitations than in her lost life as a Queen (which she
> had been told was over forever),  she was not only dubbed no longer 
a
> friend of Narnia, she was punished with the loss of her entire 
family. 
> 
> So Ginny and Hermione get to giggle over the idea of love potions 
(but
> not use them) and it's okay for Ginny to wear a low cut gown, for
> Hermione to use hair products and for Fleur to be "extremely busy"
> with nice boy Roger Davies. They aren't punished as Susan was for
> showing an interest in sex, nor is it implied that sexual innocence 
is
> a higher state than sexual knowledge. Fleur's beauty as she goes to 
be
> wed gains the power to make her surroundings as beautiful as she is.
> 
> But JKR is not making the wizarding world a utopia, so along with 
> acceptance of female sexual interest as natural, there's a satiric
> inversion -- "boys will be boys" has become "girls will be girls."
> Love potions are introduced as a giggly sort of joke, but we find 
out
> eventually that if the WW thinks that its girls are too innocent or
> too harmless to abuse anyone, it's mistaken. 

Magpie:
Yeah, I get the joke. Though I don't think it's saying as much as 
you're claiming it is here. Hermione noting that people used to have 
the old-fashioned pov that boys would be likely to try to get into 
the girl's dormitories without thinking the same thing about girls in 
the boy dormitories doesn't say all that much about JKR's view of 
Susan not going to Narnia to me. Neither Ron or Harry has any desire 
to go into the girl's dormitory--but I'm not sure that would be true 
of modern boys in general living in the world today. Many of them 
actually would want to get into the girl's dormitory and assleep with 
the girls inside.

Besides which, the whole view of female sexuality, even the type 
suggested by CS Lewis imo, was always contradictory. The whore's 
always lived alongside the madonna, right? 

However, I don't see a satiric inversion. I think JKR is just 
exaggerating some of her own thoughts about us women ("You know what 
I'm talking about") and occasionally coming up with stuff CS Lewis 
himself agreed with as well as stuff with which he'd have disagreed. 

I don't agree with Betsy's interpretation--I think it's far too rigid 
and thought out. Though that goes for the other side too--I don't 
think she's making any thought out statement either way. I don't 
think she's laying down rules, I think she's doing what she would 
consider telling it like it is, plain-speaking etc. based on her 
experience of women and the world. I think it's more like the way 
most of us react to the world, instinctively seeing things we think 
are true and having emotional reactions to what's good or bad or 
funny or just the way people are. Sometimes those reactions are 
hypocritical or contradictory, and they often fall into patterns that 
maybe say more about her particular pov.

Otherwise we're talking about a world she's inverted artificially, 
which would mean she's not giving us girl sexuality as she sees it 
but rather intentionally mirroring a false view. I don't think that's 
what she's doing at all. To me the tone sounds far more like the tone 
of her interviews, a sort of *nudge nudge* you know what I'm talking 
about because this is the way the world works. There's no strict 
Puritanical judgment on sex, but there are judgments. With all these 
characters and storylines, patterns appear. 
 
> > Magpie:
> > The books just tend to mirror the Muggle world on that, even when 
> > the WW should probably have its own history. They have social 
change 
> > because they're a riff on us and our history. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Yes, but not everyone sees the real world as making social progress.
> There is a conservative point of view, you know, which assumes that
> people were more moral and more civilized in the past. 

Magpie:
Well, the series has got that too. Rosy nostalgia seems to be a big 
appeal of it. There are a lot of things in it that to me seem to be a 
throwback to bad things and attitudes of the past but they're 
presented as kind of nice--perhaps even daringly progressive and 
tolerant. 

-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 15 19:54:21 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:54:21 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frh1sm+6geo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frh9hd+ld09@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182088

> Betsy Hp:
> But she's not, in the end.  Female sexuality is still a "bad thing".  
> Hermione and Ginny (our "good girls") are interested in sex as a 
> means to get children.  And only with their husbands.  

Pippin:
I fail to see any canon that Ginny and Hermione had any interest in 
having children until they were well into their twenties.  We know they
had a variety of snogging partners,   none of whom professed any 
disenchantment with their skills, so presumably they showed
a reasonable amount of enthusiasm despite not being with their future
mates. 

Whether they had sex with anyone besides their husbands -- well, the 
only way we know in canon in that anyone has had sex is that they've
had children. 

 JKR leaves the details to our imagination. If you want to call that
prudery, go right ahead -- but I think teens appreciate having 
books that don't make them feel that if they're not ready for sex 
they're abnormal. 

But if you're saying that there's something *wrong* with finding sexual 
fulfillment in marriage -- we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Betsy Hp:
> It's like that old question that used to be asked back when I was in 
> junior high (made famous by "The Breakfast Club"), "Are you a slut or 
> a prude?"  There was no middle ground for an unmarried girl.  I don't 
> see this as a step forward, myself.  Nor do I find it particularly 
> modern.

Pippin:
Where is the canon that anyone thinks Fleur is violating sexual  norms?

Even people who can't stand her  don't accuse her of anything except being
stuck up. Hermione and Ginny are accused, falsely, of violating sexual norms in
the wizarding world -- by using love potions at Hogwarts (a violation of
school rules, not a crime) or by having more than one boyfriend at a time.
There's no middle ground about those things, I guess -- is that what
you're trying to say? 


The staircase points out to us that sexual mores do change, 
presumably because they've been challenged. I would think that in the
context of these books, in which sexuality and romantic love are not
the main focus, that's enough.

 When I was in jr high, (a good twenty years before you, if you were there in
1985)  nobody was criticizing  CS Lewis's treatment of poor Susan.
 I accepted that she could be villified  for letting her imagination be overrun 
by boys when she should have been thinking about her soul. And as far
as I knew, so did everyone else.  If HP enforced the same standard, then
Bill would have rejected Fleur when somebody told him about Roger, and
Ginny couldn't have given Dean or Michael the time of day, much less
spent any time with Harry in secluded corners of the grounds.  You
don't appreciate what you've got, girl <g>

 Fleur's soul is not diminished, and I strongly disagree that she's presented 
as a bad girl in GoF. At the end of that book Harry feels his spirit lifting as 
the wind ripples her hair. He's gotten over himself enough to admire her 
beauty without feeling threatened by it. 

Pippin




From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 15 17:16:39 2008
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:16:39 -0000
Subject: OOTP (Book 5) , Harry's dreams down ministry corridor
Message-ID: <frh09n+sjto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182089

Hi all!
Bet everyone has written about this tons of times, but I haven't read 
everything yet, and this is bothering me.
When Harry had dreams of the MOM corridor with the black door of the 
Dept of Mysteries, who was he 'following' mentally? LV?? But LV wasn't 
in the MOM. I understand he was in the snake when Mr. Weasley was 
attacked, but in the other dreams it seemed that LV knew what was 
behind the door of the round room with blue candles. Harry saw the door 
open and was almost in that room. How did LV get there? Had he been all 
the way into the prophecy room?
Anyone have answers?? Thanks!
Susan




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 15 21:42:49 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:42:49 -0000
Subject: OOTP (Book 5) , Harry's dreams down ministry corridor
In-Reply-To: <frh09n+sjto@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frhfsp+hlil@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182090

---  "susanfullin" <susanfullin at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> Bet everyone has written about this tons of times, but I 
> haven't read everything yet, and this is bothering me.
> When Harry had dreams of the MOM corridor with the black 
> door of the Dept of Mysteries, who was he 'following' 
> mentally? LV?? But LV wasn't in the MOM. I understand he was
> in the snake when Mr. Weasley was attacked, but in the other
> dreams it seemed that LV knew what was behind the door of the
> round room with blue candles. Harry saw the door open and was
> almost in that room. How did LV get there? Had he been all 
> the way into the prophecy room?
>
> Anyone have answers?? Thanks!
>
> Susan
>

bboyminn:

Keep in mind several things are going on here. When Voldemort
is mentally obsessing about the Dept of Mysteries, he likely
in his lifetime has seen that corridor, but has no idea what is
beyond the black door or how to open it. At this stage Harry's
dreams are very vague, and as I said, simply represent
Voldemort obsessing on the idea.

Later as Voldemort gains more information, the dream become
more vivid to Harry, as Voldemort is obsessing in greater
detail.

But there comes a point, where Voldemort is injecting images
into Harry's mind, and this is also near the time when
Voldemort gets more details about what is literally inside
the Department of Mysteries from ???what's his name??? - the
guy who used to work there. 

Also, keep in mind that if Voldemort wants detailed images 
of some place he's never been, he only has to look inside
???what's his name's??? mind to see them. 

So, Voldemort is never physically there, but his mind is
there in the sense that he is obsessed with the idea of 
going there, and later with the idea of getting Harry to 
go there. 

That explains how the dream become more vivid, detailed,
and accurate over time.

Steve/bboyminn





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 15 21:53:16 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:53:16 -0000
Subject: GoF chapter 24-26 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frekp7+tghg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frhggc+7q5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182091

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> zanooda:
> > > 
> >> According to Percy, Barty Crouch spoke over two hundred
> >> languages,including Mermish, Gobbledegook and Troll 
> >> (p. 89). I don't know how anyone can learn so many 
> >> languages, some of then very exotic, if languages are not
> >> his/her profession. Maybe there is some magic involved :-)?
> 
> Jayne responded:
> > But is Percy's say so reliable at that ime as he was 
> > obsessed with Barty Crouch and the Ministry. He could well 
> > have been exagerating...
> 

> Carol responds:
> That being the case, you might consider what Ludo Bagman has
> to say on the subject.
> 
> Ludo is looking for Mr. Crouch to help him understand what 
> his Bulgarian "opposite number" ... is saying. According to
>  Ludo, Mr. Crouch speaks "about a hundred and fifty languages."
> 
> At that point, Percy steps in, correcting the figure to "over
> two hundred," and specifying "Mermish and Gobbledegook and 
> Troll." ...
> 
> It seems clear that Mr. Crouch is extremely intelligent, a 
> gifted and powerful wizard who would probably have become 
> the Minister for Magic had not his son ... 
>
> While the numbers (150 or more than 200) may be exaggerated 
> (rather like the narrator's assertions that Hagrid's hands are
> as large as trash bin lids ...

bboyminn:

Keep in mind that 'speaks 'x' number of languages can mean
many things. Most Europeans of any intelligence can travel
anywhere in the main European countries and get by. They
speak sufficiently basic Spanish, French, Italian, and 
German (plus English) to find a hotel, get a meal, ask for 
directions and such, but that is far far from being able to 
speak the language at university level.

There is speaks Italian enough to 'get by' and there is
speaks Italian well enough to engage in complex dialog at 
deep conversational levels or act as an official translator 
in the language.

Anyone who can 'get by' probably considers themselves to 
'speak the language'. 

All that said, even to 'get by' in 200 languages indicates
a real talent for language.

Steve/bboyminn  




From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Mar 15 22:23:25 2008
From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (lesley)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:23:25 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frgfqo+acs9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frhi8t+fn9k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182092

> >  Why would anybody care if JR is Christian or not.  What a
> > pile of shit, I read the books because I like them.  Simple.
> > 
> > John
> 
> Geoff:
> , I do care that "herself" is a Christian 
> and I think there are a large number of group members who would 
> agree with me.
> 
Lesley,
I think if I had read a lot of these post's before reading the book's I 
would never have picked them up after the amount of religious comment's 
and references that have been made about them.
I didn't see any religious messages in any of the book's and am amazed 
at the amount of comment's that say there were.
I also read the book's because I liked them and have no interest in 
what JKR's religion is.




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 01:08:54 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:08:54 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frg2q5+mfol@eGroups.com>
References: <2795713f0803142246g1437ba50q1fa21f1791c5feae@mail.gmail.com>
	 <frg2q5+mfol@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803151808g23fee340uffbe9aebaf88b786@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182093

>  .
>  Doddie here:
> Upon my re-reads, I remembered the Alien movie as well...and then
> became frustrated that JKR didn't put better cursewords/phrases to
> use...LOL
> Granted, I'm a former sailor....but if someone had threatened the
> life of any one of my children...B*tch would be the last thing I'd
> call/Say to them. (more likely along the lines that I'd kick her in
> her Berk and wear it as a slipper)
>

Lynda:

LOL!! I've always wondered if the real reason for my mom's outburst was that
I was about ready to blow my top.
I'm not much for swearing myself, but I did spend my military career in the
MP Corp, which means that I belonged to possibly the group of soldiers who
could out-swear the sailors we worked with occasionally. Perhaps that
mildness of Molly Weasley's cursing had more to do with the age of the
people they are supposedly aimed at.  Although I've heard worse than that
out of the mouths of kids as well.

Lynda


>
> 
>



-- 
2


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




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sun Mar 16 01:21:10 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:21:10 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803151808g23fee340uffbe9aebaf88b786@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2795713f0803142246g1437ba50q1fa21f1791c5feae@mail.gmail.com>
	 <frg2q5+mfol@eGroups.com>
	 <2795713f0803151808g23fee340uffbe9aebaf88b786@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803151821j584f90dl47c1e2bb3bf32836@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182094

>
>    :Pippin:
> > Where is the canon that anyone thinks Fleur is violating sexual norms?
> >
>
       Lynda:

       I'd like to know this too.  I certainly don't see anything. The
people who don't like her don't out of her percieved snobbishness, and the
girls have a problem with her because she's part veela, but there is no
indication that she's, umm, flaunting herself. She does the same thing that
many of the other girls her age are doing. And as I've mentioned before,
where Rowling (or any other writer for that matter) stays silent concerning
sexual activity is concerned, I can use my imagination if I so wish. Not
that I always do, but I can if I wish to . . .

Lynda


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 02:02:25 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:02:25 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frhi8t+fn9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frhv3h+aoob@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182095

Lesley,
> I think if I had read a lot of these post's before reading the
book's I would never have picked them up after the amount of religious
comment's and references that have been made about them.
> I didn't see any religious messages in any of the book's and am
amazed at the amount of comment's that say there were.
> I also read the book's because I liked them and have no interest in 
> what JKR's religion is.
>
Carol responds:
A Christian interpretation, whether it explores Harry as an Everyman
or a Christ figure or examines JKR's view of death is only one
possible interpretation, perfectly legitimate given that JKR is a
Christian. But those who aren't interested can explore the use of
mythology or variations on the hero's journey or narrative technique
or simply examine the characters and their development and/or motives.

If I were reading a book by a Buddhist or Hindu author, I most likely
would miss many of the symbols or motifs or themes, not to mention
many of the author's assumptions, simply because I'm not particularly
familiar with those religions. But I wouldn't dismiss the book on that
account.

There are many ways to explore a book, and, IMO, it's a mistake to let
differences in religion or philosophy or politics or culture prevent
us from seeing more universal elements.

If we refuse to read a book by a Christian author, we'll be depriving
ourselves of a large segment of Western literature. Best avoid
everyone from Chaucer to Dickens, not to mention Tolkien, and a great
many other authors as well.

Carol, politely suggesting that you try another thread or examine old
posts to see the variety of topics that have been discussed on this
list, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with religion




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 16 02:11:36 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:11:36 -0000
Subject: Dragons/Sentience/Rosie Weasley Romance/heartstring/SocialChange/DoM
Message-ID: <frhvko+9t9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182096

Zara wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/181998>:

<< The Siberian tiger RL analogy brings up another function Charlie
and Co. may have - they may act analogously to National Park rangers
who prevent poachers from irresponsibly killing off the endangered
animals for a quick Galleon to be made off selling the parts to shady
dealers. >>

It's much harder to poach dragons than to poach tigers. One man with
one rifle can kill a tiger. It takes thirty wizards and witches with
their wands to even Stun a dragon, and I think they needed special
training. Having to team up so many wizards and witches to poach
dragons, and having to conceal and transport an object as large as a
dragon carcass, might make it unprofitable.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182007>:

<< Or how you're defining "sentient." Clearly, they're aware of sense
impressions, which is how I define the term.  >>

I agree with you what 'sentient' should mean, but science fiction
always uses 'sentient' to mean 'having sufficient mental capacity to
deserve "human" rights'. When I was a *much* younger Kitten, I tried
to introduce the word 'sapient' for that meaning, but all my friends
sneered that 'sapient' is not a word.

<< But say that dragons had the intelligence of Buckbeak and at least
some capacity for loyalty. It would seem wrong to kill them for their
magical properties then, wouldn't it? >>

Dogs have a large capacity for loyalty, and breeds like Border Collies
are extremely intelligent, but many many civilizations eat dogs
anyway. And some civilizations eat monkeys and apes, which are more
intelligent than Buckbeak.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182020>:

<< hoping that Rose Weasley does marry Scorpius Malfoy, helping to
heal the Gryffindor/Slytherin feud >>

Personally, I'd like to see Rosie Weasley and Alsev Potter as romantic
rivals over Scorpius Malfoy.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182024>:

<< (whatever a heartstring is)  >>

The American Heritage Dictionary at
<http://www.bartleby.com/61/11/H0111100.html> says:
<< 1. heartstrings The deepest feelings or affections: a tug at the
heartstrings. 2. One of the nerves or tendons formerly believed to
brace and sustain the heart. >>

Thanks to OneLook Dictionary Search <http://www.onelook.com> I noticed
that AHD's definition 2 is strikingly similar to the 1913 Webster's
<http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=heartstring> only
definition: << A nerve or tendon, supposed to brace and sustain the
heart. Shak. >>

I don't recall any strings on the heart of the fetal pig I dissected
in Biology 201, but agree that tendons and major nerves are
string-like. I learned some other interesting anatomical words from a
radio quiz show: the 'cockles' of one's heart are the heart valves,
and the 'apple' of one's eye is the pupil.

Magpie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182072>:

<< The books just tend to mirror the Muggle world on that, even when
the WW should probably have its own history. They have social change
because they're a riff on us and our history. >>

The wizarding world remains culturally connected to the Muggle world
because a very large fraction of wizarding folk are Muggle-born and
they bring the latest dialect changes, social norms, and gadgets with
them when they enter the wizarding world. 

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182090>:

<< Voldemort gets more details about what is literally inside
the Department of Mysteries from ???what's his name??? - the
guy who used to work there. >>

Rookwood. Augustus, Arnold, or Algernon. I propose that the family's
arms are a tower with a black bird standing on it, between two trees
(or on a field seme de trees).




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 02:28:40 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:28:40 -0000
Subject: Dragons/Sentience/Rosie Weasley Romance/heartstring/SocialChange/DoM
In-Reply-To: <frhvko+9t9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fri0ko+tfmc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182097

> Catlady: 
> It's much harder to poach dragons than to poach tigers. One man with
> one rifle can kill a tiger. It takes thirty wizards and witches with
> their wands to even Stun a dragon, and I think they needed special
> training. Having to team up so many wizards and witches to poach
> dragons, and having to conceal and transport an object as large as a
> dragon carcass, might make it unprofitable.

zgirnius:
It was my guess that the twin answers to the problems you propose 
are "Avada Kedavra" and "Wingardium Leviosa". The handlers in GoF 
were not trying to kill the dragon, but control it without causing it 
harm. The entire carcass also would not need to be lugged around; one 
could harvest the most valuable body parts.

All specualtion, of course!

> Catlady: 
> Personally, I'd like to see Rosie Weasley and Alsev Potter as 
romantic
> rivals over Scorpius Malfoy.

zgirnius:
Fine by me, so long as Rosie wins, and Alsev finds happiness with 
someone else. Ron needs to give Rosie away to someone who looks just 
like Draco. It would be good for him. <eg>






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 16 02:50:42 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:50:42 -0000
Subject: RE; SocialChange
In-Reply-To: <frhvko+9t9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fri1u2+qe68@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182098


> Magpie wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182072>:
> 
> << The books just tend to mirror the Muggle world on that, even when
> the WW should probably have its own history. They have social change
> because they're a riff on us and our history. >>
> 
> The wizarding world remains culturally connected to the Muggle world
> because a very large fraction of wizarding folk are Muggle-born and
> they bring the latest dialect changes, social norms, and gadgets 
with
> them when they enter the wizarding world. 

Magpie:
Not that we really see. The Slug Club in Voldemort's Day is made up 
of Purebloods but for some reason it's all male, just the way it 
would have been at Oxford back in the day, when we've gotten hints 
that the WW didn't follow the Muggle one when it came to sexism. 
After 7 years at school we never see anything in the way of Muggle 
mores influencing anything. It still reads to me as more of a meta 
thing than a world-building thing. (I got the same impression on the 
WOMBAT test when it came to riots and things that seemed to mirror, 
for instance, the 1960s, but didn't even involve Wizards.)

-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Mar 16 14:46:43 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:46:43 -0000
Subject: RE; SocialChange
In-Reply-To: <fri1u2+qe68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frjbsj+kdmk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182099

> 
> Magpie:
> Not that we really see. The Slug Club in Voldemort's Day is made up 
> of Purebloods but for some reason it's all male, just the way it 
> would have been at Oxford back in the day, when we've gotten hints 
> that the WW didn't follow the Muggle one when it came to sexism. 

Pippin:
But that's likely to be Voldemort's influence, isn't it? Most of the
DE's are male too.  

Magpie:
> After 7 years at school we never see anything in the way of Muggle >
mores influencing anything. 

Pippin:
Voldemort's attempt to establish fascism in the WW is definitely a
Muggle influence, as is SPEW.

Ron in GoF asks if SPEW will be called the House-elf liberation front,
(Elf Liberation Front would certainly have catchier initials), which
makes us very conscious that liberation ideologies are an idea coming
from the Muggle world, and Ron knows it. Ron has  a father who's very
interested in the Muggle world, the twins learn Muggle magic tricks
and Muggle housebreaking techniques, and Kinglsey Shacklebolt knows
enough to pass himself off as a high-ranking civil servant without
memory charming people every five minutes. (Though I'd love to think
that's the explanation for the disappointing  behavior of our beloved
leaders.)

But I agree that JKR's approach to world-building owes more to  comedy
 than history -- after all she's not an Oxford don like Tolkien, and
she's not trying to construct  an alternate mythology for England
either. As I've said before, it's more a toy universe than a working
model.

Pippin





From bgrugin at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 15:19:36 2008
From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:19:36 -0000
Subject: Dragons/Sentience/Rosie Weasley Romance/heartstring/SocialChange/DoM
In-Reply-To: <frhvko+9t9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frjdq8+trms@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182100

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:
>


> Carol wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182020>:
> 
> << hoping that Rose Weasley does marry Scorpius Malfoy, helping to
> heal the Gryffindor/Slytherin feud >>
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see Rosie Weasley and Alsev Potter as romantic
> rivals over Scorpius Malfoy.
> 


MusicalBetsy here:
Uh, Rose and Alsev are first cousins...that would be kind of gross.  I
don't think that would happen!




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Sun Mar 16 15:37:38 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:37:38 -0800
Subject: Minor Questions
Message-ID: <6C5807FD-1C0D-4F57-A241-89E10DD0C5BA@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 182101

Why did Hagrid consider it so impossible that Lily and James would  
have died in a car crash?  Wizards did ride in cars, e.g., various  
rides to King's Cross.  Cars did crash (e.g., into Whomping  
Willows).  Wizards did get hurt in car crashes, e.g., Harry in the  
Whomping Willow crash.  I realize that Hagrid's astonishment might  
simply be that he was insulted that the Dursley's told Harry  
something that was not only not true, but which was common, rather  
than special and important.

What happened to the little girl at the end of the battle for  
Hogwarts who wanted to go back home?

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



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




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sun Mar 16 16:30:12 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:30:12 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Minor Questions
References: <6C5807FD-1C0D-4F57-A241-89E10DD0C5BA@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <01e401c88783$02cf1350$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182102

> Laura
> Why did Hagrid consider it so impossible that Lily and James would
> have died in a car crash?  Wizards did ride in cars, e.g., various
> rides to King's Cross.  Cars did crash (e.g., into Whomping
> Willows).  Wizards did get hurt in car crashes, e.g., Harry in the
> Whomping Willow crash.  I realize that Hagrid's astonishment might
> simply be that he was insulted that the Dursley's told Harry
> something that was not only not true, but which was common, rather
> than special and important.

Shelley:
It has nothing to do with a car crash at all! Why would Hagrid get so upset? 
Why, because Harry was told a lie, plain and simple. It mattered not what 
manner of MUGGLE death the Dursleys' had concocted for that lie- gunshot, or 
stab wounds-it still would have been a lie. The WIZARDS Lily an James died a 
WIZARDING death, and that's the part that Hagrid is so upset over. That 
Harry was denied the chance of knowing who he was (a wizard), and who his 
parents were (wizards), and the truth about how they really died (a 
wizarding curse). 




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 16 16:56:59 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 16 Mar 2008 16:56:59 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/16/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1205686619.10.83842.m53@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182103

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 16, 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/20080316/e55a6fb4/attachment.html>

From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 11:14:04 2008
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:14:04 -0000
Subject: OOTP (Book 5) , Harry's dreams down ministry corridor
In-Reply-To: <frhfsp+hlil@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frivds+5d6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182104

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "susanfullin" <susanfullin@> wrote:
> >snip
> > When Harry had dreams of the MOM corridor with the black 
> > door of the Dept of Mysteries, who was he 'following' 
> > mentally? LV?? But LV wasn't in the MOM. 
> >snip<
> > Susan
> >
> 
> bboyminn:
> snip<
> 
> Also, keep in mind that if Voldemort wants detailed images 
> of some place he's never been, he only has to look inside
> ???what's his name's??? mind to see them. 
> 
> So, Voldemort is never physically there, but his mind is
> there in the sense that he is obsessed with the idea of 
> going there, and later with the idea of getting Harry to 
> go there. 
> 
> That explains how the dream become more vivid, detailed,
> and accurate over time.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>
Bravo bboyminn! Right you are!! (hope i did the snip thing right)
As I re-read one of the dreams (maybe the last one, page 635 am vers)
when Harry 'entered' the prophecy room,

"There was something in this room he wanted very,very much....
Something he wanted.... or somebody else wanted....
His scar was hurting...."

Your explanation fits perfectly! Thanks Steve.
SusanF




From l.anne120 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 18:11:46 2008
From: l.anne120 at yahoo.com (l.anne120)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:11:46 -0000
Subject: Minor Questions
In-Reply-To: <01e401c88783$02cf1350$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <frjnt2+79oj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182105

> > Laura
> > Why did Hagrid consider it so impossible that Lily and James
> > would have died in a car crash?  Wizards did ride in cars, e.g.,
> > various rides to King's Cross.  Cars did crash (e.g., into
> > Whomping Willows).  Wizards did get hurt in car crashes, e.g.,
> > Harry in the Whomping Willow crash.  I realize that Hagrid's
> > astonishment might simply be that he was insulted that the
> > Dursley's told Harry something that was not only not true, but
> > which was common, rather than special and important.
>
>
> Shelley:
> It has nothing to do with a car crash at all! Why would Hagrid get
> so upset?  Why, because Harry was told a lie, plain and simple. It
> mattered not what manner of MUGGLE death the Dursleys' had
> concocted for that lie- gunshot, or stab wounds-it still would have
> been a lie. The WIZARDS Lily an James died a WIZARDING death, and
> that's the part that Hagrid is so upset over. That Harry was denied
> the chance of knowing who he was (a wizard), and who his parents
> were (wizards), and the truth about how they really died (a
> wizarding curse).


I also think Hagrid was offended because the Potter's dying in a car
crash minimized the significance of their deaths.  After all, it was
their deaths that led (indirectly) to the downfall of LV.  The
Dursley's lie made it seem as if all that the WW had suffered was not
important.  Harry is famous, but his parents are famous too, not just
for being his parents but for being a part of the undoing of LV.

Lori




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 21:24:30 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:24:30 -0000
Subject: Working mothers, was Did the Slytherins come back
In-Reply-To: <frh4ed+ggvn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frk36e+nup6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182106

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> I don't agree with Betsy's interpretation--I think it's far too    
> rigid and thought out. Though that goes for the other side too--I   
> don't think she's making any thought out statement either way. I   
> don't think she's laying down rules, I think she's doing what she   
> would consider telling it like it is, plain-speaking etc. based on 
> her experience of women and the world. I think it's more like the   
> way most of us react to the world, instinctively seeing things we   
> think are true and having emotional reactions to what's good or bad 
> or funny or just the way people are. Sometimes those reactions are 
> hypocritical or contradictory, and they often fall into patterns   
> that maybe say more about her particular pov.

Betsy Hp:
I do agree that JKR is writing more instinctively than with any sort 
of... I guess point or allegory in mind.  So I was more trying to 
look at the patterns than to say this is something JKR actually set 
out to do.  But I do think what she's written suggests a certain 
level of distaste towards, well, romance I suppose.  Female sexuality 
comes across as aggressive and frightening and male sexuality comes 
across as, gosh, almost impotent in a sense.

But at the same time that there's this distaste with romance, there's 
a real enjoyment in playing house.  That's what the epilogue is 
about, after all.  Not only do we learn who our main characters 
married, we get hints of how their children will hook-up as well.

Again, I don't think this is something JKR set out to do, or even 
thought about really (otherwise I'd think she'd catch the irony of 
Harry living the Dursley's dream), but there it is. 

(Though I will say, I think JKR presented a hard and fast rule that 
one should date at least one person before getting together with your 
mate.)

> >>Magpie:
> Otherwise we're talking about a world she's inverted artificially, 
> which would mean she's not giving us girl sexuality as she sees it 
> but rather intentionally mirroring a false view. I don't think     
> that's what she's doing at all. To me the tone sounds far more like 
> the tone of her interviews, a sort of *nudge nudge* you know what  
> I'm talking about because this is the way the world works. There's 
> no strict Puritanical judgment on sex, but there are judgments.    
> With all these characters and storylines, patterns appear.

Betsy Hp:
I agree that JKR isn't trying to insert an artifical construct in 
order to explore female (or human) sexuality.  But I do think there's 
a Puritanical view that comes across.  It's like how JKR embraces the 
old imperialist way of thinking (happy slaves, backwards and brutal 
natives) while at the same time giving lipservice to tolerance.  She 
introduces sex into her series but then I think falls down in dealing 
honestly with it.

I don't think she *means* to come across as Puritanical.  I think 
she's trying to be a feminist.  So Harry rarely (if ever?) notices 
the physical attractiveness of the girls and women around him.  And 
fourteen year old Hermione dates an eighteen year old international 
sports star, and handles herself with (IMO, unrealistic) adult 
aplomb. But it means that the women are either only noticable for 
their minds, or if we do notice them as sexually attractive, there's 
something fishy about them.  (ie. Fleur is described as sexually 
attractive, but that's due to her unnatural Veela blood.  Bellatrix 
is described as sexually attractive (hilariously, in the way she 
looks like Sirius), but she's evil.)

Again, I don't think this is something JKR has done on purpose.  At 
least, it doesn't read that way to me.  But it struck me as a pretty 
consistent.

Betsy Hp




From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 16 20:16:02 2008
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:16:02 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Grounds Layout
Message-ID: <frjv62+ts5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182107

Good Evening!
I'm having trouble with the layout of Hogwarts Castle in relation to 
the Quidditch stadium, Hagrid's cabin, Forbidden Forest, Whomping 
willow, Hogsmeade, etc. The map I saw online that JKR created doesnt 
seem to fit. 

Example - in OotP, page 685, Hagrid, Harry and Hermoine were walking 
from stadium to the forest (to meet Grawp):

"...said Hagrid, pausing to peer around the edge of the stands to 
make sure the stretch of lawn between there and his cabin was 
deserted..."

But the map that JKR drew had the stadium to the left of the castle, 
and Hagrid's cabin and the forest on the right (if you are standing 
with your back to the entrance doors, looking down the drive towards 
the gates with the winged boars). Hagrid couldn't be looking behind 
the castle because according to that map, there's the lake behind it.
Can't figure it out.

SusanFullin, hoping someone can.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar 17 01:25:41 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:25:41 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Grounds Layout
In-Reply-To: <frjv62+ts5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frkhal+ucsb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182108

SusanFullin:
>snipping quotes< 
> But the map that JKR drew had the stadium to the left of the 
castle, 
> and Hagrid's cabin and the forest on the right (if you are standing 
> with your back to the entrance doors, looking down the drive 
towards 
> the gates with the winged boars). Hagrid couldn't be looking behind 
> the castle because according to that map, there's the lake behind 
it.


Potioncat:
Well, I'm not sure why I'm replying to this question---I've always 
been confused about the layout of the Hogwarts grounds.

First off, were you using the map as shown at the Lexicon?
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/hogwarts/atlas-h-jkrmap.html

Secondly, did you quote all the pertinent part of OoP? Because I 
don't understand what you mean about looking behind the castle.  
Looking at the quote above, and the map at that link, the sentence 
makes sense.

Except that I thought it would be a great deal more space between the 
pitch and Hagrid's hut. But that may be movie contamination.

Also, though I don't have a link, or the date of the interview, I 
recall JKR once saying that she hadn't kept good notes on where 
things were in the castle, and if she put something one place in one 
book and in a different place in another, she'd chaulk it up to magic.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 02:40:53 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:40:53 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
Message-ID: <frklnl+kdgm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182109

I love chapter 27, love love love everything about it, love Sirius' 
excurse in the past, love his trip down memory lane about Snape and 
his gang, LOVE how Harry notices his deadened look returning when he 
talks about Azkaban, LOVE how he is so hungry after eating rats ( 
allusion to Peter?), but that is nothing new, the only thing which 
sort of jumped at me is this :

If Sirius knows about DE, why doesn't he know what Dark mark is?

Does that make sense? I mean, of course we all remember that he does 
not know what is on Snape and Karkaroff's forearm, but he seems to 
know pretty well what DE are.

I am trying to say that do you think it is plausible that he knows 
who DE are, but not about mark?

"Was his son a Death Eater?" said Harry.
"No idea," said Sirius, still stuffing down bread" - p.528

Alla:

I was never able to jump from the fence on this one. Was he or was 
not he?


"His strange appearance however, was nothing to the way he was 
behaving. Muttering and gesticulating, Mr. Crouch appeared to be 
talking to someone that he alone could see. He reminded Harry vividly 
of an old tramp he had seen once when out shopping with Dursleys. 
That man too had been conversing wildly with thin air. " - p.554

Alla:

Huh? Is it Barty being completely crasy already or something else?


This chapter 28 also introduces one of the most despicable Snape 
moments in the whole book as far as I am concerned, but I am too lazy 
to quote it again and I brought it up many times in the past. Yeah, 
talking about Snape not telling Harry where Dumbledore is. No, I do 
not think Snape was just conversing with Harry till Dumbledore 
arrives, I do not see any proof that Snape KNEW that Dumbledore will 
show up, so as far as I am concerned Snape was just satisfying his 
sadistic streak here and it is possible that Barty could have been 
saved by Dumbledore, if only Snape let Harry see Dumbledore a moment 
earlier. My opinion of course.


"If Snape hadn't held me up," Harry said bitterly, "we might've got 
there on time. "The headmaster is busy, Potter... what's this rubbish 
Potter?" Why couldn't he have just got out of the way?" - p.566


Alla:

Me too, Harry, me too :-)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 03:25:26 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:25:26 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frklnl+kdgm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frkob6+ap0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182110

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

> If Sirius knows about DE, why doesn't he know what Dark mark is?


zanooda:

I've always found it implausible that Sirius didn't know about the 
Dark mark. How is it possible that the members of the OotP wouldn't 
know how to recognize a DE? It is a useful thing to know about the 
enemy.  


> Alla:

> as far as I am concerned Snape was just satisfying his 
> sadistic streak here and it is possible that Barty could have 
> been saved by Dumbledore, if only Snape let Harry see 
> Dumbledore a moment earlier. 


zanooda:

You are right about the sadistic streak :-), but I don't think 
Mr.Crouch could have been saved. Keep in mind that Crouch Jr. was 
already in the forest when Harry and Viktor met Crouch Sr. 
Crouch/Moody explains it all later in the "Veritaserum" chapter. He 
saw his father on the map and went to the forest to intercept him, 
but at that moment Harry and Viktor appeared and started talking to 
Crouch Sr., so Fake!Moody had to wait until Harry left. He stunned 
Krum and killed Mr.Crouch immediately after that, so there is no way 
DD could have saved him, even if he came earlier.  




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 03:36:04 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:36:04 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frkob6+ap0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frkov4+pjv1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182111

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
> <dumbledore11214@> wrote:
> 
> > If Sirius knows about DE, why doesn't he know what Dark mark is?
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> I've always found it implausible that Sirius didn't know about the 
> Dark mark. How is it possible that the members of the OotP wouldn't 
> know how to recognize a DE? It is a useful thing to know about the 
> enemy.  


Alla:

In the past I was so focused on "did not know about Dark mark" thing 
that implausibility of the fact that he DID know about DE perfectly 
well at the same time did not even register in my mind.

I mean, DUH Alla. And again, had she chose to go with Sirius not 
knowing about DE at all ( but yeah, how is that possible if they were 
the thing he was fighting as member of the order), but knowing about 
them and having no clue about their most recognisable tatoo, which 
they were also leaving on the place they raided, eh, NO, sorry JKR 
not buying at all.




> 
> > Alla:
> 
> > as far as I am concerned Snape was just satisfying his 
> > sadistic streak here and it is possible that Barty could have 
> > been saved by Dumbledore, if only Snape let Harry see 
> > Dumbledore a moment earlier. 
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> You are right about the sadistic streak :-), but I don't think 
> Mr.Crouch could have been saved. <SNIP>

Alla:

I snipped your explanation about why Crouch Sr. could not be saved 
because I am not exactly resisting that thought per se, I am just 
saying that while you could be totally right, we will never know for 
sure, IMO.

And Snape should be "thanked" for that.

JMO,

Alla




From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 03:57:40 2008
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:57:40 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frhi8t+fn9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frkq7k+milh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182112

Lesley wrote:
> I think if I had read a lot of these post's before reading the 
book's I would never have picked them up after the amount of 
religious comment's and references that have been made about them.
 I didn't see any religious messages in any of the book's and am 
amazed at the amount of comment's that say there were. I also read 
the book's because I liked them and have no interest in  what 
JKR'sreligion is.

Doddie here:

You don't have to have interest in religion...some here have it, 
some don't...some are Christian, some are Jewish, some Mormon, some 
Muslim..no one wants to get into a comparative religion debate 
here...(believe you me, my posts have been chastized more for their 
grammar and the appropriate posting method before language came into 
play...but this is an international board with a not so 
international moderatiion...

Therefore continue posting your view...do not stop a story for 
story's sake still hold's true to me.


There are always subliminal meanings...especially for fairy tales
(perhaps this is why DD left Hermione said book) and childrens 
stories(of which the Potter series is said to be one)...and even 
adult stories(which I think the LOR was supposed to be one)...no one 
religion stands alone..they all began somewhere citing principles 
that could have been believed in..and morales that have been held 
true...

I will not comment on the economics of the potter series (which IMHO 
strike harder than anything JKR ever wrote); just that you keep your 
view on the widest lens possible and if you disagree, please post 
why...we live in a world of multiple religions, all of which were 
founded upon common ground.




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Mar 17 01:19:06 2008
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:19:06 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
Message-ID: <frkgua+2msm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182113

This message is a Special Notice for all members of

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups

In addition to being published onlist (available in webview),
this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes)
to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices."
If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact
the List Elves at (minus that extra space)

HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com

Note: CMC is the author of this ChapDisc, Mike only posted it
----------------------------------------------------------------

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
CHAPDISC:  Chapter 16 ? Godric's Hollow

When Harry awakens the next morning, it takes him several seconds to
remember Ron's desertion the previous evening. He is still unable to
fully assimilate it.  Hermione, morose and uncommunicative, does not
speak to Harry, but turns her face away instead. She seems just as
stunned as Harry, just as unable to believe that Ron is really gone.

Breakfasting in silence, they both realize that once they leave their
current encampment, it will be virtually impossible for Ron to find
them again. Hermione dawdles while packing up their things, hoping
that Ron will re-appear, and Harry likewise can't help hoping
(just "a little") for Ron's return. At the same time, he feels great
anger over Ron's unanswerable accusation, "We thought you knew what
you were doing!"

After an hour's delay, Harry and Hermione Disapparate to a new
location. Hermione breaks down sobbing, while Harry finds himself too
cold with anger against Ron to comfort her. Over the next few days,
Harry and Hermione reach an unspoken agreement not to discuss Ron.
Harry, who has resolved to never mention his name again, begins
watching the Marauder's Map, expecting to see the appearance of a dot
labeled "Ron".  No such dot ever appears, though Harry finds himself
obsessively staring at the dot labeled "Ginny Weasley".

Harry and Hermione's speculations over the possible whereabouts of
Gryffindor's Sword grow increasingly sterile. Harry inwardly vents
his anger against both Ron and Dumbledore. Harry perforce admits that
Ron was right ? Dumbledore *should* have given him a specific plan to
find the remaining Horcrux, but instead, he gave them virtually
nothing.  Harry is overwhelmed with feelings of hopelessness and
guilt ?how could he have asked his two best friends to accompany him
on what has turned out to have been an utterly futile effort? Harry
is now "constantly vigilant" for signs that Hermione, too, might "do
a Weasley."

Hermione, to break up the monotony, begins pulling out the portrait
of Phineas Nigellus, who consents to be blindfolded as he converses
with the Duo. Via Phineas' snide commentary, Harry is able to piece
together some of what is going on at Hogwarts. Harry's greatest
interest is sparked by news of an understated but continual DA
challenge to the authority of Headmaster Snape, led primarily by
Ginny, but with Neville & Luna presumably involved.  Harry's
homesickness for Hogwarts at this point is so intense that he briefly
fantasizes about giving up his quest and returning to the comfort of
Gryffindor's dormitory ? then he remembers that, as Undesirable No.
1, he would be in grave danger the moment he dared to show his face
at Hogwarts.

Harry and Hermione continue their aimless trajectory across the
British Isles as Christmas approaches. Harry finally dares to
approach Hermione to make a request, feeling rather as he did in PoA
when he asked McGonagall to approve his visit to Hogsmeade.
Hermione, absorbed in a re-reading of The Tales of Beadle the Bard,
asks Harry's help in interpreting a symbol she found in the book.
Harry realizes it's the same sign that Xenophilius Lovegood wore, the
sign that Viktor Krum identified as Grindelwald's mark.  Hermione,
hearing this story for the first time, is astonished ? why would the
sign of a Dark Lord be represented in a children's book? and why
didn't Scrimgeour recognize it?

Harry then tells Hermione straight out that he wants to go to
Godric's Hollow ? to his surprise, Hermione immediately agrees.
Godric's Hollow, she explains, being the birthplace of Godric
Gryffindor, makes it all the more likely that "it's there."  Harry,
completely puzzled by what "it" is supposed to be, is amused (for the
first time in months, it seems), as Pedant!Hermione  gives another
lengthy exposition from Hogwarts ? A History by Bathilda
Bagshot.  "It" is of course, the Sword of Gryffindor, and Hermione
concludes that Dumbledore expected that Harry would have made the
connection between Godric Gryffindor, Godric's Hollow, and the Sword
of Gryffindor. When Harry reminds her of Aunt Muriel's statement that
Bathilda still lives in Godric's Hollow, Hermione gasps dramatically ?
 what if Dumbledore entrusted the Sword to Bathilda?  Harry isn't so
sure, and sees some problems with that theory, but anxious as he is
to see his parents' gravesite, he suppresses his doubts.

Now jointly resolved to visit Godric's Hollow, Hermione outlines the
necessary preparations and precautions they should make (practice
Disapparating together, Disillusionment Charms, Polyjuice disguises),
but Harry isn't really listening to her ? he feels excitement as he
is about to go home, to the village where, if not for Voldemort, he would have grown to maturity as a normal Wizarding boy, perhaps with younger siblings, invitations to friends to visit his house, and a mother who would have baked his 17th birthday cake. After Hermione retires for the night, Harry pulls out the old photo album that Hagrid gave him at the end of Year One to gaze at his parents' smiling and waving images, his mind no doubt haunted by
tantalizing "what-ifs?"

The next morning, Harry is ready to set out, but the more wary
Hermione wants to take every possible precaution. It is a full week
later, after having procured suitable Muggle disguises via Polyjuice,
and having practiced Disapparating under the Invisibility Cloak, that
Hermione finally OKs going to Godric's Hollow.

The Duo appear in Godric's Hollow in the guise of a nondescript
middle-aged Muggle couple. One thing Hermione failed to consider ?
snow! - is falling, meaning that all of her careful plans to stay
concealed will go for naught. Harry, throwing caution to the winds,
urges Hermione to dispense with the Invisibility Cloak ? "we don't
look like us and there's no one around," so the Duo begin exploring
the village of Harry's birth in plain sight.

Harry is hopeful ? while, rationally knowing that it's impossible ?
that he might recognize his parents' home or some other significant
landmark.  He muses that his parents' home may still be invisible
under the Fidelius Charm.  The Duo note the village's landmarks ? a
war memorial, shop, a post office, a pub, and a little church.
Observing the villagers' strolling through town and overhearing
snatches of music makes Hermione realize that it must be Christmas.
Harry is surprised by this, having completely lost track of the date.

Hermione points out the cemetery behind the church, and Harry feels
both excitement and fear as they approach it.  He senses Hermione
must be feeling the same way, as she takes his hand and pulls him
forward. She then notices the seemingly Muggle war memorial transform
itself into a statue of the James, Lily and infant Harry.  Never
expecting to find such a tribute, Harry stares in wonder at his
parents' image as well as his own scarless representation.

Moving toward the church, the sounds of the carols irresistibly fills
Harry with hopeless yearning for all the Hogwarts Christmases of
yore.  Entering the cemetery, they begin to search for the Potters'
tombstones.  After some searching, Hermione comes across the
gravesite of Kendra and Ariana Dumbledore, with the
inscription "Where your treasure is, there too your heart will be
also" (a quote that Harry says he does not understand).   Harry muses
that Rita and Muriel got at least some of their facts right, and goes
on to bitterly wonder why Dumbledore never thought to tell him of
their common link to Godric's Hollow.

As they continue to search for James and Lily, Hermione finds another
gravestone of note- an extremely old and weathered stone for
one "Ignotus," ? with what seems to be the mark of Grindelwald/Beadle
the Bard!  Going deeper and deeper into the cemetery, the Duo see
many markers of family names familiar from Hogwarts, or other
multiple generations of Wizarding families who had seemingly died out
or moved away from Godric's Hollow.  Finally, Hermione cries
out, "Harry, they're here ? right here."

Harry's grief swells inside him as he approaches his parents'
headstone.  It seems to shine in the dark, making it easy to read.

JAMES POTTER
BORN 27 MARCH 1960
DIED OCTOBER 31 1981

LILY POTTER
BORN JANUARY 30 1960
DIED OCTOBER 31 1981

"The last enemy that shall be defeated is death."

Harry reads the inscription slowly, the last phrase aloud ? then he
is seized with a near-panic.  "Isn't that a Death Eater idea? Why is
it there?"

Always better read than Harry, Hermione explains that the phrase
refers to a life after death.  Harry is again bitter as he reflects
that his parents are *not* alive, that their mere physical remains
beneath the ground cannot recognize him, or have any interest in his
presence.  Harry weeps unabashedly, lamenting his parents' sacrifice,
wishing he could be beneath the earth with them.  He regrets that he
bought no flowers, but Hermione, seeming to realize his need,
conjures of a wreath of Christmas roses, which Harry catches and lays
upon their grave.

Harry and Hermione, their arms around one another, quietly leave the
Godric's Hollow cemetery, walking again past the tombs of Kendra and
Ariana Dumbledore.


1. How do Harry and Hermione differ in their reaction to Ron's
departure? (or do they differ?)

2. Following off that question, I was struck by the richness of the
interplay between Harry and Hermione in this chapter.  What is your
favorite H/H moment from Chapter 16?

3. By the end of DH, we know that Phineas is working for the Good
Guys, and that he is trying to help pinpoint the whereabouts of the
Duo so SilverDoe!Snape can drop off the Sword of Gryffindor.  How
competent does Phineas seem at his assigned task?

4. Why did it take so long for Harry & Hermione to make the
connection between Godric's Hollow, the Sword of Gryffindor and
Bagshot?

5. Harry fantasizes how, if not for Voldemort, he would have grown up
as an ordinary wizard boy in Godric's Hollow.  Had that occurred,
it's easy to think of all the ways in which Harry would have been
different ? what (if anything) about Harry would have stayed the same?

6. The only evidence of the Wizarding World that Harry and Hermione
see in Godric's Hollow (in this chapter) are the Potter memorial
statue, and the tombstones.  Where are the signs of life in GH?

7. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry about their common roots in
Godric's Hollow?

8. What did you first make of the gravesite of "Ignotus" and the
mysterious symbol? (BTW, "ignotus" in Latin means obscure or
ignorant).

9. This chapter offer two quotations from the New Testament ? the
first verse upon the Dumbledore family headstone is from Matthew 6:21
(i.e., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount). Here is the passage in its
context (from the New American Standard Bible):

--- 19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth
--- and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 "But
--- store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth
--- nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
--- 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The quote also appears in Luke 12:33-34, with a somewhat different
introduction (from the New American Standard Bible):

--- 33 Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves
--- money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in
--- heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. 34 For
--- where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Harry says he does not know what the inscription means. What does it
mean? (in the context of DH).

10. The second Scripture verse, upon the Potters' headstone, is from
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, 15:26 (the King James
Version).  Here is the passage in its context (from the New American
Standard Bible):

--- 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits
--- of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a
--- man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all
--- die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his
--- own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are
--- Christ's at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over
--- the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule
--- and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has
--- put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will
--- be abolished is death.

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." ? Harry's initial
reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan.  How does this
statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?

11. Harry supposes that Dumbledore selected the inscription for his
mother and sister ? who selected the epitaph for the Potters?

12. If you were unaware that these were Biblical passages, did that
change your interpretation of these epitaphs?

13.  Throughout the cemetery sequence, Harry and Hermione are in the
guise of a middle-aged Muggle couple.  If you were directing the film
version of Deathly Hallows, would you drop the Polyjuice disguises
and have Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson perform the scene?  Or
would you film it with Harry and Hermione portrayed by two completely
unfamiliar actors?

- CMC (Novissimus destruetur hostis mors)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Next Chapter Discussion, Chapter 17, Bathilda's Secret, March 31





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Mar 17 10:37:37 2008
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:37:37 -0000
Subject: FILK: Chapter 16/Doomed to Die
Message-ID: <frlhlh+l51c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182114

When I volunteered to summarize Chapter 16 some months back, SSSusan 
asked if I would provide a bonus filk at the end.  Well, here it is, 
from my DH musical Crux.

http://home.att.net/~coriolan/musical/crux.htm

The song is in two parts: the Youtube link below is for the second 
part only, "Nobody's Side" beginning with the line, "The Dark is now 
ascendant
."

Chapter 16/Doomed to Die  

To the tune of The American and Florence/Nobody's Side from the 
original version of Chess by Benny Anderson, Bjorn Ulvaeus & Tim Rice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x6506fRq2g  - 

(THE SCENE: The cemetery at Godric's Hollow, Christmas Eve.  HARRY & 
HERMIONE search for the tombs of James and Lily Potter.)

HERMIONE:
I think that it's now Christmas Eve
They'll be inside, your mum and dad.
There's some long-lost relation
Of Hannah Abbott here.
There's Kendra and her daughter now, 
The family of Dumbledore.

HARRY (gazing at the Dumbledore family plot):
He never told me, none of it, 
About his ancestry.
"And where your treasure lingers, then there too your heart shall 
be." 

HERMIONE:
Are you sure he never said

?

HARRY:
I would have come with Dumble, but
He wouldn't make the trip.

HERMIONE:
Look up there, they're dead ahead
!

(As HARRY & HERMIONE stand before the tomb of his parents, an 
IMAGINARY CHORUS sings inside HARRY'S head throughout his next 
stanza) 

IMAGINARY CHORUS
1981 ? Lily Potter dying - 
1981 ? James C. Potter dying ? 
1981 ? Both your parents dying - 

HARRY:
When my parents were killed
Part of me also died with them.
For a future was lost,
My chance for a normal childhood
In Godric's Hollow -  I
Might have grown up danger-free.
All I've known has been war
First with the Dursleys, then Voldy.

(HARRY notices the inscription upon his parents' tomb)

Is it some graffiti
Or a catchphrase of Death Eaters
Here on their marker,
"Destroy death, the last enemy." 

HERMIONE:
It means ? there's a life after this

It's love that's destroying our enemy
.
After death, we'll live yet again!

(HARRY ignores HERMIONE as he falls into a private reverie of utter 
hopelessness)

HARRY:
The Dark is now ascendant
The Light is in retreat
Though I'm not tempted to switch sides
This icy day of Christmas
They're turning up the heat
And there is nowhere I can hide
Resistance turns to suicide
Why were those I loved doomed to die?

And Dumble gave no answers
Or any kind of plan
How I might best achieve our goals.
I'm wanting to continue
But I don't think I can
Keep digging deeper in this hole
To crack this locked-up Horcrux'd soul.

Every path leads straight to the grave
There are no days left to be saved
Those I love are all doomed to die
I'm not gonna outlive my youth
Rita Skeeter tells all the truth
Everything I love's doomed to die

The one I can't be naming
Won't cut me any slack
And if he caught me, who would care?
Why must it be my duty
To plot each new attack?
It is a burden I can't bear
And I give voice to my despair!

All of life is hollow and void
Death's a foe that can't be destroyed
Those I love are all doomed to die
Ev'ry wand I wave's gonna break
Dumbledore's support was a fake
Everything I love's doomed to die

(HARRY sinks to his knees in the snow, burying his face in his hands)

Ev'ry scar I wear burns with pain
Ev'ry day sees more victims slain
Those I love are all doomed to die
Don't know how to end or to start
Cannot find my treasure or heart
Everything I love's doomed to die

Ev'ry owl of mine gets AK'd
Ev'ry sword I need is mislaid
Those I love are all doomed to die
Mum and Dad are mere bones and dust
Nothing left in which I can trust
Everything I love's doomed to die

Don't know how to end or to start
Cannot find my treasure or heart
Those I love are all doomed to die
All of life is hollow and void
Death's a foe that can't be destroyed
Those I love are all doomed to die

..

(Fade-out, as HERMIONE leads HARRY tenderly away ? but not she before 
magically produces a wreath that she lays upon the Potters' 
gravesite.)

   -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 11:08:08 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:08:08 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frkgua+2msm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frljeo+ntt3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182115

> Note: CMC is the author of this ChapDisc, Mike only posted it
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
> CHAPDISC:  Chapter 16 ? Godric's Hollow
><SNIP of summary and some questions>

5. Harry fantasizes how, if not for Voldemort, he would have grown up
as an ordinary wizard boy in Godric's Hollow.  Had that occurred,
it's easy to think of all the ways in which Harry would have been
different ? what (if anything) about Harry would have stayed the same?


Alla:

Well, this is all depends on how much one thinks Harry's character is 
influenced by his environment and how much by his genes, no?

Since I think that his loyalty to his friends, his "saving people 
thing" is who Harry is no matter whom he would grew up with, I think 
this is all would have stayed the same.

He would have been a happier boy, somebody who would have probably 
trusted adults more, because he would have his parents to go to and 
knew that adults are not all like Dursleys, but this is the 
difference, and you are asking about similarities.

I think he would have been stronger not weaker to take on the similar 
task if it was needed, but of course since his parents would have 
been alive, he would not have been a chosen one.

I would love that "life" for Harry, but of course the only reason I 
can even wish different life on him is because I got to know him 
through this story of his "life".



6. The only evidence of the Wizarding World that Harry and Hermione
see in Godric's Hollow (in this chapter) are the Potter memorial
statue, and the tombstones.  Where are the signs of life in GH?

Alla:

I thought this was the point, that there were none, that the place 
was destroyed by Voldemort.


7. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry about their common roots in
Godric's Hollow?

Alla:

LOL. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry about so many things? No 
seriously, Dumbledore is a secretive and manipulative bastard IMO, 
and I would have been more surprised if he would tell Harry their 
common routs.



9. This chapter offer two quotations from the New Testament ? the
first verse upon the Dumbledore family headstone is from Matthew 6:21
(i.e., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount). Here is the passage in its
context (from the New American Standard Bible):

--- 19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth
--- and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 "But
--- store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth
--- nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
--- 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The quote also appears in Luke 12:33-34, with a somewhat different
introduction (from the New American Standard Bible):

--- 33 Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves
--- money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in
--- heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. 34 For
--- where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Harry says he does not know what the inscription means. What does it
mean? (in the context of DH).


Alla:

That Voldemort is totally wrong, that immortality especially achieved 
through such terrible way as murders means nothing, that horcruxes 
mean nothing and the only treasure that means something is good life 
in heaven if you ever get there.


10. The second Scripture verse, upon the Potters' headstone, is from
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, 15:26 (the King James
Version).  Here is the passage in its context (from the New American
Standard Bible):

--- 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits
--- of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a
--- man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all
--- die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his
--- own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are
--- Christ's at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over
--- the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule
--- and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has
--- put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will
--- be abolished is death.

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." ? Harry's initial
reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan.  How does this
statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?

Alla:

Well, actually I do not see that it does, differ from DE philosophy 
that is.

Let me explain myself. I am not talking about the whole passage, of 
course it IS different from DE philosophy in the sense that if one 
lets Jesus in his heart, he will live forever with Jesus in heaven, 
NOT that one would live forever on earth as Voldemort and DE seem to 
want to.

But imagine that you read only this one sentence:

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

I really and truly understand why Harry was confused. I mean, that's 
what Voldemort and Co want, to destroy death and live forever, don't 
they?

So, I get why he thought that, I would have thought the same thing, 
had I not known.

To make a long story short, no I do not think the sentence itself 
differs in any shape or form from DE philosophy.

The complete passage and the interpretation of course do differ, but 
IMO not the sentence itself.


11. Harry supposes that Dumbledore selected the inscription for his
mother and sister ? who selected the epitaph for the Potters?

Alla:

I think Dumbledore did as well. I just do not see who else could have 
done it. I want to say Remus, but somehow I feel that would be given 
him too much credit, since he did not do a d*mn thing for their son 
IMO.


12. If you were unaware that these were Biblical passages, did that
change your interpretation of these epitaphs?

Alla:

I was aware.

CMC, these are great questions, thank you so much.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 12:22:15 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:22:15 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frljeo+ntt3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frlnpn+8kij@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182116


> 3. By the end of DH, we know that Phineas is working for the Good

> Guys, and that he is trying to help pinpoint the whereabouts of the

> Duo so SilverDoe!Snape can drop off the Sword of Gryffindor.  How

> competent does Phineas seem at his assigned task?



a_svirn:

I don't think he saw it as an "assignment" exactly. More
like a favour for a fellow Slytherin headmaster. And I think it was well
within his competence. In fact, pretty much the only thing he could do
was to spy on the Trio (Duo). Had he tried to be friendlier and less
snide, they would have been even more wary of him.



> 4. Why did it take so long for Harry & Hermione to make the

> connection between Godric's Hollow, the Sword of Gryffindor and

> Bagshot?



a_svirn:

Actually Harry wanted to go there from the start. The problem was that
their adversary could easily make the same connection. And he did.
(well, not with the sword, but with Harry, Bagshot and the Hollow.)



> 7. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry about their common roots in

> Godric's Hollow?



a_svirn:

Why should he have? The explanation would have involved the story of
Ariana's illness and her death, his relationship with Grindenwald
etc.  In other words, something too private and too painful to talk
about.


> 9. This chapter offer two quotations from the New Testament ? the
> first verse upon the Dumbledore family headstone is from Matthew 6:21
> (i.e., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount). Here is the passage in its
> context (from the New American Standard Bible): <snip>
> Harry says he does not know what the inscription means. What does it
> mean? (in the context of DH).
>
>
> Alla:
>
> That Voldemort is totally wrong, that immortality especially achieved
> through such terrible way as murders means nothing, that horcruxes
> mean nothing and the only treasure that means something is good life
> in heaven if you ever get there.

a_svirn:

Well, I can see how the second quote can be explained along these lines,
but what the Horcruxes and immortality have to do with your heart and
treasure? Especially when you consider that Voldemort hadn't even
been born when Dumbledore buried his sister.



> 10. The second Scripture verse, upon the Potters' headstone, is from
> Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, 15:26 (the King James
> Version). Here is the passage in its context (from the New American
> Standard Bible) <snip>


> "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." ? Harry's
initial
> reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan. How does this
> statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?
>
> Alla:
>
> Well, actually I do not see that it does, differ from DE philosophy
> that is.
>
> Let me explain myself. I am not talking about the whole passage, of
> course it IS different from DE philosophy in the sense that if one
> lets Jesus in his heart, he will live forever with Jesus in heaven,
> NOT that one would live forever on earth as Voldemort and DE seem to
> want to.
>
> But imagine that you read only this one sentence:
>
> "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
>
> I really and truly understand why Harry was confused. I mean, that's
> what Voldemort and Co want, to destroy death and live forever, don't
> they?
>
> So, I get why he thought that, I would have thought the same thing,
> had I not known.
>
> To make a long story short, no I do not think the sentence itself
> differs in any shape or form from DE philosophy.
>
> The complete passage and the interpretation of course do differ, but
> IMO not the sentence itself.



a_svirn:

The thing is, we don't know anything about death eaters'
philosophy (apart from its purebloodism component). True,
Voldemort's philosophy, if it can be called such, was about
outwitting Death, but certainly not about destroying Him. He didn't
mind other people dying, in fact, he would be very much put out if they
didn't.



> Alla:
> CMC, these are great questions, thank you so much.


a_svirn:

Hear, hear!

a_svirn.



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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 17 15:08:46 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:08:46 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frkob6+ap0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frm1hu+rrc1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182117

--
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> I've always found it implausible that Sirius didn't know about the 
> Dark mark. How is it possible that the members of the OotP wouldn't 
> know how to recognize a DE? It is a useful thing to know about the 
> enemy.  


Pippin:
The Dark Mark seems to have been a secret guarded by Dumbledore as
well as Voldemort, in order to preserve Snape's cover. But I'm sure
that  there is more to uncovering a hidden dark mark than pushing up
someone's sleeve. I doubt that casual examination by a non-Death Eater
would  reveal it if the DE didn't want to be known. Draco may not have
had that ability, but then, Voldemort wanted him  caught.

There seem to have been no marked DE's taken alive prior to Godric's
Hollow, and afterwards the mark may have faded so much that it
couldn't be identified with any certainty. In any case, the marked who
pleaded innocent said they were enchanted, not that they'd never been
DE's.

Despite what Hermione thinks, the presence or absence of a Dark Mark
would not prove anything. Voldemort is perfectly capable of  marking
innocent people or those controlled by Imperius, and of not marking
people in a position to be exposed. We don't know, for example, when
Peter got his mark. It might have been after he revealed the location
of the Potters and his double agent role was coming to an end.  


> > Alla:
> 
> > as far as I am concerned Snape was just satisfying his 
> > sadistic streak here and it is possible that Barty could have 
> > been saved by Dumbledore, if only Snape let Harry see 
> > Dumbledore a moment earlier. 
> 

Pippin:
I think Dumbledore decides whom Dumbledore is going to see, don't you? 
Snape was messing Harry about, for sure, but even if Dumbledore had
gotten there in time it would only have been a brief reprieve.

Fake!Moody would never have allowed his father to reach Dumbledore
without some kind of trouble. If he feared he was  about to be
exposed, he'd have nothing to lose by killing Harry.  

Pippin





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 19:34:53 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:34:53 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Grounds Layout
In-Reply-To: <frkhal+ucsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frmh4t+f3ia@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182118

---  "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> SusanFullin:
> >snipping quotes< 
> > But the map that JKR drew had the stadium to the left of 
> > the castle, and Hagrid's cabin and the forest on the right
> > (if you are standing with your back to the entrance doors,
> > looking down the drive towards the gates with the winged 
> > boars). Hagrid couldn't be looking behind the castle because 
> > according to that map, there's the lake behind it.
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Well, I'm not sure why I'm replying to this question---I've 
> always  been confused about the layout of the Hogwarts 
> grounds.
> 
> First off, were you using the map as shown at the Lexicon?
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/hogwarts/atlas-h-jkrmap.html
> 
> Secondly, did you quote all the pertinent part of OoP? ...

bboyminn:

There are actually three maps in the HP Lexicon, one a quick 
sketch by JKR for the movie producers, the other is an 
updated map by Charles J. Mize which is pretty good but 
doesn't match JKR's map, and an old map created by Steve
Vander Ark. This one most closely matches my mental vision
of Hogwarts grounds.

I never got the sense from reading the books that the main
gate, that is both the gate to the train station and the
gate to Hogsmead were different gates. I always envisioned
that if you went one direction from the train station, you
went up to the school. If you crossed the tracks and went
in the other direction, you went to Hogsmead. I did however
assume that Hogwarts fortress walls had more than one gate.

Also, regarding JKR's map, while it is a fair representation
of the general locations of various things, I don't think it
is to scale or to the correct proportions.

Notice that while her map does show Hogsmead at the top and
the train station, lake, and boats at the bottom, it does
not show the road leading from the train station up to the
castle.

I suspect in her encyclopedia, she will have a more well 
thought out and detailed map of Hogwarts and the grounds.

I also agree with PotionCat, you need to either quote the
passage, or give a a direct reference to it.

Steve/bboyminn




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 19:59:54 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:59:54 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frm1hu+rrc1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frmijq+fb0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182119

> Pippin:
> The Dark Mark seems to have been a secret guarded by Dumbledore as
> well as Voldemort, in order to preserve Snape's cover.

Alla:

Right, of course - **from the people who know nothing about Snape's 
past**, no?

Pippin:
 But I'm sure
> that  there is more to uncovering a hidden dark mark than pushing up
> someone's sleeve. I doubt that casual examination by a non-Death 
Eater
> would  reveal it if the DE didn't want to be known. Draco may not 
have
> had that ability, but then, Voldemort wanted him  caught.

Alla:

Huh? You are saying that if non DE looks at DE's forearm, he would 
not see anything? You mean mark will become invisible when non DE 
looks at it?

How come people who were with Snape could see the mark then in GoF?
 
Pippin:
> There seem to have been no marked DE's taken alive prior to Godric's
> Hollow, and afterwards the mark may have faded so much that it
> couldn't be identified with any certainty. In any case, the marked 
who
> pleaded innocent said they were enchanted, not that they'd never 
been
> DE's.
> 
> Despite what Hermione thinks, the presence or absence of a Dark Mark
> would not prove anything. Voldemort is perfectly capable of  marking
> innocent people or those controlled by Imperius, and of not marking
> people in a position to be exposed. We don't know, for example, when
> Peter got his mark. It might have been after he revealed the 
location
> of the Potters and his double agent role was coming to an end.  

Alla:

You lost me here, I am afraid. I do not understand what Hermione 
thinks about the absense or presence of the mark has to do with 
Sirius' knowing about the mark.

What I am saying is this. I guess, Nazi's would be the best analogy 
after all.

To me, it is like saying that person is perfectly aware of what Nazis 
are and what they did, but had no clue about swasticas. I mean, not 
perfect analogy, but you get what I mean.

Sirius KNOWS who DE are, what they do and he has no clue about their 
main sign. Makes no sense to me, I am afraid.


 
> Pippin:
> I think Dumbledore decides whom Dumbledore is going to see, don't 
you? 
> Snape was messing Harry about, for sure, but even if Dumbledore had
> gotten there in time it would only have been a brief reprieve.
 
> Fake!Moody would never have allowed his father to reach Dumbledore
> without some kind of trouble. If he feared he was  about to be
> exposed, he'd have nothing to lose by killing Harry.  

Alla:

Eh, sure Dumbledore decides whom Dumbledore is going to see if 
Dumbledore **knows** who is here to see him. I do not see that 
Dumbledore knew that at all.

It surely may have been a brief reprieve, my point is that thanks to 
Snape as I wrote to Mila, we will never know that for sure.

There may have been one percent chance to save Barty Sr. Surely you 
would not argue that it is an absolute fact that he could not be 
saved?

My point is that it is possible that Snape robbed him even of that 
tiny chance. Why? Oh, because he hated Harry that much and takes 
every possibility to show him that in my opinion.

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 21:02:27 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:02:27 -0000
Subject: RE; SocialChange
In-Reply-To: <fri1u2+qe68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frmm93+akos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182120

Magpie wrote:
> Not that we really see. The Slug Club in Voldemort's Day is made up 
> of Purebloods but for some reason it's all male, just the way it 
> would have been at Oxford back in the day, when we've gotten hints 
> that the WW didn't follow the Muggle one when it came to sexism. 
> <snip>

Carol responds:
I'm not sure why you think the group of )presumably) slytherin boys
accompanying Tom Riddle is the Slug Club. My impression was that they
were his "friends" (followers), including not only Avery and Lestrange
(whom I take to be the fathers, respectively, of the present Avery and
of Rodolphus and rabastan Lestrange) but, perhaps, Nott, Dolohov,
Mulciber, and Dolohov, the early DEs who accompanied Voldemort to
Hogsmeade before his DADA interview (all but Nott the fathers of DEs
of snape's generation; Nott is still a DE as of HBP--dont know if he
made it to the Battle of Hogwarts). We don't know how many boys are
there exactly, about half a dozen, and some seem to be seventh years
rather than sixth years like Tom.

I see no reason to assume that Tom's following of future DEs is
identical to the Slug Club, which by the time Snape was a student
seems to have included girls, non-Slytherins, and Muggle-borns (Lily,
one of Sluggie's chief favorites, being all three). We don't know
whether the Slug Club even existed in Tom Riddle's time at Hogwarts,
but if it did, it might well have been quite different from the boys
we see with Tom. For all we know, none of them was in it. (I think
Nott was simply because Slughorn asks Blaise Zabini about him unaware
that Nott was one of the DEs arrested at the MoM, but other than that,
we have no indication. Two of the boys, Lestrange and Avery, have to
be reminded to turn in their essays "or it'll be detention"; they
don't sound like Slug Club material to me.

Carol, who thinks that Sibyl Trelawney must have been a sluggie or she
wouldn't have attended Slughorn's Christmas party (must have been
because of her famous ancestor, Cassandra T.)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 21:30:18 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:30:18 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frkob6+ap0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frmnta+86a7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182121

Alla:
> 
> > as far as I am concerned Snape was just satisfying his 
> > sadistic streak here and it is possible that Barty could have 
> > been saved by Dumbledore, if only Snape let Harry see 
> > Dumbledore a moment earlier. 
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> You are right about the sadistic streak :-), but I don't think 
> Mr.Crouch could have been saved. Keep in mind that Crouch Jr. was 
> already in the forest when Harry and Viktor met Crouch Sr. 
> Crouch/Moody explains it all later in the "Veritaserum" chapter. He 
> saw his father on the map and went to the forest to intercept him, 
> but at that moment Harry and Viktor appeared and started talking to 
> Crouch Sr., so Fake!Moody had to wait until Harry left. He stunned 
> Krum and killed Mr.Crouch immediately after that, so there is no way 
> DD could have saved him, even if he came earlier.
>
Carol responds:
And there is also no way that DD could have come down the stairs
faster than he already did. (If you read the scene, it really isn't
long; Snape must have know that DD was coming.) Snape prevented Harry
from running off down the wrong corridor, detaining him just long
enough for DD to reach the bottom of the stairs. Had he not done so,
Harry would not have found DD at all.

Carol, who agrees that Snape was giving Harry a hard time but believes
that there was a method in his teasing (we know where his loyalties
lie, after all)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 17 21:35:04 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:35:04 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frmnta+86a7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frmo68+dpv0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182122

> Carol responds:
> And there is also no way that DD could have come down the stairs
> faster than he already did. (If you read the scene, it really isn't
> long; Snape must have know that DD was coming.) <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, I reread the scene very carefully two days ago and still did not 
find any indications in it that Snape knew that Dumbledore was coming.

And we know one thing at least for sure - there is no legilimency from 
the distance, so Dumbledore could not tell him that he is coming.

I mean, I cannot exclude the possibility that Snape had known of 
course, but since I do not see how, I am  continuing to think that he 
did not.

JMO,

Alla




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 17 21:56:26 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:56:26 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frkq7k+milh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frmpea+oso2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182123

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" <doddiemoemoe at ...> wrote:
>
> Lesley wrote:
> > I think if I had read a lot of these post's before reading the 
> book's I would never have picked them up after the amount of 
> religious comment's and references that have been made about them.
>  I didn't see any religious messages in any of the book's and am 
> amazed at the amount of comment's that say there were. I also read 
> the book's because I liked them and have no interest in  what 
> JKR'sreligion is.
> 

Doddie:
> You don't have to have interest in religion...some here have it, 
> some don't...some are Christian, some are Jewish, some Mormon, some 
> Muslim..no one wants to get into a comparative religion debate 
> here...(believe you me, my posts have been chastized more for their 
> grammar and the appropriate posting method before language came into 
> play...but this is an international board with a not so 
> international moderatiion...

Geoff:
I might just interject here that, as a practising evangelical Christian, 
I believe that faith is more than an "interest in religion"; I don't consider 
myself to be religious for that reason. I believe that decisions about faith 
- or its lack - are the most inportant steps in life.

Doddie:
> Therefore continue posting your view...do not stop a story for 
> story's sake still hold's true to me.

Geoff:
I think that you have to make some allowance for the beliefs of the 
authors in a series of books such as HP, LOTR or Narnia.

If JKR, Tolkien or Lewis had been writing, say,  just a run-of-the-mill 
detective novel, I wouldn't worry about the views of the author in this 
area.

However, when you consider the amount of time, energy and planning
which these three writers invested in their worlds and characters, one 
needs to ask why they considered it so important. I agree with one recent 
contributor that the Wizarding World - and for that matter Middle-Earth 
- are not overtly Christian, but it should be remembered that these 
authors did make it clear that their faith helped shape the way in which 
their fictional worlds developed and we should grant them the courtesy 
of viewing the story they were telling in the context of how they 
approached it. You may not agree with their world view, but that doesn't 
mean that it should be discarded without some acknowledgement that 
their view of life is represented there, even if only in a subliminal way.

Interpret the story to suit your own views by all means but bear in mind 
that Jo Rowling's take on it might really be what you don't wish to consider.
:-))









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 18 00:14:52 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:14:52 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frkgua+2msm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frn1hs+m619@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182124

 "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at ...> wrote:

> 
> 10. The second Scripture verse, upon the Potters' headstone, is from
> Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, 15:26 (the King James
> Version).  Here is the passage in its context (from the New American
> Standard Bible):
> 
> --- 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first 
fruits
> --- of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a
> --- man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam 
all
> --- die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in 
his
> --- own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are
> --- Christ's at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands 
over
> --- the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all 
rule
> --- and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has
> --- put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will
> --- be abolished is death.
> 
> "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." ? Harry's initial
> reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan.  How does this
> statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?

Potioncat:
I've seen the other replies to this question, but try as I might, I 
can't seem to work out how to best snip. So I came back to the source 
of the question.

I disagree with Alla---I think---

Even given the one sentence, there is a big difference. I realize 
only hearing the one sentence doesn't explain either LV's philosophy 
or Paul's. I have to quickly say that I know less about what the DEs 
expected out of this. The defeating death trick seems to be limited 
to the Dark Lord---a contrast to the Christian Lord.

Tom Riddle wanted to live on Earth forever. He kept a bodily form 
alive so that he could avoid death and moving on. In some ways, he 
was like a thick ghost. (by either meaning of thick.) He was no 
longer really a living human. Christians give up the earthly life for 
a Heavenly one.

Paul's meaning is that through Christ by dying, we defeat death, 
because we have a new life in a new plane. Our body dies, but our 
soul lives. In LV's case, his body lived but his soul was almost dead.

Going beyond the one sentence, it's very likely JKR knew many of her 
readers would know the rest of the scripture. It's the sort of thing 
that you don't need to get the idea---much like Harry---but that you 
understand on a deeper level if you know it. (That's also like the 
Britishisms that some of us don't get, but it doesn't ruin the story 
that we miss it.)






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 18 00:15:59 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:15:59 -0000
Subject: RE; SocialChange
In-Reply-To: <frmm93+akos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frn1jv+eltp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182125

> Carol responds:
> I'm not sure why you think the group of )presumably) slytherin boys
> accompanying Tom Riddle is the Slug Club. My impression was that 
they
> were his "friends" (followers), including not only Avery and 
Lestrange
> (whom I take to be the fathers, respectively, of the present Avery 
and
> of Rodolphus and rabastan Lestrange) but, perhaps, Nott, Dolohov,
> Mulciber, and Dolohov, the early DEs who accompanied Voldemort to
> Hogsmeade before his DADA interview (all but Nott the fathers of DEs
> of snape's generation; Nott is still a DE as of HBP--dont know if he
> made it to the Battle of Hogwarts). We don't know how many boys are
> there exactly, about half a dozen, and some seem to be seventh years
> rather than sixth years like Tom.

Magpie:
You're right--I totally jumped to the conclusion that Slughorn with a 
group of kids would be the Slug Club but you're right, it doesn't 
have to be. I actually like it a lot better. I totally believe 
Slughorn cultivated a nice group of boys that he liked to come to his 
office for candy and talk. Thanks!

-m





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 18 02:46:00 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 02:46:00 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frmo68+dpv0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frnad8+431k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182126

 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, I reread the scene very carefully two days ago and still did
not find any indications in it that Snape knew that Dumbledore was coming.
> 
> And we know one thing at least for sure - there is no legilimency
from the distance, so Dumbledore could not tell him that he is coming.
> 
> I mean, I cannot exclude the possibility that Snape had known of 
> course, but since I do not see how, I am  continuing to think that
he did not.

Potioncat:
But Snape didn't need Legilimency. He had just left DD, and I think he
had instructions to detain Harry. Later in GoF, Harry will view some
of DD's memories with DD. One of them is is Snape saying that his mark
is getting darker. I think that conversation was concluding just as
Harry began screaming at the entrance to the headmaster's office.
(Can't prove it, but it fits.)

Here's the material with a little snipping:

***Harry yells at the entrance to the headmaster's office. The doors
don't open. 
"He started running as fast as he could toward the staircase--
"POTTER!"
Harry skidded to a halt and looked around. Snape had just emerged from
the hidden staircase behind the stone gargoyle. ...
"What are you doing here,  Potter?" (he beckons to Potter)
yada yada
"The headmaster is busy, Potter."
...
The stone wall behind Snape slid open. DD was standing there...***

So, I think Snape and DD were talking, possibly while DD used his
Pensieve, and they heard Harry yelling. DD sent Snape down to detain
Harry while DD collected his thoughts. Then he joined them. 

Snape actually calls Harry back to the entrance of DD's office.
He stands there and talks to him. Look what he doesn't do: he doesn't
allow Harry to leave the area where DD is, nor does he take Harry away
from DD.

DD comes down and asks what is going on. The yelling has long since
stopped. (well, not long, but it has stopped.) DD seems to be
expecting Harry to be there.

Harry and DD leave, Snape remains standing by the gargoyle, looking
twice as ugly--no indication that he is taken aback by DD's response
to Harry. It looks planned to me.

Had Snape allowed Harry to leave, it would have taken even longer for
Harry to find DD. I think DD may have had to complete something before
he spoke with Harry. Now, had it been McGonagall who had been with DD,
I'm sure the passage would have read differently, but I bet there
would still be a pause before Harry met with DD.

If Snape really wanted to keep Harry from DD--that is--if they hadn't
known Harry was there---Snape could have let him go, or could have
escorted him away. 

If DD was able to speak to Harry and had indicated that to Snape,
Snape would be a fool to delay him. So it just makes sense to me, that
Snape was holding him there for DD. Of course, he could have said,
"The headmaster will down as quickly as possible, Potter" but what
would be the fun in that?

>In post 182121 Carol signed off
> Carol, who agrees that Snape was giving Harry a hard time but
believes that there was a method in his teasing (we know where his
loyalties lie, after all)

Potioncat:
Teasing? as in Fred and George?

The word "teasing" works perfectly here, but isn't a word I would have
associated with Snape.

Teasing, as in a cat teasing a mouse. Oh, yeah. That works!






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 03:03:42 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:03:42 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frnad8+431k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frnbee+9c3g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182127

> Potioncat:
> But Snape didn't need Legilimency. He had just left DD, and I think 
he
> had instructions to detain Harry. Later in GoF, Harry will view some
> of DD's memories with DD. One of them is is Snape saying that his 
mark
> is getting darker. I think that conversation was concluding just as
> Harry began screaming at the entrance to the headmaster's office.
> (Can't prove it, but it fits.)
<SNIP>

Alla:

But how does Dumbledore know that Harry is there already? Are you 
sure that he can hear anything behind the door as thick as it seems 
to me to be?

And again, this is to me is a perfectly plausible speculation, I mean 
I guess not that plausible since I am not sure I can buy that 
Dumbledore has the hearing that acute, but yes, sure, why not - one 
of the possibilities is that he has such amazing hearing as you seem 
to suggest.

Except what you said - no proof, and we will never know  for sure:-)



Potioncat :
<SNIP of the quote go UPTHREAD to read it>
>> So, I think Snape and DD were talking, possibly while DD used his
> Pensieve, and they heard Harry yelling. DD sent Snape down to detain
> Harry while DD collected his thoughts. Then he joined them. 
> 
> Snape actually calls Harry back to the entrance of DD's office.
> He stands there and talks to him. Look what he doesn't do: he 
doesn't
> allow Harry to leave the area where DD is, nor does he take Harry 
away
> from DD. <SNIP>

Alla:

How do you know that Snape * does not allow* Harry to leave? Does he 
say stay here Potter or else? I see Snape endulging himself, Snape, I 
mean, he sees  Harry, scared for the life and sanity of Crouch, 
panicking, etc and decides that he will get more kick and increase 
Harry's panic. IMO of course.

What I do not see is Snape restraining Harry from moving and say, 
leaving the area at all. Do you see any indication that Snape is 
doing that?

What I am trying to say is that imagine that Harry decides to forget 
Crouch suddenly ( unlikely, but bear with me) and wants to go back to 
his dorms. Do you see anything in that scene that restrains him from 
leaving?




Potioncat:
<SNIP>
> If Snape really wanted to keep Harry from DD--that is--if they 
hadn't
> known Harry was there---Snape could have let him go, or could have
> escorted him away. 

Alla:

I am at loss - where do you see that Snape was restraining him, I am 
not sure.

 
> Potioncat:
> Teasing? as in Fred and George?
> 
> The word "teasing" works perfectly here, but isn't a word I would 
have
> associated with Snape.
> 
> Teasing, as in a cat teasing a mouse. Oh, yeah. That works!
>


Alla:

I would choose the word poison dripping from his mouth and hurting 
everybody around him.

JMO,

Alla





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 18 03:24:52 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:24:52 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frnbee+9c3g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frncm4+d2ha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182128

 
> Alla:
> 
> But how does Dumbledore know that Harry is there already? Are you 
> sure that he can hear anything behind the door as thick as it seems 
> to me to be?

Potioncat:
The other explanation would be that Snape just happened to come out of
DD's office at that moment and quickly thought to himself, "I think
I'll tease Potter."  And then DD just happened to come out a few
moments later.

JKR has placed Snape there for a reason, and set up tension for the
reader. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How do you know that Snape * does not allow* Harry to leave? Does he 
> say stay here Potter or else? I see Snape endulging himself, Snape, I 
> mean, he sees  Harry, scared for the life and sanity of Crouch, 
> panicking, etc and decides that he will get more kick and increase 
> Harry's panic. IMO of course.

Potioncat:
I mean, that Snape beckons Harry to him at the entrance. Snape is
calling Harry back to the doorway. He makes unpleasant conversation
until DD arrives. Why torment a student right at the headmaster's
office, unless you know the headmaster is coming to see the student.
You'd think if Snape was only out to hassle Harry, he would have
directed him away from DD.

Snape is not restraining Harry, Snape is detaining Harry. If a teacher
says come here, the student has to come.

> Alla:
> What I am trying to say is that imagine that Harry decides to forget 
> Crouch suddenly ( unlikely, but bear with me) and wants to go back to 
> his dorms. Do you see anything in that scene that restrains him from 
> leaving?

Potioncat:
Well, he didn't say I have to go somewhere, he said, I have to see DD.
And Snape kept him there until DD arrived. 
 
I don't recall which chapter it will be in, but let's look at this
again when you get to the part where DD and Harry are watching Snape
say his mark is darker. I think the canon supports my view.

I know we're not suppose to write "me too" posts, but just for the
heck of it, what do others think? Does this hold up or is it come
across as mere speculation?




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 03:46:01 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:46:01 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frncm4+d2ha@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frndtp+fc71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182129

 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > But how does Dumbledore know that Harry is there already? Are you 
> > sure that he can hear anything behind the door as thick as it 
seems 
> > to me to be?
> 
> Potioncat:
> The other explanation would be that Snape just happened to come out 
of
> DD's office at that moment and quickly thought to himself, "I think
> I'll tease Potter."  And then DD just happened to come out a few
> moments later.
> 
> JKR has placed Snape there for a reason, and set up tension for the
> reader. 


Alla:

 Does there need to be any reason for Snape being here except him 
wanting to torment Harry?  It is not like that never happened before. 
To me there are many moments in the book where the tension is just as 
in this one IMO between Snape and Harry, yes because Snape decides to 
torment Potter ( sorry, not using the word teasing ;)) and nothing 
else. Sometimes I wonder why Nagini did not get poisoned after she 
bitten Snape, 
so full of venom the man seems to me.

> Potioncat:
> I mean, that Snape beckons Harry to him at the entrance. Snape is
> calling Harry back to the doorway. He makes unpleasant conversation
> until DD arrives. Why torment a student right at the headmaster's
> office, unless you know the headmaster is coming to see the student.
> You'd think if Snape was only out to hassle Harry, he would have
> directed him away from DD.
> 
> Snape is not restraining Harry, Snape is detaining Harry. If a 
teacher
> says come here, the student has to come.

Alla:

Ah, thank you, I now at least understand what you meant. I see how it 
can be viewed that way, disagree but at least see where you coming 
from.

To me, the thrill of tormenting Harry right in front of Headmaster's 
office makes Snape's fan even more thrilling.

Remember DH conversations in the memories between them?

I was thrilled to see that DD never approved of Snape's tormenting 
Harry but at the same time, it is not like he did anything to him, 
except to note that other teachers are saying that he is delightful 
child, snort.

So Dumbledore comes out and see Snape's running his poisonous mouth 
at Harry, so what?

What exactly do you think Dumbledore would have done?

Shake his head, and say, oh dear Severus, stop tormenting this 
delightful child?


> Potioncat:
> Well, he didn't say I have to go somewhere, he said, I have to see 
DD.
> And Snape kept him there until DD arrived. 
>  
> I don't recall which chapter it will be in, but let's look at this
> again when you get to the part where DD and Harry are watching Snape
> say his mark is darker. I think the canon supports my view. <SNIP>

Alla:

If you say so :-)
 
> I know we're not suppose to write "me too" posts, but just for the
> heck of it, what do others think? Does this hold up or is it come
> across as mere speculation?
>


Alla:

Well, you know my answer, but I am pretty sure I had read the
argument  along this lines before, so I am sure there are people who 
support your view.

Night dear :)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 06:00:42 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:00:42 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frkgua+2msm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frnlqa+9q8u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182130

<snip excellent summary>
 
> 1. How do Harry and Hermione differ in their reaction to Ron's
> departure? (or do they differ?)

Carol responds:
They react, respectively, as a typical boy and girl would react, IMO.
At first Hermione hopes, almost expects, that Ron will return, but
once they've left their camping spot, she also seems to give up hope.
She cries but hides her tears; almost certainly, she wants to talk
about Ron, but she doesn't because she knows that Harry doesn't want
to. Harry, in contrast, is torn between disbelief, along with a very
dim hope that quickly fades, and fury, but his fury is directed almost
as much at Dumbledore for leaving him without a plan as at Ron for
saying so and then leaving. I'm not sure, but I think he's also angry
at himself, or channeling his anger at himself toward two people whom
he can't shout at, one absent, one dead. In contrast to Hermione, he
keeps his emotions inside him, refusing even to speak Ron's name. If
Hermione is also angry, deep down, there's no sign of it--yet.
> 
> 2. Following off that question, I was struck by the richness of the
interplay between Harry and Hermione in this chapter.  What is your
favorite H/H moment from Chapter 16?

Carol responds:
Ron's absence has one benefit: I think it strengthens the friendship
or brother/sister bond or whatever it is between Harry and Hermione.
Even though he never comforts her or acknowledges her need for
comfort, she instinctively responds to his emotional needs in the
graveyard. My second favorite moment is when she explains the meaning
of the line about the last enemy being death to Harry, who clearly
still does not grasp its significance or believe in life after death,
but my favorite moment is definitely her conjuring the wreath of
roses, which he catches and places on the grave. I only wish that
Harry gave as much as Hermione, but I suppose that would be hard under
the circumstances. In the tent, her need is greater than his; in the
graveyard, his need is greater.
> 
> 3. By the end of DH, we know that Phineas is working for the Good
Guys, and that he is trying to help pinpoint the whereabouts of the
Duo so SilverDoe!Snape can drop off the Sword of Gryffindor.  How
competent does Phineas seem at his assigned task?

Carol:
I think the sneaky old Slytherin is brilliant, quite openly venerating
Snape and providing them with bits of information without blowing
Snape's cover and making them covet his company by not giving them too
much of it. He's an actor like Snape, playing himself with great
relish. At this point, of course, he hasn't yet achieved his goal, but
at least he can report to Snape and Portrait!DD what has happened.
This way, Snape knows that Ron has left and can work him into his
plan. (I'm trying not to jump ahead too much here.)
> 
> 4. Why did it take so long for Harry & Hermione to make the
connection between Godric's Hollow, the Sword of Gryffindor and Bagshot?

Carol:
Hermione may have made the connection long before (just as we readers
did) though she wouldn't have known about Bathilda living in GH until
the excerpt from Rita Skeeter's biography of DD in the Daily Prophet,
but she didn't want Harry to go there because she thought (correctly)
tha LV would expect him to do so. Harry's slowness is harder to
account for, aside from being a plot device. (JKR didn't want him to
make the connection until after he realized that the Sword of
Gryffindor, willed to him by DD, was missing (if the sword that Snape
sent to Gringotts is a fake, the real sword must be hidden somewhere
that Snape doesn't know about--or so they think). At this point,
Harry's wish to see his parents' graves and his need for the sword
come together, and he belatedly makes the connection. As for Bathilda,
he's already tried to use her to persuade Hermione to go to GH while
they were still at 12 GP, and Hermione dissuaded him.
> 
> 5. Harry fantasizes how, if not for Voldemort, he would have grown
up as an ordinary wizard boy in Godric's Hollow.  Had that occurred,
it's easy to think of all the ways in which Harry would have been
different ? what (if anything) about Harry would have stayed the same?

Carol responds:
IMO, the only way he could have grown up at Godric's Hollow and lived
a normal wizarding life would be if Voldemort had never existed. His
parents would have been in the Order and risking death every day of
their lives, and the WW would not have been as it was for Harry when
he first entered Diagon Alley but as it was for those who lived
through VW1. But supposing that Tom Riddle had never been born and no
Dark Wizard had appeared to succeed Grindelwald, I think that Harry
(minus his scar and its soul bit and growing up with a loving family
rather than the Dursleys) would have been like the cheerful Harry we
sometimes see joking with Ron, obsessed with Quidditch (he would still
have inherited his father's skill at flying) and probably no more
interested in his school subjects than he is in books 1-6. I think he
would have been wholly average at everything except Quidditch, having
no particular need or incentive to learn DADA beyond that of the
typical Hogwarts student. He might have been as brave and curious as
the Harry we know, perhaps a bit more sociable and a lot less
self-centered (Harry has no choice but to be concerned with survival
and self-protection and with the eventual confrontation with LV, not
at all the concerns he would have had if he'd been just another
Half-Blood Gryffindor from a happy family. He wouldn't have been as
tough, as tolerant of hardship and pain, if he hadn't been raised by
the Dursleys. And there's no telling what his relationship with Snape
would have been in a Voldemortless world in which Snape had never been
a DE. Maybe he wouldn't have become a teacher, either! 
> 
> 6. The only evidence of the Wizarding World that Harry and Hermione
see in Godric's Hollow (in this chapter) are the Potter memorial
statue, and the tombstones.  Where are the signs of life in GH?

Carol responds:
I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. I think that between
Muggle-repelling charms, Confundus charms, and just being able to pass
themselves off as Muggles, the witches and wizards of Godric's Hollow
live peaceably among the Muggles, perhaps with a reputation for
eccentricity (Bathilda, Kendra Dumbledore) but no suspicion of their
magical abilities. Is that what you're asking? If not, please forgive
my response for not answering your question? (The people we glimpse in
the pub and coming out of church seem to be Muggles, but there could
be Wizards among them incognito. Certainly, the graveyard seems to
hold both magical people and Muggles.)
> 
> 7. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry about their common roots in
Godric's Hollow?

Carol responds:
Secretive Dumbledore doesn't talk about his past to anybody, not even
the Chosen One, and particularly not about Ariana, whose death he
would give anything to forget.
> 
> 8. What did you first make of the gravesite of "Ignotus" and the
mysterious symbol? (BTW, "ignotus" in Latin means obscure or ignorant).

Carol:
As I understand it, the primary meaning of Ignotus is "unknown." It
was used by the Romans as we use "Anonymous." (Ignotus wrote a lot of
poetry, IIRC. ;-)) At any rate, Miles Ignotus is translated as "the
unknown soldier" and Deus Ignotus as "the unknown god," so I think
we're safe in translating Ignotus as "Unknown."

My initial reaction was that the person buried in the grave was
unknown (and must have been buried in medieval times, when only
priests, monks, and a few others were literate and the lingua franca
was Latin), but how that seemingly anonymous grave was connected to
"Grindelwald's mark," also worn by the eccentric Xenophilius Lovegood,
I had no idea on a first reading (nor how it connected to the Tales of
Beedle the Bard, oddly written in runes), I couldn't guess. Now,
however, I think that Ignotus is the perfect name for someone who
spends much of his time hidden under an Invisibility Cloak, his very
presence Unknown. 

> 9. This chapter offer two quotations from the New Testament ? the
first verse upon the Dumbledore family headstone is from Matthew 6:21
(i.e., Jesus' Sermon on the Mount). Here is the passage in its context
(from the New American Standard Bible):
> 
> --- 19 Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth
and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But
store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth
nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
> 
> The quote also appears in Luke 12:33-34, with a somewhat different
> introduction (from the New American Standard Bible):
> 
33 Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves
money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in
heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. 34 For
where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
> 
> Harry says he does not know what the inscription means. What does it
mean? (in the context of DH).

Carol responds:

I prefer the King James version, which is most likely what DD was quoting:

"19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But
lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For
where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

My immediate reaction was that Ariana was her mother's treasure, and
she and her heart (the thing or person that she loves or treasures)
are together in heaven. I still think that it means something of that
sort, only possibly Dumbledore was giving that advice to himself.
Whatever treasure (or power) he could find on earth was nothing
compared with what had been taken from him, through his own folly, and
which he hoped to see again when it was his turn to die. At any rate,
Ariana is both the "treasure" and the "heart" (or beloved) of the
verse as I read it.
> 
> 10. The second Scripture verse, upon the Potters' headstone, is from
Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, 15:26 (the King James
Version).  Here is the passage in its context (from the New American
Standard Bible):
><snip>
> 
> "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." ? Harry's initial
reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan.  How does this
> statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?

Carol responds:
But DD isn't American and wouldn't use that version! Here's the one he
did use, King James:

"20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also
the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order:
Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule
and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put
all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed
is death."

Obviously, a reader can choose to ignore the Christian context of the
quotation (Harry is obviously unaware of it), but JKR and Dumbledore
didn't. Hermione is apparently sufficiently aware of the Bible and
christianity that she has no trouble understanding the general idea
though I doubt that she's aware of the specific context, either.

That said, the statement in context clearly means that Christ's
resurrection has destroyed death, and at the end of time, everyone who
has died will be resurrected. This isn't quite the vision of the
afterlife that we get in "The Forest Again" and "King's Cross," where
there's no long wait or sleep until the end of the world, but IMO the
quotation is intended to suggest that death is not the end, that it's
the next great adventure or something like what Donne depicts in his
famous sonnet:

Death be not proud, though some have called thee	 
Mighty and dreadfull, for, thou art not so,	 
For, those, whom thou think'st, thou dost overthrow,	 
Die not, poore death, nor yet canst thou kill me.	 
>From rest and sleepe, which but thy pictures bee,	         5
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,	 
And soonest our best men with thee doe goe,	 
Rest of their bones, and soules deliverie.	 
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,	 
And dost with poyson, warre, and sicknesse dwell,	  
And poppie, or charmes can make us sleepe as well,	 
And better then thy stroake; why swell'st thou then;	 
One short sleepe past, wee wake eternally,	 
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.

Or, as Saint Paul put it, again in First Corinthians 15: "O death,
where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"

In short, Hermione is right and Harry is, pardon the pun, dead wrong.
 
> 11. Harry supposes that Dumbledore selected the inscription for his
mother and sister ? who selected the epitaph for the Potters?

Carol responds:
Dumbledore again, almost certainly. He was in charge of Harry's
affairs and he had connections in Godric's Hollow. He knew the King
James Bible. Who else could it be?
> 
> 12. If you were unaware that these were Biblical passages, did that
change your interpretation of these epitaphs?

Carol responds:
I don't think so. I knew that JKR was Christian; I saw the
unmistakeably Christian token of the cross on the "grave" that Harry
made for Mad-Eye Moody's eye. I had seen hints of an afterlife in DD's
words about death as "the next great adventure" and in Luna's words
about expecting to see her mother again, not to mention the emphasis
on the soul from PoA forward. So, no. I don't think that my
interpretation would change. If I didn't know that they were from the
Bible, specifically, the New Testament, I would have guessed that they
were.
> 
> 13.  Throughout the cemetery sequence, Harry and Hermione are in the
guise of a middle-aged Muggle couple.  If you were directing the film
version of Deathly Hallows, would you drop the Polyjuice disguises and
have Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson perform the scene?  Or would you
film it with Harry and Hermione portrayed by two completely unfamiliar
actors?

Carol responds:
I've actually thought about that question. I think that we'll be
seeing Poly-juice Potion in "Magic Is Might," not to mention "The
Seven Potters," so it won't be an unfamiliar concept even to
movie-goers who haven't seen it since CoS (or GoF, if you count
"Mad-Eye" morphing into Barty Jr.). I think that the director will
keep Harry's and Hermione's voices but use middle-aged actors to show
the Polyjuiced Duo, with the effects of the potion wearing off before
they get through dealing with "Bathilda." (If the film were a single
two- or two-and-a-half-hour movie, I'd go with the kids playing
themselves, but in a two-part film with five whole hours to cover all
the crucial scenes, I'd play it by the book.)
> 
> - CMC (Novissimus destruetur hostis mors)

Carol, who named an invisible fish in her Insaniquarium "Ignotus"
after the distinguished Mr. Peverell (I know it's a kids' game, but
it's fun!)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 06:20:13 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:20:13 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frljeo+ntt3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frnmut+6dds@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182131

Alla wrote:
 
> Well, actually I do not see that it does, differ from DE philosophy
that is.
> 
> Let me explain myself. I am not talking about the whole passage, of
 course it IS different from DE philosophy in the sense that if one 
lets Jesus in his heart, he will live forever with Jesus in heaven,
NOT that one would live forever on earth as Voldemort and DE seem to
want to.
> 
> But imagine that you read only this one sentence:
> 
> "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
> 
> I really and truly understand why Harry was confused. I mean, that's
what Voldemort and Co want, to destroy death and live forever, don't they?
> 
> So, I get why he thought that, I would have thought the same thing,
had I not known.
> 
> To make a long story short, no I do not think the sentence itself
differs in any shape or form from DE philosophy.
> 
> The complete passage and the interpretation of course do differ, but
IMO not the sentence itself.

Carol responds:
I understand why Harry would think that, but Hermione clearly
understood the allusion to an afterlife. (After all, they were in a
churchyard!)

To me, the clear difference between DE philosophy, which is based on
the fear of death as annihilation, and the epitaph is that Voldemort,
in particular, is seeking to defeat death through earthly immortality
whereas the epitaph, even out of context, relates to the eternal life
of the soul, as Harry might have realized if he had thought about the
graveyard being a Christian cemetery on the grounds of a church. It's
ironic, IMO, that the churchgoers were celebrating the birth of Christ
while Harry was mourning what he thought was the permanent loss of his
parents. (We see how wrong he was in "The Forest Again" and "King's
Cross.")

Voldemort fears death and tries to conquer it by splitting his soul
and hiding it in Horcruxes. Ultimately, he fails (and, judging from
the horrible "child" in "King's Cross," pays a terrible penalty for
his ignorance and hubris, not to mention violence and selfishness and
cruelty). Neither Dumbledore nor wise little Luna fears death; both
know that it isn't the end but a new beginning.

Harry, at the nadir of his self-confidence and courage and hope and
faith in Dumbledore, sees death as the end, exactly as Voldemort does.
But it was obvious to me, at least, that Voldemort would be proven
wrong and Dumbledore right. You can't defeat death through earthly
immortality; death is the eternal life of the soul--nothing to fear,
only "the next great adventure."

Carol, who had no doubt whatever that Harry and the narrator were
wrong in this instance




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 08:12:45 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:12:45 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frmijq+fb0i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frntht+aa8c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182132

> > Pippin:
> > I think Dumbledore decides whom Dumbledore is going to see, don't 
> you? 
> > Snape was messing Harry about, for sure, but even if Dumbledore had
> > gotten there in time it would only have been a brief reprieve.
>  
> > Fake!Moody would never have allowed his father to reach Dumbledore
> > without some kind of trouble. If he feared he was  about to be
> > exposed, he'd have nothing to lose by killing Harry.  
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Eh, sure Dumbledore decides whom Dumbledore is going to see if 
> Dumbledore **knows** who is here to see him. I do not see that 
> Dumbledore knew that at all.
> 
> It surely may have been a brief reprieve, my point is that thanks to 
> Snape as I wrote to Mila, we will never know that for sure.
> 
> There may have been one percent chance to save Barty Sr. Surely you 
> would not argue that it is an absolute fact that he could not be 
> saved?
> 
> My point is that it is possible that Snape robbed him even of that 
> tiny chance. Why? Oh, because he hated Harry that much and takes 
> every possibility to show him that in my opinion.
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla

Montavilla47:
Not a contradiction, because you have every right to think that
Snape is simply being a jerk in this moment.

On the other hand, who's to say that Dumbledore didn't have some
magical videocamera that showed Harry  looking for him and 
specifically *asked* Snape to go intercept the boy before he ran off
again.

We're talking about Dumbledore here.  He said that he had watched
Harry more closely that Harry realized...








