From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Oct 1 02:30:01 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Oryomai) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:30:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184491 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 30:The Sacking of Severus Snape I'm sorry for the slight tardiness of this chapter discussion some Snape-hater Avada Kedavra'd my old computer. I'm not naming any names, but I'm looking in her general direction. When we last left my hero, Severus, he was single-handedly trying to save the castle from V ? wait, what? I'm supposed to talk about the Trio was doing? But but oh, fine. When we last left our teenage heroes at the end of chapter twenty-nine, Harry and Luna had just seen Alecto Carrow brandish her Dark Mark to summon Voldemort. Luna Lovegood starts off chapter thirty by stunning Alecto. Alecto has been able to summon the Dark Lord before Luna's spell (the first she's ever used outside the DA), but she is incapacitated for now. The noise of the Stunning Charm brings down the Ravenclaws; Harry and Luna listen to them while they hide under the Invisibility Cloak. Harry has a flash to Voldemort's mind ? he knows that Voldemort is on the way to check on the Horcrux!Locket. The Ravenclaws joy and confusion at finding Alecto Stunned on the floor is brought to an abrupt halt by the arrival of Amycus. He attempts to use brute force and then magic to knock the door down, but he is unable to open it. Harry is trying to decide whether he should come out from under the cloak to stop him from hurting the other students when he hears a familiar voice ? Professor McGonagall. While Amycus is continuing to try to open the door, Harry finds out that Amycus and Alecto made Professor Flitwick let her in earlier that evening. Professor McGonagall lets him in this time, and Amycus bursts into the room. When he sees Alecto on the floor, he immediately assumes that she is dead and starts on a rant about how Voldemort will be angry that they don't have Harry Potter. Professor McGonagall is confused and tells Amycus with slightly noticeable pride that "Potter is in my house!" Amycus wants to blame the summoning of Voldemort on the students and when Professor McGonagall protests, Amycus spits in her face. In a move both highly applauded and condemned, Harry throws off the cloak and Crucio's Amycus. Professor McGonagall nearly faints when she realizes that both Harry and Luna are in Ravenclaw Tower. Harry tells her that Voldemort is on the way to the castle, and she wants him to get away. Amycus starts to wake up, and Professor McGonagall Imperio's him to subdue the two Carrows. Harry's scar blazes again, and he knows that Voldemort has found the Horcrux!Locket missing. He uses the same lie of omission (and a bit of Dumbledore name-dropping) to convince Professor McGonagall to take him seriously about looking for the lost diadem. She tells him that the teachers will secure the school while Harry searches for the diadem. She immediately goes into tactical mode, trying to figure out how to get rid of Severus and how to save the students. Harry and Luna go back under the cloak as they make their way into the rest of the castle. As the three are running through the castle, they become aware of someone else in the hall. Severus Snape dramatically steps out from behind one of the suits of armor. Harry immediately knows that Severus has been ready for this all night ? he is in his usual robes and has his wand at the ready. Severus looks beyond Professor McGonagall and seems to know that Harry is there. When Severus asks about Harry, Professor McGonagall attacks him. Severus is quicker than she is and puts up a Shield Charm that knocks her off balance. Harry pulls Luna out of the way while Severus and Professor McGonagall engage in a short duel. It is ended when Professors Flitwick, Sprout, and Slughorn arrive. Professor Flitwick brings the suit of armor Severus is hiding behind to life. Severus tries to escape with Professors McGonagall, Flitwick, and Sprout right behind him. Harry and Luna find the teachers staring out a smashed window. Severus has jumped, but he's learned some tricks from his master and can fly. The disappearance of Severus Snape snaps Professor McGonagall back into action. She quickly brings the Heads of Houses up to speed ? everyone is to meet in the Great Hall in twenty minutes. Professors Flitwick and Sprout begin to fortify the castle, but Professor Slughorn is hesitant. Professor McGonagall tells him that "the time has come for Slytherin House to decide upon its loyalties." The students start heading to the Great Hall while Harry is running the other direction desperately trying to formulate a plan. Harry ignores the other students' yells about his presence. Harry runs into a mix of his old Quidditch team and the Order. The members of the DA have alerted the Order to what is going on in the castle. When Harry tells everyone that they are going to fight, they all head towards the Great Hall. Ginny tries to convince her mother that she should go fight, that everyone she knows is going to be out there, but everyone thinks she's too young to go. And just when you think it can't get any more dramatic, it does. Percy Weasley. Percy falls into the room and immediately sees the majority of his family. Fleur tries to distract from the obvious tension, but is in turn interrupted by Percy. He roars that he was a fool and an idiot and blinded. Fred is the first to accept Percy's emergence into their lives by shaking his hand. The Weasley clan immediately accepts him back into the fold. Ginny tries to sneak out but is noticed. Suddenly, Harry notices that Ron and Hermione are not in the room and realizes that he has not seen them since he left for Ravenclaw Tower with Luna. Ginny mentions that they said something about a bathroom. Harry looks to the closest bathroom and doesn't see them. Just as he is about to question Ginny, his scar sears. Lord Voldemort is looking at Hogwarts. Questions!! 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to help Harry out? 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her to be very smart. 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the upcoming battle? 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching methods!) 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the Horcrux? At this point, the jig is pretty much up: Harry's in the castle, there are Death Eaters everywhere, and he needs help. He's used lies of omission on everyone else, why not Professor McGonagall? 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to kill him at every turn? 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his cover? 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. Would anyone have listened? 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? 14.In my opinion, Harry's realization that Voldemort is outside of Hogwarts is one of the most important moments of the book. This is when he realizes that, whatever the outcome, the battle for the wizarding world is going to end tonight. What do you think? Why did the Creatrix choose the end the chapter on this note? 15. The title of this chapter is "The Sacking of Severus Snape." What does that mean to you? What did you think it meant at the beginning of the chapter? What does it mean to you now? 16.Anything else I missed? Are there any questions anyone had about this chapter that I didn't cover? Oryomai Who attempted to keep her deep deep love of Severus Snape from completely taking over the chapter discussion!. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 31, The Battle of Hogwarts, on October 13. From kaamita at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 03:00:05 2008 From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <959383.61938.qm@web56508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184492 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. ? I have an idea about this. I think that it is Snape's Legamency (I know it isn't spelled right) that helps him with this. It would also explain why he never actually catches him. Everytime Harry comes across Snape while under the cloak, he is thinking really hard "don't let him catch me, etc..." and I think Snape picks up on that, but is unaware of the exact place that Harry is. Just my thought. ? Heather [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 05:20:57 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:20:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184493 Montavilla47: Thanks for the summary and questions! > 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it > notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to > help Harry out? Montavilla47: I guess I missed the part where Luna was supposed to be especially bad or useless at spells. It didn't strike me as notable. > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to > open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? > I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her > to be very smart. Montavilla47: I suppose she must have been one of those borderline cases, like Hermione. > 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had > to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you > think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of > frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How > does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to > know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the > upcoming battle? Montavilla47: I think it's of a piece with the castle itself rejecting certain teachers. For example, the Headmaster's office wouldn't allow Umbridge inside. I suppose (although it's extra-canonical) that it's of a piece with the Headmaster's office not creating a portrait of Snape after he dies. > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt > that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A > Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the > added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, > in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by > Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching > methods!) Montavilla47: Hmm. You mean if Amycus had spat on say, Draco or Trelawney, Harry wouldn't have felt the need to use Crucio? Maybe not. :) > 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the > way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the > Horcrux? At this point, the jig is pretty much up: Harry's in the > castle, there are Death Eaters everywhere, and he needs help. He's > used lies of omission on everyone else, why not Professor McGonagall? Montavilla47: I don't think Harry is being manipulative here. He knows that Voldemort will be becoming eventually (eventually being in a couple of hours). So, he's just giving McGonagall as much advancing warning as possible. It might have been smarter not to resist, however, and to be more stealthy. If Voldemort had showed up and the school seemed more or less as usual, he wouldn't have needed to do a battle. As for the Carrows? Hide them away. Voldemort would lose time trying to find them and dealing with that mess, while Harry looked for the diadem. > 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using > the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? Montavilla47: Yes. People have objected her use of the Imperius Curse because it supports (rather than condemns) Harry's use of the Crucio. > 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall > *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the > school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it > have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has > managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to > kill him at every turn? Montavilla47: I think McGonagall is a natural follower, rather than a leader. It wasn't that McGonagall didn't believe Harry before, exactly. It was that she was always taking her orders from Dumbledore, and Dumbledore's orders contradicted Harry's. Now, without the old Headmaster around (and because she can't respect Snape's authority as the murderer of Dumbledore), she's looking for someone to tell her what to do. > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he > always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him > in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. Montavilla47: He's just a suspicious guy. Either that, or he can smell Harry coming. > 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry > alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his > cover? Montavilla47: I think that Snape would have taken Harry to the office and had Dumbledore's portrait explain things to him. > 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this > was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was > before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? Montavilla47: I think that at some point, he had to made a plan about what to do if he were thrown out of the school. But it's hard to figure out what was in his head at that moment. > 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family > (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the > freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. > Would anyone have listened? Montavilla47: Probably not. But I think if it were me, I would have tried to find something useful to do without being on the front lines. > 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be > back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers > American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire > time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm > interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. Montavilla47: I was pretty sure that storyline would get resolved because JKR kept bringing it up to make sure we remembered it. Then again, I thought she had some plan for Grawp, so it doesn't necessarily follow. > 15. The title of this chapter is "The Sacking of Severus Snape." > What does that mean to you? What did you think it meant at the > beginning of the chapter? What does it mean to you now? Montavilla47: It seemed pretty straightforward to me. He was going to get fired in some manner. From tommy_m_riddle at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 05:25:43 2008 From: tommy_m_riddle at yahoo.com (tommy_m_riddle) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:25:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184494 Nice summary, good questions! > 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it > notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to > help Harry out? I never felt she was an "extra." I felt like Luna, Neville and Ginny were a kind of secondary trio. This was kind of backed up by news of their activities that at a time or two got back to the primary trio through the grapevine during DH. As basically a second-tier member of the DA, I thought that Luna's action here was entirely appropriate and made sense. > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to > open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? > I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her > to be very smart. Perhaps she asked the hat, too. :) Also, I'm not too set on this or anything, but I have this vague idea that Transfiguration expertise tends (not is exclusive to, but tends) toward Gryffindor house. There are (three of) the Marauders, and Dumbledore was Transfiguration professor. There are animagi whom I don't believe were in Gryffindor (Rita Skeeter) but I feel as though there is some tenuous connection between Gryffindor and Transfig. > 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had > to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you > think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of > frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How > does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to > know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the > upcoming battle? The Carrows simply seem to be not smart enough to answer the door's riddles. I fear for the security of Ravenclaw house, because given a smart enough enemy, anyone could gain entrance. I'm sure if he'd wanted to, Harry could have entered at any time, given his success with the Sphinx back in GOF. > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt > that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A > Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the > added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, > in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by > Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching > methods!) I don't want to re-create the "should he or shouldn't he" debate of Harry using this spell either. In my mind, they are two separate questions. 1. was Harry right to become as angry as he did? and 2. does his anger then justify the use of this curse? I'm not really interested in discussing question 2. As far as question 1, yes, I believe so. Spitting in the face is one of the most disrespectful, dehumanizing things one person can do to another short of physical harm. If there is any culture on earth where this isn't the case, I don't know about it. (And with viruses and bacteria, an argument could be made for the potential of physical harm.) I'd freak out too, if I saw someone spit in the face of a teacher of mine that I'd liked. > 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the > way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the > Horcrux? At this point, the jig is pretty much up: Harry's in the > castle, there are Death Eaters everywhere, and he needs help. He's > used lies of omission on everyone else, why not Professor McGonagall? Harry knows that Voldemort is checking all his Horcruxes. He knows that one is at Hogwarts, which will be the last one he'll check. (Apart from Harry, which neither Voldemort nor Harry know about yet, and Nagini, which Harry can presume that Voldemort presumes is intact.) So it's really not much less accurate than if I said, "I'm driving to your house right now," but neglected to say, "I'll probably have to stop at a couple of gas stations and perhaps a drive-thru on the way." Voldemort is on his way there, eventually. Harry is telling McGonagall the truth, and trying to give her time to rally while he finds this tiara. > 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using > the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? I don't know. I've never been one to fret about the good guys using the Unforgivables, really. They are only Unforgivable because the government says they are, and the government has always been stupid and/or corrupt, especially now. > 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall > *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the > school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it > have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has > managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to > kill him at every turn? A lot has happened since the Philosopher's Stone. For about a year now, McGonagall has known that Dumbledore gave Harry a secret mission and she can't know what it is. It sucks to be McGonagall and be in suspense, but I think she knows this is the case and has accepted it. It probably didn't hurt that Harry was gone all year attempting to accomplish it (at a snail's pace I might add, but still) and Harry is now supplying her with some valuable information. So I think she's putting more trust in him because of those factors. > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he > always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him > in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. I'd love to look up all the instances where this has happened and give a detailed response, but I apologize that it is too late and I am too tired right now. My general response though, is that Snape for sure knew as of the end of POA that Harry was in possession of the Invisibility Cloak. Possibly, he knew before that. So maybe he's just always on the lookout for where Invisible Harry Potter is likely to be. > 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry > alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his > cover? No. He was instructed not to, until he saw Nagini in a bubble, or whatever. He can do it at that moment, and no sooner. Which, let's be honest, is the narrative reason why Snape had to die. Harry would have never believed anything Snape said if it wasn't his dying thoughts. I was surprised how quickly he decided Snape was a great guy even though it was Snape's dying thoughts that he saw. Actually, "surprised" is a vast understatement. Harry went from "Snape killed Dumbledore" to "Snape was super because he loved my mom" in like a chapter flat. I still can't believe it. > 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this > was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was > before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? I think he knows exactly what's to come as far as the broad picture (Voldemort attacking Hogwarts, Harry showing up) but not as far as the details. He probably did not realize he would fly out of the window leaving a Snape-shaped hole. IMO, anyway. > 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family > (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the > freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. > Would anyone have listened? I don't know how to answer this. Yes, that would have been awful. She could easily have been orphaned too, plus lost just about all of her brothers. And all of her friends. If I were her brother, love interest, friend, parent, etc. I would have wanted her to stay hidden also. But I'm not surprised that she didn't, and from a reader's perspective, I didn't want her to either. > 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be > back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers > American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire > time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm > interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. I never thought he would be evil. I thought he would either be redeemed, which is what happened I guess, or he would continue to follow the Ministry no matter how bad it got, just to show that can happen in families. At one time, I thought he might be under the Imperius Curse, but that was jossed in an interview back in like 2005. > 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? > Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? I think maybe a couple of reasons. One, they are still sworn to Harry not to tell anyone anything about Horcruxes. Also, they have no idea whether Ron's Hooked on Parseltongue-Phonics plan will even work anyway, but they just decide to try it. > 14.In my opinion, Harry's realization that Voldemort is outside of > Hogwarts is one of the most important moments of the book. This is > when he realizes that, whatever the outcome, the battle for the > wizarding world is going to end tonight. What do you think? Why > did the Creatrix choose the end the chapter on this note? Simply suspense, I think. There is actually not much introspection on Harry's part right here, after he finds this out. Actually, none. He simply sees the Voldevision and the chapter is over. It's just style and pacing, I think. > 15. The title of this chapter is "The Sacking of Severus Snape." > What does that mean to you? What did you think it meant at the > beginning of the chapter? What does it mean to you now? It means that Snape got fired. When I first heard it I thought it meant that Snape got fired. He actually flew away out the window, but I think any job where people threw knives at me and stuff, I would consider that getting fired. Even if they were not my superiors. Sarah From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 05:46:29 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:46:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184495 of Oryomai's excellent summary. > 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it > notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to > help Harry out? Zara: I liked it. And I was expecting Luna to help Harry out in DH with finding the Ravenclaw Horcux. > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to > open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? > I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found > her to be very smart. Zara: I think she'd fit very well in any of three Houses - Ravenclaw for her brains, Hufflepuff (loyalty to Dumbledore, she's hardworking, and she makes an effort to be fair), and Gryffindor (courage, and a rash variety of it at that - this is the woman who mixes it up with six Aurors when they come for Hagrid in OotP). > 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had > to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Zara: I assumed they were too stupid to answer the questions asked by the door. The superior knowledge of Hogwarts that the staff has would be an advantage, but I'm not sure that we really saw that come into play here. Except to demonstrate the Carrows lacked it - they did not know about the RoR, one supposes. So I guess neither Snape nor Draco were in a sharing mood. > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt > that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? Zara: Quite possibly, yes. I never read that move by Harry as a momentary response to a petty irritation. I thought he was increasingly more disgusted and furious and Amycus's plans to give a syudent up to Voldemort and spitting in Minerva's face were just the final straws for Harry. > 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the > way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the > Horcrux? Zara: Aren't these one and the same? Or do you mean some Horcrux other than the tiara? Harry does know that checking on the tiara is high on Voldemort's to-do list. > 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using > the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? Zara: I presume because people were too busy expressing outrage at her use of the word "gallant" to describe Harry in that scene. Personally, I have some trouble with the idea of Dark Magic as something that is just intrinsically soooo very awful that it does not matter why and how you use it, too much that happens in this series, including this scene, suggests otherwise to me. Minerva's brief use of the curse permitted her to quickly and efficiently put both Carrows out of action by tying them up. What's not to like? > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he > always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him > in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. Zara: Another character who could have been in Ravenclaw. Harry observes that he, Minerva, and Luna are not alone before Snape shows himself, because he hears Snape's footsteps. If Harry can hear one stealthy man, surely Snape can hear three hurrying people, two of whom he cannot, however, see. He is more than bright enough to go from "footsteps of invisible people" and "The Carrows believed Potter was in the castle" to "Potter is with Minerva under his cloak". > 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry > alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his > cover? Zara: I can't predict this. I don't think a face to face discussion was ever Snape's first choice, I think he would have preferred to use the doe to communiate and establish his bona fides when that became necessary. But he had no choice here. He knew Voldemort was going to be coming because the Carrows summoned him, so he had to try and assess what should be his next move. Tell Harry what he has learned from Albus about the soul bit? Find a way to get Harry away from the school? And if Harry is not done with the secret mission Snape knows exists, but knows nothing about? If he saw no way around it, I believe he would have tried to tell Harry at least most of the truth. Maybe not about the soul bit, if it was clear Harry was still working on whatever it was. > 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this > was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was > before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? Zara: No, I don't think Snape had any particular plan to leave the school, either by flying or by more conventional means. But he's a quick thinker under pressure. As far as any idea of what's to come...what do you mean by that? He knows Voldemort is coming to Hogwarts. He can deduce from Minerva's actions and those of her fellow Heads of House that they intend to hold the school against Voldemort. So yes, I think he knows there will be a battle. If you mean anything further, such as what he may or may not know or have been told or have guessed about a certain wand...no idea. *grumbles* > 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would > be back? Zara: I thought he would be back, and I thought he'd be a good guy. Yay me. I always liked Percy. > 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? > Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? Zara: To surprise us, duh. OK, OK, within story...maybe they did not want to raise false hopes? They had lost the sword, so they had no way to destroy Horcruxes anymore, not the one they had just retrieved, nor the one they were seeking. Neither they nor Harry talked about it much, but this was a serious obstacle. > 15. The title of this chapter is "The Sacking of Severus Snape." > What does that mean to you? What did you think it meant at the > beginning of the chapter? What does it mean to you now? Zara: I was delighted to see the title when I got to it the first time, because it meant we were *finally* going to see a certain elusive character again after so long. Would this be when Harry finally learned the thing I had become sure of in "The Silver Doe"? Would Snape live? What else might happen? I did not spend a lot of time deciding, I dug right in! Now, to me, it is the single iconic thing that encapsulates for me what Severus gave up in pursuit of his redemption. He lived with those other Heads, his former teachers and colleagues, for a year, while they hated him and loathed him so much they did not hesitate to use deadly force against him, for what he had done to Albus. It's really poignant, to me. Other questions? How about a comment...I loved seeing Snape in action, defending himself against the attacks of Minerva and the others. Foolish wand-waving, indeed! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 11:38:17 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:38:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184496 Oryomai: 2 Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her to be very smart. Alla: To me it is very clear in the books that Minerva is smart.. Maybe she had the same sorting as Hermione did. I think she is both brave and smart, personally. 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching methods!) Alla: LOL, you would like to avoid the moral points of Crucio by asking if Harry would not have done it if he did not feel a positive emotion towards Minerva? Without any sarcasm I do not believe it is possible. I think Harry would not have Crucio'd Amycus if and only if he would not have felt a rush of affection for Neville, for Ginny, for Luna, for Michael who was tortured, for all other students of Hogwarts who suffered under Carrows wrath and of course for Mcgonagall. I think Harry started boiling up the very moment he saw battered Neville coming to him from the portrait. I think what happened to McGonagall was the very last drop, which is while seemingly insignificant caused him to blew up. Yes, Stunning spell would have worked just fine and even better, I agree. I totally get why Harry used a different one though. 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? Alla: I do not remember an outrage, no. There was certainly none from me. I think she could not have make him go voluntarily. 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to kill him at every turn? Alla: Personally I think and this is speculation of course that she always believed him, she just thought that Dumbledore knows more and will deal with it, now there is no Dumbledore, so she speaks up. Just speculation. 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. Would anyone have listened? Alla: Well, I can understand her entire family wanting to save their sixteen year old's life POV too. But yeah, I doubt that anybody who wants to fight would have listened. 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. Alla: If I remember correctly, I never thought that he was DE, just an idiot, but I did briefly hoped ( I think) that he could be a spy, it is evaporated fast. I thought he would either die or come back. Thank you for the summary and questions, I may answer more later. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 1 12:34:00 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:34:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184497 "Oryomai" wrote: > When we last left my hero, Severus, he was single-handedly trying to > save the castle from V ?V wait, what? I'm supposed to talk about the ?? Trio was doing? ?? Potioncat: Well, at least you're starting with the important part. Thanks for a thoughtful summary. I'll have to make my replies in sections. > > Questions!! > 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it > notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to ?? help Harry out? Potioncat: Like the others, I never saw her as an 'extra.' Pretty telling though that she uses a more battle-appropriate spell than Harry does. > > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to > open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? > I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her ?? to be very smart. Potioncat: Now that's interesting. Can you tell us more about why you never found her to be incredibly brave? It looks like she would have fit very well in Ravenclaw. There are quite a few characters who have strong traits from more than one house, and it's not always the most obvious trait that determines placement. > > 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had > to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you > think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of > frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How > does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to > know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the ?? upcoming battle? Potioncat: I wonder if Flitwick could get into Gryffindor if he wanted to--- without asking McGonagall? Or, can any clever person get into Ravenclaw? Would the door perhaps know a riddle that can't be answered and so trick a non-Ravenclaw? But even if teachers had a special way of knowing, or of being told, I'm sure none of the loyal Hogwarts staff would let the Carrows in on the secret. And I do mean "none" of the loyal Hogwarts staff. What bothers me, is that no one seemed to be watching out for the Ravenclaw students. Any fanfic worth its salt would have had a certain cat sitting by the fireplace, or a portrait keeping tabs. What the teachers know about Hogwarts does help them. They've been there many more years than any of the DEs had been. Yet, it works both ways. Look how knowing the castle helped Draco in HBP. > > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt > that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A > Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the > added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, > in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by > Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching ?? methods!) Potioncat: I can accept the motivation. I can understand the action. I also won't get into the moral points. > > 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using ?? the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? Potioncat: No one seems bothered by Harry's use of it at Gringotts either. We used to discuss the Unforgivables before HBP or DH. Many readers could see appropriate uses for the Imperius if used under controlled conditions. Maybe that's why it doesn't generate as much ire as the Cruciatus. > > 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall > *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the > school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it > have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has > managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to ?? kill him at every turn? Potioncat: She doesn't see Harry as a student anymore, but as an adult. (You don't know what it costs me to refer to a 17-year-old as an adult.) Seriously, his role and position have changed and she acknowledges that. > > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he > always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him ?? in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. Potioncat: It's always been a little unclear in each of the situations if Snape knew or if Harry thought Snape knew. Several other posts have demonstrated ways Snape would know about Harry's presence without his being able to see through the IC. I was going to take on the suggestion that it is Snape's Legilimency at work. That requires eye contact and it's hard to have eye contact with an invisible eye. But in HBP, Snape seemed to be able to perform Legilimency on Harry without eye contact. Whether he could sense Harry's presence, deduct Hary's presence or see through the IC---he wouldn't let on. He wouldn't want anyone else to know had the ability. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 15:56:12 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:56:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184498 > Montavilla47: > I think it's of a piece with the castle itself rejecting certain teachers. > For example, the Headmaster's office wouldn't allow Umbridge > inside. I suppose (although it's extra-canonical) that it's of a piece > with the Headmaster's office not creating a portrait of Snape after > he dies. Zara: Hmm, I had not looked at it that way. On the other hand, even though both Umbridge and Snape appear to have been appointed by the Ministry...the castle did accept Snape. It let him access and use the Headmaster's office. > Montavilla47: > He's just a suspicious guy. Either that, or he can smell Harry coming. Zara: LOL. Harry probably does smell pretty nasty by then. I still think he heard him, though. > Montavilla47: > It seemed pretty straightforward to me. He was going to get fired > in some manner. Zara: Yes, but by whom and why? I was worried it would be by the authority that made him Headmaster in the first place, and for all the right reasons too. > Sarah: > Harry went from "Snape killed > Dumbledore" to "Snape was super because he loved my mom" in like a > chapter flat. I still can't believe it. Zara: I don't get this. As you say, Harry instantly abandoned "Snape killed Dumbledore". Why would he not? Should he not let the facts get in the way of his (misdirected) righteous indignation? There's not any explicit emotional content there other than that Harry acknowledged the facts. Yeah, he names his son after Snape, but that is a decision he makes some 8 years after the final chapter, which is hardly instant. > Potioncat: > What bothers me, is that no one seemed to be watching out for the > Ravenclaw students. Any fanfic worth its salt would have had a > certain cat sitting by the fireplace, or a portrait keeping tabs. Zara: How do we know no one was keeping tabs? Minerva knew Alecto was in there, because she witnessed the argument with Flitwick that resulted in Alecto being let in. (And, fascinating question...does this mean Alecto believed Snape could not get in? I think so, and don't believe it for a moment. If Minerva, a non Gryffindor, could, so could Severus, the way I see it.) Minerva at this point cannot get in (Alecto may be dumb, but surely the door opening a second time to admit a cat would raise her suspicions? Minerva could only "look out" for the students from outside, in the corridors, listening for suspicious noises. The moment Amycus starts pounding on the door, she's there. She cannot have been far away, she intervenes almost immediately when Amycus shows up at the door. We also do not know what Snape was up to in this time. The hypothesis that he knew Harry was with Minerva, because a portrait reported to him on the events in the Ravenclaw Common Room, is certainly not outside of the realm of possibility. It might make his extremely vague conversation in the hallway more sensible, in fact. It would mean he knows Harry is *not* done with his task, because Harry announced in the Common Room that he was at the school carrying out Albus's orders, so it is still not time to reveal everything he knows. Yet in that conversation Minerva also announces her intention of getting rid of him, Snape, which means he is going to have to leave.... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 00:06:54 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:06:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > "Oryomai" wrote: > > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to > > open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? > > I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found > > her to be very smart. > Potioncat: > Now that's interesting. Can you tell us more about why you never > found her to be incredibly brave? zanooda: Yes, really, why :-)? I mean, she certainly could have been a Ravenclaw, but, come on, she is in the Order, she fights in every battle that ever happened at Hogwarts, and I personally think it was incredibly brave of her to stand up like that to Umbridge in OotP and to Carrow in DH. This is something I myself wouldn't be able to do, ever, so I believe it's courage, and nothing else :-). From kaamita at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 01:04:32 2008 From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 18:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <99933.27773.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184500 Questions!! 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to help Harry out? ? I liked it. I feel that there are three types of characters. The main ones - HRH, DD, etc The minor ones - Seamus, Buckbeack, etc Then the ones that fall in the middle - professors, Dean, Griphook, Luna So, that being said, Luna is not a main character, but she is by no means a minor one either, so her stepping up into the action was not that unbelievable to me. I loved that it was Luna who did the stunning though. ? 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her to be very smart. ? I have always found her to be brave. She is always in the middle of the major fights. She is in the Order, she doesn't back down from people trying to push her down (i.e. Umbridge). She is a very brave woman, as well as smart. ? 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the upcoming battle? ? Of course they got frustrated and went to get Flitwick. Who wouldn't in the same situation? I don't know if they thought there was a password or not. I just don't think that they were smart enough to figure out the riddle. How does the fact that the original staff knowing more about the castle affect the battle? Simple, they know the castle. They know the knooks and crannies. They know the charms, and spells put on the castles. This deffinately gives them the holme field advantage. ? 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching methods!) ? Good question. I am not sure really. I know that he felt that surge of affection for Professor M, so that did make him want to retaliate to anyone that would harm her. Now, if he hadn't felt that emotion, I still feel like he would have done something, but not sure if he would have gone to that extreme. ? 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the Horcrux? At this point, the jig is pretty much up: Harry's in the castle, there are Death Eaters everywhere, and he needs help. He's used lies of omission on everyone else, why not Professor McGonagall? ? I honestly don't know. ? 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? ? Hmmmm....not sure ? 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to kill him at every turn? ? I think that she actually always believed Harry, just didn't want to believe him before. Up until this point, or until the end of GoF and the beginning of OotP, Voldemort wasn't actually back. Now, Voldemort is back, full force, ready to fight. Dumbledore is dead, and life at Hogwarts has been hell. I think that by this time, everyone is ready for the battle, just to come to some conclusion. ? 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his cover? ? Very good question. As we have seen Severus "attacking" Harry later, running from the school, etc, it wouldn't surprise me if Snape acted like he always had. Tried to attack him, but "miss" givving Harry a chance to leave, or getting Harry so worked up, that when Snape ran, Harry wouldn't question it. ? 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? ? I don't think that jumping out of the window is part of the plan. I think he is actually just playing it all by ear. I don't think he has any idea of what is to come. ? 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. Would anyone have listened? ? I doubt that I would have listened. I would have been right there fighting. ? 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. ? I figured that Percy would rejoin his family. He is just a good boy who made a mistake. I never hoped that he would fight his family. Call me a sapp, but I loved that he rejoined the family. ? 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? ? They probably did, or knowing Hermione, she thought of it and told Ron. Ron probably wanted to tell Harry, but there wasn't time, so they left. She has done this alot in other books. Heather Swap?your old?paperback books for FREE - PaperBackSwap.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 01:35:46 2008 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:35:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Oryomai" wrote: > > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt > that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A > Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the > added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, > in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by > Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching > methods!) I like to think that Harry would--he was, after all, not using an Unforgivable, he was merely using a spell deemed suitable for students to use on other students. Deemed so, in fact, by "Professor" Carrow. The same "professor" who beat Neville to a pulp, and who by Neville's testimony has hurt Seamus even worse. It is rough justice, to be sure, but at this point, it's the only justice Harry can be sure of. He owes it to Neville, to Seamus, to Michael Corner, and to every other supporter he has in the school. More interesting to me is McG's reaction: she not only does not chastise Harry, she ups the ante by using the Imperius Curse. To me, this is the passing of the baton, this is Minerva acknowledging Harry as her leader. This also, and this is more subtle, I think, Minerva anxious to bring this to a head--to purge her beloved Hogwarts of the thugs who've taken over, who abuse her students. It's one of the most powerful and telling scenes in the book. Amiable Dorsai From kaamita at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 02:12:03 2008 From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <129442.12710.qm@web56508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184502 Zara: Hmm, I had not looked at it that way. On the other hand, even though both Umbridge and Snape appear to have been appointed by the Ministry...the castle did accept Snape. It let him access and use the Headmaster's office. ? Heather: But would the castle accept Snape if DD was still alive? I feel that the castle accepted Snape because DD was dead, and he was appointed the new Headmaster. It probably would have done the same with Umbridge had DD died. Just my thoughts. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 03:56:21 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:56:21 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184503 Oryomai wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 30:The Sacking of Severus Snape > Carol: Thanks for your mischievous tone, which made a summary I was dreading enjoyable to read. You left out one detail that I liked, unrelated to Snape: the photo of turquoise-haired Teddy. Otherwise, great job. (Do you really think that Snape's "master" taught him to fly? It's McGonagall's assumption, and she's wrong about his loyalties, in any case.) > > Questions!! > 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to help Harry out? Carol: I'm glad that the DA lessons finally came in handy. (We see that again later with the Patronus Charms.) And, yes, I like having Luna Stun Alecto. It shows that she's not just a "weirdo" with eccentric beliefs and behavior; she's a talented witch in her own right, and quick-thinking, too. (If not for her answering the riddle, Harry couldn't have gotten inside the Ravenclaw common room before mcGonagall came. And Harry doesn't need to do everything. Good for Luna! > > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her to be very smart. Carol responds: Probably she's like Hermione and would have been Sorted into Ravenclaw if she hadn't desperately wanted to be in Gryffindor. I just wish she'd show more appreciation for the other Houses, especially Ravenclaw, with which she clearly has an affinity, instead of being such a Gryffindor partisan. > 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the upcoming battle? Carol: I was disturbed that Flitwick allowed a known Death Eater (Alecto) into the Ravenclaw common room. (He didn't let Amycus in; McGonagall did.) You'd think Flitwick would have more concern for his own House, or insisted on staying there with her (as McGonagall did with Amycus) to make sure that she didn't hurt the students. Maybe she forced him to do it by Crucioing him, but, still, it doesn't say much for Flitwick's courage that he yielded to her will. Or maybe she threatened to burn down the Ravenclaw common room if he didn't let her in. Whether Alecto tried to answer the riddle or not doesn't really matter in terms of her ability to get in; she'd be no more able to answer a Ravenclaw riddle than Amycus was. I'm not sure that McGonagall knows things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't; she just knows how to think logically (as Flitwick also does). Had Snape been asked the riddle, I'm sure he'd have had no more trouble with it than McGonagall did (or Luna did with hers). > > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching methods!) Carol: It's hard to say whether the rush of affection had anything to do with it. I think his blood was boiling at the insult to the Head of his House (who still considered him her student), and he was itching for revenge. (He'd been wanting to fight Snape since the "murder" of Dumbledore, and Amycus was a handy target for his rage.) I don't like anything about that scene, especially Harry's attacking from under the Invisibility Cloak: If you're going to use an Unforgiveable Curse, at least let the victim (however deserving of his pain) see his attacker. I'm not going to repeat my reasons for wishing that JKR had made Harry use some other curse. We've been on that treadmill too many times and have not progressed a single inch. I like your point about not alerting Amycus that he was in the tower. He should have followed Luna's example. We don't see *her* using Unforgiveable Curses. Gallant, my eye! and McG follows his example! (Carol mutters for awhile and moves on to the next question.) > > 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the Horcrux? At this point, the jig is pretty much up: Harry's in the castle, there are Death Eaters everywhere, and he needs help. He's used lies of omission on everyone else, why not Professor McGonagall? Carol responds: Well, Voldemort *is* on his way to Hogwarts. He just needs to make a side trip or two before he gets there. He's promised Dumbledore not to tell anyone except Ron and Hermione about the Horcruxes (he refused to tell McG at the end of HBP also). There's really no point in taking time to tell her about the Horcruxes; he job (and it's important) is to protect the students and prepare for Voldemort's attack. I don't entirely approve of her methods and her attitude, but she does summon the Heads of Houses and order an evacuation of all but the of-age students. > > 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? Carol: I've commented on it, for one. I don't like her calling the Crucio gallant, and I don't like her following Harry's example by using an Unforgiveable Curse of her own. Harry's Imperius Curses in the Gringotts chapter were necessary; they were in immediate peril. McGonagall could have accomplished her goal in some other way. I think she just enjoyed making the man who had spat on her and Cruciod her students do her bidding like a humble House Elf. "Outrage" is too strong a word for my personal feelings, but annoyance and disappointment and disapproval, certainly. (And before anyone concludes that I sympathize in any way with Amycus or Alecto, let me make it clear that I despise them. I just think that the good guys should be nobler than their enemies and not use the Darkest curses without absolute necessity. It's not as if she weren't more than a match for both of them together just using Transfiguration!) > > 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to kill him at every turn? Carol: I think it has to do with Voldemort's being obviously back and Harry's returning to a school run by supposed Death Eater Snape, surely a desperate measure that he wouldn't take unless LV were really attacking. But, yes, the fact that Death Eaters could get into the school and Dumbledore could be killed and the fact that Harry has evaded the DEs for something like ten months would both predispose her to believe Harry in any case. > > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. Carol responds: It's possible that he can see through Invisibility Cloaks. Scenes in SS/PS and GoF suggest that possibility. Certainly he would know the spell that both Hermione and Travers use, Hominum Revelio, and we know he's an expert at nonverbal spells. On the tower, though, he wouldn't need a spell to know that Harry was there. He could deduce as much from the presence of a second broom. In this instance, I think he simply knows that Harry is coming (he'd have received the same message as the Carrows and expected him to show up in Ravenclaw tower). He may have even overheard Luna answering the riddle and letting herself and Harry into Ravenclaw tower. He seems to be looking around anxiously for Harry; his mind is clearly on the message he needs to deliver and not on what McGonagall is saying. (Of course, he snaps into action pretty quickly when he realizes that she wants to kill him!) > > 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his cover? Carol: Oh, my goodness, what a wide field for fanfic and speculation this question opens up! I would say that, yes, absolutely, he'd have blown his cover, even if it meant freezing Harry and forcing him to listen. He has one quick means of persuasion, his Patronus. I'm not sure that he would have told him "everything," meaning the whole story of his relationship with Lily, but he would have had to tell him why he killed Dumbledore at the very least. Maybe he would have forced him to enter the headmaster's office and talk to Dumbledore's portrait, but that seems unlikely. At any rate, once he mentioned Voldemort protecting Nagini and keeping her close, Harry would have been forced to listen. Only Dumbledore could have told Snape that such a thing might happen. And only Dumbledore would have told Snape that Harry had a soul bit in his scar. It would have been a challenge, but I think Snape could have managed it. Dumbledore, who could not have anticipated the circumstances of Snape's death, must have believed it, too. > > 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? Carol: I don't think it's part of his plan, which was only to talk to Harry. He doesn't yet know that Voldemort is keeping Nagini close, but clearly, it's now or never. I don't think he fights in the battle at all; I think he spends the time before Lucius Malfoy tells him that the Dark Lord wants to see him looking for Harry. That's his all-important mission. He knows it's dangerous but he's used to danger; I don't think he senses till he's in the Shrieking Shack that it will be his last. What he would have done if McGonagall hadn't driven him out, I don't know. He doesn't blow his cover to her, but he doesn't hurt her, either. (And, for crying out loud, McGonagall, the password to Snape's office is "Dumbledore!" How big a hint do you need?) I think he didn't dare to think or hope beyond the death of Voldemort. Then, maybe, he'd have thought about mundane matters like his career and reputation. Now, all that matters is that Harry get the message to sacrifice himself and defeat Voldemort by allowing the destruction of the soul bit. (I do wonder when, why, and how Snape learned to fly. If it's a "trick" that he learned from his "master," he must have been in high favor indeed with Voldemort, who didn't teach that skill to any other follower. But it's just possible that he taught himself based on Voldemort's example. It's probably wishful thinking in the extreme to think that maybe Voldemort copied him! > > 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. Would anyone have listened? Carol: I have very little empathy for Ginny, but I do know what it's like to be overprotected (in my case because I was a girl, even though I was the eldest child). And I have enough experience with sixteen-year-olds in general to know that most of them wouldn't listen to such an order. I would probably have had to rush out after my younger brother and sister and try to protect them. *They* wouldn't have listened for sure.) > > 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. Carol: I was sure he'd be back, and, no, I never thought that he was a Death Eater, only hurt by the way his family treated him, swollen with self-importance, and deluded (as Fudge was) by Dolores Umbridge. I thought he'd be the Weasley who died. I used to imagine his hand, and only his, on the Weasley clock moving to Mortal Peril as his mother watched in horror and his family realized, too late, that they loved him despite his pomposity, stubbornness, and devotion to the Ministry. His very real concern for Ron when he wades out into the water after the Second Task gave us a glimpse of the real Percy who loves his family and would risk death for them, as he does in DH. Interesting that it's Fred more than George who provides Percy with the opportunity to apologize, and I loved the way Percy responds, "Yes, I was" to Fred's list of transgressions: "Ministry-loving, family-disowning, power-hungry moron!" And, as Fred says, "You can't say fairer than that!" It's my favorite scene in an otherwise painful chapter. > 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? Carol: I think they figured that while Harry was busy looking for the Ravenclaw Horcrux, they'd better get busy and destroy the cup, which he obviously had no time to do. And Ron's experience destroying the locket Horcrux, including Harry's opening it using Parseltongue, would naturally have reminded him of his earlier experience with the Chamber of Secrets. (Remind me again, somebody, how they could have gotten back up the pipes into the girls' bathroom without Fawkes to carry them and without being able to Apparate inside Hogwarts.) > > 14.In my opinion, Harry's realization that Voldemort is outside of Hogwarts is one of the most important moments of the book. This is when he realizes that, whatever the outcome, the battle for the wizarding world is going to end tonight. What do you think? Why > did the Creatrix choose the end the chapter on this note? Carol responds: No idea, unless it's because the next chapter is "The Battle of Hogwarts" and everything that follows depends on Voldemort's being at the school. But whose murder is he contemplating, Harry's or Snape's? (Surely Harry's since it's Harry who's stolen the Horcruxes, but it's Snape who dies.) > > 15. The title of this chapter is "The Sacking of Severus Snape." What does that mean to you? What did you think it meant at the beginning of the chapter? What does it mean to you now? Carol responds: You have no idea how excruciating this chapter was for me when I first read it, having bought the book around 1 a.m., started reading it around 2 a.m., and gone not only without sleep but almost without food or water in my desperate need to know what would happen to all the characters, but most of all to Snape. In that dark hour--actually it was daytime, but it felt like deepest night--I thought I'd been betrayed again. First, JKR has Snape kill Dumbledore and now he's fighting McGonagall. He's wicked after all! Never trust to my sanity under such circumstances! After raging impotently for what seemed like an hour, I skipped ahead to "the Prince's Tale," read it through, realized that I'd put Percy Weasley to shame in my display of idiocy, reread the Snape scene, and then went on with the book. I still think that McGonagall got it wrong about the headmaster's having "done a bunk." If he'd survived the battle, he'd have returned to his position as headmaster. After all, Dumbledore frequently took unauthorized leaves of absence and no one ever accused him of dereliction of duty (not counting Lucius Malfoy in CoS). The main difference, I suppose, is that Dumbledore died on the school grounds; Snape died in the Shrieking Shack. Quite possibly the portraits or the headmaster's office itself didn't even know that he was dead, which would explain why his portrait didn't immediately appear. (Sorry. Jumping ahead.) At any rate, Snape was never "sacked." McGonagall was his subordinate, not the other way around. Nor did the Ministry, which hired him, ever fire him. It's just a provacative and alliterative title for the chapter. FWIW, I expected HBP to end with a sacking when some act of Snape's seemed to reveal him as a loyal DE. But as far as I'm concerned, Severus Snape was never sacked. He died as Hogwarts Headmaster. > > > 16.Anything else I missed? Are there any questions anyone had about this chapter that I didn't cover? Carol: Just the bits about Teddy's turquoise hair and Snape's being taught by his "master" to fly, both of which I've already mentioned. I'm reminded of Snape's use in HBP of "*your* master," not "our master," to Draco. Voldemort ceased to be Snape's master in terms of loyalty the moment he threatened Lily. > > Oryomai > Who attempted to keep her deep deep love of Severus Snape from completely taking over the chapter discussion! Carol: You did much better than I would have done. I could never have borne to write the chapter discussion for this chapter, and worse is to come. Carol, who will likewise attempt objectivity in her discussion of "The Prince's Tale" in November but won't try to match Oryomai's inimitable style! From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Thu Oct 2 04:02:35 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:02:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CAF25AD63E09C7-B40-1659@MBLK-M01.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > "Oryomai" wrote: > > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to > > open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? > > I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found > > her to be very smart. > Potioncat: > Now that's interesting. Can you tell us more about why you never > found her to be incredibly brave? zanooda: Yes, really, why :-)? I mean, she certainly could have been a Ravenclaw, but, come on, she is in the Order, she fights in every battle that ever happened at Hogwarts, and I personally think it was incredibly brave of her to stand up like that to Umbridge in OotP and to Carrow in DH. This is something I myself wouldn't be able to do, ever, so I believe it's courage, and nothing else :-). Oryomai: Gee...I didn't imagine I'd get so many questions about this question! I guess I never saw her as overtly brave. She might be a different kind of brave than the rest of the Gryffindors. I just never think of her in the same way that I think of Harry, Dumbledore, and company. She seems to be more on the brains side of the operation. I don't have any solid reason to think that she's not brave, she just never struck me as a dashing brave character. Oryomai --Thanks for all your comments on the summary/questions! From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Thu Oct 2 04:08:19 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:08:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: <959383.61938.qm@web56508.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CAF25BA334DCFF-B40-1685@MBLK-M01.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184505 Heather: 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. ? I have an idea about this. I think that it is Snape's Legamency (I know it isn't spelled right) that helps him with this. It would also explain why he never actually catches him. Everytime Harry comes across Snape while under the cloak, he is thinking really hard "don't let him catch me, etc..." and I think Snape picks up on that, but is unaware of the exact place that Harry is. Just my thought. Oryomai: Ooooh! I really like that idea! I haven't seen anyone else respond to it, so I wanted to say something. That actually makes a lot of sense. It would explain why he can't seem to figure out exactly where Harry is spatially. Can he use Legimency when he can't see someone? I can never remember if that happened in the books or there's movie poisoning. It would also help to push the idea that Harry *really* should've used Occulmency... Oryomai From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 2 12:42:48 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:42:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184506 Potioncat here, with answers to more questions. Why do these interesting threads come up on days I have to work! "Oryomai" wrote: > 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry > alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his ?? cover? Potioncat: I would like to know what JKR imagined to be in Snape's mind when he came looking for Harry. What was the "back story" to the scene? That is, what did Snape intend to do, and how did McGonagall's actions change Snape's options? I think his plan was to make sure the Carrows didn't get Harry. Capture Harry himself to get him to a safer place, then allow himself to be "overpowered" by Harry. If he had been willing to blow his cover at this point, he could have done so to McGonagall, but he stayed in DE Headmaster character. Snape may feel that it's important that Nagini is put under protection--as a sign--before he tells the tale. Yet Carol has a good point. If not now, when? LV is on his way. How would Snape be able to protect Harry without blowing his cover--even if he didn't tell Harry all the details? I wish Snape had said, "To hell with the cover. I'm Dumbledore's man!" > > 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this > was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was ?? before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? Potioncat: As in the Tower battle in HBP, Snape needed to get away without harming anyone. Flying out the window was his best bet at that moment. I'd like to know where he went. Was he one of the masked DEs fighting the Hogwarts army? Carol raised an interesting question. Did he learn to fly from LV? I thought the same thing that McGonagall did, that LV had taught him. Except I knew he was DD's man. That still makes sense. LV might have rewarded him by teaching him that skill. I don't think Snape would ever turn down the opportunity to learn more magic. > 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be > back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers > American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire > time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm ?? interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. Potioncat: I'm glad he came back. I always wanted him to. But I wish the story had been handled differently. It seemed to be resolved too quickly. > 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? ?? Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? Potioncat: Harry had things to do without them. They weren't just going to sit and wait for him to come back. I think JKR did a good job of having other characters play major roles in the outcomes--Luna with her spells, Ron and Hermione with the fangs, Neville with the sword. While Harry might be the Chosen One, he didn't do it all. > 15. The title of this chapter is "The Sacking of Severus Snape." > What does that mean to you? What did you think it meant at the ?? beginning of the chapter? What does it mean to you now? Potioncat: I read all the chapter titles before starting the book. I do that for the sheer anticipation of what's to come; the titles can be misleading so I don't feel I get "spoilers." I thought it was a good sign that Snape would be still in the story that far into the book---given the role he played at the end of HBP. I wasn't sure what he would be sacked from and hoped it didn't mean he would be killed. I thought sacking was too mild a word if death was involved, so I had my hopes. While I knew he could be foe, I was still convinced he was friend, so I hoped he was being "sacked" from the DE side. Of course, once I got into the story, I knew he was headmaster--and thought he would be removed from Hogwarts. I wasn't expecting anything like this chapter--and by this time the Doe Patronus had sealed his loyalty for me. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 17:29:19 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:29:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: <8CAF25BA334DCFF-B40-1685@MBLK-M01.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184507 > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. > Heather wrote: > I have an idea about this. I think that it is Snape's Legamency (I know it isn't spelled right) that helps him with this. It would also explain why he never actually catches him. Everytime Harry comes across Snape while under the cloak, he is thinking really hard "don't let him catch me, etc..." and I think Snape picks up on that, but is unaware of the exact place that Harry is. Just my thought. > Oryomai responded: > > Ooooh! I really like that idea! I haven't seen anyone else respond to it, so I wanted to say something. That actually makes a lot of sense. It would explain why he can't seem to figure out exactly where Harry is spatially. Can he use Legimency when he can't see someone? I can never remember if that happened in the books or there's movie poisoning. It would also help to push the idea that Harry *really* should've used Occulmency... Carol responds: One point I'd like to *disagree* with is the last sentence: Harry using Occlumency to prevent Snape from knowing where he is if Snape is indeed using Legilimency to know that Harry is present. I think it's a good thing that Snape know Harry is there, both on the Astronomy Tower in HBP (although the mere presence of two brooms and his knowledge of Harry's Invisibility cloak is sufficient to explain that one) and in the chapter under discussion. (If only he'd gotten Harry alone and conveyed the message to him without having to die to do it! Sidenote here: I don't think he was waiting to see Nagini in her bubble. He knew that the confrontation between Harry and Voldemort was imminent and that he *must* tell Harry now. His distraction from everything else is apparent both in his conversation with McGonagall before she attacks him and in his conversation [if we can call it that] with Voldemort, in which he keeps saying, "Let me find the boy.") However, I can think of two scenes that support the hypothesis that Snape somehow senses Harry's presence under the Invisibility Cloak, the one in the library with Quirrell in SS/PS (before we have any evidence that he knows about the Invisibility Cloak, though DD may have told him) and on the stairs with Fake!Moody in GoF. (He suspects that Harry is there because of the golden egg and knows for sure he's there when he sees the Marauder's Map, but it's possible that he senses of feels his presence as well.) More important to the hypothesis, Snape says during the Occlumency lessons in OoP that eye contact is *usually* necessary to Legilimency (the scar link and the Legilimens spell being obvious exceptions), but it's possible that his ability to sense Harry's presence is another exception. (Maybe he silently uses Hominum Revelio and the cloak, being Ignotus Peverell's, thwarts his ability to actually *see* Harry [unlike Fake!Moody, whose magical eye can see through even that supposedly special cloak], but not his ability to sense his presence. To answer your question whether Snape actually uses Legilimency when he can't see someone, he does seem to know Harry's thoughts when he's escorting him from the gate after the train incident with Draco: He tells Harry not to sneak into the Great Hall under the Invisibility Cloak. Of course, while that bit of mind reading could be Legilimency, it could also be Snape's knowledge of Harry, who has an Invisibility Cloak and really doesn't want to be seen at the moment. The bit about wanting to make an entrance could result from a confusion in Snape's mind (shared, with different results, by Sirius Black) between Harry and James--who would, most likely, have wanted to make a dramatic entrance (but not give away the secret of the Invisibility Cloak. for some reason, I'm reminded here of Bilbo's dramatic *dis*appearance, which achieved a similar effect without giving away the secret of the Ring.) As with Snape's loyalties (until "The Prince's Tale"), the evidence regarding the extent of his Legilimency (in contrast to his superb Occlumency, his mastery of Potions, his duelling abilities, and his knowledge of Dark magic and countermagic) remains ambiguous. (the man can fly without a broom! Who knows what else he can do?) Carol, not sure where she stands on this question but leaning toward this specific cloak thwarting Snape's ability to see under it combined with Legilimency enabling him to sense Harry's presence From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 18:08:52 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:08:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184508 Potioncat wrote: > As in the Tower battle in HBP, Snape needed to get away without harming anyone. Flying out the window was his best bet at that moment. I'd like to know where he went. Was he one of the masked DEs fighting the Hogwarts army? Carol responds: I agree that he wanted to get away without harming anyone (even though he again *looks like* a coward. Poor severus!). If he fought in the Hogwarts battle, he would have done the same thing, casting harmless spells or even Protegos to protect the Order and the students. But Harry didn't see him fighting and no one else mentions seeing him, and he couldn't be a masked DE because he was wearing his ordinary headmasters' or teachers' robes (black, to be sure, but probably different from DE robes), and where would he have found a mask? I think that one thing and one thing only was on his mind, as evidenced by his agitation, his looking around for Harry while he talked to McGonagall, apparently operating on auto-pilot while his thoughts were elsewhere, and his obsessive repetition of "Let me find the boy" even after Voldemort tells him "no." Now that he's seen Nagini in her bubble, he knows that it's all the more urgent. For that reason, I think he doesn't see his own danger or understand the importance of the wand until it's too late. And even then, dying, he makes sure that Harry receives the message. (Does he sense that Harry's there? It doesn't seem so.) At any rate, I think his one concern from the moment he learns that Harry will be coming to Ravenclaw Tower and Voldemort will be following is to get to Harry and give him that message before it's too late. Father than fighting with the DEs, trying to maintain his cover and risking being killed by McGonagall without fulfilling his mission, he would (IMO) have "slithered out of action" once again to look for Harry. Carol, preferring to interpret Snape's motives and actions her own way rather than having JKR's "definitive" version! From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 2 19:43:05 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:43:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184509 > Questions!! > 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it > notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to > help Harry out? Pippin: Luna was the only one of the DA not hurt in the raid on the Ministry. It's no surprise to me that she's a clever fighter. > > 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had > to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you > think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of > frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How > does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to > know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the > upcoming battle? Pippin: I think the Carrows knew that you have to answer a riddle to get into Ravenclaw Tower. Amycus knew that Alecto was there and would be able to let him in, so he didn't bring someone with him to solve the Riddle. Of course it would have done little good for Flitwick to refuse to let Alecto into the tower. She'd only have fetched a Slytherin to help her instead, and then she would have made sure that Flitwick's students paid for his insubordination. > > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt > that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A > Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the > added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, > in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by > Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching > methods!) Pippin: I don't know about the rush of affection itself being instrumental, but certainly it was Harry's personal feelings for McGonagall that touched Harry off. Otherwise he'd have probably used a stunning spell like Luna did. > > 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the > way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the > Horcrux? Pippin: Voldemort *is* on his way to Hogwarts, by way of the cave. Nothing he finds in the cave is going to divert him, quite the reverse. I'm not sure why you think Harry would want to lie to Professor McGonagall about this. > > 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using > the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? Pippin: The Imperius curse is a tinpot toy compared to the kind of mind control that Dumbledore and Voldemort exercise without using any magic at all. Then there's Hermione's memory modification of her parents, though there's no canon that she did it without their consent. In any case those feats of seemingly irresistible persuasion and mental tampering are so much more drastic than the Imperius curse that McGonagall seems relatively benign for using it. It also causes no pain and seems to have no lasting effects on most people when used briefly. > > 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall > *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the > school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it > have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has > managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to > kill him at every turn? Pippin: The Order was instructed to trust Harry Potter. She does. > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he > always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him > in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. Pippin: Hmmm...Voldemort isn't the only master Snape could learn things from. I'm guessing that Dumbledore taught Snape to see through the cloak before Harry ever got it. > 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry > alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his > cover? Pippin: He'd probably have used the silver doe to guide Harry to Dumbledore's office and let Dumbledore's portrait do the talking. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd set the password to "Dumbledore" so that Harry could get in. > 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this > was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was > before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? Pippin: Depending on how much detail about the Gringotts raid and Voldemort's reaction to it had reached Hogwarts, Dumbledore's portrait might guess that Voldemort had realized that Harry was after his horcruxes. But the status of Nagini would still be the best confirmation of it. So if Snape did have a chance to consult with Dumbledore's portrait after he was told that Harry might try to invade the school, he might have been told he needed to find out about the snake, ASAP. I think Snape could tell when he looked into Minerva's eyes that she'd attacked the Carrows. There would be no hiding from Voldemort that Hogwarts was in revolt. Snape and Dumbledore would have had a plan for that contingency as well. I assume that Snape knew that if he left the grounds with the intention never to return, the magic would consider that he had deserted his post and strip him of the Headmaster's powers. In that way, Voldemort would be forestalled from forcing Snape to disable the castle's defenses. > 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. > Would anyone have listened? Pippin: I'm sure Lupin figured she wouldn't stay in the RoR for long, and Ginny realized that as soon as the others left, she'd be able to go where she wished. > 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers > American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire > time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. Pippin: I was hoping he'd turn out to be Dumbledore's spy. But failing that, I figured he see reason sooner or later. Of course he'd return at the most dramatic moment possible. > > 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? > Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? Pippin: They did tell Ginny something about a bathroom. I'm guessing they thought that was a great big hint, but Ginny didn't get it. > > 14.In my opinion, Harry's realization that Voldemort is outside of > Hogwarts is one of the most important moments of the book. This is > when he realizes that, whatever the outcome, the battle for the > wizarding world is going to end tonight. What do you think? Why > did the Creatrix choose the end the chapter on this note? Pippin: Actually, I think Harry made that realization before. "You realize, of course, that nothing we do will be able to keep out You-Know-Who indefinitely?" squeaked Flitwick. "But we can hold him up," said Professor Sprout. "Thank you, Pomona," said Professor McGonagall, and a look of grim understanding passed between the two witches. Harry knows from that moment that he's in a race against time. Voldemort cannot be kept out for long and when he enters he will destroy anyone who offered resistance. McGonagall said previously that Voldemort will be at the gates, and as the chapter ends, he's there literally. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 2 22:21:37 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:21:37 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184510 > Montavilla47: > Again, you're limiting the choices, although extending them to > the concept of a "bribe." I notice that you skipped right over > the idea of talking to Petunia and letting her know what was > going on. You know, that approach did work with Snape, even > if he was bit distraught at the moment. Pippin: It worked with Snape? How? When did Snape ever abandon a grudge? Did Dumbledore ever get anyone to stop hating someone else? Petunia had no use at all for Dumbledore and still less for Lily or her child. What makes you think that Petunia would have listened? The narrator in PS/SS notes, ironically as it turns out, that Dumbledore did not seem to notice how completely unwelcome he would be at Privet Drive. I'm sure he knew already that Petunia wasn't about to invite any wizards in for tea. > Montavilla47: > I have news for you, Pippin. The people that love Harry are bullies. Pippin: Yes and no. Sirius qualifies, absolutely. But Neville? Luna? Dobby? A bully, according to the last article I read on the subject, is someone who habitually uses unjustified aggression towards a weaker person. I don't think that fits most of Harry's friends. Ginny, Ron and Hermione tend to answer verbal aggression with spells or blows -- that's detrimental to the public order (and any innocent bystanders who happen to be in the way) but is it bullying? I wouldn't say so, unless the aggression in question is coming from someone so much weaker that a threat from them could be justly ignored. Fred and George habitually picked on Percy, but they were pretty evenly matched, despite being two against one. Percy had age, authority, twelve OWLs worth of magic and Molly on his side. Hagrid and Dumbledore have the problem that they are unusually strong, in very different ways. They'd have a hard time finding someone their own size to pick on -- but Hagrid isn't habitually aggressive at all, IMO. He doesn't go around looking for trouble, though he's easily antagonized about some things. Whether Dumbledore would have been justified in being more aggressive towards the Dursleys is what we're discussing here. He's tried being more aggressive in the past: "The time is long gone when I could frighten you with a burning wardrobe and force you to make repayment for your crimes. But I wish I could, Tom....I wish I could...." One of the mixed blessings of growing old is that you've had a chance to try lots of things already. Dumbledore's tried scaring someone into changing his ways. It didn't work. Strangely enough, he's had better luck appealing to the best in people. Unfortunately in some cases, there's not a lot to work with. > Montavilla47: > I agree with you that the letter wasn't intended to get Harry > a bedroom. A letter addressed to Petunia and Vernon requesting > that Harry be put into a room, rather than a cupboard might have > had that effect. Pippin: The bedroom wouldn't mean anything unless it was accompanied by some actual interest in Harry's welfare. No amount of polite notes would convince the Dursleys to care about that. Dumbledore did ask that the Dursleys care for Harry as if he were their own. The question is, what should he have done when they showed they weren't going to do that? Montavilla: A visit from Dumbledore, explaining that no amount of negativity is going to squash the magic out of Harry might have had even more effect. Pippin: Don't you think it's a little odd that Lily, Hermione and Riddle had all realized that they could do strange things before they ever got their Hogwarts letter, while Harry's powers manifest so infrequently that he never figured out that he has them? I'm not at all sure that Harry's powers weren't suppressed, temporarily. And according to Jo, Harry's inability to do occlumency is a result of his mistreatment. > Montavilla47: > IIRC, they don't actually start starving Harry until they find out that he lied to them and pretended that he'd be able to hex them > any time he wanted to. Once they realized that he couldn't?and he > ruined Vernon's deal with his magic, they locked him in his room. > > It wasn't connected to the pig's tail, except in a most indirect > way. Pippin: But that's my point. The Dursleys already know that wizards can watch the house, pursue them to the most remote and unlikely locations, and inflict pain and disfigurement at will -- I'd be scared to death. And I'd stay scared. If a twelve foot bearded maniac knocked my door down, twisted a gun out of my hands, and gave my kid a pig's tail, I wouldn't forget about it in a hurry. But none of that stops the Dursleys from locking Harry in his room and feeding him soup once a day through a cat flap. Of course they're breaking Muggle laws and risking those penalties along with public disgrace. That doesn't stop them either. I doubt that anything less than constant supervision would make a dent in their behavior, and as we saw, Vernon couldn't take it. And he has a tendency to be violent. Perhaps he wouldn't be able to harm Harry. But what if he harmed Petunia? Or tried to? > > Montavilla47: > I don't think you can blame Harry's lack of hygiene on Petunia > and Vernon. They are, at that point, pretty much doing what > Harry wants, which is leaving him alone. The only thing they > are balking at is having him watch the news with them. How > are they supposed to force Harry to bathe? He's got a > murderous Godfather who'll hex them if they try. Pippin: They might, if they were such reasonable people as you suppose, tell Harry that he's allowed to watch the news if he will keep himself and his room cleaned up. > Montavilla47: > I don't believe I used the word bribe. That is your characterization of what could be a mutually beneficial relationship between Dumbledore and the Dursleys. It's not unreasonable for someone who assumes the care and feeding of a child to get financial support from someone who leaves them with that child. Pippin: What makes you think Vernon and Petunia would spend the money on Harry? And the trouble is, if Dumbledore could turn Petunia into a mushroom if she didn't, so could any other wizard. And that makes me wonder... Funny thing, or maybe not, that Harry's accidental magic blows up Aunt Marge, turns his teacher's wig blue, and frees a boa constrictor, but never does anything drastic to Dudley, Vernon or Tuney. It didn't occur to Petunia until Dudley was attacked that her own family might be in danger along with Harry. But surely Dumbledore must have been aware. If I were Dumbledore, I'd put have every shield charm he can think of on the Dursleys, though they might not be complete protection against unqualified wizards like the Twins and Hagrid. Still, maybe Hagrid didn't do such a bad job of trying to turn Dudley into a pig as he thought. Montavilla: It's also not unheard of for the person leaving the child to *ask* the other to take on the responsibility, rather than leaving the child on their doorstep in the middle of the night. Pippin: Petunia was asked, or the magic could not have taken effect. She had to *allow* Harry house room. It's not like she doesn't know how to get in touch with Dumbledore if she wants to talk. Pippin earlier: > > Young Dumbledore pretended to himself that a display of wizard power would be all it took to put the Muggles in their place, "only the force that was necessary and no more" all justified in the name of benefits for wizards. > > > > Grindelwald showed him how wrong he was. > > Montavilla47: > Really? When? I don't recall Grindelwald showing Dumbledore anything about Muggles. Pippin: I mean that when Grindelwald came to power, Dumbledore found that the "force that was necessary" to bring Muggles under wizard control was much greater than young Dumbledore had allowed himself to suppose. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 3 00:49:12 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:49:12 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184511 Pippin: The bedroom wouldn't mean anything unless it was accompanied by some actual interest in Harry's welfare. No amount of polite notes would convince the Dursleys to care about that. Alla: Yes, making Dursleys care about Harry's welfare would have been nice, but even if the only change would have been a bedroom instead of cupboard, I think it would have been a very welcome change for Harry. Pippin: What makes you think Vernon and Petunia would spend the money on Harry? Alla: What makes you think they would not? While I do not believe that they would have spent the money on personal gifts for Harry, something that would please him, I have no trouble believing that they may have spend it on the muggle school expenses for him for example, simply to decrease their own expenses. But again, we would never know, won't we? Dumbledore did not try. Pippin: And the trouble is, if Dumbledore could turn Petunia into a mushroom if she didn't, so could any other wizard. Alla: Yes, I am sure for example Sirius would have done it easily and would have wanted to, but Sirius was in Azkaban as we know, and who else who would have been sympathetic to Harry would have dared to overturn great Albus Dumbledore? Montavilla: It's also not unheard of for the person leaving the child to *ask* the other to take on the responsibility, rather than leaving the child on their doorstep in the middle of the night. Pippin: Petunia was asked, or the magic could not have taken effect. She had to *allow* Harry house room. It's not like she doesn't know how to get in touch with Dumbledore if she wants to talk. Alla: I am no Montavilla, but I think she meant asking Petunia in person and **before** she finds a child at her house. And why exactly the onus of looking for Dumbledore should be on her? Since when the host should be looking for somebody who put unwelcome gift and left? Shouldn't it be backwards? Again, not justifying Petunia at all. As far as I am concerned the only fact that Harry is a helpless baby who is her family should have been enough for her to welcome him. But the more I think about it, the more I think that by dropping Harry on their doorstep without as much as by your leave, Dumbledore behaved as obnoxious rude bully. JMO, Alla From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Fri Oct 3 04:57:27 2008 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:57:27 -0000 Subject: Which character inspired you or Compliment a character take 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184512 >Alla wrote: >So this should be easier than complimenting characters we dislike :) Me: You bet! LOL. >Alla wrote: >Pick one quality or action of the character you like and tell us >(with canon help of course) why you would want to have that >quality or maybe that you are happy that you have it already. >Please, stick to one quality for each character, but you can >mention as many characters as you wish. Me: Um, I like: * Hermione for the help she gave Hagrid in PoA despite her awful workload - I'm not sure if I have this in me; I'll try though * Remus Lupin for his gentle and calm approach towards handling things - Nice approach and I'd want to try out something similar * Harry for his ability to forgive (at least over time) and to save people in danger even if they meant to harm him just a second before - I think I have got some of this in me but Harry seems to be clearly a shade or two better than I am, IMO :) * Luna for her calm thinking and approach despite being in grave danger (reference: Malfoy Manor in DH) - Tough one; I need to try. * Ron for his ability to see the "other" perspective i.e. I'm quite Hermionish myself :-) and some of Ron's remarks about her made me realize a few things about myself. Hmmm... Interesting chap! :) * Dumbledore for his sense to allow people to refresh themselves before he gives his welcome speech - I hope I'm as thoughtful :) * Madam Pomfrey for her caring and healing nature and "she usually doesn't ask many questions" - I've got this I guess * Cedric for his fairplay in the Triwizard Tournament (especially in the final round) - I've got this I guess * Minerva for her handling of Umbridge during the inspection and during Harry's career discussion - I'm almost there :) * Kingsley for his attitude on equality of human lives irrespective of their birth - I've got this I guess * Neville for his spirit (especially OoTP onwards) - I'm almost there * Snape for his bravery - Tough one; I need to try. More later, may be. :) ~Joey, who thanks Alla for starting many interesting threads :-) From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 3 17:39:21 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:39:21 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184514 > > Montavilla47: > > Again, you're limiting the choices, although extending them to > > the concept of a "bribe." I notice that you skipped right over > > the idea of talking to Petunia and letting her know what was > > going on. You know, that approach did work with Snape, even > > if he was bit distraught at the moment. > > Pippin: > It worked with Snape? How? When did Snape ever abandon a grudge? Did > Dumbledore ever get anyone to stop hating someone else? Montavilla47: I was speaking of the time immediately after Lily's death when Dumbledore persuades Snape to go beyond his grief in order to protect Lily's son. I'd say that worked. It didn't stop Snape from hating Harry, but it did channeled his energies toward looking after the boy. Pippin: > Petunia had no use at all for Dumbledore and still less for Lily or > her child. What makes you think that Petunia would have > listened? The narrator in PS/SS notes, ironically as it turns out, > that Dumbledore did not seem to notice how completely unwelcome he > would be at Privet Drive. I'm sure he knew already that Petunia wasn't > about to invite any wizards in for tea. Montavilla47: There's canonical evidence that Petunia would have listened to Dumbledore. There is their previous correspondence (when she wrote and asked to be allowed to attend Hogwarts), and there is the howler he sends in OotP. It probably wouldn't have been an easy conversation, but then, there are times when one has to choose because what is right, and what is easy. Telling someone in person that their sister has died is the right thing to do. > > Montavilla47: > > I have news for you, Pippin. The people that love Harry are bullies. > > Pippin: > Yes and no. > > Sirius qualifies, absolutely. But Neville? Luna? Dobby? Montavilla47: Add to Sirius the names of Dumbledore, Fred, George, James, Molly, and Tonks (although maybe she doesn't actually *love* Harry). Dumbledore bullies Snape for years, and he bullies the Dursleys during the only interactions we see between them (sending a howler is a form of bullying). Fred and George bully Percy, Neville, and nameless first years (and Malcolm Baddock). James bullied Snape and other nameless students. Molly bullies the twins. Tonks bullies Lupin into resuming their relationship immediately after Dumbledore's death. I consider what Hermone does to Marietta bullying behavior, along it is much sneakier than straightforward aggression. Pippin: > A bully, according to the last article I read on the subject, is > someone who habitually uses unjustified aggression towards a weaker > person. I don't think that fits most of Harry's friends. Montavilla47: The problem is what you consider "unjustified." Hermione uses aggression sometimes when the circumstances demand it, but usually over-responds. For example, in retribution for Rita writing lies (which do cause Hermione a great deal of pain), she kidnaps and blackmails the reporter, essentially turning Rita into her pawn. Marietta's betrayal of the D.A. was answered with permanent facial disfigurement. Pippin: > Ginny, Ron and Hermione tend to answer verbal aggression with spells > or blows -- that's detrimental to the public order (and any innocent > bystanders who happen to be in the way) but is it bullying? I wouldn't > say so, unless the aggression in question is coming from someone so > much weaker that a threat from them could be justly ignored. Montavilla47: >From what I see, Hermione tends to answer verbal aggression by cowering and saying, "It doesn't matter." Unless it's Ron's, in which case her responses run the gamut from answering back, to running off to cry, to contemptuous silence. I forgot about Ginny! As I recall, Ginny hexes Zacharias Smith for asking questions about something everyone is curious about and attacks him physically for expressing his negative opinion about her Quidditch team. If you look at her dialogue throughout OotP and HBP, you'll notice that she rarely mentions anyone without insulting them in some way. (For example, she's the first one in the books to refer to Luna as "Loony".) Pippin: > Fred and George habitually picked on Percy, but they were pretty > evenly matched, despite being two against one. Percy had age, > authority, twelve OWLs worth of magic and Molly on his side. Montavilla47: Yet, Percy never uses any of those things. Instead, he fumes impotently while subjected to an unending series of practical jokes. The punishment they dole out to Percy is never justified. It's all based on the very idea that Percy takes pride in things they think are stupid (i.e., his Prefect status, Headboy status, and Ministry duties). Pippin: > Hagrid and Dumbledore have the problem that they are unusually strong, > in very different ways. They'd have a hard time finding someone their > own size to pick on -- but Hagrid isn't habitually aggressive at all, > IMO. He doesn't go around looking for trouble, though he's easily > antagonized about some things. Montavilla47: I don't think that "picking on someone your own size" is what separates a non-bully from a bully. I think it's a matter of imposing your will on others through intimidation, manipulation, or aggression OR excessively punishing others for their "transgressions" (especially in the cases when you are acting as judge, jury, and executioner). If people fight, that's one thing. I don't, for example, think that Ginny's fight with Ron constitutes bullying on either side (although Ron certainly has no business calling Ginny a... whatever it was he was going to call her). It was a fight, pure and simple. Nor would it be bullying for James and Severus to fight each other one-on-one. But what James and Sirius did in SWM was definitely bullying, never mind whether Snape was a match for them or not. Pippin: > Whether Dumbledore would have been justified in being more aggressive > towards the Dursleys is what we're discussing here. Montavilla47: No. That's what you're limiting the discussion to. My point is that Dumbledore could have been more *engaged* with the Dursleys (without necessarily being more aggressive). Pippin: > He's tried being more aggressive in the past: "The time is long gone > when I could frighten you with a burning wardrobe and force you to > make repayment for your crimes. But I wish I could, Tom....I wish I > could...." Montavilla47: Hmmm. Sounds like the only thing keeping Dumbledore from being more aggressive with Tom is Tom's magical power. In other words, if Dumbledore *could* bully Tom, he'd be quite happy to do so. Sounds like he thinks that would be an effective solution, too. If he were magically powerful enough to do so. :) Pippin: > One of the mixed blessings of growing old is that you've had a chance > to try lots of things already. Dumbledore's tried scaring someone into > changing his ways. It didn't work. Strangely enough, he's had better > luck appealing to the best in people. Unfortunately in some cases, > there's not a lot to work with. Montavilla47: And as far as we can tell, he didn't try at all in the case of the Dursleys. So, we'll never know if it would have worked or not. > > Montavilla47: > > I agree with you that the letter wasn't intended to get Harry > > a bedroom. A letter addressed to Petunia and Vernon requesting > > that Harry be put into a room, rather than a cupboard might have > > had that effect. > > Pippin: > The bedroom wouldn't mean anything unless it was accompanied by some > actual interest in Harry's welfare. No amount of polite notes would > convince the Dursleys to care about that. Montavilla47: It seemed to mean something to Harry. Pippin: > Dumbledore did ask that the Dursleys care for Harry as if he were > their own. The question is, what should he have done when they showed > they weren't going to do that? Montavilla47: Something other than what he did. Which was nothing. > Montavilla: > A visit from Dumbledore, explaining that no amount of negativity is > going to squash the magic out of Harry might have had even more effect. > > Pippin: > Don't you think it's a little odd that Lily, Hermione and Riddle had > all realized that they could do strange things before they ever got > their Hogwarts letter, while Harry's powers manifest so infrequently > that he never figured out that he has them? > > I'm not at all sure that Harry's powers weren't suppressed, > temporarily. And according to Jo, Harry's inability to do occlumency > is a result of his mistreatment. Montavilla47: Which is odd, when I think about it, because I think Snape's ability to Occlume is linked to his unhappy childhood. I would guess that he learned to shut down his feelings in response to his father's temper. > > Montavilla47: > > IIRC, they don't actually start starving Harry until they find out > that he lied to them and pretended that he'd be able to hex them > > any time he wanted to. Once they realized that he couldn't?and he > > ruined Vernon's deal with his magic, they locked him in his room. > > > > It wasn't connected to the pig's tail, except in a most indirect > > way. > > Pippin: > But that's my point. The Dursleys already know that wizards can watch > the house, pursue them to the most remote and unlikely locations, and > inflict pain and disfigurement at will -- I'd be scared to death. And > I'd stay scared. If a twelve foot bearded maniac knocked my door down, > twisted a gun out of my hands, and gave my kid a pig's tail, I > wouldn't forget about it in a hurry. > > But none of that stops the Dursleys from locking Harry in his > room and feeding him soup once a day through a cat flap. > Of course they're breaking Muggle laws and risking those penalties > along with public disgrace. That doesn't stop them either. Montavilla47: Right. Because, other than the OWL that blames Harry for any magic that happens at 4 Privet Drive, there is no oversight. Not to link this to present day events, but I just heard a vice-presidential candidate blame the credit crisis on a failure on the part of government to provide oversight on the financial institutions of our country. Now, we know that Dumbledore was aware of what was going on at the Dursley's, because Arabella Figg was there to spy on them. But he apparently did nothing on that information. The Hagrid incident did keep the Dursleys from putting Harry back in the cupboard. (That, and it would be harder for Harry to pretend he didn't exist if he were rattling the cups everytime he moved in that cramped little space during Vernon's important client dinner!) Pippin: > I doubt that anything less than constant supervision would make a dent > in their behavior, and as we saw, Vernon couldn't take it. And he has > a tendency to be violent. Perhaps he wouldn't be able to harm Harry. > But what if he harmed Petunia? Or tried to? Montavilla47: But there was a presence right there on the street who could have provided constant supervision, Arabella Figg. And, as for Vernon taking it, what choice would he have had? And, as far as harming Harry, doesn't the blood protection extend to Vernon? I mean, is it only Voldemort that the blood charm protects Harry from? Or is it all Death Eaters? Or is it all people? How the hell does that blood protection work, anyway? The idea that Vernon would take it out on Petunia is a bit absurd. It's quite obvious that Vernon is more under Petunia's power than she under his. He's the one who is afraid to tell her that weird cloaked people are talking about the Potters. He's the one who buckles when, in OotP, she tells him that Harry has to stay. > > Montavilla47: > > I don't think you can blame Harry's lack of hygiene on Petunia > > and Vernon. They are, at that point, pretty much doing what > > Harry wants, which is leaving him alone. The only thing they > > are balking at is having him watch the news with them. How > > are they supposed to force Harry to bathe? He's got a > > murderous Godfather who'll hex them if they try. > > Pippin: > They might, if they were such reasonable people as you suppose, tell > Harry that he's allowed to watch the news if he will keep himself and > his room cleaned up. Montavilla47: Then again, they might be afraid that if they do, he'll call on his murderous godfather to turn them into hedgehogs. Then again, perhaps he reeks so badly that the thought of allowing him to sit in the living room for an hour is too much to bear. :) My point isn't that the Dursleys are perfectly reasonable people. My point is that you seem to think that the Dursleys will only respond to threats, and then only for a short period of time. And, as the books show, no one *ever* tries any approach other than either ignoring them or threatening them, and they do respond to the threats. They respond so well that by PoA, they are effectively neutered. Harry and Vernon do negotiate an agreement (that Harry considers pretty good), in which Harry agrees not to hide his magical nature around Vernon's sister in return for Vernon signing his permission form. In GoF, Vernon has no choice about allowing Harry attend the QWC. If Harry had really pushed the thing about listening to the news in OotP, Vernon would have had to let him. I think Harry simply preferred to be anti-social. He was, after all, fifteen. > > Montavilla47: > > I don't believe I used the word bribe. That is your > characterization of what could be a mutually beneficial relationship > between Dumbledore and the Dursleys. It's not unreasonable for > someone who assumes the care and feeding of a child to get financial > support from someone who leaves them with that child. > > Pippin: > What makes you think Vernon and Petunia would spend the money on > Harry? And the trouble is, if Dumbledore could turn Petunia into a > mushroom if she didn't, so could any other wizard. Montavilla47: I have no idea whether Vernon and Petunia would have spent the money on Harry. However, they were already spending money on Harry as it was. Granted, it was as little money as possible, but they did have to buy some food for him, and presumably he wasn't wearing Dudley's old underwear in addition to his clothes. But we'll never know, will we? > Montavilla: > It's also not unheard of for the person leaving the child to *ask* > the other to take on the responsibility, rather than leaving the child > on their doorstep in the middle of the night. > > Pippin: > Petunia was asked, or the magic could not have taken effect. She had > to *allow* Harry house room. It's not like she doesn't know how to get > in touch with Dumbledore if she wants to talk. Montavilla47: Sorry. I meant "ask in person." Heh. I wonder what would have happen to Dumbledore's plan if Petunia had dropped Harry on the nearest orphanage's doorstep. > Pippin earlier: > > > Young Dumbledore pretended to himself that a display of wizard > power would be all it took to put the Muggles in their place, "only > the force that was necessary and no more" all justified in the name > of benefits for wizards. > > > > > > Grindelwald showed him how wrong he was. > > > > Montavilla47: > > Really? When? I don't recall Grindelwald showing Dumbledore > anything about Muggles. > > Pippin: > I mean that when Grindelwald came to power, Dumbledore found that the > "force that was necessary" to bring Muggles under wizard control was > much greater than young Dumbledore had allowed himself to suppose. Montavilla47: Did Grindelwald actually have anything to do with Muggles when he came to power? I don't think we know enough about his reign of terror to know. For all we do know, it could have been (as Voldemort's reign was) limited mostly to the wizards. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Oct 4 02:41:15 2008 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 02:41:15 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184515 > Montavilla: > It's also not unheard of for the person leaving the child to *ask* > the other to take on the responsibility, rather than leaving the child > on their doorstep in the middle of the night. > > Pippin: > > Petunia was asked, or the magic could not have taken effect. She had > to *allow* Harry house room. It's not like she doesn't know how to get > in touch with Dumbledore if she wants to talk. > > Alla: > > I am no Montavilla, but I think she meant asking Petunia in person > and **before** she finds a child at her house. And why exactly the > onus of looking for Dumbledore should be on her? Since when the host > should be looking for somebody who put unwelcome gift and left? > Shouldn't it be backwards? > > Again, not justifying Petunia at all. As far as I am concerned the > only fact that Harry is a helpless baby who is her family should have > been enough for her to welcome him. But the more I think about it, > the more I think that by dropping Harry on their doorstep without as > much as by your leave, Dumbledore behaved as obnoxious rude bully. > Hickengruendler: And not only that, I assume it must also have been a very "unusual" way to find out, that your only sister just died. Even for Petunia. Whatever Petunia's sins towards Harry are, and I agree that there are plenty, at the time the first chapter took place she wasn't yet guilty of anything except holding an extraordinary strong grudge towards Lily and cutting ties with her. So I think that she very well deserved to be told in person, that her sister just died. I mean, just imagine finding a letter on your doorstep, where it says, that your closest remaining relative just died. Some kind words from the "Epitome of Goodness" wouldn't have been out of place I think. Not even for Petunia. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 4 03:28:39 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 03:28:39 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184516 > > Alla: > > > > I am no Montavilla, but I think she meant asking Petunia in person > > and **before** she finds a child at her house. And why exactly the > > onus of looking for Dumbledore should be on her? Since when the > host > > should be looking for somebody who put unwelcome gift and left? > > Shouldn't it be backwards? > > > > Again, not justifying Petunia at all. As far as I am concerned the > > only fact that Harry is a helpless baby who is her family should > have > > been enough for her to welcome him. But the more I think about it, > > the more I think that by dropping Harry on their doorstep without > as > > much as by your leave, Dumbledore behaved as obnoxious rude bully. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > And not only that, I assume it must also have been a very "unusual" > way to find out, that your only sister just died. Even for Petunia. > Whatever Petunia's sins towards Harry are, and I agree that there are > plenty, at the time the first chapter took place she wasn't yet > guilty of anything except holding an extraordinary strong grudge > towards Lily and cutting ties with her. So I think that she very well > deserved to be told in person, that her sister just died. I mean, > just imagine finding a letter on your doorstep, where it says, that > your closest remaining relative just died. Some kind words from > the "Epitome of Goodness" wouldn't have been out of place I think. > Not even for Petunia. Montavilla47: Not to mention that she hadn't exactly broken all ties to Lily. After all, she had sent her sister an ugly vase. So, they were at least on an ugly Christmas present basis. :) From georgew at tesco.net Fri Oct 3 12:07:26 2008 From: georgew at tesco.net (George) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:07:26 -0000 Subject: character/place names? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184517 Hi everyone, having read 6 and a half HP books since the names come from places I am wondering if JK has ever been to Kuala Lumpar to visit the "pEtronas" towers I thought rather Harry Potterish so I grabbed one of my books to check the spelling it's an e rather than an a as in patronas !!! george. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 4 04:38:53 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 04:38:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184518 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I don't like anything about that scene, especially Harry's > attacking from under the Invisibility Cloak: If you're going > to use an Unforgiveable Curse, at least let the victim (however > deserving of his pain) see his attacker. Harry didn't attack Carrow from under the Cloak, he took it off (p.593). Of course, Carrow wasn't looking his way, so it doesn't make real difference :-). However, before attacking, Harry said his "You shouldn't have done that" line, and for someone with quicker reflexes than Carrow (someone like Snape, for example :-)) this would have given enough time to react and defend himself. zanooda, who just wanted to point out that Harry attacked Carrow *not entirely* without a warning ... :-) From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 4 06:02:45 2008 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:02:45 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look In-Reply-To: <00db01c921b0$f7030220$4001a8c0@Pensieve> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184519 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > Here is what I found myself wishing for. It is an absurd fantasy of > > mine, I know, but I can dream, right? I wish Molly and Arthur had been > > here under invisibility cloak and I wish they heard Dumbledore's cold > > account that he knew perfectly well who almost killed their son. > > > > I would not mind for Katie's parents to be here too, it is just > > Weasleys I know well. I wonder if we would not have got something > > similar that Moley said to Bella in book 7. That was my son. You... > > something. > > > > Oh well, dreams, dreams. > > > > > > Sherry now: > Yes. DD lost his glow for me forever with confirmation in DH, that he had > known Draco's task all along and had just let a potential murderer run amuck > in a school full of children, even nearly killing two of them. The oh so > touching scene in the King's cross chapter of DH did nothing to repair DD's > image for me. His actions were unforgivable for me, both in asking Snape to > kill him, in letting Draco run loose in the school and, well, don't even get > me started on Harry! I had begun having some doubts about DD ever since we > learned about Sirius' history, but the revelations in DH finished him for > me. > > Sherry > I fully agree. I confess that the last two books in the series have left me feeling that I'm in a foreign country with no hope of ever understanding the language, especially when the majority of people who have read all seven books seem to be okay with how the arc of the series ended. I fully agree with the idea that an author has the right to take his/her creations in whatever direction makes the most sense to him/her. But, in the grand Harry Potter scheme, I'm not one who is thrilled with where we ended up. Having said that, I also have lost any positive feelings I had for Dumbledore after the last book. Marianne From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 4 12:52:35 2008 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:52:35 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184520 > > > Alla: > > > > > > I am no Montavilla, but I think she meant asking Petunia in person > > > and **before** she finds a child at her house. And why exactly the > > > onus of looking for Dumbledore should be on her? Since when the > > host > > > should be looking for somebody who put unwelcome gift and left? > > > Shouldn't it be backwards? > > > > > > Again, not justifying Petunia at all. As far as I am concerned the > > > only fact that Harry is a helpless baby who is her family should > > have > > > been enough for her to welcome him. But the more I think about it, > > > the more I think that by dropping Harry on their doorstep without > > as > > > much as by your leave, Dumbledore behaved as obnoxious rude bully. > > > > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > And not only that, I assume it must also have been a very "unusual" > > way to find out, that your only sister just died. Even for Petunia. > > Whatever Petunia's sins towards Harry are, and I agree that there are > > plenty, at the time the first chapter took place she wasn't yet > > guilty of anything except holding an extraordinary strong grudge > > towards Lily and cutting ties with her. So I think that she very well > > deserved to be told in person, that her sister just died. I mean, > > just imagine finding a letter on your doorstep, where it says, that > > your closest remaining relative just died. Some kind words from > > the "Epitome of Goodness" wouldn't have been out of place I think. > > Not even for Petunia. > > Montavilla47: > Not to mention that she hadn't exactly broken all ties to Lily. After > all, she had sent her sister an ugly vase. So, they were at least > on an ugly Christmas present basis. :) Ceridwen: I'm leaving the comments in because I completely agree with them and don't want to repeat the good points brought out. When I first read this scene, it struck me as some sort of pseudo- divine intervention, a fairy-gift, or something of that nature. As the series progressed, the whole Statute of Secrecy thing tended to justify not approaching the Muggles. But as the series wound down, as well as retroactive notice of mentions throughout that Petunia, as Lily's sister, knew about the WW, and Vernon knew about it too, I believe that Dumbledore acted rudely here as well. Petunia, Vernon and, later, Dudley, have things they need to answer for, but at this point they do not. Dumbledore was the last person who was qualified to pass judgement on them. I think this is one of those things that are looked back on in a different light after the complete revelation at the end. This was one of Dumbledore's huge mistakes, and it's one he never seems to recognize judging by his treatment of the Dursleys in HBP, and by his never intervening during Harry's first ten or so years with the Dursleys. I think he went to his grave completely clueless about at least this one huge, glaring wrong. