From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Apr 1 01:04:25 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:04:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186125 Geoff: No.Limburger -He (or she?) goes on to say: "Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, but this does not imply that Harry was ever taken to a church by James & LilyPotter to be baptized. The term "godfather" is used for aman who is either a sponsor or guardian of a child and doesnot necessarily imply that it is used only with regard to a baptism." I do not know this writer's nationality but I, as a native Englishman, disagree with that. If a person in the UK says "She is my godmother" or "My godfather says.." the great majority of folk here will automatically assume that the speaker has been baptised either in the Church of England or the Catholic Church. Shelley: I'm going to throw a quote in there that might add some evidence that Sirius himself had some influence of Christianity on him. Book 5, Authur has been bitten by the snake, everyone has been shunted to Sirius's house. After they all find out that Aurthur is OK, the mood lightens... "Harry could not remember Sirius ever being in such a good mood; he was actually singing carols, apparently delighted that he was to have company over Christmas." A time later, "..they heard Sirius tramping past their door toward Buckbeaks's room singing, "God Rest You, Merry Hippogriffs"." Now, even if you say that "God" is only used nominally is that carol, it's used never-the-less. Sirius was singing about God blessing someone, even if they were hippogriffs in this version, instead of gentlemen. Evidence of Christian influence on the Wizards, if they are singing versions of Christian Christmas Carols. I agree that most people today hold the Christian religion nominally- as Geoff pointed out, in the UK, but I would also argue that this is true in the States as well. It's a background which permeates our society, whether or not you profess to be a "born again believer" or serious believer, it is a fabric which bind traditions such as Christmas and baptisms and designating someone to be a "Godfather" in England today, as Geoff correctly points out. Even if Harry himself was not taken to any church except for those special occasions, it's not a far reaching idea that if they are living in, and along side a society, they might be influenced by it. They are in London- it has Christmas decorations. Look at Sirius's house- it has Christmas decorations. Look at St. Mungo's Hospital- it's decorated for Christmas. Clearly, they are celebrating the same as the Muggles. If a good assumption that Harry was baptized in a church in a formal ceremony, and that Sirius became a godfather in the same means (in a church) as the Muggles would practice. Rowling clearly puts the Wizards in this story in England, with it's Christian history influence, and she makes no effort to hide this, even if she doesn't directly say that any of the characters are ACTIVE Christians. They don't have to be. Shelley From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Apr 1 01:15:36 2009 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:15:36 -0000 Subject: Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186126 > Geoff (snipped): > If you have been on this group for any time, you may well > know that I am an evangelical Christian. > No.Limburger makes reference to the coincidence of Christian > festivals with earlier pagan celebrations and the influence > of the Catholic Church. I have always been given to understand > that there is an earlier relationship. In the 1st century AD, > many of the Christians in the Roman Empire were slaves and did > not have the luxury of being able to choose their own dates > for festivals. So the Church often held its celebrations at > a time coincident with the older ones ? Christmas being round > about the time of the Saturnalia ? to allow these folk to be > able to join on worship. Goddlefrood: Not that I was around back then, but Constantine the Great legalised the Christian church in the, what, 4th century? While it is true that many current celebrations, and this actually includes other major religions, revolve around earlier so-called pagan rites, the fact remains that the roots of Christmas, Easter (a movable feast nearly upon us) and many other landmarks in the Christian church are in much earlier (considerably earlier than Roman, btw) times. (And, how's that for a run on sentence?) The dates of other major religions' holy days also coincide closely with the dates adapted by the Christians, suggesting that there was a much earlier commonish kind of religion (if it can be called that, although belief might be closer the mark) that revolved around seasons and equinoxes.This also ties in with archaelogical evidence that many current places of worship throughout the world had earlier significance to our many and varied ancestors aqnd pertained to whatever belief was current at the time. The Vatican stands on the site of the Circus Maximus, as one well-known example. The Circus Maximus was closely linked to the beliefs the Romans held and many of their festivals revolved around it. Here I'll set out my antecedents very briefly. I'm as English as many currently calling themselves that. I was born into the Jewish faith and even attended Saturday school. I attended predominantly Church of England schools and services organised by that church. I have lived and worked in Fiji for the last 11 years, with variously Muslims, Hindus and various brands of Christian people. I have lived with Jains and Buddhists. I freely admit that Shinto is a mystery to me. > No.Limberger: > "Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, but this does not imply > that Harry was ever taken to a church by James & Lily Potter > to be baptized. The term "godfather" is used for aman who is > either a sponsor or guardian of a child and doesnot necessarily > imply that it is used only with regard to a baptism." > Geoff responded: > I do not know this writer's nationality but I, as a native > Englishman, disagree with that. If a person in the UK says > "She is my godmother" or "My godfather says ." the great > majority of folk here will automatically assume that the > speaker has been baptised either in the Church of England > or the Catholic Church. GoddlefroodL A hundred years ago I would have agreed with Geoff. But, a large and increasing minority would not agree with the above statement. I, for instance, have a godfather but was never baptised and I'm an Englishman with ancestry in England going back to well before the Normans. > Geoff again: > Referring back to baptism and godparents, it is very common > for parents who have no contact at all with a church to ask > for baptism (or in the non-conformist churches dedication). Goddlefrood: All true, but it alters very little and is not, in my opinion, a valid rebuttal of the argument that Harry had a godfather without actually being baptised. In fact, this is not provable either way based on canon, notwithstanding what JKR may have said in an interview. > Geoff: > Finally, Christian opposition to the books. Goddlefrood: As indicated by Mel, and based on empricial evidence of my own, the objectors have typically not read the books. I have yet to see any valid objection to the HP series from any religious group based on actual analysis of the text. PS, that man Mel had experience with may have read no books at all, leave alone the HP ones ;-) From no.limberger at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 01:29:40 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:29:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: <7ef72f90903311034k614a8e0dr2ca8c2574fd09498@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ef72f90903311829i16697f2v4231748e708690b3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186128 >Maggie responded: >I thought you were claiming that Wizards had some alternative religious identity to the >religious identity of modern people in the UK. No.Limberger responds: No. What I am saying is that references to religion, either directly or indirectly, in Harry Potter are few and far between. I am also saying that any witch or wizard can have any personal religious beliefs that they choose, or none at all, just like anyone else. I don't believe that JK Rowling intended religion to play a major role in Harry Potter. This automatically makes the books more accessible to more people regardless of personal religious beliefs. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From no.limberger at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 01:45:15 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:45:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ef72f90903311845o4aa0daa9p40b4588c0a47d80b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186129 >BAW responded: >When was Harry baptized? We don't know exactly, but we know that >Sirius was his godfather. That's what a godfather is--someone who >makes the baptismal vows for a child too young to make them for >him/herself and promises to see to it that the child is brought >up in the Christian faith and life. No.Limberger responds: The term "godfather" can refer to any guardian of a child; it neither implies that a religious ritual was performed nor that the purpose of the guardianship is purely religious in nature. Given that JK Rowling never mentions that Harry Potter was ever baptized in any of the seven books, assuming that he was (based upon Sirius Black being his godfather) is a presumption based upon personal preference over the meaning of the term "godfather". [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s_ings at yahoo.com Wed Apr 1 04:43:32 2009 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:43:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ADMIN: Rules Change at HPFGU Message-ID: <640464.43864.qm@web63407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186130 *Rylly Elf steps forward, pale and shaken, bearing a crisp piece of paper in her trembling hand* "Please, fellow Elvses, gather 'round. We has received mail! Rylly is thinking this has got to be bad news. It's from, um, Yahoo!Mort. This has gots to be serious. Please listen to what it says:" *a screen drops from the ceiling of Elfly HQ and the letter is projected for all to read* April 1, 2009 >From the desk of Yahoo!Mort, Inc. 701 Shuttrun Deraseat Shaddyhill, CA It has come to our attention that your group, HPforGrownups, henceforth known as HPFGU has been imposing the following rules on your members: - snipping of unnecessary text - exclusion of 1 line or "me, too" posts - proper citation for members being quoted - limits on the number of posts per member per day - not allowing discussion of movies, fan fiction and other related topics - signing of posts to HPFGU Please note that this list is not all inclusive and there may be more rules we have yet to ferret out that also voilate our vision of how Yahoo!Groups may be used. *Amandageist floats into the room to see what the collective gasping is about* Since these rules clearly limit the ability of HPFGU list members to fully enjoy their experience with HPFGU, we must ask that you cease and desist immediately. From this point forward your members should be free to express themselves in any fashion they so desire. Sincerely, Yahoo!Mort, Inc. Shorty Elf promptly faints, narrowing missing the table loaded with eclairs and hot chocolate. Zippy Elf looks on in horror. "Oh noes, the chaos that will ensue! We can't make them snips? We shall has to read their thoughts over and over again? Oh, Woe!" "Blinky is not knowing how not to be an Elf! She is not having another job. She is not knowing how!!! Olga dog is whining that she is not getting to participate in Elfly parties and is not sneaking eclairs and other goodies." *Amandageist hovers in front of the screen, pointing, but the shocked Elves ignore her* "Exmoor Elf is very happy that he has not to send welcome letters to people who join and never send thank yous or new tea towel to poor Exmoor Elf. He can also have extra Exmoor cream tea everyday when I be reading posts. But... what happens to us Elves? Does he lose his friends and never get eclairs and hot chocolate again?" *rushes out, weeping, with face buried in tea towel* Vexxy Elf bursts out, "Vexxy is hating changes, she is. Yahoo!Mort changing rules on us is rude, is ham-and-cheese fisted, is just not right, curses Y-who-must-not-be-named! Alika Elf is thinking that these new rules is not right. She is summoning lawbooks and wondering if Yahoo!Mort can be sued. Alika disappears behind a pile of books, turning pages with trembling fingers. *Amandageist tries shouting at the Elves but can't be heard over the weeping and wailing* Speedy Elf pours herself some more butterbeer, tips her chair back, and downs it in one gulp, gasping, "Speedy Elf sees Master Yahoo!Mort ... hic ... on the ceiling dropping water balloons on us poor .... hic ... Elvses." A loud thud is heard as Speedy Elf's chair tips over and she falls unconscious to the floor. Marvin Elf wonders why all the ruckus, when the new year was over a day ago (at least from the stand point of the enchanted isle in which he lives). Amandageist would have to get up on the morning of the day before to catch him. New year's day (old style ;-))is the one day a year, as well as being to confund people, that Marvin is allowed to run around sans tea towel, if only for 12 hours. But, what a 12 hours they are . Phlytie Elf looks up from his mending tea towels, leaps to his feet and promptly sticks himself with his needle. He stands there flailing around a hand with a needle, thread and a tea towel flying like flag and asks Twisp Elf, "but Phlytie is not understanding this. We will have new ruleses to be following, right?" Twisp Elf shakes his head, "No Phlytie, they is taking all the ruleses away from us. Elvses will be out of a job." Twisp Elf has tears welling up in his eyes but he stands resolute, refusing to breakdown. *Amandageist rattles the chandelier in frustration, wondering why these silly Elves won't pay attention to her.* Phlytie pulls the needle out of his hand, and absentmindedly tries to stick it into his pin cushion, which turns back into a hedgehog and scurries out of his reach thereby causing Phlytie to stick his needle into his thigh. But that's OK cuz he doesn't notice as he proclaims, "Phlytie is going to see the Headmaster about THIS." Kroppy Elf tells Phlytie, "Ummm, Phlytie,... ahh, YahooMort is being our Headmaster!" "Oh,... but we will never find new work in this economy." Cardi Elf looks stunned at Phlytie. Then a light goes off in her eyes as she conjures parchment and quill. "Cardi Elf is not being caught out, she is writing Monster.com, Lessee 'Cute elf, will work for room and board,...'" as she slowly curls up behind the eclair cart... Crikey Elf is thinking he is safe from Yahoo!Mort. Crikey lives far away from other Elvses and is hoping Yahoo!Mort doesn't notice him and leaves him alone. A quiet Elf in a dark green pillowcase peers from behind the comfy chair. Zaney Elf is eyeing the platters of eclairs and thinking they are going to be demolished when the next Elf faints. "She can't be letting good eclairs go to waste," Zaney thinks. She hurriedly scoops up the platter and retires behind the comfy chair to wait until the catastrophe is over. *Amandageist drops water balloons among the distraught Elves, hoping to get their attention* Kelley Elf is thinking this cannot be true. But even if it is, Kelley Elf has weathered many storms, since she is the most senior of Elvses. She is hoping the other Elves will calm down and stop endangering the eclairs. Corbie Elf looks up from the parchment she is writing and adjusts her glasses with ink-stained fingers. "I is trying to get work done over here! What is making all this commotion and why is Amandageist making my work all wet? Penapart Elf has been very quiet in her corner, hand clapped over her mouth in horror. "Is this being the end of HPFGU as we know it?" Being a Practical!Elf, she is wondering if the list members will have a party. Perhaps they will have eclairs and hot chocolate and let the Elvses come and join in? *Amandageist throws one last barrage of water balloons in vain. The Elves are still too distraught to pay any attention to her. She wafts out of the room, hoping they will come to their senses.* __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Apr 1 04:46:14 2009 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:46:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Rules Change at HPFGU In-Reply-To: <640464.43864.qm@web63407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <640464.43864.qm@web63407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186131 Unfair - it isn't April 1st yet here. Laura Walsh On 2009, Mar 31, , at 20:43, Sheryll Townsend wrote: > > *Rylly Elf steps forward, pale and shaken, bearing a crisp piece of > paper in her trembling hand* > > "Please, fellow Elvses, gather 'round. We has received mail! Rylly > is thinking this has got to be bad news. It's from, um, Yahoo!Mort. > This has gots to be serious. Please listen to what it says:" > > *a screen drops from the ceiling of Elfly HQ and the letter is > projected for all to read* > > April 1, 2009 > From the desk of Yahoo!Mort, Inc. > 701 Shuttrun Deraseat > Shaddyhill, CA > > It has come to our attention that your group, HPforGrownups, > henceforth known as HPFGU has been imposing the following rules on > your members: > > - snipping of unnecessary text > - exclusion of 1 line or "me, too" posts > - proper citation for members being quoted > - limits on the number of posts per member per day > - not allowing discussion of movies, fan fiction and other related > topics > - signing of posts to HPFGU > > Please note that this list is not all inclusive and there may be > more rules we have yet to ferret out that also voilate our vision > of how Yahoo!Groups may be used. > > *Amandageist floats into the room to see what the collective > gasping is about* > > Since these rules clearly limit the ability of HPFGU list members > to fully enjoy their experience with HPFGU, we must ask that you > cease and desist immediately. From this point forward your members > should be free to express themselves in any fashion they so desire. > > Sincerely, > > Yahoo!Mort, Inc. > > > > Shorty Elf promptly faints, narrowing missing the table loaded with > eclairs and hot chocolate. > > Zippy Elf looks on in horror. "Oh noes, the chaos that will ensue! > We can't make them snips? We shall has to read their thoughts over > and over again? Oh, Woe!" > > "Blinky is not knowing how not to be an Elf! She is not having > another job. She is not knowing how!!! Olga dog is whining that she > is not getting to participate in Elfly parties and is not sneaking > eclairs and other goodies." > > *Amandageist hovers in front of the screen, pointing, but the > shocked Elves ignore her* > > "Exmoor Elf is very happy that he has not to send welcome letters > to people who join and never send thank yous or new tea towel to > poor Exmoor Elf. He can also have extra Exmoor cream tea everyday > when I be reading posts. But... what happens to us Elves? Does he > lose his friends and never get eclairs and hot chocolate again?" > *rushes out, weeping, with face buried in tea towel* > > Vexxy Elf bursts out, "Vexxy is hating changes, she is. Yahoo!Mort > changing rules on us is rude, is ham-and-cheese fisted, is just not > right, curses Y-who-must-not-be-named! > > Alika Elf is thinking that these new rules is not right. She is > summoning lawbooks and wondering if Yahoo!Mort can be sued. Alika > disappears behind a pile of books, turning pages with trembling > fingers. > > *Amandageist tries shouting at the Elves but can't be heard over > the weeping and wailing* > > Speedy Elf pours herself some more butterbeer, tips her chair back, > and downs it in one gulp, gasping, "Speedy Elf sees Master Yahoo! > Mort ... > hic ... on the ceiling dropping water balloons on us poor .... hic ... > Elvses." A loud thud is heard as Speedy Elf's chair tips over and > she falls unconscious to the floor. > > Marvin Elf wonders why all the ruckus, when the new year was over a > day ago (at least from the stand point of the enchanted isle in > which he lives). Amandageist would have to get up on the morning of > the day before to catch him. New year's day (old style ;-))is the > one day a year, as well as being to confund people, that Marvin is > allowed to run around sans > tea towel, if only for 12 hours. But, what a 12 hours they are . > > Phlytie Elf looks up from his mending tea towels, leaps to his feet > and promptly sticks himself with his needle. He stands there > flailing around a hand with a needle, thread and a tea towel flying > like flag and asks Twisp Elf, "but Phlytie is not understanding > this. We will have new ruleses to be following, right?" > > Twisp Elf shakes his head, "No Phlytie, they is taking all the > ruleses away from us. Elvses will be out of a job." Twisp Elf has > tears welling up in his eyes but he stands resolute, refusing to > breakdown. > > *Amandageist rattles the chandelier in frustration, wondering why > these silly Elves won't pay attention to her.* > > Phlytie pulls the needle out of his hand, and absentmindedly tries > to stick it into his pin cushion, which turns back into a hedgehog > and scurries out of his reach thereby causing Phlytie to stick his > needle into his thigh. But that's OK cuz he doesn't notice as he > proclaims, "Phlytie is going to see the Headmaster about THIS." > > Kroppy Elf tells Phlytie, "Ummm, Phlytie,... ahh, YahooMort is > being our Headmaster!" > > "Oh,... but we will never find new work in this economy." > > Cardi Elf looks stunned at Phlytie. Then a light goes off in her > eyes as she conjures parchment and quill. "Cardi Elf is not being > caught out, she is writing Monster.com, Lessee 'Cute elf, will work > for room and board,...'" as she slowly curls up behind the eclair > cart... > > Crikey Elf is thinking he is safe from Yahoo!Mort. Crikey lives far > away from other Elvses and is hoping Yahoo!Mort doesn't notice him > and leaves him alone. > > A quiet Elf in a dark green pillowcase peers from behind the comfy > chair. Zaney Elf is eyeing the platters of eclairs and thinking > they are going to be demolished when the next Elf faints. "She > can't be letting good eclairs go to waste," Zaney thinks. She > hurriedly scoops up the platter and retires behind the comfy chair > to wait until the catastrophe is over. > > *Amandageist drops water balloons among the distraught Elves, > hoping to get their attention* > > Kelley Elf is thinking this cannot be true. But even if it is, > Kelley Elf has weathered many storms, since she is the most senior > of Elvses. She is hoping the other Elves will calm down and stop > endangering the eclairs. > > Corbie Elf looks up from the parchment she is writing and adjusts > her glasses with ink-stained fingers. "I is trying to get work done > over here! What is making all this commotion and why is Amandageist > making my work all wet? > > Penapart Elf has been very quiet in her corner, hand clapped over > her mouth in horror. "Is this being the end of HPFGU as we know > it?" Being a Practical!Elf, she is wondering if the list members > will have a party. Perhaps they will have eclairs and hot chocolate > and let the Elvses come and join in? > > *Amandageist throws one last barrage of water balloons in vain. The > Elves are still too distraught to pay any attention to her. She > wafts out of the room, hoping they will come to their senses.* > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! > > http://www.flickr.com/gift/ > > > ------------------------------------ > > Lots of great events happening in summer 2009, so start making your > travel plans now! > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/ > HBF_Text__MUST_READ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > --- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Apr 1 11:26:01 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:26:01 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Rules Change at HPFGU In-Reply-To: <640464.43864.qm@web63407.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186132 Sheryll Townsend > Since these rules clearly limit the ability of HPFGU list members to fully enjoy their experience with HPFGU, we must ask that you cease and desist immediately. From this point forward your members should be free to express themselves in any fashion they so desire. > > Sincerely, > > Yahoo!Mort, Inc. > Potioncat: More than 5 posts! I can write more than 5 posts! Boy, I'd better get started! How to get more than 5 posts before I go off to work--gee, I haven't even come close to 5 posts in a very long time. I know, one really good post, and 5 one-liners! From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 1 14:35:18 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:35:18 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903311829i16697f2v4231748e708690b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186133 No Limburger: > I don't believe that JK Rowling intended religion to play a major role in Harry Potter. This automatically makes the books more accessible to more people regardless of personal religious beliefs. > Pippin: What sort of concept is the soul, if not a religious one? As she says, "These are not secular books." Explicit references to religious belief are also rare in The Lord of the Rings, not because Tolkien thought his ideas had nothing to do with religion but because he thought that the moral lessons of Christianity would be more accessible if they were presented outside the context of Christian rituals and history. We don't know if Harry considers himself a nominal Christian or any kind of a Christian at all. But he places a cross above the resting place of Moody's eye. His parents and Dumbledore's family are buried in the graveyard of a Christian church in active use, with Christian inscriptions on their headstones. Hermione puts a wreath of "Christmas roses" on the Potters graves. It seems strange to argue that none of this is supposed to have any Christian connotation. Though there is no character who consistently embodies Christian ideals, I think we are definitely invited to consider that Harry, Dumbledore and Lily were inspired by them, while Voldemort is ruined because he believed only in himself. It's often commented that liberal Christians may have more in common with liberal branches of other faiths than with conservatives in their own, and I think JKR's Christian critics just illustrate that. Pippin From s_ings at yahoo.com Wed Apr 1 16:05:36 2009 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ADMIN: Update to Rule Change Message-ID: <104673.6548.qm@web63404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186134 Amandageist wafted back into the room, out of breath from shouting and chasing panicked elves, not to mention from hauling and throwing all those balloons, and surveyed the scattered forms of the remaining wadded-up, unconscious elves. She sighed. It looked like this was it. She had not wanted to do this. This was a serious action to take, but the elves had left her no choice. Solemnly, she gathered what she needed, moving in silence for once, listening to the far-off wails of distraught elves. She sighed; this was hard. It wasn't meant to be this way. She'd thought it would be many years before she was driven to this. She really hated Yahoo!Mort. Swooping down, she reached through the cabinet door for a match, then lit the fuse. In the dimness of the room, the light of the match briefly showed the Wizard Wheezes label on the large "U Rite It" firework she'd been saving for a more special occasion, and then it whooshed out the window. The explosion was tremendous. It lit the sky in fantastic colors of purple, gold, and green, and the shimmering words formed: APRIL FOOL. YOU GOOBERS. GET BACK TO WORK. __________________________________________________________________ Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 1 18:47:34 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:47:34 -0000 Subject: Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903311829i16697f2v4231748e708690b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186135 > >Maggie responded: > >I thought you were claiming that Wizards had some alternative religious > identity to the > >religious identity of modern people in the UK. > No.Limberger responds: > No. What I am saying is that references to religion, either directly or > indirectly, in Harry > Potter are few and far between. I am also saying that any witch or wizard > can have > any personal religious beliefs that they choose, or none at all, just like > anyone else. > > I don't believe that JK Rowling intended religion to play a major role in > Harry Potter. This > automatically makes the books more accessible to more people regardless of > personal religious beliefs. Magpie: Oh! Well then yes, I totally agree. I know she herself is Christian and that informs her beliefs, but I don't think anything is so specifically Christian that it's necessarily about Christianity. If one already sees the world through that lens there's no doubt a lot there to relate to it, but the same is true for somebody else. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 2 02:09:12 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:09:12 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186136 > Pippin: > What sort of concept is the soul, if not a religious one? Potioncat: Writing a no longer forbidden "me too" post. ;-) We had Lupin discussing the horror of having the soul removed, leaving a living shell. We have DD taking care to protect Draco's soul and Snape worried about his own soul. Sounds pretty Christian to me. Pippin: > Though there is no character who consistently embodies Christian ideals, I think we are definitely invited to consider that Harry, Dumbledore and Lily were inspired by them, while Voldemort is ruined because he believed only in himself. Potioncat: Love and sacrifice for one's friends are major Christian themes. Pippin: > > It's often commented that liberal Christians may have more in common with liberal branches of other faiths than with conservatives in their own, and I think JKR's Christian critics just illustrate that. Potioncat: While some Christians would ban the HP books, others are basing Sunday School lessons and youth events around it. And of course Christians have burned each other at the stake over differences in interpretation. Potioncat...2 down, 4 more to go!!! From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 2 02:18:41 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:18:41 -0000 Subject: Why Latin / foreign students / abracadabra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186137 "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > > The question is how much the wizarding general population was separate from the Muggle general population in Antiquity, Late Antiquity aka Early Middle Ages, and High Middle Ages. In the Potterverse, I believe they were in contact (all those court wizards and village witches really were wizards and witches) but the wizarding folk had enough view of themselves as a separate community that they were able to elect their own separate government, such as the Warlocks Council and Chief Wizard Barbarus Bragge. They had owl mail as a much more reliable postal system than European Muggles had then, and they had Apparation and broomstick flight and hippogriff flight to get together in person. Potioncat: (snipping because it's her habit, not because she has to!) Oops, snipped wrong part. yes, the WW as we see it in HP seems to have been in close contact with the Muggle world--and we know it wasn't until the 1600s that they went into hiding. In fact, in canon, it's the desire to come out of hiding that both Regulus and (I think) Severus talk about. They want to be wizards among Muggles. JKR gave her own twist to our folklore--which as you say, had wizards and witches living openly with Muggles. My memories of the Merlin stories, have him being raised at a Muggle court, but of receiving magical training as an apprentice to a wizard. Again, I think this hints at British wizards having the same historical influences as Muggle Europe. Same language, same religion. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 2 02:30:02 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:30:02 -0000 Subject: Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186138 > Geoff: > > Second, the epitaphs on the two gravestones are most > certainly Christian. Potioncat: To my mind the fat friar, Christmas carols being sung by Sirius and by the suits of armor along with other Christmas celebrations, added to Easter Eggs, Godparents, the cross over Moody's grave and even the dark suited wizard who spoke at DD's funeral all seem to be very Christian images. If JKR had wanted to separate the WW from Christianity, she could have done it very easily. She could have created something obviously different, avoided it all together, or pulled from Druid or wicca images. As often as we've discussed Christian themes within HP, I don't think we've ever looked at obvious Christian situations in canon. I never doubted--or probably thought too much about it--but I always assumed the WW had the same Christian background. Even at that, the epitaphs and Harry carving the cross were very big "wow" moments for me. Potioncat, wondering if Sirius wrote the first HP FILK? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 2 02:38:51 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:38:51 -0000 Subject: Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186139 > Carol again: > > first, thanks for responding to my post. I'm glad that someone else is interested in the hypothetical history of the (European) WW. Potioncat: If we as a group were trying to invent the WW, we might have taken a different turn. But I think JKR was sticking pretty close to our history. I think she wanted the WW to have a familiar feel, all the more to make her little twists show up better. >Carol: > Setting aside real Muggle history and speculative WW history, probably the spells are in Latin (or dog Latin, not to be confused with pig Latin!) is that they "sound" magical (and vaguely medieval, in keeping with robes, cloaks, and castles with dungeons). Potioncat: Pig Latin I know, what is dog Latin? (barco, barcas barcat..) > Carol: > As a sidenote, I'm surprised that JKR's magical world contains so few Celtic elements. The Celts, especially the Druids, seem much more magical and mystical than the practical-minded Anglo-Saxons. Potioncat: It looked like wandlore had a Celtic base, but it didn't really pan out, did it? > Carol, noting that the continued use of Latin as a lingua franca after the fall of the western Roman Empire is intimately connected with the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of Europe, especially Western Europe, as "Christendom" throughout the "Dark" and Middle Ages Potioncat: I took Latin in middle school--I'm not sure where it helped more as I continued through college, in science or in English--but I'm glad I had it. btw, Carol, which history book(s) are you reading? From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 2 02:47:21 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:47:21 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Update to Rule Change In-Reply-To: <104673.6548.qm@web63404.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186140 Potioncat is drenched with perspiration, she has eked out 5, five! posts. In her younger days it was a piece of cake...but too many pieces of cake and too many years have taken their toll, five posts is a hard task. Yet, there's a moral victory in pushing on and breaking the no-longer-forbidden 5 post limit. She must do what is right, not what is easy. She must come up with something...if only a one liner, and it's getting late. Perhaps reading another post will give her inspiration. She clicks on a post and starts to read: > Amandageist wafted back into the room, out of breath from shouting > > The explosion was tremendous. It lit the sky in fantastic colors of purple, gold, and green, and the shimmering words formed: > APRIL FOOL. YOU GOOBERS. GET BACK TO WORK. Potioncat gasps, "You mean...I can't post again?" * * * * * To any and all who came up with this year's April Fool's joke---thank you! Thanks for keeping up the tradition! From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 2 03:34:52 2009 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:34:52 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Update to Rule Change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186141 > Potioncat is drenched with perspiration, she has eked out 5, five! > posts. In her younger days it was a piece of cake...but too many > pieces of cake and too many years have taken their toll, five posts > is a hard task. Yet, there's a moral victory in pushing on and > breaking the no-longer-forbidden 5 post limit. She must do what is > right, not what is easy. She must come up with something...if only > a one liner, and it's getting late. Phlytie Elf waddles into the room. He is drenched too, but for a different reason. He's taken the needle and thread he used to mend tea towels to sew up the hole he poked in his leg, so he's waddling with a decided list to starboard. He reaches up and tugs on Miss Potioncat's shirtsleeve. "Miss is overexerting herself she is. Miss must stop now." Phlytie snaps his fingers and all of the keys on Miss Potioncat's keyboard turn into real keys with wings and go flying off about the room. Phlytie thinks to himself, "Phlytie collects them later and brings them to Professor McGonnagall. She is using all of hers up protecting the Philosipher's Stone.' Phlytie pushes Miss Potioncqat's mouse over next to her hand. "Here Miss, you can be using this to just read. Phlytie will bring Miss some tea and wafers. Miss must sit back and relax, now." Phlytie starts to waddle off out to the kitchen. He pauses at the doors when he hears: > Potioncat gasps, "You mean...I can't post again?" "No Miss, you is just reading now." Phlytie's ears wiggle as he thinks to himself, 'Yesss,... We is back in business.' From no.limberger at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 03:33:04 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 20:33:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ef72f90904012033l274fc1cfp21b20e8c0058bfcc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186142 >Potioncat wrote: >We had Lupin discussing the horror of having the soul removed, leaving a living shell. We have DD taking care to protect Draco's soul and Snape worried about his own soul. Sounds pretty Christian to me. No.Limberger responds: In an earlier post, I mention that wizards & witches go back long before Christianity came into existence. Did the concept of a soul originate in Christianity? Well, if that were true, why did ancient Egyptians, several thousand years before Christianity, construct tombs to house items for pharaohs and other individuals so that those items could be used in an afterlife? Ancient Egyptian religion was obsessed with the afterlife because of the importance placed upon their belief in an immortal soul that would separate from the body at the time of death. They also went to a lot trouble to preserve dead bodies as mummies with the idea that the body would be brought back to life and reunited with the soul. Several thousand miles to the east of Egypt is India, whose main religion Hinduism (which predates Christianity by many many centuries) includes of the concept of reincarnation: the soul at death leaves the body and is reborn in another body. Hence, they also believe in an immortal soul, as do Buddhists (which predate Christianity by many centuries) who share a similar belief in reincarnation and in the soul living multiple lives. Another precursor of Christianity by several centuries that was a lot closer in physical proximity is Zoroastrianism that promotes the belief not only in an immortal soul, but also the belief that the soul upon death will eventually reside in an eternal heaven or an eternal damnation. Many postulate that the concepts of heaven & hell in Christianity were taken from Zoroastrianism because Judaism does not have such concepts. In fact, several individuals whose writings were included in the old testament claim that there is no afterlife. Given that the WW predates Christianity, beliefs within the WW in an immortal soul & afterlife could not have originated in Christianity, but could have come from any one or multiple religions that have the same concept and predate Christianity. Even the excavated graves of individual who died thousands of years before civilization existed in ancient Egypt have demonstrated evidence that ancient peoples believed in an afterlife. >Potioncat wrote: >Love and sacrifice for one's friends are major Christian themes. No.Limberger responds: In the late summer of 480 BCE, a small band of Spartans (300 men) along with several hundred Greeks from other Greek city-states, attempted to defend their families, homes and lands from a massive invading Persian Army. Called the Battle of Thermopylae and popularized in modern culture through the graphics novel "300" and movie of the same name, the vast majority of this small Greek force was killed, sacrificing themselves to save others. Given that these acts of love and self-sacrifice occurred approximately 500 years before Christianity ever came into existence, it is safe to say that the concepts of love and self-sacrifice did not originate in Christianity and, hence, could hardly be labeled as being "Christian themes". Thus, as demonstrated here, the concepts of an immortal soul, love and self-sacrifice are universal themes that no one religion can claim ownership. I believe that JK Rowling knew this long before she began to write any of the Harry Potter novels and do not believe that she used these themes as a means to promote Christianity even though she herself is Christian. Additionally, I believe that it is safe to say that the WW would have adopted these concepts of an immortal soul, love and self-sacrifice long before Christianity came into being since, as my understanding goes, the WW existed long before Christianity in the Harry Potter Universe. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 2 17:30:40 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:30:40 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Update to Rule Change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186143 Mike wrote: > Phlytie Elf waddles into the room. He is drenched too, but for a different reason. He's taken the needle and thread he used to mend tea towels to sew up the hole he poked in his leg, so he's waddling with a decided list to starboard. He reaches up and tugs on Miss Potioncat's shirtsleeve. > > "Miss is overexerting herself she is. Miss must stop now." > > Phlytie snaps his fingers and all of the keys on Miss Potioncat's keyboard turn into real keys with wings and go flying off about the room. Phlytie thinks to himself, "Phlytie collects them later and brings them to Professor McGonnagall. She is using all of hers up protecting the Philosipher's Stone.' Carol responds: LOL. Carol is always delighted to read Phlytie Elf's posts even if she has trouble remembering how to spell his name. But Carol wonders what Professor McGonagall will think of those Charmed keys since her protection of the Philosopher's Stone was the Transfigured chessmen. Carol respectfully suggests that Phlytie submit the Charmed keys to the Charms teacher, Professor Flitwick, who must have used every key in Hogwarts and then some in creating his protection for the Stone. Carol, wondering what the List Elves intended to do if anyone took their April Fools joke seriously From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 2 17:31:51 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:31:51 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904012033l274fc1cfp21b20e8c0058bfcc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186144 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: > Thus, as demonstrated here, the concepts of an immortal soul, love and self-sacrifice are universal themes that no one religion can claim ownership. Pippin: That seems a bit like saying that the imagery taken from ritual masks in Picasso's paintings isn't African because other cultures used ritual masks. AFAIK, Picasso used those images without much concern for the meanings they had in their original cultures. He liked them because they were foreign and psychologically powerful, while for Western audiences their ritual significance was unknown and irrelevant. But it seems hard to argue that JKR is doing the same thing with Christianity, particularly when she does use matter from astrology and alchemy in that way. JKR's imagery is Christian enough that a non-Christian like me can easily recognize it. Why deny it? Certainly wizards would have had concepts of self-sacrifice and love before the advent of Christianity, but they cannot have been burying their dead in Christian churchyards, marking burial sites with crosses, or putting quotations from Christian scripture on their tombstones. To say that none of this is meant to have anything to do with the reasons that Lily and Harry decided to sacrifice themselves, or that Lily wouldn't think of these concepts in a Christian context (particularly as she would have been introduced to Christianity before she entered the WW) seems an awful stretch. We might also notice who is buried but *not* in consecrated ground -- Dobby, the non-human, and Dumbledore, who commited suicide by Snape ;), and may have judged himself unworthy. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 2 19:51:01 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:51:01 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904012033l274fc1cfp21b20e8c0058bfcc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186145 No.Limberger wrote: > Thus, as demonstrated here, the concepts of an immortal soul, love and self-sacrifice are universal themes that no one religion can claim ownership. I believe that JK Rowling knew this long before she began to write any of the Harry Potter novels and do not believe that she used these themes as a means to promote Christianity even though she herself is Christian. Additionally, I believe that it is safe to say that the WW would have adopted these concepts of an immortal soul, love and self-sacrifice long before Christianity came into being since, as my understanding goes, the WW existed long before Christianity in the Harry Potter Universe. Carol responds: There's no question that the concepts of self-sacrifice, love, and the soul exist in other cultures. However, as I've noted in other posts, it's unlikely that those other cultures (aside from classical Greece and Rome) had much influence on the *British* WW, of which Hogwarts is a part, or the European WW, of which Beauxbatons and Durmstrang are a part. To take Britain alone, we can assume that Celtic and pre-Celtic peoples had some influence on the British WW, as would the Roman Empire, of which the Brythonic Celts (but not the Goidelic Celts or the Picts) were a part. When the Roman Empire accepted Christianity, the Brythonic Celts accepted it, too, and even after the Romans left, they sent missionaries to the Celts of Ireland and Scotland to Christianize them, too. The Romans withdrew ca AD 410 and the pagan Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes) began arriving ca. AD 450, but the influence of Christianity continued. By the 550s, Ireland was largely converted. When Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine to Britain from Rome in AD 597, Augustine found that missionaries from Ireland had preceded him, with monasteries in Iona and Scotland. Augustine succeeded in converting Kent, but it was the Celtic missionaries from Ireland who converted Wales and Northumbria. By AD 634, through the combined efforts of Irish and Roman Catholic missionaries, only Sussex and the Isle of Wight remained unconverted. By the second half of the seventh century, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had all been converted and, despite setbacks like Viking invasions, the entire British Isles was effectively Christian, with Roman Christianity winning out over Celtic Christianity a the Synod of Whitby in AD 664. All of Britain, whether Saxon or Celtic, and all of Ireland was Christian at the time of the founding of Hogwarts. Needless to say, England remained Christian after the Normans defeated the Saxons in 1066, as did the Celtic parts of the British Isles not conquered by William the Conqueror and his successors. Later conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and the still later Puritan Revolution (Commonwealth, Protectorate, Restoration) did nothing to make Great Britain (England and Scotland) or, for that matter, Wales and Ireland, any less Christian. As of 1692, the date of the Statute of Secrecy, all of the British Isles had been Christian for about a thousand years. I won't go into modern history, but as I mentioned in another post, Muggles and Magical people remained in contact through Muggle-borns and Half-Bloods, and it's plain from such details as Christmas trees and chocolate Easter eggs that secularized Christianity is as prevalent in the WW as it is in the Muggle UK. While I agree with you that JKR avoided making the books (with the partial exception of DH) explicitly Christian, and that the values she depicts are not exclusively Christian, she is herself Christian, and both her real world and the imaginary *British* and *European* have been shaped predominantly (but not exclusively) by Christian culture, an influence that remains strong even in the secularized twentieth and twenty-first centuries. No doubt the Middle Eastern and Arabian WW have been equally shaped by Islam, but we see nothing of them except a reference to Ali Bashir's flying carpets. We see nothing at all of the Chinese WW, no doubt shaped by China's many religions and perhaps by Chinese Communism. Muggles and Wizards alike are the products of their cultures, and Christianity as a major element of British and European culture cannot be ignored. We see vestiges of paganism, it's true, but primarily as those traditions have been incorporated into Christianity. Carol, noting that the dates I listed vary somewhat from source to source and my point does not depend on their exactness From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 2 20:04:27 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:04:27 -0000 Subject: Godfathers. Gravestones and the role of religion. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186146 Geoff: Let me reiterate that, throughout this post, I am speaking from my own experience of Christ so all I write might be prefaced with "I believe that " or "I feel that". In post 186142 No.Limberger wrote: > In an earlier post, I mention that wizards & witches go back long before > Christianity came into existence. Did the concept of a soul originate in > Christianity? Geoff: In a word, no. Look at the Psalms. They are full of references to the soul. No.Limberger: > The concepts of an immortal soul, love and self-sacrifice are universal > themes that no one religion can claim ownership. I believe that JK Rowling > knew this long before she began to write any of the Harry Potter novels > and do not believe that she used these themes as a means to promote > Christianity even though she herself is Christian. Geoff; I do not think that JKR was promoting her faith but drawing on her own belief to create the world which she wanted. She, like Tolkien, had no idea how widespread her readership would be ? or even that she would get a readership(!). No.Limberger: > Additionally, I believe that it is safe to say that the WW would have > adopted these concepts of an immortal soul, love and self-sacrifice long > before Christianity came into being since, as my understanding goes, > the WW existed long before Christianity in the Harry Potter Universe. Geoff; Very true, but it is how these concepts are dealt with that separates the religions and how I believe a faith like Christianity differs in what has to be done with the immortal soul. Obviously people existed before Christianity, which only appeared after Christ, who was God in human form, spent time on the earth and revealing God's plan for salvation and eternal life. but Christ himself was at the creation. In message 186138, Potioncat wrote: > To my mind the fat friar, Christmas carols being sung by Sirius and by the > suits of armor along with other Christmas celebrations, added to Easter > Eggs, Godparents, the cross over Moody's grave and even the dark suited > wizard who spoke at DD's funeral all seem to be very Christian images. > If JKR had wanted to separate the WW from Christianity, she could have > done it very easily. She could have created something obviously different, > avoided it all together, or pulled from Druid or wicca images. Geoff: I think that, as a Christian, she would have found it very difficult to create a fictional universe which did not chime with her own faith and write it convincingly enough. Like Tolkien, there is a sub-text through which the author's own belief shows. JKR has matched the Wizarding World very well to the modern UK world where there is a great deal of nominal Christianity. The great majority of UK residents would describe themselves as such although their connection to church is usually when, as it is sometimes jokingly referred to, someone is "hatched, matched or dispatched". But, as you say, there is still a lot of Christian imagery which is recognised by most people. Potioncat > As often as we've discussed Christian themes within HP, I don't think > we've ever looked at obvious Christian situations in canon. I never > doubted -- or probably thought too much about it -- but I always > assumed the WW had the same Christian background. Even at that, > the epitaphs and Harry carving the cross were very big "wow" > moments for me. Geoff: For looking at Christian situations in canon, may I direct you to "The Gospel according to Harry Potter" by Connie Neal. This was published in 2002 and looks at the first four books up to GOF but would probably cover the area you mention. From no.limberger at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 20:03:43 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:03:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: <7ef72f90904012033l274fc1cfp21b20e8c0058bfcc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ef72f90904021303s69ed3318lc4b407e215afcf13@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186147 >Pippin wrote: >But it seems hard to argue that JKR is doing the same thing with Christianity, >particularly when she does use matter from astrology and alchemy in that way. No.Limberger responds: Astrology was developed in multiple locations thousands of years before Christianity ever existed. It was an integral aspect of ancient Egyptian religion, Babylonian beliefs, Hinduism in India, Chinese beliefs, several Buddhist traditions and even in Central America (the Mayans). Early Christians did not invent astrology, they adopted it from other non-Christian sources. Alchemy is believed to have originated in ancient Egypt and was attributed by ancient Egyptians to the god Thoth, long before the existence of Christianity. Alchemy then spread to other cultures and eventually to Europe. >Pippin wrote: >JKR's imagery is Christian enough that a non-Christian like me can easily recognize it. >Why deny it? No.Limberger responds: I'm not denying that the imagery evokes similarities with Christian imagery, but am saying that the imagery also evokes similarities with Buddhist, Hindu, Greek and ancient Egyptian imageries to name a few. Why deny that the followers of non-Christian religions cannot derive their own imagery? >Pippin wrote: >To say that none of this is meant to have anything to do with the reasons that Lily >and Harry decided to sacrifice themselves, or that Lily wouldn't think of these >concepts in a Christian context (particularly as she would have been introduced >to Christianity before she entered the WW) seems an awful stretch. No.Limberger responds: If I was a parent desperately trying to protect the life of one my children and placed myself between the danger and the child to protect child, I would do so purely out of love and self-sacrifice for the sake of the child's life. I don't believe that I would be thinking about "gee, how can I make my actions more Christian or more Buddhist (or whatever)?". As far as "consecrated ground" goes, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples & monasteries, Shinto shrines, Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques, etc. are each regarded as being sacred or consecrated. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 2 20:20:10 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:20:10 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186148 Carol earlier: > > > While I agree with you that JKR avoided making the books (with the partial exception of DH) explicitly Christian, and that the values she depicts are not exclusively Christian, she is herself Christian, and both her real world and the imaginary *British* and *European* have been shaped predominantly (but not exclusively) by Christian culture, an influence that remains strong even in the secularized twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Carol again: Apologies for wasting a post, but I don't want the omitted word (or acronym) here to interfere with the intelligibility of my post. Of course, I meant "the imaginary *British* and *European* WW," a I hope that the absence of a noun for the adjectives indicates. Carol, who would never consider Britain or continental Europe imaginary! From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 5 16:57:56 2009 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 5 Apr 2009 16:57:56 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/5/2009, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1238950676.580.95130.m3@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186149 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 5, 2009 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 2009 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 catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 5 21:19:17 2009 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:19:17 -0000 Subject: Hey, Elveses! Who is Olga dog? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186150 Geoff wrote in : << If a reference is made to a child's godfather, then this will immediately imply to a UK reader that the child was baptised, probably within the Church of England (or the Roman Catholic Church). >> Or the Church of Wizards. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& No Limberger wrote in : << In the late summer of 480 BCE, a small band of Spartans (300 men) (snip) Called the Battle of Thermopylae (snip) the vast majority of this small Greek force was killed, sacrificing themselves to save others. Given that these acts of love and self-sacrifice >> I'm sure you can find Classical Greek examples of love and self-sacrifice, but Thermopylae was an example of courage, honor,and self-sacrifice, not love and self-sacrifice. Btw please come to OT and tell me about the people of Kemet paying attention to astrology and alchemy before Hellenistic times. That they used the stars at night to tell the time of night and the season of the year and predict when the Nile flood would come is not astrology; neither is the belief that Pharaoh's soul rose to spend eternity with the eternal (never setting) circumpolar stars and the eternal (reborn every day) sun. Astrology comes from the Babylonians. That they learned a great deal of what may be called practical chemistry, in terms of what minerals to grind up and mix together to make cosmetics, colored glazes, perfumes, etc is not alchemy. I suppose alchemy couldn't start until the theory that everything is made of four or five Elements was available, and I believe that came from the Greeks, after they had re-learned writing and drawing, after centuries of trampling on the grave of Minoan civilization. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 6 16:11:02 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:11:02 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904012033l274fc1cfp21b20e8c0058bfcc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186151 No Limberger in an earlier post: My impression of the wizarding world as designed by JK Rowling is that > wizards & witches predate Christianity by countless > centuries. Thus, while a significant portion of the muggle world adopted a > particular religion, this could easily be regarded > as relatively unimportant in the wizarding world. Potioncat: In the Potterverse, both the Muggles and the wizards existed before Christianity, and it seems they mingled openly until the 1600s. So both Muggles and wizards would be exposed to the same historical events of our RW. (at least as I interpret JKR's writing.) So wizards and Muggles in Europe moved from the pagan beliefs to Christian beliefs---for the most part. There could be some Wicca or Druid clutches of either Muggle or wizarding fold still meeting to this very day. We readers bring our own slant to works of fiction, and can fill in the blanks as we wish, pretty much. So in a sense, I agree--I think. That is, in different parts of the world, wizards would have different religions--because wherever they were, they were exposed to the same history of the RW. ---although, my imagination isn't good enough to think there might be a Southern Baptist witch or wizard running about. ;-) > > >Potioncat wrote earlier: > >We had Lupin discussing the horror of having the soul removed, leaving a living shell. We have DD taking care to protect Draco's soul and Snape worried about his own soul. Sounds pretty Christian to me. > > No.Limberger responds: > In an earlier post, I mention that wizards & witches go back long before Christianity came into existence. Did the concept of a soul originate in Christianity? Potioncat: No, it didn't, but taking care of the soul is a very real part of Christianity today. I don't recall now if it was your point or someone elses point that there are no signs of real Christianity among the wizarding folk. I am merely showing very obvious signs beyond the secular celebrations of the holidays. I've never taken a religion course, so I can't speak to celebrations or signs of other religions. But as far as I know, we don't see any trappings of any other relgion than Christianity in HP. Although, I will offer the point that long ago written posts have made the argument for certain characters being of a specific faith or of representing a specific symbol from another faith. (There is a very good post from the archives offering Snape as The Satan--not the same as the devil.) > > >Potioncat wrote earlier: > >Love and sacrifice for one's friends are major Christian themes. > No Limberger responded: Given that these acts of love and self-sacrifice occurred approximately 500 years before Christianity ever came into existence, it is safe to say that the concepts of love and self-sacrifice did not originate in Christianity and, hence, could hardly be labeled as being "Christian themes". Potioncat: People everywhere and from all times have been and will continue to be capable of extreme love and sacrifice--whether or not they are Christian. Over the years many of us have seen evidence of Christian beliefs within the HP story--and we know JKR is Christian, and has admitted to the influence in her writing. Some of our churches use these in discussion classes and events. I'll apologise for my lack of time to reference the speicific passage--or to verify that I have each word correct--(but I'll bet someone will have it posted almost before I click send) but let me give two examples that are straight from Christ (keeping in mind that I am writing from the standpoint of a Chirstian.) from memory: "Love God with all your heart and soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." (part of this comes from Isaiah, the Old Testament) "There is no greater love than to lay down your life for your neighbor." (or is it brother?) I think these tie in closely to the actions we see Harry perform. It also ties into DD's statements about the strength of the ancient magic of love. I cannot think JKR wasn't aware of this. From bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net Tue Apr 7 11:47:27 2009 From: bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:47:27 -0400 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186152 No.Limberger, love and self-sacrifice of course existed before Christianity; they were put in the human heart by the God who created us. But anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with Christian theology knows that love and self-sacrifice are at the core of that religion, as submission is of Islam and detachment is of Buddhism. Hence, a literary work by a Christian author which based on that central theme may fairly be claimed as Christian work. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From no.limberger at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 17:33:24 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:33:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: <7ef72f90904012033l274fc1cfp21b20e8c0058bfcc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ef72f90904071033x76385089g36ef31499b47cc6c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186153 >Potioncat wrote: >I've never taken a religion course, so I can't speak to celebrations or >signs of other religions. But as far as I know, we don't see any >trappings of any other religion than Christianity in HP. No.Limberger responds: Let me illustrate an example. Two essential elements of Buddhism are compassion and detachment. The Buddhist Indian saint Shantideva wrote the following: "Whatever joy there is in this world, All comes from desiring others to be happy; And whatever suffering there is in this world, All comes from desiring myself to be happy." (Reference: http://viewonbuddhism.org/compassion.html.) This single Buddhist sentence expresses the entire plot of Harry Potter: Voldemort, who thinks only of himself (attachment), spreads suffering in the form of pain, torture, killings and control for himself to be happy; but the compassionate sacrifice of a mother for her child (HP) leads to Voldemort's ultimate destruction from HP and those who place compassion (self-sacrifice) over attachment to end suffering and bring joy to all. Unfamiliarity with other religions does not mean that no other religion can view elements of its beliefs within Harry Potter. >Potioncat wrote: >Over the years many of us have seen evidence of Christian beliefs >within the HP story--and we know JKR is Christian, and has >admitted to the influence in her writing. No.Limberger responds: >From what I have seen, what influenced JKR most are concepts that are essentially universal. Harry Potter evokes Christian imagery for some, but also Buddhist imagery, Hindu imagery, ancient Egyptian imagery, etc. Again, unfamiliarity with other religions does not mean that no other religion can view elements of its beliefs within Harry Potter. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From g2rm2002 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 7 20:05:58 2009 From: g2rm2002 at yahoo.com (Gloria Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:05:58 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > "Love God with all your heart and soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself." (part of this comes from Isaiah, the Old Testament) > > "There is no greater love than to lay down your life for your neighbor." (or is it brother?) > > I think these tie in closely to the actions we see Harry perform. It also ties into DD's statements about the strength of the ancient magic of love. I cannot think JKR wasn't aware of this. > Hi, The Scriptures you make reference to are: Mark 12:30-31 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV) John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (NIV) And we can continue quoting Bible verses from both the Old and the New Testament regarding the Christian presence in the Harry Potter Stories. If you are interested in going deeper into this, I would suggest reading "The Gospel According to Harry Potter" by Connie Neal. It is an excellent approach to Christianity using Harry Potter Books 1-4. Regards, Gloria From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 7 20:50:06 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:50:06 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904071033x76385089g36ef31499b47cc6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: Potioncat: > >Over the years many of us have seen evidence of Christian beliefs > >within the HP story--and we know JKR is Christian, and has > >admitted to the influence in her writing. No.Limberger: > From what I have seen, what influenced JKR most are concepts > that are essentially universal. Harry Potter evokes Christian > imagery for some, but also Buddhist imagery, Hindu imagery, > ancient Egyptian imagery, etc. Again, unfamiliarity with other > religions does not mean that no other religion can view > elements of its beliefs within Harry Potter. Geoff: Concepts which, in my eyes as a Christian, originate from God. I quite agree that other religions can share elements with Christian teaching but Christianity is not just a religion, it is a faith. In my personal view, religion often contains elements which are man made rather than God created - even in Christianity itself. In some denominations, believers are expected to attend services, pray to the saints, go to confession and so on. None of these are specified as essential in the teaching laid down by Christ. Potioncat outlined some core beliefs. I have often said that Christian belief can be summed up in two statements by Jesus: God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16 New International translation) I am the way and the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6) True Christianity involves having a true belief in Christ being God in human form. We believe that coming to faith is more than accepting a form of words, of "signing up" to a set of rules. It is rather that we accept the love shown by God and return it to him by showing our own feeble love in worship and in self-sacrifice by serving others. Obviously, adherents of other religions can tap into love and self- sacrifice because we all get glimpses of God even if we do not claim any belief. But I believe - as do millions of fellow Christians throughout the world - that we see this as we are meant to when we realise that we need God within our hearts and lives; this is the very core of Christian faith. JKR, like Tolkien, does not make her Christianity overt but Harry's "saving people hero complex", or whatever you wish to term it, is an outward indicator of the way in which JKR's world echoes that of the real world when folk see that looking out for others, making sacrifices - of money, of time, of effort etc. - is what they feel they must do. They may not be believers but this may be a marker on the way to realising the need for moral absolutes in their lives as a first step in belief. I am sure that some fellow members will already be disagreeing with me but this is how I see it from a Christian standpoint - which Jo Rowling has said she has used in the books. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 7 22:49:03 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:49:03 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904071033x76385089g36ef31499b47cc6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186156 No.Limburger wrote: > Unfamiliarity with other religions does not mean that no other religion can view elements of its beliefs within Harry Potter. Carol responds: Although some literary critics have argued against the existence of universals, I think we can fairly claim that most works of literature contain universal elements (love and death being among the most common) that all people can relate to. But applicability, as Tolkien once wrote, resides in the freedom of the reader. It's different from the intention of the author. It's also different from the unconscious elements that appear in a work because they reflect an author's worldview. JKR is a Christian author who has struggled with her faith, and both her Christianity and her struggle (for example, Harry's reaction to the inscription on his parents' tomb) can be found in her books. I can think of no explicitly Buddhist elements--and no reason for them to be there. By the same token, I would not look for explicitly Christian elements in a book by a Buddhist (or, say, a Buddhist who had lost his faith or converted to Islam). That's not to say that shared or universal elements that a Christian could relate to wouldn't appear in that book, but I doubt that they would have been intentionally placed there. I'm still not sure why you're resisting the idea that Hogwarts, which was founded in a Christian country during a Christian era, would have been influenced by that culture, as would the British WW as a whole. If JKR were writing about a Wizard from Tibet, we would expect him to be influenced by Buddhism, but I don't see how Harry could have been. I don't even see any evidence that he or his culture is influenced by Druidism, which is considerably more surprising (IMO). Carol, who thinks that people of all faiths (or none) can relate to the HP books as evidenced by their popularity in many countries and languages regardless of whether they see or relate to the specifically Christian elements From frankd14612 at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 19:07:32 2009 From: frankd14612 at gmail.com (Frank D) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:07:32 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904071033x76385089g36ef31499b47cc6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186157 > >Potioncat wrote: > >Over the years many of us have seen evidence of Christian beliefs > >within the HP story--and we know JKR is Christian, and has > >admitted to the influence in her writing. > > No.Limberger responds: > >From what I have seen, what influenced JKR most are concepts > that are essentially universal. Harry Potter evokes Christian > imagery for some, but also Buddhist imagery, Hindu imagery, > ancient Egyptian imagery, etc. Again, unfamiliarity with other > religions does not mean that no other religion can view > elements of its beliefs within Harry Potter. > > Frank D adds (rather jokingly but also seriously): I haven't taken any courses in this, so I'm really not qualified to make such a statement, but I've noticed that JKR is a _woman_ and a _human_ and I've seen evidence of those influences in her writing. On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that she might be another type of life form. Ho hum! In short, I think a discussion of religion or philosophy -- any type or other -- as having a bearing on the Potterverse is a fruitless endeavor. Posit what you will, arguing one theory is as good as another, and in my view discussion without specific input from JKR herself will produce no useful result. So why go there? From no.limberger at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 02:42:34 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:42:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: <7ef72f90904071033x76385089g36ef31499b47cc6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ef72f90904071942l62aac432t7a26afbcf5bee0b8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186158 >Carol wrote: >I can think of no explicitly Buddhist elements--and no reason for them to be there. >By the same token, I would not look for explicitly Christian elements in a book by >a Buddhist (or, say, a Buddhist who had lost his faith or converted to Islam). >That's not to say that shared or universal elements that a Christian could relate >to wouldn't appear in that book, but I doubt that they would have been intentionally >placed there. No.Limberger responds: All world religions share similar concepts (not necessarily the same concepts between all religions), but each religion has its own unique concepts. In none of my posts have I denied that JKR is a Christian. In fact, I believe I clearly acknowledged this fact in an earlier post. If not, I am doing so here. Where I disagree is the notion that JKR sat down one day and said, "I'm going to write a set of fantasy novels based upon Christianity." Many Christians have written or created works that have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. To assume that just because an author is Christian automatically implies that all written works are subsequently Christian is not supported unless there is a significant amount of Christian material within the works themselves. When an individual views an artwork (whether it is a painting, a musical composition, a written novel, etc.), the individual's mind automatically identifies similarities between the artwork and other memories already present, thus forming connections between the artwork and those memories whether those connections are valid or not. In other words, perception is as unique as each individual human being is unique. If an individual has a strong identification with a particular religion, there will be a tendency to identify components of an artwork in terms of that religion. If another individual has studied multiple religions and view the same exact artwork, chances are that this individual's mind will find connections between the artwork with multiple religions. Does this imply that one individual's perception is more correct or better than the other? No. It simply states that everyone has their own unique views and perceptions. Any artist knows that their work will be viewed in a myriad of different ways when made public and is beyond the control of the artist. In the case of JKR and her artwork called Harry Potter, I find no convincing evidence to suggest that this artwork was intended for a Christian-only audience. This is based upon the scant number of direct references to Christian beliefs. Instead, I believe JKR drew upon a myriad of sources to create the beautiful piece of art that Harry Potter is. How any one person chooses to perceive that art is entirely up to the individual. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Apr 8 04:44:31 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 22:44:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin References: <7ef72f90904071033x76385089g36ef31499b47cc6c@mail.gmail.com> <7ef72f90904071942l62aac432t7a26afbcf5bee0b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <97772C5B16FA4C449BBB2C6D369D2347@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186159 > No.Limberger responds: > All world religions share similar concepts (not necessarily the same > concepts between all religions), but each religion has its own unique > concepts. In none of > my posts have I denied that JKR is a Christian. In fact, I believe I > clearly > acknowledged this fact in an earlier post. If not, I am doing so here. > Where I disagree is the > notion that JKR sat down one day and said, "I'm going to write a set of > fantasy novels > based upon Christianity." Shelley: Ok, consciously, or subconsciously??? And all that teeters on what you call "based upon Christianity". Did she intend to write a "preachy novel about Christ"- clearly we all would agree NO with you. But, did she intend from the beginning that Harry would be the sacrificial lamb of the Wizard World- there I would have to say YES, she did. She planned from the beginning Harry to have a part of Voldemort in him, so that he would need to be killed to save everyone else. I think she planned that Harry would need to sacrifice himself. No other religion, save Christianity, has some Savior dying and then raising from the dead. She doesn't have to say outright that Harry is a type of Christ figure for the novel to be "based upon Christian themes"- that self-sacrificing act to die to save others, only to live again. I think clearly she did set out to write a novel based upon Christianity (or that die-and-live-again theme). Books 1-6 were so building up to this theme that many people correctly guessed that Harry would die to save the wizarding world, even before book 7 was released. No.Limberger: > Many Christians have written or created works that have > absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. To assume that just because > an author is > Christian automatically implies that all written works are subsequently > Christian is > not supported unless there is a significant amount of Christian material > within the works > themselves. Here again, I disagree strongly with your definition- "significant amount of Christian material within to be considered a Christian work". To me, it's not the "amount of material" at all, but the substance of that material. The climax of this series is a Christ-like self sacrifice- that makes the book pretty "Christian" in nature to me. It's a Christian world-view that counts, not how many times or how strongly you bash people over the head with that theme. No.Limberger: > In the case of JKR and her artwork called Harry Potter, > I find no convincing evidence to suggest that this artwork was intended > for > a Christian-only audience. A straw man to defeat! No one has ever made the case (not that I have read, but I could be wrong) that Rowling intended her audience to be Christian-only. She went to a secular publisher, didn't market this through churches or ever court a church's opinion on this work. It's clear that her intended audience was far beyond any faith, since from the beginning, she sold her books on an open market. Saying that Rowling intended to have a Christian-only audience is such a bogus statement- any one of us can easily defeat that premise in a heartbeat. No.Limberger: > How any one person chooses to perceive that art is entirely up to the > individual. Shelley: Again, true up to a point. Clearly, we can all identify the same main themes of Harry Potter, including acknowledging that Harry had to die (as a Horcrux) to end Voldemort's soul part that was accidentally placed within him, if Voldemort was to be defeated in the end. Whether or not you want to argue this is a Christ-like sacrifice to really up to you, but I have to wonder what's the motivation of trying to artificially separate out any Christian themes from this work? Does it make you feel better about reading it if you don't feel that you are reading a work which has Christian influence in it? Because, on another thread of Dumbledore's gayness, that was an issue for some- that they would not want to read a book if a gay man was one of the main characters- that their individual bias causes them to exclude from their personal libraries any work which make them personally uncomfortable. I'm perfectly OK if someone said they didn't want to think of Harry Potter as containing any Christian elements because they have a strong bias against Christianity in general. I respect that kind of honest admission of personal bias. What I don't really respect is people trying to paint a canvas as purple because they personally really hate the color yellow, and can't stand for yellow to be in anything considered to be their "favorite works", so they therefore argue that it's not yellow everyone else sees, but some other shade. I just don't see how you can remove and separate out any "Christian themes" presented in this series and argue that it's not a Christian influence at all. Shelley From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 8 12:51:43 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:51:43 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904071942l62aac432t7a26afbcf5bee0b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186160 > No.Limberger responds: > All world religions share similar concepts (not necessarily the same > concepts between > all religions), but each religion has its own unique concepts. In none of > my posts > have I denied that JKR is a Christian. In fact, I believe I clearly > acknowledged this fact > in an earlier post. If not, I am doing so here. Where I disagree is the > notion that > JKR sat down one day and said, "I'm going to write a set of fantasy novels > based > upon Christianity." Many Christians have written or created works that have > absolutely > nothing to do with Christianity. To assume that just because an author is > Christian > automatically implies that all written works are subsequently Christian is > not supported > unless there is a significant amount of Christian material within the works > themselves. Alla: How about if author herself said so? Would that be evidence enough of authorial intent? http://www.hpana.com/news.20223.html "To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious. But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going." http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml?rsspartner=rssYahooNewscrawler "They're very British books, so on a very practical note Harry was going to find biblical quotations on tombstones," Rowling explained. "[But] I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones at Godric's Hollow, they sum up ? they almost epitomize the whole series." Alla: Almost epitomize the whole series... I know those are interviews and to analyse the work one does not need to take them into consideration. However you are talking about the intent now and I think for determining the intent interviews are very relevant. But really, I do not need the interviews to see that books are heavily heavily based on Christian themes. And no, I am so not a Christian. I think somewhere upthread you said that references to religion are few and far between. Well, sure, however what matters to me is that they are there and what kind of references are there. We have biblical quotations, not the quotations from any other book. We have Harry dying for all WW and coming back. Um, if it quacks as duck what else can it be? And I agree with Shelly, what other religion has Savior dying and coming back? Yes, yes, I know we have Greek and Egyptian Gods dying and being resurrected, but not for the sins of humankind, no? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 8 14:45:11 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:45:11 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <97772C5B16FA4C449BBB2C6D369D2347@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186161 Shelley: I think she planned that Harry would need to sacrifice > himself. No other religion, save Christianity, has some Savior dying and > then raising from the dead. Magpie: I don't think that story was very uncommon at the time Christianity started, actually. Saviors dying and then raising from the dead for humanity etc.--I think Christianty was one of many cults with that idea. Though I'm sure for most people today that story=Christianity, and those people include JKR. Though Harry Potter, being an ordinary person, can't die for other's sins the way Jesus did. The whole point was that he was/is God. In the Narnia Chronicles Aslan actually is Jesus replaying the same story. I would say Harry is pretty self-consciously being written as the Christ-figure--though you don't need to be Christian to get anything out of that story. For it to really be pushing Christianity itself, imo, Harry would have to be saved *through Christ* not die himself for others and return. But I still thought of DH that this is where we find out Harry is Jesus. (Which I thought was a bit much for me to think about Harry, but wasn't surprised by it.) I don't think HP as a story really says anything insightful about Christianity, but there are places--particularly in Harry's final sacrifice and return--that I definitely figured Rowling was thinking of Christ. -m From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Apr 8 15:44:11 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:44:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin References: Message-ID: <39A80786EA7D428392D665FE36174520@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186162 > Shelley: > I think she planned that Harry would need to sacrifice >> himself. No other religion, save Christianity, has some Savior dying and >> then raising from the dead. > > Magpie: > I don't think that story was very uncommon at the time Christianity > started, actually. Saviors dying and then raising from the dead for > humanity etc.--I think Christianty was one of many cults with that idea. Shelley: Could you, for the sake of this argument (Harry Potter having a specifically "Christian" theme, or just a general "religious" theme), point out, in your words, which other cults have the idea of a Savior dying and then raising from the dead? It is your premise then that only Christianity has survived with that theme, that the other cults which had that theme have melted into obscurity so that in today's time we would only recognize Christianity as having a resurrected Savior? Becuase you really can prove that other religions have a Savior-dead-risen from the dead theme, then you would be adding weight to No.Limberger's argument that it's just a "religious" framework and not a specifically "Christian" one. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 8 16:23:30 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:23:30 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <39A80786EA7D428392D665FE36174520@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186163 > > Shelley: > > I think she planned that Harry would need to sacrifice > >> himself. No other religion, save Christianity, has some Savior dying and > >> then raising from the dead. > > > > Magpie: > > I don't think that story was very uncommon at the time Christianity > > started, actually. Saviors dying and then raising from the dead for > > humanity etc.--I think Christianty was one of many cults with that idea. > > Shelley: > Could you, for the sake of this argument (Harry Potter having a specifically > "Christian" theme, or just a general "religious" theme), point out, in your > words, which other cults have the idea of a Savior dying and then raising > from the dead? It is your premise then that only Christianity has survived > with that theme, that the other cults which had that theme have melted into > obscurity so that in today's time we would only recognize Christianity as > having a resurrected Savior? Becuase you really can prove that other > religions have a Savior-dead-risen from the dead theme, then you would be > adding weight to No.Limberger's argument that it's just a "religious" > framework and not a specifically "Christian" one. Magpie: I was just disagreeing with the idea that the idea was exclusive to Christianity throughout history since I think it's fiarly established that that many things about the Jesus story--including resurrection--were familiar before Christianity. Someone much more knowledgable than me might have corrections, but I think Osiris and Odin, for instance, died and were ressurrected. I think maybe Horus also? But I also said that today that story is mostly associated with Christianity. And "resurrection" can mean different things in the context of different religions. Jesus doesn't ever seem to have been like a fertility symbol, for instance, associated with crops dying and coming back each other. I think Harry's "dying" and coming back are pretty clearly echoing the Jesus story rather than, say, that of a harvest lord. -m From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 16:44:33 2009 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mmizstorge) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:44:33 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <97772C5B16FA4C449BBB2C6D369D2347@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > Shelley: No other religion, save Christianity, has some Savior dying and > then raising from the dead. Actually, in world mythology there are many deities who die and are resurrected. The myth of Christ is but a fairly recent example. I can name off the top of my head: Osiris, Inanna, Odin, Tammuz and Dionysos. I thought JKR's attempt to frame Harry as a Christ-like figure was unsuccessful, largely because of Harry's un-Christlike inclination to fling Unforgiveable Curses. Harry did not 'save' anyone nor did he exactly die and the references in the text to his 'saving people thing' was to me, as a character said in 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe', needlessly messianic. I was more content to relate Harry's willingness to die after talking to Dumbledore at King's Cross to the Bushido code: only a samurai willing to die at any moment could be fully devoted to his lord. Sir James Frazer noted that the Dying God is a common motif in many cultures and is frequently associated with agricultural or solar imagery - which made the sunrise at the conclusion of Harry's final duel with Voldemort the only part of the scene that I thought worked. A protagonist doesn't need to mimic the actions of a deity in order to be heroic - nor does a character who dies and comes back from the dead necessarily convey a Christian message. Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius, for example, died and came back from the dead (frequently!) and the message of the books in which he appeared was decidedly not a Christian one. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 8 18:02:01 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:02:01 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904071942l62aac432t7a26afbcf5bee0b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186165 Carol earlier: > >I can think of no explicitly Buddhist elements--and no reason for them to be there. By the same token, I would not look for explicitly Christian elements in a book by a Buddhist (or, say, a Buddhist who had lost his faith or converted to Islam). That's not to say that shared or universal elements that a Christian could relate to wouldn't appear in that book, but I doubt that they would have been intentionally placed there. > > No.Limberger responds: > All world religions share similar concepts (not necessarily the same concepts between all religions), but each religion has its own unique concepts. In none of my posts have I denied that JKR is a Christian. Where I disagree is the notion that JKR sat down one day and said, "I'm going to write a set of fantasy novels based upon Christianity." No.Limburger: > When an individual views an artwork (whether it is a painting, a musical composition, a written novel, etc.), the individual's mind automatically identifies similarities between the artwork and other memories already present, thus forming connections between the artwork and those memories whether those connections are valid or not. > In other words, perception is as unique as each individual human being is unique. If an individual has a strong identification with a particular religion, there will be a tendency to identify components of an artwork in terms of that religion. If another individual has studied multiple religions and view the same exact artwork, chances are that this individual's mind will find connections between the artwork with multiple religions. > Any artist knows that their work will be viewed in a myriad of different ways when made public and > is beyond the control of the artist. In the case of JKR and her artwork > called Harry Potter, > I find no convincing evidence to suggest that this artwork was intended for > a Christian-only > audience. This is based upon the scant number of direct references to > Christian > beliefs. Instead, I believe JKR drew upon a myriad of sources to create the > beautiful > piece of art that Harry Potter is. How any one person chooses to perceive > that art > is entirely up to the individual. Carol responds: I wonder if we're arguing (discussing) apples and oranges here. While some other posters may have argued that JKR deliberately sat down to "write a set of fantasy novels based upon Christianity," that's not *my* argument. I'm saying that because JKR is herself a Christian who grew up in a secular Christian country with a strongly Christian background and because her Wizarding World is set mostly in that same country, it's inevitable that Christian values will predominate. (that the British WW was in contact with Muggle Christianity in earlier centuries is evident from the Fat Friar, the paintings of the monks, and other motifs that we've already mentioned.) Certain elements of DH in particular are explicitly Christian, including the epitaphs on the gravestones and the cross that Harry places over the "grave" of Alastor Moody's magical eye. I stated in my previous post (in a portion that you snipped) that certain values and experiences are universal and appear in all literatures (love and death being the most obvious examples) and that the reader is free to apply his own experiences and values (what Tolkien calls "applicability") in interpreting any work of literature. And I agree that JKR drew on many cultures in depicting her WW, but she drew *primarily* on those that would be familiar to British children--not only Christianity and Greco-Roman mythology but stereotypes of wizards and witches (brooms, pointed hats, black robes or cloaks). In contrast, I see no *explicitly* Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim motifs. Nevertheless, because of shared cultural values and universals like love and death, readers from those faiths or other backgrounds, including agnosticism, secular Judaism, Native American cultures, and just about everything you can think of can relate to some aspects of Harry's experience, including his struggle to understand and accept death as part of life. A Christian will find other themes and motifs in addition to these universals, some of which JKR has said are intentional. I agree with you that a reader brings his or her own values and experiences to the reading of any literary work and that those values and experiences inevitably affect the experience of reading and interpreting the work. I also agree that any educated writer will draw upon material from various cultures that he or she has come in contact with and, perhaps unconsciously, incorporate that material into a literary work. (Some readers will find those unconscious elements and assumptions and some won't. What's hardest to find is what a writer takes for granted because it's not explicitly stated.) No reader will find exactly what the author "intended" when he or she wrote the work. Nevertheless, we can't ignore an author's stated intentions altogether even if they don't shape our particular reading. No one (that I know of) is denying that motifs like love, death, and self-sacrifice are important in other religions or cultures than those of Christian or nominally Christian nations. What we're saying (or I'm saying) is that the portion of the WW depicted in the HP books is a secular Christian world parallel to the secular Christian world of Muggle Britain. As Matthew Arnold wrote in "Culture and Anarchy" in 1869, the two forces that he calls Hebraism (Judeo-Christian influence) and Hellenism (Gredo-Roman influence) have shaped the Western world. http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/4.html That Britain from the founding of Hogwarts (and earlier) to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries when the HP books were written was and is part of the Western world is indisputable. That Christianity was the predominant shaping force for much of that period is also indisputable. Again, I am not denying the presence of non-Christian elements, and I am explicitly stating that many themes, motifs, events, and conflicts within the books are universal. In consequence, the books are open to various interpretations (although, of course, some interpretations are invalid in any circumstances--it can't be argued, for example, that Voldemort or Wormtail or Bellatrix is really the hero of the books). But I am also saying that the books inevitably reflect a secular Christian/Western worldview because of the time and place in which they were written. Less inevitably, they reflect an explicitly Christian worldview *in places* and through the stated intention of the author. I am certainly not saying that the HP books are a Christian allegory. Far from it (though Harry *can be read as* a Christ figure or a Christian pilgrim). Nor am I denying that the books can be read in other ways. As Tolkien wrote, "I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." http://verdevivoverdechiaro.blogspot.com/2008/03/tolkien-allegory-and-applicability.html JKR is certainly not attempting to impose her (Christian) worldview on the reader. In fact, she has carefully removed references to prayers, chapels, and worship (except that Christmas Eve service in Godric's Hollow), perhaps because she fears a backlash from the advocates of political correctness and pluralism. (Ironically, the backlash came from fundamentalist Christians, who would find much to identify with and approve of if they'd only read the books.) In short, I'm trying to distinguish between the intention of the author (to the extent that it's conscious and stated) and the interpretation by the reader--what Tolkien calls "applicability." As for JKR knowing that her books will be read in many ways by many different people, I'm afraid that we need only read her interviews to see that she sees her own interpretation as correct. (We, however, need not necessarily agree with her. She might do well to read up on the so-called intentional fallacy. Essentially, the moment a work becomes public, its interpretation ceases to be within the author's control.) But we, as readers, should be careful not to read in what isn't there--including specifically Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu elements. If we argue that, say, Bellatrix represents Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction, we have a tough road ahead of us. HP is not an allegory, but any allegorical or symbolic elements within it are likely to be drawn from Western culture. Carol, hoping that you see the points on which we agree and that the points on which we disagree are clearer now From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Apr 8 19:06:03 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:06:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin References: Message-ID: <73383826DB814625B0CE833313CAA7AC@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186166 From: "mmizstorge" > Actually, in world mythology there are many deities who die and are > resurrected. The myth of Christ is but a fairly recent example. I can name > off the top of my head: Osiris, Inanna, Odin, Tammuz and Dionysos. > > I thought JKR's attempt to frame Harry as a Christ-like figure was > unsuccessful, largely because of Harry's un-Christlike inclination to > fling Unforgiveable Curses. Harry did not 'save' anyone nor did he exactly > die and the references in the text to his 'saving people thing' was to me, > as a character said in 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe', > needlessly messianic. Shelley: So, it wasn't clear to you that Harry was saving the WW from Voldemort's terror? That's not the world's sins, granted, but I thought it was very clear in his mind that the reign of Voldemort was tearing people's families apart and causing undue suffering, and that is what he was sacrificing himself for. The Christ-figure isn't an exact parallel, on that point I agree, as Harry, unlike Christ, did not know he was going to return from the dead. And, I think the fact that he used Unforgivable Curses was on purpose- Rowling from the start wanted Harry to be a believable, but flawed human being. He shirks off being a God, being the Chosen One, being the Wizarding World's hero, even from the start of his school days where he learns the truth. He wants to just be Harry, and that's all whom he ends up being. Rowling may have use the theme of Christ as the framework for setting up a Horcrux and explaining how he lived, and how he saved the WW from Voldemort, but clearly she didn't want Harry to be a Christ who was worshipped. So, I think those Unforgivable Curses were one final way of him sealing that image of "just Harry; not Jesus Christ!" From: "mmizstorge" A protagonist doesn't need to mimic the actions of a deity in order to be heroic - nor does a character who dies and comes back from the dead necessarily convey a Christian message. Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius, for example, died and came back from the dead (frequently!) and the message of the books in which he appeared was decidedly not a Christian one. Shelley: What you say is generally true. However, we aren't looking at a wide range of texts here, we are looking at Harry Potter and trying to decide if this is a Christian-based theme, or has references to the Christian story. I think it clearly is. It's not a preachy Christian message, but rather the Christian theme used as a framework Rowling used to tell a fictional story. There's another aspect of Christianity I see in this series- Voldemort's marking of Harry from the beginning, setting up Harry to be the one to take out Voldemort. In the book of Genesis, Satan deceives humanity, and after the fall of Adam and Eve, God delivers his judgment. We all know about the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden, but there is a pronouncement of things to come for Satan: "So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." " (Genesis 3: vs. 14 and 15) Now, forsaking the future generations part, I see these parallels: - First, Satan, and Voldemort started it. Satan went to Adam and Eve to deceive them- it was Voldemort who used his power to kill off people. Had either of them keep their power to themselves but not seek to mess people over, ultimately they would not be taken out by the ones they messed with. - Second, Voldemort being reduced to Vapormort resembles the "crawl on your belly and you will eat dust". It's just uncanny the Voldemort was reduced to having to inhabit only small animals. Voldemort knew he was cursed because of his actions. Both Satan and Voldemort were changed physically as a direct result of their attacks. And the whole Syltherin-Snake association, that Parcelmouth is passed along the generations to get to Voldemort, is reminiscent of the imagery of Satan the Snake/serpent. - Third, the pronouncement that it will be Eve's seed that will be the demise of Satan- this I see in Rowling's use of the Prophesy- setting up this circle of Voldemort picking a baby to murder only to have that baby be the demise of Voldemort. So, I don't take it that it is just Harry's death and comeback that makes this a Christian-based story- I see many other elements in it is well. No, I don't think this story CONVEYS a Christian message- she's not teaching or preaching to us, but I do clearly see the elements of the Biblical story taken to be a framework to tell the story of Harry and Voldemort. Shelley From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 8 20:04:46 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:04:46 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmizstorge" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > > > > Shelley: > No other religion, save Christianity, has some Savior dying and > > then raising from the dead. k12listmomma: > Actually, in world mythology there are many deities who die and are resurrected. The myth of Christ is but a fairly recent example. I can name off the top of my head: Osiris, Inanna, Odin, Tammuz and Dionysos. Geoff: As a Christian, I would disagree profoundly with your comment "the myth of Christ:". I believe that Christ was God coming in human form to save humanity lost in its own inhumanity and materialism and sin. I also believe that earlier stories are merely foreshadowings of the real events and were insights from God into the historical coming of Jesus. k12listmomma: > I thought JKR's attempt to frame Harry as a Christ-like figure was unsuccessful, largely because of Harry's un-Christlike inclination to fling Unforgiveable Curses. Harry did not 'save' anyone nor did he exactly die and the references in the text to his 'saving people thing' was to me, as a character said in 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe', needlessly messianic. Geoff: I would agree with that analysis because I have often argued in the past on this group that Harry is not a Christ figure. No human can be. There is a difference in Lewis' books which are an allegorical representation of Christianity where Aslan, within the Narnian universe, is God. Harry can be equated to Christ-like figures in the real world who have indeed shown love and self-sacrifice to the extent of giving up their lives to save others physically. By way of example,there are cases in the Second World War where folk changed places with others in concentration camps or returned to situations to try to help to encourage oppressed believers or alleviate the problems; a good example is Dietrich Bonhoeffer who left Canada in 1939 on amost the last ship to return to Germany. He was not a Saviour. He could not save anyone's soul. but he could be a figurehead, an example of altruism and self-sacrifice. But, as you say, in the same way as Harry, none of these people are Saviours because of their un-Christlike inclinations, if not flinging Unforgiveable curses, then being selfish or, to simplify it to the pattern given by Jesus, not loving God with all their hearts or loving their neighbours as themselves. Not easy. Also, I agree that Harry did not die. Dumbledore pointed this out in the "Kings Cross" chapter. JKR has made it clear that she was writing from her own Christian point of view but that she was not attempting to convert or proselytise. However, that does not mean that she was not using the ideas and concepts of the Christian faith to underpin her story. Tolkien used the same approach. I do not think that a Christian writing so much from the depths of their experience, faith and heart would not display a Christian-angled sub- creation, even if only subconsciously. I would personally find it difficult to write a story like HP in which I had invested a huge amount of my time and inventiveness without basing it on my own attitude to life. It's not like, say, a detective novel where the story is matter-of-fact not involving morals or attitudes where the conscience of your characters or their world view are divorced from the action. I think that I as a Christian should not necessarily expect folk with other views to agree with me, Conversely, they should not project their views onto JKR's world knowing how she has constructed the Potterverse and what she has said about it in the real world. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 9 00:23:52 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:23:52 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904071942l62aac432t7a26afbcf5bee0b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: > Any artist knows that their work will be viewed in a myriad of different ways when made public and is beyond the control of the artist. In the case of JKR and her artwork called Harry Potter, I find no convincing evidence to suggest that this artwork was intended for a Christian-only audience. Pippin: I don't think that's what is meant by saying a work has Christian themes. We certainly don't mean it that way when we say that a work has medieval themes! We mean that it has themes which are commonly associated with the middle ages in Europe. Castles, for example, or knights and dragons. That other societies erected castles, developed a warrior class with religious obligations, and imagined monsters for them to fight doesn't keep us from thinking of these things as medieval themes. JKR has introduced themes which are commonly associated with Christianity in Western literature. I don't think it shows any disrespect to other traditions to study these as Christian themes, or to assume that the British WW as JKR depicts it was probably Christianized at the same time as RL Britain. Clearly we have the leftovers of a feudal system in which witches and wiards once participated, and feudalism in Europe was an attempt to organize society according to Christian principles. The Fat Friar is obviously a Christian character, but it seems to be overlooked that a British knight of 1492 and a baron circa the year 1000 would also have been Christian, since orders of nobility could not be bestowed otherwise. In addition, though the popular mind may have attributed supernatural powers to unbelievers, officially the medieval Christian theory of witchcraft simply didn't allow for unbaptized witches. The devil only needed to traffic for souls which had been saved. That is, if the Muggles of old had not considered their witch and wizard neighbors to be Christian, they would have needed a different theory to explain their powers. In JKR's universe, Christian Muggles must have invented this specious theory of witchcraft to attack their equally Christian neighbors, just as the DE-controlled Ministry in JKR's story invents a specious theory about mudbloods stealing magic from wizards in order to attack the equally magical Muggleborn. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 9 01:13:44 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:13:44 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186169 Magpie wrote: > I don't think that story was very uncommon at the time Christianity started, actually. Saviors dying and then raising from the dead for humanity etc.--I think Christianty was one of many cults with that idea. > > Though I'm sure for most people today that story=Christianity, and those people include JKR. Carol responds: But, as others have pointed out, those dying gods (Dionysus, Osiris) are resurrected but they don't sacrifice themselves to save others. Christ is the only god, god/man, or son of a god who dies to save sinners. (To Christians, of course, he's both God and the Son of God, but we don't need to go into that sort of detail here.) Magpie: > Though Harry Potter, being an ordinary person, can't die for other's sins the way Jesus did. The whole point was that he was/is God. Carol: Exactly. And that's what separates Jesus Christ from the dying gods of Greek and Roman mythology. But, despite Harry's humanness (unlike Jesus, he doesn't actually die), it's Jesus that he's connected to thematically because of the motif of self-sacrifice (and agape love). Osiris and Dionysus have no connection that I can see to the Harry Potter story. Magpie: In the Narnia Chronicles Aslan actually is Jesus replaying the same story. Carol: Yes. The Chronicles of Narnia, and specifically "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," is self-evidently a Christian allegory, which HP clearly is not, despite the Christian symbolism. Magpie: > I would say Harry is pretty self-consciously being written as the Christ-figure--though you don't need to be Christian to get anything out of that story. For it to really be pushing Christianity itself, imo, Harry would have to be saved *through Christ* not die himself for others and return. But I still thought of DH that this is where we find out Harry is Jesus. (Which I thought was a bit much for me to think about Harry, but wasn't surprised by it.) I don't think HP as a story really says anything insightful about Christianity, but there are places--particularly in Harry's final sacrifice and return--that I definitely figured Rowling was thinking of Christ. Carol responds: Just to clarify the concept of Christ figure: a Christ figure is not Christ himself but a symbolic character who resembles Christ in important ways, usually by sacrificing himself to save others. Aslan is not a Christ figure in this sense but an allegorical representation of Christ. Symbols are complex and subject to interpretation; allegories are simple, straightforward, and pretty much unmistakeable. I agree that JKR is not pushing Christianity itself though she came closer to depicting the WW (and Muggle Britain) as a Christian culture than she did in earlier books. But saying that Harry is (or can be interpreted as) a Christ figure is not the same thing as saying that he's "the" Christ figure (there's no such thing), much less that he's Christ himself. A Christ figure is a human character who parallels Christ in some ways. Gandalf and even poor Frodo (who needed Gollum to help him accomplish his mission as Jesus needed Judas to accomplish his) can be interpreted as Christ symbols, but, obviously, neither intended as an *allegorical representation* of Christ like Aslan. A Christ figure remains flawed and human, unlike Christ, who (for Christians) is simultaneously human and divine. I am almost certain that JKR *intended* Harry to be a Christ figure, but it's up to the reader to accept or reject that interpretation. Others, such as Harry as a (symbolic) Christian attempting to become (unconsciously) more Christlike or Harry as epic hero journeying (in every book) to the Underworld are possible. So are many other interpretations that ignore archetypes, symbols, and allegory. Carol, who thinks that the Christian symbolism is undeniable but is perfectly happy with other approaches to the books as long as they can be supported by canon From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 9 08:10:43 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:10:43 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse - an attribution error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186170 Geoff: I must apologise for an error in my message 186167. The two quotes attributed to k12listmomma were actually written by mmizstorge. Unfortunately, I misread the chevrons and the original quotes were not actually attributed. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 9 19:29:30 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:29:30 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186171 > mmizstorge: > I was more content to relate Harry's willingness to die after talking > to Dumbledore at King's Cross to the Bushido code: only a samurai > willing to die at any moment could be fully devoted to his lord. Zara: It is somewhat inconvenient to this novel intrepretation, that Harry talked to Albus *after* he had died. From bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net Wed Apr 8 15:37:21 2009 From: bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0400 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186172 No.Limberger, if one is really a Christian it isn't some hobby one practices on Sunday and puts on the shelf for the rest of the week (although I agree that there are a lot of nominal Christians who could be described this way), but something that permiates all ones thoughts and actions. Therefore it is impossible for a Christian to produce a work that has nothing to do with Christianity. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From no.limberger at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 13:58:45 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:58:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: <97772C5B16FA4C449BBB2C6D369D2347@homemain> Message-ID: <7ef72f90904100658r367aa47ekaf0adcf8690944fb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186173 >Magpie wrote: >I don't think that story was very uncommon at the time Christianity >started, actually. Saviors dying and then raising from the dead >for humanity etc.--I think Christianty was one of many cults with >that idea. >mmizstorge wrote: >Actually, in world mythology there are many deities who die and >are resurrected. The myth of Christ is but a fairly recent example. >I can name off the top of my head: Osiris, Inanna, Odin, Tammuz >and Dionysus. No.Limberger responds: Yes, a number of religions that predate Christianity included beliefs in a resurrected, dead mythological deity figure. Three more such figures in addition to the ones mentioned are Mithra, Krishna and Quetzalcoatl. Mithraism (a derivative of Zoroastrianism) bears many striking resemblances to Christianity and spread into Europe thanks to Roman soldiers who were attracted to its beliefs. According to its beliefs, the calendar date for the birth of Mithra is December 25th, he was born of a virgin in a cave, was visited by shepherds and three magi at the time of birth, later died and was resurrected. Mithra was known in Rome as 'Deus sol invictus' ("the unconquered sun"). The Roman emperor Commodus (ruled from 180 to 192) was initiated into the Mithraic cult. Thus, Mithraism was in direct competition with Christianity for several centuries until Emperor Constantine banned all non-Christian beliefs. The life and birth of Osiris, which goes back much further historically than Christianity is also strikingly similar to many Christian beliefs. It is possible that in addition to Judaism, Christianity may be, in part, a derivative of some of these beliefs and other similar pagan religions that predate it. >mmizstorge wrote: >A protagonist doesn't need to mimic the actions of a deity in order >to be heroic - nor does a character who dies and comes back from >the dead necessarily convey a Christian message. No.Limberger responds: Exactly. >mmizstorge wrote: >Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius, for example, died and came >back from the dead (frequently!) and the message of the books >in which he appeared was decidedly not a Christian one. No.Limberger responds: To presume that because an author has a particular set of beliefs is automatically going to mean that any produced works will convey those beliefs, and that this applies to all authors, is not supported. >Magpie wrote: >For it to really be pushing Christianity itself, imo, Harry would >have to be saved *through Christ* not die himself for others and return. > >I don't think HP as a story really says anything insightful about >Christianity. No.Limberger responds: I agree. >Magpie wrote: >There are places--particularly in Harry's final sacrifice and return-- >that I definitely figured Rowling was thinking of Christ. No.Limberger responds: While it is possible that the story of Jesus dying & resurrecting may have influenced this aspect of the HP story, the reasons and method for HP's death and return have nothing in common with the Christian belief in Jesus' death in resurrection. Hence, the similarity is superficial imo. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Apr 10 15:55:00 2009 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:55:00 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904100658r367aa47ekaf0adcf8690944fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: > > >Magpie wrote: > >I don't think that story was very uncommon at the time Christianity > >started, actually. Saviors dying and then raising from the dead > >for humanity etc.--I think Christianty was one of many cults with > >that idea. > > >mmizstorge wrote: > >Actually, in world mythology there are many deities who die and > >are resurrected. The myth of Christ is but a fairly recent example. > >I can name off the top of my head: Osiris, Inanna, Odin, Tammuz > >and Dionysus. > > No.Limberger responds: > Yes, a number of religions that predate Christianity included beliefs > in a resurrected, dead mythological deity figure. Three more such > figures in addition to the ones mentioned are Mithra, Krishna and > Quetzalcoatl. Mithraism (a derivative of Zoroastrianism) bears > many striking resemblances to Christianity and spread into Europe > thanks to Roman soldiers who were attracted to its beliefs. Annemehr: I think you all may be talking apples and oranges here. There are plenty of dying-and-rising deities, to be sure. But the people who are arguing Christian imagery and themes in HP are relating to the *savior* aspect of it. (This is in addition to the specific individual things such as friars and Bible quotes.) Out of your list of other deities, however, the ones whose deaths I know about have nothing to do with saving humanity, and thus don't apply to the issue at hand. Do any of them have a savior aspect? > > >Magpie wrote: > >I don't think HP as a story really says anything insightful about > >Christianity. > > No.Limberger responds: > I agree. > Annemehr: Me, too. But I believe JKR was at least exploring the questions. > >Magpie wrote: > >There are places--particularly in Harry's final sacrifice and return-- > >that I definitely figured Rowling was thinking of Christ. > > No.Limberger responds: > While it is possible that the story of Jesus dying & resurrecting > may have influenced this aspect of the HP story, the reasons and > method for HP's death and return have nothing in common with > the Christian belief in Jesus' death in resurrection. Hence, the > similarity is superficial imo. > > Annemehr: Well, there *is* that saving-people-thing. From no.limberger at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 16:42:00 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:42:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: <7ef72f90904100658r367aa47ekaf0adcf8690944fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ef72f90904100942ia6eb3dbm9fbd53b9f2481303@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186175 >Magpie wrote: >There are places--particularly in Harry's final sacrifice and return-- >that I definitely figured Rowling was thinking of Christ. > >No.Limberger responds: >While it is possible that the story of Jesus dying & resurrecting >may have influenced this aspect of the HP story, the reasons and >method for HP's death and return have nothing in common with >the Christian belief in Jesus' death in resurrection. Hence, the >similarity is superficial imo. > >Annemehr wrote: >Well, there *is* that saving-people-thing. No.Limberger responds: "Salvation" as it is referred to in Christianity is the antithesis of another Christian concept: that of everyone being guilty of "sin" due simply to having been born a human being. Thus, the goal of Christianity is for people to be "saved" from perceived "sins". This concept has nothing to do with Harry Potter, who was attempting to defeat Voldemort, who was essentially a cruel & egocentric would-be totalitarian dictator. By defeating Voldemort, Harry ensures that everyone in the WW, regardless of genetic heritage, would live in a free & open society and be treated equally. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 10 16:53:02 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:53:02 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904100658r367aa47ekaf0adcf8690944fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186176 No.Limberger wrote: > > To presume that because an author has a particular set of beliefs is automatically going to mean that any produced works will convey those beliefs, and that this applies to all authors, is not supported. Carol responds: No wthere's a nice, safe negative assertion worded in the passive voice. It's impossible to prove a negative (although it can be disproved by a single instance of evidence to the contrary). Not supported by whom or what? What's your source for this assertion? Just as your posts and mine and everyone else's reflect our values, education, and worldview, any author's works will automatically do the same. Our works reflect what we think, what we know or think we know, and who we are. JKR's works reflect an education and religious training and life experience acquired in modern Britain (and elsewhere in Europe). Not having lived in ancient Athens or Shakespeare's England, she could not have written Shakespeare's works or Plato's any more than those two authors could have written each other's works or JKR's. Like every other author who has ever written, JKR is a product of her culture, the particular time and place in which she lives. It cannot be otherwise. (I've already described that culture and the influences that shaped it, in particular Christianity, so I won't repeat that point.) Even if an author creates an imaginary world, that creation is based on his or her own experience (including what he or she has read) reshaped into new combinations. People may have blue hair (like Marge Simpson), but blue and hair are both parts of the everyday world we live in. An imaginary world may have two moons, but planets with more than one moon can be found in our own solar system. JKR's characters carry wands and mix potions. They believe in the existence of the soul. They take classes like Ancient Runes and Divination. All of these elements and (probably) every other element in the books is taken either from her reading or her own experience. And most (I won't say all) of the motifs, themes, incidents, images, and characters in her books are taken from one of four sources: everyday reality (universals), Judeo-Christianity, classical mythology, or fairytales and folk tales (most of them European but some perhaps from an English translation of the Arabian Nights, which became popular in England during the nineteenth century). An imaginary world cannot consist of elements of which the author has no experience. You can't imagine a color invisible to the human eye or a creature whose form you have not encountered. (Invented creatures consist of familiar elements recombined, whether they're the flying horses of Greek mythology or, say, eyeless, legless purple blobs.) The sources of JKR's WW are easily traceable. She didn't invent Basilisks or the potion ingredients she lists or witches, wizards, and warlocks. Even words like "Muggle" and names like Hogwarts and Hogsmeade are made from common English elements. An author's beliefs and values are part of the experience that shapes his works. They come across unconsciously in the assumptions he or she makes about the way the world works, even if that world is partly imaginary. And no author will write and publish a book that contradicts his own values and beliefs unless he or she is either mad or masochistic (or joking). JKR has openly stated that her books reflect her Christianity, just as Tolkien's books, though they took place in a wholly imaginary pre-Christian world, reflect his. As for the common ground shared by Mithraism and Christianity, I don't doubt that elements of other religions helped to shape Christian doctrine and texts (though others on this list may disagree with me). However, I didn't notice *self-sacrifice for the good of mankind* among the attributes of Mithra that you listed, and that's the relevant question here, the one that makes Harry a Christ figure and not a Mithra figure, if such a thing exists in European literature. Nor do I know of any evidence that JKR is familiar with Mithraism. Certainly, as a Christian, she has no reason to promote the agenda of a lost religion that once competed with Christianity. Carol, wondering if we should take this discussion to OT Chatter since we're not really discussing canon From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 10 17:41:43 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:41:43 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186177 Annemehr (to No.Limberger): > I think you all may be talking apples and oranges here. There are plenty of dying-and-rising deities, to be sure. But the people who are arguing Christian imagery and themes in HP are relating to the *savior* aspect of it. (This is in addition to the specific individual things such as friars and Bible quotes.) Carol responds: Exactly. And I'm adding the Christian heritage of Britain. We're not discussing the Arabian or African or Chinese or Native American WW here. No doubt those heritages, if JKR were to explore them, would have different cultural and religious influences. However, as they'r outside her experience, she'd have to research them to write about them convincingly. The HP books themselves deal explicitly and almost exclusively with a particular Western and (these days) secular Christian culture, that of Britain (wizard or Muggle). Annemehr: > Out of your list of other deities, however, the ones whose deaths I know about have nothing to do with saving humanity, and thus don't apply to the issue at hand. Do any of them have a savior aspect? > Carol: Good. Exactly the question to ask. It doesn't matter whether these gods are murdered and rise again (like Christ but unlike Harry, who doesn't really die). It matters whether, like Christ and Harry, they *willingly sacrificed themselves for the good of humankind* (or, in Harry's case, a portion of it. It also matters that JKR consciously intended the story to have "a savior aspect," as you call it, and that she has openly stated in several interviews that the story reflects her own Christianity. She also shows through the Resurrection Stone and the appearance of Dumbledore at what Harry envisions as King's Cross (note the symbolic implications of that name) that the soul is immortal and that repentance or the lack of it shapes the fate of the soul, a Judeo-Christian belief. (Other religions and mythologies posited the existence of an afterlife, but none that I'm aware of emphasized repentance or remorse as influencing the soul's fate. Even if other religions do share this belief, the Christian epitaphs, the Christmas Eve service, and the cross that Harry puts on the "grave" of Moody's eye--not to mention JKR's own Christianity--make it clear that it's Christianity she has in mind. And, of course, her own stated intentions make the point indisputable.) > > > > >Magpie wrote: > I don't think HP as a story really says anything insightful about Christianity. > > > > No.Limberger responded: > > I agree. > > Annemehr added: > Me, too. But I believe JKR was at least exploring the questions. Carol comments: And that's the point. She's exploring her own religious doubts, specifically the question of life after death, through this book, particularly DH. To quote from the interview that Alla linked to: "But while the book [DH] begins with a quote on the immortal soul ? and though Harry finds peace with his own death at the end of his journey ? it is the struggle itself which mirrors Rowling's own, the author said. "'The truth is that, like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes that my faith will return. It's something I struggle with a lot,' she revealed. 