From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 18 09:34:03 2008
From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (lesley)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:34:03 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts Grounds Layout
In-Reply-To: <frmh4t+f3ia@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fro2ab+hiv1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182133

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
> > Potioncat:
> > Well, I'm not sure why I'm replying to this question---I've 
> > always  been confused about the layout of the Hogwarts 
> > grounds.
Lesley
Hi, I personally always picture the layout of the first two ps2 games 
when I read the books, probably because they were the first visuals I 
really had. I never did get why they changed everything later on, I 
understand about bigger budgets and different directors but if 
something works, don't mess with it.
Lesley




From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 18 09:58:33 2008
From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (lesley)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:58:33 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frhv3h+aoob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fro3o9+7f6t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182134

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Lesley,
> > I think if I had read a lot of these post's before reading the
> book's I would never have picked them up after the amount of 
religious
> comment's and references that have been made about them.
> > I didn't see any religious messages in any of the book's and am
> amazed at the amount of comment's that say there were.
> > I also read the book's because I liked them and have no interest 
in 
> > what JKR's religion is.

justcarol

> If we refuse to read a book by a Christian author, we'll be 
depriving
> ourselves of a large segment of Western literature. Best avoid
> everyone from Chaucer to Dickens, not to mention Tolkien, and a 
great
> many other authors as well.
> 
> Carol, politely suggesting that you try another thread or examine 
old
> posts to see the variety of topics that have been discussed on this
> list, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with religion
>
Lesley
I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood me, probably my fault, I am 
actually a christian myself and my beliefs are probably very similar 
to JKR's, I didn't mean I wouldn't read a book by a christian author, 
or author's by any other religions and I have read many of the 
topic's raised in this forum, I agree that as JKR is a christian 
herself may have used her beliefs in her book's and that has 
determined how the story's have played out, I just didn't see it.
When I read a book about wizards and giants etc I don't expect to be 
smothered by lot's of religious views and I wasn't, so I was suprised 
other people were. There was a few week's ago, several pages of posts 
about Kings Cross for example that bored me silly, apologies to 
everyone I just offended, and perhaps I am to stupid to appreciate 
these posts but they are the ones that would have put me off reading 
the books as I would have expected the books to be full of Blah after 
reading them.
Lesley, with hopes of not going to hell.




From jferer at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 11:00:38 2008
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:00:38 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frmpea+oso2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fro7cm+7a6j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182135

Lesley wrote:   "I think if I had read a lot of these posts before
reading the  books I would never have picked them up after the amount
of  religious comments and references that have been made about them.
 I didn't see any religious messages in any of the books and am 
amazed at the amount of comments that say there were. I also read  the
books because I liked them and have no interest in what  JKR's
religion is." 

Geoff: "I think that you have to make some allowance for the beliefs
of the authors in a series of books such as HP, LOTR or Narnia."	

Maybe the word "religion" is the hangup here. If by "religion" Lesley
means the specific theology, rituals or ceremonies of Christianity or
another religion, those are mostly absent. (Harry does scratch a cross
where he buries Moody's magical eye.)

The books, though, are full of a spirituality that's easy to spot. 
The ethos of the author informs how she wrote them. The same is true
of Geoff's examples of LOTR and Narnia.  The concept of universal love
and sacrifice are key concepts all through the HP tale. Harry does
things that saints and martyrs do in the Christian tradition. People
of other faiths see parallels as well, I'm sure.

Perhaps JKR did not make the books explicitly Christian out of respect
for those of other faiths. Her decision may have served to bring out
the universals of spirituality. I'm sure that the world would be a
better place if we were more like Harry, that I'm sure of, despite his
angst and his occasional undeniably annoying qualities.

Jim Ferer




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 18 12:15:00 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:15:00 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frntht+aa8c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frobo4+38b7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182136

 
> Montavilla47:
> 
> On the other hand, who's to say that Dumbledore didn't have some
> magical videocamera that showed Harry  looking for him and 
> specifically *asked* Snape to go intercept the boy before he ran off
> again.

Potioncat:
The headmaster's office has a door, a revolving staircase and a second 
door. A password will allow a person up to the next door; but surely 
there's some way for DD to know when someone who doesn't have the 
password is trying to see him? I think DD didn't want Harry in the 
office for some reason---or he could tell that Harry needed DD to come 
to him.







From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Mar 18 12:52:34 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:52:34 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
References: <frobo4+38b7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006701c888f6$f0c23190$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182137

> Potioncat:
> The headmaster's office has a door, a revolving staircase and a second
> door. A password will allow a person up to the next door; but surely
> there's some way for DD to know when someone who doesn't have the
> password is trying to see him? I think DD didn't want Harry in the
> office for some reason---or he could tell that Harry needed DD to come
> to him.

Shelley:
Given the information in the last book, of how important Harry was to 
Dumbledore's plan, I would say there is a very good possibility that 
Dumbledore was watching Harry much closer than any other student, and that 
indeed, he had a means of knowing just when Harry was calling out for help 
(DD sent the Sorting Hat and Gryffindor sword to Harry in the Chamber of 
Secrets- how did he know then?) Also, I think the Gargoles taking the 
passwords would have some way of communicating to the office owner above of 
a student trying to report an emergency, password or no. The office owner 
could then tell the Gargoles to let that student in, or the Headmaster could 
meet the student, as Dumbledore did in this scene. I think it's very likely 
DD knew, and sent Snape ahead to intercept Harry. Of course, DD knew Snape 
would just be his usual self, and his jerkish personality would be enough 
time to stall Harry so that DD had time to get there. Yeah, I agree that 
either Dumbledore had something in his office he didn't want Harry to see 
(which isn't ever explained in text, so it would be a lousy plot point) or 
Rowling simply wanted DD to meet Harry in person after an encounter with 
Snape, where we again get to witness Snape's winning personality.

Personally, I think that latest is the easiest explaination- Rowling didn't 
necessarily think though all these details that we are picking over. I 
think, in her mind, she just had a basic set of scenes she wanted to happen: 
Harry calling for help, not knowing a password, meeting Snape again where 
Snape demonstrates again his personality, and DD appearing, somehow "all 
knowing" when it comes to Harry needing him. Just like with that Chamber of 
Secrets scene, she never explains just HOW Dumbledore always seems to know 
about Harry. 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 14:12:37 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:12:37 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frnmut+6dds@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <froikl+cfhj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182138

> Carol responds:
> I understand why Harry would think that, but Hermione clearly
> understood the allusion to an afterlife. (After all, they were in a
> churchyard!)
> 
> To me, the clear difference between DE philosophy, which is based on
> the fear of death as annihilation, and the epitaph is that 
Voldemort,
> in particular, is seeking to defeat death through earthly 
immortality
> whereas the epitaph, even out of context, relates to the eternal 
life
> of the soul, as Harry might have realized if he had thought about 
the
> graveyard being a Christian cemetery on the grounds of a church. 
<SNIP>


Alla:

Well yes of course that IS the difference I agree, but my question is 
whether you would understand the difference had you been not familiar 
with the complete passage and where this passage comes from, based on 
that one sentence only.

And of course I know that JKR wanted the allusion to be clear, it was 
pretty clear to me even though I did not memorise the passage, but 
remember reading it.

But for folks who never read the Bible and who never intend to the 
allusion is lost, isn't it?

I mean, I suppose it is pretty easy to guess that DE philosophy ( 
aside to a_svirn, yes, of course we only know that Voldemort wants 
immportality, but I think it is only one step assumption that his 
gang wants the same things) will not be put on Potters' stone, but if 
one just looks at the sentence, I do not see how it is different.

JMO,

Alla




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar 18 16:15:16 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:15:16 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <fro7cm+7a6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fropqk+1iub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182139

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at ...> wrote:
>
> Lesley wrote:   "I think if I had read a lot of these posts before
> reading the  books I would never have picked them up after the amount
> of  religious comments and references that have been made about them.
>  I didn't see any religious messages in any of the books and am 
> amazed at the amount of comments that say there were. I also read  the
> books because I liked them and have no interest in what  JKR's
> religion is." 
> 
> Geoff: "I think that you have to make some allowance for the beliefs
> of the authors in a series of books such as HP, LOTR or Narnia."
	
Jim: 
> Maybe the word "religion" is the hangup here. If by "religion" Lesley
> means the specific theology, rituals or ceremonies of Christianity or
> another religion, those are mostly absent. (Harry does scratch a cross
> where he buries Moody's magical eye.)

<snip>

Geoff:
That is the point I was trying to bring out in my post when I tried to 
make a very clear distinction between faith and religion. My definition 
of religion is similar to yours which is why is someone says to me 
"You're religious", my stock answer is "I'm not religious; I'm a Christian." 
My point being, that the trappings of what we have both termed "religion" are ot 
necessary.

I am not a Christian because I read the dustjacket and thought it was 
a nice set of ideas to follow. Real Christianity means making a specific 
commitment to Christ whose Spirit then lives in us and guides us. I 
didn't wake up one day and think "I'll become a Christian today"; I 
went out one morning to college for what I thought would be a 
normal day and came home at the end of the day having given my 
life to Christ; a bit like Paul on the Damascus road.

Jim:
> Perhaps JKR did not make the books explicitly Christian out of respect
> for those of other faiths. Her decision may have served to bring out
> the universals of spirituality.

Geoff:
I think that she works in a similar way to Tolkien who also did not 
introduce overt faith into his books but made it clear that Middle-
Earth is underpinned by the Creator and his spiritual messengers, 
such as Gandalf.

He disliked allegory unlike Lewis whose world of Narnia correlates 
closely to the Christian world by choice.

I think that, in a Dumbledorian sense, JKR leaves it to the reader 
to choose to see the Christian links round which she has entwined 
Harry's story of loss, friendship, victory and love.




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 17:44:50 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:44:50 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <fro3o9+7f6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frov2i+k19c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182140

---  "lesley" <hutchingslesley at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Lesley,
> >> I think if I had read a lot of these post's before 
> >> reading the book's I would never have picked them up 
> >> after the amount of religious comment's and references 
> >> that have been made about them. I didn't see any religious 
> >> messages ...

> 
> justcarol
> 
> > If we refuse to read a book by a Christian author, we'll 
> > be depriving ourselves of a large segment of Western 
> > literature. ...
> >

> Lesley
> I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood me, probably my fault, 
> ... I agree that as JKR is a Christian herself may have used
> her beliefs in her book's and that has determined how the 
> story's have played out, I just didn't see it. When I read 
> a book about wizards and giants etc I don't expect to be 
> smothered by lot's of religious views ... they are the ones
> that would have put me off reading the books as I would have 
> expected the books to be full of Blah after reading them.
>
> Lesley, with hopes of not going to hell.
>

bboyminn:

No truly good author would ever stoop to 'smothering (her 
readers) with lot's of religious views'. A wise author and
the authors of countless fairytales and myth across an
enormous span of time, have made their point by applying
'Universal Themes'. 

JKR draws on universal themes that are consistent through
all cultures and across all religions. Just as Christians
here, who I assume are in the majority, were able to see
these universal themes paralleled in their own religion, I
also suspect a Buddhist could find the same parallels in 
their religion.  

So, it is not so much that we are finding Christianity in
the HP books, as it is we are finding Christian symbolism in
the books. Since that symbolism comes from universal themes 
of good and right, I suspect if we had enough of them here, 
Buddhist and Muslim and Shinto etc... could have seen, and 
would have discussed, those themes and symbols as well. 

To some extent, it only matters that JKR is a Christian because
so many Christian fundamentalists accused her of being a godless
pagan and a corrupting influence on society and our children. 
Which, as a side note, I find to be very unChristian like. 

In the next sense, to other Christians, knowing JKR is a
Christian, allows us to see these underlying themes in a
context we understand. However, as I've already pointed out,
I don't see that context limited to Christianity. It is just
that Christians see it from a Christian context, and discuss
it from that context, and are also, likely, in the majority here.
We are all, each in his own belief system, looking for a way to
understand these books in a framework that is familiar to us. 

So, I don't see these discussion paralleling HP to Christianity
as absolute, that simply represents a familiar context for 
people who grew up in that context. 

steve/bboyminn





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 18:05:47 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:05:47 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <froikl+cfhj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frp09r+b0gf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182141

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > I understand why Harry would think that, but Hermione 
> > clearly understood the allusion to an afterlife. (After 
> > all, they were in a churchyard!)
> > 
> > ...
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well yes of course ..., but my question is whether you would 
> understand the difference had you been not familiar with the 
> complete passage ...
> 
> And of course I know that JKR wanted the allusion to be clear,
> it was pretty clear to me ...
> 
> But for folks who never read the Bible and who never intend 
> to the allusion is lost, isn't it?
> 
> ...
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>

bboyminn:

I don't think you needed to know that these passages came
from the Bible, or to know the complete passages. I think
the story itself sufficiently established the context for
them. 

In the case of the Dumbledore inscription, something to the
effect that, 'Where your treasure is, there will your
heart be also'. While worded oddly in a modern context, it
is still a clear and universal concept, meaning more 
accurately, 'Where you /heart/ is, there you will find
your treasure'; in love you find the greatest wealth.

In the case of the inscription on Harry's parent's graves,
if there was any possibility of misunderstanding, JKR
clears it up right away with Hermione's comment. Indeed
she had Harry misinterpret, to provide the opportunity 
for Hermione to make it clear. 

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Harry jumps in with the likely misinterpretation, and the
interpretation that is likely to occur to the reader, then
Hermione clears up any confusion. So, no need to know or 
understand the Bible, because the book puts that saying into
the desired context.

As a nice after-the-fact point of interest, it is nice to
know these come from the Bible, and to see them in their
context, but that is merely a side note, and not necessary
within the story.

I suspect, even knowing these are Biblical passages, those of
other religions could easily find similar sentiment in their
own ancient texts. 

By drawing on universal themes, JKR has created an essentially
universal book, and the fact that she quoted the Bible is
only incidental.

Or, at least, that's how I see it.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 18:13:16 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:13:16 -0000
Subject: RE; SocialChange
In-Reply-To: <frn1jv+eltp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frp0ns+omus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182142

---  "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > I'm not sure why you think the group of (presumably) 
> > Slytherin boys accompanying Tom Riddle is the Slug Club.
> > ...
> 
> Magpie:
> You're right--I totally jumped to the conclusion that 
> Slughorn with a group of kids would be the Slug Club but 
> you're right, it doesn't have to be. I actually like it a 
> lot better. I totally believe Slughorn cultivated a nice 
> group of boys that he liked to come to his office for candy
> and talk. Thanks!
> 
> -m
>

bboyminn:

I think more likely Tom, a certain member of the Slug Club if
it existed, came to Slughorn's office with his friend and
associates for a well placed session of flattery and buttering
up of Slughorn. Those, other than Tom, may or may not have 
been in the Slug Club, but I'm sure that gathering was by no
means a formal meeting of the Slug Club. Just a gathering
of favorite students, or a favorite student and his friends, 
for some late night conversation. No doubt Tom chose those
who came with him, knowing which students would put him in
Slughorn's favor and which would not. This seems a very 
calculated session on Tom's part to me. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Tue Mar 18 18:24:48 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:24:48 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frov2i+k19c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frp1dg+op0s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182143

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "snip 
> 
> So, I don't see these discussion paralleling HP to Christianity
> as absolute, that simply represents a familiar context for 
> people who grew up in that context. 
> 
> steve/bboyminn
>

Jayne just de lurking to say I am a commited Christian, but the reason 
I read Harry Potter was that it was a great story. Would not have 
worried if there were no religous inferences in it as It did not make 
any real difference to the story IMHO

jAYNE




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 19:04:48 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:04:48 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frntht+aa8c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frp3og+4a8o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182144

Pippin:
<snip>
> > > Snape was messing Harry about, for sure, but even if Dumbledore
had gotten there in time it would only have been a brief reprieve.
> >  
> > > Fake!Moody would never have allowed his father to reach Dumbledore
> > > without some kind of trouble. If he feared he was  about to be
> > > exposed, he'd have nothing to lose by killing Harry.  
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Eh, sure Dumbledore decides whom Dumbledore is going to see if 
> > Dumbledore **knows** who is here to see him. I do not see that 
> > Dumbledore knew that at all.
> > 
> > It surely may have been a brief reprieve, my point is that thanks to 
> > Snape as I wrote to Mila, we will never know that for sure.
> > 
> > There may have been one percent chance to save Barty Sr. Surely you 
> > would not argue that it is an absolute fact that he could not be 
> > saved?
> > 
> > My point is that it is possible that Snape robbed him even of that 
> > tiny chance. Why? Oh, because he hated Harry that much and takes 
> > every possibility to show him that in my opinion.
> > 
> > JMO,
> > 
> > Alla
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Not a contradiction, because you have every right to think that
> Snape is simply being a jerk in this moment.
> 
> On the other hand, who's to say that Dumbledore didn't have some
> magical videocamera that showed Harry  looking for him and 
> specifically *asked* Snape to go intercept the boy before he ran off
> again.
> 
> We're talking about Dumbledore here.  He said that he had watched
> Harry more closely that Harry realized...
>
Carol adds:
Not to mention that Snape is extremely concerned with Dumbledore's
trust of him in this book ("Dumbledore trusts me!"), and if Snape were
to prevent or hinder Harry in something so important, Dumbledore would
be seriously displeased.

As it is, Snape first prevents Harry from going off in the wrong
direction by yelling "POTTER!" as Harry is about to head to the staff
room and then keeps him at the bottom of the stairway until Dumbledore
comes down. He even informs Harry in his indirect, sarcastic way, that
Dumbledore is in his office ("The headmaster is busy, Potter"), which
again prevents Harry from running off.

We *know* that Snape is Dumbledore's man. We *know* that he's
protecting Harry but doesn't want Harry (or anyone else) to know that.
If he tries to help Harry openly ("Don't worry, Potter. Dumbledore is
coming downstairs in a moment") or gives him the password, Harry would
be suspicious and Snape's (self-imposed) cover will be blown. (We have
Harry's perception via the narrator that Snape is thoroughly enjoying
himself, which may or may not be accurate, but Snape can enjoy seeming
to thwart Harry and help him by detaining him at the same time, just
as, in HBP, he seems to be helping Draco but is really trying to
thwart him.)

So he gives Harry a hard time (which is what I meant by "tease"--it's
better than what the Twins do to Dudley Dursley!) and helps him at the
same time, exactly as he does in PoA when he discovers the Marauder's
Map and suspects that it's helping Harry to get into Hogsmeade where
he's not supposed to be.

If, as I suspect, DD has told Snape that he'll be coming downstairs in
a moment (perhaps, as Potioncat suggests, after he puts his memories
back in his head), Snape is not delaying the process at all (or only
by the short time that it takes to speak a few sentences apiece). He's
just keeping Harry where Harry needs to be when DD emerges a very
short time later. Nor does Snape need to have been ordered by DD to
detain Harry; protecting Harry and knowing what he's up to is already
Snape's business. IMO, he's finding out what Harry is up to by
questioning (and taunting) him, and, once he has the general idea,
keeping him at the foot of the stairs until DD comes down. And note
that Dumbledore shows no sign of irritation with Snape; he knows how
Snape operates.

The only way that Snape could have speeded up the process would be to
give Harry the password as Harry requested, which I doubt that he has
permission to do (and in any case, Harry rushing up the stairs would
only meet DD coming down, which DD does anyway a very short time
later). Instead, Snape says, "The headmaster is busy, Potter," which
informs Harry that DD is indeed in his office and keeps him from
rushing off again in the wrong direction.

It's quite simple, really. Had Snape not come out of DD's office when
he did and kept him there by questioning him and seeming to disbelieve
what he said, Harry would have run to the staff room and missed DD
altogether. Harry *thinks* that Snape is thwarting him (as Snape
appears to be doing), but we already know that Snape is watching over
and protecting Harry even when it seems otherwise.

Step 1) Call him back from going the wrong direction.

Step 2) Detain him by questioning and seeming to doubt him.

Step 3) Inform him subtly that DD is in his office and prevent him
from running off on a wild goose chase.

Step 4) Step aside when the job is done and DD comes out.

Whether DD knew that Harry was out there and ordered Snape to detain
him or Snape acted on his own initiative, we have no way of knowing.
But it doesn't matter. Without Snape's seeming interference, Harry
would have run off to the staff room and missed DD altogether.

On a sidenote, I think Potiomcat suggested that this incident occurred
right after Snape had informed DD about his and Karkaroff's Dark Marks
growing darker (correct me if I'm wrong), but that can't be right.
That conversation occurred the night of the Yule and this incident
occurs at the start of summer term. I think that Snape reports
regularly to DD; we just don't see it happening most of the time.

Carol, who thinks that Snape is teasing* (definition 3a) or tormenting
Harry for a reason, just as he does near the beginning of HBP as he
escorts Harry to the Great Hall

* Tease <snip> 3 a: to disturb or annoy by persistent irritating or
provoking especially in a petty or mischievous way  b: to annoy with
petty persistent requests: pester; also: to obtain by repeated coaxing
c: to persuade to acquiesce especially by persistent small efforts:
coax  d: to manipulate or influence as if by teasing e: to make fun
of: kid <snip> Merriam-Webster Online




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 20:15:00 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:15:00 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frp3og+4a8o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frp7s4+833g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182145

Carol:
<SNIP>
We *know* that Snape is Dumbledore's man. We *know* that he's
protecting Harry but doesn't want Harry (or anyone else) to know that.
If he tries to help Harry openly ("Don't worry, Potter. Dumbledore is
coming downstairs in a moment") or gives him the password, Harry would
be suspicious and Snape's (self-imposed) cover will be blown.

Alla:

Sorry, what Snape's cover will be blown if he, I don't know gives 
Harry the password as you suggest below? I do not recall Harry 
deciding that Snape is a Voldemort's servant just yet.

Carol:
 (We have
Harry's perception via the narrator that Snape is thoroughly enjoying
himself, which may or may not be accurate, but Snape can enjoy seeming
to thwart Harry and help him by detaining him at the same time, just
as, in HBP, he seems to be helping Draco but is really trying to
thwart him.)

Alla:

Of course, that he can.

Carol:
So he gives Harry a hard time (which is what I meant by "tease"--it's
better than what the Twins do to Dudley Dursley!) and helps him at the
same time, exactly as he does in PoA when he discovers the Marauder's
Map and suspects that it's helping Harry to get into Hogsmeade where
he's not supposed to be.

Alla:

Exactly as in PoA? I do not remember Snape directly or indirectly 
helping Harry in PoA when he lectured him about his bad father.

His lecture was probably caused by concern for Harry's life, that I 
can see, but all that I saw was Snape hurting Harry, so I do not see 
what was in that accident exactly as in PoA, IMO of course.


Carol:
If, as I suspect, DD has told Snape that he'll be coming downstairs in
a moment (perhaps, as Potioncat suggests, after he puts his memories
back in his head), Snape is not delaying the process at all (or only
by the short time that it takes to speak a few sentences apiece). He's
just keeping Harry where Harry needs to be when DD emerges a very
short time later. Nor does Snape need to have been ordered by DD to
detain Harry; protecting Harry and knowing what he's up to is already
Snape's business. IMO, he's finding out what Harry is up to by
questioning (and taunting) him, and, once he has the general idea,
keeping him at the foot of the stairs until DD comes down.

Alla:

Yes, I do understand the argument, I am just not buying it for the 
reasons stated upthread.

Carol:
 And note
that Dumbledore shows no sign of irritation with Snape; he knows how
Snape operates.

Alla:

How is it supposed to explain anything? The fact that Dumbledore 
failed to stop Snape's poison coming from his mouth ( my comparison 
obviously) at Harry and some other kids only makes me disrespect 
Dumbledore, that's all. Yes, Dumbledore knows how Snape operates all 
right.

Carol:
The only way that Snape could have speeded up the process would be to
give Harry the password as Harry requested, which I doubt that he has
permission to do (and in any case, Harry rushing up the stairs would
only meet DD coming down, which DD does anyway a very short time
later).

Alla:

FINALLY, we came to the most IMO logical explanation what Snape that 
in my view really would have wanted to help Harry would have done.

And I am just amused how easily you seem to dismiss that. Where is 
any proof that Snape did not have permission to give password to 
Headmaster's office to student in distress?

Didn't Minerva escort Harry to Dumbledore's office in CoS and she 
says the password with Harry being there and seem to not ask him to 
close his ears or anything like that?

Why exactly Snape's situation is different? You are arguing that if 
badly wounded student comes to see Headmaster and Snape would not let 
him in for example?

No need to do the convoluted keeping Harry outside IMO if Snape 
REALLY wanted to help.

Carol:
 Instead, Snape says, "The headmaster is busy, Potter," which
informs Harry that DD is indeed in his office and keeps him from
rushing off again in the wrong direction.

Alla:

Not in my opinion it does not. Headmaster could have been busy 
anywhere and the only thing IMO which keeps Harry from running of is 
his anger and panic

Carol:
It's quite simple, really. Had Snape not come out of DD's office when
he did and kept him there by questioning him and seeming to disbelieve
what he said, Harry would have run to the staff room and missed DD
altogether. Harry *thinks* that Snape is thwarting him (as Snape
appears to be doing), but we already know that Snape is watching over
and protecting Harry even when it seems otherwise.

Alla:

Yes, it is indeed quite simple. And I am asking the same question 
which I asked Potioncat, but a little different. Say Harry would have 
run away anyways. I did not notice Snape using any magical compulsion 
on him. What would have happened then?

Carol:

Step 1) Call him back from going the wrong direction.

Step 2) Detain him by questioning and seeming to doubt him.

Step 3) Inform him subtly that DD is in his office and prevent him
from running off on a wild goose chase.

Step 4) Step aside when the job is done and DD comes out.
<SNIP>

Alla:

OR do ONE step, if you really want to help.

Really simple one - **give Harry the password**

JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 20:28:23 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:28:23 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frp3og+4a8o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frp8l7+fl4e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182146

Carol adds:
<SNIP>
Not to mention that Snape is extremely concerned with Dumbledore's
trust of him in this book ("Dumbledore trusts me!"), and if Snape were
to prevent or hinder Harry in something so important, Dumbledore would
be seriously displeased.

Alla:

My cut and paste skills are in dire need of improvement apparently, so 
here ya go, two posts instead of one, LOLOL.

Just wanted to be clear that I am not saying that Snape was trying to 
PREVENT Harry on purpose after DH, just as I am not saying that he is 
trying to help Harry.

I am saying that the ONLY thing that Snape was doing is enjoying 
himself and the small possibility, maybe that Barty could have been 
saved was an unexpected effect OF his torment of Harry. There are so 
many unexpected effects in the books after all.







From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Tue Mar 18 20:29:13 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:29:13 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frp7s4+833g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frp8mp+2m2u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182147

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
>:snip
> 
> OR do ONE step, if you really want to help.
> 
> Really simple one - **give Harry the password**
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>
LOL. Alla me thinks you do not like Snape at all even though you know 
he is on Harry's side (VBG )

Jayne 




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 22:19:04 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 22:19:04 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <froikl+cfhj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frpf4o+db20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182148

> Alla:
> 
> Well yes of course that IS the difference I agree, but my question is 
> whether you would understand the difference had you been not familiar 
> with the complete passage and where this passage comes from, based on 
> that one sentence only.
> 
> And of course I know that JKR wanted the allusion to be clear, it was 
> pretty clear to me even though I did not memorise the passage, but 
> remember reading it.
> 
> But for folks who never read the Bible and who never intend to the 
> allusion is lost, isn't it?

zgirnius:
I disagree (though, in a childhood during which I was baptised and 
confirmed as a Roman Catholic, I have probably seen or heard the 
passage a time or two). I did not recognize the line as from the New 
Testament when I first read the book, but I did know what it meant. The 
line is just one line, but where is it written? On a tombstone. I think 
that makes all the difference.

Unless one has a pretty dark and twisted sense of humor, one would not 
put a slogan about prolonging *this* life on the grave marker of the 
dear departed. Hence, the line must be expressing an idea that is still 
relevant - a hope or faith that the undeniable fact of the death of 
those buried beneath, is not final.

Also, in the Voldemort/Death Eater sense, why would the *last* enemy to 
be destroyed, be death? Surely if one lives on through application of 
the Dark Arts, one can go on making and destroying enemies indefinitely.

That's how I see it, anyway.






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 18 23:03:55 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:03:55 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frp8l7+fl4e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frphor+m45g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182149

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol adds:
> <SNIP>
> Not to mention that Snape is extremely concerned with Dumbledore's
> trust of him in this book ("Dumbledore trusts me!"), and if Snape were
> to prevent or hinder Harry in something so important, Dumbledore would
> be seriously displeased.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> My cut and paste skills are in dire need of improvement apparently, so 
> here ya go, two posts instead of one, LOLOL.
> 
> Just wanted to be clear that I am not saying that Snape was trying to 
> PREVENT Harry on purpose after DH, just as I am not saying that he is 
> trying to help Harry.
> 
> I am saying that the ONLY thing that Snape was doing is enjoying 
> himself and the small possibility, maybe that Barty could have been 
> saved was an unexpected effect OF his torment of Harry. There are so 
> many unexpected effects in the books after all.

Montavilla47:
You know what this is making me wonder?  Why the heck it takes
a password to get into the Headmaster's office in the first place.

The whole reason I brought up that "magic videocamera" idea in
the first place is because Snape's appearance is so providential.  That's
why it seems likely to me that Dumbledore asked him to go detain
Harry for a few minutes.

If Snape had not been there, Harry would have run off to the 
staff room (as others have pointed out) and Barty, Sr. would be even
deader than he was... or something.

Or if it was Neville running up to the office to tell Dumbledore that
Hannah Abbott has just been eaten by the giant squid, then what?  
He's out of luck because he doesn't have the password?  

Surely, surely, there's some way for Dumbledore to be alerted when
a student comes running up to his door.  The gargoyles were 
smart enough not to let Umbridge in, after all.  They must know 
something.  

I think you should reserve your wrath for those gargoyles.  They 
were a lot less helpful than Snape. :)






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 00:03:37 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:03:37 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frklnl+kdgm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frpl8p+shn1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182150

> GoF:
> "If Snape hadn't held me up," Harry said bitterly, "we might've got 
> there on time. "The headmaster is busy, Potter... what's this 
rubbish 
> Potter?" Why couldn't he have just got out of the way?" - p.566

> Alla:
> Me too, Harry, me too :-)

zgirnius:
Nice discussion of this moment Alla has offered for discussion. I 
have been following it with interest, but no one has yet offered an 
interpretation which matches mine, so I thought I'd respons to the 
top of the thread. I think the simplest explanation is that Snape 
acted on his own initiative, and very naturally, as any other teacher 
in his position would have, modulo the personal elements that crop up 
whenever he and Potter interact.

The actual scene, again:

> GoF:
> "Move!" Harry shouted at it. "C'mon!"
> But nothing at Hogwarts had ever moved just because he shouted at 
it; he knew it was no good.

zgirnius:
Cannot help but to interrupt with a comment that Harry certainly does 
not apply this insight in what follows...but to resume...

>GoF:
> He looked up and down the dark corridor. Perhaps Dumbledore was in 
the staffroom? He started running as fast as he could toward the 
staircase -

> "POTTER!"

> Harry skidded to a halt and looked around. Snape had just emerged 
from the hidden staircase behind the stone gargoyle. The wall was 
sliding shut behind him even as he beckoned Harry back toward him.

zgirnius:
Whether or not Albus could hear the commotion, I would argue that 
Snape, just behind the door Harry was yelling at, did. And when it 
opened, saw Harry taking off. Naturally, he wanted to know the nature 
of the emergency that had prompted this behavior, so he said...

> GoF:
> "What are you doing here, Potter?"

> "I need to see Professor Dumbledore!" said Harry, running back up 
the corridor and skidding to a standstill in front of Snape 
instead. "It's Mr. Crouch . . . he's just turned up ... he's in the 
forest... he's asking -"

> "What is this rubbish?" said Snape, his black eyes 
glittering. "What are you talking about?"

zgirnius:
Did you all gather from this statement that the emergency was of a 
nature that only Albus could handle? I know I did not, and I have the 
benefit of havig read the rest of the chapter.

> GoF:
> "Mr. Crouch!" Harry shouted. "From the Ministry! He's ill or 
something - he's in the forest, he wants to see Dumbledore! Just give 
me the password up to -"

> "The headmaster is busy. Potter," said Snape, his thin mouth 
curling into an unpleasant smile.

zgirnius:
I am sure Snape was delighted to tell Harry this fact, but I see 
nothing wrong with his decision to do so, with or without 
the 'unpleasant' smile. Harry is not giving any good reason why Albus 
should be interrupted, he just keeps shouting that he should.

> GoF:
>"I've got to tell Dumbledore!" Harry yelled.

>"Didn't you hear me. Potter?"

>Harry could tell Snape was thoroughly enjoying himself, denying 
Harry the thing he wanted when he was so panicky.

> "Look," said Harry angrily, "Crouch isn't right - he's - he's out 
of his mind - he says he wants to warn -"

zgirnius:
Here, finally, for the first time in the exchange, Harry starts to 
try and tell *Snape* what is wrong, so Snape could judge whether this 
is a thing to take to Albus, or handle himself. The door opens, and 
Albus steps out.

Someone said the scene would have been totally different if Minerva 
had been in the office instead. I beg to differ. We'd lose a lovely 
scene of Harry shouting at Snape and Snape sneering at Harry, (a loss 
to mourn <g>) but the substance, I do not doubt, would be the same, 
as would be the amount of delay. I base my opinion upon the following 
scene of PS/SS:

> PS/SS:
>"What are you three doing inside?"

> It was Professor McGonagall, carrying a large pile of books.

> "We want to see Professor Dumbledore," said Hermione, rather 
bravely, Harry and Ron thought.

> "See Professor Dumbledore?" Professor McGonagall repeated, as 
though this was a very fishy thing to want to do. "Why?"

> Harry swallowed -- now what?

> "It's sort of secret," he said, but he wished at once he hadn't, 
because Professor McGonagall's nostrils flared.

> "Professor Dumbledore left ten minutes ago," she said coldly. "He 
received an urgent owl from the Ministry of Magic and flew off for 
London at once."

> "He's gone?" said Harry frantically. "Now?"

> "Professor Dumbledore is a very great wizard, Potter, he has many 
demands on his time --

> "But this is important."

> "Something you have to say is more important than the Ministry of 
Magic, Potter.

> "Look," said Harry, throwing caution to the winds, "Professor -- 
it's about the Sorcerer's tone --"

> Whatever Professor McGonagall had expected, it wasn't that. The 
books she was carrying tumbled out of her arms, but she didn't pick 
them up. "How do you know --?" she spluttered.

> "Professor, I think -- I know -- that Sn- that someone's going to 
try and steal the Stone. I've got to talk to Professor Dumbledore."

> She eyed him with a mixture of shock and suspicion.

> "Professor Dumbledore will be back tomorrow," she said finally. I 
don't know how you found out about the Stone, but rest assured, no 
one can possibly steal it, it's too well protected."

zgirnius:
The staff, like good, competent subordinates, are protective of the 
boss's time. Albus is busy, and will only be interrupted for matters 
that *really* require his attention. In my view, Minerva and Severus 
are both acting in the same waym for the same reasons, in these two 
scenes.







From lmkos at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 19 01:27:47 2008
From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:27:47 -0700
Subject: LV's Obsession (Was Re: Chap DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frpf4o+db20@eGroups.com>
References: <froikl+cfhj@eGroups.com>
 <frpf4o+db20@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1JbmAf-0000Tl-Fy@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 182151


 > "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." ? Harry's initial
 > reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan.  How does this
 > statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?

Lenore:
I would like to approach the question by examing what we can infer
about LV's belief system, leaving aside, for this topic, whatever
beliefs/philosophy brought the DEs together as a militant force.
I am focusing on one particular aspect of it for now.

LV was absolutely obsessed with the idea of evading death while
maintaining his vulnerable body vehicle. An immortality of sorts,
if one uses the term loosely.  LV was, you might say, mentally
impoverished-- or, as Dhyani Ywahoo (Voices of our Ancestors)
would say, he suffered from an impaired memory with respect
to the memory of divine Life and Love (my paraphrase).

He had no concept of life beyond the transient vulnerable life of
a body form, and therefore, there was the overwhelming need to
hang onto it, through any measure, no matter how drastic.

We've encountered fairly similar attitudes about the body through
history. The relationship between the soul, the mind, and the body
are by no means clear in modern times.

FYI:  Assuredly, the following is not meant as a judgment of anyone
on this list who may be interested or involved in such research. I am
not comparing anyone with LV; I am just exploring trends which, more
than a little, remind me of LV's quest to overcome death.

We have medical technology replacing body organs to maintain the life
of the body.  But there's always the problem of where to get the organs
and how to keep them viable.  There's also the stem cell research and
experiments, and theoretical ideas about cryogenics-- all for just that
one purpose, to preserve the body life.  All have the aim of hanging
on to the body in a desperate search for a way to overcome death.

Perhaps it isn't death which is the problem, but fear of death.

Theoretically, there are those who see cloning as a useful way of
replacing body parts. A person might have several copies of his body,
and when one organ wears out, he'd just "harvest" the organ from one
of his living clones.  Does JKR see the practice of cloning for human
body parts as being like Dark Magic horcruxes?  I have no idea.  But
it did strike me that LV has a similar obsession to preserve his mortal
body as some who are absorbed in the more radical medical experiments.

Lenore, still in the process of gathering a few more thoughts on the topic.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 01:31:33 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:31:33 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frp7s4+833g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frpqdl+n3eq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182152

Alla wrote: 
> <snip> Yes, it is indeed quite simple. And I am asking the same
question which I asked Potioncat, but a little different. Say Harry
would have run away anyways. I did not notice Snape using any magical
compulsion on him. What would have happened then?

Carol responds:
Probably exactly what happened at first. Snape would have ordered him
back. But Harry doesn't want to run off; he wants to explain why he
needs to see Dumbledore. He's just not doing a very good job of
convincing Snape that it's an emergency.

Carol earlier:
> 
> Step 1) Call him back from going the wrong direction.
> 
> Step 2) Detain him by questioning and seeming to doubt him.
> 
> Step 3) Inform him subtly that DD is in his office and prevent him
from running off on a wild goose chase.
> 
> Step 4) Step aside when the job is done and DD comes out.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> OR do ONE step, if you really want to help.
> 
> Really simple one - **give Harry the password**

Carol:
As Zara has brilliantly explained, Snape has no reason to give Harry
the password because all Harry has done is to tell him that Mr. Crouch
is in the forest and needs to see Dumbledore. For all Snape knows, Mr.
Crouch can come there himself. It's only when Harry finally gets
around to saying that Mr. Crouch is not in his right mind that Snape
has reason to believe that there's a real emergency (and a reason for
Harry to see Dumbledore). And just at that point, Dumbledore himself
arrives.

I still think that Snape knew that he was coming, but whether he did
or not, as Zara has already shown, he was behaving responsibly in
questioning Harry rather than giving him the password just because
Harry demanded it.

The delay is, in fact, very short (Read the words aloud to see just
how short), and could have been shortened further had Harry said, at
first, "I need to see Dumbledore right away, sir. Mr. Crouch is in the
forest and he's not in his right mind." Snape might have used a touch
of Legilimency at that point to see what was going on and to determine
that Harry was telling the truth, in which case he could have informed
Harry that DD was on his way downstairs and would be there in a
minute. (I don't think he would have given Harry the password; there
was no need to do so with DD no more than two minutes behind Snape.)

As it was, Snape saw no need to do anything more than determine why
Harry was shouting at the gargoyle (Because Mr. Crouch is in the
forest and wants to see Dumbledore?? What kind of reason is that to
panic?) and keep him from running off in the wrong direction again in
case it really was important. Had he realized that Harry was talking
about a madman, he would almost have informed Harry that DD was on his
way downstairs, but Harry doesn't provide that information until the
third attempt to explain himself. 

Carol, agreeing with every word of Zara's post (upthread) except one
that she doesn't understand, "modulo"




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 02:19:34 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:19:34 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frp8mp+2m2u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frpt7n+viak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182153

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" <jaynesmith62 at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> LOL. Alla me thinks you do not like Snape at all even though you 
know 
> he is on Harry's side (VBG )

Alla:

LOL, Jayne as I usually answer queries like this, congrats on 
uncovering my most deeply NOT hidden secret :-)

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
You know what this is making me wonder? Why the heck it takes
a password to get into the Headmaster's office in the first place.

The whole reason I brought up that "magic videocamera" idea in
the first place is because Snape's appearance is so providential. 
That's
why it seems likely to me that Dumbledore asked him to go detain
Harry for a few minutes.

<SNIP> 
I think you should reserve your wrath for those gargoyles. They
were a lot less helpful than Snape. :)


Alla:

Heee, you funny, you know that right? 

Let me stress again ? I totally accept that hypothetical camera of 
Dumbledore as possibility, not as fact but as possibility for sure.

Basically if for the argument sake I am accepting Snape, who is doing 
anything in this fragment in good faith, Snape, who is being told by 
Dumbledore to delay Harry is certainly my FIRST choice.

The question mark which is there for me in this hypothetical scenario 
is how Dumbledore had known that Harry is coming.

You suggested extremely plausible scenario ? some instrument with 
which Dumbledore had known, so absolutely why not.

Since this possibility is not cold hard canon fact, I do not believe 
I am obligated to accept it as fact, I think my interpretation is 
equally valid, that's all.

Now, when we are talking about Snape doing anything of his own 
accord, anything of good faith, I mean, that I find rather laughable. 
IMO of course.

Possibility 1, Snape decides to delay Harry till Dumbledore comes of 
his own accord because he wants to prevent Harry from barking the 
wrong tree and make sure he gets to see Dumbledore on time, the one 
which Carol seemed to suggest.

Um, again, if Snape was so determined to help Harry, again, why not 
to give him a password?

No, really why? What can be simpler and more effective than to send 
Harry straight up to Dumbledore's office if Snape really wants to 
help that is?


Possibility 2, which Zara suggested, I find even funnier, in fact I 
find it so funny that I want to address it in more details. Here we 
go.

zgirnius:
Nice discussion of this moment Alla has offered for discussion. <SNIP>

Alla:

Thanks dear, sometimes I do miss fights about Snape ;)
zgirnius:
<SNIP>
Whether or not Albus could hear the commotion, I would argue that
Snape, just behind the door Harry was yelling at, did. And when it
opened, saw Harry taking off. Naturally, he wanted to know the nature
of the emergency that had prompted this behavior, so he said...
<SNIP>

Alla:

Snape is a bat after all? He has that astute hearing? But okay, after 
all I cannot prove or disprove that, so let's assume he does.

And sure, Snape wants to know. I would remind him Dumbledore's modus 
operandi of need to know basis or putting his eggs in different 
baskets or something like that, so maybe he should have worked on 
curbing his natural curiosity, but that's neither here no there. 
Let's move on.


zgirnius:
<SNIP of the quote, go read UPTHREAD or go read a book>
Did you all gather from this statement that the emergency was of a
nature that only Albus could handle? I know I did not, and I have the
benefit of having read the rest of the chapter.

Alla:

Mmm, I know what I had gathered from that, especially after reading 
seven books. I gathered that Snape is perfectly aware of the 
importance Dumbledore places on Harry's role in the upcoming War. I 
gathered that Dumbledore really prefers to know of Harry's related 
emergencies, whether he decides to interfere or not. Therefore my 
impression is that if Harry wants to see Dumbledore, Dumbledore would 
really prefer not to have ANYBODY including Snape decide whether 
Dumbledore should see Harry or not.


zgirnius:
I am sure Snape was delighted to tell Harry this fact, but I see
nothing wrong with his decision to do so, with or without
the 'unpleasant' smile. Harry is not giving any good reason why Albus
should be interrupted, he just keeps shouting that he should.

Alla:

As soon as you refer me to the canon where Snape is appointed the 
guardian of Dumbledore FROM HARRY of all people, I will agree that 
this is Snape's business.


zgirnius:
Here, finally, for the first time in the exchange, Harry starts to
try and tell *Snape* what is wrong, so Snape could judge whether this
is a thing to take to Albus, or handle himself. The door opens, and
Albus steps out.

Alla:

Yeah, the only missing part is who told Snape to be such a judge? I 
am just amazed how you can prescribe Snape acting in good faith in 
this scenario. IMO in your scenario, where Snape is delaying Harry on 
purpose and Dumbledore did not tell him to, Snape can be nicely 
blamed for robbing Crouch of that tiny chance to stay alive.
Even  if Snape delays Harry for the purpose of waiting for 
Dumbledore, just on his own, this is just an unexpected event, but if 
he just delays without having any intention of letting Harry see 
Dumbledore, um, nice, Snape, another person's blood on your hands IMO.
Because what if Snape deems that Harry is not worthy to see 
Dumbledore at all here?

And of course there is another missing part IMO. So Snape deemed 
Harry's emergency worthy for Dumbledore to look at, how again he 
communicates to Dumbledore that he can come out?

I mean in your scenario he only comes out after Snape decides, right?


Zgirnius:
<SNIP>

Someone said the scene would have been totally different if Minerva 
> had been in the office instead. I beg to differ. We'd lose a lovely 
> scene of Harry shouting at Snape and Snape sneering at Harry, (a 
loss 
> to mourn <g>) but the substance, I do not doubt, would be the same, 
> as would be the amount of delay. I base my opinion upon the 
following 
> scene of PS/SS:
<SNIP of the quote>

Alla:

You know, yes, I would have agreed with you, except I can't for the 
simple reason that Minerva IMO is not aware how important Harry is to 
Dumbledore, Snape is and to me that makes all the difference and of 
course she tells Trio the truth, Dumbledore is not there, she is not 
playing with them.

IMO,

Alla





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar 19 03:08:51 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:08:51 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frpt7n+viak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frq043+v3gt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182154

 
> Alla:
snip
> 
> The question mark which is there for me in this hypothetical 
scenario 
> is how Dumbledore had known that Harry is coming.

Potioncat:
Oh wow. I've really enjoyed the ever so slightly different scenarios 
that have come out of this discussion. And it is so good to have a 
Snape thread again! <sigh>

So, here's a thought. Neither DD nor Snape heard Harry from DD's 
office. Snape, however, knows that DD is on his way down. I still 
think DD was putting away instruments or the pensieve. But the point 
is, Snape is keeping Harry where he needs to be in order to see the 
headmaster. In that case he's acting on his own, as someone else 
suggested.

If, for example, Snape had been walking down the hall and stopped 
Harry, I'd see it differently. But knowing that Snape was just with 
DD makes me think he knows something we/Harry don't/doesn't.



Alla: > 
> Now, when we are talking about Snape doing anything of his own 
> accord, anything of good faith, I mean, that I find rather 
laughable. 
> IMO of course.

Potioncat:
I don't understand. We know that Snape is protecting Harry as an 
atonement to Lily. We know he is serving DD. I don't see why he would 
go against either of those goals in this case. Why is it laughable?


> Alla:
> No, really why? What can be simpler and more effective than to send 
> Harry straight up to Dumbledore's office if Snape really wants to 
> help that is?

Potioncat:
Because DD is coming down. Because Snape just left the office and 
thinks there is something Harry shouldn't see? Becaue it would slow 
down rather speed up the process for Harry to go up. Because Snape 
doesn't know that moments may matter. And trust me, knowing kids this 
age, things are rarely as drastic as they make them out to be. 
Because this is the man who cruelly punishes Gryffindors by sending 
them to the forest with Hagrid. BTW, did we ever figure out who 
planned the first such punishment?
> 

> Alla:
> 
> Snape is a bat after all? He has that astute hearing? But okay, 
after 
> all I cannot prove or disprove that, so let's assume he does.
> 
Potioncat:
Do we know how  thick the first door is? Does it make sense that you 
couldn't hear someone yelling on the other side? Maybe not from the 
office, but if Snape was already on his way out?
>  
> Zgirnius:
> <SNIP>
> 
> Someone said the scene would have been totally different if Minerva 
> > had been in the office instead. I beg to differ.

Potioncat:
That was me. But my point was that Minerva wouldn't have let him up 
either, just that she wouldn't have been quite so snarky. And I like 
your example, what we see is that Snape and McGonagall are a lot 
alike.
 
> Alla:
> 
> You know, yes, I would have agreed with you, except I can't for the 
> simple reason that Minerva IMO is not aware how important Harry is 
to 
> Dumbledore, Snape is and to me that makes all the difference and of 
> course she tells Trio the truth, Dumbledore is not there, she is 
not playing with them.


Potioncat:
But the point isn't "is Harry important?", it's "should Harry go up?" 
The scene is written to look as if Snape is keeping Harry from DD, 
when in fact, he's keeping Harry near DD.

I know you think Snape was trying to hinder Harry, while I think he 
was actually helping. There have been several scenes between Harry 
and Snape that have looked like nothing more than Snape goading him, 
but in fact had a different purpose. I think it was Carol who pointed 
out Snape's reaction to Harry sneaking out of the castle.

The only moment I can think of that doesn't seem to have a purpose is 
the "Oops" when Harry's potion sample breaks. Are there any others?




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 03:38:24 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:38:24 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frq043+v3gt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frq1rg+3bhu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182155

Alla: >
> Now, when we are talking about Snape doing anything of his own
> accord, anything of good faith, I mean, that I find rather
laughable.
> IMO of course.

Potioncat:
I don't understand. We know that Snape is protecting Harry as an
atonement to Lily. We know he is serving DD. I don't see why he would
go against either of those goals in this case. Why is it laughable?
<SNIP>

Alla:

I am sorry, I should have been more specific. I find laughable that 
Snape will do something HERE on his own initiative, here in this 
fragment. Him serving Dumbledore is of course we know about, we also 
know that even though Snape initially disagrees with Dumbledore's 
plan ( if we take position that Dumbledore does not know that Harry 
will live), he goes along with it, because Dumbledore wants him to.

So, sure I agree that Snape is serving Dumbledore, I also agree that 
Snape is protecting Harry's **life** as service to Dumbledore, 
atonement to Lily, not so sure about. I mean he switched sides as 
atonement for her death, yes, but he surely does not resist of 
Dumbledore's plan, so that tells me that serving Dumbledore is 
Snape's primary goal, IMO.


Alla:
> No, really why? What can be simpler and more effective than to send
> Harry straight up to Dumbledore's office if Snape really wants to
> help that is?

Potioncat:
Because DD is coming down. Because Snape just left the office and
thinks there is something Harry shouldn't see? Becaue it would slow
down rather speed up the process for Harry to go up. Because Snape
doesn't know that moments may matter. And trust me, knowing kids this
age, things are rarely as drastic as they make them out to be.
Because this is the man who cruelly punishes Gryffindors by sending
them to the forest with Hagrid. BTW, did we ever figure out who
planned the first such punishment?


Alla:

I already agreed that if Dumbledore ordered Snape to do it, I find it 
plausible condition upon the existence of that camera or whatever 
instrument Dumbledore can observe Harry or hear from his office, etc. 
So the answer that DD is coming down I do not think very relevant 
anymore 
I was asking why not to give Harry the password if Dumbledore did not 
ask Snape to do anything and Snape of his own kind heart decides to 
help.

And yes, know kids of this age, had been a kid of that age  couple 
decades ago, have a brother who was that age at some point, and you 
know, if at the age of fourteen we thought that there is a problem we 
need to share with adults, it usually was a problem,  because we did 
not care much for sharing that many problems with adults at that age.

And we were, kids who were not particularly rebellious or anything 
like that and still did not want to share problems that we considered 
much. We had good relationship with our parents, etc,  but still 
would want to talk if the problem is big in our eyes.

I would think that considering Harry's background and him not 
trusting adults much, it should alarm Snape twice or more, if he 
indeed comes to adult for help, Harry that is.

Do we really want to talk about Snape's reign as Headmaster? When 
students were regularly being used as guinea pigs  and he did 
nothing. Yes, yes, I know he had a cover to protect. Does not inspire 
much respect still.



Potioncat:
<SNIP>
But the point isn't "is Harry important?", it's "should Harry go up?"
The scene is written to look as if Snape is keeping Harry from DD,
when in fact, he's keeping Harry near DD.

Alla:

No, **my** point is that Harry should go up because he is important, 
even if any other student may have deemed not to go up.

Potioncat;
I know you think Snape was trying to hinder Harry, while I think he
was actually helping. There have been several scenes between Harry
and Snape that have looked like nothing more than Snape goading him,
but in fact had a different purpose. I think it was Carol who pointed
out Snape's reaction to Harry sneaking out of the castle.

The only moment I can think of that doesn't seem to have a purpose is
the "Oops" when Harry's potion sample breaks. Are there any others?


Alla:

LOLOLOLOL. Over the years of Snape debates I had heard purposes 
invented to practically every incident of Snape v Harry. Half of them 
in my opinion do not stand logical scrutiny at all, but the fact that 
purpose can be invented really does not tell me much.

For example, you think that OOOPs does not have any purpose and I 
agree with you, well, do you remember that it was not really Snape 
who did it, but it broke down on its own?

Do I think this is plausible? Not at all, but hey, it is an opinion 
as any other.

I think more than half of Snape's talking at Harry has no legitimate 
purpose whatsoever, except Snape hurting the boy.

Recently mentioned PoA incident ?  purpose, what purpose?

Snape insulting Hermione's teeth? I am pretty sure somebody came up 
with purpose for that as well, does not mean that I give any value to 
the purpose whatever it is.

Just as I am sure my opinions can be of value or no value of course.

Snape taking Harry's book away in PS? Sadism, pure sadism in my mind. 
Snape reading newspaper about Harry in class even bigger sadism if 
you ask me.

Snape assigning Neville to cut toadthings? Yeah, IMO no purpose 
whatsoever except torment.

I know one thing, to me canon supports Snape's hating Harry till his 
bitter end with his answer to Dumbledore.

JMO

Alla





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 04:37:51 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:37:51 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frpt7n+viak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frq5av+slof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182156

> Alla:
> Snape is a bat after all? He has that astute hearing? But okay, 
after 
> all I cannot prove or disprove that, so let's assume he does.

zgirnius:
He steps through the door just as Harry stops shouting and takes off 
down the hall, this hardly requires unusual hearing. However, it is a 
nonessential point. In the event he is actually half deaf, a 
supposition I cannot disprove, I guess Harry's running down the 
hallway might equally be an indication to Snape that something is 
afoot.

> Alla:
> And sure, Snape wants to know. I would remind him Dumbledore's 
modus 
> operandi of need to know basis or putting his eggs in different 
> baskets or something like that, so maybe he should have worked on 
> curbing his natural curiosity, but that's neither here no there. 

zgirnius:
LOL, Snape is a spy. Not to mention that, in order to keep the boy 
out of trouble, he needs to know what trouble the boy is getting into.

> Alla:
> As soon as you refer me to the canon where Snape is appointed the 
> guardian of Dumbledore FROM HARRY of all people, I will agree that 
> this is Snape's business.

zgirnius:
He is not the guardian FROM HARRY, he is *a* guardian OF HARRY. 
Dumbledore has delegated the protection of Harry to Snape in the 
past, and I would like to see the canon that he changed his mind. If 
Dumbledore is busy, why should Snape not deal with a matter which is 
well within his competence to handle? Just as Minerva can tell Harry 
to wait another day, rather than sending an Owl back to the Ministry, 
Flooing there herself, etc, when she discovers that the matter is not 
serious (in her opinion).

> Alla:
> Yeah, the only missing part is who told Snape to be such a judge? 

zgirnius:
Albus, when he hired Snape to be a teacher and Head of House at 
Hogwarts, and when he asked for Snape's help in protecting Harry 
specifically.

> Alla:
> Because what if Snape deems that Harry is not worthy to see 
> Dumbledore at all here?

zgirnius:
Then we have a different story in which Snape heads out to the Forest 
himself with Harry, and discovers what Albus found. Though I am 
inclined to believe that if Harry had produced a cogent description 
of a man coming out from under the Imperius Curse, Snape would have 
decided Albus would want to be there.

> Alla:
> And of course there is another missing part IMO. So Snape deemed 
> Harry's emergency worthy for Dumbledore to look at, how again he 
> communicates to Dumbledore that he can come out?

zgirnius:
Snape knows the password, of course. If he does not, then he is 
completely powerless in the situation, and I don't see what we are 
arguing about.

> Alla:
> You know, yes, I would have agreed with you, except I can't for the 
> simple reason that Minerva IMO is not aware how important Harry is 
to 
> Dumbledore, Snape is and to me that makes all the difference and of 
> course she tells Trio the truth, Dumbledore is not there, she is 
not 
> playing with them.

zgirnius:
She doesn't? And Snape does? Why, exactly? 

I mean, we have canon of Dumbledore asking for Snape's assistance, 
for Snape to protect Harry, and Snape agreeing. I don't see anywhere 
Albus telling Snape before PS/SS that Harry is the key to the War 
Effort - he does not need to tell Snape anything of the sort, because 
Snape finds his own personal reasons for this action sufficiently 
compelling.

Minerva does seem to realize Harry is important, long before he ever 
comes to school. She seems surprised Albus entrusted Harry to Rubeus, 
rather than handling the matter himself. She also, for some reason, 
wastes a whole day hanging about for news of him in a Muggle 
neighborhood.

And of course, I believe Snape was telling the truth. Albus is busy - 
he has many demands on his time.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 05:34:53 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 05:34:53 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frq5av+slof@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frq8lt+6k80@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182157

Alla:
> As soon as you refer me to the canon where Snape is appointed the
> guardian of Dumbledore FROM HARRY of all people, I will agree that
> this is Snape's business.

zgirnius:
He is not the guardian FROM HARRY, he is *a* guardian OF HARRY.
Dumbledore has delegated the protection of Harry to Snape in the
past, and I would like to see the canon that he changed his mind. If
Dumbledore is busy, why should Snape not deal with a matter which is
well within his competence to handle? Just as Minerva can tell Harry
to wait another day, rather than sending an Owl back to the Ministry,
Flooing there herself, etc, when she discovers that the matter is not
serious (in her opinion). <SNIP>

Alla:

So how is Harry wanting Dumbledore's help transpires into Snape 
deemed necessary to step into his  alleged role of guardian of Harry? 
Didn't you argue that as good subordinates Snape and Minerva are 
protective of boss' time?

Looks to me as Snape being self alleged guardian from Harry here, if 
he would not let him to see his boss? And again, who made him that 
guardian?

Alla:
> Yeah, the only missing part is who told Snape to be such a judge?

zgirnius:
Albus, when he hired Snape to be a teacher and Head of House at
Hogwarts, and when he asked for Snape's help in protecting Harry
specifically.

Alla:

I still do not recall Dumbledore asking Snape's help in protecting 
Harry from Dumbledore, LOL. Your scenario would make some sense to me 
if Voldemort was in that office.

Alla:
> And of course there is another missing part IMO. So Snape deemed
> Harry's emergency worthy for Dumbledore to look at, how again he
> communicates to Dumbledore that he can come out?

zgirnius:
Snape knows the password, of course. If he does not, then he is
completely powerless in the situation, and I don't see what we are
arguing about.

Alla:

Well, of course he knows password. OH, Okay, I see, DUH Alla. If 
Snape decides that Harry is worthy of Dumbledore's time, he does not 
need to call Dumbledore from distance in your scenario, he would just 
tell him the password. At least I understand this part now.

zgirnius:
She doesn't? And Snape does? Why, exactly?

I mean, we have canon of Dumbledore asking for Snape's assistance,
for Snape to protect Harry, and Snape agreeing. I don't see anywhere
Albus telling Snape before PS/SS that Harry is the key to the War
Effort - he does not need to tell Snape anything of the sort, because
Snape finds his own personal reasons for this action sufficiently
compelling.

Minerva does seem to realize Harry is important, long before he ever
comes to school. <SNIP>

Alla:
Snape knows prophecy, Minerva does not. Snape knows how intent 
Voldemort on getting prophecy boy.

Zgirnius:
<SNIP>
And of course, I believe Snape was telling the truth. Albus is busy -
he has many demands on his time.

Alla:

Wait, wait, so there is that boy whom somebody put in that deadly 
dangerous TWT and Snape should protect him, but he does not think 
that at the smallest sign of trouble he should rush him to Dumbledore?

Well, we all know how helpful Snape was in protecting Harry in GoF, 
he certainly did not save Harry from GoF, so I guess I can see that.






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 06:34:58 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:34:58 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frpt7n+viak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frqc6i+htl3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182158

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> You know what this is making me wonder? Why the heck it takes
> a password to get into the Headmaster's office in the first place.
> 
> The whole reason I brought up that "magic videocamera" idea in
> the first place is because Snape's appearance is so providential. 
> That's
> why it seems likely to me that Dumbledore asked him to go detain
> Harry for a few minutes.
> 
> <SNIP> 
> I think you should reserve your wrath for those gargoyles. They
> were a lot less helpful than Snape. :)
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Heee, you funny, you know that right? 

Montavilla47:
Thanks.  It's always nice to be told. :)

Alla:
> Since this possibility is not cold hard canon fact, I do not believe 
> I am obligated to accept it as fact, I think my interpretation is 
> equally valid, that's all.

Montavilla47:
Quite right.  You have just as much right and just as much 
evidence for your interpretation as anyone else.  

As you say elsewhere, it's fun to argue about Snape.  It's 
even more fun when we can agree (as we really should be
able to now that the books are finished) that different 
interpretations are all pretty much valid.


> Alla:
> Mmm, I know what I had gathered from that, especially after reading 
> seven books. I gathered that Snape is perfectly aware of the 
> importance Dumbledore places on Harry's role in the upcoming War. I 
> gathered that Dumbledore really prefers to know of Harry's related 
> emergencies, whether he decides to interfere or not. Therefore my 
> impression is that if Harry wants to see Dumbledore, Dumbledore would 
> really prefer not to have ANYBODY including Snape decide whether 
> Dumbledore should see Harry or not.

Montavilla47:
You know, before DH came out, I would have agreed whole-heartedly
about Snape knowing about Harry's importance.  But, since the 
Prince's Tale, I'm not so sure.

The first half of the prophecy appeared to have been fulfillled when
Voldemort disappeared the first time.  We don't have any confirmation
that Snape ever knew that Voldemort was on the back of Quirrell's 
head. Unless you want to go by the rumors floating around school
at the end of PS/SS (which everyone seemed to forget completely 
by the beginning of the next year... perhaps Dumbledore puts
Forgetfulness Potion in everyone's pumpkin juice at the closing
feast?)

Snape was tasked with protecting Harry for Lily's sake, not because
Harry's role was still to come... Dumbledore mentions the Dark Lord
possibly returning, but not that Harry poses a threat to him.

I realize this may be a hard concept, since we've known, even before
the prophecy, that the series was working up to a final
confrontation between Harry and Voldemort.  But Snape didn't
necesssarily know that.  He might have assumed Harry's part in 
the conflict was over, except for LV's desire for revenge.  

In which case, his attitude towards Harry does, actually, make
more sense.  In a moment of weakness (when his heart was on
his sleeve), he promised to protect Lily's son.  He does that
as faithfully as he can, not realizing until OotP, that Harry is 
supposed to finish off LV once and for all.  

If this is the assumption Snape's working under, he has no 
obligation to think of Harry as anything but mediocre.  There's 
no reason for him to think that Harry is endowed with the power 
of love (tm), because all he sees is a cocky, bratty kid who looks 
almost exactly like an even cockier, brattier kid that Snape hated.

Now that we know how secretive Dumbledore was and now little
he did tell Snape, there's no reason that Snape would know 
at all about Love being the power that Voldemort knows not.  He
didn't hear that part of the prophecy.  

So, it makes perfect sense for Snape to protect Harry to the 
best of his ability, while simultaneously trying to "treat him like
any other student," and, at the same time, hating his guts.

What doesn't make complete sense is his trying to expell Harry
all the time.  The only thing that justifies that to me is the 
possibility that he thinks (or tells himself) that Harry would be 
safer with the Dursleys.  Of course, he wouldn't know how
Harry was treated there until OotP.  At which point, he would 
probably also know (I think Dumbledore would have told the 
Order by this time) that Harry is the Chosen One and that he
does have a role to play in the future.

And, this is also when Snape stops trying to get Harry expelled.
Even when Harry nearly kills another student.
 
Montavilla47




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 06:57:33 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:57:33 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frq1rg+3bhu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frqdgt+tlpt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182159

> Potioncat;
> I know you think Snape was trying to hinder Harry, while I think he
> was actually helping. There have been several scenes between Harry
> and Snape that have looked like nothing more than Snape goading him,
> but in fact had a different purpose. I think it was Carol who pointed
> out Snape's reaction to Harry sneaking out of the castle.
> 
> The only moment I can think of that doesn't seem to have a purpose is
> the "Oops" when Harry's potion sample breaks. Are there any others?
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOLOLOLOL. Over the years of Snape debates I had heard purposes 
> invented to practically every incident of Snape v Harry. Half of them 
> in my opinion do not stand logical scrutiny at all, but the fact that 
> purpose can be invented really does not tell me much.
> 
> For example, you think that OOOPs does not have any purpose and I 
> agree with you, well, do you remember that it was not really Snape 
> who did it, but it broke down on its own?
> 
> Do I think this is plausible? Not at all, but hey, it is an opinion 
> as any other.

Montavilla47:
Having looked at that passage, I do find either interpretation of that
moment valid.  Harry assumes that Snape has broken the vial 
because of course if Harry had done so, it would have been an 
accident and he wouldn't have noticed.  Both interpretations (that
a:  Snape broke the vial and b: that Snape didn't and was merely 
gloating over Harry's clumsiness) seem to me equally supported by 
the text.

Alla:
> Recently mentioned PoA incident ?  purpose, what purpose?

Montavilla47:
Which incident?  Snape telling Harry about James?  I think
Snape was provoked in that case when he learned that Dumbledore
had told Harry a stupid, insulting lie.

Alla:
> Snape insulting Hermione's teeth? I am pretty sure somebody came up 
> with purpose for that as well, does not mean that I give any value to 
> the purpose whatever it is.

Montavilla47:
You got me on that one.  I have come up with an explanation that 
satisfies me, but it has nothing to do with helping or protecting
Harry.

I have heard one that Snape is using the incident to push Harry
and Ron towards reconciliation by offering himself as a common
enemy.  But, I doubt he'd do that consciously.  I doubt he'd care
whether Ron and Harry were friends or not.

Alla:
> Snape taking Harry's book away in PS? Sadism, pure sadism in my mind. 
> Snape reading newspaper about Harry in class even bigger sadism if 
> you ask me.

Montavilla47:
Frankly, I think the book was just Snape enforcing school rules.  The
newspaper thing?  Pure spite.

Hehe.  I'll bet Snape loved it.

Alla:
> Snape assigning Neville to cut toadthings? Yeah, IMO no purpose 
> whatsoever except torment.

Montavilla47:
I can never get that excited about this egregious punishment.  I had a 
cat and I loved him dearly.  But, if for any reason I was in a class where
we had to disect cats, I would have been able to do it with no problem.

Look, when you make potions, you have to prepare the ingrediants.  
Neville wasn't disecting Trevor for goodness sake.  

In Charlotte's Web, Fran loved Wilbur.  Didn't mean she stopped 
eating bacon.   She probably watched the pigs being slaughtered,
too.  When she was old enough, she probably helped.






From leahstill at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 19 12:06:13 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:06:13 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frqdgt+tlpt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frqvjl+6o9u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182160

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" 
<montavilla47 at ...> 
wrote:
>> 
> Alla:
> > Snape taking Harry's book away in PS? Sadism, pure sadism in my 
mind. 
> > Snape reading newspaper about Harry in class even bigger sadism 
if 
> > you ask me.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Frankly, I think the book was just Snape enforcing school rules.  
The
> newspaper thing?  Pure spite.

Leah: Agree with Montavilla about the book.  And sadism is a delight 
in 
cruelty to others. I don't think even Harry would describe the 
removal 
of a book as an act of cruelty, annoying perhaps.

As to the newspaper, after the reading, Snape sits Harry at the 
front 
of the class and tells him, sotto voce, what he thinks is wrong with 
Harry's behaviour, in terms of rule breaking and in particular, 
theft 
from Snape's supplies.  When Nightshirt!Snape encountered Harry and 
CrouchMoody earlier in the book, Snape's office had just been broken 
into.  Harry correctly denied doing this, (it was of course 
CrouchMoody), but Snape now knows that Harry used gillyweed in the 
TWC 
and therefore believes Harry stole this from Snape and was lying 
earlier.  (Dobby was the actual thief, but Harry isn't at all 
bothered 
as to the legality of aquiring his gillyweed).  Snape also blames 
Harry 
for the disappearance of boomslang juice, which is again down to 
CrouchMoody, but Harry was complicit in Hermione's theft of the same 
polyjuice ingredient from Snape in COS.

So I think the newspaper reading is revenge for what Snape sees (not 
entirely wrongly) as Harry's thieving and lying.  Yes, 
it is petty and childish, but not coming completely out of the 
blue.  
And it was very funny (sorry)

Leah 













 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar 19 12:34:47 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:34:47 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frq8lt+6k80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frr197+au6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182161

 
> Alla:
> 
> Wait, wait, so there is that boy whom somebody put in that deadly 
> dangerous TWT and Snape should protect him, but he does not think 
> that at the smallest sign of trouble he should rush him to Dumbledore?
> 
> Well, we all know how helpful Snape was in protecting Harry in GoF, 
> he certainly did not save Harry from GoF, so I guess I can see that.

Potioncat:

At the smallest sign of trouble, Snape would step in save the day. Just 
like Superman and his billowing cape.  ;p 

Actually, if your interpreation is correct, and Snape is keeping Harry 
from DD (rather than holding him for DD)--he could be doing it to find 
out what is wrong and to deal with it himself. I don't think so, but I 
can see that slant. I can't see just keeping him away for the fun of it.

DD didn't do such a hot job there either. Of course, DD wasn't trying 
to protect Harry; he was training him. 









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Mar 19 15:10:16 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:10:16 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frq1rg+3bhu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frraco+40i2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182162

 Alla:
> 
> I am sorry, I should have been more specific. I find laughable that 
> Snape will do something HERE on his own initiative, here in this 
> fragment. Him serving Dumbledore is of course we know about, we 
also 
> know that even though Snape initially disagrees with Dumbledore's 
> plan ( if we take position that Dumbledore does not know that Harry 
> will live), he goes along with it, because Dumbledore wants him to.
> 
> So, sure I agree that Snape is serving Dumbledore, I also agree 
that 
> Snape is protecting Harry's **life** as service to Dumbledore, 
> atonement to Lily, not so sure about. I mean he switched sides as 
> atonement for her death, yes, but he surely does not resist of 
> Dumbledore's plan, so that tells me that serving Dumbledore is 
> Snape's primary goal, IMO.

Potioncat:
I have to admit, I haven't fully worked out the timeline in GoF as 
revealed in DH. So I'm fuzzy on the details on when Snape learned 
different aspects of DD's plan. But yes, I think Snape was doing 
things for Harry's good on his own initiative all through the series.

And I may have made it look like Snape would have thought Harry's 
frantic need for DD was completely unimportant. I think Snape was 
evaluating Harry's message (or at least trying to) even as he kept 
Harry waiting for DD. I think that would have been an appropriate 
role for him. (I guess this is a me too to an earlier post.)
> 

> Alla:
> Do we really want to talk about Snape's reign as Headmaster?

Potioncat:
Well, I don't. ;-(  But I don't want to talk about Charity either.

I'd like to see a short story by JKR set at Hogwarts during that 
time. I'd like to see her vision of how it transpired. 


> Alla:> 
> For example, you think that OOOPs does not have any purpose and I 
> agree with you, well, do you remember that it was not really Snape 
> who did it, but it broke down on its own?

Potioncat:
Of course I remember that. I remember that very clearly. LOL

The whole reason I like that little scene is that I was so surprised 
at how differently each reader filled in the blanks. It was very much 
like a TV episode that shows a single event from differnt points of 
view. As for Oops, none of us really know how the vial (or was it a 
flask?) broke. But I know that as I read the page for the first time, 
I thought the vial/flask fell off the table.

Actually, that's what's going on in this scene too. Each of us have 
come up with what we think is Snape's motivation for his actions.


> Alla:
> Snape insulting Hermione's teeth? >
> 
> Snape taking Harry's book away in PS? 

> Snape reading newspaper about Harry in class even bigger sadism if 
> you ask me.
> 
> Snape assigning Neville to cut toadthings? Yeah, IMO no purpose 
> whatsoever except torment.
> 
> I know one thing, to me canon supports Snape's hating Harry till 
his 
> bitter end with his answer to Dumbledore.

Potioncat:
Slow down! I can't type that fast! Particularly since my cat is 
trying to help.

Uh...Hermione and Neville aren't Harry and don't count. (Two down)

He took Harry's book so the Slytherin team would have a better chance 
at winning. Well, I'll bet there is a stupid rule that says books 
can't go outdoors. Sounds like something Pince would do.

Reading the newspaper was mean. Whether he did so out of spite for 
what he thought was going on or because he thought the Trio were 
reading the newspaper in class--couldn't say.

I don't think he hated Harry to the bitter end. Close maybe, but not 
all the way.

As for Hermione, not sure if he had any cruelty in mind, just didn't 
care, or what. It came as a painful event that the reader could feel. 
Hard to think that someone who had been teased for his appearance 
would not be sensitive to others' feelings about theirs. He could 
have just as easily sent her off with no comment. But it is in 
keeping with his reaction to other Gryffindors who had their 
appearance changed where he pretended not to notice the curse or to 
say it was the victims own spell gone bad. And whether it was his 
purpose or not, it gave him a way to explain to fellow DEs and the 
Big Guy that he had not enjoyed having the Trio as students and did 
not treat them well. (Come to think of it, both statements would be 
true.)

Neville and the toads--I think gutting toads is an appropriate 
punishment task. Someone had to do it. I think Snape's approach to 
Neville was all wrong, but even McGonagall wasn't particularly nice 
to him. Harry had a similar punishment involving sorting eels or 
something. 

I will sort of concede that not "every" interaction between Snape and 
Harry had a higher purpose. But quite a few of them have a different 
intention than they seem at first glance.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Mar 19 16:04:28 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:04:28 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frp7s4+833g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frrdic+cu97@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182163


> 
> Alla:
> 
> OR do ONE step, if you really want to help.
> 
> Really simple one - **give Harry the password**
> 

Pippin:
Um, no, because then Harry has to use the password, which is another
step. Fastest will be for Snape to use the password himself. But then
Harry will be at the bottom of a staircase which is rotating in the
wrong direction. Some LOON is bound to correct me if I am wrong, but I
don't recall any canon that it's possible to run the stairs, or that
they can operate in both directions at once.  Harry would still have 
had to wait at the bottom of the stairs until Dumbledore came down,
and no time would have been saved. 

In any case the whole point is moot, because Crouch says, under
veritaserum, that he did the murder before Harry ever arrived at
Dumbledore's office. Here's the canon:

"You killed your father," Dumbledore said, in the same soft voice.
"What did you do with the body?"

"Carried it into the forest. Covered it with the Invisibility Cloak. I
had the map with me. I watched Potter run into the castle. He met
Snape. Dumbledore joined them. I watched Potter bring Dumbledore out 
of the castle. I walked out of the forest, doubled around behind them,
went to meet them. I told Dumbledore Snape had told me where to come."

--GoF ch 35

As someone said, canon really ought to have resolved this point, and
it does.

Pippin







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 16:21:42 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:21:42 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frrdic+cu97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frreim+cb6n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182164

> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> In any case the whole point is moot, because Crouch says, under
> veritaserum, that he did the murder before Harry ever arrived at
> Dumbledore's office. Here's the canon:
> 
> "You killed your father," Dumbledore said, in the same soft voice.
> "What did you do with the body?"
> 
> "Carried it into the forest. Covered it with the Invisibility 
Cloak. I
> had the map with me. I watched Potter run into the castle. He met
> Snape. Dumbledore joined them. I watched Potter bring Dumbledore 
out 
> of the castle. I walked out of the forest, doubled around behind 
them,
> went to meet them. I told Dumbledore Snape had told me where to 
come."
> 
> --GoF ch 35
> 
> As someone said, canon really ought to have resolved this point, and
> it does.


Alla:

Bravo, Pippin. This is what I call cold and hard canon fact. Yes, no 
matter how long Snape would have detained Harry, it looks like 
nothing could have saved poor Barty.

Having said that, this is not the only point I was making and I do 
not think that my point about Snape having his twisted fun with Harry 
is moot. I mean obviously people who think that Snape had other 
motivations are disagreeing with my point, but I do not see anything 
in your post that makes it moot.


Leah:
As to the newspaper, after the reading, Snape sits Harry at the
front
of the class and tells him, sotto voce, what he thinks is wrong with
Harry's behavior, in terms of rule breaking and in particular,
theft
from Snape's supplies. <SNIP>
so I think the newspaper reading is revenge for what Snape sees (not
entirely wrongly) as Harry's thieving and lying. Yes,
it is petty and childish, but not coming completely out of the
blue.


Alla:

Snipping rather arbitrarily, since I am responding to the whole 
quote. Snape does not bother to find out who stole his supplies; he 
just blames Harry as usual. And by the way why Harry is supposed to 
wonder about legality of Dobby acquiring gillyweed? And you are 
saying him blaming Harry for all that is not entirely wrong?

So, yes we agree that it was revenge on Snape's part, I just fail to 
see how the motives you described make Snape look better, or maybe I 
misunderstood you.

Snape sometimes guesses what Harry did correctly (well, not really as 
we know, he just reads Harry's mind without any permission 
whatsoever), but even when he does he is 99% wrong about Harry's 
motives, so 

Leah:
And it was very funny (sorry).

Alla:

LOL, believe me I am able to find some of Snape's remarks funny, 
while also finding them disgusting.

I do not find this one funny, but for example I totally find Snape's 
speech about Harry's head in Hogsmead to be very funny and I want to 
strangle him for his conduct there.

> Potioncat:
> 
> At the smallest sign of trouble, Snape would step in save the day. 
Just 
> like Superman and his billowing cape.  ;p 
> 
> Actually, if your interpretation is correct, and Snape is keeping 
Harry 
> from DD (rather than holding him for DD)--he could be doing it to 
find 
> out what is wrong and to deal with it himself. I don't think so, 
but I 
> can see that slant. I can't see just keeping him away for the fun 
of it.

Alla:

Snape keeping Harry FROM Dumbledore is NOT my interpretation at all I 
find it to be quite weak one and I hope I described upthread why I 
believe so.

Just as it is not my interpretation that Snape is keeping Harry FOR 
Dumbledore, BUT I can see this one being logical and plausible and in 
my mind it carries the same weight as the one which you cannot see 
Snape doing here - just keeping Harry here for the pure fun of it.

That is exactly what I think is happening. I do not think Snape is 
engaged in any other purposes whatsoever except having his twisted 
fun, although again I can totally see Dumbledore asking Snape to do 
it, to detain Harry I mean.

Potioncat:
> DD didn't do such a hot job there either. Of course, DD wasn't 
trying 
> to protect Harry; he was training him.

Alla:

Of course DD did not do a good job at all IMO.

Potioncat:
<BIG SNIP>
I will sort of concede that not "every" interaction between Snape and
Harry had a higher purpose. But quite a few of them have a different
intention than they seem at first glance.


PotioncatAlla:
And it is not like I do not see Snape ever having any purpose in his 
dealings with Harry besides having his twisted fun. Like what 
Montavilla said upthread about Snape threatening Harry with 
expulsion, I actually think after book 7 that while Snape would 
totally enjoy Harry being unhappy about leaving the only real home he 
ever had, I think that it is very possible that Snape thought that 
Harry would be safer somewhere else.

But most definitely I think that A LOT of Snape's encounters with 
Harry have no purpose besides his enjoyment. 

JMO,

Alla







From leahstill at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 19 16:29:09 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:29:09 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frraco+40i2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frrf0l+ikpv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182165

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> > Alla:
> > Do we really want to talk about Snape's reign as Headmaster?
> 
> Potioncat:
> Well, I don't. ;-(  But I don't want to talk about Charity either.
> 
> I'd like to see a short story by JKR set at Hogwarts during that 
> time. I'd like to see her vision of how it transpired.


Leah: Well, there's not that much to talk about in terms of what
actually went on during Snape's reign, because we don't know much 
and more importantly because, I believe, JKR dug herself into a deep 
hole on the whole Hogwarts issue in DH. 

Because she wanted Snape's loyalty as a big reveal at the near end 
of the book, Snape had to remain ESE or at least ambiguous 
throughout DH. There was therefore nothing that Snape could do to 
save Charity as any action on his part (if actually possible) woould 
have revealed him as a white-hat in the first chapter.  I actually 
think that would have been quite exciting with Snape on the run and 
HRH discovering his loyalty half way through, but that was not to 
be.  So we are left watching Snape watching Charity.   I 
don't see that as 'bad Snape'. DD sent him to be a spy and that is 
the sort of thing spies have to do to maintain cover, like it or 
not, it was his job. He is expressly told by DD to maintain cover so 
he can look after the school and help Harry.  Personally I felt very 
sorry for both Charity and Snape during that scene.  

I think the real problems come with Hogwarts.  JKR needs to 
demonstrate enough ambiguity in Snape to make her later 'reveal' 
plausible.  So we have the detention of Ginny etc with Hagrid, and 
of course the doe patronus if we guess that's Snape.  But we can't 
see Snape heroically subverting both Voldemort's rule and the  
Carrows at every turn, because:

(i) it would be a dead give-away as to Snape's loyalty, spoiling 
JKR's plan to have the big end of book 'reveal'.

(ii) Voldemort's rule has to be shown as evil, so we have to hear 
about the Carrows doing Very Bad Things.

(iii) We have to see Ginny, Luna and Neville as the inside 
resistance movement, (and good for them),which means there has to be 
something for them to bravely resist.

 The problem with all of this is, that the Snape we see in HBP is 
perfectly capable of keeping the Carrows in check, as we see when he 
removes the Death Eaters from the Astronomy Tower and gets them out 
of the school and the grounds asap, saving Harry from Cruciatus on  
the way.  We also see from Snape's interactions with Mundungus 
Fletcher in DH, and can glean from the fact that Snape continually 
deceives Voldemort, and has been doing so since Snape was a boy of 
20, that he could doubtless Confund or otherwise bamboozle the 
Carrows into thinking he was on their side while preventing real 
harm to the students. 

IMO the need for ConstrainedHeadmaster Snape and bad things going on 
at Hogwarts just doesn't gel with the Snape we have seen 
previously.  No doubt we can say that things would have even worse 
if one of the Carrows or the old-style Lucius Malfoy had been 
Headmaster, but we are left with the gut feeling that Snape ought to 
be able to do more.  The fact that he doesn't is not, I think, a 
character fault, but a fault in the planning and structure of the 
book.


Leah




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 19 16:51:21 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:51:21 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frreim+cb6n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frrga9+21bj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182166

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> .
> 
> 
> Leah:
> As to the newspaper, after the reading, Snape sits Harry at the
> front
> of the class and tells him, sotto voce, what he thinks is wrong 
with
> Harry's behavior, in terms of rule breaking and in particular,
> theft
> from Snape's supplies. <SNIP>
> so I think the newspaper reading is revenge for what Snape sees 
(not
> entirely wrongly) as Harry's thieving and lying. Yes,
> it is petty and childish, but not coming completely out of the
> blue.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Snipping rather arbitrarily, since I am responding to the whole 
> quote. Snape does not bother to find out who stole his supplies; 
he 
> just blames Harry as usual. And by the way why Harry is supposed 
to 
> wonder about legality of Dobby acquiring gillyweed? And you are 
> saying him blaming Harry for all that is not entirely wrong?
> 
> So, yes we agree that it was revenge on Snape's part, I just fail 
to 
> see how the motives you described make Snape look better, or maybe 
I 
> misunderstood you.
> 
> Snape sometimes guesses what Harry did correctly (well, not really 
as 
> we know, he just reads Harry's mind without any permission 
> whatsoever), but even when he does he is 99% wrong about Harry's 
> motives, so 

Leah:

Quick answers here, as I must get on:

(i) I was replying to Montavilla's post which said that as far as 
she could see, Snape's reading out of the article was only 
m,otivated by spite.  I was pointing out that Snape did have some 
motivation ie he believed Harry to be a thief and a liar.  I am not 
saying that his way of tackling this was the correct pedagogic 
approach. 

(ii) Since Harry has left trying to succeed in the second task so 
late, I wouldn't expect him to be checking out Dobby's supply route 
at that point.  But it is indicative of Harry's behaviour in 
general, that he is quite happy to break rules, tell lies, be 
complicit in theft etc, so although Snape is wrong in this 
particular instance, he is not exactly attacking an innocent.  In a 
Muggle school, students who acted as HRH do, stealing from a teacher,
(COS) setting a teacher alight (PS/SS), deliberately causing a 
classroom accident (COS), attacking a teacher(POA), breaking rules 
set down for their safety (POA as just one example), would certainly 
be punished rather more severely than by the odd humiliating 
remark.  As it is Snape who happens to be the butt of all the 
behaviour mentioned  above, I can't get too upset over his (amusing) 
retaliations, which have no lasting effect on the trio.  

(iii) It is of course part of the whole Harry/Snape dynamic that 
they are both wrong about each others' motives.  I don't think Snape 
actively reads Harry's mind except during Occlumency, just picks up 
vibes, or he would know more about Harry's motives.  And of course, 
he is also probably picking up vibes from the horcrux in Harry's 
head, which wouldn't help.

Leah   




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 18:36:52 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:36:52 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frrga9+21bj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frrmg5+3n3j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182167

Lea:
<SNIP>
(iii) It is of course part of the whole Harry/Snape dynamic that
they are both wrong about each others' motives. I don't think Snape
actively reads Harry's mind except during Occlumency, just picks up
vibes, or he would know more about Harry's motives. And of course,
he is also probably picking up vibes from the horcrux in Harry's
head, which wouldn't help.

<SNIP>

Alla:

I believe that while Harry was wrong about Snape's loyalties he was 
always spot on about Snape hating him. But in any event I think that 
by the fact of Snape contributing to destroying Harry's life as it 
could have been, Harry by default earned the right to be as wrong 
about Snape as he wishes to and still be forgiven. And Snape 
attacking him in the beginning increased that belief of mine.

But I want to ask a question, what does picking vibes mean?

You think Snape does not legilimence Harry every time he looks at 
him? Is any other way of telepathy or something similar exists in 
Potterverse? I do not think it does, am I wrong? Something like 
empathy you mean? Picking up emotions?

I do think that Snape legilimences Harry every time he looks at him, 
otherwise why stressing that  eye contact occurs. IMO of course.

And boy do I hate that ( and yes I hate when Dumbledore does that as 
well), but I think that he does not want to let Harry know that he 
does that, because I speculate that more in depth legilimency may 
cause some sort of feeling to the mind that is being raped ( that is 
what to me legilimency is).

So I speculate that Snape can only touch very surface of Harry's mind 
without him knowing that he does something and that is how he may 
know sometimes what Harry did but not why.

JMO,

Alla





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 19 18:56:41 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:56:41 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frrmg5+3n3j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frrnl9+le25@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182168

Alla:
> But I want to ask a question, what does picking vibes mean?
> 
> You think Snape does not legilimence Harry every time he looks at 
> him? Is any other way of telepathy or something similar exists in 
> Potterverse? I do not think it does, am I wrong? Something like 
> empathy you mean? Picking up emotions?

Magpie:
Yes, I think just meaning that he gets a sense of what Harry's 
thinking/feeling just by his manner or expression. 

Basically, it's exactly what Harry does with Snape from the very 
first day. He picks up a vibe (vibration--you probably got that 
part!) that Snape really dislikes him and...he's absolutely right. I 
think the first time because Snape glares at him during the banquet--
does he glare? Or just look at him and Harry feels pain in his scar 
because of Quirrel? But in his first Potions class he gets the 
feeling that Snape hates him personally and he's right. 

It's not even really just that Snape picks him out for questions he 
doesn't know or makes his "celebrity" speech--as uncomfortable as it 
is for Harry another teacher *could* have done that without actually 
having anything against Harry, just thinking he was making an 
important point about a class celebrity. But Harry gets a vibe that 
it is personal and of course he's right.

I don't know whether Snape actually legimences Harry every time he 
looks at him...there are times when Harry thinks he is and those 
times I think he is. It seems like it might get a little 
inconsistent--how does Harry know what Snape is seeing sometimes but 
other times he's just looking into his eyes? (Like with the HBP book 
Harry knows when Snape sees it in his mind.) 

Now that it's over I'm actually willing to think Snape might 
sometimes be doing it but other times looking into his 
eyes "searching" for something else--they are Lily's eyes, and he 
might into them in other ways besides pure Legimancy.

-m (agreeing that Legiminacy from Snape or Dumbledore without 
Harry's knowledge is totally out of line.)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 21:14:47 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:14:47 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frq8lt+6k80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frrvo7+am31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182169

Alla:
> <snip most of post>


> Wait, wait, so there is that boy whom somebody put in that deadly 
> dangerous TWT and Snape should protect him, but he does not think 
> that at the smallest sign of trouble he should rush him to Dumbledore?
> 
> Well, we all know how helpful Snape was in protecting Harry in GoF, 
> he certainly did not save Harry from GoF, so I guess I can see that.
>
Carol responds:
I've already given my arguments, none of which you seem to agree with,
so I won't repeat them here. However, I want to mention that Voldemort
has not yet returned to his body at this point and poses no danger to
Harry except via the TWT, which both DD and Snape are aware of. Nor
does Hrry mention Voldemort in his panicked words to snape--he
mentions only Mr. Crouch being in the forest. Until Snape hears that
Mr. Crouch is acting like a madman, he has no cause for concern.
*Harry 8s in no danger*, nor is the school. Snape is trying to find
out what's going on. Meantime, no point in sending him up to
Dumbledore when DD is coming down anyway. Exactly how he can come down
faster if Harry goes up to him, I don't understand. He still has the
same number of steps to climb down.

I also want to point out that had Snape not come down when he did and
called Harry to him, Harry would not have seen DD at all. And I want
to mention that the two minutes it took for Snape to question Harry
(which, as his teacher and an important member of the Hogwarts staff,
he had every right to do, just as he has the right to take points from
harry and give him detention and make him write essays) would make no
difference whatever to Mr. Crouch, who was to all intents and purposes
a dead man the moment Voldemort gave Barty Jr. orders to kill him. As
soon as Harry disappeared from his sight, Barty Jr., under his
Invisibility Cloak, would have Stunned Krum and killed his father. Mr.
Crouch was probably already dead before Harry got to the Great Hall,
much less the seventh floor. and meanwhile, Barty Jr. was watching
Harry's every move on the Marauder's Map.

Also, had Snape understood that Mr. Crouch was mad and that there was
indeed a need for him to talk to DD, he could have sent a Patronus
rather than giving Harry the password, but he had no opportunity to do
so. And none of them--Harry, Snape, DD--knew that Mr. Crouch was in
deadly peril from which not even Dumbledore could save him. Again,
Barty Jr. had both an Invisibility Cloak and the Marauder's Map.
that's how he knew that Snape had talked to Harry, so he could lie to
DD and tell him that Snape had told him Mr. Crouch was in trouble.
(Yeah, right, Barty. You had already killed your father at that point.)

BTW, Barty gives the following information under the influence of
veritaserum:

"For a week I waited for my father to arrive at Hogwarts.At last, one
evening, the map showed my father entering the grounds. I pulled on my
Invisibility Cloak and went down to meet him. He was walking around
the edge of the forest. Then Potter came, and Krum. I waited. I could
not hurt Potter; my master needed him. Potter ran to get Dumbledore. I
Stunned Krum. I killed my father" (GoF Am. ed. 690).

Barty Sr. never had a chance even if Harry could Apparate directly
into Dumbledore's office. When Harry says that if Snape hadn't held
him up (i.e., kept him where DD would find him when he came
downstairs) he migh have gotten there in time (to save Mr. Crouch),
he's just thinking the worst of Snape, as usual, not looking at the
facts (which, admittedly, he doesn't know until much later). But even
if Snape had acted with the worst of intentions--in league with Barty
Jr., let's say, and deliberately preventing Harry from seeing DD so
that Barty could kill his father--it wouldn't have made any
difference. Viktor Krum was Stunned and Mr. Crouch murdered the moment
Harry was out of Barty Jr.'s sight, after which Barty carries his
father's body into the forest and covers it with the Invisibility
Cloak. *Then* he watches Harry run into the castle, encounter Snape,
and be joined by Dumbledore. He watches Harry and DD coming out of the
castle, then walks back out of the forest and doubles around behind
them, telling DD the lie that Snape had told him to come. 

Harry is mistaken. The two-minute delay (which really wasn't a delay
since DD probably took that long to walk down the stairs) made no
difference. Mr. Crouch was *canonically* already dead. Nor could
anything that Harry told DD have made any difference. He could not
have saved Mr. Crouch. He didn't even know that he was in danger.

Carol, who thinks that we should know by now not to trust Harry's view
of matters regarding Snape and that we need to keep statements like
the one about Snape holding him up with a grain of salt, especially
when we compare his version of events to what we learn from
Veritaserumed!Barty later





From leahstill at hotmail.com  Wed Mar 19 21:23:47 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:23:47 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frrmg5+3n3j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frs093+bge5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182170

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>> Alla:
> 
> I believe that while Harry was wrong about Snape's loyalties he 
was 
> always spot on about Snape hating him. But in any event I think 
that 
> by the fact of Snape contributing to destroying Harry's life as it 
> could have been, Harry by default earned the right to be as wrong 
> about Snape as he wishes to and still be forgiven. And Snape 
> attacking him in the beginning increased that belief of mine.

Leah:  What do you mean by Snape 'destroying Harry's life as it 
could have been'?  Is this a reference to something Snape does at 
Hogwarts, because I can't see Harry 'destroyed' by anything Snape 
does.  Or is it a reference to the prophecy, which Snape could not 
have even know referred to a baby, let alone Harry personally, and 
which Snape attempts to put right as soon as he does know.   Snape 
does not decide the prophecy refers to Harry, he does not change 
Secret Keepers, he does not betray the location of Godric's Hollow, 
he does not decide to leave Harry with the Dursleys and not check on 
him, he does not raise him to die, so there are a lot of people 
Harry has the right to be wrong about.  And of course, once 
Voldemort had latched onto Harry as prophecy boy, it was only down 
to Snape that Harry has any life at all. If Snape had not asked for 
Lily's life, she would not have been given the all-important choice 
to live and Harry would have been as dead as his parents.  



> 
> But I want to ask a question, what does picking vibes mean?
> 
> You think Snape does not legilimence Harry every time he looks at 
> him? Is any other way of telepathy or something similar exists in 
> Potterverse? I do not think it does, am I wrong? Something like 
> empathy you mean? Picking up emotions?

Yes, as Magpie has said, vibrations, picking up emotions, not 
emphathy, which is a feeling of something in common.  Real 
leglimency, as we see in the Occlumency lessons, gives very clear 
glimpses of memory, and Snape does not seem to get those in general, 
I think he picks up feelings without particularly trying, like the 
fact that Harry is lying about something, without going into real 
leglimency and seeing what that something is.

(snip)
And, as I have said, Harry does have Lord Voldemort in the front of 
his head, and Snape has the Dark Mark. If he is picking up signals 
from Harry, then he is presumably also picking up horcrux feelings 
from Voldysoul in Harry. Add that to the eyes of the woman he loved 
and feels he has betrayed and the face of his enemy, and there is a 
whole lot of nasty feelings hitting Snape. 



 
> So I speculate that Snape can only touch very surface of Harry's 
mind 
> without him knowing that he does something and that is how he may 
> know sometimes what Harry did but not why.
> 
I agree, just as Harry looks at Snape's actions and knows he is 
doing something, but not why.  (and Dumbledore does nothing 
whatsoever to help)

Leah 







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 21:52:08 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:52:08 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frrvo7+am31@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frs1u8+mpao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182171

Carol earlier:
<snip> Snape is trying to find out what's going on. Meantime, no point
in sending him up to Dumbledore when DD is coming down anyway. Exactly
how he can come down faster if Harry goes up to him, I don't
understand. He still has the same number of steps to climb down.

Carol again:
Erm, ride down, I mean. And as Pippin has pointed out, Harry could not
go up a down staircase. So it makes sense to do exactly what Snape is
doing, detain Harry until the staircase, like a down escalator,
arrives at the bottom step. (Thanks, Pippin!)
>
Carol earlier:
> The two-minute delay (which really wasn't a delay since DD probably
took that long to walk down the stairs) made no difference. Mr. Crouch
was *canonically* already dead. <snip>

Carol again: 
Ride down, I mean, again. I don't know how long it takes to ride the
moving stairs from DD's office to the seventh floor, but probably
about the same time as it took to hold that little conversation
(which, BTW, gave no indication that Barty Crouch was in danger
because Harry didn't know that himself. Barty being in the forest and
wanting to talk to DD is not an emergency, even if he's ill and
behaving oddly, and Snape could, indeed, have handled that matter
himself had DD been absent and Barty Jr. not been involved.)

Carol, who for some reason has problems with the shift key on this
keyboard, which is why "Snape" and other names keep showing up in her
posts without capitals!




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 21:52:25 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:52:25 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frs093+bge5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frs1up+n89i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182172

> Leah:  What do you mean by Snape 'destroying Harry's life as it 
> could have been'?  Is this a reference to something Snape does at 
> Hogwarts, because I can't see Harry 'destroyed' by anything Snape 
> does.  Or is it a reference to the prophecy, which Snape could not 
> have even know referred to a baby, let alone Harry personally, and 
> which Snape attempts to put right as soon as he does know.  
  
Alla:

Yes it is reference to the prophecy. As I always say, I give much 
more deference to Snape's intelligence, I think that if it is clear 
to me that prophecy refers to the baby which will be born on that 
month, it was clear to Snape as well.

It would not even enter my mind that prophecy could refer to adult 
wizard before I read it here, I still remember how funny I thought it 
was as mitigating circumstance for Snape.

I agree that Snape did not know to WHICH baby prophecy would refer, 
but it does not make to me a slightest difference in his 
responsibility.

In my mind he knows that prophecy refers to couple and their baby, so 
they are nameless, I do not see much difference in moral 
responsibility between giving nameless couple to Voldemort and when 
this couple and their baby acquired a name.

Leah:
Snape 
> does not decide the prophecy refers to Harry, he does not change 
> Secret Keepers, he does not betray the location of Godric's Hollow, 
> he does not decide to leave Harry with the Dursleys and not check 
on 
> him, he does not raise him to die, so there are a lot of people 
> Harry has the right to be wrong about. 

Alla:

Snape IMO has the very first honorable place on that list, well maybe 
shared with Voldemort.

Without Snape giving the prophecy, there will be no need for Secret 
keeper, would not matter whether location of GH is betrayed or not, 
Harry would not need to go to Dursleys. Do I need to go on?

IMO **nothing** would have happened had Snape not gave that prophecy, 
and Harry had a chance to live normal happy life with their parents.

I mean, yes, of course Lily and James could have died at war, nothing 
is a certainty, but they would not have NEED to go in hiding but for 
Snape and even if they died, Harry at least may not have been marked 
IMO.

So, yes, I think Snape destroyed Harry's life and made it hellish, at 
least before Harry met his friends.

As I said many times of course we would have no story without Snape 
doing all that, but when I am playing a game of blaming Snape, I am 
doing it from within the story.

But of course Dumbledore is right up there as well, no questions 
about it.

Leah:
>And of course, once 
> Voldemort had latched onto Harry as prophecy boy, it was only down 
> to Snape that Harry has any life at all. If Snape had not asked for 
> Lily's life, she would not have been given the all-important choice 
> to live and Harry would have been as dead as his parents.  

Alla:

LOL. That is somehow positive thing Snape did now? Without him giving 
Voldemort the prophecy BOTH Lily and Harry would have had a chance to 
live IMO.

Leah:
Yes, as Magpie has said, vibrations, picking up emotions, not
empathy, which is a feeling of something in common? Real
leglimency, as we see in the Occlumency lessons, gives very clear
glimpses of memory, and Snape does not seem to get those in general,
I think he picks up feelings without particularly trying, like the
fact that Harry is lying about something, without going into real
leglimency and seeing what that something is.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I wanted to reply to Magpie, but I may as well start with reply to 
you. When I asked what it means, I did not mean that I did not know 
the expression, I was asking (obviously not clear) how Snape picks up 
the feelings. Do you think he has some unknown abilities of doing 
that?

That is why I brought up empathy, because it is not that easy to pick 
up feelings, unless what person really picks up is body language, etc 
IMO.

Magpie:
Basically, it's exactly what Harry does with Snape from the very
first day. He picks up a vibe (vibration--you probably got that
part!) that Snape really dislikes him and...he's absolutely right. I
think the first time because Snape glares at him during the banquet--
does he glare? Or just look at him and Harry feels pain in his scar
because of Quirrel? But in his first Potions class he gets the
feeling that Snape hates him personally and he's right.

Alla:

Well, of course he is right, hehe, I wanted to bring up the quote 
from GoF about Harry thinking that yes, of course Snape saved his 
life in PS, but he still hates him and thought how spot on he was.

But again, what I said to Leah, I mean, it is not that easy to pick 
up feelings, no?

Harry gets it because of how Snape acts, no? Not just looking at 
Snape and saying, oh wow, this one has it in for me all right. I do 
not know, gestures, sneers, etc.

It is just upthread I thought Leah was drawing distinction between 
legilimency and just picking up feelings and I do not see how that is 
possible, unless it is nothing magical, but simply reading person's 
body language.

Does it make sense?


Magpie:
Now that it's over I'm actually willing to think Snape might
sometimes be doing it but other times looking into his
eyes "searching" for something else--they are Lily's eyes, and he
might into them in other ways besides pure Legimancy.

Alla:

Possible, although I think the author's intention at least was to 
show that Snape looked in Harry's eyes for the first time and saw 
Lily only when green eyes locked on black before he died.

So, I think if we go with metaphors, no I guess I do not think Snape 
ever tried to really look in Harry's eyes to find Lily there, 
otherwise he would have found her indeed. IMO.

JMO,

Alla





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 22:14:31 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:14:31 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frrf0l+ikpv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frs387+pp2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182173

Leah:
> IMO the need for ConstrainedHeadmaster Snape and bad things going on 
> at Hogwarts just doesn't gel with the Snape we have seen 
> previously.  No doubt we can say that things would have even worse 
> if one of the Carrows or the old-style Lucius Malfoy had been 
> Headmaster, but we are left with the gut feeling that Snape ought to 
> be able to do more.  The fact that he doesn't is not, I think, a 
> character fault, but a fault in the planning and structure of the 
> book.

These are really good points, Leah.  I agree that, even as a Snape
supporter, I don't have anything good to point at for Snape's reign
as Headmaster (other than his sending the kids out to the forest).

That's why it would be nice to have that short story.  Well, we don't
really need JKR to write it, do we?  There are literally hundreds (if
not thousands) of fanficcers who can do that.  And it's almost just 
as fun.

It's definitely a challenge, as it doesn't seem like Carrows should be
that difficult to get around.  And, it isn't like Voldemort is worrying
about the school or pulling surprise inspections, right?