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 4 20:03:52 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:03:52 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184521 Alla: > > > > > > > > I am no Montavilla, but I think she meant asking Petunia in > person and **before** she finds a child at her house. Pippin: You think that would have gone well? Sometimes a letter is better than a face-to-face meeting -- it gives everyone a chance to think things over and not react in a knee-jerk way. It would be nice if Dumbledore could "engage" with Petunia, but they were way past that, IMO. In the unlikely event that Petunia could be charmed, baby Harry would be better equipped to do it than that "weirdo" Albus Dumbledore. I see huge differences between Snape, wishing he could die with grief and remorse, and Petunia, who had everything she wanted. Vernon and Petunia were *not* sorry that Lily died. "the world's better off without them in my opinion -- asked for all they got, getting mixed up with these wizarding types--just what I expected, always knew they'd come to a sticky end--", "just as strange, just as -- as-- *abnormal* and then, if you please, she went and got herself blown up." Petunia had been waiting for years to have her say -- do you think she could have kept from saying it to Dumbledore? We've heard Dumbledore react to talk like that, "You disgust me." James and Lily were close to him. I don't think he would have been any happier with Petunia than he was with Snape. Snape took it. He was already disgusted with himself, he was desperate, and he had some respect for Dumbledore's opinions. But as far as the Dursleys are concerned, Albus Dumbledore is "SOME CRACKPOT OLD FOOL". He's not *their* epitome of goodness. Alla: > > > > Again, not justifying Petunia at all. As far as I am concerned the only fact that Harry is a helpless baby who is her family should have been enough for her to welcome him. Pippin: But it wasn't, more the reverse, IMO. I think the only reason Petunia took Harry in is that Dumbledore's letter convinced her he'd be murdered in a heartbeat if she didn't. There's Petunia, wishing with all her heart that she didn't have a sister, and then...she doesn't. Of course Lily's death wasn't remotely her fault, but it wouldn't feel like that (funny how non-magical people are just as prone to magical thinking) -- and she'd know that it *would* be her fault if she could save Harry and she didn't. I don't think Harry's kinship to Lily was a plus at all -- she'd have treated him far better if he hadn't been related to her "dratted sister." She was a miserably incompetent parent, but she wasn't intentionally cruel to children generally. You keep saying, Alla, that Dumbledore should have *tried*. But it's worse than pointless to try something that you have every reason to believe is going to make things worse. It's possible, under certain circumstances, to put out a fire with gasoline, IIRC. But I wouldn't advise anyone to try it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 4 21:37:29 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:37:29 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184522 > Alla: > > > > > > > > > > I am no Montavilla, but I think she meant asking Petunia in > > person and **before** she finds a child at her house. > > Pippin: > You think that would have gone well? Alla: At a risk of sounding like a parrot, I think he did not try. Pippin: > Sometimes a letter is better than a face-to-face meeting -- it gives > everyone a chance to think things over and not react in a knee-jerk > way. It would be nice if Dumbledore could "engage" with Petunia, but > they were way past that, IMO. Alla: They were way past the possibility of Dumbledore having a decency to inform Petunia in person that her sister had died and asking her to take her nephew? What are you basing that on? They had what one letter exchange, Dumbledore and Petunia, I mean and that's how Dumbledore decided that Petunia is a lost cause and he just can't be bothered to tell her that her sister died in person and just has to dump Harry on her doorstep? Pippin: > In the unlikely event that Petunia could be charmed, baby Harry would > be better equipped to do it than that "weirdo" Albus Dumbledore. Alla: Really, based on her treatment of Harry I have not noticed her being particularly charmed by him and again, Dumbledore did not try. Pippin: > I see huge differences between Snape, wishing he could die with grief > and remorse, and Petunia, who had everything she wanted. Alla: I do to, I do not believe however that those differences mean that Dumbledore just could not have a conversation with Petunia. Pippin: > Vernon and Petunia were *not* sorry that Lily died. > > "the world's better off without them in my opinion -- asked for all > they got, getting mixed up with these wizarding types--just what I > expected, always knew they'd come to a sticky end--", > > "just as strange, just as -- as-- *abnormal* and then, if you please, > she went and got herself blown up." > > Petunia had been waiting for years to have her say -- do you think she > could have kept from saying it to Dumbledore? Alla: I do not know. I kept not believing and not believing when people were arguing that this speech feels suspiciously like someone who **was** sorry and kept coming up with the reasons to cover up grief and denial. I am still not totally convinced, especially based on her treatment of Harry, but I think argument has merit now. Pippin: > We've heard Dumbledore react to talk like that, "You disgust me." > James and Lily were close to him. I don't think he would have been any > happier with Petunia than he was with Snape. Alla: And that's fine. If he tried and Petunia gave him that crap, I would be totally okay with him saying you disgust me. Petunia would have disgusted me as well. He did not try though. Pippin: > You keep saying, Alla, that Dumbledore should have *tried*. But > it's worse than pointless to try something that you have every reason > to believe is going to make things worse. It's possible, under > certain circumstances, to put out a fire with gasoline, IIRC. But I > wouldn't advise anyone to try it. Alla: Well, you see Pippin, even if I saw any canon support that Dumbledore **believed in good faith** that talking with Petunia in person and telling her that her sister died and asking her to take Harry in, even if I saw that, which I did not, I still say that he should have tried. Do you know why? Because if person believes in good faith that telling the sister of the deceased that her sister is died, and that asking her to take her nephew in, to ask her if she needs financial assistance, etc, I think the person who believes that doing all these things is going to make matters worse is **wrong**, period, end of story. Of course this is all my opinion only. So if great Abus Dumbledore believed all that in good faith, which as I said before I see no evidence whatsoever in canon, I think he was dead wrong. I believe that he thought that he knows better and people should and will follow his plans, because those people will have no choice, that's it. And again, I am not arguing totally identical position to Montavilla, I agree with her that Dumbledore should have done something, I do not mind that he should have tried persuasion, anything to help Harry. BUT if persuasion would not have worked, I do think that Dumbledore should have used force, lots of it. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 4 23:02:24 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:02:24 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184523 > Alla: > > They were way past the possibility of Dumbledore having a decency to inform Petunia in person that her sister had died and asking her to take her nephew? > > What are you basing that on? They had what one letter exchange, > Dumbledore and Petunia, I mean and that's how Dumbledore decided that Petunia is a lost cause and he just can't be bothered to tell her that her sister died in person and just has to dump Harry on her > doorstep? Pippin: Dumbledore did try to reach out to Petunia in his first letter, which Lily says was very kind. But Petunia did not want to be friends with a Dumbledore who could not teach her magic. Instead she decided that magical people were freaks and not worth being friends with. She kept that attitude consistently over the next ten years, AFAWK. Lily wasn't making a secret of her problems with her sister -- why wouldn't Dumbledore know about them? Hagrid says they were close, and he doesn't seem to be wrong about things like that. The ugly vase is the canon that Petunia's attitude didn't change. It's not quite as blunt as a handful of maggots courtesy of Kreacher, but it's the same idea, along with all the other non-presents that Petunia would later send to Harry, or the teeny Easter Egg Hermione would get from Molly. You probably know that to cut someone out of a will, you're supposed to leave them a dollar so that the slighted heir can't claim he was disinherited by accident? Well, this is the same idea, IMO. Lily got a non-present, so as to make clear it wasn't a case of Petunia accidentally forgetting to send one. Nasty. And before you ask, I don't think it was a case of Petunia having no taste. Petunia's house is not full of ugly vases. > Alla: > > I do not know. I kept not believing and not believing when people > were arguing that this speech feels suspiciously like someone who > **was** sorry and kept coming up with the reasons to cover up grief > and denial. I am still not totally convinced, especially based on her treatment of Harry, but I think argument has merit now. Pippin: Oh my, when I think of all the characters we supposed were only faking hatred -- but there really weren't any, were there? No one, *no one* speaks ill in death of a person they actually loved. Snape did it, offpage, to convince Voldemort that he was over Lily, but we aren't shown that. > Alla: > > And that's fine. If he tried and Petunia gave him that crap, I would be totally okay with him saying you disgust me. Petunia would have disgusted me as well. He did not try though. Pippin: Oh, me too. I'm glad we agree on something. But telling people they disgust you is not a good way to get them to do favors for you, and that is why, IMO, he dared not try. At the risk of sounding like a parrot, Dumbledore cannot force Petunia to take Harry or keep him, and still get the love protection which is the point of the whole thing. The longer Harry stayed at Privet Drive without Voldemort coming after him, the less likely it would seem to Petunia that he really needed her help to survive. She wouldn't even have to send Harry back or drop him at an orphanage to break the blood protection. All she would have to do is leave the house with no intention of returning. Dumbledore would have had to tell her that, to make sure she didn't break the charm by accident. I wonder what canon you have that Dumbledore absolutely knew that under no circumstances would Petunia refuse to shelter Harry? It's common practice, in the WW, for families to give their Squib children to Muggles to raise, so why would Dumbledore think that Muggles wouldn't behave the same way? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 5 00:43:45 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:43:45 -0000 Subject: character/place names? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184524 George wrote: Hi everyone, > > having read 6 and a half HP books since the names come from places I am wondering if JK has ever been to Kuala Lumpar to visit the "pEtronas" towers I thought rather Harry Potterish so I grabbed one of my books to check the spelling it's an e rather than an a as in patronas !!! > > george. > Carol responds: Hi, George. If you haven't finished DH (Deathly Hallows), you might want to come back to us after you've completed your reading as we tend to include a lot of spoilers in our posts. That said, I do want to respond to your question. I have no idea whether JKR has visited Kuala Lumpur (my guess is that she hasn't), but I can tell you that "Patronus" is not a place name. It's a Latin masculine noun meaning "patron" or "protector." A Patronus, of course, is a spirit guardian, so the name makes sense. (I see conceptual connections with patron saints and guardian angels, but, of course, there are marked differences, too.) Carol, hoping that you enjoy the last half of DH and hoping that we haven't spoiled it for you! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 5 01:35:51 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:35:51 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184525 Alla wrote: > > They were way past the possibility of Dumbledore having a decency to inform Petunia in person that her sister had died and asking her to> take her nephew? > > They had what one letter exchange, Dumbledore and Petunia, I mean and that's how Dumbledore decided that Petunia is a lost cause and he just can't be bothered to tell her that her sister died in person and just has to dump Harry on her doorstep? > Because if person believes in good faith that telling the sister of the deceased that her sister is died, and that asking her to take her nephew in, to ask her if she needs financial assistance, etc, I think the person who believes that doing all these things is going to make matters worse is **wrong**, period, end of story. Of course this is all my opinion only. > And again, I am not arguing totally identical position to Montavilla, I agree with her that Dumbledore should have done something, I do not mind that he should have tried persuasion, anything to help Harry. > > BUT if persuasion would not have worked, I do think that Dumbledore should have used force, lots of it. Carol responds: Alla, I know you won't agree with me, but I don't see that Dumbledore had any alternative. He believed that Harry was in the gravest danger from the godfather who, DD had every reason to think, had betrayed Harry's parents to their deaths. Other loyal DEs, such as the fanatical and sadistic Bellatrix Lestrange, would certainly kill him if they found him. Dumbledore knew that the best protection he could give Harry, perhaps the only foolproof protection against Voldemort's followers, was the blood protection that only Petunia, through agreeing to a binding magical contract, could offer. He could not afford to engage in routine courtesy; if Petunia said no, Harry would be in serious trouble. Dumbledore could perhaps raise Harry himself, but how? He was an old man with no experience with children; he would often have to be away; and he would often be away. He would have to trust someone else to care for Harry, and given what had happened with the Potters' Secret Keeper, I doubt that he trusted to a Fidelius Charm to keep Harry safe. (And the same would apply even if he knew that Sirius Black were innocent; he would doubt, with good reason, IMO, that Sirius could keep Harry safe, because Sirius could not provide the blood protection. Only Petunia could.) The only alternative he had was to make sure that Petunia took Harry, perhaps pointing out to her that her family was in danger, too, and that taking Harry would protect them. Sometimes, the need to protect a child takes precedence over civility. Under normal circumstances, of course he should have informed her of her sister's fate and let her offer--or refuse--to take Harry in. But with furious Death Eaters on the loose, eager to take revenge on the child who had somehow not only survived their master's AK but somehow caused it to rebound on him, Dumbledore couldn't take that chance. He needed Harry to live to destroy Voldemort permanently. (And, yes, I'm quite sure that he believed Harry was the Chosen One. He took no such measures to protect anybody else.) AS for whether DD could have influenced the Dursleys to treat Harry more fairly, I suspect that he sent the letter addressed to Harry in the Cupboard under the Stairs for that purpose, to shame them into giving him an actual bedroom. (Now, if they'd forced him to *live* under the stairs, to take his meals there and never go outside or attend school or use the bathroom more than once a day, DD would have had to step in sooner and firmly. But merely having to sleep, rather than live, in a too-small room with spiders is tolerable, if hardly desirable. Many people throughout the history and prehistory of Homo Sapiens have put up with worse conditions--ship passengers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for example. And if Harry had always slept in that dark little closet since he was, say, two or three--it would have no terrors for him. Which is not to say that such treatment is not abuse; I'm not condoning the Dursleys' behavior. It's just not as bad as it might have been.) As for whether force can persuade anyone to be kind to anyone else or to treat them fairly, it tends to have the opposite effect. (Hagrid's and the Twins's bullying of Dudley merely increased the Dursleys' fear and resentment of Wizards.) Side note: Someone said that Petunia knew how to get hold of Dumbledore. I don't think that's quite accurate. Sure, she could address a letter to Professor Albus Dumbledore at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, but where would she find a magical owl to deliver it? She must have persuaded Lily to send her letter to DD by return owl, along with Lily's acceptance of her appointment to Hogwarts. Unless DD wrote to her, she couldn't "correspond" with him. Carol, wondering whether Petunia gave Harry a child's equivalent of ugly vases for Christmas before she resorted to tissues and toothpicks because he'd been sent to Hogwarts From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 5 02:21:57 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:21:57 -0000 Subject: Getting hold of DD was Re: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184526 > > Side note: Someone said that Petunia knew how to get hold of > Dumbledore. I don't think that's quite accurate. Sure, she could > address a letter to Professor Albus Dumbledore at Hogwarts School of > Witchcraft and Wizardry, but where would she find a magical owl to > deliver it? She must have persuaded Lily to send her letter to DD by > return owl, along with Lily's acceptance of her appointment to > Hogwarts. Unless DD wrote to her, she couldn't "correspond" with him. > Pippin: Canon suggests that a Muggle bold enough to write to Hogwarts wouldn't need an owl. "Severus saw the envelope [Dumbledore's reply to Petunia] and he couldn't believe a Muggle could have contacted Hogwarts, that's all! He says there must be wizards working undercover in the postal service who take care of--" --DH ch 33 Obviously Lily wouldn't have put it this way if she'd helped Petunia to contact Hogwarts herself. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 5 02:30:07 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:30:07 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184527 Pippin: Dumbledore did try to reach out to Petunia in his first letter, which Lily says was very kind. But Petunia did not want to be friends with a Dumbledore who could not teach her magic. Instead she decided that magical people were freaks and not worth being friends with. She kept that attitude consistently over the next ten years, AFAWK. Lily wasn't making a secret of her problems with her sister -- why wouldn't Dumbledore know about them? Hagrid says they were close, and he doesn't seem to be wrong about things like that. The ugly vase is the canon that Petunia's attitude didn't change. It's not quite as blunt as a handful of maggots courtesy of Kreacher, but it's the same idea, along with all the other non-presents that Petunia would later send to Harry, or the teeny Easter Egg Hermione would get from Molly. Alla: I am sorry, but my question was not about canon support for Lily and Petunia having problems, neither about Dumbledore's possible knowledge of those problems. My question was about support for the argument that Dumbledore after writing one letter to eleven year old girl decided that her and his problems were so huge, so beyond attempt of reconciliation that he decided that he just cannot inform her in person that her sister had died and to ask her to take her nephew. And honestly nothing of what you brought up convinces me that person is justified in any way, shape or form to write off eleven year old girl after he received **one** letter from her. Because sure, absolutely if we were discussing the situation that for some bizarre reason **Lily** would have needed to ask Petunia to take Harry in temporarily, sure I would say that conversation would not have worked at all, but Dumbledore? After all, Dumbledore had no problems circumventing Potters' wishes as to who should be taking care of their son, so I do not see why his **possible** knowledge of the problems sisters had, should stop him from trying. After all, he can be so very convincing when he wants to be IMO. Pippin: You probably know that to cut someone out of a will, you're supposed to leave them a dollar so that the slighted heir can't claim he was disinherited by accident? Well, this is the same idea, IMO. Lily got a non-present, so as to make clear it wasn't a case of Petunia accidentally forgetting to send one. Nasty. And before you ask, I don't think it was a case of Petunia having no taste. Petunia's house is not full of ugly vases. Alla: Um, yes, of course I completely agree with you ? I thought it was incredibly nasty. But you see, Dumbledore either knew about the problems or he did not. If he knew of the problems and I really do not see how he could have known about their problems while they were still school girls, I do not see signs of him and Lily being that close while she was still a student. But sure, after school he could have known, I guess, although I think Marauders knowing is still not the same as going and tell everything to your former teacher, even if he lived close by. But say he knew. I am not sure if we want to open this particular can of worms. Because as far as I am concerned, if he knew, he owed Harry **double and triple duty of constant vigilance** and mushrooms. Because he is placing child in the home of someone who hated his mother and father. He is placing child there as far as I am concerned by force and does nothing after that. Um, I am not sure if Dumbledore comes out better in this scenario. Pippin: Oh my, when I think of all the characters we supposed were only faking hatred -- but there really weren't any, were there? No one, *no one* speaks ill in death of a person they actually loved. Snape did it, offpage, to convince Voldemort that he was over Lily, but we aren't shown that. Alla: Ok, did I say that Petunia loved Lily? (Although I think Ch 33 supports the idea that as a kid she may have, but even if she did, I think jealousy overlapped love very fast). I said that I see a merit in the argument that she may have grieved for her and I said that I am not even entirely convinced, just that I see it as stronger argument now. > Alla: > > And that's fine. If he tried and Petunia gave him that crap, I would be totally okay with him saying you disgust me. Petunia would have disgusted me as well. He did not try though. Pippin: Oh, me too. I'm glad we agree on something. But telling people they disgust you is not a good way to get them to do favors for you, and that is why, IMO, he dared not try. Alla: And again, sorry, but we would never know. Maybe he could have contained himself quite well. After all, Petunia did not go to Voldemort and sold Lily to him, he does not have to be disgusted with her that much **yet** Pippin: I wonder what canon you have that Dumbledore absolutely knew that under no circumstances would Petunia refuse to shelter Harry? It's common practice, in the WW, for families to give their Squib children to Muggles to raise, so why would Dumbledore think that Muggles wouldn't behave the same way? Alla: If I were arguing that proposition, I would have given the canon. Of course he could not know and after he tried, he would have found out for sure and then if he still wanted to place Harry with Dursleys, I would say he should have been forceful. Not that I am happy with him placing Harry with Dursleys by all means, but to go back where it all started, to push on Dursleys and / or check on Harry would mean to me that his tough choice would have included caring about Harry. JMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 5 03:48:03 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 03:48:03 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184528 > > Alla: > > > > They were way past the possibility of Dumbledore having a decency to > inform Petunia in person that her sister had died and asking her to > take her nephew? > > > > What are you basing that on? They had what one letter exchange, > > Dumbledore and Petunia, I mean and that's how Dumbledore decided > that Petunia is a lost cause and he just can't be bothered to tell > her that her sister died in person and just has to dump Harry on her > > doorstep? > > Pippin: > Dumbledore did try to reach out to Petunia in his first letter, which > Lily says was very kind. But Petunia did not want to be friends with a > Dumbledore who could not teach her magic. Instead she decided that > magical people were freaks and not worth being friends with. She kept > that attitude consistently over the next ten years, AFAWK. Lily > wasn't making a secret of her problems with her sister -- why wouldn't > Dumbledore know about them? Hagrid says they were close, and he > doesn't seem to be wrong about things like that. Montavilla47: As we know about that letter Dumbledore sent to Petunia was that he tried to let her down gently. All we know about Petunia's response was that she was mortified that Lily had peeked at the letter. The attitude of Petunia's that Harry knows about comes after many other negative experiences, such as Lily showing off her magical tricks and getting her parents' approval, Petunia opting for an ultra-normal life, Lily marrying James, and Harry being dumped on their doorstep. I don't know that we can definitely say that Petunia formed her dislike of magic as far back as her initial letter to Dumbledore. Indeed, she must have liked it enough back then to want to participate in that world. Petunia may have sent an ugly vase to Lily, but she was still sending her a vase. As for why it was "ugly," there are several possible explanations. One, she was, as you say, being passive- aggressive. Or two, she liked the vase, but her taste and Lily's were diffferent. Or three, she had seen the way wizards tend to dress and decorate their houses and assumed that ugly was their taste in things. I really don't see what Petunia had done up to that point to deserve such shabby treatment. As for how she might have reacted, she might have been rude and nasty. But we'll never know, will we? Pippin: > It's > common practice, in the WW, for families to give their Squib children > to Muggles to raise, so why would Dumbledore think that Muggles > wouldn't behave the same way? Montavilla47: I never heard that one before. Where is that from? Carol: AS for whether DD could have influenced the Dursleys to treat Harry more fairly, I suspect that he sent the letter addressed to Harry in the Cupboard under the Stairs for that purpose, to shame them into giving him an actual bedroom. (Now, if they'd forced him to *live* under the stairs, to take his meals there and never go outside or attend school or use the bathroom more than once a day, DD would have had to step in sooner and firmly. But merely having to sleep, rather than live, in a too-small room with spiders is tolerable, if hardly desirable. Montavilla47: I agree with you that, whether or not Dumbledore sent the letter to shame the Dursleys, it certainly had that effect. And it might have been even better to have sent that letter some years earlier so that Harry might have moved from the cupboard into a room at a time when children normally do tend to get their own rooms. Actually, I spent two periods in my life when I lived in the hallway between my brother and sister's bedrooms. In the attic, no less! I can't remember why now. We must have been short on rooms. But I never found it oppressive at all. I thought of it as an adventure. But I should point out, regarding Dumbledore "shaming" the Dursleys by addressing a letter to Harry in the cupboard that he chose to do nothing the next year when the Dursleys locked Harry in his bedroom, only letting him out for bathroom visits. I don't believe he even got exercise breaks that summer. That period (in CoS, following Dobby's helpful antics) is as abusive as the Dursleys get in the books. It's the only time that Petunia and Vernon actively starve Harry or restrict his movements. The rest of the time their real crime is that they don't *love* him. And I'll agree with you, Pippin, that nothing Dumbledore could have done would have made that happen. But, that doesn't mean he had to drop Harry off like an unwanted puppy at an animal shelter and ignore the situation for ten years. Especially not when he tells Harry that he'd been looking after him and we know that he had an operative a few doors down who could tell him what was going on. Presuming he didn't have other ways of spying on Harry. He implies that he does at the end of OotP. Now, there could have been reasons that Dumbledore kept his distance. For example, he might have been afraid that any contact between the magical world and the Dursleys would draw the Death Eaters to Harry. That would make sense *if* there hadn't been the blood protection. Since there is, it hardly matters if the Death Eaters know how to find him or not. Maybe Dumbledore was satisfied that Harry was living in the cupboard, friendless and lonely. After all, if he didn't have any friends, there was little chance he might do a sleep-over, which would provide an opportunity for him to be attacked, right? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 5 04:25:07 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:25:07 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore WAS: Re: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184529 > Pippin: > > It's > > common practice, in the WW, for families to give their Squib children > > to Muggles to raise, so why would Dumbledore think that Muggles > > wouldn't behave the same way? > > Montavilla47: > I never heard that one before. Where is that from? Alla: I remember Weasley's cousin, but that's not exactly it, I believe. Montavilla: > Maybe Dumbledore was satisfied that Harry was > living in the cupboard, friendless and lonely. Alla: As you mentioned before he certainly seemed satisfied and told Harry about it in OOP. Not a pampered prince indeed, UGH. Montavilla: After all, > if he didn't have any friends, there was little chance he > might do a sleep-over, which would provide an > opportunity for him to be attacked, right? Alla: LOLOLOLOL. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 5 16:57:39 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 5 Oct 2008 16:57:39 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/5/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1223225859.108.98219.m45@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184530 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 5, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Oct 5 21:37:25 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:37:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184531 > Carol responds: > I agree that he wanted to get away without harming anyone (even though > he again *looks like* a coward. Poor severus!). If he fought in the > Hogwarts battle, he would have done the same thing, casting harmless > spells or even Protegos to protect the Order and the students. But > Harry didn't see him fighting and no one else mentions seeing him, and > he couldn't be a masked DE because he was wearing his ordinary > headmasters' or teachers' robes (black, to be sure, but probably > different from DE robes), and where would he have found a mask? Potioncat: I don't think Snape would have any trouble conjuring a mask and robes. If he "had" to fight at Hogwarts, surely he would hide his identity and would, of course, do no harm to the Hogwarts army. But I'm going to set this idea aside until we get into that section of the book. >Carol: > I think that one thing and one thing only was on his mind, as > evidenced by his agitation, his looking around for Harry while he > talked to McGonagall, > At any rate, I think his one concern from the moment he learns that > Harry will be coming to Ravenclaw Tower and Voldemort will be > following is to get to Harry and give him that message before it's too late. Potioncat: I have a new thought about the Snape/McGonagall conversation. First, McGonagall with an invisible Harry and Luna, is hurrying---I don't know where, or why---when she stops at the sound of other foot steps. Snape comes from behind a suit of armor. (I have to imagine that he was coming up behind them, then ducked behing the armor when they stopped. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense.) But if they could hear his normally quiet steps, he could surely hear that there more feet stepping than just McGonagall's. Knowing that Harry had arrived at Ravenclaw Tower, and has an IC, he must believe Harry's invisible feet are with McGonagall. Snape seems very calm to me, very cool, in a distant sort of way. He asks about the Carrows. McGonagall thinks he is asking about their welfare, but really he's asking about their status. (Out of commission or on the loose.) He also says he didn't know it was her night to patrol the halls. I always thought that was a hint that Snape had the Heads patrolling the halls to protect the students from the Carrows. While that's still true (IMH) Now I see, his question may have been because he was surprised to find her; he hadn't been expecting to have to deal with her as he looked for Potter. I'm sure now, that he's hoping to find Potter and tell him the tale. She asks how he knows about an intruder, and he gestures with his arm. What a dolt! Why couldn't he have said, "I'm on your side, I have to tell Potter something." As it is, he tries Legilimency and then all hell breaks loose. I've forgotten who suggested this, but by leaving Hogwarts, he couldn't be made to open Hogwarts. And I suppose he couldn't yet reveal his loyalties to McGonagall. > > Carol, preferring to interpret Snape's motives and actions her own way > rather than having JKR's "definitive" version! Potioncat: You know, you have a very good point there. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 6 01:55:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:55:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184532 Potioncat wrote: > Snape seems very calm to me, very cool, in a distant sort of way. He asks about the Carrows. McGonagall thinks he is asking about their welfare, but really he's asking about their status. (Out of commission or on the loose.) Carol responds: Yes, on one level, he's outwardly quite cool and smooth, which I think must have been his typical manner as headmaster--nonconfrontational and respectful to old faculty members who were older than he was and had in fact been his own teachers (how he handled the Carrows, we don't know--more in a Voldemort's right-hand man, the-Dark-Lord-would-not-approve sort of way, I suppose). But there are signs that he's operating on auto pilot with McGonagall, that he's concealing his agitation (as I think he also did in "Spinner's End" and perhaps habitually does, except when it's safe to let off steam through sarcasem or a burst of anger, through Occlumency and "acting"). He's looking around, obviously for Harry. "Snape stepped nearer, and his eyes flitted over Professor McGonagall into the air around her, as if he knew that Harry was there" (DH Am. ed. 597). And again, "snape pretended not to hear her. [Maybe he's not pretending because his mind is elsewhere?] His eyes were still probing the air all about her, and he was moving gradually closer, *with an air of hardly noticing what he was doing." Then he looks into her eyes (legilimency, as you say), and says, "Have you seen Harry Potter, Minerva? Because if you have, I must insist--" (598). It seems clear to me that the only thing on his mind is talking to Harry. Fortunately, he can read her reaction either through Legilimency or his DADA expertise and knows that he has to fight (defensively) and get out of there--she's not going to help him talk to Harry, and she's no longer willing to negotiate or accept his authority. (Her reaction also tells him, I think, that Harry is indeed there. She would not suddenly have become dangerously defiant otherwise.) Potioncat: > I've forgotten who suggested this, but by leaving Hogwarts, he > couldn't be made to open Hogwarts. And I suppose he couldn't yet > reveal his loyalties to McGonagall. Carol responds: It was Pippin's suggestion, and it's as good as any other, but it's by no means definitive. My view is that he had no plan except to escape and then to find Harry. That he's still desperately trying to do so even as Voldemort is talking about the wand (he asks three times to be allowed to find Potter/the boy, even after going deathly white on hearing that LV stole the Elder Wand from Dumbledore's grave. He has to deliver that last message, all the more urgent now that he's seen Nagini in her bubble. And he's so determined to carry out that one last desperately important act that forces memories out of his own head as he lies dying. As far as I can see, there's no contingency plan to leave the castle without intending to return as headmaster (which, of course, LV would expect him to do). I feel certain that the headmaster's office would still let him in; the portraits, especially Dumbledore's, know what he has to do. I think that he could not have returned after McGonagall's rebellion, not because of the portraits but because the staff and students thought that he was a Death Eater. Only when the battle was over, with Voldemort defeated, could he return and reveal the truth. (How that would have worked, I don't know, unless Harry vindicated him publicly while both were still alive, or Dumbledore's portrait revealed the truth to McGonagall. Or maybe he'd have sent his doe Patronus to McGonagall and her allies, letting them know that he was on their side, and then literally flown to join them in openly fighting the DEs. That's what I would have liked. At least if LV had killed him under those circumstances, he'd have had a valid reason, and Snape would have fought back heroically. No other DE could have killed him, that much I'm sure of.) As it is, his actions and his words indicate that he has only one pressing thought, one thing that he *must* do whatever happens afterward, and that is to deliver DD's message to Harry so that the soul bit can be destroyed. > > > > > Carol, preferring to interpret Snape's motives and actions her own way rather than having JKR's "definitive" version! > > Potioncat: > You know, you have a very good point there. > Carol again: Thanks! :-) Carol again, wondering what Snape would have done if he'd successfully revealed his true loyalties to Harry and delivered the message without dying From catlady at wicca.net Mon Oct 6 04:49:03 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 04:49:03 -0000 Subject: Potters hiding/Caring about people/Bribe/Severus/Severus/Chamber/Grindelwald Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184533 Carol wrote in : << I see no evidence that anyone else went into hiding or received extra protection. (I have no idea how James and Lily reacted, but DD must have persuaded them that either they or Harry were being specifically targeted. (snip) We hear of no other Secret Keepers, no other Fidelius Charms, and lots of dead Order members. >> According to me, either the Potters were the only Order family who went into hiding, and the reason was that Harry was the only Order baby that DD's spies said was being specifically targetted by LV, or the Potters and the Longbottoms both went into hiding because DD's spies said both Harry and Neville were being specifically targetted by LV. There is some question as to how Frank and Alice could have gone into hiding while they were Aurors; perhaps Neville hid with Gran for that year and re-united with his parents right away after LV was vaporized. IIRC the Potters' Fidelius Charm was cast one week before their death, and the reason was that DD's spies (and other events) had warned him that LV was close to figuring how to defeat all the other protective magic already on their latest hiding place (due to information from Peter, but no one told DD it was Peter). So if some Longbottoms were in hiding with no Peter to betray them, they might not have gotten Fidelius even when the Potters did. << But you still have all those dead Order members (whose whereabouts were no doubt revealed by the forgotten Marauder) to account for. (big snip) The Order members who died, other than the Potters, died because, as Lupin informed Harry in OoP, Voldemort was picking them off one by one. >> I have always assumed that many of them were killed in the line of duty - such as guarding other people who were DE targets, trying to capture DEs, trying to catch DEs in the act of committing crimes so they could be turned over to Aurors and other loyal Law Enforcers with evidence, spying on DEs, etc. Alla wrote in : << So, I guess in my book caring about people, but making tough choices does mean acting a bit differently than Dumbledore did. >> While I am no longer certain that DD cared about any people except the late Arianna, and much good it did her, I am shocked at your post, Alla. You indicate that 'caring about people' means to you putting the personal honor and personal friendship loyalty of one's behavior infinitely above winning the war. << Well, cared about people, but had to make tough choices in my book does NOT mean make those choices without people's consent and without giving them enough information to choose themselves whether they agree or not especially in the matters of life and death. >> All the Order members, including all 13 people who volunteered to transport Harry, had signed up to be Dumbledore's soldiers. As such, they had consented in advance to going on missions where they were likely to die, and to obeying orders without explanation. Real generals don't explain their plan to every private soldier and ask his consent for his unit to be ordered into battle. Sometimes they give orders like 'Hold the pass at Thermopylae or Ronceville as long as you can', while thinking that Leonidas's or Roland's small unit cannot possibly hold it forever, but the longer they can slow the enemy, the more time they buy for the main army to prepare for battle. Even a puny two-gold-bar lieutenant with a platoon of twenty men might need to assign two machine gunners to cover the retreat of the other eighteen. At his low level, he probably would ask for volunteers, and ought to be one of the volunteers if there aren't enough, but he is right to order one soldier to stay with him to cover the other soldiers' escape if there is not a volunteer. << Care about people but making tough choices means in my book sharing information with the people about what they are facing, and making sure that your Tools trust each other. In fact that means in my book making sure that people are NOT tools for you and you just do not go ahead and betray the plan to Voldemort for I am still not sure which reason. >> I agree that caring about people means not viewing them as tools, but sending soldiers on suicide missions doesn't necessarily mean viewing them as tools. The general can cry for those poor boys and their bereaved families after the war is won, or perhaps during a break after battle. I'm not certain that Dumbledore's plan was a good plan but that depends on whether it was likely to work, not on whether it set up some of his loyal soldiers to be killed as part of a complicated feint. That Snape's leak of the Seven Potters plan to LV was an 'Order' (dead DD) feint rather than Snape's loyal to LV betrayal of the Order is the kind of information (like troop movements in times of war) that is a LEGITIMATE military secret and therefore protected by not telling anyone people who don't 'need to know'. << if you decide to put the ring stupidly on you and now think that your death will be useful, you do not, do not, do not ask the man who does not want to do it ( HA, I of all people now have no doubt whatsoever that Snape was not playing or anything, that he really did not want to kill Dumbledore) >> DD should not have put the ring stupidly on -- maybe he deliberately put it on, confident that Snape could keep him alive long enough, as a technique to manipulate Snape to kill him at the appropriate time? However, once he had planned that Snape must kill him in order to get in really good with LV (some listies expected this to happen early in book 5 or even between GoF and book 5, a theory which someone called 'Dumbledore's head on a silver platter' so I called it CHOP for 'Cranium of Headmaster On Platter'), then that plan will NOT be advanced by DD committing suicide in order to spare Snape's feelings. << Care about people, but making tough choices in my book means for example if one just MUST place a baby in his relatives' care ( I am putting aside whole Sirius' angle, for a while, does not mean that I agree with that), one must must must to make sure that he is checking upon that baby's wellfare. >> I'm inclined to agree with you on this, but other listies have said that DD had Arabella Figg and occasional surveillants like Dedalus Diggle to check on Harry, and they reported that he wasn't exactly starved and he wasn't physically abused to the point of needing medical care and he went to school regularly, so hard hearted DD figured Harry's welfare was adequate. Montavilla47 wrote in : << I don't believe I used the word bribe. That is your characterization of what could be a mutually beneficial relationship between Dumbledore and the Dursleys. It's not unreasonable for someone who assumes the care and feeding of a child to get financial support from someone who leaves them with that child. It's also not unheard of for the person leaving the child to *ask* the other to take on the responsibility, rather than leaving the child on their doorstep in the middle of the night. >> This is a forbidden 'I agree' post. I am not confident that child support payments would have made Vernon and Petunia like Harry any better, but I was rather shocked at Pippin calling child support payments 'bribes'. If covering some expenses of the job is a bribe, what does she call my salary from my job? Oryomai summarized Chapter 30 with admirable affection for Severus Snape in : << 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his cover? >> Was LV still reading Harry's mind at this point, or only Harry reading LV's mind? Carol wrote in : << I do wonder when, why, and how Snape learned to fly. If it's a "trick" that he learned from his "master," he must have been in high favor indeed with Voldemort, who didn't teach that skill to any other follower. But it's just possible that he taught himself based on Voldemort's example. It's probably wishful thinking in the extreme to think that maybe Voldemort copied him! >> Whichever of them invented it, it is a new spell, because Quidditch Through the Ages begins its history of flying on broomsticks by saying that wizards can levitate a steady five feet above the ground, and a wizard transfigured into a bat can fly, but having only a bat brain, would forget where he wanted to go, so Animagi whose animal form is a flyer are the only wizards who can fly without a piece of equipment. And, damn, both of them are dead without having taught it to anyone else! << (Remind me again, somebody, how they could have gotten back up the pipes into the girls' bathroom without Fawkes to carry them and without being able to Apparate inside Hogwarts.) >> Maybe when Salazar built his Chamber, he included a ladder back up, or stowed a flying carpet there. Maybe Hermione had learned a Revelio Egress spell since CoS. Pippin wrote in : << I mean that when Grindelwald came to power, Dumbledore found that the "force that was necessary" to bring Muggles under wizard control was much greater than young Dumbledore had allowed himself to suppose. >> It seems to me that Grindelwald's struggles, the ones that led him to fill Nurmengard with his opponents and kill Viktor's grandfather and many others, all were struggles with wizards who tried to thwart his plans -- other than fanfic about the exact relationship between Grindelwald and Hitler, we have no evidence that he even began to act on his plans about Muggles. (As Montavilla47 said in , but I like the way I said it.) JKR said that there was some connection between the wizards' Grindelwald war and Muggles' World War II, but she didn't say what the connection is. Maybe it is just that when wizards are at war, the side effects of the curses they throw at each other make everyone, even Muggles, feel agitated, and the collateral damage of their curses could seem to Muggles to be terrorist/enemy bombings as easily as to be hurricanes. From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Mon Oct 6 11:00:47 2008 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mmizstorge) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:00:47 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184534 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > > > > I fully agree. I confess that the last two books in the series >have left me feeling that I'm in a foreign country with no hope of >ever understanding the language, especially when the majority of >people who have read all seven books seem to be okay with how the >arc of the series ended. I fully agree with the idea that an author >has the right to take his/her creations in whatever direction makes >the most sense to him/her. But, in the grand Harry Potter scheme, >I'm not one who is thrilled with where we ended up. > > Having said that, I also have lost any positive feelings I had for > Dumbledore after the last book. > > Marianne > I share your feelings, Marianne, to the extent that I'm mostly flabbergasted by the number of postive posts I read here. If readers have to spend so much time explaining the writer's choices to others who have devoted an equal amount of time studying the texts, then it can hardly be said that the writer succeeded in telling the tale in a manner that was either clear or satisfying. I, too, feel cheated in having placed my trust in Dumbledore over the course of six books (six because I was willing to suspend my judgement of him im Sirius's case because of the known corruption in the Ministry). If Harry had been a real person, I don't believe that he would have ever named his son after either Dumbledore or Snape. I think that the author undermined the consistency of her own story in having him do so. Why in the world would Harry want to constantly remind himself of two of the men responsible for his miserable childhood? As well name his son Tom Marvolo! From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 6 12:08:08 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:08:08 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184535 "mmizstorge" > I share your feelings, Marianne, to the extent that I'm mostly > flabbergasted by the number of postive posts I read here. If readers > have to spend so much time explaining the writer's choices to others > who have devoted an equal amount of time studying the texts, then it > can hardly be said that the writer succeeded in telling the tale in > a manner that was either clear or satisfying. Potioncat: If it's negative posts you want, go back to the first DH post. You won't have to read far to start finding all the negativity you could ever want! Most of the readers who were disappointed or displeased with how the series turned out have stopped posting. Some of us who have areas that we weren't pleased with have continued, and of course, some readers genuinely liked the way the books turned out. I'll agree that there are areas where "I" think JKR dropped the ball. Others agree completely with canon. But I think the main reason that we spend so much time explaining the auhor's choice to each other, is because that's what HPfGU-ers do best. ;-) From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Oct 6 12:48:05 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:48:05 -0000 Subject: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184536 --- > > > > I fully agree. I confess that the last two books in the series > >have left me feeling that I'm in a foreign country with no hope of > >ever understanding the language, especially when the majority of > >people who have read all seven books seem to be okay with how the > >arc of the series ended. I fully agree with the idea that an author > >has the right to take his/her creations in whatever direction makes > >the most sense to him/her. But, in the grand Harry Potter scheme, > >I'm not one who is thrilled with where we ended up. > > > > Having said that, I also have lost any positive feelings I had for > > Dumbledore after the last book. > > > > Marianne I agree about HPB as this was my least favourite book and I did get lost half way through , but DH IMHO was one of her best. It made DD flawed which to me was fine. It showed me that he was human. There is no one perfect in life Harry loved DD and that still showed all the way through and IMHO DD loved Harry. Jayne Now going back to lurking > > From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 6 14:47:29 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:47:29 -0000 Subject: Q 5, McGonagall (was Re: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184537 "Oryomai" wrote: > 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the > way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the > Horcrux? At this point, the jig is pretty much up: Harry's in the > castle, there are Death Eaters everywhere, and he needs help. He's ?? used lies of omission on everyone else, why not Professor McGonagall? Potioncat: Do you mean, after Harry "sees" LV at the lake? He tells McGonagall the truth because the battle is about to happen, and because she is the Professor-in-charge at Hogwarts. In fact, it will turn out to be only a few moments before LV does show up at the gates. I'd like to add a few thoughts about Minerva. She does take charge here, in a way she never has before. In the past she was the Deputy to DD. DD's reputation was one of awesome power and knowledge. We've always seen her defer to him. Now she truly has the authority and responsibility of Hogwarts and she comes into her own. She attacks Snape just as he starts to use Legilimency--and after he's just reminded her that he's a DE. (I'm not saying he intended to. It was likely an involuntary reaction to twist his left arm.) She contacts the Heads, then gives them quick instructions. Setting up protection for the castle and starting the evacuation process. Truly, this is no longer the safest place for the children. She also deals with Slughorn. Look at the difference, Flitwick points out only that they won't be able to 'keep" LV out, not that they shouldn't try; Sprout is all for defending the castle; but Slughorn expresses doubt about defending the castle. He almost sounds ready to hand Harry over. Minerva makes her stand perfectly clear. Hogwarts is going to fight LV and the DEs and they are fighting for real. Anyone who fights against them in any way, risks being killed. This is war. This is where she refers to Slughorn and his Slytherins--and this speech has bothered some readers. But while we come into this situation cold, Minerva has been living with it all year. It seems obvious that Snape has played his role very well. The staff believes he is a loyal DE who murdered DD. It also seems Slughorn has tried to walk on both sides. We don't have any canon, but this indicates to me that there has been some vacillating on Slughorn's part. >From post 184536 Amiable Dorsai writes: > > snip > > More interesting to me is McG's reaction: she not only does not > chastise Harry, she ups the ante by using the Imperius Curse. To me, > this is the passing of the baton, this is Minerva acknowledging Harry > as her leader. This also, and this is more subtle, I think, Minerva > anxious to bring this to a head--to purge her beloved Hogwarts of the > thugs who've taken over, who abuse her students. > > It's one of the most powerful and telling scenes in the book. > ?? Amiable Dorsai Potioncat: Hey, long time no see, you should join in more often! Very good point. To Minerva, Carrow has been using Cruciatus on the students, and making them use it on each other all year long. So the use of it by Harry, and her own use of Imperius are somewhat justified---at least in her mind. I guess this has been said before, but it's just now I've really "gotten" Minerva's point of veiw. (Which doesn't change my own opinion of the way JKR presented and wrote about Unforgivables.) OK, is SSSusan lurking out there? She's another McGonagall fan. If you can hear me, what do you think of Minerva in this chapter? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 6 15:05:16 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:05:16 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184538 Alla wrote in : << So, I guess in my book caring about people, but making tough choices does mean acting a bit differently than Dumbledore did. >> Catlady: While I am no longer certain that DD cared about any people except the late Arianna, and much good it did her, I am shocked at your post, Alla. You indicate that 'caring about people' means to you putting the personal honor and personal friendship loyalty of one's behavior infinitely above winning the war. Alla: Heee, well, if you are going to be shocked at my post, let's make sure you are going to be shocked at my exact argument and this summary is not. So, do I believe that one should put personal honor and personal friendship loyalty infinitely above winning the war? The short answer is no, BUT I do believe that one should try to keep personal honor and loyalty while trying to win the war. Please read on. Alla: << Well, cared about people, but had to make tough choices in my book does NOT mean make those choices without people's consent and without giving them enough information to choose themselves whether they agree or not especially in the matters of life and death. >> Catlady: All the Order members, including all 13 people who volunteered to transport Harry, had signed up to be Dumbledore's soldiers. As such, they had consented in advance to going on missions where they were likely to die, and to obeying orders without explanation. Alla: Where to start? Okay, first of all comparison between Dumbledore and real life generals falls flat for me for several reasons. Reason number one is very simple; I do not remember Dumbledore having a military rank of the general or any military rank for that matter. I remember him assembling a group of volunteers, mostly his former students and some teachers who indeed agreed to follow him and fight with him. I do not know, to me this arrangement implies in a way much more intimate and trusting relationship. And I want to say while of course I have no personal knowledge of the military, I do believe that there are some orders for which real life general will go under the tribunal and will be tried. I happen to believe that some of Dumbledore's orders qualify as such. And another thing, how many real life generals do you know who are also the headmasters of the school at the same time. I am not saying that they do not exist, but I have not heard of any of them. To me, the teacher cannot do what Dumbledore did to some of his students, even if the teacher is at the same time their commander. For example if Rufus Scrimgeour gave an order to Kingsley or Tonks while he was still in charge of the aurors, that to me would have been a very different story from Dumbledore giving an order to Snape and an order that includes killing no less. I do not know, maybe it is multiple hats Dumbledore wears that to me means that he is something different from the general. Catlady: I agree that caring about people means not viewing them as tools, but sending soldiers on suicide missions doesn't necessarily mean viewing them as tools. The general can cry for those poor boys and their bereaved families after the war is won, or perhaps during a break after battle. I'm not certain that Dumbledore's plan was a good plan but that depends on whether it was likely to work, not on whether it set up some of his loyal soldiers to be killed as part of a complicated feint. Alla: I absolutely agree with you that sending soldiers on suicide missions does not necessarily means viewing them as tools. I must not have been very clear though because I think that Dumbledore's telling Snape to leak this information was **unnecessary** and **stupid**, that's my main beef with this. I do not believe that real life generals are justified in sending soldiers to the missions which would not stand any logical scrutiny either. Say Dumbledore did not give Snape that order and Voldemort would have attacked anyways. Would I have a problem with people dying? NONE. I mean, I would be sad of course, but order members knew that when they guard Harry, they are going to the very risky mission and they can die. They did not know though that the portrait of their dead leader unnecessary IMO increased those risks. I take an issue with that. Catlady: That Snape's leak of the Seven Potters plan to LV was an 'Order' (dead DD) feint rather than Snape's loyal to LV betrayal of the Order is the kind of information (like troop movements in times of war) that is a LEGITIMATE military secret and therefore protected by not telling anyone people who don't 'need to know'. Alla: Sorry, but again I disagree that it was a good order, a necessary order and therefore I equal it to betrayal pretty much. In "War and peace" there is an episode during Russia war with Napoleon when one of the characters who eventually becomes talented, dedicated, brave officer either witnesses or hears I do not remember which one it is about one of the Russian generals leading the attack of his unit with holding two of his boys' hands, which are either teens or preteens. Other soldiers are praising his bravery, patriotism, etc. Nikolas is thinking how unnecessary it was for him to have his boys there in the first place. I am not arguing that Order members are his kids, they are of course adults, I am analogizing the unnecessity of some of the orders he made and quite a few of his actions. Catlady: DD should not have put the ring stupidly on -- maybe he deliberately put it on, confident that Snape could keep him alive long enough, as a technique to manipulate Snape to kill him at the appropriate time? Alla: Heee, anything is possible. Catlady: However, once he had planned that Snape must kill him in order to get in really good with LV (some listies expected this to happen early in book 5 or even between GoF and book 5, a theory which someone called 'Dumbledore's head on a silver platter' so I called it CHOP for 'Cranium of Headmaster On Platter'), then that plan will NOT be advanced by DD committing suicide in order to spare Snape's feelings. Alla: And I believe that him including Snape in his plan IMO pretty much against his will can be analogized to the general who comes up with criminal idea even if it may help his troops. Before you say it, I am not saying that killing during the war is criminal per se. I am saying that there is a clear penalty to one's soul in JKR's world for doing what Dumbledore wants Snape to do and I believe that it could be a metaphor for something criminal that general may order a soldier to do. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 6 18:37:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:37:16 -0000 Subject: Q 5, McGonagall (was Re: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184539 Potioncat wrote: > To Minerva, Carrow has been using Cruciatus on the students, and making them use it on each other all year long. So the use of it by Harry, and her own use of Imperius are somewhat justified---at least in her mind. Carol responds: I wonder if the situation is quite as bad as a number of readers seem to think. We see it only through the point of view of Neville, a seventh year. He would know what Amycus is teaching students at his level, but not what he's teaching the younger students. We hear of only two students, Crabbe and Goyle, who actually use Cruciatus on other students, and both of them are seventh years. I'm not, of course, defending the despicable Amycus, but there are, presumably, limits to his teaching abilities and definitely limits to the learning capacities of the students. Barty Jr., another DE, told the fourth-years that if they all tried together to hit him with an AK, he wouldn't get so much as a nosebleed. Bellatrix, also a DE, tells Harry, "You have to mean them, Potter." Even near the end of his fifth year, at a time when he's furious and filled with righteous anger, he can't cast a successful Crucio. It only hurts Bellatrix for a second and surprises her. It's unclear whether his and Draco's attempted Crucios in sixth year would have been successful since they're both thwarted, but we do know that he finally "means" the Crucio he casts on Amycus. He *wants* to hurt him. Moral judgments aside, it appears that only the older students, seventh years and possibly sixth years, would have the power, the experience, the control of their minds and wands necessary to cast a Crucio. (We don't hear about them casting Imperius Curses, and they certainly don't cast AKs--not even LV wants Wizard blood to be shed in the hallways of Hogwarts, at least not until he's actively making war on those who resist his will.) So, the Carrows are using Crucitus as punishment and Amycus is teaching or trying to teach it to at least some students, but I suspect Snape would have reminded him that the younger students would be unable to master it and possibly of the danger of its being used against him. I think he would also, being Snape, remind *all* his teachers of the importance of preparing the students for the OWLs and NEWTs, which means that Amycus's students would still need to learn standard DADA spells. (It's interesting, BTW, that Hagrid talks before school starts about acquiring unicorns. Is he teaching to the not-yet-modified Ministry standards this year?) Clearly, the Cruciatus Curse is not the only thing he's taught the students. Possibly, he's teaching Dark magic at a level commensurate with the students' abilities (the Fiendfyre curse for the seventh years), but he's also, surprisingly, teaching actual DADA, again, probably, at a level suitable to their capacity to learn (no point in teaching spells they can't yet master). Crabbe and Goyle (and Draco) have learned the Disillusionment Charm. What the first years or fourth years or even the sixth years are learning in DADA, we don't know. It's only the seventh years we're concerned with here. I doubt, however, that Slytherins and Gryffindors (or Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs) of any age are Crucioing each other in the corridors, in part because the younger ones have not been taught the curse yet and in part because some of them, including Draco, have discovered that they have no aptitude for torture. Just knowing the incantation is not enough: "You have to mean it, Potter." And, of course, Snape has assigned the teachers (possibly only the heads of House and certainly not the Carrows) to patrol the corridors. BTW, I think that one reason that McGonagall and the others have not openly rebelled against Snape previously (aside from not having Harry's presence as a catalyst) is that Snape has kept everything as normal as possible, letting them teach their classes as they always have, allowing the students to go home for the holidays and to go to Hogsmeade until it becomes too dangerous. (He revokes Ginny's privilege for her own protection.) the students are still sorted. The common rooms and dormitories are still safe havens (the Carrows can't get in and have no reason to before LV orders them to get into the Ravenclaw common room). The House Elves still serve the meals and make the beds. If he'd been a real DE, bringing in the likes of Travers and Dolohov to teach Transfiguration and Charms, conditions would have been much worse. He assumes, I think, that the other faculty members will undermine the Carrows as they did Umbridge and he even reinstitutes some of her decrees to stimulate the DA to resist as well (or so I'm guessing; I can't think of any reason for him to do it except to protect the timid and goad the courageous into rebellion). Even before he officially comes to Hogwarts, we see from his acceptance speech that he's concerned with keeping up appearances, the illusion of normalcy. That satisfies the parents and the MoM and LV and, if I'm right, it would give him a way of dealing with the Carrows. We must keep up appearances. The students must actually be taught. They must pass their exams, etc. (I'm not sure how he would deal with Alecto, maybe just making sure that she keeps the subject matter at an appropriate grade level. His real concern would be Amycus--and making sure that the students in the other classes learned exactly what they would have learned with DD as headmaster.) At any rate, bad as conditions are at Hogwarts, it's not absolute chaos with every student either abused or abusing the others. Yes, some students, including innocent first years, are being cruelly punished, but most of those injured by the Carrows are, as far as I can tell, DA members. Snape has closed off the secret passages and retained the old faculty members. (Slughorn clearly respects him and treats him with the respect due a headmaster but also some of his old affection, as if he doubts that Snape killed Dumbledore.) It seems to me that Hogwarts is as safe and normal as Snape can make it without openly resisting the Carrows and giving himself away. He can't, however, take away their authority over detentions (other than assigning more humane detentions himself and allowing Mcgonagall et al. to thwart the Carrows behind his back). Nor can he keep them from Crucioing some students. But Hogwarts is not yet an all-Slytherin British equivalent of Durmstrang, and no student other than Neville, Seamus, Michael Corner, and Terry Boot (personally beaten up by Amycus for yelling about Harry's dragon escapade in the Great Hall) shows any signs of injury either in the RoR or the Great Hall before the Battle of Hogwarts begins. (Of course, Cruciatus wouldn't leave scars, so we don't know how many people have suffered it or been given detentions by the Carrows. The other teachers, Neville says, avoid sending students to the Carrows. Possibly, they use the good old point system instead. It seems to me that the Carrows's authority over detentions is more an illusion than a reality. They control only the detentions that they themselves assign.) I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture of life at Hogwarts in DH. I'm only saying that it might appear different seen from another students' perspective. Sure, there are no Muggle-borns and Muggle Studies is mandatory brainwashing (rather like DADA under Umbridge only worse). Sure, DADA is more like Dark Arts, especially for the older students, but that class has never been good except under Lupin and Snape. Stay out of the Carrows' way and you'll be all right. It's not as if Yaxley or Travers or Dolohov were headmaster and all the teachers were DEs. Good meals, a cozy common room, homework, the Hogwarts Express, the normal holidays, even, I imagine, pumpkins at Halloween and Christmas trees at Christmas. The ghosts, the suits of armor, Peeves the Poltergeist, Filch and Mrs. Norris, even, probably, the moving staircases that we never hear about in the later books, are all as they've always been. I think that, unless a student other than the DA members is actually in class or detention with the Carrows or otherwise in contact with them, that student would makd the best of the situation. Snape is no scarier as headmaster than he was as a teacher and actually, to judge from this chapter, quite reasonable and civil. I guess life at Hogwarts for most students (not those who are actually beaten up or tortured) is rather like Harry's life with the Dursleys, far from desirable, far from ideal, but not nearly as bad as it would be if Snape were the loyal DE he pretends to be. (And McGonagall, I think would realize that if only she weren't so firmly convinced that Snape was a murdering traitor and a loyal DE. Alas, she's blinded by her preconceptions and Snape keeps up the pretense till almost his last breath. I wonder what McGonagall thought, hearing the truth about Snape when it's too late and whether she was sorry that she had so badly misjudged him--or at least sorry to lose so valuable an ally.) Carol, wondering if NEWTs and OWLs were held that year and whether the students from the previous year ever got to take them From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 6 21:52:23 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:52:23 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184540 Catlady wrote: > All the Order members, including all 13 people who volunteered to transport Harry, had signed up to be Dumbledore's soldiers. As such, they had consented in advance to going on missions where they were likely to die, and to obeying orders without explanation. > Alla responded: > > Where to start? Okay, first of all comparison between Dumbledore and real life generals falls flat for me for several reasons. > > Reason number one is very simple; I do not remember Dumbledore having a military rank of the general or any military rank for that matter. I remember him assembling a group of volunteers, mostly his former students and some teachers who indeed agreed to follow him and fight with him. > > I do not know, to me this arrangement implies in a way much more intimate and trusting relationship. Carol responds: I agree with you that Dumbledore has no authority as a military commander. I'm not so sure, however, about the "intimate and trusting relationship." Dumbledore knows that the Order members are dedicated, as he is, to fighting Voldemort. The Order members know, as Sirius Black says in OoP, that they are risking death for a cause. Mr. Weasley is bitten by Nagini but remains in the Order. Snape repeatedly risks death. So does Lupin in associating with Fenrir Greyback and other werewolf supporters of LV. They know what happened to members of the Order (and, in the case of the MacKinnons, their innocent children), yet they join or rejoin the Order. Some causes, Sirius Black say, are worth dying for. Dumbledore is not a general, true. He's the leader of a resistance movement. Those he leads are all volunteers who have put their lives on the line. They will do what he asks, do what's necessary to bring Voldemort down, even if that means dying. And so, in the end, does Harry, willingly sacrificing himself, not because he wants to or because he any longer trusts Dumbledore but because he must die (he thinks) to destroy the soul bit in his head. Snape could have refused to kill Dumbledore. He wanted to refuse. We see his reluctance initially, and in the forest with DD, and again on the tower. But he does Dumbledore's will in the end because he must, because if he does not, matters will be much, much worse. He will die, Harry (and probably Draco) will be killed, Fenrir will desecrate Dumbledore's body, and the DEs will take over Hogwarts. Voldemort will win. It's not a matter of following orders because he can't refuse. It's a matter of heeding Dumbledore's plea because he chooses to do so, accepting the consequences of "murdering" Dumbledore (infamy and a chance to secretly undermine Voldemort) over a heroic death fighting the DEs (or a quick death from the UV) and certain defeat for Dumbledore's cause. It's a hard choice, a terrible choice, but the right choice in the end. Dumbledore's right to put him in that position is perhaps another question, but he could not let Draco or a DE loyal to Voldemort kill him (and not just because he didn't want to be tortured or torn apart by a a maniac's teeth). He needed to end the Elder Wand's power. He couldn't allow himself to die from the ring curse or the poison because that would be murder by Voldemort, making Voldemort the master of the wand. Suicide (which would probably split his soul) would not end the power of the wand. A mercy killing/coup de grace by Snape (it had to be Snape, not only because no one else would do it but because only Snape could become LV's right-hand man and protect Hogwarts) *would* end the power of the wand (unless, as he could not have anticipated, Draco send it out the window first) and accomplish a number of Snape-related objectives as well. (The euthanasia and Draco arguments, though true, were chosen IMO to persuade Snape, not because they were Dumbledore's true or primary motives. That LV would expect it and that DD wanted Snape to go under cover and protect the students, Snape already knew.) If Dumbledore had not stupidly put on the ring (how could *he*, with all his intelligence and sensitivity to hidden magic, not have known or at least guessed that the ring Horcrux was cursed?), matters would have been different. DD's and Snape both account for DD's blackened hand as the result of slowed reflexes and old age, but obviously that's a cover story--DD is not so much as winded by the encounter with Voldemort in the MoM. Had he remained in that condition--able to deal with Fudge, Umbridge, and Dawlish (and the undercover Shacklebolt) effortlessly, able to deal with a dozen (admittedly battle-worn) DEs at once, able to defeat Voldemort one on one--he might not have had to resort to the plan of having Snape kill him (despite LV's expectations and his need to have Snape go undercover). He could have disarmed Draco *and* frozen Harry, dispensed easily of all the DEs, and not brought Snape into it at all. But the injured hand an impending death make the Snape plan necessary, and his wandlessness and the terrible potion and the UV make it all the more urgent that Snape act on the plan. (I think Snape adds a few touches of his own in sending DD over the wall to keep him from Greyback and in his duel with Harry, but DD has always relied on Snape's quick thinking. He can hardly plan Snape's every action and every word.) What plan DD would have made if Draco weren't trying on LV's orders to kill him and he weren't already dying from the ring curse, I can't guess. As things were, his options were limited. He would not have a seventh year to train and prepare Harry. He must do what he could in that sixth year, make sure that Snape took his place in the seventh, and disarm the Elder Wand, unknown to anyone, at the same time. And to do that, Snape and only Snape had to kill him. Alla wrote: > > I absolutely agree with you that sending soldiers on suicide missions does not necessarily means viewing them as tools. I must not have been very clear though because I think that Dumbledore's telling Snape to leak this information was **unnecessary** and **stupid**, that's my main beef with this. > > NONE. I mean, I would be sad of course, but order members knew that when they guard Harry, they are going to the very risky mission and they can die. They did not know though that the portrait of their dead leader unnecessary IMO increased those risks. I take an issue with that. Carol responds: You may be right. However, the only element of the plan that Snape reveals is the time and date that they'll leave (and that they won't be Apparating or using the Floo network). That *seems* to put the Order members at additional risk, and certainly would have done so if not for the part of the plan that Snape doesn't reveal (thank goodness for superb Occlumency skills that can stand up to LV's Legilimency!) the Polyjuiced Harrys (Portrait!Dumbledore's own idea, conveyed to the Order via Snape and Confundungus). The Dursleys' house would have been watched by DEs in any case. True, Mad-eye seems to be thinking only of a small group of watching DEs, but surely he knows that LV would arrive instantly the moment the watching DEs touched their Dark Marks, along with the remaining DEs, who would be on alert to respond when LV touched *his* Dark Mark. They can all Apparate, broom in hand, ready to go. (LV, as we know, doesn't need a broom, but that's beside the point.) Had it not been for the part of DD's plan that Snape concealed, there would have been only one Harry guarded by undisguised Order members, probably the same set of volunteers, and many more people would almost certainly have died. The Poly-juiced Harry plan forces the DEs to split into seven groups and gives everyone (especially Harry) a better chance at survival. And while it's still very dangerous, it's no more so than it would have been if Snape (playing the loyal, well-informed right-hand man to the hilt) had not revealed the time and date. (The place, of course, was already known.) It's what he *didn't* tell them that gives them the only chance they'll have of succeeding, a point that Snape (who apparently is less sanguine about the plan than portrait DD) makes clear to Mundungus: "*It is the only thing that might work.*" IOW, the Order's plan (it's not DD's or Snape's; Snape's unnamed source, almost certainly Mundungus, has revealed it to him) will *not* work without the decoys (which are Portrait!DD's idea, the details of which he seems already to have discussed with Snape--either that or Snape deduces that "decoys" means identical Poly-juiced Potters), and even with the decoys, it *might* work but there's no guarantee. Mundungus appears to have repeated Snape's words because Mad-eye tells Harry, "Our only chance is to use decoys. Even You-Know-who can't split himself into seven." (Portrait!DD tells Snape that he thinks the plan will ensure *Harry's* safety; the Order members' danger, as DD, Snape, and the Order members themselves realize, is extreme either way, but perhaps lessened by the division of the DEs into seven groups.) Mad-eye, too, is thinking about *Harry's* safety, not his own. He takes pains to put Harry with Hagrid, the Order member that LV is least likely to suspect is guarding the real Harry, and to make sure that Harry doesn't ride a broom (as LV is likely to anticipate he'll do). Harry says, "If you think I'm going to let six people risk their lives--" but he's cut off by Ron, pointing out that it's not the first time that they've done so. "Everyone here's overage, Potter," says Mad-eye, "and they're all prepared to take the risk." He tells the "spineless worm" Mundungus (whom they nevertheless believe came up with this brilliant plan on his own!) that "it's the protectors who have got the most to worry about, the Death Eaters'll want to kill them." He also chooses to ride with Mundungus, the most useless (and most expendable) of the Harry decoys, knowing quite well that LV is likely to go after him as an Auror and the Order member LV would think most likely to be guarding Harry. I'm quite sure that Mad-eye knew, even more than the others, just how great a risk he was taking and that he (and perhaps the other Order members, especially his fellow Aurors, Tonks and Kingsley) might well be killed. The risk was less for any "Harrys" not pursued by LV himself. But it was Harry's safety that mattered. If Harry lived, the plan succeeded in his and DD's view, no matter how many Order members died in the attempt. (As for Snape, who was told to keep his cover no matter what and nevertheless risked discovery of his true loyalties by saving Lupin, perhaps he had another view of the matter.) Catlady: > That Snape's leak of the Seven Potters plan to LV was an 'Order' (dead DD) feint rather than Snape's loyal to LV betrayal of the Order is the kind of information (like troop movements in times of war) that is a LEGITIMATE military secret and therefore protected by not telling anyone people who don't 'need to know'. > Alla: > > Sorry, but again I disagree that it was a good order, a necessary order and therefore I equal it to betrayal pretty much. Carol responds: A betrayal of Harry by Portrait!DD do you mean rather than a betrayal by snape, who was following orders (and made sure that the Order knew just how risky their plan was, even with the decoys)? Obviously, it's essential to Portrait!DD's plans that Snape remain undiscovered and appear to be, still, a valuable spy. (He's doing exactly what he's always done, appearing to provide important information but withholding the key piece.) I do think that the original plan (Harry leaving the Dursleys' at nightfall with an Order escort) is fatally flawed even if thirty DEs hadn't descended on them. Two DEs and Voldemort would be sufficient to guarantee that at least someone got killed and LV would go immediately for Harry. And, of course, he would have summoned the other DEs to come instantly. But the Poly-juiced Potters diversion causes confusion and allows at least some (in fact most) of them a chance to escape and causes LV to pursue the wrong Harry(s). (It's Harry's own blunder that alerts Selwyn to his identity.) I'm not sure what else they could have done. The Floo Network is definitely out as it could not have been hooked up to the Dursleys' house without detection and Apparition is somehow being monitored. Otherwise, side-along apparition under the Invisibility Cloak, Hedwig's cage and all, seems the best option. Sidenote here: DD sends Harry's supplies on to the Weasleys' in HBP so you'd think that some of the other fully qualified Wizards could do the same in DH. I suppose that magic in Harry's presence would be detectable, but if he'd be leaving the next second, what would it matter? At any rate, assuming that Apparition really isn't an option, what better plan would you propose? It seems to me that Portrait!DD, with Snape's invaluable assistance, made the best of a very dangerous plan and that Snape's revelations, while preserving his credibility and status as LV's right-hand man, made the plan no more dangerous than it already was, the danger (to Harry and the Poly-juiced decoys, at least) having been already lessened by the decoys. It seems to me that any problems with the original plan are traceable to the Order, who originated it and ought to have known LV better than to assume that they might be fighting only two or three DEs. But it's clear that Moody and Mundungus, at least, knew that the danger of death was real. Ron had faced it with Harry befor and was ready to do so again; the Twins, perhaps, thought that it was all a great adventure (a lesson they learned the hard way through George's lost ear and Mad-eye's death). Tonks and Kingsley are Aurors and have fought DEs before. So has Lupin. And Mr. Weasley nearly died in the service of the Order in OoP. They know what they're facing, and they're willing to die to save Harry. Even Fleur has risked death in the TWT and is weeling to reesk eet again for 'arry. As are Hagrid, Ron, and Hermione. I suspect that others would have volunteered as in OoP if Mad-eye had thought it necessary to have more than seven Potters, even knowing that this time, the risk was far greater. Every one of them (Mundungus excepted) is ther, not because of Dumbledore, but because of Harry. (Mundungus, I suspect, is there because Mad-eye insisted that he participate in "his" plan.) Carol, wondering to what extent Dumbledore can be held accountable for his portrait's suggestions and exactly what he told Snape before his (DD's) death about this novel mode of communication From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 6 22:01:51 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:01:51 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dumbledore WAS: Re: HBP Chapters 27 - 30 post DH look LONG SORRY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > > It's common practice, in the WW, for families to give their > > > Squib children to Muggles to raise, so why would Dumbledore > > > think that Muggles wouldn't behave the same way? > > Montavilla47: > > I never heard that one before. Where is that from? > Alla: > I remember Weasley's cousin, but that's not exactly it, I believe. I think that maybe Pippin meant what Muriel said about Squibs at the wedding - that they were "usually shipped off to Muggle schools and encouraged to integrate into the Muggle community"(p.155). Muriel didn't exactly say though that Squib kids were given to Muggles to raise:-). I think they were just sent to Muggle boarding schools and maybe even encouraged to stay there for the holidays, just like Harry. This way they could get Muggle education and later learn some Muggle profession, like that Molly's accountant cousin :-). zanooda, wondering how Filch ended up at Hogwarts ... From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 7 22:18:15 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:18:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184542 > Questions!! > 1.How do you feel about Luna being the one to stun Alecto? Is it > notable that one of the "extras" from the DoM battle is the one to > help Harry out? I was happy for Luna. She had been held hostage by the DE's for a while and this was her turn at some pay back. > > 2.Professor McGonagall was easily able to figure out the riddle to > open the Ravenclaw entrance. What does this say about her Sorting? > I've never found her to be incredibly brave but have always found her > to be very smart. I'm not sure why you don't think she was brave. She was a member in the Order both times. She went out to defend Hagrid by herself. She stood up to Umbridge directly and indirectly. I guess I'm not sure why you found her not to be brave. > > 3.More interestingly (to me anyway) is the fact that the Carrows had > to have Professor Flitwick *let* them into the common room. Do you > think they tried to enter but got Professor Flitwick out of > frustration, or do you think they thought there was a password? How > does the fact that some people, like Professor McGonagall, seem to > know things about the castle that the Death Eaters don't affect the > upcoming battle? I don't think the Carrows were at the top of their class. Or better yet I doubt they bothered to learn how to think. I would guess that knowing the castle gives them a home field advantage. They can use their knowledge against the DE's > > 4.Do you think Harry would have Crucio'd Amycus if he had not felt > that rush of affection for Professor McGonagall moments before? A > Stunning Spell would have worked just as well and would have had the > added bonus of not alerting Amycus to the fact that he was, in fact, > in the Tower. (I'd like to avoid the moral points of the Crucio by > Harry, but that's like trying to avoid discussing Severus' teaching > methods!) I think that was the straw that broke the camels back. Let's remember Harry's day. It started off in the bank, they had to trick their way in, fight their way out on a dragon, make it into Hogsmeade and then meet their friends at the castle. Only to find out their friends had been abused and tortured by the DE's. Add in, that he knows Voldemort is on the way and you can see that Harry is finally at the breaking point. The fact that he only gave a minor TASER like curse on Amycus I thought showed great restraint. > 5.Why does Harry tell Professor McGonagall that Voldemort is on the > way to the castle when in reality he is on his way to check on the > Horcrux? At this point, the jig is pretty much up: Harry's in the > castle, there are Death Eaters everywhere, and he needs help. He's > used lies of omission on everyone else, why not Professor McGonagall? He didn't lie to her, Voldemort was on his way. He was just making a stop along the way. > > 6.Has there ever been any outrage about Professor McGonagall using > the Imperius Curse on Amycus? If not, why not? It's been discussed and no one has changed their opinion. > 7.What do you think is the significance of Professor McGonagall > *finally* believing Harry about something that is going on at the > school (Quirrell stealing the Philsopher's Stone anyone?)? Does it > have more to do with Dumbledore or more to the fact that Harry has > managed to survive several months with the Death Eaters trying to > kill him at every turn? By now, everyone knows that Harry is the focal point of the entire war. He obviously knows more than he's told her. So it is just common sense to believe him. Plus if he is there, he is going to make his stand and it's time for everyone to make it together. > 8.Can Severus see through invisibility cloaks? If not, why does he > always seem to know that Harry is around? Severus never catches him > in the cloak, but he always seems aware that Harry is there. It appears that Harry radiates his thoughts so that a skilled Legillsmen can pick them up. Plus, during the abusive occlumancy lessons, I would bet that Snape became more sensitive to Harry's thoughts. > > 9.What do you think would have happened if Severus had found Harry > alone? Would Severus have told him everything? Would he blow his > cover? It wouldn't have mattered. Harry wouldn't have believed him anyway. Snape had never given him a reason to trust him before this. The fact that Harry approached him at the end is still one of the most unbelievable aspects of the story to me. Except that it's Harry's love that compelled him to check on him. > 10.Severus leaps out the window and flies away. Do you think this > was, at any point, part of the plan? What do you think his plan was > before? Do you think he has any idea what's to come? I doubt he had planned to have to fly away. He also realized he was in a no win situation. He couldn't keep fighting the teachers especially when there was a hidden Harry nearby. Fighting someone you can't see is a losing proposition. I think that as he flew away he realized he may have just completely failed in his mission. He wasn't able to protect the students as the abuse suffered by Neville, etc. showed and now he lost his best chance at trying to give the information to Harry. > 11.Can you even imagine being Ginny at this point? Your whole family > (and basically everyone you've ever met) is going to fight for the > freedom of your entire world, and they want you to stay behind. > Would anyone have listened? I think Ginny would have done everything possible to be there. It was just as much her fight as anyone elses. No Gryffendor would have listened. > > 12.Oh Percy Weasley. Where to even begin? Did you think he would be > back? Were you secretly hoping that he would battling his brothers > American Civil War style because he was a Death Eater the entire > time? Did you think there'd be any resolution of his storyline? I'm > interested in what everyone else thought would happen to Percy. I figured he would come back, but I thought he would be the one to die. I was hoping for some minor side story....he was a spy, a reformed deatheater, etc. > > 13.Why didn't Ron and Hermione tell anyone where they were going? > Did they just look at each other, say something, and run off? The only person they would tell would be Harry and he wasn't there. > > 14.In my opinion, Harry's realization that Voldemort is outside of > Hogwarts is one of the most important moments of the book. This is > when he realizes that, whatever the outcome, the battle for the > wizarding world is going to end tonight. What do you think? Why > did the Creatrix choose the end the chapter on this note? It was obviously the end. All the players were there. If they lost there would be no more resistance. If Harry couldn't find the final horcrux before Voldemort he'd never get the chance again. But if he got it, they just had to kill the snake and then Voldemort was human (well, Harry didn't know about the bit attached to him yet) > > 15. The title of this chapter is "The Sacking of Severus Snape." > What does that mean to you? What did you think it meant at the > beginning of the chapter? What does it mean to you now? I thought that the good guys were going to retake Hogwarts and get rid of Snape. One could only hope that he would meet his demise at the same time. Thank you for your questions Oryomai! Jack-A-Roe From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 7 23:02:45 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:02:45 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184543 > Catlady: > All the Order members, including all 13 people who volunteered to > transport Harry, had signed up to be Dumbledore's soldiers. As such, > they had consented in advance to going on missions where they were > likely to die, and to obeying orders without explanation. > > > Alla: > > I do not know, to me this arrangement implies in a way much more > intimate and trusting relationship. Pippin: In explaining why only overage wizards can join the Order, Lupin says, "There are dangers involved of which you can have no idea, any of you...." (OOP ch 5) No one takes issue with this. The adults all understand that they cannot be given a complete picture of the dangers they face. I agree that the Order has a trusting relationship with Dumbledore, the question is, what are they trusting him to do? The Order is not a social club or an anti-Voldemort lobby. It is a fighting organization, whose members expect to be in harm's way. I agree that it's not an army, in service to a government or country. The wizards have no king, no constitution that I know of, and arguably no country either -- certainly Dumbledore feels no obligation to obey the Ministry when it doesn't suit him. If the Order's mission were strictly self-defense or even the defense of the wizarding community, then I agree that its members would have a right to expect that to come first. But I don't think that's entirely what the Order stood for. The Order's name suggests that like the orders of knighthood, it is in service to an ideal. I believe that ideal is the one stated by Kingsley -- "Every life is worth the same and every life is worth saving." Kingsley is only talking about defending Muggles, but Dumbledore and Harry appear to take it further, even applying to the enemy. That's pretty radical, if you take it seriously. The blogosphere would light up like a box of enchanted fireworks if one of the leaders of my country said, even self-defense excepted, that the life of a terrorist is worth just as much as the life of a Marine. Yet that does seem to be what Dumbledore stood for, and I don't think he made any secret of it. Alla: > And I want to say while of course I have no personal knowledge of the military, I do believe that there are some orders for which real life general will go under the tribunal and will be tried. Pippin: I believe the research for the Accio Snape trial unearthed a case in which a British soldier was tried for shooting his mortally wounded commanding officer. Having convinced the enemy he was a turncoat, he then delivered vital information to his own side. The court determined that the soldier had acted in the interest of king and country, and that his action was acceptable as a ruse de guerre. He was acquitted. (I don't have a reference for this since it wasn't actually used at the trial.) Alla: I do not know, maybe it is multiple hats Dumbledore wears that to me means that he is something different from the general. Pippin: If Dumbledore is the best person available to lead Hogwarts and the best person available to lead the Order, isn't that simply another tough choice that has to be made? Would Hogwarts or the Order have been better off with another leader just to make things simpler? > Alla: > > NONE. I mean, I would be sad of course, but order members knew that > when they guard Harry, they are going to the very risky mission and > they can die. They did not know though that the portrait of their > dead leader unnecessary IMO increased those risks. I take an issue > with that. Pippin: If Snape thought that Dumbledore was taking unnecessary risks with Harry's life, he could have said so. He had done so in the past, for instance when he warned Dumbledore against hiring Lupin. > Alla: I am saying that there is a clear penalty to one's soul in JKR's world for doing what Dumbledore wants Snape to do and I believe that it could be a metaphor for something criminal that general may order a soldier to do. Pippin: I don't think it is clear. Firenze said that to slay a unicorn is a monstrous thing and only one who has everything to gain and nothing to lose would commit such a crime. But Hagrid said that they may have to put the wounded unicorn out of its misery. (PS/SS ch 15) Hagrid does not act as though that would be doing something wrong or bringing a curse on himself or the children. Only if you have "slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself" would killing a unicorn be a crime. Of course a unicorn is a Beast, not a Being, but that wouldn't matter to a centaur. I think that JKR is talking to the readers over the heads of her characters when she has Dumbledore say that only Snape can tell if it would tear his soul to do as Dumbledore asks. To me, she is putting it to her audience that if they have already made up their minds that euthanasia is murder, she respects their conviction, but she is asking those who haven't made up their minds to consider another point of view. At the level of the characters themselves, I think Dumbledore is asking Snape to decide whether he can do this for Dumbledore's sake alone, seeking no advantage for himself. Alla: I think that Dumbledore's telling Snape to leak this information was **unnecessary** and **stupid**, that's my main beef with this. Pippin: I thought we were discussing whether Dumbledore cared about people, not whether he was smart. But I agree with Carol: if Moody thought the element of surprise would be enough to keep the watching DE's from summoning reinforcements in time to overwhelm the Order and destroy Harry, then he was the stupid one. Not that Moody is dumb, but even the smartest generals can be behind the times. I think Moody assumed, based on past experience, that Voldemort would hesitate before risking open battle in a Muggle area. But that was wrong. Pippin From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 04:12:55 2008 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:12:55 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184544 Okay, I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. When Voldy used the AK curse when Harry was a baby, it backfired - okay, Lily's sacrifice acted as an invisible shield and repelled the curse, I guess. Fine. When Voldy used the AK curse in DH climax, Lily's protection was not with Harry. Harry is the master of the Elder Wand and so the curse did not kill him. OK. Now, Expelliarmus spell only disarms the opponent. So, how did the AK curse *backfire* on Voldy? I think backfiring would have made sense had Harry used Protego. Not sure how Expelliarmus would help with respect to backfiring. Any thoughts / quotes from canon? Cheers, ~Joey, who always smiles to herself whenever she thinks that JKR made it a point that Harry learnt the Expelliarmus spell from *Snape* :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 8 11:10:02 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:10:02 -0000 Subject: Q 5, McGonagall (was Re: CHAPDISC: DH30, THE SACKING OF SEVERUS SNAPE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184545 > Carol responds: > I wonder if the situation is quite as bad as a number of readers seem > to think. We see it only through the point of view of Neville, a > seventh year. He would know what Amycus is teaching students at his > level, but not what he's teaching the younger students. We hear of > only two students, Crabbe and Goyle, who actually use Cruciatus on > other students, and both of them are seventh years. big snip > (And McGonagall, I > think would realize that if only she weren't so firmly convinced that > Snape was a murdering traitor and a loyal DE. Alas, she's blinded by > her preconceptions and Snape keeps up the pretense till almost his > last breath. I wonder what McGonagall thought, hearing the truth about > Snape when it's too late and whether she was sorry that she had so > badly misjudged him--or at least sorry to lose so valuable an ally.) Potioncat: I snipped the parts about how Snape worked to Hogwart's benefit, no argument there. And it may be very likely that there was one class or one brief time- span of Unforgivable study that 7th years had to practice Cruciatus on other students. ("Come on now, they deserve it.") Canon doesn't indicate that Cruciatus was used outside of Carrow's supervision. Which doesn't make it less horrible, just less amounts of it. I think McGonagall deserves a break in her judgement of Snape. Even those of us who were steadfast supporters of Snape had our own moments of doubt. The staff of Hogwarts know Snape killed DD, they saw Snape take charge of the DEs and they know the Carrows were part of that invasion. Everyone in the Order believes that Snape is a DE who betrayed the Order. (Can you betray something if you weren't really a part of it?) If they had been so sure that Black was a DE, they have even more reason to think it of Snape. While each of us supporters looked for signs of Snape's true loyalties--and to our eyes there were a couple of big ones--there was no reason for McGonagall to be looking. Snape played his part well, and even at the very end at Hogwarts, did nothing to even give a hint that he was working for Harry. If I were McGonagall, I'd be furious at Snape and DD and it would be years before I would even speak to their portraits. I think she was most likely sad at the turn of events, but I hope she wouldn't feel guilty herself. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 8 12:26:37 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:26:37 -0000 Subject: Which character inspired you or Compliment a character take 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184546 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > So this should be easier than complimenting characters we dislike :) > > Pick one quality or action of the character you like and tell us (with > canon help of course) why you would want to have that quality or maybe > that you are happy that you have it already. > > Please, stick to one quality for each character, but you can mention as > many characters as you wish. > > For example, I know that if the circumstances arise that I will > definitely want to take the child of my dead friends (hopefully not) in > and bring him up as my own, just as as Sirius wanted to bring Harry as > his own son. > > I would **want** to be as brave as Harry and to fight against evil, but > that I am not hundred percent sure if I have it in me, but I know I > would try. Potioncat: First, the second part. I was very tempted, when this post appeared to respond to "Sirius as a source of inspiration". Then I had an actual flash of Divination. The thread would turn to Sirius and his promise to take care of Harry vrs Severus and his promise to take care of Harry. A tennis match would follow with no real point made...oh, wait, that isn't Divination, that's a flashback! ;-) My next thought was to choose a character as a source of inspiration. Everyone I thought of, no matter the esteem which I may hold for him or her, is tainted in some way by less admirable traits. Boy, this set of characters is very human! But there is one character who has actually inspired me over the years. There has been one piece of philosophy which has come to mind in many situations when I have started to waiver. I don't have the quote remembered exactly, but I have the gist, "...to do what is right over what is easy." It isn't "do what is right, not what is wrong"--do what is right rather than what is easy. I've faced that situation many times. So Dumbledore, with all his faults and failings--and whether he lived up to this ideal or not--has been my source of inspiration. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 14:36:51 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:36:51 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184547 Alla before: I do not know, maybe it is multiple hats Dumbledore wears that to me means that he is something different from the general. Pippin: If Dumbledore is the best person available to lead Hogwarts and the best person available to lead the Order, isn't that simply another tough choice that has to be made? Would Hogwarts or the Order have been better off with another leader just to make things simpler? Alla now: I definitely was not thinking about simplicity, I was thinking about Dumbledore not performing both of his duties well ? Headmaster and Leader of the Order in my opinion and sometimes those duties being in direct conflict also IMO. But that was an aside anyway, I was trying to figure out why I do not see Dumbledore as direct analogy to military general, nothing more. Probably him wearing multiple hats is not even the main reason for me, I mean I do think he screwed both his kids and Order members more than once, but I am not sure if this is the main reason for me not seeing the analogy to general. Pippin: If Snape thought that Dumbledore was taking unnecessary risks with Harry's life, he could have said so. He had done so in the past, for instance when he warned Dumbledore against hiring Lupin. Alla: I thought experience taught him that Dumbledore would not listen to him anyways ;). He seemed to be very vocal to me about raising Harry as pig for slaughter. Did Dumbledore pay that any attention? I think he realized that if he could not convince alive Dumbledore, he certainly could not convince portrait one. Alla before: I think that Dumbledore's telling Snape to leak this information was **unnecessary** and **stupid**, that's my main beef with this. Pippin: I thought we were discussing whether Dumbledore cared about people, not whether he was smart. But I agree with Carol: if Moody thought the element of surprise would be enough to keep the watching DE's from summoning reinforcements in time to overwhelm the Order and destroy Harry, then he was the stupid one. Not that Moody is dumb, but even the smartest generals can be behind the times. I think Moody assumed, based on past experience, that Voldemort would hesitate before risking open battle in a Muggle area. But that was wrong. Alla: So your argument is that Moody who thought that they should transport Harry without actually **telling DE** when they are going to be doing it is wrong? Okay, so here is my question then. What purpose did the Dumbledore's order to Snape serve? Seriously, I consider myself to be an intelligent woman and after more than a year of the book being published I still do not understand what legitimate purpose it would serve. By legitimate purpose I mean how exactly telling DE about their plan would protect Harry more than, **not telling** DE about the day of the operation. Because you see, I am just not seeing how Dumbledore's plan was better. It just seems to me to be a plain common sense that when one does covert operation, it is better NOT to tell the enemy what you are doing. Because we do agree that protecting Harry *is* the purpose here, right? I mean I also believe that Dumbledore should have been concerned with protecting Order members from *avoidable* deaths, but I am willing to abandon it for the sake of this argument. And no, I do not think that Snape getting into more of Voldemort's good graces was a legit purpose at all. I thought he was already in as good as it gets, and to me is not a good justification at all for betraying plan to Voldemort. BUT I am very interested in hearing how Dumbledore's plan of signaling Voldemort what is happening would protect Harry better. As to being smart, I do believe that stupid plans are also less caring plans more often than not. JMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 18:03:33 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:03:33 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184548 > Alla: > I think that Dumbledore's telling Snape to leak this information was > **unnecessary** and **stupid**, that's my main beef with this. > > Pippin: > I thought we were discussing whether Dumbledore cared about people, > not whether he was smart. But I agree with Carol: if Moody thought > the element of surprise would be enough to keep the watching DE's from > summoning reinforcements in time to overwhelm the Order and destroy > Harry, then he was the stupid one. > > Not that Moody is dumb, but even the smartest generals can be behind > the times. I think Moody assumed, based on past experience, that > Voldemort would hesitate before risking open battle in a Muggle area. > But that was wrong. Montavilla47: I have to say that this whole idea of the DE's being able to come in quickly whether or not they were warned about the date is a good one and it's changed my mind about the intelligence of Dumbledore's plan. (I had assumed the Dumbledore had made *both* plans--the original "move Harry" and the subsequent "Seven Potters" plans.) So, I'm inclined now to give Dumbledore a break about this plan. You and Carol have opened my eyes. Now, I'm wondering this: If Harry can't be moved by Apparition because the Ministry would track it, what's to stop the Ministry from tracking the DE's Apparition? (Beyond not being sure who the Death Eaters are, that is.) What's to stop them from tracking Voldemort? If the DE's were able to pop in, why didn't the Ministry pop in right after them? After all, at that time, the Ministry was still officially on Harry's side and eager to protect him. Which brings up another question--if Voldemort could track the use of his name, why didn't the Ministry use a similar tactic on the phrase "Dark Lord"? That would allow *them* to show up in numbers whenever a Death Eater mentioned Voldemort. Presumably they'd do that occasionally in his presence. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 18:41:41 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:41:41 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS :Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184549 > Montavilla47: > I have to say that this whole idea of the DE's being able to come in quickly > whether or not they were warned about the date is a good one and it's > changed my mind about the intelligence of Dumbledore's plan. (I had > assumed the Dumbledore had made *both* plans--the original "move > Harry" and the subsequent "Seven Potters" plans.) > > So, I'm inclined now to give Dumbledore a break about this plan. You and > Carol have opened my eyes. > Alla: Me - I still do not understand it. Okay, I understand the idea that DE could come whether they would be warned or not. But wouldn't they come **for sure** if they are warned? SO, what's the catch here? Somebody please tell me what is the idea behind it? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 19:01:46 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:01:46 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184550 Alla wrote: > > So your argument is that Moody who thought that they should transport Harry without actually **telling DE** when they are going to be doing it is wrong? Okay, so here is my question then. > > What purpose did the Dumbledore's order to Snape serve? I still do not understand what legitimate purpose it would serve. > > By legitimate purpose I mean how exactly telling DE about their plan would protect Harry more than, **not telling** DE about the day of the operation. Carol responds: But you're defining "legitimate purpose" differently than Portrait!DD does. For him, it's of the utmost importance not only to save Harry's life but to get Snape into Hogwarts as headmaster to protect the students to the best of his ability. Snape's revelation serves what DD considers to be a legitimate purpose in that it makes a difference to *Voldemort*, who will be ready to reward this seemingly loyal follower with any thing he asks ("The headmastership at Hogwarts, my lord?"). that Snape has already killed DD supposedly on LV's orders is insufficient. He has to *remain* in LV's good graces. He cannot slip up by failing to provide information from his unnamed "source" (surely Mundungus). Not telling LV would arouse LV's suspicions about Snape, and even if he weren't killed, he would lose that essential position as LV's favorite, continuing to earn what passes for LV's trust while really serving DD's cause and Harry's. The revelation, thoug it seems to increase the Order's danger, actually makes *no* difference to them or to Harry, whose escape will be detected and LV notified instantly whether Snape reveals the time and date or not. What makes the difference for Harry and the Order is the Poly-juiced Potters plan. Alla wrote: > Because you see, I am just not seeing how Dumbledore's plan was better. It just seems to me to be a plain common sense that when one does covert operation, it is better NOT to tell the enemy what you are doing. Carol responds: You don't see how the Seven Potters diversion is better than a single Harry? *That's* what makes the different. A covert operation is impossible when you're being watched. (I won't get into Invisibility Cloaks and all that. We're just comparing the original plan, which would have been instantly detected and reported to LV and the waiting DEs, with the revised plan, with Snape revealing the date and time but *not* the key element, the Poly-juiced Potters.) There was no chance for a covert operation. The enemy would have known what they were doing in any case. The Dursleys' house would have been watched, as Moody knew and stated, just as we see 12 GP being watched later. The moment they broke through the protective barrier, they would have been seen and attacked by the watching DEs, and Voldemort and the other DEs would have been summoned and appeared instantly, brooms in hand. (It's clear from the messages sent between LV and the DEs later in DH that real information, such as "Potter will be coming to the Ravenclaw common room," can be communicated via the Dark Marks.) Many people were likely to be killed, and one of those people was likely to be Harry, as far as the Order knew. (They had no way of knowing that Harry's borrowed wand, on its own, would destroy Voldemort's borrowed one.) Dumbledore, Snape, and Moody (no doubt echoing the Confunded Mundungus, who is echoing Snape) all state that the *only* way the Order's plan will work (whether or not Snape reveals the time and date to remain in Voldemort's good graces and appear to be his diligent and loyal and most valuable servant) is to use the Poly-juiced Potters. *That*, not a "covert operation," makes the difference. It's a dangerous business escorting Harry to safety, and only a diversion with a six-out-of-seven chance that LV will follow the wrong "Harry" will protect him. The original plan, to escort Harry without decoys, will *not* work, as Snape makes clear to the Confunded Mundungus and Mundungus dutifully repeats to the Order, who adopt the modified plan because if they don't, they're likely to lose not only their own lives but, more important, Harry's. The decoy plan *might* work. Snape gives no guarantees. The original plan definitely will not, even if the time and date are kept secret, as the Order realizes or they would not have adopted Mundungus's suggestion. (What's the point of Poly-juiced Potters if they don't anticipate pursuit? What's the point of anticipating Voldemort's assumptions about who will guard Harry and what form of transportation "Potter" will be using if they don't anticipate that Voldemort himself will be there? What's the point of reassuring Mundungus that the "Harrys" will be safer than the guards because the DEs will be trying to kill them but not Harry if Moody doesn't anticipate a lot of DEs and very real danger?) The point is, Snape's revelation *seems* to increase the danger for the Order for Harry and for the Order, but it doesn't. It's clear from Moody's words that they would have been pursued by multiple DEs and Voldemort himself no matter what. And, BTW, the incident when Harry says "Voldemort" later in the book shows just how quickly DEs (or Snatchers) can show up. JKR wants Snape seems to the reader to be betraying the Order and Harry with his revelations. DD wants him to seem to be Voldemort's most reliable and valuable DE. Both purposes are beautifully served through Snape's revelation. But Snape has an ace up his sleeve that makes his seemingly disastrous revelation of no consequence. If he'd revealed the Poly-juiced Potters plan, OTOH, the element of surprise really would have been lost and the danger to the Order and Harry would have been greatly increased. Thanks to the Seven Potters diversion, only one person dies and the injuries are minimal. Harry would have gotten away undetected if he hadn't cast Expelliarmus, an incident that is no fault of Portrait!DD's plan. Moody would have lived if Mundungus hadn't panicked and Disapparated, leaving him to be hit by the AK. (True, Mundungus would have been killed, but he's their least useful member.) George's injury was an accident, again no fault of the plan; Snape was aiming at a DE and saving Lupin's life. No one else was injured (unless you count Hagrid's fall, which he survived because of his strength and size, as he would have done with or without DD's plan). Had they followed the original plan, whether or not Snape revealed the time and date--which made no difference because the DEs can communicate instantly through their Dark Marks, all of them can Apparate, and LV can fly though Apparating is quicker for a short distance--it's unlikely that any good guys (other than undercover Snape) would have survived (except that Harry's wand would have kept LV from killing him and destroying the soul bit at that point, but the Order members couldn't know that and neither can the first-time reader). As it was, the casualty count was very low--only one death, and that one was Mundungus's fault). If Snape had said nothing, they would still have faced Voldemort and thirty DEs because of the instant communication and transportation available to the DEs. The Seven Potters plan, "the only thing that *might* work," gave them their only chance of survival. They knew their risk, none better than Moody, and they chose to take it. And those in most need of protection, the youngest Order members (and the inept, unreliable, and cowardly Mundungus) were the least likely to be killed. The fighting was left to the older and more expeienced members (Tonks, though young, was an Auror). There was nothing for it but to make the best of a bad situation, to risk death to protect Harry. And that would have been the case whether Snape had revealed the time and date (on DD's orders) or not. If we're going to point a finger of blame here, maybe we should blame JKR for coming up with both the original plan and DD's modification, which serves her plot purposes in making Snape look like a traitor and keeping him with LV long enough to be appointed headmaster; allowing Harry to lose Hedwig and his Firebolt (both symbols of his connection to Hogwarts and both dangerous to use while he's in hiding) and his wand to go off on its own, prompting LV to begin his pursuit of an all-powerful wand; and killing off Mad-Eye Moody (which begins the casualty count and signals the intensified danger while enabling his eye to play a role of its own later). George's ear has its own little darkly ironic subplot made possible because he's identical to Harry rather than Fred, from whom he is permanently differentiated--again, not possible without the Seven Potters subplot. It may serve other purposes that I can't think of right now. But puppetmaster Dumbledore is himself a puppet, as are all the other characters, who are instruments of JKR's will. Character serves plot in this instance as in many others--which does not make it wrong, of course, to debate the characters' motivations and values and to try to determine for themselves just who and what they are. I'm only saying that if the plan to have Snape reveal the time and date but not the key point, the Poly-juiced Harrys, or the Poly-juiced Potter plan in itself is bad, if a better plan could have been devised using, say, side-along Apparition and the Invisibility Cloak, the ultimate blame lies with the author, who needed all these things to happen (along with the introduction of Andromeda and Ted Tonks) in the first, fourth, and fifth chapters of DH to move her plot along rather than with Portrait!DD, who makes the best of a bad plan by coming up with the Poly-juiced Potters and having Snape reveal seemingly key information exactly as he has always done to maintain the illusion that he's on LV's side, or with Moody, who comes up with a fatally flawed plan only because the Floo Network can't be hooked up to the Dursleys' house and Apparition is being monitored (if that's inconsistent with what we've already read or heard, blame JKR, not Moody). He has to get Harry out somehow, and his plan is vastly improved (but by no means made fail-safe) by the addition of the decoys as suggested by Mundungus via Snape via Portrait!DD. If you really think that the DEs would not have attacked in force, along with Voldemort himself, if Snape hadn't revealed the time and date (on DD's orders), we're at a stalemate. But look again at "A Place to Hide" and see just how quickly the two DEs, dressed as Muggle workmen, appear after Harry says "Voldemort" or at "The Deathly Hallows" and see how quickly Fenrir Greyback and his Snatchers show up under the same circumstances--when none of them had any clue as to Harry's whereabouts before he spoke the name. There's no reason why the DEs can't show up just as quickly when summoned by LV's Dark Mark, especially if they already know the approximate location and are anticipating the summons (in contrast to GoF where the summons to the graveyard takes them by surprise and they presumably have to conjure up DE robes and masks before Apparating to the graveyard a few minutes later. LV himself can certainly Apparate rather than fly if Apparition is faster and, of course, he would be waiting for the summons with or without Snape's revelation, as would the thirty or so on-call DEs (by which I mean robed, masked, and ready to Apparate at a second's notice, with brooms and wands in hand). Carol, still wondering just how much of DD was in that portrait and whether it worked like the Sorting Hat, with a bit of DD's "brains" in it so that it could think for itself using DD-style logic From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 20:50:26 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:50:26 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184551 Carol responds: But you're defining "legitimate purpose" differently than Portrait!DD does. For him, it's of the utmost importance not only to save Harry's life but to get Snape into Hogwarts as headmaster to protect the students to the best of his ability. Alla: And to me it is stupidity runs amok. I do not see an indication that by telling Voldemort about this plan Snape significantly increase his standing with him. Neither do I see an indication that Voldemort specifically for learning about this plan will reward Snape with Headmastership, before the fact indication I mean. I think he **already** increased more than enough by killing Dumbledore. I mean, of course we can argue that by telling Voldemort more and more Order secrets, he will be happier and happier with Snape, no questions about it. You do not have to convince me of that. Hypothetically Snape can go and kill some other order members and Voldemort may reward him beyond all measure. But to me there is a line and Snape, who is who he is must not overstep that line. I think that by telling about this plan he pretty much did. Well, actually no, he did not really act as DD wanted him to, he saved Lupin, etc. So I do believe that he is less responsible than Dumbledore. I mean, it reminds me of some RL cops, who work undercover to undermine drug dealers, etc. Again, I am not personally familiar with any RL cops, I am talking about what I see in the news and read in the newspapers. So, some cops work so deeply undercover that sometimes they slip and start selling drugs themselves or even killing people. That's what IMO DD wanted Snape to do. And again IMO we can argue till we are blue in the faces where is that line, to me that was way over the line. I am sure there are things those undercover cops are authorized to do in order to protect their identities and boy would I not want to do their job, but I do think that they have limits over which they are not authorized to go. Otherwise, I would not have read about trials over them for going over those limits. Carol: The revelation, thoug it seems to increase the Order's danger, actually makes *no* difference to them or to Harry, whose escape will be detected and LV notified instantly whether Snape reveals the time and date or not. What makes the difference for Harry and the Order is the Poly-juiced Potters plan. Alla: I disagree about instant part. I think they may have had at least **some** time till Voldemort would have come. Maybe not, but again, Dumbledore deprived them of that choice IMO. Carol responds: You don't see how the Seven Potters diversion is better than a single Harry? *That's* what makes the different. Alla: Well, no. I do not see how **telling DE** about seven Potters plan was better than not telling them about it. What I am saying if Dumbledore would have come up with Seven Potters only, would be fine by me. It is giving it to Voldemort what makes me scratch my head. Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether increasing Snape's standing in Voldemort's eyes is a good reason for doing so. I made up my mind that it is not, BUT if somebody could and wishes to show me that telling DE about this plan was going to help **protect Harry**, I would love to hear it. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 8 20:56:26 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:56:26 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184552 > Carol responds: > But you're defining "legitimate purpose" differently than Portrait! DD > does. For him, it's of the utmost importance not only to save Harry's > life but to get Snape into Hogwarts as headmaster to protect the > students to the best of his ability. > Snape's revelation serves what DD considers to be a legitimate purpose > in that it makes a difference to *Voldemort*, who will be ready to > reward this seemingly loyal follower with any thing he asks ("The > headmastership at Hogwarts, my lord?"). that Snape has already killed > DD supposedly on LV's orders is insufficient. He has to *remain* in > LV's good graces. He cannot slip up by failing to provide information > from his unnamed "source" (surely Mundungus). Magpie: So Dumbledore is supposed to know that Voldemort will randomly not consider Snape not murdering Dumbledore to be proof of his loyalty...but will consider it proof if Snape finds out that Harry is being moved 2 days early and passes that info at all? That's completely backwards to me. The first action is far more a proof of loyalty and if that didn't do it, this shouldn't either. Besides, is there anyone else we're supposed to think would have been the headmaster if Snape hadn't happened to come across this bit of information? Snape's already the most qualified, most proven, and most accomplished. Snape hasn't slipped up and he just killed Dumbledore--it makes just as much sense--no, MORE sense--that he would be rewarded for killing Dumbledore than for continuing to provide information from his unnamed source. A source that would have perfectly good reason for drying up, btw, once Snape reveals himself to be a DE. He just outed himself as a spy--it's possibly more suspicious for him to still have sources inside DD's camp a week later. Carol: > Not telling LV would > arouse LV's suspicions about Snape, and even if he weren't killed, he > would lose that essential position as LV's favorite, continuing to > earn what passes for LV's trust while really serving DD's cause and > Harry's. Magpie: There's no reason at all it should arouse suspicions, nor should Snape lose particular favor over it. If he'd let the other guy's info stand it's the other guy who would have lost favor. Snape's outed himself as a DE. He's got good reason not to know about new plans. Carol: > > The revelation, thoug it seems to increase the Order's danger, > actually makes *no* difference to them or to Harry, whose escape will > be detected and LV notified instantly whether Snape reveals the time > and date or not. What makes the difference for Harry and the Order is > the Poly-juiced Potters plan. Magpie: It makes the difference between the DEs waiting for them and the DEs having to play catch up, no matter how quickly they can do that. A matter of seconds is a huge difference in a plan like this. There's no reason they themselves shouldn't have known about it as well. They're the ones given the disadvantage of surprise here by Dumbledore. > Alla wrote: > > Because you see, I am just not seeing how Dumbledore's plan was > better. It just seems to me to be a plain common sense that when one > does covert operation, it is better NOT to tell the enemy what you are > doing. > > Carol responds: > You don't see how the Seven Potters diversion is better than a single > Harry? Magpie: No, I think she means she doesn't see how Dumbledore telling the DEs what day they're leaving in advance is a good ideas. The Seven Potters if fine--that's the plan everybody agrees to in the story. Alla (I think--correct me if I'm wrong, Alla) is asking why once that plan is in place it's such a great idea to gives the DEs just a little bit of help in thwarting them instead of giving themselves that extra advantage. It seems like this little advantage is being counted as important on the DE side (it will totally get Snape the headmastership and is the only thing keeping him Voldemort's favorite) but not on the Order side (it makes no difference if the DEs are told--they'd know anyway). I think that's out of proportion on both sides. Why is it assumed that Snape not telling Voldemort about the date change would reveal him as unworthy but not Snape not telling Voldemort about the 7 Potters? How come Snape could get away with his "unnamed source" not telling him that but not get away with him not knowing the date? Carol: Many people were > likely to be killed, and one of those people was likely to be Harry, > as far as the Order knew. (They had no way of knowing that Harry's > borrowed wand, on its own, would destroy Voldemort's borrowed one.) Magpie: Yeah, Harry totally would have been killed if his wand hadn't become a Deus Ex Machina. So he wasn't protected anyway. But the time they're leaving is part of the plan, even if it's not the most important part. CaroL: > It's a dangerous business escorting Harry to safety, and only a > diversion with a six-out-of-seven chance that LV will follow the wrong > "Harry" will protect him. The original plan, to escort Harry without > decoys, will *not* work, as Snape makes clear to the Confunded > Mundungus and Mundungus dutifully repeats to the Order, who adopt the > modified plan because if they don't, they're likely to lose not only > their own lives but, more important, Harry's. Magpie: I don't see why these two are mutually exclusive. They don't have to choose between escorting Harry on his birthday or using decoys. They could keep the date secret and also use decoys. Carol: > The point is, Snape's revelation *seems* to increase the danger for > the Order for Harry and for the Order, but it doesn't. Magpie: It does increase the danger, that danger is just being described as unimportant while the danger of Snape not revealing the new date is imo exaggerated. Moody might be happy thinking they'd be pursued no matter what but they're using kids as decoys here who think they've got a little bit of a head start. I'm not saying that makes the plan dangerous where it wouldn't be otherwise, but revealing any part of the plan to the DEs is giving the DEs an advantage, however small, and the alleged reason for it I don't buy. Carol: JKR wants Snape seems to the reader to be > betraying the Order and Harry with his revelations. DD wants him to > seem to be Voldemort's most reliable and valuable DE. Both purposes > are beautifully served through Snape's revelation. But Snape has an > ace up his sleeve that makes his seemingly disastrous revelation of > no consequence. If he'd revealed the Poly-juiced Potters plan, OTOH, > the element of surprise really would have been lost and the danger to > the Order and Harry would have been greatly increased. > Magpie: For me only the Doylistic purpose is served. The Watsonian (Dumbledore) purpose just seems to be transparently serving the Doylistic (JKR) purpose. To me it seems like however little consequence to the Order there is to Snape revealing the date, there's even less consequence for him and Voldemort in him revealing the date to the DEs. That it would have been far worse to reveal the Polyjuice is irrelevent. He doesn't have to reveal anything. We can't say how much better or worse things would have gone if he hadn't revealed the date. Carol: They knew > their risk, none better than Moody, and they chose to take it. Magpie: Except for the tiny added information that the DEs are waiting for them before they even begin, which in that situation is a bit more of a risk they might want to have been prepared for. Carol: > If we're going to point a finger of blame here, maybe we should blame > JKR for coming up with both the original plan and DD's modification, > which serves her plot purposes in making Snape look like a traitor and > keeping him with LV long enough to be appointed headmaster; Magpie: Of course JKR is doing it, but it's also in character for Dumbledore. Though I don't see how "keeping him with LV long enough to be appointed headmaster" is part of it. He didn't need anything to keep him with LV or to be headmaster. That was taken care of in HBP. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 22:38:13 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:38:13 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184553 > Magpie: > So Dumbledore is supposed to know that Voldemort will randomly not > consider Snape not murdering Dumbledore to be proof of his > loyalty...but will consider it proof if Snape finds out that Harry is > being moved 2 days early and passes that info at all? That's > completely backwards to me. The first action is far more a proof of > loyalty and if that didn't do it, this shouldn't either. Besides, is > there anyone else we're supposed to think would have been the > headmaster if Snape hadn't happened to come across this bit of > information? Snape's already the most qualified, most proven, and > most accomplished. Zara: It's not a random guess by Dumbledore. >DH, "The Prince's Tale": > "You will have to give 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 so well informed." Zara: In the absence of any doubt cast by the text on this reasoning, it seems to me most logical to accept that Albus is speaking the truth here, and that his opinion is based on solid facts he has available to him (such as whatever Snape has been telling him that we are not shown). This reading is also supported by Voldemort's own actions in the first chapter of DH. Snape revealing this information is Item One of the DE meeting agenda. It is possibly bad thinking by *Rowling*, if one believes there is no way Voldemort could care this much, or believe this strongly that Snape should know and should tell him, but I personally do not find it so. > Magpie: > How come Snape could get away with his "unnamed source" > not telling him that but not get away with him not knowing the date? Zara: I would bet the envisioned answer is "because the unnamed source changes the plan *after* Snape reports the date." The scene of "The Prince's Tale" in which Snape Confunds Mundungus and gives him the improved plan for moving Harry is shown after the conversation with Albus' portrait where the necessity of giving the date is discussed. Perhaps it is also after the time that Snape learns the real date. We do not, of course, know whether the question was ever asked. > Magpie: > It does increase the danger, that danger is just being described as > unimportant while the danger of Snape not revealing the new date is > imo exaggerated. Zara: To readers who consider it a given that the DEs would show up quickly regardless...it really does not increase the danger. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 8 23:04:30 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:04:30 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184554 > Alla: > > And to me it is stupidity runs amok. I do not see an indication that by telling Voldemort about this plan Snape significantly increase his standing with him. Pippin: "You will have to give Voldemort the correct time of Harry's departure from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed." -DH ch 33. It's not a matter of increasing Snape's standing, according to DD, but of the certainty that it will *decrease* if Voldemort discovers that he was misinformed. If Snape had confirmed Dawlish's information, then Voldemort would start wondering how it was that the Order knew to feed wrong information to Snape's informant, and if not, what exactly is Snape playing at? If Snape said he could not confirm Dawlish's information, then the Dark Lord would seek other means of doing so, meanwhile wondering why Snape is so unhelpful all of a sudden. In either case, Snape will have once again failed to deliver Harry Potter. He will no longer have the handy excuse that he dared not do anything that might make Dumbledore suspect. As Bella pointed out in DH, there are many excellent reasons for Voldemort to distrust Snape. It would not be wise for Dumbledore to bet that Voldemort had forgotten all of them -- even if he does not punish Snape he is hardly likely to reward him with the coveted post of headmaster. The plan protected Snape so that Snape could protect Harry and the students at Hogwarts. If it had not been Snape who needed to be protected for that reason, it would have been somebody else. Would you object to the Order being used for that purpose, or does it only bother you because it's Snape? Alla: So, some cops work so deeply undercover that sometimes they slip and start selling drugs themselves or even killing people. Pippin: I thought that sort of thing would be interesting myself, *cough*ESE!Lupin*cough* but it doesn't seem to be the story JKR was telling with Dumbledore. She told it already, with Professor Quirrell. And there, it's told properly, with a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion that leaves no doubt about how Quirrell was led astray. I don't see that here. Dumbledore does not beg forgiveness for having become enamored of Voldemort's methods. It's his lack of moral courage he bewails. That's his weakness, that often he knows what he should do, but cannot bring himself to do it. You can disagree with Dumbledore's moral judgment that it was worth putting Order members in danger in order to protect Snape, but IMO JKR does not. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 01:11:15 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:11:15 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184555 Pippin: "You will have to give Voldemort the correct time of Harry's departure from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed." -DH ch 33. It's not a matter of increasing Snape's standing, according to DD, but of the certainty that it will *decrease* if Voldemort discovers that he was misinformed. Alla: Honestly I do not see much difference and do not buy the certainty of that as I wrote before. Pippin: The plan protected Snape so that Snape could protect Harry and the students at Hogwarts. If it had not been Snape who needed to be protected for that reason, it would have been somebody else. Would you object to the Order being used for that purpose, or does it only bother you because it's Snape? Alla: Just to clarify, I want to be sure that you are not producing any evidence on the topic that I am open to changing my view. You are not saying that informing DE of the plan will help protect **Harry**, not protecting Snape in order for him to protect Harry in the future, but protect Harry as in ? to make his transportation from Dursleys **safer**? And what do you mean it would have been somebody else? You mean Dumbledore would have groomed somebody else whom he would have placed in exact same position as Snape ? years of spying, killing Dumbledore, etc? Trust me, it would have bothered me tremendously no matter who that character would have been. Magpie: > It does increase the danger, that danger is just being described as > unimportant while the danger of Snape not revealing the new date is > imo exaggerated. Zara: To readers who consider it a given that the DEs would show up quickly regardless...it really does not increase the danger. Alla: Since I completely agree with Magpie on this one, I then have to say that I find the proposition that DE will show up regardless of whether they are told or not told the date to be well, hard to understand. I mean, they **will** show up most likely of course eventually, but as Magpie said, seconds can make such tremendous difference IMO. If they know for sure, they are all there already, I mean full reinforcements and all that, just waiting to fight. If they do not know, it is more likely than not that DE who are most likely watching do need **some** time at least to inform others, no? JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 9 01:48:12 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:48:12 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184556 > Pippin: > "You will have to give Voldemort the correct time of Harry's departure > from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so will raise > suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed." > -DH ch 33. > > It's not a matter of increasing Snape's standing, according to DD, but > of the certainty that it will *decrease* if Voldemort discovers that > he was misinformed. > > Alla: > > Honestly I do not see much difference and do not buy the certainty of > that as I wrote before. Potioncat: The very first thing we see in DH is Yaxley and Snape bringing information to LV about the plans for Potter. They are competing for LV's favor. Snape, currently the top dog, is placed to LV's right while Yaxly is given a spot toward the end of the table. What do you think would have happened if Yaxley's information had been more accurate than Snape's?....We would have had Headmaster Yaxley, or Headmaster Carrow, and Snape, if he were lucky, would have been helping Umbridge with the Muggleborn trials. BYW, when is the last time we ever see Yaxley? Does anyone remember? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 9 02:06:29 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:06:29 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184557 > > Pippin: > > "You will have to give Voldemort the correct time of Harry's departure > > from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so will raise > > suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed." > > -DH ch 33. > > > > It's not a matter of increasing Snape's standing, according to DD, but > > of the certainty that it will *decrease* if Voldemort discovers that > > he was misinformed. > > > > Alla: > > > > Honestly I do not see much difference and do not buy the certainty of > > that as I wrote before. > > Potioncat: > The very first thing we see in DH is Yaxley and Snape bringing > information to LV about the plans for Potter. They are competing for > LV's favor. Snape, currently the top dog, is placed to LV's right while > Yaxly is given a spot toward the end of the table. > > What do you think would have happened if Yaxley's information had been > more accurate than Snape's?....We would have had Headmaster Yaxley, or > Headmaster Carrow, and Snape, if he were lucky, would have been helping > Umbridge with the Muggleborn trials. Magpie: But that's so damned silly! Snape's just killed freakin' Dumbledore. Yaxley's just brought a little bit of information. Sure if Snape throws a fit and challenges the guy *then* Snape had better be right. I've no doubt that if Snape had screwed things up by giving them the wrong date when he wasn't the one bringing the information it would have hurt Snape. But if somebody else has brought information another DE could just let him take the fall. The scene plays like what it apparently is, Snape going through the motions of being a traitor. He's already the top DE so there's no reason at all for him to fight with anyone. (Plus the guy was still Voldemort's favorite even after GoF so it's hard to imagine this ruining it.) And since Snape has just defected from the good side there's even less reason for Snape to be well-informed. In fact, is Snape ever again in this book supposed to know everything the Order is doing? Because the funny thing is that it's in DH where Snape actually does become a traitorous spy, passing information to Voldemort without the Order knowing. Otherwise, I can't remember, is he supposed to be plugged into the Order? Or is he just being the headmaster? Alla: I mean, they **will** show up most likely of course eventually, but as Magpie said, seconds can make such tremendous difference IMO. If they know for sure, they are all there already, I mean full reinforcements and all that, just waiting to fight. Magpie: Agreeing with you agreeing with me, but yeah, I just can't see how there's no extra danger here. Not only are we talking time for the DEs to react (even if it's just seconds--and we've seen that the DEs aren't exactly the most efficient team) they're also risking the possible seconds it takes for the Order--especially the kids--to react. If you know somebody's waiting to chase you when you start you are going to fly differently than if you are flying knowing that any second people could find you and start chasing you. This would be fine if the Order just knew that the DEs had been informed, but then we readers might have to know how. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 9 02:31:22 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:31:22 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184558 > Magpie: > But that's so damned silly! Snape's just killed freakin' Dumbledore. > Yaxley's just brought a little bit of information. Sure if Snape > throws a fit and challenges the guy *then* Snape had better be right. Potioncat: If Snape had had no information, or if his information had been wrong, he would have lost the fleeting glory bestowed by LV. He wasn't yet Headmaster, but it seems the Carrows were in line for a Hogwarts job. Assuming LV thinks Snape has a source in the Order, then Snape had better make use of it. Snape's source "dries up" once Mundungus deserts the Order. By that point, he has earned the position at Hogwarts, and has good reason to no longer be able to provide information about the Order. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 02:53:00 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:53:00 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184559 > Magpie: > And since Snape has just defected from the good side there's even > less reason for Snape to be well-informed. Zara: There is less reason than there was when he was a living Albus's trusted spy, but that does not mean there is no good reason for Voldemort's belief. In HBP, Dung was put into Azkaban. In DH, he without explanation winds up outside it, and in close temporal proximity to the appearance of Lucius and Stan. It is my opinion he is the unnamed source Snape is supposed to have, and is the reasonable basis for Voldemort's supposition that Snape can remain au courant. > Magpie: >In fact, is Snape ever > again in this book supposed to know everything the Order is doing? Zara: Not that we know of. However, if the reason he was supposed to know about the Order's plans was Dung... that reason was eliminated in the course of the raid. I don't think Voldemort cared much about the Order's activities after the early going, though. His interest was mainly driven by their plans to help Harry. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 03:02:20 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:02:20 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > BYW, when is the last time we ever see Yaxley? Does anyone remember? zanooda: Yaxley fought in the Battle of Hogwarts, and was finally apprehended by George and Lee Jordan, iirc. Why do you ask :-)? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 9 03:03:21 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:03:21 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184561 > > Magpie: > > But that's so damned silly! Snape's just killed freakin' Dumbledore. > > Yaxley's just brought a little bit of information. Sure if Snape > > throws a fit and challenges the guy *then* Snape had better be right. > > > Potioncat: > If Snape had had no information, or if his information had been wrong, > he would have lost the fleeting glory bestowed by LV. He wasn't yet > Headmaster, but it seems the Carrows were in line for a Hogwarts job. Magpie: First, Snape's somehow managed to have Bellatrix jealous back in HBP when he's been sitting at Hogwarts for years. Voldemort's affections for Snape are not fleeting. He's really into him. But it still seems silly that Snape's glory for KILLING DUMBLEDORE will disappear because he's just one more DE who doesn't have the information that Yaxley is bringing him? Did Snape get in trouble for not passing any information that would have helped at the MoM? Snape's just pulled off the most effective thing ever, and this information pales in comparison. I almost need more explanation for why the Carrows are joint-headmasters instead of the more obvious choice of Snape. If Voldemort's good favor is *that* fleeting it's nonexistant. Snape kills the only one Voldemort ever feared and that gets him a nice chair for two weeks...but knowing this date makes him headmaster. HBP has given me far stronger reasons for Snape to be headmaster. This undermines it rather than strengthening it. Potioncat:> > Assuming LV thinks Snape has a source in the Order, then Snape had > better make use of it. Snape's source "dries up" once Mundungus deserts > the Order. By that point, he has earned the position at Hogwarts, and > has good reason to no longer be able to provide information about the > Order. Magpie: Why doesn't Snape just leave his source as dried up when *Snape* deserts the Order? That's where Snape was supposed to be getting his information originally, right? Isn't the only reason Snape supposedly has Mundungus as a source only for this one bit of information? (Mundungus is dragged along against his will on this mission, right?) Meanwhile the Order isn't told about this, Snape really is spying on them now. -m From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 03:13:24 2008 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (Sandy) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:13:24 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "happyjoeysmiley" wrote: > > Okay, I'm sorry if this has already been discussed. > > When Voldy used the AK curse when Harry was a baby, it backfired - > okay, Lily's sacrifice acted as an invisible shield and repelled the > curse, I guess. Fine. > > When Voldy used the AK curse in DH climax, Lily's protection was not > with Harry. Harry is the master of the Elder Wand and so the curse did > not kill him. OK. Now, Expelliarmus spell only disarms the opponent. > So, how did the AK curse *backfire* on Voldy? I think backfiring would > have made sense had Harry used Protego. Not sure how Expelliarmus > would help with respect to backfiring. > > Any thoughts / quotes from canon? > > Cheers, > ~Joey, who always smiles to herself whenever she thinks that JKR made > it a point that Harry learnt the Expelliarmus spell from *Snape* :) > Joey, What a fun question. The master of the Elder Wand is as stated in canon the 'master of death'. The closest thing we have to canon in terms of what this means is the outcome of the Dumbledore/Grindelwald duel. Dumbledore didn't kill Grindelwald. Besides the love angle, I believe that if he had gone after Grindelwald with the intent to kill, the logic of JKR's universe says he would have died instead. It seems to me, that what 'master of death' means is that the master of the wand can't be intentionally physically harmed in a manner that might kill him or her in combat (which means it doesn't have to be AK) and any spell used with that intent would rebound on the caster. Or in other words the elder wand is like a bullet proof vest from which the bullets into the shooter. So, say you used Serpentsortia, and ordered the snake to attack the elder wand master with the intent to kill him; well the snake would attack you instead. If you try to drop a safe (or a house as I once saw in a fanfic) on the master with the intent to kill the master, then the safe or house would drop on you instead. You might be able to block this effect with most spells or avoid it, but an AK as shown by JKR in canon can't be shielded against. I.e Protego doesn't work against it. Only interposed physical objects can stop it, i.e. statues etc. Using this logic, if Harry had tried to kill Malfoy instead of disarm him, he never would have become the master and in fact would have died (leaving aside the Horcrux bit in him). Also, note how Grindelwald attained the wand: guile, and the manner in which Draco obtained it. If he had in fact, attempted to kill Dumbledore, then his curse would have rebounded. Snape could kill Dumbledore, only because Dumbledore was no longer the master of the wand at that point (Draco was), but I think even if he had been, Snape may have still been able to kill with an AK, if his intent had been to show mercy. Although, since an AK has to be used with intent to harm and with hate, I'm not sure it can be used for mercy. Snape might have had to use another spell to kill Dumbledore if DD had still been the master of the wand (or stunned him off the roof or something else instead). This doesn't mean that a master of the wand has never been killed in combat while they were the master, just that any such killings were accidental. Say, a tripping spell badly aimed at the master that misses and instead knocks a vase onto his head and shatters his skull, or one that unintentionally knocks the master over a ledge. Since a tripping hex is not used to kill, and assuming the hit on the vase wasn't planned as a 'killing attempt', then the master could be killed in this way. If it was an attempt to kill, then the tripping hex would rebound on the caster. It's open as to whether they just suffer the spell effects (death in the case of the AK), or are killed by the elder wand, in retaliation for the attempt to kill its master. In fact, in the right circumstances it might be possible for a bumbling muggle to temporarily become master of the wand. Say, if Dudley ever accidentally disarmed Harry. ~ DA Jones From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 03:30:28 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:30:28 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184563 Carol earlier: > > You don't see how the Seven Potters diversion is better than a single Harry? *That's* what makes the different. > > Alla: > Well, no. I do not see how **telling DE** about seven Potters plan was better than not telling them about it. What I am saying if Dumbledore would have come up with Seven Potters only, would be fine by me. It is giving it to Voldemort what makes me scratch my head. > > Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree on whether increasing Snape's standing in Voldemort's eyes is a good reason for doing so. I made up my mind that it is not, BUT if somebody could and wishes to show me that telling DE about this plan was going to help **protect Harry**, I would love to hear it. Carol responds: But Snape *did* tell LV about the Seven Potters plan. That was his ace in the hole, the key point that he kept secret. All he told him was the time and date, which LV would have found out, any way. And I gave the examples of the DEs instantly showing up when Harry said "Voldemort" to show that they can indeed appear instantly when summoned. And if the DEs can, so can LV. Again, it's the Seven Potters plan that protects Harry, as the Order's original plan would, IMO, have failed to do. As for the revelation increasing (or at least maintaining) Snape's standing with LV, we see that he retains his status as (literally) LV's right-hand man. We see that at least two DEs, Bellatrix and Yaxley, are jealous of him and jockeyeing for LV's favor. (Lucius probably is, too, but he's in no position to say so.) We see how respectfully (if that's the word) LV treats him in comparison to the other DEs. If he had *not* come through with information that trumped Yaxley's and convinced LV that his information was correct (as, indeed, it was, except for that all-important lie by omission), not to mention passing that terrible Legilimency test with flying colors (we see later how LV invades Gregorovitch's mind, and he's surely invading Snape's here), Snape would *not* have retained that position. As it is, next time we hear from him (not counting the incident with George's ear), he has the position that DD wants him to have and has been counting on him to obtain, the headmastership of Hogwarts. So it's not that revealing the time and date to LV protects Harry. Obviously, it doesn't. But, thanks to the Seven Potters plan, Harry is in less danger than if DD and Snape had not interfered. And keeping Snape's credibility is essential to DD, more so than it is to Snape,as Portrait!DD's words to snape reveal: "You will have to give Voldemort the correct date of Harry's departure from his aunt and uncle's. *Not to do so will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed.* However, you must plant *the idea of decoys*; that, I think *ought to ensure Harry's safety*. Try Confunding Mundungus Fletcher. And Severus, if you are forced to take part in the chase, *be sure to act your part convincingly. I am counting upon you to remain in Lord Voldemorts good books as long as possible, or Hogwarts will be left to the mercy of the Carrows*" (DH Am. ed. 688). Of course, you can disagree with DD, but at least his intentions are clear. Snape's concern for the plan (and, by implication, Harry's safety) is evident in his words to Mundungus, which are more detailed than DD's instructions to him and by his caution, "It is the only thing that *might* work." (IOW, the original plan *won't* work, whether or not he reveals the time and date to LV, but this one *might* overcome any slight advantage in timing gained through his revelation by creating a diversion, confusing and dividing the DEs. That Snape is, ironically, more concerned than DD with the lives of the Order members (as opposed to Harry, about whose safety DD, Snape, and the Order are equally concerned) is evident when he risks his cover to save Lupin. (I think, though, that if he'd "accidentally" hit the DE with Sectumsempra, he would have flown down with him to apologize and apply the countercurse, temporarily taking both of them out of the battle. He would have maintained his credibility by saving the DE's hand and perhaps his life, and, of course, he would have gotten back into the chase, just in time to be thwarted like everyone else by the protective barriers. He knows how important it is that he maintain Voldemort's trust and be appointed headmaster, but he also believes in saiving lives that can be saved.) Carol, who wants to know how Snape and Portrait!DD learned that the fake Harry who lost his ear was George Weasley From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 04:04:47 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:04:47 -0000 Subject: Portrait!Albus' information sources (WAS: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184564 > Carol: > Carol, who wants to know how Snape and Portrait!DD learned that the > fake Harry who lost his ear was George Weasley Zara: There are portraits in the Headmaster's office who also have portraits at the Ministry, which means those individuals may move around the Ministry to all rooms that contain any portraits at all. My guess is that these Headmaster portraits (or those similarly situated at St. Mungo's) would be Albus's, and later Snape's, sources. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 04:12:26 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:12:26 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184565 Magpie wrote: Why is it assumed that Snape not telling Voldemort about the date change would reveal him as unworthy but not Snape not telling Voldemort about the 7 Potters? How come Snape could get away with his "unnamed source" not telling him that but not get away with him not knowing the date? carol responds: I've already answered most of your other questions in another post, and I don't want to duplicate, so I'll just answer these. Voldemort has already used Legilimency on Snape, invading his mind to see his conversation with his source, who is (for whatever reason) still providing information to Snape despite the belief of most of the Order that Snape killed Dumbledore. (Maybe Snape has convinced Mundungus, who, after all, was in Azkaban when DD was killed, that he's under deep cover and wants people to believe that he killed DD but that, say, Amycus or Yaxley actually did it.) All we know is that Snape *does* have a source that LV knows about, and that LV has invaded his mind to see what the source told him. (The source could be someone other than Mundungus, but I don't know who it could be--certainly not Portrait!DD--imagine LV penetrating Snape's mind and seeing *those* conversations!) What LV would *not* have seen is the part we know that he doesn't know about, the part that Snape concealed through Occlumency, the part that he himself planted in Mundungus's brain. He can say quite truthfully that his source didn't know that part of the plan; it must have been decided on at the last minute, after the conversation with the source that LV will have witnessed in Snape's mind. LV, having used his ultra-powerful Legilimency on Snape and found everything exactly as Snape said it was (you don't lie outright to the Dark Lord and live), he's not going to realize that Snape is once again "hoodwinking" him. (Remember his words to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End"--he is, indeed, fooling the greatest Legilimens who ever lived. LV has already looked into Snape's mind. He knows what Snape was told. He has no reason to suspect that Snape was also told about the Seven Potters plan but is concealing it, and even less to suspect that it was Snape who planted the idea in Mundungus's head. But to conceal the date and time after he's told LV that he has a confidential source, knowing that LV will use Legilimency on him to see what he knows (and will be furious if Snape claims that the source has told him nothing) would be folly. LV trusts no one, not even the man who killed Dumbledore, and a misstep could prove fatal. And even if it isn't, if he's only Cruciod for disappointing the Dark Lord, Snape can't let Yaxley or any other DE take his place as LV's right-hand man. Dumbledore is counting on him to become headmaster, and even a misstep in the Seven Potters chase could destroy their plan. (Or so DD thinks; Snape is willing to take that particular risk.) BTW, Magpie, the same question you asked about Snape having a confidential source despite having been revealed as a supposedly loyal DE and DD's "murderer" occurred to me as I read DH for the first time. However, if the source is Mundungus (and who else can it be?), he was, as I pointed out earlier, in Azkaban when DD was killed. He can only have heard second-hand, distorted reports of events. He's not particularly bright, anyway, and completely unscrupulous. It would be easy enough for Snape, who is a great deal brighter than Mundungus, to convince him that he, Snape, was under deep cover, and only Mundungus could be trusted to know that. And then he could buy Mundungus a drink, slip him some Veritserum, and learn everything he needed to know about the Order's plans. (He must have met him more than once; the Confundus incident occurs after Snape has revealed the Order's plans to Dumbledore but before he reveals the time and date to LV.) Anyway, I'd be interested in other people's theories regarding Snape's source. I've said everything I can think of regarding the Seven Potter's plan in about three other posts. On another note, I was thinking about the apparent inconsistency regarding Apparition being suddenly traceable and thought about Mike and his plothole filler. Where are you, Mike? Any ideas on this one, or any old posts you can point us to? Carol, winking at Montavilla and thanking her for being persuaded by Pippin's and my arguments regarding Portrait DD's plan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 04:29:50 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:29:50 -0000 Subject: Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184566 Alla: > > Since I completely agree with Magpie on this one, I then have to say that I find the proposition that DE will show up regardless of whether they are told or not told the date to be well, hard to > understand. > > I mean, they **will** show up most likely of course eventually, but as Magpie said, seconds can make such tremendous difference IMO. If they know for sure, they are all there already, I mean full reinforcements and all that, just waiting to fight. > > If they do not know, it is more likely than not that DE who are most likely watching do need **some** time at least to inform others, no? Carol responds: Communication by Dark Mark is instant and can involve one DE or the whole group, as we've known since GoF. And we've also seen Voldemort communicating clairvoyantly with Nagini. It would have taken the DEs no longer than it took Dolohov and Thorfinn Rowle to reach the restaurant after Harry said "Voldemort," conveniently dressed as Muggle workers. (How did that happen, BTW? DEs must have a clearer idea than the good guys how Muggles dress?) and if Fenrir Greyback and his gang of idiots can arrive instantly at the tent when Harry says "Voldemort," regular DEs can surely come with equal promptness when the Dark Lord himself says "Come, and bring a broomstick with you!" Carol, wishing that JKR were entirely clear and consistent with regard to communication by Dark Mark From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 9 12:00:34 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:00:34 -0000 Subject: Protecting Lupin (was Plan to move Harry WAS: Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184567 > Carol, who wants to know how Snape and Portrait!DD learned that the > fake Harry who lost his ear was George Weasley > Potioncat: At one time, I thought it was pretty interesting that Snape had protected Lupin... until I realised that Snape was really protecting Harry. That is, he was protecting Lupin to protect Harry. I don't know if Snape knew which Harry was the real Harry, but if he didn't, then he had to protect which ever one he was following---just in case it was really Harry. If he knew that this pair wasn't the Harry duo, then he really was looking out for the Order. That's another strike against Snape as far as Minerva is concerned. As an Order member, she would know Snape had taken part in the raid against Harry and had sliced George's ear. Must have been pretty hard for Ginny, too. Now that I think of this, I don't know how Molly was able to send Ginny to Hogwarts. Molly must have been a basket case the whole time. (I would be.) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 14:56:24 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:56:24 -0000 Subject: Tracing Apparition (WAS: Re: Caring about people) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184568 > Carol: > On another note, I was thinking about the apparent inconsistency > regarding Apparition being suddenly traceable and thought about Mike > and his plothole filler. Where are you, Mike? Any ideas on this one, > or any old posts you can point us to? Zara: Perhaps Apparition can be Traced. So, Harry Apparating, or being Apparated, could be traced wherever and whenever he Apparated, but adult DEs from whom the Trace has long been removed, could not. There is also the point that the DEs did not Apparate into 4 Privet Drive. Perhaps if the starting point is known to sufficient accuracy in advance, anyone can be traced when Apparating. But this would only prevent DEs from Apparating directly into 4 Privet Drive, something it is not clear to me they can do anyway until Harry turns 17. However, the DEs showed up on brooms some distance away from the house. Thus, the precondition I suggest, of advance notice and a known location, was not (and could not) be met. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 20:36:21 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:36:21 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184569 > Carol, winking at Montavilla and thanking her for being persuaded by > Pippin's and my arguments regarding Portrait DD's plan. Montavilla47: Don't get too comfortable. :) I do agree with Magpie about the essential silliness of Snape needing to tell Voldemort anything in order to secure the Headmaster job. Yes. He just freakin' killed Dumbledore. Beyond killing Harry Potter himself, there's nothing that any Death Eater could do to please Voldemort more. And sure, the Death Eaters are constantly jockeying to get Voldemort's favor, but there are plenty of plums to go around, and neither Yaxley nor Bellatrix shows any interest in becoming Headmaster. Nor does anyone else. Even the Carrows. Who are shown to be pretty stupid. Would Voldemort actually *want* them in charge of England's wizarding youth? Yeah, he wants them trained to be his new army, but he doesn't want a *stupid* army, does he? (Doesn't he already have that with the Inferi?) And it's harder to explain how Snape still has a contact within the order than it would be for him to explain to Voldemort why he doesn't. He freakin' killed Dumbledore! No sane person in the Order would trust him. He has to go confund Mundungus in order to get his information--which is, again, silly. Why is Dumbledore's killer able to stroll into random pubs to bend elbows with someone who just broke out of Azkaban? Isn't the Ministry looking for these people? The whole situation requires a huge suspension of disbelief. It's there because, as someone noted, JKR wanted to create the strong impression that Snape was fully in Voldemort's Camp. And possibly get us worried that there was a traitor in Dumbledore's Camp. (Incidentally, I predicted that JKR would do something to make Snape look evil early in the book. It seemed like a logical move in order to twist things at the end. So, when I read the first chapters of DH, I knew that Snape would turn out to be good.) But in order to pull off this effect, (and to have the alchemically fun scene of seven naked Harries running around), JKR asks the reader to suspend too much. We're asked to believe that the entire world is counting on Harry, and that the Ministry is putting extra protection on several safe-houses.... but yet, it wouldn't be safe to use the Ministry floo network. That it's safer to polyjuice six people to look like Harry than to polyjuice Harry to look like any random person and simply walk out the front door. I still can't figure out why it's smarter to move the Dursleys out of the house before Harry leaves than afterwards. And now that I think about it, how does the blood protection end when Harry becomes seventeen? What kind of magic is that? And, if it does, why does it still work later on in the book when Voldemort AKs him? Speaking about that idea of a traitor in Dumbledore's Camp... I wonder if that was supposed to explain why Harry refuses to confide in anybody about the Horcrux Hunt? Were we supposed to wonder if Lupin was really ESE? If so, then it might have worked--if Harry hadn't categorically refused to consider that idea. If he had worried about a possible traitor, then I wouldn't have been left gnashing my teeth when he told Lupin to take a hike or ask Bill for advice about breaking into the bank that Bill worked for. Montavilla47 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 21:45:02 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:45:02 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184570 > Montavilla47: > He has to go confund Mundungus > in order to get his information--which is, again, silly. Why is > Dumbledore's killer able to stroll into random pubs to bend > elbows with someone who just broke out of Azkaban? Isn't > the Ministry looking for these people? Zara: And Lucius, another Azkaban fugitive, is living in his own house, which also hosts none other than Lord Voldemort himself, at least for the occasional meeting. You may find this all too much to swallow, but it is not there solely in the 7 Potters chapter, or solely in service to it. I think it is there too as more demonstration, as if more were needed, of the Ministry's ineffectualness. > Montavilla47: > We're > asked to believe that the entire world is counting on > Harry, and that the Ministry is putting extra protection > on several safe-houses.... but yet, it wouldn't be safe to > use the Ministry floo network. Zara: Actually, we are not asked to believe this. It is the Order protecting the safehouses by themselves, and not trusting the Ministry's Floo network either. The Ministry believes the same tale Yaxley was trying to sell Voldemort, that Harry is leaving on another day. The relevance of the Ministry to the safe houses, as I understood it, is that only the Ministry has the special magical and/or legal powers to break through the safehouse spells, so while it stands, however ineffectually, Voldemort is not able to penetrate that magic. When the Ministry falls, the DEs are right there at the Burrow on the heels of Kingsley's Patronus. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 23:22:33 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:22:33 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > He has to go confund Mundungus in order to get his > information--which is, again, silly. Why is > Dumbledore's killer able to stroll into random pubs to bend > elbows with someone who just broke out of Azkaban? Isn't > the Ministry looking for these people? zanooda: Are you sure that Mundungus broke out of Azkaban? Somehow I assumed that he just did his time and got out :-). I doubt it that every single prisoner was freed during that break-out. How much time did Mundungus spend in Azkaban, something like four months, right? Maybe this is how much you get for an attempted burglary in WW, LOL. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 23:55:12 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:55:12 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: >> Speaking about that idea of a traitor in Dumbledore's > Camp... I wonder if that was supposed to explain why > Harry refuses to confide in anybody about the Horcrux > Hunt? Were we supposed to wonder if Lupin was really > ESE? If so, then it might have worked--if Harry hadn't > categorically refused to consider that idea. If he had > worried about a possible traitor, then I wouldn't have > been left gnashing my teeth when he told Lupin to > take a hike or ask Bill for advice about breaking into > the bank that Bill worked for. Jack-A-Roe: I skipped the beginning because I pretty much agree with Carol (mark this day down) on the reasoning for Snape telling Voldemort. I think Harry didn't tell anyone because Dumbledore told him not to tell anyone but Ron & Hermione. Even when he was feeling "betrayed" it felt more like he was a puppy that just got smacked for doing something wrong and trying figure out what it was. This is after all Harry's journey. Part of that journey is to see Dumbledore as a human being not some perfect all powerful wizard. I think of it as when you are growing up and find out that your dad isn't superman. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 00:31:31 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:31:31 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184573 > Jack-A-Roe: > I skipped the beginning because I pretty much agree with Carol (mark > this day down) on the reasoning for Snape telling Voldemort. > > I think Harry didn't tell anyone because Dumbledore told him not to > tell anyone but Ron & Hermione. Even when he was feeling "betrayed" > it felt more like he was a puppy that just got smacked for doing > something wrong and trying figure out what it was. > > This is after all Harry's journey. Part of that journey is to see > Dumbledore as a human being not some perfect all powerful wizard. > > I think of it as when you are growing up and find out that your dad > isn't superman. > Montavilla47: I thought he went through that in OotP, when he found out that James was a toerag. I also thought he went through it in HBP, when he found out that Dumbledore was dead. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 05:00:24 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:00:24 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > On another note, I was thinking about the apparent inconsistency > regarding Apparition being suddenly traceable and thought about Mike > and his plothole filler. Where are you, Mike? zanooda: I also hope that Mike is all right, and that it's just the football season got in the way :-). As for the plothole filler, I'm not sure it will help, because, according to the book, Apparition doesn't seem to be traceable. Lupin says that "it's impossible to track anyone who Apparates, unless you grab hold of them as they disappear" (DH,p.205 Am.ed.) As a matter of fact, I don't remember anyone saying that Apparition is traceable. When Yaxley brags about his people infiltrating the Department of Transport, he only says that if Harry Apparates from the house, the DEs will know about it (p.6). He never says that they will know Harry's destination. When Moody explains the plan, he also doesn't say that Thicknesse and the DEs can track Harry, if he Apparates, only that Thicknesse made it "imprisonable offense" to Apparate from or to Privet Drive (p.46). I don't know what this means exactly, but it seems obvious they can't trace an apparating wizard, only to put a spell on a place (a house in this case) which lets them know that someone *did* Apparate. Maybe the spell even shows *who* Apparated, otherwise how would they know whom to "imprison" :-)? If Harry's apparition was traceable, I believe Moody would have said so, instead of ranting about "imprisonable offense" :-). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 05:17:57 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:17:57 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184575 Montavilla47 wrote: > And it's harder to explain how Snape still has a contact within > the order than it would be for him to explain to Voldemort why > he doesn't. He freakin' killed Dumbledore! No sane person in > the Order would trust him. He has to go confund Mundungus > in order to get his information--which is, again, silly. Carol responds: I'm not quite sure that Mundungus qualifies as a sane person, especially if he's good and drunk or Confunded. Certainly, he has few if any moral scruples and no particular reason to be loyal to the Order now that Dumbledore is dead. Maybe Snape paid him good money for his information. And Snape can always slip some Veritaserum into his pumpkin juice, er, firewhiskey if he wants to be sure he's getting a straight answer. I agree that it's all a bit hard to swallow, but I didn't write the story. I'm just trying to figure out how Snape (who can do it if anyone can) could be getting information out of an Order member. Obviously, even he would have no luck with anyone but Mundungus. (He might be able to persuade Hagrid of his true loyalties, but getting Hagrid to keep the secret would be another matter altogether.) Why does Snape need to find out what the Order is up to? Because they're protecting or escorting Harry, and both Voldemort and Portrait!DD want that crucial information. And, yes, killing Dumbledore was a big deal. But if Snape fails to provide information on LV's next intended victim, the Chosen One, his past accomplishment won't matter. Dumbledore may be the only one LV ever feared, but Harry is the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord. So Snape's information is crucial to LV, no one but Snape can obtain it, and he must not fail to provide it. (And, of course, the same applies to Snape and Portrait!Dumbledore for altogether different reasons.) Montavilla47: > Why is Dumbledore's killer able to stroll into random pubs to bend elbows with someone who just broke out of Azkaban? Isn't the Ministry looking for these people? Carol responds: Good question. I wondered the same thing. However, Rufus Scrimgeour is preoccupied with studying Dumbledore's will to try to figure out why DD willed HRH a Snitch, a Deluminator, and a children's book. He's also pretending that the Azkaban break-out never happened. Dawlish has been Confunded. I don't know what the other Aurors are doing, but the Ministry is already being infiltrated by people like Runcorn. Umbridge is still there, and Pius Thicknesse is apparently on sufficiently good terms with Yaxley that it was easy for Yaxley to hit him with an Imperius Curse. Meanwhile, Rita Skeeter has already raised questions as to whether Snape really killed Dumbledore. Harry is the only witness testifying against him. Since the reading public of the WW seems to believe whatever they read, whether it's Rita Skeeter's biography of Dumbledore or the Daily Prophet or the Quibbler, they probably believe that Snape is guilty one day and innocent the next. Mundungus is small potatoes--no one cares about a man arrested for impersonating an Inferius. And people who knew Snape may well react the same way that Hagrid and Slughorn did, not believing or not wanting to believe that he's Dumbledore's killer. The WW is in a state of confusion in those few weeks between Dumbledore's death and the DE takeover of the MoM. Meanwhile, Snape, Yaxley, and others who might be arrested are being extremely cautious in their movements outside certain places they know to be safe. Notice that they both draw their wands and then put them away as they recognize each other. The narrator describes the meeting place of Snape and Mundungus as an unfamiliar pub. I suspect that there are many such shady places, a cross between Knockturn Alley and the Hog's Head, where Dark Wizards and criminals are used to meeting, probably hooded and cloaked for secrecy. Snape need only arrange to meet Mundungus there, perhaps using his Patronus to carry the message. (He must be a loyal Order member under cover if he can use his Patronus, right? Right.) Anyway, JKR apparently didn't think it all the way through or imagined that we'd fill in the details to our own satisfaction. BTW, I brilliantly said in another post, "Snape *did* reveal the Seven Potters plan to LV." Obviously, I forgot to type the all-important word "not." I assume that anyone who's been reading my posts in this thread had no trouble deciphering my intended meaning, but of all words to omit! Carol, who doubts that she's persuaded anyone with her speculations in this post but had fun with it, anyway From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 10 12:12:40 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:12:40 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184576 > > Carol responds: > I'm not quite sure that Mundungus qualifies as a sane person, > especially if he's good and drunk or Confunded. Certainly, he has few > if any moral scruples and no particular reason to be loyal to the > Order now that Dumbledore is dead. Maybe Snape paid him good money for > his information. Potioncat: I didn't get the idea that Mundungus knew he was giving information to Snape. Look at the times Hagrid had a drink or two with a "stranger" in a bar and "gave" information or obtained a rare creature. In some of those situations, we've figured out who the stranger was. (Or at least we think we have.) It's more likely that Snape identified Mundungus as someone who is easily tempted into unsavory locations and easily confunded. It wouldn't be difficult for Snape to change his appearance --I'm sure he could manage Polyjuice Potion--or to make Mundungus think he is someone else. Harry sees Snape confunding Mundungus via the Pensieve, but it was Snape's memory he was watching. Had it been Mung's, the image would probably have been different. What really makes less sense, is that Mundungus was allowed so much information within the Order, given his lack of scruples. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 10 16:23:45 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:23:45 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184577 Potioncat: > What really makes less sense, is that Mundungus was allowed so much > information within the Order, given his lack of scruples. Pippin: When Harry's escort arrives, he says, "But I wasn't expecting this many of you!" (DH ch 4) I don't think Mundungus *was* involved, originally. Moody's Plan A used one of the magical means prohibited by Thicknesse. Order members would have been needed mostly to protect and transport the Dursleys, plus one or two to accompany Harry just to make sure he got where he was going. There wouldn't have been any question of Snape revealing Harry's actual departure date, because Mundungus wouldn't have needed to know it and wouldn't have been told. Dumbledore would find it useful for Snape to meet with Mundungus, ostensibly to serve Voldemort, but actually to keep Dumbledore informed about things he might not have been able to find out from his portrait pals. (I don't suppose there are portraits of former headmasters in the sort of pubs where Mundungus hangs out.) As you say, there should have been little chance that Mundungus could tell Snape anything obviously vital. But Thicknesse's edict meant Moody had to come up with a new plan at short notice (which could explain why it wasn't that well thought-out). Dung knows something about smuggling and evading the Ministry's means of detecting it, as we learned in OOP. He'd be a logical person to consult if you had to transport something and didn't want the Ministry to know about it. And of course, having involved Mundungus in the planning, Moody would want him in on the execution also, just to make sure he remembers which side he is supposed to be on. Uh oh. Now Dumbledore and Snape have a problem. Voldie must know that Mundungus is "the source we discussed." Polyjuice *may* keep Voldemort from finding out that Mundungus will be part of the escort. But what if it does not? I wouldn't want to be in Snape's shoes, trying to explain how Mundungus showed up to take part in an operation that he didn't know the time of. I wouldn't want to account to Voldemort for how I somehow failed to extract that rather important piece of information. Voldemort does not trust anybody. But he does take people for granted --as long as they haven't made him suspicious. This would. Snape could try to claim that Mundungus must have been told the real date at the last moment. But there's no way to be sure that Voldemort will believe him. So, Dumbledore chose to take a calculated risk with Harry's life. He allowed Voldemort's forces to intercept the escort a few seconds sooner than they would have anyway. But the Order chose a calculated risk when it decided to end the blood protection early. If its goal was to keep Harry as safe as possible from moment to moment and let the future take care of itself, it would have left Harry at Privet Drive until midnight of July 30th. If being willing to risk Harry's present safety in order to increase his chances in the future is proof that Dumbledore does not care about him, then I guess the Order does not care about Harry either. Pippin From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 17:11:43 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:11:43 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > > Jack-A-Roe: >> > This is after all Harry's journey. Part of that journey is to see > > Dumbledore as a human being not some perfect all powerful wizard. > > > > I think of it as when you are growing up and find out that your dad > > isn't superman. > > > > Montavilla47: > I thought he went through that in OotP, when he found out that > James was a toerag. > > I also thought he went through it in HBP, when he found out that > Dumbledore was dead. > Jack-A-Roe Harry did find out that his Dad wasn't perfect (albiet from a highly biased source) and he knew that once Dumbledore was gone he couldn't rely on him anymore because he wasn't around. But it wasn't until DH that he found out that Dumbledore wasn't perfect. He had to adjust to this and realize that Dumbledore was human. Highly intelligent and powerful but still human. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 18:56:22 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:56:22 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184579 > Jack-A-Roe > Harry did find out that his Dad wasn't perfect (albiet from a highly > biased source) Zara: Actually, a highly biased source (Severus Snape) has been telling Harry about this for a couple of years at that point. It was seeing confirmation from an unbiased source (his own eyes) that brought about this realization. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 19:10:51 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:10:51 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184580 Carol earlier: > > I'm not quite sure that Mundungus qualifies as a sane person, especially if he's good and drunk or Confunded. Certainly, he has few if any moral scruples and no particular reason to be loyal to the Order now that Dumbledore is dead. Maybe Snape paid him good money for his information. > > > Potioncat: > I didn't get the idea that Mundungus knew he was giving information to Snape. Look at the times Hagrid had a drink or two with a "stranger" in a bar and "gave" information or obtained a rare creature. In some of those situations, we've figured out who the stranger was. (Or at least we think we have.) > > It's more likely that Snape identified Mundungus as someone who is easily tempted into unsavory locations and easily confunded. It wouldn't be difficult for Snape to change his appearance --I'm sure he could manage Polyjuice Potion--or to make Mundungus think he is someone else. > > Harry sees Snape confunding Mundungus via the Pensieve, but it was Snape's memory he was watching. Had it been Mung's, the image would probably have been different. > > What really makes less sense, is that Mundungus was allowed so much information within the Order, given his lack of scruples. > Carol responds: True, we don't see him with Snape when he provides the information, but we do see them together (in "the Prince's Tale") when snape is Confunding him. Evidently, they're sitting at the same table in a pub Harry has never seen before, close enough together that Snape can look into Mundungus's eyes and speak to him in a low voice. (No doubt he's also cast Muffliato so they won't be overheard.): "Now Snape was head to head with Mundungus in an unfamiliar tavern, Mundungus's face looking curiously blank, Snape frowning in concentration. "You will suggest (etc.'" (DH Am. ed. 688). Possibly, Snape cast the Confundus Charm before he sat down with Mundungus, but we don't know that for sure. He must, in any case, have either arranged with Mundungus to meet him or known where to find him, and Mundungus clearly hasn't tried to fight him or the memory would show that. As for whose memory it is, it makes no difference. The Pensieve is objective, and Harry sees both their faces. He's not inside Snape's mind. Snape is not in disguise (nor is Mundungus). I'm guessing that they're in a place that they both frequent and where they're both safe, one a criminal who frequently deals with other crooks, the other a (supposed) Death Eater whom Harry Potter claims has killed Albus Dumbledore. I agree that it was unwise to allow Dung to know the Order's secrets, but he's a voting member, drunk or sober ("I vote with Sirius") and Snape (on DD's orders) takes advantage of that. How credible it is, each reader can judge for him- or herself. It's just possible that Dung. having been in Azkaban, is so behind the times that he doesn't even know that Snape is suspected of having killed Dumbledore (though that seems unlikely since Snape's name would surely have come up during the meeting when the original plan was decided upon). More likely, Snape has performed a Memory Charm to make him forget that particular piece of information, probably just before Dung reveals his information. (We've seen Kingsley Shacklebolt secretly and instantly modify Marietta's memory, so we know that it can be done.) Either of those being the case, Snape would (from Dung's perspective) simply be playing his double agent role for the Order as he's always done (and, of course, Dung's never sharp thinking would be even fuzzier than usual, but a few drops of Veritaserum in his drink or a bit of Legilimency would give Snape the information he needed). As I said earlier, Snape's Patronus (which can only be used for good purposes) might persuade Mundungus that he was on the Order's side, but Snape would need some way to be sure that Mundungus kept his mouth shut. I'm not by any means saying that's what happened. All I know is that we see Snape and Mundungus sitting at the same table in a strange tavern, neither of them in disguise, and no one is interfering with either of them. Mundungus is already Confunded at that point, so we don't get to see how it happened. My suggestion regarding Snape's possibly paying Mundungus good money for his information was just an afterthought based on Mundungus's known dishonesty, greed, and lack of scruples. He's a thief and a a dealer in stolen goods (as well as a coward though that's not relevant here), and we know that he bribed Umbridge with the locket to keep her from pressing charges. A man who would offer bribe to a government official *probably* would not scruple to accept a bribe if he had information that someone was willing to pay for even if that someone were a supposed traitor and Death Eater. If he were providing Snape with information in return for a bribe, he'd certainly keep his mouth shut. That, of course, would make him the real traitor that some raders were looking for. Whether he's been bribed or knows that Snape is on the Order's side, he would keep his mouth shut for his own protection regarding the information that he's given Snape, but the Confundus Charm would be necessary to keep him from inadvertently revealing that Snape suggested the Poly-juiced Potters. He could of course, be providing the information (and keeping his mouth shut) under the Imperius Curse--if Harry and McGonagall can use it with impunity, surely Snape can, too--but if that's the case, why would he need to be Confunded regarding the Seven Potters plan? Or he could have been Confunded both times, but why would Portrait!DD need to mention Confunding Dung if Snape had already been using Confundus to obtain information? (I would think that information obtained that way would be rather muddled; Veritaserum would be better.) Whatever the case, Mundungus is clearly the weakest link in the Order chain, and Snape is clever enough to get the information from him somehow. Maybe JKR will enlighten us as to how he did it in the encyclopedia. Carol, wondering whether Snape also Confunded Dawlish From kersberg at chello.nl Fri Oct 10 19:44:03 2008 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:44:03 -0000 Subject: Tracing Apparition (WAS: Re: Caring about people) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Carol: > > On another note, I was thinking about the apparent inconsistency > > regarding Apparition being suddenly traceable and thought about Mike > > and his plothole filler. Where are you, Mike? Any ideas on this one, > > or any old posts you can point us to? > > Zara: > Perhaps Apparition can be Traced. So, Harry Apparating, or being > Apparated, could be traced wherever and whenever he Apparated, but > adult DEs from whom the Trace has long been removed, could not. > > There is also the point that the DEs did not Apparate into 4 Privet > Drive. Perhaps if the starting point is known to sufficient accuracy in > advance, anyone can be traced when Apparating. But this would only > prevent DEs from Apparating directly into 4 Privet Drive, something it > is not clear to me they can do anyway until Harry turns 17. > > However, the DEs showed up on brooms some distance away from the house. > Thus, the precondition I suggest, of advance notice and a known > location, was not (and could not) be met. > I alwas was under the impression that part of Auror training tracing wizards that sisapperate. Tonks tells Harry in OotP ( the Advance Party ) that she is a real clutch and nearly failed Steath and Tracking, although it isn'r explained or mentioned again it seems to be a different trick from Tracing, which only concentrate at magic activity in the near presence of a minor. When you are following a suspect who trives in a society where Apparation is as common used a taking the Tube among Muggles, one would loose that suspect almost immediately, when there isn't some method develooped to follow him or her through Apparation. Death Eaters not Apparating direct into nr. 4 Privet Drive is likely prohibited by the blood pretection that is still active. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 19:48:50 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:48:50 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Jack-A-Roe > > Harry did find out that his Dad wasn't perfect (albiet from a highly > > biased source) > > Zara: > Actually, a highly biased source (Severus Snape) has been telling Harry > about this for a couple of years at that point. It was seeing > confirmation from an unbiased source (his own eyes) that brought about > this realization. Jack-A-Roe Actually it caused him to wonder about it and the need to find out the truth from Sirius and Remus. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 22:09:53 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:09:53 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184583 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" wrote: > > Zara: > > Actually, a highly biased source (Severus Snape) has been telling > > Harry about this for a couple of years at that point. It was > > seeing confirmation from an unbiased source (his own eyes) that > > brought about this realization. > Jack-A-Roe > Actually it caused him to wonder about it and the need to find out > the truth from Sirius and Remus. zanooda: I don't think Harry ever doubted that what he saw in SWM was the truth. I believe he wanted to contact Sirius and Remus to ask for an explanation, not for a confirmation (or denial) of what he saw. Maybe he hoped to hear from them some excuse for his father's behavior, because he couldn't find one himself :-). From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 22:46:54 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:46:54 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol, wondering whether Snape also Confunded Dawlish zanooda: Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that someone who works at the Ministry did it :-)? Arthur, for instance, or Kingsley, who was an Auror and worked together with Dawlish (even though he spent most of his time with Muggle prime-minister :-)). I wonder if poor Dawlish was Confunded only once, or several times? I mean, he was Confunded at the beginning of the book, and he was Confunded much later, when Dirk Cresswell escaped from him. There is even a chance that he was still Confunded at the end of the book, when Gran sent him to St.Mungo's (this is not to belittle her achievement, just a possibility :-)). Can a single charm work for so long? When Hermione Confunded McLaggen in HBP, he didn't act confused all year long :-). From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com Fri Oct 10 07:12:31 2008 From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:12:31 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Caring about people In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184585 Zanooda says: When Moody explains the plan, he also doesn't say that Thicknesse and the DEs can track Harry, if he Apparates, only that Thicknesse made it "imprisonable offense" to Apparate from or to Privet Drive (p.46). I don't know what this means exactly, but it seems obvious they can't trace an apparating wizard, only to put a spell on a place (a house in this case) which lets them know that someone *did* Apparate. Maybe the spell even shows *who* Apparated, otherwise how would they know whom to "imprison" :-)? If Harry's apparition was traceable, I believe Moody would have said so, instead of ranting about "imprisonable offense" :-). Philip responds: Oh, come on. This is the Ministry who captured people like Stan Shunpike without questioning. You don't actually think they care who they imprison do you? But yes, I do think that the spell is applied to the house rather than being a function of the system itself. However seeing as they've cast 'non-Apparition' charms round buildings before (eg: Hogwarts - said about a million times) this would have been a simpler explanation. This said, I'm not entirely sure why they didn't apparate in OOTP - apart from foreshadowing this event in DH. Philip From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Oct 11 05:15:56 2008 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:15:56 -0600 Subject: Dudley/Treated As Adults/Therapy Message-ID: <7273A570114E4A0B9571503B04737339@Marianne> No: HPFGUIDX 184586 I have several questions. Say the magical gene pool was stirred up. Say the Dursleys "Dudders" started showing magical tendencies. How far would the Dursleys go to try and force Dudley from showing those magical tendencies? Explain him to the neighbors, family, etc. Would they spoil, mollycoddle, indulge Dudley? Couldn't you see the looks of the Dursleys faces when the letter from Hogwarts showed up. Second The age of 17 is considered being a man, I'm assuming a woman also, in WW. All of a sudden they are thrown out in the world, they are treated as equals, well sort of in the case of the Weasleys and the twins. They are expected to know what profession they want to go into. In the case/book of the DH, they fight side by side with other adults that are older and more experienced then they are in the battle of HW and nobody thinks anything about it. Am I the only one that thinks this is a real abrupt way to enter the adult world? Third. After the things that happen at HW to the kids in the DH book, well include OOTP, and especially the battle of HW, how can these young men and women, the 17 years that have attended HW, just blow the ash off their wands, find a place to sit, and celebrate that a person has been killed. Or HRH go up to the headmaster's office, talk to a portrait, fix a broken wand and discuss putting the elder wand back where it belongs and everything is fine. Voldemort is dead and all is well with the world. It seems such a quick and easy fix to end things. I've thought about PTSD, anger managment, etc. I would think after such a thing as the battle of HW there would be a line around the block to get help at St. Mungo's Hospital, and be in years of therapy afterwards. Or would the magical world have a far different way of dealing with trauma in their lives. Or maybe I think too much about such things that could happen in the books. The other Marianne [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Oct 11 06:38:04 2008 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:38:04 -0600 Subject: Fw: Dudley/Treated As Adults/Therapy Message-ID: <5463BFBE01E94474A1A454449D16AA97@Marianne> No: HPFGUIDX 184587 The Other Marianne: The age of 17 is considered being a man, I'm assuming a woman also, in WW. All of a sudden they are thrown out in the world, they are treated as equals, well sort of in the case of the Weasleys and the twins. They are expected to know what profession they want to go into. In the case/book of the DH, they fight side by side with other adults that are older and more experienced then they are in the battle of HW and nobody thinks anything about it. Am I the only one that thinks this is a real abrupt way to enter the adult world? I'm going to answer one of my own questions. In the real world kids are 18 when they are considered adults. Many of them are thrown out to the world, expected to know what profession to be in at that age. Many of them are fighting side by side with adults that are older and more experienced. It's an abrupt way to enter the adult world, but lots of time that's how things are. Marianne From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Oct 11 03:39:50 2008 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:39:50 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184588 > ~ DA Jones: > In fact, in the right circumstances it might be possible for a > bumbling muggle to temporarily become master of the wand. Say, if > Dudley ever accidentally disarmed Harry. > Oh dear. Dudley accidently becoming the master of the wand. That could be an interesting discussion. Since Dudley has no magical powers, posessing and being able to use the wand is pretty useless. So, since Dudley accidently disarmed Harry, would Harry have to take the wand back from Dudley by force? The Other Marianne From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 11 15:33:52 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:33:52 -0000 Subject: Dudley/Treated As Adults/Therapy In-Reply-To: <7273A570114E4A0B9571503B04737339@Marianne> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184589 "wildirishrose" wrote: > Say the magical gene pool was stirred up. Say the Dursleys "Dudders" started showing magical tendencies. How far would the Dursleys go to try and force Dudley from showing those magical tendencies? Explain him to the neighbors, family, etc. Would they spoil, mollycoddle, indulge Dudley? Couldn't you see the looks of the Dursleys faces when the letter from Hogwarts showed up. > Potioncat: I'm not sure where I stood on this question before DH, because the question has come up before. (What hasn't?) But after DH, I think Petunia would have been thrilled and would have done everything possible to cultivate the magic. She'd be pacing back and forth at the entrance of Diagon Alley, if she had ever been there, trying to get a wand before he was 11. As for Vernon....Petunina would have brought him around. Of course, she really, really wouldn't want Harry going to Hogwarts too. wildirishrose > Second > > The age of 17 is considered being a man, I'm assuming a woman also, in WW. All of a sudden they are thrown out in the world, they are treated as equals, well sort of in the case of the Weasleys and the twins. They are expected to know what profession they want to go into. In the case/book of the DH, they fight side by side with other adults that are older and more experienced then they are in the battle of HW and nobody thinks anything about it. > > Am I the only one that thinks this is a real abrupt way to enter the adult world? Potioncat: You answered this one youself, does that mean you withdraw the question? ;-) I think JKR showed a fairly realistic entrance into legal adulthood. It comes very abruptly and too soon for some kids in the RW or the WW. Fred and George, in spite of wanting to join the Order and be adults, were made to return to school and mature a little more. Ron and Harry didn't get that extra time. > wildirishrose > Third. > > After the things that happen at HW to the kids in the DH book, well >include OOTP, and especially the battle of HW, how can these young >men and women, the 17 years that have attended HW, just blow the >ash off their wands, find a place to sit, and celebrate that a >person has been killed. Or HRH go up to the headmaster's office, >talk to a portrait, fix a broken wand and discuss putting the elder >wand back where it belongs and everything is fine. Voldemort is >dead and all is well with the world. It seems such a quick and easy >fix to end things. Potioncat: Dealing with the Elder wand was part of the post-battle clean-up. Because the living have to keep living. Because the author has to keep the story moving. I think the emotions during and after a battle in the real world are also all over the place. Happy you're alive, sad someone else isn't, glad it's over. >wildirishrose > I've thought about PTSD, anger managment, etc. I would think after >such a thing as the battle of HW there would be a line around the >block to get help at St. Mungo's Hospital, and be in years of >therapy afterwards. Or would the magical world have a far different >way of dealing with trauma in their lives. Potioncat: JKR avoided all that by jumping ahead 19 years to one specific event. And who is to say that as soon as the Express left, the gang didn't go to their regular group therapy meeting? Except that the WW as JKR wrote it, doesn't seem to do much about emotional damage. Interesting questions. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 12 03:50:31 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 03:50:31 -0000 Subject: Suicide / Blood Protection / Psychotherapy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184590 Carol wrote in : << Suicide (which would probably split his soul) would not end the power of the [Elder] wand. >> How do you figure that? Maybe the Elder Wand thinks 'my master was killed, so whoever killed him is my new master. But the person who killed him is my old master, who is no longer my master' until its brain explodes. Joey wrote in : << When Voldy used the AK curse in DH climax, Lily's protection was not with Harry. >> I thought it was, because of the drops of Harry's blood that LV had taken in GoF. Montavilla wrote in : << And now that I think about it, how does the blood protection end when Harry becomes seventeen? What kind of magic is that? And, if it does, why does it still work later on in the book when Voldemort AKs him? >> The blood protection from living with the Dursleys ends when Harry turns 17 because that's how that spell works. What works later on in the book is blood protection from being near those drops of his own blood that LV took into his new body back in GoF, causing the famous gleam of triumph in DD's eye. Rowling entangles the word 'blood' when explaining the blood protection magic. She had DD say 'where your mother's blood dwells' using 'blood' to mean kinfolk, Petunia and Dudley (and never explained whether it would have still worked if one of the two sisters had been adopted). And she had DD also say 'blood' to mean that red liquid that leaks out of injuries. Harry is more closely related to his mother than Petunia is, let alone Dudley, AND Harry's blood is his mother's blood in a way that their blood isn't: it grew inside her body, and recent research has found that a few blood cells can cross the placenta and decades later some of the child's blood cells can be found in the mother's blood and some of the mother's blood cells can be found in the child's blood But Harry is not protected by nearness to his mother's blood in his own veins, and not even protected when it got all over his clothes, but he is protected by nearness to his mother's blood in LV's veins. Marianne wildirishrose wrote in : << I've thought about PTSD, anger managment, etc. I would think after such a thing as the battle of HW there would be a line around the block to get help at St. Mungo's Hospital, and be in years of therapy afterwards. Or would the magical world have a far different way of dealing with trauma in their lives. >> The wizarding folk seem to have no concept whatsoever of psychotherapy except for Cheering Charms and Calming Concoctions. They expect everyone to 'just get over it'. I imagine that they are more psychologically resilient than Muggles, for the same reason that they are more physically resilient, which is that their magic does some protection and some healing without even being asked, and even Muggles used to survive or not survive without psychotherapy until about one hundred years ago. Maybe part of the reason that many of the wizarding folk behave in an irrational and/or stupid manner is because of their untreated PTSD about which they are in denial. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 12 16:38:38 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:38:38 -0000 Subject: Suicide / Blood Protection / Psychotherapy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184591 Carol earlier: > : > > << Suicide (which would probably split his soul) would not > end the power of the [Elder] wand. >> Catlady responded: > How do you figure that? Maybe the Elder Wand thinks 'my master was killed, so whoever killed him is my new master. But the person who killed him is my old master, who is no longer my master' until its brain explodes. Carol again: I could be wrong, of course, but if suicide could end the power of the Elder wand, Dumbledore would at least have considered that route (setting aside his need to have Snape as Voldemort's right-hand man and headmaster of Hogwarts) rather than choosing to have Snape kill him, which, if the plan had worked correctly, would have ended the power of the now masterless wand. As I see it, killing yourself is still killing, in contrast to choosing to allow yourself to be killed by someone who would not become the wand's master because he was fulfilling your request. Having Snape kill him would end the wand's power, just as leaving it unused and dying a natural death (Harry's choice) would end it. And that's the goal--not only leaving the wand masterless but making it incapable of ever taking a new master by robbing it of its power altogether. If Dumbledore, the master of the wand, killed himself, he would still be the master of the wand, and all Voldemort would need to do to become master would be to disarm him, to snatch the wand from his dead hand, exactly as he did, ending any confusion in the wand's "brain." Voldemort would then be master of the Elder Wand, which would still have all its powers. (Put another way, the wand would recognize the dead Dumbledore as its master until he was disarmed, at which point it would accept his disarmer as its master.) IMO, Dumbledore wanted to *end* the power of the Death Stick so that it not only could not take a master, it could not even be used to perform magic. It would have no more power than a Muggle pencil or conductor's baton. Catlady wrote: > Rowling entangles the word 'blood' when explaining the blood protection magic. She had DD say 'where your mother's blood dwells' using 'blood' to mean kinfolk, Petunia and Dudley (and never explained whether it would have still worked if one of the two sisters had been adopted). And she had DD also say 'blood' to mean that red liquid that leaks out of injuries. Carol responds: I think that JKR has deliberately conflated the terms "blood" meaning the fluid in our veins and "blood" meaning "kindred" ("blood" relatives). It's not just the Pure-blood/Half-Blood terminology or the blood protection and the drop of Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins. Hagrid in speaking of his need to take care of Grawp despite the danger to himself says something like, "Whatever yer say, blood's important." He seems to think that evil is in the Malfoys' blood. The narrator notes that there's "not a drop of magical blood" in the Dursleys. Forget genetics. (Slughorn is the only person to use the word "genes," and that seems to me like a slip on JKR's part--how would Slughorn know about that Muggle concept, which didn't even exist until he was well into adulthood?) In the HP books, magic really is in the blood, just as Muggles thought it was when they invented terms like "royal blood" and "bloodline" and "pureblood racehorse." Carol, who is quite sure that the blood protection would not have worked if either Petunia or Lily had been adopted any more than it would have worked if Sirius had adopted Harry From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 12 16:56:50 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Oct 2008 16:56:50 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/12/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1223830610.13.57618.m44@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184592 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 12, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajt9nola83 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 11 16:53:29 2008 From: ajt9nola83 at yahoo.com (AJT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:53:29 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184593 DA Jones: > It seems to me, that what 'master of death' means is that the master > of the wand can't be intentionally physically harmed in a manner > that might kill him or her in combat (which means it doesn't have to > be AK) and any spell used with that intent would rebound on the > caster. Or in other words the elder wand is like a bullet proof vest > from which the bullets into the shooter. I don't know DA Jones, your answer is still a little shaky. Didn't Dumbledore tell Snape to kill him even before he ever knew that Malfoy was going to disarm him. He mention this to Harry in DH that his intent was to make Snape the Master of Death. Also, are you saying that anyone who is just holding the wand and not using it is protected from death? Can you break it down more clearly, please? I thought you had to simply defeat the owner by any means. Remember the Elder Wand/Death Stick has a bloody past. AJT From ajt9nola83 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 11 17:17:18 2008 From: ajt9nola83 at yahoo.com (AJT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:17:18 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "happyjoeysmiley" wrote: > So, how did the AK curse *backfire* on Voldy? I think backfiring would > have made sense had Harry used Protego. Not sure how Expelliarmus > would help with respect to backfiring. > > Any thoughts / quotes from canon? Hi, Hey do you remember in DH when Harry went into the Forbidden Forest to allow hiself to be killed. Well he died to protect the others, the same spell Lily did for him. (p.738 DH). So when Tom casted his spell it had no force or strength plus it was Harry's wand, which was not going to fully attack his Master.(Remember in the forest when Tom was playing with his body, Harry didn't feel a thing) I believe Harry's curse was much more powerful and it connected to Tom and when the Elder Wand started twirling in the air along with the Avada Kadava spell it hit Tom. Why only Tom? because Tom was not protected by Harry's protection. Hopes this helps. AJT From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 12 20:23:25 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:23:25 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: <5D2C672224E14701A88122504F47C183@PhilipPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: Zanooda: > When Moody explains the plan, he also doesn't say that Thicknesse and > the DEs can track Harry, if he Apparates, only that Thicknesse made it > "imprisonable offense" to Apparate from or to Privet Drive (p.46). I > don't know what this means exactly, but it seems obvious they can't > trace an apparating wizard, only to put a spell on a place (a house in > this case) which lets them know that someone *did* Apparate. > Maybe the spell even shows *who* Apparated, otherwise how would they > know whom to "imprison" :-)? If Harry's apparition was traceable, I > believe Moody would have said so, instead of ranting about > "imprisonable offense" :-). Philip: > Oh, come on. This is the Ministry who captured people like Stan Shunpike > without questioning. You don't actually think they care who they imprison do > you? > But yes, I do think that the spell is applied to the house rather than being > a function of the system itself. Geoff: I wonder whether there's a tie in with underage magic spells here. I think I'm right in that underage magic is only picked up by the Ministry - when it's looking for it - as a spell being performed in that location and hence the reason Harry was detected and reprimanded was because he was the only wizard in the vicinity and obviously underage. There was some discussion a long time ago about this and also about the use of spells including Unforgiveables at an incident such as the battle at the Ministry in OOTP where it was suggested that it was impossible to detect who threw which spell. By the same token, is the "imprisonable offence" only workable when one wizard is involved? Can Thicknesse's minions actually identify individuals who have been wicked enough to want to Floo, Portkey or Apparate to number 4? Or are we going to be mulling this over for the next x posts? From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 12 21:18:17 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:18:17 -0000 Subject: The Houses, Finally Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184596 I think I've got it -- the answer to the question that's been haunting the list since DH came out. Yes, there is something we've been missing about Slytherin House. The Gryffindors value moral courage. But it's the Slytherins who show us what it actually means to have it. The Gryffindors are physically brave, of course. But Snape, unlike Dumbledore, can manage an apology without making excuses for himself. Unlike Harry, he bears his guilt without trying to shift it onto someone else. He makes amends without complaint, unlike Harry, who, even if he knows he deserves a punishment generally thinks it should be a lighter one. Snape humbles himself to the friend he has wronged and to the enemy if it will save his friend. He does it alone, without instruction, without a chorus from the spirit world to cheer him on, without expecting praise or recognition or reward -- which is just as well, because he doesn't get any. He does what he believes is right, even if it makes him unpopular, and, in the view of the majority, dead wrong. And he never, never gives up. It's not just him, of course: Slughorn, Regulus and Draco have the same qualities. Their moral courage is hard to notice since their Slytherin lack of principle generally puts them on the wrong side. But as Rowling shows us in the second task (which takes place underwater, in the Slytherin element), it's possible to show moral fibre while exhibiting a complete lack of faith in the judgments of rightful authority. The book does not end with the Houses united. But it does end with an hope that union is possible. The Houses can learn to trust one another, as Snape learned to trust Dumbledore's values, and Dumbledore learned to trust Snape's moral courage. Harry's final words to Albus suggest that there may be quite a few Gryffindors whose innate lack of principle would qualify them for Slytherin, if only they had the innate moral courage to admit that they belonged there. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 12 22:21:03 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:21:03 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184597 Geof: > > By the same token, is the "imprisonable offence" only workable when > one wizard is involved? Can Thicknesse's minions actually identify > individuals who have been wicked enough to want to Floo, Portkey or > Apparate to number 4? Or are we going to be mulling this over for > the next x posts? > Pippin: The DE's in the Ministry don't need to be able to follow Harry's movements in order to arrest him. The Ministry know perfectly well he's going to wind up at the Weasleys -- that's where Scrimgeour finds him. What they want is convincing evidence that he broke the law in leaving Privet Drive. Harry is not a friendless unimportant wizard like Stan Shunpike, so they want something that will stand up. The trace doesn't help them track Harry, but it will tell them what spells were used in his vicinity. Pippin From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com Sun Oct 12 21:27:56 2008 From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:27:56 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184598 Pippin says: But Snape, unlike Dumbledore, can manage an apology without making excuses for himself. Unlike Harry, he bears his guilt without trying to shift it onto someone else. He makes amends without complaint, unlike Harry, who, even if he knows he deserves a punishment generally thinks it should be a lighter one. Snape humbles himself to the friend he has wronged and to the enemy if it will save his friend. He does it alone, without instruction, without a chorus from the spirit world to cheer him on, without expecting praise or recognition or reward -- which is just as well, because he doesn't get any. He does what he believes is right, even if it makes him unpopular, and, in the view of the majority, dead wrong. And he never, never gives up. Philip responds, interested: Interesting ideas. Personally I question to what extent Snape represents the typical Slytherin. You've certainly picked some examples of Slytherins who had some examples of moral courage. However, let's not forget Regulus joined the Dark Side first, before leaving it. How much more moral courage did Sirius have, when he rejected his family's wishes by joining Gryffindor, compared to Regulus who joined Bellatrix and Narcissa in Slytherin. Malfoy is courageous. Hmm. I would have said he is on edge the whole series. He seems like a quintessential Dark Side material, but fails at the final hurdle. Then he rejoins the Dark Side rather than face the final curtain? Some lack of moral courage I think. It is Dumbledore who says to Snape "Sometimes I think we sort too early". I think he's of the opinion Snape's adult life makes him a good Gryffindor, i.e. his moral courage places him in Gryffindor. Philip Whitehouse, highly intrigued by the provoking new thread. Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1715 - Release Date: 08/10/2008 19:19 From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Sun Oct 12 23:32:31 2008 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (Chris) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:32:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184599 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 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 31, The Battle of Hogwarts The chapter starts with students, teachers, ghosts, remaining members of the Order of the Phoenix all gathered in the Great Hall. Professor McGonagall attempts to organise the evacuation of the students, but it is Ernie Macmillan who first suggests, to a smattering of applause, that some students might want to stay and fight. McGonagall agrees that if students are `of age' they may stay. The Great Hall then cheers loudly at the news that the headmaster, Severus Snape, has done a bunk! Harry is trying to locate Ron and Hermione. Whilst informing the Hall of the protections in place that would need reinforcing, Professor McGonagall is drowned out by a high, cold voice that seems to come from the very walls themselves. The realisation that this voice belongs to Voldemort elicits fear in many students. Voldemort informs the residents of Hogwarts that no magical blood need be spilled, as long as they hand over Harry by midnight . The initial silence within the Great Hall, as every eye turns to Harry, is splintered by the Slytherin, Pansy Parkinson, suggesting that they grab Harry. However, within seconds, the Gryffindors, followed by the Hufflepuffs and then the Ravenclaws stand to form a human wall, wands drawn, between Harry and the Slytherins, leaving Harry overwhelmed. Professor McGonagall dismisses `Miss Parkinson', along with the rest of the other Slytherins, who troop out of the Hall. Slowly the three remaining houses are dismissed, but whereas none remain at the Slytherin table, numerous Ravenclaws, even more Hufflepuffs and half of the Gryffindors remain seated, determined to help fight. In fact, Professor Mcgonagall has to ensure no underage wizards, including Colin Creevey, remain in the Hall. Harry then enquires about Ron and Hermione, but is interrupted by Kingsley addressing the Hall. Kingsley describes the formulated battle plan, which includes sending groups up to the various towers with Flitwick, Sprout & McGonagal. The `Order' members (Kingsley, Mr. Weasley and Remus) are assigned to the grounds. Fred & George volunteer to defend the various entrances of the passageways. McGonagal reminds Harry to continue his search for the last Horcrux. Harry cannot concentrate without Ron and Hermione, but fails to locate them on the Marauder's Map. Harry refocuses on the fact that Voldemort thought he'd go to Ravenclaw Tower . This confuses Harry since this suggests that the diadem is the last Horcrux but he cannot understand how Voldemort could have got hold of it, when no-one had seen the diadem in living memory. "In living memory." That thought fires Harry into action and he heads off in search of Nearly Headless Nick to enquire after the identity of the Ravenclaw ghost. Nick sends Harry in the direction of the Grey Lady. Harry wants to know about the lost diadem, but is initially rebuffed. Harry insists that this information is vital to defeat Voldemort, and suggests that the Grey Lady doesn't care, which upsets her enough to let slip that the diadem belonged to her mother. The Grey Lady is/was Helena Ravenclaw! Harry coerces Helena to reveal all about the diadem. Helena recounts the following tale. Helena stole the diadem from her mother in an attempt to make herself cleverer than her mother. Her mother hid this secret from the other Hogwarts founders, until close to death. At this point, she sent the Bloody Baron (who loved Helena ) to try to bring Helena back. Helena's refusal to return elicited the Baron's fury, who then murdered her. Overcome with remorse, the Baron then took his own life. The diadem remained at this site, hidden by Helena in a hollow tree on hearing the Baron approaching. The site ? a forest in Albania ! Harry realises that this is where Voldemort must have found the diadem, and guesses that Helena had been charmed by Riddle into revealing its location. Harry then realises that once the diadem was made into a Horcrux then Voldemort would want to return it to Hogwarts. And he would have had the perfect chance when he returned to Hogwarts to ask Dumbledore for a job. Whilst Harry considers where Voldemort might have hidden the diadem, Hagrid comes crashing through a window near the Entrance Hall ? hurled there by Grawp. Harry can see that the battle has begun. Hagrid follows Harry as he continues to search for Ron and Hermione. Harry comes across two stone gargoyles smashed on the floor ? this stimulates a series of memories for Harry. Ravenclaw's bust at Xenophilius's house, the statue in Ravenclaw Tower and then another statue, an ugly old warlock that Harry had placed a wig and tiara on. The realisation of where the diadem resides strikes Harry - a location model pupils such as Dumbledore and Flitwick would never have found. Professor Sprout, Neville and some others come rushing past wearing earmuffs and carrying Mandrakes into battle. Harry then rushes off to find the Room of Requirement with Hagrid. A terrifying enchantment shakes the castle which causes Fang to panic and take flight, and Hagrid to follow. As Harry continues to search for the room, he encounters Sir Cadogan (who shouts encouragement) and Fred, Lee & Hannah guarding one of the entrances. Harry then encounters Arberforth who suggests that a few Slytherin children should have been kept as hostages. Harry's comment that Albus would not have endorsed such an action is met with a grunt. On rounding the next corner, Harry is both angry and relieved to see Ron and Hermione. Hermione explains that Ron had suggested they enter the Chamber of Secrets in order to obtain a basilisk fang to help destroy the `cup' Horcrux. Ron shows that he has picked up enough of the Parseltongue language (from Harry's successful attempt to open the locket) to get into the Chamber. To Harry's amazement, Ron shows him the mangled remains of Hufflepuff's cup ? destroyed by Hermione, as Ron felt she deserved the chance. Harry informs Ron & Hermione of the location of the diadem and they set off to find it. On entering the Room of Requirement, they find Ginny, Tonks and Neville's grandmother. They are the last to enter from the Hog's Head, and Mrs Longbottom has now sealed it. She is proud to discover that Neville is fighting somewhere in the castle and sets off to find him. Tonks then explains that she has left Teddy with her mother and has come to Lupin, departing once she learns he is somewhere in the grounds. Harry needs Ginny to leave to allow the `Room' to convert to the hiding place for the diadem. Ginny is only too delighted to be given a chance to join the battle, prompting Harry to shout that she needs to return immediately after. Ron then realises that the house elves need to be told to leave if they are to be saved. This causes Hermione to drop everything and throw herself into a passionate embrace with Ron. Harry's initial disbelief at the timing of this coming together is then overcome by the need to find the diadem. Ron (embarrassed) agrees to calm it until they've found the Horcrux. As they step back into the corridor, they encounter in turn, Grawp, Ginny, Tonks and Aberforth, all involved in holding off the advancing Death Eaters. Harry, Ron & Hermione leave to allow Harry to locate the Room of Requirement. They enter the room, that is as big as a cathedral. Harry can't remember where the diadem was hidden, so instructs Ron & Hermione to split up and look for the bust of an old man wearing a wig. Deep within the room, Harry finally finds what he is looking for, but he is prevented from acquiring it by Draco, Crabbe & Goyle. Harry laughs at Draco on finding out that he is using his mother's wand. Harry then attempts to stall the threesome, whilst covertly trying to obtain the diadem and hope that Ron & Hermione find him. Ron shouts for Harry, which prompts Crabbe to magically topple a fifty foot pile of junk onto Ron and Hermione prevented to a small extent by Harry's counter-charm. Malfoy castigates Crabbe for potentially burying the diadem, but Crabbe displays contempt for Malfoy, who he describes as `finished'. Harry lunges for the diadem, leading to an attempted cruciatus curse from Crabbe, which misses Harry but sends the diadem flying. Malfoy screams that the Dark Lord wants Harry alive, but again Crabbe will not listen. Hermione arrives on the scene to send a stunning spell at Crabbe, who is saved by Malfoy. Crabbe then aims the `Avada Kedavra' curse at the `Mudblood', but Hermione dives aside. Harry, furious at what he has just seen, sends a stunning spell at Crabbe but only manages to dislodge Malfoy's wand from it's owner. Crabbe and Goyle train their wands on Harry, but Malfoy's yell ? `Don't kill him' ? causes hesitation, and Harry's trademark `Expelliarmus' attack disarms Goyle. Hermione and Ron fail with a Stunning Spell and a Body-Bind curse respectively, followed by Crabbe's second failed killing curse, this time aimed at Ron. Hermione then succeeds with a Stunning Spell aimed at Goyle, whilst Malfoy cowers behind a wardrobe. Harry starts looking for the diadem again, but is interrupted by Hermione's scream. Ron and a gloating Crabbe come running up the aisle pursued by a cursed fire that has been initiated by Crabbe. Harry's attempts to douse the flames fail, and the six of them (Malfoy drags the stunned Goyle) flee. The magical fire mutates into a pack of fiery beasts intent on killing all of them. Harry, Ron and Hermione are separated from the others and find themselves encircled by the cursed fire. Luckily Harry finds a pair of broomsticks, and with Harry on one and Ron and Hermione on the other, they take to the air to escape the flame. Harry flies as low as he can, as the flame engulfs the contents of the room, looking for any sign of the three Slytherins. Initially, he suspects that he has lost them to the flame, but he is attracted by the sound of a piteous scream. Despite Ron's protestations, Harry dives to save Malfoy and Goyle, who he has found perched on a stack of charred desks, but cannot manage the pair of them. Ron, furious that he is risking his life to save his enemies, arrives with Hermione to collect Goyle, whilst Harry and Malfoy escape on the other broom. Harry, enduring Malfoy's panicked screams behind him, spots the tiara which has been flung into the air by the cursed fire. To Malfoy's disbelief, Harry dives for the object, catching it on his wrist as a fiery serpent lunges at him. Harry then soars through the thick smoke, to the door and out into the corridor. Out in the corridor Malfoy's fears for Crabbe are harshly confirmed by Ron. The Headless Hunt gallop past, and screams can be heard from within the castle. Harry immediately fears for Ginny. Hermione starts to suggest they stick together to look for her when she notices the tiara on Harry's arm. Harry examines the diadem, but it breaks apart in his hands emitting a faint scream of pain. Hermione confirms that the Fiendfyre (curse fire) must have destroyed it, and realises that only the snake remains. The sound of dueling is heard and Harry is horrified to see Percy and Fred up against two Death Eaters. Harry, Ron & Hermione run to help, and one of the Death Eaters is revealed as Minister Thicknesse. The other Death Eater is struck by three separate stunning spells whilst Thicknesse is transfigured into a sea urchin by Percy. Then with Harry, Ron, Hermione, Percy and Fred grouped together there is an enormous explosion sending the companions flying through the air. Harry regains his senses half buried in the wreckage ? the corridor half blown away by a terrible attack. Bleeding and in pain Harry hears anguished shouting that frightens him more than anything has his entire life. Harry grabs Hermione's hands as she emerges from the wreckage and stumbles toward the location of the shouting. It is Percy (together with Ron) attempting to revive the corpse that is their brother Fred ? his last laugh still etched upon his face. 