However, there are things one could imagine that Snape does.  For
example, he might subtlely inform McGonagall about the danger 
posed to Muggleborn students if they show up at the train station,
which would allow her to grab the letters before they go out to 
those students--or send other letters to warn them to stay away.

He might have worked out a cunning plan with the Slytherins to 
pull their punches on the Crucio curses.  He might assign detentions 
that actually help the resistance students. I saw one story where he 
makes Ginny do an outrageous number of lines in his office.  And,
after about fifteen minutes, she notices that she's forced to copy 
from a book with tons of useful hexes.  She then makes sure she
keeps getting detention until she's written out the entire book.

I wrote down a drabble myself in which Snape spends the first
week of his reign obliviating everyone's memories so that they
forget Ginny and Harry used to go out--since no one was likely to 
know that they had broken up afterwards.

Montavilla47




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 22:39:15 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:39:15 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frs1up+n89i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frs4mj+gcng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182174

> Leah:
> Snape 
> > does not decide the prophecy refers to Harry, he does not change 
> > Secret Keepers, he does not betray the location of Godric's Hollow, 
> > he does not decide to leave Harry with the Dursleys and not check 
> on 
> > him, he does not raise him to die, so there are a lot of people 
> > Harry has the right to be wrong about. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Snape IMO has the very first honorable place on that list, well maybe 
> shared with Voldemort.
> 
> Without Snape giving the prophecy, there will be no need for Secret 
> keeper, would not matter whether location of GH is betrayed or not, 
> Harry would not need to go to Dursleys. Do I need to go on?
> 
> IMO **nothing** would have happened had Snape not gave that prophecy, 
> and Harry had a chance to live normal happy life with their parents.

Montavilla47:
I think that's an interesting speculation.  Would nothing have occurred
to Harry if Snape hadn't delivered the half-prophecy to Voldemort?

I mean, if Voldemort hadn't heard the prophecy, then he wouldn't
have targeted the Potters, of course.  

But then, of course, he had already targeted them three times, right?

Undoubtably, Dumbledore would have put both the Potters and the 
Longbottoms into hiding, since he knew about the danger and that
one of them had had a child who would have the power to vanquish
Voldemort.

But, in order for the prophecy to come true, Voldemort would need
to mark the child as his equal.  Could he have done that without
knowing the first part of the prophecy?

And, honestly, it wouldn't have taken Harry to vanquish Voldemort
if you think about it.  All it would really take would be figuring out
that he had made horcruxes, doing the detective work that 
Dumbledore did, destroying them, and then killing Voldemort.  

Theoretically, anyone could have done that.  Or better yet, a group
of people who had good intelligence about Voldemort and shared
pertinent information.  






> 
> I mean, yes, of course Lily and James could have died at war, nothing 
> is a certainty, but they would not have NEED to go in hiding but for 
> Snape and even if they died, Harry at least may not have been marked 
> IMO.
> 
> So, yes, I think Snape destroyed Harry's life and made it hellish, at 
> least before Harry met his friends.
> 
> As I said many times of course we would have no story without Snape 
> doing all that, but when I am playing a game of blaming Snape, I am 
> doing it from within the story.
> 
> But of course Dumbledore is right up there as well, no questions 
> about it.
> 
> Leah:
> >And of course, once 
> > Voldemort had latched onto Harry as prophecy boy, it was only down 
> > to Snape that Harry has any life at all. If Snape had not asked for 
> > Lily's life, she would not have been given the all-important choice 
> > to live and Harry would have been as dead as his parents.  
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL. That is somehow positive thing Snape did now? Without him giving 
> Voldemort the prophecy BOTH Lily and Harry would have had a chance to 
> live IMO.
> 
> Leah:
> Yes, as Magpie has said, vibrations, picking up emotions, not
> empathy, which is a feeling of something in common? Real
> leglimency, as we see in the Occlumency lessons, gives very clear
> glimpses of memory, and Snape does not seem to get those in general,
> I think he picks up feelings without particularly trying, like the
> fact that Harry is lying about something, without going into real
> leglimency and seeing what that something is.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I wanted to reply to Magpie, but I may as well start with reply to 
> you. When I asked what it means, I did not mean that I did not know 
> the expression, I was asking (obviously not clear) how Snape picks up 
> the feelings. Do you think he has some unknown abilities of doing 
> that?
> 
> That is why I brought up empathy, because it is not that easy to pick 
> up feelings, unless what person really picks up is body language, etc 
> IMO.
> 
> Magpie:
> Basically, it's exactly what Harry does with Snape from the very
> first day. He picks up a vibe (vibration--you probably got that
> part!) that Snape really dislikes him and...he's absolutely right. I
> think the first time because Snape glares at him during the banquet--
> does he glare? Or just look at him and Harry feels pain in his scar
> because of Quirrel? But in his first Potions class he gets the
> feeling that Snape hates him personally and he's right.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, of course he is right, hehe, I wanted to bring up the quote 
> from GoF about Harry thinking that yes, of course Snape saved his 
> life in PS, but he still hates him and thought how spot on he was.
> 
> But again, what I said to Leah, I mean, it is not that easy to pick 
> up feelings, no?
> 
> Harry gets it because of how Snape acts, no? Not just looking at 
> Snape and saying, oh wow, this one has it in for me all right. I do 
> not know, gestures, sneers, etc.
> 
> It is just upthread I thought Leah was drawing distinction between 
> legilimency and just picking up feelings and I do not see how that is 
> possible, unless it is nothing magical, but simply reading person's 
> body language.
> 
> Does it make sense?
> 
> 
> Magpie:
> Now that it's over I'm actually willing to think Snape might
> sometimes be doing it but other times looking into his
> eyes "searching" for something else--they are Lily's eyes, and he
> might into them in other ways besides pure Legimancy.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Possible, although I think the author's intention at least was to 
> show that Snape looked in Harry's eyes for the first time and saw 
> Lily only when green eyes locked on black before he died.
> 
> So, I think if we go with metaphors, no I guess I do not think Snape 
> ever tried to really look in Harry's eyes to find Lily there, 
> otherwise he would have found her indeed. IMO.
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 19 23:44:51 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:44:51 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry and Gargoyles
In-Reply-To: <frs387+pp2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frs8hj+h951@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182175

montavilla47 wrote:
> These are really good points, Leah.  I agree that, even as a Snape
supporter, I don't have anything good to point at for Snape's reign as
Headmaster (other than his sending the kids out to the forest).
<snip>
> It's definitely a challenge, as it doesn't seem like Carrows should
be that difficult to get around.  And, it isn't like Voldemort is
worrying about the school or pulling surprise inspections, right?
> 
> However, there are things one could imagine that Snape does.  For
example, he might subtlely inform McGonagall about the danger posed to
Muggleborn students if they show up at the train station, which would
allow her to grab the letters before they go out to those students--or
send other letters to warn them to stay away.
> 
> He might have worked out a cunning plan with the Slytherins to pull
their punches on the Crucio curses.  He might assign detentions that
actually help the resistance students. <snip>
>
Carol responds:
I think he must have learned a few tricks from the resistance to
Umbridge in OoP. Just keeping McGonagall, Flitwick, et al. on the
staff ensures that most of the classes will be taught normally by
competent teachers, and Snape knows that those same teachers will
resist and undermine the Carrows (and, by extension, Snape himself, or
so they think) just as they resisted and undermined Umbridge. I'm
quite sure that the teachers don't arrange their detentions through
the Carrows as ordered, for example. Probably they deduct House points
instead. By reposting Umbrige's ban on organizations, Snape also
ensures that the DA will reform. IMO, sending Ginny, Luna, and Neville
to Hagrid also encourages them to resist (in addition to being a
humane punishment passing as a cruel one). And he forbids Ginny from
going to Hogsmeade, surely for her own protection (though she no doubt
thinks that he's being "evil").

Certain things at Hogwarts are still normal (if you don't count DEs
snatching Luna from Platform 9 3/4, which Snape could not have
anticipated or prevented): The House-Elves are still preparing
delicious meals, the kids still have warm beds to sleep in and
DE-proof dormitiories (until Alecto Carrow forces Flitwick to let her
into the Ravenclaw Common Room). The Hogwarts Express and probably
Hagrid's boats and the Thestral-drawn carriages run as usual. I see no
reason why Hagrid wouldn't cut the usual twelve Christmas trees, and
we know that he's planning to teach about Unicorns as one of his
projects. (No Skrewts this year!) Filch and Mrs. Norris are still
prowling the halls as usual, and the teachers are assigned to patrol
the halls. (Possibly Snape excuses the Carrows from this duty.) Even
Peeves is still there, as are the Hogwarts ghosts, so in some ways,
Hogwarts is unchanged despite the change of regime. It's possible that
some of them, or some of the portraits (like Phineas Nigellus, when
he's at Hogwarts) act as spies or lookouts for Snape. Snape has closed
up all the secret passageways, not only preventing the students from
sneaking out into DE-infested Hogsmeade but preventing DEs (other than
the Carrows) from sneaking in. And, of course, he's consulting with
Portrait!DD about the Sword of Gryffindor and other matters; I see no
reason to think that they don't discuss protective measures for the
students as well.

I doubt that Amycus Carrow (Alecto's class is all brainwashing, no
spells involved) is teaching Unforgiveable Curses to students below
NEWT level, if only because they don't yet have, in HBP!Snape's words,
"the nerve or the ability." And Snape, being Snape, would make a big
deal about NEWTs. Note the acceptance speech of which we get a snippet
in "The Bribe": "I welcome the opportunity to uphold our finest
Wizarding traditions and values--" (DH Am. ed. 226). I'm sure that he
made similar assertions in his staff meetings. (Slughorn, at least,
seems to regard him as a legitimate headmaster, so I assume that he
conducts meetings and does everything that a headmaster would normally
do. He could require all his staff, including the Carrows, to teach
the students at levels appropriate to their ages and abilities, for
example.)

At any rate, we do know some of the things that Snape did, not just
that one detention. We do know where his loyalties lie and we do know
that when he makes a promise to Dumbledore, he keeps it. So I'm quite
sure that, despite the reports that we get from Neville (a
seventh-year and a D.A. member) that Snape does what he can,
undercover as always, subtly as always, to protect the students as he
promised. He can't completely control the Carrows, of course, or
they'd suspect that he wasn't one of them, but he can always point out
that the Dark Lord doesn't want the students spilling each other's
Wizarding blood in the corridors and that the students are there to
receive an education, which means that they need to pass their OWLs
and NEWTs. (Amycus Carrow actually teaches Crabbe and Goyle to cast a
Disillusionment Charm. Odd that they can cast it but not pronounce it,
but at least they learned something, and they're complete lunkheads.)

Carol, who *doesn't* want to know what JKR thought went on at Hogwarts
because it would most likely be from a Gryffindor perspective and not
Snape's own




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 20 00:25:24 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:25:24 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frs4mj+gcng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frsatk+qgia@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182176

Montavilla47:
> I think that's an interesting speculation.  Would nothing have
occurred to Harry if Snape hadn't delivered the half-prophecy to
Voldemort? <snip>
> 
> But, in order for the prophecy to come true, Voldemort would need to
mark the child as his equal.  Could he have done that without knowing
the first part of the prophecy?
> 
> And, honestly, it wouldn't have taken Harry to vanquish Voldemort if
you think about it.  All it would really take would be figuring out
that he had made horcruxes, doing the detective work that Dumbledore
did, destroying them, and then killing Voldemort.  
> 
> Theoretically, anyone could have done that.  Or better yet, a group
of people who had good intelligence about Voldemort and shared
pertinent information. <snip>

Carol responds:

I'm not so sure. First, without the Prophecy and Voldemort's acting on
it, the AK wouldn't have backfired, vaporizing Voldemort and allowing
the soul bit to give Harry powers that no one else but Voldemort had
(Parseltongue and the ability to see into Voldemort's mind). The WW
wouldn't have had a fourteen-year respite from LV, either. The war
would have just gone on, with the Order members being picked off one
by one until no one remained except Dumbledore.

Dumbledore did figure out Voldemort's secret, but even if he had
shared it with others (a very unDumbledorean thing to do), he wouldn't
have known about the diary (which Lucius put in Ginny's cauldron
against orders). Even if Lucius had planted the diary according to the
original plan, with LV still "alive," DD apparently couldn't find or
open the Chamber of Secrets, so the diary would not have been
destroyed. Most likely, the school would simply have closed. It took
Harry, who spoke Parseltongue, to open the Chamber. (Yes, DD arranged
for Fawkes to come to his aid and bring the Sorting Hat containing the
Sword of Gryffindor, but he couldn't have found and destroyed the
diary on his own.) And he didn't know about the Ravenclaw Horcrux,
either. He merely guessed its existence. Helena Ravenclaw had
evidently refused to tell him or Flitwick her story.

Without DDM!Snape, who would not have switched sides had he not
delivered the Prophecy and suffered deepest remorse for so doing (all
for Lily, I realize), Dumbledore would have died from (stupidly)
putting on the ring Horcrux. Or, if he'd had the wisdom not to put a
(former) Horcrux on his finger without examining it for curses first,
he would probably have attempted to find the locket Horcrux by
himself, without a younger Wizard whose powers would not have
registered in the boat. Had he drunk the potion alone, he would have
died there, either from the potion/poison itself or from the Inferi.
And I doubt that anyone other than DD, who knew Voldemort's history
and his "style," having taught him, and was in other respects highly
gifted, could have found the cave and figured out how to get in.
(Regulus got in because Kreacher knew where to look and what to do.)
And, in the unliely event that he survived, he'd have ended up with a
fake Horcrux. He would not know that the original had been hidden at
12 GP nor that Kreacher had anything to do with it.

In short, even with the help of other Order members (who would not
have included Snape if it weren't for the Prophecy), I doubt that DD
could have found and destroyed all the Horcruxes. He wouldn't have
known about the seven-part soul, either, if Harry hadn't retrieved the
true memory thanks to his having Lily's eyes (significant because she
died at Godric's Hollow and Slughorn felt partly responsible).

Carol, who thinks that without the Prophecy and the Chosen One (and
Snape's request and Lily's self-sacrifice and Voldemort's
unwillingness to wait till the Prophecy child grew up), there would
have been no victory against Voldemort





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 20 00:27:27 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:27:27 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frs1up+n89i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frsb1f+atnu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182177

> Magpie:
> Basically, it's exactly what Harry does with Snape from the very
> first day. He picks up a vibe (vibration--you probably got that
> part!) that Snape really dislikes him and...he's absolutely right. I
> think the first time because Snape glares at him during the banquet-
-
> does he glare? Or just look at him and Harry feels pain in his scar
> because of Quirrel? But in his first Potions class he gets the
> feeling that Snape hates him personally and he's right.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, of course he is right, hehe, I wanted to bring up the quote 
> from GoF about Harry thinking that yes, of course Snape saved his 
> life in PS, but he still hates him and thought how spot on he was.
> 
> But again, what I said to Leah, I mean, it is not that easy to pick 
> up feelings, no?
> 
> Harry gets it because of how Snape acts, no? Not just looking at 
> Snape and saying, oh wow, this one has it in for me all right. I do 
> not know, gestures, sneers, etc.

Magpie:
Yes, and that's a good point--when I try to picture how Snape would 
pick up vibes from Harry, I think a lot of it frankly going to be 
projection. As soon as Harry showed up he was seeing James and 
looking for any subtle signs that Harry was the same way. So I'd 
think he probably is sure that he's picked up all sorts of vibes from 
Harry that Harry didn't really send out.

But of course later on, once Harry really hates Snape, then I think 
he can definitely pick stuff up. Harry's no good Occlumency, and I 
think that probably spills over into his generally not always being 
good at hiding how he feels. He probably does sometimes wear 
expressions or use body language that show rebellion or insolence to 
Snape--of course this is often a response to whatever Snape is doing. 
But for instance, I can imagine Snape talking to Harry and getting 
the vibe that Harry is hostile when he is. He's probably gritting his 
teeth and looking at him sullenly. I can also see him always thinking 
that he totally knows what Harry's all about because Snape knows all 
about him even before he meets them. (He doesn't really, but he 
thinks he does, as you know.)


> Magpie:
> Now that it's over I'm actually willing to think Snape might
> sometimes be doing it but other times looking into his
> eyes "searching" for something else--they are Lily's eyes, and he
> might into them in other ways besides pure Legimancy.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Possible, although I think the author's intention at least was to 
> show that Snape looked in Harry's eyes for the first time and saw 
> Lily only when green eyes locked on black before he died.
> 
> So, I think if we go with metaphors, no I guess I do not think 
Snape 
> ever tried to really look in Harry's eyes to find Lily there, 
> otherwise he would have found her indeed. IMO.

Magpie:
Yeah, I admit I don't think he was often doing that either. Harry 
would probably have been really creeped out if Snape was really 
looking at his eyes and seeing Lily! But I do think that there could 
be times when Snape is just looking into his eyes trying to read him 
without resorting to actual Occlumency. It's disturbing to think that 
adults are constantly rifling through kids minds whenever they want 
to do it.

This actually makes me think...are there times where Snape really 
seems to get Harry when Harry doesn't want him to? I mean, we see 
Snape right away treating Harry as if he's done something terrible. 
There's plenty of times when he speaks for Harry as an authority 
(like telling everybody that Harry wanted to make a grand entrance in 
CoS...which is not true but a little true since Harry did think that 
would be cool, it just wasn't his reason for taking the car). But 
does he ever seem to really "get" Harry, or has he always got the 
wrong end of the stick and is only right when Harry's feelings are a) 
obvious or b) happen to coincide with Snape's preconceived notions?

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 20 03:32:50 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:32:50 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 30 post DH look
Message-ID: <frslt2+t4ro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182178

"He wanted to touch it, to find out what it felt like, but nearly 
four years' experience of the magical world told him that sticking 
his hand into a bowl full of some unknown substance was a very stupid 
thing to do. He therefore pulled his wand out of the inside of his 
robes, cast a nervous look around the office, looked back at the 
contents of the basin, and prodded them" - p.583.


Alla:

LOL, Harry are you sure you will remember this next year?


"Dumbledore did not blink, look around at Harry, or indeed move at 
all. And that, in Harry's opinion settled the matter. Dumbledore 
wouldn't ignore him like that" - p.586

Alla:

LOL, are you sure Harry? You just wait till next year.


"Then Harry heard, quite distinctly, from Dumbledore's other side, a 
familiar, growling voice saying, "Filth" - p.587

Alla:

Here we go that filth word again, but read on. Moody bothers me here 
a great deal, I vaguely remember we discussed him here, but I am 
pretty sure it was rather long time ago and certainly we did not 
rediscuss it as often as some other topics, hehe.

""Crouch is going to let him out," Moody breathed quietly to 
Dumbledore.  "He's done a deal with him.  Took me six months to track 
him down, and Crouch is going to let him go if he's got enough new 
names.  Let's hear his information, I say, and throw him straight 
back to the dementors."
Dumbledore made a small noise of dissent through his long, crooked 
nose.
"Ah, I was forgetting . . . you don't like the dementors, do you, 
Albus?" said Moody with a sardonic smile.
"No," said Dumbledore calmly, "I'm afraid I don't.  I have long felt 
the Ministry is wrong to ally itself with such creatures."
"But for filth like this . . ." Moody said softly." - p.588


Alla:

I am sorry, what? Not that I am surprised to see another lovely 
moment of WW justtice system in action. Here we have a witness who 
made a deal with prosecution in exchange for information, and Moody, 
that hard working fighter of dark wizards suggests to violate the 
deal AFTER witness gives an information and just throw him back as 
dessert to dementors.

I know people have many reasons they may not want to imagine 
themselves permanently escaping in WW. I am actually among those, but 
certainly not because I do not believe that Trio and new generation 
in general will make such changes.

My reason are their schools and their justice system. I will happily 
go and visit the characters I love if they were real, but there is 
absolutely no way I can imagine in my worst nightmares anybody of my 
loved ones getting out of their justice system and of course I would 
rather suffer a lot of things than let a kid to go to their school.

So, yeah, back to Moody. Um, wrong and unethical behavior?



"Yes, they were talking about Neville's parents," said 
Dumbledore. "His father, Frank, was an Auror just like Professor 
Moody. He and his wife were tortured for information about 
Voldemort's whereabouts after he lost his powers, as you heard" - 
p.602.

********
Alla:

Why JKR, why, why do you feel that you should make such a change? I 
could care less if Alice Longbottom was an auror or not, but if in 
your head she was not initially, I wish you would stick to your guts 
and would not add an extra working woman to appease people ( if that 
is what it is)


"No," said Dumbledore, his voice full of bitterness Harry had never 
heard before. "They are insane" - p.603


Alla:

Why bitterness in Dumbledore's voice, anybody has a guess? I mean 
obviously he would be sad about their fates, but it is not saddness, 
it is bitterness. Because he could not save them? Because it reminds 
him of Arianna's fate?

Anything?





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar 20 03:41:51 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:41:51 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frs1up+n89i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frsmdv+bga4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182179


> Alla:> 
> IMO **nothing** would have happened had Snape not gave that 
prophecy, and Harry had a chance to live normal happy life with their 
parents.

Potioncat:
Hmm. Are you taking it that if Snape had heard the prophecy and kept 
quiet it would not have come true? That it was only LV's hearing it 
that put it in action? Would DD have given it any weight if LV hadn't 
found out? Once it was spoken three people began to change their 
actions. DD, Snape and LV, with Harry joining them later.

Without the prophecy, we have a different story. Not because Harry's 
world would be wonderful, but because certain behaviors, and plans 
would have happened differently.

The main thing I can think of, is that if Snape hadn't told LV the 
prophecy, he wouldn't have had remorse over Lily's death. And he 
wouldn't have been a player in DD's camp later.

If a tree falls in the forest...

You know, I think many of the same results would have happened but in 
different ways. Partly because this is Harry's destiny and Harry's 
story. Probably LV would have planned an attack on the Potters at 
some point, and Snape would have heard, possibly asking for Lily's 
life, or maybe going straight to DD.

> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL. That is somehow positive thing Snape did now? Without him 
giving Voldemort the prophecy BOTH Lily and Harry would have had a 
chance to live IMO.

Potioncat:
I accidentally snipped a comment about Snape's moral responsibility. 
Well, what can you expect from a Death Eater? After DH, I can't deny 
that adult Snape was a full-bore DE during the first war. He didn't 
mind endangering an enemy's child...or would that be an enemy-child. 
It wasn't until he was affected personaly by LV's bloodlust that he 
changed. Much like the Malfoys trying to protect each other.

In a story about love and redemption, Snape's returning to DD and 
telling him about LV, Snape's promise to watch over Harry and his 
continued loyalty is the really important act.






>





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar 20 04:17:46 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:17:46 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 30 post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frslt2+t4ro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frsoha+mrdd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182180

snipping canon. 
> Alla:
> 
> I am sorry, what? Not that I am surprised to see another lovely 
> moment of WW justtice system in action. Here we have a witness who 
> made a deal with prosecution in exchange for information, and 
Moody, 
> that hard working fighter of dark wizards suggests to violate the 
> deal AFTER witness gives an information and just throw him back as 
> dessert to dementors.

Potioncat:
I'm confused. Are you saying the court was wrong to make the deal, or 
that Moody was wrong to suggest the court shouldn't honor the deal? 
Or both?

>Alla: 
> So, yeah, back to Moody. Um, wrong and unethical behavior?

Potioncat:
I'd like to go back and look for all the real!Moody scenes to find 
out what he was like. It's hard to always remember that the Moody we 
know best was really Barty.

But this makes me think that Barty's ferret trick wasn't so out of 
place, nor the DE-who-walks-free ranting. It could explain why Snape 
would feel very nervous around Moody. (But geeze---compared to Tom?) 
By the sane token, the real Moody thinks there's something strange 
about Harry. He and Snape could drink to that.
> 
> 
 
> "No," said Dumbledore, his voice full of bitterness Harry had never 
> heard before. "They are insane" - p.603
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Why bitterness in Dumbledore's voice, anybody has a guess? I mean 
> obviously he would be sad about their fates, but it is not 
saddness, 
> it is bitterness. Because he could not save them? Because it 
reminds 
> him of Arianna's fate?

Potioncat:
Because there are things worse than death? Because one person could 
be so cruel to another? Because at some point all of them had come 
through his school and he knew the bad guys as well as the good guys?






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 20 14:43:16 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:43:16 -0000
Subject: Snape as Headmaster was Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and
In-Reply-To: <frs387+pp2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frtt64+t2ub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182181

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47":.
> 
> These are really good points, Leah.  I agree that, even as a Snape
> supporter, I don't have anything good to point at for Snape's reign
> as Headmaster (other than his sending the kids out to the forest).

Pippin:
Snape was sitting on a powder keg -- it wouldn't be interesting to
watch, but that doesn't make it safe or easy. 
  
Somehow he kept the school so close to rebellion that the students and
staff rallied behind Harry without much debate, while still keeping
things quiet enough to satisfy the Carrows. They weren't bright
people, but they were deeply suspicious. Even if their suspicions fell
on the wrong person it would have been very bad news for somebody.
They're weak wizards compared to Snape, but what difference does that
make when they can summon Voldemort with the touch of a finger?

The people that Snape might have trusted aren't good enough actors.
McGonagall would have tried to help Snape if she'd known.  But   could
she feign the sort of barely concealed contempt that she showed for
Umbridge? I don't think so. Hagrid has that awful habit of blurting
out secrets, and Flitwick's no actor either.

It sounds awful that Snape had to let the Carrows teach the
Unforgivable Curses, but think about it. As we know, it takes more
than pointing your wand and saying the words to become proficient. 
AFAWK, only Crabbe and Goyle were  successful as a result of the
Carrow's teaching. Oh, maybe the others could raise a squawk, like
Harry did with Bella, but a full crucio? Canon leans the other way.
Even using the very smallest estimate of the student
population, the Carrow's success rate was worse than abysmal. 

Besides which, I very much doubt  that even Voldemort wanted any but
the Slytherins actually able to use the things. He's not *that* stupid.

Hogwarts is deliberately removed from the centers of wizarding power.
It's no easier for Hogwarts to interfere with the Ministry than vice
versa. So what was Snape going to do, set up a secret wand factory in
the owlery? Oops, no, wandmaking is a highly specialized art. Spy on
the DE's at the Hogs Head -- oh, wait, Aberforth does that. Blow up
the train station in Hogsmeade and kill some innocent people? What
for? To teach the kids to be terrorists, er, freedom fighters? But the
DA already existed, and Snape managed to protect all of its members
but one, despite that  thanks to Hermione, the ministry had a list of
their names. That's impressive.

Besides JKR not wishing to introduce any more major characters, she's
made the point that the real  danger to an underground organization
isn't The Man. It's the Mariettas and the Pettigrews (and the Dracos
and the Snapes) -- the people who want to belong but don't realize
what they're getting into.  That's reason enough for not holding a
recruiting drive until there's something for the resistance to do.

I miss Snape -- it's part of the reason I still want to talk about the
books, and of course I'd love it if DH had more Snape in it. But,
y'know, JKR's writing career isn't over. I think a Snape-ish character
in a book written outright for adults, without the constraints JKR
faced as an all-ages author, might well out-Snape Snape himself! 

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 20 15:25:08 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:25:08 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 30 post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frsoha+mrdd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frtvkk+65ee@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182182


> 
> Potioncat:
> I'd like to go back and look for all the real!Moody scenes to find 
> out what he was like. It's hard to always remember that the Moody we 
> know best was really Barty.
> 
> But this makes me think that Barty's ferret trick wasn't so out of 
> place, nor the DE-who-walks-free ranting. It could explain why Snape 
> would feel very nervous around Moody. (But geeze---compared to Tom?) 
>

Pippin:
The real Moody is a high-functioning nutcase, just like Tom. It's why
Barty Jr could play his part so successfully. But Snape is always
"on", always in character. At Hogwarts, after all, it is never safe to
assume that you are not observed. He shows his nervousness and
protests too much that he is trusted because that is how a DE who
would join the Dark Side again if it had a leader would act.

Pippin






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 20 16:16:19 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:16:19 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frs1up+n89i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fru2kj+t5gv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182183

 
> Alla:.
> 
> I mean, yes, of course Lily and James could have died at war,
nothing  is a certainty, but they would not have NEED to go in hiding
but for  Snape and even if they died, Harry at least may not have been
marked  IMO.

Pippin:
According to JKR, they were full time Order members.
If they hadn't gone into hiding, wouldn't they have been killed a lot
sooner? Wouldn't Peter still have betrayed the Order, and wouldn't
Voldemort still have been killing Order members one by one? Even if
they lived, wouldn't it be in a world ruled by Voldemort? Wouldn't
Dumbledore have died that much sooner? And Snape would have been
Voldemort's puppet at Hogwarts in truth and not in seeming. I don't
think Harry's time there would have been a very happy one, do you? 
Probably he wouldn't have been able to go to Hogwarts at all. 

Pippin
hiding from the pile of tax returns downstairs





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Mar 20 16:31:11 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:31:11 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frp1dg+op0s@eGroups.com>
References: <frov2i+k19c@eGroups.com> <frp1dg+op0s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803200931p27b8a6c3m859ca60dc83f8f42@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182184

Jayne:

Jayne just de lurking to say I am a commited Christian, but the reason
I read Harry Potter was that it was a great story. Would not have
worried if there were no religous inferences in it as It did not make
any real difference to the story IMHO

Lynda:

Another Christian here to  say that when I started reading the series I had
no idea whether or not Rowling was a Christian. I started reading them
because I was looking for a good story. It wasn't long before I saw themes
that can be seen as Christian, though. A couple of my more. . .ah. .
.fundamentalist friends had "the talk" with me, seeing me wander around with
my  copies of HP. I listened politely, thanked them, and then told them my
reasons for continuing to read them. I do the same with them with my Harry
Dresden books or any number of other fantasy/thriller books.

Lynda


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 20 18:36:59 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:36:59 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 30 post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frslt2+t4ro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fruasb+46fm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182185

Alla quoted:
>
> "He wanted to touch it, to find out what it felt like, but nearly 
four years' experience of the magical world told him that sticking 
his hand into a bowl full of some unknown substance was a very stupid
 thing to do. He therefore pulled his wand out of the inside of his
robes, cast a nervous look around the office, looked back at the
contents of the basin, and prodded them" - p.583.
> 
Alla commented:
> 
> LOL, Harry are you sure you will remember this next year?

Carol responds:
I'm sure that Harry does remember, quite clearly, that the Pensieve
taught him things that he couldn't have known otherwise. In GoF, he
doesn't know what he's doing; he's just curious and half-accidentally
ends up in the memory. In OoP, he knows what he's doing (Snape has put
three memories in the Pensieve and he's about to enter at least one of
them. Torn between guilt (Snape's memories are none of his business)
and curiosity, he chooses curiosity. He wants to know what's in
Snape's head regardless of consequences. It seems to me that Harry has
a lot in common with young Severus, who wanted to know what was in the
Shrieking Shack (and confirm his theory, if possible) regardless of
consequences. "Curiosity is not a sin, Harry." Maybe not, but it
killed the cat. And entering a Pensieve memory without permission is
just as invasive, just as much a violation of privacy, as Legilimency.
Evidently, Wizards have different standards of right and wrong than
Muggles, or perhaps less regard for the rights of the individual than
Western Muggles. 
 
> "Dumbledore did not blink, look around at Harry, or indeed move at 
> all. And that, in Harry's opinion settled the matter. Dumbledore 
> wouldn't ignore him like that" - p.586
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL, are you sure Harry? You just wait till next year.

Carol:
True. There's a touch of ironic foreshadowing here. But DD does have
what he considers to be a good reason for avoiding Harry (and,
especially, Harry's eyes) in OoP.
> 
> 
> "Then Harry heard, quite distinctly, from Dumbledore's other side, a 
> familiar, growling voice saying, "Filth" - p.587
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Here we go that filth word again, but read on. Moody bothers me here 
> a great deal, I vaguely remember we discussed him here, but I am 
> pretty sure it was rather long time ago and certainly we did not 
> rediscuss it as often as some other topics, hehe.

<snip quote>
> Alla:
> 
> I am sorry, what? Not that I am surprised to see another lovely 
moment of WW justtice system in action. Here we have a witness who 
made a deal with prosecution in exchange for information, and Moody,
that hard working fighter of dark wizards suggests to violate the 
deal AFTER witness gives an information and just throw him back as
dessert to dementors. <snip>

> So, yeah, back to Moody. Um, wrong and unethical behavior?

Carol responds:
I agree with you that Moody's remarks here are disturbing. Dumbledore
is in the right, IMO, and not only because of the Dementors. Good guys
don't make a deal with bad guys and then renege on it. Either don't do
the deal at all or keep your word.

Regarding "filth," I think it means (figuratively) "refuse" (REFF
yoos, not ree FYOOZ) or "garbage," something slimy and scummy and
disgusting--a useful word for describing someone you hate and despise
and consider contemptible without resorting to obscenity. But in the
Muggle world, at least in the West, even "filth" has rights.

BTW, Dumbledore is showing his wisdom here, IMO. His standards of
justice are higher than Moody's. But, then, Moody is a man of action,
not a thinker. At least, if Sirius Black is right, he never killed if
he could avoid it. But he, like Snape and Crouch and apparently most
of the WW (Arthur Weasley is the only other exception that I can think
of, other than those like Black and Hagrid who have actually
experienced Azkaban) sees nothing wrong with throwing criminals and
Dark Wizards to the Dementors. Even Harry says of Wormtail, "Let the
Dementors have him." Bravo, Dumbledore, in this regard, at least.
 
> "Yes, they were talking about Neville's parents," said Dumbledore.
"His father, Frank, was an Auror just like Professor Moody. He and his
wife were tortured for information about Voldemort's whereabouts after
he lost his powers, as you heard" - 
> p.602.
> 
> ********
> Alla:
> 
> Why JKR, why, why do you feel that you should make such a change? I
 could care less if Alice Longbottom was an auror or not, but if in 
your head she was not initially, I wish you would stick to your guts
and would not add an extra working woman to appease people (if that 
is what it is)

Carol responds:
I agree. Of course, it's possible that JKR just forgot that Alice
wasn't an Auror like Frank. She said in a recent interview that she
doesn't reread her books after they're published, a serious mistake,
IMO. She needs to be thoroughly familiar with what she's already said
and know where to look to check her facts. (Sidenote: We see a lot of
inconsistencies that the consistency editors didn't catch. I wonder
what they *did* catch. Mostly capitalization and spelling of names and
spells, I suppose, and even there they let "anti-Disapparation"
through in OoP when it's "(Dis)apparition" or, at least, "Apparition"
elsewhere.)

> "No," said Dumbledore, his voice full of bitterness Harry had never 
> heard before. "They are insane" - p.603
 
> Alla:
> 
> Why bitterness in Dumbledore's voice, anybody has a guess? I mean 
obviously he would be sad about their fates, but it is not saddness,
it is bitterness. Because he could not save them? Because it reminds
him of Arianna's fate?
> 
> Anything?
>
Carol:
We're dealing with the ambiguity of the English language here.
"Bitter(ness)" has several definitions. The one that I think applies
(using the adjective definition rather than the noun) is "expressive
of severe pain, grief, or regret" (very much like Snape's remorse). If
that's what DD felt, he must have blamed himself for not protecting
the Longbottoms, for thinking, like everyone else, that the danger was
over (at least, until LV returned). It could also mean "distasteful or
distressing to the mind." I doubt that it means "marked by cynicism
and rancor," the type of bitterness that we sometimes encounter in
Snape. And, yes. I'm sure that the Longbottoms' fate does remind him
of Ariana's (though he wasn't responsible for her mental and emotional
state before her death, only for not protecting her or paying her
sufficient attention. It's too late to help her and too late to help
the Longbottoms, and, IMO, he feels a bitter (galling and deeply
distressing) regret for both. We don't see much of this side of him,
but it's good to know that it exists.

Carol, irrelevantly thinking that "anti-Disapparition/-ation" sounds
like "antidisestablishmentariansim" 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 20 21:55:17 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:55:17 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fru2kj+t5gv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frumg5+99tn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182186

> > Alla:.
> > 
> > I mean, yes, of course Lily and James could have died at war,
> nothing  is a certainty, but they would not have NEED to go in 
hiding
> but for  Snape and even if they died, Harry at least may not have 
been
> marked  IMO.
> 
> Pippin:
> According to JKR, they were full time Order members.
> If they hadn't gone into hiding, wouldn't they have been killed a 
lot
> sooner?

Alla:

Um, no, not for a fact. We know that not all order members were 
killed. Who is to say that Lily and James would not have been among 
the living?

I mean, again it is POSSIBLE that they would have been killed of 
course, just as POSSIBLE that they would be alive. And thanks to 
Snape and Voldemort, that other possibility did not have any chance 
to play out IMO.


Pippin:
 Wouldn't Peter still have betrayed the Order, and wouldn't
> Voldemort still have been killing Order members one by one? Even if
> they lived, wouldn't it be in a world ruled by Voldemort? 

Alla:

Oh? I would speculate that they would have tried their hardest to get 
rid of Voldemort. It is possible that eventually they would have 
succeeded, don't you think?

Pippin:
Wouldn't
> Dumbledore have died that much sooner? And Snape would have been
> Voldemort's puppet at Hogwarts in truth and not in seeming. I don't
> think Harry's time there would have been a very happy one, do you? 
> Probably he wouldn't have been able to go to Hogwarts at all. 

Alla:

That's only one scenario of what could have happened in my opinion. 
Another one is for example - Light wins, after hard struggle, yes. 
Maybe adults for a change would take the first seats in the fight.

I mean, as long as we are from within the story, it is rather 
disgusting to put all your hopes of winning upon one kid and his 
friends, no?

Why would Dumbledore die much sooner by the way? You mean after he 
tried ring horcrux on or sooner than that?

Who knows, maybe Dumbledore's earlier death would have done GOOD to 
order members, who would have learned to not depend on one person so 
much IMO.

And Snape, well, hopefully somebody would have just killed him in the 
fight and that way kids would not have endure him at all.

It seems that I have to do this disclaimer every single time when I 
say it, so here it goes again, I do NOT wish for different story, 
when I speculate this way, I am only thinking as if characters did 
not know that they are within the story.

I love what transpired in the books for the most part, love in a 
sense that for me it made wonderful, fast pacing story, etc.

Love as I am to hate Snape, I would not wish for any other catalist 
in the story, I think JKR chose great, but it all does not stop me 
from thinking what I described above.










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 20 22:16:11 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:16:11 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 30 post DH look/ Moody
In-Reply-To: <frsoha+mrdd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frunnb+2jos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182187

> Potioncat:
> I'm confused. Are you saying the court was wrong to make the deal, 
or 
> that Moody was wrong to suggest the court shouldn't honor the deal? 
> Or both?

Alla:

I was saying that Moody was wrong to suggest the court shouldn't 
honor the deal definitely. But actually when I first encountered the 
whole concept of making a deal with somebody to testify about bigger 
fish, it made me very very uncomfortable and still does.

Part of the reason why I would never do criminal law, ever. I mean, 
what kind of justice is that that lets go of the person who did 
lesser crime if only to catch the person who committed larger crime.

I mean, I guess I understand if person with whom the deal is made did 
something REALLY trivial, something really incomparable to what other 
person did, but if both of them say committed murder, only another 
person committed several, why the heck criminal justice system should 
not work harder and catch the criminal without letting other criminal 
go free. My opinion of course only. Eh back to Potterverse now.


 
> >Alla: 
> > So, yeah, back to Moody. Um, wrong and unethical behavior?
> 
> Potioncat:
> I'd like to go back and look for all the real!Moody scenes to find 
> out what he was like. It's hard to always remember that the Moody 
we 
> know best was really Barty.


Alla:

I wonder something now. Maybe JKR did it deliberately, to make sure 
that readers do not see contrasts between two Moodys, but then it 
would be portraying not what real Moody really was.


Potioncat: 
> But this makes me think that Barty's ferret trick wasn't so out of 
> place, nor the DE-who-walks-free ranting. It could explain why 
Snape 
> would feel very nervous around Moody. (But geeze---compared to 
Tom?) 

Alla:

Right, apparently it was not out of character. I wonder though, I was 
trying to locate a post of earlier discussion of this moments, which 
as I vaguely remember discussed Moody's behaviour as result of 
extreme stress he endured in the months preceeding this trial. Losing 
body parts, catching people, aurors dying, etc, but still... I guess 
it can be excuse, but not what I would like to hear from his mouth.

Potioncat:
> By the sane token, the real Moody thinks there's something strange 
> about Harry. He and Snape could drink to that.
> <SNIP>

Alla:

LOLOLOL. Male bonding. Did somebody ever wrote Moody/ Snape slash 
story by the way? Now must go look, am intrigued, never did search on 
them.

Pippin:
The real Moody is a high-functioning nutcase, just like Tom. It's why
Barty Jr could play his part so successfully. But Snape is always
"on", always in character. At Hogwarts, after all, it is never safe to
assume that you are not observed. He shows his nervousness and
protests too much that he is trusted because that is how a DE who
would join the Dark Side again if it had a leader would act.

Alla:

I am not rereading Barty's final speeches deliberately right now, so 
is there any indication that he was learning how to play Moody, or 
did it by instinct and maybe as you seem to suggest because their 
characters are similar?

Oh, and are you suggesting that Snape being afraid of Moody was 
completely an act?

Alla




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 21 09:20:58 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:20:58 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frumg5+99tn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <frvulq+rhh1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182188

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
> Alla:
> 
> Um, no, not for a fact. We know that not all order members were 
> killed. Who is to say that Lily and James would not have been 
among 
> the living?
> 
> I mean, again it is POSSIBLE that they would have been killed of 
> course, just as POSSIBLE that they would be alive. And thanks to 
> Snape and Voldemort, that other possibility did not have any 
chance 
> to play out IMO.
> 
Leah:  You can't say that there was no possibility of James and Lily 
living once Voldemort knew the prophecy, though there was clearly a 
reduced possibility.  Once James and Lily were under the Fidelius 
charm (thanks to Snape's information), then they might well have 
survived, if Dumbledore had been Secret Keeper, if Sirius had 
remained Secret Keeper, if Peter had not turned traitor, if James 
and Lily had kept their wands on them and had the invisibility cloak 
etc etc.  Plenty of chances to play out there.  And Snape is a 
contributory factor in the Potters' death, as are a number of 
others.  It is Voldemort alone who has full responsibility.

Leah 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Mar 21 12:00:11 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:00:11 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frumg5+99tn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs080b+4bau@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182189

 
> Alla: 
> It seems that I have to do this disclaimer every single time when I 
> say it, so here it goes again, I do NOT wish for different story, 
> when I speculate this way, I am only thinking as if characters did 
> not know that they are within the story.
> 
> I love what transpired in the books for the most part, love in a 
> sense that for me it made wonderful, fast pacing story, etc.
> 
> Love as I am to hate Snape, I would not wish for any other catalist 
> in the story, I think JKR chose great, but it all does not stop me 
> from thinking what I described above.


Potioncat:
So...as if the WW is real, not as if an author had to create a story. 
As if we had Time Turners and could go back and fix things. 

I think if a witch went back and Obliviated Snape so that he couldn't 
tell the prophecy, events would still have led to the Potters' death, 
Lily's sacrifice and Harry as the Chosen One. Maybe Harry would still 
have been orphaned, or perhaps his parents would have been killed 
when he was older. But I think there were enough actions in place 
that not much would have changed. For example, Remus told Harry the 
Order members were being picked off, one-by-one; and LV went after 
one witch himself. The Potters had already defied him 3 times and I 
think they would be targeted.

So, the TT-witch would have to go back and keep Trelawney from 
speaking the prophecy. Except, since this is the WW, I think there's 
a good chance that something would cause her to go into a trance and 
announce it at a different time. Perhaps not in front of DD, but 
around someone who would still tell LV. This time there wouldn't a 
well-meaning wizard trying to help the prophecy along.

Or, the TT-witch would be successful. No prophecy at all. Would the 
lack of it change anygthing? Pippin offered a good story-line with 
the war continuing and the WW a very unpleasant place. 

I'm trying to look at what would have to change in order for Harry to 
have a happy life with his parents. Like Pippin, I think we'd still 
have Peter giving information to LV. And of course, Snape turns out 
badly at any rate. So I think we have to get the TT and go back 
farther. We have to go back (I think) all the way to Merope and 
somehow keep her away from the Muggle Tom Riddle.

OH THIS IS GOOD!
No Riddle
NO Death Eaters
Less Pure-blood mania
No "Your Death Eater Friends"
No "Filthy Mudblood"
We'll still have Ron and Hermione and Neville and Draco. I don't know 
if we'll have "Professor" Snape. Or if we do, he'll teach DADA. It 
channels his interest in Dark Arts in a healthy way. Hagrid may have 
actually kept his wand and be off at a dragon preserve. 

I'm not very sure what effect it'll have on Harry Potter--more like 
his father James and maybe something like his mother Florence. 
Perhaps he'll have a crush on the green-eyed Sylvie Snape, the 
daughter of Severus and Lily Snape.

Oh, I do like your ideas Alla. It's the only way a good outcome can 
happen for Snape. 

Now, to get out the TT and find a way to change that Severus/Lily 
ship.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 21 14:42:15 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:42:15 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs080b+4bau@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs0hg7+94tp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182190


> Potioncat:
> So...as if the WW is real, not as if an author had to create a 
story. 
> As if we had Time Turners and could go back and fix things. 
> 
> I think if a witch went back and Obliviated Snape so that he 
couldn't 
> tell the prophecy, events would still have led to the Potters' 
death, 
> Lily's sacrifice and Harry as the Chosen One. Maybe Harry would 
still 
> have been orphaned, or perhaps his parents would have been killed 
> when he was older. But I think there were enough actions in place 
> that not much would have changed. For example, Remus told Harry 
the 
> Order members were being picked off, one-by-one; and LV went after 
> one witch himself. The Potters had already defied him 3 times and 
I 
> think they would be targeted.

Magpie:
Well, yeah. But--and I'm not saying that you're disagreeing with 
this--I think Snape's personal responsibility for what happened is 
one of those Very Important Events that Changed Everything and even 
if the Potters *could* have died some other way, they didn't and 
that doesn't change that Snape took action to get someone killed and 
those someone's were the Potters. Not because James and Lily would 
have been assured a long and healthy life otherwise--but they 
certainly might have had one. As Alla pointed out, other Order 
members were still alive come the end of VWI. 

Snape *felt* responsible in ways another person would not have, 
because of the history--and because frankly he was very reponsible. 
It didn't even necessarily have to be guilt that bothered him--he 
did something and the result was something he didn't want to happen 
so he tried to present that. If he'd been able to divorce his own 
actions from it he probably would have. He's the one who took the 
initiative--without needing to--of taking this information to 
Voldemort. But then Snape took steps to undo what he had done. He 
essentially bought Harry's life with his own in some ways by vowing 
to spend his life trying to protect him because of what he'd done. 

I think that's the important thing about Snape, that he's a 
character who actually took responsibility for the unintended (but 
forseeable) consequences of his actions and worked to counteract 
them. Although of course it ultimately seemed to me that he was less 
doing than than playing out his own personal penance for Lily that 
was just manipulated by Dumbledore for his own ends. But his actions 
on the Potter's behalf throughout the story (even if he always hated 
two of those Potters and would not have mourned them) are at least 
good actions. If Harry continued to hold that against him to the 
point where he couldn't acknowledge all the good Snape did for him I 
don't think it would reflect well on Harry.

Though this is a different issue than Snape's everyday nasty 
treatment of Harry, which Harry would naturally resent. (I will 
never stop finding Harry's naming his child after the man anything 
but bizarre and something I have to chalk up to one of those 
authorial moments of "This is how you're supposed to think about 
these characters.")

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 21 17:36:28 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:36:28 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs0hg7+94tp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs0rms+f5cl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182191

Magpie wrote:
> Well, yeah. But--and I'm not saying that you're disagreeing with 
this--I think Snape's personal responsibility for what happened is 
> one of those Very Important Events that Changed Everything and even 
> if the Potters *could* have died some other way, they didn't and 
> that doesn't change that Snape took action to get someone killed and 
> those someone's were the Potters. Not because James and Lily would 
> have been assured a long and healthy life otherwise--but they 
> certainly might have had one. As Alla pointed out, other Order 
> members were still alive come the end of VWI. 

<snip insightful comments on Snape that I essentially agree with>

Carol responds:
They were alive at the end of VWI because Voldemort was vaporized
before they could be killed. Had he not been, there would not have
been two Voldie wars separated by some fourteen years. There would
have been one continuous war of Voldie and the DEs against the WW,
which lasted from ca. 1970 onward. I think that all of Voldie's
enemies (except possibly Dumbledore, who would no doubt have managed
to kill himself via the ring Horcrux or the fake locket Horcrux) would
have been killed sooner rather than later, including the Potters and
the rest of the Order. The DEs would not have stopped "picking off the
Order members one by one" until all of them were dead.

Of course, Snape's personal responsibility for revealing the Prophecy
is very important--central to the story as it happened, along with his
remorse and lifelong atonement--but that doesn't mean that the Potters
and the Order members would have survived had he not revealed the
Prophecy or had it not been made. We simply would not have had a
Chosen One if Snape had not asked Voldemort to spare Lily's life and
if he had not reneged on his promise, turning a mere "necessary"
murder like the death of Harry's father into a self-sacrifice
empowered by ancient magic. Harry would still very likely have been
orphaned at an early age, but he wouldn't have had powers that
Voldemort himself gave him--or even the poser of Lily's love, which
depends on the fact that she had a chance to live and chose to die.

Carol, who has already pointed out that DD could not have found and
destroyed all the Horcruxes because he lacked a scar connection and
the ability to speak Parseltongue





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 21 17:47:48 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:47:48 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs0hg7+94tp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs0sc4+djl6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182192

> Magpie:
> I think Snape's personal responsibility for what happened is 
> one of those Very Important Events that Changed Everything and even 
> if the Potters *could* have died some other way, they didn't and 
> that doesn't change that Snape took action to get someone killed and 
> those someone's were the Potters. 
<snip>
> Snape *felt* responsible in ways another person would not have, 
> because of the history--and because frankly he was very reponsible. 
<snip>
> I think that's the important thing about Snape, that he's a 
> character who actually took responsibility for the unintended (but 
> forseeable) consequences of his actions and worked to counteract 
> them. Although of course it ultimately seemed to me that he was less 
> doing than than playing out his own personal penance for Lily that 
> was just manipulated by Dumbledore for his own ends. But his actions 
> on the Potter's behalf throughout the story (even if he always hated 
> two of those Potters and would not have mourned them) are at least 
> good actions. If Harry continued to hold that against him to the 
> point where he couldn't acknowledge all the good Snape did for him I 
> don't think it would reflect well on Harry.

Montavilla47:
I think these are excellent points about Snape.  We all tend to want
to shove Snape into either the good guy or the bad guy box, but he
doesn't fit in either one.  (Frankly, that bad guy box isn't big enough 
for more than about, oh, say, four people).

While JKR leaned heavily on the all-for-Lily motive, there's enough
wiggle room to wank that Snape did have a normal amount of 
human decency hidden in there to actually want Voldemort gone 
because LV was an evil, evil man who corrupted basically okay 
people into doing evil things.

It's easier to put that together out of canon than, say, Draco (not to
pick on Draco), who may have had his heart back in the right place, 
but who never got the chance to prove it.

Snape made a hideous mistake in his youth, but he realized that it
was a mistake and he took action to try and fix it.  If he didn't get
credit for that while he was alive, it was down to both his "cover"
and his own secretiveness.  (Would Dumbledore have told Harry
the truth if Snape hadn't insisted otherwise?  One must wonder.  
It's not like Dumbledore was that truthful about anything else.)

Magpie:
> Though this is a different issue than Snape's everyday nasty 
> treatment of Harry, which Harry would naturally resent. (I will 
> never stop finding Harry's naming his child after the man anything 
> but bizarre and something I have to chalk up to one of those 
> authorial moments of "This is how you're supposed to think about 
> these characters.")

Montavilla47:
Yes, but it's more bizarre to me that he gave the kid the first name
of "Albus," since Dumbledore turned out to be far nastier in the end.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 21 17:56:04 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:56:04 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs080b+4bau@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs0srk+10vbq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182193

Magpie:
Well, yeah. But--and I'm not saying that you're disagreeing with
this--I think Snape's personal responsibility for what happened is
one of those Very Important Events that Changed Everything and even
if the Potters *could* have died some other way, they didn't and
that doesn't change that Snape took action to get someone killed and
those someone's were the Potters. Not because James and Lily would
have been assured a long and healthy life otherwise--but they
certainly might have had one. As Alla pointed out, other Order
members were still alive come the end of VWI.

Alla:

Precisely, you put it in exact words I wanted to say. Very Important 
Event that changed everything, that is all what I am saying, and just 
as I am agreeing that obviously Potters COULD have died any other 
way, I will never agree that the absence of such event did not give 
them a chance not to die.

Because Voldemort picking order members one by one did not lead to 
EVERY order member's death, because Lily and James **did** defy 
Voldemort three times, so who is to say that they would not have 
continued to defying him? Because Peter was already betraying the 
order for a year and I do not remember the books connecting anybody 
else's death to his betrayal. I mean, it is only the fact that 
Potters had to go into hiding due to Snape's blabbing the prophecy 
caused the need for Secret keeper in the first place.

Of course Peter's betrayal could have caused any major damage and 
could have lead to Potters' deaths in any other way, but maybe not. 
Maybe Peter's betrayal would have been discovered before any deaths 
could occur, etc.

Boy do I miss wild speculating, hehe. My point is that Snape changed 
everything and without him doing that, the events **could** have 
transpired in a majorly different way. IMO.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
I think that's the important thing about Snape, that he's a
character who actually took responsibility for the unintended (but
foreseeable) consequences of his actions and worked to counteract
them.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Oh sure. I would prefer him to take responsibility in a little bit 
different way as well, but he definitely did take it.

Leah: You can't say that there was no possibility of James and Lily
living once Voldemort knew the prophecy, though there was clearly a
reduced possibility. <SNIP>.


Alla:

I believe can say that, because while of course as you described 
there was a reduced possibility of them surviving after prophecy, 
that was not quite my speculation, sorry for being unclear.

The only variable that changes in my speculation is the absence of 
that very important event, nothing else.

Potioncat:
So...as if the WW is real, not as if an author had to create a story.
As if we had Time Turners and could go back and fix things.

I think if a witch went back and Obliviated Snape so that he couldn't
tell the prophecy, events would still have led to the Potters' death,
Lily's sacrifice and Harry as the Chosen One. Maybe Harry would still
have been orphaned, or perhaps his parents would have been killed
when he was older. But I think there were enough actions in place
that not much would have changed. For example, Remus told Harry the
Order members were being picked off, one-by-one; and LV went after
one witch himself. The Potters had already defied him 3 times and I
think they would be targeted.

Alla:

I think I addressed it replying to Magpie. I do not get how removing 
major event would still lead to same results.  Maybe, sure everything 
is possible, but it also maybe not, you know?

I do hope that when Snape was contemplating of his role, he wished he 
would not have done it, because to me it is just as simple as that ? 
without Snape,  two 21 year olds are **possibly** alive, their baby 
**possibly** has normal life, with his interference ? they are not 
**for a fact**.

But I do love your imaginary witch with TT and want to use it, hehe.

Potioncat:
<SNIP>
OH THIS IS GOOD!
No Riddle
NO Death Eaters
Less Pure-blood mania
No "Your Death Eater Friends"
No "Filthy Mudblood"
We'll still have Ron and Hermione and Neville and Draco. I don't know
if we'll have "Professor" Snape. Or if we do, he'll teach DADA. It
channels his interest in Dark Arts in a healthy way. Hagrid may have
actually kept his wand and be off at a dragon preserve.

I'm not very sure what effect it'll have on Harry Potter--more like
his father James and maybe something like his mother Florence.
Perhaps he'll have a crush on the green-eyed Sylvie Snape, the
daughter of Severus and Lily Snape.

Oh, I do like your ideas Alla. It's the only way a good outcome can
happen for Snape.


Alla:

But of course, as I said as simple as that IMO ? if that accident did 
not happen, it is very possible that friendship between Snape and 
Lily would not have been destroyed. One variable changes everything, 
why would I say, oh no, it is still most likely not have happened. Do 
you see the similarities? ;)

I do not know if I would go as far as agreeing with Lily and Snape 
getting married, but ONLY because in your scenario Dark Arts are 
still in existence, right?

I believe JKR did say something along the line that Lily could have 
loved Snape had he not had a personality with the interest for Dark 
Arts, yes? In your scenario, he is still interested in them, yes, 
albeit in healthy way?

So, not sure about Sylvie Snape, but hey I am willing to say that if 
their friendship had not been destroyed, maybe Lily would be able to 
talk him out or something and maybe we will have Harry Snape as in 
all those fanfictions, LOLOL.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Mar 21 18:28:26 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:28:26 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs0rms+f5cl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs0uoa+pvg1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182194

> Carol responds:
> They were alive at the end of VWI because Voldemort was vaporized
> before they could be killed. Had he not been, there would not have
> been two Voldie wars separated by some fourteen years. There would
> have been one continuous war of Voldie and the DEs against the WW,
> which lasted from ca. 1970 onward. I think that all of Voldie's
> enemies (except possibly Dumbledore, who would no doubt have 
managed
> to kill himself via the ring Horcrux or the fake locket Horcrux) 
would
> have been killed sooner rather than later, including the Potters 
and
> the rest of the Order. The DEs would not have stopped "picking off 
the
> Order members one by one" until all of them were dead.

Magpie:
Yes, I think it's one of those situations where if you had the power 
to go back and change that one thing, it would be better if you 
didn't. Going back in time and making Snape not pass on the prophecy 
could very well result in ending up under a Voldemort-regime WW. 
(Err...that is, if we weren't in a series where we know Time Travel 
is never going to effect the events we've seen, that is.) Things 
could have gone far far *worse* if Snape hadn't passed on the 
prophecy--or maybe some other unforseen thing could have happened 
and we would wind up with Voldemort defeated another way. But we 
couldn't depend on anything based on this change. All we'd know is 
that it wouldn't happen *this* way.

As it did happen, the prophecy gave them the means by which they 
ultimately destroyed Voldemort (and the years between the two wars). 
It also gave them Snape as an ally of the good side and it 
ultimately outed Peter as the spy. Basically it happened and it 
can't be changed, and here's how they made the best of it. No point 
in really saying "if only Snape hadn't..." because he did and now 
they had to deal with it (with Snape himself leading the way).

-m





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 21 18:48:40 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:48:40 -0000
Subject: JKR's Vision and Mine
In-Reply-To: <fro3o9+7f6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs0vu8+abnc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182195

> Lesley
> <snip>
> I agree that as JKR is a christian herself may have used 
> her beliefs in her book's and that has determined how 
> the story's have played out, I just didn't see it.
> -<rearranging a little here>-
> There was a few week's ago, several pages of posts 
> about Kings Cross for example that bored me silly

Mike:
>From JKR's interview responses, I knew the Christain themes were in 
there and more were coming in DH. Though I wasn't going to let that 
stop me from reading the books, I too had no desire to be inundated 
with *any* religious themes. In fact, I actually groaned when I 
started reading the King's Cross chapter for the first time. 

But JKR, for the most part, kept those themes to a minimum, in my 
view. Partly because my view was to read a story about wizards and 
quests and magic and magical things and (what's that word, Carol?) 
the story of a boy growing to manhood. JKR kept me enthralled with 
those themes, that's what I concentrated on and that's what I liked 
to speculate on and still do to this day.


> Lesley
> When I read a book about wizards and giants etc I don't
> expect to be smothered by lot's of religious views and I
> wasn't, so I was suprised other people were.

Mike:
I don't think anyone was smothered, I just think different people 
want to explore different themes. Some may or may not be your cup of 
tea. The great thing about this list is not only the diversity of 
opinions and viewpoints, but also the disparate foci people bring 
when they choose to discuss what they choose to discuss.

I wanted and still want to know how the Fidelius Charm works, why or 
if one really can Apparate from or to inside the Hogwarts castle, 
what Dumbledore's other spindly, whirring, silver objects did and how 
they did it, can a wand think and feel or does it simply react to 
stimuli? That's me and my technical mind, YMMV.

The beauty of these books, to me, was that JKR laid the framework but 
didn't smother us with details. That allowed us to speculate and 
discuss the many varied things within her world with only the minimum 
amount of canon with which to frame our theories. And yet there were 
enough details to get a clear picture, even if that picture was only 
in your mind and nowhere else.

For instance, I have a picture in my mind of Dumbledore's office. For 
one, it's round, like it would be in a turret. I know where the 
spiral escalator let's you out, where the desk, fireplace, spindly 
tables, cabinets, Harry's chair, the window and where each of the 
portraits hang. I also know exactly what each of those look like, and 
even see another small staircase leading out of the office that goes 
up to DD's sleeping quarters (which have an attached bathroom, so 
what was he doing wandering the 7th floor in search of a loo? LOL).

I suppose one of the reasons I don't appreciate the HP movies as 
much, is that the set designer's and director's visions don't match 
mine, and I like mine. On another thread people were discussing the 
layout of Hogwarts and Hogsmeade. JKR and others have drawn cursory 
maps of their visions, which is fine and I like reviewing them, but I 
don't need them because I have my own map.

Tolkien inundates us with his descriptions and supplies a detailed 
map. There can really be no doubt about the way middle earth looks. 
JKR went the other route, she set her story up in modern times, 
albeit a slightly AU Britain. So we can each supply our own visions 
to fill in the details that she's left out, we have our own RL as a 
guide and our own imagination for the paint brush.

Mike, who's Dursley house resembles an old house my friend rented in 
the Boston suburbs but locates it in his childhood subdivision in 
suburban Detroit




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 21 19:09:11 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:09:11 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs0srk+10vbq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs114n+jip3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182196

Alla:
Alla wrote:
<snip> 
> without Snape,  two 21 year olds are **possibly** alive, their baby
 **possibly** has normal life, with his interference ? they are not
**for a fact**. <snip>

Carol responds:

Not that it matters, but Severus was also 21. :-) I agree with you
that Snape changed everything, but some of the unintended consequences
of his eavesdropping and even of Voldemort's murder of the Potters
were good. As I said before, without the events at Godric's Hollow
(and without Peter's betrayal of the Potters, which I didn't mention),
there would have been no Chosen One, no one with the particular powers
required to gain insight into Voldemort's mind, find his Horcruxes,
and ultimately defeat him. Without those events, Voldemort would have
continued his reign of terror, and the state of affairs in the WW
would have continued to deteriorate. As it was, the unintended
consequences of Voldemort's actions, in combination with those of
Snape, Wormtail, Black (the SK switch), the Potters themselves
(trusting Wormtail and accepting the switch), and possibly,
Dumbledore, caused a fourteen-year respite that none of them expected,
along with the creation of the Chosen One (about whom only DD could
have had a clue; the part of the Prophecy that Snape didn't hear and
consequently didn't report was known only to DD).

To return to Snape: Once he found out how Voldemort interpreted the
Prophecy, he asked Voldemort not to kill Lily and then went to
Dumbledore for further help, promising to do "anything" to keep
"her--them" alive. The Secret Keeper idea was put in place because of
Snape's information that LV was targeting the Potters. Had the Potters
accepted Dumbledore as their Secret Keeper, they could not have been
betrayed by Wormtail.

So Snape alone is not responsible for the Potters' deaths, though he
did begin the chain of events that led to it. Those deaths could still
have been prevented had other people (Black, Pettigrew, and the
Potters themselves) not chosen to act as they did. And Snape's
repentance and lifelong atonement (in contrast to Wormtail's continued
service to the Dark Lord) are as important as his sin.

I agree that it's possible, though unlikely, that the Potters could
have survived without Snape's interference. (VW1 would simply have
been the ongoing Voldie War.) But Snape also "interfered" in a futile
attempt to keep Lily (and, by extension, her son and her hated
husband) alive by going to DD and turning spy for him. If Snape had
had his way, the Potters would not have died at Godric's Hollow. But
the Prophecy Boy would never have existed, either.

Carol, who likes to see events as the result of more than one cause,
the coming together of various people's actions, with consequences
unintended by any of them





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Mar 21 20:52:39 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:52:39 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <frumg5+99tn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs176n+3n3f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182197

> > Pippin:
> > According to JKR, they were full time Order members.
> > If they hadn't gone into hiding, wouldn't they have been killed a 
> lot sooner?
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Um, no, not for a fact. We know that not all order members were 
> killed. Who is to say that Lily and James would not have been among 
> the living?


Pippin:
I mean that Lily and James decided that they were willing to  defy
Voldemort although they knew that Voldemort  was killing anyone who
did that, and no one escaped him for long. They didn't go into  hiding
to protect their own lives, they did it to protect Harry. Do you think
they were cowards like Karkaroff?
 
>  
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh? I would speculate that they would have tried their hardest to
get rid of Voldemort. It is possible that eventually they would have 
succeeded, don't you think?
> Alla:
> 
> That's only one scenario of what could have happened in my opinion. 
> Another one is for example - Light wins, after hard struggle, yes. 
> Maybe adults for a change would take the first seats in the fight.

Pippin:
Adults, but not Lily and James? IMO, they wouldn't have wanted it that
way. If somebody had to die to bring Voldemort down,  they
wanted to be that person, just as Harry did. 

Alla:
> Why would Dumbledore die much sooner by the way? You mean after he 
> tried ring horcrux on or sooner than that?

Pippin:
I mean Voldemort would have continued to increase his power until, as
in canon, he was no longer afraid to attack Dumbledore. 

Alla:
> Who knows, maybe Dumbledore's earlier death would have done GOOD to 
> order members, who would have learned to not depend on one person so 
> much IMO.
>
 
Pippin:
LOL! Like they did when  Dumbledore died in canon?  They just
transferred all their hopes to Harry and depended on him instead.

What you want would take a significant cultural change IMO -- the WW
seems to expect that when a mighty dark wizard arises, a mighty white
wizard will appear to fight him. The WW also had the opportunity to
take on Grindelwald without DD's help, but they didn't.


Pippin









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 02:00:08 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:00:08 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs176n+3n3f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs1p78+jn45@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182198

> Pippin:
> I mean that Lily and James decided that they were willing to  defy
> Voldemort although they knew that Voldemort  was killing anyone who
> did that, and no one escaped him for long. They didn't go into  
hiding
> to protect their own lives, they did it to protect Harry. Do you 
think
> they were cowards like Karkaroff?

Alla:

I am not sure what this has to do with anything, really. No, they 
were not cowards of course, yes they went into hiding to protect 
Harry most likely, although I do not believe we know that they did 
not do so to protect themselves as well. I mean, not in a sense that 
they wanted to permanently leave the fight, but in a sense that now 
thanks to Snape they had brightly painted targets on their backs and 
they would prefer not to have those, or at least not to have larger 
targets than other order members. IMO of course.

Again, I dispute the no one escaped Voldemort for long part. Several 
order members did at least till the end of Second war and Yeah, I 
think that is quite a worthy years that they could have lived IMO.

  
>> Pippin:
> Adults, but not Lily and James? IMO, they wouldn't have wanted it 
that
> way. If somebody had to die to bring Voldemort down,  they
> wanted to be that person, just as Harry did. 

Alla:

The thing is there did not HAVE TO be one specific person to die to 
bring Voldemort down IMO, but for Snape's acting. And I did not mean 
that I did not want Lily and James to fight of course. I did not want 
them to die that stupidly, again not that I mind the manners of their 
death, I just mind that Snape took it upon himself to decide.

And now cutting from your other post.

Pippin
<SNIP>
I miss Snape -- it's part of the reason I still want to talk about the
books, and of course I'd love it if DH had more Snape in it. But,
y'know, JKR's writing career isn't over. I think a Snape-ish character
in a book written outright for adults, without the constraints JKR
faced as an all-ages author, might well out-Snape Snape himself!


Alla:
One of my latest obsessions erm... passions are the books by Guy 
Gavriel Kay and there is one book of his that I love the most 
called "A song for Arbonne" and has a very Snapish secondary 
character, whom I love to pieces.

And to confirm that this character is Snapish, you do not have to 
trust me, just ask Zara, who is Snape fan ;). I highly recommend this 
book if you did not read it.


> Pippin:
> I mean Voldemort would have continued to increase his power until, 
as
> in canon, he was no longer afraid to attack Dumbledore. 


Alla:

Sure, yes, but why much sooner death for Dumbledore necessarily?

 
> Pippin:
> LOL! Like they did when  Dumbledore died in canon?  They just
> transferred all their hopes to Harry and depended on him instead.
> 
> What you want would take a significant cultural change IMO -- the WW
> seems to expect that when a mighty dark wizard arises, a mighty 
white
> wizard will appear to fight him. The WW also had the opportunity to
> take on Grindelwald without DD's help, but they didn't.
>


Alla:

Oh yes of course, but that is why I said who knows, no guarantee, 
totally.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 03:34:52 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:34:52 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 31 -33 Post DH look
Message-ID: <fs1uos+92ke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182199

"The post owls appeared, bringing Harry a good-luck card from Sirius. 
It was only a piece of parchment, folded over and bearing a muddy paw 
print on its front, but Harry appreciated it all the same" - p.610


Alla:

Sob. It is for things like this I will love Sirius' character forever, 
no matter what his other fallings are. He found time to send Harry good 
luck card :)


"Indeed, the most famous Parselmouth of our times is none other than 
You-Know-Who himself.  A member of the Dark Force Defense League, who 
wished to remain unnamed, stated that he would regard any wizard who 
could speak Parseltongue "as worthy of investigation. Personally, I 
would be highly suspicious of anybody who could converse with snakes, 
as serpents are often used in the worst kinds of Dark Magic, and are 
historically associated with evildoers."  Similarly, "anyone who seeks 
out the company of such vicious creatures as werewolves and giants 
would appear to have a fondness for violence." - p.612


Alla:

Who is this mysterious person? Did Rita make him up?




"Then he saw Mrs. Weasley and Bill standing in front of the fireplace, 
beaming at him.
"Surprise!"  Mrs. Weasley said excitedly as he smiled broadly and 
walked over to them. 
"Thought we'd come and watch you. Harry!"  She bent down and kissed him 
on the cheek.  "You all right?" said Bill, grinning at Harry and 
shaking his hand.  "Charlie wanted to come, but he couldn't get time 
off.  He said you were incredible against the Horntail." Fleur 
Delacour, Harry noticed, was eyeing Bill with great interest over her 
mother's shoulder.
Harry could tell she had no objection whatsoever to long hair or 
earrings with fangs on them.
"This is really nice of you," Harry muttered to Mrs. Weasley.  "I 
thought for a moment - the Dursleys -" "Hmm," said Mrs. Weasley, 
pursing her lips.  She had always refrained from criticizing the 
Dursleys in front of Harry, but her eyes flashed every time they were 
mentioned.  "It's great being back here," said Bill, looking around the 
chamber (Violet, the Fat Lady's friend, winked at him from her 
frame).  "Haven't seen this place for five years.  Is that picture of 
the mad knight still around?  Sir Cadogan?"
"Oh yeah," said Harry, who had met Sir Cadogan the previous year.
"And the Fat Lady?" said Bill.
"She was here in my time," said Mrs. Weasley.  "She gave me such a 
telling off one night when I got back to the dormitory at four in the 
morning -" "What were you doing out of your dormitory at four in the 
morning?"  said Bill, surveying his mother with amazement.
Mrs. Weasley grinned, her eyes twinkling.
"Your father and I had been for a nighttime stroll," she said.  "He got 
caught by Apollyon Pringle - he was the caretaker in those days - your 
father's still got the marks." "Fancy giving us a tour, Harry?"  said 
Bill." - p.616


Alla:


Loved, loved this exchange, always did. It confirms to me that Bill and 
C Charlie did not take their jobs away from home to get away from Molly 
or something like that. IMO it is obvious that Bill is very comfortable 
spending time with his mother, enjoys it and indeed has fun discovering 
stories of their childhood.

And heee, Fleur has no objections indeed, like at all.


I refuse to quote from Flesh, Blood and Bone - scary. I mean, really 
scary and is it the shortest chapter in the book?

I mean, I had noticed that it is much shorter, but did not have the 
desire to count pages number in all chapters.

See it is bizarre, I have impression of Graveyard that both absurd and 
scary.

I was scared and upset for Harry in this chapter more than I was when 
Voldemort makes him duel. I mean, I was sympathising when he was hit 
with Crucio, etc, but just absurdity of Voldemort untying him always 
made me laugh - as in are you an idiot, or what. So, yeah, despite 
remembering explanations about how Voldemort wanted to show off in 
front of his DE or something, I will never understand why did he just 
not kill Harry right there. Yes, yes, I know - no story, but I would 
love to have something stronger than that.




"Listen to me, reliving family history..." he said quietly, "why, I am 
growing quite sentimental... But look, Harry! My true family 
returns..." - p.646

Alla:

Voldemort's attempt to be sarcastic and ironical? Or does he really 
thinks of DE as his true family?




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Mar 22 03:43:17 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:43:17 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
References: <fs1p78+jn45@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001901c88bce$dea37fc0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182200

>> Pippin:
>> I mean that Lily and James decided that they were willing to  defy
>> Voldemort although they knew that Voldemort  was killing anyone who
>> did that, and no one escaped him for long. They didn't go into  hiding
>> to protect their own lives, they did it to protect Harry. Do you  think
>> they were cowards like Karkaroff?


Shelley now:
Cowards- subject to opinion, no? What is the difference between the hiding 
that James and Lilly did (to protect themselves and their baby), and the 
hiding that Karkaroff did (to protect himself), and the hiding that so many 
had to do during DH? How many families all had to run away, fearing 
Voldemort? Even Hermione hid her parents. All were running/hiding from 
Voldemort or the MOM (which, essentially was doing the work of Voldemort) in 
what seemed like an unwinnable situation. "He who runs away lives to fight 
another day." I don't think Karkaroff was a coward- I just think he knew 
that Voldemort would look into his mind, see that he no longer supported 
him, and that he would be dead instantly if he was lucky, tortured and left 
to live for a while before being killed if he was unlucky. To run meant a 
chance that someone else would be able to take out Voldemort, or that he 
might find a way to be of use later on. I think he had no choice, and that 
for me is what differentiates him and a real coward- a real coward has a 
choice and chooses to run anyway. What Lupin tried to do to abandon his 
family was cowardly, as Harry saw it. Karkaroff, I think, knew he was a dead 
man, and his running for only for self preservation because his very wicked 
former master who would not have forgiven or taken him back. I think, just 
like Rowling did throughout the series, that she gave a single example of 
something that would reappear with importance later, and Karkaroff was the 
first example of someone who would run and hide from Voldemort- some with 
success, and some ending anyway in death. He was the example that again, 
people had a lot to fear of Voldemort, and that it was starting all over 
again.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Mar 22 04:11:39 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:11:39 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs0srk+10vbq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs20tr+2n8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182201


> Alla:
> 
> Precisely, you put it in exact words I wanted to say. Very 
Important 
> Event that changed everything, that is all what I am saying, and 
just 
> as I am agreeing that obviously Potters COULD have died any other 
> way, I will never agree that the absence of such event did not give 
> them a chance not to die.
> 
Potioncat:
 When I first set myself the task of working out what would happen if 
Snape had not told LV the prophecy (using canon and interviews and 
myths) I realized that Snape's running to LV, and his subsequent 
remorse is what saved him. Had Snape not made that horrible decision 
to tell LV the prophecy, he may not have had reason to back out and 
reach a state of redemption. But if what you want is a happy 
childhood for Harry,then LV has to be destroyed before Harry is born. 
At least as best as I can work it out. And that would mean no 
prophecy at all.

The only way I can work out that Snape wouldn't tell, would be if he 
didn't hear it, or if he hadn't become a DE. I can't see why a DE 
wouldn't tell.
> 
> Alla:> 
> The only variable that changes in my speculation is the absence of 
> that very important event, nothing else.

Potioncat:
If the only change is that DD and Snape hear the prophecy but that 
Snape doesn't tell LV, then I think very little will change. Except 
perhaps that Snape will not have reason to be redeemed. 

I'm basing this on how prophecy stories usually work out. If we 
change who hears the prophecy or who doesn't we get a bit more lee-
way. But we also have to decide if the prophecy was the cause or just 
the pre-reporting of the events at Godrick's Hollow.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I think I addressed it replying to Magpie. I do not get how 
removing 
> major event would still lead to same results.  Maybe, sure 
everything 
> is possible, but it also maybe not, you know?

Potioncat:
OK, I don't think my view is the only one, I'm open to other 
scenarios. But how about an explanation of how you think events would 
have transpired to get the happier ending?  (Or if I missed it 
upthread, could you give a post number?)

>Potioncat, earlier: 
> I'm not very sure what effect it'll have on Harry Potter--more like
> his father James and maybe something like his mother Florence.
> Perhaps he'll have a crush on the green-eyed Sylvie Snape, the
> daughter of Severus and Lily Snape.

Potioncat now:
I didn't mean to get this carried away when I started in the earlier 
post. It was realising just how much LV and his DEs affected 
everyone. Just think, Moaning Myrtle would be an old woman rather 
than a girl-ghost.

Back to the above alternate future. The one where Tom Riddle was 
never born. I think it's more likely that Severus and Lily would 
continue a friendship---at least until she fell in love with James. 
So we'd more likely have the Harry Potter we know now, with whatever 
changes a happy-somewhat-spoiled childhood would give him. Professor 
Snape (DADA) probably still wouldn't like him. Harry is like James 
after all---and I think he'd be even more like James had he known him.

It would be Severus and Florence Snape--and their twins, Susan and 
Slyvie. (Thank goodness, got rid of that other ship!)

Potioncat, who likes this thread, but couldn't help getting silly.






From leahstill at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 22 10:43:25 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:43:25 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs20tr+2n8m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs2nsd+boat@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182202

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

> Back to the above alternate future. The one where Tom Riddle was 
> never born. I think it's more likely that Severus and Lily would 
> continue a friendship---at least until she fell in love with 
James. 
> So we'd more likely have the Harry Potter we know now, with 
whatever 
> changes a happy-somewhat-spoiled childhood would give him. 
Professor 
> Snape (DADA) probably still wouldn't like him. Harry is like James 
> after all---and I think he'd be even more like James had he known 
him.

Leah: Would Snape even be teaching? Surely DD gave him the job to 
fit with Snape's espionage activities - 'Voldemort's spy at 
Hogwarts'.  I can see Snape carrying out potions research (perhaps 
Florence is a herbologist, hence the greenhouse) or carrying on with 
the spell inventing, delving into estoteric depths of magic.

> 
> It would be Severus and Florence Snape--and their twins, Susan and 
> Slyvie. (Thank goodness, got rid of that other ship!)

Leah: I always think of Eileen as Irish, so perhaps Sinead and 
Sylvie?   Enough silliness already :)

Leah 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 22 14:31:32 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:31:32 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <001901c88bce$dea37fc0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fs3584+faqv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182203


> 
> Shelley now:
> Cowards- subject to opinion, no? What is the difference between the
hiding  that James and Lilly did (to protect themselves and their
baby), and the  hiding that Karkaroff did (to protect himself), and
the hiding that so many  had to do during DH? How many families all
had to run away, fearing  Voldemort? Even Hermione hid her parents. 

Pippin:
I think there is a big difference between helping someone else to go
into hiding, and hiding yourself without any thought for other people.
Karkaroff deserted his school and his students. There's no canon that
he planned to be of use later on. There is canon that he was offered
the chance to remain at Hogwarts and be of use immediately. 

Pippin 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 22 15:39:30 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:39:30 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs1p78+jn45@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs397i+dbrb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182204


> Alla:
> 
> 
> Again, I dispute the no one escaped Voldemort for long part. Several 
> order members did at least till the end of Second war and Yeah, I 
> think that is quite a worthy years that they could have lived IMO.

Pippin:

I know you're  re-reading in order, but when you get to it, look at
Moody's photo again (OOP 9)

*All* the  Order fighters who survived the first war had been killed
or taken by the end of DH: Frank and Alice Longbottom, Sirius Black,
Sturgis Podmore, Emmeline Vance, Albus Dumbledore, Mad-eye Moody,
Remus Lupin and Rubeus Hagrid.  Elphias Doge and Daedalus Diggle were
never taken, but as far as we know, they didn't fight. Aberforth and
Mundungus made rather a point of not fighting <g>. 



Alla:
> The thing is there did not HAVE TO be one specific person to die to 
> bring Voldemort down IMO, but for Snape's acting. And I did not mean 
> that I did not want Lily and James to fight of course. I did not
want  them to die that stupidly, again not that I mind the manners of
their  death, I just mind that Snape took it upon himself to decide.


Pippin:


Your argument, if I restate it correctly, was that Snape ruined
Harry's chances for a happy life by making sure that Harry would be an
orphan. But I submit that it was James and Lily who took it on
themselves to decide. Not that they are to blame for their own deaths,
but like Lupin they decided that it would be worth dying to give their
offspring a chance to live in a world without Voldemort. If the
prophecy had not forced them into hiding to protect Harry, they might
have died like so many others. To say that they didn't already have a
target painted on them is, IMO, absurd. I'm not trying to absolve
Snape of moral responsibility for what he did, just point out that the
prophecy didn't materially affect the Potters' chances of survival. 

It certainly seems that contrary to Lupin's reassurances in OOP,
Voldemort resumed killing Order members at his usual rate, which is
why I say that Dumbledore also would have died all the sooner if
Voldemort hadn't gone to GH, and if Snape's love had not given Lily
the power to save Harry and deprive Voldemort of his powers. 

Now, if he had not made horcruxes, Voldemort would have died then, and
Harry, though orphaned, could have been placed with a loving family
and grown up as happily as Teddy Lupin. No guarantees of course, but I
think that would have done a lot more for Harry than if Snape had,
say, been obliviated before he could deliver the prophecy but nothing
else had changed.  

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 16:01:49 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:01:49 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs397i+dbrb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs3ahd+veet@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182205

> > Alla:
> > 
> > 
> > Again, I dispute the no one escaped Voldemort for long part. 
Several 
> > order members did at least till the end of Second war and Yeah, I 
> > think that is quite a worthy years that they could have lived IMO.
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> I know you're  re-reading in order, but when you get to it, look at
> Moody's photo again (OOP 9)
> 
> *All* the  Order fighters who survived the first war had been killed
> or taken by the end of DH: Frank and Alice Longbottom, Sirius Black,
> Sturgis Podmore, Emmeline Vance, Albus Dumbledore, Mad-eye Moody,
> Remus Lupin and Rubeus Hagrid.  Elphias Doge and Daedalus Diggle 
were
> never taken, but as far as we know, they didn't fight. Aberforth and
> Mundungus made rather a point of not fighting <g>. 


Alla:

Looking very hard for canon where Rubeus Hagrid is dead and still 
cannot find it LOL. But sure I know that the majority of order 
members died, but as I said in that very sentence that several order 
members escaped at least till the end of Second war and Lupin died at 
the very end. Surely it would have been worth that if Lily and James 
lived till that long at least? And who is to say that just as Hagrid 
they would not have survived? 

And I am trying to figure out how Aberworth was not fighting by 
helping kids.

And of course we have Weasleys who were not in the Order in the first 
war, but is in the order now and they also survived. So, no, I see 
absolutely possibility that Lily and James at least would have 
survived till JKR felt a need to kill off the older generation for 
the most part at the end, or maybe survived as Hagrid and Molly and 
Arthur.


> Pippin:
> 
> 
> Your argument, if I restate it correctly, was that Snape ruined
> Harry's chances for a happy life by making sure that Harry would be 
an
> orphan.

Alla:

Yep, ruined very much is my opinion. 

Pippin:
 But I submit that it was James and Lily who took it on
> themselves to decide. Not that they are to blame for their own 
deaths,
> but like Lupin they decided that it would be worth dying to give 
their
> offspring a chance to live in a world without Voldemort. If the
> prophecy had not forced them into hiding to protect Harry, they 
might
> have died like so many others. To say that they didn't already have 
a
> target painted on them is, IMO, absurd. I'm not trying to absolve
> Snape of moral responsibility for what he did, just point out that 
the
> prophecy didn't materially affect the Potters' chances of survival. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

And to me to say that prophecy did not materially affect Potters' 
chance of survival IS absurd and indeed absolving Snape of moral 
responsibility. IMO of course.

Without prophecy they were **of course** just as in much danger as 
any order member. With prophecy they are the parents of the Chosen 
one, the one who can destroy Voldemort. Hmmm, I know which people I 
would be hunting the first and foremost if I were the evil overlord.

I have not noticed that Voldemort would CARE at all about any other 
order members as the ones who pose a special danger to him. I mean, 
he wanted to kill them sure as the fighters for other site.

But did he **fear** anybody else except prophecy couple and their 
baby and of course Albus Dumbledore?

Not as far as I remember.


JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 16:48:57 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:48:57 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs20tr+2n8m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs3d9p+aeq6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182206

Potioncat:
When I first set myself the task of working out what would happen if
Snape had not told LV the prophecy (using canon and interviews and
myths) I realized that Snape's running to LV, and his subsequent
remorse is what saved him. Had Snape not made that horrible decision
to tell LV the prophecy, he may not have had reason to back out and
reach a state of redemption. But if what you want is a happy
childhood for Harry,then LV has to be destroyed before Harry is born.
At least as best as I can work it out. And that would mean no
prophecy at all.

The only way I can work out that Snape wouldn't tell, would be if he
didn't hear it, or if he hadn't become a DE. I can't see why a DE
wouldn't tell.


Alla:

Yeah, LOL, subsequent saving of one Severus Snape versus happy 
childhood for Harry is really no brainer for me.

And yes, of course DE would tell, so, two choices I can see, killing 
Snape right here on the spot, yes, yes I know Dumbledore is too 
**noble** for that, LOL, or at least obliviating him and making sure 
that even alive he would never tell.

Why could not Dumbledore just do nice clean AK and no more Snape, 
eh?  I am joking of course.

Potioncat:
<SNIP>
OK, I don't think my view is the only one, I'm open to other
scenarios. But how about an explanation of how you think events would
have transpired to get the happier ending? (Or if I missed it
upthread, could you give a post number?)
<SNIP>

Alla:

Sure, but again, this is of course just a speculative ONE 
possibility. So, here we go. Snape does not tell Prophecy because he 
is either dead or obliviated, take your pick. So Voldemort never 
attacks prophecy couple. Yes, Peter is betraying the order with 
whatever information, but he is, I don't know caught in the act when 
he is meeting with the DE, OR say they are planning the operation and 
it goes badly, and they realize that Peter is the traitor, off to 
Azkaban with him.

There are casualties of course, but Lily and James already 
successfully defied Voldemort three times, so they are defying him 
again ? once or twice and survive with Harry living with them and 
being just Harry.

The prophecy is spoken, yes, but as we know there are many prophecies 
kept in the Hall of prophecies in MoM and NOT all of them come true, 
so this one never does come true.

Correct me if I am wrong, but nowhere was it said that this is the 
ONLY way to defeat Voldemort, so really for all I care somebody else 
discovered and destroyed Horcruxes. Dumbledore did some of them, I do 
not see how the fact that he did not speak Parseltongue means ( as 
Carol speculated) that the diary could not have been destroyed.

Parseltongue ability is rare, but not non existent, no? So somebody 
else would have assisted in doing it. Who? Again, I do not know and 
do not think it matters. Because I do not believe we know that nobody 
else can speak that. The last known person was Voldie, but who is to 
say that he was the only one?

And speaking about Dumbledore inability to speak it, I may be wrong 
and not getting to HBP any time soon, again, on purpose, but didn't 
we suspect from one of the memories that he indeed may have known 
Parseltongue? Dumbledore I mean.

So, here is the rough speculative sketch of happier things for Harry 
as I see it.

Could this all gone worse? OF COURSE it could have, Lily and James 
could have been killed in the fight after all and Dumbledore dear 
would have managed Harry's fate as he deemed fit, but my point is it 
did not HAVE TO go worse, but Snape made sure that it did.


Potioncat:
<SNIP>
It would be Severus and Florence Snape--and their twins, Susan and 
Slyvie. (Thank goodness, got rid of that other ship!)


Alla:

Now here is the good match for Weasley Twins. I can just see it ? 
Weasley/Snape family makes its entrance. MAHAHAHAHH.

JMO,

Alla.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 18:31:41 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:31:41 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frkgua+2msm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs3jad+jbnv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182207

---  "Caius Marcius" <coriolan at ...> wrote:
>
> ...
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
> CHAPDISC:  Chapter 16 ? Godric's Hollow
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 1. How do Harry and Hermione differ in their reaction to Ron's
> departure? (or do they differ?)
> 

bboyminn:

Strange as it may seem to some, I see a very typical 'boy'
and 'girl' reaction here, as well as a very typical 'Harry'
and 'Hermione' reaction. Harry is outwardly stoic in his 
reaction. He is not going to cry or whine over it, but 
internally he is deeply hurt and fearful the Ron's departure
might have been completely justified. 

Hermione, on the other hand, does outwardly display her
emotions, even though in doing so, she, at the same time, tries
to hide them from Harry. I think Hermione's emotional state is
far more complex than Harry's, because Hermione has feelings
for Ron that she feels were betrayed by his departure. In a
sense, she doesn't just feel that Ron has abandon the group,
but that he has abandon her personally. In short, if he really
loved her, he would have stayed for her, no matter how furious
he was with Harry. 

I think Ron's departure tremendously deepens that doubts that
they both have. In their minds, certainly they see themselves
as doing nothing useful. They are wandering around in the woods
blindly while Voldemort grows every stronger, and they are no
closer to solving the mystery of the Horcruxes or the Hallows. 
Even Harry internally expresses his own desire to abandon it
all and just go back to Hogwarts. I think when this blow up
occurs, they are all immensely frustrated by their situation.
Even I was frustrated and furious at Dumbledore for making the
task so hard. 


> 2. Following off that question, I was struck by the richness 
> of the interplay between Harry and Hermione in this chapter.  
> What is your favorite H/H moment from Chapter 16?
> 

bboyminn:

Indeed I think we see the first deep and real interplay of 
emotion that wasn't being played up for humor in Harry, Hermione,
and Ron's interaction.

After Ron leaves, emotions on all sides are running very deep. 
Too deep to deal with in the moment, so their is a delay in
confronting those emotions and discussing them. 

But Hermione being the trooper she is, troops on. She moves 
forward the best she is able. Notice when Harry finally 
suggests Godrics Hollow, Hermione hasn't been mindlessly 
sulking. She has been thinking long and hard about their
problem and what to do about it. 

I think my favorite interaction between them is not in this
chapter but when Hermione and Harry finally talk and speak
Ron's name for the first time. Unknown to them that first 
hint of forgiveness and understanding send Ron the clue he
needs to find his way back. Very clever of Dumbledore to 
set the 'Putter-outer' charms to not activate until Harry
and Hermione speak Ron's name. 


> 3. By the end of DH, we know that Phineas is working for the
> Good Guys, and that he is trying to help pinpoint the 
> whereabouts of the Duo so SilverDoe!Snape can drop off the 
> Sword of Gryffindor. How competent does Phineas seem at his 
> assigned task?
> 

bboyminn:

I think Phineas understood that they weren't going to just
give him their location. That was clear from the start when
they made him wear a blindfold. They didn't even want him to
see the interior of the room they were in for fear that would
give him a clue. So, all Phineas could do is hang around,
which I'm sure we all agree would have been dull.

I think Phineas is a little too smarmy to be able to convince
them he has any real interest in them. That is, the minute he
was nice and polite, they would have seen him for the phony he
was and would have shut him down completely. Which, by the way,
is exactly what they did. Whenever Phineas became to curious
and/or questioning, Hermione immediately cut off the 
conversation and stuffed him back in her bag.

So, the best Phineas could do was to lay back and be Phineas,
and hope they would get so used to him being there that they
would let something slip, which is very close to what happened.


> 4. Why did it take so long for Harry & Hermione to make the
> connection between Godric's Hollow, the Sword of Gryffindor
> and Bagshot?
> 

bboyminn:

I don't think it is that easy a connection to make, especially
when Dumbledore was so NOT forthcoming with information. I 
suspect there were many people in history named 'Godric', so
no reason to assume /that/ Godric was /this/ Godric. Even when
the connection is finally made, it is an extremely thin
connection strung together by the flimsiest of threads. 

Still, it is something, when they have nothing, and in Harry's
mind it serves the dual purpose of letting him go to see his
parents graves. 


> 5. Harry fantasizes how, if not for Voldemort, he would have
> grown up as an ordinary wizard boy in Godric's Hollow. Had 
> that occurred, it's easy to think of all the ways in which 
> Harry would have been different ? what (if anything) about 
> Harry would have stayed the same?
> 

bboyminn:

I think Harry would have been very much that same as he is,
though perhaps a little more outgoing, friendly, and trusting.
I don't see him going the 'James' route. By the time Harry
came around, I think James had mellowed substantially. I think
he say that 'high school cool' was not all it was cracked up
to be, and saw himself for the prat he truly was. I don't
think he would want Harry to grow up like that, so I think he
would have made an effort to assure that Harry as a sense of
compassion and understanding for other people. And that, in
life, that compassion and understanding far far out trumps
'cool' in the real world. 

Harry would have been a happy, healthy, outgoing, friendly boy,
who still would have had a strong empathy for the underdog and
the down trodden. 


> 6. The only evidence of the Wizarding World that Harry and Hermione
> see in Godric's Hollow (in this chapter) are the Potter memorial
> statue, and the tombstones.  Where are the signs of life in GH?
> 

bboyminn:

There are plenty of 'signs of life' there. There is an active
lively Pub, and a Church. They just happen to have arrive at
a time when most people were either in one place or the other.

What is missing is signs of 'wizard' life, and considering that
wizard would attempt to blend in both by command of law and by
rule of common sense, we would not have seen any overt sign of
'wizard' life. What did you expect to see, a green witch brewing 
potions in the town square while cackling madly, while ghoul
floated around, and wizard race brooms across the sky?  The 
goal is to blend in.

Still, when you consider the signs of wizard life that we do
see, it is no small matter. A magical memorial in the town 
square, and the shrine of the Potter's house; I think these
are pretty significant. They surprise both Harry and Hermione.


> 7. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry about their common roots
> in Godric's Hollow?
> 

bboyminn:

I'm not sure he thought it would matter. Harry and Dumbledore
have never had long mellow conversations over tea. It has
usually been direct and to the point, then Harry was dismissed.
I suspect if Dumbledore had lived longer, he and Harry would 
have had many such conversations after Harry left school. But
that was not to be.

I don't think at any given minute, Dumbledore really knew what
information would be valuable to Harry, and I don't think he
wanted to give Harry information too early. It's part of
Dumbledore's 'need to know' philosophy; no one needs to know
anything until if become strategically advantageous for them
to do so. 

Keep in mind, that Dumbledore willed the sword to Harry, he 
didn't imagine Harry would have any trouble getting it. Yet, 
he must have had some suspicious that the Ministry would be 
resistant, so he (or Snape) had a second sword made just in 
case. But there was no time to plant it anywhere, or make 
provisions for Harry to get it. 

Keep in mind that regardless of the connection made between
Godrics Hollow, Godric Gryffindor, and Gryffindor's sword,
that the sword wasn't and never was at Godrics Hollow. It
was a good guess, but a wrong one. 
 

> 8. What did you first make of the gravesite of "Ignotus" and
> the mysterious symbol? (BTW, "ignotus" in Latin means obscure
> or ignorant).
> 

bboyminn:

Well obviously since the symbol was there, it had to have 
some connection to the Hallows, but it is only later when
the 'Peverell' connection is made that it become more clear.

Notice that JKR cleverly made the last name of Ignotus unclear
in that scene, it is only when Hermione remembers it later
what it become clear...or clearer.


> 9. This chapter offer two quotations from the New Testament ?
> the first verse upon the Dumbledore family headstone is from
> Matthew 6:21
> ...
> --- 21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be 
> also.
> 
> The quote also appears in Luke 12:33-34, ...
> 
> --- ... 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will 
> be also.
> 
> Harry says he does not know what the inscription means. What 
> does it mean? (in the context of DH).
> 

bboyminn:

I think the meaning is slightly obscured by the ancient language,
but it is not that unclear. A modern writer would probably say,
Where you /heart/ is, there your /treasure/ will be also. And,
the central theme is that real treasure or worth is found in 
the more abstract aspects of life. The real value is in what
and who you love. 

> 10. The second Scripture verse, upon the Potters' headstone, 
> is from... Corinthians, 15:26 ...
> 
> --- ... 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
> 
> "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." ? Harry's
> initial reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan.  How 
> does this statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?
> 

bboyminn:

I've already addressed these elsewhere in this thread. I think
how this differs from the DE philosophy is in the interpretation.
People are always coming up with self-serving interpretations of
the Bible. A DE could interpret this as a 'conquer death' 
ideology, where as more open minded people would realize that it
refers to eternal spiritual life, not eternal mortal life. Anyone
with half a brain would realize the true eternal mortal life is
a curse of the highest order. 


> 11. Harry supposes that Dumbledore selected the inscription 
> for his mother and sister ? who selected the epitaph for the 
> Potters?
> 

bboyminn:

As others have said, since Dumbledore was making the 
arrangements, he likely selected the inscription. Though I
don't think he knew in that moment, the long term impact
that statement would have on his plans. 

I think each inscription was very appropriate for those for
whom the inscription was made. 


> 12. If you were unaware that these were Biblical passages, did
> that change your interpretation of these epitaphs?
> 

bboyminn:

As I said in another part of this thread, I don't think it is
that important that these are 'Biblical' passages. I think
the are sufficiently appropriate as to be understood in the
context of the story, and to be understood in the universal
aspects of other religious.


> 13.  Throughout the cemetery sequence, Harry and Hermione are
> in the guise of a middle-aged Muggle couple.  If you were 
> directing the film version of Deathly Hallows, would you drop
> the Polyjuice disguises and have Daniel Radcliffe and Emma 
> Watson perform the scene?  Or would you film it with Harry 
> and Hermione portrayed by two completely unfamiliar actors?
> 

bboyminn:

As discussed else where, I too see this as a problem in the
movies. I suspect it could be solved in this one Godrics
Hollow scene by having them use Aging Potion rather than
Polyjuice, but I don't see Aging Potion working in the other
scenes. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Steve/bboyminn




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 19:28:14 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:28:14 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3584+faqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs3mke+bg4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182208

Shelley wrote:
> > Cowards- subject to opinion, no? What is the difference between
the hiding  that James and Lilly did (to protect themselves and their
baby), and the  hiding that Karkaroff did (to protect himself), and
the hiding that so many  had to do during DH? How many families all
had to run away, fearing  Voldemort? Even Hermione hid her parents. 
 
Pippin replied:
> I think there is a big difference between helping someone else to go
into hiding, and hiding yourself without any thought for other people.
Karkaroff deserted his school and his students. There's no canon that
he planned to be of use later on. There is canon that he was offered
the chance to remain at Hogwarts and be of use immediately. 

Carol responds:
I agree with Pippin. I think there's all the difference in the world
between the Potters hiding because they were being especially targeted
and needed to protect their child and Karkaroff hiding because he had
informed on his fellow DEs and feared revenge. And he's contrasted
both in GoF and DH with Snape, who chose not to run: "Flee, then!
Flee! I will remain at Hogwarts." (Quoted from memory.)

Remaining at Hogwarts allows Snape to continute working with DD to
oppose Voldemort (and protect Harry). Karkaroff is protecting no one
but himself. And it isn't even death that he fears, only retribution
for betraying his fellow DEs to save himself from Azkaban. (Rookwood,
in particular, has cause for vengeance.) Even Voldemort contrast the
two, with Karkaroff referred as "one too cowardly to return" and Snape
as "one who, I believe, has left me forever" (again quoted from
memory. IMO, Voldemort was right on both counts.

Carol, pretty sure that the Potters would not have gone into hiding if
they hadn't had a child to protect




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 22 20:27:57 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:27:57 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3ahd+veet@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs3q4d+c3ls@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182209

> Alla:
> 
> Looking very hard for canon where Rubeus Hagrid is dead and still 
> cannot find it LOL. But sure I know that the majority of order 
> members died, but as I said in that very sentence that several order 
> members escaped at least till the end of Second war and Lupin died
at  the very end. Surely it would have been worth that if Lily and
James  lived till that long at least?
<snip>
 So, no, I see  absolutely possibility that Lily and James at least
would have  survived till JKR felt a need to kill off the older
generation for  the most part at the end, or maybe survived as Hagrid
and Molly and  Arthur.

Pippin:
Hagrid was captured, and would have been killed if it weren't for
Harry, who in your scenario is living peacefully somewhere.

As you admit above,  JKR made Voldemort so deadly that with one
exception to prove the rule, everyone who belonged to the fighting
wing of the original Order died. Lily and James might have survived if
Voldemort's forces were less deadly, of course. But they weren't.

Moody mentions that he only met Aberforth that once, so I conclude
that he was not part of the combat forces, and Voldemort didn't think
he was a threat. OTOH, Lily and James had defied Voldemort openly. 

> 
> Alla:
> 
> And to me to say that prophecy did not materially affect Potters' 
> chance of survival IS absurd and indeed absolving Snape of moral 
> responsibility. IMO of course.
> 
> Without prophecy they were **of course** just as in much danger as 
> any order member. With prophecy they are the parents of the Chosen 
> one, the one who can destroy Voldemort. Hmmm, I know which people I 
> would be hunting the first and foremost if I were the evil overlord.

Pippin:
But unfortunately for everyone else in The Order, Voldie doesn't think
like you do.

Harry is Voldemort's number one target, but that doesn't stop him from
killing loads of other people, especially  Order members.  Tell me, if
you were an Order member, and you knew you *hadn't* been targeted by a
prophecy saying you might destroy Voldemort, would you feel safe? 

Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 20:35:36 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:35:36 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3d9p+aeq6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs3qio+ihk0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182210

Alla:
> 
> Yeah, LOL, subsequent saving of one Severus Snape versus happy 
childhood for Harry is really no brainer for me.
> 
> And yes, of course DE would tell, so, two choices I can see, killing
Snape right here on the spot, yes, yes I know Dumbledore is too
**noble** for that, LOL, or at least obliviating him and making sure
that even alive he would never tell. ,snip>


Carol responds:
No Snape doesn't necessarily mean no eavesdropper. If someone else,
say Mulciber, had overheard part of the Prophecy and repeated it to
LV, that person would not have asked LV to spare Lily's life and set
in motion that events that would lead to the creation of the Chosen
One. (Lily's sacrifice would not have had the same effect if she had
not been offered a chance to live. and that chance could not have
happened without Snape.)

But if there was no eavesdropper at all (or DD had murdered Snape, as
you facetiously suggest) and LV had not acted to thwart the Prophecy,
the WW would have had no fourteen-year respite. Nothing and no one,
not even Dumbledore, would have kept him from gaining power and
murdering everyone (even his own DES!) who stood in his way.

Pippin pointed out that all of the surviving Order members are either
killed off after LV returns to his body (Sirius Black, Emmeline Vance)
or killed in the Seven Potters chase (Mad-Eye) or the battle of
Hogwarts (Lupin) or "taken" (I suppose that Sturgis Podmore's arrest
can count as being "taken"; it's Lucius Malfoy's fault that Sturgis is
arrested, anyway). Hagrid is kidnapped, ironically, by his beloved
Acromantulas, and would no doubt have been killed if Voldemort had won
the battle. Other powerful witches and wizards also disappear or are
murdered by LV or his henchmen, including Amanda Bones and Barty
Crouch Sr., not to mention that Voldemort is indirectly responsible
for Dumbledore's "murder." And, of course, the Longbottoms are
Crucio'd into insanity by LV's followers even before he returns. As
someone (I think it's Sirius Black) says, once Voldemort decided to
kill a person, they had no chance of survival, Harry being the only
known exception. (Lily is also a partial exception, but Black didn't
know that.)

If LV had not been vaporized, there would have been no happy WW for
Harry to live in. Hogwarts, if it existed, would have been run by the
DEs, a much worse regime than Snape's, I'm sure, with no House except
Slytherin and the students routinely taught Dark magic; Diagon Alley
would either resemble Knockturn Alley or would look as it does in DH,
not at all the happy, magical place that Harry encounters in SS/PS.
Muggle-borns would be murdered or persecuted. You seem to think that
because the Order members survived after Godric's Hollow that they
would have survived if Godric's Hollow had never happened. I don't
think so. The Voldie War would have continued, and conditions would
quickly have reached the point where we see them in DH. the only
person (other than Harry) with any power to oppose Voldemort was
Dumbledore, and he needed Harry (and Snape!) to help him.

> Alla:
> 
> Sure, but again, this is of course just a speculative ONE 
possibility. So, here we go. Snape does not tell Prophecy because he
is either dead or obliviated, take your pick. So Voldemort never 
attacks prophecy couple. 

Carol:
And there's no Chosen One, chosen by Voldie himself and inadvertently
given the very powers he needs to defeat LV by the back-firing AK.
Instead, LV is kept alive by his Horcruxes and continues his takeover
of the WW.

Alla:
Yes, Peter is betraying the order with whatever information, but he
is, I don't know caught in the act when he is meeting with the DE, OR
say they are planning the operation and it goes badly, and they
realize that Peter is the traitor, off to Azkaban with him.
> 
> There are casualties of course, but Lily and James already 
successfully defied Voldemort three times, so they are defying him 
again ? once or twice and survive with Harry living with them and 
being just Harry.

Carol:
How can Harry just be Harry in a WW like the one that existed in VW1
and just kept getting worse? We saw what happened when LV returned.
The only person standing in his way was Dumbledore. Once Dumbledore
fell, the rest was easy. Or would have been if Harry hadn't destroyed
the Horcruxes and defeated Voldemort through the power of love and
self-sacrifice. If Voldemort hadn't been vaporized, those events would
have occurred much earlier. (And Snape would not have played his part
in helping Dumbledore. DD would have had no spy among the DEs and no
one to save him from the ring Horcrux. Harry, of course, would not
have needed specific protection. He would have been in the same
precarious position as any other Wizarding kid.)
>
Alla: 
> <snip> Correct me if I am wrong, but nowhere was it said that this
is the ONLY way to defeat Voldemort, so really for all I care somebody
else discovered and destroyed Horcruxes. Dumbledore did some of them,
I do not see how the fact that he did not speak Parseltongue means (
as Carol speculated) that the diary could not have been destroyed. <snip>

Carol responds:
The Prophecy says "The *One* with the power to defeat the Dark Lord
approaches." that sounds to me as if only one person has that power.
And certainly only Harry has powers given to him directly (if
inadvertently) by Voldemort: access to LV's thoughts and the ability
to speak Parseltongue.

The *only* way to defeat Voldemort is to destroy the Horcruxes, right?
And Dumbledore failed to do that. After all that time and all his
research, he managed to destroy *one* and was cursed by it. Had it not
been for "Professor Snape's timely action," he would have died. And it
takes two people, one with powers that don't register compared with
DD's, to ride in that boat, and two people to get at least one of them
out alive--all that to find a fake Horcrux. DD *needed* Harry. He
could not have done it alone, and he would not have thought to take
anyone else to the cave with him had he found it. (He also need Harry
to find the Ravenclaw Horcrux; I'm not sure whether DD alone could
have found and destroyed the HUfflepuff cup; if there hadn't been a
Harry, perhaps he could have. And he probably could have killed
Nagini. But without Slughorn's memory, which he needed Harry to obtain
for him, he wouldn't even have known how many Horcruxes he was looking
for.)

As for the Chamber of Secrets, DD knew who had opened it fifty years
earlier and knew that it had to be Voldemort who was doing it this
time around, but he didn't know about the diary (Ginny wasn't about to
tell him). If he could have discovered the Chamber of Secrets himself,
surely he would have done so long before rather than relying on a
twelve-year-old boy to find and open it. And he didn't even know that
a Horcrux was involved until after Harry had destroyed the diary. 

Carol, who thinks that the only way that Harry could have had a normal
wizarding childhood would be if Tom Riddle had never been born (or had
been sent to Azkaban as a boy for murdering his parents and had died
there without ever coming to power)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 22 20:43:14 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 20:43:14 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3q4d+c3ls@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs3r12+mi8p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182211

Pippin:
<SNIP>
 As you admit above, JKR made Voldemort so deadly that with one
exception to prove the rule, everyone who belonged to the fighting
wing of the original Order died. Lily and James might have survived if
Voldemort's forces were less deadly, of course. But they weren't.

Alla:

I did admit that? I thought I stressed specifically that quite a few of 
order members survived the first war at least. I "thank" Snape for Lily 
and James NOT surviving that.

And again, who says that Lily and James would not have been just as 
lucky as Hagrid? Is the fact that they defied Voldemort three times 
matters only as much as them fighting Voldemort? Does it not matter 
that they **succesfully** defied Voldemort to increase their survival 
chances?

And  there are Molly and Arthur of course.





Pippin:
<SNIP>
> Harry is Voldemort's number one target, but that doesn't stop him from
> killing loads of other people, especially  Order members. 

Alla:

Sure. Harry is his **number one** target, makes whole lot of difference 
to me.

Pippin:
 Tell me, if
> you were an Order member, and you knew you *hadn't* been targeted by a
> prophecy saying you might destroy Voldemort, would you feel safe? 


Alla:

Safe? Of course not,but you bet that without prophecy over my head and 
my child's head I would have felt safer, MUCH safer.

JMO<

Alla




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 22 23:04:44 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:04:44 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3r12+mi8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs43ac+4qbf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182212

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
> Alla:
> 
> I did admit that? I thought I stressed specifically that quite a 
few of 
> order members survived the first war at least. I "thank" Snape for 
Lily 
> and James NOT surviving that.
> 
> And again, who says that Lily and James would not have been just 
as 
> lucky as Hagrid? Is the fact that they defied Voldemort three 
times 
> matters only as much as them fighting Voldemort? Does it not 
matter 
> that they **succesfully** defied Voldemort to increase their 
survival 
> chances?
> 
> And  there are Molly and Arthur of course.


Leah:  A lot of Order members *didn't* survive the first VW - the 
McKinnons, the Prewitts etc.  Yes, some Order members did survive, 
but that was because there was something to survive beyond.  Once 31 
October 1981 had occurred, there was an end to the first VW and 
people could say, "I made it through". You are talking about 
surviving beyond the war while removing the conditions that brought 
about its ending. Without the convoluted chain of events of Snape 
hearing the prophecy, taking it to Voldemort, Voldemort deciding 
Harry was the prophecy child, Snape asking for Lily's life, Snape 
going to Dumbledore, the Fidelius charm, James' and Sirius' 
decision, Peter's treachery, Voldemort's offer, Lily's sacrifice, 
the war would not have ended on 31/10/1981.  It would either have 
gone on for years, increasing the chance of Order members dying, or 
more likely, given the situation at the time, Voldemort would have 
won, and the likelihood of any Order members surviving, or at least 
surviving to lead happy normal lives would have been fairly remote 
to say the least. 

We don't know what Hagrid did during the first VW. We can assume 
that he was working at Hogwarts for much of the time, which must 
have been one of the safest places to be, given its many 
enchantments. 

JKR has said fairly recently, (and I can't find this at the moment) 
that 'defying Voldemort' did not necessarily mean standing up to him 
in a pitched fight - just joing the Order would have been 
sufficient, so there is no evidence that James and Lily were 
surviving prior to the prophecy due to their immense skills etc. 
Judging by the way they were running around at Godric's Hollow, 
without even having wands on them, they were not particularly gifted 
warriors, and might well have fallen victim to DEs if the war had 
continued for any time.  

I don't think there is any definite evidence to say that Molly and 
Arthur were Order members first time around- Molly certainly would 
have been looking after six small children. Molly's brothers were 
Order members and both died. In any event, to return to my original 
point, the fact that they were alive on 1 November 1981 does not 
mean that, had the war continued, that they, or Lily and James (and 
Harry) would have been alive on 1 November 1982.

Leah




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 22 23:19:10 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:19:10 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3r12+mi8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs445e+4e0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182213

> Alla:
> 
> I did admit that? I thought I stressed specifically that quite a 
few of 
> order members survived the first war at least. I "thank" Snape for 
Lily 
> and James NOT surviving that.
> 
> And again, who says that Lily and James would not have been just as 
> lucky as Hagrid? Is the fact that they defied Voldemort three times 
> matters only as much as them fighting Voldemort? Does it not matter 
> that they **succesfully** defied Voldemort to increase their 
survival 
> chances?
> 
> And  there are Molly and Arthur of course.

Magpie:
Lupin was dead by the end of the series, but in a battle where most 
people seemed to survive. I consider him one that pretty much made it 
through. He died as a random combatant in that last battle where 
everybody was fighting--and plenty, including children and people who 
had not really fought before--survived. So I feel like Lupin just 
died from being unlucky rather than because Voldemort was so powerful 
that being an Order member meant you'd likely wind up dead. We don't 
know how long Sirius would have survived after OotP, but his death, 
too, is far more about dumb luck than Voldemort's great evil. It was 
Voldemort's plan that got him there, yes, but he got killed by a 
lucky shot from one of his minions when he himself got maybe too 
cocky. (A minion who herself was later taken out by a woman she 
presumably far outmatched in skill level.) He wasn't specifically 
targetted by Voldemort. But at least in Sirius' case one could say he 
died because he was in the Order, on a mission for the Order, just as 
Moody was. Lupin died in a free-for-all he had a good chance of 
surviving. I mean, at least as good a chance as Lavender Brown or any 
of the Weasleys.

-m 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sun Mar 23 00:02:36 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:02:36 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
References: <fs3mke+bg4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002201c88c79$34c36050$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182214

> Shelley wrote:
>> > Cowards- subject to opinion, no? What is the difference between
> the hiding  that James and Lilly did (to protect themselves and their
> baby), and the  hiding that Karkaroff did (to protect himself), and
> the hiding that so many  had to do during DH? How many families all
> had to run away, fearing  Voldemort? Even Hermione hid her parents.
>
> Pippin replied:
>> I think there is a big difference between helping someone else to go
> into hiding, and hiding yourself without any thought for other people.
> Karkaroff deserted his school and his students. There's no canon that
> he planned to be of use later on. There is canon that he was offered
> the chance to remain at Hogwarts and be of use immediately.
>
> Carol responds:
> I agree with Pippin. I think there's all the difference in the world
> between the Potters hiding because they were being especially targeted
> and needed to protect their child and Karkaroff hiding because he had
> informed on his fellow DEs and feared revenge. And he's contrasted
> both in GoF and DH with Snape, who chose not to run: "Flee, then!
> Flee! I will remain at Hogwarts." (Quoted from memory.)


Shelley:
But Snape isn't entirely truthful, here, now is he? He didn't tell Karkaroff 
he made a deal with Dumbledore to be a double agent. He didn't say that he 
planned to return to his former master, and pretent to serve him. No, he 
just says "I will remain at Hogwarts." In truth, in the end, he didn't fully 
remain at Hogwarts. He ran after killing Dumbledore, and came back only as 
an appointment from the DArk Lord.

But again, did Karkaroff merely fear revenge, or was he running because he 
chose not to serve the Dark Lord? In that respect, he is just like every 
other person who runs in DH- running from the Dark Lord and the MOM because 
they will not serve, or are being targeted because they cannot serve. Being 
on a hit list to die is the same no matter when it occurred- the first time 
around, or the second time around. Before the full rise of Voldemort, or 
after. They all had to protect themselves somehow, and in that respect, I 
see Karkaroff as no more of a coward than Dean or any of the Mudbloods. They 
were all running in a war that they individually couldn't win. Self 
protection is not the same as cowardess.

> Karkaroff is protecting no one but himself.

Shelley:
Isn't that true of the Mudbloods? Isn't that true of Dean Thomas?

> Even Voldemort contrast the
> two, with Karkaroff referred as "one too cowardly to return" and Snape
> as "one who, I believe, has left me forever" (again quoted from
> memory. IMO, Voldemort was right on both counts.

Shelley:
I take Voldemort's statements as self-serving- by "too cowardly to return", 
he means not willing to let me torture him and murder him in front of other 
Death Eaters. Not the same as true cowardess, now is that?

BTW, the two there aren't named, so you are assuming that phrase refers to 
Karkaroff and Snape. I think that statement "one who has left me forever" 
could refer to Karkaroff, for indeed, his loyalties had changed, and he 
never planned to return.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 00:04:54 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:04:54 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs43ac+4qbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs46r6+3rcc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182215

Leah:
Leah:
<SNIP>
I don't think there is any definite evidence to say that Molly and
Arthur were Order members first time around- Molly certainly would
have been looking after six small children. Molly's brothers were
Order members and both died. 

Alla:

They were not members of the first order. I brought them up as order 
members who survived second war.

Leah:
In any event, to return to my original
point, the fact that they were alive on 1 November 1981 does not
mean that, had the war continued, that they, or Lily and James (and
Harry) would have been alive on 1 November 1982.

Alla:

Of course not. My point is that they **may** have been alive after 
surviving that day and till the end of times.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 02:04:57 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:04:57 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <002201c88c79$34c36050$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fs4ds9+8qm0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182216

Carol earlier:
> > I agree with Pippin. I think there's all the difference in the
world between the Potters hiding because they were being especially
targeted and needed to protect their child and Karkaroff hiding
because he had informed on his fellow DEs and feared revenge. And he's
contrasted both in GoF and DH with Snape, who chose not to run: "Flee,
then! Flee! I will remain at Hogwarts." (Quoted from memory.)
> 
> 
> Shelley:
> But Snape isn't entirely truthful, here, now is he? He didn't tell
Karkaroff he made a deal with Dumbledore to be a double agent. He
didn't say that he 
> planned to return to his former master, and pretent to serve him.
No, he 
> just says "I will remain at Hogwarts." In truth, in the end, he
didn't fully 
> remain at Hogwarts. He ran after killing Dumbledore, and came back
only as 
> an appointment from the DArk Lord.
> 
> But again, did Karkaroff merely fear revenge, or was he running
because he 
> chose not to serve the Dark Lord? In that respect, he is just like
every 
> other person who runs in DH- running from the Dark Lord and the MOM
because 
> they will not serve, or are being targeted because they cannot
serve. Being 
> on a hit list to die is the same no matter when it occurred- the
first time 
> around, or the second time around. Before the full rise of
Voldemort, or 
> after. They all had to protect themselves somehow, and in that
respect, I 
> see Karkaroff as no more of a coward than Dean or any of the
Mudbloods. They 
> were all running in a war that they individually couldn't win. Self 
> protection is not the same as cowardess.
> 
> > Karkaroff is protecting no one but himself.
> 
> Shelley:
> Isn't that true of the Mudbloods? Isn't that true of Dean Thomas?
> 
> > Even Voldemort contrast the
> > two, with Karkaroff referred as "one too cowardly to return" and Snape
> > as "one who, I believe, has left me forever" (again quoted from
> > memory. IMO, Voldemort was right on both counts.
> 
> Shelley:
> I take Voldemort's statements as self-serving- by "too cowardly to
return", 
> he means not willing to let me torture him and murder him in front
of other 
> Death Eaters. Not the same as true cowardess, now is that?
> 
> BTW, the two there aren't named, so you are assuming that phrase
refers to Karkaroff and Snape. I think that statement "one who has
left me forever" could refer to Karkaroff, for indeed, his loyalties
had changed, and he never planned to return.
>

Carol responds:
What isn't truthful about "I, however, will remein at Hogwarts? Snape
does exactly that even after the unthinkable happens and he's forced
to kill Dumbledore. But at that time, he's simply saying that even
though LV is returning, he's not going to run away. He's going to
remain at Hogwarts, with Dumbledore (and Harry). it doesn't matter
that karkaroff doesn't know why snape is staying. it matters that he
stays to endanger himself by spying for dumbledore and to protect
Harry, to keep his promise rather than, like Karkaroff, to save his
skin. (I'd as soon call Wormtail courageous as use that term for
Karkaroff.) In "the Prince's Tale," Dumbledore acknowledges Snape's
courage, in contrast to Karkaroff's cowardice, giving him the
left-handed compliment about Sorting too soon (i.e., Snape is worthy
of being in Gryffindor, the House that celebrates courage).

And, no, I'm not assuming with regard to which of the former DEs is
which. Barty Jr. is, of course, the faithful servant at Hogwarts, and
if we can't tell by contrasting their actions which is the coward and
which is the rebel, JKR gives us the answer herself in "Spinner's
End." It's canonical that Snape is the one that LV thought had left
him forever. Snape (who wasn't even present in the graveyard) uses
those very words with regard to himself when he's answering
Bellatrix's questions (all of which Voldemort has previously asked and
he has satisfactorily, if not entirely truthfully, answered. LV had no
reason to suspect that Karkaroff was loyal to Dumbledore, as he
(rightly) suspected that Snape was. And I don't see Harry calling
karkaroff "probably the bravest man I ever knew."

Snape did not "flee" Voldemort (or desert Hogwarts) in "the Sacking of
Severus Snape." He went where he had to go, to find out whether Nagini
was being protected and inform Harry of the need to sacrifice himself.
He could do nothing more to protect the students with McGonagall
trying to kill him. (Note that he doesn't try to kill her; he just
blocks her moves.) He has other duties to perform for Dumbledore, and
he dies performing them.

Carol, who thinks that Harry's naming his second son Albus Severus
says everything we need to know about Snape's incredible courage




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar 23 02:14:38 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:14:38 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3d9p+aeq6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs4eee+mk64@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182217

 
> Alla:
> 
> Yeah, LOL, subsequent saving of one Severus Snape versus happy 
> childhood for Harry is really no brainer for me.

Potioncat:
But that's not what I meant. I was just looking at all the effects of 
Snapes's not telling. Of course, I wish he'd never joined the DEs in 
the first place. I wish he hadn't told LV. 

>ALLA: 
> And yes, of course DE would tell, so, two choices I can see, 
killing 
> Snape right here on the spot, yes, yes I know Dumbledore is too 
> **noble** for that, LOL, or at least obliviating him and making 
sure 
> that even alive he would never tell.

Potioncat:
I've never understood why DD let Snape go. Even if he didn't know 
Snape was a DE, I don't understand it. The only explanation I can 
think of, is that DD wanted LV to hear the first part of the 
prophecy. (I'm beginning to wonder if DD did a bit of Oblivating. It 
might explain the different versions we've seen of the event in the 
Hogshead that night.)

Why DD let Snape go has been a subject often discussed--now I have a 
post DH question. With DD being so powerful, and the master of the 
Elder Wand. Why the heck didn't he take LV out himself?

> 
> Alla:> 
> There are casualties of course, but Lily and James already 
> successfully defied Voldemort three times, so they are defying him 
> again ? once or twice and survive with Harry living with them and 
> being just Harry.

Potioncat:
OK, the attack that October doesn't happen. The war rages for however 
long, but the Potters all survive and go on to live happy lives. Baby 
Harry lives through a war, but they live to tell the tale.

I like it. But I think it takes more than "just" Snape not telling. 
It takes the Potters winning all their battles. And, who won't win in 
the meantime? 

> Alla:
> The prophecy is spoken, yes, but as we know there are many 
prophecies 
> kept in the Hall of prophecies in MoM and NOT all of them come true,
> so this one never does come true.

Potioncat:
Well, that's part of my question. How much power/validity do we give 
the prophecy? I think it's too much of a leap to say "This prophecy 
doesn't come true." BTW, do we know the others didn't come true?

But I think it's very interesting that both you and Carol think the 
prophecy wouldn't work out at all if Snape didn't tell.

I think the very fact that DD heard it, put things into motion. For 
example, if DD Obliviates Snape LV never hears any part of it. But, 
DD believes it. Knows the One with the Power will be born in July, 
takes action to protect the one or two boys and watches. The prophecy 
didn't say something would happen while the Chosen One was still a 
baby.

In the meantime, no connection to the prophecy, Order members are 
being picked off. Snape finds out that Lily and James have been 
targeted and asks for Lily's life. He also goes to DD. DD puts what 
he knows about the prophecy together with the plans for the Potters. 
Lily of course protects Harry and we still get the VaporMort and the 
Boy Who Lived---maybe Christmas Eve or something. Maybe it's still 
Halloween, just not because LV knew part of the prophecy. The effects 
would be the same. And we still get redeemed Snape. OK, this one is 
going better.

Because at some point, Snape would have to find out that Lily was in 
danger. He would take action at that point to save her. There might 
not be the added guilt of having started the process---or it might be 
something he still caused. (Let's say he's in charge of locating 
Order members?)


>Alla: 
> Parseltongue ability is rare, but not non existent, no? So somebody 
> else would have assisted in doing it. Who? Again, I do not know and 
> do not think it matters. Because I do not believe we know that 
nobody 
> else can speak that. The last known person was Voldie, but who is 
to 
> say that he was the only one?

Potioncat:
Has JKR said something? I was sure DD spoke Parseltongue













From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 02:24:25 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:24:25 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs445e+4e0m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs4f0p+s7mc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182218

> Magpie:
> Lupin was dead by the end of the series, but in a battle where most 
> people seemed to survive. I consider him one that pretty much made it 
> through. He died as a random combatant in that last battle where 
> everybody was fighting--and plenty, including children and people who 
> had not really fought before--survived. 

zgirnius:
I disagree. Voldemort made a point of suggesting Bellatrix eliminate 
Lupin and Tonks. This is why I thought they died in the battle, because 
they were singled out. I suppose this just shows our differnt gut 
reactions to the deaths, since they were not on page. But the specific 
mention of them in Chapter 1 suggested it to me, anyway.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar 23 02:35:53 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:35:53 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs2nsd+boat@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs4fm9+c54u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182219


> 
> Leah: Would Snape even be teaching? Surely DD gave him the job to 
> fit with Snape's espionage activities - 'Voldemort's spy at 
> Hogwarts'.  I can see Snape carrying out potions research (perhaps 
> Florence is a herbologist, hence the greenhouse) or carrying on with 
> the spell inventing, delving into estoteric depths of magic.


Potioncat:
I don't know. We used to try to work out what professions different 
characters might have had. Many people saw Snape as a researcher or a 
potions maker. He was so into his tests at school, teaching might have 
been his chosen profession. 

Horrible, I know! 

But back to canon, there must have been something that made Snape's 
being hired at Hogwarts seem reasonable.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 02:54:58 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 02:54:58 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs4fm9+c54u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs4gq2+olqd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182220

Potioncat:
> I don't know. We used to try to work out what professions different 
> characters might have had. Many people saw Snape as a researcher or a 
> potions maker. He was so into his tests at school, teaching might have 
> been his chosen profession. 
> 
> Horrible, I know! 
> 
> But back to canon, there must have been something that made Snape's 
> being hired at Hogwarts seem reasonable.
>
Carol responds:
Aside from his being an exceptionally gifted Potions maker and
slughorn's timely resignations, do you mean?

Carol, realizing that Snape applied for the DADA position, not
Potions, but seeing no reason *not* to hire him given his abilities
and his proven loyalty and courage as a spy against LV




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar 23 03:05:42 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:05:42 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs4gq2+olqd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs4he6+pt0b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182221


> Carol responds:
> Aside from his being an exceptionally gifted Potions maker and
> slughorn's timely resignations, do you mean?
> 
> Carol, realizing that Snape applied for the DADA position, not
> Potions, but seeing no reason *not* to hire him given his abilities
> and his proven loyalty and courage as a spy against LV


Potioncat:
Oh, that goes without saying. LOL.

But the question was--from my alternate past/future--would Snape even 
want to teach? We know he became a teacher in order to spy for DD and 
to protect Harry. 

Thinking about his Potions class and especially his DADA class, and 
back to how he poured over his tests, teaching may be something he 
wanted to do.

I don't suppose we'll ever know. 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 23 04:55:27 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:55:27 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs4f0p+s7mc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs4nrv+10268@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182222

> > Magpie:
> > Lupin was dead by the end of the series, but in a battle where most 
> > people seemed to survive. I consider him one that pretty much made 
it 
> > through. He died as a random combatant in that last battle where 
> > everybody was fighting--and plenty, including children and people 
who 
> > had not really fought before--survived. 
> 
> zgirnius:
> I disagree. Voldemort made a point of suggesting Bellatrix eliminate 
> Lupin and Tonks. This is why I thought they died in the battle, 
because 
> they were singled out. I suppose this just shows our differnt gut 
> reactions to the deaths, since they were not on page. But the 
specific 
> mention of them in Chapter 1 suggested it to me, anyway.

Magpie:
Bellatrix had good reason to go after Sirius too--in both cases, the 
people she killed had sullied her family. I think that was the danger 
there far more than their being in the Order. But also in both cases it 
came down to a fight between Bellatrix and the other person, and 
there's no reason any of the three of them were necessarily going to go 
down. They were in a battle so were being targetted by probably many 
opponents at once. Bellatrix didn't hunt any of these three down, they 
were all crimes of opportunity. They died with other people in the 
battle.

Bellatrix herself was targetted by Molly Weasley of all people, and 
Molly won. 

-m





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 23 06:10:20 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 06:10:20 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 16 / Alla's comments on GoF (and replies to her)
Message-ID: <fs4s8c+4g7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182223

Caius Marcius summarized Chapter 16 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182113>:

<< At the same time, he feels great anger over Ron's unanswerable
accusation, "We thought you knew what you were doing!" >>

It's not unanswerable! I just can't get over Harry's foolishness
(previous chapter) at feeling guilty at that accusation instead of
saying: "I *told* you I don't know what Dumbledore meant for me to do!
I tried to talk you out of coming with me!"

<< why didn't Scrimgeour recognize it? >>

That's a good question, which IIRC canon never answered. It seemed
that a lot of British wizarding folk didn't recognize that symbol worn
by nutty Xenophilius as Grindelwald's sign. One possibility is that
British wizarding paid no attention to what Grindelwald was doing on
the Continent (IIRC Herself said something like that in an interview)
and another possibility is that it *wasn't* Grindelwald's sign. Krum
recognized it from where Grindelwald had carved it in a wall at
Durmstrang. He might have carved it in his student days rather than
his dictator days. He might have carved it as the sign of the Deathly
Hallows rather than as the sign of his future empire. He might have
had a *different* sign to put on the flags and prisons and other
government buildings of his empire.

Even so, Scrimgeour should have had access to wizarding reference
books of symbols which should have listed it as the sign of the
Deathly Hallows, worn by nutcases who thought they could obtain
earthly immortality by finding three treasures described in a fairy
tale. Maybe he did, and Albus, who was a nutcase himself, had written
the sign on the specific fairy tale, maybe just because he wanted to
write down the connection.

It seems that Herself chose the names of the Peverell brothers,
Antioch, Cadmus, and Ignotus, for their initial letters, in which I is
the straight line representing the wand, A is the triangle
representing the cloak, and C is the circle representing the stone,
adding up to that symbol. 

Any one have any idea what she meant by Antioch and Cadmus? Didn't
Cadmus in mythology sow the dragon's teeth that quickly turned into
warriors who immediately killed each other until only six were left?
She may have meant that for the violent brother. 

Then why Antioch for the brother whose heart was in the grave? He
could have been Orpheus (O is closer than C) with A for the violent
brother, maybe Alexander.

 I looked up 'Antioch' in Wikipedia and one entry was 'Ignatius of
Antioch', a first-century bishop, so that may have been the link in
Her mind.

<< Godric's Hollow, she explains, being the birthplace of Godric
Gryffindor >>

If Godric's Hollow was named after Godric Gryffindor, it must have had
a different name before he had been born there (in fact, before he had
become famous). I always preferred the idea that Godric Gryffindor had
founded the village, by choosing that spot for his retirement home.
And I suppose, if the Potters were hiding in Dumbledore's old family
home, then it wasn't the home town of James Potter's family, alas.

<< Hermione, seeming to realize his need, conjures of a wreath of
Christmas roses, which Harry catches and lays upon their grave. >>

In contrast to Harry's refusal to use any magic when burying Dobby.

<< "Where your treasure is, there too your heart will be also" ...
Harry says he does not know what the inscription means. What does it
mean? (in the context of DH). >>

It means Ariana was her parents' treasure but not a treasure to Albus.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182109>:

<< If Sirius knows about DE, why doesn't he know what Dark mark is? >>

If the Dark Mark had been visible on DEs' arms in Vold War I, it would
have been easy to arrest all the DEs -- just examine every wizard and
witch's forearm. I suppose part of LV's spell for branding his vassals
was that the Mark was invisible to everyone except people bearing the
Mark, and LV himself of course. 

Pippin replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182117> and 
Alla replied to Pippin in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182117>:

<< How come people who were with Snape could see the mark then in 
GoF? >>

Apparently LV was less magically powerful [great and terrible] then
than he had been before he lost his body. He was no longer able to
maintain the spell of optional invisibility of the returned Dark Marks.

<< I was never able to jump from the fence on this one. Was he or was
not he? >>

Well, Barty Jr was quite a loyal servant of LV by the time DD gave him
Veritaserum and he bragged about it. If he had been innocent when
convicted, but picked up that obsessive devotion to LV while
imprisoned in Azkaban or under his father's Invisibility Cloak, then
it must have been Bertha who told Peter and LV about it.

<< "That man too had been conversing wildly with thin air. " - p.554
Huh? Is it Barty [Sr] being completely crasy already or something else? >>

It's not that he's talking sanely to an invisible person (Barty Jr
hidden under an Invisibility Cloak), because what he says ("... and
when you've done that, Weatherby, send an owl to Dumbledore confirming
the number of Durmstrang students who will be attending the
Tournament, Karkaroff has just sent word there will be twelve ...")
shows that his mind is re-living the past.

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182126>:

<< while DD collected his thoughts. >>

LOL. Did he take them out of the Pensieve to put them back in his
head, or take them out of his head to put in little bottles?

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182178>:

<< Why JKR, why, why do you feel that you should make such a change? I
could care less if Alice Longbottom was an auror or not, but if in
your head she was not initially, I wish you would stick to your guts
and would not add an extra working woman to appease people ( if that
is what it is) >>

IIRC after GoF, a whole bunch of listies assumed that Frank and Alice
had both been Aurors and other listies asserted that there was no
canon that Alice had been an Auror. So I figure that JKR later
specified that Alice had been an Auror just to clarify her initial
meaning which only some people had picked up on. I'm trying to recall
what were the other criticized non-canon assumptions that JKR
confirmed in later books or interviews; I remember that there were some.





From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au  Sun Mar 23 10:12:15 2008
From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:12:15 -0000
Subject: HP & the half blood prince
Message-ID: <fs5adv+6a12@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182224

I'm rereading HP&THBP. At the beginning, Fudge leaves ash on the PM's 
carpet. In the real 1995 world, the PM would have that analysed. The 
painting on his wall won't budge. Again in the real (literature) world 
of the late 1990s, the PM would have that analysed. Does this gel with 
others. It doesn't with me.

Later on, Bill gives Harry gold from Harry's vault. Is there any reason 
Harry doesn't give any gold to Ron?

Barry




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sun Mar 23 11:17:24 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:17:24 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs3mke+bg4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs5e84+t1ij@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182225

> 
Carol wrote> 
snip

Even Voldemort contrast the> two, with Karkaroff referred as "one too 
cowardly to return" and Snape
> as "one who, I believe, has left me forever" (again quoted from
> memory. IMO, Voldemort was right on both counts.
> 
> >
Do you think that Voldemort suspected that Snape was playing a double 
game when he made the quote that you mention above. I was confused 
about it as I thought he knew Snape had returned to him and that he and 
Snape had planned that Snape would stay at Hogwarts as a spy

Jayne confused on this snowy Easter Sunday







From leahstill at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 23 13:11:06 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:11:06 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs5e84+t1ij@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs5kta+jqj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182226

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" <jaynesmith62 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > 
> Carol wrote> 
> snip
> 
> Even Voldemort contrast the> two, with Karkaroff referred as "one 
too 
> cowardly to return" and Snape
> > as "one who, I believe, has left me forever" (again quoted from
> > memory. IMO, Voldemort was right on both counts.
> > 
> > >
> Do you think that Voldemort suspected that Snape was playing a 
double 
> game when he made the quote that you mention above. I was confused 
> about it as I thought he knew Snape had returned to him and that 
he and 
> Snape had planned that Snape would stay at Hogwarts as a spy
> 
> Jayne confused on this snowy Easter Sunday

Leah:  Prior to Godric's Hollow, Voldemort believed Snape was his 
spy at Hogwarts, even though Snape was already DD's man.  After 
Voldemort's disappearance, Snape remained at Hogwarts, something 
Bellatrix, for one, regards with suspicion in 'Spinners End'.  Then 
QuirrelMort encounters Snape at Hogwarts, where he/they see Snape 
actively working to protect the Stone for Dumbledore, and working 
against Quirrel.  At the end of POA, Wormtail returns to Voldemort.  
We don't know what information Wormtail has been able to pick up as 
Scabbers, but he may have picked up that Snape prepared the potions 
to revive the petrified 'mudblood' students in COS.  He will 
certainly know that in the Shrieking Shack, Snape tried to arrest 
Sirius, whom Snape at that time believed to be Voldemort's 
supporter.  Most importantly, Voldemort failed to honour any promise 
he gave to Snape to spare the life of Lily Potter.

So, by the time Voldemort makes that remark, in the graveyard, 
before Snape's return, Voldemort has every reason to suspect that 
Snape has 'left him forever'.  Snape then returns to Voldemort some 
two hours later. It is only, we presume, due to Snape's brilliance 
at Occlumency and his eloquence, that he is able to convince 
Voldemort that he remains his spy at Hogwarts.  We see Snape 
similarly try to persuade Bellatrix in Spinners End,telling her 
Voldemort has accepted his explanations and we know from DH that 
Snape was also able to persuade Voldemort that Snape had forgotten 
Lily in favour of women of 'purer blood'

Leah 




From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 13:55:33 2008
From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:55:33 -0000
Subject: HP & the half blood prince
In-Reply-To: <fs5adv+6a12@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs5ngl+cu53@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182227


bdclark0423 says:
The PM did have some experts come in, but Ministry of Magic does 
have the responsibility to cast memory charms on muggles whenever 
they witness magic taking place.  This would be easiest explanation 
for all the experts not being able to provide satisfactory results 
for events PM may have witnessed.  Besides, as PM, would you want to 
push the fact further you were just visited by a wizard on your 
first night in office?

I believe the Weasley's are a very proud wizarding family.  They 
obviously hold certain ideals over more superficial ones.  During 
the Quidditch world cup, Fred and George feel they can finally pay 
back Harry with the Irish Team Mascot's gold pieces, he reluctantly 
takes it, plus it ends up being worthless anyway.  This doesn't 
bother Harry at all since he had told them to forget about it in the 
first place, and the twins are happy no debts are owed.  I think 
Harry is more than willing to share what he has with Ron, but I 
would think that it is Ron who would take serious offense.

bdclark0423





From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 14:19:07 2008
From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:19:07 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 31 -33 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fs1uos+92ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs5osr+gn7v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182228

> could speak Parseltongue "as worthy of investigation. Personally, I 
> would be highly suspicious of anybody who could converse with 
snakes, 
> as serpents are often used in the worst kinds of Dark Magic, and are 
> historically associated with evildoers."  Similarly, "anyone who 
seeks 
> out the company of such vicious creatures as werewolves and giants 
> would appear to have a fondness for violence." - p.612
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Who is this mysterious person? Did Rita make him up?
> 

Rita loves gossip and hearsay, I would wager a bet that she's talking 
about information she received from a source (like a slytherin, namely 
Malfoy) describing the dark side of Harry Potter.  Harry is 
parselmouth and friends with Lupin and Hagrid.




From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 14:35:21 2008
From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:35:21 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 31 -33 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fs5osr+gn7v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs5pr9+4slt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182229

bdclark0423:
Rita loves gossip and hearsay, I would wager a bet that she's talking 
about information she received from a source (like a slytherin, namely 
Malfoy) describing the dark side of Harry Potter.  Harry is 
parselmouth and friends with Lupin and Hagrid.

bdclark0423:

Sorry for last post, i hit send before I was ready.....


Alla:
I refuse to quote from Flesh, Blood and Bone - scary. I mean, really
scary and is it the shortest chapter in the book?

<snip>

Voldemort's attempt to be sarcastic and ironical? Or does he really
thinks of DE as his true family?


bdclark0423:
Was it the shortest in the book because you've now been given enough 
suspense that you want the conflict to come to a head and then 
resolve?  Did you read the chapter faster?  Were many of the 
descriptive details left out on purpose so that you could feel the 
sense of reaching the climax in the same sense of urgency that Harry 
felt?  That Voldy felt?  That spectators watching final event felt?  
We're you scared, nervouse, a little freaked out? was it creepy?  Do 
you want to go back there?  Well, no, cuz you said so.  I attribute it 
to good writing skills.  JRK was able to bring us to this point (well, 
for me anyway).  

If you are questioning Voldy's sincerity amd truthfulness in what he 
is saying to his followers........umm, no comment.......

Anyway, good stuff, huh?
bdclark0423




From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 15:10:55 2008
From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:10:55 -0000
Subject: Wow
In-Reply-To: <frkq7k+milh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs5rtv+k6tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182230

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" 
<doddiemoemoe at ...> wrote:
> Doddie here:
> 
> You don't have to have interest in religion...some here have it, 
> some don't...some are Christian, some are Jewish, some Mormon, some 
> Muslim..no one wants to get into a comparative religion debate 
> here...(believe you me, my posts have been chastized more for their 
> grammar and the appropriate posting method before language came into 
> play...

bdclark0423:
Everyone's a critic, huh? (how funny!!!)

> Doddie here:
> anything JKR ever wrote); just that you keep your 
> view on the widest lens possible and if you disagree, please post 
> why...we live in a world of multiple religions, all of which were 
> founded upon common ground.
>


bdclark0423 says:
Great topic,  I could go on for days on this one, but Doddie sums it 
up nicely (grammatical errors and all).  The wise author will leave 
religious and spiritual teaching to the theologists.  There are 
definite themes that correlate to many different religions.  If 
anything, JKR is showing us that humankind's intent for the greater 
good has the potential of heading down the wrong path, but with honest 
intentions and perseverance of the truth, the light , and love, all 
hope is not lost.

Most importantly it is our actions as a result of what's in our heart 
that determines our destiny.  And I can't think of any religion that 
doesn't follow this doctrine.

As a side note, I did find it chapter 34 & 35 almost paralleled to the 
Christian belief of resurrection (
.almost to the point of comparing 
HP with Jesus Christ
.)

Anyway, GOD will take any heart that is of pure and honest intentions 
to use in order to spread his love and grace for all HIS children.  
That is HIS undeniable power.

bdclark0423






From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 16:12:16 2008
From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:12:16 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frpf4o+db20@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs5vh0+o3t9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182231

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

Zara:
> ... but where is it written? On a tombstone. I think 
> that makes all the difference.
> 
> Unless one has a pretty dark and twisted sense of humor, one would 
not 
> put a slogan about prolonging *this* life on the grave marker of the 
> dear departed. Hence, the line must be expressing an idea that is 
still 
> relevant - a hope or faith that the undeniable fact of the death of 
> those buried beneath, is not final.
>

bdclark0423 says:
good point, but remember in the mirror of erised, Harry still sees his 
parents there beside him, so to him he doesn't consider them 
conquering death, but rather conquered by death and therefore 
unavailable to him.  Hence his questioning.

This is all part of the self-centered notion that what a person has, 
should be entitled to them.  Voldy's big mistake, he believes his life 
is his.  

Physical life can only conclude in physical death.  Harry is not yet 
at this point to realize this for himself.
bdclark0423.




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 23 16:57:09 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 23 Mar 2008 16:57:09 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/23/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1206291429.10.88145.m52@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182232

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 23, 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/20080323/2d514e35/attachment.html>

From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 17:02:21 2008
From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:02:21 -0000
Subject: ChapDisc - DH 16, Godric's Hollow
In-Reply-To: <frn1hs+m619@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs62et+mii9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182233


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

>

>  "Caius Marcius" <coriolan@> wrote:

>

>  10. The second Scripture verse, upon the Potters' headstone, is from

>  Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, 15:26 (the King James

>  Version).  Here is the passage in its context (from the New American

>  Standard Bible):> > reaction is that this is a Death Eater slogan. 
How does this

>  statement differ from the Death Eater philosophy?



<snip>



> Potioncat:

> I've seen the other replies to this question, but try as I might, I

> can't seem to work out how to best snip. So I came back to the source

> of the question.

>

>  <snip>

>

> Tom Riddle wanted to live on Earth forever. He kept a bodily form

> alive so that he could avoid death and moving on. In some ways, he

> was like a thick ghost. (by either meaning of thick.) He was no

> longer really a living human. Christians give up the earthly life for

> a Heavenly one.

>

> Paul's meaning is that through Christ by dying, we defeat death,

> because we have a new life in a new plane. Our body dies, but our

> soul lives.

>

> <snip>



bdclark0423 says:

Once again, great topic.  Unfortunately, you can't really understand
some of the contexts by just a One-Liner Epitaph.  I think perhaps both
Potioncat and Alla are correct.  The scriptures, (although they may be
missing some pages) were written so that anyone who were to read them,
could take away with them the message of GOD.  If conquering Death meant
actually getting out an Elder Wand and smiting him, fine, you've
conquered death.  But if you were to allow GOD's plan to include
existence beyond that which is corporal, then you also could also have
the same idea.



I apologize at this point if some of my thoughts aren't part of
standard belief, but rather my own research.  Through GOD's design
of creating physical life, he needed the subsequent action of physical
death.  This means he needed a directive, so to speak.  This would be
the fallen angel, Lucifer, who took the form of the serpent and is the
Prince of darkness, Ruler of death, etc, etc.  GOD also gave Lucifer the
ability to have physical form , since physical life was now considered
`the fallen angel's' realm.  Now, while he cannot take an
exact form, he can possess actual physical bodies.  So while, we as
humans have this physical life, in the end, we must forfeit the physical
life to physical death.



Best part of the plan, or `the next great adventure,' however,
is that Lucifer has no control of what exists outside the physical
universe.



Once we realize that, our only true enemy is the fear of physical death,
and then we know we have nothing left to conquer.



However, Lucifer still desires his dominance over physical life.  He
knows he will never conquer GOD, but he will do anything he can to
achieve his main directive and that is to seek physical death.  He seeks
to maintain havoc:  this means whispers in the dark, lies, mistrust,
power, false sense of power, corruption,  misconceptions/abuse of the
soul, etc.



This would obviously mean that our fear of death, fear of loss, fear of
whatever, would subsequently result in acting upon that.  The best
results would obviously be many, many deaths.  As in war, Totalitarian
regimes, envy, hate, etc.



Another interesting point to make is that the gospel of Judas is not
considered part of the cannon.  Some say that his gospel clearly
outlines some of these very aspects.  He never truly betrayed Jesus to
the Romans, only the physical body.  Jesus had the closest relationship
with Judas and according to what experts to believe to be part of
Judas' gospel was that the sacrifice of the physical body was what
was necessary to elevate the soul to that plane where we commune with
GOD.  Therefore, Jesus was seeking out the assistance of Judas to ease
him through what he knew must be done.  Sounds very much like Snape,
agreeing to killing DD, huh?  In the end, only one person knows how much
courage it took to play both these faces convincingly.  And of course,
in the end, we understand what these two epitaphs mean to us.



bdclark0423





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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar 23 17:10:35 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:10:35 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs5kta+jqj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs62ub+o0i5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182234

 
> Leah:  
snip 
  We see Snape 
> similarly try to persuade Bellatrix in Spinners End,telling her 
> Voldemort has accepted his explanations and we know from DH that 
> Snape was also able to persuade Voldemort that Snape had forgotten 
> Lily in favour of women of 'purer blood'


Potioncat:
I've wondered quite how he did that? The teachers at Hogwarts had no 
romantic/sex life that we ever saw. (Not part of Harry's world.) Do you 
suppose Snape had a companion or two during the breaks?---fanfic not 
withstanding.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 23 20:59:54 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:59:54 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 16 / Alla's comments on GoF (and replies to her)
In-Reply-To: <fs4s8c+4g7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs6gca+jndu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182235

CMC:
> << why didn't Scrimgeour recognize it ["Grindelwald's mark"]? >>
> 
Catlady:
> That's a good question, which IIRC canon never answered. It seemed
that a lot of British wizarding folk didn't recognize that symbol worn
by nutty Xenophilius as Grindelwald's sign. One possibility is that
British wizarding paid no attention to what Grindelwald was doing on
the Continent (IIRC Herself said something like that in an interview)
and another possibility is that it *wasn't* Grindelwald's sign. Krum
recognized it from where Grindelwald had carved it in a wall at
Durmstrang. He might have carved it in his student days rather than
his dictator days. He might have carved it as the sign of the Deathly
Hallows rather than as the sign of his future empire. He might have
had a *different* sign to put on the flags and prisons and other
government buildings of his empire.
> 
> Even so, Scrimgeour should have had access to wizarding reference
books of symbols which should have listed it as the sign of the
Deathly Hallows, worn by nutcases who thought they could obtain
earthly immortality by finding three treasures described in a fairy
tale. Maybe he did, and Albus, who was a nutcase himself, had written
the sign on the specific fairy tale, maybe just because he wanted to
write down the connection.

Carol responds:
Clearly, the sign meant the Deathly Hallows and dates back to the
Peverell brothers themselves since it appeared on Ignotus's tombstone.
And someone other than Ignotus must have put it there, either his
brother Antioch or, more likely, his son (or daughter). That he had
offspring despite supposedly wearing the Invisibility cloak for the
rest of his life (a fable element, I'm sure) is clear from Harry's
being his descendant. Antioch also had descendants, including Tom
Riddle. Quite possibly, Cadmus didn't. He could well have died
violently soon after making the Elder Wand (as opposed to receiving it
from Death); at any rate, his descendants, if any, don't come into the
picture.

As for Scrimgeour, Dumbledore calls him "a man of action." I don't
think he was a scholar (though he was far from stupid). He was the
Head of the Auror Office before become MoM and an Suror before that. I
don't know whether he could read runes; maybe he used a rune
dictionary to decipher the runes as if they were a code, which is why
it took him a whole month to discover that the book was nothing but a
collection of children's tales. (He must not have examined the sign at
any length or he'd have realized that it had been inked in and was not
the original picture for that chapter. Or, as you say, he thought that
DD was a nutcase like Xenophilius Lovegood (who might have been about
Scrimgeour's age and consequently familiar to him).

Catlady:
> It seems that Herself chose the names of the Peverell brothers,
Antioch, Cadmus, and Ignotus, for their initial letters, in which I is
the straight line representing the wand, A is the triangle
representing the cloak, and C is the circle representing the stone,
adding up to that symbol. 

Carol:
Interesting! I don't recall reading that, but it makes sense. Do you
have a link to an interview where she said that?
> 
Catlady:
> Any one have any idea what she meant by Antioch and Cadmus? Didn't
Cadmus in mythology sow the dragon's teeth that quickly turned into
warriors who immediately killed each other until only six were left?
She may have meant that for the violent brother. 
<snip>

Carol:
Yes, I think Cadmus, like his namesake, sowed the seeds of discord.
But all I know about antioch is that it's a city in Syria. No idea why
that brother had that name. (Ignotus makes perfect sense for the
inventor of the Invisibility Cloak, who would be "unknown" whenever he
put it on, as I said before.)

Alla:
> 
> << If Sirius knows about DE, why doesn't he know what Dark mark is? > 
Catlady:
> If the Dark Mark had been visible on DEs' arms in Vold War I, it
would have been easy to arrest all the DEs -- just examine every
wizard and witch's forearm. I suppose part of LV's spell for branding
his vassals was that the Mark was invisible to everyone except people
bearing the Mark, and LV himself of course. <snip>

Carol:
I'm not so sure. I think that a lot of people, including fudge, simply
didn't know that the DEs had the same mark on their arms that they
conjured in the sky after they murdered. And I think that by the time
most of the DEs were rounded up and arrested, the Dark Mark had faded
almost beyond detection (which is why the DEs thought or claimed to
think that LV was dead). Certainly, it grew darker as he grew
stronger, even before the resurrection potion/incantation in the
graveyard. I snipped your comment about LV being stronger in the first
war than the second; I don't think that's the answer. Fudge, Harry,
and everyone else in the room could see Snape's Dark Mark even after
it had stopped burning. Granted, that's after the restoration to a new
body, but I think it would have been visible to anyone, not just a
fellow DE, when it first started growing darker in GoF. Otherwise,
Snape wouldn't have been so angry and demanded that Karkaroff "Put it
away!" He didn't want the students, especially Harry, to see it.

Alla: 
> << I was never able to jump from the fence on this one. Was he or
was not he? >>
> 
Catlady:
> Well, Barty Jr was quite a loyal servant of LV by the time DD gave
him Veritaserum and he bragged about it. If he had been innocent when
convicted, but picked up that obsessive devotion to LV while
imprisoned in Azkaban or under his father's Invisibility Cloak, then
it must have been Bertha who told Peter and LV about it. <snip>

Carol:
I don''t think that he would have been with the Lestranges unless he
was guilty, and Bellatrix would never have allowed him the credit or
honor (her view) of being arrested with them had he not been one of
the "loyal" ones. Barty Jr. couldn't have picked up any beliefs or
knowledge of the Unforgiveable Curses in Azkaban; he was under the
influence of the Dementors, terrified out of his mind, even in the
courtroom, and would have died within the year had his father not
ill-advisedly rescued him. He must have known the Unforgiveable Curses
(which he had thoroughly mastered) before going to Azkaban and
acquired his fanatical devotion before that time (making him a fit
companion for the somewhat older Lestranges and an ideal follower of
Bellatrix). His hatred of Death Eaters who walked free is explained
only if he, like Bellatrix, is a DE who went to prison for LV. I think
his words under Veritaserum make it clear that he was already a loyal
DE. I don't think that he could have become a DE post-Azkaban. What
cause would LV have for entrusting him with such an important mission
if he didn't know for sure that Barty Jr. had been as loyal to him as
the Lestranges? (Winky and Mr. Crouch wouldn't have encouraged him to
remain loyal to LV. The whole reason that he had to stay under the
Imperius Curse and the Invisibility Cloak rather than being allowed to
escape incognito to some other part of the world was his loyalty to
LV. His father was not only ashamed of him but afraid, with good
reason, of what would happen if he escaped. 

Carol, wishing everyone who celebrates it a happy Easter




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 24 02:41:40 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:41:40 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 34 - 37 Post DH look
Message-ID: <fs74d4+tqfm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182236

"I told you, Harry... I told you. If there's one thing I hate more 
than any other, it's a Death Eater who walked free. They turned their 
backs on my master when he needed them most" - p.675


Alla:

Isn't it cool how JKR sort of flips character's motivations when his 
mask is taken off, but not quite?

Barty dear indeed hates DE who walked free, but contrary to real 
Moody he does not hate DE who walked free from WW justice, but DE who 
walked free from Voldemort. Very cool, I say.



"This is not Alastor Moody," said Dumbledore quietly. "You have 
never  known Alastor Moody. The real Moody would not have removed you 
from my sight after what happened tonight. The moment he took you, I 
knew - and I followed." - p.680

Alla:

Well, DOH Dumbledore, congratulations. Your amazing deduction skills 
finally showed up.

You could not figure out the impostor for a year, what does it even 
mean that real Alastor would not have removed him from DD sight?

I mean, he supposedly took Harry to the hospital, no? Why was it so 
amazing and unusual?


"He put a very powerful Memory charm on her to make her forget what 
she'd found out. Too powerful. He said it damaged her memory 
permanently" - p.685

Alla:

I forgot that Barty got his hands on Berta before Voldemort did 
actually. Ooops.

That's actually has rather disturbing implications to me. I never 
liked WW obliviating Muggles per se ( meaning the ethical 
implications of somebody else deciding what one should or should not 
remember), BUT I accepted them as sort of condition of WW existance, 
meaning that I accepted that per author's intention WW should exist 
separately from mugle world and without memory charms it is not 
possible.

Ergo, I was never too bothered by it, but the fact that Memory charm 
CAN be too strong and CAN damage your memory permanently is very 
disturbing to me.

How many muggles got sick because obliviators did not do their job 
very well, whether deliberately or not?

Person suddenly suffers amnesia because person by accident witnessed 
something from WW. Scary.

"She used her own brand of magic to bind me to her" - p.687

Alla:

Houses elves are super powerful, indeed it seems to me.


"Very slowly - but still glaring at each other as though each wished 
other nothing but ill - Sirius and Snape moved toward each other and 
shook hands. They let go extremely quickly" - p.712


Alla:

Awww. Don't they make the cutest couple ever? ;)


That's all folks. See you in OOP.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 24 03:00:56 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:00:56 -0000
Subject: GoF Ch 31 -33 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fs5pr9+4slt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs75h8+2l5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182237

> Alla:
> I refuse to quote from Flesh, Blood and Bone - scary. I mean, really
> scary and is it the shortest chapter in the book?
> 
> <snip>
> bdclark0423:
> Was it the shortest in the book because you've now been given 
enough 
> suspense that you want the conflict to come to a head and then 
> resolve?  <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, yes, sure all the reasons you listed why it can be the shortest 
chapter are good and agreeable to me. That was not quite my point 
though :) I  was just trying to say that it never stroke me that 
chapters are divided by content that much if that makes sense. I mean 
they are, but I always asssumed sort of natural division as story 
goes along.










From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 24 18:28:38 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:28:38 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 16 / Alla's comments on GoF (and replies to her)
In-Reply-To: <fs6gca+jndu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs8rsm+v4nb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182238

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

> Catlady:
> > It seems that Herself chose the names of the Peverell brothers,
> Antioch, Cadmus, and Ignotus, for their initial letters, in which I is
> the straight line representing the wand, A is the triangle
> representing the cloak, and C is the circle representing the stone,
> adding up to that symbol. 
> 
> Carol:
> Interesting! I don't recall reading that, but it makes sense. Do you
> have a link to an interview where she said that?
> > 
> Catlady:
> > Any one have any idea what she meant by Antioch and Cadmus? Didn't
> Cadmus in mythology sow the dragon's teeth that quickly turned into
> warriors who immediately killed each other until only six were left?
> She may have meant that for the violent brother. 
> <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> Yes, I think Cadmus, like his namesake, sowed the seeds of discord.
> But all I know about antioch is that it's a city in Syria. 

Geoff:
JKR has indicated that her Christian faith has had a bearing on 
her development of the story and something that jumped out 
from my memory when Antioch was mentioned was:

"Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul and when he 
found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year, 
Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great 
numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians 
first at Antioch."
(Acts 11 :25-26)

Just thought that it would be interesting if there was a 
correlation between the two, a nod in this direction by 
Herself.

Maybe. Maybe not.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 24 20:01:30 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:01:30 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 16 / Alla's comments on GoF (and replies to her)
In-Reply-To: <fs8rsm+v4nb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs91aq+mfft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182239


Carol:
> > Yes, I think Cadmus, like his namesake, sowed the seeds of discord.
> > But all I know about Antioch is that it's a city in Syria. 
> 
> Geoff:
> JKR has indicated that her Christian faith has had a bearing on her
development of the story and something that jumped out from my memory
when Antioch was mentioned was:
> 
> "Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul and when he found
him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year, Barnabas and Saul
met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples
were called Christians first at Antioch."
> (Acts 11 :25-26)
> 
> Just thought that it would be interesting if there was a correlation
between the two, a nod in this direction by Herself.
> 
> Maybe. Maybe not.
>
Carol responds:
I'd forgotten that there was a connection between the city of Antioch
and St. Paul. And Antioch Peverell *is* the inventor of the
Resurrection Stone, which has obvious connections with Christianity in
name, at least. And yet the whole concept, attempting to return those
who have died to earthly life, is almost the antithesis of
Christianity (as is Voldemort's attempt to prevent *himself* from
dying; unlike Antioch, LV didn't care about other people's deaths).

Interesting!

Carol, who doesn't want to make too much of this idea but does see a
possible connection or allusion




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 24 20:27:21 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:27:21 -0000
Subject: Repost of the oldie but goodie. / TBAY scripwriting for pleasure and profit
Message-ID: <fs92r9+en76@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182240

I had been reading conversation on OTC about role of words and was 
thinking about one of my all time favorite posts, which I probably 
already brought here once, but it was a long time ago, if ever.

I present for your reading pleasure this gem by Dicentra, which 
includes some other authors as well.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/77510

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/77511


Enjoy.

Alla






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 24 21:41:44 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:41:44 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 16 / Alla's comments on GoF (and replies to her)
In-Reply-To: <fs91aq+mfft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs976o+jafk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182241

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

Geoff:
> > JKR has indicated that her Christian faith has had a bearing on her
> development of the story and something that jumped out from my memory
> when Antioch was mentioned was:
> > 
> > "Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul and when he found
> him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year, Barnabas and Saul
> met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples
> were called Christians first at Antioch."
> > (Acts 11 :25-26)

Carol responds:
> I'd forgotten that there was a connection between the city of Antioch
> and St. Paul. And Antioch Peverell *is* the inventor of the
> Resurrection Stone, which has obvious connections with Christianity in
> name, at least. And yet the whole concept, attempting to return those
> who have died to earthly life, is almost the antithesis of
> Christianity...

Geoff:
Maybe. But there are interesting echoes here. Just to remind ourselves:
"Then the second brother.... asked for the power to recall others from 
Death. So Death picked up a stone...  and told him that the stone would 
have the power to bring back the dead."
(DH "The Tale of the Three Brothers" p.331 UK edition)

Now, there are certainly Christian allusions here. At the core of 
Christian faith is the belief that after death we will be raised to 
a new life, resurrected to eternal life with God but it will be on 
a new earth.

The stone idea reminds me of Jesus quoting the scriptures - 
referenced in more than one of the gospels:
"The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone."
(Luke 20:17 and others).

And, again, Jesus says to Martha, after Lazarus' death:
"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live 
even though he dies and whoever lives and believes in me will never 
die."
(John 11:25-26)

So, resurrection to a (restored) earthly life is not really an antithesis of 
Christian faith but a logical extrapolation of the life we live which we, 
as Christians, believe holds shadowy images and promises of the 
future.

But, as I have said before, in my opinion  JKR did not set out to write 
an allegory of faith but, in the world she has created; a world possibly 
messier and nastier than the real world, she has allowed her belief to 
"flavour" this flawed creation with a tinge of love and says to her 
readers "Here, let your imagination loose on this". It is not a primer to 
becoming a believer but a book to open our eyes and make us consider 
the views we hold about our world and our own future even if we 
disagree with the interpretation which followers of Christ put on it.






From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Mar 24 22:01:53 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:01:53 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs46r6+3rcc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs98ch+7ikq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182242


> 
> Leah:
> In any event, to return to my original
> point, the fact that they were alive on 1 November 1981 does not
> mean that, had the war continued, that they, or Lily and James (and
> Harry) would have been alive on 1 November 1982.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Of course not. My point is that they **may** have been alive after 
> surviving that day and till the end of times.
>

Julie:
Nothing is certain of course, but the point many have been 
trying to make (I think) is that all available evidence 
pointed to the end of the Potters, along with the rest of 
the surviving Order members, in a WW ruled by Voldemort *had*
Snape NOT revealed the Prophecy. That evidence being the
fact the Voldemort was already winning the war, the prophecy
stated "the ONE who will defeat him" (not "one of the few
who can defeat him"), and that Dumbledore was the only other
who conceivably *might* have been able to defeat Voldemort
yet knew nothing of the Horcruxes at the time, and even 16 
years later could only manage to destroy one of them at the
cost of his own life.

So, *could* Voldemort have been defeated, allowing the Potters
and every other Order member to survive, and Harry to grow up
happy and loved in a stable and free WW? We can't discount a
remote possibility but it still seems VERY unlikely from the
evidence. Much more likely, Harry would have died along with
his parents and most other Order members and their families, 
or been spared because he was still a baby then raised in 
a Voldy-ruled WW and schooled at a Slytherin-only Hogwarts.

Snape very likely saved Harry and the WW from a terrible fate,
even if he did so without a shred of noble intent initially.
He also deserves no credit for that initial destruction of LV,
which was equally a result of a number of other actions of
varying good and evil intent influencing each other. That is
a fact of existence, the Butterfly Effect, that every action
begets another action, and eventually the original intent of
any one action often becomes unrelated to the final outcome.

So, yes, the Potters *may* have been alive after surviving that
day, living as a happy family raising their well-adjusted son.
But very probably not, no matter what Snape did or didn't do.
He simply didn't have the power to change their ultimate fate.
(Dumbledore, however, is another matter, but not the subject
of this discussion.)

Julie 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar 24 22:34:01 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:34:01 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion 16 / Alla's comments on GoF (and replies to her)
In-Reply-To: <fs976o+jafk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs9a8p+r70d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182243

>Geoff: 
> But, as I have said before, in my opinion  JKR did not set out to 
write 
> an allegory of faith but, in the world she has created; a world 
possibly 
> messier and nastier than the real world, she has allowed her belief 
to 
> "flavour" this flawed creation with a tinge of love and says to her 
> readers "Here, let your imagination loose on this". snip

Potioncat:
I felt very uncomfortable in church on Easter Sunday. We were singing a 
standard Easter hymn and I kept thinking, "This sounds like Harry's 
story." I felt compelled to bring myself back to the here and now and 
away from the Potterverse.

...or in past tense I guess it was the "there and then."
So I agree with Geoff. 





From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 24 20:56:19 2008
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:56:19 -0000
Subject: HP & the half blood prince
In-Reply-To: <fs5adv+6a12@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs94hj+njad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182244

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

> I'm rereading HP&THBP. At the beginning, Fudge leaves ash on
> the PM's carpet. In the real 1995 world, the PM would have
> that analysed. The painting on his wall won't budge. Again
> in the real (literature) world of the late 1990s, the PM
> would have that analysed. Does this gel with others. It
> doesn't with me.
<snip>


Hi!
IMO if the PM had the ash analyzed, it would just be ash from
a carpet in front of a fireplace, nothing more.

You are right, a painting that doesnt come off a wall is VERY
FISHY in the real world.

The only reason Harry doesn't give Ron gold is that Ron is too
proud to accept it. Like when Harry gave Ron the omnioculars at
the World Cup, Ron gave him the leprechaun gold as payment, then
was angry to find it disappeared and Harry was left without that
gold.

Susan, enjoying these discussions.



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 24 23:53:35 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:53:35 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs98ch+7ikq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs9etv+d8jg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182245

Julie:
Nothing is certain of course, but the point many have been
trying to make (I think) is that all available evidence
pointed to the end of the Potters, along with the rest of
the surviving Order members, in a WW ruled by Voldemort *had*
Snape NOT revealed the Prophecy.

Alla:

Oh yes, I get the point quite well. It is **all available evidence 
pointed to the end of Potters** part I am disputing.

Julie:
 That evidence being the
fact the Voldemort was already winning the war, the prophecy
stated "the ONE who will defeat him" (not "one of the few
who can defeat him"), and that Dumbledore was the only other
who conceivably *might* have been able to defeat Voldemort
yet knew nothing of the Horcruxes at the time, and even 16
years later could only manage to destroy one of them at the
cost of his own life.

Alla:

And my evidence is that we KNOW of order members no matter how few 
who survived the war, so who is to say that Potters would not have 
been among them, we know of even MORE order members who survived the 
first war, so who is to say that Potters would not have been among 
those who at least would have a misfortune to die at the very end. It 
would have given them SIXTEEN YEARS of family life and being with 
their son, even if that would have meant life during the war. And it 
is interesting when we are talking about small survival rates about 
Order members, they are not actually that small, it is not like three 
order members survived out of 100 or 1000. How many of them? 10? 12? 
( not reading OOP yet) And how many survived First war at least? 
Dumbledore, Lupin, Hagrid, Weasleys ( if we count them as helpers), 
Moody. Not bad at all, I would say.

And my evidence again is that Potters SUCCESFULLY defied Voldemort 
three times. Why again they could not have continued doing it if they 
were not specifically targeted as prophecy couple? 

And my evidence being as well that plenty of prophecies do not come 
true and Dumbledore went on and on  about the only reason this one 
came true is because Voldemort believed it. And um, who have 
Voldemort a reason to believe in prophecy. That would be Snape, since 
without him Voldemort would not have ever learned about it in the 
first place.


Julie:
So, *could* Voldemort have been defeated, allowing the Potters
and every other Order member to survive, and Harry to grow up
happy and loved in a stable and free WW? We can't discount a
remote possibility but it still seems VERY unlikely from the
evidence.

Alla:

Not from my evidence.

Julie:
 Much more likely, Harry would have died along with
his parents and most other Order members and their families,
or been spared because he was still a baby then raised in
a Voldy-ruled WW and schooled at a Slytherin-only Hogwarts.

Alla:

Why? This scenario surely does make Snape looks better, because that 
downplays the significance of horrible act he committed IMO. After 
all, if Potters would have died anyways, Snape could tell himself 
that no matter what he would have done, it would have still played 
the same way. No, sorry.  I can not discount this scenario of course, 
since all that we are discussing here are canon based speculations, 
but I believe that my scenario is just as likely to come true as 
yours. But this is not even my point. My point is that even if my 
scenario had little chance to come true, it still had SOME chance BUT 
FOR SNAPE'S ACTIONS IMO.

Julie:
Snape very likely saved Harry and the WW from a terrible fate,
even if he did so without a shred of noble intent initially.

Alla:

Yes, I will give you Snape saving WW from a terrible fate **without a 
shred of noble intent initially**. But I am speechless at the 
assertion of Snape saving Harry from terrible fate by telling the 
prophecy. Which fate that 
would be that Snape saved him from? Snape saved him from growing up 
with loving family possibility ( yes, it is just a possibility, but 
that is all I am discussing ? possibilities in this thread and no, I 
cannot discount this possibility)

Or maybe Snape saved Harry from not having that scar on that 
forehead? Yes, that would be a terrible fate indeed to not be 
subjected to visions that Voldemort gave him and to be in physical 
pain from them as well.

Yes, I am being sarcastic of course, but I think that Snape saved 
Harry from terrible fate is a very weak argument, IMO.

Julie:
So, yes, the Potters *may* have been alive after surviving that
day, living as a happy family raising their well-adjusted son.

Alla:

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Julie:
But very probably not, no matter what Snape did or didn't do.

Alla:

No, sorry, I think the answer is very much depending on what Snape 
did.

Julie:
He simply didn't have the power to change their ultimate fate.

Alla:

LOL. I can give him a hint ? not deliver prophecy to Voldemort and 
here you go, their fate may have been changed, no prophecy couple, no 
Chosen one.

Julie:
(Dumbledore, however, is another matter, but not the subject
of this discussion.)

Alla:

Of course he could change their fate, but again without Snape this 
would have never started IMO.


JMO,

Alla





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 01:16:20 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:16:20 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs9etv+d8jg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs9jp4+41mf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182246

Alla wrote:
> 
> <snip> And my evidence is that we KNOW of order members no matter
how few who survived the war, so who is to say that Potters would not
have  been among them, we know of even MORE order members who survived
the first war, so who is to say that Potters would not have been among
those who at least would have a misfortune to die at the very end. It
would have given them SIXTEEN YEARS of family life and being with 
their son, even if that would have meant life during the war. And it
is interesting when we are talking about small survival rates about
Order members, they are not actually that small, it is not like three
order members survived out of 100 or 1000. How many of them? 10? 12?
(not reading OOP yet) And how many survived First war at least? 
Dumbledore, Lupin, Hagrid, Weasleys ( if we count them as helpers),
Moody. Not bad at all, I would say.
> 
> And my evidence again is that Potters SUCCESFULLY defied Voldemort 
three times. Why again they could not have continued doing it if they
were not specifically targeted as prophecy couple? 
> 
> And my evidence being as well that plenty of prophecies do not come 
> true and Dumbledore went on and on  about the only reason this one 
> came true is because Voldemort believed it. And um, who have 
> Voldemort a reason to believe in prophecy. That would be Snape, since 
> without him Voldemort would not have ever learned about it in the 
> first place.
> 
> 
> Julie:
> So, *could* Voldemort have been defeated, allowing the Potters
> and every other Order member to survive, and Harry to grow up
> happy and loved in a stable and free WW? We can't discount a
> remote possibility but it still seems VERY unlikely from the
> evidence.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Not from my evidence.
> 
> Julie:
>  Much more likely, Harry would have died along with
> his parents and most other Order members and their families,
> or been spared because he was still a baby then raised in
> a Voldy-ruled WW and schooled at a Slytherin-only Hogwarts.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Why? This scenario surely does make Snape looks better, because that 
> downplays the significance of horrible act he committed IMO. After 
> all, if Potters would have died anyways, Snape could tell himself 
> that no matter what he would have done, it would have still played 
> the same way. No, sorry.  I can not discount this scenario of course, 
> since all that we are discussing here are canon based speculations, 
> but I believe that my scenario is just as likely to come true as 
> yours. But this is not even my point. My point is that even if my 
> scenario had little chance to come true, it still had SOME chance BUT 
> FOR SNAPE'S ACTIONS IMO.
> 
> Julie:
> Snape very likely saved Harry and the WW from a terrible fate,
> even if he did so without a shred of noble intent initially.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, I will give you Snape saving WW from a terrible fate **without a 
> shred of noble intent initially**. But I am speechless at the 
> assertion of Snape saving Harry from terrible fate by telling the 
> prophecy. Which fate that 
> would be that Snape saved him from? Snape saved him from growing up 
> with loving family possibility ( yes, it is just a possibility, but 
> that is all I am discussing ? possibilities in this thread and no, I 
> cannot discount this possibility)
> 
> Or maybe Snape saved Harry from not having that scar on that 
> forehead? Yes, that would be a terrible fate indeed to not be 
> subjected to visions that Voldemort gave him and to be in physical 
> pain from them as well.
> 
> Yes, I am being sarcastic of course, but I think that Snape saved 
> Harry from terrible fate is a very weak argument, IMO.
> 
> Julie:
> So, yes, the Potters *may* have been alive after surviving that
> day, living as a happy family raising their well-adjusted son.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, that is what I am saying.
> 
> Julie:
> But very probably not, no matter what Snape did or didn't do.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, sorry, I think the answer is very much depending on what Snape 
> did.
> 
> Julie:
> He simply didn't have the power to change their ultimate fate.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL. I can give him a hint ? not deliver prophecy to Voldemort and 
> here you go, their fate may have been changed, no prophecy couple, no 
> Chosen one.
> 
> Julie:
> (Dumbledore, however, is another matter, but not the subject
> of this discussion.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Of course he could change their fate, but again without Snape this 
> would have never started IMO.
> 
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>

Carol responds:

But without the Prophecy and the events at Godrics' Hollow, Voldemort
would have continued in full power, killing as he went. Take away the
fourteen-year respite that resulted from Godric's Hollow, and you have
 one continuous Voldie war in which Voldie is killing all of his
enemies, whether they're Order members who've defied him (just how
they could do that is unclear; they certainly can't outduel him) or
powerful Ministry officials like Amanda Bones. Godric's Hollow, bad as
it was for the Potters (and for the Chosen One who wishes he hadn't
been chosen), was the *only* reason that Voldemort stopped killing
people and the Aurors could arrest most of his followers. Just because
Lupin, Mad-eye et al. survived to that point doesn't mean that they,
or the Potters or any other Order members, could have survived if
Voldemort had not brought fate upon himself by acting to thwart the
Prophecy.

To get an idea of what would have happened, we have to eliminate that
fourteen-year respite, including the time when Voldie was in fetal
form and "only" killed or ordered the deaths of four people (I'm
including Mr. Crouch even though he wasn't killed with Voldie's wand).
Even in OoP, he's concentrating on the Prophecy and recouping his
losses, gathering new followers. Only HBP and DH and the reports of
people old enough to remember VW1 give us any idea what it was like.
Hogwarts remained Hogwarts only because of Dumbledore. With him dead,
and surely his death would have been Voldemort's prime objective, a
happy life at Hogwarts, or in Godric's Hollow, would have been no part
of Harry's childhood even if he survived to school age.

IOW, the years between Godric's Hollow and the resurrection of
Voldemort have to be taken out of the picture. Instead, we have an
undefeated, to all intents and purposes immortal Voldemort whose
followers (according to Lupin) outnumbered the Order members ten to
one and the Order members being picked off one by one.

Yes, Snape reported the Prophecy to his master, the leader of a
terrorist organization, with no qualms about the consequences to
innocent people. But that action, and his subsequent remorse, had
unanticipated consequences that made the ultimate defeat of Voldemort
possible.

So I agree with you that Snape changed everything. I just don't agree
that he robbed Harry of a happy, normal life. A happy, normal life
simply was not possible in the wartorn WW that would have been
unavoidable had Voldemort not been hit by a rebounding AK at Godric's
Hollow.

Your "SIXTEEN YEARS of family life" would more likely be "SIXTEEN
YEARS of protracted war" under a Voldemort whose powers are
undiminished. The entire McKinnon family was killed, children and all,
and they weren't "the targeted couple," just a family of Order
members. The Prewitt brothers were killed in a battle with five DEs.
Edgar Bones. brother of Amanda Bones, was killed. Voldemort personally
killed Dorcas Meadowes (just as he later killed Amelia Bones
personally). Caradoc Dearborn vanished (just like Florean Fortescue).
The "only ever found bits of" Benjy Fenwick. Not one of those people
was killed because of the Prophecy. They were killed because the Order
members were being targeted. the Potters were being targeted for the
same reason. And had it not been for the Prophecy (and Snape's going
to DD for help), they would not have had the protection of the
Fidelius Charm (breached because of sirius Black's bad advice and
Peter Pettigrew's perfidy).

IMO, the *only* chance the Potters had of surviving the continued and
unending Voldiewar was the revelation of the Prophecy and a Fidelius
charm maintained by Dumbledore. And how the war could have been won
and Voldie defeated without Voldie creating his own nemesis, I don't
know. Dumbledore could not have done it, and if he couldn't, who
could? The Prophecy would have to have been fulfilled in some other
way, perhaps with an adult Harry, but how he could have acquired
special powers and a soul bit without Lily's sacrifice, which depends
on Snape's request to spare her, I don't know. it seems to me that
events transpired in the only way they could have don to create "the
one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord." Otherwise, the Horcruxes
would have kept him alive and in power and undefeatable.

Carol, who thinks that *no one* could have saved the WW from Voldemort
had Voldemort not acted to thwart the Prophecy, unwittingly setting in
motion his own defeat by so doing




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 01:43:06 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:43:06 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs9jp4+41mf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs9lba+jbs3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182247

Carol:
<SNIP>
So I agree with you that Snape changed everything. I just don't agree
that he robbed Harry of a happy, normal life. A happy, normal life
simply was not possible in the wartorn WW that would have been
unavoidable had Voldemort not been hit by a rebounding AK at Godric's
Hollow.


Alla:

Life during the war can still be happy life in my opinion, even if it 
is not care free completely happy life. Voldemort started his reign 
when marauders were still in school and from little we know they 
managed to have happy normal life with their parents, unless their 
parents were like Sirius' mom, but that has no relevance to the 
discussed topic.

Now, of course war is war and if one is living close to the war zone 
for example or serving in the army one feels it directly, but  eh, 
one's life is not necessarily defined by war  even if one's country 
is at war, and yes, I submit that happy or relatively happy life is 
possible even during the war. I see that for example in my relatives 
in Israel, they live far from war zone, they do not have family 
members in the army yet and they do not feel the war at all ( or at 
least that's what they told us last time we spoke). I mean, they read 
newspapers and read the names of the victims of course.

But for better or for worse, war does not really touch them much you 
know. 

Carol:
<SNIP>
Not one of those people
was killed because of the Prophecy. They were killed because the Order
members were being targeted. the Potters were being targeted for the
same reason. And had it not been for the Prophecy (and Snape's going
to DD for help), they would not have had the protection of the
Fidelius Charm (breached because of sirius Black's bad advice and
Peter Pettigrew's perfidy).

Alla:

Oh, I see, so are you suggesting that Snape telling the prophecy is a 
GOOD thing now that increased Potters chances for survival? No, 
seriously, I do not want to develop straw man, but what you just 
argued reads to me exactly as I described.

I snipped the people who were killed because they were order members, 
but I also brought the names alive order members. I submit that 
telling the prophecy was what tipped the scales and made Potters 
**primary targets**. They IMO would not have needed that extra 
protection and secret keeper or not, would have at least a chance to 
live.

Carol:
<SNIP>
And how the war could have been won
and Voldie defeated without Voldie creating his own nemesis, I don't
know. Dumbledore could not have done it, and if he couldn't, who
could? <SNIP>

Alla:

Dumbledore could not do it, is not a fact to me at all, but only 
speculation. I so do not want to jump to HBP now, but I will take a 
look and find it if nobody could.

I am under very strong impression that Dumbledore CAN speaks 
Parseltongue from HBP. I aso seem to remember that Ron was able to 
mimic Parseltongue words, no? Or are there other reasons you suggest 
that Dumbledore could not do it? Because the fact that he did not do 
it, does not suggest to me that he could not.

So, yeah, I think somebody could do it, I really do not think that it 
matters who. IMO.


Carol:
<SNIP>

The Prophecy would have to have been fulfilled in some other
way, perhaps with an adult Harry, but how he could have acquired
special powers and a soul bit without Lily's sacrifice, which depends
on Snape's request to spare her, I don't know. it seems to me that
events transpired in the only way they could have don to create "the
one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord." <SNIP>


Alla:

Isn't divination a very imprecise branch of magic? Isn't it possible 
that prophecy did not have to come true at all and somebody would 
have just discovered how to destroy horcruxes and that's it.


JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 04:02:05 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:02:05 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs9lba+jbs3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fs9tft+i3m0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182248


> Carol:
> <SNIP>
> Not one of those people
> was killed because of the Prophecy. They were killed because the Order
> members were being targeted. the Potters were being targeted for the
> same reason. And had it not been for the Prophecy (and Snape's going
> to DD for help), they would not have had the protection of the
> Fidelius Charm (breached because of sirius Black's bad advice and
> Peter Pettigrew's perfidy).
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, I see, so are you suggesting that Snape telling the prophecy is a 
> GOOD thing now that increased Potters chances for survival? No, 
> seriously, I do not want to develop straw man, but what you just 
> argued reads to me exactly as I described.

Carol responds:
Please don't misunderstand me. Of course, the Prophecy was not a good
thing for the Potters. However, I do think that their chances for
survival would have increased if they had followed Dumbledore's
suggestion of making him (rather than sirius, much less Pettigrew, who
wasnhadn't yet been suggested) their secret Keeper. It's a chain of
unintended events, for which neither Snape nor any other one person is
responsible. Had it not been for the Prophecy (and Snape's coming to
Dumbledore to ask DD to protect Lily, who was in danger because of
his--Snape's--actions), the Potters's chances for survival would have
been no better and no worse than those of other Order members. 

However, because of the events at Godric's Hollow, which occurred as
the result of many people's choices and actions, not Snape's alone,
the killing of the Order members stopped. Why? Because the person
ordering the killings was apparently dead, and the leaderless DEs
(except for Bellatrix and her little gang) were more concerned with
keeping themselves out of prison than with continuing their career of
murder, torture, and coercion.


> 
> I snipped the people who were killed because they were order members, 
> but I also brought the names alive order members. I submit that 
> telling the prophecy was what tipped the scales and made Potters 
> **primary targets**. They IMO would not have needed that extra 
> protection and secret keeper or not, would have at least a chance to 
> live.

CaroL
And I submit that those people were killed before the Potters but
after the Prophecy was known. All of the people named, including the
Potters, were killed within a short time after the photograph was
taken, and the Prophecy had been revealed considerably more than
fifteen months before the Potters' deaths. (It could have been as much
as nine months before Harry was born, but, of course, LV didn't know
until Harry and Neville were born who the potential Prophecy boys
were.) Meanwhile, according to Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew had been
giving information about the Order members for a year, and all those
people were killed *because they were Order members* at nearly the
same time that the Potters were killed, or perhaps at about the same
time that they went into hiding. The McKinnons and all those others
had no chance. Why should the Potters do better than the Prewitt
brothers, who between them took five DEs to kill?

You don't seem to understand that Voldemort was to all intents and
purposes immortal because of the Horcruxes. If he hadn't been stopped
by the backfiring AK, he would have kept on killing Order members, or
having them killed by his DEs, until they were all dead. He was
determined to take over the WW, and he would not have let them stand
in his way.


> 
> Carol:
> <SNIP>
> And how the war could have been won
> and Voldie defeated without Voldie creating his own nemesis, I don't
> know. Dumbledore could not have done it, and if he couldn't, who
> could? <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Dumbledore could not do it, is not a fact to me at all, but only 
> speculation. I so do not want to jump to HBP now, but I will take a 
> look and find it if nobody could.
> 
> I am under very strong impression that Dumbledore CAN speaks 
> Parseltongue from HBP. I aso seem to remember that Ron was able to 
> mimic Parseltongue words, no? Or are there other reasons you suggest 
> that Dumbledore could not do it? Because the fact that he did not do 
> it, does not suggest to me that he could not.

Carol responds:
Dumbledore had fifty years to find the Chamber of Secrets. He knew who
had done it. If he did not search for it, he would have been utterly
irresponsible, especially once he became headmaster. Professor Binns
says that it had been searched for many times and had not been found. 

You are probably recalling the scene in HBP in which Harry hears
Morfin Gaunt speaking Parseltongue and DD says, "You understand what
he's saying Harry, don't you?" or something like that. At that point,
Harry realizes tha Morfin is speaking Parseltongue, which Bob Ogden
clearly doesn't undersatnd. Dumbledore never states that *he*
understands Parseltongue. He does, however, have a clear grasp of the
situation and can have no difficulty guessing that Morfin is saying
something along the lines of "You're not welcome [here]" (or "Get off
our property" or some similar order or threat.

We're never told that Dumbledore speaks Parseltongue. It seems to be
an inherited trait, not an acquired skill. Harry speaks Parseltongue
because Voldemort does. He doesn't learn it. It's in the soul bit. Nor
does Tom Riddle learn it. He and the Gaunts simply know it, either
from birth or from the time they can speak or from their first
encounter with a snake. It seems more like an instinctive response
than a language (except that the Gaunts use it to communicate without
being understood by outsiders). Who could possibly have taught
Dumbldeore to speak Parseltongue? Apparently, no previous Heir of
Slytherin appeared at Hogwarts (I doubt that the Gaunts attended). And
there wouldn't be any books teaching the grammar and basic vocabulary
of Parseltongue. I'm not even sure that the hisses could have been
rendered in a written language.

> 
> So, yeah, I think somebody could do it, I really do not think that it 
> matters who. IMO.

Carol responds:
And there we differ. Harry is the hero of the books because he can do
what no one else, not even the greatest Wizard of the age, Dumbledore,
could do. As Dumbledore says in "King's Cross," "You're a better man
than I am." Dumbledore yielded to the temptation of the Resurrection
Stone and even borrowed the Invisibility Cloak, knowing that it was a
Hallow and not telling the Potters. He was, as he says, worthy only to
use the Elder Wand, but not to kill with it. So when he dueled
Voldemort, whom he knew to be kept alive by Horcruxes in any case, he
didn't kill him. Had he not heard the Prophecy and attempted to kill
Voldemort, with or without the Elder Wand, he would probably have
vaporized him, but he could not have killed him. It would only have
been a matter of time before he returned. And he might have figured
out that there was at least one Horcrux, but without Harry and the
diary, he would never have known that there were six. (It's not just
Parseltongue; it's the scar, created through Lily's self-sacrifice,
that allows Harry access to Voldemort's thoughts and makes Harry the
Chosen One, "the one with the power to destroy the Dark Lord." And
Dumbledore, for all his power and intellect, does not have that gift.
Nor does his self-sacrifice have the same power as Harry's. Harry
faces Voldemort knowing that he must die for the soul bit in him to be
destroyed, and his self-sacrifice, combined with the drop of blood
that he shares with Voldemort, gives his self-sacrifice a power beyond
that of Dumbledore or or Lily. No one else in the WW has those powers.
To argue otherwise is to take away from harry's heroism, to say that
anyone could have done it.

I don't thinks so. The books are about Harry Potter, who, thanks to
events that happened when he was a child and the choices of seven
people (Snape, Dumbledore, the Potters, Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew,
and, of course, Voldemort). Dumbledore could not have done what Harry
did even if he had somehow found and destroyed all the Horcruxes. No
one but Harry could have done it, not Neville, not the greatest
Wizards of the age (Amelia Bones and Mr. Crouch, for example, were
talented and powerful, but neither was a match for Voldemort. Only
Dumbledore could match his power and far outmatched his wisdom, but
Dumbledore, too, failed. He needed Harry. Could he have defeated LV by
himself, surely he would not have groomed and trained Harry and placed
him in grave danger for six years. 

> 
> 
> Carol:
> <SNIP>
> 
> The Prophecy would have to have been fulfilled in some other way,
perhaps with an adult Harry, but how he could have acquired special
powers and a soul bit without Lily's sacrifice, which depends
> on Snape's request to spare her, I don't know. it seems to me that
> events transpired in the only way they could have don to create "the
> one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord." <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Isn't divination a very imprecise branch of magic? Isn't it possible
that prophecy did not have to come true at all and somebody would 
have just discovered how to destroy horcruxes and that's it.

Carol:
I don't think so. If that were all it took, DD would no doubt have
sent Snape, his Dark Arts expert who had promised to do "anything," to
look for the Horcruxes. Instead, he counted on a boy who was not yet
seventeen when Dumbledore died. (Dumbledore had been looking for
years, at least since he figured out his multiple Horcrux theory after
the diary was destroyed, and managed to locate only one and a half (a
real one that shortened his life and a fake one whose protections
weakened him to the point of defenselessness). It took Harry's special
link with Voldemort to find most of the Horcruxes, and even to provide
a weapon capable of destroying them. (The only reason that the Sword
of Gryffindor could destroy the Horcruxes was that, because of Harry,
it had absorbed Basilisk venom.)

If there had been no Prophecy or no eavesdropper, Voldemort wouldn't
have gone to Godric's Hollow to thwart it and created his own nemesis.
Had the eavesdropper been anyone other than Snape, Lily would not have
been given a chance to live, imbuing her choice to die with the power
of ancient love magic. If Voldemort had heard the (partial) Prophecy
and chosen not to act, waiting for the "one with the power" to show
himself as an adult, or dismissing the whole thing as nonsense, there
would have been no Chosen One created by Voldemort himself. Voldemort
would have continued to wreak havoc until he was at least as powerful
as Grindelwald had been. With or without the Elder Wand, Dumbledore
couldn't stop him. I really don't see how anyone could. Which is why
Harry is so special and so important and the hero of the books.

Carol, giving the Chosen One credit for his unique abilities even
though he acquired them by accident from Voldemort as an unintended
consequence of many people's choices




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Mar 25 05:45:20 2008
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:45:20 -0000
Subject: Depression in HP characters?
Message-ID: <fsa3hg+3eb9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182249

I just saw a news article about JKR being so depressed before starting 
to write HP that she was contemplating suicide.

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/news/24032008/jk-rowling-admits-she-
was-suicidal.html 

Jo has brought other things into Potterworld as instructional to teens. 
Have we also seen those in serious depression and fighting to get out 
of it?

Not just Filch regretting punishments weren't like the good old days, 
nor Moaning Murtle who is not in the right state to accually overcome 
any depressed feelings ...

Ginny when she was loosing hours out her day during COS - you wouldn't 
say actually suicidal, but she put herself down alot.

What / who can you think of?

aussie




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 11:35:38 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:35:38 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs9tft+i3m0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsao2a+tu4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182250

> CaroL
> And I submit that those people were killed before the Potters but
> after the Prophecy was known. All of the people named, including the
> Potters, were killed within a short time after the photograph was
> taken, and the Prophecy had been revealed considerably more than
> fifteen months before the Potters' deaths. <SNIP>

Alla:

Not that I think it matters, I mean Voldemort kept killing other 
people till he gathered the knowledge of how to kill prophecy couple, 
so what? Does not mean IMO that prophecy couple was not his favorite 
target, but I do not think we can say with certainty that photograph 
was taken after prophecy was already made.

I would think Potters would not have been on photograph and in hiding 
then.

Carol:
<SNIP>
( Why should the Potters do better than the Prewitt
> brothers, who between them took five DEs to kill?

Alla:

Because I do not remember reading that they defied Voldemort three 
times, that's why.

Carol: 
> You don't seem to understand that Voldemort was to all intents and
> purposes immortal because of the Horcruxes. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him is to 
destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite well. 
**Teenagers** and two of who, were without any special abilities. 
Just imagine Dumbledore telling order members what the things are and 
sending them to find those things. I sincerely doubt for example that 
Arthur Weasley would have been considered less true Gryff than his 
son.



>> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
>> You are probably recalling the scene in HBP in which Harry hears
> Morfin Gaunt speaking Parseltongue and DD says, "You understand what
> he's saying Harry, don't you?" or something like that. At that 
point,
> Harry realizes tha Morfin is speaking Parseltongue, which Bob Ogden
> clearly doesn't undersatnd. Dumbledore never states that *he*
> understands Parseltongue. He does, however, have a clear grasp of 
the
> situation and can have no difficulty guessing that Morfin is saying
> something along the lines of "You're not welcome [here]" (or "Get 
off
> our property" or some similar order or threat.


Alla:

YES, thank you, that's the one. Sure Dumbledore never says that he 
understands Parseltongue and still that was my impression that he 
understands it. Can what you describing be true? Of course, but I 
submit that there is nothing in the text to negate my speculation.


Carol: 
> We're never told that Dumbledore speaks Parseltongue. <SNIP> 

Alla:

I am snipping your explanation of why Dumbledore cannot learn 
Parseltongue just to say that sure, it is a nice speculation, but we 
do not know any of it. We do not know that Parseltongue cannot be 
learned, for all I know it is language same as for example Mermish, 
which by the way we know that Dumbledore speaks. He is very gifted 
and why he cannot speak Parseltongue, I am not sure.

**Harry** knows it from soul bit, how does it follow that nobody else 
can learn it, I do not know.



Alla:
> > So, yeah, I think somebody could do it, I really do not think 
that it 
> > matters who. IMO.
> 
> Carol responds:
> And there we differ. Harry is the hero of the books because he can 
do
> what no one else, not even the greatest Wizard of the age, 
Dumbledore,
> could do. <SNIP> No one else in the WW has those powers.
> To argue otherwise is to take away from harry's heroism, to say that
> anyone could have done it.
> <SNIP>


Alla:

LOL. Of course there is a chosen one to rely upon in the scenario 
that 
went in the story. I am talking about lazy WW and Dumbledore NOT 
having the Chosen one and his special powers to rely upon.

People are forced to do remarkable things if they know there is 
nobody who can do it for them. Just a personal example on the small 
scale. I went to Italy with a friend once. She liked to rely on me to 
hear to the directions, to read map and mind you I am not very good 
with directions myself. Guess what, at one day I flat out refused and 
told her that I want to relax and listen to the guide and not to 
memorize directions. And I am sure you guessed what happened, all her 
whining notwithstanding she read the map herself and lead us out, etc.

She did not have me to rely upon. 

And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
matter how 
many years it takes and then somebody finish off Voldemort - without 
Harry battling him. 

JMO,

Alla




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 25 13:07:00 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:07:00 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsao2a+tu4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsatdk+ibtv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182251

> Alla:
> Because I do not remember reading that they defied Voldemort three 
> times, that's why.

Potioncat:
The Longbottoms also defied LV 3 times, yet they were driven to 
madness by lesser wizards than LV. And, defying him, in whatever 
manner, was not the same as defeating him.

> 
> Alla:
> Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him is 
to destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite 
well. 
snip

Potioncat:
Well, no. All the Horcruxes had to be destroyed, then he had to be 
killed, even without an intact Horcrux, he was a powerful wizard. 
And, not just anyone could have let LV AK them with the same results 
Harry achieved.  


> Alla: 
> YES, thank you, that's the one. Sure Dumbledore never says that he 
> understands Parseltongue and still that was my impression that he 
> understands it. Can what you describing be true? Of course, but I 
> submit that there is nothing in the text to negate my speculation.

Potioncat:
I'll vote with you on this one. DD makes a comment that I can't quite 
recall--about even some who speak Parseltongue are good and brave--
that makes me think even more that he spoke it. 


 
> Alla:
snip
> And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
> somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
> matter how  many years it takes and then somebody finish off 
Voldemort - without  Harry battling him. 


Potioncat:
Oh! Oh! Your yahoo name fits you! You are Dumbledore! What is it to 
you if countless others suffer so long as Harry is happy and safe? 
<eg> 

DD seems to have believed the prophecy himself, because many of the 
actions he took seemed to be to help it along. I think his actions--
separate from Snape's or in addition to Snape's--nudged it into 
fruition.


I'm not sure if we're all comparing apples to orange to bananas or if 
we're the blind men examining an elephant. We're coming at the crux 
of the matter from very different viewpoints.

Speaking only for me---because even those of us who agree with each 
other, don't fully agree---Snape's action caused great suffering for 
Harry and caused the death of the Potters. Snape himself would agree. 
That he tried to prevent the consequences, that he atoned for them 
afterwards, does not change that fact.

So, even if you and I agree this much---I don't think changing the 
one thing will give Harry a happy life. More than that has to change 
or to be different. You gave examples of being happy in war, but in 
all fairness, you offered people who are not in the war. They live 
out of the war zone, and their children are not soldiers. Lily and 
James had already joined the fray and I don't think having a child 
would have changed that. On the other hand, Harry could have still 
had a happy life after VaporMort, if Dumbledore had placed him with a 
different family. Assuming none of the DEs went after the Boy Who 
Lived. At least, it could have been happy till LV came back.

Here's question 5 from CM's  DH chapter 16  Discussion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182113

5. Harry fantasizes how, if not for Voldemort, he would have grown up
as an ordinary wizard boy in Godric's Hollow. Had that occurred,
it's easy to think of all the ways in which Harry would have been
different ? what (if anything) about Harry would have stayed the same?


As angry as Harry is at Snape-justifiably so--he blames LV for his 
situation.  So do I.







From leahstill at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 25 13:26:35 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:26:35 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsao2a+tu4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsauib+50af@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182252

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > CaroL
> > And I submit that those people were killed before the Potters but
> > after the Prophecy was known. All of the people named, including 
the
> > Potters, were killed within a short time after the photograph was
> > taken, and the Prophecy had been revealed considerably more than
> > fifteen months before the Potters' deaths. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Not that I think it matters, I mean Voldemort kept killing other 
> people till he gathered the knowledge of how to kill prophecy 
couple, 
> so what? Does not mean IMO that prophecy couple was not his 
favorite 
> target, but I do not think we can say with certainty that 
photograph 
> was taken after prophecy was already made.
> 
> I would think Potters would not have been on photograph and in 
hiding 
> then.

Leah: The Potters seem to have been in 'moderate' hiding after Snape 
gave his warning.  The Fidelius charm was only in place for around a 
week (I think we learn that in POA), after DD gets a warning 
(presumably again from his spy, Snape) that Voldemort is about to 
attack.  We know from Lily's letter written after Harry's first 
birthday that the Potters' movements were restricted, but they could 
still be visited, so perhaps the Order was meeting at the Potters.  
In any case, I don't see it's an either/or question as to Harry and 
Order members, Voldemort was killing off the opposition, he then 
needed to deal with the child he had identified as the One, and I 
think it's safe to assume that if he had killed Harry, he would have 
then have carried on killing those opposing him.



> 
> Carol:
> <SNIP>
> ( Why should the Potters do better than the Prewitt
> > brothers, who between them took five DEs to kill?
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Because I do not remember reading that they defied Voldemort three 
> times, that's why.#


Leah:
This is from Pottercast 130, interview with JKR:

'MA: What about the three times, the thrice defying of Voldemort?

JKR: Of James and Lily?

MA: Of Neville's parents. Well, James and Lily too.

JKR: Well it depends how you take defying, doesn't it? If you're 
counting, well which I do, any time you arrested one of his 
henchmen, any time you escaped him, any time you thwarted him. 
That's what he's looking for. (SU: Yeah.) And both couple qualified 
because they were both fighting. Also James and Lily turned him 
down, that's established in Philosopher's Stone. He wanted them, 
(SU: Wow.) and they wouldn't come over, so that's one strike against 
them before they were even out of their teens.'

Leah: Apart from the rather odd idea that Voldemort would even have 
considered recruiting a Muggleborn, this quote indicates that the 
Potters did not have to do anything particularly out of the ordinary 
as Order members to defy thrice.  Looking at what JKR says there, 
someone like Moody must have defied Voldemort a lot more than three 
times, and it's quite possible that the Prewitts did too.  We don't 
hear about their defiance particularly because it's not relevant - 
they may have defied Voldemort fifteen times but they're not parents 
of a child born as the seventh month dies.  So there is nothing to 
indicate that James and Lily would be any less vulnerable than other 
Order members if Voldemort did not know the prophecy.   



> 
> Carol: 
> > You don't seem to understand that Voldemort was to all intents 
and
> > purposes immortal because of the Horcruxes. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him is 
to 
> destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite 
well. 
> **Teenagers** and two of who, were without any special abilities. 
> Just imagine Dumbledore telling order members what the things are 
and 
> sending them to find those things. I sincerely doubt for example 
that 
> Arthur Weasley would have been considered less true Gryff than his 
> son.

Leah: But first of all, Dumbledore has to establish that Voldemort 
even has horcruxes. He may suspect something from Voldemort's 
appearance, but surely he can not know for certain that Voldemort 
has succeeded until he survives the rebounding AK at Godric's 
Hollow.  (Also in the Pottercast interview, (available at the 
Lexicon), JKR commented that horcruxes were invented by Herpo the 
Foul but that they were certainly not common, so it wouldn't be a 
simple supposition to make. DD isn't able to ascertain how many 
Horcruxes there are until HBP. Then there is the Diary episode-in a 
non-Prophecy world, there is absolutely no reason why the Diary 
should come to Dumbledore's attention.  As for getting venom from 
the Basilisk, again we don't know what would have happened without 
Godric's Hollow.  If Voldemort won the war,which is quite possible, 
DD would certainly not be at Hogwarts.  (And there's the little 
Hallows problem - if DD happens to be the one to find the Peverall 
ring, and tries to access the Stone, in a non-Prophecy world, 
DESnape isn't going to be on hand to save him.   
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
> somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
> matter how 
> many years it takes and then somebody finish off Voldemort - 
without 
> Harry battling him. 

I agree it doesn't have to be Harry destroying the horcruxes, and 
yes, provided DD works out without the benefit of Godric's Hollow 
that Voldemort is immortal, and manages to get access to basilisk 
venom, then no doubt, the horcruxes could be destroyed. But as you 
say, it could take years.  Voldemort could easily be ruling the WW 
by say, 1983 if there were no Godric's Hollow. 

Leah 


>




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 25 14:20:12 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:20:12 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsatdk+ibtv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsb1ms+cruh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182253

> > Alla:
> > Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him 
is 
> to destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite 
> well. 
> snip
> 
> Potioncat:
> Well, no. All the Horcruxes had to be destroyed, then he had to be 
> killed, even without an intact Horcrux, he was a powerful wizard. 
> And, not just anyone could have let LV AK them with the same 
results 
> Harry achieved.  

Magpie:
But not just anybody would have to allow themselves be killed by an 
AK. Harry had to do that because he was a sort-of Horcrux. If 
Voldemort hadn't had his explosion at Godric's Hollow we'd just be 
talking about a powerful Wizard who had to be killed seven times--
and each one of those killings could be done by anybody as long as 
they had the right weapon, be it Ron Weasley with basilisk venom or 
Vincent Crabbe with Fiend Fire. After that he'd just be a mortal 
Wizard who could be killed. A powerful Wizard, but not an invincible 
one. I don't see anything about Voldemort that makes him 
unbeatable.  
 
> > Alla:
> snip
> > And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
> > somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
> > matter how  many years it takes and then somebody finish off 
> Voldemort - without  Harry battling him. 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Oh! Oh! Your yahoo name fits you! You are Dumbledore! What is it 
to 
> you if countless others suffer so long as Harry is happy and safe? 
> <eg> 

Magpie:
I know you're not really serious here, but just to counter that 
anyway, what Alla is suggesting doesn't fit that idea unless you 
suggest that killing the Potters in this manner was a plan in 
itself. But she's not talking about making any plan that requires 
people to die, just challenging the idea that without Snape 
repeating the Prophecy and setting up this particular version of 
events Voldemort could not have been destroyed. 

Potioncat: 
> 
> DD seems to have believed the prophecy himself, because many of 
the 
> actions he took seemed to be to help it along. I think his actions-
-
> separate from Snape's or in addition to Snape's--nudged it into 
> fruition.

Magpie:
He certainly did seem to believe it--he practically forced everyone 
to follow it by keeping the Horcruxes secret for some reason, and 
insisting that Harry and his friends destroy them all. He acted 
exactly like Voldemort with his fetish about killing Harry himself. 
Both of them seemed to be unnecessarily stretching out the 
destruction to make it center on Harry in ways it really didn't have 
to do.


Potioncat: 
> So, even if you and I agree this much---I don't think changing the 
> one thing will give Harry a happy life. More than that has to 
change 
> or to be different. You gave examples of being happy in war, but 
in 
> all fairness, you offered people who are not in the war. They live 
> out of the war zone, and their children are not soldiers.

Magpie:
I think one of the problems here is what one means by "a happy 
life." I have no problem believing that Harry would indeed have had 
a far happier life without the Prophecy since after all it was a 
response to the Prophecy that Dumbledore stuck him with people who 
made it their purpose in life to make Harry unhappy. Harry could 
certainly have had a happier life with a different family even 
without his parents, but the Dursleys were connected to the Prophecy 
(he's with them according to Dumbledore because they were the only 
way to keep him safe, so he couldn't have a happy life with somebody 
else). 