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves they all leave? 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that information on? 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how clever you are? 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole the diadem? When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out information that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of Requirement? He also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent wizard, that seems two rather big failures. 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a bunch of mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? Aren't they at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough Parseltongue to enter the Chamber? 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an effort to stop her entering the battle? 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a good wife or a bad mother? 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only chance for freedom? 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse? 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure such a devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Chris NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Next chapdisc, chapter 32, The Elder Wand: October 27 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 00:24:44 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:24:44 -0000 Subject: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184600 > Pippin says: > Snape humbles himself to the friend he has wronged and to the enemy if > it will save his friend. > Philip: > It is Dumbledore who says to Snape "Sometimes I think we sort too early". I > think he's of the opinion Snape's adult life makes him a good Gryffindor, > i.e. his moral courage places him in Gryffindor. Zara: The examples Pippin gives that I included above involve Snape the fifth year student, and Snape the young Death Eater. The quotation you cite is from Gof, when Snape was a teacher and Order member in his mid-thirties. If I understand her argument, she is suggesting Snape did not change in terms of his personality at all - what changed was his loyalties, only. > Pippin: > He does it alone, without instruction, without a chorus from the > spirit world to cheer him on, without expecting praise or recognition > or reward -- which is just as well, because he doesn't get any. He > does what he believes is right, even if it makes him unpopular, and, > in the view of the majority, dead wrong. And he never, never gives up. > Philip responds, interested: > However, let's not forget Regulus joined > the Dark Side first, before leaving it. How much more moral courage did > Sirius have, when he rejected his family's wishes by joining Gryffindor, > compared to Regulus who joined Bellatrix and Narcissa in Slytherin. Zara: Could you explain what in the train scene suggested to you that 11 year old Sirius was motivated by moral courage? I really did not see it that way. It seemed to me that he liked James, and disliked Severus. Regulus, it also seems to me, is shown to have acted out of a genuine conviction (doubtless inspired by the education his parents provided) rather than parental pressure. I doubt his parents made him keep a scrapbook of Voldemort's exploits. But even Sirius seems to consider that they (and his brother, though Sirius did not know it) would be shocked by the lengths to which Voldemort was willing to go. > Philip: > Malfoy is courageous. Hmm. I would have said he is on edge the whole series. > He seems like a quintessential Dark Side material, but fails at the final > hurdle. Then he rejoins the Dark Side rather than face the final curtain? > Some lack of moral courage I think. Zara: By "fails at the final hurdle" I suppose you mean his non-murder of Albus Dumbledore? I see that neither as a failure, nor as a sign of a lack of courage. He could have done it, certainly. If he lacked the will for an AK, all he needed to do was drop the old, wandless guy off the Tower with a first year spell. And he had every cowardly reason to do it - he knew his own life was on the line. As to why he "rejoined" the Dark Side...I would, again, not characterize his actions so. He never "unjoined" it, to "rejoin" it. After the death of Albus, he fled with the others, I presume to his home, which shortly thereafter became the HQ of the Death Eaters, if it was not already playing host to them. If he had stayed, alone, what might he expect to happen, not to him, but to his parents? I see Draco as facing a dilemma Rowling inflicted on none of the major good guys. (She did have Xeno caving in to the DEs based on the same threat after first supporting Harry in his Quibbler articles. But Neville's Gran got away, and the DEs never got the bright idea of taking Ginny as a hostage, even though she was at the school until the Easter holiday. Hermione's parents were safe in Australia). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 00:44:13 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:44:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184601 Thanks to Chris for his detailed summary and provocatove questions! > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all > totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves > they all leave? Zara: Somehow, in reading that scene, I took McGonagall's order for them to leave first, to be a request they ALL leave. So I was not surprised when they all did. > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts > pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing > in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone > from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that > information on? Zara: Harry never cared enough to find out until he needed her. > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole > the diadem? > When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the > ring and help > Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out > information > that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Zara: Albus located the Ring and Diary through research into Tom's contacts with other people. That he did not consider interviewing ghosts that were long dead when he himself was a schoolboy, does not surprise me. > 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of > Requirement? He > also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent > wizard, that > seems two rather big failures. Zara: The Chamber is explained if he is not a Parselmouth. After all, Godric, Rowena, and Helga failed to find it too, and I would hesitate to suggest they were inferior to Albus. Albus did know of the RoR by the middle of OotP, but why he should know of one specific incarnation of it and suppose the Horcrux was in that one, is not clear to me. He may have even known of a different form of it before (the room full of toilets) just as the Twins thought it was a conveniently appearing broom closet. > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a > bunch of > mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? > Aren't they > at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? Zara: Perhaps they were not mature yet? Otherwise I guess it is a counsel of desperation. > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough > Parseltongue > to enter the Chamber? Zara: Yes, completely. OK, I will expand. He has heard Harry use this one word in CoS, and again far more recently in the locket destruction scene. It's one word, possibly a short one. I find this believable. > 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a > good wife or a > bad mother? Zara: Neither. It makes her a good Order member and Auror. If someone was going to stay with Teddy, I would say Remus makes more sense as the one to stay behind. Tonks ought to be better in a fight. > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of > Requirement? Is he > only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does > he want > his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be > his only > chance for freedom? Zara: I suppose the second, though I think really it is again the sort of thinking that inspired him to work on the cabinet plan. He did not really want to turn Harry in, and the tiara seemed a useful distraction, if only Crabbe were smart enough to be distracted. > 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus > curse? Crabbe > is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than > his previous > attempts with this curse? Zara: Perhaps because, until he casts the Fiendfyre, Crabbe is acting like a soldier of the other side? He's not attempting to frame kids or the like. > 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure > such a > devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? Zara: If Amycus can teach it, Crabbe can learn it. *snicker* > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Zara: He was a relatively wimpy choice, actually. A member of the second Trio would have been bigger. (OK, a member of the first Trio would be even bigger than that...) But Fred is the token "kid" character killed, because war is bad that way. From ajt9nola83 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 12 23:15:02 2008 From: ajt9nola83 at yahoo.com (AJT) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:15:02 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > I think that Dumbledore's telling Snape to leak this > > > information was **unnecessary** and **stupid**, that's > > > my main beef with this. > > > > Pippin: > > But I agree with Carol: if Moody thought the > > element of surprise would be enough to keep the watching > > DE's from summoning reinforcements in time to overwhelm > > the Order and destroy Harry, then he was the stupid one. > > > Montavilla47: > I have to say that this whole idea of the DE's being able > to come in quickly whether or not they were warned about > the date is a good one and it's changed my mind about the > intelligence of Dumbledore's plan. > > Now, I'm wondering this: If Harry can't be moved by > Apparition because the Ministry would track it, what's to > stop the Ministry from tracking the DE's Apparition? > (Beyond not being sure who the Death Eaters are, that > is.) What's to stop them from tracking Voldemort? > > If the DE's were able to pop in, why didn't the Ministry > pop in right after them? After all, at that time, the > Ministry was still officially on Harry's side and eager > to protect him. AJT: I'm sorry but did you all forget that the Death Eaters infiltrated the Ministry? Didn't Mad Eye say that you don't know who's who and who to trust? Thicknesse has been IMP and their main goal here is to catch Harry and turn him over to Tom.(p.46DH) Anywho, Dumbledore has to play the game how it's coming also. Remember besides Snape's outside information the Dark Lord was getting Yaxley's and others in the Ministry's info too. Dumbledore has to keep Snape on good terms with Tom and the DE's. (p.688DH) From saturniia at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 03:18:47 2008 From: saturniia at yahoo.com (saturniia) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:18:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184603 > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all > totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves > they all leave? It's completely possible there are good Slytherins. However, one of the main qualities which defines Slytherins is that their ends justify their means. If there's any *possibility* Harry might lose, what proper Slytherin would want to openly support his side? > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts > pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing > in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone > from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that > information on? I may be incorrect, but wasn't The Grey Lady one of the more reticent ghosts? That said, I doubt she'd tell her history (especially the fact she stole her mother's diadem) to anyone she didn't deem clever enough, or unless circumstances were so dire that the end of Hogwarts was nearly inescapable. Her motivation? Most probably embarassment that she was fooled by Voldemort. > 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, > hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the > whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how > clever you are? Not necessarily. Was her reason for stealing the diadem to augment her own cleverness, or to drop her mother's to its natural level? > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole > the diadem? When you consider how difficult it was for him to > get hold of the ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, > would he really not have found out information that resided in > his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Short answer: It wasn't common knowledge. To expand on that: Rowena had the diadem. She co-founded Hogwarts. She had a daughter (before and/or after the founding). Helena stole the diadem and hid it. Following that, a hundred or more generations were educated at Hogwarts and both Helena and the diadem's function were lost to esoterica. By the time Albus was a student, I'd bet most people just considered Helena a footnote in Rowena's history and the diadem lost in some collection. Also, before Voldemort's rise to power, he probably felt he had no reason to find it. After, he was racing against a man as intelligent as he was, and a good deal more charming. He lost. > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with > a bunch of mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would > aggravate them? Aren't they at risk of killing innocent > students/teachers? I always assumed the mandrakes were potted until they reached where they were most effective. > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough > Parseltongue to enter the Chamber? Both yes and no. Does Ron understand what the sounds mean? Probably not. Can he imitate the sounds he heard? It's likely. > 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an > effort to stop her entering the battle? How would you suggest he do that? She needs to leave the RoR so he can open the storage room, and in order to stop the battle, he needs to destroy all the horocruxes so he or someone else can kill Voldemort. Once she's out in the battle, it's safer to be a fighter than a bystander, since that means she's ready to defend herself. > 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a > good wife or a bad mother? Neither. As has been said, it makes her a good Order member. She was in the Order before she was wife or mother, and it makes sense that she should continue to fight their battles until there is no longer any need of her services. > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of > Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to > the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from > Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only > chance for freedom? I think Malfoy was thinking he'd do what's best for Malfoys. If he delivers Harry to Voldemort, he might be able to buy back some favor for his family. If Harry wins the fight, Draco's family is free. Under the circumstances, it's a win-win scenario. > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Why not? We had to see *someone* die in battle, and Sirius, Dumbledore, Dobby, Hedwig, and Moody were all dead. The twins were the most-loved and most-known Weasleys who weren't Ron or Ginny (who both had to survive the battle in order for the epilogue to work), so why not? Saturniia From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Mon Oct 13 04:34:35 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Blair) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:34:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184604 > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all > totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves > they all leave? Oryomai: Oh geez. The "good Slytherin" debate. I believe that there are good Slytherins. The ones in Harry's year are not his best friends; I didn't expect Pansy to stay. Harry seems to know very few Slytherins outside his year, so I think it's completely possible that some of them stayed. Especially when they see Professor Slughorn again (I seriously doubt that he would come back by himself). > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts > pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing > in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone > from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that > information on? Oryomai: Does she really talk to students like Nick does? Nick seems to be the most sociable of the Hogwarts ghosts. We don't have any mention of her talking to anyone. Maybe Professor Binns went over it in History of Magic ;-) > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole > the diadem? > When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the > ring and help > Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out > information > that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Oryomai: For how clever Dumbledore was, he sometimes wasn't very smart. I think that he had hoped to be around long enough to help Harry attempt to figure out what the other Horcruxes are. It's not a very good plan to destroy all but one Horcrux. > 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of > Requirement? He > also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent > wizard, that > seems two rather big failures. Oryomai: He knew about it, but he didn't know what it was. I can't remember which book it was in, but he mentioned finding a room filled with chamber pots but couldn't find it again. IMO he knew it was there but wasn't able to find it as easily as Harry and Company. > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a > bunch of > mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? > Aren't they > at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? Oryomai: Maybe they didn't think that one entirely through? Or maybe the cry wouldn't be strong enough to kill with all the commotion going on in the castle. Or it could be another example of JKR forgetting details. > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough > Parseltongue > to enter the Chamber? Oryomai: No. I think that this, among many other things in book 7, was a total cop out. JKR needed to destory the Hufflepuff Cup. She needed Harry to do something else. This really rare ability is suddenly picked up by Ron (who isn't the brightest of students). > 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an > effort to > stop her entering the battle? Oryomai: I asked about Ginny and the battle in my summary, and I don't think there's any way to stop her from joining the battle. > 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a > good wife or a > bad mother? Oryomai: I think Tonks did what she had to do. She was an Auror and a member of the Order. There's no way she could sit at home while the final battle was going on. I think it has more to do with her as a person as less of her as what she is to someone else (wife or mother). Does Remus being in the battle make him a bad husband/father? Would we even judge him on it? > 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure > such a > devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? Oryomai: Power and brains are two different things. He wanted to kill them, and he knew a powerful curse. Speaking of Fiedfyre, does anyone know the origin of that? I'm assuming fyre=fire, but what about fied? > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Because she's an awful, awful woman ;-) Kidding! I think it's a really painful death. I know that I thought Fred would be safe because he had his ear cursed off at the beginning of the book. Oryomai Thanks for the excellent summary and questions! From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 06:14:54 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 06:14:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: > 6.Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a > bunch of mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would > aggravate them? zanooda: I thought that Mandrakes could cry only when they are out of the pot/soil. That's the impression that I got from that Sprout lesson in CoS :-). > Oryomai asked: > Speaking of Fiedfyre, does anyone know the origin of that? I'm > assuming fyre=fire, but what about fied? zanooda: It's "fieNd", not "fied", iirc (no book at the moment :-)). Not sure, but maybe it's something like "demon-fire"??? From kaamita at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 09:13:06 2008 From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dudley/Treated As Adults/Therapy In-Reply-To: <7273A570114E4A0B9571503B04737339@Marianne> Message-ID: <509218.53622.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184606 Marianne: After the things that happen at HW to the kids in the DH book, well include OOTP, and especially the battle of HW, how can these young men and women, the 17 years that have attended HW, just blow the ash off their wands, find a place to sit, and celebrate that a person has been killed. Or HRH go up to the headmaster's office, talk to a portrait, fix a broken wand and discuss putting the elder wand back where it belongs and everything is fine. Voldemort is dead and all is well with the world. It seems such a quick and easy fix to end things. Heather: I feel that this would be the typical response at least for the first few days. Remember the beginning oh SS/PS? The whole WW was out celebrating and in full view of muggles. This day would be more exciting for the WW. Remember, most of the WW (those over 20) still remember the fear and anxiety of Voldemorts reign. Those under 20 have families that remember, and to know for a fact that Voldemort is dead, will never come back, and to know that you were part of the battle that brought his end would be enough to make anyone want to celebrate the feeling of finally being free.? As far as PTSD and the lingering effects, someone (I can't remember who) did mention that JKR jumps ahead way into the future. We do not get to see the aftermath, the clean up, rebuilding of the WW. We don't get to see the mourning for lost loved ones and families trying to rebuild their lives. ? Heather [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaamita at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 09:32:04 2008 From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:32:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <72867.95135.qm@web56506.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184607 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves they all leave? ? I think it could be herd mentality. I don?t remember in canon any of the Slytherins doing anything that the others wouldn?t do. It seemed that they moved as one. 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that information on? ? Harry and Co learned a lot about Nick, yes. But he was THEIR house ghost. They never bothered to learn as much about the other house ghosts. They didn?t really care. And honestly, they didn?t learn all that much about Nick. They only knew about his death because he invited them to his deathday party and what they have learned was basically learned from guilt or more like not wanting to be rude and tell him that they didn?t care. 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how clever you are? ? Hmmmm?.good question 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole the diadem? When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out information that resided in his own school? ? Why? He had no idea about what the other Horcruxes were. That was why he needed/wanted Harry?s help. A new set of eyes, a younger mind that can think outside of the box, etc. If he had any idea that the diadem could have been a horcrux, he would have probably done more research. 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of Requirement? He also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent wizard, that seems two rather big failures. ? I believe that he had found the RoR. He talked about a room full of toilets IIRC and I was lead to believe that was the RoR. It never turned into the room Harry saw because it was not what he was looking for. 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a bunch of mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? Aren't they at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? ? Desperate measures call for desperate acts. 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough Parseltongue to enter the Chamber? ? Sure. Harry said ?open? in Parseltounge in the CoS and I am sure the story being recounted would have had that word. Plus Harry used the same word with the locket when he wanted it to open. So, yeah, Ron could have remembered it. Ron wasn?t dumb, just not motivated. 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an effort to stop her entering the battle? ? I think that he had more pressing issues to deal with at the time. 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a good wife or a bad mother? I think the fact that she made sure Teddy was with her mother, someone who would love him, and take care of him shows that she is a good mother. Showing up because a fight is going on, shows that she is a good Order member, and wanting to check on her husband shows that she is a good wife. 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only chance for freedom? ? I think that it is a little bit of both. I think Malfoy truly believes that if he brought Harry to Voldemort, that his family would be safe. I do not think he would have gone through with it in the end, just like he couldn?t kill DD. 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse? ? When he used the Cruciatus curse before, it was on known DEs and evil people. To Harry, he doesn?t see these boys as that evil, more like they are still the same boys who take pleasure in bullying him. 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure such a devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? ? As was said before, I think this was something that he really wanted to know how to do, so he learned it. 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? ? Oh, how many of us has asked this same question???? ? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 13:48:11 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:48:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Horcrux Hunt (WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hog...) In-Reply-To: <72867.95135.qm@web56506.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184608 > Chapdisc 31: > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole the diadem? When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out information that resided in his own school? > kaamita:? > Why? He had no idea about what the other Horcruxes were. That was why he needed/wanted Harry's help. A new set of eyes, a younger mind that can think outside of the box, etc. If he had any idea that the diadem could have been a horcrux, he would have probably done more research. Zara: I disagree that Albus solicited Harry's help because he felt he needed a fresh perspective. It seems clear to me that Albus decided to start the "lessons" during the summer between OotP and HBP. So I believe that he always planned to find all of the Horcruxes himself. It was when he nearly killed himself with the cursed Ring, and Snape only managed to stave off the inevitable for at most a year, that Albus turned to Harry for help. He knew he could not be sure to get the job done himself in the time he had remaining to him. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 13:49:02 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:49:02 -0000 Subject: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184609 > Zara: If I understand her argument, she is suggesting > Snape did not change in terms of his personality at all - what > changed was his loyalties, only. Alla: I actually agree with that LOL, although I am not sure if this is what Pippin meant. I totally agree that Snape did not change in terms of his personality at all. > Zara: > Could you explain what in the train scene suggested to you that 11 > year old Sirius was motivated by moral courage? I really did not see > it that way. It seemed to me that he liked James, and disliked > Severus. > Alla: I think we are starting our annual Sirius v Severus contest tee hee. I mean, we obviously have different opinions about Sirius' motivations in the train scene, but actually regardless of his motivations, his action to me is definitely an example of moral courage. Meaning that I disagree of course that the reason of his rejection of Slytherin is that he liked James and disliked Severus. I guess I should say I disagree that it was the only reason. I am sure it played a part, but even if it was, to reject what his parents stood for, even if he does it solely for a friend ( and I do not buy for a second that he does, I believe that he thought about it and decided that he does not like Slytherin values, or at least some of them), to me it is an example of moral courage. And when Snape's friend was expressing disaproval of Snape's values and what his other friends stood for, I have not noticed Snape rejecting it right away, till that particular friend died. Zara: > Regulus, it also seems to me, is shown to have acted out of a genuine > conviction (doubtless inspired by the education his parents provided) > rather than parental pressure. I doubt his parents made him keep a > scrapbook of Voldemort's exploits. But even Sirius seems to consider > that they (and his brother, though Sirius did not know it) would be > shocked by the lengths to which Voldemort was willing to go. Alla: Sure, this I agree with. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 13 14:18:46 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:18:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184610 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, > Chapter 31, The Battle of Hogwarts Thanks Chris for the summary and questions. > > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all > totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves ?? they all leave? Potioncat: That depends on whether you stick to canon, or include JKR's interviews. Personally, I think she lumped all the baddies into one house out of expediency and never gave it another thought. Either that or she really, really dislikes ambitious people. Sticking with canon, I don't think it was herd mentality. But there are several reasons why all the Slytherins would leave. Most were pro- DE. Most had family members in LV's camp---whether they were pleased about it is another matter. Some may not have been pro-LV, but not exactly ready to join an army who had wands pointed at them. According to an interview, some of these Slytherins will come back with Slughorn---I wouldn't. Everyone who stayed would think the returning Slytherins were fighting for LV. But I would like to respond to your summary. You wrote: "numerous Ravenclaws, even more Hufflepuffs and half of the Gryffindors remain ?? seated, determined to help fight." I bring this up because the wording in canon is a little different and I can clearly remember my gut reaction to it. JKR wrote, "The Slytherin table was completely deserted, but a number of older Ravenclaws remained seated ?Keven more Hufflepuffs stayed behind, and half of Gryffindor remained in their seats?K" It seems JKR is indicating the Slytherins chose to leave. Deserted is very telling. I read 'a number' as 'a few' Ravenclaws. I inferred that JKR was saying something very important about Slytherins and Ravenclaws. Maybe she wasn't. But from a character standpoint, it seems clear JKR values courage and loyalty and dismisses wit and ambition. > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts > pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing > in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone > from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that ?? information on? Potioncat: But Helga kept the story a secret. The only person she told was the Baron and he died. Now, you would think someone would have wondered that the Bloody Baron and the Grey Lady appeared at about the same time, but either one of them may have wandered around before settling at Hogwarts. It could well be that by the time they came to Hogwarts, no one there recognized them. > > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole > the diadem? > When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the > ring and help > Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out > information ?? that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Potioncat: But he doesn't have reason to--and he doesn't consider that Tom might have sought the diadem. I think we often hold on to our SS/PS view of an all knowing wise DD. He knows a lot, a very lot, but not everything. > > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a > bunch of > mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? > Aren't they ?? at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? Potioncat: You??re right. The ones carrying the mandrakes were protected, but if they would have to be very careful where they unpotted the plants. > > > 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a > good wife or a ?? bad mother? Potioncat: I like Zara's answer. I'll add that today's military has many brave women. I've known officers who were pregnant when their units were called up. These women made it very clear they wanted to join their company in the war zone as soon as their maternity leave was up. (New mothers weren't allowed to shorten the maternity leave.) > > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of > Requirement? Is he > only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does > he want > his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be > his only ?? chance for freedom? Potioncat: I'm not sure why he stayed behind at all. Clearly the Malfoys have no loyalty to LV--but a strong sense of family. Whether by now Draco also wanted to sabotage LV is another question. > > 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus > curse? Crabbe > is trying to kill his friends ?V wouldn't this anger Harry more than > his previous ?? attempts with this curse? Potioncat: As I read the summary I thought to myself, why doesn't the trio use AK? Come on this is war. Then JKR shows us Harry's "saving people" side and he rescues them. > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Potioncat: I'll sort of echo that wail, "Why why, why did she have to kill Severus???" She had to kill off some important characters to create the sense of loss in war. Again, from interviews, she thought the deaths out very carefully and had her reasons for them. We readers may not agree with her choices. Actually, she should have killed Ron and Ginny. Then Harry and Hermione could have ended up together and both groups of shippers would have been right. ;-) > Here's a question from me. Did anyone else have a reaction to seeing Thicknesse in the battle? We know he's under the Imperius, but no one else knows. Every time we saw Stan, he seemed to be under a spell--or maybe the blank look was his norm. But both Thicknesse and Crouch seemed to be well controlled in ways that weren't obvious to those who should have wondered. I felt bad for Thicknesse because while we don't really know his leanings, and if he had to be placed under Imperius, he must not have supported LV. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 14:41:00 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:41:00 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184611 DA Jones: > > > > It seems to me, that what 'master of death' means is that the master of the wand can't be intentionally physically harmed in a manner that might kill him or her in combat (which means it doesn't have to be AK) and any spell used with that intent would rebound on the caster. Or in other words the elder wand is like a bullet proof vest from which the bullets into the shooter. > > > > I don't know DA Jones, your answer is still a little shaky. Didn't Dumbledore tell Snape to kill him even before he ever knew that Malfoy was going to disarm him. He mention this to Harry in DH that his intent was to make Snape the Master of Death. Also, are you saying that anyone who is just holding the wand and not using it is protected from death? Can you break it down more clearly, please? I thought you had to simply defeat the owner by any means. Remember the Elder Wand/Death Stick has a bloody past. Carol adds: Just a quick note here. The master of Death is not the master of the Elder Wand but the legitimate owner/master of all three Deathly Hallows. Harry may have been, briefly, Master of Death while he wore the Cloak (inherited from James and rightly his), held the Resurrection Stone (which, unlike DD, he apparently had the right to use because he wasn't trying to bring his dead loved ones back to life, only to have their compnany before he joined them), and was (though he didn't know it yet) master of the Elder Wand, having disarmed Draco, the previous inadvertent master. However, he didn't actually have the wand in his hand, so he might not have been able to use his power over death, whatever it might have been, even if he knew how to do it. Before he reveals himself to Voldemort so he can be killed and the soul bit destroyed, he throws away the Resurrection Stone, throwing away his chance the be the Master of Death along with it. Voldemort, in contrast, didn't even know about the Deathly Hallows, only about the Elder Wand, which he wanted because he thought it was unbeatable and because he wanted to increase his power. He thought he was already "master of death" in a different sense because of his Horcruxes. But because he never possessed the Cloak and foolishly turned the ring, which would have been rightly his had he inherited it rather than murdering to acquire it, into a Horcrux, and because, though he possessed the wand, he was never its master, he was never the Master of Death in the sense we're discussing. What would have happened had Harry kept the Resurrection Stone and used the wand after he obtained it, I don't know. He didn't want to know, either. As for how Harry survived, which I think was the original question, he survived the first AK because of the shared blood, which tied him to Voldemort and sent both his whole soul and Voldemort's mutilated one to "King's Cross." Voldemort's body didn't die because he had the Nagini Horcrux, and because he wasn't dead, neither was Harry. (Di Dumbledore anticipate that part?) When they returned and actually duelled, Harry didn't die because the wand, which had fired on him before and would have killed him along with the soul bit had it not been for the shared drop of blood, now knew that he was its master and refused to kill him. Apparently, the AK collided with the Expelliarmus (which worked normally, disarming LV and sending the Elder Wand to Harry) and backfired on Voldemort, which must have been the Elder Wand's doing, killing the pretended master who was trying to kill its real master. That's how I read it, anyway, or how I remember it without actually going back to review the details for lack of time. I realize that some dozen variant readings are probably possible. Carol, wishing that Ignotus had been the only Peverell brother From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 14:44:41 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:44:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184612 Chris: 1.Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves they all leave? Alla: If there are no good Slytherins, based on what I saw and knew of them, it did not struck me as particularly unbelievable, no. But Slughorn did return and I choose to believe that some returned with him. 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how clever you are? Alla: Frankly, Helena's stealing diadem strikes me as an idiotic act from the beginning, therefore nothing after that would surprise me. 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of Requirement? He also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent wizard, that seems two rather big failures. Alla: Harry tries to explain that and actually I think I like the explanation of Dumbledore being a model pupil and not looking for trouble and not needing room of requirement. Why Dumbledore have not found it as Headmaster? Well, as it was said he knows that it exists, maybe he just really not needed anything that room could provide. Or maybe Hogwarts did not particularly like him all that much, lol. 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough Parseltongue to enter the Chamber? Alla: Um, I did not get the impression that he learned the language, I got the impression that he parroted the sounds that he memorized. Yes, I do find it believable. I never considered that Ron was stupid and good chess player needs to have an excellent memory. 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an effort to stop her entering the battle? Alla: I think he loves her and respects her enough to let her make her own choices, I also think that no matter how much he would have wanted her to be safe, he knows that he must be concerned with task of Voldemort's destruction first and foremost 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a good wife or a bad mother? Alla: Good Auror. 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realizes Harry may be his only chance for freedom? Alla: Actually this was one of the most surprising actions by Malfoy to me in this book. I do not mind indecision by him, to me Tower should not have resulted in him miraculously coming to Order and telling them, oh I am such a good soldier, I want to join you now. But this? My first reaction was what the heck is wrong with you boy, I guess you did learn nothing after all. 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse? Alla: Poor Harry ? damned if he does it and damned if he does not LOL. I took it as confirmation that he does not take Cruciatus lightly after all. I do not think that he would be angrier in this situation actually, because he heard too much about Carrows IMO and spit at Mcgonagall was the last drop. 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure such a devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? Alla: Hmmm, I consider all DE to be idiots, really just for joining up, and they manage some fun curses, so I do not believe that raw magical power and intelligence are necessarily go together. 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Alla: I know, but better Fred than Trio, if you ask me. Thank you for the great questions. From kersberg at chello.nl Mon Oct 13 14:49:58 2008 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:49:58 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AJT" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "happyjoeysmiley" > wrote: > > > So, how did the AK curse *backfire* on Voldy? I think backfiring > would > > have made sense had Harry used Protego. Not sure how Expelliarmus > > would help with respect to backfiring. > > > > Any thoughts / quotes from canon? > > > > Hi, Hey do you remember in DH when Harry went into the Forbidden > Forest to allow hiself to be killed. Well he died to protect the > others, the same spell Lily did for him. (p.738 DH). So when Tom > casted his spell it had no force or strength plus it was Harry's > wand, which was not going to fully attack his Master.(Remember in the > forest when Tom was playing with his body, Harry didn't feel a thing) > I believe Harry's curse was much more powerful and it connected to > Tom and when the Elder Wand started twirling in the air along with > the Avada Kadava spell it hit Tom. Why only Tom? because Tom was not > protected by Harry's protection. > Hopes this helps. > > AJT > kamion: I think Voldy hit by a ricocheting AK curse is not what JKR had in mind, his curse backfired on the same kind of protection as it did the first time when Harry was about a year old and did not cast an Expelliarmus. Voldemort would have died at that time were it not he was tied to life by his Horcruces. This time they were all gone and he was toast. In the first case it was Lilly's sacrifice that invoked the protection, in the second case Harry's selfsacrifice. At least that what I conclude from the writing. But intertwined is the Mastership of the Elder Wand. Personally I like the ricocheting AK, because it is more direct then the needless complicated knot JKR tied in the end. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 13 14:50:28 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:50:28 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184614 > Carol adds: > Just a quick note here. The master of Death is not the master of the > Elder Wand but the legitimate owner/master of all three Deathly > Hallows. Harry may have been, briefly, Master of Death while he wore > the Cloak (inherited from James and rightly his), held the > Resurrection Stone (which, unlike DD, he apparently had the right to > use because he wasn't trying to bring his dead loved ones back to > life, only to have their compnany before he joined them), and was > (though he didn't know it yet) master of the Elder Wand, having > disarmed Draco, the previous inadvertent master. Potioncat: One point here. I thought anyone who recognised the Resurrection Stone could use it--presuming they knew how, or were lucky enough to work it out. Marvolo just thought it was a family heirloom and didn't know about its powers. DD knew what the stone was and forgot for a moment what the ring was. It was the ring, not the stone that damaged his hand. I thought that later he determined it was better to avoid using the stone. In this case, choosing what was right over what was easy. When Harry uses the stone, he's using it to give himself strength to carry out his mission. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 15:21:02 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:21:02 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184615 Zanooda: > > When Moody explains the plan, he also doesn't say that Thicknesse and the DEs can track Harry, if he Apparates, only that Thicknesse made it "imprisonable offense" to Apparate from or to Privet Drive (p.46). I don't know what this means exactly, but it seems obvious they can't trace an apparating wizard, only to put a spell on a place (a house in this case) which lets them know that someone *did* Apparate. > > > Maybe the spell even shows *who* Apparated, otherwise how would they know whom to "imprison" :-)? If Harry's apparition was traceable, I believe Moody would have said so, instead of ranting about "imprisonable offense" :-). > Geoff: > I wonder whether there's a tie in with underage magic spells here. I think I'm right in that underage magic is only picked up by the Ministry - when it's looking for it - as a spell being performed in that location and hence the reason Harry was detected and reprimanded was because he was the only wizard in the vicinity and obviously underage. > > There was some discussion a long time ago about this and also about the use of spells including Unforgiveables at an incident such as the battle at the Ministry in OOTP where it was suggested that it was impossible to detect who threw which spell. > > By the same token, is the "imprisonable offence" only workable when one wizard is involved? Can Thicknesse's minions actually identify individuals who have been wicked enough to want to Floo, Portkey or Apparate to number 4? Or are we going to be mulling this over for the next x posts? > Carol responds: I can't fully answer your question, but as far as the Floo Network is concerned, 4 Privet Drive is a Muggle residence and not normally part of the Floo network. Only a Ministry official in the Magical Transportation Department could connect it, and even Mr. Weasley's unnamed friend who did it as a favor to him in GoF is unlikely to risk imprisonment for it now. In any case, the Floo Network is being monitored. We saw how that worked in OoP: Umbridge very nearly grabbed Sirius's head by the hair. Whether she could actually see him or only magically sensed his presence is unclear--certainly, the hand she stuck in the fire was blindly groping. If she's placed her whole self in the fire, she would probably have caught the guilty head and maybe Sirius himself along with it. Given all that, the Floo Network is clearly out of the question even if the Weasley fireplace hasn't been boarded up again. Apparition, I'm not so sure about. So what if it's an imprisonable offense to Disapparate from that location if Apparition can be detected but not traced to its destination and the Apparator can't be identified? Maybe the've come up with a new spell that can identify the wand that cast the spell (Apparition being a sort of nonverbal spell that requires a wand) and therefore the owner of the wand (who is probably the caster of the spell though, of course, there are exceptions). Or maybe Apparition, including Side-Along Apparition, is now Traceable (capital T) from a watched location if it involves an underage Wizard. I don't mean simply detectable, which wouldn't matter if Harry and his escort were gone before the MoM could arrive (seconds would matter in that case, even if Harry's departure removed the anti-Apparition protection on 4 GP), but actually traceable in the sense that their trail could be followed, their destination known, because of the Trace on Harry. Whether the MoM could break through the protections to catch the "criminals" who Disapparated from that location, or *would* do so before the DEs took over the MoM and Harry himself became Undesirable Number One, I don't know. In fact, I find the reasons for not Disapparating while the protections were still in place the least convincing part of the Seven Potters chapter. Carol, who thinks that JKR is like Dumbledore, telling us only what she thinks we need to know From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 16:09:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:09:16 -0000 Subject: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184616 Alla wrote: > > I think we are starting our annual Sirius v Severus contest tee hee. I mean, we obviously have different opinions about Sirius' motivations in the train scene, but actually regardless of his motivations, his action to me is definitely an example of moral courage. > > Meaning that I disagree of course that the reason of his rejection of Slytherin is that he liked James and disliked Severus. I guess I should say I disagree that it was the only reason. I am sure it played a part, but even if it was, to reject what his parents stood for, even if he does it solely for a friend ( and I do not buy for a second that he does, I believe that he thought about it and decided that he does not like Slytherin values, or at least some of them), to me it is an example of moral courage. Carol responds: Wed don't know what the Sorting Hat said to Sirius, or whether he was even given a choice. Maybe it saw that, despite his family history and pure blood, he didn't belong there. Maybe it sensed not only his desire to be with James, who hadn't been Sorted yet but wanted and expected to be in Gryffindor along with his innate reckless courage and simply placed him there as quickly as it later placed Lily there even though she must have wanted at that point, not knowing what Slytherin was really like any more than he did, to be in Slytherin with Severus. (I'm guessing that the Sorting Hat thought that Slytherin would help Severus to become great, which he definitely wanted, but, of course, it couldn't do the same for Muggle-born Lily, who was placed where the Hat thought she belonged rather than where she mistakenly wanted to go.) Anyway, Sirius doesn't seem to me to be rejecting his family. He seems to have expected to be Sorted there until James turned up his nose at it just as Draco later turns up his at Hufflepuff. But quite possibly, the friendship with James had nothing to do with his Sorting and he would have been surprised, even shocked, to find himself in Gryffindor based on the traits that the Hat found in his head rather than his expectations. (I'll bet that the Patil Twins were surprised to find themselves in different Houses.) IOW, if a student is equally qualified for two Houses, as Harry was for Gryffindor (his natural home) and Slytherin (because of the soul bit) or Hermione was for Ravenclaw and Gryffindor, the Sorting Hat will choose the House that the student wants. But if the student wants an unsuitable House (Lily wanting Slytherin), the Hat would reject the student's wishes and go with the House that he or she is best suited for. (Just how Wormtail got into Gryffindor if my theory is true, I don't know. Maybe he wasn't suited for any House: a not-very-bright, not loyal or hardworking, cowardly Muggle-born who was placed in Gryffindor by default because he admired people like James.) Sirius did show moral courage later when he openly rejected his parents' values replaced them with those of Gryffindor (a poster of *Muggle* girls on his wall, for example, which must have been placed there when he was at least fourteen, not eleven), and I'm quite sure that the Sorting Hat saw the potential for reckless courage and a love of risk-taking in his head. (If the kid were a Muggle, he'd probably be an extreme skateboarder or another Evel Knievel [sp].) But I don't think that his Sorting was in itself an act of moral courage. If he wanted to be in Gryffindor because he'd met James on the train, it was only to be with his new friend, who thought that Gryffindor was cool and Slytherin was for rejects. (James wasn't going to change *his* mind to be with Sirius; if Sirius had chosen Slytherin, or been Sorted into it because he belonged there, that would have been the end of the friendship.) Carol, who thinks we're underestimating the role of the Hat itself in the Sorting From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 13 16:16:48 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:16:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184617 > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all > totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves > they all leave? Pippin: Harry thinks they're all irredeemable at this point, and the narrator reflects his point of view, describing the Slytherin table as deserted. But actually Slughorn may already have had the idea of getting reinforcements from Hogsmeade and shared it with those of his students he could trust. We can't tell, from the books themselves, whether any of his students came back with Slughorn or whether any Slytherin students actually fought for Voldemort. But we do know that even though DE children were being evacuated along with the rest and the Slytherin children must have gone to join their families, no one betrayed the evacuation of the other students to Voldemort. > > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts > pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing > in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone > from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that > information on? Pippin: Rowena Ravenclaw never admitted to anyone but the Bloody Baron that her daughter had deserted her, and it seems even the Baron never knew she had taken the diadem. > > 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, > hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the > whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how > clever you are? Pippin: Perhaps with the aid of the diadem, she realized that stealing it hadn't been a very clever thing to do :) > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole > the diadem? > When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the > ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out information that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Pippin: Harry had some hints: Voldemort expected him to search in Ravenclaw Tower, he knew there was a horcrux at Hogwarts, and he'd seen the diadem already. Dumbledore didn't know any of that. > > 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of > Requirement? Healso fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent wizard, that seems two rather big failures. Pippin: Dumbledore doesn't pay enough attention to the ghosts, does he? Or even the House Elves. Perhaps he sees them as failures and talking to them makes him uncomfortable. > > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a > bunch of mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? Aren't they at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? Pippin: The mandrakes aren't dangerous as long as they're in their pots. The plan is to lob them over the walls, presumably the outer defensive walls, well away from the castle and its other defenders. The pots would then break on impact. If the mandrakes are not fully mature, the attackers won't be killed, only stunned. > > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough > Parseltongueto enter the Chamber? Pippin: He only has to remember the sound of one word, which is, IIRC, the only one he's ever heard. > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of > Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only chance for freedom? Pippin: I think he's still trying to regain favor for his family. But his heart isn't in it -- otherwise he'd have stunned Harry first and gloated afterwards. > 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus > curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends, wouldn't this anger Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse? Pippin: I think Harry realizes now he can't let his anger think for him, especially in the middle of a battle. > > 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot how could he manage to conjure > such a devastating curse (Fiendfyre)? Pippin: Hermione doesn't say that conjuring fiendfyre is difficult. She says it's nearly impossible to control. > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Pippin: There was a spare? ::ducks:: Seriously, a Weasley child had to die to give Molly a motive to duel Bella to the death. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 16:41:18 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:41:18 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184618 Carol earlier: > > Just a quick note here. The master of Death is not the master of the Elder Wand but the legitimate owner/master of all three Deathly Hallows. Harry may have been, briefly, Master of Death while he wore the Cloak (inherited from James and rightly his), held the Resurrection Stone (which, unlike DD, he apparently had the right to use because he wasn't trying to bring his dead loved ones back to life, only to have their compnany before he joined them), and was (though he didn't know it yet) master of the Elder Wand, having disarmed Draco, the previous inadvertent master. > Potioncat responded: > I thought anyone who recognised the Resurrection Stone could use it--presuming they knew how, or were lucky enough to work it out. Marvolo just thought it was a family heirloom and didn't know about its powers. > > DD knew what the stone was and forgot for a moment what the ring was. It was the ring, not the stone that damaged his hand. I thought that later he determined it was better to avoid using the stone. In this case, choosing what was right over what was easy. > > When Harry uses the stone, he's using it to give himself strength to carry out his mission. > Carol responds: I'm not so sure that we can differentiate between the ring and the stone. I think that the ring as a whole (stone and setting) had been cursed, just as there was no distinction between the clasp and the opals in the cursed necklace. Touch any part of that necklace and your bare hands, and you're dead. But the Horcrux seems to have been in the stone, which is the only part of the ring that was broken by the Sword of Gryffindor. (Odd. Very odd. The Basilik-venom-emposwered sword should have passed through the whole ring, which should not have been wearable. And Dumbledore, who wanted only the stone, should have removed it from its setting rather than putting on the ring, which would not bring Ariana back. (He knew that it had to be turned three times.) I still think, though, that he wanted to use it for an unworthy purpose, to bring back the loved ones, especially Ariana, who had died through his carelessness, just as the second brother in the tale wanted to bring back the girl he loved even though she didn't want to come and her death could not be reversed. Doesn't he say something of the sort in "King's Cross"--the Elder Wand was the only Hallow that he had the right to use, as long as he didn't use it to kill? (No time to check now, but I hope that someone will.) At any rate, Dumbledore's stupidity in this instance continues to astonish me. Did he sense a curse but think that the Sword had destroyed it along with the soul bit? Did he simply not sense the curse? Did he think that putting on the ring would bring her back, or was he putting on the ring as a way of claiming the Hallow that he had just cracked along the line of the wand? ("My precious!") Didn't he wonder why the ring itself was still intact even though the soul bit was gone? Some sort of protective spell must have remained, whether it was the deadly curse or something else. Carol, wishing that it all made more sense and that the Elder Wand/Deathly Hallows subplot weren't so needlessly complicated From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 18:30:29 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:30:29 -0000 Subject: Destruction of Ring Horcrux (WAS: Re: Expelliarmus and backfir...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184619 > Carol responds: > At any rate, Dumbledore's stupidity in this instance continues to > astonish me. Did he sense a curse but think that the Sword had > destroyed it along with the soul bit? Did he simply not sense the > curse? Did he think that putting on the ring would bring her back, or > was he putting on the ring as a way of claiming the Hallow that he had > just cracked along the line of the wand? ("My precious!") Didn't he > wonder why the ring itself was still intact even though the soul bit > was gone? Some sort of protective spell must have remained, whether it > was the deadly curse or something else. Zara: We do not know that Albus destroyed the Ring before putting it on, as you surmise. That indeed strikes me as a crazy course of events, which I why I do not subscribe to your timeline. Here is how I see it: 1) Albus searches the Gaunt house for the ring. 2) Albus finds it, and in seeing it close up and in person, identifies the stone in it as the Resurrection Stone. 3) In his shock and surprise, delighted to have found an object of his youthful dreams and a way to commune with his lost loved ones, he unthinkingly puts it on, forgetting Voldem ort has surely cursed it,and the instructions for using the Hallow, because that is what one does with a ring. 4) He instantly understands his error, as the curse hits. He does what his prodigious skills allow to slow/counter the curse. 5) With all speed he returns to Hogwarts and his office. (Probably by Apparating - he is the Headmaster, alternatively by instantly creating a Portkey, as we know he can). 6) The Horcrux may or may not ALSO be attacking him in some way, and he certainly knows this is a possibility if it is not (see e. g. the locket and the Diary). 7) So he takes the Ring off and destroys the Horcrux with the sword. (We do not know enough to assert with confidence that the ring should or should not be destroyed. This is magic! Maybe a plain gold band does not interest a goblin-made weapon because it will not absorb anything new. Maybe the gold band is goblin made. Maybe the Muggle physics of collision mechanics accounts for this without any recourse to magic, based on the angle of the blow, how Albus has/has not secured the ring in place before striking the blow, the crystal structure of the stone, etc.) 8) With with his last bit of energy, he summons Severus. 9) Severus arrives and treats him, saving his life (for the time being). 9) is of course the only part we ever see. When Severus comes in the room, we know the ring is already cracked - Severus identifies it as the vector of the curse, and deduces that Albus destroyed it. (Though his conclusion is that Albus did this in a vain hope of stopping the curse, since he does not know about the Horcruxes). And the Sword lies discarded on the desk, not put away as I would expect given the man's obsession with secrecy. This is the key detail that leads me to believe an already cursed and dying Albus destroyed the Ring. From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com Mon Oct 13 18:39:22 2008 From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:39:22 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Destruction of Ring Horcrux (WAS: Re: Expelliarmus and backfir...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184620 Zara: 5) With all speed he returns to Hogwarts and his office. (Probably by Apparating - he is the Headmaster, alternatively by instantly creating a Portkey, as we know he can). Philip modifies: I think the most likely explanation is actually Fawkes transporting him. We know that you can't apparatus in or out of Hogwarts and I don't really see the Headmaster would be an exception. As far as I understand it, you cant just lift it for one person. We do know however that Dumbledore travels by phoenix out of Hogwarts - in OOTP for example he escapes by this method. Portkeys also require a Ministry license, something Dumbeldore often disregards, but given the secrecy of the mission. although this would explain why the Ministry knew he was leaving. Moreover the phoenix is a loyal pet and would recognise the problem and (conjecture) possibly try to heal it with tears? Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1715 - Release Date: 08/10/2008 19:19 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 18:45:40 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:45:40 -0000 Subject: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184621 > Alla: > And when Snape's friend was expressing disaproval of Snape's values > and what his other friends stood for, I have not noticed Snape > rejecting it right away, till that particular friend died. Zara: What does this have to do with Pippin's point? Moral courage is not doing things because your friends tell you to. You may think Lily is obviously a font of moral authority, but I see no reason to suppose that Severus did. (In fact, I see reasons to suppose that he did not, his apparent perception of a double standard on her part, for one). However, it seems evident that even while not agreeing with her on this point, he himself felt that it was wrong to call his best friend a Mudblood. Which is why he apologized to her. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 19:58:17 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:58:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184622 Zara: What does this have to do with Pippin's point? Moral courage is not doing things because your friends tell you to. You may think Lily is obviously a font of moral authority, but I see no reason to suppose that Severus did. (In fact, I see reasons to suppose that he did not, his apparent perception of a double standard on her part, for one). However, it seems evident that even while not agreeing with her on this point, he himself felt that it was wrong to call his best friend a Mudblood. Which is why he apologized to her. Alla: I was operating under a little but more general definition of moral courage, I went to Wiki and found the one which is close enough to the one I had in mind: "moral courage" is the courage to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement. To me, moral courage is not just not doing things that your friends tell you to do. To me moral courage is doing the **right thing** even if your friends or family or whoever tell you to do the wrong thing. So, basically when you (generic you) are not jumping off the cliff, when all your friends tell you to, yes, sure, to me you are resisting peer pressure and demonstrate courage. But when you ( generic you) decide to go rob a bank, when all your friends tell you - no, don't do it, to me you are not demonstrating any sort of courage, but being an idiot. We can agree, right that joining the DE is not the right thing to do in itself regardless of what his friends think and not think? So to make a long story short when Snape does not reject DE values, to me he does not show moral courage, really, I would say quite the opposite. As to whether Lily is the moral authority to me, in general ? of course not, none of the characters are. But on the question of bad values of Snape's friends in school ? absolutely, IMO she is, the voice of moral authority. Just as any character who thinks that Voldemort and his merry gang need to go down would be to me moral authority on that issue and those who are not, not. Now when Snape later rejects them, sure I would say he shows moral courage, but before when he does not stand up to his friends/ DE wanna be, I think he shows the act of moral cowardice. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 13 22:01:39 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:01:39 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184623 > > Alla: > > I was operating under a little but more general definition of moral > courage, I went to Wiki and found the one which is close enough to > the one I had in mind: > > "moral courage" is the courage to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement. > > To me, moral courage is not just not doing things that your friends > tell you to do. To me moral courage is doing the **right thing** even if your friends or family or whoever tell you to do the wrong thing. Pippin: First of all, I agree Sirius showed moral courage in defying his parents and still more in not giving into despair while he was in Azkaban. But his moral courage was based, as he himself says, on his belief that he was innocent. When challenged to bear guilt, he did not do so well. He acknowledged that as a teen, Lupin sometimes made him ashamed of the way he and James treated Snape, and as a grown man he admits that he is not proud of it. But did he ever tell Snape that? He can barely admit it to Harry, and even so, he and Lupin are full of excuses. Alla opened my eyes to Dumbledore's endless self-justifications. But it's not just him. Even Neville, bless him, can't say "I'b sorry" without adding, "I didn't bean to--" In the epilogue, Ron makes an excuse for confunding a Muggle, James makes an excuse for teasing his brother, and Ron, though he apologizes for setting Rosie against Scorpius, can't stop himself from going on to say that she shouldn't get too friendly with him. Gryffindors, IMO, do the right thing in the face of shame and discouragement only when they are sure that they are innocent. When they feel guilty, they put more energy into being defensive and avoiding their guilty feelings than into changing their behavior or making amends to those they have wronged. I think Percy is the only Gryffindor who ever makes a whole-hearted apology -- but look how long it took him to do it. He says that his disillusionment with the Ministry had been coming on for a while. IIf Snape had waited as long as Percy did, the Potters would probably have died along with Harry and Dumbledore might never have known why. Alla's definition leaves no room for someone with poor judgment to show moral courage, and yet this is a major theme in the books from the moment when Neville gets the winning points for attacking the Trio. He wasn't doing the right thing. But he thought he was, and that's what mattered. In the epilogue, Draco remains loyal to his family and to his beliefs, though surely it would, as his father told him long ago, make his life a lot easier if he at least pretended to like Harry. He does, in his own way, choose what he thinks is right over what is easy. He shows a lot more integrity on the platform than Harry did when he was pretending to like Slughorn. The Slytherins have their own kind of courage even though, as JKR hinted, they don't see it in themselves, and in the general prejudice that Gryffindors have against Slytherins, it is widely overlooked. Certainly it's easy for the reader to overlook. I missed it myself for more than a year. But that, IMO, is JKR's point. If you want to fight prejudice, you have to do more than be aware that prejudice is wrong, you have to be understand how people can be blinded by it even when they don't want to be. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 22:19:03 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:19:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184624 > Pippin: > First of all, I agree Sirius showed moral courage in defying his > parents and still more in not giving into despair while he was in > Azkaban. But his moral courage was based, as he himself says, on his > belief that he was innocent. Alla: Sure, yes. Pippin: > When challenged to bear guilt, he did not do so well. He acknowledged > that as a teen, Lupin sometimes made him ashamed of the way he and > James treated Snape, and as a grown man he admits that he is not proud > of it. But did he ever tell Snape that? He can barely admit it to > Harry, and even so, he and Lupin are full of excuses. Alla: Oh absolutely. Pippin: > Alla opened my eyes to Dumbledore's endless self-justifications. But > it's not just him. Alla: Yes. I promise something besides agreeing is coming :) Pippin: > Alla's definition leaves no room for someone with poor judgment to > show moral courage, and yet this is a major theme in the books from > the moment when Neville gets the winning points for attacking the > Trio. He wasn't doing the right thing. But he thought he was, and > that's what mattered. > Alla: Well, it is not **my** definition, it is the one I agree with, but maybe before proceeding further we should clarify which definitions we are using, so what is your definition of moral courage that is applicable to your argument? Pippin: > The Slytherins have their own kind of courage even though, as JKR > hinted, they don't see it in themselves, and in the general prejudice > that Gryffindors have against Slytherins, it is widely overlooked. > > Certainly it's easy for the reader to overlook. I missed it myself for > more than a year. But that, IMO, is JKR's point. If you want to fight > prejudice, you have to do more than be aware that prejudice is wrong, > you have to be understand how people can be blinded by it even when > they don't want to be. Alla: So basically what you are saying is that Gryffindors do not have enough courage to muster an apology to those whom they wronged and if they are guilty they cannot even admit it without self excuses? Which I do not have much disagreement with, I certainly did not see enough in the books to make a generalisation out of it, but certainly Sirius did not master an apology to Snape, Dumbledore is full of self excuses, etc. But you seem to be saying that Slytherins do have that sort of courage, to admit guilt, etc. And you seem to be saying that Snape in particular has that sourt of courage. Well, if I understood the previous part of your argument correctlyu, that amuses me a lot. Do I even need to say that out loud? When exactly Snape apologized to Harry? And before you ask when Harry apologized to Snape, I believe that Harry only owed Snape an apology for his loyalties and not for how he treated him as a teacher. And I believe Harry did apologize for that - by clearing Snape's name in front of everybody and by naming his child after Snape, I think this was an apology so much more than Snape deserved. So what I am trying to say, I in general agree with you that Gryffindors seem to have trouble acknowledging their mistakes and apologising, but boy do I disagree that Slytherins have that sort of courage. I mean, maybe they do, but I certainly did not see enough examples to agree with it. Oh sure Snape apologized to Lily, why would he not want to keep friendship with the girl he loved? He said the words. I seem to remember James also not fighting with Snape in front of Lily anymore. But apologising to Lily's son, I think would have required true moral courage. Ooops. JMO, Alla From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 22:38:05 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:38:05 -0000 Subject: Destruction of Ring Horcrux (WAS: Re: Expelliarmus and backfir...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > And the Sword lies discarded on the desk, not put away as I would > expect given the man's obsession with secrecy. This is the key > detail that leads me to believe an already cursed and dying Albus > destroyed the Ring. zanooda: I think your timeline is absolutely correct, Zara, but the Sword on the desk is not the most important detail here, IMO :-). We definitely know that the ring-Horcrux was destroyed in DD's office, because Phineas Nigellus witnessed it: "... the last time I saw the sword of Gryffindor leave its case was when Professor Dumbledore used it to break open a ring" (p.304, Am.ed.). Next, in "The Prince's Tale" Snape says to DD: "It is a miracle you managed to return here" (p.681) - meaning that DD returned to Hogwarts already cursed. He put the ring on his finger right there in the Gaunt house, and then managed to slow the curse down somehow and come back. That's why he mentions his "prodigeous skill" in HBP - a less skilled wizard would have died from that curse almost instantly, I suppose :-). In HBP DD also mentions "Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured" (I can't give you the page, because someone is reading my book right now :-)). Also, in "King's Cross" DD explains what happened: "I picked it up, and I put it on ..." (p.719). This definitely sounds as if the second action immidiately follows the first - DD just lost his head at the sight of the Ring and put it on right then and there, in the Gaunt house. Then, "desperately injured", he returned to Hogwarts and decided to destroy the H-x first, in case he won't survive the curse. Only then, too weak even to hide the sword, he summoned Snape. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 23:00:22 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:00:22 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184626 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Apparition, I'm not so sure about. So what if it's an imprisonable > offense to Disapparate from that location if Apparition can be > detected but not traced to its destination and the Apparator can't > be identified? zanooda: Exactly! Unless they can somehow identify the perpetrator, it doesn't make any sense. So what if they know that someone Side-Along- Apparated Harry out - they still won't know who this was and where they went. > Carol wrote: > Or maybe Apparition, including Side-Along Apparition, is > now Traceable (capital T) from a watched location if it involves an > underage Wizard. zanooda: Yeah, someone already mentioned this possibility, and I think this makes much more sense than the "imprisonable offense". However, I would expect some character to mention this possibility in the book as well :-) - for example, Moody, when he explains the plan to Harry. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 13 23:10:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:10:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184627 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 31, The Battle of Hogwarts Carol: I want to comment on aspects of this chapter before I answer the questions. No reflection on the fine summary, but I have many quibbles with the chapter itself. Summary: The Great Hall then cheers loudly at the news that the headmaster, Severus Snape, has done a bunk! Carol responds: Well, three of the four tables cheer, anyway. The Slytherins don't. (If only Snape had revealed his true colors instead of juping through the window and flying away! "Done a bunk," my eye. He could have killed them all if he'd wanted to. Sorry. I just dislike the idea that he wouldn't have returned to his post with honor once LV was dead and the facts were known. If LV hadn't murdered him for the wrong reasons, that is.) Summary resumed: In fact, Professor Mcgonagall has to ensure no underage wizards, including Colin Creevey, remain in the Hall. Carol responds: I still wonder why she would think that Colin Creevey, who would have been a sixth-year if he weren't a Muggle-born, is necessarily underage. (Ginny, as we know from JKR's website, has an August birthday, but most sixth-years would be seventeen by May.) I doubt that she knows all the Gryffindors' birthdays. Could she be referring to Dennis rather than Colin here? ( can't remember whether Dennis shows up with the other DA members--sorry, no time to reread the chapter.) Maybe she's judging Colin by his size? Anyway, just one point among many that annoys me about this chapter. Summary: > Fred & George volunteer to defend the various entrances of the passageways. Carol: But the entrances are blocked. Does Kingsley think that Snape has unblocked them and informed the Death Eaters where they are? wormtail would know where they are; I guess the Order doesn't know that he's dead. Anyway, it seems to me that Fred and George wouldn't have much to do. Maybe they figure that out, which is why Fred, at least, joins the fight, teaming up with Percy, of all people, instead of George. Summary: > That thought fires Harry into action and he heads off in search of Nearly Headless Nick to enquire after the identity of the Ravenclaw ghost. Carol: Six years at Hogwarts and he still doesn't know the identity of the Ravenclaw Ghost when he learned the other three on his first day of school? Either Harry is even less observant as he seems or the Ravenclaw Ghost, unlike the other three, doesn't associate with her own House at feasts and so forth! (Again, no reflection on your accurate summary. I think that JKR has withheld this information from from Harry, the pov character, to spring it on the reader in DH--surprise at the expense of realism.) Summary: The diadem remained at this site, hidden by Helena in a hollow tree on hearing the Baron approaching. The site ? a forest in Albania ! Carol responds: And the hollow tree is still there a thousand years later? Either it's a long-lived tree or Helena must have cast a spell on it to keep it alive after her own death, which seems highly unlikely under the circumstances. Summary: > The realisation of where the diadem resides strikes Harry - a location model pupils such as Dumbledore and Flitwick would never have found. Carol: Not that they, or at least DD, wouldn't have found the RoR in some other manifestation (not counting chamberpots). DD certainly knew that it was there before Harry used it for the DA or Draco to repair the Vanishing Cabinet. But they wouldn't have needed to hide contraband artifacts or potions. Still, wouldn't DD have guessed that students used it for this purpose and had done so throughout Hogwarts history? He just wouldn't have done so himself (Harry thinks) or suspected that LV had hid a Horcrux there on his way to the job interview. > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves they all leave? Carol responds: It's not believable that there are no good Slytherins. However, the underage students from all Houses, not just Slytherin, are ordered to leave, so it's only the seventh-years and of-age sixth-years who would be allowed to stay and fight, and given Pansy's remark and McGonagall's response, any Slytherins who volunteer to stay will be suspected of being on the wrong side. We see *all* the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws pointing their wands at *all* the Slytherins, assuming, as McGonagall has done earlier, that they're all Death Eaters in the making. (Their loyalty to Headmaster Snape, the supposed murderer of Dumbledore, no doubt reinforces that impression.) So the Blaise Zabinis who support Pure-Blood supremacy but turn up their noses at Death Eaters, the Theo Notts who know the consequences of being a Death Eater and never join Draco's gang of three, the junior Slughorns whom we never see, the Snapes and Reguluses of Harry's generation never get a chance to show their moral courage or loyalty to Hogwarts. We have to rely on the previous generation (Severus and Regulus) or a Slytherin from about the class of 1918 (Slughorn--I'm guessing his age, but it's up there) for our good Slytherins. And throw in the portrait of Phineas Nigellus for good measure. Surely, some of the seventeen- and eighteen-year-old Slytherins would have fought for their beloved Hogwarts, especially if Snape had been there to lead and inspire them, but they never had the chance. (Unless, as JKR seems to have intended, they were among the people that Slughorn led into battle and Harry, focusing on his own urgent needs and priorities and perhaps blinded by his preconceptions and his notable tendency not to know his own classmates outside a narrow circle and almost no one below his own year, didn't recognize them.) Anyway, seeing the other three Houses judge the entire fourth House guilty until proven innocent was just one more thing that irked me about this chapter. > > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that information on? Carol: I'm not sure what you're asking here. They would know (unlike Harry!) that she's the ghost of their House, but since she's referred to as the Grey Lady, it's clear that they don't know her identity. She's apparently rebuffed inquiries from Headmaster Dumbledore and Head of Ravenclaw, Flitwick. She's not communicative unless charmed by an expert wheedler, Tom Riddle, or the one person who can help her undo the damage she's caused, Harry. I think she revels in her mysterious aura, and the Ravenclaws, themselves lovers of riddles and mysteries, admire their House ghost despite not being friends with her. (Slytherins are probably in awe of their House ghost; only Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors would be on friendly terms with theirs. And even the Hufflepuffs know their ghost only as the Fat Friar. I doubt that it occurs to them to address him by name. The "important" details, his House and his profession, are obvious from the first encounter.) > > 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how clever you are? Carol: Not if you don't want to be arrested! She would probably have waited until her mother's death and then used it secretly, pretending that her great wisdom and knowledge was inherited from her mother rather than obtained dishonestly. Sadly, her mother loved her and would probably have willed her the diadem. As it is, she loses everything--mother, life, diadem, and lover--because of her greed and folly. > > > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole the diadem? When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out information that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Carol: Nor to me. However, I've already mentioned that the Grey Lady refused to tell anyone other than Tom and Harry the secrets of her past, and Dumbledore would have no reason to suspect that she knew where the lost diadem was, much less that she had revealed the secret to Tom Riddle, who had not to DD's knowledge set about collecting Hogwarts artifacts for his Horcrux collection before he even left school. (It seems that the idea struck him then and he talked to Helena but didn't get to Albania to locate that hollow tree. Till much later. He may have spent many of his lost years in the seemingly futile search for a thousand-year-old tree!) Nor would DD have figured out that Riddle as a schoolboy had found the lost-objects aspect of the RoR (which DD, never having needed to conceal any objects himself, seems not to have discovered) and that the adult Voldemort had used it to hide the Ravenclaw Horcrux on the way to the DADA interview. > > 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of Requirement? He also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent wizard, that seems two rather big failures. Carol responds: It's not the RoR he fails to find. It's "the place where objects are hidden"_-one aspect of many that the RoR can assume. (Others include but are not limited to a room full of chamberpots, a broom closet, a bedroom for Winky, DA headquarters, a coed dorm for students hiding from the Carrows.) If that aspect of the RoR can only be discovered by people who urgently need to hide something (sherry bottles, a Potions book with a Dark spell in the margins, an illegal activity involving a Vanishing Cabinet), it doesn't seem that implausible that DD didn't find it. (It *is* odd that neither MWPP nor the Weasley Twins found it, though.) I think he knew well enough that Draco was spending a lot of time there and that both he and Snape knew that the little girl guards weren't little girls. (What neither of them suspected was that Draco could find a way to bring DEs into the castle using the RoR.) He had no reason to search that room for the Ravenclaw diadem, however, since he didn't know its history, didn't know that Riddle/Voldemort had actually found it, didn't know that he had it with him before the DADA interview, didn't know that Riddle knew about the hidden-object aspect of the RoR and would use it after he'd left Hogwarts to hide a Horcrux that probably wasn't made until several years, perhaps as many as ten, after the cup and locket Horcruxes. In fact, I suspect that it was a recent acquisition and the main reason why he returned to Britain at that time, the other one being secretly to recruit followers and build a powerbase. As for why Dumbledore didn't find the Chamber of Secrets, I can think of two possibilities. One was that his acquired knowledge of Parseltongue, which he perhaps studied for that very purpose, did not enable him to speak it, only to understand it. (Where would he find a teacher or recordings to listen to? Unlike Harry, he didn't have a Voldie!bit in his head to enable him to understand and speak it instinctively; unlike the Gaunts and Tom Riddle, he wasn't born with that ability.) We never hear him speak it, and he seems to understand it, perhaps as much from Legilimency as through study, only in one HBP memory. It's quite possible that, not being a native Parselmouth, he doesn't hear the Basilisk in the pipes. It's also possible, and I think this point is more important, that the Basilisk won't reveal its presence to him, along with the secret of the entrance, because it responds only to Slytherin's true heir. And Slytherin's true heir, in the form of the diary Horcrux, wanted Harry to find and enter the Chamber. It must have known, via Ginny writing in the diary, that Harry could speak Parseltongue. It certainly knew that he would try to find and save Ginny (who spoke Parseltongue only when she was possessed). So, if DD can't actually speak Parseltongue, only understand it through study (speculation) and is not the Heir of Slytherin (Riddle) or the container of a soul bit from the true heir (Harry), it stands to reason that he can't find the Chamber. (If he knew where it was, he could probably open it through imitation and practice, as Ron does, but that opportunity never arises. And Moaning Myrtle's "great big yellow eyes" story would probably tell him that the monster was a Basilisk but not that the chamber was opened by the tap that Myrtle tells Harry has never worked.) > > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a bunch of mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? Aren't they at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? Carol: LOL! Yes, it is, unless the students and bystanders happen to have earmuffs! And they can only drop them on DEs who aren't fighting good guys. Then, again, Ron and Hermione are running around with their arms full of Basilisk fangs. If the venom, one of the most toxic substances known, drips out or they fall and are punctured by one of those saberlike fangs, good-bye, HR! And they just drop them in the hideaway version of the RoR, so they don't have them when they need them in the room of hidden things. (Could they wish them there? We don't get to find out because of the Fiend-fyre. Meanwhile, Ginny, who's supposed to be hiding in the version of the room that has the fangs in it, could find them--not thought out well at all, IMO.) > > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough Parseltongue to enter the Chamber? Carol responds: All that's required is one word, "Open," which Ron has heard several times under adverse circumstances and is quite likely to remember. We've also seen that several of the Weasleys (Ron, Ginny, the Twins) are rather gifted mimics. It's not as if Ron has become a Parselmouth and now speaks or understands the whole language. But his having a broom to get out (mentioned along with the Basilisk fangs as it tumbles to the floor and then forgotten--two brooms show up later just as they're needed either courtesy of the RoR reading Harry's mind or by coincidence) is not particularly believable. When has Ron been known for his foresight? Nor are the armfuls (armsful?) of Basilisk fangs, not the kind of objects that you're going to scoop into your arms like dirty laundry and hold onto while you're flying (Ron needs to steer and Hermione is terrified of flying--she'd be holding onto *him*, not the fangs). And when they get off the broom, Ron has an armful of Basilisk fangs but is also holding the broom? One Basilisk fang, maybe, but don't drop it for a badly timed kiss and leave it behind. What was JKR thinking? > > 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an effort to stop her entering the battle? Carol: Not with a Horcrux to find and destroy, Nagini to kill, and Voldemort to fight. He has too much on his mind to worry about Ginny, who isn't going to listen to him, anyway. At least, she's not alone. Her brothers and parents are there. > > 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a good wife or a bad mother? Carol: I doubt that "we" have any one opinion on the matter. In any case, good wife and bad mother aren't mutually exclusive. My personal view is that the baby is in excellent hands, those of his loving (young) grandmother, who probably tried to dissuade her daughter and had no more luck than the Weasleys with Ginny. Tonks is an Auror; she's fought DEs before. They've killed her father. She doesn't want to lose her husband, too, and she's not going to let him fight without her by his side whether he wants her there or not. I don't blame Tonks at all. She couldn't possibly foresee that her baby son would lose both his parents. Now if Teddy hadn't had a grandmother to take care of him, her action would be inexcusable. You don't hand your child to a babysitter and rush off to risk your life fighting alongside your husband. But leaving him with your mother, who has already formed a bond with him and will take care of him and love him if the worst happens, whose loss will be much more grievous than your baby son's if you and your husband die when she's still mourning your father--that I can understand. Teddy will be okay no mattter what (and he won't remember the parents who died to make his world a better place). His grandma will have him to love no matter what other losses she must endure. But Remus must not face the Death Eaters, especially Nymphadora's Aunt Bellatrix, without his Auror wife beside him. She's as much an Order member as he is, and her duty, as she sees it, lies with him and with the WW, just as Lupin's, now that Voldemort has actually attacked, is in the battle rather than with his family. Until that moment, in my view, they both belonged with their son. > > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only chance for freedom? Carol responds: Obviously, we can't know what's in Draco's head, especially when he doesn't want anything to happen to the diadem. (Is he protecting it because Harry wants it or does he somehow guess that it's valuable to Voldemort? He certainly doesn't know that it's a Horcrux.) We've seen that he's not a killer (HBP) and that he hates using the Cruciatus Curse, in marked contrast to Crabbe and Goyle (not to mention Harry). He's seen the Dark Lord abusing his own followers, even taking his father's wand away with nothing in exchange. His father, as we see in "Malfoy Manor," is still eager to get back into Voldemort's good graces and regain his lost prestige. His aunt is as fanatical as ever. His mother, perhaps, is as disillusioned as he is but can do nothing more than lend him her wand to replace the one that Harry Potter stole. Harry thinks, as he encounters Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle, that Draco is still the same enemy that he always was and that he's going to be thwarted in his quest for the Ravenclaw Horcrux by the three Slytherins. But somewhere at the back of his mind, he also knows that there's a difference between the disillusioned junior DE and his companions. It quickly becomes clear that Goyle is the same dumb follower as ever but that Crabbe has completely gone over to Voldemort's side, eager to kill and torture not only Harry but "Mud-Bloods" and other enemies of the Dark Lord. Not even the argument that Snape used on the DEs in HBP ("He's for the Dark Lord!") works on this young fanatic, who has eagerly absorbed Amycus Carrow's Dark magic lessons and his sister's anti-Muggle (and, by implication, Muggle-born) indoctrination as he never absorbed Potions or DADA or any other subject. He'll have no part of Draco's caution and moderation, or his leadership. Who is he, one of the disgraced Malfoys, to know what the Dark Lord wants? As for Draco himself, I think he's trying, without Snape's skill at intimidation or acting the part of loyal DE, to pretend to serve LV but in fact try to protect Harry and the others (as he also, feebly, tried to do at Malfoy Manor by pretending not to be sure who they were). Like Regulus and Severus, Draco was seduced by the Dark Lord's Pure-Blood supremacy ideology and dreams of glory. Like Regulus and Severus, he's disillusioned by the truth. Unlike Regulus and Severus, he has no single horrifying experience that's partly his own fault to push him into either a single desperate act of rebellion or a lifetime of remorse and perilous lying, spying, and undermining. He's still where he was on the tower, with his wand lowered a fraction of an inch, unwilling to commit himself to evil and unable to commit himself wholly and openly to good. That Harry sees and at last understands Draco's dilemma, feeling compassion for him that he can't articulate, is evident from his insistence on saving Draco and the unconscious Goyle from the Fiendfyre that Crabbe set off and couldn't control. (He seems to feel pity even for Crabbe but doesn't waste time trying to look for him.) As Draco lies wandless, believing himself to be dying, he puts his arms around the unconscious Goyle, his stupid and deluded but loyal friend. Draco sees Harry coming and raises one arm, keeping the other around Goyle until Ron angrily but determinedly comes to the rescue. Draco also seems to mourn Crabbe as a friend, or at least feel grief and shock at his death. Clearly, the reality of what Crabbe had become has not yet caught up with him. But, clearly, too, he actually cares for the boys who served all those years as his bodyguards. They weren't just thugs that he was using to back up his own bullying. Clearly, Draco has changed. He's no hero, later telling a DE that he's on the DEs' side rather than be killed, but then he's wandless and has no chance to fight for the good guys who have just saved him. He does, however, acknowledge his debt to Harry in the much later nod at King's Cross Station. IMO, Draco had no intention of delivering Harry up to the Dark Lord. He only wanted Crabbe and Goyle to think that he was doing so, all the while doing everything he could to thwart them, especially the openly pro-Voldemort Crabbe. Just possibly Draco knows that only Harry can defeat LV and rescue him and his family from their servitude. > > 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse? Carol: Hm. Good question. I think it's different because he knows Crabbe to be just a dumb kid and realizes that he's been brain-washed whereas Carrow (also stupid, to be sure) is a grown man who's been teaching kids (including Crabbe and Goyle) the Cruciatus Curse, expecting them to use it on each other. Carrow has also just spat on MacGonagall, setting fire to the dry kindling that is Harry's temper at that point. Just getting the aggression and anger out of his system by taking revenge on Amycus may have kept Harry from doing the same thing with Crabbe. Also, Crabbe may not seem as dangerous as he really is now that he knows Dark magic and has swallowed the DE propaganda. To Harry, he may still the same Crabbe who until now has been easily thwarted by hexes. More likely, Harry knows how important it is to get the Horcrux, and he has no time for a duel. He can't help noticing, too, that Draco, far from joining Crabbe or leading the attack, is trying to restrain him. This is no time for revenge or punitive action (which works fine, ethical questions aside, when you can jump out from under an Invisibility Cloak and take a lone enemy by surprise with your allies beside you). And if Harry takes the time to Crucio Crabbe, Goyle might strike and Draco might abandon his neutral stance. Whatever the case, now is not the time to let anger and a desire for vengeance cause him to lose control. Harry may have learned that lesson with Snape after the death of Dumbledore. > > 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure such a devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? Carol: Even complete idiots are generally good at something. Maybe he's an idot savant who's found his forte, the Dark Arts. Possibly, he's inspired by Amycus, whose IQ is surely on the wrong side of 90 but has managed to become the Dark Arts teacher at Hogwarts. More likely, he's excited by the nature of the subject matter. He's never been inspired to learn, say, Transfiguration, but if he knows that he can use the Disillusionment Charm to sneak up on people, he'll be inspired to learn it. (Even Goyle, who's even stupider, learns that one. Just don't ask them to pronounce or spell it.) Crucio, which can be used to torture people, their cup of tea. No more bruised fists or failed attempts at hexes, just concentrate all your anger and desire to really hurt people into one spell, and, by George, you've got it. And Fiendfyre, perhaps beyond goyle's skill, would appeal to Crabbe's newly kindled desire to hurt and maim and kill in the name of the Dark Lord. Thorfinn Rowle showed a similar impulse when he set Hagrid's house on fire. But Fiendfyre would seem like the ultimate instrument of mayhem. Too bad, as Ron says, that Crabbe wasn't listening when Carrow taught them the countercurse. > > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Carol: You'll have to ask JKR that one. Other readers feel the same way about other characters. Obviously, one reason is to make the story more realistic. The good guys can't have too easy a victory; they must suffer losses, too. If they suffer, they'll remember, and they'll be unwilling to let evil triumph again in their lifetimes. Why a Weasley? We knew that Mrs. Weasley would lose someone she loved. Her boggart in OoP foreshadowed her loss. (Possibly, the foreshadowed loss was supposed to be Mr. Weasley in the attack by Nagini, but JKR couldn't make herself kill him.) Mrs. Weasley's clock also seemed to suggest that at least one Weasley would die (though not Mrs. Weasley herself, who would suffer the loss rather than die. But why Fred, specifically? Probably because Bill and Charlie weren't important enough to Harry or the reader to create sufficient impact (besides, Bill had already suffered mutilation). It couldn't be Ginny, Harry's future wife, or Ron, Harry's best friend and Hermione's future husband. It couldn't be Percy, who had to come home, apologize abjectly but sincerely, and be reconciled to the Twins only to watch one of them die. But which one? Who should lose the ear and who should die, assuming that both had to happen but not to the same Twin? I think she went for maximum poignancy in both cases. Fred shows fear and compassion, traits we've never seen from him, when he thinks that George is going to die. George shows humor and courage and grace. I wonder whether Fred, always joking that he was the better looking twin despite being identical, could have borne the disfigurement so well. (I still wish that Snape could have restored George's ear, but that's not how JKR wrote it.) Fred, the ringleader, the slightly funnier, slightly less ethical twin, is probably the favorite of most readers who like the Twins and differentiate between them. JKR may have chosen him to die rather than George for that reason. Or she may have looked at their respective relationships with Percy. George, normally the more forgiving and compassionate, was adamant in his opposition to Percy. Fred was more inclined to joke about it. It's Fred, not George, who makes the first move toward reconciliation by summing up Percy's transgressions and giving him names to take onto himself. Once he's done so and Fred has said, "Well, you can't say fairer than that," George follows his lead. And then the Twins split up, each guarding a separate sealed entrance (probably telling the others where they are and sending off teams to each place--an exercise in futility, as it turns out because they DEs get in by other means), Percy joins up, not surprisingly, with Fred. It's Fred who gets to witness and appreciate Percy's joke about the Minister for Magic, Fred who literally dies laughing. It's poignant in the extreme, and I don't think it would have worked quite so well for George, who's good at self-deprecating humor but perhaps not quite so ready to laugh at Percy's joke. And if it had been Percy rather than Fred who died, would the reader and HRH have felt so much pain? Would Fred have mourned for Percy as Percy mourned for him? And thinking in terms of survival, the terrible loss of one twin by the other, would Fred have fared as well as George, who had already adjusted to the loss of his ear and now had to adjust to the loss of his other self? Would Fred have kept Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes in business, still able to run a store and invent new products? Or would he have been so devastated that he wasn't Fred any more? Not that George didn't suffer just as much as Fred would have, but the always joking, slightly egotistical Fred, who nevertheless listened to his slightly more reasonable, equally intelligent twin, have been as resilient? At any rate, in contrast to many parts of this chapter, I think that the scene with Percy and Fred is brilliantly handled. Fred's sudden death from a collapsed wall just as he's laughing with Percy illustrates just how unpredictable and random death can be. It throws Harry into a state of shock and denial almost as profound as the one caused when Sirius Black goes through the Veil, only this time, the body is right there in front of him. But when another body falls, Harry is shaken out of his denial. This is real. Fred is dead. And if Fred Weasley can die, anybody can die. And the longer Harry waits before confronting Voldemort, the more deaths there will be. IMO, this chapter begins with JKR at her most mediocre and ends with JKR at her best, brilliantly blending humor and pathos, shock and irony, the mundane (a falling wall) and the profound (Harry's reaction, extending into the first paragraph of the next chapter). Carol, whose own chapter discussion is due a week earlier than she thought! From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 00:10:04 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:10:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184628 > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all > totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves > they all leave? It is unreasonable to assume that there are no good Slytherins. But they are also the type who look out for themselves first. The chance to leave and avoid a battle probably has something to do with the herd mentality. Courage and loyalty are not their strong points. > > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts > pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing > in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone > from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that > information on? People would only know if she or the Bloody Baron said something about her. Obviously they hadn't because she is only known as the Grey Lady. > > 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, > hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the > whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how > clever you are? I would suppose that regret would play a large part in her not showing it off. After she had stolen it, what then? If she shows off her knowledge, word of her would spread and her mother would find her. > > > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole > the diadem? > When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the > ring and help > Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out > information > that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. She would have to be willing to tell the story. Dumbledore came to the school hundreds of years after it was stolen. The diadem had become part myth & legend by then. If she didn't tell anyone, who would know? > > 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of > Requirement? He > also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent > wizard, that > seems two rather big failures. Well we know he knew about the RoR, from the chamber pot story and I would guess he knew about Harry's DA. So I think you mean why didn't he find the room with all the junk that students wanted to hide. I would guess that he didn't find the RoR until after he was a teacher and by then, what could he possibly need to hide that he couldn't just vanish? If he wanted to just conceal something, he was more than talented enough to to put it in a trunk and spell it so no one could get into it. > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a > bunch of > mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? > Aren't they > at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? I was assuming they were still in the pot. > > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough > Parseltongue > to enter the Chamber? I think it's believable, but if she had shown him mimicing his brother's or others throughout the series it would have been better. > 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an > effort to > stop her entering the battle? With all that he has going on he doesn't have time to reason with or argue with her. He already knows she is stubborn. Plus, all of their friends are fighting so the argument wouldn't be very strong. > 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a > good wife or a > bad mother? It never even occurred to me until someone mentioned a while back. Remus is fighting, why shouldn't she? > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of > Requirement? Is he > only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does > he want > his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be > his only > chance for freedom? I think Malfoy was in a no lose situation. He can see that the diadum is important to Harry, so it must also be important to Voldemort. He knows that Voldemort wants Harry alive. If they capture Harry and diadum and take them to Voldemort, his family's status is going to rise. If Harry wins there is no more Voldemort. I think Draco was being the perfect slytherin. Playing both ends against the middle. > 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus > curse? Crabbe > is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than > his previous > attempts with this curse? I think Harry has calmed down some. He has found the diadum, he has backup to fight the DE's while he takes care of diadum and Nagini. > 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure > such a > devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? Even a blind squirril.... I don't think the curse was hard, I think mastering the curse and controlling the fire is the hard part. > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Well somebody else really close to Harry had to die. As much as I hoped it would be Percy (right after making amends) I figured it had to be one of the twins. Wasn't Fred the one who always gotter the "zinger" line in the joke? Maybe it had to be him because they had gotten through the war (didn't Harry say when he gave them the money that the world was gonna need some laughs, b/c he knew Voldemort was back) and the jokes weren't needed as badly. Jack-A-Roe From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 00:29:34 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:29:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol: > > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all totally > unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves they all leave? > > Carol responds: > > It's not believable that there are no good Slytherins. However, the > underage students from all Houses, not just Slytherin, are ordered to > leave, so it's only the seventh-years and of-age sixth-years who would > be allowed to stay and fight, and given Pansy's remark and > McGonagall's response, any Slytherins who volunteer to stay will be > suspected of being on the wrong side. We see *all* the Gryffindors, > Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws pointing their wands at *all* the > Slytherins, assuming, as McGonagall has done earlier, that they're all > Death Eaters in the making. (Their loyalty to Headmaster Snape, the > supposed murderer of Dumbledore, no doubt reinforces that impression.) Jack-A-Roe: I don't remember any Slytherin's pointing their wand at Pansy after her remark, while the other houses did. That alone is cause for concern against the Slytherin's. The other students have lived with these slytherin's all year. We only hear how Crabbe and Goyle acted, I think they are supposed to represent the worst, but I don't doubt that others also acted in some not so pleasant ways. The reactions of the other three houses tell us this. As far as anyone but Snape knows, he did murder Dumbledore. If that bothers you then you are with us, if it doesn't you must be against us. From speedy_j_g at yahoo.de Mon Oct 13 15:56:26 2008 From: speedy_j_g at yahoo.de (Javier Gonz?lez Garcia) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:56:26 +0200 Subject: Dudley/Treated As Adults/Therapy In-Reply-To: <7273A570114E4A0B9571503B04737339@Marianne> References: <7273A570114E4A0B9571503B04737339@Marianne> Message-ID: <4A8708CE-8C3B-4C0F-8CF6-8D9C362AD75C@yahoo.de> No: HPFGUIDX 184630 > The other Marianne: > I've thought about PTSD, anger managment, etc. I would think after > such a thing as the battle of HW there would be a line around the > block to get help at St. Mungo's Hospital, and be in years of > therapy afterwards. Or would the magical world have a far different > way of dealing with trauma in their lives. speedy_j_g: I'd guess they would obliviate them or put cheering charms on themselves...it's not the way to cope but no one said the magical world does things the right way, on the other side there could be charms or enchantment that when worn or carried or potions that when taken help the mind cope with whatever is thrown at them... I wouldn't care one way or another...though I'd sure as heck hope my second theory is the one to work...even if I like reading stupid magical world fanfics... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 01:50:03 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:50:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184631 > Jack-A-Roe: > As far as anyone but Snape knows, he did murder Dumbledore. If that > bothers you then you are with us, if it doesn't you must be against > us. Zara: This is simply not true. Harry believes he knows this, as do Draco, Greyback, the Carrows, and Yaxley, but the press coverage of this as shown in the books is misleading, and therefore the wizard on the street (or the Slytherin in the Great Hall) does not know this. The Thicknesse administration does not make Snape Headmaster because he killed Dumbledore. On the contrary, they deny he did so. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 14 02:07:14 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:07:14 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184632 > zanooda: > > Exactly! Unless they can somehow identify the perpetrator, it doesn't make any sense. So what if they know that someone Side-Along- > Apparated Harry out - they still won't know who this was and where > they went. Pippin: The DE's are only interested in Harry, and won't care who actually performed the spell. They will be able to prove through the Trace that apparation (or whatever) was performed in Harry's vicinity, and that he is the only wizard who is supposed to be in the area. That will be enough to accuse him, by WW standards. The Ministry DE's can deduce that Harry will celebrate his birthday at the Weasleys just as Scrimgeour did, at which point they could have apprehended him. The Order can't be sure that Scrimgeour will object, even if he's in a position to, because he's still trying to put pressure on Harry. There isn't much logic to WW law enforcement -- after all, it never seems to occur to them that Morfin is no longer an underage wizard and couldn't have triggered the Trace which proved that magic had killed the Riddles. Pippin From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 04:27:41 2008 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Happy Smiley) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts Message-ID: <509375.18984.qm@web46214.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184633 > > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough > Parseltongueto enter the Chamber? > Pippin: > He only has to remember the sound of one word, which is, IIRC, the > only one he's ever heard.? I think he and Hermione heard Harry say "Leave him alone" in the duelling club scene in CoS though I think?both of them wouldn't remember?what combination of sounds (hisses and rasps) Harry produced. :-) Ron heard Harry say "Open" in two instances and both instances were very emotional moments for him - one when Ginny?was trapped in CoS?and the other when he?was just getting ready to finish off the locket Horcrux. He has made "perfect imitations" and "passable imitations" in the past.?So, I think it is very much possible that?he can remember the sound of one word and parrot it. And anyway, he did try multiple times and got it right finally, as per his words. Yeah. Possible. :) ?~Joey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leahstill at hotmail.com Tue Oct 14 08:22:44 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:22:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > But you seem to be saying that Slytherins do have that sort of > courage, to admit guilt, etc. > > And you seem to be saying that Snape in particular has that sourt of > courage. > > Well, if I understood the previous part of your argument correctlyu, > that amuses me a lot. Do I even need to say that out loud? > > When exactly Snape apologized to Harry? Leah: I just wonder when there would have been an opportunity before Snape's death for this apology to take place. Snape's behaviour to Harry springs from a number of causes, the whole James/Lily backstory, the need to maintain cover in his Order role, particularly in front of a class which contains a high proportion of Death Eaters' children,punishment for Harry for things he has done or Snape thinks he has done outside the classroom, and a desire to have Harry not turn out like James (eg the post-Sectumsempra detentions). That's not to excuse the whole of Snape's behaviour but to point out that its motivations are very complex, perhaps not consciously understood by Snape, and certainly,as far as the maintaining cover motivation, dangerous to reveal before the death of Voldemort > > And before you ask when Harry apologized to Snape, I believe that > Harry only owed Snape an apology for his loyalties and not for how he > treated him as a teacher. > > And I believe Harry did apologize for that - by clearing Snape's name > in front of everybody and by naming his child after Snape, I think > this was an apology so much more than Snape deserved. Leah: I agree that the clearing of Snape's name during the Battle was an apology for getting Snape's loyalties wrong, and certainly it is difficult to see that Snape did not deserve that. Harry is only there armed with the Elder Wand because of Snape's continuing deception of Voldemort in the face of death. (It is of course also a strategic wrong-footing of Voldemort by Harry). I don't think it indicates any general forgiveness of Snape. By the time Harry names Albus Severus he has had eight years of what seems to have been stable, happy successful life to mull over what he knows about Snape. He has enough information from his own knowledge and from Snape's memories to at least understand some of the reasons listed above for Snape's treatment of him and to reach his own conclusions. Snape did give Harry all his memories (including again SWM)which he had always wanted to conceal from Harry in life; this isn't an apology but it is an explanation. Snape doesn't get any happy stable post DH period of time to contemplate the past and come to any conclusions on it. > > So what I am trying to say, I in general agree with you that > Gryffindors seem to have trouble acknowledging their mistakes and > apologising, but boy do I disagree that Slytherins have that sort of > courage. I mean, maybe they do, but I certainly did not see enough > examples to agree with it. > > Oh sure Snape apologized to Lily, why would he not want to keep > friendship with the girl he loved? He said the words. Leah: And is clearly very emotionally involved in doing so. > > I seem to remember James also not fighting with Snape in front of > Lily anymore. Leah: And continued to hex Snape behind Lily's back. Why does this demonstrate moral courage? Leah From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 09:59:37 2008 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Happy Smiley) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts Message-ID: <808849.2575.qm@web46203.