Without the Prophecy we don't know what might have happened. Harry 
could have had happy times with his parents even if they were 
involved in the war, or at least happier times. He wouldn't enjoy 
the war, but if given the chance might still choose that life with 
his parents over one without Voldemort but also without them and 
with the Dursleys. We don't know what would have happened if things 
didn't happen this way. Maybe Harry would have wound up dead as a 
small child and Voldemort would have taken over the WW, maybe 
Voldemort still would have been defeated but much later, maybe he 
would have been defeated earlier. We'll never know. It's not set in 
stone either way. (Also there's the fact that Gryffindors seem to 
thrive in situations where they're in mortal danger--having an 
actual evil overlord sometimes seems the best way to channel their 
impulses towards something positive, at least.;-))


Potioncat:
> As angry as Harry is at Snape-justifiably so--he blames LV for his 
> situation.  So do I.

Magpie:
Me too--Voldemort's the one who killed them for reasons of his own. 
But one can see how Snape focuses on his own responsibility and 
making it right. He's one of the only people in canon to do 
something like that.

-m




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 16:13:39 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:13:39 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsb1ms+cruh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsb8bj+112p2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182254

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Alla:
> > > Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him 
> is 
> > to destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite 
> > well. 
> > snip
> > 
> > Potioncat:
> > Well, no. All the Horcruxes had to be destroyed, then he had to be 
> > killed, even without an intact Horcrux, he was a powerful wizard. 
> > And, not just anyone could have let LV AK them with the same 
> results 
> > Harry achieved.  
> 
> Magpie:
> But not just anybody would have to allow themselves be killed by an 
> AK. Harry had to do that because he was a sort-of Horcrux. If 
> Voldemort hadn't had his explosion at Godric's Hollow we'd just be 
> talking about a powerful Wizard who had to be killed seven times--
> and each one of those killings could be done by anybody as long as 
> they had the right weapon, be it Ron Weasley with basilisk venom or 
> Vincent Crabbe with Fiend Fire. After that he'd just be a mortal 
> Wizard who could be killed. A powerful Wizard, but not an invincible 
> one. I don't see anything about Voldemort that makes him 
> unbeatable.  
Montavilla47:

A minor quibble, Magpie.  It's logical to think that the Horcruxes
acted like the lives of a cat, so that if Voldemort had made six
of them, you simply had to kill him seven times.  But it doesn't
actually seem to work like that.  When Voldemort was killed
the first time (by the rebounding AK), it didn't seem to affect
the Horcruxes then in existence.  None of them became less 
evil or powerful or... went dead like a broken lightbulb.  

So, I don't think it just a matter of killing him. As long as he
had any Horcruxes working, he'd come back.  

Also, both time Voldemort died, it was his own AK that did it.  I 
wonder, although there's absolutely no canon to back it up, 
whether an AK fired by just anybody, James Potter say, would 
have been able to stop Voldemort.  Maybe it would have just
bounced off, and it was only the self-inflicted AK that could
get through the protection of the Horcruxes.

I kind of wish JKR had put in something like that.  It would have
help build Voldemort up as a villain if he had withstood AKs
before the night at GH.  It would help us get why people were 
so reluctant to engage him.








From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 25 12:26:00 2008
From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:26:00 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsao2a+tu4j@eGroups.com>
References: <fs9tft+i3m0@eGroups.com> <fsao2a+tu4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY116-DAV5228B7CEF4D1C05A317D5A3FC0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 182255

<SNIP>
Alla:
Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him is to
destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite well.
**Teenagers*-* and two of who, were without any special abilities.
Just imagine Dumbledore telling order members what the things are and
sending them to find those things. I sincerely doubt for example that
Arthur Weasley would have been considered less true Gryff than his
son.
</SNIP>

I think that it is entirely possible to have underestimated the power of
Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore says to Harry in HBP at probably the turning
point for the prophecy: ?You are protected in short, by your ability to
love!?..you remain pure of heart, just as pure as you were at the age of
eleven, when you stared into a mirror that reflected your heart?s desire,
and it showed you the only way to thwart Lord Voldemort? have you any idea
how few wizards could have seen what you saw in that mirror??



Dumbledore here reveals that the great power of Harry is to resist the power
of Voldemort. In DH we see Ron attempting to kill a Hocrux. Without Harry,
who has no trouble facing one on his own in CoS, I doubt he would have
managed to stab it. We aren?t discussing ?Gryff-ness?, more purity and
selflessness.



It?s for this reason that I don?t think you can automatically assume that
the Order could have done the task that Harry was set to do. Also you gloss
over the fact that it was Harry, through his unique connection and
understanding of Riddle, which allowed him to work out where the Horcuxes
were.



Philip





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 16:49:41 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:49:41 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsatdk+ibtv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbaf5+r9ss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182256

> > Alla:
> > Because I do not remember reading that they defied Voldemort 
three 
> > times, that's why.
> 
> Potioncat:
> The Longbottoms also defied LV 3 times, yet they were driven to 
> madness by lesser wizards than LV. And, defying him, in whatever 
> manner, was not the same as defeating him.

Alla:

Of course. That is why I brought defying him three times as 
**possibility** that could increase their chances for survival.

 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him is 
> to destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite 
> well. 
> snip
> 
> Potioncat:
> Well, no. All the Horcruxes had to be destroyed, then he had to be 
> killed, even without an intact Horcrux, he was a powerful wizard. 
> And, not just anyone could have let LV AK them with the same 
results 
> Harry achieved.  

Alla:

Magpie addressed it better than I could - I do not believe that 
Voldemort without horcruxes can only be killed "Harry style", you 
know, but yes of course he has to be killed after horcruxes are 
destroyed, was sort of obvious in my head but not on paper, sorry 
about that.



 
> > Alla:
> snip
> > And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
> > somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
> > matter how  many years it takes and then somebody finish off 
> Voldemort - without  Harry battling him. 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Oh! Oh! Your yahoo name fits you! You are Dumbledore! What is it to 
> you if countless others suffer so long as Harry is happy and safe? 
> <eg> 

Alla:

If the only way of those countless others not to suffer means WW 
putting all their hopes in one boy and depending on him to save them 
and , then you are actually absolutely right, I could care less about 
saving WW even if the price is the life of **only** one boy.

Although I seem to remember that Dumbledore quite merrily went along 
to sacrificing this one boy to see that those others not suffer. So, 
I think we do differ with him here.

Again, this boy sufferings and heroism makes for amazing story, but 
that makes me so very disgusted with WW, including DD yes.

 
Potioncat:
> DD seems to have believed the prophecy himself, because many of the 
> actions he took seemed to be to help it along. I think his actions--
> separate from Snape's or in addition to Snape's--nudged it into 
> fruition.

Alla:

I cannot quite figure out if he believed the prophecy or not,  but 
sure, I will agree that his actions in addition to Snape nudged the 
prophecy into fruition.

He seemed quite clear to me when he was saying that Prophecy came 
true because Voldemort believed it, but sure his actions hmmmm make 
one wonder.



 
Potioncat: 
> I'm not sure if we're all comparing apples to orange to bananas or 
if 
> we're the blind men examining an elephant. We're coming at the crux 
> of the matter from very different viewpoints.

Alla:

Sure.

Potioncat:
> Speaking only for me---because even those of us who agree with each 
> other, don't fully agree---Snape's action caused great suffering 
for 
> Harry and caused the death of the Potters. Snape himself would 
agree. 
> That he tried to prevent the consequences, that he atoned for them 
> afterwards, does not change that fact.

Alla:

Yes, Snape's action caused great suffering for Harry and caused death 
of Potters - that is we agree upon. 

Potioncat:
> So, even if you and I agree this much---I don't think changing the 
> one thing will give Harry a happy life. More than that has to 
change 
> or to be different. 

Alla:

I guess I have to give up, because I just do not get how you do not 
think that the dissappearance of one major event would not change 
anything.

It MAY NOT change anything, but I just do not see how you won't 
accept even the possibility of change.

Potioncat:
You gave examples of being happy in war, but in 
> all fairness, you offered people who are not in the war. They live 
> out of the war zone, and their children are not soldiers. 

Alla:

Well, no. I gave examples of marauders first of all. Any indications 
of James having unhappy family life? Or Remus? Besides him being 
werewolf? And the war was already on. As to RL example, that is not 
completely true either - they live in the country which is affected 
by war, at any time, at any place act of terror can happen and does 
happen, at any city, be it their city or anybody else's. They are not 
on the frontlines **right now**, but war can hit home at any time.

And they still live normal life pretty much. They go to work, child 
goes to school, they go out, etc, etc.

Potioncat:
Lily and 
> James had already joined the fray and I don't think having a child 
> would have changed that. <SNIP>

Alla:

Oh? I thought they only went to hiding to protect their child? So why 
do you think they would not have decided to slow down and avoid the 
active fight when Harry was born?

After all presumably that is why Weasleys were not in the first 
order - little kids, no?

JMO,

Alla

 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 25 17:41:17 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:41:17 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsb8bj+112p2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbdft+pfuq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182257

 
> Montavilla47:
> 
> A minor quibble, Magpie.  It's logical to think that the Horcruxes
> acted like the lives of a cat, so that if Voldemort had made six
> of them, you simply had to kill him seven times.  But it doesn't
> actually seem to work like that.  When Voldemort was killed
> the first time (by the rebounding AK), it didn't seem to affect
> the Horcruxes then in existence.  None of them became less 
> evil or powerful or... went dead like a broken lightbulb.  
> 
> So, I don't think it just a matter of killing him. As long as he
> had any Horcruxes working, he'd come back. 

Magpie:
Right--I didn't mean that the Horcruxes went dead. They weren't dead 
in DH, but they were still taken out. You just needed to have the 
right weapon. What you're describing is exactly what we have in DH--
Voldemort himself is alive in his body, and then he's got six 
powerful Horcruxes lying around that have to be destroyed and are 
destroyed by regular Wizards. 

Montavilla: 
> Also, both time Voldemort died, it was his own AK that did it.  I 
> wonder, although there's absolutely no canon to back it up, 
> whether an AK fired by just anybody, James Potter say, would 
> have been able to stop Voldemort.  Maybe it would have just
> bounced off, and it was only the self-inflicted AK that could
> get through the protection of the Horcruxes.

Magpie:
I can't see why it wouldn't have worked if the Horcruxes were 
destroyed too. It was the Horcruxes that kept him alive the first 
time, but I don't see any reason he'd have to kill himself with an 
AK to die. I think that just happened because JKR didn't want Harry 
to actually cast the AK at him, and because of the specific 
situation there Voldemort's curse would rebound. 

Philip:
Dumbledore here reveals that the great power of Harry is to resist 
the power of Voldemort. In DH we see Ron attempting to kill a 
Hocrux. Without Harry, who has no trouble facing one on his own in 
CoS, I doubt he would have managed to stab it. We aren't 
discussing `Gryff-ness', more purity and selflessness.

Magpie:
Yes, but first all the stuff about Harry being so incredibly full of 
love or more pure or selfless than everybody else is frankly just 
bs. He's a great kid at 11, but so are other kids, who could also be 
more selfless. (I'm not sure what "pure" means in this context, but 
I'm sure they could be that too). I would say Neville Longbottom, 
for instance, has him beat in all those areas.

The locket, as far as we know, is the only Horcrux that pulled 
anything like what happened with Ron, and it still wasn't something 
that no other teenager would have been able to withstand. Ron's 
particulary insecure in himself and was vulnerable to it, but could 
do it with a little encouragement from someone else. I think plenty 
of other kids would have been able to do it as well. 

Philip:
It's for this reason that I don't think you can automatically assume 
that the Order could have done the task that Harry was set to do. 
Also you gloss over the fact that it was Harry, through his unique 
connection and understanding of Riddle, which allowed him to work 
out where the Horcuxes were.

Magpie:
It's true we can't assume anything, but given the situation as it 
was I see no reason to think the Order--or others--couldn't have 
done what Harry did. Harry was certainly lucky to have Voldemort-
vision to tell him where the Horcruxes were, but Harry was also 
particularly unsuited to do the task any other way. He's mostly 
sitting around waiting for it to come to him.The main time Harry 
actually comes up with a logical deduction is when he looks in the 
LeStrange vault--which is good thinking, but also thinking that 
another person might have done. Harry's main strength was that he 
was written in such a way that he had to find them all, which often 
came down to luck and authorial manipulation. That's why Harry is 
sometimes far behind the average reader in figuring out where the 
Horcruxes are, even when he's using similar deductive reasoning. 
("Where have I seen a locket/tiara before...?")

-m

-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar 25 18:33:59 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:33:59 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbaf5+r9ss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbgin+mpe7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182258


> > > Alla:
> > snip
> > > And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
> > > somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
> > > matter how  many years it takes and then somebody finish off 
> > Voldemort - without  Harry battling him. 
> > 
> > 
> > Potioncat:
> > Oh! Oh! Your yahoo name fits you! You are Dumbledore! What is it
to  you if countless others suffer so long as Harry is happy and safe? 
> > <eg> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> If the only way of those countless others not to suffer means WW 
> putting all their hopes in one boy and depending on him to save them 
> and , then you are actually absolutely right, I could care less
about  saving WW even if the price is the life of **only** one boy.

Pippin:
Oh! Oh! It's more like Snape <veg> -- It's nothing to her if countless
others die, as long as Dumbledore does all he can to  save the one she
loves.

Dumbledore said that was "disgusting"  <vveg>. 

But I think Alla is vastly overestimating the odds of the Potters'
survival.

Odds of surviving being identified as part of the prophecy
3:1

Odds of surviving being identified in Moody's photograph
1:7

Basically, being in the Order was like seven people playing Russian
Roulette, only with six bullets in the revolver. 


> Potioncat:
> > DD seems to have believed the prophecy himself, because many of
the  actions he took seemed to be to help it along. I think his
actions-- separate from Snape's or in addition to Snape's--nudged it
into  fruition.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I cannot quite figure out if he believed the prophecy or not,  but 
> sure, I will agree that his actions in addition to Snape nudged the 
> prophecy into fruition.
> 
> He seemed quite clear to me when he was saying that Prophecy came 
> true because Voldemort believed it, but sure his actions hmmmm make 
> one wonder.
> 

Pippin:
I had a light bulb moment thinking about the inscriptions on the
tombstones. They're *prophecies* ! Something to think about,
especially since Dumbledore is the most likely person to have chosen
them. 

In Greek myths, prophecies always come true. But in  one of the most
famous  stories in the Bible, a prophecy *doesn't* come true. Jonah
predicts the fall of Ninevah within forty days. But the King of
Ninevah orders his people to repent, and the city is spared. 

Biblical prophecies are seen as calls to hope and redemption rather
than predictions of certain doom. That might shed some light on why
Dumbledore did not try to prevent the prophecy from reaching
Voldemort.  Voldemort could have repented like the King of Ninevah,
and turned himself and his people from their ways. Of course Voldemort
did not repent. But Snape did. 

It makes me wonder, suppose Harry had told Ron and Hermione about the
second prophecy. If Peter Pettigrew had been warned that his return
would bring Voldemort back to power, would he still have gone back?

> 
> Alla:
> 
> I guess I have to give up, because I just do not get how you do not 
> think that the dissappearance of one major event would not change 
> anything.

Pippin:
To me, it is like saying Anne Frank would have had a happy life if it
weren't for the people who arrested her.  She would still have been
betrayed, and most likely she still would have died in the camps, and
even if she had lived, she still would have suffered terrible losses
in the war. 


Pippin
 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 18:56:51 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:56:51 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbgin+mpe7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbhtj+tftq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182259

Alla:
>
> If the only way of those countless others not to suffer means WW
> putting all their hopes in one boy and depending on him to save them
> and , then you are actually absolutely right, I could care less
about saving WW even if the price is the life of **only** one boy.

Pippin:
Oh! Oh! It's more like Snape <veg> -- It's nothing to her if countless
others die, as long as Dumbledore does all he can to save the one she
loves.

Dumbledore said that was "disgusting" <vveg>

Alla:

Really?  I thought it was nothing to Snape if baby and husband of 
woman he loves will die even if he will be the catalyst of their 
death. I know you are joking (or are you?) but I do not believe that 
saying that WW should do something to help Harry and being disgusted 
if they are not equals this in any way shape or form.

So, yeah, I agree what Snape did was disgusting. Turns out he quite 
happily could stomach baby's dying after all.

Pippin:
But I think Alla is vastly overestimating the odds of the Potters'
survival.

Odds of surviving being identified as part of the prophecy
3:1

Odds of surviving being identified in Moody's photograph
1:7

Basically, being in the Order was like seven people playing Russian
Roulette, only with six bullets in the revolver.

Alla:

Alla thinks again that she is not underestimating or overestimating 
anything. I think that the odds of Potters' survival EXISTED without 
Snape interference and NOT existed with his interference, if nothing 
else would have changed, as simple as that. I am not concerned with 
the numeric figures, although I thought it goes without saying that I 
do not count Harry as surviving the GH. Meaning that he could never 
be just Harry any more. Prophecy affected him and changed his life. I 
think I would say odds of survival are 3:0 ( metaphorically) and 4:7 
( is the number of original order members 7? ? did not check, but I 
thought it was more), since I am totally counting those who survived 
first war.


Pippin:
<SNIP>
Biblical prophecies are seen as calls to hope and redemption rather
than predictions of certain doom. That might shed some light on why
Dumbledore did not try to prevent the prophecy from reaching
Voldemort. Voldemort could have repented like the King of Ninevah,
and turned himself and his people from their ways. Of course Voldemort
did not repent. But Snape did. <SNIP>

Alla:

I think you may be off to something here, I can totally see 
Dumbledore thinking it, although that was IMO silly of him to think. 
But I see the rationale.

JMO,

Alla





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 19:07:54 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:07:54 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbdft+pfuq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbiia+l8n3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182260

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Montavilla47:
> > 
> > A minor quibble, Magpie.  It's logical to think that the Horcruxes
> > acted like the lives of a cat, so that if Voldemort had made six
> > of them, you simply had to kill him seven times.  But it doesn't
> > actually seem to work like that.  When Voldemort was killed
> > the first time (by the rebounding AK), it didn't seem to affect
> > the Horcruxes then in existence.  None of them became less 
> > evil or powerful or... went dead like a broken lightbulb.  
> > 
> > So, I don't think it just a matter of killing him. As long as he
> > had any Horcruxes working, he'd come back. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Right--I didn't mean that the Horcruxes went dead. They weren't dead 
> in DH, but they were still taken out. You just needed to have the 
> right weapon. What you're describing is exactly what we have in DH--
> Voldemort himself is alive in his body, and then he's got six 
> powerful Horcruxes lying around that have to be destroyed and are 
> destroyed by regular Wizards. 
> 
> Montavilla: 
> > Also, both time Voldemort died, it was his own AK that did it.  I 
> > wonder, although there's absolutely no canon to back it up, 
> > whether an AK fired by just anybody, James Potter say, would 
> > have been able to stop Voldemort.  Maybe it would have just
> > bounced off, and it was only the self-inflicted AK that could
> > get through the protection of the Horcruxes.
> 
> Magpie:
> I can't see why it wouldn't have worked if the Horcruxes were 
> destroyed too. It was the Horcruxes that kept him alive the first 
> time, but I don't see any reason he'd have to kill himself with an 
> AK to die. I think that just happened because JKR didn't want Harry 
> to actually cast the AK at him, and because of the specific 
> situation there Voldemort's curse would rebound. 

Montavilla47:

I wasn't clear enough.  I didn't mean the AK bouncing off him in
the final confrontation.  I think you're correct that at that point,
anyone who got past his dueling skills could have AK'd him.  
(Although, if there's no blocking the AK, what do dueling skills
have to do with anything?  He would have to dance around and 
dodge it like Ginny with Amycus.)

I meant before the Horcruxes were destroyed.  Again, it's never
stated.  In fact, it's avoided in the book.  But isn't the whole 
point of the Horcruxes that you don't die?  I'm thinking that 
Voldemort, being oh so powerful and evil, vaporized himself
because his AK is just that much more so than someone else's
AK.  

But, if James had AKed LV that night in GH, it wouldn't have
hurt him.  Certainly, no one would have blamed James--or
anyone else--for using that curse on Voldemort, right?  So
why not try it (other than the lack of a wand)?  

Again, pure speculation.  There's nothing in the books to
indicate that anyone ever tried *any* spell to stop Voldemort.


> 
> Philip:
> Dumbledore here reveals that the great power of Harry is to resist 
> the power of Voldemort. In DH we see Ron attempting to kill a 
> Hocrux. Without Harry, who has no trouble facing one on his own in 
> CoS, I doubt he would have managed to stab it. We aren't 
> discussing `Gryff-ness', more purity and selflessness.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes, but first all the stuff about Harry being so incredibly full of 
> love or more pure or selfless than everybody else is frankly just 
> bs. He's a great kid at 11, but so are other kids, who could also be 
> more selfless. (I'm not sure what "pure" means in this context, but 
> I'm sure they could be that too). I would say Neville Longbottom, 
> for instance, has him beat in all those areas.
> 

Montavilla47:

This is only tangentially related, but it seemed to me that JKR was
trying to say that evil overlords such as Voldemort (and their real
life counterparts) inevitably sow the seeds of their nemesis by 
oppressing others.  Like, although you can't really point to a single
evil overlord in the Old South, the oppression of slavery created
Nat Turner. 

In which case, if Voldemort hadn't chosen Harry, then it the 
Prophecy Boy might well have been Neville.  I actually think it 
would have been cool if the Prophecy had turned out to be 
Neville all along.  JKR *almost* went there and that's one of the 
things I actually liked about the books.  (I have yet to hear 
seriously anyone diss on Neville as he was in the last book.
The one thing that people seem to agree on is that he was
awesome.)

Another cool thing is that, when you do a count of the 
Horcruxes and their destruction, it wasn't all Harry's doing.

1. Diary: Harry, in the chamber, with the basilisk fang.
2. Ring: Dumbledore, in the office, with the sword of Gryffindor
3. Locket: Ron, in the woods, with the sword of Gryffindor
4. Cup: Hermione, in the chamber, with the basilisk fang.
5. Tiara: Crabbe, in the Room of Requirement, with fiend fyre.
6: Nagini: Neville, in the courtyard, with the sword of Gryffindor.
7: Harry: Voldemort, in the woods, with the Elder Wand.

We ought to create a Horcrux Clue game....

Which of these could *only* have been destroyed by Harry?
Which of these could *only* have been found by Harry?

None really.  After all, a Dumbledore who put more trust
in his followers, might have inspired enough trust in Slughorn
to reveal the vital information about Horcruxes.  After 
reading DH, can we really blame Slughorn for not confiding
in Dumbledore?







From CatMcNulty at comcast.net  Tue Mar 25 14:08:03 2008
From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (Cat)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:08:03 -0000
Subject: Depression in HP characters?
In-Reply-To: <fsa3hg+3eb9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsb103+t1o5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182261

Aussie wrote:
> I just saw a news article about JKR being so depressed before
> starting to write HP that she was contemplating suicide.
<snip link>
> Jo has brought other things into Potterworld as instructional to
> teens. Have we also seen those in serious depression and fighting
> to get out of it?
>
> Not just Filch regretting punishments weren't like the good old
> days, nor Moaning Murtle who is not in the right state to accually
> overcome any depressed feelings ...
>
> Ginny when she was loosing hours out her day during COS - you
> wouldn't say actually suicidal, but she put herself down alot.
>
> What / who can you think of?


This bout of depression is not new news. It not only happened a long
time ago but, it was revealed a long time ago. But Jo definitely got
herself out, learned from the experience and then was able to utilize
that experience in her writing in a positive way.

For example: Probably the most depressing characters in the whole
series is the Dementors. Not only do they have a nasty
disposition themselves but they cause despair wherever they go.
JKR even admits in a long past interview (I can't put my hands on at the moment) that her experience with depression was the inspiration
behind the creation of the Dementors.

It is quite common and necessary for a writer to utilize their own
experiences in creating believable fiction.

Also, another character that plays on another's fear and insecurity
(depressive thoughts do tend to exaggerate problems and fears)...the
Boggarts.

Boggarts don't just force you to remember your worst experiences in
life, they become your worst fear.

Just my 2 cents!
Cat




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 19:23:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:23:46 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsao2a+tu4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbjg2+302r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182262

Carol earlier:
> > And I submit that those people were killed before the Potters but
after the Prophecy was known. All of the people named, including the
Potters, were killed within a short time after the photograph was
taken, and the Prophecy had been revealed considerably more than >
fifteen months before the Potters' deaths. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Not that I think it matters, I mean Voldemort kept killing other 
people till he gathered the knowledge of how to kill prophecy couple,
so what? Does not mean IMO that prophecy couple was not his favorite
target, but I do not think we can say with certainty that photograph 
> was taken after prophecy was already made.
> 
> I would think Potters would not have been on photograph and in
hiding then.

Carol responds:
As I understand it, the photograph was taken shortly before the
Potters went into hiding. Needless to say, all of the people I listed
were killed after the photograph was taken, some of them only two
weeks later. And the McKinnons, as we know from DH, were killed
*while* the Potters were in hiding. Voldemort did not stop killing
people to concentrate on the Potters. In fact, had it not been for
Peter Pettigrew, he could not have found the Potters to kill them. So,
meanwhile, he concentrated on other people who were threatening his
regime. Even if they couldn't kill him because of the Horcruxes, they
could kill his followers, and Voldemort wanted no opposition. Note
that after he was restored to his body, he kept on killing people who
had nothing to do with Harry, including the Muggle Frank Bryce, the
innocent Cedric, who was merely in his way (I know that technically,
Wormtail killed Cedric, but it was on LV's orders), and the now
useless Bertha Jorkins (who was probably fed to Nagini). He killed
Dorcas Meadowes personally, just as, much later, he killed Amelia
Bones personally. Voldemort had many reasons for killing people, and
he obviously wanted the Order members out of the way both before and
after he learned about the Prophecy. He was still killing Order
members as of HBP (Emmeline Vance) and he also, of course, wanted
Dumbledore ("the only one he ever feared") dead. Harry was by no means
his only target or the only obstacle to Voldemort's reign. Had he
remained in hiding (no Pettigrew), Voldemort would have kept on
killing until Harry emerged to go to Hogwarts, at which time he could
act to thwart the Prophecy (and succeed in doing so if Lily wasn't
present or wasn't given a chance to live). Notice that Voldemort
doesn't stop killing when he's obsessed with the Elder Wand or when
he's ordered Draco to kill dumbledore. The only reason he stops
killing in OoP is that he's keeping his return a secret until he hears
the Prophecy. When that plan fails and he's seen by Fudge and the
Aurors, it's back to murder and mayhem, some of it systematic (killing
Order members and important opponents like Amelia Bones is strategic;
even destroying the Muggle bridge results from a threat to Fudge (turn
over the Ministry to me or I'll kill a bunch of Muggles). Voldemort's
goal is not merely to destroy the Chosen One. He wants to take over
the Ministry and Hogwarts, and he'll kill anyone who gets in his way
or presents a threat of any kind.
> 
> Carol:
> <SNIP>
> ( Why should the Potters do better than the Prewitt
> > brothers, who between them took five DEs to kill?
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Because I do not remember reading that they defied Voldemort three 
> times, that's why.

Carol:
You know, I wonder about that "defied [Voldemort] three times"
business. What does it mean? The Longbottoms also defied Voldemort
three times, yet they were Crucio'd into insanity by four Death
Eaters, one of them a boy of nineteen. And Frank was an Auror, too, so
you'd think that he had defied Voldemort more than three times. (So
was Alice, if we take OoP rather than GoF as our authority.) *All* of
the Order members defied Voldemort at least once simply by joining the
Order. And whatever they did for the Order was also a form of
defiance. I think that James, at least, defied Voldemort by refusing
to become a Death Eater. Possibly, the Longbottoms, both Pure-Bloods,
were given the same choice. Certainly, their defiance did not consist
of fighting Voldemort face to face. Not being "the Chosen One," they
would have died in the attempt. Dumbledore is the only Wizard who can
out-duel Voldemort (and could have killed him if he hadn't had a
number of reasons not to do so. Maybe Grindelwald, armed with the
Elder Wand, could have done so if he hadn't been in Nurmengard, but no
one else could). I do wish that James hadn't been wandless in DH, but
even if he'd had a wand, he would have died. Voldemort would have
known the spell he intended to cast before he cast it. (Harry, of
course, defeats Voldemort, but not through skill or power.)
> 
> Carol earlier: 
> > You don't seem to understand that Voldemort was to all intents and
purposes immortal because of the Horcruxes. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yeah, I do. I also understand that all it takes to destroy him is to
destroy his horcruxes one by one and teenagers seem to do quite well.
**Teenagers** and two of who, were without any special abilities. 

Carol responds:
No special abilities? Maybe not, but Ron won the right to use the
Sword of Gryffindor through his courage and chivalry in a time of
need, and his ability to mimic the word "open" in Parseltongue enabled
him and Hermione to enter the CoS and destroy the cup with a Basilisk
fang. And Hermione's book knowledge kept them alive when grown Wizards
(and Goblins) were being killed. They survived but Dirk Cresswell and
Ted Tonks and Gornuk didn't. And had it not been for Harry's scar
link, they wouldn't have found the Ravenclaw Horcrux or known that LV
knew that his Horcruxes were being found. Not to mention that only
Harry could get the memory from Slughorn that informed DD how many
Horcruxes there were; only Harry could speak Parseltongue to open the
CoS and destroy the diary; only Harry could persuade Helena Raenclaw
to tell the story of the diadem; only Harry could open the locket
Horcrux so that Ron could destroy it.

Alla:
> Just imagine Dumbledore telling order members what the things are
and sending them to find those things. I sincerely doubt for example
that Arthur Weasley would have been considered less true Gryff than
his son. <snip>

Carol responds:

But he wouldn't have had the Sword of Gryffindor, which comes to a
"true Gryffindor" (other than its owner, DD) only under conditions of
peril and need. the Sword could not have been used to destroy
Horcruxes had Harry nof first killed the Basilisk with it. DD didn't
know what the Ravenclaw Horcrux was or where to look for it. And he
couldn't have taken a grown Order member with him in the boat to find
the fake locket Horcrux because the boat was designed to carry one
Wizard and one person or creature whose powers wouldn't register (so
that someone other than Voldemort would be foreced to drink the
potion). "One alone could not have done it," says Dumbledore, and two
Wizards could not ride in the boat unless one was underage. And,
surely, Dumbledore would not have expected another Order member to
drink the potion, even if they were skilled enough to figure out how
to get in. (As I said before, Reggie didn't figure it out. Kreacher
remembered how to get in.)

So, we would need for Dumbledore to find the Chamber of Secrets
himself and get inside it to destroy the Basilisk with the Sword of
Gryffindor, which would then have the power to destroy Horcruxes. But
he would also have to destroy the diary, whose existence he didn't
know about, realizing that it was a Horcrux. Then he could find the
ring Horcrux and destroy it himself, having the sense not to put it
on! And he would have needed a House-Elf to go with him to the cave
and get him home after he had drunk the potion (unlike LV, DD would
not have made the House-Elf do it). Without Snape, I'm not sure that
DD could have been saved from that little adventure. If he survived,
he would still have needed an Order member to find the real locket.
Perhaps it would still be at 12 GP, but they wouldn't have been able
to destroy it without opening it, which could only be done by a
Parselmouth. And the moment that the cup was stolen, if it could be
done under circumstances other than the ones in DH, Voldemort would
have been alerted to the theft of his Horcruxes, exactly as he was in
DH. In any case, he wold not have been off hunting for the Elder Wand
to kill the chosen One. He would have been concentrating on taking
over the MoM, Hogwarts, and the British WW.

And so on. In the unlikely event that the Order members found and
destroyed all six Horcruxes, including Nagini, that would only make
Voldemort mortal. It wouldn't take away his extraordinary powers. It
took Harry's act of self-sacrifice (and his mastery of the Elder Wand)
to do that. Unless you think that someone could sneak up on Voldemort
in his sleep and kill him. I don't think that Voldemort sleeps, myself.

Alla:
> 
> I am snipping your explanation of why Dumbledore cannot learn 
> Parseltongue just to say that sure, it is a nice speculation, but we 
> do not know any of it. We do not know that Parseltongue cannot be 
> learned, for all I know it is language same as for example Mermish, 
> which by the way we know that Dumbledore speaks. He is very gifted 
> and why he cannot speak Parseltongue, I am not sure.
> 
> **Harry** knows it from soul bit, how does it follow that nobody
else can learn it, I do not know.

Carol responds:
The only other known Parselmouths in the books are the descendants of
Salazar Slytherin. (I speculate that Salazar was himself a descendant
of Herpo the Foul, a Parselmouth who bred the first Basilisk,
according to FB.) No one taught the half-witted Gaunt children to
speak Parseltongue. Like their father and Merope's son, they were born
with that ability. (Which leads me to wonder why no Heir of Slytherin
appeared in previous generations. Did the gene for Parseltongue skip
some fifty generations, or did his descendants stop attending Hogwarts
 after he left or did they conceal their ability to speak it to
conceal their connection with him? The Peverells, who surely attended
Hogwarts, wouldn't have spoken Parseltongue; Antioch or one of his
descendants must have married into the Gaunt line. Ugh.)
> 
Alla:
> > > So, yeah, I think somebody could do it, I really do not think 
> that it matters who. IMO.

Carol responds:
Parseltongue is a very rare gift. None of the Order members spoke it,
and without that gift, neither the diary nor the locket have been
destroyed.

Alla:
> 
> LOL. Of course there is a chosen one to rely upon in the scenario
that went in the story. I am talking about lazy WW and Dumbledore NOT
having the Chosen one and his special powers to rely upon. <snip>

Carol responds:
It's not just that the WW is lazy. Very few Wizards, not even the
clever and powerful Snape or the equally clever and powerful James
Potter, or Barty Crouch Sr. or Rufus Scrimgeour or Mad-eye Moody or
Amelia Bones or any others who seem especially gifted, can match
Voldemort, the Horcrux-maker who has also performed other great feats
of Dark magic (most of which, unfortunately, we're not privy to, but
including the invention of that resurrection potion and its evil
incantation). He's the greatest Legilimens who ever lived (matched
perhaps by DD and "hoodwinked" by Snape, the superb Occlumens, but no
one else can withstand his Legilimency). I agree that the WW is
pathetic and their government corrupt, but even Barty Sr.'s stringent
punishments for DEs couldn't defeat LV. It took ancient magic and a
series of choices with unintended consequences to bring him down the
first time, and the combination of DD's sleuthing and mentoring,
Harry's scar connection and ability to speak Parseltongue (not to
mention his luck and his friends and his courage), and Snape's
involvement from start to finish (there would have been no Chosen One
and no self-sacrifice on Harry's part without him) to defeat LV.

It's not just laziness or incompetence or reliance on DD, the man who
defeated Grindelwald to help them deal with LV. Quite simply, they
*can't* defeat him. Vaporize him and he'll keep coming back until the
Horcruxes are destroyed. Destroy the Horcruxes, if that's possible
without a scar connection and the ability to speak Parseltongue, and
you still have to fight LV himself, who can only be defeated because
Harry's self-sacrifice takes away his powers.

Alla:
> And nothing convinces me that horcruxes cannot be destroyed by 
somebody else. I say Several people would destroy horcruxes, no 
matter how many years it takes and then somebody finish off Voldemort
- without Harry battling him. 

Carol:
I don't think that's possible. For one thing, the diary wasn't even
supposed to be given to a Hogwarts student until Voldemort gave the
word, so DD had no way of knowing of its existence. He also had no way
without Harry's getting Slughorn's memory of knowing how many
Horcruxes there were. And anyone who fought Voldemort without that
drop of blood and the soul bit in a scar would not have survived.
Harry was the only one who could fight him without fighting (sacrifice
himself, return from what ought to have been death, and win the battle
against him with Expelliarmus).

At any rate, I've given my arguments as to why I don't think that
anyone, even Dumbledore with the help of the Order members, could have
found and destroyed all the Horcruxes. I've also stated that the
Voldie War would have gone on without interruption until the Order
members, Potters and all, were killed off and oldie was in control of
the WW. And I've pointed out that just destroying the Horcruxes merely
makes Voldemort mortal. It doesn't kill him. Possibly a skilled Wizard
like Dumbledore or Grindelwald armed with the Elder Wand could have
done it (heaven help the WW if Grindelwald had defeated both DD and
LV!) or a chosen One with the power of love and self-sacrifice (and a
soul bit and a drop of shared blood and the master of the Elder Wand
and the courage to use Expelliarmus instead of AK) could have done it.

Carol, convinced that without Harry as the Chosen One, LV would have
been unstoppable even by Dumbledore, who merely delayed his takeover
of Hogwarts and made it possible for *Harry* to defeat him




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 19:50:12 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:50:12 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsatdk+ibtv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbl1k+ugq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182263


> > Alla: 
> > YES, thank you, that's the one. Sure Dumbledore never says that he
understands Parseltongue and still that was my impression that he
understands it. Can what you describing be true? Of course, but I 
submit that there is nothing in the text to negate my speculation.
> 
> Potioncat:
> I'll vote with you on this one. DD makes a comment that I can't
quite recall--about even some who speak Parseltongue are good and
brave--that makes me think even more that he spoke it. <snip>

Carol responds:

Dumbledore boast of his own intellect, but never of his goodness
(unless you count "It's my mercy that matters now") or his courage. I
think he was referring to Harry. Surely, if he spoke Parseltongue, he
would have found the chamber of Secrets and killed the Basilisk long
before CoS. He knew who had opened it, after all. And once it was
reopened, he had to rely on Harry to open it. That or close the school
or risk having students killed rather than merely Petrified. As I
said, Professor Binns says that "the school has been searched for
evidence of such a chamber, many times, by the most learned witches
and wizards" (CoS Am. ed. 151). Surely, Dumbledore, who must have
known what was in the chamber as well as who opened it, was one of
those learned wizards. And if that's not sufficient, he adds, "If a
long succession of Hogwarts headmasters and headmistresses haven't
found the thing--" followed by, "I repeat, if the likes of
Dumbledore--" (152), which states clearly that DD tried and filed to
find the Chamber. (The kids point out that if only the Heir of
Slytherin is supposed to be able to open the Chamber, DD couldn't do
it; they don't yet know that the Heir would speak Parseltongue, which
would be the proof of his ancestry, but they're on the right track.
Harry, of course, is not the Heir of Slytherin, but he has the soul
bit in him, giving him the same power as the Heir himself. As for
Ginny, she only speaks Parseltongue when she's possessed. She never
actually learns it.)At any rate, if DD spoke Parseltongue, surely he
would not be among those headmasters and other gifted Wizards who
sought for and failed to find the CoS. He needs *Harry* to do it. He
provides what means he can for Harry's success and survival,
including, presumably, orders to Fawkes to deliver the Sorting Hat
(with the Sword inside it) when a Gryffindor in peril expresses
loyalty to DD, but that's all he can do. That and arranging for Sprout
to grow the Mandrakes and Snape to prepare a restorative potion to be
administered by Madam Pomfrey when the Mandrakes are ready. 

Carol, who thinks that canon shows as early as CoS that DD does not
speak Parseltongue (he, like Snape and even twelve-year-old Ron,
recognizes it when it's spoken, but nothing more)




From leahstill at hotmail.com  Tue Mar 25 20:16:40 2008
From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:16:40 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbhtj+tftq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbmj8+qftk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182264

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>> 
> Alla:
> 
> Really?  I thought it was nothing to Snape if baby and husband of 
> woman he loves will die even if he will be the catalyst of their 
> death. I know you are joking (or are you?) but I do not believe 
that 
> saying that WW should do something to help Harry and being 
disgusted 
> if they are not equals this in any way shape or form.
> 
> So, yeah, I agree what Snape did was disgusting. Turns out he 
quite 
> happily could stomach baby's dying after all.
>

Leah: Just for the record, at no time does Snape ask *DD* just to 
save Lily.  He tells DD that Voldemort believes the prophecy to 
refer to Lily Evans, or rather her child, and ends by saying that 
Voldemort intends to 'kill them all'.   It is DD who then asks why 
Snape has not asked Voldemort to spare Lily, and Snape of course 
says he already has done.  It is that which 'disgusts' DD (and he is 
a fine one to talk). From what Voldemort says in DH, Snape 
presumably asks for Lily as the object of his desire, which would be 
the one convincing reason for a DE asking for the life of a 
muggleborn.   I can not think of any way in which Snape could 
convincingly have asked Voldemort for the lives of James and Harry 
(the prophecy child himself) without getting himself AK'd and 
sealing Lily's fate.  After DD does the 'disgusted' bit, Snape 
says, 'Save them all'.  

Leah 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 20:50:21 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:50:21 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbaf5+r9ss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsboie+o93b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182265

Alla wrote:
> <snip>
> Well, no. I gave examples of marauders first of all. Any indications 
> of James having unhappy family life? Or Remus? Besides him being 
> werewolf? And the war was already on. As to RL example, that is not 
> completely true either - they live in the country which is affected 
> by war, at any time, at any place act of terror can happen and does 
> happen, at any city, be it their city or anybody else's. They are not 
> on the frontlines **right now**, but war can hit home at any time.
> 
> And they still live normal life pretty much. They go to work, child 
> goes to school, they go out, etc, etc.

Carol responds:
The kids at Hogwarts in VW1 are safe at school (and Muggle-borns can
still attend) for one readon only: Dumbledore, the only one that
Voldemort ever feared. Outside of Hogwarts, Pure-Bloods like Sirius
and James are probably perfectly safe unless they or their parents
openly resist Voldemort. Meanwhile, he's picking off the Order members
one by one, but that's of no concern to the Marauders, who seem to
care only about running with a werewolf on full-moon nights. Remus, we
can be sure, was neither happy nor particularly safe outside Hogwarts.
 His only protection would be LV's wish to have the werewolves on his
side. And who kows? Maybe Peter as a Muggle-born felt himself in
danger outside Hogwarts. Maybe that, as well as the awareness that LV
was the biggest bully on the playground and far more powerful than
James Potter, caused him to go over.

We *know* that life outside Hogwarts was not enjoyable for most of the
WW during VW1. The Order members were being picked off one by one, the
DEs were killing people and leaving the Dark Mark above their houses.
No one trusted anyone outside their immediate families. (The
Marauders, it seems, didn't even trust Dumbledore to be their Secret
Keeper, a mistake if they wanted to survive! OTOH, the Prophecy
wouldn't have been fulfilled if they'd made him their SK, so the
Voldie War would have continued unabated.) Once the Potters joined the
Order, opposing Voldemort by that very action, their lives became much
more dangerous. The same is true for Lupin, Black, and the cowardly
Pettigrew, who, unlike the others, didn't enjoy risking his own life
(though he didn't mind risking the lives of others, whether it was the
people of Hogsmeade or his own dear friends, Lily and James and their
child).

Very few people (DD, the Order, a few Ministry employees) were
opposing Voldemort. He was using Inferi and Fenrir Greyback and
giants, and he had more DEs then than later. The WW was not a safe or
enjoyable place. We get a glimpse of what it was like in HBP, when LV
is returning to power and Hannah Abbott's mother is murdered, along
with Emmeline Vance and Amelia Bones, and the Montague sisters'
five-year-old brother is killed by Fenrir Greyback.

All that it took to go from that point to the conditions of DH was the
death of Dumbledore. Had Snape been a loyal DE and Harry not had the
power to defeat the Dark Lord, conditions would quickly have
degenerated, with a complete and permanent takeover by LV of the
British WW, and, from there, the European WW. (Granted, he wasn't as
brilliant as Grindelwald, but that didn't matter. With DD out of the
way and no Harry destroying his Horcruxes, not to mention weakening
him through the power of his self-sacrifice, the WW would be doomed to
misery.)

Take the years before Godric's Hollow and then skip to HBP and DH.
That's what happens if there's no Vapor!mort, no fourteen-year
respite, and no Dumbledore, who cannot win the battle against
Voldemort; he can only prolong it and protect the students at Hogwarts
while he lives.

I'm leaving Snape out of the equation because I want to focus on LV
and Harry, but, of course, if there had been no eavesdropper, there
would have been no Godric's Hollow, and if the eavesdropper hadn't
been Snape, there would have been no chance for Lily to live and no
rebounded AK, no scar, and no blood protection. So Snape is
inextricably tied into the story of the Chosen One. But my point is
that no one but the Chosen One, with Harry's peculiar insight into
LV's mind and so on, could have defeated Voldemort. 

Harry's life as an ordinary Wizarding boy whose parents were risking
their lives fighting LV and the Death Eaters *might* have been more
enjoyable than it was at the Dursleys', but given the risks that they
were taking, the likelihood that their best friend, Sirius Black,
would be killed fighting the DEs, and the likelihood that their other
best friend, Peter Pettigrew, would betray their whereabouts if for
some reason they went into hiding (he was giving information on the
Order members for a year before Godric's Hollow0, the chances of a
happy, normal childhood seem slim and the chances of a victory against
Voldemort completely nil.

Carol, apologizing for being stuck in a rut but utterly convinced that
normal life in the WW under Voldemort was simply impossible outside
the protection of Hogwarts with Dumbledore in charge






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 21:17:50 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:17:50 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbdft+pfuq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbq5v+fofm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182266

> Magpie:
> Right--I didn't mean that the Horcruxes went dead. They weren't dead 
> in DH, but they were still taken out. You just needed to have the 
> right weapon. What you're describing is exactly what we have in DH--
> Voldemort himself is alive in his body, and then he's got six 
> powerful Horcruxes lying around that have to be destroyed and are 
> destroyed by regular Wizards. 

Carol responds:
Ron and for that matter, DD, have access to a Sword of Gryffindor
steeped in Basilisk venom because of Harry. Ron and hermione can enter
the Chamber of Secrets and use a Basilisk fang to destroy the cup
Horcrux because of Harry. Dumbledore retrieves the fake Horcrux
because he's with Harry (he would have died in the attempt if he'd
been alone). Crabbe is in the RoR (and accidentally destroys the tiara
with Fiend-Fyre) because he's following Harry, the only person besides
Tom Riddle who has found out what happened to the diadem. HRH can only
enter the vault where the cup is because Harry has seized Bellatrix's
wand and because Griphook wants the Sword of Gryffindor, which belongs
to Harry, despite having been used by Ron to destroy the locket
Horcrux. And if Kreacher hadn't been willed to Harry and Harry hadn't
caught Mundungus trying to get away with "nicking Sirius's stuff,"
they wouldn't have found the real locket, either.

The "ordinary" wizards, Ron and Hermione, actually accomplish some
extradordinary feats, but they wouldn't be there if it weren't for
their friendship for and loyalty to Harry. And I'm not sure that I'd
call Hermione, "the brightest witch of her age," an "ordinary witch.
Ron, yeah. But I like him all the better for being so normal and
flawed. As for Neville, his courage, confronting Voldemort and killing
Nagini simply because Harry said "Kill the snake" is anything but
ordinary. Nevertheless, had he not been instructed by Harry to kill
Nagini, he would not have done it.

Imagine a Battle of Hogwarts without Harry as the Chosen One. For one
thing, Voldemort would have had a lot more DEs because he wouldn't
have killed some of them in his anger. Bellatrix would have had her
own wand and probably wouldn't have been defeated by Molly. Lucius
would have had his own wand because LV wouldn't have borrowed it to
kill Harry and it wouldn't have been destroyed. Snape would have been
just another DE and DD would have died from the ring Horcrux. Draco
would never have been assigned to kill him because he would already be
dead. He might have been an eager little junior DE like Crabbe but not
so stupid. LV wouldn't have been sidetracked from his takeover by the
Elder Wand because there would have been no Priori Incantatem to make
him think that he needed another wand, which would have remained
buried with Dumbledore. So he would be the master of his own wand and
there would be no self-sacrifice to destroy his powers.

So much for Hogwarts. So much for the WW.

Carol, glad that she doesn't live in any such "normal" world




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 25 21:58:20 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:58:20 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbhtj+tftq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbshs+8duh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182267

Alla:
> 
> Alla thinks again that she is not underestimating or overestimating 
> anything. I think that the odds of Potters' survival EXISTED without 
> Snape interference and NOT existed with his interference, if nothing 
> else would have changed, as simple as that. <snip>

Carol responds:

I think you may be oversimplifying here. Let's say for the sake of
argument that Snape's reporting the partial Prophecy to Voldemort
guarantees that he'll go after either Harry (and/or Neville) while
Harry was still a baby even though, of course, neither Snape nor
Voldemort knew the identity of the as yet unborn child. And let's
suppose that he chooses Harry rather than Neville to go after first.

If the eavesdropper had been anyone but Snape, the Potters--including
Harry--would all have died. But when Snape found out how Voldemort
interpreted the Prophecy and that he intended to kill the Potters,
Snape acted to save Lily, first asking Voldemort to spare her and
actually getting him to agree to do so, and then going to Dumbledore
because he (quite understandably) didn't trust LV to keep his promise.
Snape then agrees to do "anything" if DD will protect "her--them" and
DD attempts to protect the Potters by suggesting the Fidelius Charm.
If they had accepted him as Secret Keeper, they would not have died at
Godric's Hollow and would have had a chance to live in hiding until
Harry was old enough to go to school--not much to James's liking,
apparently--or to come out of hiding and fight (and probably die)
along with the other Order members. But they chose *not* to accept
DD's offer and intended to make Sirius Black their SK instead--a risky
plan, but, still, it might have worked, Snape or no Snape. 

Then Sirius had his brilliant idea for the SK switch, enabling Wortail
to betray the Potters, and *James's* chances for survival became zero.
Even if he'd had his wand with him, he'd have died fighting LV (as LV
leads Harry to think he did). But *Lily* still had a chance because
Snape had asked Voldemort to spare her, and even if she had fought
him, he could have Stunned her and kept his promise, killing Harry and
thwarting the Prophecy as he intended. And *Harry* still had a chance
because, unknown to either Snape or Voldemort, giving Lily the choice
to live (because of Snape) and allowing her to *choose* to die in
Harry's place created a powerful ancient magic that backfired on LV
when he tried to kill Harry.

In short, had anyone other than Snape been the eavesdropper, there
would have been no Fidelius Charm, which could have saved all three
Potters had it not been for the SK switch. And had it not been for
Snape, Lily would not have had the chance to live that made her death
powerfully magical.

So it's not as simple as Snape revealing the Prophecy meaning death
for the Potters. With a different eavesdropper, all three Potters
would have died. With Snape as the repentant eavesdropper, all three
Potters had a chance to live if Peter hadn't been the SK and a
stinking traitor. And even with the SK switch, James was the only
Potter who had no chance of survival. Voldemort could have spared Lily
(who would have been miserable with her husband and child dead but
nevertheless alive). Or he could break his word, giving her the chance
to live as promised and then accepting her offer to "kill me instead,"
meaning to kill both her and Harry, which resulted in the transferred
soul bit and the first steps toward fulfilling the Prophecy.

Now, of course, there might have been no Prophecy or no eavesdropper,
in which case the Potters would not have died at Godric's Hollow. But
they might well have died fighting Voldemort and the DEs, and
Voldemort himself would have gone on with his takeover of the WW,
somewhat hindered by Dumbledore but killing off the Order members one
by one in his inexorable progress toward a full takeover of the WW.

Carol, glad that this is her last post of the day because this thread
is turning into another (nah, I won't mention the topic of that
mercifully defunct thread for fear of resuscitating it!)




From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Mar 25 22:56:07 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:56:07 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fs9etv+d8jg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsbvu7+cpsv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182268


> 
> Julie previously:
> Snape very likely saved Harry and the WW from a terrible fate,
> even if he did so without a shred of noble intent initially.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, I will give you Snape saving WW from a terrible fate **without 
a 
> shred of noble intent initially**. But I am speechless at the 
> assertion of Snape saving Harry from terrible fate by telling the 
> prophecy. Which fate that 
> would be that Snape saved him from? Snape saved him from growing up 
> with loving family possibility ( yes, it is just a possibility, but 
> that is all I am discussing ? possibilities in this thread and no, 
I 
> cannot discount this possibility)

Julie now:
Sorry you're speechless but I clearly outlined my reasons
(now snipped, but repeated by others) why Harry and the WW
would have suffered a terrible fate at Voldemort's takeover,
and why I deduced from the text that takeover was all but
inevitable. And while *terrible* fate might be a bit strong,
but at least in the prophecy-revealed-by-Snape world Harry
does ultimately achieve a happy life. No such likelihood in
a LV-controlled world, methinks.

> 
> Julie earlier:
> He simply didn't have the power to change their ultimate fate.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> LOL. I can give him a hint ? not deliver prophecy to Voldemort and 
> here you go, their fate may have been changed, no prophecy couple, 
no 
> Chosen one.
> 

Julie:
What I meant was that the Potters would have ended up dead
or cruelly subjugated if Voldemort took over the WW, and 
short of something unexpected happening that was exactly
where the war was heading. Snape didn't have the raw power
to change that, even if he'd decided he wanted to (to save
Lily or some such). Not even Dumbledore was slowing Voldy
down in VW1 after all.

To summarize:
Voldy and the DEs were winning the war.

Voldy was picking off the Order members one by one.

Dumbledore had NO idea about the Horcruxes (a fact that
I don't recall seeming mentioned yet) and wouldn't until
and unless Voldy was "killed" by the rebounded AK yet 
didn't fully die. So DD couldn't hunt them if he wasn't
even aware of them. I don't see any reason that he would
have become aware of them by any other manner than Voldy
"dying." Yet no one (perhaps not even Dumbledore) was his
equal in battle and could deliver that killing blow.

SOMETHING unexpected had to happen that would stop Voldy's
inexorable march toward victory. We have no indication of
any possibilities in the wings (like wizards from other
countries joining the war in mass). 

The unexpected did happen of course, thanks to the Prophecy,
and to Snape's actions in revealing it, and also his actions 
AFTERWARD in going to Dumbledore. (Not to mention later 
actions by James, Sirius, Peter, and Lily--and it doesn't
matter whether those actions were intended to help or harm,
they still all affected the outcome).

Again, I don't let Snape off the hook for revealing the 
Prophecy in the first place. He didn't let himself off the
hook either, when he went to Dumbledore and when he continued
to protect Harry at Hogwarts. And those later actions are
mitigating circumstances for me that, while they don't erase
his crime, they do absolve him to a certain degree (not
completely, mind you). I can't say the same for Peter.

I know! IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR SNAPE it wouldn't have happened.
He may have "started" it from a certain POV though one could
argue that Merope started it by tricking Tom Sr, or that 
Dumbledore started it by not reining in the obvious psychopath
student when he had the chance, or by taking a hands-off 
approach to students which allowed them to be influenced by
parents and peers without so much as a single word of 
encouragement toward a better path from the leader of the 
Good Guys. One could go on and on.

But of all of them, only Peter never ONCE acted for the 
good of someone besides himself, and never repented his
evil actions. And the same holds for him as for anyone
involved; the Potters were safe and could have remained
in hiding at least until Voldy won the war and beyond (if
that would have been acceptable to them)IF IT HADN'T
BEEN FOR PETER. If, say, he'd kept his mouth shut, or
someone had accidentally cut off his head or something ;-)

Julie, thinking Snape has a lot to feel guilty for but
is still a far better person and far more deserving of
redemption than Peter will ever be. 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 02:02:15 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:02:15 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbvu7+cpsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fscar7+4evr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182269

Julie now:
Sorry you're speechless but I clearly outlined my reasons
(now snipped, but repeated by others) why Harry and the WW
would have suffered a terrible fate at Voldemort's takeover,
and why I deduced from the text that takeover was all but
inevitable. And while *terrible* fate might be a bit strong,
but at least in the prophecy-revealed-by-Snape world Harry
does ultimately achieve a happy life. No such likelihood in
a LV-controlled world, methinks.


Alla:

Oh don't be sorry. I find the argument that nothing would have 
changed for Harry if Snape would not have revealed the prophecy to be 
silly that's all. Sorry, I am not even sure if this is your argument 
anymore, since I am answering several people, because I do not find 
Voldemort's takeover inevitable. And I think that *terrible* fate 
with alive parents could be anything but. You are arguing that it 
necessarily will be Voldemort's takeover world, I am not. I am 
accepting the likelihood of course, but definitely not an absolute 
certainty.


Julie:
<SNIP>
I know! IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR SNAPE it wouldn't have happened.

Alla:

Simple, yes?

Julie:
He may have "started" it from a certain POV though one could
argue that Merope started it by tricking Tom Sr, or that
Dumbledore started it by not reining in the obvious psychopath
student when he had the chance, or by taking a hands-off
approach to students which allowed them to be influenced by
parents and peers without so much as a single word of
encouragement toward a better path from the leader of the
Good Guys. One could go on and on.

Alla:

Oh, only from certain POV? Who started it from another POV?

Who was closer than Snape to the chain that started all that? Thanks 
to whom Potters needed a secret keeper.

Julie:
But of all of them, only Peter never ONCE acted for the
good of someone besides himself, and never repented his
evil actions. And the same holds for him as for anyone
involved; the Potters were safe and could have remained
in hiding at least until Voldy won the war and beyond (if
that would have been acceptable to them)IF IT HADN'T
BEEN FOR PETER. If, say, he'd kept his mouth shut, or
someone had accidentally cut off his head or something ;-)

Alla:

Snape's action was the one that caused the possibility of Peter being 
a secret keeper. Again, to me it is very simple. Whether you think 
Sirius' plan was good or bad and I happened to think that it was 
quite a good plan, there would be no need for such plan or for Secret 
keeper ever.
But of course Peter was a traitor and  he could have caused a lot of 
harm to somebody else in another place that goes without saying.




Julie, thinking Snape has a lot to feel guilty for but
is still a far better person and far more deserving of
redemption than Peter will ever be.


Alla:

Okay, Snape gets a brownie. He is a less horrible person than Peter. 
That so does not say much to me about Snape as good person.


I wish to apologize since I am going to try and start removing myself 
from the thread, when I feel that I am repeating myself in every 
second post, it is time for me to start doing that.

The removal may of course last for couple days LOL.





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 02:06:06 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:06:06 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <frpl8p+shn1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fscb2e+a6j7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182270

Mike, coming way late to the discussion:
Having read all of this discussion on this scene, I find respondants 
have two ways of looking at it; from within the characters' 
viewpoints and as scene in a book set up by the author. As for the 
authorial intent, I whole heartedly agree with Zara's take:

> zgirnius:
> We'd lose a lovely scene of Harry shouting at Snape
> and Snape sneering at Harry, (a loss to mourn <g>) 

Mike:
Therefore I find it easy to overlook another fortuitous coincidence. 
This was just too delicious to pass up and yes Zara, would have been 
quite the loss. It was this richness that drew many of us in, at 
least it did me. 

When you think about it, Snape had a very minor role in GoF when it 
came to moving the story along. Yet he was at his snipingly Snapey 
best in this book. I'd go so far as to say that his character was 
defined in GoF and after this book you either loved him or hated him. 
Me, being a Marauder fan since the Shreiking Shack in PoA, GoF 
solidified my hate of Snape. No amount of heroics would or could ever 
pull him completely out of the sewer of my spite in my eyes.
(Telling you now, in the spirit of full disclosure, if you don't
 know how I feel already)

So let me move on to the character viewpoint. What were the 
characters doing and why?


> > GoF:
> > "What are you doing here, Potter?"
> 
> > "I need to see Professor Dumbledore!" said Harry, running
> > back up the corridor and skidding to a standstill in front
> > of Snape instead. "It's Mr. Crouch . . . he's just turned 
> > up ... he's in the forest... he's asking -"
> 
> > "What is this rubbish?" said Snape, his black eyes 
> > glittering. "What are you talking about?"
> 
> zgirnius:
> Did you all gather from this statement that the emergency was of a 
> nature that only Albus could handle? I know I did not, and I have
> the benefit of having read the rest of the chapter.

Mike:
Well, Harry *starts* off by saying he needs to see Dumbledore. Snape 
may have surmised there was an emergency (in Harry's demeanor), but 
Harry hasn't yet said so. And Harry doesn't get to finish his 
sentence wherein he's obviously going to say Crouch was asking for 
DD, because Snape cuts him off with his rubbish comment. 

And no Potioncat, I'm not buying Sanpe being sent down to forestall 
Harry while DD was on his way. This is simply a happy (for Snape) 
coincidence that Snape finished his business with DD and was on his 
way out when Harry came a-screamin. I can just about guaran-damn-tee 
that Snape would have stopped Harry when he was running through the 
halls under any circumstances. 

Nope, not buying any noble purpose of one S. Snape in this part of 
the exchange. He's simply tormenting the boy and enjoying every 
minute of it. As far as I can tell, Snape hasn't heard a word Harry's 
said. So Snape wasn't even close to analyzing Harry's need for seeing 
Dumbledore, he couldn't care less whether Harry's need was worthy or 
not. 



> > GoF:
> > 
> > "The headmaster is busy. Potter," said Snape, his thin
> > mouth curling into an unpleasant smile.
> 
> zgirnius:
> I am sure Snape was delighted to tell Harry this fact, but I see 
> nothing wrong with his decision to do so, with or without the 
> 'unpleasant' smile. Harry is not giving any good reason why Albus 
> should be interrupted, he just keeps shouting that he should.

Mike:
I see Snape enjoying the hell out of himself, as Harry put it, 
delighting in denying Harry when Harry was so frantic. And since when 
does Harry (or any other student, for that matter) have to justify to 
Snape his reason for seeing the Headmaster? 

You brought up the scene with MM in PS/SS when the Trio want to see 
DD. Big difference, imo. Then, MM knows Dumbledore is not home and is 
trying to find out what is so important and if she can take care of 
it. She's not *denying* anything to the Trio. Here, again imo, Snape 
doesn't care what Harry's problem is. He is just revelling in being 
Snape, the gatekeeper. (I thought that was Rick Moranis' job in 
Ghostbusters)



> > GoF:
> > "I've got to tell Dumbledore!" Harry yelled.
> 
> > "Didn't you hear me. Potter?"
> 
> > Harry could tell Snape was thoroughly enjoying himself, denying 
> > Harry the thing he wanted when he was so panicky.

Mike:
Yeah, that's the way I saw it too, Harry.


> zgirnius:
> The staff, like good, competent subordinates, are protective of
> the boss's time. Albus is busy, and will only be interrupted for
> matters that *really* require his attention.

Mike:
I mostly answered this above. But one last thing: How the hell is 
Dumbledore shaping formative minds, and how does he take credit for 
all those things about teaching that were said in "King's Cross", all 
the while locked away in his ivy covered tower and protected by 
his "competent" staff?! I agree with Montavilla, since when does the 
file "Headmaster" need to be password protected?

Mike, who wishes that the twins would've invented the nosebleed 
nougat a year earlier and substituted them for Snape's nasty pills 
that he obviously takes every morning. <veg>





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 26 02:16:04 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:16:04 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbq5v+fofm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fscbl4+70mf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182271

Montavilla47:

I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean the AK bouncing off him in
the final confrontation. I think you're correct that at that point,
anyone who got past his dueling skills could have AK'd him.
(Although, if there's no blocking the AK, what do dueling skills
have to do with anything? He would have to dance around and
dodge it like Ginny with Amycus.)

I meant before the Horcruxes were destroyed. Again, it's never
stated. In fact, it's avoided in the book. But isn't the whole
point of the Horcruxes that you don't die? I'm thinking that
Voldemort, being oh so powerful and evil, vaporized himself
because his AK is just that much more so than someone elses
AK.

But, if James had AKed LV that night in GH, it wouldn't have
hurt him. Certainly, no one would have blamed James--or
anyone else--for using that curse on Voldemort, right? So
why not try it (other than the lack of a wand)?

Magpie:
Ah, I see. Yes, he wouldn't have died as far as we know, witha 
regular AK--that's what happened even with his own AK. I would think 
that what was different is that he was vaporized. It's not, I don't 
think, that the AK would have bounced off him, but that it would have 
only killed the soul bit that was in him at that time, so 1/7 of it. 
Perhaps he could have then resurrected that original body

> Carol responds:
> Ron and for that matter, DD, have access to a Sword of Gryffindor
> steeped in Basilisk venom because of Harry.

Magpie:
That's not the point. Of course any action that happened in the story 
is going to follow earlier events and so come back to Harry. But if 
you just remove what needs to happen from this story, so we're not 
trying to keep the story exactly the same without the central 
character, obviously there are other ways to get Basilisk venom than 
via Harry Potter. It's not about asking whether Ron could have done 
it if Harry was suddenly erased from the picture at that moment 
(along with everything he'd ever done) it's just saying that it's not 
impossible to imagine other ways that Voldemort could have still been 
taken out given what we know about him. 

He's a powerful individual wizard that has six other pieces of his 
soul around that need to be taken out. There are a number of things 
to use to do that. Ways that aren't sticking to everything the way it 
was in canon but erasing Harry from the scene. Horcruxes can be 
destroyed by ordinary Wizards. These particular ordinary Wizards 
happened to do it for reasons having to do with Harry (as everything 
does in this series), but if Harry had never been born or never been 
marked, there would still be ways for Voldemort to be destroyed. Just 
as even if Harry Potter had never existed, Ginny Potter could still 
have gotten married even though in canon the only person she marries 
in canon. Whether or not it happened, the possibility is out there 
for somebody (or somebodies) to figure out. Nothing has to happen the 
way it happened in canon, it's completely off-book. 

-m






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 26 02:45:43 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:45:43 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbvu7+cpsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fscdcn+7ms3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182272

Julie:
> Dumbledore had NO idea about the Horcruxes (a fact that
> I don't recall seeming mentioned yet) and wouldn't until
> and unless Voldy was "killed" by the rebounded AK yet 
> didn't fully die. So DD couldn't hunt them if he wasn't
> even aware of them. I don't see any reason that he would
> have become aware of them by any other manner than Voldy
> "dying." Yet no one (perhaps not even Dumbledore) was his
> equal in battle and could deliver that killing blow.

Magpie:
Or else he could have figured it out sooner because without Voldemort 
vaporizing nobody would have mistakenly thought he was dead. They 
might have said, "Hey, I killed him with an AK and he died but now 
he's back. He's found some way to stay alive after death...is there a 
magic for that?" You don't have to be somebody's equal to deliver a 
killing blow. I mean, of course the story couldn't have happened the 
way it did if we change the story as it is, but the possibilities are 
endless for what could have happened instead. Some are better than 
what actually happened and make Harry happy and alive, some are worse 
and make him unhappy and dead.

Magpie before:

Just
as even if Harry Potter had never existed, Ginny Potter could still
have gotten married even though in canon the only person she marries
in canon. 

Magpie now:
Let me just fix that bizarre sentence while I'm here. I meant:

Just as if Harry Potter had never existed, Ginny WEASLEY could still 
have gotten married even though in canon the only person she marries 
IS HARRY POTTER. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 03:08:43 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:08:43 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fscdcn+7ms3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fscenr+nhn3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182274

Leah:
Just for the record, at no time does Snape ask *DD* just to
save Lily. He tells DD that Voldemort believes the prophecy to
refer to Lily Evans, or rather her child, and ends by saying that
Voldemort intends to 'kill them all'. It is DD who then asks why
Snape has not asked Voldemort to spare Lily, and Snape of course
says he already has done. It is that which 'disgusts' DD (and he is
a fine one to talk). From what Voldemort says in DH, Snape
presumably asks for Lily as the object of his desire, which would be
the one convincing reason for a DE asking for the life of a
muggleborn. I can not think of any way in which Snape could
convincingly have asked Voldemort for the lives of James and Harry
(the prophecy child himself) without getting himself AK'd and
sealing Lily's fate. After DD does the 'disgusted' bit, Snape
says, 'Save them all'.

Alla:
That's not a record though, but your interpretation of it, which I
accept as interpretation, but certainly not a cold hard fact. My
intepretation is that this is exactly what Snape did ? come to ask
Dumbledore for life of Lily and life of Lily only and had Dumbledore
not bullied him into asking for protection of others and later into
protecting Harry, he would have never done it.

Here is the record ( boy that took a long time to type up for such
slow typist as me) and what I think of it afterwards. Pages 543-544
of british edition

"Snape was wringing his hands; he looked a little mad, with his
straggling, black hair flying around him.

I ? I come with a warning ? no, a request, please-"

Dumbledore flicked his wand. Though leaves and branches still flew
through the night air around them, silence fell on the spot where he
and Snape faced each other.
"What request could a Death Eater make of me?"
"The- the prophecy
 the prediction
 Trelawney
"
"Ah yes," said Dumbledore.. "How much did you relay to Lord
Voldemort?"
"Everything ? everything I heard!" said Snape. "That is why - it is
for that reason ? he thinks it means Lily Evans!"
"The prophecy did not refer to a woman," said Dumbledore. "It spoke
of a boy born at the end of July-"
"You know what I mean! He thinks it means her son, he is going to
hunt her down ? kill them all-"
"If she means so much to you, said Dumbledore, "surely Lord Voldemort
will spare her? Could you not ask for mercy for mother in exchange
for the son?"
"I have ? I have asked him-"
"You disgust me," said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much
contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little.
"You do not care, then about the deaths of her husband and child?
They can die, as long as you have what you want?"
Snape said nothing but merely looked at Dumbledore.
"Hide them all, then," he croaked. "Keep her ? them- safe. Please"
"And what will you give me in return Severus?"

Alla:

I am cutting it out here since for my purposes it is enough. Snape
comes to Dumbledore with a **request**, for the reason of prophecy
that he thinks that Voldemort thinks relates to Lily. Honestly, to me
it is the only interpretation. IMO The book is telling us that this 
is exactly
what Snape did first ? asked Voldemort for life of Lily and only
Lily. And when it is failed, he came to Dumbledore to do the same
thing ? to ask for life of Lily and only Lily.

And even when Dumbledore does the disgusted bit, Snape still says his
true intentions IMO ? at first he says only what Dumbledore wants to
hear IMO ? hide them all, and then ? keep HER ? them ? safe.

No, to me that is exactly what Snape does. IMO of course.

And why Dumbledore is the fine one to talk? Do you mean that he also
committed actions that we should be disgusted about? I agree then.
But if you mean that since he committed bad actions, he cannot call
disgusting action for what it is, I disagree.

No matter who evaluates what Snape did, IMO it is disgusting. When I
reread this bit, I was disgusted with him, but for a different
reason.

What will you give me in return Severus? Huh, Dumbledore? You would
not save Order members unless Snape will give you something in
return? NICE.

And eh, of course Snape could not have asked Voldemort for James and 
Harry's lives. I am disgusted that he did not ask Dumbledore, that's 
all. And of course Snape did not even have to do that ? ask anybody. 
Then he would have remained a rotten DE. I am looking at him as the 
person who wanted to repent and yes, half decent person IMO should 
have begged Dumbledore to save people who are in increased danger 
thanks to him.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
That's not the point. Of course any action that happened in the story
is going to follow earlier events and so come back to Harry. But if
you just remove what needs to happen from this story, so we're not
trying to keep the story exactly the same without the central
character, obviously there are other ways to get Basilisk venom than
via Harry Potter. It's not about asking whether Ron could have done
it if Harry was suddenly erased from the picture at that moment
(along with everything he'd ever done) it's just saying that it's not
impossible to imagine other ways that Voldemort could have still been
taken out given what we know about him. <SNIP>

Alla:

YES. Thank you. Since others obviously express their thoughts so much
better than me, I will just borrow from you and stick Me too here.







From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Mar 26 05:15:27 2008
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:15:27 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Depression in HP characters?
References: <fsa3hg+3eb9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005501c88f00$68fc8250$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 182275

From: "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au>
>I just saw a news article about JKR being so depressed before starting
> to write HP that she was contemplating suicide.
>
> http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/news/24032008/jk-rowling-admits-she-
> was-suicidal.html
>
> Jo has brought other things into Potterworld as instructional to teens.
> Have we also seen those in serious depression and fighting to get out
> of it?
>
> Not just Filch regretting punishments weren't like the good old days,
> nor Moaning Murtle who is not in the right state to accually overcome
> any depressed feelings ...
>
> Ginny when she was loosing hours out her day during COS - you wouldn't
> say actually suicidal, but she put herself down alot.
>
> What / who can you think of?
>
> aussie

Shelley:
I think Neville might have been a little depressed- depressed people don't 
often stand up for himself, and it's only later in the series that he seems 
to shrug it off, gain some confidence and take the initiative to be the 
leader. The answer there? Friends believing in him and encouraging him to 
grow as a person.

And Hagrid- months at a time shutting himself in and shutting others out- 
sounds like he suffered from bouts of it too. Answer there- DD tried to talk 
to him, as a friend, and then the three come to his door and practically 
tell him off for being so selfish, and listening to his friends, he comes to 
his senses and forces himself to move on, and by doing so, he gets better.

But I dispute what you say about Ginny- if she was going to be depressed at 
all, it would be after she realized that she had been possessed by LV- 
people often get depressed and want to be suicidal after doing something 
horrible, as they deal with the guilt of what they've done. But no, Ginny 
seems to take in strike that those actions weren't her own, and is OK with 
that, rather than dwelling on it like a depressed person would. The hours 
she lost track of were not depression hours, but clear "possession" hours. 
Someone suffering from PTSS that loses hours from blacking out has no 
explanation for their time (if fact, for them time hasn't passed at all, and 
you have to convince them they lost hours) but Ginny really did have an 
explanation, looking back on it, and what LV made her do during those hours. 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 26 13:51:40 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:51:40 -0000
Subject: Depression in HP characters?
In-Reply-To: <005501c88f00$68fc8250$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fsdkdc+4nmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182276

> Shelley:
> I think Neville might have been a little depressed- depressed 
people don't 
> often stand up for himself, and it's only later in the series that 
he seems 
> to shrug it off, gain some confidence and take the initiative to 
be the 
> leader. The answer there? Friends believing in him and encouraging 
him to 
> grow as a person.

Magpie:
I don't know...I think it's widening the definition of depression 
too much to apply it to Neville for being an 11-year-old who doesn't 
stand up to himself aggressively. He seems like a perfectly normal 
kid who's on the timid side and just got a realistic view of his 
situation. I would have acted the same as Neville most of the time, 
and I've (thankfully) never suffered from depression. Especially 
since Neville actually does stand up for himself and his friends 
just fine even in PS/SS. He jumps on Crabbe and Goyle just because 
Ron and Draco are fighting and then he stands up to the Trio. I 
would just make a distinction between a person having a normal 
reaction to events in their life that are upsetting and suffering 
from depression. I know one can lead to the other, but Neville 
doesn't seem to have a depressive personality at all to me--on the 
contrary, he seems to deal with stress in a pretty healthy way. He's 
been told he's worth less than he is and I think that's what he gets 
over, realizing that these things aren't true. It's not a chemical 
problem that makes him feel worthless.

I wouldn't say Hagrid has suffered from it either. He's sensitive to 
criticism, imo, not depressed, and eventually gets over feeling hurt 
and upset about things that happened. The fact that his friends 
coming to his door and telling him he's being selfish shows that he 
isn't depressed. Depression is a chemical imbalance that can't be 
cured by pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps or listening to 
your friends tell you it's okay. 

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 16:57:16 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:57:16 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fscbl4+70mf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsdv9c+110dr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182277

Carol earlier:
> > <heavily snipped> Ron and for that matter, DD, have access to a
Sword of Gryffindor steeped in Basilisk venom because of Harry.
> 
> Magpie:
> That's not the point. Of course any action that happened in the
story is going to follow earlier events and so come back to Harry. But
if you just remove what needs to happen from this story, so we're not
trying to keep the story exactly the same without the central
character, obviously there are other ways to get Basilisk venom than 
via Harry Potter. <snip>

Carol again:
I think you're missing my point, which is that the Sword of Gryffindor
could not have been used to destroy Horcruxes had it not been steeped
in Basilisk venom, nor could the Basilisk fang have been used to
destroy the cup if Harry hadn't killed the Basilisk. Granted, a
Basilisk existed whose venom could be used to destroy the Horcruxes
even after it was dead, but only Harry, a Parselmouth, had access to
it to kill it because only he (and possessed Ginny, who doesn't count
because she was under Horcrux!Tom's control) could open the Chamber of
Secrets.

As I've already established by quoting Professor Binns, Dumbledore
tried and failed to find the Chamber of Secrets. Had he been a
Parselmouth, he could have done so (but even then, he would only have
killed the Basilisk and possibly imbued the Sword of Gryffindor with
venom, but he would not have destroyed the diary, whose existence he
didn't know about and which was only at Hogwarts during Harry's second
year because Lucius Malfoy thought that Voldemort was dead--which
would not have been the case without Godric's Hollow and Harry's
accidental vaporization of Voldemort).

While Dumbledore could have found and destroyed some of the Horcruxes,
he only knew for sure that Voldemort's altered appearance was caused
by the creation of at least one Horcrux when Voldemort didn't actually
die at Godric's Hollow. (How DD knew that, I don't know. He clearly
*suspected* the existence of Horcruxes already, as I intend to discuss
in another post.) And he only knew for sure that LV had made more than
one Horcrux after Harry destroyed the diary.

So DD, with the help of Order members, could perhaps have found the
cup (how they'd do that without alerting LV, I don't know) and the
fake locket (how they'd do that with either one or two adults, I don't
know--you need one qualified Wizard and one person whose powers don't
register in the boat) and the ring (which DD would need to resist the
temptation of putting on because without Snape' help, he's a dead
man), but without access to the Basilisk's fang or a Sword of
Gryffindor that has been steeped in Basilisk venom, they'd have no way
of destroying it.

As for Nagini, who could have been killed by a powerful Wizard, she
probably would not have been made into a Horcrux if it hadn't been for
Godric's Hollow.

IOW, it took Harry as the Chosen One (who could speak Parseltongue and
had access to LV's mind through the scar connection) to find most of
the Horcruxes, to discover the existence of the diary and destroy it,
to kill the Basilisk making it possible to use its fang to destroy the
cup Horcrux and for Ron (or any non-Parselmouth capable of mimicry) to
enter the Chamber, and to give the Sword of Gryffindor (otherwise just
a powerful magical weapon useful for killing gigantic magical snakes
<g>) into a means of destroying Horcruxes. (And it took Harry as
Lily's on, victim of Godric's Hollow and the Chosen One) to get the
memory from Slughorn that told DD how many Horcruxes there were.

Obviously, without Dumbledore's tuition, Harry wouldn't even have
known what a Horcrux was, much less which objects to look for and
where to look. But DD needed Harry to find and destroy them, or make
their destruction possible. It's a shame, though, that DD didn't allow
Ron and Hermione to go along with Harry on his Pensieve expeditions. I
think they'd have found the Horcruxes more quickly. Hermione might
even have recognized the locket the Merope wore as the locket they'd
seen when they were cleaning house at 12 GP, which would have saved
all sorts of grief related to the fake Horcrux in the cave. But still,
it took Harry, and only Harry, to have access to LV's thoughts and to
create the means of destroying most of the Horcruxes. (Even Crabbe's
Fiend-Fyre wouldn't have come into play if he hadn't been following
the Chosen One to turn him in to Voldemort.)

Carol, hoping that her meaning is clearer this time around




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 17:38:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:38:09 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbvu7+cpsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fse1m1+ggmp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182278


> > Alla:
> > 
> > LOL. I can give him a hint ? not deliver prophecy to Voldemort and 
> > here you go, their fate may have been changed, no prophecy couple, 
> no 
> > Chosen one.
> > 
Carol:
Exactly, Alla! No Chosen One--no one to find and destroy the Horcruxes
or sacrifice himself (not knowing that he won't die) to save the WW.
Just a long, dreary eternity of an indestructible Voldemort ruling the
WW. The moment that Dumbledore dies or is killed, we have the
situation at the beginning of DH (before Voldemort is side-tracked by
the pursuit of the Elder Wand and with a DE headmaster, perhaps Snape,
who has no intention of protecting the students and every intention of
teaching them the Dark Arts and turning them all into DEs.)

Maybe you think that the WW isn't worth saving, but if Harry survived,
orphaned or otherwise, he'd have been as helpless as anyone else
(required to attend Hogwarts and treated as Neville and the others
were treated). There wouldn't even be a DA to stand up to
GeninelyEvil!Snape--or whoever the DE headmaster was. For that matter,
LV would likely have taken over Hogwarts long before Harry's seventh
year if it hadn't been for Godric's Hollow (and, I agree with you,
eavesdropper!Snape). I just don't agree that Godric's Hollow was a bad
thing in all respects. It was a bad thing for the Potters, certainly,
but it had good consequences unintended by anyone involved (and that's
at least seven people, not counting Baby!Harry himself).

And, as I've argued elsewhere, I don't think that anyone other than
Harry (with help from DD, Snape, and RH), including Dumbledore and the
Snapeless Order of the Phoenix, could have defeated Voldemort. As long
as he had even one Horcrux, he's keep coming back every time someone
like Dumbledore succeeded in killing him. And as soon as Dumbledore
put on that ring or went into the cave alone, it's good-bye, Dumbledore!
 
Julie:
<snip points that I agree with>
> 
> Dumbledore had NO idea about the Horcruxes (a fact that I don't
recall seeming mentioned yet) and wouldn't until and unless Voldy was
"killed" by the rebounded AK yet didn't fully die. So DD couldn't hunt
them if he wasn't even aware of them. I don't see any reason that he
would have become aware of them by any other manner than Voldy
"dying." Yet no one (perhaps not even Dumbledore) was his equal in
battle and could deliver that killing blow. <snip more points that I
agree with>

Carol responds:
I don't think it's a "fact" that DD knew notihing about the Horcruxes.
He'd been watching Tom since their first meeting at the orphanage and
investigating the murders that he knew Tom Riddle had committed (but
couldn't prove because Morfin and Hokey both died before they could
have a new trial).

Here's what Dumbledore knew before Godric's Hollow:

Tom Riddle, even as a child, was afraid of death and considered it
beneath the dignity of a witch or wizard.

Tom Riddle, even as a child, collected trophies to commemorate his
misdeeds.

Parselmouth!Tom had killed Moaning Myrtle by opening the Chamber of
Secrets and releasing what DD must have known was a Basilisk, framing
Hagrid for the deed. 

Tom had killed his father for revenge, framing Morfin and taking the
ring that traced his heritage to the Peverells. (Did DD know that the
stone set in the ring was the Resurrection Stone? I'll bet that he
did, and I'll bet that he wanted to find it.)

Tom's mother had worn Slytherin's locket and sold it to Caractacus
Burke for a fraction of its worth.

Tom had killed Hepzibah Smith, purchaser of the locket and owner of
the Hufflepuff cup, to steal those trophies, one related to his
Slytherin heritage and both related to Hogwarts history.

Tom's appearance had altered slightly (notably the red eyes when he
felt greed) when he murdered Hepzibah and greatly when he applied for
the DADA position, indicating that he had somehow dehumanized himself.

Tom's followers were called *Death* Eaters.

Put all that together and, if you're Dumbledore, you'll suspect that
those valuable stolen objects and the accompanying murders had been
used to prevent Voldemort from dying (his greatest fear) and were
responsible for his altered appearance.

Until Godric's Hollow, DD's speculations could only be a theory, but
that he was thinking about Horcruxes quite early in Tom's career is
clear from Slughorn's words in HBP, something about Horcruxes being a
banned subject at Hogwarts and Dumbledore being particularly fierce
about it. It seems that DD took the books on Horcruxes out of the
library while Tom was still at school. Unfortunately, he wasn't quick
enough (or Tom found what he needed to know somewhere else, say,
Borgin and Burkes).

Godric's Hollow proved to DD that Tom had made at least one Horcrux.
He probably suspected more than one (the ring, the cup, and the
locket). The destruction of the previously unsuspected diary, which
was clearly intended to be interactive and expendable, proved that he
had, indeed, made at least one, and probably more than one, more Horcrux.

But it took Godric's Hollow and Harry's destruction of the diary to
confirm the theory--and get Dumbledore off his duff and searching for
more Horcruxes, only three of which he could identify for certain.
(And it took the attack on Mr. Weasley, witnessed by Harry via the
scar link, to tell DD that Nagini had probably also been made into a
Horcrux, as confirmed by the silver instrument--"But in essence divided?")

Carol, now wondering whether DD found Tom's name in the library
records showing that he had checked out those Horcrux books! 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 18:18:01 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:18:01 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fscb2e+a6j7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fse40p+n00r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182280

Mike wrote:
<snip> 
> When you think about it, Snape had a very minor role in GoF when it
came to moving the story along. Yet he was at his snipingly Snapey
best in this book. I'd go so far as to say that his character was
defined in GoF and after this book you either loved him or hated him.
<snip>

Carol responds:
Yes and no. He's one of the crowd of suspects who could have put
Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire, his office is robbed for Polyjuice
ingredients (a clue, along with the confrontation on the stairs, that
"Moody" isn't who he appears to be), he reveals his Dark Mark to Fudge
(and everyone else present) in a futile effort to prove that LV is
back, he appears in the Foe Glass, and he goes off on what's clearly a
dangerous mission for DD (returning to Voldemort). His backstory
(former DE who spied for DD "at great personal risk") is also
revealed, and he does not return to the graveyard when LV summons the
DEs (nor does he run off with the cowardly Karkaroff). If Snape is not
particularly important in the GoF story per se, except in providing
Veritaserum to help expose the Fake!Moody, he's certainly established
as a key player in the story, one whose loyalties are exceptionally
important. And those of us who believed in DDM!Snape had ammunition
from GoF to help us establish where Snape's loyalties lay when doubts
arose in OoP and, particularly, HBP. (Just how you could hate a
character who reveals his Dark Mark to *Fudge* of all people to
persuade him that LV is back is beyond my comprehension, but, oh,
well. At least you enjoy his Snapiness, even if you don't like him.)

Mike:
> So let me move on to the character viewpoint. What were the 
characters doing and why?
<snip>
> Well, Harry *starts* off by saying he needs to see Dumbledore. Snape
may have surmised there was an emergency (in Harry's demeanor), but 
Harry hasn't yet said so. And Harry doesn't get to finish his 
sentence wherein he's obviously going to say Crouch was asking for DD,
because Snape cuts him off with his rubbish comment. 
> 
> And no Potioncat, I'm not buying Sanpe being sent down to forestall
 Harry while DD was on his way. This is simply a happy (for Snape) 
coincidence that Snape finished his business with DD and was on his 
way out when Harry came a-screamin. I can just about guaran-damn-tee 
that Snape would have stopped Harry when he was running through the
halls under any circumstances. 

Carol responds:
I agree with you on one point: Snape would have stopped Harry whether
DD told him to or not, especially after having heard him yelling at
the gargoyles through the door. We don't know whether Snape was acting
on his own initiative or on orders from DD. I suspect the latter.
However, I also suspect that he knew perfectly well that DD was on his
way down the staircase.)

The problem with any speculation about Snape's motives is that we
don't have access to Snape's thoughts and motivations. All we can
assess with any accuracy is the consequences. And those consequences
are that Snape's calling Harry back from his wrong turn down the
corridor leading to the staff room and his keeping Harry at the foot
of the stairs, for whatever reason, enabled Harry to find and talk to
Dumbledore. And, despite whatever slight delay if any that resulted
from Harry's waiting for DD to come down rather than trying to go up a
down staircase, which he and DD would still have to come down again,
nothing could have saved Mr. Crouch. (Harry didn't even know that he
was in danger, and as I've shown in post number 182169,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182169

he was already dead. (Note small corrections in post 182171.)

Speaking of corrections, if anyone was confused by my reference to
Harry as "Lily's on" in an earlier post today, I meant "Lily's son."
Gotta teach these fingers to type correctly!

Carol, apologizing for the post that appeared twice and hoping that it
doesn't count in today's quota





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Mar 26 19:04:57 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:04:57 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsdv9c+110dr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fse6op+544i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182281


> > Magpie:
> > That's not the point. Of course any action that happened in the
> story is going to follow earlier events and so come back to Harry. 
But
> if you just remove what needs to happen from this story, so we're 
not
> trying to keep the story exactly the same without the central
> character, obviously there are other ways to get Basilisk venom 
than 
> via Harry Potter. <snip>
> 
> Carol again:
> I think you're missing my point, which is that the Sword of 
Gryffindor
> could not have been used to destroy Horcruxes had it not been 
steeped
> in Basilisk venom, nor could the Basilisk fang have been used to
> destroy the cup if Harry hadn't killed the Basilisk. 

Magpie:
I think you're missing my point, which is that I'm completely off-
book here. As long as basilisks exist in the WW--which they do--they 
offer a possibility for venom that a Wizard can use to destroy a 
Horcrux. As does the existance of other Horcrux defying things. It 
doesn't have to come down to this basilisk in this Chamber killed in 
this way because of the things done in this book. That's just the 
way it happened here, where everything follows everything else and 
comes back to Harry. But there's a big world out there of limitless 
possiblities. I don't think we can just say that all these things 
had to be done by Harry because Harry did them in canon. I'd like to 
give the WW a little more credit, even if canonically they do seem 
to be a classic Idiot World who almost wants to be ruled by an 
overlord.

Carol:
Exactly, Alla! No Chosen One--no one to find and destroy the 
Horcruxes or sacrifice himself (not knowing that he won't die) to 
save the WW. Just a long, dreary eternity of an indestructible 
Voldemort ruling the WW. 

Magpie:
Or else something else, because Voldemort wasn't indestructible. He 
was a powerful Wizard with six Horcruxes that weren't indestructible 
either.

-m





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 20:28:30 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:28:30 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fse6op+544i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fseble+ql03@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182282

Magpie wrote:
> I think you're missing my point, which is that I'm completely off-
book here. As long as basilisks exist in the WW--which they do--they
offer a possibility for venom that a Wizard can use to destroy a 
Horcrux. As does the existance of other Horcrux defying things. It 
doesn't have to come down to this basilisk in this Chamber killed in 
this way because of the things done in this book. That's just the way
it happened here, where everything follows everything else and comes
back to Harry. But there's a big world out there of limitless 
possiblities. <snip>

Carol reponds:
Well, sure. Anything can happen. Superman can come in and defeat LV if
we're going out of the book. Or, if we stick to characters within the
book, Grindelwald could have defeated DD with the Elder Wand and
turned the upstart calling himself Voldemort to powder.

But my point is that *within the book* there's only one known
Basilisk, and Harry, as the unwitting possessor of a soul bit
belonging to the Heir of Slytherin, is the only one who can open the
CoS, destroy the Basilisk, and make the Sword of Gryffindor capable of
destroying Horcruxes.

Sure, there must be some Wizard with intelligence close to or matching
Dumbledore's out there somewhere, but we don't see him. And
Dumbledore, for all his intelligence, can't find and destroy all the
Horcruxes even though he suspects that they exist until the events at
Godric's Hollow make it possible.

Who, in your alternate scenario (in which Snape remains a DE and
doesn't set the chain of events that lead to the creation of a
Prophecy Boy with a soul bit in his head) will figure out where the
Ravenclaw Horcrux is? Who will discover that the diary is a Horcrux?
Who will open the CoS and kill the Basilisk that does exist instead of
hunting for (or hatching) another one? Isn't the hatching of a
basilisk Dark Magic and against the law?

We have Dumbledore, who figured out part of the mystery, but even if
he chooses a faithful Order member, who can't be Dark Arts expert
Snape because in this scenario, Snape remains a DE, to share the
Horcrux secret with, but how will two adult Order members retrieve the
fake Horcrux? The boat won't allow two adults to ride in it. And one
alone will die in the attempt (even if a Wizard other than DD could
find his way in). Who would save DD from the ring Horcrux? Without
Harry's vision of Mr. Weasley in the MoM, how would he have figured
out that Nagini was a Horcrux? Without Slughorn's true memory, how
would he have known how many Horcruxes there were?

Aside from the fact that without Godric's Hollow (and
eavesdropper!Snape), we'd have no story, with Harry if he survived as
just another Wizard kid suffering from Voldie's regime, who *in the WW
that we know* and among the characters that we know could have helped
Dumbledore? Slughorn? DD couldn't even get the memory from him without
Harry's Slytherinlike persuasion.

IOW, the Prophecy, thanks to Voldemort's to thwart it, comes true.
Harry and Harry alone is "the one with the power to defeat Voldemort."
He has "the power that Voldemort knows not" (sacrificial love) and
Voldemort has made him his "equal," not in power or ability but in the
ability to speak Parseltongue (a rare ability possessed by no other
known wizard except LV himself, his dead Gaunt relatives, the
long-dead Salazar Slytherin and the even longer dead Herpo the Foul,
mentioned in FB but only hinted at in the books as the maker of a
single Horcrux) and get into Voldie's mind via the soul bit, an
ability that no one else has (though perhaps DD did some undetectable
Legilimency when Tom was in his office applying for the DADA position).

I'm not even considering Snape's post-GH role, spying on LV and using
undetectable Occlumency on him, a job that no one else could have
performed (or his "murder" of DD and delivery of the self-sacrifice
message, none of which would have been necessary if the events of GoF
hadnt happened).

All I'm saying is that of all the Wizards in the book, including the
brilliant (if secretive and manipulative) DD and the clever Dark Arts
expert Snape, not one of them could have done what Harry did because
Voldemort himself chose him and (inadvertently) gave him the powers
that were needed to defeat him.

Not one of them can speak Parseltongue. Not one of them has access
into LV's mind.

Carol earlier:
> Exactly, Alla! No Chosen One--no one to find and destroy the 
Horcruxes or sacrifice himself (not knowing that he won't die) to 
save the WW. Just a long, dreary eternity of an indestructible 
Voldemort ruling the WW. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Or else something else, because Voldemort wasn't indestructible. He
was a powerful Wizard with six Horcruxes that weren't indestructible
either.

Carol responds:
I meant "to all intents and purposes indestructible." First, someone
has to figure out that what's keeping him "alive" is Horcruxes.
Dumbledore is the only one who did so. (Of course, removing the books
on Horcruxes from the library and making the concept of Horcruxes a
forbidden topic at Hogwarts meant that no one after Tom Riddle's
generation would even know that they existed unless they encountered
the unhelpful sentence that Hermione read about Horcruxes being the
Darkest kind of magic, about which the author refuses to write--which,
BTW, explains why Snape doesn't know about Horcruxes. How Regulus
found out about them I can only guess. Maybe his parents had books on
such topics in their family library.)

I suppose that Slughorn, who only felt guilty and finally released his
memory because he was drunk and Harry had Lily's eyes, could have come
forward earlier, giving Dumbledore the information that Tom intended
to make six Horcruxes, but DD would still have had to figure out what
they were (other than the ring, the cup, and the locket) and where
they were. And without Harry, he could not have figured out that one
of them was Nagini (who might not have become a Horcrux if not for the
events in GoF) and another was the Ravenclaw diadem, right under DD's
crooked nose all this time.

And then there's destroying the Horcruxes. The Sword of Gryffindor
wouldn't work and the only Basilisk available is inaccessible to DD
without Harry's help. As for those other methods, which JKR
unhelpfully doesn't specify, they're obviously not available to HRH or
Hermione would have figured out a way to obtain them. Chances are,
they're not available to DD, either, or he would not have needed the
venom-saturated Sword of Gryffindor to destroy the ring.

I can think of one other scenario, which still requires Harry and
Godric's Hollow. Dumbledore could have trusted Snape and Snape's
skills as an Occlumens and taken him along to find the ring Horcrux.
Snape would have warned him not to put it on before he examined it
for, and removed, any curses. Then, of course, we wouldn't have had
the Snape "murdering" DD subplot because he would never have agreed to
it if DD hadn't already been dying. But possibly, Snape could have
recovered the fake locket with the help of a House-Elf (doing
"anything" means drinking poison if you have to). If the other Order
members were let in on the secret of the Horcruxes (bad idea if one of
them is Mundungus) and knew of Snape's brave action in drinking the
poison, maybe they would let him know that the real locket had been
right there in 12 GP before Mundungus took it. Mr. Weasley could then
find a way to steal the locket from Umbridge. But they still need
Harry's previous efforts with the Sword of Gryffindor and the Basilisk
to destroy the locket and the ring.

That still leaves the cup (to be somehow stolen by Snape without the
goblins or Bellatrix or LV finding out) and Nagini (to be killed by
Snape when all the others were destroyed) and the Ravenclaw Horcrux,
which, alas, no one but Harry can find. Harry's scar link and
Parseltongue are still needed along the way, however, and Snape would
hardly be aiding Dumbledore if it hadn't been for Godric's Hollow.

Carol, who rather likes Severus Snape and the Seven Horcruxes
(counting the soulbit in the scar) but thinks that Harry as the Chosen
One is still needed for such a scenario to work






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 26 20:43:25 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:43:25 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wow
In-Reply-To: <frfj0a+34en@eGroups.com>
References: <frfj0a+34en@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47EAB56D.90005@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182283

John Apple said:

> Why would anybody care if JR is Christian or not. What a
> pile of shit, I read the books because I like them. Simple.

Books can be enjoyed on many levels. Some enjoy them simply as 
entertainment. Others see in them metaphors for our own lives, and enjoy 
exploring the symbology of the stories. One does not need to care about 
symbology to enjoy the story, but many find the symbology adds an extra 
depth to their experience.

JKR herself has stated that she intended to convey certain messages in 
her story -- tolerance, love, the power of sacrifice. And much of the 
power of these messages is conveyed in the HP series symbolically. And 
while tolerance, love and sacrifice are far from exclusively Christian 
ideas, Christianity has developed some very powerful symbols for 
expressing them. And given that JKR *is* Christian, it would follow then 
that an exploration of Christian symbology might be relevant to better 
understanding the messages of HP.

Of course, for those who care little for symbols and "messages", the 
above is irrelevant. And that's fine, too. HP can be enjoyed either way.

CJ




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar 27 03:17:40 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:17:40 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fscenr+nhn3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsf3kk+e1q8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182284


> Leah:
> Just for the record, at no time does Snape ask *DD* just to
> save Lily. 

>Alla: 
> Here is the record ( boy that took a long time to type up for such
> slow typist as me) and what I think of it afterwards. Pages 543-544
?? of british edition

Potioncat:
 I know exactly what you mean! I'm snipping parts of the canon 
because it's the rules, but I do want to respond to bits of it.

> "The- the prophecy?K the prediction?K Trelawney?K"
> "Ah yes," said Dumbledore.. "How much did you relay to Lord
> Voldemort?"
?? "Everything ?V everything I heard!" said Snape.

Potioncat:
I'm still not certain when DD learned that Snape was a DE. Or when he 
realized that the prophecy had gone to LV. But it's very clear now 
that he knows that Snape did tell LV.  Again, just not sure if DD 
manipulated the event all along. Is there anything to make us think 
DD didn't know beforehand that Snape supported LV? Also we get an 
idea that Snape knows he didn't hear the whole thing. I wonder if or 
when he mentioned that detail to LV?



> "You disgust me," said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much
?? contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little.
?? 
Potioncat:
I think this is interesting and is not something I picked up before. 
Snape is already afraid, but at the contempt, he shrinks.  Is he 
starting to rethink his morals?


"Keep her ?V them- safe. Please"
> "And what will you give me in return Severus?"
> 
?? Alla:
?? snip
>IMO The book is telling us that this 
> is exactly
> what Snape did first ?V asked Voldemort for life of Lily and only
> Lily. And when it is failed, he came to Dumbledore to do the same
?? thing ?V to ask for life of Lily and only Lily.

Potioncat:
Everyone had better sit down. I agree with Alla. I don't think 
there's any doubt about this. In a panic, expecting he might be 
killed---had DD ever killed a DE I wonder?--Snape comes to the 
headmaster and asks for protection for Lily. Snape didn't care what 
happened to Harry and James, and hadn't even considered the 
possibility of saving them too.

At this stage of his life, Severus is a nasty piece of work. We only 
see this one moment while he is still truly a DE. He does whatever it 
is Death Eaters do. He rushed to LV with information that would 
possibly put a child in danger. I've argued in the past that Snape 
didn't know the prophecy referred to an unborn child. Clearly the 
child's fate doesn't seem to matter much to him right now.  Yet I 
don't think Snape's murdered. In DH we see that he asked DD about the 
effect on his soul if he kills the headmaster. 

It's not what I would have expected from the young wizard who 
befriended Lily, nor of the boy on the Hogwarts Express. 


> Alla:
> What will you give me in return Severus? Huh, Dumbledore? You would
> not save Order members unless Snape will give you something in
?? return? NICE.

Potioncat:
DD would have taken care of the Potters.  He is testing Snape. He is 
offering the opportunity for redemption that was also given to Draco 
and Tom Riddle. (via Harry in Riddle's case.) Does DD see a glimmer 
of potential in Snape? Or does he offer the opportunity to everyone?

Potioncat, who started this post in the wee hours of the morning 
before work, and finished it in the late hours of the evening after 
work, and hopes it makes sense.







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar 27 03:25:21 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:25:21 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsbgin+mpe7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsf431+hhoj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182285

 
> Pippin: 
> 
> Biblical prophecies are seen as calls to hope and redemption rather
> than predictions of certain doom. That might shed some light on why
> Dumbledore did not try to prevent the prophecy from reaching
> Voldemort.  Voldemort could have repented like the King of Ninevah,
> and turned himself and his people from their ways. Of course Voldemort
> did not repent. But Snape did. 
> 
> It makes me wonder, suppose Harry had told Ron and Hermione about the
> second prophecy. If Peter Pettigrew had been warned that his return
> would bring Voldemort back to power, would he still have gone back?
> 

Potioncat:
Although it was knowing that his actions caused Lily's death that made 
Snape repent, he had much to repent of before that point. The more we 
discuss how much his reavaling the prophecy affected Harry, the more I 
realise that Snape's fate is as wrapped up in this prophecy as LV's and 
Harry's.

As for Pettigrew, LV says that Wormtail came back out of fear. I think 
knowing LV would return to power, would have sped Peter on his way even 
sooner. He needed the biggest bully in the playground to protect him 
from Black and DD.

Only, I suspect, DD would have offered him redemption rather than 
retribution.





From chonpschonps at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 27 05:35:46 2008
From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:35:46 -0000
Subject: Depression in HP characters?
In-Reply-To: <fsdkdc+4nmm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsfbni+6qn9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182286

> > Shelley:
> > I think Neville might have been a little depressed -
> > depressed people don't often stand up for himself,
> > and it's only later in the series that he seems to
> > shrug it off, gain some confidence and take the
> > initiative to be the leader.
<SNIP>

> Magpie:
> I don't know...I think it's widening the definition of
> depression too much to apply it to Neville for being an
> 11-year-old who doesn't stand up to himself aggressively.
<SNIP>
> I wouldn't say Hagrid has suffered from it either. He's
> sensitive to criticism, imo, not depressed, and eventually
> gets over feeling hurt and upset about things that happened.
<SNIP>

Neville doesn't strike me as depressive, just your regular shy
teenager lacking self-confidence.

I'd say Hagrid was suffering from a bout of light depression that
time he isolated himself and shut everyone out, feeling sorry for
himself, but I think it just wasn't in his temper to dwell on his
sorrow for too long.

The one who truly strikes me as a clinical case of depressive
person is Sirius. His abrupt mood shifts in OotP look very much
like bipolar disorder, - all the signs are there, hyperactivity
during christmas alternating with moodiness and self sought
isolation - the day he died being his ultimate bout of mania.

Depressive people often need to work it out by themselves, which
doesn't mean that a supportive and genuinely comprehensive and
affective entourage doesn't help a lot.

xuxu



From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Mar 27 14:55:57 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:55:57 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fseble+ql03@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsgcht+qsg0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182287

> Magpie wrote:
> > I think you're missing my point, which is that I'm completely 
off-
> book here. As long as basilisks exist in the WW--which they do--
they
> offer a possibility for venom that a Wizard can use to destroy a 
> Horcrux. As does the existance of other Horcrux defying things. It 
> doesn't have to come down to this basilisk in this Chamber killed 
in 
> this way because of the things done in this book. That's just the 
way
> it happened here, where everything follows everything else and 
comes
> back to Harry. But there's a big world out there of limitless 
> possiblities. <snip>
> 
> Carol reponds:
> Well, sure. Anything can happen. Superman can come in and defeat 
LV if
> we're going out of the book.
Or, if we stick to characters within the
> book, Grindelwald could have defeated DD with the Elder Wand and
> turned the upstart calling himself Voldemort to powder.
> 
> But my point is that *within the book* there's only one known
> Basilisk, and Harry, as the unwitting possessor of a soul bit
> belonging to the Heir of Slytherin, is the only one who can open 
the
> CoS, destroy the Basilisk, and make the Sword of Gryffindor 
capable of
> destroying Horcruxes.

Magpie:
Yes, that's what I'm talking about--anything can happen. Even 
without going so far afield as to bring in characters that don't 
exist in this canon. But that's what we were talking about--if Snape 
had never delivered the Prophecy (which was the means to Voldemort's 
destruction in the story) was the Wizarding World doomed to utter 
defeat forever? That's what I just don't think we can say. Because 
if you just look at it as the magical problem of one powerful wizard 
who has six Horcruxes it seems far too pessimistic to say there's no 
way that the WW could possibly have come up with a way of defeating 
him. We can't say that because we have no idea of the many variables 
that could have happened. 

Carol: 
> Who, in your alternate scenario (in which Snape remains a DE and
> doesn't set the chain of events that lead to the creation of a
> Prophecy Boy with a soul bit in his head) will figure out where the
> Ravenclaw Horcrux is? Who will discover that the diary is a 
Horcrux?
> Who will open the CoS and kill the Basilisk that does exist 
instead of
> hunting for (or hatching) another one? Isn't the hatching of a
> basilisk Dark Magic and against the law?

Magpie:
Obviously I don't know who would do it because that story doesn't 
exist. I don't understand why you're just assuming that something 
like killing the Basilisk in the CoS or hunting or hatching another 
one must be so incredibly impossible because it didn't happen here 
(and "it's illegal!" is never a reason something couldn't happen). 
As I said, I'm just looking at the core problem at hand (powerful, 
evil--but very flawed--wizard with six horcruxes with sadistic but 
also flawed followers vs. a world full of non-evil Wizards), and 
looking at that problem I can't possibly say that the only way to 
solve it is to have these events happen. We can't say there's no way 
Voldemort could ever have been defeated except for through this 
exact complicated mixture of happenstance, personal conflict, 
coincidence and sometimes authorial manipulation any more than I can 
say that Voldemort would definitely have been defeated some other 
way. I could probably make up my own story dealing with the Wizards 
we know in canon and wind up with Voldemort defeated. 

Actually, the main change one would have to make in imagining an 
alternate scenario would be to just imagine the WW as the world of 
adults faced with domination that it's supposed to be. There's a lot 
of effort on the part of the author and many characters in the books 
to make sure only Harry and the Trio do everything, even while we 
get vague attempts to pretend there's an actual war going on that 
should actually matter.

Carol:
> We have Dumbledore, who figured out part of the mystery, but even 
if
> he chooses a faithful Order member, who can't be Dark Arts expert
> Snape because in this scenario, Snape remains a DE, to share the
> Horcrux secret with, but how will two adult Order members retrieve 
the
> fake Horcrux? The boat won't allow two adults to ride in it. And 
one
> alone will die in the attempt (even if a Wizard other than DD could
> find his way in).

Magpie:
They use somebody other than a non-adult Wizard to retrieve it. You 
honestly can't imagine that a group of intelligent people could 
never come up with any way of ever working out a way to do this with 
the fate of their entire world riding on it? Or study the Dark Arts 
as well as Snape?

Carol:
 Who would save DD from the ring Horcrux? Without
> Harry's vision of Mr. Weasley in the MoM, how would he have figured
> out that Nagini was a Horcrux? Without Slughorn's true memory, how
> would he have known how many Horcruxes there were?

Magpie:
Again, this seems like coming back to the book, removing people, and 
then if there's nobody else in the room at that moment who would 
step in and do exactly the same thing that means Voldemort could 
never be defeated. Maybe Dumbledore dies from the ring Horcrux. 
Maybe somebody else figures out that Voldemort has Horcruxes (I'm 
sorry, this just doesn't seem like it's so impossible for somebody 
else to consider) and that Nagini is one (or maybe they just kill 
his snake because it would make sense to kill his snake and figure 
out she's a Horcrux due to whatever happens when they try to do 
that)? Maybe Slughorn just tells somebody that Voldemort talked 
about making 7 Horcruxes once (again, that's not a random thing for 
him to have come up with). Or maybe after years of Voldemort's reign 
we've got people on the DE side with insider information who get all 
this stuff that way. It doesn't take that much imagination to come 
up with alternate scenarios if you want to do that.

Carol:
> 
> Aside from the fact that without Godric's Hollow (and
> eavesdropper!Snape), we'd have no story,

Magpie:
Exactly, we have no story if by "story" we mean what happened in 
this book. We would have a different story, one that has nothing to 
do with this book, but could still happen in an alternate universe 
of this same world. That story could be anything. This conversation 
started because Alla didn't accept the idea that if Snape hadn't 
delivered the Prophecy, there was only one way Harry's life could 
have played out. 

What if Ginny Weasley had died in the CoS--or if she'd never 
existed? Does that mean that Harry could never have kids? After all, 
who else would he marry? He didn't love Cho, he doesn't show 
interest in other girls. She's his ideal. There's no other girl we 
can point to waiting in the wings that he'd definitely marry. Or 
could we just say that if she'd died maybe Harry would have met some 
other girl later in life (or reconsidered somebody he already knew) 
and married her?

Carol:
 with Harry if he survived as
> just another Wizard kid suffering from Voldie's regime, who *in 
the WW
> that we know* and among the characters that we know could have 
helped
> Dumbledore? Slughorn? DD couldn't even get the memory from him 
without
> Harry's Slytherinlike persuasion.

Magpie:
The Wizarding World *that we know* is bigger than the people 
centered on in this story. And frankly, even amongst the people we 
know in the story they could have done more. I can't say for sure 
that they would--maybe they all would have just thrown up their 
hands while Dumbledore shook his head and said that although he knew 
the problem, he couldn't tell them about it or solve it. But my 
imagination can come up with other scenarios than that.

Also, just regarding Slughorn's memory, there were plenty of ways to 
get that bit of information other than Harry's "Slytherinlike 
persuasion," which was in fact down to a bottle of Liquid Luck. 
(There was no reason for Harry to have to get it himself at all to 
begin with.) A potion which in itself obviously opens all sorts of 
other possibilities for winning.

I don't doubt the ability of fanfic writers to be able to imagine a 
story where Snape didn't deliver the Prophecy that still ends in the 
Horcruxes and Voldemort being destroyed using only characters and 
concepts that do or should currently exist in canon. There's a lot 
to work with there. So I can't say it could never have happened. It 
could actually make for an equally interesting story. It just 
wouldn't be this story. But I think a good fanfic author could make 
it believable as what could have happened.

-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 27 14:57:11 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:57:11 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsf3kk+e1q8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsgck7+tpm7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182288

> > Alla:
> > What will you give me in return Severus? Huh, Dumbledore? You
would not save Order members unless Snape will give you something in
> ?? return? NICE.
> 
> Potioncat:
> DD would have taken care of the Potters.  He is testing Snape. 

Pippin:
I agree that he's testing Snape. But it's not a given that the Potters
would be "taken care of". 

Out of the fourteen or so people named in Moody's photograph, only two
were alive and well at the end of the war. If the Order's mission was
to take care of its members, it was a dismal, abject, pointless failure. 

But I don't think we're supposed to see it that way. Sirius certainly
didn't. We  know how he felt about being kept out of the fight
for his own safety. 

 Snape was not asking Dumbledore to protect a civilian, he was asking
him to take an Order witch out of the action, and Dumbledore was quite
right to consider what the Order could get in return.

Pippin





From juli17 at aol.com  Thu Mar 27 15:33:38 2008
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:38 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fsf3kk+e1q8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsgeoi+rsuh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182289


> 
> Potioncat:
> Everyone had better sit down. I agree with Alla. I don't think 
> there's any doubt about this. In a panic, expecting he might be 
> killed---had DD ever killed a DE I wonder?--Snape comes to the 
> headmaster and asks for protection for Lily. Snape didn't care what 
> happened to Harry and James, and hadn't even considered the 
> possibility of saving them too.
> 
> At this stage of his life, Severus is a nasty piece of work. We 
only 
> see this one moment while he is still truly a DE. He does whatever 
it 
> is Death Eaters do. He rushed to LV with information that would 
> possibly put a child in danger. I've argued in the past that Snape 
> didn't know the prophecy referred to an unborn child. Clearly the 
> child's fate doesn't seem to matter much to him right now.  Yet I 
> don't think Snape's murdered. In DH we see that he asked DD about 
the 
> effect on his soul if he kills the headmaster. 
> 
> It's not what I would have expected from the young wizard who 
> befriended Lily, nor of the boy on the Hogwarts Express. 

Julie:
No need for me to sit down because I agree with you and Alla also.
I don't think Snape had any interest in saving James or Harry. It's
true that he could hardly ask Voldemort for all their lives, but
I don't think he even thought about James or Harry. He was consumed
by his fear for Lily, even when he came to Dumbledore. He didn't even
consider the logic of asking Dumbledore straight out to save all 
three, when he should know Dumbledore-guardian-of-the-light is not
going to try and save Lily only. But Snape wasn't thinking, only
feeling. 

So I agree that Snape was a nasty piece of work at this point,
and whether he's killed or tortured himself, he's accepted the
practice--even against children and babies--and buried any
misgivings somewhere deep in his currently absent conscience.
He's definitely no longer the boy who befriended Lily or was
on that first train to Hogwarts, he's been hardened (or has
hardened himself) by his years of disappointments at Hogwarts.

But obviously a glimmer of that boy who still had some good
in him remains, as Snape later accessed that part of himself
during his many years of working for Dumbledore. (Yes, I know
Snape was mean and even verbally abusive to Harry and Neville,
but I'm referring to his acts of protecting Harry and working
with the Order as well as doing things he didn't have to do 
just because they were the *right* things to do--like saving
Lupin during the seven Potters flight. So while Snape still 
acted sometimes from his own destructive pettiness, in the 
larger picture he acted from his reclaimed morals/conscience.)

> 
> 
> > Alla:
> > What will you give me in return Severus? Huh, Dumbledore? You 
would
> > not save Order members unless Snape will give you something in
> ?? return? NICE.
> 
> Potioncat:
> DD would have taken care of the Potters.  He is testing Snape. He 
is 
> offering the opportunity for redemption that was also given to 
Draco 
> and Tom Riddle. (via Harry in Riddle's case.) Does DD see a glimmer 
> of potential in Snape? Or does he offer the opportunity to everyone?
> 

Julie:
I don't know. I've kind of lost my view of Dumbledore as one who
is deeply concerned about second chances and redemption. He too
often used manipulation and put his goals above the welfare of
others like Sirius, Snape, Lupin and even Harry as a boy (left
with the Dursleys). In fact, it seemed like only Harry ever 
broke through Dumbledore's impassive regard and enjoyed the
headmaster's personal concern about his individual well-being. 
(Dumbledore's concern for Draco's soul comes off as a plot
manipulation as he never cared that dozens of mostly Slytherin
students past and present basically sold their souls to LV
without so much as a hint of any effort to persuade them against
such an action at Hogwarts.) Or that could just be my own
bitterness talking ;-)

Julie 





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 27 16:23:18 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:23:18 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fseble+ql03@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsghlm+hk76@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182290

> >>Magpie wrote:
> > I think you're missing my point, which is that I'm completely off-
> > book here.
> > <snip>
> > But there's a big world out there of limitless possiblities.     
> > <snip>

> >>Carol reponds:
> Well, sure. Anything can happen. Superman can come in and defeat LV 
> if we're going out of the book.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, no.  Superman doesn't exist in the universe JKR created. (I'm 
not sure he'd even exist as a comic book character -- not much Muggle 
pop culture in JKR's world.)   Magpie isn't suggesting going out of 
JKR's world.  She's just looking at how things could have worked 
outside of the *plot*.  (At least, that's what I think she's 
suggesting.  Correct me if I'm wrong. <g>)

> >>Carol:
> But my point is that *within the book* there's only one known
> Basilisk, and Harry, as the unwitting possessor of a soul bit
> belonging to the Heir of Slytherin, is the only one who can open the
> CoS, destroy the Basilisk, and make the Sword of Gryffindor capable 
> of destroying Horcruxes.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
True.  But a Basilisk stained Gryffindor sword isn't the only way to 
destroy Horcruxes.  Actually, they were rather easy to destroy if you 
had the knack.  Not for school children, of course.  But any Dark 
Art's expert should have been able to do it easy-peasy. (I mean if 
*Crabbe* could call up the proper destructive force, I'm quite 
confident an Unspeakable should have had the proper skills.)

> >>Carol:
> And Dumbledore, for all his intelligence, can't find and destroy   
> all the Horcruxes even though he suspects that they exist until the 
> events at Godric's Hollow make it possible.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
IIRC, doesn't it take Dumbledore running across the destroyed diary 
horcrux to figure out that this is what's keeping Voldemort alive?  
Which... yeah, I'm not all that impressed with Dumbledore's vaunted 
intelligence, quite frankly.  Especially as his grand plan nearly 
fell down around his ears.  (Isn't it Dumbledore's plans that 
generally end up with someone on his side dead?)

I agree with Magpie that unfortunately JKR had to create an Idiot 
World for Harry to be its great hope.  But assuming a modicum of 
deductive ability and a strong enough desire to overthrow Voldemort, 
any group of wizards should have figured it all out.  

Frankly, I think Dumbledore, with his inability to play well with 
others, and the comforting but in the end weakening reliance on Harry 
to save them all, *prevented* Voldemort's destruction.  Because 
Dumbledore was so stuck on the prophecy (*Harry* had to be the one to 
do it) and because he refused to form any kind of think-tank, no one 
did anything while Voldemort's power grew.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> Harry and Harry alone is "the one with the power to defeat          
> Voldemort."
> He has "the power that Voldemort knows not" (sacrificial love)...   

Betsy Hp:
I'm still unclear on how "sacrificial love" destroyed Voldemort.  I 
mean, it caused Voldemort's AK to rebound, but wouldn't a plain old 
AK have done?  All Harry's "love shield" seemed to do was prevent him 
from actually doing the deed.  

[Philosophical aside: Though really, in the end he did kill Voldemort 
right?  I mean, sure he self-defended Voldemort to death, but it was 
because of Harry Voldemort died.  Harry not being an actual killer 
seems more like a technical out, IMO.]

And there wasn't anything about Harry's love that helped him find the 
Horcruxes.  They just kind of fell into his lap.  (Some more 
organically than others.)

> >>Carol:
> ...and Voldemort has made him his "equal," not in power or ability 
> but in the ability to speak Parseltongue...
> <snip> 
> ...and get into Voldie's mind via the soul bit, an ability that no 
> one else has (though perhaps DD did some undetectable Legilimency   
> when Tom was in his office applying for the DADA position).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But that's just what gave Harry a personal edge in figuring out 
Voldemort's next move.  It meant that Harry didn't need to be all 
that observant or smart to find the horcruxes.  But a wizard or witch 
with more intelligence and skill than Harry should have been able to 
figure Voldemort out.  It's not like Voldemort was all that 
complicated.

Now, we don't actually *meet* any intelligent or observant wizards or 
witches, so a certain level of stupidity may well be part and parcel 
of JKR's world.  As Magpie points out, they kind of seemed eager for 
some form of Overlord, whether Voldemort or Dumbledore or Harry in 
the end.  But, take away that base level of stupidity, and some basic 
detective work would have given those working against Voldemort the 
same information Harry gains through his ability to eavesdrop on 
Voldemort.

This is part of the reason the series fell apart for me, honestly.  
Not only did it not make sense that everything relied on Harry, the 
WW suffered more *because* they relied so much on Harry.  There was 
nothing that occurred in book 7 that showed me why a crack group of 
wizards couldn't have defeated Voldemort way back before Harry was 
even born.  In fact, it made it rather embarrassing for all involved 
that Voldemort *wasn't* defeated.  At least, IMO. <g>

Betsy Hp (great believer in deductive reasoning <bg>)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 27 18:20:28 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:20:28 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsghlm+hk76@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsgohc+a4in@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182291

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Magpie wrote:
> > > I think you're missing my point, which is that I'm completely off-
> > > book here.
> > > <snip>
> > > But there's a big world out there of limitless possiblities.     
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>Carol reponds:
> > Well, sure. Anything can happen. Superman can come in and defeat LV 
> > if we're going out of the book.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, no.  Superman doesn't exist in the universe JKR created. (I'm 
> not sure he'd even exist as a comic book character -- not much Muggle 
> pop culture in JKR's world.)   Magpie isn't suggesting going out of 
> JKR's world.  She's just looking at how things could have worked 
> outside of the *plot*.  (At least, that's what I think she's 
> suggesting.  Correct me if I'm wrong. <g>)
> 
> > >>Carol:
> > But my point is that *within the book* there's only one known
> > Basilisk, and Harry, as the unwitting possessor of a soul bit
> > belonging to the Heir of Slytherin, is the only one who can open the
> > CoS, destroy the Basilisk, and make the Sword of Gryffindor capable 
> > of destroying Horcruxes.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> True.  But a Basilisk stained Gryffindor sword isn't the only way to 
> destroy Horcruxes.  Actually, they were rather easy to destroy if you 
> had the knack.  Not for school children, of course.  But any Dark 
> Art's expert should have been able to do it easy-peasy. (I mean if 
> *Crabbe* could call up the proper destructive force, I'm quite 
> confident an Unspeakable should have had the proper skills.)
> 
> > >>Carol:
> > And Dumbledore, for all his intelligence, can't find and destroy   
> > all the Horcruxes even though he suspects that they exist until the 
> > events at Godric's Hollow make it possible.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> IIRC, doesn't it take Dumbledore running across the destroyed diary 
> horcrux to figure out that this is what's keeping Voldemort alive?  
> Which... yeah, I'm not all that impressed with Dumbledore's vaunted 
> intelligence, quite frankly.  Especially as his grand plan nearly 
> fell down around his ears.  (Isn't it Dumbledore's plans that 
> generally end up with someone on his side dead?)
> 
> I agree with Magpie that unfortunately JKR had to create an Idiot 
> World for Harry to be its great hope.  But assuming a modicum of 
> deductive ability and a strong enough desire to overthrow Voldemort, 
> any group of wizards should have figured it all out.  
> 
> Frankly, I think Dumbledore, with his inability to play well with 
> others, and the comforting but in the end weakening reliance on Harry 
> to save them all, *prevented* Voldemort's destruction.  Because 
> Dumbledore was so stuck on the prophecy (*Harry* had to be the one to 
> do it) and because he refused to form any kind of think-tank, no one 
> did anything while Voldemort's power grew.
> 
> > >>Carol:
> > <snip>
> > Harry and Harry alone is "the one with the power to defeat          
> > Voldemort."
> > He has "the power that Voldemort knows not" (sacrificial love)...   
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'm still unclear on how "sacrificial love" destroyed Voldemort.  I 
> mean, it caused Voldemort's AK to rebound, but wouldn't a plain old 
> AK have done?  All Harry's "love shield" seemed to do was prevent him 
> from actually doing the deed.  
> 
> [Philosophical aside: Though really, in the end he did kill Voldemort 
> right?  I mean, sure he self-defended Voldemort to death, but it was 
> because of Harry Voldemort died.  Harry not being an actual killer 
> seems more like a technical out, IMO.]
> 
> And there wasn't anything about Harry's love that helped him find the 
> Horcruxes.  They just kind of fell into his lap.  (Some more 
> organically than others.)
> 
> > >>Carol:
> > ...and Voldemort has made him his "equal," not in power or ability 
> > but in the ability to speak Parseltongue...
> > <snip> 
> > ...and get into Voldie's mind via the soul bit, an ability that no 
> > one else has (though perhaps DD did some undetectable Legilimency   
> > when Tom was in his office applying for the DADA position).
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But that's just what gave Harry a personal edge in figuring out 
> Voldemort's next move.  It meant that Harry didn't need to be all 
> that observant or smart to find the horcruxes.  But a wizard or witch 
> with more intelligence and skill than Harry should have been able to 
> figure Voldemort out.  It's not like Voldemort was all that 
> complicated.
> 
> Now, we don't actually *meet* any intelligent or observant wizards or 
> witches, so a certain level of stupidity may well be part and parcel 
> of JKR's world.  As Magpie points out, they kind of seemed eager for 
> some form of Overlord, whether Voldemort or Dumbledore or Harry in 
> the end.  But, take away that base level of stupidity, and some basic 
> detective work would have given those working against Voldemort the 
> same information Harry gains through his ability to eavesdrop on 
> Voldemort.
> 
> This is part of the reason the series fell apart for me, honestly.  
> Not only did it not make sense that everything relied on Harry, the 
> WW suffered more *because* they relied so much on Harry.  There was 
> nothing that occurred in book 7 that showed me why a crack group of 
> wizards couldn't have defeated Voldemort way back before Harry was 
> even born.  In fact, it made it rather embarrassing for all involved 
> that Voldemort *wasn't* defeated.  At least, IMO. <g>
> 
> Betsy Hp (great believer in deductive reasoning <bg>)
>
Carol responds:

I can see a group of intelligent Wizards (admittedly, we don't see
many such people in the WW that JKR created) figuring out that a
Horcrux, perhaps two, are keeping Voldemort alive, but that could only
happen if he's "killed." (And for all we know, a regular AK wouldn't
kill him; he'd just possess his own unharmed body.) And if his body is
destroyed, as at GH, it would take Dumbledore, who has been collecting
memories related to Voldemort's past (including memories of many
people now dead) and has, IMO, deduced before GH that Voldemort may be
making Horcruxes, to figure out that despite evidence to the contrary,
Voldemort isn't dead.

The problem is, the possibility of creating Horcruxes *is not common
knowledge.* Maybe the students of Durmstrang know about them, but
Hogwarts-educated students don't. Horcruxes have been a forbidden
topic at Hogwarts since Tom Riddle's time, and Dumbledore has removed
all the books on the topic from the library. Those hypothetical
intelligent wizards would have to include Slughorn or someone in his
age bracket because no one younger than Tom Riddle (now in his early
seventies), not even Dark Arts expert Snape, would know about them. We
could even have Slughorn finding his courage and admitting that
Voldemort wanted to make six Horcruxes (not likely without a push from
Dumbledore and the incentive of "collecting" Harry, not to mention the
felicitous influence of a certain potion, but anything's possible).
But how is anyone other than Dumbledore, who has researched Tom
Riddle's past, supposed to know what those Horcruxes are? Who besides
DD would know about the ring, the cup, and the locket, or figure out
where they might be hidden?

No group of intelligent witches and wizards, let's say Amelia Bones,
Barty Crouch Sr., and Rufus Scrimgeour, or the original Order of the
Phoenix, is going to figure this out on their own, even if they're old
enough to have been at Hogwarts with Tom Riddle, because no witch or
wizard who hates Dark Magic would have been researching Horcruxes in
the Restricted section of Hogwarts before DD removed the books. *If
the WW knew about Horcruxes, how could LV have kept them secret even
from his followers?* (Reggie finding out about them is a Flint, or at
least an extreme improbability, but let it go. I like him and his
story, and without him, Reformed!Kreacher is impossible.)

By all means, kill Nagini if you can, whether she's a Horcrux or not,
because she's evil and dangerous. But who besides Dumbledore knows
where the Gaunts lived? Who besides Dumbledore would know about the
cave? Who besides Dumbledore knows about Tom Riddle's penchant for
collecting "trophies," or about the ring, the locket, and the cup? 

The only scenario I can think of other than the one with Harry is a
Dumbledore who shares his knowledge with Order members (one who never
met Grindelwald, I suppose), and even then, our nonmanipulative,
nonsecretive DD wouldn't know about the diary or the Ravenclaw
Horcrux, even if he somehow persuaded Slughorn to present him with an
unaltered memory and knew how many Horcruxes there were. And without a
venom-imbued Sword of Gryffindor or access to the Basilisk in the
basement (only Harry can manage that part of the task), they'd have to
find another Basilisk ("May we borrow some Basilisk venom? We have
some Horcruxes to destroy"), risk raising one themselves (not a smart
idea since only a Parselmouth can control a Basilisk), or find some
other means to destroy the Horcruxes. (Fiend-Fyre? They'd have to be
as stupid as Crabbe to use something so uncontrollable. And if other
means were available, DD wouldn't have needed to pass on the Sword to
Harry or use it himself.) 

If you remove Dumbledore from the story, you've simply got an earlier
takeover of the MoM and Hogwarts, with no one investigating Tom's past
in ways that only a skilled Legilimens could do.

But even with a kinder, gentler Dumbledore who shares his information
(but doesn't have Snape to tell him what LV is currently up to) and a
cooperative Slughorn, you've got to have Harry somewhere in the mix,
and a Harry without the soul bit in his scar won't do. Felix Felicis
*might* enable DD to coax the truth out of Helena Ravenclaw and to
find the diadem in the RoR, but only Harry can discover and destroy
the diary, which was only at Hogwarts in the first place because
Voldemort had "died" at Godric's Hollow. 

It's possible that Dumbledore could vaporize (not kill) LV with the
Elder Wand, but he would keep coming back. And Dumbledore will die
eventually even without the ring Horcrux and/or the potion in the
cave. Voldemort won't, so long as a single Horcrux exists.

Carol, still arguing that, within the world that JKR has created,
Godric's Hollow is a prerequisite to Voldemort's fall






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 27 20:38:56 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:38:56 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsgck7+tpm7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsh0l0+rlop@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182292

> Pippin:
> I agree that he's testing Snape. But it's not a given that the 
Potters
> would be "taken care of". 
> 
> Out of the fourteen or so people named in Moody's photograph, only 
two
> were alive and well at the end of the war. If the Order's mission 
was
> to take care of its members, it was a dismal, abject, pointless 
failure. 
> 
> But I don't think we're supposed to see it that way. Sirius 
certainly
> didn't. We  know how he felt about being kept out of the fight
> for his own safety. 
> 
>  Snape was not asking Dumbledore to protect a civilian, he was 
asking
> him to take an Order witch out of the action, and Dumbledore was 
quite
> right to consider what the Order could get in return.
<SNIP>


Alla:

Dumbledore is not asking Snape what the Order will get in return 
though. He is asking what Snape will give **him** in return. I am 
reminded of the famous Russian poetry rhyme during the communist 
regime. The rough translation will be something like that "When we 
are saying Communist Party, we mean Lenin, when we are saying Lenin 
we mean Communist Party".

So, you think Dumbledore and Order are interchangeable definitions? I 
mean do not get me wrong, it certainly looks like it to me, but erm
 
it does not look good to me if it is so.

So, sure I certainly hope that Potioncat is right and Dumbledore IS 
testing Snape, although even for me, whom you can hardly suspect in 
being sympathetic towards Snape, that was well
 cruel.

I am not BOTHERED by it, don't get me wrong, I think Snape deserved 
every word he got from Dumbledore that night, but um, I still think 
it was cruel.

Now, if it was some sort of shock therapy for Snape, something that 
Dumbledore did not really mean, something he did to shake Snape out 
of the hole he got himself into, to show him the horrors that his 
actions caused, to show him that now even the leader of light may not 
be very willing to protect the person who is in danger because of 
him, Okay I can see that.

And the therapy seemed to work for Snape, but was it a shock therapy?

I also wonder what does Sirius have to do with anything? I do not 
remember Lily and James objecting to going into hiding.

Now if they were told to go over their objections for their own 
safety, I can see some sort of comparison with Sirius. I mean, he 
also just wanted to do something, not show up in front of Ministry 
and say hey, here I am, no?

JMO,

Alla




From chonpschonps at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 27 21:53:42 2008
From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:53:42 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsh0l0+rlop@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsh516+5agi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182293

> Alla:
(snip) 
> So, sure I certainly hope that Potioncat is right and Dumbledore IS 
> testing Snape, although even for me, whom you can hardly suspect in 
> being sympathetic towards Snape, that was well
 cruel.
> 
> I am not BOTHERED by it, don't get me wrong, I think Snape deserved 
> every word he got from Dumbledore that night, but um, I still think 
> it was cruel.
> 
> Now, if it was some sort of shock therapy for Snape, something that 
> Dumbledore did not really mean, something he did to shake Snape out 
> of the hole he got himself into, to show him the horrors that his 
> actions caused, to show him that now even the leader of light may not 
> be very willing to protect the person who is in danger because of 
> him, Okay I can see that.
> 
> And the therapy seemed to work for Snape, but was it a shock therapy?
(snip)

xuxu's two knuts:

I think Dumbledore's disgust with Snape was every bit as genuine as
his willingness to give him a chance to amend.

IMO the view that Dumbledore was only set to shock Snape with his
harsh words goes against both DD's and Snape's characterization.

Dumbledore is not only an universally compassionate good-whisher, as
demonstrated by the development of his character in DH, he is also a
ruthless man when it comes to achieving what he thinks is for the
greater good. Furthermore and more importantly, if DD believes in
giving second chances, it is also obvious that he believes in
unmitigated and un-salvageable evil as well, as demonstrated by his
dealing with Tom, and later Voldemort.

And then there is Snape, as heroic and self-sacrificing as his role in
the war is finally revealed to be, I do not believe his motives for
self sacrifice are totally 'good' either.

You see, when Snape came to Dumbledore, all he cared for was that he
caused the death of the person he loved. That's why DD was disgusted
with him: he saw that if Voldemort had given Snape the means to claim
Lilly back, Snape wouldn't have had a second thought about how much
damage his actions wrought. Snape's plea for a way of redeeming
himself didn't originate from a genuine realization of his own
immorality, but rather from an egoistical grief of a love lost and
hatred for the man who caused it. 

So yeah, I believe DD's disgust was genuine, and his harsh words
sincere. Then come to question the reason why Dumbledore offered Snape
a chance of redeeming himself.

My take on that is that it was a half ruthlessness and half compassion
at first.

Dumbledore did not believe that YKW was truly dead, and saw that Snape
would be an asset when he returned. But he also understood Snape's
grief because he himself understood grief, and I think that in a way
he was moved by it, when at the same time he despised Snape as a person.

And then, when it comes to the relationship between DD and Snape,
there is the decade of lull between VD's two risings to take into
account. I believe that during this time and during the Harry's years,
Snape proved to Dumbledore that, whatever his motives may be, he was
determined to do the right thing, and showed courage and strength in
doing so, and Dumbledore came to trust him completely. 

xuxu 
  




From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 27 21:44:36 2008
From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:44:36 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsghlm+hk76@eGroups.com>
References: <fseble+ql03@eGroups.com> <fsghlm+hk76@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY116-DAV83362C1B088CB0F5FF2FEA3FE0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 182294

Betsy Hp says: <snip> Now, we don't actually *meet* any
intelligent or observant wizards or witches, so a certain
level of stupidity may well be part and parcel of JKR's
world. As Magpie points out, they kind of seemed eager
for some form of Overlord, whether Voldemort or Dumbledore
or Harry in the end. But, take away that base level of
stupidity, and some basic detective work would have given
those working against Voldemort the same information Harry
gains through his ability to eavesdrop on Voldemort.

This is part of the reason the series fell apart for me,
honestly. Not only did it not make sense that everything
relied on Harry, the WW suffered more *because* they relied
so much on Harry. There was nothing that occurred in book 7
that showed me why a crack group of wizards couldn't have
defeated Voldemort way back before Harry was even born. In
fact, it made it rather embarrassing for all involved that
Voldemort *wasn't* defeated. At least, IMO. </snip>


The thing is Betsy is that it?s alright for us to say, why
didn?t some crack team of wizards attack Voldemort. Or even,
why could the Death Eaters rise.

After all, there is perhaps 30-50 core members, with ten
to twelve ?marked? wizards and witches.

The simple fact is that people are scared and few will
overcome that fear and attack. Moreover, like Hitler,
Stalin, Lenin, Napeleon and every other singular force
for change in the world, Voldemort plays to the stereotypes
and problems in society. This allows him, despite his
half-blood nature toform a movement for change. The
singular problem is that: ?All that is necessary for
the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.? The
simple fact is that Harry is uniquely placed, because
he is an orphan thanks to Voldemort, to be willing
enough to do something about it. He is too young to
remember the fear behind the name ? hence ?Voldemort?
not ?You-Know-Who? from day 1. If Rowling wasn?t concerned
about attracting a young audience, perhaps it may have been
a different line and more realistic in it ? but that?s by
the by.

However, it is misjudged of us to criticise the books when
at the end of the day there are hundreds of examples where
powerful and influential people haven?t done the sane thing
to stop an evil. Appeasement in World War 1, non-intervention
by League of Nations/United Nations down the years due to
disinterested foreign powers, the list is almost endless.
The fact is that this non-intervention but vague hope of
Harry is an entirely accurate portrayal, daunted only by
the fact that the book is aimed at children. And, as each
person in any of these conflicts can make an excuse, so can
DD.

In the issue of starting earlier, a key example here, is WW1.
France and the UK could easily have crushed Hitler?s show of
strength in the R?hr region ? they had every right according
to the rules laid down by the Treaty of Versailles. Yet they
didn?t. It?s easy to say they could have
 but of course, you
wouldn?t be reading this is if they did. Nobody writes about
the people who were stopped... They are simply an entry in
the Wizengamot?s law books!

As for people realising reasons for his immortality
 some
thought he was dead after the GH incident. These people of
course would stick to Fudge at the parting of the ways. Most
people seemed to believe the obvious thing ? that he was
alive and weak however. In order to guess how he survived
the rebounding AK however, you?d have to already know about
the power of the defence Lily gave him. In addition this
would only give a slight clue about his survival. Moreover,
DD was the only person who knew about LV?s early life and
one of few who knew he was Tom Riddle. So he would be
invaluable in such a hit-squad. It is also the case that
because DD is ?a natural? at ?Secrets and lies?, he will
have told few others. Given that he knows Harry has the
desire, and something of an edge, HP is one of the few
that learn these things.

Philip, hoping to have made some sense, also apologising
for the real-world refs.



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 27 22:53:56 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:53:56 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsh516+5agi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsh8i4+hah2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182295

Xuxu:
<BIG SNIP>
You see, when Snape came to Dumbledore, all he cared for was that he
caused the death of the person he loved. That's why DD was disgusted
with him: he saw that if Voldemort had given Snape the means to claim
Lilly back, Snape wouldn't have had a second thought about how much
damage his actions wrought. Snape's plea for a way of redeeming
himself didn't originate from a genuine realization of his own
immorality, but rather from an egoistical grief of a love lost and
hatred for the man who caused it.

Alla:

Yes, I know and that is exactly what I argued upthread, or at least 
what I intended to, it is not my point though now.

Xuxu:
So yeah, I believe DD's disgust was genuine, and his harsh words
sincere. <SNIP>

Alla:

I am not questioning the sincerity of Dumbledore's disgust here, I 
totally believe it was sincere all right.

What I am question is the sincerity of Dumbledore requesting Snape 
giving him something in return for saving Lily. Do you think it was 
sincere as well?





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar 27 23:14:37 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:14:37 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsh0l0+rlop@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsh9ot+qcaa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182296

> > Pippin:

> >  Snape was not asking Dumbledore to protect a civilian, he was 
> asking him to take an Order witch out of the action, and Dumbledore was 
> quite right to consider what the Order could get in return.
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Dumbledore is not asking Snape what the Order will get in return 
> though. He is asking what Snape will give **him** in return. 
<snip>
> 
> So, you think Dumbledore and Order are interchangeable definitions? I 
> mean do not get me wrong, it certainly looks like it to me, but erm
 
> it does not look good to me if it is so.

Pippin:
In this case, I think they are interchangeable, although it isn't clear whether
Snape knows there is an Order, per se. But  Snape can't be expecting Albus Dumbledore, 
Headmaster of Hogwarts, Chief Mugwump etc, etc  to stand guard over Lily personally. 

Lily's situation, IMO, is a bit like the British Prince  in Afghanistan. Obviously 
his commanders didn't want him to be killed, but that wasn't enough reason not to send 
him to a war zone.  Dumbledore doesn't want Lily to be killed, but that may not be enough 
reason to take her out of the war, you see? So before DD can promise that, he needs to 
find out what Snape is willing to do for him and for those who will be protecting Lily, and 
maybe dying to keep her safe as Peter should have done. Or as Dumbledore might have 
had to do, if he had been made the Secret Keeper.

Dumbledore doesn't say he's going to let Lily be killed unless Snape will help him. If Snape 
even thought that, IMO, it's because he was still a DE at heart.  But I think it would be very 
in character for Dumbledore to weigh how many lives might  be lost while Lily  was out of 
action.   We know she was a powerful witch, especially skilled in charms and potions. I 
don't know what she did for the Order, but I bet it was more than hanging out at 
Slughorn's parties and pumping the guests for information (though I bet she was good at 
that.)

We know that James at least did not enjoy being in hiding, and from what Sirius says, and 
what Dumbledore says about the kind of man Sirius was, if there was fighting going on 
James would have liked to be in it. I think they had the sort of attitude that Athos speaks 
of in The Three Musketeers -- when the king tells them to go somewhere and get killed, 
they go and get killed. It isn't for the cause or for the king, it's for their own personal 
sense of worth, because they've given their word and because their friends are counting 
on them. It's why Sirius can tell Peter that he should have died, and why Moody is so 
disgusted with Mundungus, and why Harry is so accepting in the end of what he is asked 
to do. 

Not that Rowling is advocating a Charge of the Light Brigade kind of mindlessness. 
Dumbledore *doesn't* ask Harry not to reason why, in fact he and Snape make sure that 
Harry  thoroughly understands DD's strategy and the rationale behind it before he charges 
into the valley of death, even though the delay proves costly to them both.


Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 27 23:32:17 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:32:17 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsh516+5agi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fshaq1+uahf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182297

xuxu wrote:
>snip>
> You see, when Snape came to Dumbledore, all he cared for was that he
caused the death of the person he loved. That's why DD was disgusted
with him: he saw that if Voldemort had given Snape the means to claim
Lilly back, Snape wouldn't have had a second thought about how much
damage his actions wrought. Snape's plea for a way of redeeming
himself didn't originate from a genuine realization of his own
immorality, but rather from an egoistical grief of a love lost and
hatred for the man who caused it. 
<snip>
> 
> Dumbledore did not believe that YKW was truly dead, and saw that
Snape would be an asset when he returned. But he also understood
Snape's grief because he himself understood grief, and I think that in
a way he was moved by it, when at the same time he despised Snape as a
person. <snip>

Carol responds:

While I agree that DD's reaction to Snape's plea was half-ruthlessness
and half-compassion, I think you're forgetting that when Snape first
came to Dumbledore for help, what he regretted was putting Lily in
danger, not killing her. Neither she nor "YKW" (took me a minute to
realize who you meant: we generally call him LV!) was yet dead (or
vaporized, in LV's case).

There would have been no point in young Snape's coming to DD
(Dumbledore) to ask him to protect Lily if she were already dead. DD
reminds him that Lily's husband and child are also in danger, and
Snape acknowledges that by begging him to save "her--them," but his
concern is really all for Lily, as we see later when he reacts to her
death and shrugs off the annoying and (to him) irrelevant information
that her son is still alive.

DD expresses disgust that Snape would go to Voldemort and request that
he spare Lily without any concern for her husband and son (surely DD
know that Severus hates James, but I suppose he expects him to care
that someone he knows is in danger from LV: As Quirrell says later of
Snape, "Yes, he hates you, but he doesn't want you dead!" Be that as
it may, he does indeed see a use for the young DE, spying on the
as-yet unvaporized Voldemort "at great personal risk," but he first
has to be sure that Snape will do "anything" to save Lily (or, rather,
do "anything" to help Dumbledore if Dumbledore saves Lily, which snape
himself is powerless to do). Snape has already asked Voldemort to
spare Lily (setting in motion the events that will lead to the
fulfillment of the Prophecy when Lily sacrifices herself), but he
doesn't trust Voldemort to keep his promise (with good reason), so he
goes to the only person powerful enough to protect her. (Just how DD
attempts to do that before suggesting the Fidelius Charm is unclear.
It seems that the Potters were already in hiding in Godric's Hollow on
Harry's first birthday, three months before the Secret Keeper switch,
but I don't want to get sidetracked on chronology--not JKR's strong
point.)

When Lily dies and LV is vaporized, Snape, despite being only 21, is
already teaching Potions at Hogwarts, having previously spied for DD
for an unspecified period. At that point, Dumbledore (still not
particularly compassionate even though the young man has risked his
life as a spy and is now one of his teachers, pretending to spy on DD
for LV) tells him that Voldemort is not dead and convinces him to
protect her son (still only a fifteen-month-old baby) so that Lily
won't have died in vain.

IOW, I think you're conflating two scenes from "the Prince's Tale,"
one of which occurs while he's still a DE and first learns how LV has
interpreted the Prophecy (he intends to kill the Potters) and one that
occurs some months later, probably on November 1, when Snape nearly
succumbs to despair, wanting to die himself, and Dumbledore uses the
Tough Love approach: "If you love Lily, you'll protect her son so that
she won't have died in vain" (paraphrased; I don't remember DD's exact
words.

Carol, apologizing for going into so much detail, but that's the way
my mind works




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 28 00:50:19 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:50:19 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsh8i4+hah2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fshfcb+f5s3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182298

> Alla:
> 
> I am not questioning the sincerity of Dumbledore's disgust here, I 
> totally believe it was sincere all right.
> 
> What I am question is the sincerity of Dumbledore requesting Snape 
> giving him something in return for saving Lily. Do you think it was 
> sincere as well?
>

Montavilla47:

Since Dumbledore got Snape to become his valuable spy and guard
dog, I would say that, yes, Dumbledore was sincere in demanding
that Snape pay for Dumbledore's protection of Lily.

Would Dumbledore have failed to protect the Potters to the best
of his ability (assuming that he actually did) if Snape had refused
the bargain?  Probably not.  It was in his interest to protect the 
Potters already.  Either they or the Longbottoms were the likeliest
family to produce the One Who Might Vanquish the Dark Lord.

But, certainly, if he could convince Snape that Lily's protection 
depended on Snape's "payment," then he was going to do that.

Dumbledore drives a very hard bargain.  He doesn't present Snape
with a choice.  He doesn't present him with a chance to redeem
his mistake.  He demands payment upfront for something that
costs him nothing more than it would have otherwise.  

Perhaps he thought that that was the only language a Death Eater 
like Snape would understand.  






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 28 05:27:53 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:27:53 -0000
Subject: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux
In-Reply-To: <fscenr+nhn3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fshvkp+guj6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182299

> DH:
> "You know what I mean! He thinks it means her son, he is going to
> hunt her down ? kill them all-"

zgirnius:
Thanks Alla, for the text. I had never noticed this before, but when 
Snape first speaks of what Voldemort will do, he states Voldemort 
will 'hunt her her down' and 'kill them all'. I think he is quite 
clear on the fact that 1) Lily cannot be separated from her family, 
and 2) Dumbledore, if he acts, will act on behalf of all three of 
them. He does not care compared to the way that he cares about what 
happens to Lily, but I don't see any obvious indication that he does 
not care *at all*, or worse, wants them dead. (And I see nothing odd 
about it - caring more about a loved one than about an enemy or 
someone unknown is perfectly normal).

> DH:
> "You do not care, then about the deaths of her husband and child?
> They can die, as long as you have what you want?"
> Snape said nothing but merely looked at Dumbledore.
> "Hide them all, then," he croaked. "Keep her ? them- safe. Please"
> "And what will you give me in return Severus?"
> 
> Alla:
> And even when Dumbledore does the disgusted bit, Snape still says 
his
> true intentions IMO ? at first he says only what Dumbledore wants to
> hear IMO ? hide them all, and then ? keep HER ? them ? safe.

zgirnius:
He mirrors what he said earlier - he has mentioned both her and them, 
before Dumbledore got on his high horse. Voldemort will kill them 
all, and he is asking Dumbledore to hide them all.

> Alla:
> What will you give me in return Severus? Huh, Dumbledore? You would
> not save Order members unless Snape will give you something in
> return? NICE.

zgirnius:
Of course he would, at least I believe this. It appears he warned the 
Longbottoms, just in case and despite the intelligence he received 
from Snape that the Potters were the targets. Even though Snape did 
not ask for it. 

But why not try to get something useful out of the situation?






From chonpschonps at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 28 12:45:22 2008
From: chonpschonps at hotmail.com (xuxunette)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:45:22 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsh8i4+hah2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsip92+4ku2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182300

(snip) 
> Alla:
> 
> I am not questioning the sincerity of Dumbledore's disgust here, I 
> totally believe it was sincere all right.
> 
> What I am question is the sincerity of Dumbledore requesting Snape 
> giving him something in return for saving Lily. Do you think it was 
> sincere as well?

I'd say yes, because he certainly isn't beyond asking outrageous
things from people. See Harry. As I said I believe DD is pretty
ruthless when it comes to achieving his goal.

Of course what redeems him is that he is aware of the weight of what
he asks, and that he does feel guilt over his own ruthlessness -
that's why Harry forgiving him was so important to him in the King
Cross scene in DH. 





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 02:26:43 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:26:43 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsgohc+a4in@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsk9d3+v3ko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182301

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > This is part of the reason the series fell apart for me,         
> > honestly. Not only did it not make sense that everything relied   
> > on Harry, the WW suffered more *because* they relied so much on   
> > Harry.  There was nothing that occurred in book 7 that showed me 
> > why a crack group of wizards couldn't have defeated Voldemort way 
> > back before Harry was even born.  In fact, it made it rather     
> > embarrassing for all involved that Voldemort *wasn't* defeated.  
> > At least, IMO. <g>

> >>Carol responds:
> I can see a group of intelligent Wizards (admittedly, we don't see
> many such people in the WW that JKR created) figuring out that a
> Horcrux, perhaps two, are keeping Voldemort alive, but that could   
> only happen if he's "killed."
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So why didn't anyone kill Voldemort?  He's never shown to be all that 
formidable.  For that matter, why worry about killing him, just 
capture the man and then go from there. Wizards have the ability to 
read minds after all.  Yes, Voldemort's very good at protecting 
himself from such things, but once he's captured he could easily 
be "softened".  Heck, there's probably a potion or two that could be 
used to assist.  (A nice strong love potion would more than likely do 
the trick.)

> >>Carol:
> The problem is, the possibility of creating Horcruxes *is not common
> knowledge.* Maybe the students of Durmstrang know about them, but
> Hogwarts-educated students don't. Horcruxes have been a forbidden
> topic at Hogwarts since Tom Riddle's time, and Dumbledore has      
> removed all the books on the topic from the library.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Another blow against Dumbledore.  (I frown on anyone who feels the 
need to "protect" others against knowledge they deem dangerous.)  
But, if Durmstrang students are aware of Horcruxes, if anyone 
Riddle's age or older are aware of Horcruxes, than they're not *that* 
esoteric. It'd just take one letter to a world-renowned Dark Arts 
expert.

"We captured this mad bloke bent on Britain domination.  He's 
completely crazy, but he also killed quite a few people so we tried 
to execute him.  Thing is, he won't die.  Any clues as to how that 
might be?  Thanks ever so, and I hope your garden is doing well."

After that it'd just be a matter of deduction.  

> >>Carol:
> We could even have Slughorn finding his courage and admitting that
> Voldemort wanted to make six Horcruxes...
> <snip>
> But how is anyone other than Dumbledore, who has researched Tom
> Riddle's past, supposed to know what those Horcruxes are? Who       
> besides DD would know about the ring, the cup, and the locket, or   
> figure out where they might be hidden?
> <snip>
> But who besides Dumbledore knows where the Gaunts lived? Who        
> besides Dumbledore would know about the cave? Who besides          
> Dumbledore knows about Tom Riddle's penchant for                   
> collecting "trophies," or about the ring, the locket, and the cup? 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Any wizard of any salt could figure out all of the above, just as 
Dumbledore did, by questioning those in Tom Riddle's past.  If Riddle 
collected things, he'd have kept on collecting and his dormmates 
would have recalled such behavior, for example.  The Gaunts' are a 
matter of government record, what with their tangling with the law 
and all.  And anyone at all familiar with the history of Hogwarts 
should know about the Founders and their special items.

Or, they could capture Voldemort and find out from the man himself.  

> >>Carol:
> And without a venom-imbued Sword of Gryffindor or access to the     
> Basilisk in the basement (only Harry can manage that part of the   
> task), they'd have to find another Basilisk ("May we borrow some   
> Basilisk venom? We have some Horcruxes to destroy"), risk raising   
> one themselves (not a smart idea since only a Parselmouth can      
> control a Basilisk), or find some other means to destroy the       
> Horcruxes. (Fiend-Fyre? They'd have to be as stupid as Crabbe to    
> use something so uncontrollable. And if other means were available, 
> DD wouldn't have needed to pass on the Sword to Harry or use it    
> himself.) 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Was it only Fiend-Fyre and Basilisk venom that could destroy a 
Horcrux?  Then, yeah, buy some Basilisk venom (if any were available) 
or figure out how to set off some Fiend-Fyre in a controlled 
environment.  Muggles are able to harness the power of split atoms.  
Surely the wizarding world can figure out how to harness Fiend-Fyre 
for a short burst or two.  (Heck, the Trio survived their brush with 
it.)

Or, just keep Voldemort locked away.  Charles Manson is still alive 
after all.  But he's contained.  Why couldn't the Wizarding World do 
the same?

> >>Carol:
>  ...you've got to have Harry somewhere in the mix, and a Harry     
> without the soul bit in his scar won't do. Felix Felicis *might*   
> enable DD to coax the truth out of Helena Ravenclaw and to find the 
> diadem in the RoR, but only Harry can discover and destroy
> the diary, which was only at Hogwarts in the first place because
> Voldemort had "died" at Godric's Hollow. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Why though?  I mean, what was so special about Harry the Ravenclaw 
ghost spoke to him and him alone?  Wasn't it just that 
Harry...asked?  And why was Harry the only one who could have found 
the diary? There wasn't some sort of special Harry-vibe that 
attracted the diary to him, he just lucked across it.

There was just nothing in DH that gave me a reason for Voldemort not 
being stopped at his height before Harry even arrived into this 
world.  Except for the sheep-like idiocy of wizards.  It's not that 
Voldemort was that bad.  They were that weak.

> >>Philip:
> <snip>
>> The simple fact is that people are scared and few will
overcome that fear and attack. Moreover, like Hitler,
Stalin, Lenin, Napeleon and every other singular force
for change in the world, Voldemort plays to the stereotypes
and problems in society. This allows him, despite his
half-blood nature toform a movement for change. The
singular problem is that: "All that is necessary for
the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." <<

Betsy Hp
The problem for me though, is Voldemort is not shown to be on the 
level of a Stalin or a Hitler.  He's at best, a street thug.  And I 
mean at the top of his game and everything.  There's nothing in DH, 
where we were supposed to be seeing Voldemort unleashed, to really 
get an idea of the horror of his power, that points to him as 
anything but a petty bully with a few incredibly stupid people behind 
him.

But, okay, link Voldemort with Hitler.  It didn't take a very 
specific person to take down Hitler.  It was a team effort.  Too bad 
the WW refused to work as a team. <g>

> >>Phillip:
> The simple fact is that Harry is uniquely placed, because he is an 
> orphan thanks to Voldemort, to be willing enough to do something    
> about it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I get that Harry had a personal grudge going on.  But surely he's not 
the only person Voldemort hurt.  So the idea that only Harry had a 
motivation... I can't believe that.  And there's nothing that Harry 
accomplishes, nothing Harry does, that another wizard (and 
intelligent, trained wizard) couldn't have done. 

All in my opinion, of course. <bg>

Betsy Hp




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 02:32:09 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:32:09 -0000
Subject: Order members v Three musketeers SPOILERS  WAS: Dumbledore and Snape that night
In-Reply-To: <fsh9ot+qcaa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsk9n9+585g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182302

Pippin:
<BIG SNIP>
We know that James at least did not enjoy being in hiding, and from 
what Sirius
says, and
what Dumbledore says about the kind of man Sirius was, if there was 
fighting
going on
James would have liked to be in it. I think they had the sort of 
attitude that
Athos speaks
of in The Three Musketeers -- when the king tells them to go 
somewhere and get
killed,
they go and get killed. It isn't for the cause or for the king, it's 
for their
own personal
sense of worth, because they've given their word and because their 
friends are
counting
on them. It's why Sirius can tell Peter that he should have died, and 
why Moody
is so
disgusted with Mundungus, and why Harry is so accepting in the end of 
what he is
asked
to do.
<BIG SNIP>
Alla:

LOL, you see Pippin, it just so happens that I am rereading Three 
musketeers right now ( for the umpteenth time) and I am just 
wondering how the close comparison  in attitudes of our order members 
about fighting and attitude of musketeers and their actions can even 
be compared.

Now, first and foremost I am just going to say that I do not believe 
that any remotely close comparison about attitudes of our order 
members about fighting and attitude of musketeers and their actions 
can even be compared since the wars they fought were drastically 
different IMO, I mean it is not like Gugenots from La Rochelle can be 
compared to DE, but um I am going to try regardless.

If the king tells them to go somewhere and get killed, they go and 
get killed
  You see, one of the key differences to me is that 
musketeers exercise independent thought and indeed act according to 
their sense of right and wrong, while order members do what 
Dumbledore says IMO.

Are Musketeers faithful servants of the King? Sure, they are, but 
when one of their own needs to do what his fair lady wants, they, you 
know, do it and go to find Englishman to get the jewels from him just 
because their friend wants them to. I mean, as we all know only 
D'Artanian gets to England safely, but you get my point. You are not 
going to tell me that King would have LOVED what they were going to 
do, eh?

What Sirius says to Peter in Shrieking Shack actually reminded me 
very much about musketeers, only you see  all the trust between 
Marauders was so eh, strong, that Remus did not even bother to fight 
for Sirius if he had any doubts about his guilt, that is.

Do I need to list all the circumstances when Musketeers save each 
other from the grasp of Richelieu, from the grasp of Mazarini in the 
later books, etc?

Nah, love Marauders as I am, I am afraid their friendship did not 
even come close to me to Musketeers' friendship. 

And yes, they love their country and go fighting in La Rochele, but 
they are not shy about saying what they really think  about killing 
gugenots whose only crime is singing psalms in French as they sing in 
Latin. Order members do what Dumbledore says and not question his 
decisions like at all. I cannot forget Molly not letting Sirius tell 
Harry about Prophecy because Dumbledore said so.

King on the other hand signed the edict that forbade the duels. Hmmm, 
I did not notice Marauders following it.

Again, let me stress I do not believe that attitude's comparison is 
really possible, since it is not like somebody in Three musketeers 
can be compared to LV.
But the key difference to me is that Musketeers are  not shy about 
exercising independent thought and doing what THEY think is best IMO, 
even if it is not what King thinks is best.

They love their country for sure, but well, I just do not see how you 
can compare attitudes here.

I have no problem with order members making independent decisions to 
enter the fight, I have huge problems with the white bearded man who 
plays their lives on the chess board, deciding who dies then, why and 
how. I am exaggerating of course, it did not happen in every 
situation, but you get my drift.

JMO,

Alla.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Mar 29 02:55:43 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:55:43 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsh9ot+qcaa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fskb3f+ukq1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182303

Potioncat:
I'm responding to the thread in general, not just Pippin's post. But 
she always write such good ones, so it's nice to sort of tag along.
 
> Pippin:
snip
> 
> Dumbledore doesn't say he's going to let Lily be killed unless 
Snape will help him. If Snape 
> even thought that, IMO, it's because he was still a DE at heart.  
But I think it would be very 
> in character for Dumbledore to weigh how many lives might  be lost 
while Lily  was out of 
> action.  

Potioncat:
 Let's take a step back to the beginning of this memory. We have the 
conversation between DD and Snape about Lily, but let's look at the 
start of the meeting. I'd like to know what others think of this part 
of the exchange.


*******************
Chapter 33 p 676 Scholastic ed.

The adult Snape was panting, turning on the spot, his wand gripped 
tightly in his hand, waiting for something or for someone
His fear 
infected Harry too, even though he knew that he could not be harmed, 
and he looked over his shoulder, wondering what it was that Snape was 
waiting for--

Then a blinding, jagged jet of white light flew through the air; 
Harry thought of lightning, but Snape had dropped to his knees and 
his wand had flown out of his hand.

"Don't kill me!"

"That was not my intention."

<skip description>

"Well, Severus? What message does LV have for me?"

"No---no message---I'm here on my own account!"

Snape was wringing his hands; He looked a little mad, with his 
straggling black hair flying around him.

"I--I come with a warning---no, a request---please--"

DD flicked his wand,  <snip> "What request could a Death Eater make 
of me?"
****************


Snape is waiting, afraid. DD arrives either in a temper or on the 
offensive. I have the feeling that DE!Snape and DD have met before. 
DD seems to think there is a message from LV, Snape seems to think DD 
might kill him. Obviously, there is some post-Hogwarts history 
between them. "I'm here on my own account" makes it sounds as if 
Snape has been a messenger boy before; and the last time must not 
have gone well.

Severus had to screw up some courage to even come to DD. It's not 
like he thought to himself that he'd drop in at Hogwarts and network. 
Even knowing that he's bringing important information to DD, he's 
afraid. And he isn't asking anything for himself. It's not "save Lily 
and protect me." So, not only is he not asking for himself, but he 
agrees to pay for the service that he's asking of DD. 

Pippin has pointed out that DD isn't in the business of protecting 
Order members. At the same time, a general would want to minimize the 
danger to his troops. Sending them into harm's way needs to be done 
with the best cover possible. (I'm out of my element in war strategy 
here.)  So I can see how DD's question could be from that point of 
view. At any rate, DD's purpose in protecting the Potters is to 
protect the Chosen One a while longer. I don't think DD expects a 
baby to defeat LV.  So now I'm not sure if we have Order Leader DD 
asking for something or if we have DD testing Severus. Or a little of 
both.


"And what will you give me in return, Severus?"
Snape gaped at DD. <snip> after a long moment he said, "Anything."

Boy, I'd sure like to hear the rest of that conversation!









 




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 03:53:24 2008
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:53:24 -0000
Subject: Convention Alley 2008 Registration Deadline
Message-ID: <fskefk+isad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182304

Yes, this is the last chance to register for the lower price of $300 
per person. As of midnight March 31, 2008 (EST) the cost of 
registration for this great event will increase to $350 person.

To register, go to http://www.conventionalley2008.org/ and click 
the "Registration" link to be taken directly to our secure registration 
website. 

If you have any questions, feel free to drop us an email at 
convention_alley at yahoo.ca

Hope to see you there!

Sheryll Townsend
CA 2008 Planning Committee Chair




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 04:04:37 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:04:37 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsk9d3+v3ko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fskf4l+u4ed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182305


> Betsy Hp:
> Any wizard of any salt could figure out all of the above, just as
Dumbledore did, by questioning those in Tom Riddle's past.  If Riddle
collected things, he'd have kept on collecting and his dormmates 
would have recalled such behavior, for example.  The Gaunts' are a 
matter of government record, what with their tangling with the law 
and all.  And anyone at all familiar with the history of Hogwarts 
should know about the Founders and their special items.
> 
> Or, they could capture Voldemort and find out from the man himself.  

Carol responds:

You can't just capture Voldemort or they would have done so after he
reappeared at the end of OoP.

And the people whose memories Dumbledore collected back when he was
only exploring Tom's past and his murders (DD wouldn't have suspected
Horcruxes until he was Tom's altered appearance at the DADA interview,
at which point he might have started putting everything together--just
a hunch since Tom hadn't "died" and returned or been vaporized) were
long dead.

That includes Hokey, Morfin Gaunt, Bob Ogden, and Caractacus Burke.
Needless to say, Hepzibah Smith, whom DD saw through Hokey's memory,
was also dead, as were Merope, Marvolo, and Tom Sr. And, of course,
the memories of young Tom at the orphanage and older Tom applying for
the DADA position were DD's own.

The only person who contributed a memory used in the training sessions
in HBP besides DD who was still alive was Slughorn.

Dumbledore interviewed everyone he could think of who would know
anything about Tom Riddle. No one who knew him at school (and wasn't a
Death Eater or aready dead) was willing to talk. They were all too
afraid even to speak his name. His dormmates were Death Eaters. They
wouldn't talk about LV's school days!

I think you're underestimating Dumbledore's effots, not to mention his
skill at Legilimency, without which he could never have obtained
Hokey's or Morfin's memories.

I don't think that anyone but DD was aware of LV's tendency to collect
"trophies." Certainly, no one else ever saw saw the mouth organ, the
thimble, and whatever the other trinket was, and even if they did,
they'd have no reason to suspect that he had taken to collecting items
belonging to the Founders.

Think about it, Betsy. Did we Muggles anticipate anything of the sort
before HBP? I didn't. And I don't see why the Gaunts being a matter of
public record would make any difference. By the time Tom encountered
Morfin (and framed him for the murder), Merope and Marvolo were
already dead, and Morfin rather rapidly became even more of a nut case
than he was originally. What was he supposed to say? "After that boy
what looked like that Muggle what ran off with my sister came by, I
lost Marvolo's ring?" Fat lot of help that would be to anyone but
Dumbledore, who saw the ring in the memory he extracted from Morfin
and knew better than Tom Riddle did what it was.

Carol, not sure that Betsy is even serious in her suggestions and
sensing some disillusionment with Dumbledore :-)







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Mar 29 04:11:20 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:11:20 -0000
Subject: Depression in HP characters?
In-Reply-To: <fsa3hg+3eb9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fskfh8+9oji@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182306

 "Hagrid"  wrote:
>
> I just saw a news article about JKR being so depressed before 
starting 
> to write HP that she was contemplating suicide.
> 
> http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/news/24032008/jk-rowling-admits-she-
> was-suicidal.html 
> 
> Jo has brought other things into Potterworld as instructional to 
teens. 
> Have we also seen those in serious depression and fighting to get out 
> of it?


Potioncat:

The article says that JKR was suicidal after the breakup of her 
marriage and that her daughter (or her love for her daughter) is what 
gave her the strength to accept help.

On some level, I think this explains both Tonks and Merope. It also 
explains the very important theme of motherly love.

Certainly both Dementors and Boggarts are magical versions of 
depression and anxiety. And oh, if only depression could be treated 
with chocolate!




From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Mar 29 03:11:05 2008
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:11:05 -0400
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harr
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAzHpAsiex5keJ8v7i0K6EWgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 182307

Phillip, in your post you talk about WW1 in comparison to HP, but the incidents
you mention all happened in the years leading up to or during WW2.  Which do you
mean?

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of
transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in
heart."--Iris Murdoch



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




From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Mar 29 02:54:15 2008
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:54:15 -0400
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry re
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAow013bA6REeFReTzTkc6JQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 182308

I got the impression that Crabbe's conjuration was sheer dumb 
luck on his part.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other 
forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle 
remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 06:08:23 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 06:08:23 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fskb3f+ukq1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fskmcn+rfgj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182309

> Potioncat:
> *******************
> Chapter 33 p 676 Scholastic ed.
> "Well, Severus? What message does LV have for me?"
> 
> "No---no message---I'm here on my own account!"

> Potioncat:
> Snape is waiting, afraid. DD arrives either in a temper or on the 
> offensive. I have the feeling that DE!Snape and DD have met before. 
> DD seems to think there is a message from LV, Snape seems to think 
DD 
> might kill him. Obviously, there is some post-Hogwarts history 
> between them. "I'm here on my own account" makes it sounds as if 
> Snape has been a messenger boy before; and the last time must not 
> have gone well.

zgirnius:
I do not agree that this scene establishes post-Hogwarts history 
between Albus and Severus. I think it is quite plausible that the 
only such history may be that given us elsewhere in canon - namely, 
that Severus was caught eavesdropping on Albus's interview with 
Trelawney.

I do see why this passage might bring you to a different conclusion, 
however. If there is no history other than the incident at the Hog's 
Head, how does Albus know Snape is a Death Eater? Severus had to 
request this meeting in the first place. He may have indicated he was 
a Death Eater in setting that meeting up. Or, Dumbledore may have 
some reason to believe Voldemort has heard at least part of the 
prophecy. 

Why would he think Snape had a message from Voldemort? Again, Snape 
might have led him to believe this in arranging the meeting. Snape's 
own statement, that he is there on his own account, does not imply he 
has been there on someone else's before; it is a simple negation of 
what ALbus suggests.

There are two reasons I do not believe there was former history. 
First, Snape's DE past seems to have been a secret not known to the 
Order. Prior to the arrangement Albus reached with Snape in this 
scene, I see no reason he would keep Snape's DE role secret from 
others.

Second, Voldemort seems to have thought that Snape would be able to 
worm his way into a job at Hogwarts. Since he has no idea Snape has 
already betrayed him at this point, I think he should not expect this 
of a Death Eater he has sent to Albus as a messenger in the past. In 
Spinner's End, the whole "tale of remorse" line Snape feeds 
Bellatrix, is apparently supposed to be something that happened post-
GH, not something Voldemort suggested pre-GH.

> Potioncat:
> Severus had to screw up some courage to even come to DD. It's not 
> like he thought to himself that he'd drop in at Hogwarts and 
network. 
> Even knowing that he's bringing important information to DD, he's 
> afraid. 

zgirnius:
I agree he is afraid of Albus, but I do not believe that is all he is 
afraid of. A problem with moseying into Hogwarts to schmooze with the 
big guy, is that it is definitely better if Voldemort never even 
knows the meeting took place. Some random, remote hilltop where no 
other wizard has a reason to be, seems a far better place for this 
meeting than a schjool full of teachers and students.

> Potioncat:
> At any rate, DD's purpose in protecting the Potters is to 
> protect the Chosen One a while longer. I don't think DD expects a 
> baby to defeat LV.  So now I'm not sure if we have Order Leader DD 
> asking for something or if we have DD testing Severus. Or a little 
of 
> both.

zgirnius:
I do think Dumbledore would be interested in protecting "the one with 
the power to defeat the Dark Lord". I also think Snape would expect 
this of him; it is the reason I think he was gaping at him for a 
moment before making his bargain. He expected it was a thing 
Dumbledore would do regardless.

So in that sense, he was testing Severus. But I also think he saw the 
possibilities of having a Death Eater in his debt. (Though, the 
extent to which it would prove useful would depend on the Death 
Eater. Snape probably exceeded Albus's wildest expectations...Albus 
*was* very fortunate to have him.)









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 16:11:37 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:11:37 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fskf4l+u4ed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fslpnp+hj4l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182310

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Or, they could capture Voldemort and find out from the man       
> > himself.  

> >>Carol responds:
> You can't just capture Voldemort or they would have done so after he
> reappeared at the end of OoP.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That it didn't happen isn't enough to convince me that it *couldn't* 
happen.  The only special power Voldemort seems to have is his broken 
off soul bits.  All those do is make him hard to kill (but not 
impossible to kill as he does, in fact, die in the end).  I recall 
nothing said about Voldemort being impossible to capture or hold.

Could JKR have created Voldemort as indeed that formidable?  Sure.  
She could have made up any kind of magical powers she wanted to.  But 
she doesn't.  So instead of showing Voldemort impossible to capture, 
she shows a world too stupid to do so.  (Heck, she doesn't even give 
him crack guards, human or otherwise, for an assult force to get 
through.  Voldemort surrounds himself with idiots and then encourages 
their idiocy.)

> >>Carol:
> And the people whose memories Dumbledore collected back when he was
> only exploring Tom's past and his murders <snip> were long dead.
> <snip>
> The only person who contributed a memory used in the training      
> sessions in HBP besides DD who was still alive was Slughorn.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
At what point during Voldemort's rise to power did Dumbledore start 
researching his past?  I'm remembering it as having happened *after* 
Tom Riddle became Voldemort, but I could well be wrong.  So, if 
Dumbledore did start his research before there were any indications 
Tom was up to no good yeah, those trails would have gone cold.

However, the trails Dumbledore followed were not the only trails 
available.  Unless Tom's fellow classmates all died in strange and 
troubling accidents (except for the ones who went evil) everything 
Dumbledore found out could have been found out by some basic 
detective work.  We're not given any indication that there was a 
sudden rash of deaths amongst those of a certain age just before 
Voldemort appeared as a threat.

What we're supposed to believe is that the moment Voldemort appeared 
on the scene, not only did none of his fellow classmates (or 
teachers, I suppose) recognize him as Tom Riddle, no one tried to 
figure out just who this guy was and what his motivations where.  
Except for Dumbledore.  Who told nothing to no one.  (Loyal as 
Voldemort's most ardent followers is our Dumbledore, keeper of 
Voldemort's secrets.)

> >>Carol:
> No one who knew him at school (and wasn't a Death Eater or aready   
> dead) was willing to talk. They were all too afraid even to speak   
> his name.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But why?  Why was *everyone* so terrified to speak Voldemort's name?  
Not just random house-wizards, but Unspeakables and Aurors and 
members of the Order?  Voldemort wasn't *that* old, for a wizard.  
His fellow classmates (including those a few years above and below) 
should have had representatives within those various institutions.  
We get no explanation as to why the *only* person willing to remember 
Voldemort as Tom Riddle was Dumbledore.

It's like Voldemort appeared on the scene, said "fear me!" and not 
only did the WW oblige, Dumbledore aided and abetted him by refusing 
to share what he knew. 

> >>Carol:
> I don't think that anyone but DD was aware of LV's tendency to      
> collect "trophies."
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I suspect that as per canon, you're right. Little Tom Riddle magpied 
in his orphanage but managed to stop upon reaching Hogwarts.  Until 
that Founder fetish hit of course.  The problem is, that's not how 
human beings behave.  So we have some unnatural behavior for the sake 
of the script.  It's JKR forcing a round peg into a square hole in 
order to keep all of the information under Dumbledore's hat.

In a more realistic or organic telling, his dormmates (and the 
various prefects) should have seen similar behavior.  Seven years 
living in such close quarters, Tom Riddle's box of goodies should 
have been noticed.  Not remarked on, necessarily (unless he stole 
stuff like he did in the orphange) but something for a canny 
detective to learn about. 

> >>Carol:
> Think about it, Betsy. Did we Muggles anticipate anything of the    
> sort before HBP? I didn't.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, don't bring Muggles into this, Carol! (You know how I get when we 
play wizards vs. muggles... <bg>) MI-5 or the FBI would have had 
Riddle down and gone before the second Death Eater's mark wafted 
above some poor victim's house. (Yay Muggles! <rbg>)

As to us readers... of course we couldn't anticipate any of the crap 
JKR dumped on us (via Dumbledore) in HBP.  We were looking at things 
through a very controlled set of eyes.  Which, fine, JKR wasn't 
writing a mystery that she needed to fairly set forth clues for or 
anything.  But when the big reveal finally *did* come, I was left 
wondering how the hell Voldemort managed to get as powerful as he did 
in the first place.  And why the hell Harry was put forth as the only 
person able to take him down.

Only in an Idiot World does Harry Potter become a hero.  Only in an 
Idiot World does Voldemort become a super-villain.

> >>Carol, not sure that Betsy is even serious in her suggestions and
> sensing some disillusionment with Dumbledore :-)

Betsy Hp:
I am serious that Harry's part in Voldemort's destruction seemed 
unnecessary and forced.  Nothing in DH showed me (or even told me, 
for that matter) why *Harry* was the only one for the job.  Voldemort 
just wasn't that indestructable or untouchable.  So it's more 
disillusionment with JKR's plot premise than anything else.  

Though yeah, the only way Dumbledore makes sense to me is if we're 
allowed to see him as a broken, almost evil, egotistical old man.  
But going down that path also asks us (IMO, anyway) to see the WW as 
a broken world heading towards its own destruction.  The final 
showdown and the epilogue squelches those readings though.  In my 
opinion anyway.

> >>Bruce Alan Wilson:
> I got the impression that Crabbe's conjuration was sheer dumb
> luck on his part.

Betsy Hp:
Right.  So if a barely literate boob (stunning comment on the state 
of education at Hogwarts is our Crabbe) could stumble across a means 
to destroy a horcrux, imagine what an Unspeakable or an Auror or a 
Dark Arts expert could have thought up.  Harry had nothing to do with 
it.

Betsy Hp




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 29 16:44:27 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:44:27 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fslpnp+hj4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fslrlb+a6gf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182311

> > >>Carol:
> > I don't think that anyone but DD was aware of LV's tendency 
to      
> > collect "trophies."
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I suspect that as per canon, you're right. Little Tom Riddle 
magpied 
> in his orphanage but managed to stop upon reaching Hogwarts.  Until 
> that Founder fetish hit of course.  The problem is, that's not how 
> human beings behave.  So we have some unnatural behavior for the 
sake 
> of the script.  It's JKR forcing a round peg into a square hole in 
> order to keep all of the information under Dumbledore's hat.
> 
> In a more realistic or organic telling, his dormmates (and the 
> various prefects) should have seen similar behavior.  Seven years 
> living in such close quarters, Tom Riddle's box of goodies should 
> have been noticed.  Not remarked on, necessarily (unless he stole 
> stuff like he did in the orphange) but something for a canny 
> detective to learn about. 

Magpie:
I can't help but get into the "What if crack Muggle minds were 
working on this?" sitaution, so I'd also throw out that as with 
everything else, Voldemort's fetish for collecting was not the only 
route even here. Every one of the Horcruxes were objects that Tom 
Riddle got for himself, and so each one represented a path to see 
what he was doing. If you know that Tom Riddle was involved with 
Hepzibah Smith (which was information that could be known), and that 
she died in this bizarre murder by a house elf--which is unheard of--
and that her cup disappeared, that right there would get you 
wondering whether he didn't take it. You'd also notice his father 
died the way he did, and so did those Gaunts, who were his mother's 
family, and they made no secret of who they were and what objects 
they had...and hey, what happened to those things?

There's also Voldemort's obsession with Hogwarts that leads to the 
objects, or with his own ancestry, which leads to Slytherin.

Or there's also what he did with those objects after they got them. 
Every aspect of creating a Horcrux could leave a trace of what you 
were doing. The one moment where Harry uses deductive reasoning is 
just watching Bellatrix's reaction to the sword and her vault at the 
bank. Lucius was also given an object he was supposed to keep safe. 
That's opening some roads for spy networks or double agents to talk 
about certain objects Voldemort wants to keep safe. (DEs very flawed 
as helpers--the two DEs we know were entrusted with Horcruxes didn't 
do good jobs with them at all. Lucius was willing to use his object 
for his own protection and Bellatrix could barely contain the fact 
that she was entrusted with keeping something safe from Voldemort.)

Also, I agree with Betsy about what we Muggles could and couldn't 
have imagined--as she says, we're only able to deal with the 
information we have. We didn't know Horcruxes existed, but Wizards do 
because magic is part of their world. It's surprising nobody else 
made Horcruxes, to be honest. But the information was there for the 
taking. There was no information in the one library at Hogwarts, but 
even Hermione was able to just look the things up in books once she 
figured out who had taken them all out. Then there seemed to be a 
pretty clear list of things that could destroy them including 
basilisk venom (and why wouldn't that be obtainable on the black 
market along with other stuff that's dangerous to get like dragon's 
blood and giant spider poison?) and fiend fire (that dumb 17-year-
olds can make) or whatever other things exist. 

And that's going the route of assuming you have to kill him rather 
than considering taking away his power in other ways--Dumbledore's 
careful guarding of Tom Riddle's underwhelming origins being an 
example where he seems to be helping him weild superstitious power 
over the population. 

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 19:45:03 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:45:03 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry re
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAow013bA6REeFReTzTkc6JQEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <fsm67v+e9v4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182312

Bruce Alan Wilson wrote:
>
> I got the impression that Crabbe's conjuration was sheer dumb luck
on his part.

Carol responds:

I can't tell to whom you're responding or exactly what point you're
making, but you're certainly correct that Crabbe (shose "sheer dumb
luck" turned against him when he died from his own spell) had no idea
that he was destroying a Horcrux, or even the "diedum" that Harry was
(seemingly) trying to rescue. 

An intelligent, mature Wizard who know what he was doing, including
what a Horcrux is (had Crabbe known, he certainly wouldn't have
destroyed a piece of LV's soul), and who intended to destroy the
Horcrux, was most unlikely to use Fiend-Fyre. I'm not sure that even
the living Dumbledore could have controlled it.

Carol, hoping that Bruce will clarify the point he was making in
relation to the larger argument





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 29 20:10:01 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:10:01 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fslpnp+hj4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsm7mp+l75a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182313

Bruce Alan Wilson:
> > I got the impression that Crabbe's conjuration was sheer dumb luck
on his part.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Right.  So if a barely literate boob (stunning comment on the state
 of education at Hogwarts is our Crabbe) could stumble across a means
 to destroy a horcrux, imagine what an Unspeakable or an Auror or a
Dark Arts expert could have thought up.  Harry had nothing to do with it.

Carol responds:

Except that Crabbe was trying to capture Harry, the Chosen One, to
turn him in to Voldemort for a reward. Otherwise, Crabbe would have
had no reason to be in the RoR. Harry, OTOH, had found out about the
diadem from Helena ravenclaw, a feat that neither DD nor Flitwick had
succeeded in accomplishing, figured out that the diadem was the tiara
that he had placed on the bust of the wizard so that he could find the
HBP's Potions book again, and could have destroyed the tiara/diadem
with the basilisk fang that HR had retrieved (thanks to Harry, who
opened the Cos in the first place, killed the Basilisk, and used
Parseltongue to open the locket Horcrux, enabling Ron to mimic the
word "Open!" and get into the CoS a second time so that Hermione could
destroy the cup Horcrux, which they could not have done without Harry).

Yes, it's complicated and JKR has made sure that it all comes back to
Harry, but without Harry, the Sword of Gryffindor would not work as a
means of destroying Horcruxes, the Basilisk would not be dead nor its
venom available, and the Ravenclaw Horcrux would not have been
identified, much less found. Crabbe's presence was fortuitous (or
felicitous for everyone except himself), but it was by no means
necessary. HRH would have destroyed the diadem without him.

The scene provides a way of having a different Wizard destroy each
Horcrux (as well as serving other character-related purposes), but it
could not have happened without Harry's presence or his discovery of
what and where the Horcrux was.

Carol, wishing that the HBP's Potions book could have been saved and
his notes published posthumously, with Snape getting full credit for
his brilliant discoveries and inventions (minus Sectumsempra!)




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Sat Mar 29 20:57:37 2008
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:57:37 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsm7mp+l75a@eGroups.com>
References: <fsm7mp+l75a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <41D4EE40-B041-45D4-86E9-95782CD56EE7@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 182314


On 2008, Mar 29, , at 12:10, Carol wrote:
> Carol, wishing that the HBP's Potions book could have been saved and
> his notes published posthumously, with Snape getting full credit for
> his brilliant discoveries and inventions (minus Sectumsempra!)
This is one of my regrets, too.  The Potions book needs massive
re-writing and Snape should have gotten credit for his ingenious
modifications to the accepted potions recipes.  And, to think, Snape
was this good at potions when he was Harry's age.  Unfortunately,
I don't think Harry has enough of a mind for potions or Hermione's
memory to be able to reconstruct those discoveries and inventions.
And Hermione was actively refusing to pay attention to them, even
though she might have been able to recognize the theory behind
them and recreate them later if she had paid attention.

Harry said that he learned a lot from the Prince, but it doesn't quite
seem likely that he would have learned the THEORY behind the
modifications that Snape made.

Laura
-- 
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  Sat Mar 29 21:06:04 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:06:04 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fslrlb+a6gf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsmavs+fu0s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182315

Magpie:
<snip>
> There's also Voldemort's obsession with Hogwarts that leads to the 
objects, or with his own ancestry, which leads to Slytherin.

Carol responds:
Who knew about that obsession? No one except Dumbledore. He didn't
advertise it, even to his DEs. Nor did he apparently collect
"trophies" (other than the diary, which was already his) of his crimes
at Hogwarts. Nor would anyone have known that the ring was a trophy
representing his murder of his father and gradparents. I doubt that he
told even his Slytherin dormmates. LV was as secretive in his way as
Dumbledore. Now, yes, that knew or suspected that he was the Heir of
Slytherin and viewed his ability to speak Parseltongue as proof, but
they wouldn't have known about the memory in the diary. (As for its
being a Horcrux, not even Lucius, to whom he finally entrusted it,
knew that.)
> 
> Or there's also what he did with those objects after they got them.
Every aspect of creating a Horcrux could leave a trace of what you 
were doing. 

Carol:

I'm not sure what you mean here. The murders could perhaps have been
traced to Tom Riddle, which is what DD was trying to do by tracking
down the memories before the very old Hokey and the already crazy
Morfin died in Azkaban. But no one would know that he used those
murders to make Horcruxes because he conveniently disappeared. And he
might have stolen the cup and the locket because they were beautiful,
powerfully magical, and historically significant (one of them
connected with his Slytherin heritage) without intending to make
Horcruxes out of them. Even if, say, Caractacus Burke (not the most
scrupulous of Wizards and unlikely to care about anything except his
own failure to acquire those valuable objects) had voiced his
suspicions regarding the theft and murder to the Aurors and those
suspicions had been confirmed (which required DD's ability as a
Legilimens to extract the memory from Hokey in any case), Tom Riddle
had fled the country and no one could see the difference in his
appearance caused by the making of the two new Horcruxes. And they
probably wouldn't have made the connection between the theft/murder
and the altered appearance, anyway. That had to be the result of some
Dark magic, but they'd never known anyone who'd made even one Horcrux
(the only other Wizard I know of who made one was the ancient Greek
Wizard Herpo the Foul). <snip>

Magpie:
We didn't know Horcruxes existed, but Wizards do 
> because magic is part of their world. It's surprising nobody else
made Horcruxes, to be honest. But the information was there for the 
taking. There was no information in the one library at Hogwarts, but
even Hermione was able to just look the things up in books once she 
figured out who had taken them all out. 

Carol:

I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. The information on
Horcruxes was in the restricted section of the library, accessible to
NEWT DADA students with permission from an instructor until Dumbledore
removed the books from the library while Tom Riddle was still at
school. Tom must have discovered it just in the nick of time.
Obviously, Voldemort didn't share that information with his Slytherin
friends. He wanted the power over death to be his own. He didn't want
them in on the secret. And no one under Tom's age (seventy-one as of
DH) would even know about them. Certainly, the Death Eaters didn't.
And people like Mr. Crouch and Mad-Eye Moody, who would perhaps be
close to Voldemort's age, don't seem to know about them, either. the
subject was not taught at Hogwarts, and only those students deeply
interested in Dark magic (which Barty Sr. hated) would have known
about them. And that's when the books were still available.

Slughorn, who is nearly as old as Dumbledore (he was already
middle-aged when he was teaching Tom Riddle and began teaching at the
same time as Dumbledore, so he must be around 100 years old) knows
about Horcruxes, but (like most people) finds the idea repugnant. Not
even Grindelwald, a former Durmstrang student with no qualms about
murder and an interest in immortality (the Deathly Hallows) was
willing to take that route to obtain it. Perhaps Caractacus Burke
knew--I think he would have known a Horcrux had one shown up in his
shop--but he wouldn't make one himself (being a shady dealer in Dark
objects and a murderer are not the same thing), not to mention that,
as Slughorn says, existence in such a form (as a mangled, bodiless
soul when your body is destroyed) doesn't have any great appeal for
most people. 

Anyway, I doubt very much that even highly skilled, intelligent
Wizards knew about Horcruxes except for a few rare cases. Snape
probably would have if DD hadn't confiscated the books, but, as it
was, no British Wizard under seventy would know about them, and few of
those would have the incentive to explore Dark magic not taught at
Hogwarts in that depth. )Durmstrang might have been a different
matter, but LV never got the chance to take over the European WW,
thanks to his own mistakes and failings. And Godric's Hollow and Harry
and all that.)

Magpie:
Then there seemed to be a pretty clear list of things that could
destroy them including basilisk venom (and why wouldn't that be
obtainable on the black market along with other stuff that's dangerous
to get like dragon's blood and giant spider poison?) 

Carol:
Because you have to be a Parselmouth to control one, so only a
Parselmouth would hatch one (unless the Dark Wizard doing so wanted to
be killed by his own creation). And Parselmouths are extremely rare.
Dragon's blood, however dangerous to acquire, is commonly available.
And Acromantuals are only thought to be rare; the black marketeers
don't know about the colony at Hogwarts!

Magpie:
and fiend fire (that dumb 17-year- olds can make) or whatever other
things exist. 

Carol:
Fiend-Fyre that kills its own caster? I'll take Basilisk venom,
conventiently made available by the accidental Parselmouth, Harry
Potter, thank you!

Magpie: 
> And that's going the route of assuming you have to kill him rather
than considering taking away his power in other ways--Dumbledore's
careful guarding of Tom Riddle's underwhelming origins being an 
example where he seems to be helping him weild superstitious power
over the population. 

Carol responds:
Superstition aside (and the WW may be wiser than DD if the name was
jinxed in VW1 as well as VW2), I don't see anyone able to "take away
his power in other ways." Are you forgetting the duel with Voldemort
and his ability to possess people, not to mention his horribly
invasive Legilimency that only Snape (and possibly DD) can resist? Now
granted, JKR could have done more to show us the "great and terrible"
deeds that LV performed with his yew-and-Phoenix-feather wand in VW1,
but he gets Dementors and Giants to do his bidding and persuades
werewolves to obey him. Even animals do what he wants them to do.
Remember his description of the powers he had as an eleven-year-old
before he even owned a wand?

"I can make things move without touching them. I can make animals do
what I want them to do, without training them. I can make bad things
happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to" (HBP
271). He hung a rabbit from the rafters without a wand, and, more
impressive in a dark way, he not only climbed the cliff to the cave
but forced two Muggle children to come with him.

Other Wizarding children made bad things happen to people when they
were angry through accidental magic (Severus's tree branch and Harry's
inflating of Aunt Marge), but LV at eleven was already controlling his
wandless magic, controlling objects, animals, and people.

When DD told Tom that no one would force Tom to attend Hogwarts, Tom
responded: "I'd like to see them try." Dumbledore says something
similar of himself much later with regard to Azkaban:'I could escape,
of course." We're talking about powerful Wizards here. You're not
going to Stupefy Voldemort and force him to spill his guts by pouring
Veritaserum down his throat. In the unlikely event that you can
outduel him (see OoP), he could possess you. And there's always the
Imperius Curse, which may not work on Harry (or a superb Occlumens
like Snape) but works just fine on ost people.

Carol, who finds LV's Legilimency a lot scarier than his ability to
fly or even the power of possession




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Mar 29 22:55:57 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:55:57 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmavs+fu0s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsmhdt+4eqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182316


> Magpie:
> <snip>
> > There's also Voldemort's obsession with Hogwarts that leads to 
the 
> objects, or with his own ancestry, which leads to Slytherin.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Who knew about that obsession? No one except Dumbledore. He didn't
> advertise it, even to his DEs. 

Magpie:
I didn't say I knew who knew about the obsession(though you just 
pointed out that Dumbledore did and that should have been enough), I 
said that he had it, and anything he had could be discovered. 
Voldemort's a very flawed leader. He actually did advertise some of 
his obsessions with some of these things. Everybody knew in DH that 
Slytherin was the house he liked, they all wound up at Hogwarts. I 
wouldn't be surprised if Snape or Lucius knew about some of these 
things. Or Bellatrix.

Carol:

Nor did he apparently collect
> "trophies" (other than the diary, which was already his) of his 
crimes
> at Hogwarts. Nor would anyone have known that the ring was a trophy
> representing his murder of his father and gradparents. I doubt that 
he
> told even his Slytherin dormmates. 

Magpie:
My point was the trophy collecting wasn't the only path to the truth. 
I said that all the actions he took to get these particular trophies 
were things he did, and so things that might be found out. The thread 
made me start thinking about the movie The Fugitive where, iirc, 
Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones both wind up at the same place by 
following completely different evidence and ideas that reflect their 
personal expertise. Or Raiders of the Lost Ark where although it's 
not common knowledge, due to the actions Hitler takes to find the 
Lost Ark, the spy network picks up that he's searching for the Lost 
Ark. (His interest ih the occult also not being total common 
knowledge, but known.)

Carol:
LV was as secretive in his way as
> Dumbledore. 

Magpie:
The focused investigation would assume that the guy might be 
secretive. Few people ever tried to find out any of their secrets. 

Carol:
Now, yes, that knew or suspected that he was the Heir of
> Slytherin and viewed his ability to speak Parseltongue as proof, but
> they wouldn't have known about the memory in the diary. (As for its
> being a Horcrux, not even Lucius, to whom he finally entrusted it,
> knew that.)

Magpie:
It would not be impossible for the events of the diary to be 
discovered by other means. A couple of the main players were still 
around to tell their stories. But I didn't say that Lucius knew it 
was a Horcrux. I said that Lucius was entrusted with an object. A 
potential plot didn't have to start with the idea that there were 
Horcruxes and then have that lead to them being these objects. It 
could also go the opposite direction: why would objects be important? 
If we get one and examine it, we might discover what it is. All of 
these things are potential vulnerabilities. Nobody's ever trying to 
exploit any of them.

Magpie: 
> > Or there's also what he did with those objects after they got 
them.
> Every aspect of creating a Horcrux could leave a trace of what you 
> were doing. 
> 
> Carol:
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. 

Magpie:
I mean that when you do something, you may leave evidence of your 
actions. Anything he had to do to make a Horcrux might be an action 
that could be tracked through evidence or witnesses or whatever, even 
if you didn't at first know where the evidence or reports were 
pointing. You seem to be just writing off any possibility that anyone 
could put two and two together except in exactly the way Dumbledore 
did here. I think committing a string of murders and robberies might 
give a great investigator (or investigators) ideas. As might evidence 
of whatever "disgusting" things one does to create the Horcrux out of 
those two things. Everybody knows he wants to live forever, you'd 
think that alone would lead them to study up on known ways of 
prolonging one's life.

Carol:
The murders could perhaps have been
> traced to Tom Riddle, which is what DD was trying to do by tracking
> down the memories before the very old Hokey and the already crazy
> Morfin died in Azkaban. But no one would know that he used those
> murders to make Horcruxes because he conveniently disappeared. And 
he
> might have stolen the cup and the locket because they were 
beautiful,
> powerfully magical, and historically significant (one of them
> connected with his Slytherin heritage) without intending to make
> Horcruxes out of them. Even if, say, Caractacus Burke (not the most
> scrupulous of Wizards and unlikely to care about anything except his
> own failure to acquire those valuable objects) had voiced his
> suspicions regarding the theft and murder to the Aurors and those
> suspicions had been confirmed (which required DD's ability as a
> Legilimens to extract the memory from Hokey in any case), Tom Riddle
> had fled the country and no one could see the difference in his
> appearance caused by the making of the two new Horcruxes. And they
> probably wouldn't have made the connection between the theft/murder
> and the altered appearance, anyway. 

Magpie:
So even if people had found out that he'd committed a string of 
murders, and also that he'd stolen a series of important objects, and 
even if they saw that his appearance was changing in a way that 
suggested he had performed some black magic that effected his 
fundamental self, nobody could ever have thought he might have made 
Horcruxes...just because they wouldn't? On the contrary, I think 
somebody might very well have come to the conclusion that he'd 
created Horcruxes to give himself immortality based on these kinds of 
facts (along with the focus on immortality he has). I just don't see 
why Dumbledore must be the only person who'd ever consider the idea. 
He might even have gotten killed and didn't die.

Carol:
That had to be the result of some
> Dark magic, but they'd never known anyone who'd made even one 
Horcrux
> (the only other Wizard I know of who made one was the ancient Greek
> Wizard Herpo the Foul). <snip>

Magpie:
How come Dumbledore could consider the possibility? There are people 
who know Horcruxes exist, there must be. They're an obvious way to 
make a Wizard impossible to kill. There are books with information 
about them. Why must we just assume nobody could ever have come up 
with the idea? Horcruxes are the type of thing people would imagine 
even without knowing that they existed or what they were called. 

 
> Magpie:
> We didn't know Horcruxes existed, but Wizards do 
> > because magic is part of their world. It's surprising nobody else
> made Horcruxes, to be honest. But the information was there for the 
> taking. There was no information in the one library at Hogwarts, but
> even Hermione was able to just look the things up in books once she 
> figured out who had taken them all out. 
> 
> Carol:
> 
> I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. The information on
> Horcruxes was in the restricted section of the library, accessible 
to
> NEWT DADA students with permission from an instructor until 
Dumbledore
> removed the books from the library while Tom Riddle was still at
> school. Tom must have discovered it just in the nick of time.
> Obviously, Voldemort didn't share that information with his 
Slytherin
> friends. He wanted the power over death to be his own. He didn't 
want
> them in on the secret.

Magpie:
I thought the reasoning was simple: I think the idea that no one can 
know about a particular subject because it was once in the restricted 
section of the school library which is only open to NEWT level 
students, and then those books were removed to the Headmaster's 
office, is a bit silly. The information exists in the world. It's 
even in books. People could know it. I don't think information is 
entirely restricted to books Dumbledore readily shares with students 
at Hogwarts. They might have to dig a bit, but digging is what they 
should be doing.

Carol:
> Anyway, I doubt very much that even highly skilled, intelligent
> Wizards knew about Horcruxes except for a few rare cases. Snape
> probably would have if DD hadn't confiscated the books, but, as it
> was, no British Wizard under seventy would know about them, and few 
of
> those would have the incentive to explore Dark magic not taught at
> Hogwarts in that depth. )

Magpie:
I'd think Voldemort would provide an obvious incentive for doing just 
that.

Carol:
Durmstrang might have been a different
> matter, but LV never got the chance to take over the European WW,
> thanks to his own mistakes and failings. And Godric's Hollow and 
Harry
> and all that.)

Magpie:
So having information available at Durmstrang would be like it not 
existing at all? To me something being at Durmstrang makes it barely 
more out of reach than having it in the restricted section at 
Hogwarts.
 
> Magpie:
> Then there seemed to be a pretty clear list of things that could
> destroy them including basilisk venom (and why wouldn't that be
> obtainable on the black market along with other stuff that's 
dangerous
> to get like dragon's blood and giant spider poison?) 
> 
> Carol:
> Because you have to be a Parselmouth to control one, so only a
> Parselmouth would hatch one (unless the Dark Wizard doing so wanted 
to
> be killed by his own creation). And Parselmouths are extremely rare.
> Dragon's blood, however dangerous to acquire, is commonly available.
> And Acromantuals are only thought to be rare; the black marketeers
> don't know about the colony at Hogwarts!

Magpie:
However hard you imagine it is to get the venom of a basilisk, it 
sounds like just the type of thing that would be sold in Knockturn 
Alley to me. However they got it--I don't think you'd have to be 
raising one from an egg. And given how important this would be to 
their entire country, I'd think that rare as it is, some would be 
gotten. In canon we are of course restricted to things that three 
teenagers would have easy access to at Hogwarts, because nobody else 
in the entire country is part of the fight.

 
> Magpie:
> and fiend fire (that dumb 17-year- olds can make) or whatever other
> things exist. 
> 
> Carol:
> Fiend-Fyre that kills its own caster? I'll take Basilisk venom,
> conventiently made available by the accidental Parselmouth, Harry
> Potter, thank you!

Magpie:
We're talking about options outside of Harry and whether it's 
possible. The country's being terrorized by an allegedly really bad 
guy and you're rejecting options like a picky eater who just isn't 
that hungry anyway rejecting desserts. Release the fiend fire in a 
controlled environment to destroy the Horcruxes. You don't have to 
set it off willy-nilly like Vincent Crabbe in a crowded room with 
other people and no plan (and most people got out of that too).

 
> Magpie: 
> > And that's going the route of assuming you have to kill him rather
> than considering taking away his power in other ways--Dumbledore's
> careful guarding of Tom Riddle's underwhelming origins being an 
> example where he seems to be helping him weild superstitious power
> over the population. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> Superstition aside (and the WW may be wiser than DD if the name was
> jinxed in VW1 as well as VW2), I don't see anyone able to "take away
> his power in other ways." Are you forgetting the duel with Voldemort
> and his ability to possess people, not to mention his horribly
> invasive Legilimency that only Snape (and possibly DD) can resist? 

Magpie:
No, I'm looking at the many people in the WW and thinking they really 
ought to have been able to take more decisive action a lot better 
than they did if they'd gotten organized. He can't possess everybody 
at once, nor can he read everybody's minds at once. I know it's a bit 
of a challenge, but frankly, people have risen to worse challenges. 
He's one guy with magic, with some followers who also have magic, and 
he's fighting a country of people who also have magic, many of whom 
are supposed to be quite accomplished--and had the same basic formal 
education. They know he has these powers, I think they can come up 
with something besides "He can possess somebody and read their minds. 
I guess there's no way we can beat him." They could also develop 
those same powers themselves--they already have most of them.

Carol:
Now
> granted, JKR could have done more to show us the "great and 
terrible"
> deeds that LV performed with his yew-and-Phoenix-feather wand in 
VW1,
> but he gets Dementors and Giants to do his bidding and persuades
> werewolves to obey him. Even animals do what he wants them to do.
> Remember his description of the powers he had as an eleven-year-old
> before he even owned a wand?
> 
> "I can make things move without touching them. I can make animals do
> what I want them to do, without training them. I can make bad things
> happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to" 
(HBP
> 271). He hung a rabbit from the rafters without a wand, and, more
> impressive in a dark way, he not only climbed the cliff to the cave
> but forced two Muggle children to come with him.

Magpie:
Sounds like Wizarding powers to me. He's a prodigy, but he's just a 
wizard. Didn't Fred Weasley turn a teddy bear into a spider as a 
child? We see Voldemort in a battle at the end of DH and other books 
and he's not invincible. 

Carol:
> 
> Other Wizarding children made bad things happen to people when they
> were angry through accidental magic (Severus's tree branch and 
Harry's
> inflating of Aunt Marge), but LV at eleven was already controlling 
his
> wandless magic, controlling objects, animals, and people.

Magpie:
He's a child prodigy. That doesn't make him so awesome the entire 
country should give up because there's no hope. He's even got glaring 
personality vulnerabilities and plenty of magic that he doesn't use 
or has cut himself off from that weakens him.

Carol:
> 
> When DD told Tom that no one would force Tom to attend Hogwarts, Tom
> responded: "I'd like to see them try." Dumbledore says something
> similar of himself much later with regard to Azkaban:'I could 
escape,
> of course." We're talking about powerful Wizards here. You're not
> going to Stupefy Voldemort and force him to spill his guts by 
pouring
> Veritaserum down his throat. 

Magpie:
Zacharias Smith scoffed at the idea that regular spells could be 
effective against Voldemort and Harry shut up him fast. (Though Harry 
seemed to forget that the exact scenario he was describing was a 
special case.) Voldemort isn't the only powerful Wizard in his world. 
Sure Veritaserum might not work, but it wouldn't work with plenty of 
other Wizards either. I don't think that makes him invincible. Most 
spells work against him just like anybody else.

Carol:
In the unlikely event that you can
> outduel him (see OoP), he could possess you. And there's always the
> Imperius Curse, which may not work on Harry (or a superb Occlumens
> like Snape) but works just fine on ost people.

Magpie:
Our teenaged wizards also can control people with Imperius. I think 
other people besides Harry and the Superb! Occlumens!  Snape could 
learn to throw off Imperius. It's a discipline. You can learn to do 
it. So is dueling. It being unlikely you can outduel a particular 
Wizard doesn't mean that you might not outduel that particular Wizard 
(we've seen that happen). And if there's many excellent duelers and 
maybe some clever strategy, it becomes a lot more likely. 

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 00:33:33 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:33:33 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmhdt+4eqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsmn4t+g764@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182317


> 
> Magpie:
> How come Dumbledore could consider the possibility? 

Carol:
Because he, unlike most other people in the British WW, knew about
Horcruxes for the reasons that I've already given.



> Magpie:
> I thought the reasoning was simple: I think the idea that no one can
know about a particular subject because it was once in the restricted
section of the school library which is only open to NEWT level 
students, and then those books were removed to the Headmaster's
office, is a bit silly. 

Carol:
Thank you very much. I, on the contrary, think that it's perfectly
reasonable that information found only in the restricted section
accesible only to a very few people, most of whom would not be
interested in committing murder so that souls would be anchored to the
earth, and then accessible to nobbody would be generally known, and
the few people, such as Caractacus Burke or Horace Slughorn, who know
such things (but don't act on them) keep the knowledge to themselves.
Perhaps we'd better just agree to differ. I've already given my
reasoning here and see no need to do so again. 

Magpie:
The information exists in the world. It's even in books. People could
know it. <snip>

Carol: People could learn how to fly, too. Snape did. Certainly, it's
remotely possible that books written before Tom Riddle went to school
by people who are probably already dead (or "gaga" like Bathilda
Bagshot) could be read by somebody who had both the opportunity and
the motive, but the problem is, there aren't any Wizarding circulating
libraries, and the only books on the subject (except possibly books in
the Black family home that Regulus somehow found) that we know of are
now in Dumbledore's office, accessible to no one (Hermione has the
advantage of knowing about Horcruxes and knowing that those books are
there, information that no one else except Harry and Ron has and they
aren't as sneaky as she is). I personally think that Regulus finding
out about Horcruxes under these circumstances is a lot harder to
believe than no one else knowing about them. If *Snape* didn't know
about them, no one would. (I'm sure he suspected that Dark magic of
some sort was responsible for LV's altered appearance. He may even
have suspected that it was the same magic that made him to all intents
and purposes immortal. I did. But I never thought about putting a soul
bit in an object. (Perhaps I haven't read enough folklore.) And
Karkaroff at Durmstrang apparently didn't know, either.