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184636 >2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that information on? Joey: I think the personality of the ghost also matters here. Nick seems to be a friendly, want-to-interact type of ghost. Baron was someone who could scare even Peeves. Peeves was one whom anybody would love to avoid. So was Moaning Myrtyle, for different reasons though. So, may be?Grey Lady?put up a show of being very?snobbish (considering how she reacted to Harry when he tried to speak to her) whom people didn't want to move with and hence, the lack of knowledge. >10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only chance for freedom? Joey: I somehow feel it's the latter cause. He did *sort of* help when the Trio was in the Malfoy Manor but considering how he behaved with Dumbledore in HBP climax, I think the latter explanation fits in better. Yeah, I know Malfoy Manor incident happened post DD's death but still..... :-) >11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse? Joey: Hmmm, good question. May be he just cooled down a bit when he vented out his frustration on Amycus and he possibly felt a bit bad / guilty at his first-time success with a curse like Crucio - he seemed to realize for the first time what Bellatrix meant about unforgivables. >12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure such a devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? Joey: May be it's something like Crucio (considering the way Hermione reacted to the fact that he had caused that type of fire) - if you mean to cause harm, you are done with it. We also get to know that Crabbe and Goyle were enjoying doing Crucio and they wouldn't have enjoyed it if people really had a tough time because of them, I think. So, Crabbe has some practice with such types of curses, I guess. >13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Joey: Dunno. Sigh.? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 13:11:55 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:11:55 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Jack-A-Roe: > > As far as anyone but Snape knows, he did murder Dumbledore. If that > > bothers you then you are with us, if it doesn't you must be against > > us. > > Zara: > This is simply not true. Harry believes he knows this, as do Draco, > Greyback, the Carrows, and Yaxley, but the press coverage of this as > shown in the books is misleading, and therefore the wizard on the > street (or the Slytherin in the Great Hall) does not know this. The > Thicknesse administration does not make Snape Headmaster because he > killed Dumbledore. On the contrary, they deny he did so. > Jack-A-Roe Actually wouldn't all the death eaters and by extension their families know that Snape killed Dumbledore? I would think that it would have been mentioned at a death eater meeting. If Harry is telling people that Snape killed Dumbledore, do you think the students would believe the government or Harry? This has already happened once and I don't think the people are going to believe that Harry is a liar again. That exploded in their face last time. So yes pretty much everyone in the great hall believes that Snape killed Dumbledore. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 14:43:34 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:43:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184638 Leah: I just wonder when there would have been an opportunity before Snape's death for this apology to take place. Snape's behavior to Harry springs from a number of causes, the whole James/Lily back-story, the need to maintain cover in his Order role, particularly in front of a class which contains a high proportion of Death Eaters' children,punishment for Harry for things he has done or Snape thinks he has done outside the classroom, and a desire to have Harry not turn out like James (eg the post-Sectumsempra detentions). That's not to excuse the whole of Snape's behavior but to point out that its motivations are very complex, perhaps not consciously understood by Snape, and certainly, as far as the maintaining cover motivation, dangerous to reveal before the death of Voldemort Alla: I thought reasons for not giving an apology were not very relevant for this argument. Pippin if I understood her correctly posited that Gryffindors as a group did not have the kind of moral courage that makes one freely and without any self justification apologize to those they wronged. And while I am not sure if I can agree with that as generalization about Gryffindors as whole, I can certainly agree that there are several significant examples of that in the books and certainly we had been making generalizations on fewer examples. I also thought that Pippin was positing that Slytherins do have that sort of courage ( even if it is not my definition of it), but I am willing just abandon the name for this behavior and just talk about it. Basically Gryffindors according to Pippin have much more trouble apologizing when guilty then Slytherins do and Snape in particular can give an apology for his wrong behavior. I can give you gazillions reasons of why Sirius did not apologize to Snape, but the fact of the matter he did not. But certainly we can talk about Snape's reasons for not apologizing to Harry. Sorry, but I do not buy that any of the things you listed **are** in fact good enough. My opinion of course. Let's go through them one by one. I always considered Snape's treating of Harry as supposed cover for him to be in Voldemort's good graces to be the strangest explanation ever. Let me explain why I thought so. Because I always thought that if Snape wants to show Voldemort that he was a good little spy for him, it would make much more sense for him to treat Harry **extra** nicely, to make sure that DE children report to their fathers that Snape is doing anything he can to get into Dumbledore's good graces and treat his Chosen one well. So, no, I do not believe that need to maintain the cover equals Snape has to be an *sshole to Harry, quite the contrary. Everything else seems to be very simple to me. In fact, I think Snape and James's backstory is the only thing that is relevant in Snape's treatment of Harry. Snape sees Harry, Snape sees James instead of Harry, Snape hates Harry just as he hated James. SO, of course I believe that backstory is the reason. But do I think it should matter? Um, no, not in the slightest. After book 7 my contempt for Snape increased tenfold. He **loved** that woman for goodness sake, how dare he treat her baby that way. Harry was desperate for father figure, he reciprocates ten times to any adult who shows him a tiny bit of affection ? be it Hagrid, Dumbledore or Sirius. As far as I am concerned Snape could have Harry eaten from his hand, if he so desired. Just tell him ? I knew your mother, I can tell you stories about her, offer him tutoring in Potions. And here we go ? Snape has James's son worshipping the ground he walks on. Instead he does that. Oh and of course through the school life Harry did things he needed to be punished on. Except Snape started it. If Snape never attacked Harry on the first lesson, sure, I would have fewer problems with some of the things he made Harry go through. As it stands, nothing justifies what Snape did IMO. Now to answer your initial question ? when such apology should have taken place, since I do not believe that it has any relevance to Voldemort, my answer is pretty much at any time when Snape was teaching Harry, at any time would have been good. I mean, what I am trying to say is that Snape could have given whole hearted apology without mentioning Voldemort's business. Leah: I agree that the clearing of Snape's name during the Battle was an apology for getting Snape's loyalties wrong, and certainly it is difficult to see that Snape did not deserve that. Alla: Sorry, I meant to say that naming Harry's child after Snape was way more than Snape deserved. I agree that he certainly deserved to have his name cleared and have no problem with Harry doing it. Leah By the time Harry names Albus Severus he has had eight years of what seems to have been stable, happy successful life to mull over what he knows about Snape. He has enough information from his own knowledge and from Snape's memories to at least understand some of the reasons listed above for Snape's treatment of him and to reach his own conclusions. Snape did give Harry all his memories (including again SWM)which he had always wanted to conceal from Harry in life; this isn't an apology but it is an explanation. Alla: It does not matter to me that Harry names his child after eighth years of happy stable life. Jews as you probably know often name their kids in honor of the dead family members. I was named in honor of my grandmother's brother, my brother was named in honor of my other grandmother, my niece was named for my grandmother, etc. To me it is highly symbolic and loving act and nothing I saw in the books can convince me that Harry has any reason to love Snape. I am telling myself that for JKR it is just an act of respect for Snape's courage, but as I said, personal interpretation for me comes through here. I think this was so much more than Snape deserved, so much more. IMO of course. Alla before: >Oh sure Snape apologized to Lily, why would he not want to keep > friendship with the girl he loved? He said the words. Leah: And is clearly very emotionally involved in doing so. Alla: Of course he is, but how to put it? His apology to me is sort of self- serving here. I do not mean to say that loving somebody is a selfish act, quite the contrary often. But nevertheless, if Lily was just his friend and he had no romantic feelings for her, the apology would have carried more weight to me in a same way that Harry's apology to Luna would have carried more weight than his to Ginny. I mean, it is a good thing that he apologized of course, but I do not consider it to be a very courageous act, the apology to Harry would have been to me an act of more courage. Alla before: > I seem to remember James also not fighting with Snape in front of > Lily anymore. Leah: And continued to hex Snape behind Lily's back. Why does this demonstrate moral courage? Alla: And Snape was hexing him as well, but I was trying to say that it does not demonstrate moral courage, quite the contrary IMO either on James' or Snape's part. What it demonstrates to me is the willingness to promise anything to the girl one loves and continue to do whatever one wants behind her back. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 16:06:30 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:06:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184639 > > Alla: > > When exactly Snape apologized to Harry? > > > Leah: I just wonder when there would have been an opportunity > before Snape's death for this apology to take place. Snape's > behaviour to Harry springs from a number of causes, the whole > James/Lily backstory, the need to maintain cover in his Order role, > particularly in front of a class which contains a high proportion of > Death Eaters' children,punishment for Harry for things he has done > or Snape thinks he has done outside the classroom, and a desire to > have Harry not turn out like James (eg the post-Sectumsempra > detentions). Zara: I would add, that we are discussing apologies in the context of this thread because they are a way of accepting guilt and taking responsibility. Snape never says the words "I am sorry" to Harry for setting into motion the events that led to his parents' deaths, which was a consequence of his chopice to serve Voldemort. However, he does take on a life-long commitment to protect Harry from Voldemort and risks his own life by serving as a spy in Voldemort's camp, thus demonstrating through his actions the genuineness of the sentiment he never did express to Harry in words. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 16:21:05 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:21:05 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184640 > Zara: > I would add, that we are discussing apologies in the context of this > thread because they are a way of accepting guilt and taking > responsibility. Alla: Do we? I thought we were discussing the kind of behavior itself that one makes oneself humble to the person he wronged. But I would really ask Pippin to clarify what she had in mind now. Pretty please Pippin? Zara: Snape never says the words "I am sorry" to Harry for > setting into motion the events that led to his parents' deaths, which > was a consequence of his chopice to serve Voldemort. However, he does > take on a life-long commitment to protect Harry from Voldemort and > risks his own life by serving as a spy in Voldemort's camp, thus > demonstrating through his actions the genuineness of the sentiment he > never did express to Harry in words. Alla: I have not noticed Snape being humble to Harry after he accepts that role and I thought he was doing it at the end out of genuine conviction that he came back to the right side, not just because he is complicit in Lily's death? And I was talking about Snape apologizing to Harry for mistreating him in school in any event. I mean, not that I agree that Snape's actions can be read as act of humbleness **to Harry** for giving prophecy to Voldemort, but I at least can see how it can be interpreted as act of taking responsibility in the context you seem to be arguing. But it certainly was not the issue as I saw it. The issue to me was whether Snape can make himself abandon his past misconceptions about the other person, real or imaginary ones and see that he is in the wrong, and say it to Harry, his pride be damned. JMO, Alla From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 18:38:58 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:38:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of > Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to > the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from > Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only > chance for freedom? zanooda: I think that Draco didn't want to deliver Harry to LV at all, dead or alive. If he did, then why he acted so strangely in "Malfoy Manor"? If he so much desired to deliver Harry and get his family out of trouble, why was he so reluctant to confirm the Trio's identities in "Malfoy Manor"? He should have been happy, like Lucius, he should have jumped up and down with joy and yell: "Yes, it's them, father, it's Potter and his friends! Call the Dark Lord at once!" We all know that it's not what really happened. So what has changed between "Malfoy Manor" and "The Battle of Hogwarts"? Nothing, IMO - Draco still doesn't want neither kill Harry, nor deliver him to LV. I'm convinced that this was all Crabbe's idea. By that time Draco didn't have any authority in the Slytherin trio, and Crabbe was the leader ("I don't take your orders no more, Draco. You and your dad are finished"). Crabbe decided they should stay in the castle to capture Harry, and Draco didn't dare to refuse, that's all. JMO :-). From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 19:12:19 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:12:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184642 Alla: > After book 7 my contempt for Snape increased tenfold. He **loved** > that woman for goodness sake, how dare he treat her baby that way. Montavilla47: I respect your feelings, Alla, but I don't understand your reasoning. Why must Snape treat Harry well simply because he loved her mother? I can definitely understand the reasoning that he should treat *any* student respectifully, and I agree that he didn't do so when Harry first came into his class. But it seems to me that treating him well because of his love for Lily is no better than treating him badly because of his hatred of James. Harry is neither Lily nor James. I seem to remember that people keep remarking on much Harry is like James, especially in the early books. Does anyone actually ever say he's like Lily? (I know that Lupin does in the film version of PoA, and Slughorn keeps staring at his eyes--and then compares him to Lily in Potions, but that's due to Snape's work, not Harry's.) Alla: > Harry was desperate for father figure, he reciprocates ten times to > any adult who shows him a tiny bit of affection ? be it Hagrid, > Dumbledore or Sirius. > > As far as I am concerned Snape could have Harry eaten from his hand, > if he so desired. Just tell him ? I knew your mother, I can tell you > stories about her, offer him tutoring in Potions. And here we go ? > Snape has James's son worshipping the ground he walks on. > > Instead he does that. Montavilla47: Here's where I really differ from you in reasoning and feeling. Considering what Snape knows he's done to help cause the death of Harry's parents, wouldn't it be rather disgusting of him to try and win his affection? Imagine if Snape had flattered Harry, the way that Slughorn did. Just beyond the fact that it's really not Snape's style to flatter *any* student, imagine what it would have been like for Harry to discover Snape's complicity if he had loved the man? Look at how Harry angsted over Dumbledore! And all that he'd discovered about Dumbledore was that the man was friends with Grindelwald for a few weeks! Something that had no relevance or impact on Harry's life at all. So, yes, Snape started it all by treating Harry rudely in class. But I find that, ironically, better behavior than the way that Slughorn tried to reel Harry in by flattering him. Montavilla47 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 21:06:07 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:06:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184643 > Montavilla47: > I respect your feelings, Alla, but I don't understand your reasoning. > Why must Snape treat Harry well simply because he loved her mother? > I can definitely understand the reasoning that he should treat *any* > student respectfully, and I agree that he didn't do so when Harry > first came into his class. > > But it seems to me that treating him well because of his love for > Lily is no better than treating him badly because of his hatred of James. > Harry is neither Lily nor James. Alla: Sorry I disagree, I mean I am not completely disagreeing with you. I certainly agree that he should treat any student respectfully, and that he did not do so when Harry first came into class. But I completely disagree that treating him bad because of hatred for James is the same as treating good because of his love for Lily. I think of it as possible **additional** motivation for Snape to treat Harry well, not as primary one. Meaning that to me, if one loved somebody, one would be nice to that person's child, does not mean that teacher **has to be** for that reason, if that makes sense. > Montavilla47: > Here's where I really differ from you in reasoning and feeling. > Considering what Snape knows he's done to help cause the > death of Harry's parents, wouldn't it be rather disgusting of him > to try and win his affection? Alla: So it will be disgusting for Snape to try and win Harry's affection, but it is not disgusting to treat him the way Snape did? See to me it is the exact opposite. I would think that if person felt guilty, person would have went out of his way to be kind to the person I mean, I imagined two possible reasons for Snape to do so and I would think that it could be both the possibility for Snape to look into Lily's eyes for many years to come and see affection back and also have a revenge over James that he would have love to have. And I totally think that if Snape would have been sincere in winning Harry's affection, Harry would have eventually forgiven him in the role he played in his parents' death. Speculating obviously and it would not have been easy. Montavilla: > Imagine if Snape had flattered Harry, the way that Slughorn did. > Just beyond the fact that it's really not Snape's style to flatter > *any* student, imagine what it would have been like for Harry > to discover Snape's complicity if he had loved the man? Alla: Well, see above. I am thinking only if Snape would have done so sincerely. Montavilla: > Look at how Harry angsted over Dumbledore! And all that he'd > discovered about Dumbledore was that the man was friends with > Grindelwald for a few weeks! Something that had no relevance > or impact on Harry's life at all. Alla: Right, disappointment in father figure, etc, but what happened eventually? Harry got over it at the end, he forgave Dumbledore etc, because despite all his faults in Harry's mind old bastard truly loved him. I believe that after lots of angsting Harry would have done same thing with Snape. Montavilla: > So, yes, Snape started it all by treating Harry rudely in class. Alla: Yes we agree on that. Montavilla47: > But I find that, ironically, better behavior than the way that > Slughorn tried to reel Harry in by flattering him. Alla: Oh not me at all. I think Slughorn sincerely liked Lily as his student. I see nothing wrong in him treating Harry well because he liked his mother and because he liked Harry. Not that I do not think that he should treat all his students well of course, but I see no problems whatsoever in his treatment of Harry. To me positive treatment of the student for **any** reason ( as long as the reason is not illegal or immoral) is always better than negative treatment. JMO, Alla From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 22:02:24 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:02:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > >> Montavilla47: snip> > I seem to remember that people keep remarking on much Harry is > like James, especially in the early books. Does anyone actually ever > say he's like Lily? (I know that Lupin does in the film version of PoA, > and Slughorn keeps staring at his eyes--and then compares him to > Lily in Potions, but that's due to Snape's work, not Harry's.) > Jack-A-Roe: I thought everyone said he looked like James. I don't remember them saying he acted like James. (except for Snape and as we saw in the memories his views are much different than the other teachers) Slughorn with his Slug Club wanted Harry because he was the boy-who- lived. He is a Slytherin and uses his angle of knowing and liking Lilly as a way to try and get close to Harry. Even if he didn't know Lilly he still would have sucked up to Harry. > > Montavilla47: > Here's where I really differ from you in reasoning and feeling. > Considering what Snape knows he's done to help cause the > death of Harry's parents, wouldn't it be rather disgusting of him > to try and win his affection? >snip > > So, yes, Snape started it all by treating Harry rudely in class. > > But I find that, ironically, better behavior than the way that > Slughorn tried to reel Harry in by flattering him. Jack-A-Roe: What I wonder is that Snape had ten years to figure out how to present himself to Harry. The best he can come up with is an insult about being a celebrity. Lockhart is a celebrity and courts the attention. Harry is merely famous. Then again, I'm not sure how telling Harry that he was the reason that Voldemort came after Harry and ended up killing his parents would go over. Then again I think Harry would respect the truth more than what he got. At least he could hate him for the truth and not just because Snape was an ass to him. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 14 23:25:06 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:25:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184645 > > Zara: > > I would add, that we are discussing apologies in the context of this thread because they are a way of accepting guilt and taking > > responsibility. > > Alla: > > Do we? I thought we were discussing the kind of behavior itself that one makes oneself humble to the person he wronged. But I would really ask Pippin to clarify what she had in mind now. Pretty please Pippin? Pippin: ::clears throat:: First, I accept the definition of "moral courage" that Alla put forward. But I think the interpretation she gave is too broad to be useful. IMO, the definition should distinguish between moral cowardice and moral apathy, because unless a person is as divided in nature as Gollum, it's difficult to display both at the same time. IMO, you have to be morally engaged, have some inclination towards doing the right thing, before you can give in to moral cowardice and fail to do it. There's a difference between James and Sirius, who don't seriously consider whether they have any right to bully Snape, and Lupin, who is certain that it's wrong and does nothing. James and Sirius are morally engaged generally. They've thought about the big issue of whether it matters how wizards use their power. It just didn't matter to them whether Snape was the appropriate target for their general disgust with dark wizardry. Generally, moral engagement is a sine qua non for Gryffindor, the house of chivalry, and a problem for Slytherins. The morally engaged are not going to believe that they should "use any means to achieve their ends." If, in our quest for the good in Slytherin, we define the good solely as a tendency towards moral engagement as exemplified by our heroes, we are going to come up short. But moral courage, IMO, is a problem for Gryffindors and a sine qua non for Slytherins, whether they know it or not. It isn't only that Snape apologizes freely and makes amends without trying to justify himself or blame someone else for the consequences of his fall. Or that Snape risked more than any Gryffindor ever did to right a wrong once he realized he'd committed one. It's that no Slytherins, IIRC, ever did what Pettigrew did. We never see them knowingly betray or desert their real friends, anyone they care about, to save their own skins or for personal gain. Phineas claims they will. But we never actually see anyone do it. There are people associated with the House who did such things: Merope and Karkaroff. But as far as we know, they were never Hogwarts students and can't have been Slytherins themselves. Snape acted against the Death Eaters once he had defected, but they were no longer his friends. As far as we know he had personal loyalty only to the Malfoys, whom he continued to protect. Slytherin left his House, but as the Chamber of Secrets shows, he never really abandoned it. The Slytherins left in DH, but we can hardly say they were abandoning their friends. And one way or another, they came back. Whether they took part in the battle or not, the House continued. Slytherins have betrayed numerous people they *should* have cared about. Riddle certainly did. But that is moral apathy, not moral cowardice. See the difference? > Alla: > > And I was talking about Snape apologizing to Harry for mistreating him in school in any event. Pippin: Snape's dislike of Harry is grounded in prejudice, not reality: he can see nothing in Harry that doesn't remind him of James. But I do not see that either indifference or cowardice is the cause. I too do not see where Snape had time to make a formal apology. Nor do I see any moral value at all in pretending to like Harry. It certainly would not have helped the ruse. Snape could hardly claim that he'd been nice to Harry because he knew Dumbledore was attached to him, and he was planning all along to betray Dumbledore when the Dark Lord returned. Snape is supposed to think that Voldemort is not coming back, and Voldemort is supposed to think that Harry is nothing personal to Dumbledore. Many of Snape's memories show him at his weakest moments, abject and miserable; he could hardly have humbled himself more if that had been his desire. He could have made himself look a lot more heroic with some editing, and Harry would still have known what he had to do. Try an experiment. Start with the ring curse, cut from "That is essential" to "You will have to give Voldemort the correct date," eliminate Lily's letter and finish with Snape conjuring the silver doe. Harry would have seen Dumbledore helpless and totally reliant on brave and resourceful Snape. That Snape included the rest, IMO, is Snape's acknowledgement that maybe Dumbledore was right, and Harry's deepest nature is closer to Lily's than James's. Even if he could never bring himself to believe it, Snape must have realized that if that is not the case, Harry will never be able to do what Dumbledore asked of him, and it will all be for nothing in the end. Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 14 23:26:50 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:26:50 -0000 Subject: Caring about people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > The DE's are only interested in Harry, and won't care who actually > performed the spell. They will be able to prove through the Trace > that apparation (or whatever) was performed in Harry's vicinity, and > that he is the only wizard who is supposed to be in the area. That > will be enough to accuse him, by WW standards. zanooda: OK, I can agree with this part. If the Ministry *really* can detect Apparition near an underage wizard (which is just an assumption on our part), that could mean more trouble for Harry, although I'm not sure that Scrimgeour would have authorized his arrest at that point of time. > Pippin wrote: > The Ministry DE's can deduce that Harry will celebrate his birthday > at the Weasleys just as Scrimgeour did, at which point they could > have apprehended him. zanooda: Now, this I don't agree with :-). The DEs didn't know that Harry was at the Burrow, Lupin said so in "The Bribe"(p.206) - that's why they tortured Scrimgeour, and that's why they raided all the safe houses, not just the Burrow. I don't think Scrimgeour *deduced* that Harry was at the Burrow, he just knew it. The Ministry helped to put protective spells on the safe houses, and the Minister had the right to know. But he was probably the only one at the Ministry who knew, that's why he got tortured. > Pippin wrote: > There isn't much logic to WW law enforcement -- after all, it never > seems to occur to them that Morfin is no longer an underage wizard > and couldn't have triggered the Trace which proved that magic had > killed the Riddles. zanooda: Oh yeah, I remember asking this question right after the book was out :-). But later I thought that we don't really know if the Trace is something ancient or maybe it is a recent invention (we didn't even hear anything about it until DH, LOL). Maybe there was no Trace in the 40s. We don't even know when that law (or whatever it was) for the restriction of underage wizardry was passed. Or do we? Anyway, you are right, not much logic in WW law enforcement :-). For example, at the beginning of OotP Harry is in big trouble with the Ministry for using magic, but then his advance guard arrives and starts doing magic all around him. There is no reaction from the Ministry whatsoever. Did DD arranged this with Fudge? I don't know, DD wasn't Ministry's favorite back then :-). Just doesn't seem logical, that's all :-). From leahstill at hotmail.com Wed Oct 15 00:00:14 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> > Alla: > > I thought reasons for not giving an apology were not very relevant > for this argument. Pippin if I understood her correctly posited that > Gryffindors as a group did not have the kind of moral courage that > makes one freely and without any self justification apologize to > those they wronged. > > I also thought that Pippin was positing that Slytherins do have that > sort of courage ( even if it is not my definition of it), but I am > willing just abandon the name for this behavior and just talk about > it. Basically Gryffindors according to Pippin have much more trouble > apologizing when guilty then Slytherins do and Snape in particular > can give an apology for his wrong behavior. Leah: Sorry, I did not make myself clear. If we are discussing moral courage in making an apology, then the person who is in the wrong has to feel that, and to feel an apology is due, and then has to make the apology however hard it might be. If the person is too afraid to make the apology, then there is a lack of moral courage. What I was trying to say about Snape is that I don't think there is a time in the books when he would be able to calmly review his relationship with Harry and come to the conclusion that he should apologise to Harry for some aspects of his behaviour to Harry (not all, because Snape justifiably calls Harry to account on a number of occasions). He can't lack moral courage in not apologising because he hasn't reached the stage of considering apologising. The reasons I gave were reasons why it was difficult for him to reach that stage within the timeline of the books, not reasons for lack of moral courage. Perhaps DH was such a time, but he has no opportunity to be with Harry, other than to give the memories, which are a form of reaching out for Harry. If Snape had concluded that he owed Harry some apology, then, based on his other behaviour in the books, I don't think he would lack moral courage to do so. >. > I always considered Snape's > treating of Harry as supposed cover for him to be in Voldemort's good > graces to be the strangest explanation ever. Let me explain why I > thought so. Because I always thought that if Snape wants to show > Voldemort that he was a good little spy for him, it would make much > more sense for him to treat Harry **extra** nicely, to make sure that > DE children report to their fathers that Snape is doing anything he > can to get into Dumbledore's good graces and treat his Chosen one > well. > > So, no, I do not believe that need to maintain the cover equals Snape > has to be an *sshole to Harry, quite the contrary. Leah: Nothing to do with the moral courage point, but I disagree. When Harry starts Hogwarts, we know from 'Spinners End' that most of the Death Eaters thought Voldemort dead or gone forever. There would be no need from their point of view, as Bellatrix says, for Snape to spy for him, and therefore no need for Snape to curry favour with Dumbledore. The mere fact of Snape being at Hogwarts is enough to to make him suspected of being a turncoat and viewed as being in Dumbledore's good graces by those of Bella's persuasion. What would be essential, if Voldemort is to return, as Dumbledore has told Snape he will, is that Snape is seen as retaining a Death Eater mentality, so that he will be able to convincingly return to Voldemort's side. Sneering at the 'Chosen One' will achieve this; befriending him will not. >> After book 7 my contempt for Snape increased tenfold. He **loved** > that woman for goodness sake, how dare he treat her baby that way. > Harry was desperate for father figure, he reciprocates ten times to > any adult who shows him a tiny bit of affection ? be it Hagrid, > Dumbledore or Sirius. And being a parent is not just about showing affection, it has to be balanced with guiding and correcting the child. None of the above, for various reasons, call Harry on any of his bad behaviour. Snape does. His instincts there are right, but due to his personality and all the reasons I have given above, he often goes wrong in the way he tries to do it. Snape may well feel that protecting Lily's child involves punishing that child for all the times he endangers himself, rather than just twinkling at him. > As far as I am concerned Snape could have Harry eaten from his hand, > if he so desired. Just tell him ? I knew your mother, I can tell you > stories about her, offer him tutoring in Potions. And here we go ? > Snape has James's son worshipping the ground he walks on. > > Instead he does that. Leah: Well, aside from all the feelings of guilt etc which Snape has wrapped up in the whole Lily thing, he can't be in a position where Harry worships the ground he walks on. I'm also not sure it's particularly moral to befriend a child as an act of revenge against their father. Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 00:39:59 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:39:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184648 Leah: Sorry, I did not make myself clear. If we are discussing moral courage in making an apology, then the person who is in the wrong has to feel that, and to feel an apology is due, and then has to make the apology however hard it might be. If the person is too afraid to make the apology, then there is a lack of moral courage. What I was trying to say about Snape is that I don't think there is a time in the books when he would be able to calmly review his relationship with Harry and come to the conclusion that he should apologies to Harry for some aspects of his behavior to Harry (not all, because Snape justifiably calls Harry to account on a number of occasions). He can't lack moral courage in not apologizing because he hasn't reached the stage of considering apologizing. < HUGE SNIP> Alla: Ah I see. Well, but then we are coming in circle to my definition of moral courage, which includes courage to do the *right* thing and as far as I am concerned if Snape does not come to contemplate the idea that he owes Harry an apology, he is wrong on many levels and certainly I cannot call such person courageous, just person with very twisted point of view in my opinion. Leah: And being a parent is not just about showing affection, it has to be balanced with guiding and correcting the child. None of the above, for various reasons, calls Harry on any of his bad behavior. Snape does. His instincts there are right, but due to his personality and all the reasons I have given above, he often goes wrong in the way he tries to do it. Snape may well feel that protecting Lily's child involves punishing that child for all the times he endangers himself, rather than just twinkling at him. Alla: I consider one of the Dumbledore's worst offenses ever to force Snape into protecting Harry. I am of the opinion that with protectors like that who needs enemies. Yes, being a parent is guiding and correcting the child as well, but I would never call what Snape does guiding and correcting Harry, even if it includes that. And I did that in the past, I have to find my post. Snape instincts about what Harry did could be right, but they are almost **always** wrong about the reason why Harry did it. If Snape was **fair** in punishing Harry, I would think differently, but since I think of him as abuser of his authority, I would think that Dumbledore should have find somebody else to protect Harry. So when he indeed wants to punish Harry for true wrongdoing, I think he forfeited that right by coming up with punishments which should not be given out in the first place. Starting with that point for Harry **not helping Neville** that is, I think. And then taking some from Hermione for **helping him**. I always think how brilliantly JKR paralleled it. Leah: I'm also not sure it's particularly moral to befriend a child as an act of revenge against their father. Alla: If this is primary reason, then no of course it is not moral, I agree. But you see, I have absolutely zero problem with Snape entertaining thoughts of revenge against James. I mean, I consider it childish and think that Snape would have been much healthier man had he realized that he won by living already, BUT I fully respect Snape's right to hold a justifiable grudge against James. It is him taking out his grudge on innocent kid (my opinion), which I wholeheartedly despise. Therefore, if Snape is sincerely befriending Harry and at the same time is thinking that he is now achieved very nice revenge against James, I have no problem with it. I think it is a healthier revenge, than the one that Snape was doing, if one has to think of it. Pippin: ::clears throat:: First, I accept the definition of "moral courage" that Alla put forward. But I think the interpretation she gave is too broad to be useful. IMO, the definition should distinguish between moral cowardice and moral apathy, because unless a person is as divided in nature as Gollum, it's difficult to display both at the same time. IMO, you have to be morally engaged, have some inclination towards doing the right thing, before you can give in to moral cowardice and fail to do it. Alla: So basically you are saying the same thing as Leah, yes? You think that unless person knows that this is the right thing to do, person cannot be accused of lack of moral courage to do it? Then you do not really accept my definition, I do not think. Um, I guess I am still confused. Say we have our DE, any DE, who genuinely believes that killing and torturing people is the right thing to do, so that means to you that if such person fails to stop these activities, such person is morally courageous? All that is needed is a genuine conviction that what one is doing is right? Are you arguing relative morality? Pippin: It's that no Slytherins, IIRC, ever did what Pettigrew did. We never see them knowingly betray or desert their real friends, anyone they care about, to save their own skins or for personal gain. Phineas claims they will. But we never actually see anyone do it. Alla: Didn't Crabbe pretty much did betray Malfoy by refusing to listen to him? I guess it is not full blown betrayal, but I would think comes close enough to me. As soon as Draco is finished, Crabb dear forgot about being his friend awfully fast IMO. But I meant to say that I found your observation about nobody betraying students' evacuation to Voldemort in another post to be stroke of genius and the strongest inference I had ever read that Slytherins indeed did not join Voldemort. Bravo. Pippin: Slytherins have betrayed numerous people they *should* have cared about. Riddle certainly did. But that is moral apathy, not moral cowardice. See the difference? Alla: I think I understand, but I guess I disagree that this is moral courage. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 15 01:19:03 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:19:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184649 > Alla: > > Didn't Crabbe pretty much did betray Malfoy by refusing to listen to > him? I guess it is not full blown betrayal, but I would think comes > close enough to me. As soon as Draco is finished, Crabb dear forgot > about being his friend awfully fast IMO. Magpie: I wouldn't consider that a betrayal (friends can disagree or disobey other friends) but he does seem to be the guy who runs out and leaves his friends--one of whom is unconscious--in a burning room. Unlike Draco who tries to drag his unconscious friend out of the room (and would hopefully wouldn't have left one of the Gryffindors behind in the same situation). Regarding Snape's apology, while I agree his trying to get Harry on his side would be a creepy thing to do given his history, he did owe Harry an apology right off for getting him targetted and getting his father killed. Did Snape ever feel personally bad about those last two? I'm honestly not sure. Sorry for getting Lily killed (a loss to himself) and maybe even regretting that he'd ever been so foolish as to be on Voldemort's side, but while Quirrel is correct in saying he didn't want Harry dead I don't know how much he'd want to apologize to Harry for doing it. It's one of the biggest wrongs done from one major character to another during the series and while Snape works to make up for it he never seems to want to apologize to Harry. -m From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 03:05:38 2008 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (Sandy) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:05:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: > >> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, > Chapter 31, The Battle of Hogwarts > > 1. Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't > one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all > totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves > they all leave? I think JKR was very consistent with the logic of her story this way. If you read it shallowly yes they were all evil. But critical thinkers can see all sorts of layers. First. Keep in mind that some of them have parents that are death eaters. Given JKR's focus on families in the novels, I not sure that this was a statement about good or evil, but in fact more consistent with the idea, that even bad guys love and have family. Also, she has stated in interviews that the Slytherins come back in the 'family/village' wave. I think she intended to show the Slytherins going to their familes and then coming back to fight for Harry together. However she fumled this part in the text. It is not all clear, that they do. tha Hufflepuffs are very much like Slytherins in that both are manipulating 'people people'. But Hufflepuffs are people who focus on society above family and Slytherins are the opposite. A Slytherin may fight for country once they see that their family is safe, while a Hufflepuff will think I have to fight for my country or my family isn't safe. Also just practically, McGonagall orders them all out. They don't have a choice to stay. The other houses had just pointed their wands at them etc...it wasn't smart to stay then. Also by staying they'd by showing their fellow Slytherins, some of whom where DE sympathizers that they where Harry sympathisers. I.e. marking themnselves as traitors and therefore making themselves the top enemy of their fellow DE Slytherins. Better self-preservation wise to sneak back latter. Also of course both Slughorne and Snape never hesitate to fight for Harry. > 2. I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts > pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that information on? No. First of all the Grey Lady is a very quiet personality. She seems to rarely talk to the students, beyond the fomalities. Even the Ravenclaws. They did do this by the way, led by Cho and Michael Corner. When Harry needed it. Maybe JKR would say it was gossiped about in the school, but Harry never picked it up as important. The story sounds more like girl gossip anyway. It is a 'tragic love story', sort of. Guys don't pay attention to that sort of stuff. And I say that as a guy. Also, each house ghost's story is unique to the house. I think it would make sense if it were part of school tradition not to tell the other houses the background of their ghost. The Slytherins for example might believe also sorts of erraneous things about Nearly Headless Nick. For instance tongue in cheek, really bandy stories about: ````````` > 3. Why would Helena, who coveted her mother's cleverness, > hide in a forest in Albania on obtaining the diadem? Wouldn't the > whole reason for stealing the diadem be to demonstrate to others how clever you are? Her main motivation was hiding from the Baron, who she knew ( I think) was after her. A she said, she never suspected that the Baron would look their. She expected him to look for her in a library or something. Instead she tried to find the remotest location she knew about. She also didn't steal the diadem to be clever, she did it to be petulant. I.e She was being a spoiled, clever emotional brat. > 4. How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole > the diadem? When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the ring and help Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out information that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me. Simple. The Diadem story was known in full only to the Grey Lady and she wasn't telling anyone. And magic generally doesn't seem to work much on a ghosts at all. > 5. Would Dumbledore really never have found the Room of > Requirement? He also fails to find the Chamber of Secrets? For such an omnipotent wizard, that seems two rather big failures. He did find the Room of Requirement, (remember the chamber pots) but failed to note its signifigance). He himself admits that he couldn't and didn't think of everything and is prone to failure. There is no way he could have found the chamber of secrets, he wasn't able to speak parseltongue. Nor like Ron, did he have a natural talent for being a mimic. Also, perhaps because of his own fame, he seemed to have a noteable lack of interest in the history of founders (aside from Gryffindor -whom he might of though himself the equal of) This might also explain his lack of knowledge about the diadem. > 6. Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a > bunch of > mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them? > Aren't they > at risk of killing innocent students/teachers? 1. Their desperate 2. Whose to say that the mandrakes aren't also fighting for Harry. Sacrificing themselves with full knowledge of what is at stake. 3. There has to be some sort of spell to keep them quite while being moved. I imagine the earmuffs are only for after they throw them. I.e they are sort of like sonic grenades. You have to pull the pin. > 7. Is it remotely believable that Ron could remember enough > Parseltongue to enter the Chamber? Barely. My impression. JKR had written herself into a plot hole. Yes she could have have Harry go with them to the room to retrieve the teeth, but it would have been a very boring diversion, unless she wanted a final showdown there again. But Voldemort kidnapping Ginny and dragging her into the chamber of secrets would have been an awesome ending to. Or she could have re-written it, by having Ginny going after Harry this time. But either of those would have been repetitive and cliche. She wanted Ron to do something dramatic to earn Hermione's respect. But outright saving her life would have been to melodramatic and cliche. So she did this. It is one of ht weaker scenes in the books. It doesn't quite work. I'm willing to bet in the move, they let Ron earn his kills by outright saving her. Or maybe other DA. The idea that Ron would remember in detail one of the most tramatic instances of his life, is not completely far fetched. In retrospect the chamber incident seems to have scared Ron almost as much as Ginny > 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an > effort to stop her entering the battle? He did all he could within reason, given his other responsibilities. The only way he could have stopped her would have been by stunning her and he wouldn't have done that. Besides, he knew in her heart that despite the danger, if he truly loved her, he had to let her fight. > > 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a > good wife or a bad mother? Neither. I don't understand this argument. Her child is only one member of her family. The child is left in safe hands. She is like a typical Hufflepuff in that she thinks the good of society has to come before the good of her family, or that her family is only safe if society is. Give you an example. A mother with an infant knows that terrorist are about to blow up a nuclear power plant. She's one of the only people who can stop them. But if she does, and she fails her child will die when the plant is blown up. If she stays, she can spirit the child away and they will both be safe. But if she doesn't help the plant might blow up an lot of people will die. This is very close to Tonks moral calondrum given that she's one of only about a dozen people with any hope at all of beating Voldy or even Snape or Bella e one or one, if it came down to it. How may student lives did she save by taking on Bella. (JKR says in an interview that this is what happened). This is another thing that she foreshadowed (even within the same book - that we don't see live) JKR focuses on Family. But I think, she considered the Weasley's as part of Tonks family. I.e the 'order' is family to Tonks. > > 10. What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of > Requirement? Is he only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or does he want his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may be his only chance for freedom? > I didn't read this that deeply. My impression, was that Malfoy just didn't believe in murder. In his view, nothing every justified that choice. > 11. Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus > curse? Crabbe is trying to kill his friends ? wouldn't this anger Harry more than his previous attempts with this curse? Two reasons. One. Using risks angering Malfoy, who seems to be one their side somewhat. Two, at this moment Harry is still looking at Crabbe as a victim of the Death Eater's who is captive to their ideology and not someone who has made the concious choice to be a Death Eater. He thinks he is to dumb to do that. He sees the error of his ways latter. > > 12. Crabbe is a complete idiot ? how could he manage to conjure > such a devastating curse (Fiedfyre)? Idiot's can still get things half-right, half-the time. Or perhaps as with most people who do poorly in school, he is only an idiot with the things he cares nothing about. Fiedfyre interested him. Perhaps he was always a wanna be pyro at heart. > > 13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred??? Beacause, one Weasley had to die. Breathe a sigh of relief. She has said in interviews that she seriously considered killing both Ron and Mr. Weasley at one point. So in way the Weasley's got off easy. Harry Potter could have been even darker. For realism's sake at least one Weasley had to die, otherwise the story wouldn't have been believable. Just as Colin had to die and Lavender be hurt. DA Jones (Sandy) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 03:33:31 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:33:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184651 Potioncat wrote: > > But I would like to respond to your summary. You wrote: > "numerous Ravenclaws, even more Hufflepuffs and half of the Gryffindors remain seated, determined to help fight." > > I bring this up because the wording in canon is a little different and I can clearly remember my gut reaction to it. JKR wrote, "The Slytherin table was completely deserted, but a number of older Ravenclaws remained seated ?Keven more Hufflepuffs stayed behind, and half of Gryffindor remained in their seats?K" > > It seems JKR is indicating the Slytherins chose to leave. Deserted is very telling. I read 'a number' as 'a few' Ravenclaws. I inferred that JKR was saying something very important about Slytherins and Ravenclaws. Maybe she wasn't. But from a character standpoint, it seems clear JKR values courage and loyalty and dismisses wit and ambition. Carol responds: Well, "deserted" in this sense just means empty, like a deserted classroom at the end of the schoolday (or a "desert island" in the sense of uninhabited). I'm not sure whether the implication that Slytherin has deserted the school is intentional or not, but, if so, its Harry's perception that the narrator is presenting. The Slytherins didn't "desert." They followed McGonagall's order to leave. (I agree that having wands pointed at you accusingly is no incentive to join your fellow students in defending the school, and I hate the fact that they were given no alternative. (If Snape had been there to explain where he really stood, I'll bet that many of them would have followed his lead. Just my opinion--or hope.) As for "a number," it's a vague phrase, but it doesn't generally mean "a few." (If she'd meant "a few" or "a handful," she'd have used the phrases that exist in the English language to convey that idea. Merriam-Webster defines "a number" in this sense as "an indefinite, usually large, numbber." That being the case, I don't think she's making any disparaging insinuations about intellect. Of course, "even more" (an even larger large indefinite number) loyal, hardworking Hufflepuffs stayed behind. As for "half the Gryffindors," either that's an exaggeration or McGonagall had her hands full with underage Gryffindors. Let's say that the usual number of Gryffindors is seventy (ten per year) and that one quarter are Muggle-borns and consequently absent. That would mean about 52 Gryffindors still in school, half of which would be 26. Of those, only ten would be seventh years (counting HRH and Dean, who had returned), and about eight would be sixth years, one or two of whom (including the returned DA member Colin Creevey if McGonagall has her facts right) are underage. So of those 26 or so Gryffindors who supposedly remained to fight, only about 16 would be allowed to do so. So "a number" of Ravenclaws means something less all than the seventh years and of age sixth years still at Hogwarts--something under 16 and probably closer to 12. "Even more" Hufflepuffs means at most all the of-age Hufflepuffs except Zacharias Smith--something like 15 people. It's not as if 70 people from each House, or even half that number, are volunteering to fight. Some 37 or so underage students from the three Houses whose numbers have been reduced through the absence of Muggleborns have been ordered out, along with 50 underage Slytherins and the 20 Slytherin upperclassmen (three of whom later drop out of the line). There are more Slytherins to begin with because Slytherin has no Muggle-borns, and none stay because McGonagall orders them out. It seems like desertion by one fourth of the school, but only the of-age students should be counted, and McG has given them no choice in the matter. (Of course, Pansy Parkinson bears her share of the blame, but who's to say that she spoke for all the Slytherins any more than Crabbe did?) At any rate, I think that JKR forgets sometimes that the students of whatever age Harry happens to be do not represent the majority of students in the school. (Nor does Neville's experience necesarily reflect that of younger students in Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, or Hufflepuff. What the younger Slytherins experienced can't even be guessed, except that Slytherin as a whole seems to appreciate its missing Headmaster, whose lead they can no longer follow.) Potioncat: > Here's a question from me. Did anyone else have a reaction to seeing Thicknesse in the battle? We know he's under the Imperius, but no one else knows. Every time we saw Stan, he seemed to be under a spell--or maybe the blank look was his norm. But both Thicknesse and Crouch seemed to be well controlled in ways that weren't obvious to those who should have wondered. I felt bad for Thicknesse because while we don't really know his leanings, and if he had to be placed under Imperius, he must not have supported LV. Carol responds: I had a reaction, too, but not quite the same one. I was inclined at first to think that he was a misunderstood victim treated as guilty. (He's actually wearing a DE mask, but, then so was Stan.) However, I'm not so sure that the Imperius Curse (assuming that it can be proven) is all that legitimate an excuse (except over the short term for a single incident--cf. travers, who actually does nothing wrong but is certainly controlled, or the Goblin Bogrod, who thinks he's doing his usual job for a legitimate customer). If Thicknesse is under an expertly administered Imperius Curse (and you're right to contrast him with Stan, who appears to be Confunded rather than Imperioed if we look at the usual effects of those curses), he's certainly not fighting it as Crouch did. Either he's weaker, both in terms of will and power, or he was not entirely averse to Voldemort in the first place. He may have been like Runcorn or Umbridge, in favor of the Pure-Blood supremacy agenda but not actually a DE (which explains how someone like Yaxley could get near enough to Imperio him). it also explains how he could persuade other MoM employees to go along with his agenda, paving the way for the DE takeover: it can't be that different from what he supported in the first place or the MoM crowd would become suspicious. Contrast Scrimgeour: The DEs don't even try to place him under the Imperius Curse. They kill him, and planned to do so from the outset, putting their puppet in his place. Obviously, Pius Thicknesse isn't as guilty as a person who was operating of his own free will would be, but I'm not entirely sure that he's as innocent as, say, Mr. Weasley would be in his place. (Or Stan Shunpike as the youngest ever Minister for Magic, his own boast to the Veela having come true. I'm still not sure what to think of Stan, who may be more like Dawlish than Thickness in terms of the spell or spells that he's under.) The name Pius Thicknesse is interesting: Pious Thickness? Surely, he's not genuinely pious. Is he a thick-headed hypocrite? Any infamous popes named Pius that JKR may be referencing here? And his appearance isn't very prepossessing, either, an indication in JKR's world (I'm sorry to say) that he may be a Slytherin with undesirable tendencies. Cf. Umbridge (probably Slytherin and certainly with Slytherin affinities) and Millicent Bulstrode, for example. Sorry I can't recall the details except for a Neanderthal-like brow ridge and don't have time to look them up. Carol, who has a deadline coming up and company coming Thursday but feels entitled to a few posts before bedtime! I do think that JKR hasn't entirely sorted out the differences between Confundus and Imperius, either in terms of effects or in terms of when each is necessary. From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 04:55:56 2008 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (Sandy) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:55:56 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AJT" wrote: > > DA Jones: > > > > It seems to me, that what 'master of death' means is that the > master > > of the wand can't be intentionally physically harmed in a manner > > that might kill him or her in combat (which means it doesn't have > to > > be AK) and any spell used with that intent would rebound on the > > caster. Or in other words the elder wand is like a bullet proof > vest > > from which the bullets into the shooter. > > > > I don't know DA Jones, your answer is still a little shaky. Didn't > Dumbledore tell Snape to kill him even before he ever knew that > Malfoy was going to disarm him. He mention this to Harry in DH that > his intent was to make Snape the Master of Death. Also, are you > saying that anyone who is just holding the wand and not using it is > protected from death? Can you break it down more clearly, please? I > thought you had to simply defeat the owner by any means. Remember the > Elder Wand/Death Stick has a bloody past. > > AJT I'll make a slight adjustment to the theory, in order to clarify my thoughts. The master can't be physically (magically) harmed in combat 'against his or her wishes' by another 'wand'. DD wanted Snape to commit euthanasia. So the wand wouldn't have stopped an AK in that case. However, I'm not sure wheather the wand would stop physical attacks or even poisons or potions. The wands 'bloody history' might be an allusion to the fact that its holders have often been phyically murdered in the muggle manner. IIRC that was how the original holder was defeated. Which is one form of guile. However, you are right. DD did want Snape to be the master of death. But I'm not sure if he wanted him to be the actual or virtual master of death. Did DD actually clearly state that in canon that he actually wanted Snape to possess a 'working wand?' I'm short my book so I can't check and don't recall. So if he did, I withdraw the following accept as an interesting idea for an AU fanfic, I suppose. If the idea was that he wanted Snape to be an 'actual Master of Death; then Snape would have had to actually disarm or defeat DD without using an intentional killing curse or harming curse. The idea might be if the master stops 'resisting' like Grindelwald did DD, he is defeated at that point and that might have been when Snape would actually have become the 'master of death'. However, since the combat would be faked the wand would know this, wouldn't it? So DD wouldn't have been defeated. And thus would die as master, de-activating the wand. It's possible that in JKR's mind what DD actually wanted was for Snape to be a 'virtual' master of death. I.e. Have his 'defeat' by Snape be public so it looked like Snape 'inherited the wand'. Then Snape would appear to lose to Harry. So Snape would have the chance to ensure that Voldemort would find out about the powers of the wand, and not have his life endangered by Voldemort being afraid of Snape's 'masterhood'. However, Snape wouldn't have 'lost to Harry'; until Harry's Voldemort bit was erased. Perhaps by Snape appearing to kill Harry the first time himself. If Voldemort 'believed' Harry was the Master of the wand, than Voldemort would've beleived that he had to fight Harry without using killing spells, which would haver been to Harry's advantage. Because like DD in his duel with Grindelwald, Harry would never have used them either. I think JKR wanted DD to plan to bring in the psychological effect of the wand without having the 'actual wand' coming into play. In final canon, however Voldemort actually did come to beleive that Snape was the master, and thought that by killing Snape, that he was becoming the master. Note that because he can't defeat him via wand, Voldemort uses guile and non-wand methods to defeat Snape (i.e the snake). Therefore, Voldemort had no fear of using killing curses (despite the fact that he knew all his horcruxes were gone) against Harry, which is the exact opposite to what JKR may have had as DD's original plan. And since Harry was the 'actual master' the AK rebounded and killed Voldemort. As to the related question. Yes, I think someone who is the 'master of the wand' (note that doesn't mean they have to be holding the wand) can't be killed by an intentional direct wand attack meant to harm, that is against their will. The loophole here, which DD exploits, is that it allows a master to commit suicide or to allow another to perform euthanasia. Although perhaps there is a sort of circular logic here that prevents suicide but allows ethunasia. Of couse, DD back-up plan in case all this went wrong, and Snape was incapicitated was to let Harry know about the Deathly Hollows, so if needed he could act independent of Snape. Which he did. This is the most amazing parts of the books, how JKR planned not one plan for DD, but 2 or 3. Plans within plans, like a puzzle. But sometimes doesn't it appear that she had such a dense plan, that she even confused herself? I'm not sure why Harry defeated Voldemort. In fact, its presented in the book as it he is not entirely sure himself. Or at least that was my impression. It had something to do with the wand, it had something to do with Lily's blood protection, it had something to do with both the Horcrux and the Hollows, it had somethung to do with Harry's own sacrifice and it had a whole lot to do with his friends. I think the best answer is the one Ginny would give. He's just a hero. DA Jones From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 05:36:37 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:36:37 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184653 > Alla: > > To me positive treatment of the student for **any** reason ( as long > as the reason is not illegal or immoral) is always better than > negative treatment. > > Alla > Montavilla47: I quite agree with you about that, and I think I overstated it when I said it was "no better" to treat Harry well because of Lily than to treat him badly because of James. But I think either of those does Harry a disservice. Any kind treatment of Harry on Snape's part would be insincere. He doesn't like the child, and treating him like he did would be to lie. Or maybe he was afraid to let Harry think well of him, knowing his guilt. In which case, I'd say that Sirius acted better, since he admitted his own part in messing up Lily and James' Fidelius Charm. And Harry did forgive Sirius, so you are right that Harry would probably have forgiven Snape, after initial angst. Then again, if Sirius had had his druthers, he probably would never have made that confession to Harry. He would have quietly killed Scabbers and disappeared. So, it wasn't exactly like Sirius intended to do more than Snape was doing. They were both trying to keep Harry safe. They were just working at cross-purposes. If you say Snape *should* have liked Harry, at least for Lily's sake, I just don't see it. He might cut Harry a break for Lily's sake, but just because I might like Conrad Hilton, doesn't mean that I'm going to like Paris Hilton. If I liked George W. H. Bush, that doesn't obligate me to like George W. Bush, does it? Liking one person does not mean that you will or should have to like someone else in their family. Plenty of people get married, while hating their in-laws. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 12:33:49 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:33:49 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184654 > > Alla: > > > > To me positive treatment of the student for **any** reason ( as long > > as the reason is not illegal or immoral) is always better than > > negative treatment. > Montavilla47: > I quite agree with you about that, and I think I overstated it when I > said it was "no better" to treat Harry well because of Lily than to > treat him badly because of James. > > But I think either of those does Harry a disservice. Any kind > treatment of Harry on Snape's part would be insincere. He doesn't > like the child, and treating him like he did would be to lie. Alla: I just reallly really do not get it. You mean not showing the child that he hates him would do Harry a disservice as well? I mean, let's put one thing straight here - yes, I honestly think that if Snape loved Lily, it would be quite good for him to be nice to her baby. BUT the only reason I even said it is because this is what I think **could be** good for both Snape and Harry as people. By no means I believe that striking a friendship with Harry is Snape's obligation **as a teacher**, of course not. I believe that Snape's obligation as a teacher to be **fair** to Harry, and at the very least **be neutral** to him. On the top of my head that includes do not attack a child who just arrived in the unknown world and not taking points from him **for not helping Neville**. On the top of my head that includes not destroying a potion that Harry made. On the top of my head that includes **not bringing child's dead father in the equasion** any time this teacher wants to lecture a child. So, what I am trying to say here that if you think that **not doing those sorts of things** does Harry a disservice then we just have to agree to disagree. And if not doing those sorts of things means that Snape has to pretend, then yeah, I do believe that he is better to be pretending because if he is not, then in my view he is not performing as a teacher but as a miserable bastard who is taking his misery out on a kid who looks just like his succesful rival in school. Only you see, some people may pity Snape because of that, I don't. I think Harry's wellfare comes first AND while I cannot ask Snape to erase his feelings, I certainly think he had no right ever showing them to Harry. And if Snape was not doing those sorts of things of course there are some things which he was doing truly to protect Harry's life, and I would have felt very differently about them. JMO, Alla From heidi at heidi8.com Wed Oct 15 12:44:25 2008 From: heidi at heidi8.com (Heidi Tandy) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:44:25 -0400 Subject: AZKATRAZ - HPEF Con in San Francisco, July 2009 - Update Message-ID: <5913e6f80810150544h2165c6bdy197b5adfecc3a65b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184655 Greetings from Team Azkatraz. The oldbies among you on hpfgu might remember me from the 2000 - 2003 time frame - since then, I've been more of a lurker than a poster, although I'm still relatively active on HPfGU-OTChatter. With the permission of the HPfGU Mod Squad, we wanted to update you on AZKATRAZ, our sixth HP conference, set to take place in San Francisco from July 17 (yes, the day that HBP opens in theaters) through July 21. This year's conference promises to be the best and most exciting yet, and we can't wait to include you in the amazing activities we have planned. Check out our website at http://www.hp2009.org or keep reading for more information. Registration is open! https://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Register/IdentityConfirmation.aspx?e=f819871c-99ce-45a7-9c71-28234ff6a033 is the link to click. Registration this year includes admission to more than four days of activities and programming, including the Podcasts, our Pajama Party, the Prison Break Ball, our Welcoming and Leaving Feasts, the History of Wizarding Fashion Show, and more. In a departure from past years, breakfast is not included but will be part of some special programming workshops and presentations. We're also introducing two new levels of registration this year: the Merlin Circle and the Masters of Potter Administration (MPA). The former is a one-click way to participate in all the programming and special events and support HPEF. Merlin Circle sponsors will receive admission to all the regular registration events, plus both Sunday and Monday breakfast programming and a special Merlin Circle reception with our special guest speakers. And if you're worried about getting a good seat for that one presentation you really wanted to see, Merlin Circle registrants will receive priority seating until five minutes before the scheduled start of any session. You'll get a commemorative pin proclaiming you are part of the Merlin Circle, and a portion of your registration fee may qualify as a tax-deductible donation to HPEF. The Masters of Potter Administration will be a one-day special track dedicated to topics that reflect how the Harry Potter phenomenon has affected and continues to shape the worlds of business, law, advertising, marketing, and Internet culture. We are assembling a lineup of leading speakers starting with our Monday breakfast presenter Susan Gunelius, author of "Harry Potter: the Story of a Global Business Phenomenon". HALF-BLOOD PRINCE MOVIE & PODCAST What's better than staying up until midnight to see the latest Harry Potter film? How about seeing it with hundreds of other Potter fans in a theater reserved just for you! That's what AZKATRAZ attendees will get to experience at 12:01am on July 17, 2009 ? the day before AZKATRAZ begins. Further details will be announced at a later date. We are also very excited to announce that immediately after the movie we will be hosting a Post-HBP Live Podcast with MuggleCast! More details will be announced at a later date. Stay Tuned! CALL FOR PROPOSALS - http://www.hp2009.org/?q=node/6 You can submit your proposal for a round table, paper presentation, guided discussion, demonstration or something else on our website. We've also opened for art gallery submissions ( http://www.hp2009.org/?q=node/28 ) and started organizing our Wizarding Fashion Show ( http://www.hp2009.org/?q=node/27 ). HELP WANTED AZKATRAZ is run entirely by volunteers. From the board and senior staff to the on-site volunteers, HPEF events wouldn't be what they are without the help and commitment from its attendees. By volunteering, you can help shape AZKATRAZ, meet fellow fans before the symposium, and gain an insider's viewpoint to event planning. AZKATRAZ is actively seeking to fill the positions listed on our website at http://www.hp2009.org/?q=node/10 - we are also always on the lookout for accountants and people with a connection to any of the Harry Potter licensees, like Mattel, EA and Tonner. To apply, please send a resume (ideally in the body of the message but in .txt or .doc if an attachment), along with your email address and an instant messaging username on AOL, Yahoo and/or Google, if you have one, to volunteerteam at hp2009.org - and include the position title in the subject line. If you have questions, feel free to email us at volunteerteam at hp2009.org. In the coming months, we'll be bringing you more information about our speakers, our volunteers, Wizard Rock events and most importantly, all the incredible fun we're going to have geeking out about Potter from the movie release night all the way through the weekend. Since 2003, we've wanted to host an event on the California coast, and I, for one, look forward to July with delight. See you in San Francisco, and let's Kick AZ! If you have any questions, you can bring them to our forums at http://www.hpef.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16 or our livejournal at http://azkatraz.livejournal.com/ or email us at info @ hp2009.org (without the spaces) - or we can talk about Azkatraz on HPfGU-OTChatter. Best, Heidi for Team Azkatraz From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 15 14:15:03 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:15:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184656 > Potioncat: > But I would like to respond to your summary. You wrote: > "numerous Ravenclaws, even more Hufflepuffs and half of the > Gryffindors remain > ?? seated, determined to help fight." > > I bring this up because the wording in canon is a little different > and I can clearly remember my gut reaction to it. JKR wrote, "The > Slytherin table was completely deserted, but a number of older > Ravenclaws remained seated ?Keven more Hufflepuffs stayed behind, and > half of Gryffindor remained in their seats?K" > > It seems JKR is indicating the Slytherins chose to leave. Deserted is > very telling. I read 'a number' as 'a few' Ravenclaws. I inferred > that JKR was saying something very important about Slytherins and > Ravenclaws. Maybe she wasn't. But from a character standpoint, it > seems clear JKR values courage and loyalty and dismisses wit and > ambition. Magpie: That was the impression I got as well. I remember pre-OotP already having the feeling that the houses were clearly ranked in terms of general "goodness" (meaning most showing the things valued in the series) as Gryffindor first, then Hufflepuff, then Ravenclaw and then Slytherin. We had not yet met Marietta, but it just generally seemed like those were the favored houses. Obviously we've got Zach Smith who was a red herring in OotP and did show himself to be bad in his one appearance in DH (coward). And Luna is good (but by obviously standing against rationality and brains by believing things because they're unbelievable). But in terms of the qualities the houses represent it always did seem like the "head" qualities of Ravenclaw and Slytherin were more suspect. Though I don't know whether I'd consider "ambition" to really be a quality of Slytherin since when I think of the most ambitious characters they're all Gryffindors: Hermione, Percy and the twins. It's more like what I consider ambition is split so that the Gryffindors get the good version (talent + hard work=advancement, success and money) while the Slytherins have the bad version (croneyism, keeping others down who weren't born into power, cheating). Anyway, that's a long way of getting to my saying that I had the same impression of the descriptions of the tables. Sure the Slytherins were ordered to leave, but obviously good people stay to fight anyway. It's like Lily vs. James again--why is Lily's death better than James? Because she was given the chance to run. In a story where cowardice is the ultimate bad there's no excuse in taking your chance to leave. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 14:41:43 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:41:43 -0000 Subject: Expelliarmus and backfiring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184657 DA Jones wrote: > I'll make a slight adjustment to the theory, in order to clarify my > thoughts. The master can't be physically (magically) harmed in > combat 'against his or her wishes' by another 'wand'. Carol responds: I don't think that we have any evidence to support your view. All we have is the belief that the master of the Elder Wand can't be defeated in combat if he's using the wand, a view disproved by the defeat of Grindelwald. (As you state, the master of the wand can certainly be killed by other methods, such as stabbing or poison. He can also be robbed of the wand and Stunned [Gregorovitch] or Disarmed [Dumbledore]. In Harry's case, the Elder Wand apparently doesn't yet recognize him as its master when it hits him with an AK, killing the soul bit and sending him to "King's Cross." Later, when it realizes that he's its master, it refuses to kill him: the AK strikes the Expelliarmus and rebounds on Voldemort. But if Harry had been using the Elder Wand, even if it had recognized him as its master, and had used Expelliarmus while Voldemort used the AK, both spells would have worked as usual (no Priori Incantem effect because the brother wands aren't involved). Voldemort would have been disarmed and Harry would have been killed. (Unless, of course, the blood protection was still in effect, protecting from being killed by Voldemort but no one else.) The closest we see to what you're talking about is Harry's wand going off on its own to protect him from Voldemort, but that occurs because Harry's holly wand recognizes the master of its brother, the yew wand, even though he's using an inferior wand (Lucius Malfoy's "poor stick") and because during the Priori Incantatem, it absorbed some of Voldemort's Dark magic, enabling it to use a spell that Harry doesn't even know. (Which, BTW, pretty much proves that wands are sentient.) I agree with one of your snipped points, which is that DD had no intention of having Snape murdered by Voldemort--he needed him to deliver that message to Harry and expected him to do so *after* LV knew that the Horcruxes were in danger (signalled by his protection of Nagini). The rest, however, seems to be rather fanciful speculation with little or no canon support. Carol, who has already given her very different views on Dumbledore's intentions in robbing the Elder Wand of its power and sees no need to repeat them From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 15:16:40 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:16:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184658 Alla wrote: > > I just reallly really do not get it. You mean not showing the child that he hates him would do Harry a disservice as well? > > I mean, let's put one thing straight here - yes, I honestly think that if Snape loved Lily, it would be quite good for him to be nice to her baby. > > BUT the only reason I even said it is because this is what I think **could be** good for both Snape and Harry as people. > > By no means I believe that striking a friendship with Harry is Snape's obligation **as a teacher**, of course not. > > I believe that Snape's obligation as a teacher to be **fair** to Harry, and at the very least **be neutral** to him. Carol responds: There we go. You've arrived at the right solution. Having been a teacher, I know that you're not supposed to form friendships with your students, any more than you're supposed to treat on one particular student as a scapegoat. You're supposed to be fair and neutral to them all. Favoritism is no favor; Harry is learning Potions from the HBP, not from Slughorn, who praises him to the skies for innovations that aren't his own. (Sure, he followed the directions and assembled the ingredients, but he's doing no more than Hermione, who actually knows what she's doing, and getting better results at her expense.) Neither favoritism, earned or unearned, nor unfairness to a student you dislike is desirable. Snape, I think, really believes what he tells Fudge, that he treats him as he would treat any other student. (Certainly, Harry is never held back in Potions and required to repeat it, so those few zeroes, some of them earned, some not, do him no harm. And Harry does deserve some, not all, of his point deductions and most, if not all, of his detentions with Snape.) But Snape can't see past Harry's resemblance to James until his last breath, at which point, it's too late to apologize (and the last thing on his mind is his own unfairness as a teacher). I agree with Leah that he had no time to think back on his teaching methods, but I'm not sure that he would have done so even if he had survived. I think he would have continued to be a strict and sometimes sarcastic headmaster concerned with the safety of all the students, even those pesky Gryffindors and Ravenclaws (cf. the detention with Hagrid that he assigned to Neville, Ginny, and Luna) and not at all with popularity. Or he would have found a position in research at the MoM or St. Mungo's, where he (and the students) would have been happier. But for Snape to *like* Harry is, I think, expecting too much, setting aside any concerns for his cover (which I do think is a legitimate concern when Gryffindors and Slytherins are in the same class). And *pretending* to be Harry's friend would be simply despicable. (It would also arouse suspicion--the HOH of Slytherin might take and occasional Slytherin under his wing [Draco], but it's not his job to advise and guide, much less befriend, students from other Houses. The only way to do that is to be jolly old Slughorn and have a group of students from different Houses who are privileged above all the others and whom you hope will do you favors when you help them to get good jobs after Hogwarts. That's not Snape's way, and I don't think it's a particularly good way. Ron, who's not a Sluggie, gets treated like dirt by Slughorn, who can't even remember his name, and even Hermione is less favored than Harry.) Slughorn, BTW, feels almost as guilty over Lily's death as Snape does because he gave Tom Riddle information on Horcruxes, and he also liked (though he didn't love Lily), so his situation in some ways parallels Snape's on a lower level of involvement and intensity, but he has (for various reasons) the opposite reaction to Harry. Neither reaction is right; neither really helps Harry (unless you count getting what he wants out of Slughorn, that memory. and slughorn is worse than useless when Ron is poisoned. Had Snape been present, he wouldn't have stood around helplessly. He'd have stuffed a Bezoar down his throat.) Caolr, agreeing that teachers *ought* to be fair or at least neutral in dealing with all students, just as a parent shouldn't have favorites (or "least favorites) among her own children, but understanding just how hard it would be for Snape to achieve that goal From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 16:40:52 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:40:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184659 > Alla: > > I just reallly really do not get it. You mean not showing the child > that he hates him would do Harry a disservice as well? Montavilla47: It's a matter of degree, I think. Later in your post you say he should have been *neutral* in his manner, not showing his feelings either way. Since I don't think it was possible for Snape to actually like Harry at first sight, I agree that that would have been the most proper course. I just think Snape would have been lying if he had pretended to like Harry for LIly's sake. And I don't think he was obligated by any tie to Lily to do that. And, as Magpie said, it would have been pretty creepy if he had. :) Alla: > I mean, let's put one thing straight here - yes, I honestly think > that if Snape loved Lily, it would be quite good for him to be nice > to her baby. > > BUT the only reason I even said it is because this is what I think > **could be** good for both Snape and Harry as people. Montavilla47: Yes. I quite agree with you there. I think it would have been very good for Harry and Snape to have worked through their connection. It wouldn't have been easy, but it would have probably brought them both a bit more peace and a lot less angst. Alla: > I believe that Snape's obligation as a teacher to be **fair** to > Harry, and at the very least **be neutral** to him. Montavilla47: Again, I agree. Alla: > On the top of my head that includes do not attack a child who just > arrived in the unknown world and not taking points from him **for not > helping Neville**. Montavilla47: Oh dear. I can feel myslf falling into the black hole of justification, and yet I can't escape. As far as Snape knows, Harry grew up in a family well acquainted with magic and therefore, this magical world should not be that unknown. Furthermore, Snape grew up in the Muggle world as well and *he* read his books before coming to class. As for why he took one point from Harry for not helping Neville, I've heard various justifications, but they are all speculation and dependent on larger theories, so I'll refrain. I imagine, though, that if Harry weren't already smarting from being targeted at the beginning of class, he'd have gotten over that pretty quick. Alla: > On the top of my head that includes not destroying a potion that > Harry made. Montavilla47: It's unclear from the text whether Snape destroyed the potion or simply smirked at its destruction. If he did, he was completely wrong to do so. Either way, he was being extremely childish. It's revenge on the level of a three-year-old, isn't it? Alla: > On the top of my head that includes **not bringing child's dead > father in the equasion** any time this teacher wants to lecture a > child. Montavilla47: Snape didn't do that "any time." He did it on a few specific occasions when Harry's behavior struck him as particularly James-like. Alla: > So, what I am trying to say here that if you think that **not doing > those sorts of things** does Harry a disservice then we just have to > agree to disagree. Montavilla47: I'm not trying to argue that Snape should be treating Harry badly. What I'm arguing is that Snape treated Harry in the way that reflected his genuine feelings towards Harry. And that to have pretended to like Harry when he didn't, because he liked Lily, would have been dishonest and creepy. Slughorn may have been trying to buddy up with Harry because of his "Chosen" status, and using Lily to do so. But even if it wasn't because of that, even if it were just because Slughorn liked Lily, doesn't it come off as creepy? I can't imagine that Harry enjoyed being compared to potions-genius Lily all the time, no matter how much he liked showing up Draco and Hermione in class. I think the teacher who handled it best was Lupin, who knew both Harry and Neville from his association with their parents in the Order. But, he didn't base his assessment of them as people on their parents. He didn't try to be friends with any of the students. Although he did end up giving Harry special tutoring, it was based on Harry's needs at the time and not because he liked Harry's parents. Alla: > And if not doing those sorts of things means that Snape has to > pretend, then yeah, I do believe that he is better to be pretending > because if he is not, then in my view he is not performing as a > teacher but as a miserable bastard who is taking his misery out on a > kid who looks just like his succesful rival in school. Montavilla47: I agree with the large point. A teacher shouldn't show his feelings either way. He should not, for example, gift a first-year student with an expensive present that is normally not allowed, whether or not that gives an advantage to one's Quidditch team. He should not target that student for punishment simply because he dislikes his father. He should not manipulate House points, either to make that student a pariah with his House mates or to pull off a dramatic eleventh-hour twist that suddenly awards the House Cup to that student's group. My only quibble is your saying that Snape is picking on Harry because he "looks just like his successful rival in school." James wasn't simply a successful rival. He was a bully who targeted Snape from the first day of school and who consistently used his pals to help him. Alla: > Only you see, some people may pity Snape because of that, I don't. I > think Harry's wellfare comes first AND while I cannot ask Snape to > erase his feelings, I certainly think he had no right ever showing > them to Harry. > > And if Snape was not doing those sorts of things of course there are > some things which he was doing truly to protect Harry's life, and I > would have felt very differently about them. Montavilla47: I think that Snape would probably agree with you that Harry's welfare came first. I think he might disagree with you about what Harry's welfare consisted of. But, are you saying that his protection of Harry is canceled out because he didn't treat Harry nicely? I don't think that's quite fair. He was rude to Harry *and* he protected Harry. It seems like you want to discount that protection because of Snape's attitude. What's more important? How you feel or what you do? I think this dilemma is what makes Snape so interesting as a character. If he liked Harry or treated him "neutrally," then we wouldn't still be talking about the man. If he liked Harry, then it would be easy for him to protect him and give up his life to help him. It's precisely because Snape hates Harry that makes Snape's choices the *right* ones instead of the *easy* ones. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 15 18:18:47 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:18:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184660 > Alla: > > So basically you are saying the same thing as Leah, yes? You think > that unless person knows that this is the right thing to do, person > cannot be accused of lack of moral courage to do it? > > Then you do not really accept my definition, I do not think. Um, I > guess I am still confused. > Say we have our DE, any DE, who genuinely believes that killing and > torturing people is the right thing to do, so that means to you that if such person fails to stop these activities, such person is morally courageous? > > All that is needed is a genuine conviction that what one is doing is right? Are you arguing relative morality? Pippin: I can't recall a DE who believes that killing and torturing is right, but we do have Barty Sr., who gets so carried away with his power to punish that he forgets all about justice and mercy. Obviously neither moral courage nor moral conviction is all that is needed for a choice to be moral. Moral courage can be put to an evil use, just like loyalty or intelligence or physical courage. But my point is all those things may be needed for good behavior, especially under stress, when the choices are not easy. In comparing the Trio to Draco, Crabbe and Goyle we should consider that we are judging the best of the apples against the worst of the oranges. AFAWK, the other Slytherin students are not torturing people, casting unforgivable curses or plotting to murder anybody, and the other Gryffindors have not been chosen by Albus Dumbledore to save the world. The book does not actually say that all the of age Gryffindors stayed to fight, though a careless reading could give that impression. That McGonagall had to chivvy the underage on their way does not tell us whether some of the eligible sixth years had already lined up to leave. Harry, who never even learned the names of two Gryffindor girls in his own year, certainly wouldn't know. :) > > Pippin: > > It's that no Slytherins, IIRC, ever did what Pettigrew did. We never > see them knowingly betray or desert their real friends, anyone they > care about, to save their own skins or for personal gain. Phineas > claims they will. But we never actually see anyone do it. > > Alla: > > Didn't Crabbe pretty much did betray Malfoy by refusing to listen to him? I guess it is not full blown betrayal, but I would think comes close enough to me. As soon as Draco is finished, Crabb dear forgot about being his friend awfully fast IMO. Pippin: We don't know whether Crabbe ever saw Draco and Goyle as real friends. Maybe he was always using them. At any rate, I see a difference between Pettigrew, who lacked the courage to do what he felt was right, and Crabbe, who was only interested in power. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 15 19:39:35 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:39:35 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184661 Montavilla47: It's a matter of degree, I think. Later in your post you say he should have been *neutral* in his manner, not showing his feelings either way. Since I don't think it was possible for Snape to actually like Harry at first sight, I agree that that would have been the most proper course. Alla: I am saying that Snape should be fair and **at least** neutral. I guess I am using those words as synonyms even if they are not. Montavilla47: I just think Snape would have been lying if he had pretended to like Harry for LIly's sake. And I don't think he was obligated by any tie to Lily to do that. And, as Magpie said, it would have been pretty creepy if he had. :) Alla: No I do not think he was obligated to like Harry for Lily's sake, but I do think that he **was** obligated to not show that he hates Harry as a teacher. Montavilla47: Yes. I quite agree with you there. I think it would have been very good for Harry and Snape to have worked through their connection. It wouldn't have been easy, but it would have probably brought them both a bit more peace and a lot less angst. Alla: Yes. Montavilla47: Oh dear. I can feel myself falling into the black hole of justification, and yet I can't escape. As far as Snape knows, Harry grew up in a family well acquainted with magic and therefore, this magical world should not be that unknown. Furthermore, Snape grew up in the Muggle world as well and *he* read his books before coming to class. Alla: Yeah, sorry, I do not think it is relevant in the slightest. I think that if one does not know the circumstances, one should double check and triple check before making assumptions. And Harry read his books too, there was a remark somewhere in PS that he found them interesting, he just did not memorize information he did not think he will be quizzed on. Yes, I know Hermione did, no I do not believe that she counts. Montavilla47: As for why he took one point from Harry for not helping Neville, I've heard various justifications, but they are all speculation and dependent on larger theories, so I'll refrain. I imagine, though, that if Harry weren't already smarting from being targeted at the beginning of class, he'd have gotten over that pretty quick. Alla: As I said before, to me the proof that there was no underlying reason for Snape to take a point except him being nasty is that in PoA he takes a point from Hermione for helping him. Obviously Snape cannot punish two kids for doing diametrically opposite things if he has some sort of purpose for Neville in mind, don't you think? And I really do not care whether Harry would have been gotten over it quick or not, I think it is an abuse of authority at least and just wrong. Montavilla47: It's unclear from the text whether Snape destroyed the potion or simply smirked at its destruction. If he did, he was completely wrong to do so. Either way, he was being extremely childish. Its revenge on the level of a three-year-old, isn't it? Alla: Agreed as to childish revenge. Alla: > On the top of my head that includes **not bringing child's dead > father in the equation** any time this teacher wants to lecture a > child. Montavilla47: Snape didn't do that "any time." He did it on a few specific occasions when Harry's behavior struck him as particularly James-like. Alla: I just believe that Snape who is complicit in the Harry not having the father in the first place has no business bringing him up ever, not once. Montavilla47: I'm not trying to argue that Snape should be treating Harry badly. What I'm arguing is that Snape treated Harry in the way that reflected his genuine feelings towards Harry. And that to have pretended to like Harry when he didn't, because he liked Lily, would have been dishonest and creepy. Alla: And I am arguing that if Snape's genuine feelings towards Harry was hate, he should have gotten out of his way to make sure Harry is not aware of it and that his feelings towards Harry do not influence the way Snape teaches him. Montavilla47: I agree with the large point. A teacher shouldn't show his feelings either way. He should not, for example, gift a first-year student with an expensive present that is normally not allowed, whether or not that gives an advantage to one's Quidditch team. He should not target that student for punishment simply because he dislikes his father. He should not manipulate House points, either to make that student a pariah with his House mates or to pull off a dramatic eleventh-hour twist that suddenly awards the House Cup to that student's group. Alla: Agreed with the first two examples, not agreed with the third, but really do not feel like getting in the House points debate now. Montavilla47: I think that Snape would probably agree with you that Harry's welfare came first. I think he might disagree with you about what Harry's welfare consisted of. But, are you saying that his protection of Harry is canceled out because he didn't treat Harry nicely? Alla: Not quite no, I am saying that because of Snape's attitude towards Harry he was not the best choice for protector at all in my opinion. Montavilla47: I don't think that's quite fair. He was rude to Harry *and* he protected Harry. It seems like you want to discount that protection because of Snape's attitude. Alla: See if you phrase it that way, of course my argument sounds ridiculous, but I would not call what Snape did to Harry just **rude** anymore than I would agree with somebody (do not remember who) once calling Snape a git, as if being a git was his biggest offense. I always believed that Snape abused Harry and Neville or if you wish abused his authority over them, therefore while I do not discount Snape protecting Harry exactly, I do not believe he gets a free reign either because of it. Look it is the same how I feel about Petunia taking Harry in. Do I think that blood protection per se is a bad thing? Of course not. Do I think sister of his mom should have taken him in, sure, under normal circumstances why not. Do I think that Petunia should have taken him in the way she feels about him? NO, not really. Snape could not get over how he feels about Harry, therefore I do not believe he should been given any extra tasks of protecting him. Because we had been shown several times IMO that even with protecting Harry, Snape always goes about it the wrong way. Good example IMO was Harry's Hogsmead excursion. Was Harry wrong to go? Of course he was. What exactly did Snape's lecture accomplished? Did Harry feel remorse, desire not to do it again? No, he did not. What did Lupin accomplish? IMO he accomplished so much more. Of course it is not like one lecture to teen boy will accomplish everything, but Lupin made Harry feel guilty and Snape, his protector, just antagonized him more. How about when Harry and Ron arrived with the car in CoS. I am sure Snape wanted them not to do so anymore and his response is to ask for their expulsion? So yes I know that Snape protected Harry several times, but I do believe that he was the bad choice for protector even if several times he got the job done. Montavilla47: What's more important? How you feel or what you do? I think this dilemma is what makes Snape so interesting as a character. If he liked Harry or treated him "neutrally," then we wouldn't still be talking about the man. If he liked Harry, then it would be easy for him to protect him and give up his life to help him. Alla: Well of course he is an interesting character. Montavilla47: It's precisely because Snape hates Harry that makes Snape's choices the *right* ones instead of the *easy* ones. Alla: I do not know about that. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 16 01:35:13 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:35:13 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184662 > Montavilla47: > I think that Snape would probably agree with you that Harry's > welfare came first. I think he might disagree with you about what > Harry's welfare consisted of. But, are you saying that his protection > of Harry is canceled out because he didn't treat Harry nicely? > > Alla: > > Not quite no, I am saying that because of Snape's attitude towards > Harry he was not the best choice for protector at all in my opinion. Potioncat: Snape kept his promise to protect Harry. He was shocked to discover the purpose was changing from protecting Harry, to preparing him for slaughter. But, at any rate, if Snape wasn't the best choice, who was? Why do you suppose DD chose Snape? Out of the midst of the disaster that Snape had contributed to, how did DD decide Snape was the one who would stick to his promise? From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 16 02:50:29 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:50:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184663 Montavilla47: I'm snipping stuff where we are basically in agreement. > Montavilla47: > As for why he took one point from Harry for not helping Neville, I've > heard various justifications, but they are all speculation and > dependent > on larger theories, so I'll refrain. I imagine, though, that if Harry > weren't already smarting from being targeted at the beginning of > class, he'd have gotten over that pretty quick. > > Alla: > > As I said before, to me the proof that there was no underlying reason > for Snape to take a point except him being nasty is that in PoA he > takes a point from Hermione for helping him. Obviously Snape cannot > punish two kids for doing diametrically opposite things if he has > some sort of purpose for Neville in mind, don't you think? Montavilla47: Unless the circumstances had changed, which I think they did. In PS/SS, Snape is making a general point about looking out for your House mates. Or he's punishing Harry for showing off. Take your pick. In PoA, Snape is setting up a very specific task for Neville, and he makes it clear that he wants Neville to do it this time *on his own.* He tells Hermione, specifically, not to help him. When she does, he takes the points. I don't see that this is just a contradiction based on him hating Harry. Especially since it has nothing to do with Harry. Alla: > And I really do not care whether Harry would have been gotten over it > quick or not, I think it is an abuse of authority at least and just > wrong. Montavilla47: Hmm. It's Snape's job to take or give points based on student performance and behavior. He may have been wrong to take that point from Harry for not helping Neville. But I don't think it was an abuse of his position--any more than a cop would be abusing his position of authority for giving me a ticket for a traffic rule I didn't realize was in effect. > Alla: > > On the top of my head that includes **not bringing child's dead > > father in the equation** any time this teacher wants to lecture a > > child. > > Montavilla47: > Snape didn't do that "any time." He did it on a few specific > occasions when Harry's behavior struck him as particularly > James-like. > > Alla: > I just believe that Snape who is complicit in the Harry not having > the father in the first place has no business bringing him up ever, > not once. Montavilla47: Perhaps, but it was Harry who actually brought James up in PoA. Snape merely corrected Harry about something he felt Harry misunderstood about their relationship. A misunderstanding that was created by Dumbledore lying to Harry about why Snape was protecting him in first year. > Montavilla47: > I think that Snape would probably agree with you that Harry's > welfare came first. I think he might disagree with you about what > Harry's welfare consisted of. But, are you saying that his protection > of Harry is canceled out because he didn't treat Harry nicely? > > Alla: > > Not quite no, I am saying that because of Snape's attitude towards > Harry he was not the best choice for protector at all in my opinion. Montavilla47: Well, you can put that one on Dumbledore, who asked Snape to do it. Of course, Dumbledore probably didn't realize that Snape wouldn't fall in love with lovable Harry. > Alla: > > See if you phrase it that way, of course my argument sounds > ridiculous, but I would not call what Snape did to Harry just > **rude** anymore than I would agree with somebody (do not remember > who) once calling Snape a git, as if being a git was his biggest > offense. I always believed that Snape abused Harry and Neville or if > you wish abused his authority over them, therefore while I do not > discount Snape protecting Harry exactly, I do not believe he gets a > free reign either because of it. Montavilla47: I think we will have to agree to disagree about that, then. I don't believe that Snape abused his authority with either Harry or Neville. He was very hard on both of them, but the only time I think Snape acted out of bounds was snickering at the lost potion. Alla: > Look it is the same how I feel about Petunia taking Harry in. Do I > think that blood protection per se is a bad thing? Of course not. Do > I think sister of his mom should have taken him in, sure, under > normal circumstances why not. > > Do I think that Petunia should have taken him in the way she feels > about him? NO, not really. > > Snape could not get over how he feels about Harry, therefore I do not > believe he should been given any extra tasks of protecting him. Montavilla47: Again, with both Petunia and Snape, this is a position that they put into by Dumbledore. Snape had more choice, perhaps, than Petunia, but I think that once he made a promise, the idea of breaking that promise was unthinkable. Now, if Dumbledore had made Snape promise to *love* Harry, I think it would have been a different matter. But I guess Dumbledore does realize that people have limits. As Pippin said, you can't force someone to love another person. Alla: > Because we had been shown several times IMO that even with protecting > Harry, Snape always goes about it the wrong way. Good example IMO was > Harry's Hogsmead excursion. Was Harry wrong to go? Of course he was. > What exactly did Snape's lecture accomplished? Did Harry feel > remorse, desire not to do it again? No, he did not. What did Lupin > accomplish? IMO he accomplished so much more. Of course it is not > like one lecture to teen boy will accomplish everything, but Lupin > made Harry feel guilty and Snape, his protector, just antagonized him > more. Montavilla47: Well, Lupin had more leverage. He had the goods on Harry, as he knew what the map was and how to work it. The reason that Snape's method didn't work was that Lupin removed Harry from the situation before Snape was finished. Alla: > How about when Harry and Ron arrived with the car in CoS. I am sure > Snape wanted them not to do so anymore and his response is to ask for > their expulsion? Montavilla47: Or scare them. I don't know if he was that serious about wanting Harry expelled. Of course, he might have, like Dobby, gotten some hints about the plot Lucius was hatching (although I'm sure he would have passed anything concete along to Dumbledore), and, like Dobby, felt that Harry was better off staying home. :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 16 03:19:43 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:19:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184664 > Potioncat: > Snape kept his promise to protect Harry. He was shocked to discover > the purpose was changing from protecting Harry, to preparing him for > slaughter. Alla: Sure he was shocked. But are you sure that Snape kept his promise to protect Harry at the end? It seemed to me that he did what Dumbledore told him to do. When Dumbledore told him to protect Harry's life, well that is what Snape was doing while at the same time (I believe) merrily abusing Harry. When Dumbledore told him that Harry needs to die, sure, Snape was surprised, I would be to, but he proceeded to fulfill Dumbledore's plan, whatever it was. Potioncat: But, at any rate, if Snape wasn't the best choice, who was? Alla: Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, just about anybody. Again, I am looking from within the story, not how the events would have changed had Snape not been in the story. Take your pick - Minerva, Arthur, just about any competent expert of DADA, Lupin would do just fine in my opinion. Anybody, who would not hate the kid. Potioncat: > Why do you suppose DD chose Snape? Out of the midst of the disaster > that Snape had contributed to, how did DD decide Snape was the one > who would stick to his promise? Alla: Honestly, I think it was simple, I think he used Legilimency on Snape and saw that man would do just about anything for his beloved Lily. Too bad Dumbledore did not ask Snape to commit to fair treatment of Harry IMO. Montavilla47: Hmm. It's Snape's job to take or give points based on student performance and behavior. He may have been wrong to take that point from Harry for not helping Neville. But I don't think it was an abuse of his position--any more than a cop would be abusing his position of authority for giving me a ticket for a traffic rule I didn't realize was in effect. Alla: I would analogize it to cop giving you a traffic ticket for the rule that was never made in effect by any legislative authority and the rule that cop just made up on the spot, I think it is an abuse of his authority IMO. Montavilla47: I think we will have to agree to disagree about that, then. I don't believe that Snape abused his authority with either Harry or Neville. He was very hard on both of them, but the only time I think Snape acted out of bounds was snickering at the lost potion. Alla: Yes, we have to agree to disagree. I think Snape started abusing his authority since first lesson personally. Montavilla47: Again, with both Petunia and Snape, this is a position that they put into by Dumbledore. Snape had more choice, perhaps, than Petunia, but I think that once he made a promise, the idea of breaking that promise was unthinkable. Alla: LOL, of course they were put in this position by Dumbledore and yes, I think he was very very wrong to do that and I think Harry is the one who suffered the most because of it. But as you said, Snape had a little bit more choice than Petunia, so I put some blame on Snape too. I think when he realized that he could not have treated Harry fairly, he should have walked away. I know, no story then, but again I am looking from within the story and just speculating of different scenarios. Montavilla47: Well, Lupin had more leverage. He had the goods on Harry, as he knew what the map was and how to work it. The reason that Snape's method didn't work was that Lupin removed Harry from the situation before Snape was finished. Alla: I thought Lupin's approach worked because he knew what buttons to push about Harry's parents sacrifice, I do not see what that has to do with map. I meant that Harry took Lupin's words to heart. Are you saying that Harry would have taken Snape's words to heart? From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 16 04:31:47 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:31:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184665 > Montavilla47: > Again, with both Petunia and Snape, this is a position that they put > into by Dumbledore. Snape had more choice, perhaps, than Petunia, > but I think that once he made a promise, the idea of breaking that > promise was unthinkable. > > > Alla: > > LOL, of course they were put in this position by > Dumbledore and yes, I think he was very very wrong to do that and I > think Harry is the one who suffered the most because of it. But as > you said, Snape had a little bit more choice than Petunia, so I put > some blame on Snape too. > > I think when he realized that he could not have treated Harry fairly, > he should have walked away. I know, no story then, but again I am > looking from within the story and just speculating of different > scenarios. Montavilla47: I'm not sure that Snape was ever self-aware enough to realize that he wasn't treating Harry fairly. Or perhaps he considered himself to be like the talk-show hosts who feel that they are being fair by taking extreme positions that the press is too liberal to present. :) > Montavilla47: > Well, Lupin had more leverage. He had the goods on Harry, as he knew > what the map was and how to work it. The reason that Snape's method > didn't work was that Lupin removed Harry from the situation before > Snape was finished. > > Alla: > > I thought Lupin's approach worked because he knew what buttons to > push about Harry's parents sacrifice, I do not see what that has to > do with map. I meant that Harry took Lupin's words to heart. Are you > saying that Harry would have taken Snape's words to heart? Montavilla47: I don't know, because I don't know what Snape's actions were going to be. I suspect he longed to take the map to Dumbledore so that the Headmaster could... persuade Harry to stop sneaking out of school. I'll bet Dumbledore would have been even better than Lupin at pressing Harry's buttons. From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Oct 16 11:13:29 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:13:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > Sure he was shocked. But are you sure that Snape kept his promise to > protect Harry at the end? It seemed to me that he did what Dumbledore > told him to do. When Dumbledore told him to protect Harry's life, > well that is what Snape was doing while at the same time (I believe) > merrily abusing Harry. When Dumbledore told him that Harry needs to > die, sure, Snape was surprised, I would be to, but he proceeded to > fulfill Dumbledore's plan, whatever it was. Leah: Well, I don't agree that Snape was 'merrily abusing' Harry as a general rule, though there are occasions when he overstepst the mark. As to fulfilling Dumbledore's plan, Snape's problem is that Dumbledore only provides him with selective information. At the time Dumbledore is giving Snape information that leads Snape to conclude that Harry must die, Dumbledore is very carefully avoiding any eye contact with Leglimens!Snape, which has to signal that Dumbledore is up to something or knows something more than he is saying. Snape knows there is some plan involving the Sword of Gryffindor when he takes it to Harry, but Dumbledore won't tell him what it is. If Snape tries to prevent Harry being sent 'like a pig to slaughter', then he is in danger of wrecking Dumbledore's hidden plans (which do eventually save Harry, thanks to Snape's self-sacrifice, Harry's bravery and sheer luck). He is also not in an easy position to communicate anything to Harry who regards him as Dumbledore's murderer. He presumably concludes that the best he can do is carry out Dumbledore's instructions until he learns more (which he never does). Frankly, I think it requires a major suspension of disbelief that Darks Art expert Snape never works out horcruxes, but that's just one of many suspensions of disbelief in DH, IMO. > > Potioncat: > But, at any rate, if Snape wasn't the best choice, who was? > > Alla: > > Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, just about anybody. Again, I > am looking from within the story, not how the events would have > changed had Snape not been in the story. > > Take your pick - Minerva, Arthur, just about any competent expert of > DADA, Lupin would do just fine in my opinion. > > Anybody, who would not hate the kid. Leah: You are looking at the Snape/Harry protective relationship aa if Dumbledore had asked Snape to mentor Harry, or act as a parental figure towards him, and you are also treating it as part and parcel of Snape's interactions with Harry as a teacher. Dumbledore didn't ask this and the teaching role is a separate problem. In the 'precisely his mother's eyes' scene in 'The Prince's Tale', Dumbledore tells Snape that Voldemort will return and Harry will need protection from him. That's all! that Dumbledore requires of Snape. Snape is the right person for this job because: (i) He will stick to it whatever the danger he is in and regardless of any scorn directed at him. Dumbledore initially believes this to be the case because of Snape's penance towards Lily, though I think Snape keeps his word anyway. There is no one else except Sirius who (unknown to Dumbledore at that stage)has the same motivations of guilt and reparation and the same sort of bravery, and Sirius is in Azkaban and lacks Snape's other qualifications. Snape does fulfill this expectation, eg. returning to Voldemort, who has promised to kill him, and as a more minor example, putting up with opprobium from his colleagues when he referees the Quidditch match in PS. Lupin can't even confess to Dumbledore that Sirius is an animagus so I wouldn't expect him to display the same backbone. (ii) He is an expert in DADA. We don't see anyone else with the same abilities as Snape, and this is made clear in HBP and in 'The Prince's Tale'. He, not Dumbledore, not Lupin or Poppy saves Katie Bell's life. He is the one who saves Dumbledore from the ring curse, and Dumbledore makes it clear that this ability is exceptional: 'I am fortunate to have you, Severus'. In fact, he only uses this ability directly once in regard to Harry, during Quirrel's jinx, but saving Dumbledore for example gives Dumbledore another year with Harry, and Dumbledore is right to want someone with this potential to save from the Darks Arts to be Harry's protector. (iii) As a marked Death Eater and superb Occlumens, Snape is the only one who can find out Voldemort's plans, and feed him false information. Not only does he have the right skills, Dumbledore tells Snape he is the only one he would trust to do this. (iv) He is on hand at Hogwarts to keep an eye on Harry. A great deal of Snape's irritation with Harry is directed at Harry's rule breaking activities, being out after curfew, flying around in stolen cars, being in Hogsmead when Black is supposedly lurking. As to Snape and Lupin's own handling of Harry in the instance you mention, part of Snape's feelings towards Harry must stem from the fact that in endangering himself, Harry is putting Lily's sacrifice at naught, but Snape's own culpability and guilt stop him using this to 'control' Harry. Lupin does not have this problem. Actually, I would rather someone just told me off for wrong doing rather than guilt tripping me over my dead parents, but that's just me, though it works (but only very temporarily) on Harry. (v)Only Snape has huge emotional problems in relation to both Harry's parents, which are likely to prevent him becoming close to Harry. It might be easier to protect Harry if Snape had a friendly relationship with him, but thatwould conflict with Snape's 'loyal Death Eater' role and is not really in Dumbledore's interests, since up to the end of GOF, Dumbledore thinks Horcrux! Harry is really going to have to die. So Dumbledore has in effect hired Snape as Harry's bodyguard. That is entirely separate from his teaching role and its requirements. Protecting Harry from Voldemort just requires Snape to be loyal to his task, which he is to the point of death. It does not require him to be fair to, love or even to like Harry. There are, as you point out, others that can fulfill this role, like Minerva, Molly, Arthur and Lupin. It doesn't even particularly need interaction between Snape and Harry (it is Snape who to some extent tries to extend the role into a mentoring one). Protecting Harry is not the same as parenting him. Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 16 11:52:48 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:52:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184668 > Leah: Well, I don't agree that Snape was 'merrily abusing' Harry as > a general rule, though there are occasions when he overstepst the > mark. Alla: I am not asking you to LOL. We had have long discussions on whether Snape is an abuser, abuser of authority, super strict teacher, fair teacher or none of the above in the past and nothing made me change my mind about Snape being an abuser. Knowing how many people are tired of the dreaded A word, I am trying unless I do not consider it very relevant not to bring it up often. So when I do bring it up, I am extra careful to stress it even more than usual that it is my opinion only. Leah: As to fulfilling Dumbledore's plan, Snape's problem is that > Dumbledore only provides him with selective information. At the > time Dumbledore is giving Snape information that leads Snape to > conclude that Harry must die, Dumbledore > is very carefully avoiding any eye contact with Leglimens!Snape, > which has to signal that Dumbledore is up to something or knows > something more than he is saying. Alla: So you seem to be arguing that when Snape is getting all shocked about Harry being raised as pig for slaughter in reality he knows that it is a ruse and Harry in fact is not going to die? I am sorry, but how do you arrive at the conclusion that if Dumbledore avoids eye contact with Snape that means that Dumbledore's words have the opposite meaning from what Snape hears? I see no such indication in the text. Dumbledore can be avoiding eye contact simply because he does not think Voldemort needs to know the details of the plan of how to sacrifice Harry, or because he does not want Snape to know what he ate for breakfast, meaning he is keeping another secret from Snape which is totally irrelevant to that discussion. IMO of course. Leah: >Snape knows there is some plan > involving the Sword of Gryffindor when he takes it to Harry, but > Dumbledore won't tell him what it is. If Snape tries to prevent > Harry being sent 'like a pig to slaughter', then he is in danger of > wrecking Dumbledore's hidden plans (which do eventually save Harry, > thanks to Snape's self-sacrifice, Harry's bravery and sheer luck). > He is also not in an easy position to communicate anything to Harry > who regards him as Dumbledore's murderer. He presumably concludes > that the best he can do is carry out Dumbledore's instructions until > he learns more (which he never does). Alla: Well, of course he decides to carry out Dumbledore's plan which is what I was saying in my response to Potioncat. My point is that deciding to carry out Dumbledore's plan is in exact contradiction with protecting Harry's life as far as Snape knows and I am not convinced at all that Snape knows anything else besides what Dumbledore is telling him. Where do you see in the text that Snape decides to carry it out only till he learns more? Leah: >Frankly, I think it requires a > major suspension of disbelief that Darks Art expert Snape never > works out horcruxes, but that's just one of many suspensions of > disbelief in DH, IMO. Alla: Agreed on that. >> Leah: You are looking at the Snape/Harry protective relationship aa > if Dumbledore had asked Snape to mentor Harry, or act as a parental > figure towards him, and you are also treating it as part and parcel > of Snape's interactions with Harry as a teacher. Dumbledore didn't > ask this and the teaching role is a separate problem. In > the 'precisely his mother's eyes' scene in 'The Prince's Tale', > Dumbledore tells Snape that Voldemort will return and Harry will > need protection from him. That's all! that Dumbledore requires of > Snape. Snape is the right person for this job because: Alla: Well, of course I am treating it as part and parcel of Snape's interactions with Harry as a teacher. Because **it is** part and parcel of that IMO. Dumbledore does not ask somebody from outside to protect Harry, he is asking his teacher to do so and I just do not see how one can treat it separately. Leah: > (i) He will stick to it whatever the danger he is in and regardless > of any scorn directed at him. Alla: Sirius is as well as you said, Dumbledore is as well, although after book 7 I really hesitate to suggest Dumbledore as Harry's protector LOL. Leah: (ii) He is an expert in DADA. We don't see anyone else with the same > abilities as Snape, and this is made clear in HBP and in 'The > Prince's Tale'. He, not Dumbledore, not Lupin or Poppy saves Katie > Bell's life. Alla: Lupin in many parts thanks to Snape is not at school. I disagree that his abilities as DADA expert are in any way less than Snape's even though we did not see him saving anyone in this book. > (iii) As a marked Death Eater and superb Occlumens, Snape is the > only one who can find out Voldemort's plans, and feed him false > information. Not only does he have the right skills, Dumbledore > tells Snape he is the only one he would trust to do this. Alla: Lupin spied at werewolves, something tells me that he would manage with Voldemort too, but really, we just do not see other spies IMO. Leah: > (iv) He is on hand at Hogwarts to keep an eye on Harry. Alla: Just as all other teachers are. Leah: > As to > Snape and Lupin's own handling of Harry in the instance you mention, > part of Snape's feelings towards Harry must stem from the fact that > in endangering himself, Harry is putting Lily's sacrifice at naught, > but Snape's own culpability and guilt stop him using this > to 'control' Harry. Lupin does not have this problem. Alla: Really? Lupin was one of their closest friends and he supposedly does not have this problem? I disagree. Leah: >Actually, I > would rather someone just told me off for wrong doing rather than > guilt tripping me over my dead parents, but that's just me, though it > works (but only very temporarily) on Harry. Alla: It worked in this instance, so it is good enough for me. But yes, I think what matters is what works on Harry and Snape IMO displays through the books over and over that he has no idea what works for Harry to improve his behavior. Dumbledore who does not even teach Harry knows that guilt works perfectly well too, when he scolds Harry over not getting the memory from Slughorn and Snape is as he always was clueless IMO. Leah: > So Dumbledore has in effect hired Snape as Harry's bodyguard. That > is entirely separate from his teaching role and its requirements. > Protecting Harry from Voldemort just requires Snape to be loyal to > his task, which he is to the point of death. It does not require him > to be fair to, love or even to like Harry. There are, as you point > out, others that can fulfill this role, like Minerva, Molly, Arthur > and Lupin. It doesn't even particularly need interaction between > Snape and Harry (it is Snape who to some extent tries to extend the > role into a mentoring one). Protecting Harry is not the same as > parenting him. Alla: Except when Dumbledore hired him as Harry's bodyguard, he did not fire him from the role of Harry's teacher, therefore no, I do not believe it could be treated separately and if I accept your requirements for the role of Harry's bodyguard, role of Harry's teacher seems to me to be in huge conflict of interest. JMO, Alla > > > Leah > From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 16 13:21:23 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:21:23 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184669 > Alla: > > Well, of course he decides to carry out Dumbledore's plan which is > what I was saying in my response to Potioncat. My point is that > deciding to carry out Dumbledore's plan is in exact contradiction > with protecting Harry's life as far as Snape knows Pippin: Snape did not agree to protect Harry's life out of consideration for Harry or in atonement to Harry. He did it so that Lily would not have died in vain. This is a separate and subsequent agreement to his promise to do anything if Dumbledore would save Lily, which ended when Lily died. This is shown by Snape's ability to set conditions for the new agreement, which he does when he demands that Dumbledore swear never to reveal it exists. One of the key concepts of chivalry is that the moral order must prevail over personal interests. Snape's understanding that Lily will not have died in vain if Harry fulfills his mission and destroys Voldemort, even though that will cost Harry his life, is a mark of Snape's moral growth, IMO, from innate selfishness to the choice of sacrifice. > Leah: > >Frankly, I think it requires a > > major suspension of disbelief that Darks Art expert Snape never > > works out horcruxes, but that's just one of many suspensions of > > disbelief in DH, IMO. > > Alla: > > Agreed on that. Pippin: How do we know he didn't work it out? Good spies do not give away how much they have guessed already by asking narrow questions. Snape's attempts to pump Dumbledore for information give us our only glimpse at how he might have gone about it with Voldemort. > > Alla: > > Sirius is as well as you said, Dumbledore is as well, although after book 7 I really hesitate to suggest Dumbledore as Harry's protector LOL. Pippin: We saw Sirius's idea of protecting Harry. He couldn't resist taking chances. If Hagrid hadn't been there to talk him out of it, he'd have gone after Pettigrew with Harry in tow, just as young Dumbledore thought he could take over the WW and be Arianna's primary caregiver at the same time. Dumbledore knew from experience he couldn't trust himself on something like this. He'd start out with good intentions, but his heart wouldn't be in it. Snape's was. > Alla: > > Lupin in many parts thanks to Snape is not at school. I disagree that his abilities as DADA expert are in any way less than Snape's even though we did not see him saving anyone in this book. Pippin: LOL! Lupin is by his own admission not much of a potion-maker. As an Auror candidate, he'd have washed out. > Alla: > > Lupin spied at werewolves, something tells me that he would manage > with Voldemort too, but really, we just do not see other spies IMO. Pippin: Lupin couldn't gain the confidence of the werewolves. He couldn't hide from them that he'd lived among wizards. What makes you think he'd have done better hiding things from the DE's? > > > Leah: > > (iv) He is on hand at Hogwarts to keep an eye on Harry. > > Alla: > > Just as all other teachers are. Pippin: None of them noticed that Quirrell was hexing Harry. > > Alla: > > Except when Dumbledore hired him as Harry's bodyguard, he did not > fire him from the role of Harry's teacher, therefore no, I do not > believe it could be treated separately and if I accept your > requirements for the role of Harry's bodyguard, role of Harry's > teacher seems to me to be in huge conflict of interest. > Pippin: A conflict of interest is only a problem if you think conflicts have to be resolved in an adversarial manner. There are other ways to go about it. Many people do not think that an adversarial system works best to protect the interests of a child. Pippin From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Oct 16 13:43:01 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:43:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184670 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > So you seem to be arguing that when Snape is getting all shocked > about Harry being raised as pig for slaughter in reality he knows > that it is a ruse and Harry in fact is not going to die? I am sorry, > but how do you arrive at the conclusion that if Dumbledore avoids eye > contact with Snape that means that Dumbledore's words have the > opposite meaning from what Snape hears? > > I see no such indication in the text. Dumbledore can be avoiding eye > contact simply because he does not think Voldemort needs to know the > details of the plan of how to sacrifice Harry, or because he does not > want Snape to know what he ate for breakfast, meaning he is keeping > another secret from Snape which is totally irrelevant to that > discussion. > > IMO of course. Leah: No, I am certain that when Snape makes his 'pig to slaughter' speech he is genuinely shocked and believes that Harry must die. However, we all mull over what has been said to us, so I imagine Snape would too, especially something as important as this, and we also consider the context in which we learned information. Snape must actually do this a lot because he has to work out what memories to conceal or partially reveal through Occlumency. Dumbledore is keeping his gaze averted from Snape. Of course he could just be having romantic thought about Elphias Doge , but it's unlikely the averted eyes would warrant a mention if he wasn't meant to be concealing information. Snape has worked with Dumbledore long enough to know something about Dumbledore's modus operandi and there is clear indication in the text that later Snape does know Dumbledore is concealing information about the Sword of Gryffindor from him, because he asks Portrait!Dumbledore for more information, which he doesn't get. Snape may never work out that Harry need not die, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that Snape has enough partial information to believe/know that Dumbledore has secret plans concerning Harry, and that therefore if Snape does anything other than obey Dumbledore's orders, he might inadvertantly muck up those plans. Of course it might be that Snape goes along with those plans because he thinks that Harry's death is necessary to defeat Voldemort,which is ultimate payback for Lily's death, and will save other innocent people. > Alla: > > Well, of course he decides to carry out Dumbledore's plan which is > what I was saying in my response to Potioncat. My point is that > deciding to carry out Dumbledore's plan is in exact contradiction > with protecting Harry's life as far as Snape knows and I am not > convinced at all that Snape knows anything else besides what > Dumbledore is telling him. Where do you see in the text that Snape > decides to carry it out only till he learns more? Leah: The learns more bit is speculation, I admit, but there is evidence in the text (the Sword and Portrait) scene to show Snape is aware Dumbledore has secret plans, and that failure to carry out Dumbledore's orders may scupper those plans. It is also concievable that Snape thinks those plans may help Harry. > > Alla: > > Well, of course I am treating it as part and parcel of Snape's > interactions with Harry as a teacher. Because **it is** part and > parcel of that IMO. Dumbledore does not ask somebody from outside to > protect Harry, he is asking his teacher to do so and I just do not > see how one can treat it separately. Leah: No, he is asking Snape to do it, and Snape later happens to be Harry's teacher. Harry is only one when Dumbledore extracts the protection promise from Snape, and I can't see why that promise would not hold if Snape were not for some reason teaching at Hogwarts when Harry reaches 11. Being at Hogwarts obviously makes it easier to protect Harry, but it doesn't mean that Snape as Harry's teacher has to treat Harry in any particular way. > > > Alla: > > Lupin in many parts thanks to Snape is not at school. I disagree that > his abilities as DADA expert are in any way less than Snape's even > though we did not see him saving anyone in this book. Leah: The only thing we see Lupin teaching is related to Dark Creatures and while he is competent at that, we are never told what other Dark Arts knowledge he has. On the other hand,it is specifically indicated in the text in OOTP, HBP and DH that Snape is very knowledgeable in DADA and is particularly skilled in dealing with dark curses. Absolutely no indication is given that Lupin is equally skilled. If Dumbledore thought Lupin's skills fitted him for that role, then he could have given Lupin rooms in the castle as he later keeps Trelawney on after her sacking by Umbridge. IMO, the underlying reasons why Lupin is not at the school, ie. his concealing of information from Dumbledore about Sirius' animagus status and access to the school via tunnels, and his failure to take the Wolfsbane potion, are clear indications of why Dumbledore wouldn't consider him for Snape's role. >> Alla: > > Lupin spied at werewolves, something tells me that he would manage > with Voldemort too, but really, we just do not see other spies IMO. Leah: As far as we know, werewolves do not go in for Leglimency, certainly we do not hear of Fenrir Greyback or any other werewolf being the 'greatest Leglimens' - that is Voldemort. Lupin himself calls Snape a 'superb Occlumens' suggesting he is better at Occlumency than Lupin (assuming Lupin to have any Occlumency skills at all). We do specifically have Dumbledore telling Snape that there is no one else he would trust to 'hang on Lord Voldemort's arm' > Alla: > > Really? Lupin was one of their closest friends and he supposedly does > not have this problem? I disagree. Leah: Unlike Snape, Lupin did not take the prophecy to Lord Voldemort. Unlike Sirius,he was not involved in the Secret Keeper debacle. He can be upset over James and Lily's deaths, but he has no reason to feel particular guilt over them. He may have been fond of Lily, but as far as we know he has not been in love with her since the age of nine/ten. > > Alla: > > It worked in this instance, so it is good enough for me. But yes, I > think what matters is what works on Harry and Snape IMO displays > through the books over and over that he has no idea what works for > Harry to improve his behavior. > > Dumbledore who does not even teach Harry knows that guilt works > perfectly well too, when he scolds Harry over not getting the memory > from Slughorn and Snape is as he always was clueless IMO. Leah: I certainly wouldn't dispute that Snape handles Harry badly, though I don't like guilt tripping as a way of bringing about good behaviour. In any event, as I said, even this only works temporarily on Harry. Lupin's words impress Harry for a while, but they certainly don't operate on a long term basis. > Alla: > > Except when Dumbledore hired him as Harry's bodyguard, he did not > fire him from the role of Harry's teacher, therefore no, I do not > believe it could be treated separately and if I accept your > requirements for the role of Harry's bodyguard, role of Harry's > teacher seems to me to be in huge conflict of interest. Leah: As stated above, he wasn't Harry's teacher when hired as bodyguard. I don't actually disagree that there is conflict between the protecting role and the teaching role, but that need not necessarily have been the case, for example would things have been different if Harry hadn't met Draco and Ron prior to the Sorting and had been sorted into Slytherin? The conflict is not helped by the fact that Snape is teaching Harry alongside the children of Death Eaters and this is something Dumbledore could have prevented. Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 16 19:06:16 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:06:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184671 Leah: I am saying that Snape has enough partial information to believe/know that Dumbledore has secret plans concerning Harry, and that therefore if Snape does anything other than obey Dumbledore's orders, he might inadvertently muck up those plans. Of course it might be that Snape goes along with those plans because he thinks that Harry's death is necessary to defeat Voldemort,which is ultimate payback for Lily's death, and will save other innocent people. Alla: I was thinking I said all I wanted to say for this round of Snape thing, but I wanted to respond to couple more points, hehe. Well, I certainly accept the possibility of Snape thinking that Dumbledore may have secret plans about Harry. I do not see any support though for possibility that Snape worked out that Harry does not need to die. And of course I accept that Snape may have thought that Harry's death is necessary to protect Voldemort, absolutely I do. What I am saying is that initially I responded to Potioncat's point that Snape kept his promise to protect Harry and sorry, but to this my answer is no way, no how. You tell me Snape was thinking Harry's death will protect innocents and I will tell you, sure, as good consideration as any, but in what universe agreeing that Harry has to die means keeping his promise to protect him? Pippin: One of the key concepts of chivalry is that the moral order must prevail over personal interests. Snape's understanding that Lily will not have died in vain if Harry fulfills his mission and destroys Voldemort, even though that will cost Harry his life, is a mark of Snape's moral growth, IMO, from innate selfishness to the choice of sacrifice. Alla: Please see above. I have no gripes with what you wrote here, but again in what world this is called protecting Harry? I can respect Snape's motivations if they were what you just described, ( I mean, I dislike it, etc, but hey, if that is what he thinks, his right to think so) but this is certainly NOT protection in my book, this is sacrificing pig for slaughter and Snape ( after at least voicing initial disagreement to my surprise) going along with it. Reasons could be the most chivalrous reasons ever, my point is ? it is not protection. Alla earlier: > All that is needed is a genuine conviction that what one is doing is >right? Are you arguing relative morality? Pippin: I can't recall a DE who believes that killing and torturing is right, but we do have Barty Sr., who gets so carried away with his power to punish that he forgets all about justice and mercy. Alla: Sorry I wanted to respond to couple points in your earlier post and did not do it, so doing it now. So you are saying that DE who kill and torture do it why exactly? During the cup they do those things to Muggles fo example not because they believe in it? Sorry, but indication to the contrary, if I see them perform the act, I will assume that they fully believe in what they are doing. But I certainly agree with you about Barty Sr. Pippin: In comparing the Trio to Draco, Crabbe and Goyle we should consider that we are judging the best of the apples against the worst of the oranges. AFAWK, the other Slytherin students are not torturing people, casting unforgivable curses or plotting to murder anybody, and the other Gryffindors have not been chosen by Albus Dumbledore to save the world. Alla: Yes, of course, but the rest of Gryffindors as a whole seems to be doing so much better at the end of the book to me. Pippin: The book does not actually say that all the of age Gryffindors stayed to fight, though a careless reading could give that impression. Alla: But no of age Slytherins stayed to fight whatsoever and I do not see what reading can correct that impression. I mean, I certainly accept your point that they did not betray evacuation of other students to Voldemort, but still abandoning the fight to me looks worse than not abandoning it. And of course I would love to accept the interview that they came back and I still think it is possible to read that crowd with Slughorn as if some of them were students, but it is just that inference, because while I believe that your other inference was exceptionally strong, this one even to me looks weaker, since other inferences IMO are equally possible, that none of them returned. Alla: > > Didn't Crabbe pretty much did betray Malfoy by refusing to listen to him? I guess it is not full blown betrayal, but I would think comes close enough to me. As soon as Draco is finished, Crabb dear forgot about being his friend awfully fast IMO. Pippin: I don't know whether Crabbe ever saw Draco and Goyle as real friends. Maybe he was always using them. At any rate, I see a difference between Pettigrew, who lacked the courage to do what he felt was right, and Crabbe, who was only interested in power. Alla: Oh LOL Crabbe was using them? Where is indication of that in the six books? And IMO the first assumption based on six books would be that Draco was using them, but based on him saving Goyle, I cannot make that assumption anymore. And quite honestly I see no difference between him and Pettigrew, I mean they performed different actions of course, but they both turned their back on their friends and were willing let them die. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 16 20:03:50 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:03:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184672 > Alla: > > Please see above. I have no gripes with what you wrote here, but > again in what world this is called protecting Harry? I can respect > Snape's motivations if they were what you just described, ( I mean, I > dislike it, etc, but hey, if that is what he thinks, his right to > think so) but this is certainly NOT protection in my book, this is > sacrificing pig for slaughter and Snape ( after at least voicing > initial disagreement to my surprise) going along with it. Reasons > could be the most chivalrous reasons ever, my point is ? it is not > protection. Magpie: I think I see what you mean. Snape took on this task because of Lily. He was specifically undoing the thing he had done. He got Harry targetted and that led to Lily's death, and Dumbledore said that he could pay for that by protecting her son as he was *not able to protect her.* Lily would want her son alive. Snape himself didn't care if Harry lived or died, but Dumbledore convinced him to make Lily's care for Harry his own because it was hers. But as it turns out Dumbledore's plan was nothing of the sort. He wanted Snape to protect Harry until Dumbledore said so, at which time it was necessary that Voldemort do to Harry *exactly what he had failed to do when he was a baby.* What Snape ultimately agrees to do is not protect Harry but destroy Voldemort via Dumbledore's plan, which requires having Harry murdered. (Basically it's exactly the same as Voldemort's plan, only Snape and Dumbledore know that Harry's got a booby-trap in him in the form of the Horcrux.) Snape is returning to his previous views about Harry's well-being: one kid's death isn't that important compared to winning the war. (Only now he's winning the war on the other side.) Would Lily have wanted Snape to do that? We don't know. Maybe she'd go along with it. Her ghost honors Harry's choice to go along with it- -but her supporting Harry's own choice is different than supporting Dumbledore's plans to have him killed. It's quite possible she wouldn't agree to it given that Harry's death by Voldemort is exactly what she died to prevent. If other mothers in the series are any guide the answer is no there too--Molly kills yelling about protecting her daughter; Mrs. Crouch gives up her life for Barty's freedom (totally opposing her husband's originally putting Voldemort's defeat over parental love); Narcissa ultimately chooses Draco over everything. Lily might have totally refused to follow Dumbledore's plan and found some other way. Almost certainly she would have *tried* which neither Snape nor Dumbledore do. So there's definitely a little switcheroo going on here with Snape. He originally agreed to protect Harry's physical life because Lily would want Harry alive and well. This is not the same as safeguarding Harry until the best time for him to be killed. The first scenario is what Snape takes to be Lily's wishes; the second is Dumbledore's wishes. Snape could have chosen to defy Dumbledore but didn't. Would Lily have made the same choice? Quite possibly not. Snape's motivation regarding Harry was originally that Lily would want him personally protected and not that Lily would want Voldemort defeated. I mean, of course Lily *did* want Voldemort defeated, but Dumbledore is switching around the priorities. Lily would presumably have died thinking that Harry's safety was one of her reasons for wanting Voldemort defeated. He changes it Harry's death being a necessary sacrifice for Voldemort's defeat. Dumbledore merely used Lily's desire to protect Harry to suck Snape in and after that replaced that with his own agenda. -m From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Oct 16 22:00:38 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:00:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <> So there's definitely a little switcheroo going on here with Snape. > He originally agreed to protect Harry's physical life because Lily > would want Harry alive and well. This is not the same as safeguarding > Harry until the best time for him to be killed. The first scenario is > what Snape takes to be Lily's wishes; the second is Dumbledore's > wishes. Snape could have chosen to defy Dumbledore but didn't. Would > Lily have made the same choice? Quite possibly not. Snape's > motivation regarding Harry was originally that Lily would want him > personally protected and not that Lily would want Voldemort defeated. > I mean, of course Lily *did* want Voldemort defeated, but Dumbledore > is switching around the priorities. Lily would presumably have died > thinking that Harry's safety was one of her reasons for wanting > Voldemort defeated. He changes it Harry's death being a necessary > sacrifice for Voldemort's defeat. Dumbledore merely used Lily's > desire to protect Harry to suck Snape in and after that replaced that > with his own agenda. > Leah: Yes,this is quite right, and I remember being surprised in 'The Prince's Tale' when we skipped from "Always" to Snape going along with Dumbledore's plan. I wanted a scene in between looking at what Snape was thinking, because the switch didn't make that much sense. I also think a story line in which Snape didn't go along with Dumbledore's plan but had to work with Harry to find an alternative would have been quite interesting but obviously not what JKR wanted to tell us. The logic gap is why I suggested that Snape had just enough information and knowledge of Dumbledore to think the old whatsit was up to something, and that Snape had better not interfere in it. That way he could still hope that he was still protecting Harry in some unknown way. Equally, he could have just concluded as Pippin said, that saving the wizarding world from Voldemort was more important than saving Harry's life by eg. changing his memory and sending him off to Australia. Snape got quite a lot of stick after DH for leaving Voldemort because of Lily rather than because of any moral epiphany, so had he stuck to his task of physically protecting Harry and let the rest of the world go hang under Voldemort's rule, I do think he would certainly have been accused of lacking moral courage. The other thought is that perhaps Horcrux!Harry could not be protected except in the short-term. Voldemort could not die while the scar horcrux remained and if he ruled and increased in power, perhaps his hold over the scar horcrux would increase. Even if Voldemort were to be disabled in some way, for example by having a Dementor suck his own soul piece, it might be that the soul piece in Harry would gain in power, (a bit like the power of the diary soul over Ginny). Pure speculation of course, but the Prophecy did say that neither could 'live' while the other survived. As to Lily's reaction, I rather hope that she would have wanted her child to live - suicide cheerleader Lily was very off putting IMO. Leah From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 16 22:55:42 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:55:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184674 > Alla: > > Please see above. I have no gripes with what you wrote here, but > again in what world this is called protecting Harry? I can respect > Snape's motivations if they were what you just described, ( I mean, I dislike it, etc, but hey, if that is what he thinks, his right to > think so) but this is certainly NOT protection in my book, this is > sacrificing pig for slaughter and Snape ( after at least voicing > initial disagreement to my surprise) going along with it. Reasons > could be the most chivalrous reasons ever, my point is, it is not > protection. Pippin: In a chivalric world view there is no protection for Harry or anyone else outside the moral order. Nor can Harry live if Voldemort survives. "He will not try to possess Harry again, I am sure of it. *Not in that way*" [emphasis mine] "Meanwhile, the connection between them grows ever stronger, a parasitic growth." -DH ch 33 Dumbledore did not mention death when he asked Snape to protect Harry. He spoke of "terrible danger." Snape supposed for years that the danger he was protecting Harry from was death, and indeed that was the danger that Harry was facing when Lily died to protect him. But she did not know that Harry was going to get a soul bit lodged in him. To Dumbledore, as we know, there are worse things than death. Only Harry's death can separate him from the soul bit which is gaining power along with Voldemort and may eventually overpower Harry. Only Voldemort's death can protect Harry from losing all that he loves in life to Voldemort, perhaps watching helplessly through Voldemort's eyes as it happens. It might be a little clearer what was at stake if JKR had let Arthur die but surely we can imagine what that would have been like for Harry? Which do you suppose he would want to be protected from more: death, or having to watch from behind Voldemort's eyes as Arthur was murdered? Snape may not care that Harry is going to suffer if his friends die. But he knows that Harry's mind and Voldemort's are linked, that Harry is unable to defend himself with Occlumency, and that Dumbledore has implied that Harry's current ability to protect himself may not last. > Alla: > > Sorry I wanted to respond to couple points in your earlier post and > did not do it, so doing it now. So you are saying that DE who kill > and torture do it why exactly? During the cup they do those things to Muggles fo example not because they believe in it? Sorry, but > indication to the contrary, if I see them perform the act, I will > assume that they fully believe in what they are doing. Pippin: They're doing it for fun. Morality doesn't come into it. Why should they care whether it's right or wrong? It's only Muggles. They might feel differently if they weren't drunk, and masked, and part of a mob, but I'm afraid people in that state aren't much concerned about their moral compass. I don't think they're feeling righteous anger at all. IMO they're drunk on power, firewhiskey and the madness of crowds. > Alla: > > And of course I would love to accept the interview that they came > back and I still think it is possible to read that crowd with > Slughorn as if some of them were students, but it is just that > inference, because while I believe that your other inference was > exceptionally strong, this one even to me looks weaker, since other > inferences IMO are equally possible, that none of them returned. Pippin: I don't think it's a weak inference, just one that takes a bit of logic to work out, like the other. Slughorn returns at the head of a crowd that looks like the citizens of Hogsmeade, the relatives of the fighters, and "the friends of every Hogwarts student who had remained to fight." If these last aren't some of the students who left, how does Harry deduce that they're friends of the others? McGonagall said that the protection they had placed around the castle was unlikely to hold "unless we reinforce it." She didn't have the presence of mind or the cunning to see that it could be reinforced from outside as well as from within. But someone did, and that someone is very likely to have been a Slytherin. Does it make sense that Slughorn would be leading an army with no Slytherins? That the people of Hogsmeade would trust and follow Charley Weasley, who's been away for years, and not Slughorn who is on good terms with shopkeepers everywhere? And again, no one, Slytherin or otherwise, betrayed this plan to Voldemort. I have to wonder if part of Draco's reason for getting Crabbe and Goyle to try and capture Harry was that they *would* have squealed on the other students, or expected him to do it. > Alla: > > Oh LOL Crabbe was using them? Where is indication of that in the six books? And IMO the first assumption based on six books would be that Draco was using them, but based on him saving Goyle, I cannot make that assumption anymore. Pippin: Take a look at CoS. There's more sympatico between Draco and Goyle than Draco and Crabbe. Draco has talked to Goyle before about who Slytherin's heir might be, and is annoyed at Goyle's seeming failure to remember his theories, while Crabbe's cluelessness attracts no attention. Goyle(Harry) offers some concern over the raid on Malfoy Manor, which Draco accepts. Draco snickers at Crabbe(Ron) while he is supposed to be grimacing with stomach cramps, and tells him to go give the Mudbloods in the hospital wing a kick from him. That's using Crabbe, who will later return the favor. No love lost there, I think. Alla: > And quite honestly I see no difference between him and Pettigrew, I > mean they performed different actions of course, but they both turned their back on their friends and were willing let them die. Pippin: You cannot see any difference between Crabbe, who is proud of what he is doing, and Pettigrew, who cannot bear to look Harry in the eyes? Does Pettigrew ever take any pride in what he did? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 17 01:06:06 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:06:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184675 Pippin: In a chivalric world view there is no protection for Harry or anyone else outside the moral order. Nor can Harry live if Voldemort survives. Alla: Pippin, quite honestly I do not find anything that you wrote in the snipped part of the paragraph relevant to the point I am making at all. I am saying that Snape did not fulfill his promise to protect Harry, Harry as a living and breathing being. NOT his soul, not protect him from watching his friends dying, I mean, I do not remember Snape making all those promises you seem to be implying he really was making. I am saying that he did not fulfill his promise to protect **Harry**, that's all. He followed Dumbledore's plans. I totally understand if you consider those plans noble, good for all mankind, for Harry's soul, whatever. **Harry** as far as Snape knows has to die. Snape promised to **protect** him. You truly do not see a contradiction here? I start to feel as if I am talking crazy here and really am missing something. But thank goodness there is Magpie, so if I really am that unclear, please take another look at this post of hers, she expressed everything that I wanted to say on that point. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184672 Pippin: I don't think it's a weak inference, just one that takes a bit of logic to work out, like the other. Slughorn returns at the head of a crowd that looks like the citizens of Hogsmeade, the relatives of the fighters, and "the friends of every Hogwarts student who had remained to fight." If these last aren't some of the students who left, how does Harry deduce that they're friends of the others? Alla: OH I LOVE it! Pippin: Take a look at CoS. There's more sympatico between Draco and Goyle than Draco and Crabbe. Alla: OOOOOO, when you are right, you are right. LOVE it again. I still do not think that it proves that Crabbe was using them, but I totally think it is more plausible now. From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Oct 17 09:38:44 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:38:44 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184676 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > I am saying that Snape did not fulfill his promise to protect Harry, > Harry as a living and breathing being. NOT his soul, not protect him > from watching his friends dying, I mean, I do not remember Snape > making all those promises you seem to be implying he really was > making. > > I am saying that he did not fulfill his promise to protect **Harry**, > that's all. He followed Dumbledore's plans. I totally understand if > you consider those plans noble, good for all mankind, for Harry's > soul, whatever. > > **Harry** as far as Snape knows has to die. Snape promised to > **protect** him. You truly do not see a contradiction here? I start > to feel as if I am talking crazy here and really am missing something. Leah: Just looking, after a night's sleep, at what Dumbledore actually asks of Snape in 'The Prince's Tale': '"You know how and why she died. Make sure it was not in vain. Help me protect Lily's son". "He does not need protection. The Dark Lord has gone--" "--The Dark Lord will return and Harry Potter will be in terrible danger when he does" ....."Very well....." (UK hardback pp544-545) The most obvious interpretation of this is that Lily gave her life to try to save her son's life, that Harry will be in physical danger from Voldemort and that Snape must protect him from this, saving his life if necessary. That's certainly how Snape has been interpreting it, trying to save Harry from jinxes, werewolves, putting himself in mortal danger from Voldemort etc.-"Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe". And it was necessary for Snape to interpret the words in this way, because Harry has been in physical danger,and Dumbledore did need to know what Voldemort was saying to his Death Eaters. (And of course, Snape never actually breaches that 'promise' in reality, because telling Harry that he must be killed by Voldemort allows Harry to live thanks to the blood protection in Voldemort's veins) However, there is nothing in Dumbledore's words, the cunning old so and so, that actually means that Snape has promised to keep Harry 'safe' in the way Snape interprets it, or to protect him as 'a living, breathing being" as you put it. "....how and why she died": Well, literally throwing herself in front of a killing curse to protect her baby. Magically,her sacrifice, combined with the actions of Snape and Voldemort, operates to make Harry into the one with the power to destroy the Dark Lord. "Make sure it was not in vain". If Snape hides Harry in Australia or similar,if he ignores Dumbledore and does not tell Harry that he must die (with the likely result that Harry would have been killed in battle by one other than Voldemort), Lily's magical sacrifice will have been in vain. Voldemort will not be destroyed and Harry may well die anyway. "Help me protect Lily's son". Not "go out and do whatever *you* think necessary to keep Harry physically safe", (though this is what Snape does up to DH),but assist me in *my* protection of the boy--whatever that may be. "Harry Potter will be in terrible danger when he does [return]": Again, the obvious interpretation is physical danger, which is partially true. But there is also the danger of the scar horcrux. As Pippin and I have both said, we don't know what the long-term effect of that would have been if Harry and Voldemort had both 'survived',though Dumbledore describes the scar horcrux as a 'parasitic growth', growing stronger. Is it really protecting Lily's son to let him live on with Tom Riddle feeding off him? At the end of Dumbledore's persuasion, Snape does not say, "I, Severus Snape, solemnly vow to protect Harry Potter and keep him alive", he says "Very well" to all that Dumbledore has said. You say that Snape did not make the promises Pippin is implying he made, but actually neither did he make the actual promise that you (and he) think he made. I suspect, Alla, that you will say, 'So what? Whatever he actually promised Dumbledore, Snape still breaches the promise that he has made in his heart, he is horrified that Harry is being raised 'like a pig for slaughter, but he still obeys Dumbledore'. I don't dispute this, but I don't condemn Snape for re-examining his interpretation of the promise. As Snape says slightly before the '"You have used me"' speech, he has lately allowed to die "only those whom I could not save". Once Snape knows that Harry is a horcrux, Snape may eventually accept that, despite all his endeavours, Harry is one whom he can not save, but that he can try to save many others through Harry's death. He may, as I have suggested before, suspect that there is more to Dumbledore's plans than he has told Snape, and there may be some hope for the boy. He may re-examine what he actually promised Dumbledore and come to an understanding that, although he has definitely been 'used', his interpretation of that promise was too narrow. If Lily died to make Harry the 'Chosen One;', Snape can not let that not be fulfilled. He may conclude that he would not be protecting Harry to let him live on as a horcrux in a world where Voldemort rules. As I have said in another post, what shows more moral courage, to say, "I am so obsessively in love with Lily that I will continue my narrow interpretation of the word I gave to Dumbledore, I will continue to keep her son alive whatever the cost", or, "I will do what I am asked in the hope that the world will be saved from a great evil"? Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 17 12:01:35 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:01:35 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184677 > Leah: Just looking, after a night's sleep, at what Dumbledore > actually asks of Snape in 'The Prince's Tale': > > You say that Snape > did not make the promises Pippin is implying he made, but actually > neither did he make the actual promise that you (and he) think he > made. Alla: However, we do agree that Snape's understanding of the promise had been to protect Harry's life, right? Leah: > I suspect, Alla, that you will say, 'So what? Whatever he actually > promised Dumbledore, Snape still breaches the promise that he has > made in his heart, he is horrified that Harry is being raised 'like > a pig for slaughter, but he still obeys Dumbledore'. I don't > dispute this, but I don't condemn Snape for re-examining his > interpretation of the promise. Alla: Sorry to sound like a parrot. It is totally fine by me, what I am disputing is that if he made this reexamination of the promise, we can call him Harry's protector at the end, that's all. Leah: >As Snape says slightly before > the '"You have used me"' speech, he has lately allowed to die "only > those whom I could not save". Once Snape knows that Harry is a > horcrux, Snape may eventually accept that, despite all his > endeavours, Harry is one whom he can not save, but that he can try > to save many others through Harry's death. Alla: Absolutely, I totally accept as valid argument that we can call Snape protector of other people through Harry's death. I just do not call him **Harry's protector**. Leah: If Lily died to make > Harry the 'Chosen One;', Snape can not let that not be fulfilled. Alla: We do not know that Lily died to do that. For all we know Lily died to keep her baby alive, nothing more than that and again, Snape did not make a promise to fulfil her baby's destiny to be the Chosen one, right? Leah: > He may conclude that he would not be protecting Harry to let him > live on as a horcrux in a world where Voldemort rules. As I have > said in another post, what shows more moral courage, to say, "I am > so obsessively in love with Lily that I will continue my narrow > interpretation of the word I gave to Dumbledore, I will continue to > keep her son alive whatever the cost", or, "I will do what I am > asked in the hope that the world will be saved from a great evil"? Alla: Yes, I understand all that, but that to me means that Snape cannot be called Harry's protector, but faithful follower of Dumbledore's plans to do to the boy whatever he decides and it also means to me that Snape really does not give a d*mn whether he is dead or alive, Harry I mean. He thought they were keeping him alive, as in his boss' plan was to keep him alive, now he is surprised that plan is different and now they proceed that road. Believe it or not, I was actually very pleasantly surprised when Snape expressed his disagreement with Dumbledore but now I believe that it was not disagreement at all. After all, if Dumbledore says Harry needs to die for the greater good or whatever reason Snape does his best to follow the plan. On my good days I do think that Dumbledore thought that there may be a hope for Harry's survival, but I absolutely do not see that Snape could have somehow learned about it. Therefore I conclude that besides treating Harry unfairly all his life, Snape did not care whether he is dead or alive had it been for Dumbledore. The funny thing is that for some time after DH I actually thought that Snape indeed did not want Harry dead. This debate helped me realize that he did not care about that part either and if Lily's son dropped dead, he would be quite fine with that whether for the greater good or not IMO. I certainly did not see him fighting with Dumbledore and saying oh no you need to come up with another plan. Oh well, I like to imagine that Lily would give him a well deserved kick or many in the afterlife. JMO, Alla. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 17 12:20:16 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:20:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184678 > Alla: > > Yes, I understand all that, but that to me means that Snape cannot be > called Harry's protector, but faithful follower of Dumbledore's plans > to do to the boy whatever he decides and it also means to me that > Snape really does not give a d*mn whether he is dead or alive, Harry > I mean. Potioncat: But, by this point, Harry is no longer a boy. He's a man--a man with a destiny. Snape is willing to die to bring down LV (at least he's willing to risk death to do so.) So he might be excused for thinking Harry would feel the same way. He provides the tools Harry needs for his task, and at last, gives him the information he needs. I don't think Snape wanted to die, and I don't think he wanted Harry to die. But even Lily, James, and Sirius expect Harry to risk the sacrifice. It's what they did. From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Oct 17 12:22:40 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:22:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> Oh well, I like to imagine that Lily would give him a well deserved > kick or many in the afterlife. > Leah: But, like it or not, ResurrectionStone!Lily is totally onside with the idea of Harry dying- she's so proud of him. She's not advising him to ignore Dumbledore and Snape and get the heck out of it. There's no suggestion that Snape is ever happy in going along with Dumbledore's plans for Harry, whereas Harry's parents and godfather are really gung- ho about it. I can imagine Snape finding the whole scene rather disturbing - I certainly did. Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 17 12:48:31 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:48:31 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184680 > Leah: But, like it or not, ResurrectionStone!Lily is totally onside > with the idea of Harry dying- she's so proud of him. She's not advising > him to ignore Dumbledore and Snape and get the heck out of it. There's > no suggestion that Snape is ever happy in going along with Dumbledore's > plans for Harry, whereas Harry's parents and godfather are really gung- > ho about it. I can imagine Snape finding the whole scene rather > disturbing - I certainly did. Alla: I did not, although had it been alive Lily I may have. What is resurrection stone Lily? If she is just the shadow of the alive one, wouldn't it mean that it is half of happening in Harry's head anyways? So of course he would imagine his parents and godfather supporting him, to give himself extra courage etc? If this was a full soul of Lily, meaning that she shares all the thoughts of the alive one, wouldn't she see that Harry is set on his task and to support him is better than to cry? Potioncat: But even Lily, James, and Sirius expect Harry to risk the sacrifice. It's what they did. Alla: See above. It is just a different issue to me from Snape being Harry's "protector", that's all. JMO, Alla From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Oct 17 12:50:04 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:50:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > > Yes, I understand all that, but that to me means that Snape cannot be > > called Harry's protector, but faithful follower of Dumbledore's plans > > to do to the boy whatever he decides and it also means to me that > > Snape really does not give a d*mn whether he is dead or alive, Harry > > I mean. > > > Potioncat: > But, by this point, Harry is no longer a boy. He's a man--a man with a > destiny. Snape is willing to die to bring down LV (at least he's > willing to risk death to do so.) So he might be excused for thinking > Harry would feel the same way. He provides the tools Harry needs for > his task, and at last, gives him the information he needs. I don't > think Snape wanted to die, and I don't think he wanted Harry to die. > But even Lily, James, and Sirius expect Harry to risk the sacrifice. > It's what they did. Leah: Just a quick addition to Potion Cat's response, then I'll shut up on this one. 1. We don't have any insight into Snape's feelings on Harry's death after the 'pig to slaughter' speech. We see Snape co-operating with the Seven Potters plan to keep Harry safe in his removal from Privet Drive and we see him bring the Sword of Gryffidor to Harry. He has been told that he should not talk to Harry about the scar horcrux until Nagini is being protected, and the only opportunity he gets is to give Harry his dying memories. We don't know what would have happened if Snape had talked to Harry in Hogwarts instead of being driven out, what Snape's feelings would have been, whether for example he would have gone to Voldemort with Harry, to at least be there in support. It seems unfair to say that he doesn't give a d*mn about Harry's life or death when we have no evidence on that, other than the 'pig to the slaughter' speech which suggests he does care. It's like saying that if in war an officer gives an order to his men (not that Snape does give an order) which may very well result in their deaths, instead of telling them to desert, he doesn't give a damn whether they live or die. 2. The fact that his scar is a horcrux is something Harry needs to know. The decision as to what to do with that information is Harry's. Snape is not taking him at wandpoint to die. Snape himself is dead by the time Harry learns that information, and Harry is perfectly free to decide that the boy must not die. Withholding a piece of information from Harry which has very serious implications for him whether he decides to live or die is not protecting him. Putting him (for once in Harry's life) in full possession of the facts, or at least the facts as they are known to Snape, so that Harry can make informed decisons is more protective than keeping him in the dark. Leah From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 17 16:56:24 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:56:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184682 Alla: > > Pippin, quite honestly I do not find anything that you wrote in the > snipped part of the paragraph relevant to the point I am making at > all. Pippin: The safety of Harry's soul is irrelevant? Harry's quality of life is irrelevant??? Snape finally accepts he has a duty to Lily that goes beyond keeping Harry physically safe, and it's irrelevant ?????? Who are you, and what have you done with the real Alla? Alla: > I am saying that he did not fulfill his promise to protect **Harry**, that's all. Pippin: The soul in the Potterverse is the seat of self, sentience, will and, in Harry's case, intellect. The body that survives without it can only "lie huddled and blank-eyed, slumped against a wall" though it is still a living, breathing entity. How can Snape agree to protect Harry, and not agree to protect the most precious part of him? I don't think you are crazy, Alla, but do you understand that at this point in the story, the baby that Lily died to protect no longer exists? Lily did not die so her child could live forever. She died so that her baby could have the chance to grow up and become a man, make his own choices, and decide for himself, as she did, what is worth dying for. Snape was asked to protect him for the same reason. He did not know it at the time, never having been a parent, but IMO, he came to understand it. It could be a bit creepy, I guess, that both men, Snape and Harry, accept that Harry must die without asking Dumbledore if he is quite sure that it is necessary. But only if you see them as children. The adult who is given a difficult task does not reply "Aww, do I have to?" Snape and Harry have both seen enough to understand that everyone dies, that for all their striving to survive, the best anyone can ever hope for is to die at the right moment. That's not being a pig for slaughter. It's being a grownup. I'm not really into JKR's mysticism, but it's clear to me that there are two kinds of life in the story. There's physical life, and then there's a spiritual life that begins in physical existence but whose ultimate purpose is to continue beyond it. The ghosts' "pale imitation of life" is a pale imitation of *that* life. I hope that Snape is right, and their actual souls have departed. But you see, even he and Hermione, who are very unspiritual sorts, never doubt that souls exist, are much more precious than physical lives and are the essence of a person. Only a character as lost to truth as Voldemort would think that protecting someone means ensuring their existence as a damaged soul. And in a world where souls can be damaged, is it not inevitable by the laws of chance that every soul will be damaged if it stays there long enough? Pippin From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Oct 17 17:36:57 2008 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:36:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <> So there's > definitely a little switcheroo going on here with Snape. > > He originally agreed to protect Harry's physical life because Lily > > would want Harry alive and well. This is not the same as > > safeguarding Harry until the best time for him to be killed. > > The first scenario is what Snape takes > > to be Lily's wishes; the second is Dumbledore's wishes. > > Snape could have chosen to defy Dumbledore but didn't. Would > > Lily have made the same choice? Quite possibly not. Snape's > > motivation regarding Harry was originally that Lily would want > > him personally protected and not that Lily would want Voldemort > > defeated. I mean, of course Lily *did* want Voldemort defeated, > > but Dumbledore is switching around > > the priorities. Lily would presumably have died > > thinking that Harry's safety was one of her reasons for wanting > > Voldemort defeated. He changes it Harry's death being a necessary > > sacrifice for Voldemort's defeat. Dumbledore merely used Lily's > > desire to protect Harry to suck Snape in and after that replaced > > that with his own agenda. > > > > Leah: Yes,this is quite right, and I remember being surprised > in 'The Prince's Tale' when we skipped from "Always" to Snape going > along with Dumbledore's plan. I wanted a scene in between looking > at what Snape was thinking, because the switch didn't make that much > sense. I also think a story line in which Snape didn't go along > with Dumbledore's plan but had to work with Harry to find an > alternative would have been quite interesting but obviously not what > JKR wanted to tell us. > > The logic gap is why I suggested that Snape had just enough > information and knowledge of Dumbledore to think the old whatsit was > up to something, and that Snape had better not interfere in it. That > way he could still hope that he was still protecting Harry in some > unknown way. > > Equally, he could have just concluded as Pippin said, that saving > the wizarding world from Voldemort was more important than saving > Harry's life by eg. changing his memory and sending him off to > Australia. Snape got quite a lot of stick after DH for leaving > Voldemort because of Lily rather than because of any moral epiphany, > so had he stuck to his task of physically protecting Harry and let > the rest of the world go hang under Voldemort's rule, I do think he > would certainly have been accused of lacking moral courage. > > The other thought is that perhaps Horcrux!Harry could not be > protected except in the short-term. Voldemort could not die while > the scar horcrux remained and if he ruled and increased in power, > perhaps his hold over the scar horcrux would increase. Even if > Voldemort were to be disabled in some way, for example by having a > Dementor suck his own soul piece, it might be that the soul piece in > Harry would gain in power, (a bit like the power of the diary soul > over Ginny). Pure speculation of course, but the Prophecy did say > that neither could 'live' while the other survived. > > As to Lily's reaction, I rather hope that she would have wanted her > child to live - suicide cheerleader Lily was very off putting IMO. > > Leah > I find this discussion absolutely fascinating. Snape promised Dumbledore "anything" and subsequently reaffirmed his commitment to keep Lily's son safe, then turned his back on the "safe" part of the promise when he took in the information that Harry had to die. He told Dumbledore he only watched those die whom he could not save. Is the Greater Good of the books accepting and even planning for harm to come to the least in order to benefit the most? If so, how would Snape have arrived at accepting that -- through the mere act of following Dumbledore's orders, even knowing he'd been misled and was still not receiving the entire truth from Dumbledore? It seems so unlike the once-skeptical Snape. Was the alternative, Voldemort triumphant, so horrible that Snape went along with the only plan on offer, even if, as far as he was probably aware, only Dumbledore knew the plan and wasn't sharing it? Harry, like Snape, received incomplete information from Dumbledore, yet Harry did exactly what Snape did. He accepted the need to sacrifice for Dumbledore's plan, and he did so without seeming to think about it much, the motivation being... wanting to protect the many, faith in Dumbledore, love of a kind... ? Even with Dumbledore's emotional manipulation, both Harry and Snape had a choice. They chose to follow Dumbledore, whose Greater Good included the choice to sacrifice their lives and, in Snape's case, the choice to perhaps sacrifice his soul. Anyway, fascinating discussion, from which I am trying to piece together the HP worldview. lealess From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Fri Oct 17 18:34:01 2008 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:34:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184684 Snip: > > Alla: > > I am not asking you to LOL. We had have long discussions on whether > Snape is an abuser, abuser of authority, super strict teacher, fair > teacher or none of the above in the past and nothing made me change > my mind about Snape being an abuser. Knowing how many people are > tired of the dreaded A word, I am trying unless I do not consider it > very relevant not to bring it up often. Carla: I haven't been checking the boards as often as I used to, but I did stumble across this and wanted to point something out. If this has been mentioned before, I apologize. I think it was imperative that Snape treat Harry just as he did. It was important for his role in keeping the trust of Voldy and the death eaters and to protect Harry. While the "dark side" believed that Snape hated Harry and had his eye on him, no one else would be sent to do the job. Harry also needed to believe that Snape truly hated him for the deception to be believable. As a child, had he known Snapes true convictions, he may have slipped. I think Snape hated that Harry was James' son. I don't think he truly hated Harry completely. Had he, I don't think he would have revealed to Harry everything when he was dying. I think he would have just given Harry what he needed to know....not all the small details. Just a thought. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 17 20:20:07 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:20:07 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184686 Pippin: Snape and Harry have both seen enough to understand that everyone dies, that for all their striving to survive, the best anyone can ever hope for is to die at the right moment. That's not being a pig for slaughter. It's being a grownup. Alla: You see when I read stuff like that is when I start to doubt myself. Where in canon do you see that Snape thought that he made a promise to protect Harry with damaged soul? It just feels as if you are stretching big time, trying to include in **protection of Harry** something that Snape never knew was there in the first place. So now when I am reading Snape's promise to Dumbledore, what I am supposed to understand Snape actually saying is not that he is promising to protect Lily's son from great danger, but that he is promising to protect his soul from being damaged and if he cannot do so, then he would go ahead and agree that dying is the best thing for Harry. Souls exist in Potterverse, of course they do. I just do not see what Snape's initial promise had to do with souls. Soul's spiritual life is super important in Potterverse, of course it is, I just do not see anything in Snape and Dumbledore final conversation that makes me believe that what Dumbledore is actually saying is that Harry has to die for the good of his soul and what Snape is actually saying ? oh yes, that is why it is in line with my promise and I agree that for him to die is the best thing. As littleleah said, Snape is not taking Harry at gunpoint to die, thank goodness for that, but boy I would never say that he is protecting him either based on last conversation. I have no issue with Harry's choice to die, oh and by the way I completely of the opinion that he figured out completely on his own that Dumbledore's plan is a good one for the good of the mankind and all that. I have no problem with that. I adore Harry for that. But you are absolutely right ? to hear Snape agreeing with it and then to think that he was supposed to be his protector, that is a bit creepy to me. Magpie: This has always been the theory, but I don't see how it works. First, there's no proof that any DEs were watching Snape in the years before Voldemort returned to make sure he was acting like he hated Harry. Snape could keep an eye on Harry without acting like he hated them. Lucius Malfoy himself tells Draco isn't not prudent to be known to hate Harry. Alla: Yes, yes, yes. I have never heard an argument about how exactly that would be better for Snape the spy to hate Harry which I understood. I am not even talking about agreeing or disagreeing with it, I just do not get how it supposed to work. Voldemort thinks that Snape is spying **for him**, so of course he would want Snape to be respected by Dumbledore IMO, you know to be closer to get the goods on him and to be closer, means be closer to Dumbledore's chosen one, no? JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 17 20:21:16 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:21:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184687 > Carla: > I haven't been checking the boards as often as I used to, but I did > stumble across this and wanted to point something out. If this has > been mentioned before, I apologize. > > I think it was imperative that Snape treat Harry just as he did. It > was important for his role in keeping the trust of Voldy and the death > eaters and to protect Harry. While the "dark side" believed that > Snape hated Harry and had his eye on him, no one else would be sent to > do the job. > > Harry also needed to believe that Snape truly hated him for the > deception to be believable. As a child, had he known Snapes true > convictions, he may have slipped. > > I think Snape hated that Harry was James' son. I don't think he truly > hated Harry completely. Had he, I don't think he would have revealed > to Harry everything when he was dying. I think he would have just > given Harry what he needed to know....not all the small details. Magpie: This has always been the theory, but I don't see how it works. First, there's no proof that any DEs were watching Snape in the years before Voldemort returned to make sure he was acting like he hated Harry. Snape could keep an eye on Harry without acting like he hated him. Lucius Malfoy himself tells Draco it isn't prudent to be known to hate Harry. Draco approaches Harry in a friendly way (for him) when he meets him. We know that Lucius is trying to play down his DE past since he claimed he was under Imperius, but he obviously knows that being nice to Harry=/=liking Harry. The most loyal DE sent to Hogwarts to get Harry was also the nicest to him. Snape's hatred of Harry undermined him for both sides since anyone that Harry likes and trusts is going to have more power over him. When Snape defends himself to Bellatrix he doesn't mention picking on Harry as proof of anything. Then there's the fact that we know that hatred of James really is a huge motivating factor for Harry. When Snape breaks down and says what he really feels he does rant about James and Harry being like him. We can split hairs between whether he hates him because of James or "truly hates him completely" but that's just sort of muddying the waters the slightest bit. Quirrel says back in PS/SS what Snape's attitude is: he hates Harry but he doesn't want him dead. He's on the same side as Harry the entire time. (I believe outside of canon JKR said that Snape hated Harry until the end.) I don't think the memories he very luckily has a chance to give Harry prove that any of the dislike he showed in the past was fake. He had good reasons without secretly liking Harry more than he let on for wanting him--for wanting somebody--to know the truth. -m From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com Fri Oct 17 20:34:58 2008 From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:34:58 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184688 Carla: I think Snape hated that Harry was James' son. I don't think he truly hated Harry completely. Had he, I don't think he would have revealed to Harry everything when he was dying. I think he would have just given Harry what he needed to know....not all the small details. Philip: How exactly does Snape force the memories from his mind? This was one of the sections where there was magic I didn't see/understand. Thanks for your commentary on this it has been very interesting Philip No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.8.1/1727 - Release Date: 15/10/2008 20:02 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 17 23:48:29 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:48:29 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184689 > Alla: > > You see when I read stuff like that is when I start to doubt myself. > Where in canon do you see that Snape thought that he made a promise > to protect Harry with damaged soul? > It just feels as if you are stretching big time Pippin: And to me, it feels as if you are putting constraints on Snape's promise that are not there in canon. Where do you see canon that Snape promised to protect Harry only from the dangers that he understood at the time? Let me tell you, when I undertook to protect my children, I did not get that choice. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 00:08:34 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:08:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184690 > Pippin: > Where do you see canon that Snape promised to protect Harry only from > the dangers that he understood at the time? Alla: Nowhere just as I do not see anywhere in canon that word protection means agreeing that Harry has to die. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 06:22:33 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:22:33 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184691 > Alla: > > Absolutely, I totally accept as valid argument that we can call Snape > protector of other people through Harry's death. I just do not call > him **Harry's protector**. Montavilla47: Perhaps not after the discussion with Dumbledore, but up until that point, he was Harry's protector. I'm not sure why you are basing everything on the last year and a half of Snape's life when it's very clear that for the five and a half years previously, he had been very much Harry's protector. > Leah: > > He may conclude that he would not be protecting Harry to let him > > live on as a horcrux in a world where Voldemort rules. As I have > > said in another post, what shows more moral courage, to say, "I am > > so obsessively in love with Lily that I will continue my narrow > > interpretation of the word I gave to Dumbledore, I will continue to > > keep her son alive whatever the cost", or, "I will do what I am > > asked in the hope that the world will be saved from a great evil"? > > Alla: > > Yes, I understand all that, but that to me means that Snape cannot be > called Harry's protector, but faithful follower of Dumbledore's plans > to do to the boy whatever he decides and it also means to me that > Snape really does not give a d*mn whether he is dead or alive, Harry > I mean. Montavilla47: I think you're interpreting against the text here. There's no reason for Snape to object to Dumbledore raising Harry as a pig to the slaughter if he doesn't give a damn whether Harry lives or not. He obviously cares, even if, as the text does suggest, he cares only because of his love for Lily and not for any feelings towards Harry himself. Honestly, I see that moment as deliberately ambiguous. You can read it as Snape affirming that everything is for Lily, Lily, Lily. Or you can read it as Snape protesting too much. But even if he cares only for Lily's sake, it's obvious that he cares quite deeply. Alla: > He thought they were keeping him alive, as in his boss' plan was to > keep him alive, now he is surprised that plan is different and now > they proceed that road. Montavilla47: This part, I do agree with. Just to let you know. It's odd that if Snape's entire reason for living is (as it seems to be) to keep Lily's boy alive, that he agrees to this cockamamie plan of Dumbledore's to kill Harry off. Which is why we have to come up with these different interpretations. There's no clear motivation for Snape to act as he does. So, here's another crazy theory to throw into the mix: When Snape first turns away from Voldemort, it's all because of his fixation on Lily. Dumbledore understands this, but accepts Snape's conversion, even if it's tainted by a selfish obsession. Whatever. But he then tries to subtly nudge that narrow love for *one* person into a more general love of mankind. Or wizardkind. So, he puts Snape in charge of the Slytherin House and allows Snape to favor his own little snakes. Because, even if it isn't fair, it's a demonstration of a widening circle of concern for Snape. As Harry arrives, Snape is forced to exhibit concern for at least the physical well-being of someone outside that circle. And, although perhaps he continues to favor his own House, that trickle of concern grows so that, by PoA, we find him taking care to put even an enemy onto a stretcher. Perhaps that conversation between Dumbledore and Snape at the Yule Ball surprised Dumbledore into realizing that Snape had become more attached to the school than he realized. A Snape who didn't care about his students might well have fled, like Karkaroff. And perhaps that prompts Dumbledore to realize how valuable a tool Snape is--not just because he can spy on Voldemort, but because he can protect the school in the event that Dumbledore cannot. So, instead of Snape being the same at the beginning of the series and at the end in his views about life, the universe, and everything, there is an evolution that takes place over several years. One that is almost invisible to the reader because we're looking at the world through the eyes of a young boy, who naturally wouldn't expect adults to grow or change. Alla: > Believe it or not, I was actually very pleasantly surprised when > Snape expressed his disagreement with Dumbledore but now I believe > that it was not disagreement at all. After all, if Dumbledore says > Harry needs to die for the greater good or whatever reason Snape does > his best to follow the plan. Montavilla47: If Snape wasn't expressing disagreement at that point, what do you think he was expressing? Alla: > On my good days I do think that Dumbledore thought that there may be > a hope for Harry's survival, but I absolutely do not see that Snape > could have somehow learned about it. > > Therefore I conclude that besides treating Harry unfairly all his > life, Snape did not care whether he is dead or alive had it been for > Dumbledore. Montavilla47: On my good days, I think that perhaps Snape suspected there was a chance. But I agree that there isn't any textual evidence for that inference. But I don't see that it follows that, because Snape went along with Dumbledore's plan, he didn't care. Dumbledore *loved* Harry, but he was the one who came up with the plan! Had Voldemort not made the mistake of using Harry's blood for his rebirthing ritual, Dumbledore would still have had Harry sacrifice himself. Alla: > The funny thing is that for some time after DH I actually thought > that Snape indeed did not want Harry dead. This debate helped me > realize that he did not care about that part either and if Lily's son > dropped dead, he would be quite fine with that whether for the > greater good or not IMO. I certainly did not see him fighting with > Dumbledore and saying oh no you need to come up with another plan. Montavilla47: Neither did Harry, and he certainly cared whether he lived or died! We readers may find Dumbledore's plans pretty silly, but almost all the characters in the series regard his plans as the best. The only person who rejected one of Dumbledore's plans was James, who insisted on using Sirius as his secret-keeper when Dumbledore offered to be it. As it turned out, that was a pretty bad decision for James, who ended up dead. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 13:56:33 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:56:33 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184692 > > Alla: > > > > Absolutely, I totally accept as valid argument that we can call Snape > > protector of other people through Harry's death. I just do not call > > him **Harry's protector**. > > Montavilla47: > Perhaps not after the discussion with Dumbledore, but up until > that point, he was Harry's protector. I'm not sure why you are > basing everything on the last year and a half of Snape's life > when it's very clear that for the five and a half years previously, > he had been very much Harry's protector. Alla: Ah, well you are right of course. Remember that what I was originally responding to was the argument that Snape kept his promise to protect Harry. I stand by my response that he did not keep that promise IMO. But I think that I should be forgiven for getting carried away and writing that I do not call him protector of Harry's *life* in general instead of concentrating on saying that I do not believe that he was Harry's protector at the end. So yeah, agreed as to that. > > Alla: > > > > Yes, I understand all that, but that to me means that Snape cannot be > > called Harry's protector, but faithful follower of Dumbledore's plans > > to do to the boy whatever he decides and it also means to me that > > Snape really does not give a d*mn whether he is dead or alive, Harry > > I mean. > > Montavilla47: > I think you're interpreting against the text here. There's no reason > for Snape to object to Dumbledore raising Harry as a pig to the > slaughter if he doesn't give a damn whether Harry lives or not. > He obviously cares, even if, as the text does suggest, he cares > only because of his love for Lily and not for any feelings towards > Harry himself. > > Honestly, I see that moment as deliberately ambiguous. You can > read it as Snape affirming that everything is for Lily, Lily, Lily. Or > you can read it as Snape protesting too much. But even if he > cares only for Lily's sake, it's obvious that he cares quite deeply. Alla: Actually that was my feeling all along and it is not anymore. And well, if you feel that my interpretation is against the text, we have to agree to disagree here. So my interpretation all along was that yes, Snape cared and yes of course I interpreted that he cared for the sake of Lily, I would never interpret that he cared for Harry for Harry's sake, but I thought he cared for Lily's. Now, I still understand the interpretation that he cared to keep Lily's son alive, but I do not share it anymore. I mean no scratch that before I get carried away again. I am sure he wanted to keep Lily's son alive for the sake of his atonement, guilt, whatever. I just think that all of that took very secondary seat as soon as Dumbledore's orders changed. Here is the conversation, anything that I am not typing up is not being done deliberately, but just because I do not feel it is relevant and it is a long quote to type up, so if you feel I missed something relevant, please feel free to correct me. I am starting with Snape's response: "So the boy... the boy must die?" asked Snape, quite calmly. "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential." Another long silence. Then Snape said, "I thought... all these years... that we were protecting him for her. For Lily" "We had been protecting him because it had been essential to teach him, to raise him, to let him try his strength," said Dumbledore, his eyes still tight shut. "Meanwhile, the connection between them grows even stronger, a parasitic growth: sometimes I have thought he suspects it himself. If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort." Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?" "Lately, only those whom I could not save," said Snape. He stood up. "You have used me." "Meaning?" "I have spied for you, and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter-" "But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?" "For him?" shouted Snape. "Expecto Patronum!" ? DH, p.551 Alla: So what do I hear Snape saying when he hears that Dumbledore wants Harry to die? First he is making sure that he heard correctly, yes? And he does it quite *calmly*. I do not know about you, but I get the impression when Snape is truly upset he is going CAPSLOCK, almost like somebody else. Remember Shrieking Shack? I do not hear him screaming, I do not even hear him **objecting**. Where do you see him objecting in this scene? Where do you see him saying you need to come with another plan, Dumbledore? Oh sure he voices his shock and surprise. Again, I agree that he does want for **Lily's son** to live, I am not saying that he does not have motivation, I am saying that he forgets about it awfully fast IMO and all of it takes second seat to Dumbledore's orders. I grant you one thing, I forgot that Snape looks horrified when he listens to Dumbledore, but still for somebody who truly cares about keeping Lily's son alive, he does not express it clear enough to me at all. I also forgot how Dumbledore neatly avoids answering the question "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" In fact that makes me believe even more that he thought Harry's chances could be pretty good. But since I do not believe Snape knew, I do not think it matters for the topic at hand at all. > Montavilla47: > If Snape wasn't expressing disagreement at that point, what do you > think he was expressing? Alla: I believe that he was expressing surprise and may be even shock, but I do not see disagreement here. > Montavilla47: > Neither did Harry, and he certainly cared whether he lived or died! > > We readers may find Dumbledore's plans pretty silly, but almost all > the characters in the series regard his plans as the best. Alla: Yes and as I said upthread, I believe Harry thought about it and independently decided that Dumbledore's plan is good. I have no problems whatsoever with Harry deciding that. I have an issue with Dumbledore devising this plan, although as I said, I think he thought that possibility of survival is there. JMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 15:22:26 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:22:26 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184693 > Alla: > Now, I still understand the interpretation that he cared to keep > Lily's son alive, but I do not share it anymore. I mean no scratch > that before I get carried away again. I am sure he wanted to keep > Lily's son alive for the sake of his atonement, guilt, whatever. I > just think that all of that took very secondary seat as soon as > Dumbledore's orders changed. > > Here is the conversation, anything that I am not typing up is not > being done deliberately, but just because I do not feel it is > relevant and it is a long quote to type up, so if you feel I missed > something relevant, please feel free to correct me. I am starting > with Snape's response: Montvillla47: Thanks for typing it up, Alla. I'm going to cut into your quote to comment on what I think is happening in the conversation. Alla (quoting the text): > "So the boy... the boy must die?" asked Snape, quite calmly. > "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential." > Another long silence. Then Snape said, "I thought... all these > years... that we were protecting him for her. For Lily" Montavilla47: The calmness Snape shows is not acceptance. It's shock and denial. This is sort of following that K?bler-Ross model of people's reaction to death or loss. She stated that there are five stages that people go through: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and finally, Acceptance. Alla (quoting the text): > "We had been protecting him because it had been essential to teach > him, to raise him, to let him try his strength," said Dumbledore, his > eyes still tight shut. "Meanwhile, the connection between them grows > even stronger, a parasitic growth: sometimes I have thought he > suspects it himself. If I know him, he will have arranged matters so > that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the > end of Voldemort." > Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. > Montavilla47: Again, horror. Snape is still in shock at this point. But he'll move swiftly into anger. Alla (quoting the text): > "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" > "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched > die?" > "Lately, only those whom I could not save," said Snape. He stood > up. "You have used me." > "Meaning?" > "I have spied for you, and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger > for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son > safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for > slaughter-" > "But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. > "Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?" > "For him?" shouted Snape. "Expecto Patronum!" ? DH, p.551 Montavilla47: And there we have the anger. I don't care if there are capslocks or not. I don't care if we don't see spittle flying from Snape's foaming mouth. He's angry and he's shouting. We don't see him go through the other steps. And K?bler-Ross notes that no everyone does, so maybe he didn't go through them. Maybe he did and JKR didn't bother to show it. What I don't see is Snape in this scene ever actually coming to acceptance. Obviously he eventually did. But I don't see it in this scene. One interesting thing about this scene (and the one that comes before it) is that this all happens before Harry and Draco duel and Snape makes Harry's life even more miserable than usual with his infamous card detentions. Since a lot of stuff Snape does is for reasons not clear in the text, I'm not sure what's going on with that still. Is Snape, knowing that Harry is going to have to sacrifice himself, just trying to get in as many licks as possible? Is he angry at what he knows he's going to have to do next year and projecting this at Harry? Is it genuine concern for Harry's soul? Is he worried about that soul-bit of Voldemort doing something bad if he has his Saturday's free? Or is it just that he feels, having once been nearly killed by classmates, that near murder warrants severe punishment? Or did JKR forget that she put this scene before the detentions started? (Dumbledore's remark about Snape putting Harry in detention seems to imply that it's after the bathroom duel.) Inquiring minds want to know! Another thing I'd note is that, among Snape supporters anyway, there's a general consensus that Snape is protecting Harry in "The Flight of the Prince." So, although this is after Dumbledore told Snape about Harry needing to die, Snape is trying to prevent Harry from harm (until he gets angry at Harry's taunting). Which makes it fun in retrospect because he still can't stand the kid. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 15:53:28 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:53:28 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184694 > Montvillla47: > Thanks for typing it up, Alla. I'm going to cut into your quote > to comment on what I think is happening in the conversation. Alla: Sure :) > > Alla (quoting the text): > > "So the boy... the boy must die?" asked Snape, quite calmly. > > "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential." > > Another long silence. Then Snape said, "I thought... all these > > years... that we were protecting him for her. For Lily" > > > Montavilla47: > The calmness Snape shows is not acceptance. It's shock and > denial. This is sort of following that K?bler-Ross model > of people's reaction to death or loss. She stated that there > are five stages that people go through: Denial, Anger, > Bargaining, Depression, and finally, Acceptance. Alla: I accept it as intepretation, but how do we know that it is what you say it is? I mean, you could be right, but so do I IMO. > Montavilla47: > And there we have the anger. I don't care if there are > capslocks or not. I don't care if we don't see spittle flying > from Snape's foaming mouth. He's angry and he's shouting. Alla: Absolutely. Snape moves to anger when and only when Dumbledore suggests that he cares for the boy and Snape IMO is angry that Dumbledore could ever think that. I just do not see how you connect his anger with the Dumbledore's decision that Snape has to die. Montavilla47: > We don't see him go through the other steps. And K?bler-Ross > notes that no everyone does, so maybe he didn't go through > them. Maybe he did and JKR didn't bother to show it. Alla: Or maybe JKR was not thinking about it at all. Montavilla47: > What I don't see is Snape in this scene ever actually coming > to acceptance. Obviously he eventually did. But I don't see it > in this scene. Alla: You mean we do not see him saying yes I will do it in that scene? True, we don't, but we do not see him saying no I will not do it either and coupled with the fact that he in fact followed Dumbledore's plan, to me proof is in the pudding that he accepted and followed it. Montavilla47: >> Is Snape, knowing that Harry is going to have to sacrifice > himself, just trying to get in as many licks as possible? Is > he angry at what he knows he's going to have to do next > year and projecting this at Harry? Is it genuine concern > for Harry's soul? Is he worried about that soul-bit of > Voldemort doing something bad if he has his Saturday's free? Alla: I vote One :) Montavilla47: > Or is it just that he feels, having once been nearly killed > by classmates, that near murder warrants severe > punishment? Alla: I LOVE the book "Count Monte Cristo". I have no problem with Edmon Dantes who suffered in hell for fourteen years being betrayed by his closest friends thinking that sins of the fathers should fall on their children. I mean, I disagree with that, but I completely excuse him and of course I have no problem with him executing revenge upon said "friends". But even Edmond Dantes eventually saves those children instead of punishing them, for the most part anyways. But if Snape thinks that because he was played a prank in school which yes, could have gotten him killed, but where no force in making him to go in the tunnel was involved, if he thinks that the child of the man who saved him needs to die for it, then I hope that he burns in whatever version of Potterverse imaginary hell for all eternity. As I stated many time, I have no problem with Snape holding grudge against Marauders, I think it is childish, but whatever, he has that right in my view. But to make a long story short, I hope this was not Snape's motivation. Montavilla47: > Another thing I'd note is that, among Snape supporters > anyway, there's a general consensus that Snape is protecting > Harry in "The Flight of the Prince." So, although this is after > Dumbledore told Snape about Harry needing to die, Snape > is trying to prevent Harry from harm (until he gets angry at > Harry's taunting). Which makes it fun in retrospect because > he still can't stand the kid. Alla: Hmm, sure I can see how he was protecting Harry from harm. He was protecting Harry to make sure Dumbledore's plan is going to go forward and Harry will die when Dumbledore thinks it is time, no earlier than that. Which to me in retrospect is fun indeed, but for different reason than for you. Scene supposedly suggests that Snape protects the boy for Voldemort to deal as he see fit, while in reality IMO Snape protects him for Dumbledore to deal as he see fits. It is ironic if you ask me. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 18 17:23:28 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:23:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184695 > Alla: > > Nowhere just as I do not see anywhere in canon that word protection > means agreeing that Harry has to die. > Pippin: Haven't you and Montavilla just concluded that nowhere does Snape agree to it? What Snape is ordered to do is tell Harry, when the time comes, that Voldemort cannot die until the soul bit within Harry has been destroyed, and that Harry must die at Voldemort's hands to accomplish this. That's all. Snape is not ordered to make sure that Harry agrees. Snape is never told to stop protecting Harry. He is not ordered to *let* Voldemort kill Harry. As Dumbledore reminds him, it is often beyond Snape's power to save the lives of people he is helping Dumbledore protect, including Dumbledore himself. This time is not likely to be different. Voldemort is no longer hiding in the body of a weak wizard whose curses can easily be countered by Snape. Snape, who does not love Harry, does not have the power to protect him the way Lily did, not that Voldemort is likely to give him the choice. Nor has Snape ever been effectual at keeping Harry from getting anywhere Harry really wanted to go. Once Harry was ready to confront Voldemort, there would have been !@#$ Snape could do about it, dead or alive. In any case, Snape was not released from his promise to protect Harry. All that changed was the reason for the protection. If Snape knew of an alternative method of destroying soul bits, there would have been nothing to stop him from telling Harry what it was. Except...the realization that Dumbledore, who did love Harry, would not have suggested that Harry endure what was likely to be a painful and humiliating death without an ulterior motive. All the DE's in the graveyard were told that Voldemort had used Harry's blood, carrying Lily's protection, to resurrect himself. Snape would not have failed to learn of it. Snape himself may not be a specialist in love magic. But he knows that Dumbledore is. Wouldn't Snape guess that something unexpected might happen if Voldemort tried to kill Harry again, especially with Dumbledore dropping broad hints by keeping his eyes tight shut? Dumbledore is hardly such a slouch at occlumency that he can't do it with his eyes open. Pippin From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 17:39:43 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:39:43 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184696 > > Alla (quoting the text): > > > "So the boy... the boy must die?" asked Snape, quite calmly. > > > "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential." > > > Another long silence. Then Snape said, "I thought... all these > > > years... that we were protecting him for her. For Lily" > > > > > > Montavilla47: > > The calmness Snape shows is not acceptance. It's shock and > > denial. This is sort of following that K?bler-Ross model > > of people's reaction to death or loss. She stated that there > > are five stages that people go through: Denial, Anger, > > Bargaining, Depression, and finally, Acceptance. > > Alla: > > I accept it as intepretation, but how do we know that it is what you > say it is? I mean, you could be right, but so do I IMO. Montavilla47: Of course. Things are seldom clear cut in stories. We all have to interpret what we read. And much as I enjoy arguing with you about all this (and I do!), there is no right or wrong about it. > > Montavilla47: > > And there we have the anger. I don't care if there are > > capslocks or not. I don't care if we don't see spittle flying > > from Snape's foaming mouth. He's angry and he's shouting. > > Alla: > > Absolutely. Snape moves to anger when and only when Dumbledore > suggests that he cares for the boy and Snape IMO is angry that > Dumbledore could ever think that. I just do not see how you connect > his anger with the Dumbledore's decision that Snape has to die. Montavilla47: I think he moves completely into anger when Dumbledore suggests that he cares about Harry. But I think it's building throughout that passage, when he accuses Dumbledore of lying to him and using him. > Montavilla47: > > We don't see him go through the other steps. And K?bler-Ross > > notes that no everyone does, so maybe he didn't go through > > them. Maybe he did and JKR didn't bother to show it. > > Alla: > > Or maybe JKR was not thinking about it at all. Montavilla47: She probably wasn't thinking consciously about K?bler-Ross. I know I had to look up the model on Wiki to remember exactly what the stages were. But if you know the characters and imagine how they would act in the given circumstances, it's hard not to have an an initial reaction of shock from Snape. That's the way I'd approach it, if I were writing such a scene. I don't really know what JKR's process is, so I can only go off my own process. > Montavilla47: > > What I don't see is Snape in this scene ever actually coming > > to acceptance. Obviously he eventually did. But I don't see it > > in this scene. > > Alla: > > You mean we do not see him saying yes I will do it in that scene? > True, we don't, but we do not see him saying no I will not do it > either and coupled with the fact that he in fact followed > Dumbledore's plan, to me proof is in the pudding that he accepted and > followed it. Montavilla47: Yes, of course he did. As did Harry. It's just the readers like us who keep expressing anger, trying to come up with other solutions, and get depressed. :) But accepting it doesn't mean that Snape didn't care. Which is what you are arguing. Hmm. I was going to say, "Just because don't see Snape crying...." But we do see that, don't we? We see Snape with tears running off the edge of his nose while he stares at Lily's picture. I don't blame anyone for forgetting that moment, because I tend to blank it out, but it shows him expressing deep grief. Is he so heartbroken because he's suddenly reminded about the girl he loved? Is he heartbroken because she wrote "love, Lily" to Sirius and not to him? Is he heartbroken because he's now committed to a plan that means he's betraying his goal of protecting her son? Again, this is evidence that he cares. It's certainly not proof, but I don't think it's possible for us to get clear proof. > Montavilla47: > > Or is it just that he feels, having once been nearly killed > > by classmates, that near murder warrants severe > > punishment? > > Alla: > But if Snape thinks that because he was played a prank in school > which yes, could have gotten him killed, but where no force in making > him to go in the tunnel was involved, if he thinks that the child of > the man who saved him needs to die for it, then I hope that he burns > in whatever version of Potterverse imaginary hell for all eternity. Montavilla47: I think you misunderstood me. The "severe punishment" that I meant was "lots of detentions in which Harry gets to read about James being a jerk" and not "death." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 22:38:44 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:38:44 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184697 Montavilla47: But accepting it doesn't mean that Snape didn't care. Which is what you are arguing. Alla: No, not quite. I am arguing that he did not care nearly enough to not accept it. I do not think it is the exact same thing. Montavilla47: Hmm. I was going to say, "Just because don't see Snape crying...." But we do see that, don't we? We see Snape with tears running off the edge of his nose while he stares at Lily's picture. I don't blame anyone for forgetting that moment, because I tend to blank it out, but it shows him expressing deep grief. Is he so heartbroken because he's suddenly reminded about the girl he loved? Is he heartbroken because she wrote "love, Lily" to Sirius and not to him? Is he heartbroken because he's now committed to a plan that means he's betraying his goal of protecting her son? Again, this is evidence that he cares. It's certainly not proof, but I don't think it's possible for us to get clear proof. Alla: That is an interesting inference, and I certainly cannot disprove it. But believe me I definitely did not forget this moment, although the creepiness of it makes me shudder every time I remember it. I suppose I am just absolutely convinced that he cried over Lily's death and nothing else and that he still cannot let go. I think the fact that he tears apart the letter makes me so convinced, that he just needs to have the piece of handwriting of his beloved in his hand and maybe pretend that it was addressed to him? But again, I totally accept your inference, disagree, but accept that it is a valid one. Alla: > But if Snape thinks that because he was played a prank in school > which yes, could have gotten him killed, but where no force in making > him to go in the tunnel was involved, if he thinks that the child of > the man who saved him needs to die for it, then I hope that he burns > in whatever version of Potterverse imaginary hell for all eternity. Montavilla47: I think you misunderstood me. The "severe punishment" that I meant was "lots of detentions in which Harry gets to read about James being a jerk" and not "death." Alla: It is funny because when I reread my initial answer, I thought that I indeed may have misunderstood you, but not in the way you just explained at all. I was rushing out the door and did not have time to ask for clarification in any event. So what I thought you may have meant after I already posted my response is that Snape thought that Harry almost getting Draco killed deserves a severe punishment, which to me would have been a perfectly **for once** fair and legit response from Snape. Now, to be absolutely clear, I absolutely do not agree that it was near murder, I think it was legit self defense, BUT since Snape was not there, I do not blame him had he arrived to that conclusion ? bleeding Draco and Harry over him. So, in any event yes indeed I did misunderstand you, sorry about that, however, no matter what kind of punishment you meant Snape may have thought Harry deserves **for something that happened when Harry was not even born yet** and Harry himself did not do, my response will be the same ? I do not believe that Harry deserves any kind of punishment for that and I hope Snape burns for all eternity in the imaginary hell if he thought that. Pippin: Haven't you and Montavilla just concluded that nowhere does Snape agree to it? Alla: Not quite no, I believe that I agreed with Montavilla that nowhere in that scene Snape says yes to it. However, I also said that nowhere in that scene he says no to it and since he eventually carries out the plan, I believe that it proves that yes indeed he agrees to do it. Pippin: What Snape is ordered to do is tell Harry, when the time comes, that Voldemort cannot die until the soul bit within Harry has been destroyed, and that Harry must die at Voldemort's hands to accomplish this. That's all. Alla: You are right, that's all. But to me it is quite enough. Pippin: Snape is not ordered to make sure that Harry agrees. Alla: Thank goodness, because if he ordered to do so, I would think of Dumbledore as a monster. I already think that he is manipulative uncaring bastard, but I do not think that he is a monster *yet* Pippin: Snape is never told to stop protecting Harry. Alla: However, what he *is* ordered to do as you described above to me goes in opposite direction from protecting Harry. Pippin: He is not ordered to *let* Voldemort kill Harry. Alla: Thank goodness, see above. Pippin: As Dumbledore reminds him, it is often beyond Snape's power to save the lives of people he is helping Dumbledore protect, including Dumbledore himself. This time is not likely to be different. Alla: And Dumbledore also says that he knows Harry. To me Dumbledore knows perfectly well that giving Harry this information will be enough for Harry to decide to carry it out. But again, let me be clear. I do **not** hold Snape responsible for Harry's decision to sacrifice himself. I fully believe it was Harry's decision, I see him thinking about the plan and deciding that it was a good one. But neither I see Snape behaving as man protecting Harry in giving this information to him. Without Snape giving him this information Harry would not have decided to do that. And again, I do not care if it was a good decision for the mankind and in essence for Harry's survival, of course it was , but we only know about it after the fact IMO and Snape had no way of knowing. Pippin: Wouldn't Snape guess that something unexpected might happen if Voldemort tried to kill Harry again, especially with Dumbledore dropping broad hints by keeping his eyes tight shut? Alla: What hints Pippin? Snape sees that Dumbledore does not want him to know something, again. He already complained about it to Dumbledore before, how does he suppose to know that Dumbledore keeping his eyes shut means that Dumbledore has a secret plan which is likely to keep Harry alive? I mean, to me the most Snape can guess by looking and see Dumbledore closed eyes, that Dumbledore is keeping a secret from him, which is nothing new to him IMO. Pippin: Dumbledore is hardly such a slouch at occlumency that he can't do it with his eyes open. Alla: Dumbledore cannot do what with his eyes open? You are saying that he can block unwanted information from giving it out even with his eyes open? He probably can, but what does it matter? Why risk it? JMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 18 23:12:16 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:12:16 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184698 > Montavilla47: > > But accepting it doesn't mean that Snape didn't care. Which is what > you are arguing. > > Alla: > > No, not quite. I am arguing that he did not care nearly enough to not > accept it. I do not think it is the exact same thing. Montavilla47: Ah. I understand. So, in order for Snape to care *enough* about Harry to satisfy you that he's not a sadistic, horrible person, he should *never* have told Harry about Dumbledore's plan and *never* have given Harry the choice of sacrificing his life. Have I got that clear? I can see where you're coming from. Regardless of what their non-ghost, non-inferi shades say, in their mortal lives, I'm pretty sure that Lily, James, Sirius, and Remus would not have gone along with any plan that involved sacrificing Harry's life. Conveniently for Dumbledore, they were either dead, kept in the dark, or both. > Alla: > > That is an interesting inference, and I certainly cannot disprove it. > But believe me I definitely did not forget this moment, although the > creepiness of it makes me shudder every time I remember it. > > I suppose I am just absolutely convinced that he cried over Lily's > death and nothing else and that he still cannot let go. I think the > fact that he tears apart the letter makes me so convinced, that he > just needs to have the piece of handwriting of his beloved in his > hand and maybe pretend that it was addressed to him? Montavilla47: Yeah, I know. It creeps me out a little, too. It's one of those ways that JKR manages to keep Snape right on the edge between sympathetic and not. I mean, it seems so selfish and self-absorbed, and down right psychotic to tear up the photograph (he doesn't actually tear the letter) and only take the page of the letter that contains the words, "Love, Lily." As though he wants to pretend--even at that point-- that Lily was his and had no connection to the husband, baby, or friend. Also, people tend to point out that the letter really belonged to Harry and Snape was stealing it. Although, in thinking about that moment, I just realized that Snape wouldn't expect Harry to return to 12 Grimauld Place. After all, the kid hates the house, doesn't want anything to do with it, and it going to be dead sooner rather than later. (Not that Dumbledore put any end date on Harry's death. For all Snape knew, Harry wouldn't have to sacrifice himself until he was a doddering old man. All Snape really knew was that, until the snake was being protected, he was supposed to wait, protect the school to the best of his abilities, and keep an eye on Nagini.) > Montavilla47: > I think you misunderstood me. The "severe punishment" that I meant > was "lots of detentions in which Harry gets to read about James being > a jerk" and not "death." > > Alla: > > It is funny because when I reread my initial answer, I thought that I > indeed may have misunderstood you, but not in the way you just > explained at all. I was rushing out the door and did not have time to > ask for clarification in any event. > > So what I thought you may have meant after I already posted my > response is that Snape thought that Harry almost getting Draco killed > deserves a severe punishment, which to me would have been a perfectly > **for once** fair and legit response from Snape. Montavilla47: Yes. That's what I did mean. The detentions were for, as Snape would infer, Harry almost killing Draco. Not for James' gang trying to kill Snape twenty years earlier, or James annoying Snape by saving his life, or even James triggering Snape's unforgiveable use of the word "Mudblood." The reason I brought up that prank was that Snape might have a stronger response to the incident between Harry and Draco, having once nearly been killed at school himself. Alla: > So, in any event yes indeed I did misunderstand you, sorry about > that, however, no matter what kind of punishment you meant Snape may > have thought Harry deserves **for something that happened when Harry > was not even born yet** and Harry himself did not do, my response > will be the same ? I do not believe that Harry deserves any kind of > punishment for that and I hope Snape burns for all eternity in the > imaginary hell if he thought that. Montavilla47: I'm not sure why you thought I was saying that. No, I don't think Harry was being punished *for* the misdeeds of his fathers. I think Harry was being punished *with* the misdeeds of his fathers. (In that it caused him emotional turmoil to learn that his father broke the rules). From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 19 01:32:41 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 01:32:41 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184699 > Montavilla47: > > But accepting it doesn't mean that Snape didn't care. Which is what > you are arguing. > > Alla: > > No, not quite. I am arguing that he did not care nearly enough to not accept it. I do not think it is the exact same thing. Pippin: I know it is annoying that these people just look to Dumbledore and Harry to solve all their problems. But the fact is, across the series Dumbledore's plans work more often than not. And the people who don't accept Dumbledore's plans meet disaster. James and Lily, Crouch Sr., Karkaroff, Sirius, the Ministry of Magic...all come to ruin. Can you really blame Snape for thinking that if Dumbledore's plans don't work, no one's will? Alla: > > Without Snape giving him this information Harry would not have > decided to do that. And again, I do not care if it was a good > decision for the mankind and in essence for Harry's survival, of > course it was , but we only know about it after the fact IMO and > Snape had no way of knowing. Pippin: Without the information, Harry would have gone up against Voldemort, assuming he could dispose of Nagini, without knowing that after he has apparently killed him, Voldemort will still be around. The Dark Marks will fade, the scar will stop hurting, people will be released from Imperius, and Harry will be quite sure that it's all over. But he won't be safe. Tell me, if you are not tired of the subject, how do you see this as protecting Harry? We protect our children by limiting their choices. But when they are adults, IMO, we have to give them the right to choose, and protect that. Harry is not Dumbledore's puppet as he walks into the forest. He is very aware that he has a choice, that his body wants to live. It is Harry, not Dumbledore, who decides between his body's wish to live and all that Harry can accomplish by dying. > Alla: > > What hints Pippin? Snape sees that Dumbledore does not want him to > know something, again. He already complained about it to Dumbledore > before, how does he suppose to know that Dumbledore keeping his eyes shut means that Dumbledore has a secret plan which is likely to keep Harry alive? Pippin: Dumbledore has had sixteen years to think up a plan for the soul bit that wouldn't involve Harry's death. It just seems to me that Snape would be silly to think he could come up with a better one, especially considering the track record of people who thought they had better plans than Dumbledore. He has just been reminded that the reason Dumbledore keeps secrets from him is that DD doesn't want to put all his eggs in one basket. So Snape is given a strong hint that this plan has some eggs that he doesn't know about, but that will be a nasty shock to Voldie. Otherwise why hide them from Snape? > Pippin: > Dumbledore is hardly such a slouch at occlumency that he can't do it > with his eyes open. > > Alla: > Dumbledore cannot do what with his eyes open? You are saying that he can block unwanted information from giving it out even with his eyes open? > > He probably can, but what does it matter? Why risk it? > Pippin: Why should Dumbledore make it obvious to Snape that he is hiding something, when he can probably do what Snape does when he is dealing with Voldie, and give him the guided tour? Let Snape sense only those thoughts and memories that Dumbledore wants him to see, I mean. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 19 03:40:31 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:40:31 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184700 Montavilla47: Ah. I understand. So, in order for Snape to care *enough* about Harry to satisfy you that he's not a sadistic, horrible person, he should *never* have told Harry about Dumbledore's plan and *never* have given Harry the choice of sacrificing his life. Have I got that clear? Alla: Almost, yes. I mean, I believe that Snape is sadistic horrible person because of how he treated Harry at school, regardless of him protecting or not protecting Harry's life, but if you change your sentence slightly by substituting "not a sadistic horrible person" to "protector of Harry to the end", then you got it. And as long as we are speaking about informing Harry, now I think that I believe Dumbledore took an easy way out again. I totally think that Dumbledore himself should have told him and then truly let him make that choice, but now I think that he was also afraid to say it to Harry. Does it make sense? I have to sleep on it, because this is quite a new thought to me. Montavilla47: Also, people tend to point out that the letter really belonged to Harry and Snape was stealing it. Alla: That would definitely be me, and I really do not think it matters whether Snape expects Harry return to Grimmauld place and we know that Harry wants to keep the staff from the place, he gets mad when Dung is selling silver goblets, so we know that if Snape thinks so, he is wrong again. But that to me is one of the strongest evidence that Snape would not care for Harry as a person one bit, I mean taking a part of the rare part of his past, that can connect him to his parents. Ugh. Montavilla47: I'm not sure why you thought I was saying that. No, I don't think Harry was being punished *for* the misdeeds of his fathers. I think Harry was being punished *with* the misdeeds of his fathers. Alla: Thanks for clarifying. Pippin: Why should Dumbledore make it obvious to Snape that he is hiding something, when he can probably do what Snape does when he is dealing with Voldie, and give him the guided tour? Let Snape sense only those thoughts and memories that Dumbledore wants him to see, I mean. Alla: OH. I got it. Do we know that Snape does that with Voldemort though? Gives him guided tour, I mean, is that possible at all? I mean, I am not saying it is not possible, but just not sure. If we do know that you sold me the possibility that Dumbledore indeed tried to tell Snape that something more than usual secret is happening here. I mean I still do not think that Snape would have necessarily figured it out, but I see what you mean and it makes sense to me. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 19 04:52:41 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:52:41 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184701 > Alla: > And as long as we are speaking about informing Harry, now I think > that I believe Dumbledore took an easy way out again. I totally think > that Dumbledore himself should have told him and then truly let him > make that choice, but now I think that he was also afraid to say it > to Harry. Does it make sense? I have to sleep on it, because this is > quite a new thought to me. Montavila47: It does make sense to me. I think that's one of the reasons Dumbledore seems so apologetic at King's Cross. It really wasn't fair of Dumbledore to make Snape do deliver that message. But Dumbledore's defense, he didn't want Harry told until the Horcruxes were destroyed. And he didn't get have that much time. > Montavilla47: > > Also, people tend to point out that the letter really belonged to > Harry and Snape was stealing it. > > Alla: > > That would definitely be me, and I really do not think it matters > whether Snape expects Harry return to Grimmauld place and we know > that Harry wants to keep the staff from the place, he gets mad when > Dung is selling silver goblets, so we know that if > Snape thinks so, he is wrong again. > > But that to me is one of the strongest evidence that Snape would not > care for Harry as a person one bit, I mean taking a part of the rare > part of his past, that can connect him to his parents. Ugh. Montavilla47: I agree with you that it doesn't matter in a moral sense. Stealing is wrong, whether or not the person you're stealing from will never miss the thing you're taking. Right? I mean, Mundungus was only taking stuff that Sirius had basically wanted to get rid of. Didn't Sirius as much as tell him he could have the goblets? But that didn't make it right for him to take the stuff. > Pippin: > > Why should Dumbledore make it obvious to Snape that he is hiding > something, when he can probably do what Snape does when he is dealing > with Voldie, and give him the guided tour? Let Snape sense only those > thoughts and memories that Dumbledore wants him to see, I mean. > > Alla: > OH. I got it. Do we know that Snape does that with Voldemort though? > Gives him guided tour, I mean, is that possible at all? I mean, I am > not saying it is not possible, but just not sure. If we do know that > you sold me the possibility that Dumbledore indeed tried to tell > Snape that something more than usual secret is happening here. I mean > I still do not think that Snape would have necessarily figured it > out, but I see what you mean and it makes sense to me. Montavilla47: I think it's very possible. There's a part of DH where Harry sees *through his connection with Voldemort* into the mind of Gregorivich. Harry's connection to Voldemort is stronger than normal (able to connect over vast distances), but it probably isn't all that different. I do think that in order to Occlude successfully, Snape doesn't just block Voldemort. That would be extremely obvious, wouldn't it? If Voldemort tried to look in Snape's mind and saw just a blank, he'd realize that Snape was hiding stuff from him and take steps to discover what it was. Very painful steps, I'm sure. So, in order to successfully keep his position as Voldemort's trusted, most favored Death Eater, Snape would need to allow Voldemort periodically to check his mind. And Snape would need to exercise very strong control over what he chose to let Voldemort see. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 19 16:47:10 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:47:10 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184702 > Montavilla47: > Yeah, I know. It creeps me out a little, too. It's one of those ways that JKR manages to keep Snape right on the edge between > sympathetic and not. > > I mean, it seems so selfish and self-absorbed, and down right > psychotic to tear up the photograph (he doesn't actually tear the > letter) and only take the page of the letter that contains the words, "Love, Lily." As though he wants to pretend--even at that point-- that Lily was his and had no connection to the husband, baby, or friend. Pippin: But how is that different than the feeling you are ascribing to James, etc? As if Harry is just theirs, and has no connection to anyone else in the world? Do you think, if they had known that Voldemort was going to offer Lily a chance to live at her son's expense, that they would have told her to take it? Would she have been the person they loved if she had? Montavilla: > Also, people tend to point out that the letter really belonged to > Harry and Snape was stealing it. Pippin: Perhaps that is why Snape included it in the memory set, as a way of returning it. According to JKR, this scene is supposed to be right after Dumbledore's death, so it's no wonder Snape is overwrought. I think Snape is mourning his rejection as he reads the letter, not Lily's death per se. He's crying like a child, so I think we are supposed to infer childish emotions. I can remember crying like that at my sister's wedding when I was about ten. Of course I knew I should be happy for her, but I suddenly realized that she was going to a new home that didn't include me, and wasn't sorry about it at all. I think Snape liked to believe that Lily had made a terrible mistake marrying James, and that she really could have been happy in Snape's world. There's some wonderful layering here, with Lily in denial about Dumbledore's life and Snape in denial about Lily's. Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 19 16:57:15 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 19 Oct 2008 16:57:15 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/19/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1224435435.18.61966.m46@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184703 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 19, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 19 17:59:05 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 17:59:05 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184704 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Montavilla47: > > Yeah, I know. It creeps me out a little, too. It's one of those > ways that JKR manages to keep Snape right on the edge between > > sympathetic and not. > > > > I mean, it seems so selfish and self-absorbed, and down right > > psychotic to tear up the photograph (he doesn't actually tear the > > letter) and only take the page of the letter that contains the > words, "Love, Lily." As though he wants to pretend--even at that > point-- that Lily was his and had no connection to the husband, baby, > or friend. > > Pippin: > But how is that different than the feeling you are ascribing to James, > etc? As if Harry is just theirs, and has no connection to anyone else > in the world? > > Do you think, if they had known that Voldemort was going to offer Lily > a chance to live at her son's expense, that they would have told her > to take it? Would she have been the person they loved if she had? Montavilla47: I'm not sure what you are saying here or what relationship it has to what I was saying, because I'm not sure how this all relates to James or Lily. Could you please clarify? > Montavilla: > > Also, people tend to point out that the letter really belonged to > > Harry and Snape was stealing it. > > Pippin: > Perhaps that is why Snape included it in the memory set, as a way of > returning it. Montavilla47: I like that, Pippin. I can't help but think that Snape makes himself look very bad in these memories (although he makes Dumbledore look worse). And I also think that he *chose* the memories he sent. So, why would he include that particular memory? That always bothered me. I mean, plotwise, it's needed so that we know how the letter came to be there. But why should Snape want to show Harry something that shows him in a state he'd *never* want Harry to see him in? Your explanation makes sense. And perhaps it also expresses grief he *needs* to share with someone. There aren't many people who would understand it. Pippin: > According to JKR, this scene is supposed to be right after > Dumbledore's death, so it's no wonder Snape is overwrought. > > I think Snape is mourning his rejection as he reads the letter, not > Lily's death per se. He's crying like a child, so I think we are > supposed to infer childish emotions. I can remember crying like that > at my sister's wedding when I was about ten. Of course I knew I should > be happy for her, but I suddenly realized that she was going to a new > home that didn't include me, and wasn't sorry about it at all. Montavilla47: I dunno, Pippin. I didn't think of Snape's tears as childish. Adults can cry like that. I know I have as an adult, although I don't remember why it was at the moment. I'm also remembering a wonderful moment from Truly, Madly, Deeply, where Juliet Stevenson is crying with tears literally rolling off her nose, and her grief is very complex and adult. Catharsis is usually an adult experience. Pippin: > I think Snape liked to believe that Lily had made a terrible mistake > marrying James, and that she really could have been happy in Snape's > world. There's some wonderful layering here, with Lily in denial about > Dumbledore's life and Snape in denial about Lily's. Montavilla47: Perhaps then part of Snape's tears are from realization that Liliy was happy with her family and child. Perhaps this moment brought about a change in his perspective on Harry--helped him see the connection to Lily that he acknowledges at his death, when he asks Harry to look at him. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 19 19:57:54 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:57:54 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184705 > > Pippin: > > But how is that different than the feeling you are ascribing to James,etc? As if Harry is just theirs, and has no connection to anyone else in the world? > > > > Do you think, if they had known that Voldemort was going to offer Lily a chance to live at her son's expense, that they would have told her to take it? Would she have been the person they loved if she had? > > Montavilla47: > I'm not sure what you are saying here or what relationship it has > to what I was saying, because I'm not sure how this all relates > to James or Lily. Could you please clarify? Pippin: I agree that Snape had to be almost psychotically out of touch with reality to think that Lily Potter could ever have found any happiness as a DE!chick. (Though to give Snape his due, SWM!Lily was impressed with Bullyboy!James despite herself.) But it seems to me that James, Lily, Sirius and Lupin would have to be equally in denial to think that Harry could be happy to run off somewhere and hide from Voldemort, leaving others to fight and die alone. Distance doesn't matter to the scar connection, unfortunately. It's not as if Harry could have lived his life in blissful ignorance if only Dumbledore had left him alone. Harry is a part of his world just as much as Lily was a part of hers. Just as it was incredibly selfish and self-absorbed of Snape to think that he could rip Lily away from her world, it would be, IMO incredibly selfish and self-absorbed of Harry's family to think that Harry's world would be well lost if Harry was safe and happy somewhere. It wouldn't even be possible, unless Harry were a very different person than the Harry they knew. Obviously you don't see it that way. What am I missing? I don't think the living Potters et al, would have *liked* it. I wouldn't like it if my grown son decided to throw himself in front of a truck to save a baby. God forbid. But what kind of person would say that he *shouldn't* do it? I can see where it seems weird that the revenants don't show any denial at all. But then why should they? Spirits who can no longer be deceived by worldly appearances wouldn't need to doubt anything. Revenant Lily does not act as if she is about to be bereaved of her son, because she isn't. He is about to join her. And he is, in a way, validating the choice that she made, to save him instead of herself. Pippin From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 19 20:36:37 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:36:37 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184706 > > > Pippin: > > > Do you think, if they had known that Voldemort was going to offer > Lily a chance to live at her son's expense, that they would have told > her to take it? Would she have been the person they loved if she had? > > > > Montavilla47: > > I'm not sure what you are saying here or what relationship it has > > to what I was saying, because I'm not sure how this all relates > > to James or Lily. Could you please clarify? > > > Pippin: > I agree that Snape had to be almost psychotically out of touch with > reality to think that Lily Potter could ever have found any happiness > as a DE!chick. (Though to give Snape his due, SWM!Lily was impressed > with Bullyboy!James despite herself.) Montavila47: Hehe. Good point! Pippin: > But it seems to me that James, Lily, Sirius and Lupin would have to be > equally in denial to think that Harry could be happy to run off > somewhere and hide from Voldemort, leaving others to fight and die > alone. Distance doesn't matter to the scar connection, unfortunately. > It's not as if Harry could have lived his life in blissful ignorance > if only Dumbledore had left him alone. Montavilla47: I see what you are saying. Thanks for clarifying that. Pippin: > Harry is a part of his world just as much as Lily was a part of hers. > Just as it was incredibly selfish and self-absorbed of Snape to think > that he could rip Lily away from her world, it would be, IMO > incredibly selfish and self-absorbed of Harry's family to think that > Harry's world would be well lost if Harry was safe and happy > somewhere. It wouldn't even be possible, unless Harry were a very > different person than the Harry they knew. Obviously you don't see it > that way. What am I missing? Montavilla47: I think what you are missing, for me, is that, while it's selfish to want your kids or loved ones to live when it's better for the world that they sacrifice their lives, it's still the parents' role to be that selfish. Parents are supposed to want their kids to be alive and, if possible, happy. Even if that's bad for the world. Look at Molly. She's fighting as hard as she can in the early part of DH to keep Harry, Ron, and Hermione from going on their dangerous quest. Why? Because she considers herself their mother. (At least of Ron and Harry. She might have been fine with Hermione going off by herself. :)) Which is why Harry, the adult, has to make his own decisions. And why, Harry, the adult, didn't tell Ron or Hermione that he was going off to die in the forest. He knew they'd try to stop him--even if it might that Voldemort would survive. It may be selfish, but that's the way people are. Pippin: > I can see where it seems weird that the revenants don't show any > denial at all. But then why should they? Spirits who can no longer be > deceived by worldly appearances wouldn't need to doubt anything. > > Revenant Lily does not act as if she is about to be bereaved of her > son, because she isn't. He is about to join her. And he is, in a way, > validating the choice that she made, to save him instead of herself. Montavilla47: I actually didn't find it all that weird that the revenants (nice word) were cheering Harry on. As you say, they aren't going to lose Harry when he dies. That's why I made the distinction between the dead foursome and the live foursome. I don't think the live Sirius would have gone along with Dumbledore's plan, because I think that the live Sirius was fairly selfish and self-absorbed. Living Lily and James, would most likely be, as Molly was, horrified at the idea of losing their only child. As for Remus, I'm not quite sure. I actually think he would have been more like Snape, initially horrified by eventually seeing the ultimate point. I also think he would have recognized that it was Harry's choice and acted accordingly. Which makes me wonder why Dumbledore didn't back-up Snape with Lupin. As a spy among the warewolves, Lupin might have been able to edge his way into DE circles enough to find out when Voldemort was guarding Nagini. Harry trusted Lupin, even if he thought he was a coward, and would have listened to him. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 19 20:58:10 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:58:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's choice to save the world WAS:Re: Snape as Harry's protector In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184707 Pippin: I don't think the living Potters et al, would have *liked* it. I wouldn't like it if my grown son decided to throw himself in front of a truck to save a baby. God forbid. But what kind of person would say that he *shouldn't* do it? Alla: I am really uncomfortable to say that with your son's person even in hypothetical, so I will stick to Harry. What kind of person would say that he **should** do it? As long as it is his choice, I respect and support it, but if anybody is **pushing** him to make this choice, yes, I have lots of problem with it. And yes, I feel that Dumbledore wanted to push him to do it, otherwise I think he should have revealed it much much earlier AND tell Harry that it is his choice and nobody else AND tell Harry that he may have a good chance of surviving. In fact in HBP Dumbledore says that Voldemort no longer employs legilimency against Harry, yes? So what kind of excuse Dumbledore has for not bringing this information to Harry before besides storyline needs? Montavilla47: I think what you are missing, for me, is that, while it's selfish to want your kids or loved ones to live when it's better for the world that they sacrifice their lives, it's still the parents' role to be that selfish. Parents are supposed to want their kids to be alive and, if possible, happy. Even if that's bad for the world. Alla: Totally totally agreed. I mean I know what Pippin is saying about parents trying to respect the choice the child makes and I also understand that she said that she would not like it, but I think what we are also talking about here is what parent would **encourage** their child to make that choice? As I said I do not have a problem with the Stone!Lily giving Harry encouragement and support for the reasons I described, but if she was alive, she better tell Harry her mind as well while supporting him, otherwise I would find it, well, bizarre. One of my grandmother's brothers went to regular army during Second war II and was killed. My great grandmother from what I heard begged him not to go. If she would have begged him **to go**, I would find it weird, you know? And you know, thinking about it, my great grandmother and several other of her grown children and their kids were killed when natzis came because they a) did not have time to get out or b) refused to believe that natzis will just kill them all. The only part of my great grandmother's family who survived was the one who run. If they did not, I would have never been born. So, I am going back to Potterverse with all this personal story, I promise. Yes, I do believe that Harry could have been happy if he left that world, had there been no Voldemort's piece in him and no, I do not believe he would have been horrible person if he indeed run. I like heroes who save the world in the fictional stories and in real life, but I think that it does not mean that those who are not heroes are bad people. I know that neither you no Pippin are saying that, I am just going on the tangent. JMO, Alla From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 19 21:43:30 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:43:30 -0000 Subject: Chapter 31 summary, especially ghosts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184708 Chris summarized Chapter 31 in : << The Grey Lady is/was Helen Ravenclaw! >> Nothing wrong with that name, except that I was terribly disappointed that she didn't have one of the alliterative names. << Hermione arrives on the scene to send a stunning spell at Crabbe, who is saved by Malfoy. >> Foolish of Malfoy to continue treating Crabbe as his friend after Crabbe had indicated his lack of friendship to Malfoy. (Carol wrote SO WELL about this in ). << 8. If Harry truly loves Ginny, wouldn't he make more of an effort to stop her entering the battle? >> Maybe if he truly loves her, he would make more of an effort to HELP her enter the battle. It's less than two months until she turns 17, and those two months won't much change her abilities or her values. No one would have thought it was loving of Ron to try to make Hermione sit out the battle or of Remus to try to make Dora sit out the battle. << 9. Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a good wife or a bad mother? >> I think it makes her the author's pawn. Oryomai wrote in : << Does she really talk to students like Nick does? Nick seems to be the most sociable of the Hogwarts ghosts. >> I suspect that the Fat Friar is the most sociable of the Hogwarts ghosts - back in the first book, he was the one who greeted the newbies as they were lining up to be Sorted. The Gray Lady and the Bloody Baron are the Ravenclaw House Ghost and the Slytherin House Ghost, not just unaffiliated ghosts who dwell at Hogwarts. I imagine that the duties of a House Ghost include conversing with the students in that House, maybe not as much and as cheerfully as Nick (and presumably the Friar) converse with their Gryffs and Puffs, but the Gray Lady might at least tell the Claws about good study habits. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 19 22:18:42 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:18:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's choice to save the world Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184709 Alla wrote in : << One of my grandmother's brothers went to regular army during Second war II and was killed. My great grandmother from what I heard begged him not to go. If she would have begged him **to go**, I would find it weird, you know? >> Oh, dear. I've been thinking of World War II as I read this thread about whether Harry should have been allowed to choose to sacrifice himself to save his world, but thinking only of the American experience. There was no reason for Jews to feel patriotic about Mother Russia, and Stalin wasted his soldiers' lives by the million ... I suspect that America has never in my lifetime fought a war that was worth fighting, but it is generally agreed that WWII was worth fighting, that Hitler's Reich was a real military threat to the survival of USA, as well as an archetype of evil. My father didn't serve in that war (he had some kind of deferment for being a grad student in physics) and I don't know what my grandmother said to him about it. But it would sound "weird" to me if I heard of a parent of that generation begging her son NOT to enlist in the war, except maybe for urging him to finish high school first. Even the pacifists, the Quakers and Mennonites, served in non-combat positions, often the even more dangerous position of medical research subject. The war of *my* youth was Vietnam, which was a complete waste of lives, money, environment, etc. I don't know if any parents requested their sons to enlist in it without waiting to be drafted, but I've sure heard of a lot of parents who urged their sons to obey their draft notices, saying that it was their patriotic duty to their country, necessary to prevent USA from being conquered by USSR, and obeying the law. And sometimes when their sons refused to obey their draft summons, the parents refused to speak to them ever again. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 19 23:30:05 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:30:05 -0000 Subject: Post DH meaning of PS/SS chess game. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184710 I know we talked about this game many many times and I remember theories that this game foreshadowes the ending, in fact foreshadows the whole war and the casualties among the main characters, etc. What do you guys think after canon is ended, did this game in fact foreshadow something pivotal for the end? I mean, I have no questions about this game in context of PS/SS, I am just wondering if it really had some meaning for the plot of the seven books, not just one book. Because really right now I am not sure if it did. Yes, we have Ron's sacrifice, but I think it would be a little wierd to argue that Ron's sacrifice foreshadowed Harry's? I was totally expecting that it would foreshadow Ron sacrificing himself and not dying, but nothing like that happened. I mean, diving for the Sword surely cannot be called sacrificing himself, right? So what did this game mean or was it just fun part of the plot of book 1? Thanks guys, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 20 04:02:01 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:02:01 -0000 Subject: Post DH meaning of PS/SS chess game. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184711 > Alla: > What do you guys think after canon is ended, did this game in fact > foreshadow something pivotal for the end? > Yes, we have Ron's sacrifice, but I think it would be a little wierd > to argue that Ron's sacrifice foreshadowed Harry's? Zara: If the desired parallel is about Ron, then whatever we come up with is going to be (in my opinion, no offense to big fans of Ron) not that significant to the overall plot of the series. If we do want to talk about that one chess game as saying something about the whole series, I would begin by asking, "Who is playing?" and to me, only one answer makes sense - Albus Dumbledore. He's the guy on the "good side" making the plans, moving the pieces, and insert your favorite chess-related cliche here. Should we, then, consider the sacrifice of the black knight (Ron's piece) to parallel Albus's death? Certainly its time and manner was chosen by Albus, just as Ron chose when he would be taken. And certainly the goal seems to have been to advance other pieces/parts of his plan, most notably Snape and whatever he planned for the Elder Wand. But Albus's death does not fit so well in other ways. In the game, the taking of the knight is one step away from a checkmate. Also, the knight in the game is described as a very active piece, one which travels about the board removing many white pieces from play. (Sorry, no quote, I was checking my Lithuanian copy...) This fits Harry far better. And Albus carefully arranges matters so that Harry would choose to be taken (die, or not really die, whatever) in the endgame, by specifying to Snape when Harry needs to learn of the soul bit. But in another way Harry does not fit, because he is the piece that checkmates Voldemort in the end, too. So I don;t reallty think this sort of correspondence can be made. > Alla: > So what did this game mean or was it just fun part of the plot of > book 1? Zara: Well, if it did nothing else, it dramatized for the first time a motif (? hope I used the right word there...) that is repeated through the series - someone making a sacrifice so that others could go on to achieve hoped for successes. Regulus, dying in the hope that when Voldemort meets his match, he is mortal, and Harry, making sure there are survivors who know to kill Nagini, and facing death in the same hope, are notable later examples. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 20 12:00:37 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:00:37 -0000 Subject: Post DH meaning of PS/SS chess game. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184712 > Zara: > Well, if it did nothing else, it dramatized for the first time a > motif (? hope I used the right word there...) that is repeated > through the series - someone making a sacrifice so that others could > go on to achieve hoped for successes. Regulus, dying in the hope that > when Voldemort meets his match, he is mortal, and Harry, making sure > there are survivors who know to kill Nagini, and facing death in the > same hope, are notable later examples. Potioncat: This chess match did generate a lot of threads in its time! I agree with all of above, snipped and unsnipped. But the motif of sacrifice reminded me, Ron thought he would die when the Queen destroyed the knight. Harry protested, but Ron insistend that Harry had to be the one to go on. Potioncat (hoping she remembers canon and not TMTMNBN.) From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 20 12:56:50 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:56:50 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184713 Potioncat: I've had to read about 12 or 13 posts in a row from this thread (trying not to respond until I've read all replies) so I'm pulling from several posts here. > Montavilla47: > The calmness Snape shows is not acceptance. It's shock and > denial. This is sort of following that K?bler-Ross model > of people's reaction to death or loss. She stated that there > are five stages that people go through: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and finally, Acceptance. > We don't see him go through the other steps. And K?bler-Ross > notes that no everyone does, so maybe he didn't go through them. Maybe he did and JKR didn't bother to show it. Potioncat: Nice reference! But even at that, most people don't go through the steps on one conversation. So it fits that Snape doesn't hit them all. > > Alla (quoting the text): > > "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" > > "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched > > die?" > > "Lately, only those whom I could not save," said Snape. He stood > up. "You have used me." Potioncat: Someone suggested that by placing Snape at Hogwarts, Snape learned to care about his Slytherins and reached the point of taking care of all Hogwarts students. This comment with this quote reminded me of Snape's reaction when he learned Ginny had been taken to the chamber. It was something about his gripping a chair so tightly his knuckles were white. It was a little comment that came without any reaction on Harry's part. But here is Snape, showing concern for a student, and not hiding it so well as he did for poor Charity. As I read the quotes above, Snape sounds offended at DD's comments. Montavilla47: > One interesting thing about this scene (and the one that > comes before it) is that this all happens before Harry and > Draco duel and Snape makes Harry's life even more miserable > than usual with his infamous card detentions. Since a lot > of stuff Snape does is for reasons not clear in the text, I'm not sure what's going on with that still. Potioncat: I've very little notion of how Snape's memories fit in the timeline we first read in the series. That is, I haven't read HBP with the idea ( Snape knows this, Snape and DD have done that.) Has anyone mapped it out? The idea that Snape is super-sensitive to a student nearly killing a student is a good one. Just as we all have our buttons that the HP series sometimes hits, this could be one of Snape's. And canon Snape has as many "buttons" as Rickman!Snape's coat does. But now that I'm thinking about timelines, if Snape thinks the bit of Voldy in Harry is working to take over, he may be concerned that Harry is drawn to dark magic. Or that using Dark Magic might strenghen the bit O'Voldy. It's a return of the earlier worries of DEs that the baby Potter must be a powerful dark wizard to have vanquished LV. Remember Snape's question, "Who taught you such dark magic?" or something to that effect. Must have been quite a shock to realize "he" had taught Harry that bit of dark magic. And that reminds me of a parent who exclaims, "Where did you learn 'that' word!" only to hear, "From you, Daddy." > > Montavilla47: > Another thing I'd note is that, among Snape supporters > anyway, there's a general consensus that Snape is protecting > Harry in "The Flight of the Prince." So, although this is after > Dumbledore told Snape about Harry needing to die, Snape > is trying to prevent Harry from harm (until he gets angry at > Harry's taunting). Which makes it fun in retrospect because > he still can't stand the kid. Potioncat: And knowing about the bit o'Voldy in Harry's head may explain why he wanted to prevent Harry from using the Unforgivables. > From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 20 13:44:29 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:44:29 -0000 Subject: The Best Protector (was Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184714 > Potioncat: > But, at any rate, if Snape wasn't the best choice, who was? > > Alla:> > Quite frankly, as far as I am concerned, just about anybody. Again, >I am looking from within the story, not how the events would have > changed had Snape not been in the story. Potioncat: I asked earlier who would have been a better choice to protect Harry than Snape. Alla thinks "almost anyone" would have been better. I disagree. I think there was only one other contender for the role of protector. JKR wrote a lot of twists into Harry's story. She wrote many characters who would have taken Harry and loved him; then she made it so that the least agreeable characters would be the ones with the best ability to protect him. The Weasleys, Diggorys or Boneses could have raised Harry--just to name a few. But they didn't have the important ancient magic of the blood protection that Harry really needed. So Harry went to the Dursleys. At the same time DD was placing Harry with a family, he was looking for someone to protect the boy from a returning LV. DD seemed to see the protector role as very different from the role of guardian. The protector wasn't going to raise Harry. DD may have been thinking of this even before Lily and James died, or it may have been an outcome he hadn't foreseen. Whether he had been thinking about it, or had to make a quick decision, he had 2 choices. (IMHO) JKR gave Harry a loving godfather; a friend of James who would have laid down his life for any of the Potters. When he knew the Potters were in danger, he did everything he could to protect them. JKR also gave Lily a childhood friend who loved her. When he found out Lily was in danger, he went to DD and promised "anything" in exchange for her protection. Again, JKR chose the more disagreeable character. Sirius would have been a loving, caring protector. He is brave and constant. But in his distress over his guilt (choosing Peter as SK, then being duped by Peter) he allowed himself to be taken away. JKR puts him in prison and completely ruins his good name. She has made him unavailable. Severus is equally distressed that Lily has died. But JKR gives him Mentor!DD who makes the young man pull himself together and agree to protect Lily's son. Severus will never like the boy and seems to protect Lily's son while only seeing James's son. It has been suggested that Sirius's experience represents the devastation of depression. It can take a person away from loved ones. It can make a person incapable of meeting responsibilities. If that's the case, I'm not sure what Severus's experience represents. I do wonder if someone JKR didn't like in her younger days turned out to be a truer friend than she had expected. JKR is a wicked Creatrix. No wonder she once said that if she could speak to Harry, she would apologize for all the things she put him through. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 20 16:22:03 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:22:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's choice to save the world WAS:Re: Snape as Harry's protector In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184715 > Alla: > And yes, I feel that Dumbledore wanted to push him to do it, > otherwise I think he should have revealed it much much earlier AND > tell Harry that it is his choice and nobody else AND tell Harry that he may have a good chance of surviving. > > In fact in HBP Dumbledore says that Voldemort no longer employs > legilimency against Harry, yes? So what kind of excuse Dumbledore has for not bringing this information to Harry before besides storyline needs? Pippin: Um, it seems like an awful stretch to claim that Dumbledore was indoctrinating Harry by *not* telling him what to do. To judge by the election ads that are bombarding my house, that's not the way the experts go about it. Hasn't it been a common observation that Harry always was the sort of person who would sacrifice himself to save others? Harry said in PS/SS that if he got expelled for trying to save the stone it would only mean dying a little later than he would have if he failed to save it from Voldemort, because he was never going over to the Dark Side. He didn't believe, even then, that Voldemort was going to leave him alone if he went and hid out some where. At that point Harry hadn't had more than a paragraph or two of interaction with Dumbledore. He'd been given the cloak, but Dumbledore thinks of the cloak as something that enables you to hide from danger, not an invitation to go out looking for it. If anyone deserves the blame for Harry's hero complex, it's the producers of Dudley's cartoon shows, because AFAIK, Mega Man is the only positive role model ever mentioned at Privet Drive. But I think as far as Dumbledore was concerned that was a totally unintended consequence of the blood protection. After all, he could hardly predict one year old Dudley's taste in popular entertainment. I think Dumbledore didn't tell Harry about the soul bit because he was afraid that Harry would sacrifice himself too soon, not that he wouldn't do it at all. What Harry gained by waiting was not the will to sacrifice himself for others, but the breadth of spirit to see that he could and should protect more than just the people he could relate to. BTW, I think Lupin might have known about the soul bit. He drops a hint in OOP about there being dangers that none of them, including Sirius, have any idea of. He'd be a logical person to tell. At least he wouldn't be shocked silly at the idea of someone having an interior link to the Dark Side. > Montavilla47: > I think what you are missing, for me, is that, while it's selfish to want your kids or loved ones to live when it's better for the world that they sacrifice their lives, it's still the parents' role to be that selfish. Parents are supposed to want their kids to be alive and, if possible, happy. > > Even if that's bad for the world. > Pippin: The thing is, we are all someone's child, and if our parents all teach us that we deserve to be safe and happy at other people's expense forever, then no would try to save a baby, if its parents could not. And that would not, IMO, be a child-friendly world. Molly tries to keep her underage children out of the fight, and thinks that the Twins should finish school. But in DH she's not saying that the Trio should leave the fight to the Order and hole up somewhere (though in the event the Trio do that a lot in DH.) She's saying they should go back to school as if nothing had happened. That's not concern. That's denial. She certainly doesn't try to keep Bill and Charley from risking their lives, and yet she obviously cares about them deeply. Alla: > Yes, I do believe that Harry could have been happy if he left that > world, had there been no Voldemort's piece in him and no, I do not > believe he would have been horrible person if he indeed run. Pippin: Of course. But the soul bit is the reason for the whole thing. Otherwise Harry would never have had the powers of the one who could vanquish Voldemort, and I doubt DD would have done more for Harry than he would for any other orphaned Hogwarts student. He wouldn't have seen any need for the blood protection, and he certainly wouldn't have chosen Harry to destroy the horcruxes, which he wouldn't have even known about if Harry hadn't been a parselmouth. The manipulative part was that Harry thought that destroying the horcruxes would enable him to achieve victory. But that was true in the end, it just wasn't as simple as Harry thought it was. It's a bit like the ruse Harry himself used, tricking Ron with Felix potion. He could have just told Ron that all he needed was confidence, but Ron wouldn't have believed him, and wouldn't have gotten any confidence from it in any case. I think Dumbledore had more to apologize for in leading Harry such a dance about the Hallows. He feared, he said, that Harry would be tempted as he was, and that, I think, showed a lack of faith in Harry as well as a lack of moral courage on Dumbledore's part. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 20 16:47:54 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:47:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's choice to save the world WAS:Re: Snape as Harry's protector In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184716 > Pippin: > Hasn't it been a common observation that Harry always was the sort of > person who would sacrifice himself to save others? Alla: Yes of course. Pippin: > At that point Harry hadn't had more than a paragraph or two of > interaction with Dumbledore. He'd been given the cloak, but Dumbledore > thinks of the cloak as something that enables you to hide from danger, > not an invitation to go out looking for it. Alla: Um, that if you are not of the opinion that Dumbledore totally set Harry up for doing the tasks of the first book. I am of that opinion, even if Harry did not have much face to face interaction with him. Pippin: > If anyone deserves the blame for Harry's hero complex, it's the > producers of Dudley's cartoon shows, because AFAIK, Mega Man is the > only positive role model ever mentioned at Privet Drive. But I think > as far as Dumbledore was concerned that was a totally unintended > consequence of the blood protection. After all, he could hardly > predict one year old Dudley's taste in popular entertainment. Alla: I think Dumbledore absolutely developed Harry's saving people thing to ridiculous proportions and yes, by placing him with Dursleys too. BUT I do think that it was in Harry's genes too, so I do not blame Dumbledore 100% since I think it was already there. But I do not think I quite see the relevance of what you wrote to the point that I was making. Dumbledore: > I think Dumbledore didn't tell Harry about the soul bit because he was > afraid that Harry would sacrifice himself too soon, not that he > wouldn't do it at all. What Harry gained by waiting was not the will > to sacrifice himself for others, but the breadth of spirit to see that > he could and should protect more than just the people he could relate to. Alla: I do not quite care what "greater good" reason Dumbledore had in mind for not telling him. What I am saying is that to me it translates into *witholding crucial information* from Harry and by that *limiting his choices* no matter what those choices would be. I mean, of course it is nothing new for Dumbledore IMO, but every time I think about it, I am disgusted by it. I also think that Dumbledore may have not told Harry for the same reason he did not tell Harry about Snape being the eavesdropper and I think in both situations Dumbledore would not admit it to himself. I think Dumbledore grew attached to Harry as he says at some point, but of course his attachment did not mean that he stopped consider Harry as his weapon. We do both accept interviews, yes? So JKR did say that Harry was his weapon till the end. So I just think he did not want to see Harry being upset with him and just well, chickened out of the task. I am of course speculating, but I believe it is not too far out in the field of impossibility. So Dumbledore gave unpleasant job to somebody else. Again. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 21 03:43:48 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:43:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184717 So in light of my increased unhappiness with Albus Dumbledore lately I started thinking about wise old men with the beards or without it. In particular I was trying to figure out if there are any wise old men in the literature or movies of this genre that I like more than him and why. The obvious answer for me will be that I would like wise old man so much more if he would be doing more mentoring and less manipulating of the chess pieces, I mean people. But I am fully aware that there are not so many examples of wise old men like that. And then I had an answer. Oh yes, I know wise old man whom I love without any reservation whatsoever, so I want to talk about differences between him and Albus Dumbledore as I perceive them. Ladies and gentlemen meet general Iroh from the "Avatar the last airbender" I recently fell in love with this show, boy oh boy I really love this show. General Iroh is an uncle to the teenager who started the show as being the main antagonist, I guess. So I do understand that in a sense his mentoring role and Albus' role is a little bit different, since in a sense Iroh' mentoring role is to force prince Zuko to choose the right side. I just wrote this sentence and just realized how wrong it sounds. Iroh really really does not force Zuco to do anything, except to force him to find his own way, his own destiny. *That* is what he constantly stresses to Zuco, to listen to himself, to listen to the best in him, to find what he wants, not what his father the warlord wants. I mean, I don't know, to me the differences between Iroh's approach and Dumbledore's approach are huge and I like Iroh's so much better. By the way, there is also a lot at stake on Zuco's decision - whether he will eventually come to the right side, etc and still Iroh never pushes him, except to think for himself. And just as Dumbledore, Iroh did not have all that clean of the past either, and just as Dumbledore Iroh lost the dear loved one. Only funnily, that did not cause Iroh to become manipulative secretive bastard. And it is so so interesting how Iroh loves people around him so much that they cannot help but return the favor and mind you he is not a monk, or anything, he is a fighter, a former war general, somebody who can hold his own in the battle very very well. But he is, well, he loves tea and his nephew more than he loves the battles, it seemed to me. I love Iroh and I really really cannot stand Albus Dumbledore. Iroh stresses to Zuco that destiny is in many aspects a matter of choice, Albus Dumbledore makes sure Harry proceeds to fulfill the destiny as he sees fit. Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 21 12:03:53 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:03:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184718 Alla wrote: > > So in light of my increased unhappiness with Albus Dumbledore lately > I started thinking about wise old men with the beards or without it. > In particular I was trying to figure out if there are any wise old > men in the literature or movies of this genre that I like more than > him and why. > > General Iroh is an uncle to the teenager who started the show as > being the main antagonist, I guess. So I do understand that in a > sense his mentoring role and Albus' role is a little bit different, > since in a sense Iroh' mentoring role is to force prince Zuko to > choose the right side. Potioncat: I'm not familiar with those characters. I assume it's ongoing--that is, any twists or surprises aren't yet known. But I don't think DD ever saw his role as mentor to Harry. He was trying to raise up this boy to fulfill his destiny. For us modern folk who don't really believe in destinies---at least not to the same extent as our ancestors---that's kind of a hard idea to accept. But given the genre, that's what DD was doing. Secrecy was DD's big flaw, that and being certain he had all the answers. Then again, maybe those were his strengths too. I'm not sure if he could have been very different and still reached his goal of defeating LV. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 21 13:11:23 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:11:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184719 Alla: > > General Iroh is an uncle to the teenager who started the show as > > being the main antagonist, I guess. So I do understand that in a > > sense his mentoring role and Albus' role is a little bit different, > > since in a sense Iroh' mentoring role is to force prince Zuko to > > choose the right side. > > Potioncat: > I'm not familiar with those characters. I assume it's ongoing--that > is, any twists or surprises aren't yet known. But I don't think DD > ever saw his role as mentor to Harry. He was trying to raise up this boy to fulfill his destiny. Pippin: He was trying to raise up Harry to *survive* his destiny, which was to be murdered by LV. The centaurs told Harry that first year. But he chose to hope they were wrong. I'm not familiar with the Avatar series either. But, assuming there's an ongoing plot, I'll bet my pointy hat this Iroh will turn out to know something more than he's saying. That's what being wise *means*. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 21 14:13:26 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:13:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184720 > Pippin: > He was trying to raise up Harry to *survive* his destiny, which was to > be murdered by LV. The centaurs told Harry that first year. But he > chose to hope they were wrong. > > I'm not familiar with the Avatar series either. But, assuming there's > an ongoing plot, I'll bet my pointy hat this Iroh will turn out to > know something more than he's saying. That's what being wise *means*. Alla: Series ended in July of this year on Nickelodeon ( american channel), I believe they may still be on in some other countries, but they are definitely complete and on DVD in the USA. I recently watched all three seasons back to back and well, cannot sing higher praises to this show. Anyways back to Iroh and Dumbledore. Since as I said above series are complete, and if you are thinking that Iroh will turn out to know more than he is telling, well in a sense he is, but believe me, that would be totally **UN** Dumbledorish sense. Being wise can mean something else than what Dumbledore seems to imply. It is the matter of what he chooses to do with the information that he has at his disposal first and foremost. There are four nations in this world and they used to live in peace many years ago, but then the nation to whom Iroh belongs decided to start the war. So, anyways as we learn close to the end, Iroh leads the Order of Lotus ( yes, yes, creators of Avatar admit some Harry Potter influence and Star War inferences too of course, but believe me it is so so not Harry Potter and not Star wars for the most part anyways), which made me think of the Order of Phoenix, except in a sense how pathetic Order of Phoenix looked to me in comparison to this one. Order of Lotus is a way to give adults rather cool secondary story, while kids are indeed saving the world. It is interesting how it is totally possible to have adults fight one of the major battles of the war and still let kids take a front seat in this ride. It is also interesting how even though we learn about the existence of this order only few episodes close to the end, we already met each and every adult in that order individually and they all had been a big help in one way or another to the kids. It is hard to explain, but if I were to compare how adults are given chance to shine in Harry Potter and Avatar, well IMO Harry Potter looses big time. We have all those great adult characters and they, well, in my opinion do not have much to do at the end so they either agree to not bother with what Trio is doing or just killed. Oh, and do you know what I found super great in Avatar among other things? Iroh is not killed. It turns out it is completely possible to let the kid or teenager make all the major decisions all on his own AND not to kill his mentor. Again, it is hard to explain without going into great details in the plot of the show, but at some point Iroh just leaves and Zuco at that time makes the major decisions of his life, etc. Anyways, I am going on a tangent, I can talk and talk about this show. I almost forgot to mention that yes, there is significant part of Zuco's past that Iroh knows and Zuco does not. It is nothing like prophecy, but still it is very important and I am sure it played a part in the decision Zuco eventually made. However, again the way Iroh handles the information is well, completely different from the way Dumbledore does things IMO. And it seems that Iroh wanted Zuco to choose certain destiny, however he only says it out loud when Zuco **already** chose that destiny and when he was not choosing it, Iroh supported him as well, all the way. I have not noticed Dumbledore hoping that Harry will find his own destiny, I noticed Dumbledore pushing Harry as a weapon, as chess piece to do what Dumbledore wanted him to, IMO. Iroh rocks, he really does in my opinion. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Oct 21 15:14:38 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:14:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184721 > Alla: > And it seems that Iroh wanted Zuco to choose certain destiny, > however he only says it out loud when Zuco **already** chose that > destiny and when he was not choosing it, Iroh supported him as well, > all the way. I have not noticed Dumbledore hoping that Harry will > find his own destiny, I noticed Dumbledore pushing Harry as a weapon, > as chess piece to do what Dumbledore wanted him to, IMO. > > Iroh rocks, he really does in my opinion. Magpie: Iroh rocks hardcore.:-) I would also note--I wrote about this elsewhere in more detail I think once--that the closest Iroh comes to making a mistake in thinking he knows what's best he's wrong. SPOILERS FOR AVATAR BELOW! I mean in Ba Sing Se when Zuko seems like he's going to make the right choice and instead makes a spectacularly wrong choice--in that scene Iroh is coaching him to choose differently. He comes pretty close to saying, "I'm the mentor here and I am wise and know you better than you know yourself, so listen to my advice here and choose right." It seems like all is lost since Zuko doesn't listen. But really Iroh was wrong. Not in what choice Zuko should make, but in thinking that he was ready. He was just not dealing with the things most important to Zuko there. In order to choose the right path Zuko had to work out what this was all about for him, which was his father. Iroh had always avoided that issue because there was a lot of personal stuff in there. Iroh was essentially acting as a surrogate father but he never wanted to put himself forward as that (though he would admit that Zuko became more important to him after his own son died). But he also could never tell Zuko that his dreams of winning his father's love were hopeless. So when Iroh's cheering for him to make the right choice by choosing good because that's what he really is (and he's right) Zuko still listens to his sister telling him if he chooses bad he can go home and have his family back. So my point is just that unlike with HP where despite some nods to Dumbledore's fallibility everybody listens to him and his plans even after he's dead, Zuko's decisions in the end are all based on his own experiences, especially his experiences after not following the plan Iroh imagined in his head. (And of course Iroh is not manipulative the way Dumbledore is.) Which makes for a stronger choice on Zuko's part. Had he just "listened to Iroh" in Ba Sing Se his turn to the other side probably would have been less stable because part of him would still be longing for his fantasy of winning his father's love. Not that Zuko doesn't totally credit Iroh as his mentor. He just doesn't completely follow him all the time. When they reunite and Iroh says, "I was never angry with you. I was sad because I thought you had lost your way." (And I cry.) And Zuko says, "I did lose my way." He needed to lose it, though, to learn the truth about his wrong-thinking. Iroh couldn't do that for him; he couldn't just trust in him. I would also say that in the end Zuko is a teenager on his way to become someone on the level of Iroh--Iroh himself was a lot like Zuko at his age, apparently. He still needs to get there, though. Where as Harry follows Dumbledore's plans but is also understood to be a far better person. He avoids Dumbledore's mistakes but never feels to me like he stops being the student. It's hard to explain, but it is very different from Zuko and Iroh. Zuko winds up still not at Iroh's level, but only because of his youth. Iroh is wise not because he knows stuff that he's not telling Zuko but because he's made mistakes, learned from them, suffered and been brave enough to make them better. Also, another aspect of this I always love, is the way that like Dumbleodre, Iroh sometimes sounds like a fool.:-) His advice often comes out as sounding totally unintelligible to Zuko. But without realizing it once Zuko starts to gain knowledge he starts doing the same thing in his own way. When Zuko is speaking from experience he's able to give wise advice too on things like "What honor is." -m From bobhawkins at rcn.com Wed Oct 22 01:02:25 2008 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:02:25 -0000 Subject: Post DH meaning of PS/SS chess game. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > ... > But the motif of sacrifice reminded me, Ron thought he would die when > the Queen destroyed the knight. Harry protested, but Ron insistend that > Harry had to be the one to go on. > bobhawkins: This sounds like Dumbledore's sacrifice on the lightning-struck tower. Earlier in HBP, Dumbledore said that Harry's blood was more valuable than his own. On the tower, Dumbledore had Snape kill him, in a gambit that made Snape's position with Voldemort secure, while making sure Harry could carry on. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 22 15:23:11 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:23:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184723 Magpie: > So my point is just that unlike with HP where despite some nods to > Dumbledore's fallibility everybody listens to him and his plans even after he's dead, Pippin: I do not see what is so bad about consulting Dumbledore's portrait after he's dead. A lot of respected philosophers and sages are dead -- does that mean we ignore their wisdom? But Dumbledore does not run Harry's show right to the end. As I mentioned to someone offlist, the revenants conjured by the Resurrection Stone are not Dumbledore's pawns. Dead or alive he has no way to control who Harry will summon, or what advice they will give. They could have told Harry how to escape, like the wand shadows did in GoF. Dumbledore gave up his emotional hold by allowing Harry to think that he betrayed him. If Harry was still guiding himself by what Dumbledore wanted done, it was because of his belief in Dumbledore's ideals, not Dumbledore himself. And that was Harry's choice, not Dumbledore's. He could manipulate belief where it existed, he could take advantage of someone's need to believe, but I do not see in canon that Dumbledore could *make* people believe anything, except by enchantment. Iroh sounds like more of a wish fulfillment figure than Dumbledore. In HP it isn't a case of the successful experienced older generation passing the torch to the gallant but callow younger one. It's an older generation that failed because of intolerance and mistrust, passing the torch to a younger generation that succeeds, just barely. Harry's generation avoided the worst mistakes of its elders, very hampered by its elders' prideful reluctance to admit that any mistakes were made, and its own youthful need to have uncomplicated heroes (and villains) to believe in. Pippin From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Oct 22 16:32:45 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:32:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG References: Message-ID: <0B36FECAE79D4FEFAEEA664300C47268@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 184724 > Pippin: > I'm not familiar with the Avatar series either. But, assuming there's > an ongoing plot, I'll bet my pointy hat this Iroh will turn out to > know something more than he's saying. That's what being wise *means*. > Alla: > Anyways back to Iroh and Dumbledore. Since as I said above series are > complete, and if you are thinking that Iroh will turn out to know > more than he is telling, well in a sense he is, but believe me, that > would be totally **UN** Dumbledorish sense. Being wise can mean > something else than what Dumbledore seems to imply. The differences between Iroh and Dumbledore- Oh, how I wish Dumbledore could have been like Iroh! Yes, Iroh knows things that Prince Zuco doesn't, but here in shows the huge difference between Iroh and Dumbledore- is how and why they depart information to the younger. Iroh is like the wise parent with sex- waiting for the child to ask that first question: mom, where do babies come from? To then answer what the child needs for that point in development to make use of that information, and then patiently waiting for the next stage: asking about sex itself or orgasm or why people do it. Iroh doesn't withhold or manipulate information to manipulate Zuco into doing anything; instead, he's waiting for Zuco to grow up and ask the right questions. There is a huge past with Zuco's family, dark secrets and painful truths about the Fire Nation that Iroh doesn't just spill to Zuco. He waits for Zuco to grow up, explore who he is, and as Zuco seeks to confront those painful truths, then Iroh is happy to fill in the past for him. So, yes, Iroh knows a LOT that is more than he originally said, but his purpose in not saying it all in the beginning is only to let Zuco tell him when he was ready to hear it. Thus, you see a story where Zuco grows up, decides who he is, who he wants to be, and Iroh patiently waits while this teen is slow to do it, rebellious at times, and hardheaded. Iroh doesn't force Zuco in any direction, yet just "trusts" that Zuco will turn out right in the end. However long it takes Zuco, Iroh patiently waits it out. Contrast Dumbledore, who withheld information from Harry. Why? To manipulate him down a path. Much different that Iroh's love for Zuco. Dumbledore says he didn't tell Harry things at first because he "loved him and didn't want to see him hurt", yet as we see the books progress, we see him tell Harry information to get him to do a job, the same way we see Dumbledore manipulating Snape because he needed him to be in Voldemort's inner circle to gain information to bring it back to Dumbledore so he could manipulate circumstances even further. There's no trust, no love in what Dumbledore ultimately does to Harry. Dumbledore doesn't see a destiny where Harry willingly makes the right choice, no, he sees a situation that has to be controlled so that Harry and Voldemort will have a show down, and Harry will kick Voldemort's butt. There is no end goal for Harry other than for Harry to be dead, and Dumbledore doesn't wait for Harry to be ready to hear it, instead, he's manipulating information to get Harry to do a job. Harry does feel this, he knows it. Rowling shows the times that Harry is ready to hear information, and rather than answer the questions, Dumbledore plays coy or promises "later", only he never intended there to be a "later." Dumbledore is never the friend, the mentor, that Harry needs in his life. Dumbledore is never the wise old man who is ready to admit his mistakes in love in and life so that Harry could be a better man for it, but Iroh does. Dumbledore is never interested in Harry as the man he will grow up to be, as Iroh is with Zuco. Iroh truly is the Wise Old Man, Dumbledore the manipulative bastard who controls information and people for his benefit. Zuco gets information out of Iroh to grow up and understand the world around him and who he will be, and Iroh doesn't control that information to lead Zuco down the right path. He just trusts that Zuco will get that path right in his own time. Dumbledore is giving information to Harry only to control him, force him, down a singular, narrow path. That information is not free, not complete, and frankly, Dumbledore doesn't give a care in the world about whom Harry will be after the defeat of Voldemort. Shelley From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Oct 22 18:55:33 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:55:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184725 > Magpie: > > So my point is just that unlike with HP where despite some nods to > > Dumbledore's fallibility everybody listens to him and his plans even > after he's dead, > > Pippin: > > > I do not see what is so bad about consulting Dumbledore's portrait > after he's dead. A lot of respected philosophers and sages are dead -- > does that mean we ignore their wisdom? But Dumbledore does not run > Harry's show right to the end. Magpie: I didn't say it was bad people consulted his portrait once or twice. DH simply shows Dumbledore's plans and following them and Dumbledore's manipulations while Avatar is NOT about Iroh behaving the same way. It's a contrast. I prefer Iroh as a character and think the kids on Avatar develop better, but that's my reaction to the far bigger issue of the whole narrative structure and the way the characters are used than just somebody asking Dumbledore's portrait something. Pippin: > As I mentioned to someone offlist, the revenants conjured by the > Resurrection Stone are not Dumbledore's pawns. Dead or alive he has no > way to control who Harry will summon, or what advice they will give. > They could have told Harry how to escape, like the wand shadows did in > GoF. Magpie: I wasn't particularly thinking of the revenants as pawns to begin with. They only show up once to cheer Harry on when he's already following the plan which turns out to be right. Pippin: > Dumbledore gave up his emotional hold by allowing Harry to think > that he betrayed him. If Harry was still guiding himself by what > Dumbledore wanted done, it was because of his belief in > Dumbledore's ideals, not Dumbledore himself. And that was Harry's > choice, not Dumbledore's. > He could manipulate belief where it existed, he could take advantage > of someone's need to believe, but I do not see in canon that > Dumbledore could *make* people believe anything, except by enchantment. Magpie: So Dumbledore manipulates again by "allowing" Harry to think that he betrayed him, and Harry decides by himself to follow Dumbledore. It has nothing to do with making people believe anything. Dumbledore manipulates and witholds information and is also right. Pippin: > Iroh sounds like more of a wish fulfillment figure than Dumbledore. Magpie: Well, he isn't any more of a wish fulfillment figure than Dumbledore however he sounds (not sure how he sounds so much more wish- fulfilling). He's just a mentor who doesn't operate like Dumbledore within the story or as a character. Pippin: In > HP it isn't a case of the successful experienced older generation > passing the torch to the gallant but callow younger one. It's an older > generation that failed because of intolerance and mistrust, passing > the torch to a younger generation that succeeds, just barely. > Harry's generation avoided the worst mistakes of its elders, very > hampered by its elders' prideful reluctance to admit that > any mistakes were made, and its own youthful need to have > uncomplicated heroes (and villains) to believe in. Magpie: The younger characters don't need to get rid of too much prideful reluctance or admit mistakes made. Harry's prideful arrogance didn't come into contact with a Peter Pettigrew is the main difference. Harry follows Dumbledore's hints which turn out to be right but Harry is also inherently better, just the way he was in PS, it still seems to me. Also "successful experienced older generation passing the torch to the gallant but callow younger one" is not describing Iroh and Zuko it doesn't really apply. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 23 02:00:59 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:00:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184726 Pippin: > Iroh sounds like more of a wish fulfillment figure than Dumbledore. Magpie: Well, he isn't any more of a wish fulfillment figure than Dumbledore however he sounds (not sure how he sounds so much more wish- fulfilling). He's just a mentor who doesn't operate like Dumbledore within the story or as a character. Alla: I hesitate to react till I understand in what sense Iroh sounds like wish fulfillment for Pippin. I mean if it is wish fulfillment in a sense that one would want to have likeable Wise Old Man in the story, then sure I agree ? it is fulfillment of that particular wish. However his character does not become less believable because he is likeable or anything like that. But in any event there is a reason why I jumped on wish fulfillment part of Pippin's argument, because there is certainly something in Avatar which to me sound like idealistic wish fulfillment and this is of course the ending of it. However, the road to that ending is so painful, so so hard so filled with pain of losses, etc, that I think I will forgive that ending. Before you tell me that ending in HP is also happy, well, I totally agree that it is happy for the characters, I however disagree that the ending for the society is all warm and fuzzy. I mean, we debated all that in the past of course, but I am of the firm opinion that all the things that are left hanging, well to me it is more realistic to left them hanging and hope that change will come then to resolve all that and be going to the era of love and peace. BUT this is the only gripe I have with the Avatar and again, since the target of the show are preteens, I think making them feel warm and fuzzy ( and me too), and hoping that era of love and peace will come one day despite the fact that history so far did not show me anything to that effect, well not the worst thing that can be shown as ideal. I also just realized something else that while to me Iroh beats Dumbledore hands down in all departments for the reasons that Shelley and Magpie so eloquently described ( and I do agree with them), well I just realized that maybe to me it is not exactly fair to compare them. I mean, it is fair to compare them as wise old men, yes, but IMO the fact that their mentees have different functions in the story sort of precludes certain things. Let me try to explain. And actually, it only concerns Iroh for the most part anyways, basically I do not think that there is anything that should have stopped Dumbledore from being more like Iroh. I totally believe that Harry would have benefited tremendously from that kind of relationship and would have been much happier in so many aspects, however I do not think that Zuco, all things remaining the same **could** have mentor like Dumbledore in the story if that makes sense. Again, I am being very honest I only thought about it just now, therefore I may not be very clear in what I am trying to say, feel free to ask questions. To me Zuco is basically Draco Malfoy of Avatar world, not in a sense that their circumstances are exactly the same, because of course they are not, but in a sense that Malfoy is on the wrong side of the fight and expected to choose differently and Zuco is on the wrong side initially and expected to choose differently. As some of you may know, I cannot stand Malfoy, never did, but I absolutely adore Zuco. I find his character arc to be the most honest, realistically handle and well, just beautiful. So my point is that since show creators had in mind for Zuco eventually to choose correctly, I am just wondering if they decided that mentor like Dumbledore may have prevented Zuco from choosing correctly instead of helping, you know? I mean, look how in HBP how delicately Dumbledore tries to handle Draco Malfoy. I mean, delicately the way Dumbledore means the word of course and I do not like how Dumbledore does it one bit, but I am trying to talk about the idea of sort of handling them similarly, you know? I am still not sure if that makes sense. Iroh is the mentor to the teenager, who is not the Chosen one, right? I mean he needs to choose his destiny and in a sense the end of war depends on him too, but he is not the one who needs to accept the destiny of the Chosen one (Avatar), he is the one who should choose to **help** the Chosen one. I cannot explain why it feels so differently to me, but it does. Aang ( the Avatar) really does not have the luxury of not accepting his destiny, doesn't he? I mean, it is accept or a whole lot of more people will die and just look how more died in the 100 years while you chickened out and run away. And in a way I am wondering whether if Aang had a mentor, whether that mentor would have been just as patient with him as Iroh is with Zuco. Come to think of it, does Aang really has a mentor? Does Roko count as such? If he does, well, in a way it is really mentoring himself lol, well I do not think that Roko is manipulative, but to me he is not so patient as Iroh, like at all. And well, just as an aside, if we were compare protagonists of this show and Harry Potter, I was never able to really connect to Aang. I mean, I do see how well he is done, but I guess to me his struggles and insecurities are sort of superficial. I guess to me his abilities to defeat Fire Lord were always there and all that he had to do is to work harder, to drive him more and he will tap into them. To me Harry's struggle in that way felt much more real, truly ordinary kid (despite being celebrity and all) thrown into something which seems so beyond his reach (defeating Dark Lordy with love as Dumbledore keeps telling him). While Aang has all those extraordinary powers and just IMO needs to talk him into or work harder to use them. I mean, even when he is scared to firebend because he burned Katara before, Guru tells him that you are an Avatar that means you are a firebender. To me that pretty much sums up the source of my annoyance with Aang. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 23 03:12:50 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:12:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184727 > Magpie: > Well, he isn't any more of a wish fulfillment figure than Dumbledore > however he sounds (not sure how he sounds so much more wish- > fulfilling). He's just a mentor who doesn't operate like Dumbledore > within the story or as a character. > > Alla: > But in any event there is a reason why I jumped on wish fulfillment > part of Pippin's argument, because there is certainly something in > Avatar which to me sound like idealistic wish fulfillment and this is > of course the ending of it. However, the road to that ending is so > painful, so so hard so filled with pain of losses, etc, that I think > I will forgive that ending. Before you tell me that ending in HP is > also happy, well, I totally agree that it is happy for the > characters, I however disagree that the ending for the society is all > warm and fuzzy. I mean, we debated all that in the past of course, > but I am of the firm opinion that all the things that are left > hanging, well to me it is more realistic to left them hanging and > hope that change will come then to resolve all that and be going to > the era of love and peace. Magpie: I guess for me it seems like Avatar ends at basically where HP would be pre-epilogue. They beat the bad guy which means there's a new Fire Lord. We don't know what's going to happen now that the bad guy's been defeated at the end of the show. There's the crowning of a new Fire Lord who makes a speech to a limited group of people, Iroh opens his shop. But if the show had gone into a fourth season (which half the team was pushing for) they would have dealt with problems that faced everyone still. A character saying they want to usher in an era of love and peace doesn't mean love and peace is going to happen then. It means they're going to try to start a very long road to something better. As you say, they might be hoping there's an era of love and peace, but we don't know what happens next. If the show had gone on we would definitely not have seen a love and peace era, we'd see a lot of problems. But the general idea is: All was well. The Avatar universe was actually far more messed up than the HP-verse at that point. The problems were so big it was almost like...where do we start? Alla: > Again, I am being very honest I only thought about it just now, > therefore I may not be very clear in what I am trying to say, feel > free to ask questions. To me Zuco is basically Draco Malfoy of > Avatar world, not in a sense that their circumstances are exactly the > same, because of course they are not, but in a sense that Malfoy is > on the wrong side of the fight and expected to choose differently and > Zuco is on the wrong side initially and expected to choose > differently. As some of you may know, I cannot stand Malfoy, never > did, but I absolutely adore Zuco. I find his character arc to be the > most honest, realistically handle and well, just beautiful. So my > point is that since show creators had in mind for Zuco eventually to > choose correctly, I am just wondering if they decided that mentor > like Dumbledore may have prevented Zuco from choosing correctly > instead of helping, you know? Magpie: ITA with this basic way of looking at it. Iroh is in some ways positioned like Dumbledore and Snape in one just in terms of the fact that Iroh and Zuko both start out on the DE side, oppressing others. By the time the show starts Iroh has had a change of heart but hasn't actively switched sides, exactly. He's a sleeper, a bit like Snape. It's different than Dumbledore's flirtation with the bad side in his youth. Iroh and Zuko have more in common imo. Iroh understands the pride in the Fire Nation, he's just offering a better way to bring it honor. The distance between Dumbledore and Draco is a lot greater. I don't think Dumbledore has the confidence in Draco that Iroh does in Zuko. Dumbledore's confident that Draco isn't a killer, but that's not saying much. At best Draco is a victim he can spare from something. He's not really invested in Draco's development as a man. Of course, Zuko and Aang are sort of dual protagonists. Zuko is choosing to help the Avatar but is also really important with his own story arc. Still, it's definitely not about destiny (even though Zuko talks about destiny a lot!) for Zuko. He is more of what Draco potentially could have been in that he's born into the ruling family on the bad side, learns what's wrong with that side and takes over the family to steer it in a different direction. Dumbledore isn't about that--certainly not the way Iroh, another member of the family, is. Alla: > Come to think of it, does Aang really has a mentor? Does Roko count > as such? If he does, well, in a way it is really mentoring himself > lol, well I do not think that Roko is manipulative, but to me he is > not so patient as Iroh, like at all. Magpie: I don't really think he had a mentor. He had the monk when he was growing up but Aang is more about friends on his same level. He also had that guru but his advice was wrong anyway. He's 112! -m From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Thu Oct 23 11:52:05 2008 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:52:05 -0000 Subject: Is Snape way too brilliant or is Voldy a dunderhead? :-) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184728 Voldy was there behind Quirrell's head and was able to hear what was going on when someone spoke to Quirrell. Snape was pretty clearly asking Quirrell to decide where his loyalties lie and Quirrell also explained to Harry that Snape was protecting Harry during the Quiditch game in the climax. So, how *on earth* did Voldy trust Snape??? I don't think even Spinner's End in HBP answers this question convincingly. Do you concur? Cheers, ~Joey From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 14:26:19 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:26:19 -0000 Subject: Is Snape way too brilliant or is Voldy a dunderhead? :-) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184729 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "happyjoeysmiley" wrote: > > Voldy was there behind Quirrell's head and was able to hear what was > going on when someone spoke to Quirrell. Snape was pretty clearly > asking Quirrell to decide where his loyalties lie and Quirrell also > explained to Harry that Snape was protecting Harry during the Quiditch > game in the climax. So, how *on earth* did Voldy trust Snape??? I > don't think even Spinner's End in HBP answers this question > convincingly. Do you concur? Leah: Nothing in what Quirrelmort heard or saw contradicts Snape's explanation that he saw 'only a mediocre wizard' who was out for himself. Snape will also have told Voldemort what he tells Bellatrix, that he remained at Hogwarts after Voldemort's fall to avoid Azkaban. In that case he would have to be seen to be obeying Dumbledore's orders and protecting the boy who lived. It is surprising that Snape didn't sense the presence of Voldy in Quirrel; you would thought it would activate the Dark Mark but obviously didn't. Snape also has a problem with the whole Shrieking Shack incident, where Wormtail can report that although everyone believed Sirius to be a Death Eater, Snape was threatening him and doing his level best to have him arrested. Snape may have been able to pass this off as personal hatred towards Black. The fact that Wormtail is at Spinners End (and may well have been there over the previous summer as well) suggests Voldemort is still keeping tabs on Snape. Wormtail can spy but also having Lily's betrayer in the same house as Snape will be a test as to how much Snape has actually forgotten her in favour of women of purer blood. So the trust is not 100% (is it ever with Voldemort?). On the other hand, Wormtail as Scabbers will doubtless have overheard a number of conversations in the Gryffindor dormitory about the 'greasy git' and how badly he treats Harry, so if Voldemort extracts those from Wormtail via Leglimancy, there is some balance. If Lucius Malfoy is acting as Snape's friend at the time of GOF/OOTP, then he would have similar information to report via Draco. I also think Voldemort wants to trust Snape. Perhaps he has some fellow feeling for him - they're both clever, dirt-poor half-blood boys. Looking at why Voldemort trusts Snape short-term on his return at the end of GOF, I think it is expedient for Voldemort to do so. Snape certainly has years of information on Dumbledore, as he tells Bellatrix, and he also has the thing that Snape himself says is his greatest value to the Dark Lord, Dumbledore's trust. Voldemort wants to seize power once he has been resurrected. He has the Ministry just over two years after that resurrection and it would probably have been quicker if he hadn't faffed around with the Prophecy and wanted to slowly torture the Malfoys by giving Draco a school year in which to kill Dumbledore. In that sort of time frame, Voldemort is not going to be able to install another spy at Hogwarts, who will gain Dumbledore's trust to the same extent as Snape has, if at all. So IMO there is a sense in which Voldemort is pre-disposed to believe Snape (but still applies the Wormtail test). Long-term, Voldemort's trust is reinforced by the 'kill Dumbledore' plan. Voldemort will expect Dumbldore to want to live to fight him, so if the plan has been betrayed by Snape, Dumbledore should be taking steps to thwart Draco. In fact, he does not appear to be doing anything, even after Ron and katie suffer collateral damage. Then, of course, the killing of Dumbledore installs Snape as Voldemort's right hand man. The key however must be Snape's skill at Occlumency. There is nothing Voldemort sees in Snape's mind that contradicts what Snape is telling him. If you are perhaps the greatest Leglimens the world has ever seen, you must get to rely on what you can pull out of people's minds. If everything in Snape's mind supports what he tells Voldemort, then Voldemort will trust him. So the answer probably is, Snape is brilliant at Occlumency, and Voldemort's belief in his own powers and superiority allow him to be fooled. Leah From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 23 17:28:25 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:28:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184730 Alla: > I hesitate to react till I understand in what sense Iroh sounds like wish fulfillment for Pippin. I mean if it is wish fulfillment in a sense that one would want to have likeable Wise Old Man in the story, then sure I agree ? it is fulfillment of that particular wish. > However his character does not become less believable because he is > likeable or anything like that. I totally believe that Harry would have benefited tremendously from that kind of relationship and would have been much happier in so many aspects, Pippin: If I understand you correctly, you are wishing that Dumbledore was more like Iroh, not so that Rowling's story would work better, but so that Harry would have had an easier life. Is that right? So in that sense, Iroh would function as a wish fulfillment character in the HP universe. It has nothing to do with whether Iroh would be a believable character in Rowling's world, or in our world, which I am in no position to judge. I do not think, in terms of Rowling's story, that a more benign mentor could have given Harry the experiences that JKR wanted him to have. But it is really not Dumbledore's plan that forces Harry into a situation where he has to carry out Dumbledore's plan or everything he cares about will be destroyed. Harry decided that Dumbledore was wrong to trust only the Trio, and enlisted the help of the others to find the Hogwarts Horcrux. But by doing that, Harry put himself under an obligation to the others. He couldn't refuse to die for them when they were dying for him, not without becoming another Pettigrew. Magpie: Harry's prideful arrogance didn't come into contact with a Peter Pettigrew is the main difference. Pippin: Harry met a lot of potential Pettigrews, he just didn't make friends of them. There were a lot of characters who offered Harry flattery as a means of gaining personal advantage. Harry was more suspicious of that than James, who took it as his due. The character whose outrageous flattery Harry does accept is Dumbledore, who betrays him on a personal level, but not for personal advantage. Magpie: So Dumbledore manipulates again by "allowing" Harry to think that he betrayed him, and Harry decides by himself to follow Dumbledore Pippin: It was manipulative of Dumbledore to get Harry to think for himself and decide to do the right thing? How do you see that as different from leadership? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 23 18:42:54 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:42:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184731 > Pippin: > If I understand you correctly, you are wishing that Dumbledore was > more like Iroh, not so that Rowling's story would work better, but so > that Harry would have had an easier life. Is that right? So in that > sense, Iroh would function as a wish fulfillment character in the HP > universe. > > It has nothing to do with whether Iroh would be a believable character > in Rowling's world, or in our world, which I am in no position to judge. > > I do not think, in terms of Rowling's story, that a more benign mentor > could have given Harry the experiences that JKR wanted him to have. Alla: No, I do not think you understood me correctly at all. I was trying to figure out in what sense Iroh sounds as wish fulfilment **for you**, that's all. And I still do not understand that part of your argument. Now you seem to be switching geres in the midair, and I do not even understand how to argue against the argument I never advanced in the first place. But let me try. I **certainly** wish that Dumbledore would have been more like Iroh, absolutely. What do you mean not for the story working better? I am always very reluctant to tell the writer how the story would work better, I mean JKR wrote the story that she wrote. Does it work for me? Sure in general it does. Does Dumbledore's character work for me? As manipulative bastard he absolutely works for me, I think he is written very consistently that way. But as a character I can respect and like? Um, no not really it does not. So really it all depends on what exactly was the meaning of the *story working better*. If you mean that I want for Dumbledore to operate more like Iroh because then I would have **liked** the character better? Do I think he would have **easier** life with somebody like Iroh? Um, only in a sense that he would have had an adult in his life who was genuinely interested in helping him grow in a man, NOT in him being a weapon. IMO of course. Pippin: > But it is really not Dumbledore's plan that forces Harry into a > situation where he has to carry out Dumbledore's plan or everything > he cares about will be destroyed. Alla: Oh? Somebody else planned all that? Pippin: > Harry decided that Dumbledore was wrong to trust only the Trio, and > enlisted the help of the others to find the Hogwarts Horcrux. But by > doing that, Harry put himself under an obligation to the others. He > couldn't refuse to die for them when they were dying for him, not > without becoming another Pettigrew. Alla: Harry can **never** refuse to die for other people, he had been trained to do that since he was young IMO. I believe that it is in him as well - genes, etc, but I believe that if he was raised differently, he would have at least been able to consider other possibilities. > Magpie: > So Dumbledore manipulates again by "allowing" Harry to think that he > betrayed him, and Harry decides by himself to follow Dumbledore > > Pippin: > It was manipulative of Dumbledore to get Harry to think for himself > and decide to do the right thing? How do you see that as different > from leadership? Alla: I do not believe that Dumbledore ever did that, allowing Harry to think for himself that is. I think Harry exercised that function of his brain contrary to Dumbledore, not because of him. However, I believe that at this point it did not matter much in a sense that Harry was already shaped to make that decision. I think the fact that Dumbledore is not among Harry's loved ones called by stone tells us a lot, I was very glad to see that. However, I think Dumbledore started preparing Harry to do that ever since they did Stone adventure. JMO. Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Oct 23 19:30:13 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:30:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184732 > Magpie: > Harry's prideful arrogance didn't come into contact with a Peter > Pettigrew is the main difference. > > Pippin: > Harry met a lot of potential Pettigrews, he just didn't make friends > of them. Magpie: And had no need to grow out of whatever prideful arrogance he might have started out with. Since Harry doesn't have James's flaws, he doesn't have to overcome them. > Magpie: > So Dumbledore manipulates again by "allowing" Harry to think that he > betrayed him, and Harry decides by himself to follow Dumbledore > > Pippin: > It was manipulative of Dumbledore to get Harry to think for himself > and decide to do the right thing? How do you see that as different > from leadership? Magpie: Yes, I think by definition getting someone to do something would be called manipulation. It's Dumbledore's philosophy of being a leader so yeah, he's being a leader there when he does it. But I wasn't challenging Dumbledore's methods there, just describing the different position Dumbledore has/had relative to the hero when the story's all done than Iroh does/did. I think the use of the word "allow" and "getting Harry to think for himself" is quite correct. It's what keeps Dumbledore in a different position relevent to Harry than the positioning of Zuko and Iroh, who doesn't get Zuko to do those things. The use of "leader" there is also correct--Iroh's not a leader. (He has been--he was a General and leads a force into battle at one point, but his role is not that of leader within the story.) -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 24 12:38:16 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:38:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's lesson about arrogance was Re: Dumbledore versus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184733 > > Magpie: > And had no need to grow out of whatever prideful arrogance he might > have started out with. Since Harry doesn't have James's flaws, he > doesn't have to overcome them. Pippin: Harry was wiser than James, but he had the same flaw, and had to learn his own lesson about arrogance. Harry always knew that some things were more important than his personal comfort and safety. But he refused to see that people could oppose or even betray him and still be essential to the greater good. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 24 13:27:32 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:27:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's lesson about arrogance was Re: Dumbledore versus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Magpie: > > And had no need to grow out of whatever prideful arrogance he might > > have started out with. Since Harry doesn't have James's flaws, he > > doesn't have to overcome them. > > Pippin: > Harry was wiser than James, but he had the same flaw, and had to learn > his own lesson about arrogance. Harry always knew that some things > were more important than his personal comfort and safety. But he > refused to see that people could oppose or even betray him and still > be essential to the greater good. Magpie: I didn't see Harry being much challenged in this area at all. Essential to the greater good, sure. Snape was essential and Harry respected his sacrifice and bravery. But I didn't read much of a big lesson on Harry's part. He really didn't need to go back over his own behavior about it. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 24 14:08:09 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:08:09 -0000 Subject: Post DH meaning of PS/SS chess game. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184735 Zara: If the desired parallel is about Ron, then whatever we come up with is going to be (in my opinion, no offense to big fans of Ron) not that significant to the overall plot of the series. Alla: Sorry dear for not replying right away. Well, yes in the hindsight I can see that, but that was one of my points ? that I was thinking that maybe Ron's sacrifice in chess game in PS will foreshadow Ron's sacrifice on the bigger scale which will allow Harry's to go forward and achieve ultimate victory. In fact, I believe at some point in time I was totally sold on the idea that Ron will be either dead or will be presumed to be dead. I mean of course Ron is the sidekick and I did not expect him to steal Harry's thunder at the end, but I did expect him to do something **as heroic** as what he did in chess game. Zara: If we do want to talk about that one chess game as saying something about the whole series, I would begin by asking, "Who is playing?" and to me, only one answer makes sense - Albus Dumbledore. He's the guy on the "good side" making the plans, moving the pieces, and insert your favorite chess-related cliche here. Alla: Oh yeah and now I think that chess game indeed says this about whole series, exactly what you wrote ? Albus Dumbledore is playing. I am not even sure if Voldemort is playing on the other side. Yeah, I guess author was always blatantly honest with me, I was just deluding myself that blatant manipulation and moving characters as chess pieces is not something to glorify. Sigh. So, yes, I agree with you if I understood you correctly. Zara: Also, the knight in the game is described as a very active piece, one which travels about the board removing many white pieces from play. (Sorry, no quote, I was checking my Lithuanian copy...) This fits Harry far better. And Albus carefully arranges matters so that Harry would choose to be taken (die, or not really die, whatever) in the endgame, by specifying to Snape when Harry needs to learn of the soul bit. Alla: Right, agree again that Albus **carefully arranges matters so that Harry would choose to be taken**, but I suppose I hoped that at the end kids will be the one arranging the matters. I also agree that Harry's sacrifice fits in some ways and does not fit in others. Zara: Well, if it did nothing else, it dramatized for the first time a motif (? hope I used the right word there...) that is repeated through the series - someone making a sacrifice so that others could go on to achieve hoped for successes. Alla: Right, it definitely does that and also IMO establishes Albus Dumbledore being firmly behind the scenes and moving them, I was just wondering if more direct parallel can be established and I guess not. Oh, and I am also wondering if you see a direct parallel with Snape's infamous puzzle with anything in the finale. You think Albus' sending them on the wild goose search to figure out staff about Hallows can count as such? JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 25 16:06:31 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:06:31 -0000 Subject: Post DH meaning of PS/SS chess game. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184736 > Zara: > Should we, then, consider the sacrifice of the black knight (Ron's > piece) to parallel Albus's death? Certainly its time and manner was > chosen by Albus, just as Ron chose when he would be taken. And > certainly the goal seems to have been to advance other pieces/parts > of his plan, most notably Snape and whatever he planned for the Elder > Wand. But Albus's death does not fit so well in other ways. In the > game, the taking of the knight is one step away from a checkmate. > > Also, the knight in the game is described as a very active piece, one which travels about the board removing many white pieces from play. (Sorry, no quote, I was checking my Lithuanian copy...) This fits Harry far better. Pippin: It doesn't work as a parallel for the 7th book only, but what about the whole series? Albus and his (chess)men remove many obstacles from Harry's path: DE!Snape, Quirrell,Diary!Riddle, Fake!Moody, Umbridge, the DE's of OOP, and the Ring horcrux. But eventually Albus sacrifices himself and sends Harry on alone. Dumbledore's man, indeed. Ron chooses to take part in the game -- he doesn't consider giving instructions to Chessman!Harry while he and Hermione watch from safety. Playing to win is also a choice. Ron could have tried to maneuver the pieces so that the Trio them could reach the eighth rank and get to the door without checkmating the White King. Those aren't choices that Dumbledore considers in the book, but they are strategies adopted by other characters. In wizard chess, the pieces have minds of their own. The chessmaster can tell his men what to do, but he needs to motivate them to do it. "Ron knew [his pieces] so well he never had trouble getting them to do what he wanted." (PS ch12) That sounds a lot like Dumbledore. Harry's pieces, borrowed from Seamus, "didn't trust him at all." They "kept shouting different bits of advice at him, which was confusing:'Don't send me there, can't you see his knight? Send *him*, we can afford to lose *him*.'" That snippet points out that to win, the chessmaster needs to make decisions about which pieces he can afford to lose. He can't leave it to chance, nor to the pieces themselves, nor to the enemy. If the pieces trust him to win the game, they will let themselves be sacrificed, because "that's chess" -- they understand that without sacrifice no victory is possible. Pippin From catlady at wicca.net Sat Oct 25 23:24:50 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:24:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore versus General Iroh SPOILERS for Avatar the Last airbender LONG In-Reply-To: <0B36FECAE79D4FEFAEEA664300C47268@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184737 Shelley k12listmomma wrote in : << There's no trust, no love in what Dumbledore ultimately does to Harry. Dumbledore doesn't see a destiny where Harry willingly makes the right choice, >> I am not a big fan of Dumbledore, but I cannot resist nitpicking. It seems to me that Dumbledore greatly trusts Harry. Dumbledore *trusts* that Harry, on receiving Snape's information, will choose heroic self-sacrifice. And trusts Harry's competence and thoroughness: "If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort." Surely there are people who, upon learning that they were raised as pigs for the slaughter, would choose to run away to another country to live under a different name. Like: "I don't owe these manipulative adults anything, and the children who are depending on me were deceived by the adults, not by me." Surely there are people who, upon learning that the plan is that they will allow themselves to be killed without defending themselves, will fight and try to defeat the other guy and win the duel anyway. << There is no end goal for Harry other than for Harry to be dead, >> Well, since the infamous gleam of triumph in Dumbledore's eye, Dumbledore has been hoping that Harry will survive being killed, and assuming that Harry then will be a good man leading a normal life. But, on repeated review of my post, Dumbledore stood for the theory that it is very bad for any person, including Harry, to never ever die. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Oct 26 08:01:17 2008 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 08:01:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's choice to save the world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184738 I've included the responses of Alla and Catlady below my response... DD I'm responding to Catlady who stated: "I suspect that America has never in my lifetime fought a war that was worth fighting, but it is generally agreed that WWII was worth fighting, that Hitler's Reich was a real military threat to the survival of USA, as well as an archetype of evil. " As a disabled veteran I have a few things to say... Post U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, almost 3 million were killed. (genocide?!?), we sat and watched 100's of thousands killed in Bosnia, Ethiopia..not to mention the millions of Darfur(so many countries, so many armed forces, all they could do was protect convoys of aid...until it was delivered to a certain point). Tens of thousands of troups from all countries who could never fire a gun, who risked their lives only to feed the oppressors.. After the FIRST persuian gulf conflict..when Colin Powel et. al. were sitting signing the papers...Sadam Huesein insisted that his Helocopters be allowed to fly so they could patrol/protect his borders...as soon as the U.S. agreed...many, many, many innocent Kuwaiti/Iraqui women and children were shot down by said helocopters.. Our U.S. armed forces are a completely volunarty service..dunno about so many other countries..Even in the U.S....they don't have to serve if they don't want to, even after volunteering..(there may be repurcussions, but they do not HAVE to serve)..and we have no mandatory draft!(perhaps if so many of our jobs were not shipped abroad, many more would not volunteer). Of course Harry will make any sacrifice necessary to protect the world he's ACCEPTED in..he loves both worlds muggle and magic(to a different degree perhaps but he loves both--and he may not have if not for Arthur Weasley)..he sees the fallicies and benefits of both! He see's the family/loved ones(of himself and others) in both worlds. I've just seen so much of this world, and so much wrong....I oft wonder how many millions of lives may have been saved if the U.S. had entered the war sooner rather than later... In the WW, Harry's been deemed a "little soldier" for most of his life...there is a choice Harry had to make...I really loathe the fact that DD felt some manipulation was in order to ensure Harry would make that happen.. DD (Whose Brit mum was left an orphan afer WWII and has had American Ancestor Veterans serving since the French/Indian war, and whose war of "youth" was one she served in). > Alla wrote in > << One of my grandmother's brothers went to regular army during Second war II and was killed. My great grandmother from what I heard begged him not to go. If she would have begged him **to go**, I would find it weird, you know? "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"wrote: > Oh, dear. I've been thinking of World War II as I read this thread > about whether Harry should have been allowed to choose to sacrifice > himself to save his world, but thinking only of the American > experience. There was no reason for Jews to feel patriotic about > Mother Russia, and Stalin wasted his soldiers' lives by the million I suspect that America has never in my lifetime fought a war that was worth fighting, but it is generally agreed that WWII was worth fighting, that Hitler's Reich was a real military threat to the > survival of USA, as well as an archetype of evil. My father didn't > serve in that war (he had some kind of deferment for being a grad > student in physics) and I don't know what my grandmother said to him> about it. > > But it would sound "weird" to me if I heard of a parent of that > generation begging her son NOT to enlist in the war, except maybe for > urging him to finish high school first. Even the pacifists, the > Quakers and Mennonites, served in non-combat positions, often the even > more dangerous position of medical research subject. > > The war of *my* youth was Vietnam, which was a complete waste of > lives, money, environment, etc. I don't know if any parents requested > their sons to enlist in it without waiting to be drafted, but I've > sure heard of a lot of parents who urged their sons to obey their > draft notices, saying that it was their patriotic duty to their > country, necessary to prevent USA from being conquered by USSR, and > obeying the law. And sometimes when their sons refused to obey their > draft summons, the parents refused to speak to them ever again. > From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 26 16:57:35 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 26 Oct 2008 16:57:35 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/26/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1225040255.10.95370.m56@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184739 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 26, 2008 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 02:03:20 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:03:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184740 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 32: The Elder Wand As this chapter begins, Harry and his companions are absorbing the full horror of Fred's death. However, they cannot take time to mourn and absorb what has happened, because the battle rages on around them. Ron and Harry, alerted by Hermione's scream, repel an attempt by giant spiders to enter the castle. Then Percy relinquishes his hold on Fred's body and helps Harry and Ron to hide it. That accomplished, Percy rushes madly off into the fray, bellowing the name of a Death Eater. Hermione physically restrains Ron, who wants to follow, reminding both boys that they are the only ones that have the knowledge to end the battle for good, by killing Nagini and rendering Voldemort mortal. At her urging, Harry opens himself to Voldemort. He is in the Shack accompanied by Nagini, who is surrounded by a protective magical bubble. Lucius, showing signs of physical abuse, is present and attempts to persuade Voldemort to call off the battle, ostensibly to ensure Harry is not killed by a Death Eater against Voldemort's orders. Voldemort claims he wants only to get into the castle and look for Draco, and asks whether Draco has not become a friend of Potter since "he did not come and join me, like the rest of the Slytherins." He explains, also, that there is no need to worry about finding Harry, as Harry will come to him. He then sends Lucius for Snape. Harry recounts what he has seen to Ron and Hermione, and an argument ensues about who should go after the snake, which ends when two Death Eaters show up. Hermione saves the day with some quick and clever spell casting, and the Trio, covered in Harry's cloak, head out to the Shack. They travel through the battle, observing a variety of interesting sights a summary of which would prove as long as this chapter, ranging from stampeding desks to wrestling giants. Finally, they attain the Whomping Willow and traverse the secret passage. There, they see that Snape has come to Voldemort as summoned. They listen as Snape persists in asking to be allowed to find Harry for Voldemort, while Voldemort attempts to discuss a problem he is having with his wand. Voldemort confides this problem makes him doubt what may happen when he faces Harry. He explains he has obtained this wand, which is the Elder Wand of legend, from the grave of Dumbledore in order to use it against Harry, against whom his other wands have failed. Then he informs Snape that this is why, regretfully, he must kill him, in order to become the true owner of the wand, who he states is currently Snape, the man who killed Dumbledore. Voldemort causes the bubble around Nagini to envelop Snape, and orders the snake to kill him. The snake bites his neck and Snape falls to the floor. Voldemort departs with Nagini, leaving Snape to bleed to death. Harry steals in after Voldemort leaves, and removes his cloak to look down at the dying Snape. Snape, seeing him, attempts to say something, and Harry lowers himself to hear. "Take it", Snape says, and Harry sees that he is leaking memories, which Harry collects in a flask Hermione conjures for him. Snape then whispers his last words, "Look at me," and dies as he looks into Harry's eyes. The chapter ends. Questions: 1) What is with ending chapters with the dramatic deaths of characters, including, of course, descriptions of their eyes? (I refer the reader to Dobby's sightless orbs staring unseeingly up at the starry sky *sob*, Fred's eyes that stare without seeing, and Snape's eyes, from which "something" vanishes as he dies.) Feel free to comment on similarities and differences between these three character deaths witnessed by Harry. 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These same eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and empty and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* in them.) 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you differently on rereading? 4) Voldemort compares Lucius and Snape. What meaning, if any, do you ascribe to this? 5) Will Zara ask a question that is NOT about Snape? Erm, right, yes, well Personally, I prefer the battle scenes in this chapter to the ones in the previous one, even though the last chapter was named after the battle. Which is your favorite scene of the first part of the battle (feel free to name one from the previous chapter!)? Why? 5) What was Draco doing on the upper landing of the marble staircase, to need rescuing from a Death Eater, in your opinion? What do you suppose happened to Goyle? 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this sufficient for you? Why or why not? 7) The Slytherin hourglass broke as Harry ran down the stairs into the Entrance Hall, just as the Gryffindor one had in the fighting at the end of HBP. Did you ascribe any particular meaning to this bit of trivia on your first read? Do you now? 8) What was your reaction to Hagrid's defense of the giant spiders and its results? 9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? (Or, why was it not cool?) Why do you suppose Rowling chose Trelawney as the person to finish him off? 10) Luna, Ernie, and Seamus's Patronuses are revealed to be, respectively, a hare, a boar, and a fox. Do they suit your ideas of these characters? Why or why not? 11) Hermione tells Ron "Are you a wizard, or what?" when he regrets Crookshanks cannot open the Willow for them. This echoes the moment in PS/SS when Ron said the same to Hermione as she worried frantically that she has no matches. What does this serve, in your view? Do you see other mirrors in this chapter? 12) Please excuse the length of these last. They concern the "official" subject of this chapter as expressed by the title. I begin with some quotes from the text and an observation. "Why doesn't it work for me, Severus?" "I do not understand. You ? you have performed extraordinary magic with that wand." This seems to me to establish the fact that Snape is aware Voldemort has acquired a new wand, and has been for some time. If you disagree, part a) of the question can be explaining to me why I am wrong. What, if anything, does Snape's choice of the words "extraordinary magic" suggest to you? Would you expect Snape recognized the new wand as the one Dumbledore has had throughout Snape's entire life? 13) Do you think the acquisition of this new wand might be a matter Severus would have mentioned to Albus? Why or why not, and what do you suppose Albus would have said back, if yes? 14) How do you feel about not knowing the answers to these questions about two major characters and the magical artifact that settled the central conflict of the series? ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 33, The Prince's Tale, on November 10, 2008. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 02:42:37 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:42:37 -0000 Subject: Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184741 Alla wrote: > > However, we do agree that Snape's understanding of the promise had been to protect Harry's life, right? Carol responds: Right. That was Snape's understanding *until* DD tells him about the soul bit in Harry that can only be destroyed if Voldemort himself kills Harry. (Setting aside the drop of blood, which Snape doens't know about, that is.) Snape protests, shocked. He thought they were protecting Harry, keeping him alive for Lily's sake. Instead, Dumbledore has been raising him as a pig for the slaughter. Dumbledore tells Snape that they were keeping Harry alive so that he could be taught and tested. Dumbledore points out, as Pippin has noted, that the soul bit is becoming like a parasitic growth. And then he says, "If I know him, he will have arranged matters so that when he goes to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort." "Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. 'You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" Dumbledore tells Snape not to be shocked, but Snape is angry. He has watched only the people die whom he could not save. He has lied and spied and risked his own life and watched over and protected Harry. "Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potters's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig to slaughter--" Snape has done it all, not because he cares about Harry, but for Lily, as his Patronus shows. But next time we see Snape in "the Prince's Tale" (and Leah is right, there's no transition scene to show how he got there), he's going along with Dumbledore's plans. The priority has changed. Once Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry has to die, Snape's protection of him becomes a moot point. If they protect Harry, it can only be so, as Snape puts it, he can did at the right time. But if we go back to HBP instead of skipping as "The Prince's Tale" does, to a time when Snape is not longer at Hogwarts, we see that Snape is *still* protecting Harry as long as it's in his power to do so. Snape now knows that Harry has to die, but he also knows that Harry has to be killed *by Voldemort*. He gets the Death Eaters off the tower before they can discover Harry. He stops one of them, probably Amycus Carrow, from torturing him, and he parries all of Harry's curses rather than fighting him. He's *still* protecting Harry, even trying to teach him ("Close your mind and shut your mouth"), to the last moment possible. Even the much-debated Polyjuiced Harrys plan is still intended to protect Harry, however great the risk to his escorts . And, of course, Snape is still determined to save whatever lives he can, as the Sectumsempra incident shows, a sign of personal growth in him that has nothing to do with Harry or Lily or Dumbledore. Once Harry is safely away from the Dursleys', Snape's priority shifts to his other promise, doing his best to protect the students of Hogwarts. Except when he delivers the Sword of Gryffindor, again taking a huge risk if he's discovered, he can only help Harry indirectly, by protecting his friends (the detention with Hagrid, for example). His last concern is, admittedly, to get the message to Harry that Harry has a soul bit in his head and must let Voldemort kill him. As you say, that message cannot be interpreted as protecting Harry. But Dumbledore's trusting Snape with that crucial bit of knowledge, that crucial task, undoes the earlier promise of protection. If Snape protects or helps Harry now, it's no longer to keep Lily's son alive or to validate her sacrifice. It's to make sure that the soul bit is destroyed at the right time and Voldemort is defeated. Protecting Harry, who is now a man by WW standards, in any case, would merely prolong Voldemort's rule, especially if the soul bit is growing stronger. Harry already knows that he must confront Voldemort, that he must either kill or be killed. He's known it since OoP, if not before. And once Snape gives him the memories, he knows that the two choices have been reduced to one. It's no fault of Snape's that he can no longer protect Harry, that his priority has been changed to delivering that crucial message. He, Dumbledore, and ultimately, Harry, all know that Harry can no longer be protected. Self-sacrifice is the only option. Aberforth, who tells him to run away, is wrong. You're right. At the end, Snape is no longer Harry's protector. And that's exactly the way Harry would want it. And, of course, so would Dumbledore. Carol, who thought this would be a short message! P.S. I'm still working on that monster editing project, but tonight I have a moment to breathe. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 03:22:35 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:22:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184742 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > >1) What is with ending chapters with the dramatic deaths of characters, including, of course, descriptions of their eyes? (I refer the reader to Dobby's sightless orbs staring unseeingly up at the starry sky *sob*, Fred's eyes that stare without seeing, and Snape's eyes, from which "something" vanishes as he dies.) Feel free to comment on similarities and differences between these three character deaths witnessed by Harry. Alla: I think this is a great question and I feel bad giving short answer to it, but it just feels so sad for me to comment on Dobby and Fred's death, that I don't know, I just cannot get myself in the mood. I guess I should say that first and foremost fixing reader's attention to the eyes has some connection with the saying "eyes is the mirror of the soul", and I guess we are supposed to understand that soul went to next great adventure and the eyes are empty now. I would also say that to the extent Dobby and Fred's deaths could be connected with the final death of innocence for Harry. I mean I know JKR said that Hedwig symbolizes that, but I would put those two deaths right there too. 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These same eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and empty and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* in them.) Alla: I suspect that is supposed to symbolize that Harry discovered that Snape has a soul too IMO. 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you differently on rereading? Alla: You asked and it is not like it is a surprise, right? I was extremely happy that he died and I also thought that it was a gruesome, but very fitting death. No, next chapter did not change anything for me in that regard. 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this sufficient for you? Why or why not? NO, really really not. I mean, it is not like nobody but Grawp could do that IMO. I am just saying that I do not see his part as indispensable to the plot even in book 7. 7) The Slytherin hourglass broke as Harry ran down the stairs into the Entrance Hall, just as the Gryffindor one had in the fighting at the end of HBP. Did you ascribe any particular meaning to this bit of trivia on your first read? Do you now? Alla: I did not think much of it till you brought it up, no. I guess the symbolism here is that Slytherin was at his low point when they left or something, but I wonder what about Gryffindor in HBP? Because Harry was fighting not knowing all the facts? Not sure. 8) What was your reaction to Hagrid's defense of the giant spiders and its results? Alla: I wanted to slap Hagrid, sorry. I thought people should take priority. Thank you dear for great questions, will answer more tomorrow. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 03:45:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:45:13 -0000 Subject: Snape as Harry's protector or not WAS Snape and moral courage LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184743 Pippin: Why should Dumbledore make it obvious to Snape that he is hiding something, when he can probably do what Snape does when he is dealing with Voldie, and give him the guided tour? Let Snape sense only those thoughts and memories that Dumbledore wants him to see, I mean. > Alla: > OH. I got it. Do we know that Snape does that with Voldemort though? Gives him guided tour, I mean, is that possible at all? Carol responds: Just one quick response here. I think the evidence that Snape's Occlumency operates that way is pretty clear. We know that Voldemort looks into Snape's eyes in "The Dark Lord rising" and comes away satisfied that Snape is telling him the whole truth. We know that Snape is "hoodwinking" him (to use his phrase in "Spinner'se End" because Vodemort doesn't learn the one key piece of evidence that Snape is hiding, the Polyjuiced Potters plan. and we know that Voldie, the greatest Legilimens the world has ever known, enters the minds of his victims as if they were a Pensieve (as he does with Gregorovitch). So I think given all that (plus additional evidence from "Spinner's End" and the first Occlumency lesson that I don't have time to cite) that Snape does indeed give Voldemort a guided tour. Voldie sees what he thinks is a complete memory, but Snape, the superb Occlumens who can use Occlumency without being detected, leaves one room (so to speak) out of the tour. It's very different from Draco's clumsy and easily detectable use of Occlumency on Snape. If Snape couldn't give Voldemort a guided tour every time Voldemort examines his mind (which is probably every time he reports information), he'd have been dead long before. We don't have quite as much evidence of Dumbledore's powers as an Occlumens as we do of Snape's, but knowing DD, he's probably just as skilled. He may even have been Snape's teacher. (I can't see LV teaching him!) Carol, still catching up on posts and expecting to fall behind again beginning tomorrow From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 06:46:58 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:46:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184744 - > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 32: The Elder Wand > Carol: Wow, Zara! What a model of conciseness--one I'n not going to be able to emulate with "the Prince's Tale," a long chapter full of dialogue! > > Questions: > 1) What is with ending chapters with the dramatic deaths of characters, including, of course, descriptions of their eyes? (I refer the reader to Dobby's sightless orbs staring unseeingly up at the starry sky *sob*, Fred's eyes that stare without seeing, and Snape's eyes, from which "something" vanishes as he dies.) Feel free to comment on similarities and differences between these three character deaths witnessed by Harry. > > 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These same eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and empty and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* in them.) Carol: I'm combining my responses to thes two questions. With Dumbledore and other characters who are already dead when Harry sees them, we get references (as I'll mention in my chapter discussion) to characters with peacefully closed eyes. Snape, of course, dies with his eyes open, staring into Harry's but seeing Lily's (or a bit of Lily in Harry instead of only James). Sightless eyes that stare without seeing, at least, eyes of people who could see in life, seem somehow to indicate that life, the senses, the soul have all left the body. (No other sense organ would serve this purpose, eyes being the only ones that can open and close. A chest rising and falling and then ceasing to rise might work (not that breathing is a sense, but breath indicates life), but it wouldn't be dramatic. Eyes are often a person's most distinctive feature, and Snape's black eyes have been frequently mentioned in a number of contexts (as have Dobby's huge green ones; Fred's haven't been mentione frequently, if at all.) Snape's eyes are tied in with his Occlumency and Legilimency. The "empty tunnel" passage you mention has always made me think that he habitually uses at least some level of Occlumency to guard his thoughts from anyone who might happen to be a Legilimens. In this chapter, we see them go empty *before* he dies, not, I think, because of Occlumency but because he fears that he'll die without having given his message (or memories--I don't know what the original plan was) to Harry. It reads to me like the emptiness of despair. When he sees Harry, the spark of life evidently returns to him--a faint hope, a strong determination, and he somehow summons the strength to perform perhaps the most impressive instance of wandless magic that we see in the books. The "something" that Harry sees leave his eyes must be life itself or the soul. Snape has gone--to join Lily, I hope. (I imagine him waking to find her as Harry finds Dumbledore. Time would have no meaning in the afterlife, and she could be with him even as she's summoned by Harry. Okay, that's my little fan-ficcy hope, not canon!) > > 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you differently on rereading? Carol: Pain. Horror. Fury at Voldemort. Loathing for Nagini. Brrr! She makes my flesh crawl. I can read the chapter now without such violent reactions. I feel something more like pity now, and I'm glad that Snape is past his pain, both physical and emotional. Still, I'd rather that he hadn't died. He was and is my favorite character. > > 4) Voldemort compares Lucius and Snape. What meaning, if any, do you ascribe to this? Carol: Does he? what does he say? I don't see it in your summary and I don't have time to read the chapter. Both, of course, have been is right-hand man. Lucius has failed him twice, but Snape--to his knowledge!--has never failed him. (Snape has satisfactorily answered Voldemort's erlier doubts.) But the useless, disgraced, wandless Lucius dies and the brilliant, brave Snape is murdered for a piece of wood (of which, ironically, he's not even the master). I can't tell what you were looking for. Sorry. > > 5) Will Zara ask a question that is NOT about Snape? Erm, right, yes, well Personally, I prefer the battle scenes in this chapter to the ones in the previous one, even though the last chapter was named after the battle. Which is your favorite scene of the first part of the battle (feel free to name one from the previous chapter!)? Why? Carol: My favorite battle scene hasn't come up yet. It's Neville killing Nagini. I'm not much of a battle fan, I'm afraid. (If the duel between snape and McGonagall counts, I rather liked that. Imagine what Snape could have done if he were actually trying to kill her!) > > 5) What was Draco doing on the upper landing of the marble staircase, to need rescuing from a Death Eater, in your opinion? What do you suppose happened to Goyle? Carol: Maybe he's still a bit dazed from Crabbe's death and the ordeal in the RoR and doesn't know what he's doing. No idea what's happened to Goyle. He's probably still out cold. Maybe Draco was going for help; maybe he was looking for his parents. He might even have been looking for a wand. (He can perform a Disillusionment Charm; maybe he wanted to hide!) > > 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this sufficient for you? Why or why not? Carol: Actually, they brought two, which was probably as many as they could control. (I don't suppose Giants are susceptible to Imperius Curses.) I suspect that Madame Maxime stayed at home; she'd have had a hard time concealing her house-sized carriage and those Abraxan horses. I never cared for Grawp or the giant plotline in the first place, so it was more than enough for me. > > 7) The Slytherin hourglass broke as Harry ran down the stairs into the Entrance Hall, just as the Gryffindor one had in the fighting at the end of HBP. Did you ascribe any particular meaning to this bit of trivia on your first read? Do you now? Carol: The short answer is yes! As a matter of fact, I was going to ask a question about the Slytherin hourglass in my chapter summary for "the Prince's Tale." Rather than answer your question right now, I'll just give my expanded version and see if anybody bites: "The floor of the entrance hall is littered with emeralds from the broken Slytherin hourglass, much as the shattered Gryffindor hourglass rains rubies onto the floor in "Flight of the Prince" (another Snape-centered chapter) in HBP. What do you think is the significance of this repeated but altered detail? What might it symbolize or foreshadow in both instances? Who do you think cursed the respective hourglasses and why?" I'll see what others say and, when I have another moment to breathe and think, I'll read the responses and add mine. > 8) What was your reaction to Hagrid's defense of the giant spiders and its results? "Don't hurt 'em!" (IIRC) is one of those ambiguous lines JKR loves to write. Sometimes it's the speaker who's not identified. Here it's the meaning that we need to guess. Does he mean "Don't hurt the Acromantulas!" or is the telling the Acromantulas not to hurt the kids? I fear ist's the first case, given his absurd infatuation with dangerous beasties. Obviously, if it's the second, the Acromantulas aren't going to listen to him. Pippin thinks they've been Imperiused, but I think they've been promised *Hagrid* (much as Voldemort promises both Wormtail and Harry to Nagini in GoF--he has to renege on both promises, but that's beside the point.) It's poetic justice that Hagrid is carried off by the spiders. Maybe he learns a lesson. I hope the loathsome beasts are exterminated in the battle. (It's not as if the spiders that Ron and Harry follow in CoS were baby Acromantulas, which would make extermination impossible. "Tiny" baby Aragog was the size of a Pekingese.) > > 9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? (Or, why was it not cool?) Why do you suppose Rowling chose Trelawney as the person to finish him off? Carol: Is Greyback finished? I'm not sure we know that he's dead. It's certainly good that Hermione, who never had much admiration or affection for Lavender even before Lavender tried to steal Ron, defends her from Greyback. It's rather like Snape saving Lupin: she's not going to watch someone die whoms he can save even if she doesn't like the person. Or, to paraphrase what Quirrell says of Snape in SS/PS, she hates her but she doesn't want her to die. As for choosing Trelawney to "finish off" Greyback--might as well put those crystal balls to *some* good use! > > 10) Luna, Ernie, and Seamus's Patronuses are revealed to be, respectively, a hare, a boar, and a fox. Do they suit your ideas of these characters? Why or why not? Carol: Well, a Patronus is a spirit guardian and doesn't necessarily reflect the character himself or herself. Snape's doe Patronus reflects Lily, not him, just as Tonks' new Patronus reflects Lupin and Harry's reflects James. If, say, Luna's hare reflects her hare-brained father, I'd say it's appropriate. A boar is strong and fierce (and a heraldic symbol associated with Richard III). It may fit Ernie's long line of warlock ancestors. A fox for Seamus? Are foxes associated with Irishness? > > 11) Hermione tells Ron "Are you a wizard, or what?" when he regrets Crookshanks cannot open the Willow for them. This echoes the moment in PS/SS when Ron said the same to Hermione as she worried frantically that she has no matches. What does this serve, in your view? Do you see other mirrors in this chapter? Carol: JKR is coming full circle with a number of lines and images, the Slytherin and Gryffindor hourglasses among them. The motif of Lily's eyes, partially developed with Slughorn in HBP, reaches its culmination here (though it will resurface in the flashback chapter, "Prince's Tale"). But as I didn't have time to reread the chapter before responding, I can't recall any others off hand. > > 12) Please excuse the length of these last. They concern the "official" subject of this chapter as expressed by the title. I begin with some quotes from the text and an observation. > > "Why doesn't it work for me, Severus?" > "I do not understand. You ? you have performed extraordinary magic with that wand." > > This seems to me to establish the fact that Snape is aware Voldemort has acquired a new wand, and has been for some time. If you disagree, part a) of the question can be explaining to me why I am wrong. What, if anything, does Snape's choice of the words "extraordinary magic" suggest to you? Would you expect Snape recognized the new wand as the one Dumbledore has had throughout Snape's entire life? Carol: I don't have time for a lengthy response, but I'll just say that this segment was one of the least believable for me. The last time that Voldemort has any contact with Voldemort is right *before* Voldemort breaks open Dumbledore's tomb with the yew wand. (Snape seems shocked by the revelation that LV has taken the wand from the tomb, so he must have sealed it back up to conceal the horror of his crime.) That happens around Easter break, right after "Malfoy Manor," IIRC, so Voldemort has had the wand for about a month. However, the only "extraordinary magic" (aside from mass murder of DEs) that Snape could know LV performed with that wand is Nagini's bubble. There's simply no reason to believe that Snape has seen him perform magic with that wand--which he perhaps doesn't recognize as Dumbledore's until LV mentions the grave robbing) or to indicate that the wand isn't performing as LV expects it to. What's more extraordinary than extraordinary? If he's performing extraordinary magic, as he's always done with a wand perfectly suited to him, and this wand is performing equally well, what is he complaining about? It's like saying, "My wife is perfectly beautiful, but I want a wife who's *perfectly beautiful!" Anyway, IMO, JKR's writing is at its nadir in this section of the chapter. (The death of snape, though I hate it, is a brilliant piece of writing.) > > 13) Do you think the acquisition of this new wand might be a matter Severus would have mentioned to Albus? Why or why not, and what do you suppose Albus would have said back, if yes? Carol: Certainly, snape would have mentioned it to Portrait Dumbledore if he'd known about it. IMO, he didn't know, with tragic consequences. > > 14) How do you feel about not knowing the answers to these questions about two major characters and the magical artifact that settled the central conflict of the series? Carol: The same way I feel about the whole Elder Wand plot. Annoyed. Thanks for tackling a difficult chapter. I couldn't have done it. Carol, going to bed now and expecting to disappear from the list again for a while! From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 27 10:18:23 2008 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:18:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 32: The Elder Wand > > 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These same > eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and empty > and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* in > them.) Hickengruendler: I think it is meant to symbolize, that Snape does have feelings, or a soul, as Alla put it. For all these years, Harry always has seen Snape as a sort of monster, a man without feelings. But here he feels real pity for him, even before knowing, that Snape didn't betray Dumbledore, and therefore it fits, that he saw something else in Snape's eyes. A glimmer of humanity, maybe? > 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of > it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you > differently on rereading? I expected, that he would die. But I was utterly shocked by the reason. I think this is one of the times, where JKR really manages to make Voldemort loathsome and horrid. And I think it's a fitting contrast to the fact, that Snape was allowed to sit next to Voldemort in the opening chapter of the book. > 5) Will Zara ask a question that is NOT about Snape? Erm, right, yes, > well Personally, I prefer the battle scenes in this chapter to the > ones in the previous one, even though the last chapter was named > after the battle. Which is your favorite scene of the first part of > the battle (feel free to name one from the previous chapter!)? Why? Trelawney smashing the crystall balls on the Death Eaters. It's so incredibily funny. Luna giving Harry new hope during the Dementor attack is great as well. > 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought > him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. > Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this > sufficient for you? Why or why not? For me, it was enough. I did not need to see any more of Grawp. > 8) What was your reaction to Hagrid's defense of the giant spiders > and its results? At first I was incredibily annoyed. But I think it is possible, that he was talking to the spiders and tried to stop them hurting the children. At least I hope so. What I did find interesting is, that they didn't eat him. Maybe they really did feel some loyalty for him as well, just as Aragog did? > 9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? > (Or, why was it not cool?) Why do you suppose Rowling chose Trelawney > as the person to finish him off? I loved the scene. And I think JKR chose Trelawney to show, that even people like her have her worth and could be helpful. Greyback is around in later chapters again, though. So he isn't finished off, yet. Thanks @Zara for the great questions and the summary. Hickengruendler From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 15:39:14 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:39:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184746 Montavilla47: Thank you for the chapter summary. It was very well done! > Questions: > 1) What is with ending chapters with the dramatic deaths of > characters, including, of course, descriptions of their eyes? (I > refer the reader to Dobby's sightless orbs staring unseeingly up at > the starry sky *sob*, Fred's eyes that stare without seeing, and > Snape's eyes, from which "something" vanishes as he dies.) Feel free > to comment on similarities and differences between these three > character deaths witnessed by Harry. Montavilla47: I never noticed before that this was done three times. I don't think it was a deliberate tripling. JKR had a lot of people to kill in this book, and it's a dramatic way of ending a chapter. (Heh, like Nancy Drew stories always ended the chapters on a cliff-hanger.) You missed a chapter-ending death. There was also Charity Burbage. We didn't get to see her eyes go blank, however. About those eyes, I think it was simply an easy way--actually a very cinematic way--of showing that someone is dead. Isn't that the usual way that you *know* people are dead in a movie? The camera focuses on the eyes which deaden and go blank. If you don't see that happen, it's possible that the person isn't really dead and, especially if they are the villain, you shouldn't turn your back on them. > 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These same > eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and empty > and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* in > them.) Montavilla47: I liked that image of Snape, even though it doesn't really fit the way I think of Occlumency. Snape can't simply block Voldemort's Legilmency and hope to be trusted. He has to allow Voldemort to *think* he's reading Snape's mind. So, although it looks like Occlumency, I read it as despair, or as Snape feeling dead every time he's forced to be around Voldemort. But that's just my reading of it. > 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of > it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you > differently on rereading? Montavilla47: I think my reaction was, "Oh, that Carpet Book thingy must have been genuine after all." I hadn't read the Carpet Book, but I had read a post reacting to it which jeered at the idea of Snape being eaten by a snake. I may be one of the few people who, although upset at many other things about DH, is *not* upset about Snape's death or the way he died. I figured that there was a very big chance that Snape would die, so I wasn't setting my heart on his living through the book. That he ended up dying for so useless a reason is upsetting on one level, but I think it also fits with Voldemort's general contempt for mankind. I don't suppose that matters if you hate Snape, but if you feel for Snape, it's very poignant. I think what was most important to me about Snape's death was that he go down fighting. I don't mean that he needed to be dueling when he died (he wasn't, really), but that he was trying to the end to do the job Dumbledore gave him. So, I think it was more upsetting to me that he had to flee the school than that he was killed by a snake (in a way that's difficult to visual without looking extremely silly). He died in his boots, and, as someone once put it, he poured himself out to Harry as he did so. The other disappointing thing was that Harry never got his dramatic Snape confrontation scene. JKR hinted that it would necessarily be very dramatic, because Harry's Snape-Hate-O-Meter had been dialed up to 11 at the end of HBP. Instead, what we got when these two Titans of Tantrums met was Harry hiding under his cloak while Snape jumped through a window, leaving his outline like a Looney Toons character. Not at all what I was expecting. This death scene was actually their second scene together. > 4) Voldemort compares Lucius and Snape. What meaning, if any, do you > ascribe to this? Montavilla47: I don't remember this either. Can someone put up the relevant text? > 5) Will Zara ask a question that is NOT about Snape? Erm, right, yes, > well Personally, I prefer the battle scenes in this chapter to the > ones in the previous one, even though the last chapter was named > after the battle. Which is your favorite scene of the first part of > the battle (feel free to name one from the previous chapter!)? Why? Montavilla47: I liked little bits of it. I liked the image of the desks charging, and I liked Trelawney throwing her crystal balls. A lot of it was annoying because it was slowing down the plot. But, what are you going to do? A big battle is pretty inevitable, and there is something comical about the idea of the battle getting in the way of what needs to happen, rather than *being* what needs to happen. Ironically, what *needs* to happen at this point is for the hero to go watch a movie. Weirdest. Battle. Ever. > 5) What was Draco doing on the upper landing of the marble staircase, > to need rescuing from a Death Eater, in your opinion? What do you > suppose happened to Goyle? No idea. > 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought > him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. > Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this > sufficient for you? Why or why not? Montavilla47: Nope. The giants and the werewolves turned out to be major disappointments. Nor were the spiders, even though they showed up, particularly satisfying. The turning point for me in the HP series, the moment when I went from "this is a fun series" to "must have next book NOW!" was at the end of GoF when Dumbledore urgently warned Fudge to contact the giants and the werewolves ASAP, or Voldemort will win! Well, it seemed like the last books were all about showing how irrelevant that was. For the entire next book, all the Ministry did was to waste time and effort harassing Dumbledore and Harry, and that made no difference, Voldemort-wise. Supposedly LV was gathering his forces. Yet, what did he have at the end of OotP that he didn't have at the beginning? Then, when Voldemort is known to be back and unrestrained by discretion, are the werewolves and giants doing all that much? There are occasional werewolf attacks, but did Fenrir really need Voldemort to tell him to attack kids? I didn't get the feeling that he did. The giants, of course, do simulate a tornado. But that seems rather pointless, as does the bridge thing. It matters to the Muggles, of course, but it seems to matter mainly because it embarrasses the Muggle Prime Minister and not, because it kills people or causes terror. How can the Muggles be terrified when they think these are random events? And, as for working with the Ministry to combat Voldemort, Dumbledore refuses to do so, even when Fudge is replaced by a Minister who wants to fight LV. At that point, it seems, the urgency is not to actively oppose Voldemort, but to develop Harry as a weapon. All the other efforts turn out to be useless, irrelevant, or counter-productive. So, what was your question? Oh, yes, Grawp. Everything about Grawp was annoying, although it was nice seeing him at Dumbledore's funeral. > 7) The Slytherin hourglass broke as Harry ran down the stairs into > the Entrance Hall, just as the Gryffindor one had in the fighting at > the end of HBP. Did you ascribe any particular meaning to this bit of > trivia on your first read? Do you now? Montavilla47: Yes, I noticed it immediately because of that image from HBP. The rubies seemed like blood, and the image was a metaphor for the violence of the invasion into the castle. That the Slytherin emeralds were now strewn underfoot seemed like payback. But it didn't make a whole lot of sense, because it wasn't Slytherin who attacked the school, it was Voldemort. Unless you lump LV, Draco, and the Death Eaters altogether under the Slytherin banner. Which JKR said she wasn't doing. > 8) What was your reaction to Hagrid's defense of the giant spiders > and its results? Montavilla47: To be honest, I barely noticed it. > 9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? > (Or, why was it not cool?) Why do you suppose Rowling chose Trelawney > as the person to finish him off? Montavilla47: Again, it was just a random detail. I didn't even think about Hermione and Lavender's history--mainly because Hermione never focused any animosity towards Lavender, other than her general contempt for all things girlish. She seemed to reserve all the anger for Ron. > 10) Luna, Ernie, and Seamus's Patronuses are revealed to be, > respectively, a hare, a boar, and a fox. Do they suit your ideas of > these characters? Why or why not? Montavilla47: As Carol noted, Patronuses aren't meant to reflect one's personality, but a happy memory. But I liked Luna's hare and Ernie's boar. They seemed fitting. Luna is hare-brained, and Ernie is one of those solid beefeating English types. As for Seamus's fox, I don't know. Maybe it's something Irish? Seamus doesn't really seem to have much personality other than being Irish. > 11) Hermione tells Ron "Are you a wizard, or what?" when he regrets > Crookshanks cannot open the Willow for them. This echoes the moment > in PS/SS when Ron said the same to Hermione as she worried > frantically that she has no matches. What does this serve, in your > view? Do you see other mirrors in this chapter? Montavilla47: When I read that, it struck me as being rather forced. Ron didn't even see Crookshanks open the willow in PoA (he was already in the tunnel). And, that Hermione would remind him that he was a wizard rather than simply levitate the twig herself seemed out of character. > 12) Please excuse the length of these last. They concern > the "official" subject of this chapter as expressed by the title. I > begin with some quotes from the text and an observation. > > "Why doesn't it work for me, Severus?" > "I do not understand. You ? you have performed extraordinary magic > with that wand." > > This seems to me to establish the fact that Snape is aware Voldemort > has acquired a new wand, and has been for some time. If you > disagree, part a) of the question can be explaining to me why I am > wrong. What, if anything, does Snape's choice of the > words "extraordinary magic" suggest to you? Would you expect Snape > recognized the new wand as the one Dumbledore has had throughout > Snape's entire life? Montavilla47: I'm with Carol in thinking this didn't make a whole lot of sense. The way I read the scene, Snape was focused on the fact that Nagini was in a bubble and that he needed to find Harry. I didn't think he was even listening much to Voldemort and his replies were sort of automatic. I don't see how Snape could have seen much magic at all from Voldemort, since he was at Hogwarts, where Voldemort wasn't. > 13) Do you think the acquisition of this new wand might be a matter > Severus would have mentioned to Albus? Why or why not, and what do > you suppose Albus would have said back, if yes? Montavilla47: I'm sure that Portrait Dumbledore would have assured Snape that it wasn't important. After all, why warn the guy you've told to deliver the most important message in the books that he might be killed for a stick of wood? If we could have seen that Elder Wand completely refuse to act for Voldemort, it all might have been more plausible. I know that the connection between wand and wizard is strange and mystical, but it just came off to me as driven by what was needed for plot. I'm sure there was a way to do this so that the final outcome would have seemed glorious, satisfying, and deeply poetic. But I think that would have involved a greater exploration of wands than we got in the series. There were hints of that with Priori Incantatem, and the shades of LV's crimes. But what it seemed to be mostly about in DH was making jokes about wands being substitutes for penises. > 14) How do you feel about not knowing the answers to these questions > about two major characters and the magical artifact that settled the > central conflict of the series? Confused and indifferent. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 27 15:40:03 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:40:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184747 > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 32: The Elder Wand >Potioncat: Great summary and questions! First a few reactions to the summary: Voldemort claims he [Lucius]wants only to get into the castle and > look for Draco, and asks whether Draco has not become a friend of > Potter since "he did not come and join me, like the rest of the ?? Slytherins." Potioncat: OK, I know we've discussed this before?K"like the rest of the Slytherins." You know, there just aren't that many of them, because we know at least 3 didn't show up. I can take this to mean, "like the rest of the anticipated Slytherin DEs" and not just a blanket "the whole house/6th and 7th years." So, who thinks Theo and Blaise are in the DE camp as this conversation is going on? Do we believe (based on this bit of conversation) that most of the 7th and 6th years reported to LV? JKR tells us there are Slytherins with Slughorn, but she must mean Slytherin old boys and old girls. > He explains, also, that there is no need to worry about > finding Harry, as Harry will come to him. He then sends Lucius for >Snape. Potioncat: Can??t LV summon Snape with a touch to his wrist? So why does he send Lucius? Is this just a bit of drama on JKR's part, or is there some purpose to sending Lucius to get Severus? Where is Severus? From the conversation that will happen in a few moments, it will sound as if Snape had been in the battle, or in some way observing the battle. Granted, we come into the middle of the conversation, "?Kmy Lord their resistance is crumbling?K" LV then appears to repeat that Snape cannot re-enter the battle. Yada yada, "Do you know why I have called you back from the battle?" and Snape says, "..let me return.." So, what might Snape have been doing? Does anyone think we may have seen Snape in battle? Or does anyone think Severus is referring to the moment he flew from the castle as when he left the battle? I know I asked all this a few weeks ago, but I didn't have this canon at the time. > > Harry recounts what he has seen to Ron and Hermione, and an argument > ensues about who should go after the snake, which ends when two Death > Eaters show up. Hermione saves the day with some quick and clever > spell casting, and the Trio, covered in Harry's cloak, head out to ?? the Shack. Potioncat: I really did expect Ron to go off and tackle Nagini. It seemed like the end of the "set-up" in the chess game back in SS/PS. And I thought Nagini would "stand in" for the queen. > 1) What is with ending chapters with the dramatic deaths of > characters, including, of course, descriptions of their eyes? (I > refer the reader to Dobby's sightless orbs staring unseeingly up at > the starry sky *sob*, Fred's eyes that stare without seeing, and > Snape's eyes, from which "something" vanishes as he dies.) Feel free > to comment on similarities and differences between these three ?? character deaths witnessed by Harry. Potioncat Eyes have been an important feature or object of comment all through the series. We've been given descriptions of Ollivander and Luna, (owl like) Trelawney, (insect) Hagrid and Severus, (beetle black), Albus and Aberforth (bright blue) Harry and Lily (green) to name a few. I think we've also been given Vernon, Dudley and perhaps Crabbe or Goyle--but I don't quite remember. In Snape's case, JKR may have been trying very hard to convince "all" her readers that Snape was dead. > > 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These same > eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and empty > and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* in ?? them.) Potioncat: Yes, but dark tunnels often have something at their end---treasure or danger, and it's hard to know which. But for Harry, who all these years saw a dark emptiness, now saw even less. > 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of > it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you ?? differently on rereading? Potioncat: Do I even need to answer this one? But, having had a long time to think about it, and to get over it, I can see the value in the way JKR wrote this scene. I wanted a heroic death for Snape (since I was sure he would die) yet I didn't want a cheesy death. This wasn't cheesy nor heroic. But really, no one gets a heroic death. Everyone dies for the cause, but no one goes out in glory. Cedric is killed out of the blue, before he even knows he's in real danger. Fred gets hit by falling debris in the middle of a laugh. Sirius dies in a moment of bravado. We don't see several deaths. Severus gets the biggest death scene of all, and his death is motivated by an incorrect belief on LV's part and for a reason Snape probably doesn't understand. > 4) Voldemort compares Lucius and Snape. What meaning, if any, do you ?? ascribe to this? Potioncat: Lucius and Severus both try to distract LV with comments about getting Potter. While LV sees this as a ploy on Lucius's part, I don't think he believes Severus is trying to distract him. But he is comparing Snape to a lesser DE, perhaps the beginning of convincing himself that the loss of Snape will not be so unfortunate after all. > 5) Will Zara ask a question that is NOT about Snape? Erm, right, yes, > well?KPersonally, I prefer the battle scenes in this chapter to the > ones in the previous one, even though the last chapter was named > after the battle. Which is your favorite scene of the first part of ?? the battle (feel free to name one from the previous chapter!)? Why? Potioncat: Why "would" Zara ask a question NOT about Snape? I did like the scene with Minerva and the desks. For all that SSSusan and I had expected a greater role for McGonagall, she does hold her own in these last few chapters. And I'm sorry, as horrible as these chapters are, the comic relief (when I was finally able to see it) was welcomed. All the attacking furniture still reminds me of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. > 5) What was Draco doing on the upper landing of the marble staircase, > to need rescuing from a Death Eater, in your opinion? What do you ?? suppose happened to Goyle? Potioncat: Either the DE didn't recognize Draco. Which we could accept if not all DEs had been to Malfoy's house while Draco was there. OR, LV has already commented publicly that Draco hadn't returned with the Slytherins. OR the DE is wondering why Draco isn't in the fight. What did happen to Goyle? Has he rejoined the fight? Has he run off to hide? > 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought > him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. > Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this ?? sufficient for you? Why or why not? Potioncat: JKR was writing about a magical world that included many magical beings familiar to her readers. Sometimes she added a little twist. It had been mentioned that LV used dark beings on his side, so it should be anticipated there would be some magical beings on DD's side. (I have a hard time deciding what to call the part of the WW that supports DD/ Harry or at least opposes LV.) So creating the Grawp sub-plot allowed a way to have a giant fighting for Hogwarts. I might have preferred Mme Maxime, if that's what you want to know. The Grawp sub story also reinforces the theme of family/blood that runs through the HP story. > 7) The Slytherin hourglass broke as Harry ran down the stairs into > the Entrance Hall, just as the Gryffindor one had in the fighting at > the end of HBP. Did you ascribe any particular meaning to this bit of ?? trivia on your first read? Do you now? Potioncat: Oh, I noticed it right away. It's unclear what caused the hourglasses to break (We didn't see in HBP, did we?) but the loss of the two Headmasters was a blow to their houses. Snape isn't dead yet---but the image of the shattered glass is moving. > > 8) What was your reaction to Hagrid's defense of the giant spiders ?? and its results? Potioncat: I did re-read this chapter, and something jumped out at me this time. Wizards from both sides scream at the sight of the spiders and both sides start firing curses at the beasts. It's unclear why they are there, or who is in control of them. It's also unclear if Hagrid is begging the spiders not to hurt the students or begging the wizards not to hurt the spiders or both. When he was carried off, I was certain he was being killed. > 9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? > (Or, why was it not cool?) Why do you suppose Rowling chose Trelawney ?? as the person to finish him off? Potioncat: Until you asked, I didn't see any significance to it. It was a known student being attacked by a werewolf. Knowing the witch was the part that was moving. And, now that you ask about Trelawney, I'm reminded of PoA. There was a connection between the crystal ball (orb) and the moon that Lupin feared. So here's an orb finishing off a werewolf. Maybe this is a stretch. > 10) Luna, Ernie, and Seamus's Patronuses are revealed to be, > respectively, a hare, a boar, and a fox. Do they suit your ideas of ?? these characters? Why or why not? Potioncat: See Carol's answer. The boar could also reflect Hogwarts, since there are statues of winged boars around the castle. But will someone please explain the canon connection to Ron and his Jack Russell terrier? (I know, I know, it's JKR's favorite breed.) > 11) Hermione tells Ron "Are you a wizard, or what?" when he regrets > Crookshanks cannot open the Willow for them. This echoes the moment > in PS/SS when Ron said the same to Hermione as she worried > frantically that she has no matches. What does this serve, in your ?? view? Do you see other mirrors in this chapter? Potioncat: It's a bit of comic relief, heroic banter. I'm going to answer 12, 13 and 14 in another post. Again, wonderful job. I couldn't have taken on this chapter! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 16:00:04 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:00:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184748 > > Zara: > > 4) Voldemort compares Lucius and Snape. What meaning, if any, do > > you ascribe to this? > Montavilla47: > I don't remember this either. Can someone put up the relevant text? Zara: What, we don't all have the books memorized yet? What sort of fans are we, anyway?! (Actually, I needed to look up the precise wording myself!) > DH, "The Elder Wand": > "No, my Lord, but I beg you will let me return. Let me find Potter." > "You sound like Lucius. Neither of you understands Potter as I do. He does not need finding. Potter will come to me. I know his weakness, you see, his pone great flaw. He will hate watching the others struck down around him, knowing that it is for him that it happens. He will want to stop it at any cost. He will come." From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 19:56:52 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:56:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184749 > Zara: > What, we don't all have the books memorized yet? What sort of fans > are we, anyway?! > > (Actually, I needed to look up the precise wording myself!) > > > DH, "The Elder Wand": > > "No, my Lord, but I beg you will let me return. Let me find Potter." > > > "You sound like Lucius. Neither of you understands Potter as I do. > He does not need finding. Potter will come to me. I know his > weakness, you see, his pone great flaw. He will hate watching the > others struck down around him, knowing that it is for him that it > happens. He will want to stop it at any cost. He will come." > Montavilla47: Thanks. I don't see this as much of a comparison with Lucius. He's simply saying that they are both annoying him by wanting to go look for Harry when "he will come to me." And, of course, they both have ulterior motives for doing so. Lucius really wants to look for Draco (something Voldemort see through immediately) and Snape wants to deliver his message to Harry (which Voldemort doesn't realize). So, I suppose you could gather from this the difference in Snape and Lucius's abilities in Occlumency. Snape does it successfully, and Lucius doesn't. Looking closely at this dialogue, I realize that I have been a bit too hard on Harry (gasp!). I've voiced annoyance that Harry and Hermione don't do a damn thing when Snape dies, beyond gathering the memories. (This, when Hermione was able to save Harry from Nagini's bite, and heal the splinched Ron.) But, from Harry's perspective, here's Snape beggging Voldemort to let him go fetch the person Voldemort is bent on killing. I have to excuse Harry if saving Snape's sorry life wasn't the first thing on his mind after that. :) I think the problem was that I read this passage *knowing* that Snape was good. I didn't know why the heck Snape was insisting on bringing in Harry, since I didn't know Dumbledore's big plan. I suspected that Snape was lying and just wanted to go do something else. But I knew he lying to Voldemort. So, I think, because I wasn't buying an evil Snape in any shape or form, the twist of having him act all evil and then turn out to be good was lost on me. Had I read this with the assumption that Snape was evil, or even wavering, it would have been a very different experience. Heh. Looking at this passage *again,* Voldemort seems even stupider than before. Okay, he *wants* Harry dead, and he wants it badly enough to try and attack him as soon as that blood protection thing wears off. And, he doesn't want any of his followers to kill Harry. How picky. But, suffice it to say, he wants Harry dead in a very bad way. And, he knows that Harry's big huge flaw is that Harry won't want to see people killed for him. Harry wouldn't ever let that happen. Especially the people he loves, right? I mean, that was the whole trick behind pretending to torture Sirius. So... does nobody ever tell Voldemort that Harry was dating someone? Two someones? This was, remember, the talk of the school a few months ago. It was more interesting to the student body than the fact that Harry had almost killed a fellow student. Why didn't Draco drop that little bit of information? Or Goyle? Or Crabbe? Or Pansy? And, even without that information, wouldn't Voldemort know that Harry's best friend was Ron Weasley? It seemed known that Harry was staying with the Weasleys before the wedding. Wouldn't Harry have come running if Molly and Arthur were being tortured? So, what was Voldemort waiting for all those months? If the Ministry was under Voldemort's control, and the Ministry was rounding up Muggle-born, what was to stop them from capturing the guy who went to the Ministry every single day? The paperwork? From kaamita at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 20:00:10 2008 From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <899981.54912.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184750 > "Why doesn't it work for me, Severus?" > "I do not understand. You ? you have performed extraordinary magic with that wand." > > This seems to me to establish the fact that Snape is aware Voldemort has acquired a new wand, and has been for some time. If you disagree, part a) of the question can be explaining to me why I am wrong. What, if anything, does Snape's choice of the words "extraordinary magic" suggest to you? Would you expect Snape recognized the new wand as the one Dumbledore has had throughout Snape's entire life? >Carol: >I don't have time for a lengthy response, but I'll just say that this >segment was one of the least believable for me. The last time that Voldemort has any contact with Voldemort is right *before* Voldemort breaks open Dumbledore's tomb with the yew wand. (Snape seems shocked by the revelation that LV has taken the wand from the tomb, so he must have sealed it back up to conceal the horror of his crime.) That happens around Easter break, right after "Malfoy Manor," IIRC, so Voldemort has had the wand for about a month. However, the only "extraordinary magic" (aside from mass murder of DEs) that Snape could know LV performed with that wand is Nagini's bubble. ? Heather: I don't think that Snape knew that Voldemort had the Elder Wand, or that he saw any of the "extraordinary magic" that he claims LV did. I feel that he was just saying things to please Voldemort. He didn't know that LV had the elder wand until LV told him so, at which point he was just scrambling, trying to say and do anything that would keep him alive a little longer. JMO [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kaamita at yahoo.com Mon Oct 27 20:16:08 2008 From: kaamita at yahoo.com (Heather Hadden) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <962295.31109.qm@web56507.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184751 >Zara: >4) Voldemort compares Lucius and Snape. What meaning, if any, do? > you ascribe to this? > DH, "The Elder Wand": > "No, my Lord, but I beg you will let me return. Let me find Potter." > "You sound like Lucius. Neither of you understands Potter as I do. >He does not need finding. Potter will come to me. I know his >weakness, you see, his pone great flaw. He will hate watching the >others struck down around him, knowing that it is for him that it >happens. He will want to stop it at any cost. He will come." ? Heather: I really don't see this as him comparing them as much as compairing one action they both do. Lucius and Snape both offer to go get Harry for LV and that is where the similarities really end. They both have their own reasons, and neither one is to really please the dark lord. Snape wants to get away from LV and possible pain and death and go help Harry. Lucius could care less if he found Harry. and I seriously think that he wouldn't have even bothered to look for Harry. He just wanted in the castle to look for his son. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 27 23:14:57 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:14:57 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184752 Zara: > 5) What was Draco doing on the upper landing of the marble staircase, to need rescuing from a Death Eater, in your opinion? What do you suppose happened to Goyle? Pippin: I suppose Draco hid Goyle and was trying to get back to his parents, though on first reading I thought he was being "two-faced". But like his mother, he can only get through the lines as a loyal servant of Voldemort. Zara: > 12) Please excuse the length of these last. They concern > the "official" subject of this chapter as expressed by the title. I > begin with some quotes from the text and an observation. > > "Why doesn't it work for me, Severus?" > "I do not understand. You ? you have performed extraordinary magic > with that wand." > > This seems to me to establish the fact that Snape is aware Voldemort > has acquired a new wand, and has been for some time. If you > disagree, part a) of the question can be explaining to me why I am > wrong. What, if anything, does Snape's choice of the > words "extraordinary magic" suggest to you? Would you expect Snape > recognized the new wand as the one Dumbledore has had throughout > Snape's entire life? Pippin: Voldemort was planning to meet with Snape after he retrieved the wand from the tomb (ch 24), so I suppose LV showed off his new wand then, without telling Snape where it came from. I suspect a wizard like Voldemort could disguise the appearance of a wand, or simply confund Snape so that he wouldn't recognize it. I have just noticed now that Snape's face as he hears where Voldemort got the wand is "like a death mask" and "marble white" which recalls the imagery of Dumbledore's tomb. > > 13) Do you think the acquisition of this new wand might be a matter > Severus would have mentioned to Albus? Why or why not, and what do > you suppose Albus would have said back, if yes? Pippin: It seems likely to me now that neither Snape nor Portrait!Dumbledore realized that Voldemort's new wand was the Elder Wand. As Ron says somewhere, it's not wise for the owner of the wand to reveal that he has it. I don't imagine Snape and Voldemort would meet in the Headmaster's office, or that Voldemort would allow the portraits to spy on him, so portrait!Dumbledore would only know whatever Snape was able to tell him. If the Elder Wand did not offer any of its special powers to Voldemort, Snape could not have reported anything but Voldemort's usual magic, however impressive it seemed to him. So how would portrait!Dumbledore know? Harry knew that the Gregorovich family and Grindelwald had been murdered, but I don't think this was common knowledge, was it? Everyone else only seems to know that Voldemort has been abroad. Zara: > 14) How do you feel about not knowing the answers to these questions about two major characters and the magical artifact that settled the central conflict of the series? Pippin: It isn't really something we need to know, except out of curiosity, IMO. The wand didn't actually settle the conflict, Harry's sacrifice did that, and probably would have allowed him to turn the curse even if Voldemort had been master of the EW. It's a McGuffin, really. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 27 23:48:19 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:48:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184753 Potioncat, now returned with answers to the last few questions, and hoping she's corrected WORD's autoformat. > > 12) Please excuse the length of these last. They concern > the "official" subject of this chapter as expressed by the title. I > begin with some quotes from the text and an observation. > > "Why doesn't it work for me, Severus?" > "I do not understand. You ?V you have performed extraordinary magic > with that wand." Potioncat: My feeling is that Snape doesn't have any idea what's going on. I don't think he knows this is DD's wand, or even have any inkling of the Elder Wand connection. I think JKR wrote this conversation so that we would understand LV's expectations were higher for some unknown reason. I don't know if anyone had a clue what was going on at the first read, I certainly didn't. What's important here is that LV thinks the wand is not working as well as he thought it should. No one else--character or reader-- is aware that any thing is wrong with the wand. Unless of course, as you may be suggesting, Snape does know the wand itself should be extraordinary. The Elder wand sub-plot is one of those topics that pushes buttons. Some readers don't like it, some don't think it is playing fair, and some just sort of float over it, accepting it without much question. It really doesn't bother me. It just seems LV went to a lot---a very lot--of trouble to get this super-deluxe model and it isn't living up to his expectations. He already knew "he" could do extraordinary magic, he expected the wand to allow him to do even better extraordinary magic. ?? Carol answered question 12 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/184744 > Carol: That > happens around Easter break, right after "Malfoy Manor," IIRC, so > Voldemort has had the wand for about a month. However, the only > "extraordinary magic" (aside from mass murder of DEs) that Snape could ?? know LV performed with that wand is Nagini's bubble. Potioncat: I snipped the part about whether Snape knew it was DD's wand. I don't think he does, which seems to be in agreement with Carol. I accept Carol's timeline because she's good at details and I am not. But, I don't agree Snape wouldn't have seen LV cast any magic with the wand. DD made frequent trips away from the school, I don't see why Snape might not do the same. He might take the Carrows, sneering at McGonagall that they had an important meeting to go to---all the while knowing the staff and students could breathe easy for a few hours. So we don't know what magic Snape may have seen, or whether "you've performed extraordinary magic" was just Snape's way of kissing up. I didn't yet know why Snape was staring at the snake and babbling on about finding Potter. I kept thinking, "Shut up about Harry. You're in danger and I don't know why but listen to LV, will you!" Oh, btw, at the end of the last chapter, Nagini wasn't in the bubble yet. So this protection bit has happened fast. > Carol: \snip What's more > extraordinary than extraordinary? If he's performing extraordinary > magic, as he's always done with a wand perfectly suited to him, and > this wand is performing equally well, what is he complaining about? > It's like saying, "My wife is perfectly beautiful, but I want a wife ?? who's *perfectly beautiful!" snip Potioncat: I think it's more like an extraordinary violinist who has been playing on an ordinary violin. One day he obtains a Stradivarius. He's expecting music that is some how more refined---then hears no difference. > > 13) Do you think the acquisition of this new wand might be a matter > Severus would have mentioned to Albus? Why or why not, and what do ?? you suppose Albus would have said back, if yes? Potioncat: I'll have to think about this question in the next chapter. But right now, I don't think Snape knows anything about this wand. It is difficult to think Snape wouldn't have checked on DD's vault after LV asked to see it alone. But even if he knew it had desecrated, would he know the wand was missing? > > 14) How do you feel about not knowing the answers to these questions > about two major characters and the magical artifact that settled the ?? central conflict of the series? Potioncat: Again, this doesn't push my buttons, it does leave a sort of "what the heck!" reaction, but yet to me, it fits OK. The controversy reminds me of some of Agatha Christie's works. We discussed her after HBP along with "unreliable narrator". One of the books we discussed at that time, "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" reminds me a lot of DH. That is, fan reaction to it---and the reason for the reaction--remind me of DH. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 28 12:36:56 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:36:56 -0000 Subject: hour glass wasRe: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184754 > Carol: What do you think is the significance > of this repeated but altered detail? What might it symbolize or > foreshadow in both instances? Who do you think cursed the respective > hourglasses and why?" > > I'll see what others say and, when I have another moment to breathe > and think, I'll read the responses and add mine. Potioncat: There is more than just the hourglasses being repeated. In HBP there is "The Lightening Struck Tower" followed by "The Flight of the Prince." In DH we have "The Elder Wand" followed by "The Prince's Tale." The earlier two chapter titles evoke Tarot images of wand and tower. The following two chapters are about the "Prince." Do the Tarot cards speak to the Prince in these cases? Back to the hourglasses. We don't see who fired the curses that shattered the hourglasses. It appears to be part of the great damage that is happening to the castle. In both cases, the stones are scattered on the blood stained floor. It is written as a random part of the damages being done, but the choice of stones reflects the current Headmaster. We might say, given one symbolism of the hourglass, that DD's and Snape's time had run out. I can't honestly say that I saw the emeralds as forewarning of Snape's death when I first read it. I may have. It certainly appears to do that in a re-read. Good question--Carol and Zara. From irenem316 at comcast.net Tue Oct 28 16:13:29 2008 From: irenem316 at comcast.net (irenematt02176) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:13:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: <899981.54912.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184755 > Heather: > I don't think that Snape knew that Voldemort had the Elder Wand, > or that he saw any of the "extraordinary magic" that he claims > LV did. I feel that he was just saying things to please Voldemort. > He didn't know that LV had the elder wand until LV told him so, Irene: I disagree - I think that acquiring the Elder Wand would be something that Voldemort would brag to his DE's about - to prove his superiority and to scare them. They knew about the issues with the twin cores, and that Lucius' wand had broken in the fight with Harry. He would keep his quest for the wand secret for several reasons - 1. he might fail; 2. he didn't trust anyone; and 3. he wouldn't consider anyone capable of assisting him, the cleverest and most precious. Once he got the wand, though, I think he would have told the DEs that he now had the means to beat Harry's wand. If Snape was shocked and scrambling, I think it was because he realized that he was about to be killed without having completed his mission to tell Harry about the scar - the last and most important piece of the puzzle. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 29 03:37:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:37:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184756 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > > Chapter 32: The Elder Wand > > >Potioncat: > > Great summary and questions! > > First a few reactions to the summary: > > Voldemort claims he [Lucius]wants only to get into the castle and > > look for Draco, and asks whether Draco has not become a friend of > > Potter since "he did not come and join me, like the rest of the > ?? Slytherins." > > Potioncat: > OK, I know we've discussed this before?K"like the rest of the Slytherins." You know, there just aren't that many of them, because we know at least 3 didn't show up. I can take this to mean, "like the rest of the anticipated Slytherin DEs" and not just a blanket "the whole house/6th and 7th years." So, who thinks Theo and Blaise are in the DE camp as this conversation is going on? Do we believe (based on this bit of conversation) that most of the 7th and 6th years reported to LV? JKR tells us there are Slytherins with Slughorn, but she must mean Slytherin old boys and old girls. > Where is Severus? From the conversation that will happen in a few moments, it will sound as if Snape had been in the battle, or in some way observing the battle. > > Granted, we come into the middle of the conversation, "?Kmy Lord their resistance is crumbling?K" LV then appears to repeat that Snape cannot re-enter the battle. Yada yada, "Do you know why I have called you back from the battle?" and Snape says, "..let me return.." > > So, what might Snape have been doing? Does anyone think we may have seen Snape in battle? Carol responds: I seriously doubt that Snape has actually been fighting though he may have been pretending to. And he's probably watched enough of the battle to tell Voldemort that it's going "well" (just screen out the parts that Snape doesn't want him to see) in case Voldie uses Legimency. But Snape at this point has one thing on his mind--not the battle, not the Elder Wand, but "find the boy"--a duty made all the more urgent by his seeing Nagini in her protective bubble. Carol, who almost called JKR HRH (for Her Royal Highness) until she remembered that, duh, we use that abbreviation for something else P.S. If anyone wonders, I'm between chapters (finished with one and waiting for another) on the editing project from hell From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 29 03:48:50 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:48:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: <899981.54912.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184757 Carol earlier: > >I don't have time for a lengthy response, but I'll just say that this segment was one of the least believable for me. The last time that Voldemort [sheesh! I meant snape, of course!] has any contact with Voldemort is right *before* Voldemort breaks open Dumbledore's tomb with the yew wand. (Snape seems shocked by the revelation that LV has taken the wand from the tomb, so he must have sealed it back up to conceal the horror of his crime.) That happens around Easter break, right after "Malfoy Manor," IIRC, so Voldemort has had the wand for about a month. However, the only "extraordinary magic" (aside from mass murder of DEs) that Snape could know LV performed with that wand is Nagini's bubble. > Heather: > I don't think that Snape knew that Voldemort had the Elder Wand, or that he saw any of the "extraordinary magic" that he claims LV did. I feel that he was just saying things to please Voldemort. He didn't know that LV had the elder wand until LV told him so, at which point he was just scrambling, trying to say and do anything that would keep him alive a little longer. JMO Carol responds: I agree with your post except that I don't think Snape's distraction had anything to do with staying alive a little longer. By the time he raises his wand, realizing his danger, it's too late. His mind, IMO, is wholly focused on finding Harry and delivering that crucial message. Carol, who can't wait for TMTMNBN!HBP now that the new teaser is out! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 29 04:30:12 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:30:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184758 > Potioncat: > OK, I know we've discussed this before?K"like the rest of the Slytherins." You know, there just aren't that many of them, because we know at least 3 didn't show up. I can take this to mean, "like the rest of the anticipated Slytherin DEs" and not just a blanket "the whole house/6th and 7th years." So, who thinks Theo and Blaise are in the DE camp as this conversation is going on? Do we believe (based on this bit of conversation) that most of the 7th and 6th years reported to LV? JKR tells us there are Slytherins with Slughorn, but she must mean Slytherin old boys and old girls. > Carol responds: I don't know what just happened, but my previous response came back with a bunch of stuff I thought I had cut and without my response to this question. I had a whole bunch of stuff about Theo Nott (and a bit acout Blaise Zabini) that I'm too tired to attempt to recreate. I'll just say that this onnversation occurs before Snape's death and before Harry's little excursion to King's Cross, so it certainly occurred before Slughorn's return, with or without Slytherins in tow. At any rate, Voldemort is a liar, and he was also in the Shrieking Shack, not taking part in the battle. I think he only knew that Draco wasn't in the battle from using Legilimency on Lucius. I do think you're right, though, that "the rest of the Slytherins" doesn't refer to all of Slytherin House, little kids and all, or even to older Slytherins like Pansy Parkinson who aren't Death Eaters and (unlike Phineas Nigellus, who says that Slytherins are brave but not stupid) seem to care primarily for their own skins. I think he meant, specifically, Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle--ironically, "the rest of the Slytherins" to whom he seems to be referring didn't show up either. We have only two Slytherins in DH who seem to be gung ho about Death Eating, the dumb and deluded Goyle and the dumb and evil Crabbe. They're the only two whom Neville reports as using the Cruciatus Curse on other students. Theo Nott, the intelligent loner, may have a Death Eater father, but that father is an older man (fifty? sixty?) injured at the MoM and abandoned by his fellow DEs. Whether he's dead, ill, injured, or still in Azkaban, we don't know, but there's no mention of him taking part in either the Seven Potters chase or the Battle of Hogwarts. Blaise Zabini, though he's an arrogant Pure-blood supremacist, expressed disdain for Death Eaters in HBP. Neither of them was a member of Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad in OoP. Neither of them is mentioned as casting Crucios in DH. We don't see them returning with Slughorn (though Harry is in a hurry and the narrator gives no clear idea of which students are following Slughorn. I see no point, BTW, in their being "old boys and girls" of no interest to the reader; the only slytherins we're interested in, if any, are the ones we've met.) But we don't see them, or any other schoolage Slytherins, fighting for Voldemort. IOW, I think that Voldemort was just bullying and taunting and humiliating Lucius, knowing full well that the wandless Lucius wants only to get into Hogwarts and find his son. And, as I said in my lost post (may it give Yahoo!mort indigestion!), I choose to believe that at least some of the of-age Slytherins who weren't members of the Inquisitorial Squad, in particular Theo and Blaise and Daphne Greengrass but perhaps some older sixth-years as well, returned with Slughorn. I'll believe it until JKR informs me otherwise. Carol, whose path was crossed today by a gray-and-black cat--hope that means only semi-bad or neutral luck! ;-) Carol, apologizing to the List Elves for the mangled post and wondering why the part that got cut was the part I wanted to keep! From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 29 10:23:36 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:23:36 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184759 > Irene: > I disagree - I think that acquiring the Elder Wand would be > something that Voldemort would brag to his DE's about - to > prove his superiority and to scare them. Pippin: Voldemort doesn't trust his DE's. He won't tell his allies anything he doesn't want his enemies to know, even when he's bragging. For example he refers to his horcruxes only cryptically in his graveyard speech. Ollivander knows the signs by which the Elder Wand can be recognized and yet he never knew that Dumbledore had it -- that proves to me that the Elder Wand can be disguised. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 29 12:02:14 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:02:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184760 > Carol responds: > > I seriously doubt that Snape has actually been fighting though he may > have been pretending to. And he's probably watched enough of the > battle to tell Voldemort that it's going "well" (just screen out the > parts that Snape doesn't want him to see) in case Voldie uses Legimency. Potioncat: Hmmm. I think you're right, for two reasons that came to mind after I sent the post. LV wouldn't send Lucius into the battle to get Snape that's what Lucius wants to do so that he can look for Draco. If Snape had been in the battle, he would have been looking for Harry, and we would need to see some hint of it. That is, for his being there to have any meaning. So his request to "return" to the battle means that he left the battle when he fled the Heads. I was thinking the battle started later, but that's really the moment it started. So, Snape must have some assignment that gives him some overview of the battle. Some fancy Aide de Camp or something. (I have no idea what an aide de camp is, or how it's spelled.) But I don't think he knew about Nagini's protecion until we see him in the Shrieking Shack. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 29 12:13:12 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:13:12 -0000 Subject: Slytherins (was Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184761 > Carol responds: > I'll just say that this onnversation occurs before Snape's death and > before Harry's little excursion to King's Cross, so it certainly > occurred before Slughorn's return, with or without Slytherins in tow. Potioncat: Yes, and now we've moved out of chapter 32. But if we must assume "some" Slytherins will show up with Slughorn, and some will stay at home, and 3 didn't leave the castle at all, that doesn't leave very many to have reported to LV's camp. Granted, JKR isn't very good with numbers. Of course, LV's point, as you say, is that Draco didn't come to the camp. Carol: We don't see them returning with Slughorn > (though Harry is in a hurry and the narrator gives no clear idea of > which students are following Slughorn. I see no point, BTW, in their > being "old boys and girls" of no interest to the reader; the only > slytherins we're interested in, if any, are the ones we've met.) But > we don't see them, or any other schoolage Slytherins, fighting for > Voldemort. Potioncat: Those are the only Slytherins I'm interested in, but who knows what JKR meant! I still think she answered off the cuff and hadn't really given it any thought. Assuming she did mean some of the 6th and 7th years returned with Slughorn, That could mean Theo--probably not Blaise. Not Pansy, but who knows about the others? It could also mean some of the former students that we knew. > Carol, whose path was crossed today by a gray-and-black cat--hope that > means only semi-bad or neutral luck! ;-) Potioncat: Well, given our interest in witches and such, I'd say any cat of any color would be good luck. Unless it was Mrs. Norris or cute kittens on plates. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 29 15:23:23 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:23:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184762 Potioncat: > But I don't think he knew about Nagini's protecion until we see him > in the Shrieking Shack. > Carol responds: Nor do I. He was desperately seeking Harry *before* he knew about Nagini, wanting to talk to him even while Harry was under the Invisibility Cloak (before McGonagall attacked Snape). Clearly, Snape knew that matters had come to a head--Voldemort was about to attack Hogwarts--and Harry had to find out about the soul bit so he could let Voldemort kill him, Nagini or no Nagini. Harry notes even then that he seems distracted, looking around (for him), hardly aware of what he's doing or saying. When Snape sees Nagini in her bubble in the Shrieking Shack, he's even more aware that time is pressing. He *must* get that message to Harry. He's hardly hearing what LV says about the wand (maybe the "extraordinary magic" he mentions is what he's seen performed with the yew wand?). He doesn't even realize that he's in danger until he understands that Voldemort desecrated Dumbledore's tomb to get *his* wand, the Elder Wand, the Deathstick. At that point, he stops repeating his request to find the boy and reaches for his own wand, but he doesn't use it. He know that Voldemort can't be killed and that he has to kill Harry. At any rate, Nagini isn't the trigger that sets him looking for Harry. I think that trigger is Voldemort's message that Harry is coming to Hogwarts and he, Voldemort, will follow. Carol, sneaking in a post or two before the next chapter arrives From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 29 23:20:19 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:20:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184763 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > 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) > > Questions: > 1) What is with ending chapters with the dramatic deaths of > characters, including, of course, descriptions of their eyes? (I > refer the reader to Dobby's sightless orbs staring unseeingly up at > the starry sky *sob*, Fred's eyes that stare without seeing, and > Snape's eyes, from which "something" vanishes as he dies.) Feel free > to comment on similarities and differences between these three > character deaths witnessed by Harry. I just thought the deaths were a good place to end the chapter. The description of the eyes was just to let us know for sure that they were dead. > > 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These same > eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and empty > and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* in > them.) "cold and empty" describes death. A dead body is cold to the touch and empty of life. > > 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of > it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you > differently on rereading? > I was elated that he was dead. While an interesting character, he was not someone I could like or admire. So I was glad he was gone. After reading the next chapter, I realized how lucky he was. Without Harry's compassion, he would have completely failed in the mission he was supposed to carry out. Harry checking on Snape is still the most unbelievable thing to me. He had no reason to check on Snape. All he knew was that Snape had treated him like crap his entire life and the last time he saw him before this day was when he killed Dumbledore right in front of him. So from Harry's perspective I don't know why he did. > 4) Voldemort compares Lucius and Snape. What meaning, if any, do you > ascribe to this? I though he was just insulting Snape. Lucius was a"fallen" follower. Any comparison was not supposed to be good. > > 5) Will Zara ask a question that is NOT about Snape? Erm, right, yes, > well Personally, I prefer the battle scenes in this chapter to the > ones in the previous one, even though the last chapter was named > after the battle. Which is your favorite scene of the first part of > the battle (feel free to name one from the previous chapter!)? Why? I wasn't impressed with any of the battle scenes. I appreciated the humor, but it detracted from the storyline we were following. Which was Harry. > > 5) What was Draco doing on the upper landing of the marble staircase, > to need rescuing from a Death Eater, in your opinion? What do you > suppose happened to Goyle? I assume Draco was trying to get out of the castle and back to his parents to report what he had done and seen. I would expect that Goyle was fighting on Voldemort's side. > > 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought > him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. > Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this > sufficient for you? Why or why not? The story line was unsatisfying, but I think it was only there to maintain the fantasy aspect. You expect to see giants, elves, magical creatures, etc. in this setting. I think it was more of window dressing than anything else. > > 7) The Slytherin hourglass broke as Harry ran down the stairs into > the Entrance Hall, just as the Gryffindor one had in the fighting at > the end of HBP. Did you ascribe any particular meaning to this bit of > trivia on your first read? Do you now? I didn't give it any meaning the first time through. Now, if we look for some symbolism, I suppose it would be the death's of the headmasters of the school at the time. > > 8) What was your reaction to Hagrid's defense of the giant spiders > and its results? I didn't like that I didn't know what he meant. Was he protecting the spiders or the students. > > 9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? > (Or, why was it not cool?) Why do you suppose Rowling chose Trelawney > as the person to finish him off? I thought JKR was just trying to show that Hermione held no hard feelings towards Lavender. > > 10) Luna, Ernie, and Seamus's Patronuses are revealed to be, > respectively, a hare, a boar, and a fox. Do they suit your ideas of > these characters? Why or why not? I never gave them a second thought. > > 11) Hermione tells Ron "Are you a wizard, or what?" when he regrets > Crookshanks cannot open the Willow for them. This echoes the moment > in PS/SS when Ron said the same to Hermione as she worried > frantically that she has no matches. What does this serve, in your > view? Do you see other mirrors in this chapter? Again I think she was just trying to tie things together as best she could. > > 12) Please excuse the length of these last. They concern > the "official" subject of this chapter as expressed by the title. I > begin with some quotes from the text and an observation. > > "Why doesn't it work for me, Severus?" > "I do not understand. You ? you have performed extraordinary magic > with that wand." > > This seems to me to establish the fact that Snape is aware Voldemort > has acquired a new wand, and has been for some time. If you > disagree, part a) of the question can be explaining to me why I am > wrong. What, if anything, does Snape's choice of the > words "extraordinary magic" suggest to you? Would you expect Snape > recognized the new wand as the one Dumbledore has had throughout > Snape's entire life? While I am not a Snape fan, I do believe he had some intelligence. I have no doubt he recognized Dumbledore's wand. This would be like some guy not remembering that their teacher/collegue drove a '68 Mustang everyday. It's not something that someone with interest in the subject (like magic) would ever forget. Add to it that it was Dumbledore's wand, the most famous wizard of the era and I don't see how he could not recognize it. > > 13) Do you think the acquisition of this new wand might be a matter > Severus would have mentioned to Albus? Why or why not, and what do > you suppose Albus would have said back, if yes? I think he would have mentioned it. Even if we ignore the grave desicraton this is too big to ignore. Snape would be wondering why Voldemort took his wand and why it mattered. He knew that Voldemort had already tried Lucius' wand and now he had Dumbledores. > > 14) How do you feel about not knowing the answers to these questions > about two major characters and the magical artifact that settled the > central conflict of the series? Not knowing didn't bother me at all because I didn't think there knowing or not was relevent to the story. > From sherriola at gmail.com Thu Oct 30 03:49:29 2008 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:49:29 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c93a42$83c5f150$4001a8c0@Pensieve> No: HPFGUIDX 184764 Zara: 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you differently on rereading? Sherry: It's well known in our group that I am not and never have been a fan of Snape. Yet, I found his death horrible and tragic. It was only the fourth time in the entire series, that I was really struck with the pure evil of Voldemort, the graveyard scene in GOF, chapter one of DH, and Kreacher's Tale, being the three others. But this was perhaps the time with the most impact. It was not at all what I expected to happen, and as nothing else ever had, truly shoed his lack of feeling for anyone, even those Voldemort believed to be loyal to him. It made me nearly have to vomit. I had never felt, nor ever expected to feel, so much shock and pain for Snape. Zara: 5) Will Zara ask a question that is NOT about Snape? Erm, right, yes, well.Personally, I prefer the battle scenes in this chapter to the ones in the previous one, even though the last chapter was named after the battle. Which is your favorite scene of the first part of the battle (feel free to name one from the previous chapter!)? Why? Sherry: I loved Minerva's telling the desks to "charge!" It made me laugh, which was sorely needed at the time. I had a great image of the desk doing exactly that! Thanks, Zara, for such a great summary and questions! Sherry From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Oct 30 07:43:11 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:43:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand References: <000001c93a42$83c5f150$4001a8c0@Pensieve> Message-ID: <0C2F89629FEE40D1AC2B4554521457D7@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 184765 Zara: 3) What was your reaction to Snape's death on your first reading of it? Did the following chapter change your view? Does it affect you differently on rereading? Shelley: I am going to sound like the most evil person on the face of the earth with my answer. I have never been a fan of Snape, I loathed the man before he killed Dumbledore, and hated him even more following that event. My prediction for the last book is that I wanted to see Snape die. I was looking forward to it even. I wanted Snape to be taken down. But, when I read that part, Nagini taking him and Snape just standing there like a spineless wimp, a pitifully sorry man, I was angry. I wanted a death that was worthy of the villain Snape was, not some pitifully, wimpy snake bite that he didn't even try to defend himself from. I just wanted something "Grand" from Snape as he died, and I didn't get it. Does that color my rereading? Sure it does. That, and a bunch of other things that I felt were "ended poorly" in that last book, so much so that with the other books, I couldn't wait to reread them, and have reread them over and over, but with DH, it's like "yeah, whatever. If I reread it, I do, if I don't get to it, so what." I almost prefer to reread the whole series MINUS book 7. I feel it's that much of a disappointment for me. No, the next chapter didn't redeem that wimpy ending of Snape- I was much too disappointed at that point that nothing else Rowling did for the ending could have made me change my mind. Shelley From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 30 13:09:33 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:09:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184766 "jkoney65" > > 2) Speaking of this something, what are we to make of it? These > same > > eyes have been elsewhere described thusly: "They were cold and > empty > > and made you think of dark tunnels". (Empty things have *nothing* > in > > them.) > jkoney65 > "cold and empty" describes death. A dead body is cold to the touch > and empty of life. Potioncat: Yet that description is of the eyes of living Snape. It's part of why many readers thought he was a vampire. Oh, the good old days... > > jkoney65 > I was elated that he was dead. While an interesting character, he was > not someone I could like or admire. So I was glad he was gone. After > reading the next chapter, I realized how lucky he was. Without > Harry's compassion, he would have completely failed in the mission he > was supposed to carry out. Potioncat: It does seem there was a real weak link in the plan. How the heck was Snape supposed to tell Harry? A letter? "Dear Harry, please come to my office at Hogwarts. I have something important to tell you." Hmm, come to think of it, why couldn't he have contacted Harry with his Patronus? >jkoney65 > Harry checking on Snape is still the most unbelievable thing to me. > He had no reason to check on Snape. All he knew was that Snape had > treated him like crap his entire life and the last time he saw him > before this day was when he killed Dumbledore right in front of him. > So from Harry's perspective I don't know why he did. Potioncat: I'm sure if Snape hadn't been bleeding memories Harry's actions might have been different after he first approached, but I found the whole thing in character for Harry. I was angry at Hermione for the longest time for not trying to heal Snape. And where the heck was Ron during this scene? > > jkoney65 > While I am not a Snape fan, I do believe he had some intelligence. I > have no doubt he recognized Dumbledore's wand. This would be like > some guy not remembering that their teacher/collegue drove a '68 > Mustang everyday. It's not something that someone with interest in > the subject (like magic) would ever forget. Add to it that it was > Dumbledore's wand, the most famous wizard of the era and I don't see > how he could not recognize it. Potioncat: It's more like recognising that your teacher is now using a differnt style pen to grade papers. I'm not so sure how very different a wand in hand looks from any other. But, even if Snape knew LV had DD's wand, does Snape know that wand was the Elder wand? The Hallows were so embedded in WW folklore, he may not have beleived it existed. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 30 15:29:50 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:29:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184767 > Potioncat: > It does seem there was a real weak link in the plan. How the heck was > Snape supposed to tell Harry? A letter? "Dear Harry, please come to > my office at Hogwarts. I have something important to tell you." Hmm, > come to think of it, why couldn't he have contacted Harry with his > Patronus? jkoney65 I'm still not sure why DD or even Snape thought that Harry would believe Snape. Other than Voldemort is there anyone Harry hates this much? > > > > jkoney65 > > While I am not a Snape fan, I do believe he had some intelligence. > I > > have no doubt he recognized Dumbledore's wand. This would be like > > some guy not remembering that their teacher/collegue drove a '68 > > Mustang everyday. It's not something that someone with interest in > > the subject (like magic) would ever forget. Add to it that it was > > Dumbledore's wand, the most famous wizard of the era and I don't > see > > how he could not recognize it. > > Potioncat: > It's more like recognising that your teacher is now using a differnt > style pen to grade papers. I'm not so sure how very different a wand > in hand looks from any other. > > But, even if Snape knew LV had DD's wand, does Snape know that wand > was the Elder wand? The Hallows were so embedded in WW folklore, he > may not have beleived it existed. jkoney65 No, Snape was definitely a fan of magic. Were told he arrived at Hogwarts knowing all those dark curses even before he started school. With the wand the key instrument he would have always noticed them and who carried what. I doubt that yew, holly, ash, maple, etc all look exactly alike. We are never told if they are stained but that would also be a way of telling them apart. The more they are polished the more the wood grain would stand out and those would definitely be different. I know people who can tell you what hand gun someone is holding from several feet away (glock, beratta, colt, browning, etc). Something as personal as a wand, especially from someone you knew for years would stand out completely. I don't believe he ever knew that DD's wand was the elder wand. He probably had heard of the myth and knew that Voldemort was seeking a powerful wand but wouldn't have thought the myth existed or that Dumbledore would own it. > From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 30 17:30:26 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:30:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184768 > Potioncat: > It does seem there was a real weak link in the plan. How the heck was Snape supposed to tell Harry? A letter? "Dear Harry, please come to my office at Hogwarts. I have something important to tell you." Hmm, come to think of it, why couldn't he have contacted Harry with his Patronus? Pippin: Once Voldemort discovered that Harry was after his horcruxes, finding Harry was not going to be difficult, since that would become Voldemort's first priority also, and he's never failed to get Harry to come to him. Snape was able to arrange a secret meeting with Dumbledore in his DE days, I'm sure it wouldn't have been beyond his ingenuity to arrange a meeting with Harry. Or simply leave the relevant memories in the pensieve and arrange for Harry to find them. > >jkoney65 > > Harry checking on Snape is still the most unbelievable thing to me. He had no reason to check on Snape. All he knew was that Snape had treated him like crap his entire life and the last time he saw him before this day was when he killed Dumbledore right in front of him. So from Harry's perspective I don't know why he did. Pippin: Harry had to be aware, at least subconsciously, that something didn't fit. Snape raised his wand but didn't use it. Also, Snape was aware that Draco or one of the other DE's could have deprived Dumbledore of his wand before he died, yet he didn't bring up that possibility to Voldemort, even though it would have bought him some time. jkoney65: . Add to it that it was Dumbledore's wand, the most famous wizard of the era and I don't see how he could not recognize it. Pippin: *Ollivander* didn't recognize it -- though the one time when we see them together Dumbledore didn't use his wand, still, DD used it in public many times. I don't think it can be recognized by sight. >From Snape's reaction when he understands that Voldemort has obtained his wand from Dumbledore' tomb, I think portrait!Dumbledore had told Snape that Voldemort would search for the Elder Wand, but of course portrait!Dumbledore wouldn't know what had become of it. Only Hagrid would have known it had been buried with Dumbledore. I suppose Hagrid found it on the grounds. Pippin From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Oct 30 18:20:56 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:20:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184769 >> I just thought the deaths were a good place to end the chapter. The > description of the eyes was just to let us know for sure that they > were dead. Leah: Though Dobby and Fred have staring, lifeless eyes, Snape's eyes don't stare lifelessly, Harry just sees 'something' leaving them. Snape lives! Seriously, I tbink this is just a variant description of the same thing, though, as Snape's eyes were previously described as 'black, empty tunnels', it could describe Snape 'coming alive'as he fulfills his debt to Lily, ironically in the moment of his death. > Harry checking on Snape is still the most unbelievable thing to me. > He had no reason to check on Snape. All he knew was that Snape had > treated him like crap his entire life and the last time he saw him > before this day was when he killed Dumbledore right in front of him. > So from Harry's perspective I don't know why he did. Leah: Harry isn't IMO 'checking' on Snape, and I don't see his motivation being compassion. None of the trio make any attempt to eg. stem blood flow, or check Snape's pulse, which 'checking' would imply (and it would probably have been unrealistic for them to do so). I think Harry's reaction is one of shock. The text says that Harry did not know why he approached Snape, and that Snape was the 'man he hated'. I think the method of Snape's death has shocked Harry, and like Pippin, I think there is a sense of something 'off' about the whole thing. Quite honestly, I think Harry is there in the same way as other drivers can't help slowing down to watch the aftermath of a terrible accident. Leah From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 30 18:44:16 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:44:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184770 > > >jkoney65 > > > Harry checking on Snape is still the most unbelievable thing to > me. He had no reason to check on Snape. All he knew was that Snape > had treated him like crap his entire life and the last time he saw > him before this day was when he killed Dumbledore right in front of > him. So from Harry's perspective I don't know why he did. > > Pippin: > Harry had to be aware, at least subconsciously, that something didn't > fit. Snape raised his wand but didn't use it. Also, Snape was aware > that Draco or one of the other DE's could have deprived Dumbledore of > his wand before he died, yet he didn't bring up that possibility to > Voldemort, even though it would have bought him some time. jkoney Sure Snape raised his wand and didn't use it. To Harry that could just mean that Snape was a coward (he last really saw him killing an unarmed man) or unable to fight someone with some skills. > > jkoney65: > . Add to it that it was Dumbledore's wand, the most famous wizard of > the era and I don't see how he could not recognize it. > > Pippin: > *Ollivander* didn't recognize it -- though the one time when we see > them together Dumbledore didn't use his wand, still, DD used it in > public many times. I don't think it can be recognized by sight. > > From Snape's reaction when he understands that Voldemort has obtained > his wand from Dumbledore' tomb, I think portrait!Dumbledore had told > Snape that Voldemort would search for the Elder Wand, but of course > portrait!Dumbledore wouldn't know what had become of it. Only Hagrid > would have known it had been buried with Dumbledore. I suppose Hagrid > found it on the grounds. > jkoney When did Ollivander see Voldemort with the elder wand? Ollivander who remembers Harry's parents wands would certainly recognize a wand by sight alone. Since it wasn't a wand he made he would be more curious about it. Ollivander didn't know that Dumbledore's wand was the elder wand. All he said was that Gregorovitch(sp?) said that he had the elder wand, not that he had ever seen it. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 30 19:36:05 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:36:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > >9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? (Or, why was it not cool?) Alla: Okay, I wanted to answer couple more of your wonderful questions and almost forgot about it. Um, I found it well, sort of annoying, even though I totally understand (I think) what author wanted to say by adding this scene. I think she wanted to show how much Hermione grew that she was able to overcome her jealousy or something to that effect. However, I would have been much more impressed had Hermione had Lavender or Parvati or any of the girls who she seemed to think were too girly for her tastes ( or at least it was my impression ), I would have been much more impressed if those girls defended **her**. I think that would have truly made Hermione learn a lesson in humbleness, which I really do not think she did. I mean, she is always always right. IMO of course. 11) Hermione tells Ron "Are you a wizard, or what?" when he regrets Crookshanks cannot open the Willow for them. This echoes the moment in PS/SS when Ron said the same to Hermione as she worried frantically that she has no matches. What does this serve, in your view? Do you see other mirrors in this chapter? Alla: Fingers crossed I will come back to another mirrors in this chapter tonight, I want to double check the text first. But sure I think it demonstrates again the amasingness of Hermione Granger, her growth and integration in wizarding world, blah, blah, blah. I mean no disrespect to your question whatsoever; I just really want to slap Hermione sometimes. But another reason why I am answering is because I wanted to mention one of my all time favorite mirrors, even though it is not in this chapter or not in this book. I was overjoyed when I heard Slughorn saying "point for your cheek" in HBP to Harry. To me it was such a nice slap to Snape's face, even if Snape was not there lol. I loved it and of course remembered that disgusting (IMO) first lesson. Maybe that is the reason why I like Slughorn so much despite him having some very big flaws, which I fully acknowledge. Although probably I liked him since his first appearance. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 30 20:16:49 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:16:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184772 > > jkoney65: > > . Add to it that it was Dumbledore's wand, the most famous wizard of the era and I don't see how he could not recognize it. > > > > Pippin: > > *Ollivander* didn't recognize it -- though the one time when we see them together Dumbledore didn't use his wand, still, DD used it in public many times. I don't think it can be recognized by sight. >snip> > jkoney > When did Ollivander see Voldemort with the elder wand? Ollivander who remembers Harry's parents wands would certainly recognize a wand by sight alone. Since it wasn't a wand he made he would be more curious about it. > > Ollivander didn't know that Dumbledore's wand was the elder wand. Pippin: That's my point. Despite the fact that Dumbledore had been using the Elder Wand in public for more than fifty years, Ollivander never realized he had it, even though the wand has been an object of "incredible fascination to all of us who study the power of wands" and Dumbledore often used his wand in public. Ollivander must have been curious about the wand of a wizard as mighty as Dumbledore, yet he doesn't seem to have entertained the slightest idea that it was the Elder Wand. Ollivander knew the "certain identifying characteristics that those of us who are learned in wandlore recognize" but he also says that the Elder Wand sometimes "vanishes from view, temporarily lost or hidden." (DH ch 24) Ollivander established here that the Elder Wand can be hidden; naturally I thought he meant stashed away somewhere like the Mirror of Erised or Voldemort's horcruxes. But an object can also be hidden by disguise, as many things in the Potterverse have been. Pippin From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Thu Oct 30 20:44:27 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (jerrichase) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:44:27 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184773 > 6) The Death Eaters brought a giant to the battle, and Grawp fought > him to defend the school. As payoff for Hagrid's back-story, Mme. > Maxime, "Hagrid's Tale", and the Grawp subplot in OotP, was this > sufficient for you? Why or why not? Thanks for the great discussion and questions. I have to respond to this one. No, it wasn't enough for me. When reading the first 6 books I kept an eye on subjects introduced, etc. When I consider how many pages worth of space JKR spent on introducing Grawp and Hagrid's trip to the Giants in OotP, and so forth as well (as someone mentioned) DD's statements to Fudge in GoF about how important it was to send envoys to the Giants, I had expected them to be IMPORTANT. There were already so many plot lines, that when she added/strengthened the giant plot line (and others, like sending Lupin to spy on the werewolves) I expected a much more elaborate pay off in the end, tying things up more. Making the giants more important. This is one example of the issues that left me disapointed in DH. Jerri From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 30 21:21:33 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:21:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184774 > >9) How cool was it that Hermione defended Lavender from Greyback? > (Or, why was it not cool?) > > > Alla: > > Okay, I wanted to answer couple more of your wonderful questions and > almost forgot about it. Um, I found it well, sort of annoying, even > though I totally understand (I think) what author wanted to say by > adding this scene. I think she wanted to show how much Hermione grew > that she was able to overcome her jealousy or something to that > effect. Zara: I was curious what people would answer here. I did not notice this moment, particularly, until I prepared to write the discussion and read the chapter with attention to details, looking for questions. This, like the birthday scene with Ginny, is for me a little hidden gem, now that I found it. To me, it is a nice feminist moment. While there is also some message there about Hermione having moved on from her jealousy of Lavender and feeling secure in Ron's affection for her, to me the more meaningful point here is not that *Lavender* is being rescued, but that Hermione is rescuing a female *from Greyback*. I found the scene in Malfoy Manor where he was leering repulsively over Hermione and hoping he would get to play with her after Bella was done, really creepy. One of the creepiest parts in the book. So I was delighted to discover that Hermione was given a chance to strike back in this scene. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 30 21:22:01 2008 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:22:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184775 > > Alla: > > Okay, I wanted to answer couple more of your wonderful questions and > almost forgot about it. Um, I found it well, sort of annoying, even > though I totally understand (I think) what author wanted to say by > adding this scene. I think she wanted to show how much Hermione grew > that she was able to overcome her jealousy or something to that > effect. > > However, I would have been much more impressed had Hermione had > Lavender or Parvati or any of the girls who she seemed to think were > too girly for her tastes ( or at least it was my impression ), I > would have been much more impressed if those girls defended **her**. > I think that would have truly made Hermione learn a lesson in > humbleness, which I really do not think she did. I mean, she is > always always right. IMO of course. > Hickengruendler: I think she got some lesson with the centaur incident in OotP. She wasn't right, there. However, she does witness Trelawney knocking off the werewolf, so maybe that is something? I do think she ha smore respect for Lavender or Parvati, than she has for Trelawney, anyway. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 31 03:46:21 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 03:46:21 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: <0C2F89629FEE40D1AC2B4554521457D7@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184776 Shelley wrote: > I am going to sound like the most evil person on the face of the earth with my answer. I have never been a fan of Snape, I loathed the man before he killed Dumbledore, and hated him even more following that event. My prediction for the last book is that I wanted to see Snape die. I was looking forward to it even. I wanted Snape to be taken down. But, when I read that part, Nagini taking him and Snape just standing there like a spineless wimp, a pitifully sorry man, I was angry. I wanted a death that was worthy of the villain Snape was, not some pitifully, wimpy snake bite that he didn't even try to defend himself from. > Carol responds: Obviously, our reactions are poles apart (although, I, too, was hoping that Snape would die heroically--f he had to die at all), but I want to add one thing. IMO (and in Harry's), Snape was not a spineless wimp (though he no doubt seemed so to you on a first reading). He did scream in horror (so would anyone!), but he didn't faint. More important, It took great courage *not* to try to kill Voldemort when he first realized that Voldemort intended to kill him. (He went for his wand and had time to use it but didn't). Why didn't he? IMO, because he knew that *he* couldn't kill Voldemort. He didn't know about the true Horcruxes, but he knew about the soul bit in Harry's head. If he used a Killing Curse, Voldemort would just be vaporized and return as he did before. Snape went white as a tomb when he realized that Voldemort intended to kill him, not because he feared death itself (he'd faced it many times), but because he feared dying without delivering that crucial message. He had to tell Harry, so Harry could die (so Snape thought) and so that the soul bit would be destroyed, truly killing Voldemort. When he finds that Harry is there after all, he summons his last strength to permform that last duty in a truly spectacular way. His despair changes to determination, and, at the very last, a last wish, a last reward, the sight of "Lily's" eyes. Carol, who thinks that *Sherry's* reaction (and Harry's) is the one JKR was after From leahstill at hotmail.com Fri Oct 31 08:38:17 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:38:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Shelley wrote: > > I am going to sound like the most evil person on the face of the > earth with my answer. I have never been a fan of Snape, I loathed the > man before he killed Dumbledore, and hated him even more following > that event. My prediction for the last book is that I wanted to see > Snape die. I was looking forward to it even. I wanted Snape to be > taken down. But, when I read that part, Nagini taking him and Snape > just standing there like a spineless wimp, a pitifully sorry man, I > was angry. I wanted a death that was worthy of the villain Snape was, > not some pitifully, wimpy snake bite that he didn't even try to defend > himself from. > > > Carol responds: > Obviously, our reactions are poles apart (although, I, too, was hoping > that Snape would die heroically--f he had to die at all), but I want > to add one thing. IMO (and in Harry's), Snape was not a spineless wimp > (though he no doubt seemed so to you on a first reading). He did > scream in horror (so would anyone!), but he didn't faint. More > important, It took great courage *not* to try to kill Voldemort when > he first realized that Voldemort intended to kill him. (He went for > his wand and had time to use it but didn't). > Leah On initial reading, I felt the same as Sherry about Snape's death, but from the point of view of someone who really liked Snape and believed him to be loyal - I thought it was a lousy send-off. I've snipped most of Carol's post because I agree entirely with what she says. I just wanted to add that since there's been some discussion of mirror scenes, that I think this scene is meant to mirror or at least counterpoint Snape's killing of Dumbledore. On the face of it, (if you read the murder as genuine) Snape killed a sick, unarmed old man who was pleading for his life. That is Harry's POV, which he makes very clear, "Kill me like you killed him, you coward". It takes 'The Prince's Tale' to show that this act which condemns Snape in most people's eyes is a act of courage, saving Draco and fulfilling Dumbledore's orders. Similarly, although Snape appears to be wimping out in 'The Elder Wand', his decision to disarm himself by not using his wand, again protects Draco, who did disarm Dumbledore. At this stage, Snape must believe he can't fulfill Dumbledore's orders, but by not using his wand, he gives Voldemort a false sense of mastery over the Elder Wand. Leah From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 31 14:39:20 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:39:20 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184779 Jerri: > Thanks for the great discussion and questions. I have to respond to this one. No, it wasn't enough for me. When reading the first 6 > books I kept an eye on subjects introduced, etc. When I consider how many pages worth of space JKR spent on introducing Grawp and Hagrid's trip to the Giants in OotP, and so forth as well (as someone mentioned) DD's statements to Fudge in GoF about how important it was to send envoys to the Giants, I had expected them to be IMPORTANT. Pippin: It *was* important -- to Dumbledore. In retrospect, Dumbledore's efforts to recruit non-wizard allies and reform the ministry were long shots and you might wonder why he bothered. He must have known how entrenched the opposition was. But if even one of those long shots had paid off, Voldemort's takeover might have been prevented. If it wasn't necessary to kill him to stop him, then along with saving many other innocent lives, that would mean *Harry* didn't have to die. It's not until after Lupin has given up trying to persuade the werewolves in HBP that Dumbledore confided the last part of his plan to Snape. Up until then he might still have been hoping it could be avoided. Plotwise, of course, JKR needed a way to keep Hagrid and Lupin offstage for long periods but still available for their parts in the last book. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 31 17:16:25 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:16:25 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184780 > Zara: > I was curious what people would answer here. I did not notice this > moment, particularly, until I prepared to write the discussion and > read the chapter with attention to details, looking for questions. > This, like the birthday scene with Ginny, is for me a little hidden > gem, now that I found it. To me, it is a nice feminist moment. While > there is also some message there about Hermione having moved on from > her jealousy of Lavender and feeling secure in Ron's affection for > her, to me the more meaningful point here is not that *Lavender* is > being rescued, but that Hermione is rescuing a female *from Greyback*. Alla: I am not sure I understand how it is a feminist moment, you know? I mean, to me it is more like another look how great Hermione is moment. I mean I would have understand the feminist moment much more if we see another female character who we never saw fighting before and now she got her chance to shine. I suppose Trelawney should count then for me. But Hermione is **always** fighting, she is always on the headlines with Ron and Harry, she is always rescuing people, so if it is a feminist moment, to me it is very repetitious moment. IMO of course. Oh, come to think of it, I would find it a perfect feminist moment too if Lavender was rescuing Hermione as I said before, or at least Lavender would have been rescuing herself. Now it would have been IMO great to show that girls, who are supposedly girly and only think about boys and makeup, are great fighters too. Instead we have Hermione feeling contempt over those girls, then again Hermione overcoming that feeling, but those girls are still not as good? I do not see what is so feminist about that. Before anybody asks, NO I did not care about makeup and boys while I was at school LOL, I was very very much into books just as Hermione was. I do not particularly care for Hermione's bossiness, NOT her attitudes towards books. I mean I can certainly understand Hermione's contempt for Pansy, because I do think it is based on what Pansy stands for on the ideological level. But I really wanted Hermione to understand that people, who have the same views like her of the deeper issues, may not care for the same things she does and that girls who enjoy Divination may deserve some respect too. Zara: > I found the scene in Malfoy Manor where he was leering repulsively > over Hermione and hoping he would get to play with her after Bella > was done, really creepy. One of the creepiest parts in the book. So I > was delighted to discover that Hermione was given a chance to strike > back in this scene. > Alla: Well, sure yes, I just again do not see what is so feminist about that. I am glad that she got that chance too. But she always gets chances IMO. Hickengruendler: I think she got some lesson with the centaur incident in OotP. She wasn't right, there. Alla: What lesson do you think she learned and how was she not right? I mean seriously I think she was lucky to get out alive, but what do you think she learned? Hickengruendler: However, she does witness Trelawney knocking off the werewolf, so maybe that is something? I do think she has more respect for Lavender or Parvati, than she has for Trelawney, anyway. Alla: Right as I said to Zara, I suppose Trelawney does count as feminist moment for me and the fact that Hermione sees it, maybe will teach her not to judge people once and forever. I am not sure though that she has any respect for Lavender and Parvati either, but JMO. Alla From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 31 19:19:37 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand References: Message-ID: <155864.87161.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 184781 Alla earlier: I would find it a perfect feminist moment ... to show that girls, who are supposedly girly and only think about boys and makeup, are great fighters too. CJ now: This puzzles me. Perhaps I'm seeing subtexts that aren't there, but I take the "too" in your comment to mean "just like men". Which leaves me scratching my head as to what's so feminist about showing women with b*lls. Wouldn't a true feminist moment be to show a uniquely feminist perspective providing a better solution than the traditional testosterone-inspired, blast-'em-to-kingdom-come Rambo approach? OK -- so I'm just a man. But I have difficulty understanding the "women need to be more masculine to be feminine" argument. Anyone care to enlighten this neanderthal? --CJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Oct 31 19:29:34 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:29:34 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: <155864.87161.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184782 > Alla earlier: > > I would find it a perfect feminist moment ... to show that girls, who are supposedly girly and only think about boys and makeup, are great fighters too. > > CJ now: > > This puzzles me. Perhaps I'm seeing subtexts that aren't there, but I take the "too" in your comment to mean "just like men". Magpie: I think she means "just like Hermione" meaning that whether or not a girl is a competent or tough (and in this universe fighting doesn't mean violence or masculinity, just good at magic) has nothing to do with how girlie she is. I had a similar response as Alla, I think. Hermione already "won" Ron in the fight with Lavender, and of course she wouldn't have let Lavender get hurt just because she was jealous. But for me it's part of the pattern of the way the books always worked. Lavender is bested by Hermione, Hermione is the better person for Ron while Lavender just gets dumped. Then Hermione rescues her which shows Hermione being good while Lavender is as hapless as ever. Since Hermione was the one to be more contemptuous of Lavender over the series it would mean something different for Lavender to save her than Hermione to save Lavender. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 31 19:40:16 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:40:16 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184783 > > CJ now: > > > > This puzzles me. Perhaps I'm seeing subtexts that aren't there, but > I take the "too" in your comment to mean "just like men". > > Magpie: > I think she means "just like Hermione" meaning that whether or not a > girl is a competent or tough (and in this universe fighting doesn't > mean violence or masculinity, just good at magic) has nothing to do > with how girlie she is. > Alla: Yes, yes definitely that is exactly what I meant. I did not mean like men at all, I meant like Hermione. I also can say me too under snipped part of your post, but to keep this post from being a me too, let me follow up on it. I also want to say that I did not study feminism in details and to me feminism means empowering of women, and the possibility for them make different choices, very very different that's all. And by the way there are some things that I heard women who claim to be feminists say that to me are completely unacceptable. I won't get into this onlist since it will get completely OT. So to go back to Potterverse, to me seeing Minerva take charge of Hogwarts defense and stepping out of Dumbledore's shadow was much more feminist moment as I understand it for myself. JMO, Alla From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 31 20:39:54 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:39:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184784 > Pippin: > > It *was* important -- to Dumbledore. > > In retrospect, Dumbledore's efforts to recruit non-wizard allies and > reform the ministry were long shots and you might wonder why he > bothered. He must have known how entrenched the opposition was. Montavilla47: I'm not sure what you mean by Dumbledore's efforts to reform the Ministry. I didn't see him ever make any effort in that regard. He seemed to regard the Ministry as a nuisance to be ignored whenever possible. Although, he was willing to advise Fudge before their break. Perhaps Dumbledore saw the overtures to the giants and werewolves as long shots, but I certainly didn't get that impression in GoF. I got the impression that they would make a big difference in the upcoming struggle. Therefore, as a reader, I'm disappointed that they ultimately seemed irrelevant. It was a set up that didn't pay off. Pippin: > But if even one of those long shots had paid off, Voldemort's > takeover might have been prevented. If it wasn't necessary to kill him > to stop him, then along with saving many other innocent lives, that > would mean *Harry* didn't have to die. Okay. How exactly would one of those long shots have prevented Voldemort's takeover? How would they have made a darn bit of difference? The giants were stupid and unable to organize into any effective political or fighting force. The only werewolf we ever saw (apart from Lupin and the guy he visited in St. Mungo's) was Fenrir Greyback. It's pretty obvious he'd stick with Voldemort no matter what the other werewolves did, and we don't see any other werewolves fighting for either side. Nor, if the werewolves had come over to the Ministry (we don't actually know if they did or not), could they have been particularly effective--unless they were sent to eat Death Eaters or something. Pippin: > It's not until after Lupin has given up trying to persuade the > werewolves in HBP that Dumbledore confided the last part of his plan > to Snape. Up until then he might still have been hoping it could be > avoided. Montavilla47: When did Lupin give up? I saw him complaining about his assignment, but I never saw him give it up. Pippin: > Plotwise, of course, JKR needed a way to keep Hagrid and Lupin > offstage for long periods but still available for their parts in the > last book. Montavilla47: I have to disagree with even this statement. The only time JKR *needed* Hagrid offstage was when Harry arrived late at Hogwarts. (If Hagrid hadn't been visiting his brother, he could just as easily have been busy escorting the firsties across the lake at that moment. And, by the way, I wonder who got stuck with that job in HBP?) There was no plot need to remove Hagrid during OotP. As for Lupin, he was only really around during PoA. He could have been given any sort of mysterious assignment to keep him off-stage if needed. It wasn't like anyone was obsessively writing essays about there Bill was during the bulk of HBP. The obsession with Lupin's activities was more likely fueled by the idea (planted by that ending scene in GoF) that the werewolves were ZOMG IMPORTANT! Because of this, people wondered what exactly Lupin was up to, imagining that he was doing something very dangerous and intense, and worried that he didn't seem to be getting very far with it. Without the set up, we probably wouldn't have wondered about it at all. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 31 21:24:55 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:24:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS :Re: CHAPDISC: DH32, The Elder Wand In-Reply-To: <155864.87161.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 184785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee wrote: > > Alla earlier: > > I would find it a perfect feminist moment ... to show that girls, who are supposedly girly and only think about boys and makeup, are great fighters too. > > CJ now: > > This puzzles me. Perhaps I'm seeing subtexts that aren't there, but I take the "too" in your comment to mean "just like men". Which leaves me scratching my head as to what's so feminist about showing women with b*lls. Wouldn't a true feminist moment be to show a uniquely feminist perspective providing a better solution than the traditional testosterone-inspired, blast-'em-to-kingdom-come Rambo approach? Montavilla47: I think the answer to your question depends on what you consider Feminism to be-- and there isn't a single answer to that. For many, Feminism was summed up by the idea that women should be able to compete with men on a "fair" basis. (i.e., the barriers created by a male-dominated society should be removed, and inequities, such as paying women a lesser salary for equal work, should be abolished.) But it's never been that simple. Some Feminists do see a male bias in the very idea of the competitive marketplace, and noticed that "equal pay for equal work" doesn't go far enough when a woman needs to consider such things as child care and family leave (which men traditionally didn't have to consider since their wives could fill that function). And, of course, the Feminine approach to politics, if allowed to dominate, might well look towards other approaches than the Masculine model of warrior culture. High-falutin' words. The bottom line is that there isn't a single mindset that is Feminism. Two women might both call themselves Feminists while holding completely different ideas about whether a particular moment in a book is Feminist or not. Zara saw it as feminist statement that Hermione got to attack Fenrir, who is leering and repulsive. Alla sees as less than feminist, because the very feminine Lavender is still being shown in the traditional feminist role as victim--while Hermione, who is consistently contemptuous about Lavender's feminity, and there more masculine (or, if you like, "butch), takes the role of the hero. I tend more towards Alla's thinking. Not because Hermione is all that masculine, but because Lavender, as a girly-girl, has been treated so dismissively throughout the series. Their history didn't even occur to me because they don't really have a history. CJ: > OK -- so I'm just a man. But I have difficulty understanding the "women need to be more masculine to be feminine" argument. Anyone care to enlighten this neanderthal? Montavilla47: I'm not sure either what "women need to be more masculine to be feminine" means. I don't think that was what Alla was saying. I will say, however, that being interested in boys and make-up shouldn't mean that a girl *shouldn't* be able to defend herself. Because, let's face it, sometimes you have to. (You know, like when your school gets attacked by a pedophilic werewolf. I'm sure we all can relate to that. ) So, in a young adult book, it's a more feminist message to let girls know that they can be physically strong *and* girlish, instead of subconsciously sending the message that you have to chose between wearing lipstick and being safe, or physically strong, or athletic, or independent, or smart. Because what you don't girls thinking is that they have to give up on those things or "boys won't like them." Danica McKellar, who used to play Winnie Cooper on "The Wonder Years," went on to get her degree in mathematics and she's written a couple books to encourage girls in mathematics by packaging it in a Seventeen Magazine style. In that way, she's trying to erode the stereotype of math as being something nerdy and essentially masculine. I think that was more along the lines of what Alla was referring to. (Of course, I don't want to put words in Alla's mouth and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong). The goal isn't to set up a new stereotype of masculine women. The goal is challenge the stereotypes we have in order to allow all kids (boys or girls) to be themselves without their options being limited by their appearance or personality. Incidentally, I think we're all forgetting that JKR did provide a moment like that later on when Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix Lestrange. But I think Lavender saving Hermione from Fenrir would have had more impact, for all the reasons others have noted (Lavender's girlishness, Hermione's ongoing contempt for Lavender, and that Fenrir is portrayed as a sexual predator.) With Molly and Bellatrix, the moment comes across more as a battle between female life choices, with the Mother triumphing over the Scarlet Woman. And what that sends is a message of empowerment of the Traditional role of the woman as wife, mother, and homemaker, at the expense of a woman who has obviously chosen her career as a Death Eater over those roles.