Okay, so it's remotely possible that someone somewhere in the British
WW (other than DD and the recalcitrant Slughorn and the dead
Caractacus Burke knows about Horcruxes. Maybe one of the Unspeakables
does. But it doesn't look like it, does it? It may be possible, but
it's not remotely likely. And even if it were, it takes Dumbledore's
early research into people's memories, conducted before even *he*
suspected Horcruxes, and his skilled Legilimency to obtain the
memories, to determine what the objects are. Even if Caractacus Burke
stepped forward with the theory that Riddle murdered Hepzibah to steal
those two objects, there are plenty of other reasons to steal
powerfully magical, beautiful objects associated with famous people,
one of them LV's ancestor, than to make them into Horcruxes. DD could
not have suspected the Horcrux idea until he saw Tom again ten years
later.

Carol earleir:
> > Anyway, I doubt very much that even highly skilled, intelligent
Wizards knew about Horcruxes except for a few rare cases. Snape
probably would have if DD hadn't confiscated the books, but, as it
was, no British Wizard under seventy would know about them, and few 
of those would have the incentive to explore Dark magic not taught at
Hogwarts in that depth. )
> 
> Magpie:
> I'd think Voldemort would provide an obvious incentive for doing
just that.
>
Carol:
Can you explain how they're supposed to explore magic whose existence
they don't know about? ("Dumbledore, old man, we know you're holding
out on us. You must have confiscated the books that we need. Or can't
you just tell us, old man? it would be a lot easier than making us
look through the indexes of those books for a term we've never heard
of.") I don't think so. I really don't think so. So I suppose they're
just supposed to go out into the world and find the books that
somebody must have written that must exist somewhere. that, if I may
borrow the word you used to describe my idea earlier, is just plain silly.

Carol earlier:
> Durmstrang might have been a different matter, but LV never got the
chance to take over the European WW, thanks to his own mistakes and
failings. And Godric's Hollow and Harry and all that.)
> 
> Magpie:
> So having information available at Durmstrang would be like it not 
> existing at all? To me something being at Durmstrang makes it barely 
> more out of reach than having it in the restricted section at 
> Hogwarts.

Carol:
Sigh. I didn't say that Durmstrang definitely had such books. I said
that it *might* have been a different matter since the Dark Arts are
reputedly taught there. But headmaster Karkaroff clearly didn't know
about the Horcruxes, and Great Dark Wizard Grindelwald, who knew about
the Deathly Hallows, never made one, so we can't know whether he knew
about them or not. And even Durmstrang has its limits or GG would
never have been expelled. I doubt that they teach the Unforgiveables
to students under the equivalent of NEWT level (it would be utterly
stupid to do so), and probably Horcruxes, which, after all, require
both murder and the mutilation of the soul, probably aren't taught at
all, but information about them might be accessible to upper-level
students doing research. The thing is, you have to have heard of a
Horcrux to look it up, or you have to be diligently searching for a
means of obtaining earthly immortality, as Tom Riddle was, to stumble
upon the knowledge accidentally. (How Slughorn, who was not interested
in such things, knew about them, I can't guess. Maybe they were still
occasionally mentioned by teachers when he was in school in the early
twentieth century. Or JKR needed him to know about them as a plot
device. Note that he didn't know the spell used to create them unless
he was lying.)

> Magpie:
> However hard you imagine it is to get the venom of a basilisk, it 
> sounds like just the type of thing that would be sold in Knockturn 
> Alley to me. 

Carol:
To you. To me, Basilisks seem much more rare than dragons or even
Acromantulas and their venom unobtainable unless you can control the
Basilisk through Parseltongue. Harry could never have killed the
Basilisk unless Fawkes had blinded it first. They kill you by looking
at you, rember? Maybe Wormtail could milk *Nagini* (lucky him!), but
the only person who could possibly milk a Basilisk would be its
Parselmouth master. And we don't know of any Parselmouths in the
British WW other than the Gaunts (who seem not to have attended
Hogwarts) between Salazar Slytherin and Tom Riddle. Parselmouths,
we're told, are extremely rare, and only a Parselmouth can control a
Basilisk per FB.) So you are free to believe that, like Acromantula
venom surreptitiously stolen by Slughorn from a freshly dead
Acromantula, Basilisk venom occasionally shows up on the black market
to be bought by people intending to destroy the Horcruxes that nobody
knows about (if they're intent on murder, there are easier and cheaper
methods.) i, however, see no reason to think that Basilisk venom is
even that easily obtainable.

Magpie:
However they got it--I don't think you'd have to be raising one from
an egg. 

Carol:

Okay, then. They just find one that's been holed up somewhere living
on rats for a thousand years like the one in the CoS? If it were
loose, it would be Petrifying people, or rather, killing them with its
stare (or its venom if it's feeling vicious). Do you think there are
Basilisk reservations to match the dragon preserves? I very much doubt
it. Again, only a Parselmouth can control a Basilisk. If one's around,
you'd better have a rooster handy.

Magpie:
And given how important this would be to their entire country, I'd
think that rare as it is, some would be gotten. In canon we are of
course restricted to things that three teenagers would have easy
access to at Hogwarts, because nobody else in the entire country is
part of the fight.

Carol:

*If* they knew about Horcruxes and how to destroy them and *if* they
knew that Tom Riddle had created them. And even then, they'd need to
know how many there were, what they were, and how many there were and
how to get past the protections on the locket and the ring.

And what do you mean, easy access? If Harry hadn't spoken
Parseltongue, they'd never have gotten in to the Chamber of Secrets.
Dumbledore tried repeatedly and couldn't do it. and once he got in, he
nearly died from the Basilisk venom. Had DD not sent Fawkes, who A)
brought the Sword of Gryffindor (which conveniently absorbed the venom
and became a potential Horcrux destroyer itself), B) clawed out the
Basilisk's eyes so that it couldn't kill Harry if he looked at it, and
C) used his tears to heal the otherwise fatal wound, Harry would be
dead. Easy? Ask CoS!Harry if it was easy. And they wouldn't have had
"easy access" to the dead Basilisk's fangs if Harry didn't speak
Parseltongue (and Ron weren't a pretty good mimic), either. *No one
else could get in* even after the Basilisk was dead.

> Magpie:
> We're talking about options outside of Harry and whether it's 
possible. The country's being terrorized by an allegedly really bad 
guy and you're rejecting options like a picky eater who just isn't
that hungry anyway rejecting desserts. Release the fiend fire in a 
controlled environment to destroy the Horcruxes. You don't have to 
set it off willy-nilly like Vincent Crabbe in a crowded room with
other people and no plan (and most people got out of that too).

Carol:
You're talking generalizations and very remote possibilities, which
I'm discounting as unlikely *using canon*. I guess I shouldn't even
respond to this thread as we seem to be on different intellectual plains.

*Can* Fiend-Fyre be released in a controlled environment? Where's the
canon for that? It destroys everything in its path and Harry, Ron,
Draco, and the unconscious Goyle escaped only because there were two
brooms handy. (A bit of a coincidence and authorial manipulation, I
concede.)

Carol, who is *not* rejecting options like a picky eater but is
answering your very generalized and hypothetical speculations using
canon-based arguments and would appreciate seeing some canon on your
side of the argument (with a cessation of adjectives like "silly" and
"nitpicking" regarding my arguments, which are anything byt)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 00:48:04 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:48:04 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmn4t+g764@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsmo04+tt3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182318

Carol earlier:

> I, on the contrary, think that it's perfectly reasonable that
information found only in the restricted section accesible only to a
very few people, most of whom would not be interested in committing
murder so that souls would be anchored to the earth, and then
accessible to nobbody would be generally known, and the few people,
such as Caractacus Burke or Horace Slughorn, who know such things (but
don't act on them) keep the knowledge to themselves.

Carol: I left out an important "not" here. Rewording for intelligibility:

I, on the contrary, think that it's perfectly reasonable that
information at first found only in the restricted section of the
library and consequently accessible only to a very few people (most of
whom would not be interested in committing murder and encasing a part
of their split soul in an object so that their souls could be anchored
to the earth), and later accessible to *nobody* because DD was keeping
the books on the subject hidden in his office would *not* be generally
known. It's common sense. And it's also reasonable to think that the
few people, such as Horace Slughorn and possibly Caractacus Burke, who
know such things (but don't act on them) are likely to keep the
knowledge to themselves (as Slughorn canonically does).

Carol, hoping that this edited version is more intelligible but tired
of this thread and wanting to talk about the books as they're written,
not some hypothetical "better" plot 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 30 02:43:12 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:43:12 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmn4t+g764@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsmuo0+pgkc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182319

> > Magpie:
> > How come Dumbledore could consider the possibility? 
> 
> Carol:
> Because he, unlike most other people in the British WW, knew about
> Horcruxes for the reasons that I've already given.

Magpie:
Somebody else could study the Dark Arts and so learn about these 
things the way Dumbledore did. (Surely somebody should have at some 
point.) I'd be surprised if Nicholas Flamel knew nothing of the 
concept, for instance. Other people might have reason to investigate 
immortality magic given that their Overlord is into the stuff. 
Especially if they actually attempt to kill the guy and something odd 
happens.

> > Magpie:
> > I thought the reasoning was simple: I think the idea that no one 
can
> know about a particular subject because it was once in the 
restricted
> section of the school library which is only open to NEWT level 
> students, and then those books were removed to the Headmaster's
> office, is a bit silly. 
> 
> Carol:
> Thank you very much. I, on the contrary, think that it's perfectly
> reasonable that information found only in the restricted section
> accesible only to a very few people, most of whom would not be
> interested in committing murder so that souls would be anchored to 
the
> earth, and then accessible to nobbody would be generally known, and
> the few people, such as Caractacus Burke or Horace Slughorn, who 
know
> such things (but don't act on them) keep the knowledge to 
themselves.

Magpie:
They don't have to be interested in creating Horcruxes for 
themselves. They only have to be interested in the study of advanced 
dark magic or possible things Voldemort might be studying. These 
things are in books that are in a school library--why would anybody 
put them in books if nobody was interested enough in them enough to 
write them down or think anyone else would read about them? 
Information found in the high school library isn't generally so 
esoteric that nobody could possibly have heard about it. Since when 
are teenagers not interested in spooky magic, after all?

> 
> Magpie:
> The information exists in the world. It's even in books. People 
could
> know it. <snip>
> 
> Carol: People could learn how to fly, too. Snape did. Certainly, 
it's
> remotely possible that books written before Tom Riddle went to 
school
> by people who are probably already dead (or "gaga" like Bathilda
> Bagshot) could be read by somebody who had both the opportunity and
> the motive, but the problem is, there aren't any Wizarding 
circulating
> libraries,

Magpie:
Most Wizards in Britain pretty much went to Hogwarts and had access 
to this library, actually, which means a lot of people with an 
interest in Dark Magic could have read about them (before Dumbledore 
hid all the books on the subject). But regardless, they don't have to 
have read the stuff before. I'm talking about doing research in 
response to Voldemort. I don't agree that unless a person already 
knew about Horcruxes before Voldemort there's no possible way they 
could have come to learn about them afterwards. The guy leads a group 
of Death Eaters--why wouldn't people be researching anything related 
to death eating?

Carol:
and the only books on the subject (except possibly books in
> the Black family home that Regulus somehow found) that we know of 
are
> now in Dumbledore's office, accessible to no one (Hermione has the
> advantage of knowing about Horcruxes and knowing that those books 
are
> there, information that no one else except Harry and Ron has and 
they
> aren't as sneaky as she is). 

Magpie:
So nobody could possibly figure out about Horcruxes except 
Dumbledore, Slughorn...and that one teenager who did find out about 
Horcruxes without Dumbledore and without any of the advantages 
Hermione had. So right there in canon is somebody who figured out the 
Horcrux idea after Voldemort's rise, and without being Dumbledore. 
We're not told how Regulus found it out (though if the Blacks have 
books about Horcruxes obviously British Wizards can have books about 
Horcruxes) but he found out about them somehow--probably without 
looking up the word Horcrux.

Carol:
I personally think that Regulus finding
> out about Horcruxes under these circumstances is a lot harder to
> believe than no one else knowing about them. If *Snape* didn't know
> about them, no one would. 

Magpie:
And yet Regulus did know about them, so maybe discovering about the 
Horcruxes isn't about being the smartest Wizard ever, but just doing 
the right research? As you suggest here, Voldemort didn't tell 
Regulus he had Horcruxes. The teenager figured it out by himself 
following whatever clues he followed. 

Carol:
> Okay, so it's remotely possible that someone somewhere in the 
British
> WW (other than DD and the recalcitrant Slughorn and the dead
> Caractacus Burke knows about Horcruxes. Maybe one of the 
Unspeakables
> does. But it doesn't look like it, does it? It may be possible, but
> it's not remotely likely. 

Magpie:
In canon no, it doesn't seem like any of them know that Voldemort has 
Horcruxes (though some may have that theory). Whether they know what 
Horcruxes are I don't think we can say one way or another. Nobody 
seems to have been doing much of an investigation, whether anyone had 
ever heard of a Horcrux or not. Regulus Black wanted to take 
Voldemort down so looked for ways to do it and came up with this. The 
only good side plan to take Voldemort down that we hear about is the 
Prophecy plan.

Carol:
And even if it were, it takes Dumbledore's
> early research into people's memories, conducted before even *he*
> suspected Horcruxes, and his skilled Legilimency to obtain the
> memories, to determine what the objects are. 

Magpie:
That's the way Dumbledore does it. A lot of my post was about how 
that wasn't necessarily the only way to do it if that way wasn't 
possible. I think most in-depth investigations into Voldemort's life 
would have turned up his associations with these people and objects 
and his obsession with death. We'll never know how that investigation 
would have gone, but the possibility would be there. With no Harry to 
save them and Voldemort breathing down their necks they'd have to do 
something or else just roll over in defeat.

Carol:
Even if Caractacus Burke
> stepped forward with the theory that Riddle murdered Hepzibah to 
steal
> those two objects, there are plenty of other reasons to steal
> powerfully magical, beautiful objects associated with famous people,
> one of them LV's ancestor, than to make them into Horcruxes. DD 
could
> not have suspected the Horcrux idea until he saw Tom again ten years
> later.

Magpie:
Sure there are other reasons to take objects. But there are other 
things about LV that could lead to Horcruxes as one possibility. 
Tom's physical transformation is another clue.

> Carol earleir:
> > > Anyway, I doubt very much that even highly skilled, intelligent
> Wizards knew about Horcruxes except for a few rare cases. Snape
> probably would have if DD hadn't confiscated the books, but, as it
> was, no British Wizard under seventy would know about them, and few 
> of those would have the incentive to explore Dark magic not taught 
at
> Hogwarts in that depth. )
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > I'd think Voldemort would provide an obvious incentive for doing
> just that.
> >
> Carol:
> Can you explain how they're supposed to explore magic whose 
existence
> they don't know about? 

Magpie:
You explore the Dark Arts, particularly stuff having to do with 
immortality, because the guy taking over your country is really into 
the Dark Arts and immortality. They don't have to start off looking 
up Horcruxes, they study all sorts of Dark Arts and Horcruxes are 
part of that field of study. Hopefully you don't confine yourself to 
just the Hogwart's library--or if you are looking there there's some 
record of books that have been removed and therefore might have 
hidden information in them. (If Tom took them out and there was a 
record of that, that would be a good help.) Unfortunately the 
Hogwarts library has been tampered with by Dumbledore, but then, 
since Tom Riddle went to school there one could expect them to 
consider that library suspect anyway. (But I think they would 
definitely look up books he took out while at school.) So maybe you 
go to Durmstrang or Dark Arts experts who have their own libraries.

Carol:
 So I suppose they're
> just supposed to go out into the world and find the books that
> somebody must have written that must exist somewhere. that, if I may
> borrow the word you used to describe my idea earlier, is just plain 
silly.

Magpie:
As I hope I've explained now, they're not looking up "Horcruxes," 
they're studying the Dark Arts because that's what Voldemort has 
studied. Horcruxes are just one of many things that are part of the 
Dark Arts, specifically stuff having to do with death. Presumably 
that's how Dumbledore learned about them, right? He didn't look up a 
word he'd never heard, he learned about them because he studied 
advanced magic. Presumably the same went for Slughorn and Tom Riddle--
he wasn't looking for a word called Horcruxes, he was studying ways 
to extend his life via Dark Magic and that's what was there. 

 
> Carol earlier:
> > Durmstrang might have been a different matter, but LV never got 
the
> chance to take over the European WW, thanks to his own mistakes and
> failings. And Godric's Hollow and Harry and all that.)
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > So having information available at Durmstrang would be like it 
not 
> > existing at all? To me something being at Durmstrang makes it 
barely 
> > more out of reach than having it in the restricted section at 
> > Hogwarts.
> 
> Carol:
> Sigh. I didn't say that Durmstrang definitely had such books. I said
> that it *might* have been a different matter since the Dark Arts are
> reputedly taught there. But headmaster Karkaroff clearly didn't know
> about the Horcruxes, and Great Dark Wizard Grindelwald, who knew 
about
> the Deathly Hallows, never made one, so we can't know whether he 
knew
> about them or not.

Magpie:
Yes, I realized you weren't saying they definitely had them, since 
obviously you wouldn't know. (Hogwarts had them before Dumbledore 
stole them, so I can't imagine why they wouldn't.) I was just 
responding to the idea that books being in the other school's library 
meant the knowledge was out of reach.

Obviously Horcruxes aren't something that is common knowledge. But I 
don't see why nobody could get that knowledge in studying related 
things. In fact we know they could, because Dumbledore, Slughorn, Tom 
Riddle and Regulus all at some point found out what they were. 

Carol:
 And even Durmstrang has its limits or GG would
> never have been expelled. I doubt that they teach the Unforgiveables
> to students under the equivalent of NEWT level (it would be utterly
> stupid to do so), and probably Horcruxes, which, after all, require
> both murder and the mutilation of the soul, probably aren't taught 
at
> all, but information about them might be accessible to upper-level
> students doing research. The thing is, you have to have heard of a
> Horcrux to look it up, or you have to be diligently searching for a
> means of obtaining earthly immortality, as Tom Riddle was, to 
stumble
> upon the knowledge accidentally. 

Magpie:
Bingo! Tom Riddle was looking for means of obtaining earthly 
immortality and found this information in the Hogwarts library. I've 
never suggested kids were taught how to make them in class. (Though 
certainly at Durmstrang they might be told of them without ever 
making them themselves. They are studying the Dark Arts after all.)

Carol:
(How Slughorn, who was not interested
> in such things, knew about them, I can't guess. Maybe they were 
still
> occasionally mentioned by teachers when he was in school in the 
early
> twentieth century. Or JKR needed him to know about them as a plot
> device. Note that he didn't know the spell used to create them 
unless
> he was lying.)

Magpie:
Yes, he's another person who knows about them and as you say, knows 
about them without ever wanting to make one. I have no problem 
believing that they are occasionally mentioned in lots of specialized 
circumstances in the WW. They're not taught in school, but people 
could still come across them doing different types of study. Hogwarts 
doesn't seem to have ever taught them but Slughorn managed to pick up 
the information somewhere. 

> 
> > Magpie:
> > However hard you imagine it is to get the venom of a basilisk, it 
> > sounds like just the type of thing that would be sold in 
Knockturn 
> > Alley to me. 
> 
> Carol:
> To you. To me, Basilisks seem much more rare than dragons or even
> Acromantulas and their venom unobtainable unless you can control the
> Basilisk through Parseltongue. 

Magpie:
Well, however hard they are to get, if that's what you need to take 
out the guy who's supposedly so awful, I think that would just be 
part of the challenge. Somebody's going to go off and kill a basilisk-
-I'm sure many a Gryffindor would love the idea. (Maybe they could 
make a tournament of it!) Can nobody in the entire world be up for a 
challenge but Harry--who killed a basilisk when he was all of 12 
years old without being able to control it with Parseltongue? They'd 
have to do it differently than Harry, obviously, but then they would 
also be more prepared than Harry beforehand.

Carol:
Harry could never have killed the
> Basilisk unless Fawkes had blinded it first. They kill you by 
looking
> at you, rember? 

Magpie:
Unless you're a rooster, in which case many say basilisks can be 
killed by your crowing--I believe JKR kept this part and that's why 
Ginny was killing roosters. Also, anyone who knows Greek mythology 
would think of killing it with big mirrors. Or of course you could 
use mirrors or specially trained archers who can shoot blindly, or 
probably other methods if you think creatively, to blind the 
basilisk. Or maybe you borrow Fawkes since Dumbledore is supposed to 
be on your side. 

Or perhaps they just look up the last time a place was being attacked 
by a basilisk that would have had to be killed and then go steal 
teeth from the skeleton, since apparently the venom lasts for years 
after its death.

Carol:
So you are free to believe that, like Acromantula
> venom surreptitiously stolen by Slughorn from a freshly dead
> Acromantula, Basilisk venom occasionally shows up on the black 
market
> to be bought by people intending to destroy the Horcruxes that 
nobody
> knows about (if they're intent on murder, there are easier and 
cheaper
> methods.) i, however, see no reason to think that Basilisk venom is
> even that easily obtainable.

Magpie:
Basilisk venom could be used in ther things besides Horcrux-killing, 
actually. I wouldn't expect it to be on the market just for killing 
Horcruxes. 
> 
> Magpie:
> However they got it--I don't think you'd have to be raising one from
> an egg. 
> 
> Carol:
> 
> Okay, then. They just find one that's been holed up somewhere living
> on rats for a thousand years like the one in the CoS? If it were
> loose, it would be Petrifying people, or rather, killing them with 
its
> stare (or its venom if it's feeling vicious). Do you think there are
> Basilisk reservations to match the dragon preserves? I very much 
doubt
> it. 

Magpie:
They exist in the world. If it's out petrifying people presumably 
there'd be a force raised to kill it anyway I'd imagine. They'd have 
to do that to protect themselves. Then they'd have venom.

Carol:
Again, only a Parselmouth can control a Basilisk. If one's around,
> you'd better have a rooster handy.

Magpie:
Yeah, that would be a good idea. Good thing roosters aren't all that 
hard to obtain at all.


> Magpie:
> And given how important this would be to their entire country, I'd
> think that rare as it is, some would be gotten. In canon we are of
> course restricted to things that three teenagers would have easy
> access to at Hogwarts, because nobody else in the entire country is
> part of the fight.
> 
> Carol:
> 
> *If* they knew about Horcruxes and how to destroy them and *if* they
> knew that Tom Riddle had created them. And even then, they'd need to
> know how many there were, what they were, and how many there were 
and
> how to get past the protections on the locket and the ring.

Magpie:
Yes, this is all part of the alternate universe where people have 
been working very hard to investigate stuff that Voldemort is doing. 
Obviously it wouldn't be an easy task. However, if the book had been 
written this way I'm sure the idea of a small group of teenagers 
doing it would sound even more far-fetched. We don't know the half of 
stuff Voldemort has done, only the stuff Dumbledore fastened onto. 
Somebody investigating from a different angle would probably come up 
with just as much information, just not from the "I was his teacher 
at school" angle. One possibility, as I said, was that there might be 
more about whatever you have to do to make a Horcrux.

I completely understand your not being interested in this alternate 
possibility and preferring to just look at the story that's there. 
But that's what we're talking about. These things just don't sound so 
impossible to me given the way this world is supposed to work in the 
canon I've got. Would this story be a better plot? I've no idea. I 
think it would be so different it's apples and oranges. It'd probably 
need to be an adult book written by somebody else. It's not the stuff 
Rowling's interested in. But she didn't write a world that made these 
other things impossible--in fact she opened the door for them by 
sketching in vague ideas about adult resistance movements and other 
professionals.

So it comes down to "Could somebody write a fanfic about a world with 
no Chosen One?" and the answer to me just seems to be a resounding 
yes. They could make it completely believable and find different ways 
around all the problems in canon. Canon leaves lots of ways open for 
that.

Carol: 
> And what do you mean, easy access? If Harry hadn't spoken
> Parseltongue, they'd never have gotten in to the Chamber of Secrets.
> Dumbledore tried repeatedly and couldn't do it. 

Magpie:
I mean the easy access they had in DH. They were there, they had to 
be able to grab something there, and they did. Ron and Hermione just 
had to nip up to the bathroom and say the words Ron knew. And before 
you go through the plot of CoS and DH to remind me how he was able to 
do that and how hard it was to kill the basilisk years before, I know 
how he was able to do that. But in that moment in DH, basilisk venom 
was easily at hand (despite the basilisk being dead for years.) In 
DH, there's no big struggle whatsoever to get to the basilisk venom. 
It was taken care of earlier. That's how JKR solved that problem in 
DH.


Carol:> 
> *Can* Fiend-Fyre be released in a controlled environment? Where's 
the
> canon for that? It destroys everything in its path and Harry, Ron,
> Draco, and the unconscious Goyle escaped only because there were two
> brooms handy. (A bit of a coincidence and authorial manipulation, I
> concede.)

Magpie:
So how come the school's still standing at the end? Shouldn't the 
fire have continued to destroy everything?

Carol: who is *not* rejecting options like a picky eater but is
> answering your very generalized and hypothetical speculations using
> canon-based arguments and would appreciate seeing some canon on your
> side of the argument (with a cessation of adjectives like "silly" 
and
> "nitpicking" regarding my arguments, which are anything byt)

Magpie:
No, I can't give you canon, because I'm not talking about canon. The 
whole point of the discussion is "what if Snape didn't give the 
Prophecy to Voldemort--or what if the Prophecy had never been made?" 
Would the WW have had no other possible hope of destroying Voldemort? 
And given that I've got a world full of allegedly competent adult 
wizards, some of whom are supposed to be quite intelligent and 
talented and brave and committed to the cause I just can't believe 
they could never possibly have come up with a solution for the 
problem of this one guy obsessed with immortality who made six 
Horcruxes. A guy who was ultimately taken out by Harry and his 
friends. I can't prove it by showing other possibilities actually 
happening in canon because they didn't happen in canon. Everybody 
just sat around and waited for Harry to fulfill the Prophecy and do 
all the things you needed to get rid of the Horcruxes himself. But if 
somebody wanted to tackle this in fanfic, sure I think it could be 
believable. 

And Harry and his friends just never seem to see their task as as 
hopeless as it's being described here. I guess what you're actually 
doing is just rejecting ideas because the steps involved were never 
shown in canon, but because of the way I'm looking at the problem 
(differently) I feel like we're at a "Bring Down Voldemort" 
resistance meeting with the world at stake and we've got a whole slew 
of things we can try to attack this wizard and everything suggested 
one member is just saying is pointless: We can't find anything 
helpful by studying the Dark Arts. Everybody's too dead to bother 
with studying Voldemort's life. Basilisk venom is too hard to get. 
Fiend fire's too dangerous to use. Nobody can ever beat Voldemort in 
a duel. Voldemort's too powerful to stand up to unless you're 
incredibly special. Only the teenager the newspapers are calling the 
Chosen One based on his eighth grade teacher's prophecy and his 
headmaster's expertise sound hopeful.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 03:17:49 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 03:17:49 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmuo0+pgkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsn0ot+etgf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182320

Magpie:
<SNIP>
These things just don't sound so
impossible to me given the way this world is supposed to work in the
canon I've got. Would this story be a better plot? I've no idea. I
think it would be so different it's apples and oranges. It'd probably
need to be an adult book written by somebody else. It's not the stuff
Rowling's interested in. But she didn't write a world that made these
other things impossible--in fact she opened the door for them by
sketching in vague ideas about adult resistance movements and other
professionals. <SNIP>


Alla:

I agree in a sense that all the things that you are describing 
soundsc ompletely plausible and with certainly enough canon support 
for canon based speculation at least. I mean, as you said, Reg 
knowing about horcruxes is right there on the pages.

I wanted to address Betsy as well, but I figure I will do so without 
quote, will be understandable enough.

So, yes as I said I totally can see the AU where somebody else can 
figure out how to defeat Voldemort and not be a super genious either.

I guess where we differ on this speculation (with Betsy) is that I 
have no problem suspending disbelief in the story where I know child 
is supposed to defeat the big baddie. I know that to enjoy the story 
I should suspend disbelief and assume that adults are idiots, or do 
what their leader tells them or just won't bother with research about 
Dark arts, etc, etc.

I mean, I totally understand if it is not possible for you to suspend 
disbelief, as I said, I myself can totally see AU scenario.

I can do it, as I would do it for every heroical quest where kid is 
the main character.

I mean, some things that Will in Dark is rising had to do had me 
scratching my head hugely, you better believe it. I suspended 
disbelief, because I know that kid in this story should be the hero 
and that's where it goes. Oh dear every time I think about harp, I 
start giggling. Every time I think about only Will being able to get 
to something or talk to something, I start to giggle again.

Same with Harry Potter, no it does not sound to me believable at all 
that nobody bothered to research the Dark arts and find out about 
horcruxes in the meanwhile. I just accept it that it is necessary for 
the plot, but it does not mean that I disregard this as unbleievable, 
quite contrary.

Take Lyra in Golden compass, does it sounds believable to me that she 
was the only candidate, the special child for the quest? Eh, no of 
course not, I just accept it as part of the premise.

Makes any sense?

Alla





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 05:05:37 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:05:37 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmuo0+pgkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsn731+c1o7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182321


> Magpie:
>  <snip> Most Wizards in Britain pretty much went to Hogwarts and had
access to this library, actually, which means a lot of people with an
interest in Dark Magic could have read about them (before Dumbledore 
hid all the books on the subject). 

Carol:
Most wizards in Britain had access to this *library,* yes, but not
necessarily to the Restricted Section and not to those books.
Dumbledore hid the books while Tom was still at school, fifty years
before Harry entered Hogwarts and roughly thirty-nine years before
Godric's Hollow (and roughly a dozen years before Tom's altered
appearance gave DD any cause to suspect that he might actually be
making Horcruxes). Even when the books were accessible, they were only
for the use of advanced DADA students (with permission from a staff
member) and perhaps the staff members themselves. Students don't just
walk into the Restricted Section and choose a book. They need
permission even to enter. 

The old DADA teacher, who might perhaps be acquainted with the
subject, retired when Tom left and was probably dead by the time of
Godric's Hollow. We *know* that the future DEs weren't checking out
books on Horcruxes from the Restricted Section. they had no idea that
Voldemort was making Horcruxes (though they certainly knew from the
alterations in his appearance that he was experimenting with Dark
Magic). the boys we see with Voldemort don't seem the scholarly type,
anyway. Two of them are risking detention by turning in their essays
late. Most students in the HP books, regardless of their House or
their year, don't study any harder than they have to; Hermione, who's
always consulting a book, is an anomaly. So was Severus Snape, who
would probably have read those books had they been available to him.
As it was, he had no idea that they existed.

Perhaps one student in a generation read those books, and *no one
under seventy* read them till Hermione sneaked them out of the library.

Remember Ron's joke about all the people who have read "Hogwarts: a
History" ("Just you, then")? Krum hangs around the library to watch
Hermione, other students use the regular section to write their
essays, but when do we ever see a student or even a faculty member
doing research in the Restricted Section? The only time it's ever used
in the books is by Hermione with permission and Harry without.

Seriously, your statement that "a lot of people with an interest in
the Dark Arts probably read those books" is an exaggeration even with
regard to the over-seventies who attended Hogwarts with Tom Riddle and
earlier (many of whom are dead by the time of Godric's Hollow, in any
case). If it weren't, the future DEs would have read about Horcruxes
along with Tom Riddle (who probably kept the books to himself to keep
even his "friends" from reading them). And with regard to people under
seventy, it's simply false. *The books weren't available.* Dumbledore
hid them. consequently, Lupin, Snape, the Potters, the Weasleys, and
any other Order members of their generation (or even some thirty years
older) has no idea that Horcruxes exist. (Aberforth is old enough to
know about them, but I doubt that he ever set foot in even the regular
student portion of the library. And Mrs. Figg may be old enough, but
she's a Squib.)

Perhaps you're thinking that "a lot of wizards" read about Horcruxes
after finishing Hogwarts, but why would they? They don't have
circulating libraries, they don't go to college, and what studying
they do after Hogwarts (if any) relates to such specialized fields as
Healing and being an Auroring (pardon the neologism; I wanted parallel
structure). If the Unspeakables study Horcruxes in their research on
death, they're not telling anyone. Such books wouldn't be available in
Diagon Alley, and respectable Witches and Wizards avoid Knockturn
Alley (which might or might not sell such books; we aren't shown any
books of any sort in Borgin and Burkes.) And Wizards other than Snape,
with his book-lined walls (and probably Dumbledore) don't spend much
time reading that I can see. (If McGonagall reads anything other than
student essays or the Daily Prophet, it's probably "Transfiguration
Today." *She's* the right age, BTW, but she has no clue about the
Horcruxes.)

If older Wizards interested in the Dark Arts (or fighting them) knew
about Horcruxes, surely either Mad-Eye Moody or Mr. Crouch would know
about them (assuming that they're over seventy). But, clearly, they
don't. Dumbledore and Slughorn are the only ones who know about them,
and neither of them is sharing that information.

The topic is not taught or even mentioned at Hogwarts. It's taboo. How
are students supposed to learn about Horcruxes when the teachers
pretend that they don't exist? And if people somehow knew about them
anyway and talked about them in conversation (as an exciting forbidden
topic spoken about in whispers) or if information on Horcruxes could
easily be encountered in books outside Hogwarts, Snape, of all people
would know about them and have at least one book on the topic in his
book-lined house at Spinner's End. But, evidently, the concept is so
horrible that, as Hermione says, even books full of the most gruesome
spells and potions don't even mention Horcruxes. The only reference
she finds is one that says that the writer isn't going to deal with
the topic. It stands to reason, then, that books that *do* discuss
Horcruxes are very rare--and written by people who were adults when
Tom Riddle attended Hogwarts and unlikely still to be writing books in
Harry's time even if they're still alive.

Carol, who thinks that Horcruxes are no more a part of the average
Wizard's world than necrophilia is part of yours and mine




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 30 05:20:04 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:20:04 -0000
Subject: Who Needs Harry?
Message-ID: <fsn7u4+ha84@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182322

In the story, Harry is the only person who can take down Voldemort,
because that's how the story is written. The Author endowed him with
the needed abilities and gave him lucky breaks, and decreed that
everything everyone else tried, failed. 

According to archetypal analysis (that's a New Age style of literary
criticism), the purpose of traditional folk tales and epics where the
hero is the only person who can possibly accomplish the assigned
heroic task, such as slaying the monster or stealing fire from heaven,
is to motivate ALL listeners to try their hardest and do their
damnedest to be heroic and do their duty and accomplish their destiny,
asserting that each person has a destiny that only they can do. 

Various assertions of what is this destiny or duty that only each
person can do for himerself (sorry, Carol!) include (but are not
limited to): having faith in Christ and living a humble and virtuous
life and resisting temptation; having compassion for all beings and
living a life of non-desire; expressing artistic creativity; enlisting
in the military at age 18 and winning a couple of medals before being
killed in battle before reaching 19; cleaning one's bedroom. 

For all that Rowling says she's just telling a story, I wouldn't be in
the least surprised if she had some conscious hope that the story
would encourage readers to try their hardest and do their damnedest to
be courageous and fight tyranny and human rights abuses and be kind to
people.

So it's a book. I believe we agree that the characters in books don't
have free will and their fate is already cast in concrete - a reader
may not yet know the ending when first reading the book, but it
already exists, already printed on later pages of the volume in one's
hand. And there is no such thing as a coincidence; every coincidence
that occurs in the story was directly created by the Author for a
purpose. And us readers can jump around in time as much as we like.
Every time we re-read OoP, it ends with Sirius dying, but then we
re-read PoA and are with him alive 'again'.

I am told that the Ancient Greeks believed that real life was much
like that description, that one's fate is inexorable and all one has
free will about is whether to go through it courageously and
graciously or cowardly and contemptibly. That's supposed to be the
reason they had stories of people trying to prevent prophecies from
coming true, that end up coming true just because of the attempt to
prevent them.

I've never understood why people who believe their fate is inexorable
bother to ask questions of  the oracles. Why bother asking "If I
attack the Persians, who will win?" when your fate is already set that
you will attack the Persians even if the oracle says you will lose?
Why bother sacrificing to the gods when it is already determined
whether or not they will strike you down for blasphemy? Why bother
studying for an exam if your score and the amount you know has already
been woven by the Fates? 

With that viewpoint, I *must* believe that we real life people have
free will, and our futures can be somewhat different depending on the
actions taken by each one and others, and there is such thing as
coincidence, and time travel creates a lot of paradoxes, and even the
best, most psychic and magical, oracle can tell only what is *likely*
to happen based on current trends. Otherwise even my prescription for
large doses of two different antidepressants wouldn't be enough to
make me ever get out of bed.





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 30 05:47:13 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:47:13 -0000
Subject: Peverells /green goo/ Basilisk Venom /  Peter Pettigrew
Message-ID: <fsn9h1+pdq7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182323

Catlady (me) wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182223>:

<< It seems that Herself chose the names of the Peverell brothers,
Antioch, Cadmus, and Ignotus, for their initial letters, in which I is
the straight line representing the wand, A is the triangle
representing the cloak, and C is the circle representing the stone,
adding up to that symbol. >>

To which Carol replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182235>:

<< Interesting! I don't recall reading that, but it makes sense. Do
you have a link to an interview where she said that? >>

Oh! Sorry. I should have specified that that is an idea that occurred
to me while reading rather than something indicated by Herself.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182262>:

<< And he would have needed a House-Elf to go with him to the cave
and get him home after he had drunk the potion (unlike LV, DD would
not have made the House-Elf do it). Without Snape, I'm not sure that
DD could have been saved from that little adventure. >>

DD had access to plenty of House Elves at Hogwarts even if he didn't
have any House Elves from an old family estate. Which leads me to
wonder about the very powerful magic that House Elves have; we heard
about it when Kreachur, poisoned as he was, Apparated or something
home from the Inferi lake, just because his master had ordered him to
return  home. Would a House Elf be able to hand Master a goblet of
cure for that poison if Master just ordered him to 'Give me a potion
to cure me!'

Would a House Elf be able to obey an order to 'Bring me all of LV's
Horcruxes' if the person giving the order didn't know even how many
there were?

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182248>:

<< (The only reason that the Sword of Gryffindor could destroy the
Horcruxes was that, because of Harry, it had absorbed Basilisk venom.) >>

My memory is dreadful. I thought the Sword of Gryffindor could destroy
Horcruxes because it was a powerful magical artifact (so presumably
the Goblet of Fire also could have destroyed Horcruxes). In fact, I
even thought the Basilisk fangs could destroy Horcruxes because they
were pointy things from a magical beast, not because of the venom.
Please remind of the canon about the necessity of Basilisk venom.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182277>:

<< Granted, a Basilisk existed whose venom could be used to destroy
the Horcruxes even after it was dead, but only Harry, a Parselmouth,
had access to it >>

I feel certain that if Basilisk venom isn't sold in the apothecary
shop in Diagon Alley, it's sold in the apothecary shop in Knockturn
Alley. Y'know, along with the intact human fingernails... 

Magpie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182316>:

<< However hard you imagine it is to get the venom of a basilisk, it
sounds like just the type of thing that would be sold in Knockturn
Alley to me. >>

Kudos to Magpie for saying it before me.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182315>:

<< Because you have to be a Parselmouth to control one, so only a
Parselmouth would hatch one (unless the Dark Wizard doing so wanted to
be killed by his own creation). >>

You have to be a Parselmouth to direct a Basilisk to go lurk outside
the library and kill everyone who exits. You have to be a Parselmouth
to direct a Basilisk NOT to kill Pansy Parkinson while out on a
killing spree.

You don't have to be a Parselmouth to keep your Basilisk confined in a
cage from which it can't escape, keeping it blindfolded or having
blinded it (poor snake) or enclosing the cage with opaque walls to
protect everyone from its deadly gaze, and using other precautions.
For example, it might be kept under the Imperius Curse. If a
dragon-sized Basilisk is as resistant to spells as a dragon, then a
young = small Basilisk might need only one wizard, maybe two, to put
it under. And kill the poor thing before it gets too large for its cage.

Canon has shown wizards and witches waving their wands and things
appear, like squashy purple sleeping bags, chairs, and plates of
sandwiches. Whether they Transfigured those things out of thin air or
transported them from a storage space, the cage can be completely free
of escape routes if food and air are teleported in and waste and venom
are teleported out. I imagine teleporting in a big rag cloth doll for
the basilisk to bite and then teleporting the doll out of the cage
into a venom extraction cauldron...

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182321>:

<< who thinks that Horcruxes are no more a part of the average
Wizard's world than necrophilia is part of yours and mine >>

Yeah, we all know the word, and most of us are able to get books with
more information about it, and nowdays I'm sure there are also videos
available to those who seek them out. There were bookstores, and
printed indexes like BOOKS IN PRINT, before there was an Internet to
make research easy.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182258>:

<< If Peter Pettigrew had been warned that his return would bring
Voldemort back to power, would he still have gone back? >>

Why would Pettigrew have sought out Voldemort after PoA unless
Pettigrew thought Voldemort might return to power? If he thought that
Voldemort was likely to remain a disembodied disgusto hiding in
Albania, what was in it for him? He would be better off as a pet rat
of another wizarding family, given plenty of food and comfortable
shelter, just as long as he wasn't seen by anyone who recognized him
as Scabbers and knew that Scabbers was a Wanted Man. Rat. Whatever.

If he thought that Voldemort would become and stay a malign fetus,
constantly dependent on Pettigrew but constantly threatening
Pettigrew, he would have been better off living with the regular rats
in the subway tunnels!

How scared must he have been of Sirius and Remus to seek to restore LV
to power just so LV could protect Wormtail against them? I mean,
surely he knew that working for LV wasn't all fun and games!

Julie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182268>:

<< only Peter never ONCE acted for the good of someone besides
himself, and never repented his evil actions.  >>

I suppose frequently acting for the good of LV, and once biting
Goyle's finger in defense of Ron's candy don't count as acting for the
good of someone besides himself. He once started to repent his evil
intention of killing the person who had saved his life (Harry) and
that silver hand killed him for it.





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 07:28:31 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:28:31 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmuo0+pgkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsnfev+g0o1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182324


> Carol:
> (How Slughorn, who was not interested
> > in such things, knew about them, I can't guess. Maybe they were 
> still
> > occasionally mentioned by teachers when he was in school in the 
> early
> > twentieth century. Or JKR needed him to know about them as a plot
> > device. Note that he didn't know the spell used to create them 
> unless
> > he was lying.)
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes, he's another person who knows about them and as you say, knows 
> about them without ever wanting to make one. I have no problem 
> believing that they are occasionally mentioned in lots of specialized 
> circumstances in the WW. They're not taught in school, but people 
> could still come across them doing different types of study. Hogwarts 
> doesn't seem to have ever taught them but Slughorn managed to pick up 
> the information somewhere. 

Montavilla47:
This isn't the best snip to put this under, but I can't help thinking how
ironic it is that Dumbledore's precaution of removing the books on 
Horcruxes probably helped Voldemort keep his Horcruxes secret.

It kept anyone who came to school afterwards from stumbling across
them in the school library.  Thus, it would be harder for any
hypothetical intelligent wizards to figure out the Horcrux connection.

Had those books been available when Snape was in school, you can
bet he'd have figured out the mystery before Regulus did.


> > Carol:
> > To you. To me, Basilisks seem much more rare than dragons or even
> > Acromantulas and their venom unobtainable unless you can control the
> > Basilisk through Parseltongue. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Well, however hard they are to get, if that's what you need to take 
> out the guy who's supposedly so awful, I think that would just be 
> part of the challenge. Somebody's going to go off and kill a basilisk-
> -I'm sure many a Gryffindor would love the idea. (Maybe they could 
> make a tournament of it!) Can nobody in the entire world be up for a 
> challenge but Harry--who killed a basilisk when he was all of 12 
> years old without being able to control it with Parseltongue? They'd 
> have to do it differently than Harry, obviously, but then they would 
> also be more prepared than Harry beforehand.

Montavilla47:
I have an idea for the enterprising would-be basilisk milker.  First,
get yourself a baby basilisk.  (I think it was Cassandra Claire who
said that all you need to make a basilisk is a toad, a snake, and a 
strong stomach.)

When the basilisk hatches, you grab it by the neck from behind and
blind it.  Not remotely humane... but then, you're a wizard and you
routinely turn hedgehogs into pincushions.  If you don't want to 
be bloody and violent about it, you can affix a small black eye-mask
to its head.

Anyway...  once you've done that, you have a basilisk that you can
look at.  Then, you can use any normal animal-training techniques
on it, perhaps teaching it to milk itself of venom.





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 30 11:55:04 2008
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:55:04 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fskb3f+ukq1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsnv2o+5blp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182325

Potioncat quotes:
> "Then a blinding, jagged jet of white light flew through the air;
> Harry thought of lightning, but Snape had dropped to his knees and
> his wand had flown out of his hand.

> ""Don't kill me!""

Ceridwen:
I'm not surprised Snape asks not to be killed.  Dumbledore, still "a 
blinding, jagged jet of white light," can disarm him.  He hasn't even 
settled into corporeal form again to do this.  I didn't notice this 
when I read the passage whole in the book.  Thanks.

Potioncat:
> I have the feeling that DE!Snape and DD have met before.  DD seems 
> to think there is a message from LV, Snape seems to think DD
> might kill him.

Ceridwen:
It's possible that LV used Snape as a go-between before.  He 
apparently had some personal contact with Dumbledore in school, 
something that few other students seem to have had.  Dumbledore's 
office is password-protected, and he tends to leave the management of 
students to his subordinates.  Snape, however, has promised not to 
expose Remus as a werewolf.  I think that was probably handled at the 
highest level, since it was a pet project of Dumbledore's to 
successfully shepherd a werewolf through the seven years of school.  
Snape learning the secret by first suspecting it for whatever clues 
Remus and the Marauders left around, and Snape almost becoming that 
experimental student's victim, would land him directly in the 
headmaster's office.  The plan went awry owing to the normal impulses 
of teenagers.  Dumbledore had to put a lid on it.

So, Snape as one of the few students who have actually faced 
Dumbledore as headmaster, and Snape as possibly the only Death Eater 
to have done so, and Snape being junior to the Death Eaters who had 
Dumbledore as their teacher, could well have been sent on such a 
mission. Why would LV discount this resource?

Potioncat:
> At the same time, a general would want to minimize the danger to 
> his troops. Sending them into harm's way needs to be done with the 
> best cover possible.

Ceridwen:
The mission is the thing.  Having one's soldiers survive to complete 
the mission is important.  Sure, some death is impossible to avoid, 
but keeping troop numbers up leaves more troops for future missions, 
and prevents morale from crumbling based on mistrust of the general.  
Dumbledore as a general here would want to stop the deaths of his 
soldiers because fewer soldiers means fewer successful missions, and 
an overwhelmingly outnumbered force.  The overall mission is to 
capture or kill LV, and stop the reign of terror spread on his orders 
by his DEs.

Besides, who would want to follow orders from a general who doesn't 
seem to have his priorities in order, and who appears not to have the 
welfare of the troops under his command in mind?  Only people with an 
unwavering loyalty to personality, like the Death Eaters.  Once their 
personality was vaporized, most of them scrambled to prove 
their "unwilling" participation.  They didn't have the good of their 
world in mind, only their own ambitions and their own attraction to a 
charismatic madman to inform their actions.  Hopefully, the Order 
members who allowed themselves to be put in harm's way (this is an 
extra-governmental militia, no one's been drafted) did it for the 
greater goal of ridding their world of a menace.

Ceridwen.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 30 15:41:45 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:41:45 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsn731+c1o7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsocbp+ldh0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182326

> > Magpie:
> >  <snip> Most Wizards in Britain pretty much went to Hogwarts and 
had
> access to this library, actually, which means a lot of people with 
an
> interest in Dark Magic could have read about them (before 
Dumbledore 
> hid all the books on the subject). 
> 
> Carol:
> Most wizards in Britain had access to this *library,* yes, but not
> necessarily to the Restricted Section and not to those books.
> Dumbledore hid the books while Tom was still at school, fifty years
> before Harry entered Hogwarts and roughly thirty-nine years before
> Godric's Hollow (and roughly a dozen years before Tom's altered
> appearance gave DD any cause to suspect that he might actually be
> making Horcruxes). Even when the books were accessible, they were 
only
> for the use of advanced DADA students (with permission from a staff
> member) and perhaps the staff members themselves. Students don't 
just
> walk into the Restricted Section and choose a book. They need
> permission even to enter. 

Magpie:
Older ones can get permission to enter. So before Dumbledore hid the 
books that would have been possible--obviously, since presumably Tom 
found out just that way. I of course concede that once Dumbledore 
decided to remove any books with mentions of them nobody would be 
finding out about them from this library. However, they could still 
find out about them outside of Hogwarts. I'm not counting on dozens 
of students stumbling across it, I just didn't think you could claim 
information was totally cut off from people when what you mean is 
that it's in their local library but in a section you need permission 
to enter.

I can't just assume that Hermione really is the only Wizard in the 
whole world who's ever had an interest in reading about anything--
Ron's joke aside. (It's a joke. He's exaggerating.) There are Wizards 
who invent stuff and come up with stuff about magic. I would assume 
they'd learn about magic to do that, outside of Hogwarts. If somebody 
was interested in the immortality question, sure they might have read 
about it. Or they might have researched a related subject and looked 
elsewhere in the book. But anyway, I'm not relying on students with 
no interest in studying here. I'm saying there are supposed to be 
adult Wizards who study advanced magic and so *they* might have 
studied advanced things enough to have come across this subject 
*after their time at Hogwarts.* Like Dumbledore and Slughorn 
obviously did. Snape maybe just had different interests, perhaps 
especially after he was an adult.

But more importantly, I'm not relying on people having to know about 
Horcruxes *before* they turn to the Voldemort problem. The Voldemort 
problem could also lead them to that information--just as it 
apparently did with Regulus.

Magpie:
The only time it's ever used
> in the books is by Hermione with permission and Harry without.
> 
> Seriously, your statement that "a lot of people with an interest in
> the Dark Arts probably read those books" is an exaggeration even 
with
> regard to the over-seventies who attended Hogwarts with Tom Riddle 
and
> earlier (many of whom are dead by the time of Godric's Hollow, in 
any
> case). 

Magpie:
Considering "over 70" covers a thousand of years, I don't know if "a 
lot of people" is that much of an exaggeration. But no, I didn't mean 
that there was a ton of people reading about them. I do, however, 
assume that there should be experts on magic in the WW, people who 
know more than your average person, and I don't think it's so crazy 
to think that they'd know about this just as Dumbledore and Slughorn 
do. They could also be younger than Dumbledore and Slughorn, and have 
learned about them in their studies after school. 

Or they could START studying immortality magic because Voldemort is 
obsessed with it and therefore seek out everything written about it, 
which ought to include Horcruxes.  

Carol:
And with regard to people under
> seventy, it's simply false. *The books weren't available.* 
Dumbledore
> hid them. 

Magpie:
The books weren't available AT HOGWARTS after Dumbledore hid them. So 
no *students at Hogwarts* would be coming across them in the library 
at any point after Dumbledore hid them. A person studying advanced 
magic, particularly immortality magic, could seek out books with this 
information outside of Hogwarts.

Banning all books on a subject from your school library does not 
effectively erase the existance of that subject in the entire world 
from the moment you do that. There is canon that Wizards continue to 
study magic after their teens.

Carol: 
> Perhaps you're thinking that "a lot of wizards" read about Horcruxes
> after finishing Hogwarts, but why would they? 

Magpie:
Because they are researching advanced dark magic? Because they're 
interested in immortality? Because they're being taken over by a 
wizard obsessed with Dark Magic and immortality and they're trying to 
know their enemy? There are plenty of reasons for intelligent adult 
wizards who were facing Voldemort to go to the trouble of studying 
stuff in this area. There is canon for Wizards actually doing stuff 
like that. The world is supposed to be at least a bit like our world, 
with Wizards inventing things and studying. There are even Wizards 
who are supposed to be more accomplished in their study than Snape. 
Wizards lack extensive fiction, but there are supposed to study stuff 
like death and love magically.

And remember, I'm not saying there are wizards in canon that we know 
of that have been studying immortality (err...except Dumbledore and 
Flamel, which is already two). We're talking about whether Voldemort 
could have been brought down without Harry. So the question of "why 
would they?" is always answered by "because it would help bring 
Voldemort down." They don't have to have been doing it before the 
war. It makes sense for a resistance movement to set people to do it 
in response to the war. 

Carol:
Such books wouldn't be available in
> Diagon Alley, and respectable Witches and Wizards avoid Knockturn
> Alley (which might or might not sell such books; we aren't shown any
> books of any sort in Borgin and Burkes.)

Magpie:
I hardly think being "respectable" is a good reason for not studying 
information that's going to bring down your enemy--and that's what 
I'm talking about, people studying this subject in response to 
Voldemort. Leaving aside that the world isn't populated 
by "respectable" Wizards at all--people go to Knockturn Alley when 
they want stuff there. And I think if they need books on arcane, 
possibly dark subjects, they find out how to get them even if there 
isn't a specific bookstore with the book you want in the window 
around the corner. I'm talking about a resistance movement seeing 
this as a good subject to study because Voldemort is interested in 
it. They don't have to have the interest for themselves.

Carol:
 And Wizards other than Snape,
> with his book-lined walls (and probably Dumbledore) don't spend much
> time reading that I can see. 

Magpie:
So you're basically agreeing with Betsy that the reason that Wizards 
can't bring down Voldemort without Harry isn't that Harry is in any 
way particularly qualified, but that Wizards are actually nothing 
like adult humans, but are in fact so dim-witted that owning books is 
beyond the grasp of most of them. Sure these books are written by 
people and printed and sold, but nobody actually reads except for 
towering geniuses like...Snape. So if a Wizard obsessed with 
immortality and Dark Magic comes along we can't expect anyone in the 
country to be able to do any research because they don't like 
reading. If Snape hasn't learned something in his extracurricular 
reading, the information doesn't exist for anyone.

Carol:
> If older Wizards interested in the Dark Arts (or fighting them) knew
> about Horcruxes, surely either Mad-Eye Moody or Mr. Crouch would 
know
> about them (assuming that they're over seventy). But, clearly, they
> don't. Dumbledore and Slughorn are the only ones who know about 
them,
> and neither of them is sharing that information.

Magpie:
Which is incredibly stupid on their part, don't you think? It has 
nothing to do with Horcrux information being impossible to get. It's 
not something that your average auror knows about, but it exists and 
therefore the information can be found somewhere--Regulus Black found 
it. Dumbledore has books about it in his office, books that might 
even have had more than one copy printed. Nobody's trying to research 
immortality magic even though Voldemort's obsessed with it, and for 
some reason every single person in canon who does figure it out keeps 
it a secret and probably directs people away from the subject as 
well. 

Your average Muggle equivalent of an auror doesn't know about lots of 
things that a scientist would know. A scientist who's a chemist 
probably doesn't know things that a biologist knows. Different types 
of specialists come together to fight common enemies.

Carol:
How
> are students supposed to learn about Horcruxes when the teachers
> pretend that they don't exist? And if people somehow knew about them
> anyway and talked about them in conversation (as an exciting 
forbidden
> topic spoken about in whispers) or if information on Horcruxes could
> easily be encountered in books outside Hogwarts, Snape, of all 
people
> would know about them and have at least one book on the topic in his
> book-lined house at Spinner's End. 

Magpie:
I don't consider Snape as the arbiter of all knowledge in the WW. I 
think it's possible for Snape to not know about something that 
somebody else knows about. People have different areas of knowledge 
that interest them. Nicholas Flamel would have more reason to have 
come across stuff about Horcruxes (since he's studying immortality) 
than Snape, who was not. Snape never really seemed interested in 
that, even after Lily died. He had a different reaction to death than 
Dumbledore. 

However, I think if Snape had gotten the idea--say, from thinking 
about Voldemort and Death Eating--that perhaps Voldemort had studied 
immortality via Dark Magic, I think he would have tracked down books 
on that subject and probably would have learned about Horcruxes (as 
it was he probably had Dumbledore directing what he did and didn't 
study anyway). Just like his less astounding colleague Regulus did. 
All this stuff you keep claiming is impossible to do was done by 
Regulus Black. Maybe it never occurred to Snape because he was at 
Hogwarts, but Regulus figured it out.

Carol:
 The only reference
> she finds is one that says that the writer isn't going to deal with
> the topic. It stands to reason, then, that books that *do* discuss
> Horcruxes are very rare--and written by people who were adults when
> Tom Riddle attended Hogwarts and unlikely still to be writing books 
in
> Harry's time even if they're still alive.

Magpie:
Yeah, they're rare. Rare hardly means "they don't exist." So if 
somebody decided to study Dark Magic and Immortality on the level 
that a Dark Lord who isn't squeamish at all might indeed hear about 
them. The guy who wrote Herimone's book felt the need to mention them 
at that level even if he wasn't going to say how they were made. A 
library at that level could have some information on the subject--
Hogwarts does, only those books have been stolen. The information 
isn't as easily available as the latest Quidditch scores, but adult 
wizards focused on the study of this subject because Voldemort's into 
it would still have a chance of learning it. I wouldn't count them 
out automatically.

Magpie: 
> Carol, who thinks that Horcruxes are no more a part of the average
> Wizard's world than necrophilia is part of yours and mine

Magpie:
Except I know what necrophilia is. I probably even read about it in 
my school library--and not because I was hoping to try it myself. I 
just know that there are other people who would do it. So if somebody 
started stealing corpses necrophilia would probably come to mind as a 
possible motive. Horcruxes are even less weird, actually. 
Necrophilia's a disorder. Wanting to figure out a way not to die when 
killed is a lot less crazy.

-m




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 16:03:41 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:03:41 -0000
Subject: Peverells /green goo/ Basilisk Venom /  Peter Pettigrew
In-Reply-To: <fsn9h1+pdq7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsodkt+gpcj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182327

> Catlady: 
> Would a House Elf be able to hand Master a goblet of
> cure for that poison if Master just ordered him to 'Give me a potion
> to cure me!'

zgirnius:
We know that answer to that (and therefore your other question) is 
likely "No". Kreacher was unable to fulfil the order "Destroy this 
locket", even though we know the means exist in the Potterverse to do 
this.

> Catlady:
> Please remind of the canon about the necessity of Basilisk venom.

>DH, "The Goblin's Revenge" (Hermione speaking,naturally):
> "The sword can destroy Horcruxes! Goblin-made blades imbibe only 
that which strengthen them - Harry, that sword's impregnated with 
basilisk venom!"

zgirnius:
In other words, both the "powerful goblin-made artifact", and 
the "used to kill a basilisk" are necessary. A regular, non-magical 
blade would not retain the basilisk venom and its powers, but without 
that venom, the Sword of Gryffindor would not have the ability to 
destroy Horcruxes.

Yet another way in which Tom Riddle ensured throug his own actions 
that Harry had the power to defeat him. ;)






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 30 16:57:11 2008
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 30 Mar 2008 16:57:11 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/30/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1206896231.18.34515.m50@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182328

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 30, 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/20080330/a5d7a689/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 19:26:03 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:26:03 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmuo0+pgkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsopgb+hgao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182329

Carol earlier:
> and the only books on the subject (except possibly books in the
Black family home that Regulus somehow found) that we know of are now
in Dumbledore's office, accessible to no one (Hermione has the
advantage of knowing about Horcruxes and knowing that those books are
there, information that no one else except Harry and Ron has, and they
aren't as sneaky as she is). 
> 
Magpie responded:
> So nobody could possibly figure out about Horcruxes except 
Dumbledore, Slughorn...and that one teenager who did find out about 
Horcruxes without Dumbledore and without any of the advantages 
Hermione had. So right there in canon is somebody who figured out the
Horcrux idea after Voldemort's rise, and without being Dumbledore. 
We're not told how Regulus found it out (though if the Blacks have 
books about Horcruxes obviously British Wizards can have books about
Horcruxes) but he found out about them somehow--probably without
looking up the word Horcrux.
> 
Carol earlier:
> I personally think that Regulus finding out about Horcruxes under
these circumstances is a lot harder to believe than no one else
knowing about them. If *Snape* didn't know about them, no one would. 
> 
> Magpie:
> And yet Regulus did know about them, so maybe discovering about the
Horcruxes isn't about being the smartest Wizard ever, but just doing
the right research? As you suggest here, Voldemort didn't tell 
Regulus he had Horcruxes. The teenager figured it out by himself 
following whatever clues he followed. 
>
Carol again:
As I said, Regulus figuring out the Horcruxes and having access to
that information appears to be a Flint (or is at least rather hard to
swallow, requiring a willing suspension of disbelief). I like Regulus,
but he doesn't seem to have been extraordinarily bright. (His brother
certainly didn't think so, at any rate.) 

While it's possible that his parents had books with that
information in the house, which they seem to have inherited from
Phineas Nigellus, Regulus wouldn't know what he was looking for. the
DEs canonically didn't know about the Horcruxes and he couldn't have
learned about them at school. All that he had to go on was a gold
locket that was somehow so important that Voldemort would put very
strong (and terrible protections on it). He *might* have figured out
that it was some sort of defense against death connected to the Dark
magic that had altered Voldemort's appearance (not that he ever knew
the young Tom Riddle: he was much too young). But unless he'd heard
the term "Horcrux," he wouldn't have known where to begin.

The only thing I can figure out is that Voldemort used the word
"Horcrux" in front of Kreacher, thinking that the House-Elf was going
to die horribly and that it didn't matter if he heard the word since
he'd be unable to repeat it (even to the seemingly loyal young DE who
had lent the Elf to LV). If Kreacher, in telling his story to Master
Regulus, used the word he had heard from Voldemort's lips, Regulus,
who obviously wouldn't know what a Horcrux was, would have the
information he needed to look up what a Horcrux was used for. I don't
think he asked his parents (he wouldn't want them to know what he was
doing), but he might have gone to Borgin and Burkes and asked them
about Horcruxes. (If anyone would know, it would be old Caractacus
Burke.) Failing that, we have to assume that he found it in an obscure
book. His mother was born in 1925, about a year before Voldemort, so
she might have somehow learned about such things and bought books on
the subject, but I doubt it. Or the books could have been in the
family since Phineas Nigellus's time. (*He* might have been the
studious type who liked to know about such things even though, of
course, he never actually created one and probably never murdered
anyone. He might even have had books on Dark magic published in his
lifetime that he never actually read. I can attest to buying books
that have gathered dust on my shelves after a cursory glance when they
arrived in the mail!)

But Voldemort's having a Horcrux (Regulus didn't know of any but the
locket) is not something that an ordinary teenager like him could just
figure out from Voldemort's obsessive behavior and the elaborate (and
horrible) protections that he placed on Slytherin's locket. I'm sure
that Regulus didn't think: "Oh! He's obsessed with death and he says
that he's taken measures to prevent it. This object, which he
obviously values because he's put such horrible protections on it,
must contain part of his soul!"  Regulus couldn't have figured that
out, nor would he ever have heard the word "Horcrux" before that time.
He must have heard the term from Kreacher, who heard it from Voldemort
(carelessly tossing out the word in front of a creature who was about
to die), and either asked a knowledgeable person about it (unlikely
since such people are rare and he had good reasons not to ask his
parents--his father was younger than LV, in any case) or found a way
to look it up (also unlikely but at least conceivable but at least
conceivable given the age of the house and its history of occupation
by Dark Wizards).

No other person lends a House-Elf to help Voldemort and finds the
House-Elf barely alive after drinking a horrible Potion and magically
escaping the Inferi (and probably no other DE would have cared more
about the House-Elf's suffering than about LV). Regulus's experience
is unique. And he, of course, didn't live to tell the tale.

Carol, noting that Regulus knew no more about Horcruxes than any other
Wizard until Kreacher returned from the cave and only "figured it out"
because he, too, possessed information that no one else possessed,
Kreacher's tale




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 19:33:50 2008
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:33:50 -0000
Subject: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed? Re: Who needs Harry?
In-Reply-To: <fsn0ot+etgf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsopuu+t2m8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182330

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> I guess where we differ on this speculation (with Betsy) is that I 
> have no problem suspending disbelief in the story where I know      
> child is supposed to defeat the big baddie. I know that to enjoy    
> the story I should suspend disbelief and assume that adults are    
> idiots, or do what their leader tells them or just won't bother     
> with research about Dark arts, etc, etc.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
For me, the suspension of disbelief is a contract entered into 
*between* the author and the reader.  For example, I as the reader 
agree to throw the laws of physics and evolution out the window and 
agree that brooms can fly and dragons exist.  

But it's up to the author to make that suspension of disbelief as 
easy and seamless as possible.  For example, okay dragons exist, but 
as they're dangerous and rare beasts there's a whole career made of 
keeping them safely away from human populations and in healthy 
breeding environments.

So the author takes the unbelievable (dragons) and makes it mundane 
(dragons treated as lions).  That's part of building a believable, 
unbelievable world.  Another example: Brooms fly and we've made a 
sport of it and some brooms are cooler than others.  Brooms as 
bicycles (or polo ponies).  JKR did a good job at that.  In the 
beginning.

But than she asked far too much of me while doing far too little in 
return.

> >>Alla:
> Same with Harry Potter, no it does not sound to me believable at    
> all that nobody bothered to research the Dark arts and find out    
> about horcruxes in the meanwhile. I just accept it that it is      
> necessary for the plot, but it does not mean that I disregard this 
> as unbleievable, quite contrary.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
JKR asked me to believe that a major threat appeared within this 
magical world and the world just lay down for him.  She asked me to 
believe that no one in the WW was interested in their own or their 
world's survival.  She asked me to believe that the one boy capable 
of defeating that great threat did so, not with skill, but through an 
*unbelievable* amount of luck. 

I can suspend disbelief and believe that dragons help guard a bank 
run by goblins.  Ask me to believe that a young boy and his plucky 
friends can waltz into that bank, steal stuff, and then escape on a 
dragon? In my opinion, that's the author falling down on her job and 
asking me to do her work for her.  It's asking me to believe a boy 
could break into Fort Knox and escape on the back of a lion.  It's 
breaking the contract.

So my issue with the Voldemort story is that JKR went sloppy.  She 
couldn't be bothered to think up a truly formidable villain, she 
couldn't be bothered to think up a good reason for Harry being the 
hero of her piece.  So she cut corners, didn't worry about plot 
holes, and had her hero save the day due to his overwhelming...luck.  
(How lucky the Fort Knox people mistreated that lion!  How lucky the 
lion was more interested in escape than attacking strangers!  How 
lucky we all managed to scramble aboard!)  JKR stopped working and 
asked me, the reader, to take up the slack.

> >>Catlady:
> In the story, Harry is the only person who can take down Voldemort,
> because that's how the story is written. The Author endowed him with
> the needed abilities and gave him lucky breaks, and decreed that
> everything everyone else tried, failed.

Betsy Hp:
Except JKR didn't allow anyone else of any skill to try anything 
against Voldemort.  That's part of the reason he looked so pathetic 
as a big evil.  We never got to see him being formidable.  If JKR had 
bothered thinking through how a people would realistically react to a 
threat like Voldemort, if she'd bothered to show them trying and 
failing, *then* I'd be forced to conclude Voldemort was no easy meat.

Of course, that means she'd have been forced to make Harry into 
something other than an *unbelievably* lucky boy.  

As far as I could tell, Harry's special skill was his luck.  Nothing 
he caused or created, just the way things fell out around him.  Lucky 
he ran across that first horcrux, lucky the big bad forgot about 
their mind link and thought about where all his other horcruxes were 
located, lucky people (other than Harry) figured out how to destroy 
the horcruxes, lucky that he stumpled across the elder wand and 
managed to get ownership of it.  (It's still amusing to me that Harry 
became the owner by complete and ignorant mistake.  And also because 
he felt like being an ass.)

I'll even give a lucky break or two.  Running across the diary 
horcrux was a stroke of luck, but it played organically (at least in 
the beginning) and could have signaled something bigger (Voldemort's 
minions not being as loyal as he'd hoped).  But then Harry kept on 
being lucky.  After a while, watching someone be really, really lucky 
gets old.  At least for me, I'd like to see some skill and effort 
come into play.

> >>Catlady:
> According to archetypal analysis (that's a New Age style of literary
> criticism), the purpose of traditional folk tales and epics where   
> the hero is the only person who can possibly accomplish the assigned
> heroic task, such as slaying the monster or stealing fire from      
> heaven, is to motivate ALL listeners to try their hardest and do   
> their damnedest to be heroic and do their duty and accomplish their 
> destiny, asserting that each person has a destiny that only they   
> can do.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But that's the thing.  Harry didn't come close to wowing me.  
Certainly he wasn't all that inspiring.  It's like listening to a 
lottery winner give a talk.  One day you might be lucky too?  That's 
what I'm supposed to take away from this?

By relying so heavily on her readership doing all of her work for her 
(and...um... they escape on a dragon? eh, whatever I write, they'll 
believe) by not bothering to come up with a believable plot, JKR 
broke with her readers.  She failed at her end of the contract.  And 
left me to wonder why so many unbelievable things happened in this 
world she wanted me to believe in.

At least, in my opinion.

Betsy Hp




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Mar 30 20:21:33 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:21:33 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsopgb+hgao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsosod+m209@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182331

> Magpie responded:
> > So nobody could possibly figure out about Horcruxes except 
> Dumbledore, Slughorn...and that one teenager who did find out about 
> Horcruxes without Dumbledore and without any of the advantages 
> Hermione had. So right there in canon is somebody who figured out 
the
> Horcrux idea after Voldemort's rise, and without being Dumbledore. 
> We're not told how Regulus found it out (though if the Blacks have 
> books about Horcruxes obviously British Wizards can have books about
> Horcruxes) but he found out about them somehow--probably without
> looking up the word Horcrux.
> > 
> Carol earlier:
> > I personally think that Regulus finding out about Horcruxes under
> these circumstances is a lot harder to believe than no one else
> knowing about them. If *Snape* didn't know about them, no one 
would. 

Magpie:
And yet it happened. So obviously it could happen, however it 
happened. Every piece of information doesn't have to pass through 
Snape. Maybe Regulus was the only person who tried to do this kind of 
research. Maybe if Snape had stuck with the DEs he would have figured 
it out too and been the one to lead the way in killing Voldemort--
instead he only thought about what Dumbledore told him to think. To 
me it's a perfectly believable turn of events that one not special 
individual who put his mind to it could do something extraordinary. 
It's more inspiring to me, actually, and I think it's the way history 
often works.

 
> > Magpie:
> > And yet Regulus did know about them, so maybe discovering about 
the
> Horcruxes isn't about being the smartest Wizard ever, but just doing
> the right research? As you suggest here, Voldemort didn't tell 
> Regulus he had Horcruxes. The teenager figured it out by himself 
> following whatever clues he followed. 
> >
> Carol again:
> As I said, Regulus figuring out the Horcruxes and having access to
> that information appears to be a Flint (or is at least rather hard 
to
> swallow, requiring a willing suspension of disbelief). I like 
Regulus,
> but he doesn't seem to have been extraordinarily bright. (His 
brother> certainly didn't think so, at any rate.)

Magpie:
You're writing off Regulus discovering about the Horcrux as a flint? 
It's not a flint, it's an important plot point--and it doesn't 
contradict anything in canon. Calling it a flint is like calling Ron 
and Hermione's marriage a flint because obviously nobody could 
believe Hermione would ever marry that guy. You don't have to be 
extraordinarily bright to find out what a Horcrux is. It's not that 
bizarre or sophisticated a concept.

Carol:
> 
> While it's possible that his parents had books with that
> information in the house, which they seem to have inherited from
> Phineas Nigellus, Regulus wouldn't know what he was looking for. 

Magpie:
So maybe he kind of did know what he was looking for, if not by name, 
by some general idea that led to the truth. We don't know whether 
there was something in books in his house inherited from Phineas or 
anybody else. But he certainly found it out and nobody thought this 
was impossible. Maybe Regulus thought in similar ways to Voldemort.

Carol:
But unless he'd heard
> the term "Horcrux," he wouldn't have known where to begin.

Magpie:
Or maybe he did know where to begin without knowing the word Horcrux. 
Maybe you don't have to begin with the word Horcrux to get there. Tom 
Riddle probably didn't. 

Carol:
> But Voldemort's having a Horcrux (Regulus didn't know of any but the
> locket) is not something that an ordinary teenager like him could 
just
> figure out from Voldemort's obsessive behavior and the elaborate 
(and
> horrible) protections that he placed on Slytherin's locket. I'm sure
> that Regulus didn't think: "Oh! He's obsessed with death and he says
> that he's taken measures to prevent it. This object, which he
> obviously values because he's put such horrible protections on it,
> must contain part of his soul!" 

Magpie:
How do you know he couldn't have made that connection? Maybe not all 
at once, of course, but starting with all of this and then 
researching many possibilities regarding objects, especially those 
having to do with Voldemort's other pet obsession? I don't know 
Regulus and I don't know all of his experiences with Voldemort. I 
don't know what kinds of stuff he'd hear discussed throughout his 
life. I certainly don't know if he had ever heard the world Horcrux 
before discovering what one was--he might have gone the other way and 
found the name after the concept. All I know is that he found out 
part of Voldemort's secret as an ordinary teenager apparently all on 
his own, a wonderful example of an ordinary hero that everybody 
dismissed as incapable of anything extraordinary. Sometimes the 
flashy people are just flash. 

Carol:
> No other person lends a House-Elf to help Voldemort and finds the
> House-Elf barely alive after drinking a horrible Potion and 
magically
> escaping the Inferi (and probably no other DE would have cared more
> about the House-Elf's suffering than about LV). Regulus's experience
> is unique. And he, of course, didn't live to tell the tale.

Magpie:
Regulus' experience is unique, yes. But everyone's experiences are 
unique. Other people could have unique experiences that could also 
have led to the truth by a different path. Other people who had 
experiences with Voldemort especially. So yeah, I still think 
intelligent experts who actually put their minds to figuring out 
things that Voldemort might be doing and examined his movements could 
have done it. 

 
> Carol, noting that Regulus knew no more about Horcruxes than any 
other
> Wizard until Kreacher returned from the cave and only "figured it 
out"
> because he, too, possessed information that no one else possessed,
> Kreacher's tale

Magpie, noting that Kreacher's coming back from a cave doesn't 
automatically get Regulus any closer to the concept of a Horcrux than 
he was before and thinking the biggest difference between Regulus and 
everyone else was not that he possessed information that nobody else 
possessed but that he actually thought to use information he 
possessed to make other deductions. Iow, he figured it out--no 
quotations needed. Just like Hermione figured out there was a 
basilisk in the school, that Rita Skeeter was a animagus and that 
Lupin was a werewolf while unthinking Harry and Ron remained 
clueless. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 20:39:54 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:39:54 -0000
Subject: Basilisk Venom
In-Reply-To: <fsn9h1+pdq7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsotqq+1aiq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182332

Carol earlier:
> 
> << (The only reason that the Sword of Gryffindor could destroy the
Horcruxes was that, because of Harry, it had absorbed Basilisk venom.) >>

Catlady responded: 
> My memory is dreadful. I thought the Sword of Gryffindor could
destroy Horcruxes because it was a powerful magical artifact (so
presumably the Goblet of Fire also could have destroyed Horcruxes). In
fact, I even thought the Basilisk fangs could destroy Horcruxes
because they were pointy things from a magical beast, not because of
the venom. Please remind of the canon about the necessity of Basilisk
venom.

Carol responds:

Happy to oblige. In "the Goblin's Revenge," after Phineas Nigellus has
told HRH that the last time he saw the Sword of Gryffindor was when DD
used it to break open a ring, Hermione says, "the sword can destroy
Horcruxes! Goblin-mad blades imbibe only that which strengthens
them--Harry, that sword's impregnated with basilisk venom!" (DH Am.
ed. 304)--which explains why DD used it and why he willed it to Harry
and wants snape to deliver it (and, of course, why it's important to
have Snape send a fake sword rather than the real one to Bellatrix).

Earlier, Hermione has said that "what Harry did" (stabbing the diary
with a Basilisk fang) is one of the only "foolproof" ways of
destroying a Horcrux. Apparently, the venom alone is not sufficient
(assuming that it can be obtained on the black market, which I've
already given my reasons for doubting). Hermione continues, "It
doesn't have to be a Basilisk fang. It has to be something so
destructive that the Horcrux can't repair itself" (Basilisk venom
qualifies, she says, because it has only one antidote, the incredibly
rare Phoenix tears), and she adds, "There are very few substances as
destructive as basilisk venom, and they're all dangerous to carry
around with you" (104). Presumably, they're also rare and difficult to
obtain because Hermione doesn't even bother to list the alternatives.

At any rate, the Sword of Gryffindor, as we later learn, has been
imbued with Basilisk venom, solving the problem of obtaining a
Basilisk fang and carrying it around--not impossible, but it would
require going to Hogwarts and risking getting caught by Snape, so they
think, and carrying the thing around without being poisoned by it--or
finding an alternative, which is evidently even more difficult or
Hermione would have listed the possibilities. (She does say that you
can't rip, smash, or crush a Horcrux. Which makes me wonder whether
Nagini could have been killed with any other weapon that the Sword of
Gryffindor. Unlike Harry, she was a true Horcrux and would have had
the usual magical protections placed on her.)

Carol earlier:

> << Because you have to be a Parselmouth to control one, so only a
Parselmouth would hatch one (unless the Dark Wizard doing so wanted to
be killed by his own creation). >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> You have to be a Parselmouth to direct a Basilisk to go lurk outside
the library and kill everyone who exits. You have to be a Parselmouth
to direct a Basilisk NOT to kill Pansy Parkinson while out on a
killing spree.
> 
> You don't have to be a Parselmouth to keep your Basilisk confined in
a cage from which it can't escape, keeping it blindfolded or having
blinded it (poor snake) or enclosing the cage with opaque walls to
protect everyone from its deadly gaze, and using other precautions.

Carol again:
I'm going by FB: "The creation of Basilisks has been illegal since
medieval times, although the practice is easily concealed by removing
the chicken egg from under the toad when the Department for the
Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures comes to call. However,
since *Basilisks are uncontrollable except by Parselmouths*, they are
as dangerous to most Dark wizards as to anybody else, and there have
been no recorded sightings of Basilisks in Britain for at least four
hundred years" (FB 4). 

Needless to say, Newt Scamander doesn't know about Salazar Slytherin's
Basilisk, but my point is that Basilisk venom is more than a bit
difficult to obtain. It's not likely to be found on the black market.
What would even the darkest Wizard use it for when other, less
dangerous poisons are available? And most Wizards don't even know
about Horcruxes, much less being in the business of destroying them.
(Regulus clearly hadn't read the book Hermione read, or he'd have
realized that he was presenting poor Kreacher with an impossible
task.) And earlier, Hermione implies that the object actually has to
be stabbed with a Basilisk fang (just sprinkling on the venom might
not be enough). The Sword of Gryffindor would serve the same purpose;
the venom would enable it to break open the Horcrux, which would
otherwise be impervious even to a powerful magical object like a
Goblin-made sword.

Catlady:
> For example, it might be kept under the Imperius Curse. <snip>

Carol:
Only if the Dark Wizard know Parseltongue, the only language that the
Basilisk understands. And since it obeys the Parselmouth, anyway, the
Imperius Curse would be unnecessary.

Neither the Basilisk fangs used to destroy the diary and the
Hufflepuff cup nor the venom-impregnated Sword of Gryffindor, used to
destroy the ring, the locket, and Nagini, would have been available to
DD or HRH had Harry not been a Parselmouth able to enter the Chamber
of Secrets and kill the Basilisk in the first place. And, of course,
that killing was only possible with the help of Dumbledore and Fawkes.
Had Fawkes not blinded the Basilisk, Harry could not have killed it
even with the Sword of Gryffindor because he would have been killed
like Moaning Myrtle by those big yellow eyes. (Of course, if the
Basilisk had been a Horcrux, heaven forfend, not even the Sword of
Gryffindor would have killed it.)

Any Wizards bent on destroying LV's Horcruxes without first consulting
Dumbledore would have been hard-pressed to find the means to do so
even if they knew what and where the Horcruxes were (which is also
impossible without consulting the man who had been obtaining
Riddle-related memories since Tom framed Morfin for the Riddle
murders, given that most of the people in those memories were long
dead by the time of Godric's Hollow).

Carol, who thinks that matters would have been greatly simplified if
DD had had Snape's help in destroying the Horcruxes, but that's a
matter for another post (or a different series whose hero isn't a
teenager with special powers inadvertently given to him by his nemesis)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 22:19:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:19:09 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsosod+m209@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsp3kt+819g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182333

Carol earlier:

> > While it's possible that his parents had books with that 
information in the house, which they seem to have inherited from
Phineas Nigellus, Regulus wouldn't know what he was looking for. 
> 
> Magpie:
> So maybe he kind of did know what he was looking for, if not by
name, by some general idea that led to the truth. We don't know
whether there was something in books in his house inherited from
Phineas or anybody else. But he certainly found it out and nobody
thought this was impossible. Maybe Regulus thought in similar ways to
Voldemort.

Carol responds:
I rather doubt it. Voldemort was a sociopath obsessed with death who
was actually willing not only to commit murder and place part of his
soul in an object but to exist as "less than spirit" if his body
happened to be destroyed. Regulus, OTOH, was a schoolboy who collected
Voldemort's "press clippings" as if LV were a rock star, played
Quidditch, tried to please his parents in contrast to his rebel
brother, and cared about his House-Elf. the only thing he had in
common with Voldemort was a belief in Pure-Blood supremacy (taught him
by his Pure-blood supremacist parents, in contrast to LV's insane
hatred of his "filthy Muggle father"). 

Granted, he found out about Horcruxes somehow. That's canon. He uses
the word "Horcrux" in his note and he knows that the Horcrux is
connected to Voldemort's earthly immortality (using that word in a
qualified sense--he's only immortal as long as he has at least one
Horcrux).

But I've already established that Regulus would not have known about
Horcruxes, either the word or the concept, before the Kreacher
incident because 1) the DEs canonically don't know about the
Horcruxes. 2) Horcruxes are a banned topic at Hogwarts. 3) Dumbledore
confiscated the books on Horcruxes while Regulus's parents were at
school. (Sidenote: His father was a bit younger than Tom Riddle, so he
may have been an admirer but was not a proto-DE. It's even possible
that he didn't know that Voldemort and Tom Riddle were the same person.)

I've also stated that he could have consulted, say, Caractacus Burke,
or he could have found the information in the family library, which
might have contained books from Phineas Nigellus's time. Despite all
odds and despite Dumbledore's efforts to keep anyone from finding out
about Horcruxes, he found the information about an object whose
existence he had never previously suspected. (That's the part where I
have to suspend my disbelief. *If he's never heard the word, how in
the name of Dumbledore is he supposed to "figure out" that Voldemort
encased a piece of his soul in a locket (as if a soul were a tangible
object)? The idea is not something that's going to occur to a person
who isn't obsessed with the topic and hasn't already done research on,
say, Herpo the Foul (who would be of interest to Tom Riddle as the
Parselmouth who hatched the first known Basilisk--neat little
coincidence that he's also the first known Horcrux maker, isn't it?)

Tom Riddle had been researching his own ancestry and trying to
establish himself as the Heir of Slytherin for years, and he could
have stumbled on a reference to Horcruxes while he was researching
Herpo, which would have led, given his obsession with immortality, or,
rather, his aversion to death as a human (or Muggle) weakness, to his
wanting to make a Horcrux of his own.

Regulus Black, in contrast, was just an ordinary teenage boy who'd
been indoctrinated with the wrong beliefs. He happily volunteered the
use of his family's House-Elf to be of service to his beloved Dark
Lord. And then he finds that the House-Elf, about whom he cares the
way a boy from an aristocratic Edwardian family, would care about the
old butler who'd been with the family since his dad was a boy,
weakened and half-dead from a potion he's been forced to drink and
maybe begging for water. He hears the House-Elf's story, which
consists mainly of torments that Kreacher was forced to endure so that
Voldemort could conceal a gold locket under a deadly potion that he
tested on Kreacher.

Regulus, being a reasonably intelligent boy, would conclude that the
locket is obviously something more than a trinket, probably a
magically powerful Dark artifact. He *might* suspect that it was
somehow connected with Voldemort's obsession with immortality and his
dehumanized appearance. But he certainly would not have concluded that
it contained a fragment of Voldemort's soul. Had he known what the
object was, he would not have needed to research it, would he? And,
without knowing what it was, and without having heard of Horcruxes
previously, it stands to reason that he learned the word "Horcrux"
from Kreacher. (Obviously, I'm speculating, but that's the only way
that the story makes sense to *me.*)

Carol:
> But unless he'd heard the term "Horcrux," he wouldn't have known
where to begin.
> 
> Magpie:
> Or maybe he did know where to begin without knowing the word
Horcrux. Maybe you don't have to begin with the word Horcrux to get
there. Tom Riddle probably didn't. 

Carol:
Tom Riddle could have begun with the concept of immortality, also
exploring options like the Philosopher's Stone/Elixir of Life. Or he
could have begun, as I suggested earlier in this post, with Herpo the
Foul. The difference is that Tom was using his leisure hours at
Hogwarts to explore the uncensored Restricted Section of the library
(obviously with the permission of a teacher and possibly even with the
help of Madam Pince). Regulus was working alone (unless he consulted
B&B) and he had only a few days to do what he had to do. (He knew one
thing: If he stole this object, he was going to die, because unlike
Kreacher, he wouldn't escape the Inferi. So he'd have wanted to do it
as soon as possible and get it over with. And he'd want to be sure
that it was worth doing.)

If Kreacher used the word "Horcrux," finding out what the object was
in a few days' time would be doable, assuming that the books were
available. "Figuring out" that that the locket was a Dark object that
somehow insured earthly immortality and going from there to discover
the concept of a Horcrux would take much more time and a lot of luck,
looking in books that didn't discuss the subject (most books) rather
than skimming the indices for the word "Horcrux."

> Magpie:
 <snip>
All I know is that he found out part of Voldemort's secret as an
ordinary teenager apparently all on his own, a wonderful example of an
ordinary hero that everybody dismissed as incapable of anything
extraordinary. Sometimes the flashy people are just flash. <snip>

Carol:
I have the greatest respect and affection for Regulus, an ordinary
teenager who is also a hero (and whose story, even to his being a
Seeker, ironically parallels Harry's). But my point is that without
the extraordinary circumstance of his House-Elf's having been tortured
by Voldemort through his own doing (and here the remorse parallels
Snape's), he would never have known or cared about Horcruxes. He
certainly would not have sacrificed his own life to steal one.
(Sidenote: His research could not have been very complete or he would
have known that House-elf magic can't destroy a Horcrux. You need a
Basilisk fang or the equivalent.)

I don't in the least dispute your point about Reggie's being "an
ordinary hero" who does what he has to do when no one else can or
will. Funny thing, the whole series is about another boy whose only
special powers come from his mother's self-sacrifice and Voldemort's
blunder, but who has no special abilities of his own except a powerful
Patronus and skill at Quidditch. (JKR makes a point of its not being
Harry's power or skill that defeat Voldemort.) So, yeah. Regulus is
another kid who fights Voldemort in his own way. The difference is
that he does so secretly and dies in the attempt. (And it still takes
Harry to open the Horcrux that Regulus stole and the Sword of
Gryffindor, impregnated with Basilisk venom because of Harry, to
destroy it. Come to think of it, Harry in the Chamber of Secrets and
Regulus in the cave are a lot alike. The difference is that Harry had
Dumbledore on his side, and consequently had the aid of Fawkes.)

But *my* point, lest I forget to state it, is that just because
Regulus Black, in highly unusual circumstances, "figured out" what a
Horcrux was (or, more likely, looked up the word after hearing
Kreacher speak it) doesn't mean that other Wizards would or could do
the same thing. As Montavilla pointed out, Dumbledore's precaution of
removing the books on Horcruxes from the Hogwarts library ironically
made it much less likely that Voldemort's enemies would have any idea
of the concept or any way to find out about it.

Carol, hoping that her view of Regulus is clearer in this post 




From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 10:03:59 2008
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:03:59 -0000
Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?) 
In-Reply-To: <41D4EE40-B041-45D4-86E9-95782CD56EE7@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fsnoif+eiaa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182334

> Carol wrote:
> > Carol, wishing that the HBP's Potions book could have
> > been saved and his notes published posthumously, with
> > Snape getting full credit for his brilliant discoveries
> > and inventions (minus Sectumsempra!)
>
> Laura <lwalsh at ...> wrote:
> This is one of my regrets, too.  The Potions book needs
> massive re-writing and Snape should have gotten credit
> for his ingenious modifications to the accepted potions
> recipes.

Snip

SusanFullin asks:

How come Snape's book was left in school? In HBP Harry
gets it. I should think Snape, knowing how much he added
and worked on it, would have taken it away. Is there
something in canon that says textbooks must be kept at
Hogwarts??? Thanks!

Susan






From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 22:44:01 2008
From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:44:01 -0000
Subject: Who Needs Harry?
In-Reply-To: <fsn7u4+ha84@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsp53h+kc10@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182335


bdclark0423:

Sorry, fellow PotterHeads, that I once again suffer you with my
ramblings


My understanding is that when we read literature we are very much
playing the part of God, in that we actually exist outside of the
timeline that is part of the story.  My belief is that GOD is all
powerful, and HE created the Physical Universe.  For the physical
universe to exist, you must have both the variables of time and space. 
For something to take up space (have physical existence) you must also
have time in which that existence takes place, and vice versa.

Through GOD's design of creating physical life, he needed the
subsequent action of physical death.  This means he needed a directive,
so to speak.  This would be the fallen angel, Lucifer, who took the form
of the serpent and is the Prince of darkness, Ruler of death, etc, etc. 
GOD also gave Lucifer the ability to have physical form , since physical
life was now considered `the fallen angel's' realm.  Now,
while he cannot take an exact form, he can possess actual physical
bodies.  So while, we as humans have this physical life, in the end, we
must forfeit the physical life to physical death.

So what gets us out of bed, then?  Stories such as these.  Harry gives
us hope that through good actions we can have a better life.  Through
stories such as that Jesus paid the ultimate price in suffering for us,
gives us hope.  Hope for what?  That we can trust ourselves that we can
take the gift of live and of free-will and make it part of our own
experience.  That was the true intention of creating life, for it to
make the most of its existence.  Therefore, the more we defy death (and
desire for death and/or Satan) the more we glorify life:  our existence.

bdclark0423



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




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 22:44:22 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:44:22 -0000
Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <fsnoif+eiaa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsp546+va93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182336

> SusanFullin asks:
> How come Snape's book was left in school? In HBP Harry
> gets it. I should think Snape, knowing how much he added
> and worked on it, would have taken it away. Is there
> something in canon that says textbooks must be kept at
> Hogwarts??? Thanks!

zgirnius:
There is no explanation for this. My own personal explanation, is 
that Snape kept the book in the classroom for reference as a young 
teacher, but over time he has reached the point that he no longer 
refers to it.

I would guess that everything in it falls into one of two categories 
for him. It is either something he knows by heart (so that he does 
not need to look it up) or something that is outdated (in the sense 
that he has discovered an even better improvement than the ones he 
did, after all, invent as a teen).

If he has not so much as cracked the book open for a decade, I don't 
find it hard to believe he did not bother to retrieve it from the 
storage cupboard in which it was found when he took over the DADA 
teaching position.






From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au  Sun Mar 30 22:56:21 2008
From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:56:21 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fslpnp+hj4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsp5ql+8d9k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182337

> Betsy Hp:
> But why?  Why was *everyone* so terrified to speak Voldemort's name?  
Somewhere it says that to utter his name is to make him appear. I
think it's when the trio are camping out. And the terror was to do
with the aura of fear that came from what he was, both an an evil
magician and as someone who brings out the evil as others. 


> Betsy Hp:
> play wizards vs. muggles... <bg>) MI-5 or the FBI would have had 
> Riddle down and gone before the second Death Eater's mark wafted 
> above some poor victim's house. (Yay Muggles! <rbg>)
But the HP book were written with a total ignorance of modern
technology. Plus it is assumed that Muggles are hopeless against
magic. And that PMs are fools. 

Barry




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 23:09:03 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:09:03 -0000
Subject: Basilisk Venom
In-Reply-To: <fsotqq+1aiq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsp6if+a36h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182338

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > 
> > << (The only reason that the Sword of Gryffindor could 
> destroy the Horcruxes was that, because of Harry, it had 
> absorbed Basilisk venom.) >>
> 
> Catlady responded: 
> > My memory is dreadful. I thought the Sword of Gryffindor 
> could destroy Horcruxes because it was a powerful magical 
> artifact ...
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Happy to oblige. In "the Goblin's Revenge," after Phineas...
> has told HRH that the last time he saw the Sword of Gryffindor
> was when DD used it to break open a ring, Hermione says, "the
> sword can destroy Horcruxes! Goblin-mad blades imbibe only 
> that which strengthens them--Harry, that sword's impregnated 
> with basilisk venom!" (DH Am. ed. 304)--...
> 

bboyminn:

Excellent post, and I've nothing really to add other than an
aside. 

Do you think the Sword is imbued strictly with Basilisk Venom,
or do you think it is imbued with Basilisk POWER. The Basilisk
has many weapons and powers at its disposal. The Deadly Look,
Venomous Fangs, and in legends of old the Basilisk Breath was
also deadly. One exhale and the Basilisk could wilt countless
aches of crops. Admittedly, JKR seems to have left this last
part out, but the point remains.

If you kill a wizard with the Sword, does the Sword then absorb
the strengths and powers of that wizard? Do it absorb the part
that strengthen it? 

If you kill a Dragon with it, would it then absorb the general
power and strengths of the Dragon?

If so, then would it not absorb all the powers of the Basilisk.

Now from a general conversational point or view, there's really
no need to talk about a 'deadly look' when referring to a sword,
but just because the Sword can't kill you with a look, doesn't
mean the underlying power isn't there. 

I think it is more than the mere fact the the Sword has venom
on it, or in it, I think it has this additional power to destroy
Horcruxes because it absorbed all the powers of the Basilisk, 
and the one critical power to destroying Horcruxes is Venom.

This seems to be a very find distinction I am making here, a
distinction which leads me to the ultimate same conclusion
that other have reached, but I'm simply expanding it a bit.

Why would the Horcrux absorb only the Venomous aspect of the
Basilisk when so many more powers were there? 

> Carol:
>
> Earlier, Hermione has said that "what Harry did" (stabbing 
> the diary with a Basilisk fang) is one of the only "foolproof" 
> ways of destroying a Horcrux. Apparently, the venom alone is 
> not sufficient.... Hermione continues, ..."There are very few 
> substances as destructive as basilisk venom, and they're all
> dangerous to carry around with you" (104). ...
> 

bboyminn:

I think trying to carry or handle Basilisk Venom would be akin
to trying to carry around highly toxic radio active material.
I suspect that Basilisk Venom would be like many toxic 
substances, you don't have to ingest it. If it touches your
skin, it will absorb and kill you. If you are pouring it from
one bottle to another and the tiniest drop lands on your sleeve,
and a while eating dinner, you wipe your mouth on your that
same sleeve, you are dead. 

Still, Ron was able to handle the fangs, so perhaps I am wrong,
or perhaps the fangs had absorbed a degree of Venom from contact
but were not actually filled with liquid venom. That still might
give them the power to destroy a Horcrux. 

Also, note, as I think Hermione is trying to imply, not only 
must you expose the Horcrux to something that can kill it,
you must physically damage it. It must be stabbed or burned,
or in someway damaged so it can't restore itself. We have had
many objects that couldn't be repaired because they were 
damaged by magic. So, in the case of the Horcrux, it can't 
just be poisoned, it must also be damaged with the poisoned
object. 

So, I don't think Harry could have killed the diary but simply
shaking the fang and causing venom to drip on the book. He 
had to stab it over and over again, to make sure the job was
finally and completely done.

That's all for now.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 23:17:04 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:17:04 -0000
Subject: Basilisk Venom - corrections and additions.
In-Reply-To: <fsp6if+a36h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsp71g+ofdh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182339

---  "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why would the Horcrux absorb only the Venomous aspect of the
> Basilisk when so many more powers were there? 
> 

bboyminn:

Naturally that should read - "Why would the SWORD absorb..."


> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> ...
> 
> Still, Ron was able to handle the fangs, so perhaps I am wrong,
> or perhaps the fangs had absorbed a degree of Venom from contact
> but were not actually filled with liquid venom. That still might
> give them the power to destroy a Horcrux. 
> 
> ..

bboyminn:

A side note; Ron did NOT have an arm load of Basilisk FANGS,
he had an arm load of Basilisk TEETH. Only one of which was
a true fang. Like the one true fang is the one Hermione used
to kill the Cup.

It's a small point, but I'm hoping for an appointment to the
LOON club (Loyal Order Of Nitpickers). 

Steve/bboyminn




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 30 23:34:27 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:34:27 -0000
Subject: Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed?
In-Reply-To: <fsopuu+t2m8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsp823+685a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182340

Betsy:
<BIG SNIP>
So my issue with the Voldemort story is that JKR went sloppy. She
couldn't be bothered to think up a truly formidable villain, she
couldn't be bothered to think up a good reason for Harry being the
hero of her piece. So she cut corners, didn't worry about plot
holes, and had her hero save the day due to his overwhelming...luck
<BIG SNIP>


Alla:

I was acknowledging the suspension of disbelief in any story where 
child is a hero IMO and where adults have to take a second seat.

I understand that you think that JKR went sloppy. It is your opinion, 
I understand, but to me she did not go sloppy, she just chose a 
certain scenario, while leaving open the possibility for other 
scenarios to play out in our heads.

She did not bother to think up truly formidable villain? I partially 
agree, but ONLY partially. I found Voldemort step by step personally 
executing the plan to take over the ministry to be very good and 
scary. I find his rebirth to be scary. But of course some of his 
deeds I find very funny.

And of course I do not agree that she could not be bothered to think 
up a good reason for Harry being the hero of her piece. As Catlady 
said, Harry certainly DID wowed me. I find his loyalty and his desire 
to save people to be very enduring trait.

But again, of course I see a plenty of scenarios where things could 
have gone differently had adults acted, what's the word? Oh yes, less 
idiotically in some instances.

But since this IMO common for so many stories where kids are main 
heroes, I just accept it as part of suspension of disbelief.

Every person is different in what is easy for them to believe and 
what is not. I find Harry and Co heroics to be quite easy to accept ? 
what you call shire luck, I call, well, I guess everything ? luck, 
friendship and skill. It is no problem for me that young wizards are 
able to achieve what they could.

After all they are wizards, you know? But I do get if it is hard for 
you to accept.

Adults acting in some instances as dumb idiots, in some just 
disappearing, in some, well as idiots again is of course harder to 
accept, absolutely.

But this is obviously up to every reader whether they could accept it 
or not.

I am sure I mentioned it before, but I find Will from Dark is Rising 
to routinely do things which his leaders could have done eh, long 
time ago, without involving him, well ever?

I mean, they have one of the signs to Walker to walk the earth for 
500 years
 only to wait till Will is born and to take the sign from 
Walker and erm
 hide it from the Dark?

Let's think about it for one second. Why exactly this sign was given 
to Walker in the first place? Wouldn't it be easier to NEVER GIVE IT 
TO WALKER in the first place. I would think in this instance this 
sign would be much easier to safeguard till Will is born. But hey, 
Susan Cooper needed Will to be the Hero, so she comes up with bizarre 
obstacles and then let Will to overcome them. She writes about it 
very beautifully, so I just suspend my disbelief and swallow it.

Same thing with Harry, you know? Do I find it hard to believe that 
nobody else but Dumbledore bothered to research how Voldemort became 
immortal? Of course I am. I laughed out loud when I read Magpie 
comparison with the meeting of resistance, where all means are no 
good, except teenager about whom his teacher made a prophecy.

But the difference between you and me is that I LOVE how JKR wrote 
the scenario, I adore Harry and I will swallow him and his friends 
taking the first seat in this ride. For me it is not that hard to do.

I am sure I also mentioned how hilarious I find that Will had to take 
that harp in Dark is rising. So he goes on that quest to figure out 
the riddles and to take it from Three Lords of Dark Light and Neutral.

So far, so good, except it turns out to be that Lord of the Light is 
nobody else as the Idiot called Merriman, who is Will's mentor.
He could not take away this harp and safeguard it for the Light why 
exactly? Oh I know because the chosen Kid just had to come.

So really to me Harry breaking into Gringotts and leaving safely is 
pretty much the same thing.

But  probably the funniest thing to me in the obstacles that Susan 
Cooper designs for the Light ( although I don't know there are so 
many of them) is the challenge that Dark brings up in the last book 
that Bran should not be there.
Anybody remembers who is the judge of that challenge? Oh that's right 
the Lady.  Now let's flashback to the second book and tell me, 
whether anybody already had a hint that Lady is how to put it a 
little bit biased in favor the Light? Did anybody had any doubt how 
that challenge be decided? I know that not me, that's for sure.

So, my point is that majority of authors who write about kids as 
heroes will require suspension of disbelief to the different degrees 
and for the most part it will be up to the reader whether they can 
accept it or not.

I do not find JKR's world to be the hardest to suspend disbelief. 
Now, granted at some point I thought that adults contrary to many 
books I read would be taking bigger role in these series. It ended 
with the death of Sirius. Not only in a sense that one of my 
favorites died. To me it signaled that adults, well will not be 
taking larger roles than I thought they will be.

I think honestly that in large the suspension of disbelief depends on 
whether one likes the characters. 
I am also not guessing whether your suspension of disbelief depends 
on whether you like or dislike the Trio. I am saying that if * I* am 
faced with the book where I DISlike the child who supposed to do 
heroics, it is much harder to suspend disbelief. I adore Harry so I 
totally suspend disbelief sometimes and sometimes what he does is 
believable to me.

But for example I cannot stand Artemis Fowl and I read one book and 
throw it out with hysterical giggles of how incredibly silly it 
seemed to me.

I also like Will, so I just accept that this is the way Cooper chose 
the story to develop, never mind that I can offer plenty of the 
scenarios to make life for Will and his fellow old ones MUCH easier.

JMO,

Alla





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Mar 31 01:36:35 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:36:35 -0000
Subject: Who Needs Harry?
Message-ID: <fspf73+rcjv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182341

Catlady (me) wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182322>:
<< In the story, Harry is the only person who can take down Voldemort,
because that's how the story is written. The Author endowed him with
the needed abilities and gave him lucky breaks, and decreed that
everything everyone else tried, failed. >>

Betsy Hp replied in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182330>:

<< Except JKR didn't allow anyone else of any skill to try anything
against Voldemort. That's part of the reason he looked so pathetic
as a big evil. We never got to see him being formidable. (snip) As far
as I could tell, Harry's special skill was his luck. Nothing he caused
or created, just the way things fell out around him. >>

Hey, Betsy, do you know that I agree with a lot of the things in a lot
of your posts lately? But it's hard to boil them down to a one or two
line snip to which I can reply: "This is a forbidden 'I agree' reply."

I don't object to Harry's special skill being luck, I object that
Rowling, having consciously or accidentally taken on a plot echoing
the archetype of the young boy who is the ONLY ONE who can do the
heroic task, 'went sloppy' (whose phrase what that? Alla's?) about the
reason that Harry is the 'only' one. 

In the folk tales and epics, it's always either luck (the young hero
has a magic ring or tinderbox or something that summons a giant black
dog or the Devil or something that does each impossible task for him)
or some unbelievable set-up, like the target can be killed 'neither
indoors nor outdoors, neither clothed nor naked, neither eating nor
fasting', so Clytemnestra threw a fishnet over Agamennon and stabbed
him as he was entering the doorway on his return from the bath, and
had just set an apple to his teeth but not yet bitten into it. In that
example, it's the position rather than the person -- one time it was
the person is when Macbeth could not be killed by man of woman born.
It can't just be that the hero is the strongest and cleverest - it
would be possible that someone else some time could be just as strong
and clever.

The problem with a novel requiring a ridiculous condition for being
able to kill the target is that a novel requires a certain superficial
plausibility. Poor Rowling couldn't just decree that Voldemort can be
killed only by, for example, a boy who was born with right and left
feet interchanged, because that's just the way it is, and Harry just
happened to be born with right and left feet interchanged, but his
wizard father switched them right ways around before anyone else
noticed. (Actually, Dumbledore would have had to notice if she wanted
him to be the puppet master, and Voldemort would have had to notice if
she wanted Voldemort to be continually attacking him.) If she wanted
to do the right-left foot switch, she would have had to make up a
superficially plausible reason WHY people born with their feet on
straight were ineffective against Voldemort. 

On top of that, she gave herself the added problem of setting it up
that the way Harry wins is by being killed. That usually requires some
gimmick (such as being Jesus Christ), something more than just being
the strongest and cleverest.

I suppose she tried to make up a plausible reason with the love-death
protection and the not-a-Horcrux and the Elder Wand's ownership and
maybe all that Basilisk venom stuff that Carol is going on about. I
think she failed because it is all too confusing. It must become
clearly and blindingly obvious to readers why the hero was the ONLY
ONE, otherwise the archetype gets broken.

And, y'know, with the archetype broken, I'm somewhere between hoping
that and having faith that some other people could have defeated
Voldemort if there had been no Harry, or he had failed. I couldn't
find a place to stick that fact into my previous post, but it's why I
went on about me personally believing that people have free will and
the future is not set in concrete until it actually happens. 

If I think of the characters as people rather than as symbols in
service of an archetype, I *HATE* the idea that if just one little
link in this complicated chain went wrong, they would all be
helplessly doomed to a Reign of Voldemort that might not end until our
Sun goes nova. 





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Mar 31 02:08:59 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:08:59 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why should we care if Harry's not really needed? Re: Who needs Harry?
In-Reply-To: <fsopuu+t2m8@eGroups.com>
References: <fsn0ot+etgf@eGroups.com> <fsopuu+t2m8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803301908y44229955q9f8424908b80ebc6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182342

Betsy HP:

So the author takes the unbelievable (dragons) and makes it mundane
(dragons treated as lions). That's part of building a believable,
unbelievable world. Another example: Brooms fly and we've made a
sport of it and some brooms are cooler than others. Brooms as
bicycles (or polo ponies). JKR did a good job at that. In the
beginning.
But than she asked far too much of me while doing far too little in
return.

Lynda:

I'm sorry that you were unable to keep the suspension of disbelief working
for yourself Betsy--but profoundly greatful that I was able to retain my own
contract with the author throughout the series. Of course, with me, when
that contract breaks down I simply discontinue to read the book or books
involved. That's simply the way I handle situations like that (I am not
telling you that you should have done likewise just remarking on how I
handle the situation--there are too many books out there for me to put my
time into something I'm not enjoying).

Lynda


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




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 02:21:41 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:21:41 -0000
Subject: Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed?
In-Reply-To: <fsp823+685a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsphrl+a6l3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182343

Alla (regarding the The Dark is Rising series):

> But  probably the funniest thing to me in the obstacles that Susan 
> Cooper designs for the Light ( although I don't know there are so 
> many of them) is the challenge that Dark brings up in the last book 
> that Bran should not be there.
> Anybody remembers who is the judge of that challenge? Oh that's right 
> the Lady.  Now let's flashback to the second book and tell me, 
> whether anybody already had a hint that Lady is how to put it a 
> little bit biased in favor the Light? Did anybody had any doubt how 
> that challenge be decided? I know that not me, that's for sure.

Montavilla47:

Bear with me, it's probably been thirty-five years since I read that
series.  As I recall, the forces of Dark and Light were somewhat
detached from the mundane, although their struggle had great 
import to our world.  But in the final judgment it was the opinion
of a mortal man that made the difference.

Of all the rest of it, what I mostly remember is that Paul was
pretty dreamy.  And that Will was a decent kid that I liked 
as a character.

Alla:

> So, my point is that majority of authors who write about kids as 
> heroes will require suspension of disbelief to the different degrees 
> and for the most part it will be up to the reader whether they can 
> accept it or not.
> 
> I do not find JKR's world to be the hardest to suspend disbelief. 
> Now, granted at some point I thought that adults contrary to many 
> books I read would be taking bigger role in these series. It ended 
> with the death of Sirius. Not only in a sense that one of my 
> favorites died. To me it signaled that adults, well will not be 
> taking larger roles than I thought they will be.

Montavilla47:
You were quicker than I was.  I didn't see that as a signal, but simply
as a tragic event.  If I recall back to the pre-HBP days, I thought that
Harry would be working more with the adults who were left standing,
and that key to that would be his relationship with Snape--which was
left in a sorry state at the end of OotP (although it was, of course, 
worse at the end of HBP).  

A couple weeks before HBP came out, I discovered fanfic and read
Theowyn's "The Enemy Within," which was such a natural development
of both Occlumency and the Harry/Snape relationship (not as in 
slash, but simply in hateful student/hated teacher) that I couldn't see
how JKR *wouldn't* do something similar.  I think she did, in a 
more sublimated way, with Harry learning about Snape from the potions
book, rather than from forced interactions with the man himself.

But, I did think, because of the introduction of the Order, that they
would have some role to play in the future.  I suppose they did, but 
it wasn't as key a role as I would have liked, given the introduction of
them in the first place.

Nor do I think it would have hurt the series to have had them do
stuff.  There are plenty of fantasy stories in which the kids play
the most important parts, but also have adults along.  Frodo had
Aragorn.  Will had Merriman.  Prince Caspian had his advisers and
courtiers.  The Pevensees had adult beavers to help them out.  
Taran had his friend Flewther (I'm not sure I'm getting that
spelling right), and sometimes Gwydion.  Dido had a whole 
bunch of adult friends. Heck, Luke Skywalker had Han Solo.  None 
of them made the kid less powerful or special, or made the 
stories less exciting.

Alla:
> I think honestly that in large the suspension of disbelief depends on 
> whether one likes the characters. 
> I am also not guessing whether your suspension of disbelief depends 
> on whether you like or dislike the Trio. I am saying that if * I* am 
> faced with the book where I DISlike the child who supposed to do 
> heroics, it is much harder to suspend disbelief. I adore Harry so I 
> totally suspend disbelief sometimes and sometimes what he does is 
> believable to me.

Montavilla47:
I think you're spot on here, Alla.  I liked Harry right up through OotP,
and so I followed along with all the implausibilities and sheer luck and
all that.  Of course, I didn't *quite* see the point that Dumbledore
was making about Harry's amazing ability to love, but I thought that
perhaps JKR was making the case that almost *everyone* has an amazing
capacity to love, even an otherwise emotionally ordinary wizard teenager.

I mean, you couldn't really call Harry's ability to love Cho amazing.  He 
acted like the most insensitive boy imaginable.  He's attracted to her
because she's pretty, but as soon as he discovers that she has 
emotional needs, he loses interest.

But, I went along with it until Harry blew off the D.A.  That was the 
straw that did me in.  The D.A. had been sold to its members as
being really important because V-voldemort was back.  Well, he 
was backer than ever in HBP, but suddenly Harry doesn't see a need
to help his fellow students learn to defend themselves.  Nope, he'd
rather captain the Quidditch team.

It made no sense from a compassionate point of view (since his
friends needed his skills more than ever) or a strategic point of
view (if he was supposed to rid the world of Voldemort, he was 
going to need allies).  And, character-wise, it made Harry
seem like a stuck-up prig.

JMO,

Montavilla47




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Mar 31 02:28:48 2008
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:28:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsmavs+fu0s@eGroups.com>
References: <fslrlb+a6gf@eGroups.com> <fsmavs+fu0s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0803301928w2e2aef5ew8aa982ded35e1b65@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182344

Carol responds:
Who knew about that obsession? No one except Dumbledore.

Lynda:

Umm. . .I did.  From the little tidbits throughout the series, from the
diary to Dumbledore's visit to the orphanage which gave TR his eventual
escape from the muggle world (including his almost immediate if somewhat
shallow change of demeanor while talking to Dumbledore in his room at the
orphanage) to his momentous success as a student at Hogwarts through to his
applications for work at Hogwarts, sending his lackeys back to Hogwarts time
and again, etc. I *knew* that Voldemort had an obsession with the place.

Lynda


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




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Mar 31 02:33:59 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:33:59 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <fsp3kt+819g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fspiin+fks0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182345

> Carol earlier:
> 
> > > While it's possible that his parents had books with that 
> information in the house, which they seem to have inherited from
> Phineas Nigellus, Regulus wouldn't know what he was looking for. 
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > So maybe he kind of did know what he was looking for, if not by
> name, by some general idea that led to the truth. We don't know
> whether there was something in books in his house inherited from
> Phineas or anybody else. But he certainly found it out and nobody
> thought this was impossible. Maybe Regulus thought in similar ways 
to
> Voldemort.
> 
> Carol responds:
> I rather doubt it. Voldemort was a sociopath obsessed with death who
> was actually willing not only to commit murder and place part of his
> soul in an object but to exist as "less than spirit" if his body
> happened to be destroyed. Regulus, OTOH, was a schoolboy who 
collected
> Voldemort's "press clippings" as if LV were a rock star, played
> Quidditch, tried to please his parents in contrast to his rebel
> brother, and cared about his House-Elf. the only thing he had in
> common with Voldemort was a belief in Pure-Blood supremacy (taught 
him
> by his Pure-blood supremacist parents, in contrast to LV's insane
> hatred of his "filthy Muggle father"). 

Magpie:
Voldemort would probably agree that he's too different for any 
ordinary boy who loves his family and is maybe just a good student to 
imagine his train of thought when it came to "If I wanted to live 
forever, I'd hide my soul someplace else." I think Voldemort's just 
arrogant. You don't need to be a psychopath to think up that kind of 
idea. It's a staple in fairytales and folklore.

Carol:
 Despite all
> odds and despite Dumbledore's efforts to keep anyone from finding 
out
> about Horcruxes, he found the information about an object whose
> existence he had never previously suspected. (That's the part where 
I
> have to suspend my disbelief. *If he's never heard the word, how in
> the name of Dumbledore is he supposed to "figure out" that Voldemort
> encased a piece of his soul in a locket (as if a soul were a 
tangible object)? The idea is not something that's going to occur to 
a person
> who isn't obsessed with the topic and hasn't already done research 
on,
> say, Herpo the Foul (who would be of interest to Tom Riddle as the
> Parselmouth who hatched the first known Basilisk--neat little
> coincidence that he's also the first known Horcrux maker, isn't it?)

Magpie:
::Shrug:: I have the opposite reaction to this part of the story. It 
doesn't seem unbelievable to me that Regulus could figure it out 
somehow and could be starting with the concept of immortality just 
like Voldemort was. Or maybe just going on vague things he's heard 
about throughout his life.

> Carol:
> I have the greatest respect and affection for Regulus, an ordinary
> teenager who is also a hero (and whose story, even to his being a
> Seeker, ironically parallels Harry's). 

Magpie:
I respect his ability to figure this out as well as his personal 
sacrifice.

Carol:
But my point is that without
> the extraordinary circumstance of his House-Elf's having been 
tortured
> by Voldemort through his own doing (and here the remorse parallels
> Snape's), he would never have known or cared about Horcruxes. 

Magpie:
And without Voldemort taking over the WW many of the hypothetical 
people in the WW would not have reason to care about this stuff 
either. But Voldemort gives them all reason to care enough about it 
to learn about it. Knowing about what Voldemort did with Kreacher is 
the set of events that Regulus perhaps started from. Another 
character could have started from something else that Voldemort did 
that we don't know about because it wasn't detailed in the story but 
happened according to the story. All Kreacher was doing was hiding an 
object. 

Carol:
> I don't in the least dispute your point about Reggie's being "an
> ordinary hero" who does what he has to do when no one else can or
> will. Funny thing, the whole series is about another boy whose only
> special powers come from his mother's self-sacrifice and Voldemort's
> blunder, but who has no special abilities of his own except a 
powerful
> Patronus and skill at Quidditch. 

Magpie:
Except I was referring to Regulus being ordinary and using 
intelligence and skill to figure something out that Voldemort in his 
arrogance would have thought was beyond him. I'm disagreeing that he 
was a kid who had the answer fall into his lap because of special 
circumstances and what there was to admire was his suicidal bravery. 
I think Regulus took a circumstance that didn't have to lead anywhere 
and made it lead somewhere by putting his mind to it.

I think a group of resistance wizards devoted to bringing Voldemort 
down could have had some success if they set to work a similar way. 
Not using just things that happened to them, but by going out and 
gathering as much information about what Voldemort was doing and 
seeing what they could make out of that. Also using experts in Dark 
Magic and Death.

Carol:
> But *my* point, lest I forget to state it, is that just because
> Regulus Black, in highly unusual circumstances, "figured out" what a
> Horcrux was (or, more likely, looked up the word after hearing
> Kreacher speak it) doesn't mean that other Wizards would or could do
> the same thing.

Magpie:
Yes, as I said, I think we both respect Regulus, but not in the same 
way. You respect him sacrificing himself. I respect him using his 
brains to figure something out. I don't say "figured out" in 
quotation marks to imply he doesn't deserve the phrase because it had 
to have been spoon fed to him by Kreacher, or that anybody would of 
course have gotten it if their house elf had been used to hide the 
locket. I think Regulus' aborted attempt to destroy Voldemort gives a 
hint of what Wizards could have acheived if they'd tried.

-m





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar 31 04:27:10 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:27:10 -0000
Subject: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed? Re: Who needs Harry?
In-Reply-To: <fsopuu+t2m8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fspp6u+ad7h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182346

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I can suspend disbelief and believe that dragons help guard a bank 
> run by goblins.  Ask me to believe that a young boy and his plucky 
> friends can waltz into that bank, steal stuff, and then escape on a 
> dragon? 

Pippin:
Why not? It's an inside job -- could some teenagers break into Fort
Knox if two of them were prodigies and  they had the help of a former
employee? No idea, but I do know that Admiral Grace Hopper, the
inventor of the COBAL computer language, had a crack team of recent
high school graduates that she used to test proposed government
software security systems that vendors claimed were unhackable. The
kids beat them every time. 

 Or don't you think JKR did enough to establish that Hermione and
Harry were extraordinarily talented?

Of course in a fable  we expect luck to play a part in the hero's
victory. It's part of the reward for being virtuous. I imagine any
such story would seem off to someone who didn't like the hero and
wanted to see him fail. 

Betsy HP
> So my issue with the Voldemort story is that JKR went sloppy.  She 
> couldn't be bothered to think up a truly formidable villain,

Pippin:
The battle in the MoM shows us why no one could capture Voldemort. He
was not only able to overcome every spell that Dumbledore, using the
Elder Wand, could throw at him, he could even send Dumbledore's magic
back at him and make the fire that Dumbledore sent  into a snake that
attacked Dumbledore. Nor was anyone able to stop Voldemort from
disapparating when the Ministry wizards arrived. 

If Voldemort could outfight the Elder Wand in the hands of Albus
Dumbledore, surely he would be a match for as many wizards as could
practically attack him at one time. Besides the horcruxes, he seems to
 have altered himself  enough so that ordinary spells didn't work
properly on him. Surely he was as physiologically different from a
normal human as Hagrid.
 
Voldemort was  able to fight Slughorn, McGonagall and Shacklebolt
all at once, and none of their spells could even touch him. That's
enough to  make him a credible supervillain, IMO. He may be out of his
depth at running an empire, but lots of dictators have had that problem. 

We are also told repeatedly that except for Harry, no one, *no one* 
survived once Voldemort had decided that said person should die. No
real historical figure has ever had any such power -- it's straight
out of Sgt. Preston of the Yukon. Voldie always gets his man. <g>

Imagine if Hitler was personally invulnerable, could show up anywhere
behind enemy lines except in the most hardened locations, could kill
with unlimited ammunition and could vanish  at will, while preventing
his victims from doing likewise. 

In any case, I'm afraid I can't share your  belief that our Muggle
governments would be able to catch Voldemort -- last I looked at least
one very prominent terrorist was on the loose.

As for Harry, he does have an extraordinary talent that most wizards,
and many real people, don't have -- he can think when he's frightened.
Most folks freeze up. That's what happens to poor Draco. He's not a
coward, he's brave enough to get  into situations he knows
will be dangerous, but then his mind goes blank when he's scared, IMO.
He's literally  out of his wits.  He can freeze or run away or fight,
but he can't *reason*. Anybody who's studied hard only to have the
mind go completely blank at the sight of an examination paper will
know the feeling. 

But Harry isn't like that -- though he's not aware of it,  his mind is
still working, and it tells him to stab the diary, or that he needs to
conjure the patronus himself, accio the cup, tell the others to knock
over the prophecy shelves, or extend a spell of protection from
Voldemort over the whole WW. Only against the Inferi do we see him so
scared that he can't think what to do. 

As this is a psychological quirk and not an acquired skill, it makes
sense to me that Harry should have this ability when many full grown
and fully trained wizards have not. Harry's got it, so have Dumbledore
and Snape. But it makes sense to me that wizards, whose powers first
manifest themselves when they are frightened or angry, are not
normally taught  to suppress their fear -- very unlike, say, Jedi
knights or Bene Gesserit witches, for example.

Harry gets some schooling in short-circuiting fear from Lupin, but
does not share that lesson with the DA, who never get to practice with
a boggart dementor.

Pippin 










From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 06:50:36 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:50:36 -0000
Subject: One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG (Was: Re: WHo needs Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <fspf73+rcjv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsq1js+c2d4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182347

> Catlady:
> On top of that, she gave herself the added problem of setting it up
> that the way Harry wins is by being killed. That usually requires 
some
> gimmick (such as being Jesus Christ), something more than just being
> the strongest and cleverest.
> 
> I suppose she tried to make up a plausible reason with the love-
death
> protection and the not-a-Horcrux and the Elder Wand's ownership and
> maybe all that Basilisk venom stuff that Carol is going on about. I
> think she failed because it is all too confusing. It must become
> clearly and blindingly obvious to readers why the hero was the ONLY
> ONE, otherwise the archetype gets broken.

zgirnius:
No, I think the love death wand venom Horcrux stuff, is not the main 
hero story. It is not things only Harry can do, it is the stuff of 
the plots of seven books of the series, in which Harry plays a part, 
through which he learns and grows, but in which others could have 
taken his place, under other circumstances, and actually do for some 
bits, as the book plays out.

Harry does not have to be the one to defeat Voldemort. The books are 
not written in such a way that Harry must be the one. 

X could find out about Horcruxes, find and destroy them all, and then 
say, "Hi, Harry, it's been nice knowing you" and kill him. And then 
take on Voldemort. It would require X to be a powerful, 
knowledgeable, and ruthless wizard, but X could do it, eventually, I 
suppose. I don't think I would much care for X, though he might be 
interesting to read and think about.

(Or a committee could, as others have suggested. I suppose they'd 
draw straws to decide who gets to kill Harry, once the Horcruxes were 
gone).

Harry has only one unique role in the book. X or a committee can do 
all of the above, but no one else, neither the amazing X, nor a run-
of-the-mill committee member, can die in Harry's place. 

Harry knows he is not essential for the defeat of Voldemort. He 
explicitly acknowledges this in the text. He's just the only one that 
*must* die for it to happen.

> DH, "The Forest Again":
> Now he saw that his life span had always been determined by how 
long it took to eliminate all the Horcruxes. Dumbledore had passed 
the job of destroying them to him


zgirnius:
But, as Harry's musings go on to note, Harry was not chosen to pass 
the Horcrux task to because only he could do it. Dumbledore passed 
the task to him for his own reasons ? as X, he could have recruited a 
different successor (actually, successors, for Dumbledore approves 
including Hermione and Ron). 

Harry himself, recognizing the job remains unfinished, picks a new 
successor to replace himself.

> DH, "The Forest Again":
> This was crucial, he must be like Dumbledore, keep a cool head, 
make sure there were backups, others to carry on. 

And so Harry tells Neville that the snake must die, knowing quite 
well that this is a task Neville, or Ron, or Hermione are every bit 
as qualified for as he. (In fact, Neville kills the snake, as we 
know). And then he goes off to do the only thing no one else can do, 
yay Harry.

Actually, we more or less have a would-be X, in the form of Albus 
Dumbledore. He was on the job of defeating Voldemort even before he 
knew about the Horcruxes. He learned of a prophecy about a baby that 
would grow up with the power to defeat Voldemort, and took steps to 
keep that baby safe, without understanding the mechanism whereby the 
baby would eventually have this power. When the boy stumbled, all 
unknowing, across a Horcrux he was uniquely equipped to handle (the 
Parseltongue Voldemort gave him), Albus understood what was going on 
and embarked on his Horcrux quest, identifying three Horcruxes and 
their locations (aside from the unexpected involvement of one Regulus 
Black) , and a fourth, in a location unknown.

Meanwhile, Harry continued attending Hogwarts and having more 
adventures.

Then, Albus messed up, so badly it might have brought the situation 
back almost to square one, were it not for the assistance of one 
Severus Snape, who gave him the time he needed to pass his task on to 
his chosen successor before his now inevitable death. Albus picked 
Harry, Ron, and Hermione, (and later Snape, just for the one detail 
of letting Harry know the last little bit of the plan). 

The one difference between Albus and my X, was that not only did 
Albus goof, he also lacked in the ruthlessness department. He came to 
love Harry, so much so that he did not wish Harry to die. The 
Hallows, wand, etc. were not necessary to the defeat of Voldemort. As 
the story was written, Voldemort could have been killed by any 
sufficiently powerful and determined wizard, or a group, after 
Neville destroyed the final Horcrux. Albus threw them into the mix to 
achieve his own, private goal ? to weight the scales in any way he 
could to bring about Harry's survival. 

The blood protection was a mistake of Voldemort's, the most important 
unambiguous role of which was simply to keep Harry alive as a baby, 
making Harry into the quasi-Horcrux that has to die, for Voldemort to 
be killable. Various curlicues added to it (the end of GoF and the 
consequent failure of Lucius's wand in the 7 Potters, possibly but 
not unambiguously, Harry's survival in The Forest Again) were not 
things that furthered Voldemort's defeat, but things that caused 
Harry's survival. It's a whole other strand in the books, about the 
power of Lily's sacrifice and the futility of trying to counter it 
mechanistically by Voldemort. Not everything is about defeating 
Voldemort ? this is one of the many things that is not.

So, anyway, I think we have in the book both the realistic, any large 
enough, good enough, strong enough group being sufficient for 
completing a mission, and the archetypal situation of Harry being the 
Only One who can complete a mission.

The task accomplished by committee is  the task of defeating 
Voldemort, which involves finding and destroying six Horcruxes, and 
killing the man himself. Harry is a member of this committee, and a 
very notable one, but his involvement is not necessary. It does speed 
things up, and it is nice to see our main character do stuff, at 
least for me, but people who say anyone could have done it, are right 
in my view. To run through our committee and its accomplishments


The Diary ? Harry is able to destroy it, but Lucius Malfoy and 
Hermione Granger make small contributions to this achievement (Albeit 
unintentionally, in Lucius's case).

The ring, identified, found and destroyed by Albus. 

The locket, the identification, location and destruction of which 
required the combined talents of Albus, Regulus, the Trio, Kreacher, 
Phineas Nigellus, and Snape. (Pardon me if I forgot someone).

We have the Cup, the identification, location, and destruction of 
which required the combined efforts of Albus, the Trio, Griphook, and 
an assist from Bellatrix.

The tiara, the identification, location, and destruction of which 
required the combined efforts of Albus, Harry, Helena Ravenclaw, 
Luna, and assists from Crabbe and Voldemort.

Nagini, the identification, location, and destruction of which 
required the combined efforts of Albus, Harry, and Neville.

Oh, and Sluggie chips in the magic number. <g>

Harry did defeat Voldemort, and he was able to do so, owing to 
fortuitous circumstances which resulted when Albus's carefully laid 
plan regarding the Elder Wand went astray. Because of these 
circumstances, it was much easier for Harry than anyone else to 
defeat Voldemort in the final battle, but someone else could have.

And then there is the other mission. To die, so that a piece of 
Voldemort's soul is destroyed. Only Harry can do this. He is placed 
in this position through circumstances I personally find crystal 
clear, and a thing of beauty. Snape reports prophecy, Voldemort 
chooses to act murderously on said prophecy, Snape begs for Lily's 
life, Voldemort asks Lily to step aside, Lily refuses, Voldemort zaps 
her, and Bingo! Horcrux!Harry is born.





From anita_hillin at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 10:58:11 2008
From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (akh)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:58:11 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 17, Bathildas Secret
Message-ID: <fsqg43+mior@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182348

This message is a Special Notice for all members of

http://groups. yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups

In addition to being published onlist (available in webview),
this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes)
to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices."
If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact
the List Elves at (minus that extra space)
HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com

Note: akh is the author of this ChapDisc, gav_fiji only
posted it

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------
CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,
Chapter 17, Bathilda's Secret

As Harry and Hermione reach the grave of the unknown Abbott, Hermione
senses that they are being watched. Believing she has seen something
move, they scan the area, Harry hears a rustle and sees dislodged
snow. Harry reassured Hermione that it was likely a cat; at any rate,
it isn't likely to be Death Eaters, or they'd be dead. Nevertheless,
they make their way out of the graveyard. As they reach the pavement,
they get back under the Invisibility Cloak.

Hearing Christmas carols emanating from the local pub, Harry onsiders
hiding in the crowd, but Hermione directs them out of the village in
the opposite direction from their entrance into it. Hermione
ruminates on how to find Bathilda Bagshot's house, but Harry isn't
listening. He realizes the dark mass at the end of the street is the
remains of his parents' house, abandoned since the day Hagrid removed
him from the rubble.

Hermione wonders why it was never rebuilt; Harry speculates that it
may be irreparable from the Dark Magic used there. However, when he
touches the gate, a sign appears from the ground, which commemorates
the site, explaining that the site has been left in its ruined state
as a monument to the Potters "and as a reminder of the violence that
tore apart their family."

The sign is covered in graffiti, left by visiting witches and
wizards. The most recent includes messages to Harry such as "Good
luck, Harry, wherever you are" and "Long live Harry Potter." While
Hermione is indignant at the damage to the sign, Harry is glad to see
the evidence of support.

Suddenly they notice a figure hobbling towards them. Harry thinks
it's a woman, and her walk suggests she's extremely old. They wait to
see if she enters another house, but Harry feels that she is coming
to see them. Sure enough, she stops a few yards from them, facing
them silently.

Harry is sure she's a witch, but he is puzzled at how she knows
they're there, given they're hiding under the Invisibility Cloak.
Becoming increasingly convinced he is facing Bathilda Bagshot, he
wonders if she has been waiting for them for months on Dumbledore's
orders, and if perhaps she has some of DD's extraordinary powers of
detection. She beckons to them, convincing them she can see them. He
asks her if she is, indeed, Bathilda, and she nods, beckoning to them
a second time.

Harry and Hermione follow Bathilda down the street to her house,
which has a yard nearly as overgrown as the Potters' abandoned yard.
Entering the house, Harry notices that Bathilda smells bad, although
perhaps it's the house. He notes the house is rife with the odor of
old age, dust, unwashed clothes and stale food. He wonders if
Bathilda can even see him through the thick cataracts that cover her
sunken eyes. Even if she can make him out, he looks like a balding,
middle-aged Muggle.

Harry realizes that his locket has come "alive" again. He wonders if
it can sense that its destroyer is near.

As Bathilda shuffles into the sitting room, Hermione expresses
doubts. Harry points out that they could overpower such a small,
elderly woman. Bathilda shouts "Come!" and Hermione jumps at the
sound. Harry reassures Hermione and they enter the room.

Again, Harry notes that the house is in bad shape, with thick dust
and, worse, the smell of spoiled meat. He wonders how long it's been
since anyone came to check up on Bathilda.  He notes, too, that she
seems to have forgotten how to do magic, as he watches her clumsily
trying to light candles. Worried that she will catch fire, he takes
the matches from her and finishes lighting the candles, which are
perched precariously on stacks of books and cluttered side tables.

The last candle he lights is sitting on a chest of drawers that has a
large number of photographs in frames. As the flame illuminates the
chest, he realizes that a number of the frames are empty, as though
someone has removed pictures. He wonders who may have removed them.
He notices a photo at the back and snatches it up. Harry recognizes
the young man as the one who he had seen in "The Life and Times of
Albus Dumbledore" arm in arm with teenage Albus. He asked Bathilda,
who has been fumbling with lighting a fire, who the young man in the
picture is. As she turns to him, Harry feels the locket Horcrux beat
faster.

Harry repeats his question, but Bathilda either cannot hear him or
doesn't understand the question. Hermione asks Harry what he's doing,
and he explains that the young man in the picture is the thief who
stole from Gregorovitch. Hermione asks Bathilda why she has invited
them there, but Bathilda acts as though she hasn't heard her. She
gestures for Harry to accompany her upstairs. Hermione starts to go
with them, but Bathilda makes it clear only Harry is invited.
Hermione, sounding a bit suspicious, asks why she shouldn't go. Harry
guesses that Dumbledore asked Bathilda to give him the sword alone.
Hermione doubts that Miss Bagshot even knows who he is, but Harry is
convinced she does. Hermione reluctantly agrees that he should go
with Bathilda. Before he follows her upstairs, Harry slips the
photograph in his jacket.

The stairs are steep, and Harry considers steadying Bathilda as they
climb the stairs. Eventually, they make their way into a low-
ceilinged bedroom. Bathilda closes the door on the pitch-black, foul-
smelling room; Harry uses the Lumos charm, and discovers to his
surprise that Bathilda has moved close to him.  She asks him if he is
Potter, which he confirms. He asks her if she has anything for him,
but she doesn't respond.

Suddenly, Harry's scar hurts, the Horcrux bounds away from his chest
and he feels a leap of joy as he hears himself say in a cold, high
familiar voice: "Hold him!" Not quite realizing what has just
happened, he asks again if Bathilda has anything for him. She points
him to a dark mass on the dressing table. He edges toward it, but
sees a strange movement out of the corner of his eye. He turns to
Bathilda in time to see the body collapse and a snake emerge from its
neck, on the attack. She bites his forearm, forcing his wand out of
his hand as her tail strikes a blow that knocks the breath out of
him.

Hermione hears the noise and calls out to Harry, but he doesn't have
breath to answer her. Nagini pins him to the floor, in obedience to
her master who has told her to hold Harry. He tries to retrieve his
wand, but he cannot as he is trying to hold off Nagini's coils as she
constricts herself around him, pressing the Horcrux to his chest.
His consciousness transforms into a cold, white light, the feeling
that he is flying triumphant without need of a broomstick.

He awakes abruptly, realizing Nagini has released him. She is now
poised to strike Hermione, who has come upstairs. She dives to avoid
Nagini's strike, sending a curse that deflects and hits the window,
smashing it. As Harry moves to avoid the shattered glass, he steps on
his wand, which he retrieves. By now, Nagini has resumed attacking
Harry, and he is afraid something has happened to Hermione, but she
curses Nagini, sending her into the air. Harry's scar pains him
again, and he yells to Hermione that Voldemort is coming. He grabs
her and scrambles to the window as Nagini strikes again. Hermione
sends a confringo curse through the room, and as the glass and china
shatter, they leap into nothingness.

Harry's scar bursts open and he is now inside Voldemort's mind,
seeing him barely miss Harry and Hermione as they vanish, and
revisiting the night he was ripped from his body.

Harry, as Voldemort, relives the Halloween night as he approaches the
Potters' house, crowing that their Fidelius Charm has failed,
unbeknownst to them. He sees James playing with little Harry, blowing
smoke puffs from his wand. As Voldemort crosses the threshold, James
runs to hold him off, having forgotten his wand on the sofa.
Voldemort makes quick work of him, then sets off for the upstairs
bedroom, where Lily has run with Harry.

He hears her screaming, but he does not plan to kill her if she
is "sensible." Knowing she is also wandless, Voldemort is confident
he will finish Harry off quickly, and he brushes aside her attempts
to block the door. She shields Harry in his crib, asking to be killed
instead. She refuses to move, although Voldemort warns her several
times to step aside. He decides to dispense with her rather than
forcing her to move. She drops from the AK, and he is standing before
Harry. The child has not cried, and he is looking at LV with innocent
interest. LV points his wand carefully, wanting to watch the
destruction of this dangerous person. As he points his wand at Harry,
the boy begins to cry, reminding Voldemort of the whining children at
the orphanage.

He performs the AK, and immediately he is reduced to bodiless pain
and terror, desperate to flee and hide far away.

As he returns to the present, Harry begins to come back to himself,
and he sees Voldemort find the photograph of the thief that Harry had
dropped as he escaped. Hermione is calling Harry to wake up, and he
realizes that he is in the tent again. It is almost dawn, and
Hermione has been nursing him through an episode in which he was
shouting and moaning. Harry wonders if he has been reenacting the
scene he has just relived through Voldemort. She also mentions that
she had to use a Severing charm to remove the locket. She recommends
that they refrain from wearing it for a while. He apologizes for
taking them to Godric's Hollow. Hermione points out that she too,
thought Dumbledore had left the sword there.

Hermione asks Harry what happened upstairs, and he explains that
Bathilda Bagshot had actually been dead for a while and that Nagini
was inside her. Revolted [I can't blame her; I'm revolted typing
this!], Hermione doesn't immediately respond. Harry goes on to
explain that she was speaking Parseltongue and alerted Voldemort that
they were at the house. He refrains from describing Nagini's
emergence from Bathilda's body, sparing her that gory detail. He
reflects that if he could have killed the snake, the trip would have
been worth it.

He starts to get up, under Hermione's protests, and asks her for his
wand so he can take over guard duty and give her some rest. Hermione
slowly brings out the nearly severed wand. Harry, in a fog of panic,
asks her to repair it. Warning him that she may fail, she attempts a
reparo charm, and the wand reseals itself. However, when he attempts
simple spells, it fails to work and again splits apart.

Hermione fears she broke the wand when she cast her Blasting Curse.
Harry, stunned, tells Hermione it was an accident and they'll get it
repaired somehow, although the likelihood is remote, and getting a
new wand would be difficult at best. He takes Hermione's wand and
leaves her to guard the tent.

Questions:
1. "Harry thought of A History of Magic;" ? have Hermione's habits
finally worn off on him?

2. We've waited for seven books to get our first glimpse of the house
in Godric's Hollow. How satisfying was the scene where Harry finally
sees his family home?

3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath the
Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through
Cloaks? Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini?
Clearly, someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the
ground, but how does LV!Nagini know where they're standing?

4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of Bathilda
is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course, we all have
the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off alarms for you on
the first read?

5. Harry's locket is again alive; should he have guessed that
something was amiss by its behavior?

6. How much of the mess in Bathilda's house do you suppose is really
the poor dear's own clutter and how much should have been a warning
to Harry and Hermione that something was terribly wrong?

7. Although the outcome of the visit was not what I expected (to say
the least), I felt the tension was built well in this scene, and I
was primed for some sort of surprise. What was your response to the
buildup? Did you speculate correctly on the surprise outcome?

8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most
grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to
the ? er ? unveiling of Bathilda?

9. Again, we finally get another scene we've been waiting to see for
seven books: the deaths of James and Lily Potter and Voldemort's
destruction. How did the scene live up to your expectations?  What
did it elucidate that had been unclear previously? (I realize that
much of this has been discussed.)

10. Voldemort is a pathological liar, although we know parts of the
Potter death scene are true, thanks to Harry's Dementor memories. How
reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case?

11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the
vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too
trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed
constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and
Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's
relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night?

akh

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

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

Next Chapter Discussion, Chapter 18, The Life and Lies of Albus
Dumbledore, April 14




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar 31 12:10:11 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:10:11 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsnv2o+5blp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsqkb3+co8o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182349

In post 182309  zgirnius wrote:
> Why would he think Snape had a message from Voldemort? Again, Snape 
> might have led him to believe this in arranging the meeting. 
Snape's 
> own statement, that he is there on his own account, does not imply 
he 
> has been there on someone else's before; it is a simple negation of 
?? what ALbus suggests.
> 
> There are two reasons I do not believe there was former history. 
> First, Snape's DE past seems to have been a secret not known to the 
> Order. Prior to the arrangement Albus reached with Snape in this 
> scene, I see no reason he would keep Snape's DE role secret from 
?? others.

Potioncat:
Given the somewhat quirky way DD speaks, this could be true.  On the 
other hand, keeping secrets is what Albus does best. We don't know 
what exactly the Order did during the first war. They sure don't do 
much in the second one. I doubt they hunted down DEs---more likely 
responded to situations, in the same way they responded to the battle 
at the MoM. But I think you have a good point, there would be no 
reason not to tell the Order that Snape is a DE.


> Zara:
> Second, Voldemort seems to have thought that Snape would be able to 
> worm his way into a job at Hogwarts. Since he has no idea Snape has 
> already betrayed him at this point, I think he should not expect 
this 
> of a Death Eater he has sent to Albus as a messenger in the past. 
In 
> Spinner's End, the whole "tale of remorse" line Snape feeds 
> Bellatrix, is apparently supposed to be something that happened 
post-
?? GH, not something Voldemort suggested pre-GH.

Potioncat:
I'm not so sure. I thought DD was supposed to know that Snape was a 
DE when he hired him. If DD had no reason to think Snape was a DE, 
Snape had no reason for the "tale of remorse". Speaking of which, 
that "tale of remorse" story to Bella was really true. Sort of. 
Besides, if Snape had been a messenger, it would give him the chance 
to offer his services. Just to clarify--I know DD knew Snape was a DE 
when he hired him. I thought LV had Snape pretend to switch sides 
when he went to work at Hogwarts. Or do you think LV kept Snape under 
wraps so that he could ask for the job as if he were not a DE? That 
is, LV did not know that DD knew of DE!Snape. In that case, Trelawney 
may have been right about part of Snape's motives that day.


 
> 
> zgirnius:
> I agree he is afraid of Albus, but I do not believe that is all he 
is 
> afraid of. A problem with moseying into Hogwarts to schmooze with 
the 
> big guy, is that it is definitely better if Voldemort never even 
> knows the meeting took place. Some random, remote hilltop where no 
> other wizard has a reason to be, seems a far better place for this 
?? meeting than a schjool full of teachers and students.

Potioncat:
I didn't word that very well. I didn't really mean he could walk into 
Hogwarts. I mean, it would seem if Snape's intent was to offer 
information to DD, why would he be so frightened of DD? He is, in 
effect, giving the enemy information. Like you, I think part of his 
fear on the hill was that he would be seen by the wrong person. But 
he seems very afraid of DD.  


> zgirnius:
> So in that sense, he was testing Severus. But I also think he saw 
the 
> possibilities of having a Death Eater in his debt. (Though, the 
> extent to which it would prove useful would depend on the Death 
> Eater. Snape probably exceeded Albus's wildest expectations...Albus 
> *was* very fortunate to have him.)

Potioncat:
Good point. Snape wouldn't have expected DD to ask anything of him. 
But it's very clear, in the way this conversation goes, that Snape is 
completely motivated to protect Lily. It's still interesting to me 
that Narcissa will ask for a magical vow from her friend, but DD does 
not ask one of his enemy.


In post 182325 "Ceridwen" wrote:
> Ceridwen:
> I'm not surprised Snape asks not to be killed.  Dumbledore, 
still "a 
> blinding, jagged jet of white light," can disarm him.  He hasn't 
even 
> settled into corporeal form again to do this.  I didn't notice this 
?? when I read the passage whole in the book.  Thanks.

Potioncat:
Oh, very good point. Snape is already very frightened and this 
happens.
> 
> Ceridwen:
 
> So, Snape as one of the few students who have actually faced 
> Dumbledore as headmaster, and Snape as possibly the only Death 
Eater 
> to have done so, and Snape being junior to the Death Eaters who had 
> Dumbledore as their teacher, could well have been sent on such a 
?? mission. Why would LV discount this resource?

Potioncat:
But would LV know about this? Of course, Snape could have said that 
he had been in DD's office without really saying why. You know, it 
could be the opposite too. The other former Hogwarts students may 
have had pretty bad reputations at school. So that Snape, who was a 
good student and kept his head down, would be a good candidate as a 
Slytherin teacher.

I'm not sure, one way or the other about events post-Hogwarts, but 
Snape seems so very afraid at the meeting. There seems to be some 
reason in his mind that he might just be killed. I'd like to know why.






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar 31 12:26:20 2008
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:26:20 -0000
Subject: Basilisk Venom
In-Reply-To: <fsp6if+a36h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsql9c+ok89@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182350

bboyminn:
> I think trying to carry or handle Basilisk Venom would be akin
> to trying to carry around highly toxic radio active material.
> I suspect that Basilisk Venom would be like many toxic 
> substances, you don't have to ingest it. If it touches your
> skin, it will absorb and kill you. If you are pouring it from
> one bottle to another and the tiniest drop lands on your sleeve,
> and a while eating dinner, you wipe your mouth on your that
> same sleeve, you are dead. 
> 
> Still, Ron was able to handle the fangs, so perhaps I am wrong,
> or perhaps the fangs had absorbed a degree of Venom from contact
> but were not actually filled with liquid venom. That still might
> give them the power to destroy a Horcrux. 


SSSusan:
Eh.  Surely Ron was just able to handle the fangs/teeth (saw your 
correction) because he was feeling SUPERHUMAN at that moment.  
Remember Harry's remark?  "Where have you two BEEN?!"  Yeah, yeah, 
they went & retrieved some basilisk parts, but they were gone a 
loooong time.  We know what they were *really* doing first, don't 
we?  <vbeg>  

Surely Ron could have done *anything* after that.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan,
with tongue planted firmly in cheek, but I couldn't resist





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar 31 13:24:54 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:24:54 -0000
Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <fsp546+va93@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsqon6+5gl3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182351


> 
> zgirnius:
> There is no explanation for this. My own personal explanation, is 
> that Snape kept the book in the classroom for reference as a young 
> teacher, but over time he has reached the point that he no longer 
> refers to it.

Potioncat:
Oh drat. You are so good at coming up with explanations. Mine is that 
the Marauders stole it, took a vague glance at it and hid it. Whether 
they put it in the cabinet, or it was later found, thought to be an 
abandoned book and set aside, I cannot say. Yours may be more water 
tight.

Many of us have bemoaned the fact that Snape's potions book was 
destroyed in the fire. I wonder if JKR did that on purpose, or if it 
had simply served its purpose for her.

But it crosses my mind, what would have been discovered in Professor 
Snape's office and quarters after his death? Surely he had notes?




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 13:55:34 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:55:34 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look
In-Reply-To: <fsqkb3+co8o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsqqgm+ki6p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182352

> Potioncat:
> I'm not so sure. I thought DD was supposed to know that Snape was a 
> DE when he hired him. If DD had no reason to think Snape was a DE, 
> Snape had no reason for the "tale of remorse". Speaking of which, 
> that "tale of remorse" story to Bella was really true. Sort of. 

zgirnius:
Snape's line is that he spun Albus the tale of remorse, "Fresh from 
my Death Eater days". I took this to mean, that was claiming the tale 
happened *after* Voldemort was dead. When Snape (by his own, false, 
account, believed Voldemort was gone).

> Potioncat:
> Or do you think LV kept Snape under 
> wraps so that he could ask for the job as if he were not a DE? That 
> is, LV did not know that DD knew of DE!Snape. In that case, 
Trelawney 
> may have been right about part of Snape's motives that day.

zgirnius:
Yes, this is what I was suggesting. That Snape was sent as a 
straightforward spy, by Voldemort. Someone not known to be a Death 
Eater, but actually in his service.

> Potioncat:
> I mean, it would seem if Snape's intent was to offer 
> information to DD, why would he be so frightened of DD? He is, in 
> effect, giving the enemy information. 

zgirnius:
He has to be alive to provide that information. I think once 
Dumbledore reassures him he has no plans to kill him, he is less 
scared. 

I am reminded of Albus's explanation to Draco in HBP, that Death 
Eaters would expect the Order to kill him and his family in 
retaliation, because it is what they would do if the tables were 
turned. To me, this makes sense as an explanation of Snape's fear. 
He's facing the leader of the enemy, who is skilled and powerful 
enough to kill him, and he has done something specific that Albus's 
side would take exception to (reporting the prophecy).
 




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 14:28:31 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:28:31 -0000
Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <fsqon6+5gl3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsqsef+spqo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182353

> Potioncat:
> Many of us have bemoaned the fact that Snape's potions book was 
> destroyed in the fire. I wonder if JKR did that on purpose, or if 
it 
> had simply served its purpose for her.
> 
> But it crosses my mind, what would have been discovered in 
Professor 
> Snape's office and quarters after his death? Surely he had notes?

zgirnius:
I think JKR probably burned the book on purpose. 

However, I believe that Snape's improvements to potions, both the 
ones in the book that was destroyed, and the ones to potions taught 
in years 1-5, remain out there in the minds and notes of a generation 
of students. Percy, I bet, knows them all. <g>

In HBP, Hermione went from producing perfect potions every time, to 
being merely one of the better students, whose attempts, while 
correct, were rarely completed in the time allotted. While Harry, as 
we know, became the star student.

The difference, in my opinion, was that in years 1-5, Hermione was 
using the Prince's instructions, and well. Whereas in Year 6, only 
Harry was, (and for once, he was paying attention) and this made a 
big difference. But I expect that the NEWT classes taught by Snape, 
did learn the better instructions.






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 15:25:18 2008
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:25:18 -0000
Subject: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed? Re: Who needs Harry?
In-Reply-To: <fspp6u+ad7h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsqvou+b4mv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182354

> > Betsy Hp:
> > I can suspend disbelief and believe that dragons help guard a bank 
> > run by goblins.  Ask me to believe that a young boy and his plucky 
> > friends can waltz into that bank, steal stuff, and then escape on a 
> > dragon? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Why not? It's an inside job -- could some teenagers break into Fort
> Knox if two of them were prodigies and  they had the help of a former
> employee? No idea, but I do know that Admiral Grace Hopper, the
> inventor of the COBAL computer language, had a crack team of recent
> high school graduates that she used to test proposed government
> software security systems that vendors claimed were unhackable. The
> kids beat them every time. 
> 
>  Or don't you think JKR did enough to establish that Hermione and
> Harry were extraordinarily talented?

Montavilla47:
I think JKR did a good job on establishing Harry as being very talented
(I wouldn't say extraordinarily talented) when he was sufficiently
motivated.  I would say that she did a good job on establishing 
Hermione as smart and extraordinarily talented at book learning.

But, although we did see Hermione adapt a number of spells
(the Proteus spell), I never saw her, Harry, or Ron as a very creative
thinker.  In PS/SS, we had Ron introduced as a strategic thinker
(in his ability to play chess).  But, he never did much thinking
in any of the other books.  So, it's hard to imagine he contributed
much to the planning of either the Ministry break-in or the 
bank heist.  

And, given that Hermione was shown (pre-DH) as someone who
often lost her head in a crisis and couldn't act her way out of a 
brown paper bag, it was believable to me how badly both 
plans went and unbelievable that they were able to get away
both times.

Pippin:
> Of course in a fable  we expect luck to play a part in the hero's
> victory. It's part of the reward for being virtuous. I imagine any
> such story would seem off to someone who didn't like the hero and
> wanted to see him fail. 

Montavilla47:
That's a bit simplistic.  I know that, for myself, I didn't really like
Harry in HBP and DH, but I certainly didn't want him to fail....

Scratch that.  I think I did want him to fail--not in a big way.  I 
certainly didn't want Voldemort to win.  But I did want Harry to 
fail enough so that he re-thought his approach and stopped
being so silly.  I'm thinking specifically of his refusal to accept
help from the many people around him who were *dying* to 
do something useful.  I wanted him to start recognizing that
success depended less on *him* than on the coalition that love
creates.

And, I would have liked him to stop obsessing about Dumbledore's
unenlightened period thinking and focus on the task at hand.

> Betsy HP
> > So my issue with the Voldemort story is that JKR went sloppy.  She 
> > couldn't be bothered to think up a truly formidable villain,
> 
> Pippin:
> The battle in the MoM shows us why no one could capture Voldemort. He
> was not only able to overcome every spell that Dumbledore, using the
> Elder Wand, could throw at him, he could even send Dumbledore's magic
> back at him and make the fire that Dumbledore sent  into a snake that
> attacked Dumbledore. Nor was anyone able to stop Voldemort from
> disapparating when the Ministry wizards arrived.

Montavilla47:
I got the feeling, even as I read OotP, that Dumbledore was holding back
in that duel.  It seemed as though he were trying to contain Voldemort and
protect Voldemort, but not to capture or kill him.

As for disapparating, when did anyone stop anyone from disapparating?

Pippin:
> Voldemort was  able to fight Slughorn, McGonagall and Shacklebolt
> all at once, and none of their spells could even touch him. That's
> enough to  make him a credible supervillain, IMO. He may be out of his
> depth at running an empire, but lots of dictators have had that problem. 

Montavilla47:
It makes him a great duelist, but it takes more than dueling skills to 
be a supervillain.  

Pippin:
> Imagine if Hitler was personally invulnerable, could show up anywhere
> behind enemy lines except in the most hardened locations, could kill
> with unlimited ammunition and could vanish  at will, while preventing
> his victims from doing likewise. 
> 
> In any case, I'm afraid I can't share your  belief that our Muggle
> governments would be able to catch Voldemort -- last I looked at least
> one very prominent terrorist was on the loose.

Montavilla47:
Where is it said that Voldemort kept people from disapparating?  Also,
Hitler was quite formidible without any magic.  What made him so
intimidating was his ability to convince people, who otherwise might
have been quite acceptable morally, to do horrible, inhuman things
to other people.  

With Voldemort, I'm afraid we're asked to believe that "Hitler" is 
both personally invulnerable... hmm... actually, I think Voldemort
started off at a disadvantage when the first thing we learned about
him was that he was almost killed *by a baby.*  It's hard to take
a supervillain seriously after that.

Especially when the next time we see him, he's being stumped by
a mirror and then he's killed again by an eleven-year-old kid.

Pippin:
> As for Harry, he does have an extraordinary talent that most wizards,
> and many real people, don't have -- he can think when he's frightened.
> Most folks freeze up. That's what happens to poor Draco. He's not a
> coward, he's brave enough to get  into situations he knows
> will be dangerous, but then his mind goes blank when he's scared, IMO.
> He's literally  out of his wits.  He can freeze or run away or fight,
> but he can't *reason*. Anybody who's studied hard only to have the
> mind go completely blank at the sight of an examination paper will
> know the feeling.

Montavilla47:
While I agree with you that the ability to think under fire is difficult
for people in real life, in a story it's not that extraordinary.  And even
ordinary people can be conditioned out of their fear.  Isn't that the 
major purpose of military or emergency training?  Or Quidditch 
training for that matter.

Honestly, it just makes Draco seem like a coward when he can't 
think under pressure, rather than making Harry seem extraordinarily
cool.

But, to be fair to JKR, when her POV is stuck on Harry, and he's 
naturally good at thinking in a crisis, it's hard to get across the 
idea that others can't--without making them seem like hysterical
ninnies.  Even Hermione occasionally comes across like that.






From phil at pcsgames.net  Mon Mar 31 15:25:26 2008
From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:25:26 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?)
References: <fsqsef+spqo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <090901c89343$7b7d72d0$6600a8c0@phil>

No: HPFGUIDX 182355

Advanced Potion-Making by Libatius Borage, was last seen before the Fiendfyre in the room of requirement.
It can be retrieved in several ways:
1. Ask the room to bring back the book.
2. use a time turner to go back before the book was burnt.
3. use Dumbledore's Pensieve to extract each page of Snape's notes from Harry's memory.
4. Use repairo to return the burnt book to its earlier condition.
5. go through Snape's house and find his notes or another copy.
If he made a will maybe Harry was in it.
6. get memories from Slughorn or a student in Snape's class that could be used in the Pensieve.
7. discover that the Fiendfyre did not burn the book as it was in a magic cabinet.
8. Find the book in Dobby's bed chamber in the castle.
9. use the ring to bring back Snape's spirit to discuss the changes he made.
10. Discover Lily Evans's copy of the book including Snapes changes in the basement of the destroyed potter home.
11. Go to Flourish and Blotts and buy Revised Advanced Potion-Making by Severus Snape.
  

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




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar 31 17:05:21 2008
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:05:21 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret?=
In-Reply-To: <fsqg43+mior@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsr5kh+qfgu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182356

<snip of awesome summary by akh to get to...> 
>
> akh's Questions:
> 2. We've waited for seven books to get our first glimpse of the 
> house in Godric's Hollow. How satisfying was the scene where Harry 
> finally sees his family home?

SSSusan:
I do remember thinking, "Finally!"  I think, though, that I need to 
actually look at it again to see if it disappoints in any way.  
Mostly, this chapter simply CREEPED ME OUT so much that I think the 
creepy parts just overshadowed the visit to the house.

I did think the commemorative sign that rose up with cool. :)  (And 
couldn't believe Hermione was indignant about the graffiti, sheesh.  
I was with Harry in thinking the messages of support were great.)


> 4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of 
> Bathilda is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course, 
> we all have the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off 
> alarms for you on the first read?

SSSusan:
Other than generalized discomfort and trepidation, there was nothing 
so specific for me that I thought, "Trap!"  Reading your summary, 
especially, it struck me how "obvious" it was/should have been, but 
nope, I wasn't sure what was up.


> 5. Harry's locket is again alive; should he have guessed that
> something was amiss by its behavior?

SSSusan:
Well, yeah.  That one I think he should've caught onto.

 
> 6. How much of the mess in Bathilda's house do you suppose is really
> the poor dear's own clutter and how much should have been a warning
> to Harry and Hermione that something was terribly wrong?

SSSusan:
I think Harry's having spent time with Mrs. Figg over the years might 
have actually worked against him a bit here.  Smelly, mussy homes 
might not have seemed that out of the ordinary.  And, frankly, I 
think Harry was so pumped by the belief that he'd found Bathilda that 
he was inclined to ignore a lot of stuff.  (Something Voldy might 
well have counted on, no?)  

In a way, there also may have been a bit of a "DD knows and plans 
all" kind of backfire going on.  Both Harry & Hermione seemed to 
believe that Bathilda could have been on the lookout for Harry, on 
DD's orders, and that belief probably led somewhat to them letting 
their guard down.  


> 7. Although the outcome of the visit was not what I expected (to say
> the least), I felt the tension was built well in this scene, and I
> was primed for some sort of surprise. What was your response to the
> buildup? Did you speculate correctly on the surprise outcome?
> 
> 8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most
> grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to
> the ? er ? unveiling of Bathilda?

SSSusan:
Answering two in one here 'cause they're kind of related for me.  
Hell no, I didn't anticipate the surprise!  I was too busy being 
totally GROSSED OUT by the description of the smelly house and then 
Bathilda's "transformation" that I just wanted it to be over!

I have to say, as much as it's not a chapter I like to revisit 
because of the creep factor (and I wondered whether anyone would 
volunteer to lead this chapter because of it <g>), I think it was a 
very *effective* chapter.  I thought it was very, very exciting and 
entertaining, and the tension buildup worked tremendously well.

I'm pretty sure anyone nearby as I was reading this (hey, Jen!) would 
have heard me verbalize a very loud, "Gross!"  


> 9. Again, we finally get another scene we've been waiting to see for
> seven books: the deaths of James and Lily Potter and Voldemort's
> destruction. How did the scene live up to your expectations?  What
> did it elucidate that had been unclear previously? (I realize that
> much of this has been discussed.)

SSSusan:
Maybe this is morbid of me, but I almost wanted more.  More detail, a 
little more time spent with it.  It was an interesting way of having 
it come out... I mean, it ended up just replaying via a Voldy!vision, 
which could have happened ANYwhere and ANY time between Voldy and  
Harry.  It really didn't even *have* to have taken place the same 
night Harry actually finally went to GH.  So that was all interesting.

I think, down deep, as exciting a scene as this ended up being, I 
might've been even more interested to have seen my old pet prediction 
borne out somehow:  that Baby!Harry, by virtue of his early sensory 
capabilities, did have that memory inside himself all this time.  He 
didn't have the capacity to go back & see or interpret much of it 
himself, but since we know that an extracted memory contains more 
than the person him/herself remembers and that one, via a pensieve, 
can actually walk about a bit within a memory, I had always kind of 
wanted someone to bring this to Harry's attention (or via his own 
realization) and have him do that.

OTOH, that might have been incredibly hard for Harry to have to make 
himself do.  Perhaps having it all thrust upon him in this scary, one-
fell-swoop manner was actually the "easier" way for him??


> 10. Voldemort is a pathological liar, although we know parts of the
> Potter death scene are true, thanks to Harry's Dementor memories. 
> How reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case?

SSSusan:  
What a fascinating question.  It had never occurred to me that the 
memory might not be accurate.  I'd love to read someone's ideas who 
thinks that it might not be.


> 11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the
> vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too
> trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed
> constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and
> Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's
> relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night?

SSSusan:
An interesting placement of these questions together. :)  I'd never 
have thought to bring in the aspect of friendships this way.  

I don't have any thoughts, really, about James & Lily being too 
trusting.  I guess yeah, they should've been armed along with the FC, 
but would it have mattered in the end?

Re: the photo, I do remember on the first read having that "Oh, oh! 
This is important!" thought when Harry encountered it.  I couldn't 
quite piece it all together yet (of course), but it was that niggling 
sense of, "Where have we seen this guy?  What does it mean?" And 
wondering why it was in Bathilda's house.

Re: H/H's friendship.  This one's hard.  I do think when one friend 
does something -- even wholly unintentional & accidental -- that 
causes a real hardship for another friend, it adds a strain to the 
relationship.  That strain could come out of the one friend's 
resentment, the other friend's guilt, and/or any combination of 
sensing or anticipating those thoughts & emotions in the other.  I 
think we did catch glimpses of all of that at various times.  

Siriusly Snapey Susan





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 17:50:35 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:50:35 -0000
Subject: Ending the DA (Was: Suspension of disbelief )
In-Reply-To: <fsphrl+a6l3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsr89b+c5lu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182357

Montavilla47 wrote:
<snip>
> But, I went along with it until Harry blew off the D.A.  That was
the  straw that did me in.  The D.A. had been sold to its members as
being really important because V-voldemort was back.  Well, he was
backer than ever in HBP, but suddenly Harry doesn't see a need to help
his fellow students learn to defend themselves.  Nope, he'd rather
captain the Quidditch team.
> 
> It made no sense from a compassionate point of view (since his
friends needed his skills more than ever) or a strategic point of view
(if he was supposed to rid the world of Voldemort, he was going to
need allies).  And, character-wise, it made Harry seem like a stuck-up
prig.

Carol responds:
IMO, most of the students didn't join the DA to oppose Voldemort (some
of them didn't even believe he was back), Most of them, even Ernie
Macmillan and definitely Zacharias Smith and the Ravenclaws, were more
interested in passing their DADA OWL (and undermining Umbridge).
Granted, by the time of HBP, they knew that Voldemort was really back,
but they had also learned everything that Harry had to teach them.
(Only Neville and Luna continued to check their coins, hoping that the
DA would resume.)

The main reason, though, that the DA was disbanded, was that Umbridge
was gone and they were no longer forced to learn theory from a
worthless book. They had, for the first time since Lupin, a DADA
teacher who knew what he was doing. Snape didn't just teach them to
cast nonverbal hexes, jinxes, and countercurses (a skill that Harry
could have learned as well as Hermione, given that he could cast
Levicorpus and Liberacorpus, if he hadn't closed his mind to Snape's
teaching), he taught them about Inferi and fighting the Imperius Curse
and an alternate approach to fighting Dementors, which, unfortunately,
we don't get to see. The glimpses that we get of his class show the
students (other than Harry and Ron) interested in what Snape has to
say, following his every move with their eyes and listening to every word.

In short, they no longer needed the DA or Harry. They had the DADA
teacher that they'd needed all along. (Only the deluded Draco
considers DADA useless because "we" don't need it, but he doesn't say
that in class.) Nobody except Harry and Ron (and Lavender when she's
sympathizing with Ron) minds Snape's sarcasm and unfairness because he
knows his subject and, unlike Potions (which only a few students care
enough about to learn well), all of them see its importance. Snape, of
course, is not denying that Voldemort is back: quite the contrary.

Now, if they'd had yet another incompetent DADA teacher, I'd see the
need for the DA to continue. But even Harry, much as he hates Snape,
acknowledges that with Umbridge gone, it's no longer needed.

Carol, thinking that Snape's surviving to teach Harry nonverbal DADA
spells in a belated seventh year (as headmaster or otherwise) would
have made more sense than having us believe (via interviews) that
Harry became an Auror without even finishing school (based on his
defeat of Voldemort through luck, love, and shared powers he no longer
has) and not yet knowing how to cast a nonverbal spell other than
Levicorpus




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 18:06:17 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:06:17 -0000
Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux)
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803301928w2e2aef5ew8aa982ded35e1b65@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fsr96p+ki37@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182358

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <moosiemlo at ...>
wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
> Who knew about that obsession? No one except Dumbledore.
> 
> Lynda:
> 
> Umm. . .I did.  From the little tidbits throughout the series, from
the diary to Dumbledore's visit to the orphanage which gave TR his
eventual escape from the muggle world (including his almost immediate
if somewhat shallow change of demeanor while talking to Dumbledore in
his room at the orphanage) to his momentous success as a student at
Hogwarts through to his applications for work at Hogwarts, sending his
lackeys back to Hogwarts time and again, etc. I *knew* that Voldemort
had an obsession with the place.
> 

Carol responds:
I meant, who among the characters in the book knew about it besides
Dumbledore. Of course, the reader did because we learned along with
Harry. No character other than Harry saw the memory in the diary (if
there was more than one memory, we didn't see it), and I'm not sure
how that memory or the encounter with Memory!Tom in the CoS indicates
an obsession with Hogwarts. No character other than Harry via the
Pensieve witnessed Dumbledore's encounters with the child Tom Riddle
(not yet a Hogwarts student but excited about being a Wizard and
learning to use a wand: "Where can I get one of those?") or the
interview for the DADA position, nor did any other character overhear
DD's explanation about LV's obesession with Hogwarts. (Possibly
Caractacus Burke, whom we glimpse in a partial memory, guessed that
his former employee had stolen the cup and the locket, but, if so, we
don't know about it, and there were other reasons for stealing
powerful magical objects than their connections with the Hogwarts
Founders.)

I'm not sure what you mean about "sending his lackeys back to Hogwarts
time and again." He ordered young Severus Snape to apply for the DADA
position to spy on DD, but since Snape was already working for
Dumbledore, of course he would hire him as a teacher (just not for the
DADA position).

In any case, I'll reask the question. Which *character* other than
Dumbledore (and Harry under his instruction) knew that Tom Riddle had
an obsession with Hogwarts? And who among them would have guessed that
he would try to obtain objects related to the Founders (other than his
own ancestor, Salazar Slytherin) to use as Horcruxes?

I don't think that anyone other than Dumbledore, who had been watching
Tom Riddle from the time he met him and collecting memories related to
Tom since he suspected the boy of murdering his Muggle relatives,
would have figured it out.

Carol, conceding that DD could have told some other than Harry (Snape
seems the obvious candidate) what he suspected, but, as Hagrid says,
"That's Dumbledore, innit?"




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 18:17:48 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:17:48 -0000
Subject: One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG
In-Reply-To: <fsq1js+c2d4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsr9sc+kc8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182359

---  "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:

> 
> zgirnius:
> 
> ...
> 
> Harry did defeat Voldemort, and he was able to do so, owing 
> to fortuitous circumstances which resulted when Albus's 
> carefully laid plan regarding the Elder Wand went astray. 
> Because of these circumstances, it was much easier for Harry 
> than anyone else to defeat Voldemort in the final battle, but 
> someone else could have.
> 
> And then there is the other mission. To die, so that a piece 
> of Voldemort's soul is destroyed. Only Harry can do this. He
> is placed in this position through circumstances I personally
> find crystal clear, and a thing of beauty. Snape reports 
> prophecy, Voldemort chooses to act murderously on said prophecy,
> Snape begs for Lily's life, Voldemort asks Lily to step aside, 
> Lily refuses, Voldemort zaps her, and Bingo! Horcrux!Harry is 
> born.
>

bboyminn:

Well, certainly /anyone/ could have defeated Voldemort, just
like anyone can catch Osama Bin Laden...if only they would. 
But they didn't and they don't. The Ministry, like most 
governments, is so caught up in creating the impression of
doing something that they have little time left over to 
actually do something. This impression over substance
pervades our society at all levels, and is mirrored in the
Potterverse. 

In theory, any one can do anything, except, in the end, it is
always one person who actually does do it. Anyone could have
discovered the Theory of Relativity. It was pure mathematics,
all you had to do was work it out. That solution has existed
since the beginning of time, yet no one got it, until Einstein
actually did the work and figured it out. They /could have/ but
he DID.

The same it true of Harry. Anyone could have solved the problem
and defeated Voldemort, only they didn't. It matters little if
you could, if in fact, you don't.


Let's look at the confluence of events that lead Harry to reach
the point where he had the opportunity to defeat Voldemort, and
not only the opportunity, but the means. 

1.) All the Horcruxes including Harry have been destroyed. Harry
did that. He created that circumstance. Likely at some point
in some undetermined future, some one else could have done that,
but with each passing day in which Voldemort gains greater power,
the opportunity and the likelihood to do so diminishes.

Voldemort tends to insulate himself. The more powerful he 
becomes, the more protected and protective he will become. Making
the opportunity to attack him as some point in the future 
extremely slim. 

Harry, knowingly or unknowingly, creates a circumstance in
which Voldemort exposes himself. Where he feels so invincible
that for that moment in time, he feels he does not have to hide
or stay in the background. Harry brought Voldemort out into
the open. 

2.) Harry is the presumed Master of the Elder Wand which 
Voldemort is wielding. Harry created that circumstance, though
he did so inadvertently. Who else could have created a similar
circumstance? Better yet, who did? No one. 

3.) When Voldemort lets down his guard, Harry can sense his
feelings and desires. From experience, Harry know he must 
cast his countercurse at the exact moment Voldemort acts. Only
Harry has this sense of Voldemort's internal landscape and only
he can predict when this is going to happen. 

Yes, others might use Legilimency on Voldemort, but where were
they? When would they ever get around to it? When would they
ever be able to get close enough to Voldemort to engage him 
this way? Harry was in a situation he created; a situation no
one else had the fortitude or foresight to create.

4.) Harry does not act with vengence, or a will or desire to 
kill. Though he certainly has more reason than most. He defends
himself, but does not really attack Voldemort.

Who else would have thought to or been able to do this? 

Yes, some other person could have done this, just as some other
person could have theoretically discovered the Theory of
Relativity, but they didn't.

As to the assertion made by other that this 'smart kid, stupid
adult' scenario was unrealistic. Try asking a kid about this.
I think you will find a great many of them who think adults
are completely out of it, and lost in their own pointless world
of mortgages and insurance payments and television programs.

How many times in real life do adults blow kids off with the
admonition that the adult will handle it, when it is crystal
clear to the kid that the adults are not handling it, or are
handling it in the most ineffective way possible?

Frequently, adults are idiots.

And, it matters not if someone /can/ do something, it only 
matters if they actually do. 

Steve/bboyminn




From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Mar 31 14:24:13 2008
From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (becks3uk)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:24:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 17, Bathildas Secret
In-Reply-To: <fsqg43+mior@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsqs6d+8rkd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182360

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,
> Chapter 17, Bathilda's Secret
>
>
> 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath
> the Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through
> Cloaks? Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini?
> Clearly, someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the
> ground, but how does LV!Nagini know where they're standing?

Becks3uk:

I don't think it has anything to do with being able to see through
invisibility cloaks. Snakes have an amazing sense of smell - unlike
a wizard, the snake would have been able to smell them and knowing
that they could not be seen, would have deduced that they were
hiding which made it assume that they were Potter and friend - the
snake did after all still have to check when she asked - 'You are
Potter?'

"akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
> 4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of
> Bathilda is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course,
> we all have the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off
> alarms for you on the first read?

becks3uk:

Yes, I was suspicious about her but did not guess it was the snake
until really quite late on.

"akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
> 5. Harry's locket is again alive; should he have guessed that
> something was amiss by its behavior?

becks3uk:

He did guess that something was up but he assumed that the locket
was frightened because his 'destroyer was close'. He desperately
wanted to believe it was Bathilda because he wanted the sword so he
assumed that that was a good sign.

"akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
> 6. How much of the mess in Bathilda's house do you suppose is
> really the poor dear's own clutter and how much should have been a
> warning to Harry and Hermione that something was terribly wrong?

becks3uk:

I believe that the mess would usually have alerted them that it was
more than mere clutter if it weren't for the fact that she was
acting so strange and that she was so old. I think they thought she
had severe dementia. Also, I think on a good day they might have sat
down and thought about all this but they were under enormous
pressure, strange things were happening all over the place; they
were cold and tired and really wanted this person to be the help
they were after. They were in such a perpetual state of being
frightened, cautious and hyper-aware of every little rustle of
leaves that they may have come to expect the strange and therefore
weren't so aware of it, if you know what I mean (not sure I do now!)
I think it was one of those situations where you are really scared
and unsure but you kind of have to do it anyway and have to go in
with a little faith.

"akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
> 7. Although the outcome of the visit was not what I expected (to say
> the least), I felt the tension was built well in this scene, and I
> was primed for some sort of surprise. What was your response to the
> buildup? Did you speculate correctly on the surprise outcome?

becks3uk:

I thought it was an excellent build up, very much the quiet before
the storm, I could really picture myself there and my heart was
racing. It was very slow and quiet, with the ascent upstairs and
everything. It really did build you up. I speculated that something
bad would happen but certainly not that!

"akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
> 8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most
> grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to
> the ? er ? unveiling of Bathilda?

becks3uk:

Could have put it better than JKR - I was revolted!

"akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
> 10. Voldemort is a pathological liar, although we know parts of the
> Potter death scene are true, thanks to Harry's Dementor memories.
> How reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case?

Becks3uk:

I think this was a genuine moment of Voldemort feeling emotion and
Harry getting a glimpse of his thoughts. I see no reason for him to
have made it up. I think it was JKR's moment of letting us know what
happened.

"akh" <anita_hillin at ...> wrote:
> 11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the
> vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too
> trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed
> constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and
> Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's
> relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night?

becks3uk:

Very interesting question. Lily and James, yes I suppose the fact
they were so trusting was their downfall, which goes with the themes
of Dumbeldore as a trusting fool and Voldemort depising fools who
love. But I don't think its a case of being too trusting. I think
friendship requires that leap of faith, you have to stake your trust
in someone or you will never prosper. (If Dumbeldore hadn't extended
his trust to Snape... yadayadayada). Yes, I do think Harry and
Hermione's friendship suffered but only in the short term due to
increasing stress, Harry's broken wand, spending too much time in
each other's pockets and moreover the locket having its effect.

All JMHO!

becks3uk






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 19:54:04 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:54:04 -0000
Subject: One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG (Was: Re: WHo needs Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <fsq1js+c2d4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsrfgt+2np1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182361

zgirnius wrote:
<snip>
> Harry does not have to be the one to defeat Voldemort. The books are
not written in such a way that Harry must be the one. <snip>

> Harry has only one unique role in the book. <snip>  He's just the
only one that *must* die for it [the defeat of Voldemort] to happen.
><snip>
> But, as Harry's musings go on to note, Harry was not chosen to pass
the Horcrux task to because only he could do it. Dumbledore passed the
task to him for his own reasons ? <snip> he could have recruited a
different successor (actually, successors, for Dumbledore approves 
including Hermione and Ron). 
> 
> Harry himself, recognizing the job remains unfinished, picks a new
successor to replace himself.
> <snip> 
> And so Harry tells Neville that the snake must die, knowing quite 
well that this is a task Neville, or Ron, or Hermione are every bit as
qualified for as he. (In fact, Neville kills the snake, as we know).
And then he goes off to do the only thing no one else can do, 
> yay Harry.
> 
<snip> Albus Dumbledore <snip> was on the job of defeating Voldemort
even before he knew about the Horcruxes. He learned of a prophecy
about a baby that would grow up with the power to defeat Voldemort,
and took steps to keep that baby safe, without understanding the
mechanism whereby the baby would eventually have this power. When the
boy stumbled, all unknowing, across a Horcrux he was uniquely equipped
to handle (the Parseltongue Voldemort gave him), Albus understood what
was going on and embarked on his Horcrux quest, identifying three
Horcruxes and their locations (aside from the unexpected involvement
of one Regulus Black) , and a fourth, in a location unknown. <snip>

> The Hallows, wand, etc. were not necessary to the defeat of
Voldemort. As the story was written, Voldemort could have been killed
by any sufficiently powerful and determined wizard, or a group, after
Neville destroyed the final Horcrux. Albus threw them into the mix to
achieve his own, private goal ? to weight the scales in any way he 
could to bring about Harry's survival. <snip>

Carol responds:

I disagree. Yes, Dumbledore and his hearing the entire Prophecy are as
necessary as Harry. Only he has obtained the memories necessary to
determine what some of the Horcruxes may be and only he really
understands the workings of Voldemort's mind. And he makes sure that
the Prophecy Boy survives and then teaches him only as much as he
needs to know. (And Snape's role, which I won't discuss here, except
to note that Harry would have been up a creek had he not delivered the
Sword of Gryffindor, is also crucial.

And, yes, only Harry can "die" to destroy Voldemort. Had there not
been a soul bit in Harry's head, Dumbledore might have been a lot less
reticent about sharing his information with others, and certainly, he
would never have delegated the task of hunting Horcruxes (once he
stupidly put on the ring) to Harry.

But you're forgetting that only Harry had access to Voldemort's mind
via the scar connection, so only he could know what Voldemort was up
to while he and his friends were hunting the Horcruxes, and only he
could know via that connection that the Ravenclaw Horcrux was hidden
at Hogwarts. (DD's not knowing about the room-of-hidden-things aspect
of the RoR and suspecting that the diadem, which would be the logical
Ravenclaw Horcrux, seems to me to be, if not a Flint, at least a
development that requires us to suspend skepticism--a different matter
from the willing suspension of disbelief required to believe in the WW
and the characters, as I noted in OTChattter.)

zgirnius: 
> The Diary ? Harry is able to destroy it, but Lucius Malfoy and
Hermione Granger make small contributions to this achievement (Albeit
unintentionally, in Lucius's case).

Carol:
As catlady says, I've "gone on about Basilisk venom" in quite a bit of
detail already, but I think this is another goal that only Harry could
have accomplished because only he had the power given to him
inadvertently by LV of speaking Parseltongue, which enabled him to
open the Chamber. (DD might have *found* it by interviewing Moaning
Myrtle but could not have *opened* it, nor could he have destroyed the
diary, whose existence he didn't know of.) Nevertheless, Dumbledore
made an important contribution, providing the Sword of Gryffindor to
kill the Basilisk, which made the destruction of that Horcrux and
future Horcruxes possible, and providing Fawkes to blind the Basilisk
and save Harry from its poison, insuring the survival of the Prophecy
boy. And, of course, the whole incident rendered the Sword of
Gryffindor capable of destroying Horcruxes itself, as I've already
stated several times. So CoS and the destruction of the diary is a
crucial first step (beyond confirming DD's theory of multiple
Horcruxes), and it requires Dumbledore and Harry working together. No
other team could have accomplished what they accomplished together.
the destruction of future Horcruxes was made much easier, and the one
Horcrux whose existence DD didn't guess (and no one else could have
guessed, either) was destroyed.

agirnius: 
> The ring, identified, found and destroyed by Albus. 

Carol responds:
An instance of Dumbledore knowing too much! Wise Fool, putting on a
Hallow that was formerly a Horcrux without examining it for curses,
which, in turn, necessitates the help of Dark Arts expert Snape. But I
agree that the Hallows plot was unnecessary, and Dumbledore could have
destroyed this Horcrux alone (thanks to Harry's having made the Sword
of Gryffindor into a Horcrux destroyer) without shortening his life by
putting the stupid thing on. (Or he could have taken it to Snape to
have Snape examine it for curses and remove them before he put it on.)
But, again, we have DD and Harry working together even though Harry
doesn't know it. Without Harry, DD would have had to find some other
means of destroying the ring Horcrux, a difficult matter, as I've
already established (though perhaps not impossible).

zgirnius: 
> The locket, the identification, location and destruction of which
required the combined talents of Albus, Regulus, the Trio, Kreacher,
Phineas Nigellus, and Snape. (Pardon me if I forgot someone).

Carol:
Mundungus, who stole it and informed HRH, under duress, that it had
been taken from him by a toad-faced female Mom official. <g> The
question is whether the fake Horcrux could have been retrieved from
the cave some other way (without abusing a House-Elf or killing a
Wizard), and, if so, whether RAB could have been identified. (Maybe if
Sirius Black were still alive he's have recognized the initials and
remembered examining the locket when they were cleaning, but then we
wouldn't have gotten Kreacher's Tale.)

zgirnius: 
> We have the Cup, the identification, location, and destruction of 
which required the combined efforts of Albus, the Trio, Griphook, and
 an assist from Bellatrix.

Carol responds:
Which occurred because she recognized the Sword of Gryffindor, which
was supposed to have been placed in her vault (along with the cup,
which she didn't know was a Horcrux). But, again, the presence of the
sword and Lucius's intention of summoning LV rather than dispatching
the prisoners themselves results from one of them being Harry, and no
one but Harry would have realized that Bellatrix's panic related to
the cup Horcrux. I don't see how anyone else would have discovered
that the cup (which DD had figured out was a Horcrux) was in
Bellatrix's vault. As for getting it out of the vault without sending
off alarm bells for Voldemort that the other Horcruxes were in danger,
I don't suppose that anyone short of a living Dumbledore could have
done it. 

zgirnius: 
> The tiara, the identification, location, and destruction of which 
required the combined efforts of Albus, Harry, Helena Ravenclaw, 
Luna, and assists from Crabbe and Voldemort.

Carol:
Harry, however, was the only one who succeeded in getting the info
from Helena. Not inevitable, I concede. But Crabbe would not have been
in the RoR, nor would he have cast the Fiend-Fyre that accidentally
destroyed the Horcrux (and took his own life) if Harry hadn't been in
the Ror (and Draco hadn't known how to get in to that particular
manifestation of the RoR). (The survival of HRH, Draco, and Goyle
resulted mostly from luck--the presence of the brooms. Or was that the
magic of the room?)

zgirnius: 
> Nagini, the identification, location, and destruction of which 
required the combined efforts of Albus, Harry, and Neville.

Carol:
And Voldemort, who summoned the Sorting Hat, which contained the only
weapon that could have killed Nagini. You stated earlier that any of
the Trio could have killed Nagini, but I don't think an AK or
Sectumsempra would do it. She's a Horcrux, after all, and would have
had the usual protective spells put on her. So, again, it comes back
to Harry, who not only delegated the job to Neville but gave the Sword
the power of destroying a Horcrux. (Of course, the magic of the Sword
of Gryffindor coming to the aid of a Gryffindor under conditions of
need and peril and chivalry also had something to do with it, but had
it not been impregnated with Basilisk venom--or the power of Basilisk
venom to destroy Horcruxes, as Steve says--I don't think that either
the sword or his own valor would have done Neville any good. (And I
doubt that anyone but DD could have identified Nagini as a Horcrux. I
imagine that your committee would have tried to kill her just because
she was evil and dangerous and Voldemort's devoted
pet/servant/familiar, but I doubt that they could have succeeded
unless they just happened to have the weapon that Harry had given the
power to destroy a Horcrux.)

zgirnius: 
> Oh, and Sluggie chips in the magic number. <g>

Carol:
Reluctantly, thanks to Felix Felicis and Lily's eyes. And let's not
forget the HBP, whose brilliant potion improvements won Harry the
Felix in the first place. <g>

zgirnius: 
> Harry did defeat Voldemort, and he was able to do so, owing to 
fortuitous circumstances which resulted when Albus's carefully laid 
plan regarding the Elder Wand went astray. Because of these
circumstances, it was much easier for Harry than anyone else to defeat
Voldemort in the final battle, but someone else could have.

Carol:
It's Harry's love magic that makes Voldemort's spell lose their power,
regardless of whether LV has the accursed Elder Wand. But, sure. A
Snape who hadn't been killed by Nagini (and who had delivered the
self-sacrifice message to Harry in some other way) could have killed
LV once the Horcruxes were destroyed--if he knew that Voldemort was
mortal. Or a murderous McGonagall eager to cast Unforgiveable Curses
in defense of Hogwarts. But neither of them knew about the
now-destroyed Horcruxes. Only Harry and his friends were privy to that
information, thanks to DD's secrcy.

zgirnius: 
> And then there is the other mission. To die, so that a piece of
Voldemort's soul is destroyed. Only Harry can do this. He is placed 
in this position through circumstances I personally find crystal
clear, and a thing of beauty. Snape reports prophecy, Voldemort
chooses to act murderously on said prophecy, Snape begs for Lily's 
life, Voldemort asks Lily to step aside, Lily refuses, Voldemort zaps
her, and Bingo! Horcrux!Harry is born.

Carol:
Exactly. And, as the Prophecy clearly states, the Dark Lord marks "the
one with the power" as his "equal"--not in the use or knowledge of
Dark magic or even skill in spell-casting, Expelliarmus and Expecto
Patronum perhaps excepted, but in the ability to speak Parseltongue
and to enter Voldemort's mind. And, ultimately, there's the power of
Love, thanks to Snape's love for Lily, which gives her the choice to
live or to die and results in the ancient magic that saves Harry. LV's
own broken word and damaged soul result in the soul bit entering the
open cut, and "the one with the power to destroy the Dark Lord" is born.

I still think that the Horcruxes could not have been found and
destroyed without the powers that Voldemort inadvertently gave to
Harry, and only he could have found and destroyed the diary. And, as I
said, he provides the weapons that can destroy most of the other
Horcruxes (Basilisk venom could have destroyed the tiara, as well, had
Crabbe not intervened). Which is not to say that the Order members
(other than Mundungus and Mrs. Figg) couldn't have helped out a bit
more along the way if DD hadn't been so secretive.

But, still, if it hadn't been for Godric's Hollow and a Harry with a
soul bit in his head (ordinary Wizard Harry would have been of as much
use as Petunia), I don't think that the Horcruxes could have been
found and destroyed. Unless, of course, we have a Grindelwald
undefeated by Dumbledore, in which case, Voldemort might not have
risen to power at all, or would have met his match. And I'm really
glad that didn't happen, for the sake of the entire European WW.

Carol, glad at least to know that CoS, previously one of her least
favorite books, is integral to the series after all





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 20:09:09 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:09:09 -0000
Subject: One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG
In-Reply-To: <fsr9sc+kc8m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsrgd5+c8mp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182362

> bboyminn:
> 1.) All the Horcruxes including Harry have been destroyed. Harry
> did that. He created that circumstance. Likely at some point
> in some undetermined future, some one else could have done that,
> but with each passing day in which Voldemort gains greater power,
> the opportunity and the likelihood to do so diminishes.

zgirnius:
You snipped my (extensive) argument regarding this point, if you want 
more detail. The bottom line is, Harry did not destroy all of the 
Horcruxes including Harry. Harry destroyed the Diary and the Harry 
Horcrux. And the latter, he would not have known to do without the 
contributions of others (though he might have inadvertently 
accomplished it somehow by getting himself killed. Such an outcome 
would of course prevent Harry from ever defeating Voldemort, since 
Harry would be, sadly, dead in that case). 

The mastermind of the Horcrux plan, who determined its necessity, 
defined its extent, and made significant progress towards its 
completion on his own, was Albus Dumbledore. He then trained Harry as 
his successor, when he realized he would fail. Just as Harry trained 
Ron, Hermione, and Neville to be *his* successors in turn. Other 
individuals named upthread made contributions as well.

In no way can it be said Harry did this.

> bboyminn:
> 2.) Harry is the presumed Master of the Elder Wand which 
> Voldemort is wielding. Harry created that circumstance, though
> he did so inadvertently. Who else could have created a similar
> circumstance? Better yet, who did? No one. 

zgirnius:
If Albus had died of the Ring Curse, it is my opinion that the Wand 
would have passed to Voldemort. Albus deserves credit, in my book, 
for ensuring this did not happen through his handling of the Draco 
mission with Snape. While his plan did not work out precisely, in its 
absence, Harry would not have been master of the wand.

> bboyminn:
> 4.) Harry does not act with vengence, or a will or desire to 
> kill. Though he certainly has more reason than most. He defends
> himself, but does not really attack Voldemort.
> 
> Who else would have thought to or been able to do this? 

zgirnius:
I am not convinced this was a necessary condition. If Harry was 
vengeful and desried Voldemoert's death, and thus he and Voldemort 
had *both* yelled "Avada Kedavra!" at the top of their lungs, I would 
think Voldemort would be just as dead. 





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 20:36:15 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:36:15 -0000
Subject: One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG (Was: Re: WHo needs Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <fsrfgt+2np1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsrhvv+fv1b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182363

> Carol:
> As catlady says, I've "gone on about Basilisk venom" in quite a bit 
of
> detail already, but I think this is another goal that only Harry 
could
> have accomplished because only he had the power given to him
> inadvertently by LV of speaking Parseltongue, which enabled him to
> open the Chamber.

zgirnius:
If Vincent Crabbe could cast Fiendfyre, I don't care how scared 
Hermione is of it. An Albus Dumbledore or a Severus Snape (not an 
exhaustive list, just two people who must have the skills) could use 
it to destroy a Horcrux/Horcruxes. Basilisk venom is nice, it is 
ironic, it is the way it actually happened in the book for five 
Horcruxes, but not for the sixth. I also think Harry's "death" 
establishes that an AK would have done for Nagini dearest, but I 
suppose that is debatable. Fiendfyre is not.

Perhaps even Harry would have been taught it for this purpose, by 
Albus. Except Albus knew he did not need to, because CoS had already 
happened. 
 
> Carol responds:
> But, again, we have DD and Harry working together even though Harry
> doesn't know it. Without Harry, DD would have had to find some other
> means of destroying the ring Horcrux, a difficult matter, as I've
> already established (though perhaps not impossible).

zgirnius:
I've said it already, but it bears repeating. Fiendfyre. I don;t 
believe it is too difficult for a healthy Albus who is Master of the 
Elder Wand.

> Carol:
> Mundungus, who stole it and informed HRH, under duress, that it had
> been taken from him by a toad-faced female Mom official. <g> The
> question is whether the fake Horcrux could have been retrieved from
> the cave some other way (without abusing a House-Elf or killing a
> Wizard), and, if so, whether RAB could have been identified.

zgirnius:
It is unknown whether the green goo is survivable, that is true. This 
would require a wizard willing to take the chance and suffer the 
consequences of drinking the green goo. The way to do it to maximize 
his or her chances, would be to send a House Elf to help, who would 
then Apparate the brave witch/wizard, with the "Horcrux", to the best 
Potions/Dark Arts care that could be found. Regulus could have done 
this himself, if it were not for his fear that it would endanger his 
family.

But Harry's presence in the Cave was not necessary, anyway, only 
Albus's. He did the heavy lifting there. Albus could have taken a 
House Elf with him (nto to abuse, to administer the potion, though 
that is abuse of sorts in itself...). He took Harry along to train 
him, because he had already chosen Harry as his successor.

> Carol responds:
> Which occurred because she recognized the Sword of Gryffindor, which
> was supposed to have been placed in her vault (along with the cup,
> which she didn't know was a Horcrux). 

zgirnius:
You'll like this one, Carol. <g>

Bella let slip to Snape that she was entrusted with something most 
precious to Voldemort, in Ch. 2 HBP. (I took this to mean she had a 
Horcrux, just like Lucius, and I was right!) Alas, Albus was trying 
to be the lone hero, so Snape could not possibly have recognized the 
significance of this slip, and probably never even reported it, 
taking it for an idle boast rather than a slip of the tongue.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 22:51:22 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:51:22 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret?=
In-Reply-To: <fsqg43+mior@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsrpta+2lag@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182364

1. "Harry thought of A History of Magic;" ? have Hermione's habits
finally worn off on him?

Alla:

Eh, I never thought that Harry is the type of person who is 
completely uninterested in books, Hermione or no Hermione. I mean, of 
course he does not read nearly as MUCH as Hermione does and would 
take Qudditch over the book at any time, it seems, but even in PS/SS 
narrator makes a point that Harry thought the school books were 
interesting or something like that.

So, I guess I am not sure if you mean Hermione's habits in regard of 
reading this particular book, then my answer is probably yes, but if 
we are talking about Hermione's habits as to reading in general my 
answer is no. My answer is that Harry can open a book sometimes 
without Hermione's habits wearing off on him.



2. We've waited for seven books to get our first glimpse of the house
in Godric's Hollow. How satisfying was the scene where Harry finally
sees his family home?

Alla:

Sad, very very sad and again possibilities of what might have been.


4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of Bathilda
is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course, we all have
the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off alarms for you on
the first read?

Sadly no. I mean as you are saying in another question there was a 
tension and build up and surprise, but I had no clue.


8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most
grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to
the ? er ? unveiling of Bathilda?

Gross.

9. Again, we finally get another scene we've been waiting to see for
seven books: the deaths of James and Lily Potter and Voldemort's
destruction. How did the scene live up to your expectations? What
did it elucidate that had been unclear previously? (I realize that
much of this has been discussed.)

Alla:

Yes, well the description of James' death was contradictory I 
thought, but Pippin and Zara pretty much convinced me earlier that 
Voldemort did have reasons to lie before about James' death.

On its own, I loved the scene and found it to be incredibly moving.

10. Voldemort is a pathological liar, although we know parts of the
Potter death scene are true, thanks to Harry's Dementor memories. How
reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case?

Alla:
I am assuming that memories should be true since this is the last 
book.

11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the
vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too
trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed
constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and
Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's
relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night?


Alla:

I understand that trusting one's friends too much can be considered a 
shortcoming and sometimes deservingly so, but I can never consider it 
to be a shortcoming, ever and I can be wrong of course. It's just the 
kind of person I am. I do not call somebody a friend easily, oh no. I 
was amazed when I came to live to the US that the word friend is 
thrown around so much, hehe. For me the majority of people I meet and 
hang out with are acquaintances, no more than that.

Anyways, if I call somebody a friend, I trust them a lot and I mean a 
lot and if I get burned, well honestly so be it. Going back to 
Potterverse, my answer is that sure in hindsight Potters should have 
been alarmed, but I do not blame them one bit for not being so and 
thinking of Peter better than they should have been.

I am not sure what I thought of the picture, I do not remember. 

I also do not think that Harry and Hermione's relationship altered in 
any way as result. I mean, what's there to be altered ? deep loyalty, 
friendship and trust are already there IMO.

Thanks for the great questions Anita.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 31 22:57:19 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:57:19 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secre?=
In-Reply-To: <fsqg43+mior@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fsrq8f+iek4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 182365

CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 17,
Bathilda's Secret

Questions:
> 1. "Harry thought of A History of Magic;" ? have Hermione's habits
finally worn off on him?

Carol responds:
His mind is on Bathilda Bagshot, whom he hopes to sse, thinking that
she might have the Sword of Gryffindor, so "A History of Magic" would
be closer to the surface of his mind than usual. I don't think he's
recalling the book itself so much as something that Hermione has
recently quoted from it, but I can't recall her giving Harry this
specific information (that the graveyard is thought to be haunted).
Harry seems to be wondering, half-hoping, whether his parents might be
the ghosts that haunt the graveyard, but the thought is unfinished.
It's intriguing to speculate: maybe the Peverells, or Ignotus, at
least, haunts the graveyard. H and H don't see any ghosts, but the
existence of the rumor suggests that ghosts sometimes appear there.

> 2. We've waited for seven books to get our first glimpse of the
house in Godric's Hollow. How satisfying was the scene where Harry
finally sees his family home?

Carol:
I'm not sure that "satisfying" is the right word. I was glad to find
out how the Fidelius Charm broke (not, as Harry speculates, dying with
his parents but breaking with Wormtail's breach of faith) and it was
interesting to see the ruined house preserved, only the upper room
where the spell was cast actually destroyed, and the magical memorial
to the Potters (in addition to the Muggle war memorial that turns into
a statue of the Potters)--Dumbledore's work, probably. But the
mysterious old woman (naturally, I thought she was Bathilda, but
something about her seemed ominous) held my attention on a first
reading more than the house itself. I'm glad that Harry got to see it,
but I wish he had waited until after the destruction of the Horcruxes
and LV!
 
> 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath the
Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through Cloaks?
Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini? Clearly,
someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the ground, but how
does LV!Nagini know where they're standing?

Carol responds:
I think that Nagini, being a Horcrux (or just a magical beast with
different powers and senses than a Witch or Wizard) knows that they're
there. Possibly, she doesn't see them at all through those dead,
cataract-covered eyes, which would only show middle-aged Muggles
rather than the Potter boy and his friend. Possibly, she smells them
or senses them magically. It can't be Voldemort seeing them through
her or she wouldn't have needed to summon him later. The monument
rising out of the ground seems to appear to any Witch or Wizard who
touches the gate, judging from the sixteen years' worth of graffiti
and the recent good wishes on it, so that in itself would only
indicate that a witch or wizard is present, and Nagini (if she can
see) has already seen the "Muggles" conjure a wreath and lay it on the
Potters' grave, so she would already know that the male "Muggle" is
Harry. As for where they're standing, it would be right outside the
gate, and then Harry shouts, "Are you Bathilda?" after which her
suspicion that Harry is standing by the gate would be confirmed, even
if she can't see him.
> 
> 4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of
Bathilda is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course, we
all have the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off alarms
for you on the first read?

Carol responds:
I wondered why Hermione gasped when Bathilda said, "Come!" and the
whole tone of the scene is somehow ominous. (Harry's suspicions are
usually half-right; I figured that he was missing something important
here.) Also, Bathilda doesn't seem normal. She doesn't respond when
Hermione speaks, and her few phrases are clipped and unnatural, not so
much like a "gaga" old woman as like someone who barely speaks
English: "You are Potter?" And why would Bathilda call Harry "Potter",
or, for that matter, ignore Hermione, even if she's a crazy old woman,
and pretend not to hear her? I had absolutely no idea that she was
Nagini possessing Bathilda's corpse (talk about Dark magic!), but I
knew that something wasn't right. And the smells also suggested
something worse than an old woman who could no longer "cope." (I was
wondering just now whether Nagini understands English. When LV
consoles her in GoF for the loss of Wormtail as a meal ([Never mind,
Nagini. You can have Harry Potter" or something like that], he could
be speaking Parseltongue, which Harry, present in the dream, would
understand. But "Dinner, Nagini" in "the Dark Lord Rising" seems to be
spoken in English, so maybe she understands English but, because she's
a snake and doesn't have the proper equipment for human speech, has
never learned to speak it. And being in the dead Bathilda's body won't
help her much. She's just waiting for "Potter"; nothing else matters.)
> 
> 5. Harry's locket is again alive; should he have guessed that
something was amiss by its behavior?

Carol:
Yes and no. I don't think that he could have guessed that "Bathilda"
was a Horcrux herself, one soul bit responding to another, and his
guess that the Horcrux sensed that the Sword of Gryffindor, an object
capable of destroying Horcruxes, was near makes sense given his
expectations and his interpretation of "Bathilda's" behavior. But if
he'd realized that she was speaking Parseltongue, he'd suspect that
she was under the Imperius Curse or in some way an agent of Voldemort.
That plus the Horcrux's behavior and "Bathilda's" wanting to get him
alone should have signaled him that something was not right, Harry
Potter, not right at all.
> 
> 6. How much of the mess in Bathilda's house do you suppose is really
the poor dear's own clutter and how much should have been a warning to
Harry and Hermione that something was terribly wrong?

Carol:
I wasn't going to discuss the smells, but I think the foul odor was
Bathilda's corpse combined with Nagini's feces and the remains of
whatever animals she kills for food. She would not have been
fastidious enough to use the chamber pot even if she could do so.
(She's obviously not comfortable in that stooped, fat old body, or
lighting candles or wearing clothes.) The dust has accumulated since
Bathilda's death, I think, and the pile of unwashed laundry has been
mouldering since that time as well. And, yes, not even the houses of
batty old women smell that bad, nor do old women who haven't bathed
for awhile smell like corpses. (The Dark magic that Voldemort used to
somehow place Nagini in Bathilda's body must have prevented the body
from decomposing completely.)
> 
> 7. Although the outcome of the visit was not what I expected (to say
the least), I felt the tension was built well in this scene, and I was
primed for some sort of surprise. What was your response to the
buildup? Did you speculate correctly on the surprise outcome?

Carol:
The same as yours. I sensed something ominous, but nothing like the
shocking, horrifying emergence of Nagini from Bathilda's body. Talk
about a heart-pounding, hair-raising moment. (I'll have to close my
eyes when that scene appears on-screen or scream in the theater like a
five-year-old!) The writing is extremely effective; maybe JKR should
attempt horror novels next, but the suspense, the sense that something
bad was about to happen, didn't prepare me for the shock of that moment.
> 
> 8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most
grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to the
? er ? unveiling of Bathilda?

Carol:
Horror and revulsion. But my eyes were glued to the page and my hands
glued to the book. I couldn't drop the book or run away or whatever
crazy thing a sleep-deprived woman might normally do (turn off the
television!). I had to keep reading to see what happened next. Thank
goodness for Hermione. If Harry had been alone . . . .
> 
> 9. Again, we finally get another scene we've been waiting to see for
seven books: the deaths of James and Lily Potter and Voldemort's
destruction. How did the scene live up to your expectations?  What did
it elucidate that had been unclear previously? (I realize that much of
this has been discussed.)

Carol:
Lily's was exactly what I expected. (I liked the gesture of her
futilely spreading her arms and standing in front of Harry to block
the spell; it's what a mother would do, futile or not, whether she's
trying to block a bullet or an AK. we see the same gesture with the
unknown German mother who tries to protect her children from LV before
he kills Gregorovitch.) But James unarmed? Sure, making pretty lights
for Harry with his wand was nice, one of the few likeable James
moments, but dropping his wand on the sofa and leaving it there? and
even leaving the curtains open, trusting to the Fidelius Charm and
taking no other precautions? At any rate, both SS/PS ("I killed your
father first, and he put up a courageous fight) and GoF ("Face me like
a man, straight-backed and proud, the way your father died"), as well
as James's reputation as a powerful Wizard, led me to expect that he'd
at least put up a fight like the Prewitts (who required five DEs to
finish off the two of them), with LV allowing him a spell or two
before finishing him off.
> 
> 10. Voldemort is a pathological liar, although we know parts of the
Potter death scene are true, thanks to Harry's Dementor memories. How
reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case?

Carol responds:
Absolutely reliable. He's recalling his own humiliation and suffering,
with no idea that Harry is experiencing them, too, and no reason to
lie to himself. The memory, unlike most human memories, is a
Pensivelike re-enactment of what happened except that Voldemort is in
his own mind and Harry is reliving it with him. (Besides, as a
literary device, they're useless unless they convey the real story.
There's no later, alternate version, and no interpretation by anyone
except Voldemort himself. The only subjective element is his contempt
for the Potters ("How stupid they were, and how trusting"), and "It
was easy, too easy" is both true and ironically prophetic. Only when
we get to "The snake rustled on the filthy, cluttered floor, and he
had killed the boy, and yet he was the boy" is there any confusion,
which I think is Harry's confusion as he's starting to wake up and
hears Hermione rustling around and, simultaneously, Voldemort coming
out of his painful memory. But Voldemort picking up the photograph of
the unknown merry-faced thief and exulting over it is real and a
return to the present, and Harry awakes fully immediately afterward.
> 
> 11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the
vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too
trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed
constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and
Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's relationship
altered any as a result of the events of that night?

Carol:
Yes, James and Lily were too trusting of Peter, in any case. (And
certainly, they shouldn't have taken Sirius's advice regarding the SK
switch. (They didn't trust Remus, apparently. Why trust Peter?) Even
if the SK had been Sirius (or Dumbledore), it would have been wise to
take other precautions, such as closing the blinds, putting protective
spells on the doors, and keeping their wands with them at all times.
They're putting all their eggs in one basket, relying on a single
spell that requires another person, "Wormy," to keep their secret even
under torture or the threat of torture. (12 GP has other spells on it
besides the Fidelius Charm, some cast by Orion Black and some by the
Order members, perhaps remembering the cottage at Godric's Hollow.)

I won't answer the DD and GG question yet since we didn't yet know who
the boy was, and I had already figured out that the merry-faced thief
was the same boy we'd seen with Dumbledore. For me, the horror of the
moment (LV finding that photo and recognizing the boy from
Gregorovitch's memory) far outweighed any considerations of DD's old
friendships or even the boy's identity.

As for Harry's and Hermione's friendship altering at that point, I
don't think so. I think we merely see its nature clarified--a very
close brother-sister relationship, with Hermione being the more
selfless and protective of the two. (She's a hero in this chapter,
rescuing Harry from Nagini's clutches--literally--although, of course,
Nagini released Harry to go after her. Also, I noticed on a rereading
that Hermione's Stunning Spell did nothing more than knock Nagini
against the wall. She (Nagini) wasn't knocked out or harmed in any way
by it. Confringo damaged the room and hindered Nagini, but didn't hurt
her, either.) At the end of the chapter, instead of being grateful to
Hermione for healing his wound and bringing him out of his stupor,
he's obsessing over his broken wand and wanting to get away from her
because she accidentally broke it. Sure, it's a good thing that he
keeps his anger in check, but I don't see any deepening of the friendship.

On another note, Harry regrets that they didn't kill Nagini (not that
they had the means of doing so without the sword), but it's probably a
good thing that she was still alive when Voldemort "killed" Harry or
that AK might have been fatal even with the drop of shared blood. (DD
seems to have been counting on Nagini's being the last Horcrux to be
destroyed. Certainly, she was the only one who could fight back!)

Carol, thanking Anita for tackling this challenging chapter, which is
certainly one of the most memorable in the book