'On any given moment if you asked me [if] I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes ? that I do believe in life after death. [But] it's something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books.'" In connection with the question of life after death, we can contrast Voldemort, who thinks that death is the end of all things, with Dumbledore, who *knows* that it's the next great adventure, in this respect. We can contrast Harry (here perhaps representing JKR) feeling that his parents are just dead and he'll never see them again with Luna, who knows that the voices she hears behind the Veil are the voices of the dead and that she'll see her dead mother again some day. Aside from Harry as self-sacrificing Christ figure (again, not the same as Christ himself or an allegory of Christ like Aslan), we have the immortality and sanctity of the soul (which the evil Voldemort repeatedly violates) and the importance of repentance, all Christian motifs. > > >Magpie wrote: > > >There are places--particularly in Harry's final sacrifice and return--that I definitely figured Rowling was thinking of Christ. > > > > No.Limberger responded: > > While it is possible that the story of Jesus dying & resurrecting> may have influenced this aspect of the HP story, the reasons and method for HP's death and return have nothing in common with the Christian belief in Jesus' death in resurrection. Hence, the similarity is superficial imo. > > Annemehr: > Well, there *is* that saving-people-thing. > Carol responds: No Christ figure can exactly duplicate the circumstances of Christ's death and resurrection because the Christ figure are fully human and in that respect no different from the people that they save. No one is claiming that Harry is God, a god, or the Son of God. But the act of willingly going to his death to save the WW from Voldemort (along with a near-death experience that simulates resurrection) makes Harry a Christ figure as that term is defined by (Western) literary critics. It also makes him a Christ figure in the view of the author who created him. Carol: As I stated before, Western culture (including, of course, Britain) is based primarily on two great traditions, Judeo-Christianity and Greco-Roman classicism (or, as Matthew Arnold called them, Hebraism and Hellenism). JKR deliberately echoes both these traditions in the epigraphs of DH. To quote from the article again: "'Deathly Hallows' itself begins with two religiously themed epigraphs, one from 'The Libation Bearers' by Aeschylus, which calls on the gods to 'bless the children'; and one from [the Quaker] William Penn's 'More Fruits of Solitude,' which speaks of death as but 'crossing the world, as friends do the seas.' No other book in the series begins with epigraphs ? a curious fact, perhaps, but one that Rowling insists served as a guiding light. "'I really enjoyed choosing those two quotations because one is pagan, of course, and one is from a Christian tradition,' Rowling said of their inclusion. 'I'd known it was going to be those two passages since 'Chamber' was published. I always knew [that] if I could use them at the beginning of book seven then I'd cued up the ending perfectly. If they were relevant, then I went where I needed to go. "'They just say it all to me, they really do,' she added." Carol, who thinks that, if nothing else, these quotations along with the openly Christian motifs in DH firmly establish JKR's intention to write a Christian work or at least a work that explores Christian ideas and ideals From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 10 19:06:28 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:06:28 -0000 Subject: Christianity in DH: "The Lord's Prayer" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186178 It seems to me that our discussion of Christianity and Christian motifs in the HP books, especially DH, has shifted away from canon into discussions of various religions and mythologies (and, in the case of my own posts, to European and British history). I'd like to bring it back to canon by showing some parallels between the much-maligned camping-in-the-wilderness segment of DH and the Lord's prayer. Please understand that I am not saying that JKR deliberately intended any such parallels, only that they're there for those who look for them. I'll start by quoting the traditional version of the Lord's prayer for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with it: "Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. "Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. "For thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory. Forever and ever. Amen." I'm going to (for the most part) ignore the first and last paragraphs (my paragraphing) because they are more explicitly Judeo-Christian (Jesus was a Jew) than DH is, for all its overtly Christian elements discussed elsewhere. (Sidenote: We've talked about self-sacrifice, but is any other religion based on love, another important motif in the HP books?) I'll start by saying that, in a way, Harry (like Christ) is doing the will of a father figure, knowing that it could well lead to his death, Dumbledore. I will not, however, directly equate Dumbledore with God, even with the sometimes inscrutable and seemingly capricious God of the Old Testament. But it's possible that Harry, like any good person trying to do the right thing (and/or to save others from evil) is willy nilly doing God's will. That possibility aside, the first paragraph isn't all that applicable to the story. Supposing, however, that instead of regarding God as the father of us all (much less as the dead Dumbledore or Portrait!DD), we think of God as Providence, the term used for God by the Quakers (?) for God's divine guidance and sustaining power. (the idea is based on Genesis 22:14, "The Lord will provide.") Here we have three teenagers alone for several months in the wilderness with nothing but a (magical) tent and Hermione's knowledge of magic to protect them. (Muggle teenagers in the same circumstances most likely would not have survived.) To get back to the Lord's Prayer. Granted, the kids aren't praying or thinking about God at all most of the time (the Godric's Hollow experience partially excepted), but somehow most of the middle section of the Lord's Prayer still applies to their situation. Alone as they are, and helpless as they are (as we when the Snatchers capture them), the are somehow provided for. "Give us this day our daily bread." Magic can't conjure food. That's one of its chief limitations (along with not being able to restore the dead to life. Yet, somehow, even in the depths of winter, they find food. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." This idea is central to the whole book. Harry ends up forgiving the trespasses against him by a number of people, most crucially Snape and Dumbledore, who tried despite their serious human flaws and failings to help him, and Voldemort, who had nothing but evil intentions regarding him and his parents. (He offers Voldemort a chance for redemption based on repentance.) In the camping segment, first Harry and then Hermione forgive Ron for his trespass against them in angrily deserting them. (He also apparently forgives Draco with less cause on two occasions later in the book and also, futilely, forgives Wormtail.) Forgiveness of sins not by God but by the person or persons sinned against is a very important (and very Christian) motif in DH, replacing the desire for revenge that predominates in the earlier books (and appears one last time in the Crucioing of Amycus Carrow before Harry's trip into the Pensieve and his self-sacrifice in the forest). "Lead us not into temptation." This line is a tough one to fit into the camping section or DH in general since Harry *is* led into temptation, not by God/Providence but by Dumbledore in the form of the Hallows (which he later rightly rejects in favor of the Horcruxes). He also yields to the temptation to follow "Bathilda" (really Nagini, who can perhaps be equated to the snake in Eden if we choose to look at her that way). Speaking the name of Voldemort despite being warned against it could perhaps also be regarded as yielding to temptation. In both cases, the consequences are extremely unpleasant, bringing Harry into great danger. "But deliver us from evil." Harry is delivered at the last second from Nagini and Voldemort and does not die (thanks to the "providential" love magic of his mother's self-sacrifice) from Nagini's venom. Harry is also saved from the (literal) clutches of the Horcrux by the returning Ron, who is following Snape's Patronus, a kind of angelic messenger representing the dead Lily. (Snape himself would, I think, have saved Harry had Ron not "providentially" arrived, but he was not, of course, sent by DD for that purpose.) Later (technically not in the wilderness section), Harry and his friends are saved by an "angel" in House-Elf form, Dobby (who also sacrifices himself to save his friends, but not quite in the same way as Harry, who consciously chooses to face death unarmed knowing the consequences for the WW but not for himself). The last paragraph, "For thine is the kingdom," etc., is less relevant though it does relate indirectly to the motifs of the immortal soul and the afterlife. Again, I am not saying that JKR intended any such parallels (though she did include explitly Christian elements). I just thought that the things that Christians ask God (not Jesus) to do through the Lord's Prayer (which is Jesus' own prayer to God the Father) relate to the needs and experiences of HRH, specifically in the camping section but also throughout DH. Comments, anyone? I'm not trying to anger, upset, or antagonize anyone, nor do I consider what I've said here as a definitive interpretation. I'm just presenting parallels that I find interesting for the sake of discussion. Carol, trying to get back to canon From no.limberger at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 19:43:23 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:43:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ef72f90904101243l64fa7425jf2bb8218abd72ac1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186179 >Carol responds: >No Christ figure can exactly duplicate the circumstances of Christ's >death and resurrection because the Christ figure are fully human >and in that respect no different from the people that they save. >No one is claiming that Harry is God, a god, or the Son of God. >But the act of willingly going to his death to save the WW from >Voldemort (along with a near-death experience that simulates >resurrection) makes Harry a Christ figure as that term is defined >by (Western) literary critics. It also makes him a Christ figure in >the view of the author who created him. No.Limberger responds: Do you believe that firefighters are Christ figures? They do rather heroic things like going into burning buildings to save others' lives. This would make any firefighter who has ever died in the line of duty of Christ figure. The same would be true for any policeman, soldier, paramedic, nurse, doctor, bystander, etc. who gave his/her life to save someone else's life. Darth Vader can also be a Christ figure because he gave his life to save his son's from the evil emperor, as would many other characters from Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Superman, Spider-man, Batman, and the list just goes on and on and on, including pagan mythological figures who did the same thing, like Hercules. Of course, Harry never saw the face of Christ in toast, tortillas or seat cushions as some people in real life have claimed. People perceive reality the way that they want to perceive it. If someone wants to see HP as a Christ figure, then that is what they are going to see because they want to see it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 10 22:48:34 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:48:34 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904101243l64fa7425jf2bb8218abd72ac1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186180 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: No.Limberger: > Do you believe that firefighters are Christ figures? They do rather > heroic things like going into burning buildings to save others' > lives. This would make any firefighter who has ever died in the line > of duty of Christ figure. The same would be true for any policeman, > soldier, paramedic, nurse, doctor, bystander, etc. who gave his/her > life to save someone else's life. Darth Vader can also be a > Christ figure because he gave his life to save his son's from the > evil emperor, as would many other characters from Star Wars, > Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Superman, Spider-man, Batman, > and the list just goes on and on and on, including pagan mythological > figures who did the same thing, like Hercules. Of course, Harry never > saw the face of Christ in toast, tortillas or seat cushions as some > people in real life have claimed. > > People perceive reality the way that they want to perceive it. If > someone wants to see HP as a Christ figure, then that is what > they are going to see because they want to see it. Geoff: I see your point to some extent because I have argued against anyone being a Christ figure whereas they can be Christ-like. I believe that God has created in us a conscience and also the existence of an altruistic part of our soul whereby we come to the aid of people in trouble. If you look at disasters such as the Italian earthquake or even going back to the 11th September or 7th July attacks, you will see ordinary folk performing remarkable feats to assist those caught up in these events. Ordinarily, they would not pay much attention to other passers -by in the street but the enormity of events brings out a new level of action. Your emergency service personnel such as firefighters are exercising this because they have chosen to make this altruism their work. Many members of the professions you list would say that they had not taken up just a job but a vocation; I did, as a teacher. I sometimes wonder if you are deliberately choosing to be obtuse because those of us who are Christians or lean in favour of the Christian story see your links to mythical figures and your comic book characters as being irrelevant to the matter. There is historical evidence that Jesus was a real person and that other people who are involved in the Biblical narrative of Easter were also real. Being a Christian is not like signing up to join a golf club and agreeing to a set or rules. It is the result of a personal experience of God which brings about a completely changed concept of what life is about. Bruce made this clear when he pointed out that our belief is not just "Sunday only" and that JKR would almost certainly bring her belief into her story, even subconsciously. Carol also argued very cogently that an author would draw on their own culture, beliefs and attitudes when writing a book of this nature. At the risk of becoming boring, various contributors to the thread have listed numerous items, events and even comments in the book which can only really be interpreted as a nod to Christianity. As you have said, we perceive reality in the way we want to perceive it. In that case, we have to accept that other people have different ideas without trying to discredit or rubbish those views or bulldoze through our own. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 10 23:55:19 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:55:19 -0000 Subject: Christ figures in literature (LOTR spoilers) In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904101243l64fa7425jf2bb8218abd72ac1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186181 Carol earlier: > >No Christ figure can exactly duplicate the circumstances of Christ's death and resurrection because the Christ figure are fully human and in that respect no different from the people that they save. No one is claiming that Harry is God, a god, or the Son of God. But the act of willingly going to his death to save the WW from Voldemort (along with a near-death experience that simulates resurrection) makes Harry a Christ figure as that term is defined by (Western) literary critics. It also makes him a Christ figure in the view of the author who created him. > > No.Limberger responds: > Do you believe that firefighters are Christ figures? They do rather heroic things like going into burning buildings to save others'lives. This would make any firefighter who has ever died in the line of duty of Christ figure. The same would be true for any policeman, soldier, paramedic, nurse, doctor, bystander, etc. who gave his/her life to save someone else's life. Carol responds: A Christ figure is a *literary* convention or device in which a Christian author creates a character who in some way or ways resembles Christ. Firefighters are undoubtedly heroic and risk death to save others, but they don't generally save others *through* their deaths, nor have I ever heard of a firefighter who rises from the dead. Harry cannot save the WW by rushing into the (figurative) flames and bringing them with him to safety. He can only save it by willingly giving himself up to be killed. Only through his death (he thinks) can the Horcrux be destroyed. (And he would in fact have died if it weren't for that drop of shared blood.) Harry, unlike a Muggle firefighter, goes to the point at which he could choose to "go on" to the afterlife--an option not available to us Muggles. That experience serves in literary terms as a symbolic death and resurrection. Combine the self-sacrifice to save the WW and the "resurrection" and you have a Christ figure. [Warning: LOTR spoilers follow. If you're that rare person who hasn't read the book or seen the film or "spoiled" by online spoilers, don't read on.] It would be entirely possible for a Christian author to write about a heroic firefighter (or policeman or whatever) who has a near-death experience after saving someone, and I suppose that character could be depicted as a Christ figure, but probably not. The character would not be *consciously choosing death to save a whole group of people* as Harry goes to what he thinks will be his death to save the WW (or Frodo enters Mordor and struggles toward Mount Doom and what he believes to be certain death to save the Shire). There's a difference in literature between a hero and a Christ figure. Assuming that you've read LOTR, you know that Aragorn is a hero in the epic and classic sense and Frodo is just a little Hobbit. But it's Frodo, not Aragorn, who can be viewed as (or has characteristics common to) a christ figure. Gandalf is that rare beinf, a heroic figure who also sacrifices himself and is resurrected (as opposed to being saved from near-death, like Frodo), but he doesn't save the Shire and the Western World: Frodo does (with a great deal of help from Sam and a last-minute action by Gollum without which Frodo would have failed). At any rate, either or both of these characters can be (and have been) interpreted by literary critics as Christ figures. No.Limberger: Darth Vader can also be a Christ figure because he gave his life to save his son's from the evil emperor, Carol: I hate to contradict you straight out, but, no, he can't. Darth Vader is a failed Christ figure. He could have been the Chosen One saving thousands of people and beings. Instead, he slaughters hundreds of people for revenge. In the end, like Snape (who sins are much smaller), he repents and dies to save his son. But that doesn't make him a Christ figure any more than Snape is a Christ figure for dying rather than reveal that Draco is the true master of the Elder Wand. A Christ figure must do more than sacrifice his life (and, in most cases, be resurrected in some form). He must also be Christlike in other respects--showing great love or humility, for example. If a hero is not a Christ figure (and most heroes aren't), a redeemed villain (or redeemed quasi-villain in Snape's case) certainly is not. No.Limberger: > Of course, Harry never saw the face of Christ in toast, tortillas or seat cushions as some people in real life have claimed. Carol: How do such delusions relate to the depiction of Christ figures in literature? No Christ figure sees the face of Christ in anything. No.Limberger: > People perceive reality the way that they want to perceive it. If someone wants to see HP as a Christ figure, then that is what they are going to see because they want to see it. Carol responds: Yes and no. To qualify as a Christ figure, a character has to have certain characteristics and the author who created him or her has to be a Christian. We can't call, say, Oedipus, a Christ figure for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that Christianity didn't exist yet when "Oedipus Rex" was written even if Oedipus fit the mold in other respects. We can't call Darth Vader a Christ figure, either, since he failed miserably to save the worlds he was supposed to save. We could probably call Luke Skywalker a Christ figure though I don't remember the original movies well enough to state that point definitively. My point is that you can't simply impose your chosen reading on any piece of literature. I can't say, for example, that "Hamlet" is a feminist tract or that "Moby Dick" is an early example of the Save the Whales mentality. I can't read Voldemort as the hero of the HP books. I can only read and interpret what is actually there in the text. Very few characters in literature can be classed as Christ figures. They may be heroes who die saving others or martyrs who die for a cause, but neither of those deaths is sufficient to make a character a Christ figure. In Harry's case we have a Christian author who says that she is exploring Christian themes and a protagonist who 1) chooses to sacrifice himself to save his world 2) figuratively or symbolically rises from the dead 3) demonstrates love, forgiveness, and other Christian values, having rejected hatred and revenge 4) is essentially a good person, not a redeemed villain There are heroes throughout HP, along with one redeemed quasi-villain who is also a hero. But there's only one Christ figure. Unless, of course, you want to argue that Dobby is a Christ figure on a small scale, but I've already given my reasons for rejecting him for that role. If you're not familiar with the concept of Christ figure in literary criticism (and I mean "you" in the general sense), I suggest reading a bit about the concept. Wikipedia, much as I hate it, will do for starters though it classes Aslan as a Christ figure rather than an allegory of Christ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ-figure For fun, here's a debate on whether Harry is a Christ figure: http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Books/2002/11/Harry-Potter-Christ-Figure.aspx For the record, I'm not saying that Harry *is* a Christ figure. I'm saying that he *can be legitimately interpreted* as a Christ figure as, say, Snape, Dumbledore, Lupin, Tonks, Mad-eye, and other good characters who die in the book cannot. ("Good" in this sense does not mean pleasant or loving; it means on the side of good.) Carol, noting again that a Christ figure is a literary convention, not a blanket concept that can be applied to any character at will > From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Apr 11 04:07:41 2009 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 04:07:41 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904100942ia6eb3dbm9fbd53b9f2481303@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186182 > No.Limberger responds: > "Salvation" as it is referred to in Christianity is the antithesis of > another Christian concept: that of everyone being guilty of "sin" > due simply to having been born a human being. Thus, > the goal of Christianity is for people to be "saved" from > perceived "sins". This concept has nothing to do with Harry > Potter, who was attempting to defeat Voldemort, who > was essentially a cruel & egocentric would-be totalitarian > dictator. By defeating Voldemort, Harry ensures that everyone > in the WW, regardless of genetic heritage, would live in a > free & open society and be treated equally. > Annemehr again: True, Harry did not save people from their "guilt." But no one's arguing that HP = the New Testament. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Harry is human. He can't save souls (assuming they need saving), only lives. He's not perfect. He doesn't even know if there is a God. I also sincerely doubt that he even managed to ensure a free and open WW society (unless the world is divided between good people and Death Eaters, after all). That doesn't prevent him from being a literary Christ-figure. All he needs are certain similarities, and, as people have already pointed out, he's got them. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sat Apr 11 18:48:49 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:48:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin References: <7ef72f90904100658r367aa47ekaf0adcf8690944fb@mail.gmail.com> <7ef72f90904100942ia6eb3dbm9fbd53b9f2481303@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186183 >>Annemehr wrote: >>Well, there *is* that saving-people-thing. > > No.Limberger responds: > "Salvation" as it is referred to in Christianity is the antithesis of > another Christian concept: that of everyone being guilty of "sin" > due simply to having been born a human being. Thus, > the goal of Christianity is for people to be "saved" from > perceived "sins". This concept has nothing to do with Harry > Potter, who was attempting to defeat Voldemort, who > was essentially a cruel & egocentric would-be totalitarian > dictator. By defeating Voldemort, Harry ensures that everyone > in the WW, regardless of genetic heritage, would live in a > free & open society and be treated equally. Shelley's response to N.Limberger: I think you miss the POINT of salvation in Christianity: sin is considered akin to "slavery"- it's a bondage, and after one receives the blood of Christ applied to one's life, you are "free". Paul writes a lot of about this view of Christianity in the book of Romans. I see this same theme in HP: Voldemort holds the WW in bondage and fear and terror. Harry is dying to "free" the WW of Voldemort. You are making an artificial, and I think superficial distinction between sin being an "idea" and Voldemort being a "dictator", yet miss the larger application of "freedom" and "lack of freedom". The goal isn't just salvation from sins, it's to live a life free of the bondage that sin creates. Sin separates us from God- Salvation brings back unity and restoration. Sin brings death- salvation restores life again. I see these parallels in HP- for after Voldemort is removed from the WW, clearly the people are free to live again and be restored back to freedom. Shelley From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 11 00:34:19 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:34:19 -0000 Subject: Christ figures in literature (LOTR spoilers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186184 > Carol: > > For the record, I'm not saying that Harry *is* a Christ figure. > I'm saying that he *can be legitimately interpreted* as a Christ > figure as, say, Snape, Dumbledore, Lupin, Tonks, Mad-eye, and > other good characters who die in the book cannot. ("Good" in this > sense does not mean pleasant or loving; it means on the side of > good.) > > Carol, noting again that a Christ figure is a literary convention, > not a blanket concept that can be applied to any character at will Sartoris22: I agree with Carol. Harry is certainly a Christ-figure, and a rather obvious one. As we read the books, it becomes clearer as he has to choose to be "the Chosen One' and willingly scarifice himself for the sake of the world. Actually, the ressurection scene surprised me somewhat because I didn't think that Rowling would go there, but she did. I was always irritated with Harry's saintliness and wanted to see more of his flaws, the teenage angst in OOTP not compelling enough for me. Still, you have to admire Rowling's convictions. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 12 16:57:20 2009 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Apr 2009 16:57:20 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/12/2009, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1239555440.841.37901.m8@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186185 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 12, 2009 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 2009 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 no.limberger at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 18:18:49 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:18:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: References: <7ef72f90904100658r367aa47ekaf0adcf8690944fb@mail.gmail.com> <7ef72f90904100942ia6eb3dbm9fbd53b9f2481303@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7ef72f90904121118v36239dddtfcf7b3e51f4f04e8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186186 >>Annemehr wrote: >>Well, there *is* that saving-people-thing. > > No.Limberger responds: > "Salvation" as it is referred to in Christianity is the antithesis of > another Christian concept: that of everyone being guilty of "sin" > due simply to having been born a human being. Thus, > the goal of Christianity is for people to be "saved" from > perceived "sins". This concept has nothing to do with Harry > Potter, who was attempting to defeat Voldemort, who > was essentially a cruel & egocentric would-be totalitarian > dictator. By defeating Voldemort, Harry ensures that everyone > in the WW, regardless of genetic heritage, would live in a > free & open society and be treated equally. >Shelley's wrote: >I think you miss the POINT of salvation in Christianity. No.Limberger responds: Christianity is not the only religion. Approximately 1/3 of the Earth's population regards themselves as being Christian; the other 2/3 (the majority) are not Christian. Because Christians view their religion as the only acceptable religion (an exclusive religion as defined by John 14:6), Christians are often insulated from considering other points of view. "Salvation", according to Christians, is necessary because Christians view everyone to be born in sin. The concept of "being born in sin" is a Christian concept that is not shared by every religion. The only available solution to sin for Christians is "salvation" by believing in Jesus. If an individual is not Christian, the Christian guilt-sin complex does not apply, nor, consequently, does the Christian "salvation" concept. Of course, this brings us back to the first sentence of this paragraph: Christianity is an exclusive religion; so any views from a non-Christian perspective are automatically brushed aside and rejected. Christian exclusivity has also formed, within some Christian minds, a sense of pride and superiority over all other religious beliefs. This sense of superiority is what has lead to many forms of intolerance, as well as an obsessive need to convert entire populations to Christianity's beliefs. "You are a sinner, you must be saved" is a typical Christian point of view that has, not surprisingly, manifested in the course of this discussion because some are determined to make others accept their "Christ-figure" interpretation of Harry Potter the only plausible interpretation. While JK Rowling may have indeed been influenced by her personal religious beliefs in the writing of the Harry Potter novels, there was clearly no overt attempt by JKR to use the novels to proselytize. She no doubt recognized the universality of many of the ideas that she drew upon, which is why the novels are so popular worldwide: a world that is 2/3 non-Christian. Initial rejection of Harry Potter by religious believers came not from non-Christians, but from Christians who viewed the stories about wizardry and witchcraft as being condemned by the bible: specifically, by the following biblical passages: Exodus 22:18, Deut. 18:10-11, Galations 5:19-20 and Revelations 21:8. No doubt the revelation from JKR that Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter's mentor, is gay, made some Christians who reject Harry Potter for the reasons stated above even more intolerant of Harry Potter due to the bible's rejection of anyone being gay. The argument often being presented here of Harry Potter being a "Christ-figure", is imo, an internal Christian argument between those Christians who have chosen to identify Harry Potter with Jesus and those Christians who reject Harry Potter over witchcraft, wizardry and homosexuality. The argument has no relevance to non-Christians since (1) they may have no familiarity with any Christian beliefs and/or (2) may identify with Harry Potter within their own beliefs. People who wish to identify with Harry Potter as a Christ-figure are as equally able to do so as those who do not. To reiterate my point of view, each individual sees in Harry Potter what they want to see; it is neither right nor wrong to view Harry Potter as a Christ figure. In none of my postings have I insisted that anyone not view Harry Potter as a Christ figure. If you wish to view Harry Potter as a Christ figure, then do so; but not everyone does nor should that point of view be imposed upon them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 12 18:40:45 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:40:45 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904121118v36239dddtfcf7b3e51f4f04e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186187 > No.Limberger responds: > While JK Rowling may have indeed been influenced > by her personal religious beliefs in the writing of the > Harry Potter novels, there was clearly no overt attempt > by JKR to use the novels to proselytize. She no > doubt recognized the universality of many of the ideas > that she drew upon, which is why the novels are so > popular worldwide: a world that is 2/3 non-Christian. Alla: I just want to know whose argument are you trying to rebut here? Quote please? Who argued that JKR attempted to use the novels to proselytize? > No.Limberger responds: The argument often being presented here > of Harry Potter being a "Christ-figure", is imo, an > internal Christian argument between those Christians > who have chosen to identify Harry Potter with Jesus > and those Christians who reject Harry Potter over > witchcraft, wizardry and homosexuality. The argument > has no relevance to non-Christians since (1) they > may have no familiarity with any Christian beliefs and/or > (2) may identify with Harry Potter within their own > beliefs. Alla: Could you please not speak for all non-christian members of the group? I find the interpretation of Harry Potter as Christ figure to be extremely relevant interpretation in literary criticism. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 12 18:44:34 2009 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:44:34 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186188 Frank Dadds wrote in : << I've noticed that JKR is a _woman_ and a _human_ and I've seen evidence of those influences in her writing. On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that she might be another type of life form. Ho hum! >> That could be an interesting topic to discuss: if we had only the books and no author bio at all, what in the text could lead one to think that the author was a woman or a man? BAW wrote in : << Therefore it is impossible for a [committed] Christian to produce a work that has nothing to do with Christianity. >> Not even a chemistry textbook? Carol wrote in : << You can't imagine a color invisible to the human eye or a creature whose form you have not encountered. >> I believe that some people, who have good visual imaginations, can indeed imagine a color invisible to the human eye. I would suppose that they can imagine it only because they already have the experience of color, but there ARE colorblind people and maybe I should let them speak for themselves. Definitely people can imagine forms previously unknown, and formless creatures, or the particle physicists, unable to imagine what they have discovered, would be unable to describe their discoveries. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 12 20:00:16 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:00:16 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904121118v36239dddtfcf7b3e51f4f04e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: No Limberger: > The argument often being presented here > of Harry Potter being a "Christ-figure", is imo, an > internal Christian argument between those Christians > who have chosen to identify Harry Potter with Jesus > and those Christians who reject Harry Potter over > witchcraft, wizardry and homosexuality. Geoff: I would say not. I am an evangelical Christian but that does not make me disassociate myself with gay people. These folk do not wake up one day and say "From today I am going to be gay". It is not a choice. the choice lies in how they work out their orientation in their lives. It is strange that many people get hot under the collar about JKR's books and yet seem to be quite happy with the works of C S Lewis and J R R Tolkien. Lewis has the White Witch, an evil witch who has Narnia in thrall under a spell and is not slow to use dark magic on anyone getting in her way. Tolkien has Sauron, and his former master Morgoth, as evil sorcerers who also maintain their sway with dark magic and the recruitment of evil-minded beings to do their dirt work for them. The question of the Christ figure, for me, is that no human person can be Christ or carry the responsibility of Christ in overcoming sin. Jesus was God in human form; no human is. Harry, like us, can be Christ-like which we can be; that, as I have said before, does not make us infallible, saintly or superior. Despite what another contributor has written, I do not see that JKR created a character irritating in his saintliness. I see him as an Everyman, like us, trying to find his way through life and deterine the best way forward. I see myself in him as a teenager trying to get into adulthood with a minimum of mess-ups. My belief is that the internal dichotomy which you mention above stems from my last paragraph and not the roots which you suggest. No Limberger: > In none of my postings have I insisted that anyone not view > Harry Potter as a Christ figure. If you wish to view Harry Potter > as a Christ figure, then do so; but not everyone does nor > should that point of view be imposed upon them. Geoff: Which runs counter to the many posts which have discussed JKR's approach to the underlying ethos and culture of her books which are UK-based, Perhaps you have not been insistent, but the obverse to your statement is also true. You come over in some of your posts as being critical of those who disagree with your findings. This may be the old problem of trying to express views in writing without the nuances of face-to-face conversation available to us. Perhaps I do the same; if so, I apologise, but I try to work to what I said in a post yesterday: "As you have said, we perceive reality in the way we want to perceive it. In that case, we have to accept that other people have different ideas without trying to discredit or rubbish those views or bulldoze through our own." From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 12 20:11:16 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:11:16 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186190 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: Catlady: > BAW wrote in : > > << Therefore it is impossible for a [committed] Christian to produce a work that has nothing to do with Christianity. >> > > Not even a chemistry textbook? Geoff; Now come on, that was very tongue-in-cheek, wasn't it. Within the context of the thread, Bruce was referring to fictional work where a writer would draw on their imaginative and cultural sources for their work - which is what JKR has claimed to do on occasions. There again, if you believe that God created the world (as I and many group members do), a chemistry book has a lot to do with Christianity, hasn't it? And I'm sure the same could be claimed for a Potions textbook. :-) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 13 00:10:45 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:10:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin References: <7ef72f90904100658r367aa47ekaf0adcf8690944fb@mail.gmail.com> <7ef72f90904100942ia6eb3dbm9fbd53b9f2481303@mail.gmail.com> <7ef72f90904121118v36239dddtfcf7b3e51f4f04e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186191 > No.Limberger responds: > While JK Rowling may have indeed been influenced > by her personal religious beliefs in the writing of the > Harry Potter novels, there was clearly no overt attempt > by JKR to use the novels to proselytize. Shelley: I think you are arguing from a false definition here: to have a "Christ figure" in any piece of literature, one DOES NOT have to use the written work to proselytize. That's not the point of having a "Christ figure" at all. I think you really miss the fact that any well known story/figure can be used as a frame work- a familiar concept to one's readers so that you don't have to explain everything down to the smallest detail. You use a familiar cultural concept so that you have a base to start from. The readers "get it" because they recognize the framework. Rowling even said she didn't want to expose Harry as the Christ figure too soon, as it would have given away that ending. Had she said that anywhere in book 5 or 6, we would have accurately predicted all too well the Harry-Horcrux to be killed off so that Voldemort could be killed, and the ending wouldn't have been nearly as anticipated for revealing something new. I think all of your statistics of who isn't Christian is rather irrelevant to this discussion, in that 1) the Christ story isn't limited to just "Christians" knowing about it- frankly, I think it's gotten around the whole world by now (i.e., you could be a Muslim and still understand what is a Christ-figure in literature), and 2) the use of a Christ figure doesn't detract from an non-Christian's enjoyment of the story. The use of a Christ-figure just predicts where the ending of the story might go. Proselyzation has nothing to do with using a common element to build a story, and one's enjoyment of a story with a Christ figure in it. We are not talking about building a religion here, but using symbolism that is commonly understood. I said you missed the point of sin/salvation in the Christian story, and I said that in specific reference to Harry being a Christ figure in DH, in particular. If you know that the point of having one's sin's removed is restoration and freedom, then you understand what Harry was dying for as a Christ figure, what he was giving back to the WW. He wasn't dying for anyone's sins, but the restoration of the WW back to a time when they didn't live in terror of one Wizard, back to a time when they were all free to have relationships, marry and have kids, have shops and open commerce without manipulation, control or bondage from Voldemort. He was dying for reconciliation. Rowling didn't have to explain all that post-Voldemort liberation, because if you understand that liberation from sin, you understand the JOY that would have been the WW's without Voldemort. Rowling then didn't have to fill in all those details for us- they would have been easily understood. > No.Limberger responds: > People who wish to identify with Harry Potter as a > Christ-figure are as equally able to do so as those who > do not. To reiterate my point of view, each individual > sees in Harry Potter what they want to see; it is > neither right nor wrong to view Harry Potter as a > Christ figure. Shelley: I think that saying that "anyone who wishes to not see Harry as a Christ-figure is just free to do so" is just as warped as trying to say that Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Civil Rights Activist. There are facts, clearly backed up by the Harry Potter text, by Rowling herself of intent and direction of her works, and I think you clearly have to ignore all those facts to come to any other conclusion. Are you "free" to do so? Sure, any idiot can ignore facts, but that doesn't make those facts go away, and nor will it change the majority of people all coming to the same conclusion that is different from that single person. The single nut job will always exist, denying common experience to make it something else (Elvis was really an alien from outer space!)- sure you can have different opinions, but that doesn't make those opinions supportable. I just say absolutely the supposition that Harry is NOT a Christ-figure is not supportable. The facts all align in the other direction. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 13 00:22:50 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:22:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] some replies which are direct but off topic References: Message-ID: <86C1B0E029494FA38211FDCA3F86C410@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186192 > Frank Dadds wrote in > : > << I've noticed that JKR is a _woman_ and a _human_ and I've seen > evidence of those influences in her writing. On the other hand, I haven't > seen any evidence to indicate that she might be another type of life form. > Ho hum! >> From: "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > That could be an interesting topic to discuss: if we had only the books > and no author bio at all, what in the text could lead one to think that > the author was a woman or a man? Shelley Hum... I think there might be fair evidence for the supposition that Rowling was a man, given that beyond the Hermione hero, women aren't very celebrated or in prominent positions. As a society, men are in charge, and talented women like Molly are home raising babies or unmarried in the classroom like McGonagall are. If I didn't know better, I might very well guess that Rowling was a man. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 13 01:20:34 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:20:34 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Frank Dadds wrote in : > > << I've noticed that JKR is a _woman_ and a _human_ and I've seen > evidence of those influences in her writing. On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that she might be another type of life form. Ho hum! >> > > That could be an interesting topic to discuss: if we had only the books and no author bio at all, what in the text could lead one to think that the author was a woman or a man? > > BAW wrote in : > > << Therefore it is impossible for a [committed] Christian to produce a work that has nothing to do with Christianity. >> > > Not even a chemistry textbook? > > Carol wrote in : > > << You can't imagine a color invisible to the human eye or a creature whose form you have not encountered. >> > > I believe that some people, who have good visual imaginations, can indeed imagine a color invisible to the human eye. I would suppose that they can imagine it only because they already have the experience of color, but there ARE colorblind people and maybe I should let them speak for themselves. > > Definitely people can imagine forms previously unknown, and formless creatures, or the particle physicists, unable to imagine what they have discovered, would be unable to describe their discoveries. > Carpl responds: But they would understand and describe those creatures in terms of know concepts--color, shape, etc. If, for example, I've never seen a plesiosaur (and, of course, I haven't), I can nevertheless imagine what one must have looked like because the scientist describing it would describe it in terms that human beings can relate to. By the same token, we can imagine protoplasm without ever having seen it because it can be described in known terms ("shapeless blob" perhaps being one. And even if we can imagine colors we haven't seen, which I still don't think is possible, we're still using the known human concept of color. To return to HP and JKR before we go too far afield here, almost everything in her books is taken from some aspect of Western civilization (extended to include ancient Egypt which Europeans learned about via the Greeks). Can you think of anything that she invented from scratch? Sure, she invented specific spells, but she didn't invent the concept of spells or wands and she gave them quasi-Latin names. The genres she writes in are known genres of Western literature. My point is that JKR, like every other author, writes about what she knows from experience or is familiar with through reading or the mass media (ahich I forgot to mention before), and adapts to her own creative purposes, much as Tolkien adapted Norse mythology, Icelandic saga, and other influences to his. (Even his invented languages are based on known languages.) As I said before, I can clearly see at least four sources for JKR's themes, motifs, plots, characters, etc.: universal human experience, Judeo-Christianity (largely secularized), Greek and Roman mythology, and fairytales and folktales (along with the Arthurian legends). A few other elements like flying carpets creep into the story as they have crept into Western literature via the Arabian Nights. Like all Western authors, JKR's writing reflects her experience with Western culture. An Asian, African, or Native American author would have written a different book. Even if he or she had carefully researched British culture past and present and spent a year or two living in England or Scotland, the book would not have the same very British flavor. For that matter, an American or a French person could not have written it even though they share the Western cultural heritage of Britain. We are the sum of our experiences (and our genes, but I won't go there). And even if we write about a different time, place, and culture than our own (as JKR wrote about the imaginary Wizarding World set within our own Muggle world), that work will reflect our education and our values. Carol, afraid that we're wandering from the point by focusing on minutiae From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 13 01:32:15 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:32:15 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186194 > Shelley: > I said you missed the point of sin/salvation in the Christian story, and I > said that in specific reference to Harry being a Christ figure in DH, in > particular. If you know that the point of having one's sin's removed is > restoration and freedom, then you understand what Harry was dying for as a > Christ figure, what he was giving back to the WW. He wasn't dying for > anyone's sins, but the restoration of the WW back to a time when they didn't > live in terror of one Wizard, back to a time when they were all free to have > relationships, marry and have kids, have shops and open commerce without > manipulation, control or bondage from Voldemort. He was dying for > reconciliation. Rowling didn't have to explain all that post-Voldemort > liberation, because if you understand that liberation from sin, you > understand the JOY that would have been the WW's without Voldemort. Rowling > then didn't have to fill in all those details for us- they would have been > easily understood. Magpie: I feel compelled to put in here that I saw Harry as a Christ figure in DH but didn't see any reason to fill in any of those details. Voldemort was one villain and Harry killed him (or caused him to be killed) and so the WW went back to the state it was in before. I didn't see anything on the level of what a Christian would consider the freedom one gets through Christ, nor, frankly, the great joy that would be associated with that. Harry, I thought, was a Christ figure since he went out to intentionally die and that put a spell in motion that protected people magically and he also seemed to come back, but the Voldemort threat seemed purely secular to me. Much more like defeating Hitler than defeating sin. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 13 02:09:13 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:09:13 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186195 No Limberger wrote: > > No Limberger: > > The argument often being presented here of Harry Potter being a "Christ-figure", is imo, an internal Christian argument between those Christians who have chosen to identify Harry Potter with Jesus and those Christians who reject Harry Potter over witchcraft, wizardry and homosexuality. > > Geoff: > I would say not. Carol responds: So would I, and I'm not an evangelical Christian. In fact, my personal beliefs are completely irrelevant to the way I interpret a literary work. (I'm speaking as a former college English teacher with a PhD in English--i.e., from a completely intellectual perspective. i have no personal stake in the matter.) Rejecting witchcraft and wizardry has nothing to do with interpreting Harry as a Christ figure, which has to do with literary analysis of a given text and has nothing to do with the religion of the literary critic. If I analyzed "Mein Kampf" as a Communist tract, would that make me a Communist? As for rejecting the book because of homosexuality (which isn't even depicted in the books except perhaps implicitly in DD's relationship with Grindelwald), that's completely irrelevant to a discussion of Harry as a Christ figure. We on this list assuredly don't reject works of literature about witches and wizards. If we did, we wouldn't be discussing the HP books, including the presence of Christian elements in them. The people who reject the books for the reasons you list or any others (I suspect that fundamentalist Islamic leaders wouldn't approve of them, either) are not members of this list. No one here is trying to convert you. We are merely discussing elements within the books in connection with JKR's own stated intentions. Geoff: > The question of the Christ figure, for me, is that no human person can be Christ or carry the responsibility of Christ in overcoming sin. Jesus was God in human form; no human is. Harry, like us, can be Christ-like which we can be; that, as I have said before, does not make us infallible, saintly or superior. Despite what another contributor has written, I do not see that JKR created a character irritating in his saintliness. I see him as an Everyman, like us, trying to find his way through life and deterine the best way forward. I see myself in him as a teenager trying to get into adulthood with a minimum of mess-ups. Carol: Agree to disagree. As I've said about three times already in this thread, a Christ *figure* is not the same as Christ or an allegorical depiction of Christ. I accept Harry as Everyman as a valid reading, but I also accept Harry as Christ figure as a valid reading. Any reading that can be supported from elements in the text (and can't be directly disproved from those same elements) is a valid reading. That doesn't mean that it's the only possible interpretation. Anyway, Geoff, I'm not arguing with you or your interpretation. We're on the same side here in that we both see Christian themes and motifs in the text (although it's equally possible to view Harry as a secular Everyman, an interpretation that someone like No.Limberger might prefer. One of the genres of the HP books, after all, is the Bildungsroman, the novel of growing up. > No Limberger: > > In none of my postings have I insisted that anyone not view Harry Potter as a Christ figure. If you wish to view Harry Potter as a Christ figure, then do so; but not everyone does nor should that point of view be imposed upon them. > > Geoff: > Which runs counter to the many posts which have discussed JKR's approach to the underlying ethos and culture of her books which are UK-based, Carol: Exactly. Supporting a position is not the same as imposing it on other posters. We're simply trying to show that viewing Harry as a Christ figure is one valid interpretation, quite possibly intended by the author. It's not the only possible interpretation or the definitive interpretation. And I agree with No.Limberger that a large number of readers, in particular those unfamiliar with Christianity or Christ figures, are unlikely to interpret the books in that way. Nonetheless, it is perfectly possible and perfectly legitimate to do so, whereas I don't think we could legitimately read the books as reflecting Islam or communism or radical feminism any more than we could write an essay called "Wormtail: Misunderstood Hero of the Harry Potter Saga" as anything but a spoof. At any rate, just because we present our views (and evidence to support them) doesn't mean that we're trying to impose them on anyone. We understand that you not only don't see Harry Potter as a Christ figure, you don't *want* to see him as one. But I hope that you understand that others do clearly see the evidence for that interpretation. Again, it's just one of many valid interpretations, many of which have nothing to do with religion. Carol, curious as to how No.Limberger views Harry (an epic hero? a boy becoming a man? a secular Everyman? What else is there?) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 13 02:48:20 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:48:20 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: <86C1B0E029494FA38211FDCA3F86C410@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186196 Catlady wrote: > > That could be an interesting topic to discuss: if we had only the books and no author bio at all, what in the text could lead one to think that the author was a woman or a man? > > Shelley responded: > Hum... I think there might be fair evidence for the supposition that Rowling was a man, given that beyond the Hermione hero, women aren't very celebrated or in prominent positions. As a society, men are in charge, and talented women like Molly are home raising babies or unmarried in the classroom like McGonagall are. If I didn't know better, I might very well guess that Rowling was a man. Carol adds: Or maybe the WW is in some respects a conservative society, not surprising considering that they still use fireplaces for heat and candles fo light, not to mention quills rather than computers to write with! But it's an interesting question. What about the narrative voice representing the point-of-view of a pre-teen or teenage boy? How well does she capture that experience? Does Harry's experience (magic aside) seem authentic to male readers? Does it become more realistic in later books? (He struck me as a male Cinderella in my first reading of SS/PS.) Personally, I think that JKR does a good job of keeping the narrative voice distinct from her own (and of varying it on occasion when she's outside of Harry's PoV, as in "The Riddle House" in GoF or "Spinner's End" in HBP). Does anyone hear a male or female narrative voice when they read? I don't mean a masculine or feminine-sounding voice reading the story out loud in your head, but do any turns of expression make any readers think of the narrator as masculine or feminine? If you're not sure what I'm talking about, think about Jane Austen or Charles Dickens. Austen's narrators sound female and Dickens' narrators sound male (Esther in "Bleak House" excepted). To cite a more recent (but not very recent!) author, my brother once complained about having to read "The Outsiders" by S. E. Hinton for a junior high class because the author was so obviously a girl. (I didn't like the book, either, but not for that reason.) Another example is the narrator of "The Hobbit," who sounds like a grandfather telling a story to his grandchildren (or a kind of parody of Tolkine himself telling a story to his own children). JKR has, I think, deliberately avoided creating a similar impression. The voice telling the story is someone other than JKR who knows only what Harry knows, while JKR herself through that persona is deliberately withholding information and occasionally misleading us. But who is that persona? Could we guess from the opening words of SS/PS, or from any other clues, that the author, identified not as Joane Rowling but as J.K. Rowling, is a woman? Comments, anyone? Does JKR's narrator sound male or female or neither? Carol, thanking Catlady for the question and hoping for responses, especially from male list members From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 13 03:45:55 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:45:55 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186197 > Carol adds: > Or maybe the WW is in some respects a conservative society, not surprising considering that they still use fireplaces for heat and candles fo light, not to mention quills rather than computers to write with! But it's an interesting question. Magpie: Ironically, I don't think it's supposed to be conservative (in the Muggle view) when it comes to gender. I think we hear about historical witches being equal to wizards. Carol: > Comments, anyone? Does JKR's narrator sound male or female or neither? Magpie: I don't think her voice sounds particularly male or female, but in general there are things in the book that are definitely a woman talking about boys/girls/men/women rather than a man talking about them. Perhaps especially with the romance. Though I hesitate to say that because it sounds a bit too stereotyped, as if "only a woman" could have a certain pov when I don't think that's really true. But still, I think a lot of the general ideas (not all) sound like they come from a woman. And I did sometimes get a kick out of how flat-out attractive somebody like Sirius or Tom were through Harry's eyes, compared to the allegedly beautiful girls like Ginny and Cho (who have nice hair). -m From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 13 04:06:25 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:06:25 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186198 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol: JKR has, I think, deliberately avoided creating a similar impression. The voice telling the story is someone other than JKR who knows only what Harry knows, while JKR herself through that persona is deliberately withholding information and occasionally misleading us. But who is that persona? Could we guess from the opening words of SS/PS, or from any other clues, that the author, identified not as Joane Rowling but as J.K. Rowling, is a woman? Comments, anyone? Does JKR's narrator sound male or female or neither? Sartoris22: I've read crticism about Rowling having a male protagonist and indulging in the whole English public school thing, but I've never considered the narrator's gender. Does the narrator have a female "voice" or personna? When I think of male writers, few, such as Henry James and perhaps a few others, create "realistic" or complex female character. Although the Potter books are fairly male- dominated, the female characters are sensitively and thoughtfully portrayed--and they are very different, very round. Moroever, and I'm not being sexist here, the narrator seems particuarly aware and understanding of people's feelings, their emotional motivations. The depth and importance of human relationship, not magic or even the struggle between good and evil, is, to me, the touchstone of the books. The narrator's sensitivity to and understanding of relationships conjure, in my mind, a woman's voice and sensibilities. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 13 08:41:15 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 02:41:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: some replies which are direct but off topic References: Message-ID: <674C7C2E8C4541299C69A818B4335DA7@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186199 > Magpie: > I don't think her voice sounds particularly male or female, but in general > there are things in the book that are definitely a woman talking about > boys/girls/men/women rather than a man talking about them. Perhaps > especially with the romance. Though I hesitate to say that because it > sounds a bit too stereotyped, as if "only a woman" could have a certain > pov when I don't think that's really true. But still, I think a lot of the > general ideas (not all) sound like they come from a woman. And I did > sometimes get a kick out of how flat-out attractive somebody like Sirius > or Tom were through Harry's eyes, compared to the allegedly beautiful > girls like Ginny and Cho (who have nice hair). Shelley responds: I know I said earlier "male" if I looked only at the treatment of women in society and that men are the brains while women are fined to raising babies at home (Molly) or old spinsters teaching school (McGonagall). Looking at your last line, I fully agree. Men are attractively decribed, women aren't even given features a boy would notice, like lips, hips, boobs and butts. Actually now, if I were to pull out only the physical descriptions of people, particularly ones that are supposed to be "romantic" or attractive or cute/pretty, I would have to undoubtedly conclude "a woman wrote this". She does spend a lot more time describing the physical looks of the guys rather than the girls. For instance, if Harry was to be a stereotypical guy, at least in my mind, written from a guy's perspective, I would image that Harry might have noticed how a robe or a shirt clung to a girl's large chest or described the way that robe draped over a girl's butt when she bent over, or how short someone's skirt was when she sat at an angle where her legs were facing in his direction- some stray thought like that- and have a momentary lapse in what he was originally thinking about, or have to hide his lower half so his classmates wouldn't notice. I think he would have noticed a girl's boobs at least once. Even when I acted as the driver to take a group of school kids to a science fair at a Catholic school where the girls wore short skirts, I got an earful from the boys of how many of those girls were wearing thongs! Teenage boys really do notice those things. I never really thought about the full descriptions of Sirius and other guys compared to the girls, but clearly those boy descriptions are too "dreamy" and far too descriptive, and girl descriptions far too lacking, to really be the voice of Harry, unless Harry was to explore the attraction of both sexes (guys first?). Very little is said about even Cho- you think he would have noticed all the details in her face (dimples, the way her eyes looked) or details in her body (small chested, big chested, full hips, nice rounded or really tight butt?), but we don't hear about these descriptions, I think in part because Rowling as a woman hasn't thought about what sexy parts of a woman would attract her if she really was a teenage boy and looking. Certainly, with that many kids in the school spread across those grades in a crowded hallway between classes, he would have bumped against a girl and been accidentally touching her breasts (the setup that runs through my mind- short boy, taller girl with bigger breasts, getting pushed as a prank and accidentally getting a face full! I can see this set up of the kids really being mean to a size DD, can't help-how-large-I-am, embarrased girl who is teased a lot for it)- I can see that producing a momentary thought that would cause his face to blush, but the book is free of any of those references, even when he's dating Cho or Ginny. It's all about kissing (yawn, boring!) and I don't think it's because it's written for kids that we miss those simple references to Harry's sexual attraction for females. I think it's because Rowling is a woman and probably hasn't thought through sexual attraction for any female. If I were writing a teenage boy, surely I would have him notice, not quite Saturday Night Live style (tips hat to Lindsey Lohan- if you haven't seen that skit of HP, Google it!!!), but still have him notice when a girl's hooters suddenly expand over the summer and make her school uniform look a bit tight in the chest area. That kind of guy, drop his jaw, can't think of anything to say for that second, or can't look her in the face because he's staring at her chest, or have to hide an unexpected erection, is a very guy-ish description to me, and one I really found to be missing in this series. It's like Harry was this sexless blog until suddenly Cho is crying and the (off-screen) kiss is "wet". I think the series would have had much more depth if, after a few times of kissing with Cho, Harry suddenly has a wet dream, complains that Cho is crying a lot when they kiss or go to get romantic, and THEN we hear Hermione's rant of what women are like (the depth of emotion women have), and it would have been in contrast to Harry's wet dream after only kissing a girl. Instead, Hermione's lecture follows a "first kiss", and it's extremely shallow how that whole relationship is developed and described. Even Ron's book advice about how to be sensitive to a woman comes off as needed for Ron, but if would have been nice if Harry had been a happily-adjusted-sexual-male before that point, like the twins were described as having- that natural charm that attracted girls, and no problems knowing "what" to do with it. She develops that far too shallowly, I think, to sound like a male writer. But, yeah, guys, tell us how you, as a male, would have put descriptions of both males and females in- what things do you really notice/experience as a teenage boy with hormones? Shelley From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Mon Apr 13 10:06:37 2009 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:06:37 -0000 Subject: Gender of narrative voice? (Was: some replies which are direct but off topic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186200 > Catlady wrote: > > > That could be an interesting topic to discuss: if we had only the books and no author bio at all, what in the text could lead one to think that the author was a woman or a man? > > > Shelley responded: > > Hum... I think there might be fair evidence for the supposition that Rowling was a man, given that beyond the Hermione hero, women aren't very celebrated or in prominent positions. As a society, men are in charge, and talented women like Molly are home raising babies or unmarried in the classroom like McGonagall are. If I didn't know better, I might very well guess that Rowling was a man. > Joey now: I admit that women of McGonagall's/Tonks' ability play sidekick-like roles to DD/Moody but characters like Madame Maxime have also been showcased. Also, we see McGonagall and Tonks making their voices and opinions heard - they don't seem to mutely nod their heads to whatever DD/Moody say. Well, JMO, of course. :-) > Carol adds: [snip] > > Personally, I think that JKR does a good job of keeping the narrative voice distinct from her own (and of varying it on occasion when she's outside of Harry's PoV, as in "The Riddle House" in GoF or "Spinner's End" in HBP). Does anyone hear a male or female narrative voice when they read? I don't mean a masculine or feminine-sounding voice reading the story out loud in your head, but do any turns of expression make any readers think of the narrator as masculine or feminine? If you're not sure what I'm talking about, think about Jane Austen or Charles Dickens. Austen's narrators sound female and Dickens' narrators sound male (Esther in "Bleak House" excepted). [snip] >Could we guess from the opening words of SS/PS, or from any other clues, that the author, identified not as Joane Rowling but as J.K. Rowling, is a woman? > > Comments, anyone? Does JKR's narrator sound male or female or neither? Joey now: I think JKR sounded neutral. For example, I would not recommend a Jane Austen's book for my male friends - while I always enjoy reading her books and her detailed description of human emotions (primarily women's), I think most of my male friends cannot sit through it. :-) However, I think Harry Potter might work for them - at least, in the form of movies if they do not have the patience for reading books. :-) Also, apart from Harry's POV and the "third-eye" narrator's POV, JKR also dons the role of (and hence, voices the thoughts) of Voldemort. This is when Harry relives the Oct 31, 1981 incident via Voldemort's POV (after Harry and Hermione escape from Godric Hollow). I think JKR as a narrator sticks to the fundamental, gender-independent personality trait of the character whose view she is voicing rather than a gender-driven view - here are some examples of where I think JKR clearly adopts a gender-independent voice: Harry's "saving-people thing" instinct when she speaks from his POV; a neutral, third-eye account in chapters like Spinner's end (it contains both Snape's and Narcissa's view of the situation, doesn't it?); Voldy's cruel instincts when Harry looks into / lives via LV's memory. >Sartoris22: [snip] Moroever, and I'm not being sexist here, the narrator seems particuarly aware and understanding of people's feelings, their emotional motivations. [snip] The narrator's sensitivity to and understanding of relationships conjure, in my mind, a woman's voice and sensibilities. Joey now: I understand what you mean - sensitivity to and understanding of relationships is generally viewed as a feminine trait / plus point and the book also mentions Harry and Ron thinking so but as far as the *narration* is concerned I feel JKR has been neutral. JKR certainly seems particularly aware of people's feelings, their emotional motivations. She has shown this in the way she has defined various personalities in the book. However, ther reason for this according to me is that she has used both (a) her experience with various types of people in her life and (b) her knowledge of others POV of those people. So, the reality aspect of her characters and their thoughts has come out very well and the gender-based, stereotyped component almost does not exist. I always believe that a good writer of fiction must be a great observer of people and would be interested in knowing about theories related to human personality traits (like say Myers-Briggs, Carl Jung's theory, Maslow's need hierarchy theory, etc.). I think JKR fits both these descriptions. This is only my speculation but it is an opinion of mine all the same. :-) Cheers, ~Joey :-) From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 15:00:35 2009 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:00:35 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: <674C7C2E8C4541299C69A818B4335DA7@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186201 > Magpie: > ... But still, I think a lot of the > general ideas ... sound like they come from a woman. And I did > sometimes get a kick out of how flat-out attractive somebody like Sirius or Tom were through Harry's eyes, compared to the allegedly beautiful girls like Ginny and Cho (who have nice hair). > Shelley responds: > ... > But, yeah, guys, tell us how you, as a male, would have put descriptions of both males and females in- what things do you really notice/experience as a teenage boy with hormones? Kemper now: We do here Ron using Uranus suggestively to Lavender: Can I see Uranus, too, Lavender? I was a bit surprised at that line when I first read it, not that I doubt a boy would say that, I think most boys have in some way but that a woman writer included it. I think it's spot on to a teenage boy's sense of funny and desire (I don't mean the anus part.) I wonder if it were a man who wrote that line if the publisher/editor/whoever would have questioned/edited it out. Of course, by this time JKR is money hot, so maybe those that care were more concerned about keeping Her happy. I think JKR may have been better successful with a more sexual yet still non-threatening Harry if we would have seen him struggle keeping his eye contact tethered to girl's eyes and then relax as the girl turned away letting his eye wander unleashed. I sometimes need to be consciously intent on keeping eyes up as do the my male peers I talk to, and I'm way older than Harry. Kemper From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 13 15:56:10 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:56:10 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: <674C7C2E8C4541299C69A818B4335DA7@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186202 > Shelley responds: > I know I said earlier "male" if I looked only at the treatment of women in society and that men are the brains while women are fined to raising babies at home (Molly) or old spinsters teaching school (McGonagall). Pippin: There's no sense that Moody or Dumbledore picked Tonks and McGonagall as their proteges only because there wasn't a suitable male, or that these women have no interior life and exist only as useful or decorative adjuncts to men. It's not that they can't think, it's just that Rowling doesn't give them much to think about. I think JKR went so far in trying to depict the WW as a world where there's no struggle against the glass ceiling because it isn't there any more, that her females don't have enough to do, not as people but as characters. It makes them seem passive. The only complications they face are romantic, which makes it seem as if the men are making all the tough decisions about the war, even though no woman shrinks from exercising her authority, or has any difficulty being taken seriously because she's female. Molly's strong-willed and hardly confined to raising babies, as Bella discovered to her cost. But there's no sense of a struggle to achieve that. Hermione starts out at the top of her class and stays there. Her other projects never seriously interfere with that status, even when she works herself to exhaustion in PoA. Meanwhile, we're invited to sympathize with all those gorgeously conflicted men. It makes the women's jobs seem dull by comparison. As Tolkien wrote once, it's the uncomfortable palpitating stuff that makes a good story. Pippin From sweenlit at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 16:51:40 2009 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:51:40 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: References: <674C7C2E8C4541299C69A818B4335DA7@homemain> Message-ID: <43e41d1e0904130951y57bb5618x35358fe92d1f095@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186203 Shelley responds: > I know I said earlier "male" if I looked only at the treatment of women in society and that men are the brains while women are fined to raising babies at home (Molly) or old spinsters teaching school (McGonagall). ----------------------------------------- I don't see this at all. Hermione is one of the top students in Hogwarts, if not the top one. She apparently goes on to have a career in law after school. Ginny apparently makes good grades as well and also goes on to play professional sports after school. Do we see women raising kids at home rather than working outside the house. Yes. Molly Weasley, specifically. I have a friend who has five children and another friend who has six. In neither family does the woman work outside the house, not because of lack of ability, or because they are being held back but because 1) they wanted a large family and 2) It is nearly impossible to pay for child care for that many kids when they are young. We also see career women, and honestly, for many of them we are not given enough of a picture to say "they are not in a relationship/married". Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 13 18:48:33 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:48:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: some replies which are direct but off topic References: <674C7C2E8C4541299C69A818B4335DA7@homemain> <43e41d1e0904130951y57bb5618x35358fe92d1f095@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186204 > Shelley responds: >> I know I said earlier "male" if I looked only at the treatment of women >> in > society and that men are the brains while women are fined to raising > babies > at home (Molly) or old spinsters teaching school (McGonagall). > > ----------------------------------------- > I don't see this at all. Hermione is one of the top students in Hogwarts, > if > not the top one. She apparently goes on to have a career in law after > school. Ginny apparently makes good grades as well and also goes on to > play > professional sports after school. Do we see women raising kids at home > rather than working outside the house. Yes. Molly Weasley, specifically. I > have a friend who has five children and another friend who has six. In > neither family does the woman work outside the house, not because of lack > of > ability, or because they are being held back but because 1) they wanted a > large family and 2) It is nearly impossible to pay for child care for that > many kids when they are young. We also see career women, and honestly, for > many of them we are not given enough of a picture to say "they are not in > a > relationship/married". > > Lynda Shelley: The question was "if you had no idea if the author was male or female, which one would you guess it to be?" The answer for me was male if I looked at the treatment of women within the power structure and place is society. The debate wasn't whether my assessment of women in the WW was correct or not, but which gender I would guess for the author. So, now that the question was repeated, would you chose male or female, and why? From kersberg at chello.nl Mon Apr 13 19:01:44 2009 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:01:44 -0000 Subject: what rocks Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186205 Little bit of confusion at Leaky Caudron: Warner released a picture of Harry playing the piano with Slughorn in the background. Now there isn't any indication in the canon Harry played any instrument at all, not of the other characters being musical entertaining. So this must be a Warner liberty and to be honest as welcome as the choir in PoA directed by Flitwick. I remember from my teens that music; popular music had a great impack on my life and of my schoolmates: to be honest it was far more important then good grades at school. Nowadays I would say: we did not listen to it with our ears, but with our hormones. I may assume sort of like happens to Harry cum suo too; only what kind of music or hits did Harry and his mates crave for? And I don't mean just Weird Sisters, but the Muggle music of his teen days. From sweenlit at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 20:58:24 2009 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:58:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: References: <674C7C2E8C4541299C69A818B4335DA7@homemain> <43e41d1e0904130951y57bb5618x35358fe92d1f095@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43e41d1e0904131358l2d6458cfyff5479e0c535c7c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186206 Oh, my answer to that is simple. The answer to that is I would lean toward the author being female, although I have read some male writers that handle their narrations in a very similar fashion. It has more to do with the age of reader the writer is supposedly writing to rather than anything else. When you are writing for preteens, you write differently than if you are writing for teens or adults, and you do not include such things as where a young man's or a young woman's eyes end up looking unintentionally.. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 21:07:59 2009 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:07:59 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0904131358l2d6458cfyff5479e0c535c7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186207 > Lynda: > ...It has more to do with the age of reader the writer > is supposedly writing to rather than anything else. > When you are writing for preteens, you write differently than if you are writing for teens or adults, and you do not include such things as where a young man's or a young woman's eyes end up looking unintentionally. Kemper now: So joking about your (general) anus is appropriate in the preteen setting but actively avoiding staring at tahs is a little much. Please expand on that. Kemper From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Mon Apr 13 23:36:17 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:36:17 +0200 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin References: Message-ID: <2B6F9170748740AC84505FEAF8DB52A0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 186208 > Geoff: > The question of the Christ figure, for me, is that no human person > can be Christ or carry the responsibility of Christ in overcoming > sin. Jesus was God in human form; no human is. Harry, like us, can > be Christ-like which we can be; that, as I have said before, does > not make us infallible, saintly or superior. Despite what another > contributor has written, I do not see that JKR created a character > irritating in his saintliness. I see him as an Everyman, like us, > trying to find his way through life and deterine the best way > forward. I see myself in him as a teenager trying to get into > adulthood with a minimum of mess-ups. > Carol: > Agree to disagree. As I've said about three times already in this > thread, a Christ *figure* is not the same as Christ or an allegorical > depiction of Christ. I accept Harry as Everyman as a valid reading, > but I also accept Harry as Christ figure as a valid reading. Any > reading that can be supported from elements in the text (and can't be > directly disproved from those same elements) is a valid reading. That > doesn't mean that it's the only possible interpretation. Miles While I agree that Harry can be interpreted using the literature category "Christ figure", I'm not really sure if it makes too much sense to do so. Actually, I do not like this category at all. It's difficult to use it as a tool of literary description, as for example you can describe a certain kind of plot development or the narrator's position in a book. And I think this is part of the the discussion you and others have with No.Limberger. No.Limberger rejects Harry being a "Christ figure" because the aspects of this character are not exclusively Christian, Geoff denies the validity of the category because Harry is not God or even saintlike. (By the way, Harry chooses his own death because he wants the death of the Evil *within himself* - while Christ is *without sin*). I read the wikipedia article about "Christ figure" as Carol suggested, and if I use the definition presented there, nearly all heroes in modern literature would count (or could be described) as a Christ figure. A cloudy definition like that doesn't help very much if you try to characterize a piece of literature, IMO. On the other hand, if you try to find a narrower definition, you might get in trouble for the reasons Geoff and others mentioned upthread. Well, and one should not try to find a definition that suits one's argument in the first place, one should try to find the best definition ;). I think it's obvious that the Potterverse is built on Christian fundaments, as the contemporary Great Britain is. And we know from Rowling herself that her Christian faith influenced her work, therefore it's only fair to look for Christian values and messages in the Harry Potter books. But I don't think that's contradicting the impression that the messages and values in Harry Potter are universal. Upthread we had a discussion about how originally Christian faith is compared to other religions. That discussion was a bit similar to the one about Harry being a Christ figure or not. If you just pick some parts of Christian belief (God becoming a human being, self-sacrifice, resurrection, virgin birth etc.), you can easily find other religions who know similar concepts. If you narrow the description to exclude other religions (or make all the parts of the definition mandatory), and if you narrow it more and more, you will come to a definition that only meets Christianity (so Alla will not receive any answers on the chatter list to her question which other religion meets her definition of Christianity). Compare it to the Christ figure question - either you have a very broad definition, than it will not exclude enough to be of any use, or you have a very narrow one, then it will only meet allegoric characters like Arslan. Back to Rowling's Harry Potter. For me, the Christian elements that are part of the Christian background of Harry Potter's world are not crucial (interesting word here) for the essence of the books. Rowling did not write a book about wizards to make it clear that they celebrate christmas, or put bible quotes on their tombstones. They do because they are British, as they do not like to talk about their emotions/are embarrassed by emotions because they are British (sorry for the stereotype), or eat fried sausages for breakfast (ugh!). Let's have a look at the important things in Harry Potter: Friendship, to do the right thing instead of the easy thing, humans have an eternal soul, death is not the end, the soul can be damaged and healed, love can conquer all... If you put all that together, and if you keep every shade of Rowling's intentions and what she actually wrote in her books, I think it'd be right to say Harry Potter is the work of a Christian author, thus Christian literature. But since readers are free to read books in their own way, pick one message and leave another, reject this and embrace that, the Harry Potter books' essence is a universal one as well. For example, an atheistic reader would not accept the eternal soul, but could appreciate the ethical messages of the books. We all have the liberty to either narrow our view on the books (which makes sense if you want to analyze them) or to widen it (for example if we try to understand their global success). Both views have their advantages and weaknesses, but both are justifiable. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 14 03:01:32 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:01:32 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186209 Sartoris22 wrote: > > I've read crticism about Rowling having a male protagonist and indulging in the whole English public school thing, but I've never considered the narrator's gender. Does the narrator have a female "voice" or personna? When I think of male writers, few, such as Henry James and perhaps a few others, create "realistic" or complex female character. Although the Potter books are fairly male- dominated, the female characters are sensitively and thoughtfully portrayed--and they are very different, very round. Moroever, and I'm not being sexist here, the narrator seems particuarly aware and understanding of people's feelings, their emotional motivations. The depth and importance of human relationship, not magic or even the struggle between good and evil, is, to me, the touchstone of the books. The narrator's sensitivity to and understanding of relationships conjure, in my mind, a woman's voice and sensibilities. > Carol responds: I'm not so sure that the *narrator*, who sees from Harry's pov most of the time, is sensitive to anyone's feelings except Harry's. I'd say, though, that *Hermione,* on occasion (as when she's analyzing Cho's tearfulness) is, if not exactly sensitive, at least psychologically astute, especially in comparison with the boys. As for the ability to create compelling characters, I'd credit JKR herself rather than the narrator, which (or who) is only the voice or persona that JKR uses to tell the story. The question is whether it's a male or a female voice. I'm not altogether sure, but I think that Magpie's point about male characters being described as handsome is a good one. How many male writers or male first-person narrators (in other words, voices that we know to be male) would be concerned with Cedric Diggory's looks? (I don't know the answer; it sounds like a rhetorical question, but I'm seriously looking for examples.) Sometimes we can tell for certain that a third-person narrator is male or female simply because of the world they depict and a focus on characters of a particular sex. Austen's narrators are clearly female and the world she depicts is the narrow feminine world of the early nineteenth century. Tolkien's narrators have a broader scope (sometimes too broad, IIRC), focusing on war and adventure and mostly on male characters. There's nothing feminine about the books even when they deal with female characters. Obviously, JKR's books depict a world without such differences in sex roles. Girls and boys go to school together; their classes are taught by both men and women. (Granted, JKR deliberately chose a boy as her protagonist, but Harry's world is a lot closer to Hermione's than Fitzwilliam Darcy's is to Elizabeth Bennett's or Aragorn's is to Arwen's.) But take any passage from the books other than dialogue, preferably one that clearly shows Harry's point of view. Did she get it right? Did she see as a teenage boy would see? Maybe it would help to convert the passage to first-person. Or take just the opening sentences of the first book, which don't deal with Harry at all. Does the narrator sound like a thirty-something British woman or one of the Frothers Grimm updated or the avuncular narrator of the hobbit (okay, yesterday I called him "grandfatherly," but I think "avuncular" is closer)? Any clues that it's a female voice? Or maybe it isn't. Carol, just interested in what others think From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 14 04:06:10 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:06:10 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > Carol responds: > > I'm not so sure that the *narrator*, who sees from Harry's pov most of the time, is sensitive to anyone's feelings except Harry's. > > As for the ability to create compelling characters, I'd credit JKR herself rather than the narrator, which (or who) is only the voice or persona that JKR uses to tell the story. The question is whether it's a male or a female voice. I'm not altogether sure, but I think that Magpie's point about male characters being described as handsome is a good one. How many male writers or male first-person narrators (in other words, voices that we know to be male) would be concerned with Cedric Diggory's looks? There's nothing feminine about the books even when they deal with female characters. > Sartoris22: All the points you make are good ones, and I'll try to respond to a few of them. I think the narrator is very sympathetic toward many characters, including Lupin, the Weasley family, Hermione, and Hagrid. Mostly, we get our clues about how to feel about characters from the narrator, which is why Rowling herself expressed surprize that so many fans actually "liked" Draco Malfoy, who is written as, at least in the early books, a fairly unpleasant character. As for distinguishing between Rowling and the narrator, it goes without saying that Rowling creates the narrator, but the narrator is endowed only with the knowledge the writer gives her. The narrator doesn't necessarily know what the writer knows. She's an entity unto herself. For example, Hermione and the other muggles surely know about muggle history, yet it's rarely mentioned or acknowledged in the books. Don't you find it odd that neither the narrator nor a muggle ever likens Voldemort to Adolph Hitler? This seems all the more curious because the story takes place in England. Rowling has extensive knowledge of British and world history, yet her narrator rarely, if ever employs that knowledge, which is why I separate Rowling from the narrator, even though the narrator is her invention. Years ago, I read Wayne Booth's Rhetoric of Fiction, and I vaguely remember him discussing this distinction. I don't think it's unusual for a female writer to be able to describe the feelings of boys because women, for the most part, raise boys in Western society, and this information about boys is shared with other women. Besides, women tend to be more observant of human behavior. It isn't that unusual for women writers to write convincingly about men; George Eliot and Ayn Rand come readily to mind. It is more unusual for a male writer to write effectively about women, in my opinion. As for male authors describing positively male physical characteristics, Henry James and James Baldwin are two authors who did. Baldwin's Just Above My Head and Giovanni's Room both contain such decriptions, which shouldn't be discounted because Baldwin was gay. Overall, I think that the narrator seems more female than male, and I do think she is sympathetic toward many characters besides Harry. > From sweenlit at gmail.com Tue Apr 14 14:55:30 2009 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:55:30 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43e41d1e0904140755y63501361rb676c115f566b2d6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186211 I don't think it's unusual for a female writer to be able to describe the feelings of boys because women, for the most part, raise boys in Western society, and this information about boys is shared with other women. Besides, women tend to be more observant of human behavior. ------------------------------------------------------- Neither do I think it's unusual. Nor do I think that male writers are unable to describe the feelings of boys. In fact, I find the notion that female authors cannot describe the feelings of boys or male writers the feelings of girls to be chauvinistic in a general sense. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Tue Apr 14 19:36:29 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:36:29 +0200 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic References: Message-ID: <2C6F4F295ED5424E91D5787ACF534259@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 186212 Carol wrote: > But take any passage from the books other than dialogue, preferably > one that clearly shows Harry's point of view. Did she get it right? > Did she see as a teenage boy would see? Maybe it would help to > convert the passage to first-person. Miles: This is an interesting and fresh approach to a question we discussed in extenso some two and a half years before: Is the description of Harry as a boy accurate? Is the description of boys - and girls? My impression of the narrator's voice always was that of a male person, but not because of my answer to the question above, because I always felt that the narrator is Harry himself in later years (so I always was sure he would survive). I know that this special kind of a narrator does not automatically have to be the main character, even if s/he knows what the main character thinks and feels - it was only my impression or conclusion. But I quite often disliked the narrator, because his description of (especially) teenage Harry was not believable to me. It's not only a question of sexuality (which a boy of 15 or 16 would not mystify as a "roaring animal" or such) and the total indifference towards girls' physical features. It's the indifference towards the changes of his own body as well (actually when did Harry begin to have beard growth - why do we not learn it, it's simple and "aseptic" enough even for younger kids). We don't learn about social interactions of the boys in the dormitory (we only get a glimpse in one of the movies). For list archeologists, my old posting about this: #161430. While the knowledge of the narrator points to him being male, the lack of understanding and the fondness of handsome boys points to her being female - or better: Rowling. But the second conclusion is not so concrete. A female author could be good in describing the inside of a boy, as a male author that of a girl. And I'm not so sure that the narrator's description of girls is so much better (one of the things I learnt from the old thread mentioned above). Miles From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 14 23:01:11 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:01:11 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <2B6F9170748740AC84505FEAF8DB52A0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186213 Geoff: I have been trying to put together thoughts to cover some of the topics which have arisen in this and related threads and hope that what I write here might help. There has been a lot of discussion as to what input JKR intended for the books in respect of Christianity. We seem to be reaching a point where contributors such as No Limberger on the one side and Christians or those sympathetic to us are reaching an "agree to disagree" situation. I think that some of the problems stem from the fact that a large number of group members are not British and not perhaps fully conversant with UK culture and ethics. This creates a secondary issue ? that of the nominal Christianity claimed by many residents. I believe that Miles managed to highlight some of the issues in a recent post. To begin with, JKR is English. She has grown up in an English cultural environment. The majority of people in the UK are still from a white Christian background. Much of this background, which has formed the foundation of our educational, social and legal systems, is not openly displayed in an everyday situation. However, if you raise the question of religion, a great majority of people will claim that they are Christians ? or C of E (Church of England). They will say that they go to church although their attendance may be limited to the high days such as Christmas and Easter. Children are often packed off to Sunday School (or a group entitled Junior Church or a catchy set of initials which mean the same), JKR has said that her Christian faith influenced her in the writing of the stories and, although Harry claims no Christian link he will certainly have come into contact with its cultural claims. As we know, he went to a state school until he reached 11. Within that school, there would have been mandatory Religious Education which would deal with Christianity along with other major beliefs, although I must say that all I remember of these lessons as a teenager was that teachers often gave them rather cavalier treatment. Vernon and Petunia are fairly typical of many middle- class folk. The husband holds a reasonable job while the wife either works or stays at home with the children. They have a trim house in suburbia, possibly spending much time in the garden and trying to keep up with the neighbours without doing anything eccentric or odd enough to gain unwanted attention. This might also cover religion as well. The children are baptised (if they are C of E) and confirmed at about 13. Do the Dursleys go to church? We don't know. But I maintain that Harry will certainly be at least slightly conversant with Christian stories and behaviour from school. At Hogwarts, there is again a feel of the traditional British approach of understatement and, as Miles has pointed out, a reluctance to discuss matters emotional, which would include belief. Thus, Harry and friends are unlikely to sit down for deep chats about religion unless something triggers it. This why I have always drawn a clear distinction between religion and faith. I have had it side to me more than once "You are religious, aren't you?" to which my reply is "No. But I am a practising Christian". In what I have said above, and what I have written elsewhere is my interpretation of religion as being a set of rules, rituals and such like which a person agrees to. But it does not guarantee that the person concerned has experienced the real faith involved. My wife has a second cousin who has lived outside the UK for 50 or so years and has spent much time in the Far East. In that time, he has been at various times a Muslim, a Hindu and a Buddhist. But from rare conversations with him, it is quite clear that he holds no real faith and has only gone with these beliefs to suit his own wishes. I believed I was a Christian when I was young. Going to church and Sunday School and living what I thought was a decent life was all I needed. Then, in my last year at college, I experienced a sense of meeting with God which changed my outlook entirely. I, like all "real" Christians, do not believe that faith is just a matter of following what is written in the church service books or to make sure that we go through routines sometimes rather perfunctorily. It is believing that Christ has come into our lives, that God lives within us in spirit and guides us if we are prepared to pay attention. This is where perhaps the confusion over Christ-figure has arisen, it may be a question of semantics and our use of the word. I do not accept that any human can die to carry the sins of others and ensure the salvation of their soul. A human can die in self-sacrifice to save other people physically but that is the limit. Hence, in my book, the only Christ figure is Christ himself. We all have within us an urge to help others (although this can atrophy if it suppressed enough times) and, hopefully try to maintain these feelings even when we keep them out of sight while wanting to be bold, brash, streetwise teenagers. We do not see Harry and friends when they are on their own; we do not know what happens after DH in the wilderness years before the epilogue. But I believe that there were influences ? maybe few and far between - which affected Harry as a child and shaped his own disposition. Hence I can see no problem in JKR sketching out a Christian background to her books. As I have said, they were written to present a world which operates in parallel with a real world populated, sadly, by rather woolly-minded inhabitants who pay at least lip-service to a Christian belief. From no.limberger at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 17:50:01 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:50:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: <2B6F9170748740AC84505FEAF8DB52A0@miles> Message-ID: <7ef72f90904151050j674f63f5o11f8ecf7486b426b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186214 >Geoff wrote: >SNIP< >I think that some of the problems stem from the fact that a large >number of group members are not British and not perhaps fully >conversant with UK culture and ethics. This creates a secondary >issue ? that of the nominal Christianity claimed by many residents. >SNIP< >JKR is English. She has grown up in an English >cultural environment. The majority of people in the UK are still >from a white Christian background. Much of this background, >which has formed the foundation of our educational, social and >legal systems, is not openly displayed in an everyday situation. >However, if you raise the question of religion, a great majority of >people will claim that they are Christians ? or C of E (Church of >England). No.Limberger responds: I am not British and do not live in Europe. However, I believe the fact that the majority of Harry Potter readers live outside of the UK is also being overlooked. A quick Internet search reveals that the current total UK population is estimated to be just over 60,000,000. This is about one fifth of the entire U.S. population. Thus, it may be safe to assume that there are more people in the U.S. that have read Harry Potter than the entire UK population. Harry Potter is also very popular in Japan, whose population is slightly more than double that of the UK. Given the popularity of Harry Potter in Japan (a predominantly Shinto/Buddhist country), it is possible that more people in Japan have read Harry Potter than in the UK. Thus, while Harry Potter is set mostly in the modern-day UK and was written by an English author who has been influenced by personal Christian beliefs to an indeterminate amount, the vast majority of the people reading it are not in the UK and a sizable minority of possible majority of the people who have read Harry Potter are not Christian. >Geoff wrote: >SNIP< >JKR has said that her Christian faith influenced her in the writing >of the stories and, although Harry claims no Christian link he will >certainly have come into contact with its cultural claims. As we >know, he went to a state school until he reached 11. Within that >school, there would have been mandatory Religious Education >which would deal with Christianity along with other major beliefs, >although I must say that all I remember of these lessons as a >teenager was that teachers often gave them rather cavalier >treatment.... The children are baptised (if they are C of E) and >confirmed at about 13. No.Limberger responds: While Harry may have been exposed to some religious education prior to his seven years at Hogwarts, at no time is the content or his state-school education discussed in Harry Potter. Given that Hermionie also came from a muggle home, she no doubt also would have attended a similar state school until she was accepted at Hogwarts. Like Harry, she never discusses religion and for someone as intelligent and studious as she is, religion does not appear to be a significant matter to her. Given their lack of religious interest coupled with lack of significant evidence that religion plays a major role in the overall WW, I remain unconvinced that JKR had any intent making religion a major aspect in Harry Potter. >Geoff wrote: >But I maintain that Harry will certainly be at least slightly >conversant with Christian stories and behaviour from school. >At Hogwarts, there is again a feel of the traditional British >approach of understatement and, as Miles has pointed out, >a reluctance to discuss matters emotional, which would >include belief. No.Limberger responds: Speculative and not substantiated by the Harry Potter books. When someone dies in Harry Potter, where is the priest or vicar that overseas the funeral? Who administers any religious rites? No one. The notion that there is a deliberate or implied Christian undertone is not supported by the books themselves. >Geoff wrote: >It is believing that Christ has come into our lives, that >God lives within us in spirit and guides us if we are >prepared to pay attention. No.Limberger responds: Name one character in Harry Potter who asserts this. >Geoff wrote: >We do not see Harry and friends when they are on their own; >we do not know what happens after DH in the wilderness >years before the epilogue. But I believe that there were >influences ? maybe few and far between - which affected >Harry as a child and shaped his own disposition. No.Limberger responds: There is nothing wrong in having this belief, but it is a purely personal belief. >Geoff wrote: >Hence I can see no problem in JKR sketching out a Christian >background to her books. No.Limberger responds: I see no compelling evidence within the Harry Potter novels to support the notion that they were based upon Christianity. C.S. Lewis' Narnia books were. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 15 20:41:28 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:41:28 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904151050j674f63f5o11f8ecf7486b426b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: No.Limberger: > Thus, while Harry Potter is set mostly in the modern-day UK and > was written by an English author who has been influenced by > personal Christian beliefs to an indeterminate amount, the > vast majority of the people reading it are not in the UK and a sizable > minority of possible majority of the people who have read Harry > Potter are not Christian. Geoff: I do not think that that is relevant to the current discussion. When JKR wrote the books, she did not realise that she was creating a global literary phenomenon. Bear in mind that she had trouble even getting the first book published, let alone selling X million copies worldwide. No.Limberger: > While Harry may have been exposed to some religious education > prior to his seven years at Hogwarts, at no time is the content > or his state-school education discussed in Harry Potter. Geoff: Why should it be? That aspect of Harry's life has little or no bearing on what happens to him after the age of eleven. Similarly, we are not told whether he had porridge or Corn Flakes for breakfast (if he did at all), how often he had a bath or changed his underwear.... No.Limberger: > Given that Hermionie also came from a muggle home, she no doubt > also would have attended a similar state school until she was > accepted at Hogwarts. Like Harry, she never discusses religion > and for someone as intelligent and studious as she is, religion > does not appear to be a significant matter to her. Given their > lack of religious interest coupled with lack of significant > evidence that religion plays a major role in the overall WW, > I remain unconvinced that JKR had any intent making religion > a major aspect in Harry Potter. Geoff: I quite agree with your comment about Hermione. I believe that JKR has incorporated it as a subtext into the Wizarding World. In the real world of the UK, we do not necessarily stop to think about the religious aspects of hospitals, schools, the legal system of ethical views but these all sprang from those roots and are therefore part of the structure of the UK's cultural foundation. No.Limberger: > When someone dies in Harry Potter, where is the priest > or vicar that overseas the funeral? Who administers any > religious rites? No one. The notion that there is a deliberate > or implied Christian undertone is not supported by the > books themselves. Geoff: But we don't see many funerals. And, at Dumbledore's funeral, JKR very coyly makes Harry catch only odd phrases of what is said by the officiating officer (whatever rank or station he holds). So we are not really able to analyse what has been said. Just as a side issue, how do you therefore interpret Dumbledore's comment: "After all, to the well-organised mind, death is but the next great adventure"? (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p215 UK edition) Geoff: > >It is believing that Christ has come into our lives, that > >God lives within us in spirit and guides us if we are > >prepared to pay attention. No.Limberger responds: > Name one character in Harry Potter who asserts this. Geoff: That wasn't the point of the comment. If you put what I wrote back into its correct context, I was discussing the way in which different members of the group had considered the phrase "Christ figure" and the differences between nominal Christian belief and the real thing. No.Limberger: > I see no compelling evidence within the Harry Potter novels > to support the notion that they were based upon Christianity. Geoff: Which is your privilege and choice. However, by the same token, many of us here have the privilege and choice of choosing to take a different interpretation of the writings. I hold to the view that we can all have our own opinions. What I do find irritating is that you give the distinct impression that if we do that, we are lectured that we are not allowed to believe that JKR is drawing on her own (and our) cultural heritage because the books have reached beyond the group which she aimed at - which was a readership brought up in and knowing the ins and outs of UK cultural traditions by which they would recognise the subtle nods to belief which occur. From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 15 22:14:08 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:14:08 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186216 > No.Limberger: > > I see no compelling evidence within the Harry Potter novels > > to support the notion that they were based upon Christianity. > Sartoris22: As I said before, I find it odd that neither the narrator nor a muggle character compares Voldemort to Hitler. However, that omission doesn't stop me from comparing Voldemort to Hitler, just as the omission of specific Christian references doesn't stop me from seeing Harry as a Christ-figure, regardless of the author's intentions. Following reader response theory, every reader essentially rewrites the text. Although an author's intentionality is an interesting debate, and I do believe Rowling intended the Christian allusion, the point is that once something is written, the writer loses control of how that work will be interpreted, or even what a good or valid interpretation, within reason, of the work is. It reminds me of a scene in the film Back to School in which Rodney Dangerfield hires Kurt Vonnegut to write a critical essay on one of Vonnegutt's novels and the teacher says the interpretation is all wrong. No matter what the writer intends, the reader controls interpretation, and sometimes a writer creates allusions in her work of which even she isn't aware, even though, in this case, I think that Rowling was fully aware of the Christian allusions. From no.limberger at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 14:32:41 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:32:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ef72f90904160732s4b1cd5e7i3676cf3f0782bf3c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186217 >Sartoris22 wrote: >SNIP< >I find it odd that neither the narrator nor a muggle character compares >Voldemort to Hitler. However, that omission doesn't stop me from >comparing Voldemort to Hitler. >SNIP< >Although an author's intentionality is an interesting debate, >and I do believe Rowling intended the Christian allusion... No.Limberger responds: Yes, I would agree that there is some similarity between Voldemort and Hitler due to the similarities in racial purity between the two. Ultimately, Voldemort was just more interested in personal power more than anything else, which, to me, would be an indicator of very low self-esteem. The mind makes many connections between different individuals, objects and situations. This is part of how the human mind works to identity, rationalize and understand. Is it possible that JKR could have drawn from Hitler in her creation of Voldemort? Yes, just as it is possible that she drew upon her beliefs in the creation of the Harry Potter novels. The distinction that I make here with most is that I in now believe that she had any intent of writing what could be termed Christian novels because, I believe, while she may have drew upon personal Christian beliefs in writing Harry Potter, she also deliberately did not make religion a major component of the books. Had her intent been to promote Christian beliefs, then the novels would reflect this far more than they currently do and ever will. As to the notion that some see Harry Potter as a "Christ figure", the definition of a "Christ figure" can be so broad that anyone who performs a heroic act is automatically a Christ figure. Thus, the term has little value because a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If people want to see Harry Potter as a Christ figure, they can certainly do so, just as followers of other religions can equate the stories to their own personal religious beliefs. It's all a matter of perception, including people who want to believe that JRK deliberately intended the novels to promote a Christian allusion. Christianity was not the first religion to promote a belief in life after death or an immortal soul, nor is it the only religion that promotes such beliefs today. People with strong Christian beliefs will readily identify with these concepts within Harry Potter. However, to conclude that the imagery was deliberately included to promote Christian beliefs lacks sufficient evidence. Additionally, the fact that the Judeo-Christian bible strongly condemns both witchcraft and homosexuality makes many Christians condemn the Harry Potter novels. Thus, there is no strong consensus even among Christians that the novels promote Christian beliefs. Again, it's all a matter of personal perception that determines how each individual chooses to see them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Apr 16 17:19:41 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:19:41 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse References: <7ef72f90904160732s4b1cd5e7i3676cf3f0782bf3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00C0046768A44076A01EC2B1951528D0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186218 > No.Limberger: > The distinction that I make here with most is that I in now believe > that she had any intent of writing what could be termed > Christian novels because, I believe, while she may have drew > upon personal Christian beliefs in writing Harry Potter, she > also deliberately did not make religion a major component > of the books. Had her intent been to promote Christian > beliefs, then the novels would reflect this far more than they > currently do and ever will. Shelley: This is a false link though, thinking that one cannot use a Christ figure without first "intending to promote Christian beliefs". I'm reading the Young Wizards series by Diane Duane, and in the very beginning of the 2nd book- Deep Wizardry- the author sets up the Lone Power who invented death and pain, who is thrown out by the other Powers, a character who sets out to deceive 10 whales. The line is clearly there "we've seen this before, the apple and the serpent", and "even regular human beings have stories about it". It's a clear reference to the Biblical story in Genesis about Satan being kicked out of heaven, and about the fall of man, but this book, like Harry Potter, also has characters that do not actively engage in "worship" in the pages of the book, for that's irrelevant to the story being told. That doesn't stop the assertion in this book that "patterns repeat", and that the author is using that pattern to set up a story of a conflict that needs to be resolved. That is all Rowling is trying to do with Harry Potter- repeat a pattern so that she has a framework to write a story from. It's a false assertion that you have to "promote Christian beliefs" or "proselytize" to use ANY theme. It's a false assertion that one would need to be Christian to use those themes taken from Christianity. (I have no idea if Duane considers herself to be a Christian.) It's a false assertion that once you have a framework, that you have to add religion into all other components of that story. > No.Limberger: > As to the notion that some see Harry Potter as a > "Christ figure", the definition of a "Christ figure" can be > so broad that anyone who performs a heroic act is > automatically a Christ figure. Shelley: I know of no literatary evaluation material that generically equates "any hero" with "Christ-figure". Some quotations of where you are getting this premise from might help. If that is your definition, then surely Harry would be a Christ-figure, solely because he's a hero. But, that is not the definition that I am using, and not the definition that most of us are using. A Christ-figure to me just isn't any hero, he/she must meet specific criteria that mirror Christ's life: dying for sins or some redemption or reconciliation that cannot be accomplished without that death; the death must be willing and understood before undertaking that risk; rising again is what accomplishes the mission (not the death itself). I reject your definition of a Christ-figure as being broad; rather, I see it as quite narrow. And, I will also point out that my definition DOES NOT include a premise of a "sinless life" or perfection, for only Christ alone was perfect, and that no character written as a human being could fit that model. Given that all human beings are flawed, Harry's flaws, and even his use of Unforgivable Curses, do not erase the choices that would follow: the willing walk to death so that he could defeat Voldemort and save the WW. > No.Limberger: > If people want to see Harry Potter as a > Christ figure, they can certainly do so, just as followers > of other religions can equate the stories to their own > personal religious beliefs. It's all a matter of perception,... Shelley: I think you are confusing "perception" with weighing facts and evidence to see if it fits. It's not "Christians" who are seeing the pattern of their own faith and "wishing it to be so" in Harry Potter, but educated people who know of a story and can match up likenesses and repeated themes in literature. Surely, as I pointed out before, the "story" of Christianity, of Christ's death and resurrection, is known throughout the world, so that a Muslim or a Jew or someone from another faith still might recognize the framework of where this story comes from. Even they could see the repeated theme and assert that Harry is a Christ-figure. I do not need to be a Christian, or come from that "perception" to be well read enough to recognize Christian themes in literature. I know of no one in the world who has made this connection who has actively written about Harry actually being a model of some other religion, and pointed out all the facts that match that other religion. Again, if you have some quotations here from others who have made this connection, it would help, otherwise, I'm going to just assume that you are "guessing" this to be true, rather than have any facts that other people have percieved Harry to be a generic savior (or from another religion) rather than Christian based one. > No.Limberger: > including people who want to believe that JRK deliberately > intended the novels to promote a Christian allusion. Shelley: Again, you are the only one asserting that Rowling was actively trying to promote Christianity- I see no evidence of that demonstrated in any of her interviews and public talks about this novel. She was writing a work of FICTION, and not a nonfiction "come to Christ" novel. Perhaps could you show us where you get this idea from? Indeed, Alla asked you before to explain this, and yet you haven't. Here was his line, in case you missed it: Alla: I just want to know whose argument are you trying to rebut here? Quote please? Who argued that JKR attempted to use the novels to proselytize? > No.Limberger: > Christianity was not the first religion to promote a > belief in life after death or an immortal soul, nor is it > the only religion that promotes such beliefs today. Shelley: Ah, but, where is there evidence of "those other religions" in these novels? If, it is as you say, "a generic death and resurrection theme", where is your evidence that it's not "Christian"? I think there is plenty of evidence, particularly in DH, that is was Christianity alone that Rowling was drawing from. Direct Bible verses are quoted; not some other religious texts. It's clear she writes the setting as modern day UK, and it's been Christianity that has had the influence on UK during the time that Harry Potter lived, and even before then in the history of the WW, with evidence of friars and vicars. She doesn't rewrite UK in Harry's time to be the sole product of other religions- the Church featured is a Christian one, not from another religion. I think you would have to rewrite the books to erase direct biblical quotations and the Christian church if you wanted to eliminate the Christian influence from these books. But, even then, you could not erase Rowling's Christian influence in real life, nor her interviews claiming she used Christian themes. > No.Limberger: > People with strong Christian beliefs will readily > identify with these concepts within Harry Potter. > However, to conclude that the imagery was deliberately > included to promote Christian beliefs lacks > sufficient evidence. Shelley: Again, straw man. Where has ANYONE, other than yourself, argued that this imagery was used to PROMOTE Christian beliefs??? > No.Limberger: > Additionally, the fact that > the Judeo-Christian bible strongly condemns both > witchcraft and homosexuality makes many > Christians condemn the Harry Potter novels. Shelley: I fail to see how anyone's "reaction" to the novels, good or bad, has anything to do with a theme used in a book. NO author alive today can accurately predict the reaction to one's works. And, the reactions of a few people negatively to these books doesn't even have a bearing on my study of these works and my assertion that Harry is a Christ-figure. It's irrelevant to the points at hand. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 16 19:50:41 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:50:41 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <00C0046768A44076A01EC2B1951528D0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186219 Shelley: That doesn't stop the assertion in this book that "patterns repeat", and that the author is using that pattern to set up a story of a conflict that needs to be resolved. That is all Rowling is trying to do with Harry Potter- repeat a pattern so that she has a framework to write a story from. Alla: Right, I agree that Christian themes serve as a framework, not as a promoting of anything. Ok, maybe this example will be easier to agree upon since it has nothing to do with religion. In one of the interviews (not sure which one and do not have time to go look it up now) JKR said that "wise old man" or "wise old mentor" always dies, that it is just the genre she is working in. I mean, does one have to be a faithful follower of "Hero's journey" to know what she is talking about? I really do not believe so. It is an archetype that we all know and it usually enough for us to hear this phrase to build the associations and to figure out in which direction this character will go. Was anybody in any doubt that Dumbledore will die? Okay, I know I certainly **hoped** that he will not at some point, but I did not doubt that much. Did it help to predict the fact that he will die because he is an old man with the white beard? I know it did help me to predict that, I am thinking it helped many others as well. And same with Christian themes, as it was said many people predicted the ending (general idea) correctly based upon seeing the framework. I certainly would not want to read a book that promotes it. Lewis' books are really not among my favorite books, quite the contrary. Recently I read the book by W. Nicholson, whose character name is `Seeker of truth' and who wants to become the member of the Noble warriors, who serve the One who is Child, Mother, Father, in the GARDEN. Right, this is the kind of book I have very little patience for and as you could guess I will not be reading second and third book of this trilogy. I had a feeling that author was beating me over the head with the baseball bat. But the book that **draws** upon Christian themes? Why not? To me the appeal of the book whose main character has traits of willing to die for the good of others is just increasing tenfold. It just, you know, hits me harder emotionally and if this character comes back from some sort of death, it is all the more satisfying. It really does not have to have anything to do with author wanting to promote religion, really. Maybe author just wanted to pull reader's heartstrings harder. I do not know what JKR's intentions were of course; just saying that she did not need to want to promote anything. Shelley: Indeed, Alla asked you before to explain this, and yet you haven't. Here was his line Alla: Her line, not his :) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Apr 16 22:30:12 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:30:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186220 Shelley: Indeed, Alla asked you before to explain this, and yet you haven't. Here was his line. Alla: Her line, not his :) Shelley (also a "she"): Oops! I'm red-faced here! So hard to keep track of his and hers on this list- I don't know why I read what you write and think "male writer". Maybe it's because you are so logical and thorough. Anyway, thanks for your assessment. Alla: And same with Christian themes, as it was said many people predicted the ending (general idea) correctly based upon seeing the framework. I certainly would not want to read a book that promotes it. Lewis' books are really not among my favorite books, quite the contrary. Recently I read the book by W. Nicholson, whose character name is `Seeker of truth' and who wants to become the member of the Noble warriors, who serve the One who is Child, Mother, Father, in the GARDEN. Right, this is the kind of book I have very little patience for and as you could guess I will not be reading second and third book of this trilogy. I had a feeling that author was beating me over the head with the baseball bat. Shelley: I guess what I really enjoyed about Harry Potter from the beginning is that she didn't give away her framework too soon. What sucked me in from the very first books were the vivid descriptions of the WW- Molly's kitchen, where pots were scrubbing themselves, and Molly's clock that told where people were, instead of the time, the castle where stairs moved and everything was a wonderful treasure to be discovered. The Young Wizards series by Diane Duane, mentioned last post of mine, starts the beginning of the 2nd book with all that set up of the (Christian based) framework (it was hinted at in the first), and I find those books to be a lot more boring than if the setup wasn't given away from the very start. The ones that do, with Christian theme, I agree feel more like like beating me over the head with a bat- it's like they work too hard to make everything match up to be an exactly replica of the Biblical story it was taken from, and the intrege of where it all is going is just lost. Rowling doesn't do that to us, she leaves us guessing, and that's what keeps the interest level high. Even if you thought Harry was set up to be a Christ-figure, you always wondered if she was going to pull a fast one on us and resolve the whole thing last second through some other means that no one could have predicted. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 17 17:02:11 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:02:11 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904160732s4b1cd5e7i3676cf3f0782bf3c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186221 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: > > As to the notion that some see Harry Potter as a > "Christ figure", the definition of a "Christ figure" can be > so broad that anyone who performs a heroic act is > automatically a Christ figure. Pippin: That's an "excluded middle" -- any definition of a "Christ figure" which isn't as narrow as yours does not have to be so broad as to be useless. The purpose of a "Christ figure" need not be to promote Christian beliefs any more than the purpose of an "Oedipus figure" must be to promote the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, or of Sigmund Freud for that matter. But a modern author would expect an educated audience to bring their knowledge of those beliefs to her work and to read it in the light of what they already know. One might wish to persuade people who already hold such beliefs that they should act on them. That is the purpose I see in associating Harry, and specifically his courage and compassion, with Christianity rather than with a generic idea of virtue. The Christian doesn't have to be convinced that he should have an emotional association with Christianity, and JKR does not try to build one for people who don't have it already. But he could be shown that the association could offer him more than a way to celebrate the change of seasons and life-cycle events. The books are not meant to persuade people to be inspired by the Christian story, IMO, but rather to show us what people inspired by such a story might do. To this end, IMO, JKR has made Harry both a an Everyman-figure and a Christ-figure, depending on how you look at him. He's tempted by mischief and eventually by sin, threatened with destruction, preserved by faith and eventually redeemed by grace -- well, except that he's a wizard, and he saved the world, and there's supposedly something special about his courage and his ability to love. The Christ-figure in literature does not have to have all the attributes of Christ, just like the Oedipus-figure does not have to have all the attributes of Oedipus. All that's needed is enough to be recognizable. There is, Dumbledore tells us, something about Harry's ability to love. Not that Harry has some Betazoid sense of empathy or that his heart is always open. But when his heart does open, it opens all the way. There's nothing he won't do, or nothing he would do out of compassion for a friend that he wouldn't do out of compassion for a stranger, or even an enemy, once he perceives the need. Harry just can't be like Petunia, and care enough to take in a child but not enough to treat him decently. He can't understand Petunia at all. It's a measure of Rowling's power to put us inside Harry's head that she makes it hard for us to understand Petunia also. And yet it's Petunia and not Harry who mirrors the way the WW (and the real world) treat the unwanted. It's human, not monstrous, to put boundaries on our compassion. And yet, canon asks, what might we be able to accomplish if we did not? Harry doesn't have the choice of shutting down compassion, but he still has to find the courage to act on it. The resurrection stone allows him to draw on the example of his parents and his martyred friends. Most of us, fortunately, don't have parents and friends who died for us. But Sirius and Lupin had James and Lily as an example, and DH makes it explicit that James and Lily had Christ. The books do not attempt to convince us that we must become Christian to develop compassion or courage. I think they do attempt to show how Christianity could help someone to develop them. Understanding this message about compassion, which I didn't see until I tried to read through the lens of an (in my case) imaginary Christian faith, allows me to understand what she was saying about tolerance. Canon does not ask us to show tolerance for someone like Voldemort once it is clear that he cares as little for his followers as he does for his enemies, and that he won't or can't learn from his mistakes. But Harry learns not to assume that those who show no compassion for him are monsters who can't show compassion for anyone. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 18 23:48:06 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 23:48:06 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186222 So after more than a year I figured I will reread the whole book (I am not counting skimming through some chapters when we did chapters discussion) and yes, I am going to subject you guys to some randomness of mine again. :) "And you, Draco?" asked Voldemort, stroking the snake's snout with his wand-free hand. Drako shook his head jerkily. Now that woman had woken, he seemed unable to look at her anymore" - p.17 Alla: Oh no way, just no way this Draco gives me an impression that he may want to be a torturer and murderer if he cannot even look at one of their victims. What I am trying to say that I would not say that after this description his later behavior will come as a suprise to me. "Those of us who were privileged to be his friends benefited from his example, not to mention his help and encouragement with which he was always generous. He confessed to me in later life that his greatest pleasure lay in teaching" - p.22 Alla: Hm, I wonder now. Of course as we previously discussed many times dear Elphias Doge looks at Dumbledore through rose colored glasses and his account of what happened in Dumbledore's youth can be called erm... incomplete at best. However, it does not seem that he was lying, right? He just did not know lots of stuff and interpreted it in the best light to Dumbledore. So, what I am getting at is that if Dumbledore indeed said it to him, I sort of like it. It may mean that he indeed loved to teach, not just loved to manipulate people for his own gain and called it teaching. If kid that young dreams of teaching, he probably dreams of real teaching? "Striping away the popular image of serene, silver-bearded wisdom, Rita Skeeter reveals the disturbed childhood, the lawless youth, the lifelong feuds and the guilty secrets that Dumbledore carried to his grave" - p.26 Alla: I do not know about you guys, but upon reread I find this passage to be highly amusing for some reason and I also think that Rita Skeeter really really can write. She needs to write the catchy names for advertising campaign or work for some of the american tabloids, me thinks. "I thought there was a ministry of magic?" asked Vernon Dursley abruptly. "There is," said Harry, surprised. "Well,then, why can't they protect us? It seems to me that, as innocent victims, guilty of nothing more than harbouring a marked man, we ought to qualify for government protection!" Harry laughed, he could not help himself. It was so very typical of his uncle to put his hopes in the establishment, even within this world that he despised and mistrusted. "You heard what Mr. Weasley and Kingsley said," Harry replied. We think that Ministry had been infiltrated" - p.34 Alla: You know, I used to think that mistrust of the establishment and burocracy is one of the main themes in the series. But after Rufus Scrimgeour dying rather than betraying Harry, I really do not think that she condemns establishments per se. Or mayb I should say that at least as much as she condemns burocracy, she shows that people should try hard to work together instead of just washing their hands, like Dumbledore did, IMO of course. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 15:32:00 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:32:00 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186223 > Alla: > You know, I used to think that mistrust of the establishment and burocracy is one of the main themes in the series. But after Rufus Scrimgeour dying rather than betraying Harry, I really do not think that she condemns establishments per se. Or mayb I should say that at least as much as she condemns burocracy, she shows that people should try hard to work together instead of just washing their hands, like Dumbledore did, IMO of course. Zara: I don't agree Albus was washing his hands of the situation. The circumstances of Scrimgeour's death came as something of a shock to Harry and perhaps readers, but I don't think that Albus, had he still been around to hear the tale, would have found it surprising. And it does not really say much about bureaucracy, unless one considers the idea that there might be brave and principled people in bureaucracies a revelation. Scrimgeour was a decisive, intelligent, powerful adult who was free to ignore (and did ignore) Albus's advice. We know Albus offered it; I think we know this may have been on more than one occasion. Albus was also working on an independent track to deal with the Voldemort problem, which he chose not to share with the Ministry. SHould he have? My own answer is "no way". He had a spy on the inside who could report to him that the Ministry was being infiltrated, and who likely did not know the details. Snape was not personally involved with this part of Voldemort's plans, so it seems most likely to me that in the timeline of HBP, he would have known in broad outline that a take-over of the Ministry was in the works, as is suggested by, for example, Albus and his conversation after he heals the Ring Curse - but without knowing names and particulars that ALbus could supply to Scrimgeour. Scrimgeour individually might or might not have been of much use - he was probably better off spending his time being Minister. If he chose to share information on the Horcruxes with subordinates (the only way he might make a difference, I believe), however, I think the secret would quickly have gotten back to Voldemort. Regarding Albus and teaching - I took Doge's quote about ALbus loving to be a teacher, to have been made at some point after Albus became a teacher. I do not think it was a childhood dream or ambition of his, but he gave up on ambition for power in society after Ariana died and he decided he could not trust himself with that sort of power. However, having chosen teaching as his career, I think it is quite credible that he did like it. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 16:08:32 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:08:32 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186224 > Zara: > I don't agree Albus was washing his hands of the situation. Alla: No, I would not say that Albus was washing his hands of the situation either, but I would definitely say that he was washing his hands of the ministry. Zara: The circumstances of Scrimgeour's death came as something of a shock to Harry and perhaps readers, but I don't think that Albus, had he still been around to hear the tale, would have found it surprising. And it does not really say much about bureaucracy, unless one considers the idea that there might be brave and principled people in bureaucracies a revelation. Alla: Well, if Albus would not have been surprised by it, I would say it is one more point against him that he did not try harder to work with Scrimgeour, if Albus thought that he was a worthy guy to work with, you know? Zara: > Scrimgeour was a decisive, intelligent, powerful adult who was free to ignore (and did ignore) Albus's advice. We know Albus offered it; I think we know this may have been on more than one occasion. Alla: And here is our big point of disagreement. I know that you are right and that somewhere in HBP we may find Albus offering some sort of advice to Ministry. I however confess to totally not remembering this part, but I think it is interesting (and it is not sarcasm at all from me, believe me) that I remember very well Scrimgeour coming to Harry for help on more than one occassion and getting... what exactly? Now before you tell me that it was Harry's doing, I will tell you sure it was, however I still blame Albus for it. I blame Albus for not sitting Harry down and telling him that despite the fact that despicable monster of one Dolores Umbridge still works there (this is the reason why I just cannot blame Harry for it), there may be a need to work together with Minister and ministry. Rufus Scrimgeour wanted to get rid of Voldemort no less than Harry did, didn't he? So, anyways, could you remind me where and when Albus offered advice to the ministry? Zara: > Albus was also working on an independent track to deal with the Voldemort problem, which he chose not to share with the Ministry. SHould he have? My own answer is "no way". He had a spy on the inside who could report to him that the Ministry was being infiltrated, and who likely did not know the details. Alla: Eh, I am not suggesting that he should have shared the name of the spy either. But to me there were plenty other routes to cooperate with Ministry (Harry's help would have been one of the most obvious) that he choose did not go to. Zara: Regarding Albus and teaching - I took Doge's quote about ALbus loving to be a teacher, to have been made at some point after Albus became a teacher. I do not think it was a childhood dream or ambition of his, but he gave up on ambition for power in society after Ariana died and he decided he could not trust himself with that sort of power. However, having chosen teaching as his career, I think it is quite credible that he did like it. Alla: Right, but he said it about their childhood years, no? But I see what you are saying. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 19 16:58:14 2009 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 19 Apr 2009 16:58:14 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/19/2009, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1240160294.10.44253.m3@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186225 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 19, 2009 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 2009 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 Sun Apr 19 17:53:20 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:53:20 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186226 > Alla: > And here is our big point of disagreement. I know that you are right and that somewhere in HBP we may find Albus offering some sort of advice to Ministry. I however confess to totally not remembering this part, but I think it is interesting (and it is not sarcasm at all from me, believe me) that I remember very well Scrimgeour coming to Harry for help on more than one occassion and getting... what exactly? Zara: Scrimgeour wanted very specific assistance from Harry. Basically, for Harry to be a PR boost to the Ministry. In my opinion, Albus did not believe this would be either useful for the war/Wizard society, or good for Harry. And thus, I think he had no obligation to further it. > Alla: > Rufus Scrimgeour wanted to get rid of Voldemort no less than Harry did, didn't he? Zara: Right, I think his disagreement with Albus was on methods. > Alla: > So, anyways, could you remind me where and when Albus offered advice to the ministry? Zara: We are not shown any scenes. Albus and Scrimgeour would not have been having this sort of discussion in front of Harry. We can deduce they DID have such conversations, from dialogue and events other characters were in. Such as: > HBP, "The Other Minister": > "He'll (Scrimgeour) be here in a moment, he's just finishing a letter to Dumbledore." > "I wish him luck," said Fudge, sounding bitter for the first time. "I've been writing to Dumbledore twice a day for the past fortnight, but he won't budge. If he'd just been prepared to persuade the boy, I might still be...Well, maybe Scrimgeour will have more success." Zara: I think Scrimmy, like Fudge, had his own ideas about how to do things and ignored ALbus's advice, just as we saw Fudge do in the end of GoF. ALbus must have written something otehr than "get lost" back, to inspire this flurry of letter-writing. It is clear that Scrimmy, like Fudge, saw a PR role for Harry as the key. (Because after this letter being written in my quote is sent, Harry reads of a rift between Albus and Scrimmy. I think FUdge had it right, Scrimmy was asking for the same thing, and ALbus declined for the same reaosns). I think Albus has every right to disagree this is a necessary or prudent course of action. ALbus by no means poisons Harry against Scrimmy. HIs evaluation of the man, when asked by Harry: > HBP. "Horace Slughorn": > "Is he...Do you think he's good?" > "An interesting question," said Dumbledore. "He is able, certainly. A more decisive and forceful personality than Cornelius." > "Yes, but I meant-" > "I know what you meant. Rufus is a man of action, and having fought Dark Wizards for most of his working life, does not underestimate Lord Voldemort." Zara: Harry notes himself that ALbus refuses to address the rift between him and Scrimmy. He does not lobby Harry on the topic. And before you reply with "He could have said yes!", how would *you* answer the question, "Do you think Snape's good?" Albus gave a fair, adult, honest answer that recognized Scrimgeour's good qualities, and did not list any bad ones. Next, we have the following conversation between Harry and Arthur: > HBP, "A Very Frosty Christmas": > "I know Dumbledore's tried appealing directly to Scrimgeour about Stan.....I mean, anybody who has actually interviewed him agrees he's about as much a Death Eater as this satsuma...but the top levels want to look as though they're making some progress, and "three arrests" sounds better than "three mistaken arrests and releases"...but again, this is all top secret...." Zara: So Albus and Scrimmy are still communicating. And still disagreeing. Harry brings Stan up to Scrimmy in the conversation they have later this evening. It is a view he already had (the Trio all are shiocked by his arrest a few chapters before), that was reinforced by Arthur - but Albus never discussed it with Harry. In "A Sluggish Memory" ALbus confirms what Harry has already figured out, that Scrimmy just wants him for PR purposes. Again...if Albus has the right to disagree on this policy, he surely has no obligation to talk *Harry* out of *Harry's* objections to same? In the final relevant scene, at ALbus's funeral, Harry is again approached by Scrimgeour. Who still wants the same old, same old. > Alla: > Eh, I am not suggesting that he should have shared the name of the spy either. But to me there were plenty other routes to cooperate with Ministry (Harry's help would have been one of the most obvious) that he choose did not go to. Zara: It's not Snape I'm saying he should have kept from the Ministry, it's Horcruxes. The Ministry must have known about Snape, anyway, there must still have been people who had witnessed Albus's dramatic testimony on his behalf after the first war. His position in the second war was that, until the end of HBP, both sides believed him to be working for them. After HBP, both sides were wrong about who he was working for. Snape is just Albus's excellent reason for thinking telling the Ministry anything important is like sending it to Voldemort an Owl. So are you saying that having Harry Potter endorse the policies of the Scrimgeour Administration would have actually produced some useful effect? So useful Harry should have overlooked his principled objections to those policies (such as the arrests and continued detention of three innocent people, as Harry believes)? I mean, perhaps an RL example will shed light on how I think about this. Person X is a famous celebrity who agrees Al Qaeda is a Bad Thing. The Bush Administration also agrees Al Qaeda is a Bad Thing, and pursues (among other things) Guantanamo, domestic wiretaps, and waterboarding in their attempts to deal with Al Qaeda. Person X considers these human rights/civil rights violations. Should Person X endorse the Bush Administration, or is he right to withhold his support and urge the Bush Administration to reconsider the policies to which he objects? Because, to me it seems the point is not whether in the US/Al Qaeda conflict, X and Bush are on the same side. But whether X's support would do *real* good (help stop Al Qaeda from doing something bad) or just boost the poll numbers of a leader whose policies may be doing more harm than good, at least in the opinion of X? From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 18:59:22 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:59:22 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > Alla: > And here is our big point of disagreement. I know that you are right and that somewhere in HBP we may find Albus offering some sort of advice to Ministry. Sartoris22: In OOTP, during the scene in Sirius's kitchen when Harry is getting an update from the Order, Luipn says this to Harry: ",,,during the early days of his Ministry he [Fudge] was forever asking Dumbledore for help and advice. But it seems he's become fond of power now , and much more confident" (94). The quotation goes on to say that Fudge now believes he's smarter than Dumbledore and thinks Dumbledore is just trying to make trouble in his warnings about Voldemort. Apparently, Dumbledore did give Fudge advice but Fudge stopped asking for it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 20:15:24 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:15:24 -0000 Subject: some replies which are direct but off topic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186228 Sartoris22 wrote: > > All the points you make are good ones, and I'll try to respond to a few of them. Carol responds: Thanks. Sartoris 22: > I think the narrator is very sympathetic toward many characters, including Lupin, the Weasley family, Hermione, and Hagrid. Mostly, we get our clues about how to feel about characters from the narrator, which is why Rowling herself expressed surprize that so many fans actually "liked" Draco Malfoy, who is written as, at least in the early books, a fairly unpleasant character. Carol responds: Although the narrator isn't Harry, he or she writes from Harry's point of view, so the sympathetically portrayed characters are the ones that Harry likes or at least feels sorry for. It's interesting in some cases to see that viewpoint change. Some examples that come to mind are Tom Riddle and the Half-blood Prince, both originally viewed as helpful and good but then viewed as evil when their identity is revealed. That judgement is reversed again in the Prince's (Snape's case). The opposite is true of Grawp, who's originally depicted as a kind of monster because that's how Harry sees him and later as a gentle giant because Harry's perspective has changed. Of course, in some cases (Kreacher, for example, and possibly Draco, who is no longer "Malfoy" in DH), the narrator's depiction changes because the character himself changes, but most of the time, the depiction changes because Harry sees the character differently. By the end of the last book, Harry's perspective and the narrator's have (IMO) been cleansed or clarified, merging with JKR's own as the full truth (or what JKR considers the full truth) about them is revealed to Harry and the reader simultaneously. Sartoris22: > As for distinguishing between Rowling and the narrator, it goes without saying that Rowling creates the narrator, but the narrator is endowed only with the knowledge the writer gives her. The narrator doesn't necessarily know what the writer knows. She's an entity unto herself. Rowling has extensive knowledge of British and world history, yet her narrator rarely, if ever employs that knowledge, which is why I separate Rowling from the narrator, even though the narrator is her invention. Years ago, I read Wayne Booth's Rhetoric of Fiction, and I vaguely remember him discussing this distinction. Carol responds: Yes, I read "The Rhetoric of Fiction," too, and no doubt it helped to shape my perspective. I need to reread the book to see how much I've unconsciously absorbed. (I suspect that Henry James's remarks on "narrative consciousness" also made me aware of the author/narrator distinction in works with a third-person narrator; it's self-evident that a first-person narrator is a fictional character from the author. No one, I hope, would mistake Moll Flanders for Daniel Defoe or Huckleberry Finn for Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens. But the distinction between a limited omniscient narrator and the author who created that narrator is less self-evident.) At any rate, I agree with you that the distinction is important and it rests primarily on the limitations of the narrator's knowledge. Clearly, JKR's narrator doesn't know what JKR is concealing from the reader and consequently the narrator is bound to be unreliable whenever JKR as author wants to mislead the reader. Sartoris22: > I don't think it's unusual for a female writer to be able to describe the feelings of boys because women, for the most part, raise boys in Western society, and this information about boys is shared with other women. Besides, women tend to be more observant of human behavior. It isn't that unusual for women writers to write convincingly about men; George Eliot and Ayn Rand come readily to mind. It is more unusual for a male writer to write effectively about women, in my opinion. ,snip> Carol: I agree. I'm going to step onto thin ice here and say that I think it's because women tend to see men and women as equally human and to focus on their shared characteristics, whereas men tend to think of women as fitting certain roles in relation to men--mother, sister, lover, wife, daughter, teacher, nurse--rather than as individual human beings with distinctive needs and abilities and personalities. (The English poet Robert Southey once said that all women were alike in everything except looks because their minds and education were inferior to a man's, so it didn't matter who a man married as long as she was mild and beautiful. I can't remember the exact quotation, so I may be a bit off in my paraphrase, but his view is an extreme version of the idea that the only qualities that matter in a woman are youth and beauty and that a woman's place is in the home.) Sartoris22: > Overall, I think that the narrator seems more female than male, and do think she is sympathetic toward many characters besides Harry. Carol: I'm still not sure that the narrator is female. Certainly, the narrative voice in the chapters that abandon Harry's point of view seems neutral in all respects, including sex ("gender") or sexuality, which are, of course, irrelevant to those scenes. I've already indicated that the narrator is *generally* sympathetic toward the same characters that Harry is simply because in those chapters, he or she is writing from Harry's point of view. Carol,back from Flagstaff, where the daffodils were bravely struggling to raise their heads above the falling snow From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 20:41:57 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:41:57 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186229 Geoff wrote: > This is where perhaps the confusion over Christ-figure has arisen, it may be a question of semantics and our use of the word. I do not accept that any human can die to carry the sins of others and ensure the salvation of their soul. A human can die in self-sacrifice to save other people physically but that is the limit. Hence, in my book, the only Christ figure is Christ himself. ,snip> Carol responds: I understand and respect your feelings, but can you suggest another term in place of the conventional term "Christ figure" for a (fully human) character who resembles Christ in certain characteristics (such as love, humility, and self-sacrifice) without being Christ himself? ("Everyman" won't do; it's a different concept altogether.) Since it's possible to interpret a number of literary characters in this way (Gandalf, for example), we need a term for the concept, and "Christ figure" is the only one I know of that is actually used and commonly recognized. In the eyes of the literary critics who use this term, a Christ *figure* is no more Christ himself than a father *figure* is literally the father of the person who sees him in these terms. We could, for example, compare DD and Snape as father figures for Harry and Draco, respectively, with no delusions as to either of them being the character's actual father, just as we can see Harry as a Christ figure with no delusions as to his being Christ (or even Christ*like* in all respects). Carol, who can think of no other term that would serve the purpose From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Apr 19 20:57:52 2009 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:57:52 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186230 > Geoff wrote: > This is where perhaps the confusion over Christ-figure has arisen, it may be a question of semantics and our use of the word. ... > Carol responds: > I understand and respect your feelings, but can you suggest another term in place of the conventional term "Christ figure" for a (fully human) character who resembles Christ in certain characteristics (such as love, humility, and self-sacrifice) without being Christ himself? ("Everyman" won't do; it's a different concept altogether.) Kemper now: What about 'messiah'? I do not see Harry as Christ though I can see how his 'death' delivered his (Harry's) believers from Voldemort's wand hand. Kemper From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 22:01:57 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:01:57 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sartoris22" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > > > Alla: > > And here is our big point of disagreement. I know that you are right and that somewhere in HBP we may find Albus offering some sort of advice to Ministry. > Sartoris22 responded: > > In OOTP, during the scene in Sirius's kitchen when Harry is getting an update from the Order, Luipn says this to Harry: ",,,during the early days of his Ministry he [Fudge] was forever asking Dumbledore for help and advice. But it seems he's become fond of power now , and much more confident" (94). > > The quotation goes on to say that Fudge now believes he's smarter than Dumbledore and thinks Dumbledore is just trying to make trouble in his warnings about Voldemort. Apparently, Dumbledore did give Fudge advice but Fudge stopped asking for it. > Carol adds: We also have two specific instances of DD offering advice to Fudge and of Fudge rejecting it. The first is near the end of GoF when DD advises Fudge to "remove Azkaban from the control of the dementors" and "send envoys to the giants" (Am. ed. 707, 708). The second occurs during Harry's hearing in OoP, when DD says things like, "We must ask ourselves why somebody within the Ministry ordered a pair of dementors into that alleyway on the second of August" and "undoubtedly the Ministry will be making an inquiry into why two dememtors were so very far from Azkaban" (Am. ed. 146, 147), essentially reiterating his point that the dementors can't be trusted and likely to form an alliance with Voldemort if they haven't already, along with the (new) implication that someone at the Ministry also can't be trusted. In addition, he reminds Fudge that the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery allows an underage Wizard to defend himself and that the Ministry doesn't have the power to punish Hogwarts students for their behavior at school (148, 149). About the only effect of his advice (other than Harry's acquittal, which is not Fudge's doing) is the later change in the law that allows Dolores Umbridge to infiltrate the school first as spy and then as High Inquisitor. He certainly doesn't believe that Voldemort is back or that the dementors are dangerous and untrustworthy. But judging from these examples, we can see that Dumbledore did try to influence and advise Fudge. And I think we see in "the Other Minister" in HBP that Fudge belatedly realizes that Dumbledore was right about both Voldemort and the Dementors (and possibly the giants as well--though I think that Fudge did send an ambassador to the giants, the MoM employee Macnair, who was really serving another master). With regard to Scrimgeour, Dumbledore may have thought that he was too interested in Harry (as mascot) and that it was important to the secrecy of the Horcrux hunt that Harry not become allied with him. Harry, of course, had other reasons (Umbridge and Stan Shunpike), but, IMO, Scrimgeour had no way of knowing about Umbridge's activities as High Inquisitor, especially her quill, so when Harry raised his fist to show that "I will not tell lies" was still burned into his skin, it would simply have looked to Scrimgeour like a raised fist with scars that looked like words. (He didn't say: "See this? Umbridge did this to me because I said that Voldemort was back, and yet you've still got her on the Ministry payroll!") Scrimgeour isn't a mind reader, and he isn't evil. It's clear that Dumbledore hasn't communicated all the facts about Umbridge to him (if he knows them himself). He probably feels that Scrimgeour won't be as tractable as Fudge once was and that he'll think that any information Dumbledore has about Voldemort is Ministry business. Since DD works on a need-to-know basis and since he has no personal relationship with Scrimgeour based on mutual trust, not to mention that he knows from Snape that the Ministry will eventually be infiltrated (if it isn't already, via Umbridge) he probably thinks it's best to keep the MoM and the Horcrux hunt completely separate. (As for DD's earlier advice to Fudge, Scrimgeour is already aware that Voldemort is back and has learned to his cost not to trust the Dementors. All Scrimgeour can do now is to fight Voldemort in his own way while DD fights him in his.) Carol, who rather likes Scrimgeour and wishes he had a larger role From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 22:19:30 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:19:30 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186232 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > > > Geoff wrote: > > This is where perhaps the confusion over Christ-figure has arisen, it may be a question of semantics and our use of the word. ... > > > Carol responds: > > I understand and respect your feelings, but can you suggest another term in place of the conventional term "Christ figure" for a (fully human) character who resembles Christ in certain characteristics (such as love, humility, and self-sacrifice) without being Christ himself? ("Everyman" won't do; it's a different concept altogether.) Kemper responded: > What about 'messiah'? > > I do not see Harry as Christ though I can see how his 'death' delivered his (Harry's) believers from Voldemort's wand hand. > > Kemper > Carol responds: "Messiah *figure*," maybe? I do see the connection since the Messiah is the Chosen One, the expected deliverer of his people, and the early Jewish Christians saw Jesus in that role. But "Messiah" is a specifically Jewish concept, and Jewish readers certainly won't read Harry as the Messiah any more than Christian readers (those who actually read the books, not the extremists who refuse to read books about witchcraft) view him as Christ. I'm talking about a human character with Christlike attributes whom at least some figures will specifically associate with Christ because of motifs like willing self-sacrifice to save others and "resurrection" of some sort. And neither self-sacrifice nor resurrection is associated with the concept of the Messiah, whom the Jews thought would deliver them from Roman oppression, not die and rise from the dead to save their souls. At any rate, any reader who associates Harry with a messianic figure will, I think, specifically associate him with Christ, which takes us back to "Christ figure." Carol, who still thinks that "Christ figure" is the best term for this particular concept, which is quite distinct from Christ himself From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 19 22:29:41 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:29:41 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186233 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > This is where perhaps the confusion over Christ-figure has arisen, it may be a question of semantics and our use of the word. I do not accept that any human can die to carry the sins of others and ensure the salvation of their soul. A human can die in self-sacrifice to save other people physically but that is the limit. Hence, in my book, the only Christ figure is Christ himself. ,snip> Carol: > I understand and respect your feelings, but can you suggest another term in place of the conventional term "Christ figure" for a (fully human) character who resembles Christ in certain characteristics (such as love, humility, and self-sacrifice) without being Christ himself? ("Everyman" won't do; it's a different concept altogether.) Since it's possible to interpret a number of literary characters in this way (Gandalf, for example), we need a term for the concept, and "Christ figure" is the only one I know of that is actually used and commonly recognized. In the eyes of the literary critics who use this term, a Christ *figure* is no more Christ himself than a father *figure* is literally the father of the person who sees him in these terms. We could, for example, compare DD and Snape as father figures for Harry and Draco, respectively, with no delusions as to either of them being the character's actual father, just as we can see Harry as a Christ figure with no delusions as to his being Christ (or even Christ*like* in all respects). Geoff: I think that your suggestion of a comparison with "father figure" is not entirely valid. A person *can* be a father figure in that they can fulfil every requirement except that of being the biological father of the person concerned. For me, a Christ figure would have to fulfil the same work as Jesus himself. Since no one is God in human form or sinless, I maintain that they could not be such a person. Part of this has arisen in the past when various people suggested that Harry was Christ which I do not correlate with being a father figure. My general answer would be that a person can be both Christ-like and everyman. Harry, like many folk in the real world, can be so labelled. I believe that all Christians should be Christ-like or strive to be so. Harry is an everyman in the sense that we are; if we are honest, we all fall short of being perfect both in our own estimation and that of others. Some of us fall shorter than others, As an example, I look at those who have devoted their lives to dealing with the poor (Mother Teresa for instance) and realise how much more I could do - and don't. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 23:28:51 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:28:51 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186234 Carol adds: We also have two specific instances of DD offering advice to Fudge and of Fudge rejecting it. The first is near the end of GoF when DD advises Fudge to "remove Azkaban from the control of the dementors" and "send envoys to the giants" (Am. ed. 707, 708). The second occurs during Harry's hearing in OoP, when DD says things like, "We must ask ourselves why somebody within the Ministry ordered a pair of dementors into that alleyway on the second of August" and "undoubtedly the Ministry will be making an inquiry into why two dememtors were so very far from Azkaban" (Am. ed. 146, 147), essentially reiterating his point that the dementors can't be trusted and likely to form an alliance with Voldemort if they haven't already, along with the (new) implication that someone at the Ministry also can't be trusted. Alla: Sorry for being unclear, of course I remember Dumbledore's conversation with Fudge at the end of GoF, and when I say that he washed his hands of ministry, I specifically mean after GoF. I did not remember OOP quote, however I think that what he says at Harry's hearing cannot be considered a good faith advice, because his mindset IMO is not anymore on trying to find ways with ministry, but I understand how it can be taken as such. All of this just to say that I was thinking of Dumbledore and Scrimgeour, not of Dumbledore and Fudge. But I suppose Dumbledore's unwillingness to work with Scrimgeour (IMO) cannot be considered in vacuum and being burned, I can see how he would not want to. But this is **the only** way I can justify it, Dumbledore being burnt before. Anything else to me is just well, not good. And now to Zara's. Zara: Scrimgeour wanted very specific assistance from Harry. Basically, for Harry to be a PR boost to the Ministry. In my opinion, Albus did not believe this would be either useful for the war/Wizard society, or good for Harry. And thus, I think he had no obligation to further it. Alla: Sure, this was part of what Scrimgeour wanted. I think though that this meant that he also wanted Harry's help in fighting, not just being a talk person. I see only help in that. Maybe Dumbledore did not want to see that it could go further than that? Zara: We are not shown any scenes. Albus and Scrimgeour would not have been having this sort of discussion in front of Harry. We can deduce they DID have such conversations, from dialogue and events other characters were in. Such as: > HBP, "The Other Minister": > "He'll (Scrimgeour) be here in a moment, he's just finishing a letter to Dumbledore." > "I wish him luck," said Fudge, sounding bitter for the first time. "I've been writing to Dumbledore twice a day for the past fortnight, but he won't budge. If he'd just been prepared to persuade the boy, I might still be...Well, maybe Scrimgeour will have more success." Alla: I do not follow though, could you clarify? How come Fudge thinking that Scrimgeour will have more success translates into such communication indeed taking place, communication between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore I mean? Yes, letter was written, but was there a response, let alone a flurry of letter writing? Fudge indulged in a lot of wishful thinking, won't you agree? Zara: Albus by no means poisons Harry against Scrimmy. His evaluation of the man, when asked by Harry: > HBP. "Horace Slughorn": > "Is he...Do you think he's good?" > "An interesting question," said Dumbledore. "He is able, certainly. A more decisive and forceful personality than Cornelius." > "Yes, but I meant-" > "I know what you meant. Rufus is a man of action, and having fought Dark Wizards for most of his working life, does not underestimate Lord Voldemort." Alla: Oh I really beg to differ about Albus not poisoning Harry against Scrimgeour. Believe me, there are a lot of moments in the books where it hard for me to remember my first reaction to them. I however remember this one for some reason very clearly. I am sure you can guess my first reaction. It was something like that. Oh, I see, Dumbledore thinks man stinks **big time** and no better than Fudge in a sense. I did not need for Dumbledore to reassure Harry that Scrimgeour is indeed good, if Dumbledore does not feel that way. All that I needed him to say is that he is Harry's ally, period, end of story. This answer certainly poisoned **my** mind against him right from the beginning, therefore to me it is a fair assumption to make that Harry's may have been poisoned too. Zara: So Albus and Scrimmy are still communicating. And still disagreeing. Harry brings Stan up to Scrimmy in the conversation they have later this evening. It is a view he already had (the Trio all are shocked by his arrest a few chapters before), that was reinforced by Arthur - but Albus never discussed it with Harry. Alla: Yes Harry does bring Stan up and believe me, in HBP I was oh so nodding my head ? how dear big bad Ministry arrested that innocent kid? After all we have Sirius' example and did not they learn anything? Only see after DH I really do not share the belief in Stan's innocence anymore and therefore when I reread this conversation, I am thinking ? how about you learn more Harry before you speak? I mean, sure he **could** be innocent, but he was **fighting** with DE for goodness sake. And while I of course do not consider Voldemort and his bunch the brightest bulbs, I have to stop and ask myself, eh why the heck would they bring somebody under the curse in the fighting where theoretically at least somebody from other side may uncurse him and he will turn against DE this very second? Could it be that Dumbledore and Harry were, eh wrong and Harry's half second determination that Stan was under curse was wrong as well? I of course cannot be hundred percent sure, but I think it is a very distinct possibility now. Zara: It's not Snape I'm saying he should have kept from the Ministry, it's Horcruxes Alla: Oh I disagree then. I think Harry needed every possible help, but with Dumbledore and Horcruxes, I just do not want to go there right now, it is too drastic, heh. Zara: So are you saying that having Harry Potter endorse the policies of the Scrimgeour Administration would have actually produced some useful effect? So useful Harry should have overlooked his principled objections to those policies (such as the arrests and continued detention of three innocent people, as Harry believes)? Alla: No, and of course you know my answer to your hypothetical, I consider Guantanamo to be our disgrace, but see while I think that this person X should have certainly protest all the methods that he or she finds despicable, if such person started saying that people who are there are innocent just because this person says so, I would call this person X a fool. To go back to Potterland, I would have wanted them try harder and if say Harry decided to talk some more, to see whether it is working or not, I would have liked it better. Moreover, if Harry would have said, give Stan a fair trial and then I will work with you, absolutely, I would have totally support it. In short what I would have liked Harry to do is to make up his own mind as to whether he wants to work with Ministry. How about agreeing to speak if he would be allowed a visit with Stan? And how about having a bit more time to judge for himself If he is under curse or not? At the end of HBP I certainly felt that Harry's mind was made up, only I felt that Dumbledore made up his mind for him. And by saying that he is still a Dumbledore's man (not his own man) I feel Harry confirms it for me. Funnily I think Harry became his own man when he figured that Dumbledore's plan is a good plan to follow, but I do not believe that he ever judged for himself if Ministry is a good ally or not, without DD influence that is. JMO, Alla From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 19 22:58:45 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:58:45 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186235 > Carol: > Carol, who still thinks that "Christ figure" is the best term for this particular concept, which is quite distinct from Christ himself > sartoris22: I agree. Christ-figure is the appropriate term, and the qualifying term is "figure," which in this sense means a representation of sorts. From no.limberger at gmail.com Sun Apr 19 23:54:15 2009 From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:54:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ef72f90904191654i49ac016nfffd7a1f220b3b49@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186236 >Carol wrote: >At any rate, any reader who associates Harry with a messianic >figure will, I think, specifically associate him with Christ, >which takes us back to "Christ figure." No.Limberger responds: A Jewish reader won't associate Harry Potter with the Christian Christ. IMO, the most accurate description of what Harry as a literary figure is that of the "hero" archetype. This is a common literary archetype. All stories consist of a few common structural elements. They exist universally in novels, myths, fairy tales, movies, etc. Collectively, they are simply "The Hero's Journey" or "monomyth". This was first described by Joseph Campbell and later by Christopher Vogler and others. It is simply this: 1. A hero(es) is introduced in the ordinary world. 2. He/she (they) receives a call to adventure. 3. He/she (they) may be reluctant at first or refuse the call, but is encouraged by a mentor to cross the first threshold into the "special world" where he/she (they) encounters tests,allies and enemies. 4. They cross a second threshold where he/she (they) endures an ordeal and takes possession of his/her (their) reward and is pursued on the path back to the ordinary world 5. He/she (they) cross the third threshold and experience a resurrection and are transformed by the experience. 6. He/she (they) returns to the ordinary world with something that benefits the ordinary world. References: 1. "The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structures for Writers, Third Edition" by Christopher Vogler, page 19. 2. http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/smc/journey/ref/summary.html 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth 4. http://orias.berkeley.edu/hero/ 5. http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~sparks/sffilm/mmswtab.html Not only does this describe the Christian stories of Jesus, it matches the stories of Harry Potter and countless other mythic heroes & heroines. It's the story of "The Hobbit", "Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "The Odyssey", "The Iliad", Buddha, Indiana Jones, "The Wizard of Oz", Abraham, Moses, etc. Sometimes elements are repeated, such as Harry Potter who has multiple ordeals, but so did Hercules, Luke Sykwalker, Frodo Baggins, etc. Thus, Harry Potter can be compared to Christ, but he can be compared to many other literary, mythic & religious heroes, many of which predate Christ. The identifying lightning bolt scar on Harry's forehead can be explained by Joseph Campbell who wrote this in 1949: "The thunderbolt (vajra) is one of the major symbols of Buddhist iconography, signifying the spiritual power of Buddhahood... In the figures of the gods that have come down from ancient Mesopotamia...the thunderbolt, in the same form as the vajra, is a conspicuous element; from these it was inherited by Zeus." (Joseph Campbell, "The Hero With a Thousand Faces", pages 87-88.) Additional reference: definition of vajra: http://www.reference.com/browse/vajra. ** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 20 01:58:27 2009 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:58:27 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904191654i49ac016nfffd7a1f220b3b49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186237 No Limberger wrote in : > > A Jewish reader won't associate Harry Potter with the > Christian Christ. A Jewish reader who has undergone academic education in English-language literature, especially English literature, may well do so. The person who is studying English Literature is compelled to study classic English works of great literature such as Pilgrim's Progress and Paradise Lost and John Donne's religious poem, all of which were written to assert the writer's view of Christian doctrine. To understand what the authors were driving at, the student has to learn about the various flavors of Christian doctrine that were around at the the time. The person also has to study Shakespeare's plays, which apparently were not written to promote some religious opinion, but nonetheless refer to religious discussions that were common at the time, such as my friend who is ABD in English Literature says it's a cliche that HAMLET is about the Protestant son of a Catholic father -- the alleged ghost of Hamlet's father says his soul is in Purgatory. At that time, Catholics believed in Purgatory and Anglicans believed that Purgatory was a lie. And people, ordinary people, groundlings, were kind of aware of what they did and didn't believe, because a monarch who executed subjects just for being Catholics had been followed by a monarch who executed subjects just for not being Catholics, who was followed by Elizabeth I. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 20 03:34:00 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:34:00 -0000 Subject: Abus, Scrimgeour, and Harry (WAS: Re: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186238 > Alla: > Sure, this was part of what Scrimgeour wanted. I think though that this meant that he also wanted Harry's help in fighting, not just being a talk person. I see only help in that. Maybe Dumbledore did not want to see that it could go further than that? Zara: I do not believe he wanted more. He did not pitch it to Harry that way. He suggests it does not even matter is Harry is the Chosen One, just that people do. He describes Harry's duties as "not onerous", just being seem to stop by the Ministty so people would "think" he is working for them. > Alla: > I do not follow though, could you clarify? How come Fudge thinking that Scrimgeour will have more success translates into such communication indeed taking place, communication between Scrimgeour and Dumbledore I mean? Yes, letter was written, but was there a response, let alone a flurry of letter writing? Zara: Fudge knew what the letter was about. We know it received a response, because the Prophet reported a rift between Albus and Scrimmy. > Alla: > I did not need for Dumbledore to reassure Harry that Scrimgeour is indeed good, if Dumbledore does not feel that way. All that I needed him to say is that he is Harry's ally, period, end of story. This answer certainly poisoned **my** mind against him right from the beginning, therefore to me it is a fair assumption to make that Harry's may have been poisoned too. Zara: I have two objections to this line of reasoning. 1) It is my opinion Albus would have considered "he is Harry's ally, period, end of story" a flat out lie, something, remarkably enough, he never in seven books, told to Harry. 2) And you and Harry would have believed it just as you believed such unequivocal statements as "I trust Severus Snape completely". > Alla: > Yes Harry does bring Stan up and believe me, in HBP I was oh so nodding my head ? how dear big bad Ministry arrested that innocent kid? After all we have Sirius' example and did not they learn anything? Only see after DH I really do not share the belief in Stan's innocence anymore and therefore when I reread this conversation, I am thinking ? how about you learn more Harry before you speak? Zara: This ignores that Harry had already drawn a conclusion for himself, with no input from Albus. P. 221 of the US paperback edition of HBP has half a page of dialogue among the Trio which I will not reproduce. But they considered the published circumstances of his arrest and their own personal knowledge of Stan to reach the conclusion he was innocent, and the arrest was a PR stunt. Arthur mentioning Albus agreed about Stan's innocence weeks later did not form Harry's opinion - it just reminded him of something he had been upset about before, based only on his own opinions and those of his best friends. I would also add this is irrelevant. Even if Arthur, his Ministry sources who interviewed Stan and considered him innocent, Albus, Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all wrong, it does not alter the Ministry's poor handling of the case. No trial, like you say. And Stan was not even the only one - see my Arthur quote, there were two others of which Arthur was aware. > Alla: > No, and of course you know my answer to your hypothetical, I consider Guantanamo to be our disgrace, but see while I think that this person X should have certainly protest all the methods that he or she finds despicable, if such person started saying that people who are there are innocent just because this person says so, I would call this person X a fool. Zara: X=Harry. In this case, X knows a detainee personally and believes based on that personal knowledge and facts in the public record, that X is not a terrorist. But again, the analogy is really that X and Harry object to the *policy*. > Alla: > Moreover, if Harry would have said, give Stan a fair trial and then I will work with you, absolutely, I would have totally support it. In short what I would have liked Harry to do is to make up his own mind as to whether he wants to work with Ministry. How about agreeing to speak if he would be allowed a visit with Stan? And how about having a bit more time to judge for himself If he is under curse or not? Zara: But this *is* basically what happened. Albus appealed to Scrimmy personally (without Harry's knowledge until Christmas. No Change. Harry personally brought it up. No Change. Harry personally brought it up *again*. No Change. Either Scrimmy is a moron (which I do not believe) or he was not willing to compromise here. Further - Scrimmy offered the "tough times call for tough measures" defense of his actions to Harry, not the "Boy, I know a heck of a lot more about it than you do and I swear he is guilty as sin" defense. To me, this made clear that Scrimmy did not care whether or not Stan was guilty. Just as he does not care whether Harry is really the Chosen One. So long as people think Stan off the street means they are safer, Stan can stay in jail. So long as people think Harry is working for the Ministry and think this makes them safer, that is all that matters. > Alla: > At the end of HBP I certainly felt that Harry's mind was made up, only I felt that Dumbledore made up his mind for him. And by saying that he is still a Dumbledore's man (not his own man) I feel Harry confirms it for me. Zara: I've already indicated where the evidence Harry made up his own mind about Stan is located. But to me, it was also abundantly clear that Harry did not like Scrimmy's tactics in talking to him. He perceived the empty flattery when Scrimmy said things like "They think you quite the hero - which, of course, you are, Harry, chosen or not. How many times have you faced He-Who-Must-Not Be-Named now?" (Because, note, when requesting the services of this remarkable individual he speaks of, he wants something Lockhart would be more inclined to deliver). Or the obvious attempt to bribe him, by suggesting his way into the Auror program could be greased if he cooperated. Albus was not there pointing these things out to Harry. Albus did not warn Harry that Scrimmy would take such approaches. Harry had simply acquired enough experience by then so see it for himself. Harry is not even told by Albus that it was this PR idea of Scrimmy's that was the source of the rift. Albus only refers to that rift when Harry brings it up after Christmas and speculates on the reason. I think Harry declares himself Dumbledore's man there, because that is how Scrimmy labelled him in their first conversation. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 20 06:11:14 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:11:14 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse References: <7ef72f90904191654i49ac016nfffd7a1f220b3b49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186239 > No.Limberger responds: > A Jewish reader won't associate Harry Potter with the > Christian Christ. Shelley: But how do you know that they won't? Do you presume that all Jews know of only their own religion? Are you presuming that there are NO studied and learned Jews who have enough knowledge of common themes and literature, and of other religions who would be able to recognize the pattern of the Savior of that other religion? That seems to me to be a wild, unsustainable postion. I know who Mohommad is, and I consider myself to be Christian. I would recognize verses from the Kohan to be different from my Bible, and with the right clues, would be able to pick out a "Mahommad figure" if one was written into literature. I think any Jew who has been raised with the English language who has read many a work which references New Testament events of Christ and the fullfillment of the Messiah promised to them, so that even if they don't agree that Christ is that Messiah, would know the basic structure of what separates them from the Christians enough to recognize Christian themes in literature. So, I strongly disagree with you that one's faith alone would be a definining element that would make one associate Harry Potter with Christ. I have several friends who are Jewish- and for them, it's a heritage and not necessarily a religion (similiar to the pattern we talked about with nominal Christians in this modern era), but that doesn't limit their education and understanding of other religions and common themes expressed within. > No.Limberger responds: > IMO, the most accurate description of what Harry as > a literary figure is that of the "hero" archetype. Shelley: I'm snipping all this argument for the sake of space. So, you want to call Harry a "hero archetype". That is fine, if that's your position. Mine is that the "Christ figure" is much more specific, a subset, if you will, of the generic "hero", and it's that definition that I am using to describe Harry. You can keep your hero archetype definition, but just recognize that you aren't changing a whole lot of minds away from the Christ-figure definition that we've been using. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 20 06:45:51 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 06:45:51 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904191654i49ac016nfffd7a1f220b3b49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186240 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger wrote: No.Limberger: > Not only does this describe the Christian stories of > Jesus, it matches the stories of Harry Potter and > countless other mythic heroes & heroines. Geoff: Your information regarding heroes is very valuable. the only point to which a Christian would object would be your comparison of the life of Jesus with characters such as Harry whom you categorise as heroic or mythical. On the subject of Christ figure versus Chrsit-like, I think, as I wrote a few days ago, that we have got stuck in an "agree to disagree" rut and are going round in circles. Perhaps we should stop before we get dizzy. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 20 15:10:45 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:10:45 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186241 > Geoff: Perhaps we should stop before we get dizzy. Potioncat, falling into a chair and grasping her head: Yes, good idea. Not to mention that this is very OT. Geoff: > Your information regarding heroes is very valuable. the only point to > which a Christian would object would be your comparison of the life > of Jesus with characters such as Harry whom you categorise as heroic > or mythical. Potioncat: I think you've brought up some very good points that have really fit with the HP story. But speaking as a Christian, I personally don't mind a reference to a fictional character to a real person. So a Christ figure doesn't bother me. What does offend me is when a portion of the Bible is taught as literature. OK, I can accept the Psalms, they are poetry. But I once found a "Bible story" under literature in my child's lit book. Don't remember which one now. Nor would I expect writings from other religions to be taught as fiction, but as religion. (ancient myths aside.) By the way, has anyone here seen the play, "Children of the Flood" before? If so, answer at OT. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 20 15:55:59 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:55:59 -0000 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186242 > Alla: > > You know, I used to think that mistrust of the establishment and burocracy is one of the main themes in the series. But after Rufus Scrimgeour dying rather than betraying Harry, I really do not think that she condemns establishments per se. Or mayb I should say that at least as much as she condemns burocracy, she shows that people should try hard to work together instead of just washing their hands, like Dumbledore did, IMO of course. > Pippin: If JKR didn't think people needed keeping in order, she wouldn't have given us Dudley. She's okay with authority, she just wants to see it properly used. After all, Arthur's a ministry employee. Given JKR's personal experience with the dole, I tend to see Petunia as a caricature of the welfare state: grudging, furious, bitter, spitefully neglectful, mildly abusive and a whole lot better than nothing. Just ask Merope. I don't see Dumbledore washing his hands of the Ministry. As he said, as long as they opposed Voldemort, they were on the same side. He went so far as to rescue Umbridge from the centaurs, and I think he would have saved Scrimgeour if he'd had the opportunity. But Scrimgeour was a professional investigator and the previous head of the auror office. If he wasn't curious about the scars on Harry's hand, or about how two dementors came to be in a Muggle area, or who in the Ministry might have sent them, it's because he didn't want to know. Dumbledore (and Harry) tried to get Scrimgeour to see that he needed to fight corruption within the Ministry as well as outside it, and Scrimgeour wasn't interested. We can tell from his offer to Harry that integrity wasn't something he cared about in his staffers. They just had to make him look good. By the time he realized he needed people he could really trust, it was too late. I don't think Moody had any inside information that Thicknesse had been taken over -- Snape was in no position to get it to him. IMO, it was obvious to Moody that Thicknesse was making it harder for the Order to defend Harry from Voldemort, and that gave Thicknesse away. Harry believed himself that no one could defend him from Voldemort once the protection expired. So did Scrimgeour. So to Scrimgeour, it would be most important that the Ministry make a show of having tried. Thicknesse's plan did that, and therefore in Scrimgeour's eyes it wouldn't be evidence of disloyalty. Scrimgeour himself had integrity -- but he wasn't willing to enforce a culture of integrity at the Ministry. OTOH, though Dumbledore's own integrity can be questioned, he did enforce a culture of integrity at Hogwarts. Pippin From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Mon Apr 20 17:28:31 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:28:31 +0200 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <1FF72275EEEF41C6B0E89CE7C52EE3F2@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 186243 potioncat wrote: > I think you've brought up some very good points that have really fit > with the HP story. But speaking as a Christian, I personally don't > mind a reference to a fictional character to a real person. So a > Christ figure doesn't bother me. What does offend me is when a > portion of the Bible is taught as literature. Miles: Answering as a Christian myself - they *are* literature. They are more for Christians and Jews, but for others they are "only" that. If you look at bible exegetics, these scholars work with the same set of analytical instruments as those who work on non-religous texts. They try to find out about the authors of certain parts of the bible, when they lived, what political and cultural background they had. They try to find out when a text is written, whether a text is in it's original state, altered by "mistake" or on purpose. To work on bible texts in this "critical-historical" way (I don't know the terminus technicus in English) is crucial not least for a correct translation. The bible is an important work of literature of this world, and it is more for those who are either Jews (partially) or Christians. I do not have problems of accepting both sides, and I would not impose other people not to merely read and describe the bible as literature. Which brings me back to our On-Topic discussion on the term "Christe figure". While I agree with you that "Christ figure" is not a good description for Harry, I am not really happy with your rationale. In my opinion, we had a discussion about literary criticism, and "I do not like this category because it contradicts my faith" is IMO not a valid argument - your faith is not part of litery criticism, isn't it? If literary scholars use the term "Christ figure" in the way Carol tells us (and her expertise is obvious), we can discuss whether this category is helpful for general analysis or analysing Harry Potter - but whether it is right or wrong in the light of one's faith is a totally different discussion. Just my opinion and no offence meant. Miles From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Mon Apr 20 18:42:31 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:42:31 +0200 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse References: <1FF72275EEEF41C6B0E89CE7C52EE3F2@miles> Message-ID: <190ABFB9B60A4908A3FE76152563FFBC@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 186244 Sorry, I forgot to address the 2nd part of my mail to Geoff: Miles wrote: > potioncat wrote: >> I think you've brought up some very good points that have really fit >> with the HP story. But speaking as a Christian, I personally don't >> mind a reference to a fictional character to a real person. So a >> Christ figure doesn't bother me. What does offend me is when a >> portion of the Bible is taught as literature. > > Miles: > Answering as a Christian myself - they *are* literature. They are > more for Christians and Jews, but for others they are "only" that. > > If you look at bible exegetics, these scholars work with the same set > of analytical instruments as those who work on non-religous texts. > They try to find out about the authors of certain parts of the bible, > when they lived, what political and cultural background they had. > They try to find out when a text is written, whether a text is in > it's original state, altered by "mistake" or on purpose. To work on > bible texts in this "critical-historical" way (I don't know the > terminus technicus in English) is crucial not least for a correct > translation. > > The bible is an important work of literature of this world, and it is > more for those who are either Jews (partially) or Christians. I do > not have problems of accepting both sides, and I would not impose > other people not to merely read and describe the bible as literature. Now: > Which brings me back to our On-Topic discussion on the term "Christe > figure". While I agree with Geoff that "Christ figure" is not a good > description for Harry, I am not really happy with his rationale. In > my opinion, we had a discussion about literary criticism, and "I do > not like this category because it contradicts my faith" is IMO not a > valid argument - faith is not part of litery criticism, isn't > it? If literary scholars use the term "Christ figure" in the way > Carol tells us (and her expertise is obvious), we can discuss whether > this category is helpful for general analysis or analysing Harry > Potter - but whether it is right or wrong in the light of one's faith > is a totally different discussion. Just my opinion and no offence > meant. > > Miles From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 20 18:56:19 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:56:19 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186245 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > Perhaps we should stop before we get dizzy. > > Potioncat, falling into a chair and grasping her head: > Yes, good idea. Not to mention that this is very OT. Geoff: I'm not sure that I would agree. What I feel we are doing is to tie these discussions on faith into the different ways in which we see Harry as a character and are trying to interpret how JKR intended us to do that. And I believe that that fits within the terms of reference of the group. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 20 19:03:48 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:03:48 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <1FF72275EEEF41C6B0E89CE7C52EE3F2@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186246 > Miles: > > Which brings me back to our On-Topic discussion on the term "Christe > figure". While I agree with you that "Christ figure" is not a good > description for Harry, I am not really happy with your rationale. In my > opinion, we had a discussion about literary criticism, and "I do not like > this category because it contradicts my faith" is IMO not a valid argument - > your faith is not part of litery criticism, isn't it? If literary scholars > use the term "Christ figure" in the way Carol tells us (and her expertise is > obvious), we can discuss whether this category is helpful for general > analysis or analysing Harry Potter - but whether it is right or wrong in the > light of one's faith is a totally different discussion. Just my opinion and > no offence meant. Potioncat: Oops, must have been dizzier than I thought. Let me try again. I actually think the character Harry Potter can be described as a Christ figure. There's also at touch of a "David and Goliah" in the various books. My point in the post previous to this was that while Geoff had some really good points, and was showing how a character cannot be a Christ figure, I see it a little differently. There are other aspects of your (Miles) post that I'd like to respond to, but will take it over to OT. (Not the same thing as saying, "Step outside and say that"...) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 20 19:35:15 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:35:15 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186247 Carol earlier: > > I understand and respect your feelings, but can you suggest another term in place of the conventional term "Christ figure" for a (fully human) character who resembles Christ in certain characteristics (such as love, humility, and self-sacrifice) without being Christ himself? ("Everyman" won't do; it's a different concept altogether.) Since it's possible to interpret a number of literary characters in this way (Gandalf, for example), we need a term for the concept, and "Christ figure" is the only one I know of that is actually used and commonly recognized. In the eyes of the literary critics who use this term, a Christ *figure* is no more Christ himself than a father *figure* is literally the father of the person who sees him in these terms. We could, for example, compare DD and Snape as father figures for Harry and Draco, respectively, with no delusions as to either of them being the character's actual father, just as we can see Harry as a Christ figure with no delusions as to his being Christ (or even Christ*like* in all respects). > > Geoff: > I think that your suggestion of a comparison with "father figure" is not entirely valid. A person *can* be a father figure in that they can fulfil every requirement except that of being the biological father of the person concerned. > > For me, a Christ figure would have to fulfil the same work as Jesus himself. Since no one is God in human form or sinless, I maintain that they could not be such a person. Part of this has arisen in the past when various people suggested that Harry was Christ which I do not correlate with being a father figure. > > My general answer would be that a person can be both Christ-like and > everyman. Harry, like many folk in the real world, can be so labelled. I > believe that all Christians should be Christ-like or strive to be so. Harry > is an everyman in the sense that we are; if we are honest, we all fall > short of being perfect both in our own estimation and that of others. > Some of us fall shorter than others, As an example, I look at those who > have devoted their lives to dealing with the poor (Mother Teresa for > instance) and realise how much more I could do - and don't. > Carol responds: The point is that "Christ figure" is a term used in literary criticism for a character who in various ways resembles Christ without being Christ (and without being divine). It has nothing to do with what Christians should or should not be. Since such characters exist, usually through the intention of the author, they need a name, and "Christ figure" is the agreed-upon term for such figures. I used "fther figure" as an analogy because I thought it would be immediately intelligible. A father figure resembles a father in some respects, but he's not a father (or, at least, not the father or the person to whom he's a father figure). And father figures need not fulfill every requirement of a father. (Dumbledore, for example, fails in many respects. Other father figures in the HP books also fail. Arthur Weasley and Remus Lupin are weak; Snape is bitter and sarcastic; Vernon Dursley is abusive.) A Christ figure resembles Christ but isn't Christ and, as a human being, has human failings. As I keep saying, he isn't Christ or an allegory of Christ. His relation to Christ is symbolic or analogical, not allegorical. I understand that no person can be Christ. I'm asking what other term you would use in place of the accepted term, "Christ figure," for a character who saves his people through self-sacrifice and undergoes a symbolic resurrection? Clearly, the parallels with Christ are intended by the author and can't be ignored because the character isn't and can't be Christ. JKR knows that. The reader knows that. Nevertheless, the analogy is both intended by the author and perceivable by many readers, and it needs a name. The accepted name is "Christ figure." I want to know what other name you would suggest for such a figure. I am not arguing that Harry or any other literary character (except Aslan) *is* Christ or is intended to represent Christ, only that he is or can be interpreted as a Christ *figure* analogous to or resembling Chirst in certain respects. Christ figures are neither sinless nor divine. I didn't invent the term, It's widespread in literary criticism (and film and drama criticism). The concept exists. It needs a name. The accepted name is "Christ figure." The problem is that what a Christ figure would have to be *for you* to accept the term as valid doesn't solve the problem because the term already exists and is in widespread use as the name of a particular concept. Trying to change it is like trying to rename Easter. Sure, "Easter" is the name of a pagan goddess, but it's in widespread use as the name of a Christian holiday, and I could call it "Resurrection Day" if I wanted to because I think it's more appropriate, but my using that new name won't change the fact that the rest of the Christian English-speaking world calls it Easter. Or I could reject the concept of Easter (as the non-Christian members of this list do), but that wouldn't undo the concept or eliminate its validity for those who do believe in it. Or we can talk about literary terms. I didn't invent the concept of the unreliable narrator, for example. It exists, it has a name, and it can be demonstrated in the HP books and many other works of literature. I can't deny the existence of Christ figures in literature any more than I can deny the existence of unreliable narrators. I can only argue whether or not a particular character is a Christ figure or a particular narrator is unreliable. Again, what a Christian ought to be and the fact that no human being can be Christ, or even Christlike in all respects, has nothing to do with the use of a Christ figure as a *literary device* or the recognition of a Christ figure by readers analyzing a literary work. Carol, not sure how she can make the point any clearer From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 20 20:41:33 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:41:33 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186248 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Carol: > The point is that "Christ figure" is a term used in literary criticism for a character who in various ways resembles Christ without being Christ (and without being divine). It has nothing to do with what Christians should or should not be. Since such characters exist, usually through the intention of the author, they need a name, and "Christ figure" is the agreed-upon term for such figures. Geoff: Within literary criticism, yes. But I have been looking at this from discussion I've had in the past with fellow Christians about the perception of our faith by others, not from a literary standpoint. CArol: > I used "fther figure" as an analogy because I thought it would be immediately intelligible. A father figure resembles a father in some respects, but he's not a father (or, at least, not the father or the person to whom he's a father figure). Geoff: Which, surprisingly, is precisely the point I made. Carol: > I understand that no person can be Christ. I'm asking what other term you would use in place of the accepted term, "Christ figure," for a character who saves his people through self-sacrifice and undergoes a symbolic resurrection? Clearly, the parallels with Christ are intended by the author and can't be ignored because the character isn't and can't be Christ. JKR knows that. The reader knows that. Geoff: But part of the problem stems from the fact that, in the past, we have had members of this group who *have* insisted that Harry is Christ. Carol: Nevertheless, the analogy is both intended by the author and perceivable by many readers, and it needs a name. The accepted name is "Christ figure." I want to know what other name you would suggest for such a figure. Geoff: I've already answered that. Carol: > I am not arguing that Harry or any other literary character (except Aslan) *is* Christ or is intended to represent Christ, only that he is or can be interpreted as a Christ *figure* analogous to or resembling Chirst in certain respects. Christ figures are neither sinless nor divine. > > I didn't invent the term, It's widespread in literary criticism (and film and drama criticism). The concept exists. It needs a name. The accepted name is "Christ figure." > > The problem is that what a Christ figure would have to be *for you* to accept the term as valid doesn't solve the problem because the term already exists and is in widespread use as the name of a particular concept. Geoff: In a literary context as you have said but I hinted earlier that we don't all work in a literary environment. Carol: Trying to change it is like trying to rename Easter. Sure, "Easter" is the name of a pagan goddess, but it's in widespread use as the name of a Christian holiday, and I could call it "Resurrection Day" if I wanted to because I think it's more appropriate, but my using that new name won't change the fact that the rest of the Christian English-speaking world calls it Easter. Geoff: Tell that to the English councils who insist that their employees refer to "Winter Festival and not "Christmas". :-( Carol, not sure how she can make the point any clearer Geoff: You've made it quite clear in your usual inimitable fashion! It's just that I'm not a literary analyst and am interpreting it within the context in which I have met it elsewhere. As I have said already, time to put it to bed, agree to amicably disagree and retire to a well-earned plate of eclairs and a large mug of hot chocolate. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 20 20:51:40 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:51:40 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <1FF72275EEEF41C6B0E89CE7C52EE3F2@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186249 potioncat wrote: > > I think you've brought up some very good points that have really fit with the HP story. But speaking as a Christian, I personally don't mind a reference to a fictional character to a real person. So a Christ figure doesn't bother me. What does offend me is when a portion of the Bible is taught as literature. > > Miles: > Answering as a Christian myself - they *are* literature. They are more for Christians and Jews, but for others they are "only" that. > > If you look at bible exegetics, these scholars work with the same set of analytical instruments as those who work on non-religous texts. They try to find out about the authors of certain parts of the bible, when they lived, what political and cultural background they had. They try to find out when a text is written, whether a text is in it's original state, altered by "mistake" or on purpose. To work on bible texts in this "critical-historical" way (I don't know the terminus technicus in English) is crucial not least for a correct translation. > > The bible is an important work of literature of this world, and it is more for those who are either Jews (partially) or Christians. I do not have problems of accepting both sides, and I would not impose other people not to merely read and describe the bible as literature. > > Which brings me back to our On-Topic discussion on the term "Christe figure". While I agree with you that "Christ figure" is not a good description for Harry, I am not really happy with your rationale. In my opinion, we had a discussion about literary criticism, and "I do not like this category because it contradicts my faith" is IMO not a valid argument - your faith is not part of litery criticism, isn't it? If literary scholars use the term "Christ figure" in the way Carol tells us (and her expertise is obvious), we can discuss whether this category is helpful for general analysis or analysing Harry Potter - but whether it is right or wrong in the light of one's faith is a totally different discussion. Just my opinion and no offence meant. Carol responds: Thank you, Miles! I think the term you're looking for is "hermeneutics." Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster online: "Main Entry: her?me?neu?tic "Pronunciation: \hr-m-n?-tik, -ny?-\ "Function: noun "Date: 1737 "1 plural but sing or plural in constr[uction]: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) 2: a method or principle of interpretation" (Carol again:) I do think that Harry can be considered a Christ figure (though, of course, that's not the only possible way to look at him), but otherwise I agree entirely with what you've said here. The Bible, particularly the King James version (however flawed the translation may be in some respects) *is* a work of literature as well as a religious document, and examining it in that way (or examining biblical history in connection with anthropology) in no way makes it less sacred. Our literature, including the HP books, would not be what it is today if not for the Bible, and one reason for studying the Bible as literature is to help us discover and recognize biblical motifs and phrasing in other works of literature. (It also greatly helps our appreciation of medieval and Renaissance painting.) Another is to recognize the way the parts of the Bible fit together, to see elements and prophecies from the Old Testament in the New Testament or to recognize stylistic elements like Hebrew parallel poetry (a familiar example is "Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall"--the same idea expressed twice in different words). A reader can't fully appreciate Milton or "Moby Dick" (Ahab was the name of a wicked Old Testament king) or many other great works of literature without recognizing their dependence on and interrelationship with the Bible (and to a lesser extent, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, itself a beautiful work of literature, at least until the "New Liturgy" modernized Cranmer's English). JMO! The Harry Potter books, of course, can be read and appreciated by readers unfamiliar with the Bible and by those readers who overlook the Christian elements, but our reading of them (IMO) is richer if we're already familiar with the passages on the graves in Godric's Hollow, just as it's richer if we can see the intended parallels between Jesus and Harry (the Chosen One) even if we choose to ignore or reject them. By the same token, the series can be read and appreciated by readers unfamiliar with Joseph Campbell (I suspect that not many people on this list fall into that category), but it's richer if we can see the connections between Harry and the Hero's Journey as Campbell outlines it. (No.Limberger may want to do a search of this list for posts discussing Harry in relation to Campbell's view of the hero. It's been discussed here before.) No single reading is definitive or exhaustive. No one reader, including JKR herself, can find everything that's there. Not every element in a literary work is consciously and deliberately placed there by the author. As the poet Shelley once wrote, "Veil after veil may be undrawn and the inmost naked beauty of the meaning [of a great work of literature] never exposed." Biblical exegesis (or hermeneutics) is one way of understanding and appreciating the Bible. Finding Christian motifs, including a Christ figure, in the HP books, is one way of understanding and appreciating them. We can also look at them, if we choose, from a Freudian or Jungian or feminist or even Marxist or deconstructionist perspective, or we can look at literary and stylistic elements, such as plot structure or themes or narrative technique (the narrator's voice and perspective and reliability) or our usual standby here, character analysis. We could even, if we wanted to, do a "Pooh Perplex"-style parody of the various schools of literary criticism as applied to the HP books. To paraphrase what Frederick Crews said of "Winnie the Pooh": "Deathly Hallows is the perfect Aristotelian work. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end." There are many valid ways to examine any work of literature, whether it's the Bible (an invaluable influence on Western civilization) or the HP books (a wildly popular literary phenomenon which may or may not last into the next generation or the next century). We can examine it from many perspectives and never exhaust them all (and never agree with them all). Carol, hoping that this post is sufficiently canonical and noting that we're also discussing Christ figures on OTChatter if anyone is interested From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 02:55:28 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:55:28 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186250 "Kingsley was striding backwards and forwards, glancing up at the sky every time he turned. Harry was reminded of Uncle Vernon pacing trhe living room a million years ago." -p.67 Alla: When was it? Vernon's pacing I mean? Before they left, or does he mean totally different occasion? "Ron was great," said Tonks warmly, relinguishing her hold on Lupin. "Wonderful. Stunned one of the Death Eaters, straight to the head, and when you are aiming at a moving target from a flying broom-" "You did?" said Hermione, gazing up at Ron with her arms around his neck. "Always the tone of surprise," he said a little grumpily, breaking free. Are we the last back?" - p.68 Alla: You know, totally did not remember that Ron's insecurities show up here. And frankly, find it, well annoying. I mean, really Ron it is not like you conduct things like this on the day to day basis. You participated in what? Two battles so far? Hermione isn't allowed to be surprised that you did something that Auror praises you for? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 03:15:46 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:15:46 -0000 Subject: Abus, Scrimgeour, and Harry (WAS: Re: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186251 > Zara: > Fudge knew what the letter was about. We know it received a response, because the Prophet reported a rift between Albus and Scrimmy. Alla: Ah, thanks. So responding to some points and not to others on which we are too different. > > Zara: > I have two objections to this line of reasoning. > 1) It is my opinion Albus would have considered "he is Harry's ally, period, end of story" a flat out lie, something, remarkably enough, he never in seven books, told to Harry. > 2) And you and Harry would have believed it just as you believed such unequivocal statements as "I trust Severus Snape completely". Alla: Well, but **of course** I know that Albus would have considered this line a lie for him! This is sort of my point. I argue that Albus poisoned Harry against Scrimgeour even if he coached it in nice words. It seemed to me that Harry picked up exactly what Albus was implying. Of course he did not say that Scrimgeour is Harry's ally, because Albus did not think so. My point is that he was wrong in at least not trying harder. > > Alla: > > Yes Harry does bring Stan up and believe me, in HBP I was oh so nodding my head ? how dear big bad Ministry arrested that innocent kid? After all we have Sirius' example and did not they learn anything? Only see after DH I really do not share the belief in Stan's innocence anymore and therefore when I reread this conversation, I am thinking ? how about you learn more Harry before you speak? > > Zara: > This ignores that Harry had already drawn a conclusion for himself, with no input from Albus. P. 221 of the US paperback edition of HBP has half a page of dialogue among the Trio which I will not reproduce. But they considered the published circumstances of his arrest and their own personal knowledge of Stan to reach the conclusion he was innocent, and the arrest was a PR stunt. Arthur mentioning Albus agreed about Stan's innocence weeks later did not form Harry's opinion - it just reminded him of something he had been upset about before based only on his own opinions and those of his best friends. Alla: Sorry, but I really do not consider this conversation as the example of Harry and his friends forming **informed** opinion. I do grant you that I thought this conversation happened before bringing Albus' opinion in, but really, Harry's what are they playing at by taking Stan's seriously? Um, Harry, maybe because he deserved to be taking seriously? Just a possibility? And note, how Hermione flat out disagrees that Stan was under Imperius curse, since in her opinion he otherwise would not have acted as he did. So, what exactly does it mean? Maybe it was Stan's playing around. Why, I wonder. OR could it be that he was not playing around? Interesting how Harry returns to him being under Imperius curse in book 7. Zara: > I would also add this is irrelevant. Even if Arthur, his Ministry sources who interviewed Stan and considered him innocent, Albus, Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all wrong, it does not alter the Ministry's poor handling of the case. No trial, like you say. And Stan was not even the only one - see my Arthur quote, there were two others of which Arthur was aware. Alla: It is irrelevant on disagreeing with Ministry's methods, sure. It is however not irrelevant to me when I am deciding how much weight I should give to Harry's disapproval of the Ministry if that makes sense. > Zara: > X=Harry. In this case, X knows a detainee personally and believes based on that personal knowledge and facts in the public record, that X is not a terrorist. But again, the analogy is really that X and Harry object to the *policy*. Alla: Yes, I got that LOL. My point is that I do not consider all objections to policy to be automatically logical and supportable, even if I completely disagree with the policy. As I said, if Harry would have said, give Stan **a trial** or say **stop torture him**(go back to RL again), sure. However, if I would hear about celebrity saying - release so and so NOW, because I the celebrity met this person once in my life and just KNOW that he is innocent, I would have shaken my head and would have wished such celebrity shut up. > Zara: > But this *is* basically what happened. Albus appealed to Scrimmy personally (without Harry's knowledge until Christmas. No Change. Harry personally brought it up. No Change. Harry personally brought it up *again*. No Change. Either Scrimmy is a moron (which I do not believe) or he was not willing to compromise here. Alla: Not what I meant though. See the paragraph above and tell me if I was clearer. Pippin: If JKR didn't think people needed keeping in order, she wouldn't have given us Dudley. She's okay with authority, she just wants to see it properly used. After all, Arthur's a ministry employee. Alla: Right and this was my original point actually, really did not mean to start another Ministry/Dumbledore bash ( but cannot resist LOL). I was trying to say that my biggest switch was in thinking that JKR respects authority more than I expected. There is also not much I disagree with in your post Pippin. I am certainly not trying to say that Ministry and Rufus did not have their faults, lots of them. I am just saying that they IMO deserved better from Dumbledore, but of course Dumbledore deserved better from them too. JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 21 06:29:22 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:29:22 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > "Kingsley was striding backwards and forwards, glancing up at the sky every time he turned. Harry was reminded of Uncle Vernon pacing trhe living room a million years ago." -p.67 > When was it? Vernon's pacing I mean? Before they left, or does he mean totally different occasion? Geoff: I offer into the court as evidence: '"According to you," Vernon Dursley said now, resuming his pacing up and down the living room, "we - Petunia, Dudley and I - are in danger. From - from -" "Some of 'my lot'", right," said Harry."' (DH "The Dursleys Departing" p.32 UK edition) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 21 12:31:32 2009 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:31:32 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186253 > > Miles: > > Answering as a Christian myself - they *are* literature. They are more for Christians and Jews, but for others they are "only" that. > > > > If you look at bible exegetics, these scholars work with the same set of analytical instruments as those who work on non-religous texts. They try to find out about the authors of certain parts of the bible, when they lived, what political and cultural background they had. They try to find out when a text is written, whether a text is in it's original state, altered by "mistake" or on purpose. To work on bible texts in this "critical-historical" way (I don't know the terminus technicus in English) is crucial not least for a correct translation. Potioncat: But this wasn't exactly what was going on in the lit text book. What you're describing is something I enjoy reading and knowing about. There's some of this in Cahill's "Everlasting Hills." (I should have checked spelling and title before starting the post.) > > Carol responds: > The Bible, particularly the King James version (however flawed the translation may be in some respects) *is* a work of literature as well as a religious document, and examining it in that way (or examining biblical history in connection with anthropology) in no way makes it less sacred. Our literature, including the HP books, would not be what it is today if not for the Bible, and one reason for studying the Bible as literature is to help us discover and recognize biblical motifs and phrasing in other works of literature. Potioncat: I know I should know this, but is history and biography a part of literature? Maybe what I should have said in an earlier post is that a Bible story was presented as fiction. I don't remember enough of the situation now, to recall the details. That's a good point about studying the Bible as literature in order to understand motifs in literature. That could be a difficult process as schools present that aspect without being guilty of teaching religion. I grew up in an area where everyone had a Judeo-Christian background. When action was taken to move religion out of schools, it was by those who had rejected Christianity not wanting it taught to their children. But where I live now, the classrooms are made up of children of many different religions. Which reminds me of a situation in canon. In TTOBTB, DD states that Malfoy wanted one of the tales removed because it promoted a point of view not in keeping with proper wizard teaching. Potioncat, who just offered up the weakest bit of canon to post that she's ever seen on this list--and who thinks that if we continue this particular thread, it should be moved to OT. Oh dear, now I've probably upset the elves by doing their work for them...... From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 21 15:23:04 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:23:04 -0000 Subject: The Role of Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90904191654i49ac016nfffd7a1f220b3b49@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186254 > >Carol wrote: > >At any rate, any reader who associates Harry with a messianic > >figure will, I think, specifically associate him with Christ, > >which takes us back to "Christ figure." > > No.Limberger responds: > A Jewish reader won't associate Harry Potter with the > Christian Christ. > > IMO, the most accurate description of what Harry as > a literary figure is that of the "hero" archetype. Pippin: "Christ" is the Anglicized form of a Greek translation of the Hebrew word Anglicized as "Messiah." (got that?) The literal English translation of both terms is "annointed." The association is there whether I as a Jew find it meaningful or not. The values of the hero tale *are* universal -- and that's what's wrong with 'em, IMO. Bella displays courage and self-sacrifice for the sake of her people every bit as much as Harry does, and her ordeal was arguably worse. But the boon she brings back is not a message of forgiveness. Harry saves people from Voldemort -- but that's not what he brings back from his final ordeal. Voldemort's power is broken already. What Harry brings back is Voldemort's last chance and forgiveness for Snape and Dumbledore. Speaking as a Jew, it doesn't quite mesh with the values of Judaism. According to Jewish teaching, remorse is not restitution, and forgiveness cannot be granted unless restitution is made. I'm perfectly happy to appreciate HP on its own terms. I just don't see them as universal. Pippin inclined, like Aragorn, to leave you to reflect on the history of tongues From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 03:46:42 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 03:46:42 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186255 Alla: > > You know, totally did not remember that Ron's insecurities show up here. And frankly, find it, well annoying. I mean, really Ron it is not like you conduct things like this on the day to day basis. You participated in what? Two battles so far? Hermione isn't allowed to be surprised that you did something that Auror praises you for? sartoris22: In my opinion, Ron's response is appropriate because Hermione consistenly underestimates him. She's not one who fills Ron with confidence. Early in the novels, she explains words to him that she thinks he doesn't know, and is always surprized when he has an idea, as in HBP when Ron tells Harry to take the lucky potion to get the information from Slughorn. Compare how Lavender treats Ron to how Hermione treats him. Clearly, Ron, at times, doesn't exhibit confidence (Quidditch is a prime example, but he has people around him--his brothers, Hermione, later even Ginny--who treat him badly and undermine his confidence. You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. And Ron consistenly sticks up for Hermione, too--remember the backfired slug attack against Malfoy in COS. In DH Ron knows he loves Hermione, but he also feels that she doesn't respect him. In fact, he thinks that she really likes Harry. Ron has to get the basilisk fangs and recognize the elves before Hermione thinks he is worthy. Funnily enough, Hermione doesn't have to do anything extra to gain Ron's love. So I think we can see why a weary, insecure Ron might finally say to Hermione, in effect, "get off my back." From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 17:07:34 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:07:34 -0000 Subject: Abus, Scrimgeour, and Harry (WAS: Re: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186256 Alla wrote: > > Sorry, but I really do not consider this conversation as the example of Harry and his friends forming **informed** opinion. I do grant you that I thought this conversation happened before bringing Albus' opinion in, but really, Harry's what are they playing at by taking Stan's seriously? Um, Harry, maybe because he deserved to be taking seriously? Just a possibility? > > And note, how Hermione flat out disagrees that Stan was under Imperius curse, since in her opinion he otherwise would not have acted as he did. So, what exactly does it mean? Maybe it was Stan's playing around. Why, I wonder. OR could it be that he was not playing around? > > Interesting how Harry returns to him being under Imperius curse in book 7. > Carol responds: I agree that the question of whether Stan was under the Imperius Curse is left open, rather like the question of whether Draco has a Dark Mark. Are we supposed to assume that Harry is right in both cases because his view is never contradicted or corrected by the books themselves? At any rate, Harry has seen Stan as his normal self (or what passes for his normal self given that he's Stan!) in PoA and he's seen him under something similar to the Imperius Curse, the influence of the Veela in GoF. There's some indication that susceptibility to the Veela is tied in with susceptibility to the Imperius Curse (introduced later in the same book): Ron is more susceptible to both forms of mind control than Harry, who can shake them off with an act of will. We also know that the Imperius Curse, unlike, say, Confundus (or any othe curse that we know of, including Crucio) can be sustained longterm (exactly how is unclear). We see Pius Thicknesse (who for some reason is "known to be susceptible" to Imperio controlled throughout DH acting exactly as if he's motivated by his own will (in contrast to Mr. Crouch, who resists it and becomes first ill and then mad). My feeling is that Stan is one of those weak-minded, weak-willed people who can be seduced by dreams of "glory." Whether he was actually under the Imperius Curse when he bragged of his DE connections is unclear (Could his evidence have led to those other two arrests? I don't have the relevant passages at hand), but his behavior is similar enough to that of Pius Thicknesse (except that Thicknesse is much more influential) that I think we can at least consider the possibility that Stan was Imperio'd. Also, he was clearly released with the DEs, so he either willingly went with them or was compelled to. They must have thought that he would prove useful in a small way, and the Snatchers also seem to be familiar with him. Would the young man who feared "You Know 'Oo" in GoF have suddenly, within two years, have started bragging about his connection with DEs? His boast that he was about to become the youngest ever Minister for Magic was made under the influence of the Veela. I was going to ask myself how the DEs might have come in contact with him, but then I realized there's only one Knight Bus. All it would take is one ride on the Knight Bus by a "respectable" DE (one whose identity as a DE is unknown to the Aurors and the general public) to spot a potential recruit for the lower order of DEs. (Stan wouldn't be a member of the inner circle with Snape, Travers, Yaxley, Bellatrix, et al.) Anyway, I think the question is left open, but overall, his being under the Imperius Curse seems more likely than his seeking out Voldemort or one of his DE connections and deliberately joining up. I'd be interested in hearing reasons and evidence for the other side of the argument, though, as I haven't fully made up my mind. Zara: > > I would also add this is irrelevant. Even if Arthur, his Ministry sources who interviewed Stan and considered him innocent, Albus, Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all wrong, it does not alter the Ministry's poor handling of the case. No trial, like you say. And Stan was not even the only one - see my Arthur quote, there were two others of which Arthur was aware. Carol: True, the Ministry handled the case poorly. But the question I'm interested in is whether Stan was recruited willingly or under the influence of the Imperius Curse, and I don't think we know the answer. (And I also think it's odd that Pius Thicknesse is treated as if he were a willing ally of the DEs when he's only their Imperiused tool. At least we do see how dangerous the Imperius Curse can be and why it's illegal, useful to Harry or not.) > Alla: > > It is irrelevant on disagreeing with Ministry's methods, sure. It is however not irrelevant to me when I am deciding how much weight I should give to Harry's disapproval of the Ministry if that makes sense. Carol responds: Well, yes and no. We know that Stan didn't have a trial and that Scrimgeour is trying to recruit Harry as a mascot, but we don't know what else Scrimgeour is doing. And I have mixed feelings about DD's description of Scrimgeour as an able, decisive, and forceful man who has been fighting Dark Wizards all his adult life would predispose Harry against him. It's interesting that he avoided labeling Scrimgeour as "good" (again, the world apparently isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters if Scrimgeour is neither), but what did DD mean by "good" and why did he avoid using that word to describe Scrimgeour? Certainly, he's on "our side" if that means fighting Voldemort. Maybe DD is remembering Barty Crouch Sr. sentencing Sirius Black to Azkaban without a trial (though there was an investigation, including the Muggles' testimony and DD's) and feeling residual guilt, which he's displacing onto Scrimgeour because of Stan Shunpike? Barty Sr. was another able, forceful man on the right side but using the wrong methods (at least if we ignore *Harry's* confusing use of the same wrong methods in DH--I wish JKR hadn't confused the issue by having him do that!). At any rate, I think what "poisons" Harry against Scrimgeour is the fact that Umbridge is still in the Ministry. To me, it's obvious that Scrimgeour doesn't know what Harry does about her. He can't possibly know that Umbridge threatened to Crucio Harry (nor would Fudge--"What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him") or that she tried to use Veritaserum on the students (thwarted by Snape) or that she had used that horrible quill to punish at least two students, Harry and Lee. Harry seems to expect Scrimgeour to make an impossible connection here and to be leaping to conclusions about him. (Miscommunication and missed opportunities for communication abound in the series.) I rather like Scrimgeour. His death shows that he was a brave man on the right side. It's too bad that DD's secretiveness and desire to have Harry destroy the remaining Horcruxes with help only from Ron and Hermione (and Snape, also left partially in the dark). I wonder what would have happened if DD had been open with Scrimgeour and allowed him to help. But it wouldn't have been the same story. JKR's need to have the kids on their own in a dangerous world controlled by DEs dictated Scrimgeour's death, whether he was their direct or indirect ally. Carol, who has a feeling that she forgot to answer some important point but can't remember what it was From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 17:55:34 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:55:34 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186257 Alla: > > > > You know, totally did not remember that Ron's insecurities show up here. And frankly, find it, well annoying. I mean, really Ron it is not like you conduct things like this on the day to day basis. You participated in what? Two battles so far? Hermione isn't allowed to be surprised that you did something that Auror praises you for? > sartoris22: > > In my opinion, Ron's response is appropriate because Hermione consistenly underestimates him. She's not one who fills Ron with confidence. Early in the novels, she explains words to him that she thinks he doesn't know, and is always surprized when he has an idea, as in HBP when Ron tells Harry to take the lucky potion to get the information from Slughorn. Compare how Lavender treats Ron to how Hermione treats him. Clearly, Ron, at times, doesn't exhibit confidence (Quidditch is a prime example, but he has people around him--his brothers, Hermione, later even Ginny--who treat him badly and undermine his confidence. You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. And Ron consistenly sticks up for Hermione, too--remember the backfired slug attack against Malfoy in COS. In DH Ron knows he loves Hermione, but he also feels that she doesn't respect him. In fact, he thinks that she really likes Harry. Ron has to get the basilisk fangs and recognize the elves before Hermione thinks he is worthy. Funnily enough, Hermione doesn't have to do anything extra to gain Ron's love. So I think we can see why a weary, insecure Ron might finally say to Hermione, in effect, "get off my back." > Carol responds: What annoyed me in the books was that Ron, who had been hailed as a Quidditch champion in OoP ("Weasley is our king") was back to the same old insecurities in HBP with the Felix Felicis episode. And, again, we have misunderstanding and miscommunication. Hermione thinks Ron could not have made those saves without the Felix Felicis (which is exactly what Ron thought himself), but then he gets angry with her for underestimating him when he finds out the truth, and Harry's plan fails miserably. At the time, I wondered why JKR was repeating the motif of Ron's insecurity when it seemed that the problem had been solved, but now I think that the HBP incident ties it in with what Ron wants Hermione to think of him. (I agree with Sartoris22 that she loves him but doesn't respect him. She seems, unconsciously, to compare him to Harry, and he almost always comes up short, and her apparent surprise (actually pleasure?) that he's done something well *would* be off-putting. (Hermione means well, but she, as a rather indulged only child, can't possibly understand what it's like to be the youngest of seven sons, constantly compared to brothers who are Prefects or Quidditch captains--or just a pair of clever rogues who constantly tease you--and, on top of that, to be best friends with the famous Harry Potter.) Ron's insecurities have been building since SS/PS, and the brief remark that Alla refers to is meant, I think, to remind us of incidents in the later books (the Yule Ball, Quidditch, Lavender Brown, etc.) that reflect Ron's fears of inadequacy. We know he loves Hermione and forgives her for attacking her with her conjured birds in OoP. We know that she loves him and forgives him for Lavender Brown. But this little remark shows that they still don't really understand each other and prepares the way (as do all those other incidents and others that I didn't mention, such as Ron's reaction to Harry's name coming out of the Goblet of Fire) for Ron's triumph over his insecurities when he destroys the Horcrux, which he couldn't have done if he hadn't first saved Harry's life and proved himself worthy of retrieving and wielding the Sword of Gryffindor. That little remark and Ron's behavior when he wears the Horcrux foreshadow that victory, which would be meaningless if his insecurity were not a terrible burden that he constantly bears and only occasionally reveals to his friends. So, yes, it's true that Hermione has the right to be surprised that Ron has done so well, but it's rather tactless of her to express it. Why not say, "Good job, Ron!" rather than "You did?" And, yes, Ron's insecurities have been presented so often that they're annoying, not only to us but probably to Harry and Hermione, but it's important that we (and HH) know about them to prepare us for Ron's triumph over the Horcrux later in DH. In a way, he's like Snape, whose true self is concealed until "The Prince's Tale." For six and a half books, we've seen Ron only from the outside. We've never known exactly how he feels. The Horcrux scene enables us really to know Ron and to understand what he has suffered and why he has, on occasion, behaved less than admirably (and why he's annoyed by Hermione's apparent surprise at his Stunning a DE while he's flying on a broom--after all, he *is* a good flyer and, when his confidence is up, a Quidditch champion). Carol, who sees a bit of herself in both Ron and Hermione but for some reason sympathizes more with Ron From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 21 17:59:19 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:59:19 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186258 > Alla: > > > > You know, totally did not remember that Ron's insecurities show up here. And frankly, find it, well annoying. I mean, really Ron it is not like you conduct things like this on the day to day basis. You participated in what? Two battles so far? Hermione isn't allowed to be surprised that you did something that Auror praises you for? > Pippin: Who saved Hermione from the troll? And who was doing nothing but cowering and shrieking when he did it? Hermione has been patronizing Ron all through the series, and here's where he finally feels secure enough to let her know he's had enough! > > sartoris22: You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. Pippin: It's a family quarrel. Ron wouldn't appreciate Harry butting in. sartoris22: Ron has to get the basilisk fangs and recognize the elves before Hermione thinks he is worthy. Funnily enough, Hermione doesn't have to do anything extra to gain Ron's love. Pippin: She had to make the boys look like heroes in the troll episode and she had to stop being such a prig about the rules. She had plenty of growing up to do, she just got through some of it a little quicker. I think Hermione wanted to believe all along that Ron's heart would get to the right place about the House Elves (I certainly did) but she needed proof before she could trust her feelings about it. And she had to modify her own position as well. Hermione always understood that most Elves were psychologically dependent on slavery (she says in GoF that they've been brainwashed), but she didn't understand what that meant. She was sure if they could just be freed they'd get over it. She was like the person who thinks that cutting addicts off from their drugs is the cure, and doesn't realize that if they can't be supported through their recovery, or if they don't want to recover, they could be left worse off. The kiss shows us Ron and Hermione's ideas have converged. She doesn't suggest that the Elves be freed so they can decide for themselves what to do. Pippin From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Apr 21 18:23:56 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:23:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DH reread CH 4-5 References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186259 > Alla: >> >> You know, totally did not remember that Ron's insecurities show up here. And frankly, find it, well annoying. I mean, really Ron it is not like you conduct things like this on the day to day basis. You participated in what? Two battles so far? Hermione isn't allowed to be surprised that you did something that Auror praises you for? > > > sartoris22: > > In my opinion, Ron's response is appropriate because Hermione consistenly underestimates him. She's not one who fills Ron with confidence. Early in the novels, she explains words to him that she thinks he doesn't know, and is always surprized when he has an idea, as in HBP when Ron tells Harry to take the lucky potion to get the information from Slughorn. Compare how Lavender treats Ron to how Hermione treats him. Clearly, Ron, at times, doesn't exhibit confidence (Quidditch is a prime example, but he has people around him--his brothers, Hermione, later even Ginny--who treat him badly and undermine his confidence. You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. And Ron consistenly sticks up for Hermione, too--remember the backfired slug attack against Malfoy in COS. In DH Ron knows he loves Hermione, but he also feels that she doesn't respect him. In fact, he thinks that she really likes Harry. Ron has to get the basilisk fangs and recognize the elves before Hermione thinks he is worthy. Funnily enough, Hermione doesn't have to do anything extra to gain Ron's love. So I think we can see why a weary, insecure Ron might finally say to Hermione, in effect, "get off my back." > Shelley: This is how I read this passage. I think Ron knows that he's not insecure, at this point, BUT I think Rowling wanted to show that he was beginning to figure out a way to manipulate Hermione. She already had her arms around his neck, and he puts that little jib in there to make Hermione feel guilty. Read in the epilogue this same manipulation, used 19 years later: "Parked all right, then?" Ron asked Harry. "I did. Hermione didn't believe I could pass a Muggle driving test, did you? She thought I'd have to Confound the examiner." "No, I didn't," said Hermione, "I had complete faith in you." "As a matter of fact, I did Confound him," Ron whispered to Harry... There's that pattern again: Ron verbalized his "weaknesses" to Hermione, expressed as a "you doubt me", and Hermione has to reaffirm the trust she has in him. Only this time, he's manipulating her with a lie instead of admitting the truth to her that she was correct. But, I can see how he would use this often to get her to express verbally, outwardly and openly, how she believes in him, because that's what Ron really wants to hear. I just think he had figured out how to get it. Hermione, no matter how smart she was, would be forced by the public situation and in front of old friends to repeat it again: "I have complete faith in you". [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 21:18:19 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:18:19 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186260 > > > Carol responds: > What annoyed me in the books was that Ron, who had been hailed as a Quidditch champion in OoP ("Weasley is our king") was back to the same old insecurities in HBP with the Felix Felicis episode. Sartoris22: You do a great job explaining the development of Ron and Hermione. Still, I'm troubled that Ron has such an inconsistent developmental pattern. It really doesn't make sense that he can be a Quidditch star in OOTP, then completely doubt his abilities in HBP. Some of that experience should have rubbed off. And Ron can be quite courageous at times, as he is in the Shreiking Shack when he is ready to die to protect Harry from Sirius. However,this confidence and courage doesn't transfer to other situations. I can't help thinking, and I know this smacks of the auteur theory, that Rowling is somehow taking revenge on Sean (the boy on whom Ron is modeled) because Sean never returned her affection. If Hermione is an idealized version of Rowling , then through Ron, Rowling finally gets Sean, but, boy, does she make him suffer for it. From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 21:28:28 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:28:28 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186261 sartoris22: You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. Pippin: It's a family quarrel. Ron wouldn't appreciate Harry butting in. sartoris22: I'm not convinced of that. I think that Ron would have welcomed Harry's support. Besides, isn't Harry as much a brother to Ron as the twins? It would now be two against two. Harry doesn't even show anger toward the twins about how they treat Ron. Harry could at least have thought of them as jerks, even if he didn't say it. But Harry likes the twins, totally ignoring the way they treat Ron. It is Hermione, to her credit, who doesn't approve of the twin's treatment of Ron; Harry seems oblivious to it. Harry also shows his insensitivity toward Ron by accepting the Maurader's Map, which the twins, rightfully, should have given to Ron and said, "hey, let Harry use it to go to Hogsmeade." From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 21 22:10:13 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:10:13 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186262 Pippin: > It's a family quarrel. Ron wouldn't appreciate Harry butting in. > sartoris22: > > I'm not convinced of that. I think that Ron would have welcomed Harry's support. Besides, isn't Harry as much a brother to Ron as the twins? It would now be two against two. Harry doesn't even show anger toward the twins about how they treat Ron. Harry could at least have thought of them as jerks, even if he didn't say it. But Harry likes the twins, totally ignoring the way they treat Ron. It is Hermione, to her credit, who doesn't approve of the twin's treatment of Ron; Harry seems oblivious to it. Harry also shows his insensitivity toward Ron by accepting the Maurader's Map, which the twins, rightfully, should have given to Ron and said, "hey, let Harry use it to go to Hogsmeade." Carol responds to both: I tend to agree with Pippin on this one. As insecure as Ron is, he might have resented Harry's interference thinking that it implied (rightly?) that he couldn't or wouldn't stick up for himself against the Twins (as we see when he's a Prefect). I know that seems inconsistent since Prefect!Ron stands up for Harry against Seamus, but that's different. Seamus isn't his brother and has never given Ron a hard time, and Ron knows that Harry won't resent him for standing up to Seamus since no one can accuse Harry of being afraid to defend himself. (I think he botched the job by insulting Seamus's mother, but that's beside the point.) What I'm trying to say is that it's okay in Ron's book for him to in essence stand *beside* Harry and join him in defending himself, but he wouldn't want Harry to jump in and defend him (Ron) against the Twins unless he's *already* standing up to them. It would be a bit like Lily defending Severus when he's down--humiliating him by implying that he can't stand up for himself (as he probably could have done under normal circumstances). Of course, it's not as humiliating for a boy to be defended by another boy as it is to be defended by a girl, but, still, the implication would be that Ron can't handle his brothers himself. Best for Harry to stay out of it, I think. As for giving the map to ickle Ronnie, the Prefect, it probably never occurred to them. Harry was the one who was excluded from Hogsmeade, so why not give it to him directly, especially since they no longer need it? Tact, in any case, has never been the Twins' strong suit. Carol, trying to see from the perspective of that strange animal, the teenage boy From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 22 00:08:27 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:08:27 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186263 > Sartoris22: > > You do a great job explaining the development of Ron and Hermione. Still, I'm troubled that Ron has such an inconsistent developmental pattern. It really doesn't make sense that he can be a Quidditch star in OOTP, then completely doubt his abilities in HBP. Some of that experience should have rubbed off. Pippin: Ron's "you can do this" feeling came to him out of nowhere in OOP -- it wasn't the result of disciplined thinking. It's not that he couldn't remember how it felt to be confident, it's that he didn't know how he could trigger that state again, and his doubts told him he'd never be able to do it. Pippin From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Wed Apr 22 12:54:14 2009 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri&Dan Chase) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 07:54:14 -0500 Subject: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3 In-Reply-To: <1240303699.603.46489.m5@yahoogroups.com> References: <1240303699.603.46489.m5@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <374510B3505A41BCA1D3776F37CDC3F8@JerriPC> No: HPFGUIDX 186264 Pippin: >But Scrimgeour was a professional investigator and the previous head of the >auror office. If he wasn't curious about the scars on Harry's hand, or >about >how two dementors came to be in a Muggle area, or who in the Ministry might >have sent them, it's because he didn't want to know. Dumbledore (and Harry) >tried to get Scrimgeour to see that he needed to fight corruption within >the >Ministry as well as outside it, and Scrimgeour wasn't interested. . . . SNIP . . . >Scrimgeour himself had integrity -- but he wasn't willing to enforce a >culture of integrity at the Ministry. OTOH, though Dumbledore's own >integrity can be questioned, he did enforce a culture of integrity at >Hogwarts. Excellent points. I had been following this thread with mixed feelings, but I think that Pippin has hit the nail on the head. There is so much we don't know about what folks other than Harry know and feel. And that is IMO a weakness in DH. Without the end of book/after the conflict text that we have in the earlier books where a lot of things are explained (at least partially) we don't get resolution. And we are set up never to know about Scrimgeour as he dies when he does. But, as MoM, Scimgeour had a duty to understand what had been happening under Fudge. If he was confused about Harry's hand, why didn't he ask. If he knew what Umbridge had done, then why was he allowing her to remain in a position of power? Jerri From k12listmomma at comcast.net Wed Apr 22 12:59:26 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:59:26 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DH reread CH 4-5 References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186265 >> Sartoris22: >> >> You do a great job explaining the development of Ron and Hermione. Still, >> I'm troubled that Ron has such an inconsistent developmental pattern. It >> really doesn't make sense that he can be a Quidditch star in OOTP, then >> completely doubt his abilities in HBP. Some of that experience should >> have rubbed off. > > Pippin: > Ron's "you can do this" feeling came to him out of nowhere in OOP -- it > wasn't the result of disciplined thinking. It's not that he couldn't > remember how it felt to be confident, it's that he didn't know how he > could trigger that state again, and his doubts told him he'd never be able > to do it. Shelley: And there is another thing- personality. A shy person may have one instance of public success, but that single event may not overcome their shy personality. The event is over, and the person retreats to the place where they feel comfortable. Ron was trust into the limelight with the Quidditch, but I don't think his was a shyness like Neville's where he just needed a confidence booster to bring out the best in him, but rather I think Ron's insecurities are deeper than that. Given a choice, I don't think he would have chosen to do the whole Quidditch thing again. It may have been too much in the limelight, too much pressure to perform. Stuck in his mind might not have been the win- what stuck in his mind might have been the feelings before- the powerful fear of the crowds, the vomiting, the mental struggle that he went through to perform when everyone was looking at him. The overall experience may not have been perceived as positive. We see success and think he should have been changed by that, but some insecurities are much deeper than that. Ron remains immature, and insecure, and from the epilogue 19 years later, still needs affirmation from Hermione. It's like that personality trait has become synonymous with his name, but he doesn't seem too bothered by that. If he was, that Quidditch success would have had a more lasting change for the better. I know this is unrelated, but there is a TV show called Biggest Loser. In it, these people experience tremendous weight loss, but I am always reminded that these people constantly experience moments of crisis in their minds- they are changed by the experience of losing weight, but that doesn't erase years of hurts and fears that they must deal with. Despite being winners, the win doesn't erase the other issues they struggle with as individuals. Literally, fear and internal strife stops some of these contestants from achieving success during weeks where their weight loss should have been higher- some even gain weight during stressful weeks. One of the contestants is a young man, a very young man, who had anger issues that his 400 lb father didn't warn his kids of the dangers of being overweight and didn't protect them from repeating that mistake. It took a event of blowing his top before his trainer had a good talk with him to get him to face that unresolved issue, and encourage him to have a talk with his dad over it. They did, and it was a moment of healing for this young man. A good counselor can do that- find that moment of blowing one's top or crisis and get to the root of what is causing that fear/insecurity/anger, so that the internal problems do no interfere with outward performance. Ron doesn't have a counselor. We don't see counselors in the WW. Dumbledore is a mentor to Harry, and we see some of the teachers taking an interest in the kids, but when Harry was left to deal with Sirius's death, he was left to do it ALONE. Ron is also left alone for his crisis moment. I have to think that if there had been an adult that counseled Ron at that moment- an adult Quidditch coach, for example, that the whole Quidditch event might have gone differently for Ron. It should have been a moment where someone took him aside and dug deeper into his insecurities, and found out what his problem was, but instead he doesn't learn from that experience. He doesn't dig deeper to figure out WHY he is insecure, and thus he remains unchanged, even after success. It's not a failure of Ron, per se, but I see it as a larger failure of the WW to provide mentors and counselors for their young people. It's a failure that none of the adults in his life didn't pull him aside and take an interest in him, knowing that he had the skill to do the task, and that his problem was all mental. His problems should have been resolved much earlier in the Quidditch season- after a few games, someone should have talked to him. He finds success by accident, but those underlying problems that caused failure were never addressed, and so it's no surprise to me that he repeats that patter of insecurity later. Shelley From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 00:43:26 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:43:26 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186266 Carol responds to both: What I'm trying to say is that it's okay in Ron's book for him to in essence stand *beside* Harry and join him in defending himself, but he wouldn't want Harry to jump in and defend him (Ron) against the Twins unless he's *already* standing up to them. It would be a bit like Lily defending Severus when he's down--humiliating him by implying that he can't stand up for himself (as he probably could have done under normal circumstances) . sartoris22: But in HBP Harry bluntly tells Ron that he lacks confidence in Quidditch, which prompts Ron to ask, "Are you calling me mental?" If Harry can show concern for Ron's lack of confidence concerning Quidditch, then why can't he show the same concern for Ron's lack of confidence concerning the twins. Hermione shows that concern. Admittedley, Quidditch is important to boys, but so is bullying. Harry hates Malfoy because he's a bully, but accepts the twins bullying Ron. I'm sorry but that troubles me. I think that Ron is a better friend to Harry then Harry is to Ron, and Harry's attitude about the twins is only one example of it. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 16:22:18 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:22:18 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186267 > sartoris22: > > But in HBP Harry bluntly tells Ron that he lacks confidence in Quidditch, which prompts Ron to ask, "Are you calling me mental?" If Harry can show concern for Ron's lack of confidence concerning Quidditch, then why can't he show the same concern for Ron's lack of confidence concerning the twins. Hermione shows that concern. Admittedley, Quidditch is important to boys, but so is bullying. Harry hates Malfoy because he's a bully, but accepts the twins bullying Ron. I'm sorry but that troubles me. I think that Ron is a better friend to Harry then Harry is to Ron, and Harry's attitude about the twins is only one example of it. > Alla: I am replying to your post, but also in general to the thread, so if there are lines here that seem irrelevant, please disregard. :) Do we really want to make it a context of who is the better friend to whom? I can sure remember several instances of Harry acting like a jerk to Ron, but to me **nothing** what Harry did ever tops what Ron did when he left him and Hermione. Frankly, to me it was akin to betrayal. Yes, I know he came back and saved Harry's life, and that is why I still love Ron. However, after Harry and Sirius he used to be my third favorite character in the books. I cannot say so anymore. And I am now realizing that there is after all one character whose fate I am slightly bitter about, and it is Ron. Oh no, I am not denying author's right to take the character where she sees fit, but as a reader, boy oh boy I hoped that Hermione will learn her (IMO) much needed lesson in humility. And IMO she never did. I was mad at Ron when he IMO abandoned Harry in GoF for so long, but really I know what it means to feel insecure and I cut him a slack, after all fourteen year old kid who stood by Harry for so long allowed his weaknesses and should be forgiven. But stakes were so raised in DH IMO that I was just shaking my head. I did not really find Ron's being good at Quidditch and then not again to be that inconsistent for reasons that many already explained. But boy I hoped that Ron would learn something after GoF, that being that even if you feel jealousy towards your best friend, you do not act upon it if you know that it is completely irrational IMO. No, Ron Harry does not love Hermione, no Ron Hermione loves **you**. Yes, we cannot help how we feel, but I maintain that we can not act on our worst feelings if we choose to often enough. And the reason why I found the passage that I quoted to be annoying is not because I thought Hermione's behavior was great here. Of course not! I always said that Hermione is my least favorite member of the trio and I wanted her to be slapped and badly. I was annoyed **for Ron**, I wished he would get over it already. I wish I could read this passage like Shelley did, but unfortunately I agree with Carol, I think it is just foreshadowing of what is to come later in the book. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 16:30:52 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:30:52 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186268 > > Alla: > > I am replying to your post, but also in general to the thread, so if there are lines here that seem irrelevant, please disregard. :) > > Do we really want to make it a context of who is the better friend to whom? Alla: Ugh, I meant competition of course. From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 18:17:43 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:17:43 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186269 Alla: I can sure remember several instances of Harry acting like a jerk to Ron, but to me **nothing** what Harry did ever tops what Ron did when he left him and Hermione. Frankly, to me it was akin to betrayal. Sartoris22: I was very angry when Ron left, but not with Ron, with Rowling. She didn't have to do that. Although she somewhat blames Ron's leaving on his susceptibility to the horcrux because of insecurity, which is revealed when he stabs the horcrux with the sword, I don't think that is a plausible explanation. Ron loves Harry and Hermione and would never abandon them under any circumstances. Would a horcrux influence Ron to abandon his family during dangerous times? Definitely not. So too Ron wouldn't aabandon the friends he loves in a dangerous situation. Yes, Ron abandons Harry in GOF, but once he realizes that Harry is in danger, he immediately changes his attitude and apologises. Ron knows that the trio is in danger and would never leave under any circumstances, horcrux around his neck notwithstanding. I think one reason Rowling removes Ron is so that Harry and Hermione can have moments alone, which satisfies the Harry/Hermione shippers, who, to the very end, believed that they would be together. And I think that is why she has the image of Harry and Hermione kissing emerge from the horcrux. As I said before, Ron is Rowling's revenge against Sean, the boy who didn't return her affection, which is why she constantly berates and punishes him, while making Hermione, Rowling's alter ego, essentially perfect. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 18:48:33 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:48:33 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > ... to me **nothing** what Harry did ever tops what Ron did > when he left him and Hermione. Frankly, to me it was > akin to betrayal. I can't even start to tell what a blow it was for me :-). I couldn't see how Ron could be back in H&H's lives after *that*. But I forgave Ron as soon as I found out that he regretted his action the moment he left and that he wanted to come back immediately, but was unable to. He left on the spur of the moment, being angry and out of control. If he returned in a second, like he intended, everything would have been different. Besides, don't forget that Ron is much more susceptible to different kinds of mind control (Veelas, hehe :-)) than H&H, so the Horcrux really took hold of him. Frodo also not always acted rationally, you know :-). zanooda, who tried twice in the last two days to post on ch. 1-3, but the posts didn't go through ;-(. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 18:49:49 2009 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:49:49 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sartoris22" wrote: > > > > > > > Carol responds: > > What annoyed me in the books was that Ron, who had been hailed as a Quidditch champion in OoP ("Weasley is our king") was back to the same old insecurities in HBP with the Felix Felicis episode. > > Sartoris22: > > You do a great job explaining the development of Ron and Hermione. Still, I'm troubled that Ron has such an inconsistent developmental pattern. It really doesn't make sense that he can be a Quidditch star in OOTP, then completely doubt his abilities in HBP. Some of that experience should have rubbed off. And Ron can be quite courageous at times, as he is in the Shreiking Shack when he is ready to die to protect Harry from Sirius. However,this confidence and courage doesn't transfer to other situations. I can't help thinking, and I know this smacks of the auteur theory, that Rowling is somehow taking revenge on Sean (the boy on whom Ron is modeled) because Sean never returned her affection. If Hermione is an idealized version of Rowling , then through Ron, Rowling finally gets Sean, but, boy, does she make him suffer for it. > Montavilla47: I'm not so sure that it's about the author's desire to take revenge as it may be about the author's desire to build up to that Horcrux scene. The problem is, it wasn't really very well done. Let's compare what she does with Ron and Ron/Hermione with what she does with Neville. JKR builds up the story of Ron through showing him in various situations where he fails through insecurity. Each time he eventually triumphs over those insecurities. But then he gets a reset in the next book. The one between OotP and HBP is absurd. Maybe that's realistic (since few people really do get over insecurity just because of a single event), but it doesn't really work in a story. And, while I can see the narrative Carol presents, I don't see why I should believe that Ron "triumphed" over his insecurities when he destroyed the Horcrux when he didn't after winning the Quidditch cup in OotP and realizing he didn't need good-luck potion to win in HBP. With Neville, on the other hand, we see a consistent growth. He starts out timid and insecure and overcomes one fear in PoA with the boggart. In GoF, we begin to see that he's dealing with a lot more than mean teachers. We see that he does deal with his parents, and we hear hints that he's good with plants. In OotP, he's better with plants and he's becoming more skillful in his wand work. In HBP, he finally has his "own" wand (rather than his father's), and he's starting to get out of the shadow of his grandmother with McGonagall's help and his own skills. So, it's a pleasant and not completely surprising development when we discover that he's leading the troops in DH and when he pulls out the sword and kills the snake, we *love* it. The groundwork on that character was done, the character developed from timid and ineffective to heroic, and it's completely satisfying. But, with Ron, it was as though the character kept trying to develop, only to be pulled back two steps every time he did. Consequently, it's impossible (for me, at least) to believe that Ron will ever get over being insecure or that Hermione is ever going to be anything but undermining, even if she does occasionally kiss him on the lips. And honestly, maybe I'm not supposed to, since in the epilogue, he's still failing his driving test and scared to let Hermione know about it. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 19:06:15 2009 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:06:15 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186272 > > sartoris22: > You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. > > Pippin: > It's a family quarrel. Ron wouldn't appreciate Harry butting in. Montavilla47: I think it's more of a family dynamic. Ron never really quarrels with the Twins. But I don't know why Ron wouldn't appreciate some support from Harry. Harry always seemed to appreciate it when his friends butted in with his family. > sartoris22: > Ron has to get the basilisk fangs and recognize the elves before Hermione thinks he is worthy. Funnily enough, Hermione doesn't have to do anything extra to gain Ron's love. > > Pippin: > She had to make the boys look like heroes in the troll episode and she had to stop being such a prig about the rules. She had plenty of growing up to do, she just got through some of it a little quicker. Montavilla47: I don't know if she had to do the lie. According to the narrator it was facing the troll together that made them all friends. And Ron was already halfway to liking her when he realized that he'd hurt her. He went right after Harry to save her, even if she was annoying. Pippin: > I think Hermione wanted to believe all along that Ron's heart would get to the right place about the House Elves (I certainly did) but she needed proof before she could trust her feelings about it. And she had to modify her own position as well. Montavilla47: Argh. I agree that Hermione had to modify her position. But I don't agree that Ron's heart had to "get to the right place." His heart was *aways* in the right place with the elves. He understood that they liked to work and he showed his appreciation by thanking them and giving Dobby a Christmas present. I'm not sure that 14-year-old Ron would have remembered that there were elves to warn (since they were never seen), but, had he remembered, 14-year-old Ron would have definitely have considered it *their choice* whether to stay and fight, or flee to safety. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 22 19:26:27 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:26:27 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186273 > > sartoris22: > > > > But in HBP Harry bluntly tells Ron that he lacks confidence in Quidditch, which prompts Ron to ask, "Are you calling me mental?" If Harry can show concern for Ron's lack of confidence concerning Quidditch, then why can't he show the same concern for Ron's lack of confidence concerning the twins. Hermione shows that concern. Admittedley, Quidditch is important to boys, but so is bullying. Harry hates Malfoy because he's a bully, but accepts the twins bullying Ron. I'm sorry but that troubles me. I think that Ron is a better friend to Harry then Harry is to Ron, and Harry's attitude about the twins is only one example of it. > > > > Alla: > > I am replying to your post, but also in general to the thread, so if there are lines here that seem irrelevant, please disregard. :) > > Do we really want to make it a context of who is the better friend to whom? I can sure remember several instances of Harry acting like a jerk to Ron, but to me **nothing** what Harry did ever tops what Ron did when he left him and Hermione. Frankly, to me it was akin to betrayal. Magpie: I don't think we could ever really say who was a better friend, since everybody's going to define the terms to suit the person they think is better. But I will say that Ron's role as friend is to be consistently supportive of Harry where Harry's role to Ron does not involve that. Ron's doing what he's not supposed to do when he leaves Harry or when he accuses Harry of putting his name in the Goblet. But for the most part Ron's role is to back Harry up and he does it constantly. By contrast, this just isn't asked for Harry about Ron. When Ron's having problems the most Harry needs to do is vaguely think about how uncomfortable it is for him to deal with. Like in OotP when Ron's really having a hard time of it with Quidditch, it's not like Harry needs to be there helping him (say the way Hermione drilled Harry before the Tri-Wizard tasks). In fact, at one point Harry just snaps that at least Ron is allowed to play Quidditch, so he should be happy. When Ron has his triumph Harry isn't even there cheering him on. When Ron and Hermione quarrel Harry's mind is on how it effects him. When Ron and Harry fight in GoF Ron has to make up to Harry for accusing him of putting his name in the Goblet but Harry never has to apologize to Ron for accusing him of wanting to be Harry. Part of this is being in Harry's head--if we were in Ron's head we'd probably be getting a lot of Ron thinking about how things effect him too. But a bigger part is I think the roles they each have in their friendship and Harry's a very high maintenance friend that gets along with Ron partially because most of the time Ron's pretty easy-going and follows more naturally than he leads. I remember, for instance, when we learned that Arthur was originally slated to die in OotP that I could see why JKR didn't do it because Harry is so not the giver in that relationship it might have made him come off pretty badly being best friends with someone whose tragedy eclipses his own. Harry helps people in his own way, but that way doesn't cover a lot of Ron's moments. (And of course he's really not very well-equipped to deal with Ron's insecurity issues since they mostly just make him uncomfortable.) -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 19:40:50 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:40:50 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186274 Alla wrote: > Do we really want to make it a context of who is the better friend to whom? I can sure remember several instances of Harry acting like a jerk to Ron, but to me **nothing** what Harry did ever tops what Ron did when he left him and Hermione. Frankly, to me it was akin to betrayal. Yes, I know he came back and saved Harry's life, and that is why I still love Ron. However, after Harry and Sirius he used to be my third favorite character in the books. I cannot say so anymore. And I am now realizing that there is after all one character whose fate I am slightly bitter about, and it is Ron. Carol responds: I think we're back to Christian themes here, specifically, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and redemption through repentance. Ron is immediately remorseful and wants to return, but he has to stay away (as a kind of penance?) until the others are ready to speak his name (a sign that they're ready to forgive him). He *earns* Harry's forgiveness through his heroism, which also (IMO) redeems him, but Hermione's forgiveness is unearned. She has to allow her love to overcome her anger and resentment. "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven" (Matthew 18: 21-22). Love, forgiveness, repentance, redemption, all in one scene of friends forgiving friends their trespasses. (Later, Harry forgives a man he once hated, illustrating another biblical theme, "Love thine enemies"--or those you think are your enemies!) Personally, I loved the whole story of Ron leaving and returning and overcoming his personal demons by destroying the Horcrux. If he hadn't had those insecurities and jealousies, the Horcrux couldn't have tormented him and he couldn't have found the courage to surmount them and symbolically destroy them. Alla wrote: > I was mad at Ron when he IMO abandoned Harry in GoF for so long, but really I know what it means to feel insecure and I cut him a slack, after all fourteen year old kid who stood by Harry for so long allowed his weaknesses and should be forgiven. Carol: I agree. However, Harry could have handled the whole situation better himself, but he chooses to withhold the information he learned from "Moody," that someone is trying to kill him. If he'd only told Ron the whole story, Ron would have understood. Instead, he just insists that he didn't put his name in, leaving Ron to think that he's not only lying but finding a way to put his name in without letting his best friend into the secret. It's the whole miscommunication and secretiveness thing again. Many problems would never have occurred if Harry had yielded to his impulse to tell the whole truth (for example, telling Lupin about the "Grim") or he or another character hadn't been interrupted at a crucial point. And we see where secretiveness leads Albus Dumbledore! At any rate, I don't blame Ron in this instance at all. It's just a misunderstanding that both boys regret, the kind of thing that happens to us all. Alla: > But stakes were so raised in DH IMO that I was just shaking my head. I did not really find Ron's being good at Quidditch and then not again to be that inconsistent for reasons that many already explained. But boy I hoped that Ron would learn something after GoF, that being that even if you feel jealousy towards your best friend, you do not act upon it if you know that it is completely irrational IMO. > > No, Ron Harry does not love Hermione, no Ron Hermione loves **you**. Yes, we cannot help how we feel, but I maintain that we can not act on our worst feelings if we choose to often enough. Carol responds: I think in this instance, we need to remember that the Horcrux is using Voldemort's powers of Legilimency to read Ron's deepest secrets and insecurities. He doesn't have Harry's defenses against Dark, mind-controlling spells, and he doesn't share a mind link with Voldemort that, in essence, enables him to understand how Voldemort thinks and resist the Horcrux's manipulation. He's as open to it as Ginny was to the diary (except that it doesn't present itself as a friend AFAWK). Hermione apparently doesn't have any deep insecurities for it to feed upon. Also, Hermione, the girl Ron loves, is alone in the wilderness with two boys, one of whom has shown himself repeatedly to be a hero, the other of whom is just an ordinary Wizard kid, okay at Quidditch, not great at schoolwork, not a famous hero. Of course, he's jealous. Of course, he's insecure. And, of course, the Horcrux picks up on and magnifies those jealousies. Maybe he could have controlled his actions (though not the feelings that prompted them) if it hadn't been for the malign influence of the Horcrux (and not having enough to eat--he hasn't been conditioned to deprivation to the same extent as Harry). I'm not saying that his action was excusable, only that it was understandable, possibly even inevitable, under the circumstances (as Dumbledore, who willed him the Deluminator, anticipated). All of us, even as adults, have said or done the wrong thing at times, especially under stress. And I think that Harry and Hermione both realize that. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Hermione has engaged in vengeful behavior in other circumstances, including the conjured birds she hurled at Ron's head. Now, even though she's angry (to the point where Harry has to cast a Protego to prevent her from injuring Ron), she ultimately does the right thing and forgives him. Harry, too, has acted wrongly on occasion (though it's harder to think of a relevant example other than the Gof misunderstanding) and he knows that he's happier having Ron with him than away from him. They're best friends because they get along so well and understand each other, and Ron, unlike Harry or Hermione, is sometimes funny. They not only want him with them; they need him. Alla; > And the reason why I found the passage that I quoted to be annoying is not because I thought Hermione's behavior was great here. Of course not! I always said that Hermione is my least favorite member of the trio and I wanted her to be slapped and badly. I was annoyed **for Ron**, I wished he would get over it already. I wish I could read this passage like Shelley did, but unfortunately I agree with Carol, I think it is just foreshadowing of what is to come later in the book. Carol: I didn't enjoy it, either, but I loved the whole story of his return and reconciliation, both the humor and the pathos. To quote an old song lyric (instead of the KJB), "You don't know what you've got till it's gone." I think the whole episode cemented the relationship of the Trio as a threesome. Harry and Hermione had the terrible adventure with Bathilda!Nagini without Ron (I wonder how that would have been different if he'd been there--surely, he would have pointed out that "Bathilda" was speaking Parseltongue!), but they made no progress in destroying the Horcrux or moving on to other things (like visiting Mr. Lovegood) until he returned. Anyway, being rather far from perfect myself, I can empathize with Ron, and I'm glad he returned and was forgiven and welcomed back, rather like the Prodigal Son (whose brother, like Hermione, had remained faithful but had no fatted calf presented to him). In case anyone isn't familiar with the story, here's part of it: "A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. [When he was near to starvation, he said to himself,] 'I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.' And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.' But the father said to his servants, 'Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to be merry. "Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, 'Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.' And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. And he answering said to his father, 'Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.' And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.'" Or, as Jesus says in regard to a related parable in the same section of the Gospel of Luke with regard to a lost sheep, "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Carol, seeing more and more biblical motifs in DH, whether or not they're intended From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 19:56:30 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:56:30 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186275 Montavilla47 wrote: > > I'm not so sure that it's about the author's desire to take revenge as it may be about the author's desire to build up to that Horcrux scene. The problem is, it wasn't really very well done. > And, while I can see the narrative Carol presents, I don't see why I should believe that Ron "triumphed" over his insecurities when he destroyed the Horcrux when he didn't after winning the Quidditch cup in OotP and realizing he didn't need good-luck potion to win in HBP. Carol responds: But Ron doesn't understand himself or his own insecurities until he sees them enacted by the Horcrux (especially Hermione praising and kissing Harry). By destroying the Horcrux (after having heroically saved Harry and shown his worthiness as a true Gryffindor), he symbolically and *literally* destroys the terrible thoughts that have been tormenting him. I doubt very much whether he'll ever take such thoughts seriously again. He *knows* that he's worthy to be with Harry, that Harry is his true friend and not a rival for Hermione, and that he deserves to be forgiven. (Eventually, Hermione realizes that, too, though I suppose it takes the House-Elf moment--to me, both unnecessary and anticlimactic--for her to fully realize his worthiness. But for Ron himself, the destruction of the Horcrux is a moment of triumph, of victory over the demons that he has quite literally destroyed. It's an epiphany, as none of his other victories were. As for the epilogue, where he's talking about the driving test, I don't think he's afraid to tell Hermione the truth. He's joking about it, man to man. (It's not as if the rearview mirror were a big deal, or as if Hermione herself hadn't used the Confundus Charm on occasion. Even Dumbledore used it or recommended its use to get the results he wanted.) And Ron, being Ron, is joking about being the person who's being applauded. He can now take Harry's fame in stride and joke about it. He has his self-confidence now. Carol, who thinks that Ron is also joking about Slytherin in the epilogue and should not be taken too seriously From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 20:09:48 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:09:48 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186276 Carol responds: I think we're back to Christian themes here, specifically, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and redemption through repentance. Ron is immediately remorseful and wants to return, but he has to stay away (as a kind of penance?) until the others are ready to speak his name (a sign that they're ready to forgive him). He *earns* Harry's forgiveness through his heroism, which also (IMO) redeems him, but Hermione's forgiveness is unearned. She has to allow her love to overcome her anger and resentment. < HUGE SNIP> Alla: Well, yes, sure, it is a Christian theme of repentance, forgiveness, etc. What I would have preferred however is that this theme was not played out here and on Ron. Nobody is perfect, I know that. However to me there are character flaws and there are character flaws and what Ron did, well goes beyond character flaws to me anyway. No, I do not think that the fact that Hermione is alone with them in the woods should automatically make Ron jealous. Did he block out the part where Harry was in love with his sister? Again, we cannot help how we feel, but um, little bit rationality please? I do not know if Horcrux was influencing Ron that much. If it was, it only played on what was already in Ron, no? I would like to know however the extent of the influence. I forgave him too, I do not hate him or anything. I still love him, just not as much anymore. I thought he is better than that. And again, yes, nobody is perfect. You compared him to Snape somewhere in the thread, which made me chuckle the first time I have read it, since I cannot imagine more different characters than that. But come to think of it, yes, I can see the similarities of both Ron and Snape acting on what to me is rather ugly feeling. I can forgive Ron just as Harry and Hermione did, and will never forgive Snape despite that Harry did. However, that does not mean that I have much patience for either of them doing it in the first place. Montavilla47: But, with Ron, it was as though the character kept trying to develop, only to be pulled back two steps every time he did. Consequently, it's impossible (for me, at least) to believe that Ron will ever get over being insecure or that Hermione is ever going to be anything but undermining, even if she does occasionally kiss him on the lips. And honestly, maybe I'm not supposed to, since in the epilogue, he's still failing his driving test and scared to let Hermione know about it. Alla: I have zero problems with Ron's character doing one step forward and two step back, really. While I hear you about Neville's character development being more satisfying artistically, I had never been a fan of the idea that character's development should be tied up in a neat little bow and resolved, otherwise it is not satisfying. I know that you did not say that, I am just thinking about the implications for me of what you written, you know? I LIKE the idea that maybe Ron will never be completely secure in a sense, just learns to deal with it. And sometimes he does not. To me it seemed perfect ? the driving test thing. I just wish that she did not choose the setback to be of him to abandon his two best friends in the life or death situation. For some people maybe Ron's comeback for that reasons was all the sweeter, for me it was like, eh, haven't you passed that stage Ron? From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 19:54:19 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:54:19 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186277 montavilla47 And, while I can see the narrative Carol presents, I don't see why I should believe that Ron "triumphed" over his insecurities when he destroyed the Horcrux when he didn't after winning the Quidditch cup in OotP and realizing he didn't need good-luck potion to win in HBP. Sartoris22: I'm sorry I had to snip your comments to respond because that was an excellent analysis of the Ron character arc. As I said before, his development is nonsensical, particulrly, as you point out, in comparison to Neville'ws development. For me, Ron's development is actually somewhat infuriating. You also make a good point about the epilogue. Even after all Ron's been through, he is still failing tasks and hiding his failures from Hermione, who, although she won't admit it, didn't think Ron could past the driving test. > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 21:00:56 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:00:56 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186278 Magpie wrote: > I don't think we could ever really say who was a better friend, since everybody's going to define the terms to suit the person they think is better. But I will say that Ron's role as friend is to be consistently supportive of Harry where Harry's role to Ron does not involve that. Ron's doing what he's not supposed to do when he leaves Harry or when he accuses Harry of putting his name in the Goblet. But for the most part Ron's role is to back Harry up and he does it constantly. > > By contrast, this just isn't asked for Harry about Ron. When Ron's having problems the most Harry needs to do is vaguely think about how uncomfortable it is for him to deal with. Like in OotP when Ron's really having a hard time of it with Quidditch, it's not like Harry needs to be there helping him (say the way Hermione drilled Harry before the Tri-Wizard tasks). In fact, at one point Harry just snaps that at least Ron is allowed to play Quidditch, so he should be happy. When Ron has his triumph Harry isn't even there cheering him on. When Ron and Hermione quarrel Harry's mind is on how it effects him. When Ron and Harry fight in GoF Ron has to make up to Harry for accusing him of putting his name in the Goblet but Harry never has to apologize to Ron for accusing him of wanting to be Harry. > > Part of this is being in Harry's head--if we were in Ron's head we'd probably be getting a lot of Ron thinking about how things effect him too. But a bigger part is I think the roles they each have in their friendship and Harry's a very high maintenance friend that gets along with Ron partially because most of the time Ron's pretty easy-going and follows more naturally than he leads. Carol responds: I think you're right on the money here. Of course, in Harry's defense, he does have bigger challenges and problems than most wizarding kids, whether it's having his name put in the Goblet of Fire or having a mental connection to Voldemort or (of course) being the number one person on Voldemort's hit list. It's possible that he wouldn't be so self-absorbed if he weren't in almost constant danger. (I don't think we can know whether he would have been as arrogant as James if he hadn't been taught humility by the Dursleys, so I won't go there.) At any rate, I agree that we almost never see Harry empathizing with anybody else (except briefly and silently with Neville after he learns the fate of Neville's parents and even more briefly with the teenage Snape after the Pensieve excursion). He's willing to jump into action to save people he thinks need saving from physical danger (Hermione from the troll; Fleur's sister; Sirius Black), but he isn't much better than Ron ("you have the emotional depth of a teaspoon!") wehn it comes to understanding Cho's tears or Ron's insecurity/envy or Seamus's divided loyalties (his mother vs. Harry) in OoP. He does, however, want loyalty and moral support himself. (His whole attitude toward, say, Zacharias Smith is, essentially, if you don't understand that I don't want to talk about Cedric, than you're against me. No attempt whatever to understand that Zach might want to know what happened to Hufflepuff's only hero or even care about him as a person.) His solution to almost every dilemma is physical--hide the HBP's book; learn a new spell; fight the bad guy; rescue the victim; order a House-Elf not to hurt himself. Ron's job is, as you say, "to be consistently supportive," not just emotional and moral support but actually joining him on most of his quests and adventures and believing whatever he says (Voldemort is back and I fought him; I didn't put my name in the Goblet; Sirius has been captured and needs to be rescued). Practical advice and research, OTOH, is Hermione's job. Ron is the loyal sidekick (emphasis on loyal) and, occasionally, a source of fun or humor (in contrast to Hermione). He also understands and shares Harry's obsession with Quidditch as Hermione (understandably!) does not. When Ron fails to believe Harry or when he gets angry and leaves him, the consequences are much more dire than they would be if Harry did the same thing to Ron, but Harry has neither the opportunity nor the motive to leave Ron (any more than Frodo would leave Sam, the movie to the contrary). Harry needs Ron, even if Ron (after the first year or two) seldom teaches him anything or offers practical advice. It's a lot easier to fight the most evil Wizard in the world if you have a loyal (and usually cheerful) friend and companion. And, of course, his initial attraction to Ron is based on Ron's connection to the WW and to his family, which Harry, the orphaned outsider, initially envies and later becomes part of. What, though, does Ron get out of the friendship? Dangerous encounters with enchanted chessmen and Acromantulas and Animagi who drag him by the leg and Death Eaters who try to kill him? Fame by association with the Boy who Lived and sometime Quidditch champion against whom he can't possibly measure up? (True, they have fun cheating on their Divination homework together and Harry isn't critical of Ron's home and family, in marked contrast to Draco Malfoy.) Is it that Harry gives him almost unconditional acceptance? He doesn't judge Ron for his poverty, having been forced to wear Dudley's hand-me-downs and sleep in the cupboard under the stairs, and he doesn't expect him to live up to his brothers' achievements. He just likes Ron for himself. It seems to me that in SS/PS, they both needed a friend and found one who suited them. Maybe that initial bond, in which Ron is for once the authority on something, was all it took to form a lasting friendship. It just doesn't seem to me as if he gets as much out of the friendship as Harry does. Maybe that's why he so badly needs praise and recognition for his own achievements from Hermione. Carol, glad that she doesn't have any famous friends! From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 21:20:51 2009 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:20:51 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186279 > Montavilla47: > > But, with Ron, it was as though the character kept trying to develop, only to be > pulled back two steps every time he did. Consequently, it's impossible (for me, > at > least) to believe that Ron will ever get over being insecure or that Hermione is > ever > going to be anything but undermining, even if she does occasionally kiss him on > the lips. And honestly, maybe I'm not supposed to, since in the epilogue, he's > still > failing his driving test and scared to let Hermione know about it. > > Alla: > > I have zero problems with Ron's character doing one step forward and two step back, really. While I hear you about Neville's character development being more satisfying artistically, I had never been a fan of the idea that character's development should be tied up in a neat little bow and resolved, otherwise it is not satisfying. I know that you did not say that, I am just thinking about the implications for me of what you written, you know? > Montavilla47: Yeah, I'm not satisfied with Ron's portrayal in the books. But I agree that a character that goes one step forward and step back can work just fine. I can't think of a really good example at the moment, but I'm sure there's one out there. I guess the thing is that I felt through the series that I was expected to keep cheering every time Ron made these type of breakthroughs (starting with him winning the 50 points in book 1), only to have those breakthroughs have no positive effect on him. Because he kept going two steps back, he ended up seeing less mature at the end of the series than he did at the beginning. I really *liked* that kid back in PS/SS who dreamed about being Head Boy and Quidditch Captain. Where did that kid go? Alla: > I LIKE the idea that maybe Ron will never be completely secure in a sense, just learns to deal with it. And sometimes he does not. To me it seemed perfect ? the driving test thing. I just wish that she did not choose the setback to be of him to abandon his two best friends in the life or death situation. For some people maybe Ron's comeback for that reasons was all the sweeter, for me it was like, eh, haven't you passed that stage Ron? Montavilla47: Yes. I felt the same way, except that I was pretty tired of the camping too, by that point. I wanted to go with Ron. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 22 21:41:37 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:41:37 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186280 > Montavilla47: > I guess the thing is that I felt through the series that I was expected to keep > cheering every time Ron made these type of breakthroughs (starting with him > winning the 50 points in book 1), only to have those breakthroughs have no > positive effect on him. Because he kept going two steps back, he ended up seeing > less mature at the end of the series than he did at the beginning. I really *liked* > that kid back in PS/SS who dreamed about being Head Boy and Quidditch Captain. > Where did that kid go? Magpie: I think it's important to remember that pretty much everybody in this universe stays the same, at heart, though some people just need time to uncover who they were or wind up having to go down the wrong road to rediscover themselves. For an obvious example, I remember pre-OotP people would complain about Marauder-era fanfics that showed Peter being obviously the rat he turned out to be. Then in OotP there he is being really obviously the rat he turned out to be. But this had always been the case: when Sirius faces him in PoA he completely sees that Peter was what he was all along. Once he got the right piece of info, everything fell into place. (JKR's very fond of this sort of thing and she does it well.) Neville changes superficially--he's no longer bursting into tears or getting so flustered he forgets things or blows things up. I'd say his mirror here is a bit of Draco Malfoy, who by the later books is no longer cocky and antagonistic. But in both these cases, what we're seeing is the outside of the person coming to match the inside that was there all along, not a major change in who they were. We cheer when Neville stands up to the DEs and attacks Nagini, but this isn't new for the Neville. In PS/SS he stood up to the Trio and attacked Crabbe and Goyle. Neville is basically doing the same thing, in a pinch and when his metal was tested, as he always did. (Both Draco and Neville are even basically living up to their names the way they act.) Ron we know better than Neville, so like Hermione there really are no surprises and we've already memorized his patterns. His interaction with Hermione is the same in the epilogue as it is in earlier books. I've no doubt he continues to have periodic blow ups, just as I have no doubt Ginny and Hermione's little spat in HBP is a foreshadowing of sister-in-law spats to come. It's just more annoying sometimes with Ron--not, I don't think, only because people want him to develop but because it leads to the same dang story that's too easily recognized. Particularly in HBP with Quidditch, a lot of which book's plot was treading water until the plot blew up. I think there's probably an upside to this; it's part of what makes the characters memorable and there's probably a comfort to seeing them do the same things again and again. But with Ron it gets a little too much. And maybe it also gets a little depressing. Because when you go back and read earlier books Ron really does seem to devolve as a person. I wouldn't have guessed from PS/SS that he'd have such a defeatist quality to him that I see in him later on. I wind up feeling a bit like he decided to play down to otehrs' low expectations and set himself up to have all his insecurities validated over and over. Even his career choice seems designed to make himself miserable--becoming a probably mediocre auror to Harry's star head of the department before he's 30? Yipes. (Course there's the alternate scenario where he works at WWW, but that's just as bad--he's taking Fred's place with none of Fred's talents.) -m From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 22:51:54 2009 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:51:54 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Montavilla47: > > > I guess the thing is that I felt through the series that I was expected to keep > > cheering every time Ron made these type of breakthroughs (starting with him > > winning the 50 points in book 1), only to have those breakthroughs have no > > positive effect on him. Because he kept going two steps back, he ended up seeing > > less mature at the end of the series than he did at the beginning. I really *liked* > > that kid back in PS/SS who dreamed about being Head Boy and Quidditch Captain. > > Where did that kid go? > > Magpie: > I think it's important to remember that pretty much everybody in this universe stays the same, at heart, though some people just need time to uncover who they were or wind up having to go down the wrong road to rediscover themselves. For an obvious example, I remember pre-OotP people would complain about Marauder-era fanfics that showed Peter being obviously the rat he turned out to be. Then in OotP there he is being really obviously the rat he turned out to be. But this had always been the case: when Sirius faces him in PoA he completely sees that Peter was what he was all along. Once he got the right piece of info, everything fell into place. (JKR's very fond of this sort of thing and she does it well.) > > Neville changes superficially--he's no longer bursting into tears or getting so flustered he forgets things or blows things up. I'd say his mirror here is a bit of Draco Malfoy, who by the later books is no longer cocky and antagonistic. But in both these cases, what we're seeing is the outside of the person coming to match the inside that was there all along, not a major change in who they were. Montavilla47: I would still call that a development of character. And yes, it's satisfying with Neville because we know that the seeds of what he became were there at the beginning. But, if say, Neville had faced the Snape/boggart and then had to overcome his fear of Snape *again* in GoF and *again* in OotP, HBP, and DH, I think that would have gotten really annoying. Magpie: > We cheer when Neville stands up to the DEs and attacks Nagini, but this isn't new for the Neville. In PS/SS he stood up to the Trio and attacked Crabbe and Goyle. Neville is basically doing the same thing, in a pinch and when his metal was tested, as he always did. (Both Draco and Neville are even basically living up to their names the way they act.) Montavilla47: Right. Neville does tend to act predictably--when he's given a challenge, he does his best to meet it. And if he's licked, he eventually gets up and tries again. I don't even know what to say about Draco, except that he seemed to evolve until DH, when he just melted away, like the Wicked Witch of the West. Magpie: > Ron we know better than Neville, so like Hermione there really are no surprises and we've already memorized his patterns. His interaction with Hermione is the same in the epilogue as it is in earlier books. I've no doubt he continues to have periodic blow ups, just as I have no doubt Ginny and Hermione's little spat in HBP is a foreshadowing of sister-in-law spats to come. It's just more annoying sometimes with Ron--not, I don't think, only because people want him to develop but because it leads to the same dang story that's too easily recognized. Particularly in HBP with Quidditch, a lot of which book's plot was treading water until the plot blew up. Montavilla47: I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "develop." I have my own idea of what that means, and I'm not sure we're working under the same definition, because, even though Neville remains the same at heart, I do think that the matching of his outsides to his insides does constitute a development in his character. When I look at the Ron in PS/SS, I would say at heart that this is a kid who has empathy, a sense of humor, tact, and intelligence. I see a little bit of insecurity--mainly tied to his lack of money. I also see a realistic perspective of the obstacles he's going to face at Hogwarts (which is what you'd expect from someone who enjoys chess). He's also a kid who willingly sacrifices himself in order to help his friend Harry accomplish an important task. Hehe. I was going to list all the things in that paragraph that Ron *isn't* in DH, but I realized it was everything--except the insecurity, which is no longer tied to his family's lack of money, because they're no longer poor. Magpie: > I think there's probably an upside to this; it's part of what makes the characters memorable and there's probably a comfort to seeing them do the same things again and again. But with Ron it gets a little too much. And maybe it also gets a little depressing. Because when you go back and read earlier books Ron really does seem to devolve as a person. I wouldn't have guessed from PS/SS that he'd have such a defeatist quality to him that I see in him later on. I wind up feeling a bit like he decided to play down to otehrs' low expectations and set himself up to have all his insecurities validated over and over. Even his career choice seems designed to make himself miserable--becoming a probably mediocre auror to Harry's star head of the department before he's 30? Yipes. (Course there's the alternate scenario where he works at WWW, but that's just as bad--he's taking Fred's place with none of Fred's talents.) Montavilla47: Um. Yeah. I agree. I think I prefer the fanfic version where he becomes Dumbledore and goes back in time. Or where he opens the first flying car dealership in the wizarding world and becomes a millionaire. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 23:12:52 2009 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:12:52 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > What annoyed me in the books was that Ron, who had been hailed as a Quidditch champion in OoP ("Weasley is our king") was back to the same old insecurities in HBP with the Felix Felicis episode. jkoney: Most of what Ron is feeling before the game in HBP is nerves. You can't get your self-confidence unless you do something several times and suceed at it. As an example: I've played baseball/softball all my life. I know for a fact that I can do it and do it well. Why? Because I did it before many times and suceeded many times. Whereas when I went to my first Tae Kwon Do tournament I was nervous enough not to be able to eat. I did ok and returned to practice. Several months later I was in another one. I was just as nervous even though I had performed adequately the first time. Ron is the type of person who needs lots of practice and many small victories to gain his confidence. From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 23:21:15 2009 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:21:15 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sartoris22" wrote: > > sartoris22: > You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. > > Pippin: > It's a family quarrel. Ron wouldn't appreciate Harry butting in. > > sartoris22: > > I'm not convinced of that. I think that Ron would have welcomed Harry's support. Besides, isn't Harry as much a brother to Ron as the twins? It would now be two against two. Harry doesn't even show anger toward the twins about how they treat Ron. Harry could at least have thought of them as jerks, even if he didn't say it. But Harry likes the twins, totally ignoring the way they treat Ron. It is Hermione, to her credit, who doesn't approve of the twin's treatment of Ron; Harry seems oblivious to it. Harry also shows his insensitivity toward Ron by accepting the Maurader's Map, which the twins, rightfully, should have given to Ron and said, "hey, let Harry use it to go to Hogsmeade." > jkoney: I am going to have to disagree. It wasn't that Harry wasn't supportive of Ron, he just didn't jump out and try to protect Ron in some dramatic fashion. Harry's actions were those of a friend who said you're leading in this situation. If you want to stand up to them, I'll be there. If you want to take the abuse and bitch about it later, I'll be there to listen to it. Heck, I'll even get my butt kicked again in chess. That's just the dynamic of adolescent boys. Having Harry defend him to his brothers would have been embarrassing. Having Hermione do it was mortifying. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Apr 22 23:33:59 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:33:59 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186284 > > Magpie: > > I think it's important to remember that pretty much everybody in this universe stays the same, at heart, though some people just need time to uncover who they were or wind up having to go down the wrong road to rediscover themselves. For an obvious example, I remember pre-OotP people would complain about Marauder-era fanfics that showed Peter being obviously the rat he turned out to be. Then in OotP there he is being really obviously the rat he turned out to be. But this had always been the case: when Sirius faces him in PoA he completely sees that Peter was what he was all along. Once he got the right piece of info, everything fell into place. (JKR's very fond of this sort of thing and she does it well.) > > > > Neville changes superficially--he's no longer bursting into tears or getting so flustered he forgets things or blows things up. I'd say his mirror here is a bit of Draco Malfoy, who by the later books is no longer cocky and antagonistic. But in both these cases, what we're seeing is the outside of the person coming to match the inside that was there all along, not a major change in who they were. > > Montavilla47: > I would still call that a development of character. Magpie: Oh, I've got no problem calling it development. It's not like there's no change at all--and even if there wasn't change the author would still be revealing the character in a way that moved something along. I just think Ron's a case that shows sometimes the fact that the more things change etc. works better than others. Especially if she's finding different situations in which to have the person do their thing in, if that makes sense. I once wrote something about how the characters were like chess pieces, defined by 3 major things: the details of the way they were carved, their position on the board, and the move they could make. Some characters have more emphasis on one than the other. Montavilla: And yes, it's satisfying with > Neville because we know that the seeds of what he became were there at the > beginning. But, if say, Neville had faced the Snape/boggart and then had to > overcome his fear of Snape *again* in GoF and *again* in OotP, HBP, and DH, > I think that would have gotten really annoying. Magpie: Right, I agree. We see Neville triumph more than once--at the MoM, in PS/SS, in DH, in HBP, but it doesn't feel like Ron. Maybe at least partly because with Ron there's always so much emphasis on the fall before the triumph. Neville is a pretty steadfast guy who doesn't complain. Even when he's freaking out in Snape's class it's more of an involuntary physical reaction. With Ron people aren't frustrated that he can't play Quidditch but that they know how he's going to react to that. Montavilla: > I don't even know what to say about Draco, except that he seemed to > evolve until DH, when he just melted away, like the Wicked Witch of the > West. Magpie: Yes, I still feel like I bumped my head on the ceiling--hard--with that character. I know there are probably plenty of real life people who are stunted in similar ways but it still feels like she accidentally put in far too much interesting stuff in HBP. > Magpie: > > Ron we know better than Neville, so like Hermione there really are no surprises and we've already memorized his patterns. His interaction with Hermione is the same in the epilogue as it is in earlier books. I've no doubt he continues to have periodic blow ups, just as I have no doubt Ginny and Hermione's little spat in HBP is a foreshadowing of sister-in-law spats to come. It's just more annoying sometimes with Ron--not, I don't think, only because people want him to develop but because it leads to the same dang story that's too easily recognized. Particularly in HBP with Quidditch, a lot of which book's plot was treading water until the plot blew up. > > Montavilla47: > I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "develop." I have my own > idea of what that means, and I'm not sure we're working under the same > definition, because, even though Neville remains the same at heart, I do think > that the matching of his outsides to his insides does constitute a development > in his character. Magpie: In that paragraph instead of development I really should have said "grow" or "learn." Neville grows, seeming to reach his potential. Ron seems more defined by the thing that gets in his way and keeps him from reaching his potential. With practice, Neville gets over his fears and is just brave. With Ron, well, we get something like the Quiddtich story. Sure a real person could easily get nervous all over again the next year, but in a work of fiction you sort of feel like...what was the point of that payoff last year? It didn't go beyond Ron having a nice moment he could be comically boastful about. Then he ran out of whatever good feelings he got from it and was back again to the beginning. Montavilla: > When I look at the Ron in PS/SS, I would say at heart that this is a kid who > has empathy, a sense of humor, tact, and intelligence. I see a little bit of > insecurity--mainly tied to his lack of money. I also see a realistic perspective > of the obstacles he's going to face at Hogwarts (which is what you'd expect > from someone who enjoys chess). He's also a kid who willingly sacrifices > himself in order to help his friend Harry accomplish an important task. > > Hehe. I was going to list all the things in that paragraph that Ron *isn't* > in DH, but I realized it was everything--except the insecurity, which is > no longer tied to his family's lack of money, because they're no longer > poor. Magpie: Yes, it's like that part of his personality takes over everything else. A lot of the other things seem to get eaten away by it. And it's not like it doesn't make sense from a personality perspective, but it's just depressing. Ron starts out as the kid who feels overlooked in his big family, the one kid who has no special talents. But he hooks up at school with two other kids that put him in the same position, where he's defined as the non-special one. And he just winds up letting them be all those things. Hermione gets most of them--she's the one with empathy (even though I think that's not true at all, but she certainly manages to sell it to the point where Ron's rewarded for changing a position on house elves he never changed), the one with tact. Ron's sense of humor sometimes just gets derided. I remember someone once said they thought he suffered from comic character syndrome, where comic sidekicks wind up getting stupider for laughs. His only way of dealing with his "also ran" personality is to accept it, so he's kind of stuck as the same person who apparently desires to be impressive but easily feels outclassed and gives up trying. > Montavilla47: > Um. Yeah. I agree. I think I prefer the fanfic version where he becomes > Dumbledore and goes back in time. Or where he opens the first flying car > dealership in the wizarding world and becomes a millionaire. Magpie: I've read some great fanfics that take Ron different places in the future and a lot of them start with having Ron sever himself from Harry and Hermione--not in a complete way; he's still friends with them. But he finds his own place in the world and feels secure. -m From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 20:47:27 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:47:27 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186285 Alla: > I have zero problems with Ron's character doing one step forward and two step back, really. While I hear you about Neville's character development being more satisfying artistically, I had never been a fan of the idea that character's development should be tied up in a neat little bow and resolved, otherwise it is not satisfying. I know that you did not say that, I am just thinking about the implications for me of what you written, you know? > sartoris22: I understand that characters can be unresolved and static, but character development,or lack of it, should at least make sense. Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman doesn't change, but that is because his entire personna has been shaped by a lie, without which, he is nothing. Ron, on the other hand, wants to change, to be better, but it's as if Rowling wants to hold him back. I think many of us were surprized at the lack of development in the Ron/Hermione relationship in DH, particularly after the scene in HBP with Hermione crying on Ron's shoulder and Ron gently consoling her at Dumbledore's funeral. Why doesn't Ron tell Hermione how he feels? He already knows that she likes him. Some might argue that unconsciously Ron holds back because he doesn't believe he deserves Hermione, but he keeps trying to win her over, even using that silly How to Charm Witches book the twins give him. Ron has had a girlfriend; he has some experience--in fact, Ron has probably done considerably more snogging than either Harry or Hermione. That he wouldn't openly ask Hermione for a date or something makes no sense to me. If we follow simple behaviorism, experiences shape us greatly. Ron has experiences that should motivate and guide him to approach openly Hermione, yet he doesn't, and, to me, that is fairly absurd. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 23 03:18:33 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:18:33 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186286 Magpie: In that paragraph instead of development I really should have said "grow" or "learn." Neville grows, seeming to reach his potential. Ron seems more defined by the thing that gets in his way and keeps him from reaching his potential. With practice, Neville gets over his fears and is just brave. With Ron, well, we get something like the Quiddtich story. Sure a real person could easily get nervous all over again the next year, but in a work of fiction you sort of feel like...what was the point of that payoff last year? It didn't go beyond Ron having a nice moment he could be comically boastful about. Then he ran out of whatever good feelings he got from it and was back again to the beginning. Alla: See to me, what Neville does is just overcoming his childhood trauma, because as you wrote upthread, to me his inner essence really does not change at all, he just learns to show it to the world. But I see what is happening with Ron to be as something very very realistic, because to me things like that often never completely go away. In a sense I actually feel that for Neville it was much easier to overcome what happened to him, than Ron. I mean, of course he witnessed a horrific traumatic event, which Ron did not, and it was horrible. But to me this event just made it harder for Neville to tap into who he really is versus Ron being insecure is who Ron really is As an aside to the thread, not just to you I am sure you know from the past debates that I really do not think that even in literature character's development should only go up and it should all make sense, and that payoff should necessarily happen or it is not satisfying. I brought Russian literature of 19 century as example in the past, but I will bring it again, because really I think it is a perfect example of amazing literature works, which VERY OFTEN have no resolutions, characters do NOT develop necessarily, it often feels that changes are about to happen, almost happen and then, nothing, really really nothing. "A Hero of our time" by Lermontov would be perfect example and in a sense I see what is happening to Ron as similar in a sense that something happens to him that should have make him to overcome his insecurities, but then it really does not. Of course Ron at least gets his happy ending, which Pechorin does not, he gets senseless and unresolved ending, which to me is the whole point, but I do see the similarities as I said. In my view, if person has insecurities that became part of who they are, often all such person can do is work on them and make sure that they do not interfere with our lives, you know? I was always shy, always, but when I told my colleagues that I am shy, they laughed a lot. I behave as exact opposite of shy person with the people I know and comfortable with, it does not matter how many people, I just need to get to know them. But make me go to a social party where I do not know anybody and trust me, I am not going to have a good time, even if I will not show it. It still manifests, you know? So, again, my disappointment was that JKR chose to make Ron's insecurities show in such important moment, that she did not show him to be strong enough (IMO) to shove his feelings down and tell them, no, I know it is all in my head, Harry and Hermione love me, they NEED me. I am disappointed that Ron **acted** on his insecurities, NOT that he had them. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 23 04:05:09 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:05:09 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186287 > Alla: > > See to me, what Neville does is just overcoming his childhood trauma, because as you wrote upthread, to me his inner essence really does not change at all, he just learns to show it to the world. But I see what is happening with Ron to be as something very very realistic, because to me things like that often never completely go away. In a sense I actually feel that for Neville it was much easier to overcome what happened to him, than Ron. I mean, of course he witnessed a horrific traumatic event, which Ron did not, and it was horrible. But to me this event just made it harder for Neville to tap into who he really is versus Ron being insecure is who Ron really is Magpie: Actually, I agree. I find Ron's whole pattern totally believable. I just understand why reading about it is frustrating to people, especially when it's something like the 2 Quidditch stories. It's not so much Ron but our expectations for those kinds of stories. *We're* over it now, and when Ron goes right back to the beginning I understand the feeling of impatience. One could probably say something about the family dynamics, actually. Like that it was good for Neville to get to Hogwarts and away from his family who all seemed convince he was inadequate. (Maybe Snape unintentionally helped him by making his family seem good by comparison.) Ron not only went to Hogwarts with his family, he recreated his situation with Harry and Hermione. Which I think you're right points to this being who Ron really is. Neville doesn't seek out people who tell him or make him feel worthless. Alla: > As an aside to the thread, not just to you I am sure you know from the past debates that I really do not think that even in literature character's development should only go up and it should all make sense, and that payoff should necessarily happen or it is not satisfying. Magpie: Absolutely. I don't know "A Hero of Our Time" but I take your word for it that there are similarities. Because like I said, Ron really does make sense to me. It seems like this is his natural state. And it's kind of interesting in DH when the Horcrux actually links it all the way back to Ron even feeling like his parents wanted him to be a girl--I don't know if Ron would even know what it felt like to not feel insecure. Alla: > So, again, my disappointment was that JKR chose to make Ron's insecurities show in such important moment, that she did not show him to be strong enough (IMO) to shove his feelings down and tell them, no, I know it is all in my head, Harry and Hermione love me, they NEED me. I am disappointed that Ron **acted** on his insecurities, NOT that he had them. Magpie: Yeah, it only really tends to be a problem in the way it's used in the plot for people, rather than Ron being insecure at all, you know? -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 23 04:09:57 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:09:57 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186288 Magpie: Even his career choice seems designed to make himself miserable--becoming a probably mediocre auror to Harry's star head of the department before he's 30? Yipes. (Course there's the alternate scenario where he works at WWW, but that's just as bad--he's taking Fred's place with none of Fred's talents.) Pippin: Ron got to be a Quidditch star and a prefect, and probably would have been Head Boy if the war hadn't gotten in the way. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same in the Auror office. Harry will always get the spotlight when he's around, but even he can't be everywhere at once. Ron's not exactly content in the Epilogue, but then he never wanted contentment the way Harry did. He likes a bit of conflict, Ron does. Ron imagined himself successful independent of his brothers, and that's how we see him in the Epilogue. He acquitted himself well in the final battle -- didn't get himself killed or seriously wounded, and saved Draco's life twice. As an auror he may always be Watson to Harry's Holmes, but there's success (as a million police procedurals will testify) for the plodding but persistent cop who keeps getting it wrong but never ever gives up. That's our Ronniekins. And I wouldn't say he had none of Fred's talents. He's kept his sense of teenage humor, with less tendency than Fred to do dangerous things for the fun of it. The recent thread made me think of something you referred to (in a part I snipped) about the characters never changing drastically. That's another way in which Harry is definitely not Aslan. (Be patient, I promise I'll get back to Ron.) Harry can tell people when he thinks they're making a mistake, he can sometimes get them to listen, but he can't reform people's hearts the way Aslan does. In fact no one in the WW can do this, and no one is changed the way Edmund and Eustace change in Narnia, so that you can't imagine them ever doing anything seriously wrong again. There's no character or source of wisdom that has all the answers, so that all you have to do is open your heart and Aslan, or the Force or Gandalf can always tell you exactly what you ought to do. Dumbledore seemed to have that kind of wisdom at first, but that turned out to be an unrealistic expectation, to say the least. And I think that's where a lot of people felt cheated. Now maybe Rowling misjudged her audience or her genre and didn't think we'd expect this kind of character development. Or maybe she's saying exactly what she meant to say. Maybe she thinks that expecting some source of unimpeachable wisdom to reveal the answers to our problems and change people's hearts overnight *is* an unrealistic expectation, or at least one that doesn't really fit with a liberal world-view. Not that things (and people) can't get better. But the characters have to solve their moral and spiritual problems the way they solve other problems, by trial and error as well as research. It isn't enough to discover the wisdom of the past, because the wisdom of the past sometimes needs to be superseded. The answers aren't always already out there somewhere waiting to be found. The wizarding world hasn't discovered a cure for insecurity, and so Ron remains insecure. It hasn't discovered a cure for bossiness, and so Hermione is still full of herself. But they've learned they can live with each other. That's called, um, tolerance. Pippin From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Thu Apr 23 21:38:40 2009 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:38:40 +0200 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186289 >> Montavilla47: > But, with Ron, it was as though the character kept trying to develop, > only to be > pulled back two steps every time he did. Consequently, it's > impossible (for me, at > least) to believe that Ron will ever get over being insecure or that > Hermione is ever > going to be anything but undermining, even if she does occasionally > kiss him on > the lips. And honestly, maybe I'm not supposed to, since in the > epilogue, he's still > failing his driving test and scared to let Hermione know about it. Miles: I had the same unpleasant feeling about that scene in the epilogue. It reminded me why I always had a bad feeling about "shipping" Ron and Hermione. I'm quite sure that Rowling planned them coming together from the beginning, but since I do not like couples of that kind in real life (you know, one bossy partner, always planning for both, setting rules, making decisions, the other partner indulgent, only rarely taking a stand, but usually giving in), I do not like Hermione and Ron as a pair. By the way, am I the only one that sees a reflection of Molly and Arthur? And would it be unfair to think about how JKR's husband might be? > Magpie: > I think it's important to remember that pretty much everybody in this > universe stays the same, at heart, though some people just need time > to uncover who they were or wind up having to go down the wrong road > to rediscover themselves. Miles: That's an opinion one can hear quite frequently, but I daresay it's not a unquestioned matter of fact that anyone should remember as a fact. People are partly determined by their genes and early childhood life, but they are shaped by their life and their own decisions as well. What is more important is always and will always be a point of discussion between scientists, I doubt there will ever be a decision. We are talking a lot about religion lately - this sounds a bit like predestination vs free will. Did I mention I'm a Roman Catholic? ;) Actually I do not like the idea that people exist in their essence from the beginning and life just unfolds who they are. It does not leave much room for changing oneself, for becoming a better person, for overcoming a bad start. I like to believe that every person has the chance to improve, at every point in his life. And I do not like the idea that people are born bad and have no chance to overcome this, however hard they try. Let me ramble a bit to the end of the books, when Harry gives Voldemort one last chance to repent. We discussed whether this was just a sham offer, or if he really offered Tom his hand. While I really do not see any realistic chances for the Tom Riddle JKR described to take this hand, I think Harry has to offer him a way back - because he could for once make the right choice. Miles From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Apr 23 20:41:59 2009 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:41:59 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186290 > Montavilla47: > > I'm not so sure that it's about the author's desire to take revenge as it may be about > the author's desire to build up to that Horcrux scene. The problem is, it wasn't really > very well done. Hickengruendler: I offer a third explanation. I think the problem is, that Ron and Hermione basically don't matter in book 6 (compared to othe rbooks, where they are more important for the plot) and JKR wanted them to have some screentime, so she repeated the Quidditch storyline for Ron. We know for sure about one change JKR made during the course of the series, sparing Arthur Weasley and killing Lupin and Tonks instead. And while I'm glad that Arthur survived, I do wonder, how his death would have changed Ron's development. It certainly would have meant more important scenes for him, than Quidditch or a romance subplot with Lavender Brown. Maybe she had plans for him in book 5 and 6, which had to change, because Arthur's fate changed as well (for the better). And actually, that might be true for the other Weasley children as wel, especially Ginny. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 23 16:28:44 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:28:44 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186291 > Alla: > > See to me, what Neville does is just overcoming his childhood trauma, because as you wrote upthread, to me his inner essence really does not change at all, he just learns to show it to the world. But I see what is happening with Ron to be as something very very realistic, because to me things like that often never completely go away. In a sense I actually feel that for Neville it was much easier to overcome what happened to him, than Ron. Pippin: That's a good point. Neville's negative messages come from outside, and he echoes that, "Everyone knows I'm almost a Squib", or "Gran always says I'm not as good as my Dad." (quoting from memory.) But nobody ever actually tells Ron that he isn't as good as his brothers, or says they don't expect him to do as well. It's not like Hermione ever says she likes him less than Harry, or compares the two of them in any way. No matter how many positive experiences he has, trusting his inner judgment isn't going to fix Ron's problem the way it fixed Neville's, because inner judgment is what keeps telling Ron he's no good. What does help is to have friends like Harry and Hermione who can build him up when he achieves a success and overlook it when he fails. Alla: > So, again, my disappointment was that JKR chose to make Ron's insecurities show in such important moment, that she did not show him to be strong enough (IMO) to shove his feelings down and tell them, no, I know it is all in my head, Harry and Hermione love me, they NEED me. I am disappointed that Ron **acted** on his insecurities, NOT that he had them. Pippin: But since Ron is always going to have those insecurities, it's more important for him to know that even if he does let his friends down sometimes, they'll forgive him. And, really, Harry's in no position to blame anyone for being hoodwinked by Voldemort. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 23 22:37:31 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:37:31 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186292 > > Magpie: > > I think it's important to remember that pretty much everybody in this > > universe stays the same, at heart, though some people just need time > > to uncover who they were or wind up having to go down the wrong road > > to rediscover themselves. > > Miles: > That's an opinion one can hear quite frequently, but I daresay it's not a > unquestioned matter of fact that anyone should remember as a fact. > > People are partly determined by their genes and early childhood life, but > they are shaped by their life and their own decisions as well. What is more > important is always and will always be a point of discussion between > scientists, I doubt there will ever be a decision. We are talking a lot > about religion lately - this sounds a bit like predestination vs free will. > Did I mention I'm a Roman Catholic? ;) Magpie: Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but did you think I was saying that this was a fact, like, in the real world? Because that's not what I meant at all--ITA with everything you're saying here. When I said "in this universe" I meant only the Potterverse, where as Dumbledore says "our choices show (not make) who we are." Characters have to keep behaving as if people can change, of course, but I think a lot of what happens turns on characters being very recognizeable at different stages in their life. It's more that it sometimes takes time to know them or really get them correctly, but there's going to be foreshadowing. Re: Ron and Hermione, I have the same view about them. I do think they were always obviously made to come together but to be honest, every time I imagine them as adults I picture them divorced. I know that's not canon, but it's just what I always see in my head. From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 23 22:12:21 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:12:21 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186293 Miles: I'm quite sure that Rowling planned them coming together from the beginning, but since I do not like couples of that kind in real life (you know, one bossy partner, always planning for both, setting rules, making decisions, the other partner indulgent, only rarely taking a stand, but usually giving in), I do not like Hermione and Ron as a pair. By the way, am I the only one that sees a reflection of Molly and Arthur? And would it be unfair to think about how JKR's husband might be? sartoris22: I totally get what you're saying here, but Ron's saving grace is that he argues with Hermione, which is one reason, I think, Hermione likes him. In OOTP Harry comments on their constant arguing, almost equivalent to our "get a room." While Ron hiding his driving failure from Hermione is problematic, I don't think he's really like Arthur, who never challenges Molly. Ron will challenge Hermione; he'll also tease her and tell her to lighten up. Obviously, Hermione benefits from that in her life. As for Rowling's marriage, perhaps Rowling, like Hermione, has lightened up, learned to be more relaxed, more humorous, less bossy. Moreover, Rowling said that husband is like Harry, not Ron. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 24 15:10:53 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:10:53 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186294 > Magpie: > Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but did you think I was saying that this was a fact, like, in the real world? Because that's not what I meant at all--ITA with everything you're saying here. When I said "in this universe" I meant only the Potterverse, where as Dumbledore says "our choices show (not make) who we are." Characters have to keep behaving as if people can change, of course, but I think a lot of what happens turns on characters being very recognizeable at different stages in their life. It's more that it sometimes takes time to know them or really get them correctly, but there's going to be foreshadowing. Pippin: If JKR made it easy for the characters to form new habits, there'd be less challenge in doing what's right rather than what is easy. They'd just have to keep doing the right thing until it got easy for them. That works for some of the characters some of the time, but IMO JKR is more interested in what happens when it doesn't work. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Apr 24 19:37:44 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:37:44 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186296 > > Magpie: > > Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but did you think I was saying that this was a fact, like, in the real world? Because that's not what I meant at all--ITA with everything you're saying here. When I said "in this universe" I meant only the Potterverse, where as Dumbledore says "our choices show (not make) who we are." Characters have to keep behaving as if people can change, of course, but I think a lot of what happens turns on characters being very recognizeable at different stages in their life. It's more that it sometimes takes time to know them or really get them correctly, but there's going to be foreshadowing. > > Pippin: > If JKR made it easy for the characters to form new habits, there'd be less challenge in doing what's right rather than what is easy. They'd just have to keep doing the right thing until it got easy for them. That works for some of the characters some of the time, but IMO JKR is more interested in what happens when it doesn't work. Magpie: Actually, I think there's already zero challenge to do that because that's never really an issue for anybody. (Although I can think of some cases where they face right vs. easy and choose easy with no bad effects.) But I'm not saying it's a bad thing that JKR writes characters that aren't about changing but about revealing their characters. I'm actually agreeing with you. I think throughout canon we see people solidifying their habits, which are all based on their central character. And I agree, sometimes it's far more interesting when it doesn't work. It's the bread and butter of the series a lot of the time, really. Where would we be if Snape was the kind of guy who could just learn and get over his bitterness? Or if Lupin returned to Hogwarts having shed his desire to always be liked? Like I said, I think it's an appeal for the series. It's just that in some cases people get impatient with the characters. The case with Ron is just a really obvious example, because people want him to just get over it. Except "it" is central to his character and is not something he's going to get over. Any more than Snape was going to get over his past resentments. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 24 22:36:34 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:36:34 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186297 -sartoris22: > > I totally get what you're saying here, but Ron's saving grace is that he argues with Hermione, which is one reason, I think, Hermione likes him. In OOTP Harry comments on their constant arguing, almost equivalent to our "get a room." While Ron hiding his driving failure from Hermione is problematic, I don't think he's really like Arthur, who never challenges Molly. Ron will challenge Hermione; he'll also tease her and tell her to lighten up. Obviously, Hermione benefits from that in her life. > Carol responds: Just a tiny comment since I essentially agree with what you're saying here (though "get a room" usually implies that something other than arguing is going on, ahem!). I think several posters are exaggerating what you call Ron's "driving failure." It's not as if he failed the whole test. He *can* drive a Muggle car. He only Confunded the instructor to conceal his forgetting to look in the sideview ("wing") mirror, which, to Ron, is a small thing since he can "use a Supersensory Charm for that" (755). Sure, his attitude is "What Hermione doesn't know won't hurt her," but it's not as if he's concealing something major from her--like Umbridge intending to conceal her use of the Cruciatus Curse on Harry from Fudge. It's more like Arthur concealing some new "improved" Muggle artifact from Molly, or Harry and Ron together cheating on their homework and concealing it from Hermione back when they're in school. I seriously doubt that Ron lives in terror of Hermione's disapproval or that she rules his life--as you say, he's learned to stand up to her and she's learned how to take a tease. Ron is just being Ron, not above cheating a little and being amused by it, but confident in his ability to use both a Confundus Charm and a Supersensory Charm. All this discussion has come out of one little quotation in Alla's post about rereading DH. We're all just reacting to Ron's annoyance at Hermione, early in DH, for being surprised that he Stunned a DE while he was riding on a broom, and jumping from there to his deserting Harry and Hermione and trying to return. I seem to be the only one discussing his battle with Horcrux!Tom and what I consider to be his victory over the demons that caused both his self-doubt and his jealuousy, culminating in his walking out in anger and being unable to come back. (How many of us have at some time in our lives stormed out of a room, slamming the door behind us, only to cool off and come back later, ready to apologize or at least work things out? Only that option wasn't available to Ron because of the protective spells that Hermione had cast around the tent.) IMO, his experience parallels Percy's. Both of them walked out on people who loved them and needed them because they were hurt and angry and felt misunderstood, both of them were sorry, and both of them eventually returned and redeemed themselves and were forgiven. Both of them learned a valuable lesson from their mistakes. You might even say that both of them grew up as a result. Percy is still Percy and Ron is still Ron, but both of them have gained self-confidence and maturity, demonstrated by Percy in battle and Ron in entering the CoS so that Hermione could destroy the cup Horcrux. I also think we're judging Ron prematurely without closely examining the reasons for his behavior, but I don't want to ruin Alla's thread by getting too far ahead of her. Maybe we can wait till she gets to "The Silver Doe" and analyze the canon in detail then. Just a suggestion. :-) Carol, who doesn't have time to go canon hunting now, in any case From randmath23 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 24 21:07:06 2009 From: randmath23 at yahoo.com (randmath23) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:07:06 -0000 Subject: Harry and Ron's friendship Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186298 Is it not great that Harry and Ron established a lasting friendship while traveling on the Hogwart's train to the school. I am sure that Harry has several people that he is acquainted with in life. While he can confide to his wife Ginny about some things, a male friend such as Ron is in many ways different. Harry would not be comfortable confiding certain things to a wife or to Hermione another close friend of Harry's. Harry's friendship with Ron took many twists and turns throughout the course of the series. That is what life is all about. I thought that the friendship would not last especially in the Deathly Hollows. Ron had some growing up to do. I do find it strange that Ron was not suspicious that Harry and Hermione spent so much time alone in the tent while searching for the Horchruxes. I hope that JK Rowling will write another book telling people what happened to the characters, especially the main ones. I read a lot of fan fiction, some of it is quite good while others are not so great. randmath23 From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 24 23:37:03 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:37:03 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186299 Carol I seem to be the only one discussing his battle with Horcrux!Tom and what I consider to be his victory over the demons that caused both his self-doubt and his jealuousy, culminating in his walking out in anger and being unable to come back. (How many of us have at some time in our lives stormed out of a room, slamming the door behind us, only to cool off and come back later, ready to apologize or at least work things out? Only that option wasn't available to Ron because of the protective spells that Hermione had cast around the tent.) sartoris22: I suppose that is Ron's saving grace--he immediately tries to come back; still, I am troubled that he leaves in the first place because of the dangerous situation they are in. And keep in mind, he tries to get Hermione to come with him, so his inital impulse is to abandon Harry, something I don't believe Ron would do even under the influence of the horcrux. As I said before, I can't help thinking that it is a ploy to get Harry and Hermione alone to satisfy the Harry/Hermione shippers. Carol: I think several posters are exaggerating what you call Ron's "driving failure." It's not as if he failed the whole test. He *can* drive a Muggle car. He only Confunded the instructor to conceal his forgetting to look in the sideview ("wing") mirror, which, to Ron, is a small thing since he can "use a Supersensory Charm for that" (755). sartoris22: Is using the Confundus Charm a small thing? I'm not so sure. Hermione uses it against McLaggen, and Harry seems genuinely surprised,telling her it's dishonest. Confunding someone seems fairly serious to me, particularly in order to cheat. And not using one's side mirrors during a driving test is a very big deal. Yes, Ron can use a supersensory charm, but he would be a very dangerous driver without it. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 03:19:58 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:19:58 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186300 > sartoris22: > I suppose that is Ron's saving grace--he immediately tries to come back; still, I am troubled that he leaves in the first place because of the dangerous situation they are in. And keep in mind, he tries to get Hermione to come with him, so his inital impulse is to abandon Harry, something I don't believe Ron would do even under the influence of the horcrux. Zara: Personally, I can see storming out in an argument after being told to leave, twice, in no uncertain terms, as a perfectly normal reaction that says little about a character beyond, they don't always think when they are in a temper. And accusing others in the room of choosing sides as one does so, as well. It's not like he walked out in the middle of any sort of action - they were discussing plans in their tent, hidden away in some remote area and under any number of protective spells. > sartotis22: As I said before, I can't help thinking that it is a ploy to get Harry and Hermione alone to satisfy the Harry/Hermione shippers. Zara: I find this theory only slightly less bizarre than the proposal that Rowling cooked up Snape/Lily after writing HBP, in order to satisfy us crazed Snape/Lily shippers, which I have seen proposed elsewhere. First, how exactly does this subplot satisfy a Harry/Hermione shipper? I'm not one, but I would be very surprised if they would find it satisfying. Because there isn't any romance that develops, and then we get to see a warped and ugly depiction of the ship in question courtesy of Voldemort, and then Ron destroys it, and then Harry explains how Hermione is like a sister to him and he's never been interested in her in that way. I fail to see where the satisfaction is supposed to come from. I also don't find that Rowling takes any particular consideration of any groupings within the wider HP fan community, except for the fans that share her own views (people who think Sirius is sexy, or whose favorite character is Harry, or who ship R/He and H/G, to name a few examples). And I don't think that's any sort of deliberate favoritism, just that the lady is hardly likely to make statements those groups would find insulting or annoying or dismissive, because she is hardly likely to be insulting, annoying, or dismissive about her own views. So I really don't think that she would add any major plot or character development to placate some group of fans. From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 03:43:57 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 03:43:57 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186301 Zara: First, how exactly does this subplot satisfy a Harry/Hermione shipper? I'm not one, but I would be very surprised if they would find it satisfying. Because there isn't any romance that develops, and then we get to see a warped and ugly depiction of the ship in question courtesy of Voldemort, and then Ron destroys it, and then Harry explains how Hermione is like a sister to him and he's never been interested in her in that way. I fail to see where the satisfaction is supposed to come from. sartoris22: Below is an interview with J.K. Rowling posted on sntichseeker in which she discusses the time when Harry and Hermione are alone after Ron leaves. If you notice, Rowling herself admits that there is a possibility something could happen between Harry and Hermione. Although we can certainly debate her motivation for this alone time, I don't think it implausibe that this alone time would please Harry/Hermione shippers, particularly when Rowling admits the moments between them are so charged they could possibly lead to romance: "[Kloves] felt a certain pulll between them at that point. And I think he's right. There are moments when [Harry and Hermione] touch, which are charged moments. One when she touches his hair as he sits on the hiltop reading about Dumbledore and Grindelwald, and [two] the moment when they walk out of the graveyard with their arms around each other." I was holding my breath at this point. She wasn't done. "Now the fact is that Hermione shares moments with Harry that Ron will never be able to participate in. He walked out. She shared something very instense with Harry. "So I think it could have gone that way." From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 04:45:33 2009 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:45:33 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186302 > Carol wrote: [snip] I seriously doubt that Ron lives in terror of Hermione's disapproval or that she rules his life--as you say, he's learned to stand up to her and she's learned how to take a tease. Ron is just being Ron, not above cheating a little and being amused by it, but confident in his ability to use both a Confundus Charm and a Supersensory Charm. Joey: I certainly agree. I always see Ron as a person who takes a relaxed view about life. *To him*, using a Confundus Charm in this case is just a joke and I also think Hermione viewing it in a serious light will make him chuckle to himself or just roll his eyes with an amused expression on his face. And, I feel Hermione *knows* this and, in a way, enjoys this opposite-of-her quality in him. :-) In the epilogue, I saw a pretty relaxed Ron, his natural humorous self shining brightly, relieved of all the tormenting thoughts he had underwent during his teens, totally happy with the girl he loved who is now his wife (and happy with their children, nieces, nephews as well), totally happy with the forever friend he found in Harry. :-) My opinion differs from yours in only one point: You've said Ron learnt to stand up to Hermione while I think Ron always voiced his opinion in front of Hermione and never weakly/wearily gave in to her pressures/demands - he has always stood his ground from day 1. Carol wrote: > All this discussion has come out of one little quotation in Alla's post about rereading DH. We're all just reacting to Ron's annoyance at Hermione, early in DH, for being surprised that he Stunned a DE while he was riding on a broom, and jumping from there to his deserting Harry and Hermione and trying to return. I seem to be the only one discussing his battle with Horcrux!Tom and what I consider to be his victory over the demons that caused both his self-doubt and his jealuousy, culminating in his walking out in anger and being unable to come back. [snip] Joey: Oh, you are not alone in that track - just that I'm posting only now. :-) "The Silver Doe" was *the* chapter that made Ron one of my favourite characters. I really, really liked the way he said (something like) "I'm not making excuses for what I was like, Harry but that thing is not good for me - it affects me worse than it affects you and Hermione" - I think that is a very honest, courageous, touching confession. To me, it speaks volumes of the emotional trauma he had underwent. I also liked the way Ron overcame his insecurities and triumphed (yeah, that is the right word :-)) over the Horcrux. In fact, when narrating what had happened to Hermione, I think Ron almost told her what the Horcrux did to him before he finished it off - he was only hesitating and Harry had to cut in! Hmmm... Interesting kid, this Ron. :-) In fact, after understanding that the Horcrux made Ron "think stuff" and learning that it was "stuff he was thinking anyway," I was pretty impressed that Ron never even tried to prevent Hermione joining Harry in the Horcrux hunt! He could have say tried to emotionally manipulate Hermione or even Harry just by whining that she should stay back as he has serious concerns about her safety (but deep down actually trying to just keep Harry and Hermione apart) - it would have touched Hermione and made Harry feel more guilty. Considering the extent of self-doubt and jealousy he had, I thought it was pretty decent and fair on Ron's part not to have tried such a (horrible) thing. Carol wrote: > I also think we're judging Ron prematurely without closely examining the reasons for his behavior, but I don't want to ruin Alla's thread by getting too far ahead of her. Maybe we can wait till she gets to "The Silver Doe" and analyze the canon in detail then. Just a suggestion. :-) Joey: I agree. :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 04:55:04 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 04:55:04 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186303 Carol earlier: > > I seem to be the only one discussing his battle with Horcrux!Tom and what I consider to be his victory over the demons that caused both his self-doubt and his jealuousy, culminating in his walking out in anger and being unable to come back. (How many of us have at some time in our lives stormed out of a room, slamming the door behind us, only to cool off and come back later, ready to apologize or at least work things out? Only that option wasn't available to Ron because of the protective spells that Hermione had cast around the tent.) > > sartoris22: > > I suppose that is Ron's saving grace--he immediately tries to come back; still, I am troubled that he leaves in the first place because of the dangerous situation they are in. And keep in mind, he tries to get Hermione to come with him, so his inital impulse is to abandon Harry, something I don't believe Ron would do even under the influence of the horcrux. As I said before, I can't help thinking that it is a ploy to get Harry and Hermione alone to satisfy the Harry/Hermione shippers. Carol responds: I don't think JKR is getting Hermione and Harry alone to satisfy the HH shippers, who, in any case, must have ended up very dissatisfied. If it's a plot move of any kind (in contrast to a move that allows character development for Ron), it's to get Ron away from the others so that he can return at exactly the right time to rescue Harry in highly dramatic fashion. Also, I don't think that Harry would have followed Bathilda up to her room if Ron had been there because Ron would have realized that she was speaking Parseltongue. It's also possible that JKR wanted to build the relationship between Harry and Hermione *without* turning it into love (both of them are in love with someone else), but i think the primary purpose is to enable the Deluminator/doe Patronus/locket Horcrux plot to take its course. > Carol earlier: > > I think several posters are exaggerating what you call Ron's "driving failure." It's not as if he failed the whole test. He *can* drive a Muggle car. He only Confunded the instructor to conceal his forgetting to look in the sideview ("wing") mirror, which, to Ron, is a small thing since he can "use a Supersensory Charm for that" (755). > sartoris22: > > Is using the Confundus Charm a small thing? I'm not so sure. Hermione uses it against McLaggen, and Harry seems genuinely surprised,telling her it's dishonest. Confunding someone seems fairly serious to me, particularly in order to cheat. And not using one's side mirrors during a driving test is a very big deal. Yes, Ron can use a supersensory charm, but he would be a very dangerous driver without it. > Carol: To you and me, no, it's not a small thing to cheat on your driver's test. But to Ron, and, I think, to JKR, it is. Ron is a wizard, after all, and his dad tinkers with Muggle artifacts, so maybe Ron has a similar knack. I seriously doubt that Ron is going to cause any accidents just because he's using a Supersensory Charm instead of his sideview mirror (which a lot of Muggle drivers that I know forget to use). It's quite true, as someone on this list said, that the characters often do what's easy rather than what's right and get away with it. The Confundus Charm (which has no lasting effects on any character I know of except the repeatedly Confunded Dawlish) won't hurt the Muggle driving instructor any more than it hurt Mrs. Cole when Dumbledore performed it on her so many years before. These poor Muggles. What they don't know won't hurt them--as long as it's not giants causing "hurricanes" or DEs destroying bridges. I honestly think that JKR finds Ron's behavior amusing. And Harry certainly isn't upset by it. What can we expect from two Wizards who never learned not to cheat on their homework? Carol, who thinks that if Muggles can survive having the Knight bus in their neighborhoods, they can survive having Ron on the road From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 05:09:04 2009 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:09:04 -0000 Subject: Harry and Ron's friendship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186304 randmath23 wrote: > [snip] I do find it strange that Ron was not suspicious that Harry and Hermione spent so much time alone in the tent while searching for the Horchruxes Joey: Morally brave of Ron, don't you think? :-) Also, I think when Ron came back he resolved to accept (or to cope with) the "fact" (according to him, I mean) that Harry and Hermione liked each other in the romantic sense and that he planned give focus only to on their friendship that had blossomed even before these feelings came into picture. From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 06:13:42 2009 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:13:42 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186305 > > sartoris22: > > You know, it always bothered me that Harry never said anything to the twins about the way they treat Ron, because Ron would have said something if someone was mistreating Harry. > > > > Pippin: > > It's a family quarrel. Ron wouldn't appreciate Harry butting in. > > > > sartoris22: > > > > I'm not convinced of that. I think that Ron would have welcomed Harry's support. Besides, isn't Harry as much a brother to Ron as the twins? It would now be two against two. Harry doesn't even show anger toward the twins about how they treat Ron. Harry could at least have thought of them as jerks, even if he didn't say it. But Harry likes the twins, totally ignoring the way they treat Ron. It is Hermione, to her credit, who doesn't approve of the twin's treatment of Ron; Harry seems oblivious to it. Harry also shows his insensitivity toward Ron by accepting the Maurader's Map, which the twins, rightfully, should have given to Ron and said, "hey, let Harry use it to go to Hogsmeade." > > jkoney: > I am going to have to disagree. > > It wasn't that Harry wasn't supportive of Ron, he just didn't jump out and try to protect Ron in some dramatic fashion. Harry's actions were those of a friend who said you're leading in this situation. If you want to stand up to them, I'll be there. If you want to take the abuse and bitch about it later, I'll be there to listen to it. Heck, I'll even get my butt kicked again in chess. > > That's just the dynamic of adolescent boys. Having Harry defend him to his brothers would have been embarrassing. Having Hermione do it was mortifying. > Joey: Seeing that the way the Weasley twins react to their own troubles (like say George losing an ear) is out of the ordinary, I'm not even sure if they *realize* that they may across as bullies or insensitive idiots to some people. I recently read CoS and I was reminded of how the twins try to cheer up Ginny when she was down - they *scare* her (till Percy tells them off)! Also, when Molly is upset about Percy walking out, I remember them saying that they tried to cheer her up "by pointing out that Percy is a git" (or something like that; I don't have the book with me). Honestly! :-) I think the twins don't *mean* to bully/hurt - they mean to take things (very, very, ..., very) lightly and yet they do end up bullying/hurting people (at times) all the same. I think most people (except for rules-oriented ones like Percy and Hermione) sort of understood the extreme sense of humour the twins had - you know, they just gave up the Herculean task of trying to tame them or sensitize them to others' views by shaking their heads and smiling. Harry was also one of them , I think. From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 08:32:24 2009 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:32:24 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186306 Magpie wrote: [snip] When Ron has his triumph Harry isn't even there cheering him on. Joey: Harry and Hermione wanted to stay till the end of the match - just that Hagrid's condition and words made them decide otherwise. BTW, I think had Harry and Hermione (especially Hermione) had got to stay till the end of the match, patted Ron on the back for his performance, desribed how brilliant he was and how great they felt when he excelled, things would have turned out great for Ron's self-confidence levels and he may have just eliminated future failures in Quidditch. Probably even Ginny could have taken the initiative - she isn't portrayed as a sister who did that for Ron. Hmm. Magpie wrote: [snip] When Ron and Harry fight in GoF Ron has to make up to Harry for accusing him of putting his name in the Goblet but Harry never has to apologize to Ron for accusing him of wanting to be Harry. Joey: Good point - has never occured to me. :-) Magpie wrote: [snip] Harry's a very high maintenance friend that gets along with Ron partially because most of the time Ron's pretty easy-going and follows more naturally than he leads. [snip] Joey: And because Ron is loyal and caring, I think - if these qualities are missing, it is impossible to sign-up for accompanying Harry in his dangerous and near-fatal encounters. Carol wrote: [snip] He does, however, want loyalty and moral support himself. (His whole attitude toward, say, Zacharias Smith is, essentially, if you don't understand that I don't want to talk about Cedric, than you're against me. No attempt whatever to understand that Zach might want to know what happened to Hufflepuff's only hero or even care about him as a person.) [snip] Joey: In this case alone, I think the way Zacharias put it across also messed up things. Yet I agree that Harry's reaction may not have been emotionally brilliant had Zacharias said, "Harry, I'm deeply hurt that my fellow Hufflepuff, our dear Cedric passed away and I'm anxious to know what happened; would you please tell us?" - Harry's reaction to that would have been as non-verbal and as awkward as always. :-) Carol wrote: [snip] It just doesn't seem to me as if he gets as much out of the friendship as Harry does. Maybe that's why he so badly needs praise and recognition for his own achievements from Hermione. [snip] Joey: Makes sense. I think to do what Ron did for Harry demands a huge amount of loyalty that a person of an average moral fiber probably cannot provide. And as you say, had Hermione (Or perhaps Molly? Or Arthur?) appreciated Ron even for what he has been to Harry (leave alone Ron's achievements), things might have been different for Ron. JMO, ~Joey :-) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Apr 25 11:24:21 2009 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:24:21 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186307 > Carol responds: Also, I don't think that Harry would have followed Bathilda up to her room if Ron had been there because Ron would have realized that she was speaking Parseltongue. Hickengruendler: I agree with everything else you wrote in your post, but I want to make this small nitpick (Sorry ;-) ). Bathilda/Nagini in fact didn't speak at all, until she was alone with Harry and Hermione was left downstairs. Prior to that, she only made some gestures, so that Hermione didn't realize, that she was hissing. She only started to speak, when she was alone with Harry. I assume she would have done the same, if Ron were around. From sweenlit at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 15:41:34 2009 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:41:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43e41d1e0904250841k187435echaed29b5980e6fa1a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186308 Sartoris22: I am troubled that he leaves in the first place because of the dangerous situation they are in. And keep in mind, he tries to get Hermione to come with him, so his inital impulse is to abandon Harry, something I don't believe Ron would do even under the influence of the horcrux Lynda: Oh I think he behaved in a predictable way for who he was at that time. He and Hermione had been talking about how they weren't making progress after all. What is more human than at the point of jumping ship than to try to get the other malcontent to go with you? As fpr that being a crumb for the H?H shippers, well, Iperhaps it is, but I somehow doubt it, never having been an H/H shipper or having an understanding of why some want to make a romantic friendship out of one that is so clearly not one throughout the series. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Apr 25 16:09:02 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:09:02 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186309 > Magpie wrote: > [snip] > When Ron has his triumph Harry isn't even there cheering him on. > > Joey: > > Harry and Hermione wanted to stay till the end of the match - just that Hagrid's condition and words made them decide otherwise. Magpie: Oh yes, I know. I wasn't saying that Harry was a bad friend for leaving, just pointing out that looking at them as fictional characters the pattern is that Ron is there to support Harry and not vice versa. Ron's Quidditch troubles are handled by Ron and happen off-stage while Harry's focused on other plot-related things. And Ron accepts that. Which is why I think Ron's character makes sense as having an insecurity that's part of who he is. For the Prefect thing is always a great example. Ron actually gets the honor, and the chapters are about everybody dealing with the obvious wrongness of Harry not getting it instead. (And in the end Dumbledore fixes the problem by assuring us that of course Harry should have gotten it--he just went with a runner up because he thought Harry was too busy.) -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 18:32:52 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 18:32:52 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186310 Carol earlier: > Also, I don't think that Harry would have followed Bathilda up to her room if Ron had been there because Ron would have realized that she was speaking Parseltongue. > > Hickengruendler: > > I agree with everything else you wrote in your post, but I want to make this small nitpick (Sorry ;-) ). Bathilda/Nagini in fact didn't speak at all, until she was alone with Harry and Hermione was left downstairs. Prior to that, she only made some gestures, so that Hermione didn't realize, that she was hissing. She only started to speak, when she was alone with Harry. I assume she would have done the same, if Ron were around. > Carol responds: While Harry and Hermione are alone with "Bathilda" in the house, Bathilda calls "Come!" from the next room. Hermione (who, of course, hears only a loud hiss) reacts by jumping up and clutching Harry's arm. Harry (understanding the word and not realizing that it's Parseltongue) says "It's okay" and leads the way into the sitting room. "Bathilda" shakily attempts to light the candles (Harry thinks that she's forgotten how to do magic and lights them for her). Harry tries to get her to identify the merry-faced boy in the photograph and gets only a vague look in response. Hermione asks why "Bathilda" wanted them to come with her and receives no response at all. After that, "Bathilda" gestures to Harry, wanting him but not Hermione to come upstairs. Hermione asks whether Harry is sure that "Bathilda" know who he is. Partially reassured by Harry's affirmative answer, she lets him go upstairs. She stands in the hallway hugging herself nervously, but she doesn't stop him or warn him that the old woman may be far more dangerous than she seems. (DH Am. ed. 336-338) Both Hermione and Harry are at a disadvantage here. Hermione has never heard Parseltongue (except for Harry hissing at the conjured snake in CoS, at which point Hermione, a Muggle-born, probably doesn't know what was happening until Ron explains it. It's Ron who tells Harry that he heard him speaking Parseltongue, which he defines as "snake language." After that, Hermione can connect Parseltongue to what she's read--that Salazar Slytherin was a Parselmouth--but for the first page or so of dialogue about Parseltongue, Ron, not Hermione, is the authority. CoS Am. ed. 195-196.) Later, Ron, who seems to have a bit of an ear for languages and is perhaps, like Ginny and the Twins, a natural-born mimic, recalls and can repeat the word "open" in Parseltongue having heard it only twice, the first time five years previously. I don't think he'd have had any difficulty recognizing the single word "Come!" as Parseltongue, and I think he would have been seriously alarmed, suspecting a connection of some sort with Voldemort. Hermione, however, clearly doesn't recognize the single word that "Bathilda" speaks in her hearing as anything but a noise or she would have identified it as Parseltongue. She's just understandably uneasy. Harry, in contrast, behaves as he did with the conjured snake in PoA and again in the Pensieve excursion to the Gaunts' hut in HBP--he hears and understands the Parseltongue but doesn't distinguish it from English. Ron, alone of the three, has heard enough Parseltongue to recognize it immediately (as he did in CoS) and has heard Harry speak the word "open" in Parseltongue. "Come!" would be recognizable to someone in Ron's position as a word in "snake language," even though he wouldn't know what it means. I think he would have done more than grab Harry's arm. He would have called attention to the fact that the word had been spoken in Parseltongue. At that point, the Trio would have realized that there was more wrong with Bathilda than just being old and "gaga." Of course, they couldn't have figured out that she was a dead body inhabited by a magical snake, but they might have thought that she was possessed, which is close enough to the truth. Carol, who also thinks that Ron also would not have let Harry go alone up the steep, narrow stairs in the company of a spooky and obviously deranged old "witch" even if he hadn't heard her speaking Parseltongue From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 20:58:39 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:58:39 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186311 "He had never been inside it before. It was small, but bright. There was a large poster of the wizarding band the Weird Sisters on one wall and a picture of the Gwenog Jones, Captain of the all-witch Quidditch team the Hollywood harpies on the other. A desk stood facing the open window, which looked out over the orchard where he and Ginny had once played two-a-side Quidditch with Ron and Hermione, and which now housed a large, pearly-white marquee. The golden flag on top was level with Ginny's window. Ginny looked up into Harry's face, took a deep breath and said, "Happy seventeenth". "Yeah thanks." She was looking at him steadily; he, however, found it difficult to look back at her; it was like gazing into a brilliant light. "Nice view," he said feebly, pointing towards the window. She ignored this. He could not blame her. "I couldn't think what to get you," she said. "You didn't have to get me anything" "She disregarded this too. "I didn't know what would be useful. Nothing too big, because you wouldn't be able to take it with you." He chanced a glance at her. She was not tearful; that was one of the many wonderful things about Ginny, she was rarely weepy. He had sometimes thought that having six brothers must have toughened her up. She took a step closer to him. "So then I thought, I'd like you to have something to remember me by, you know, if you meet some Veela when you're off doing whatever you're doing." "I think dating opportunities are going to be pretty thin on the ground, to be honest." "There's the silver lining I've been looking for," she whispered, and then she was kissing him as she had never kissed him before, and Harry was kissing her back, and it was blissful oblivion, better than Firewhisky; she was the only real thing in the world, Ginny, the feel of her, one hand at her back and one in her long, sweet-smelling hair- The door banged open behind them and they jumped apart. "Oh," Ron said pointedly. "Sorry." P.98-99 Alla: Sorry, I did all this typing only to say that this scene rather shocked me upon reread, in a good way I mean. Not that I forgot it, but I got it so deep in my head that romance writing is not JKR's strong point after HBP that I think I may have read through it rather fast when I read it before and more than once lol. I love this scene, I think it is very beautifully done, I think it is romance done well. We have here sweet nostalgia, passion, and seventeen year old being happy that his girl is not weepy (and I am remembering RL love story where another seventeen year old kept telling me how good it is that his girlfriend (my SIL now) is not weepy, when we were leaving Ukraine). I am very very impressed. "Because Snitches have flesh memories" ? she said. ? p.108. Alla: Ok, come on now, is there **anything** in the world Hermione have not heard of? She is not a Quidditch fan. I mean, yes I know she has two best friends who are Quidditch fans and goes to the games sometimes. But, **they** do not know that and she does? "I know, but surely he wouldn't have singled you out in his will just to help us turn out the lights" ? p.112. Alla: Metaphoric, huh? To help them see the light about their quest in general? "Why did he want Harry to have the sword?" `And why couldn't he just told me?" Harry said quietly. "It was there, it was right there on the wall of his office during all our talks last year! If he wanted me to have it, why didn't he just give it to me then?" ? p.113 Alla: I know, Harry, I know ? I am scratching my head too here. No, seriously, why didn't he just give it to Harry back then? Please do not answer because it was needed for the plot for Snape to put it in the lake for Ron to take out. I do get this part. But I am glad JKR at least realizes how very absurd it looks and makes fun of plot needed thing IMO. I mean, really Dumbledore, I know it is really hard to just give it to Harry and tell him that he may need it later NOT. "And as for this book," said Hermione, "The Tales of Beedle the Bard I've never even heard of them!" ? p.113 Alla: Oh, ooops my bad, there is a book Hermione have not heard about before. But for some strange reason she did not hear about the book of fairy tales every wizard kid seems to know about, but she DID know about snitches. Yes, I know Hermione is a muggle born and she could not have read this book while growing up, of course not! But Hermione IS a book lover and while I would never measure other kids in the book by her, I can certainly measure her against her if that makes sense? She would take Hogwarts a history for light reading, but would not pick up fairy tales book, out of curiosity if nothing else? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 21:46:31 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:46:31 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186312 > Alla: > I love this scene, I think it is very beautifully done, I think it is romance done well. Zara: I'm glad you have discoevred this. Better late than never. I think it is by far the best scene with these two characters in it, in the entire series. > DH: > "Why did he want Harry to have the sword?" > `And why couldn't he just told me?" Harry said quietly. "It was there, it was right there on the wall of his office during all our talks last year! If he wanted me to have it, why didn't he just give it to me then?" ? p.113 > > Alla: > > I know, Harry, I know ? I am scratching my head too here. No, seriously, why didn't he just give it to Harry back then? Zara: I think he was planning to, until Draco messed up all his plans. What would, after all, be the logical conclusion of a night spent retrieving Horcrux, if not showing Harry how to destroy one? > Alla: > But Hermione IS a book lover and while I would never measure other kids in the book by her, I can certainly measure her against her if that makes sense? She would take Hogwarts a history for light reading, but would not pick up fairy tales book, out of curiosity if nothing else? Zara: When have we ever heard of Hermione reading fiction? She does love books, but all the ones we hear of her reading are non-fiction. Hence - the magical properties of Snitches, yes. Beedle, no. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 21:58:49 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:58:49 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186313 > > Alla: > > I love this scene, I think it is very beautifully done, I think it is romance done well. > > Zara: > I'm glad you have discoevred this. Better late than never. I think it is by far the best scene with these two characters in it, in the entire series. Alla: Certainly and with no chest monster in it too. Ugh. Although I do love epilogue as well, SHHHHH. > Zara: > I think he was planning to, until Draco messed up all his plans. What would, after all, be the logical conclusion of a night spent retrieving Horcrux, if not showing Harry how to destroy one? Alla: Yes, absolutely that would be **logical** conclusion :-). The thing is though he made his will before going after Horcruxes, no? I am just thinking that he already planned to leave it to Harry after his death and I am not sure if he would have decided to change his plans. But oh believe me I would love for you to be right. > Zara: > When have we ever heard of Hermione reading fiction? She does love books, but all the ones we hear of her reading are non-fiction. Hence - the magical properties of Snitches, yes. Beedle, no. > Alla: Hm, but when did we see anybody in the WW reading fiction? I honestly do not remember, so please feel free to remind me. There are Gilderoy books of course, but he pitched them as non-fiction, no? It seems to me that before Beetle the Bard we do not hear much of anybody reading fiction? If it is true, then I am not sure the fact that Hermione would rather pick up the book about snitches than magical fairy tales which is such a big part of WW culture holds any water, you know? I mean, again obviously with introduction of these stories we are meant to think that people do read fiction in WW. Hmmm. Just thinking out loud. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 25 23:25:19 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:25:19 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186314 Alla wrote: > > Zara: > > I think he was planning to [give Harry the Sword of Gryffindor], until Draco messed up all his plans. What would, after all, be the logical conclusion of a night spent retrieving Horcrux, if not showing Harry how to destroy one? > > Alla: > > Yes, absolutely that would be **logical** conclusion :-). The thing is though he made his will before going after Horcruxes, no? I am just thinking that he already planned to leave it to Harry after his death and I am not sure if he would have decided to change his plans. > > But oh believe me I would love for you to be right. > Carol responds: I think there's one very good reason why Dumbledore didn't give the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry. As Scrimgeour tells the Trio in "The Will of Albus Dumbledore," it wasn't Dumbledore's to give away. (Presumably, that's why Scrimgeour didn't hand it over to Harry along with the Snitch. It was still, as far as we know, right there in DD's old office where he could have taken it from its case). He *did* will it to Harry (obviously, a clue to Harry that he was going to need the sword at some point), but he must have known that Scrimgeour would prove the will and would be unlikely to just hand over the sword as he did Dumbledore's personal artifacts (after examining them and failing to find any hidden powers). That being the case, Harry would have to earn the Sword of Gryffindor in some way (or Ron would. ) For the same reason, I don't think it would have done any good just to hand the sword to Harry after they returned from the Horcrux hunt (assuming that it was a real Horcrux and Draco hadn't let the DEs into the castle that night). As Scrimgeour also says, the sword belongs to any worthy Gryffindor, not specifically to Harry, and it might have magically deserted him as it did Griphook, who had no claim on it. (Yes, I know that Harry once pulled it from the Sorting Hat, but I think that was a one-time use, like Neville's killing Nagini. Even Ron, who retrieved it and consequently earned it, got to use it only once, to destroy the Horcrux. After that, it was ready to go to the next worthy Gryffindor--who happened to be Neville.) It's not, IMO, the sort of artifact that can be passed down father to son or owner to owner or just given away. Godric Gryffindor must have put a spell on it before he died to make it the Sword of Gryffindor *House* rather than just the sword of Godric Gryffindor. (I don't think that the Death Eaters could have held onto it, either, even if Snape hadn't fooled them with a fake sword, which I'm guessing he created using the same spell Hermione used to create a fake locket for Umbridge.) Why have Scrimgeour tell the Trio all these things if they're not true? And why have Snape set up a test in which Harry (actually, Ron) has to retrieve the sword under circumstances of "need and valor"? Harry, recognizing it as a test, thinks before he dives into the icy water of the "valor, nerve, and chivalry" that "set Gryffindor apart" and wonders where chivalry comes in. (It comes in later, with Ron, who has to rescue the helpless Harry as well as retrieve the sword.) Apparently, you can't just keep the sword to use it when you need it and give it to someone else when you're done. Ron uses it once and, essentially, gives it to Harry, who promptly loses it to the Snatchers and only gets it back because Griphook (who wants it himself) convinces Bellatrix that it's a fake and because Dobby arrives to rescue them all. He does not, however, get to use it as anything except a bargaining chip. Griphook snatches it away, viewing it as his rightful reward, only to have it magically called away to serve Neville's need. Carol, assuming that Neville gave the sword back to the school after the Battle of Hogwarts, knowing that it didn't belong to him any more than it had to Harry From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 25 23:27:24 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:27:24 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186315 > Alla: > > Yes, absolutely that would be **logical** conclusion :-). The thing is though he made his will before going after Horcruxes, no? I am just thinking that he already planned to leave it to Harry after his death and I am not sure if he would have decided to change his plans. > > But oh believe me I would love for you to be right. Pippin: As long as Dumbledore is alive, the sword is safest in his office. Harry hasn't got the means to protect it, as we saw. Dumbledore never meant to convey the sword itself to Harry by means of his will. As Scrimgeour says, it's not legally Dumbledore's and the Ministry would not allow Harry to have it, as Dumbledore surely would know. The will was a backup plan for letting Harry know that he would need the sword without letting anyone else know why. But IMO Harry would have known what it was for already if Dumbledore's plan had worked properly. > > Alla: > > Hm, but when did we see anybody in the WW reading fiction? Pippin: Ron has a collection of comic books, most of which feature The Adventures of Marvin Miggs, the Mad Muggle. (CoS ch 3). Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 26 01:33:12 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:33:12 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186316 > > Pippin: > > If JKR made it easy for the characters to form new habits, there'd be less challenge in doing what's right rather than what is easy. They'd just have to keep doing the right thing until it got easy for them. That works for some of the characters some of the time, but IMO JKR is more interested in what happens when it doesn't work. > > > Magpie: > Actually, I think there's already zero challenge to do that because that's never really an issue for anybody. (Although I can think of some cases where they face right vs. easy and choose easy with no bad effects.) Pippin: Do you think it was easy for Ron to resist the horcrux? He doesn't perceive it as an issue of right vs easy because no one actually in the process of a moral decision can frame it that way. Once you've labeled one of your options as right, the moral decision is over. You've decided what you ought to do, though you may fail to find the courage or the will to do it. When the consequences of choosing easy over right are immediate, obvious and dire, there's no chance of falling into evil habits or turning a blind eye. Crabbe will never use fiendfyre again. But bad consequences aren't always immediately apparent to the perpetrator or the witnesses, which is IMO why Dumbledore offered us another way to judge between good and evil. It isn't easy for the characters to summon all their resources of courage, will and trust, although some of them have those qualities in enviable amounts. If they make a choice that doesn't require that, if it's easy and self-indulgent, and most especially if it requires more effort to justify than it did to perform, then it's wrong, by the standards of canon, whether we get to see the bad consequences or not. Harry's crucio and many of his other actions are condemned by the excuses he made for them. He doesn't make excuses when he's done something to be proud of. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 26 02:14:59 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:14:59 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186317 > > Magpie: > > Actually, I think there's already zero challenge to do that because that's never really an issue for anybody. (Although I can think of some cases where they face right vs. easy and choose easy with no bad effects.) > > Pippin: > Do you think it was easy for Ron to resist the horcrux? > > He doesn't perceive it as an issue of right vs easy because no one actually in the process of a moral decision can frame it that way. Magpie: I don't perceive it that way either and I'm a reader. "Right vs. easy" translates into a paticularly type of choice and no, I don't see Ron facing that choice in facing the Horcrux. Just because it's a hard thing to do and also the right thing to do does not make it right vs. easy. I'd have to stretch the term to be completely generic to apply it to this scene. Pippin: > When the consequences of choosing easy over right are immediate, obvious and dire, there's no chance of falling into evil habits or turning a blind eye. Crabbe will never use fiendfyre again. But bad consequences aren't always immediately apparent to the perpetrator or the witnesses, which is IMO why Dumbledore offered us another way to judge between good and evil. Magpie: I don't think the phrase applies with much relevance to situations where using fiendfyre might wind up setting you on fire. Pippin: > Harry's crucio and many of his other actions are condemned by the excuses he made for them. He doesn't make excuses when he's done something to be proud of. Magpie: Harry doesn't make excuses for the Crucio that I remember--quite the opposite--and his author defends it as not that problematic--and that is a situation I would say works much better as right vs. easy. Harry's choice of easy and wrong was just fine, with no bad consequences for him on any level in canon. Even if had made excuses, as he sometimes does when he's done something he's not proud of, it doesn't come to much. Choosing wrong and easy, for Harry, is little more than a forgivable offense (since he never does so very wrong by the judgment of the story). Often those moments are described as "making him human." Ron certainly faces a challenge with the Horcrux, and many other characters also face hard challenges, especially Harry, but I just still think Dumbledore's line is one that sounds nice in the moment and looks great on a movie poster but isn't something we see played out in the story. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 02:34:46 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:34:46 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186318 > Magpie: > I don't perceive it that way either and I'm a reader. "Right vs. easy" translates into a paticularly type of choice and no, I don't see Ron facing that choice in facing the Horcrux. Just because it's a hard thing to do and also the right thing to do does not make it right vs. easy. I'd have to stretch the term to be completely generic to apply it to this scene. Alla: I actually do see it that way, only I see it as Ron initially choosing easy, not right. I am not sure why you think that to apply it here will be stretching the term. I actually agree with you that Harry's using Crucio also qualifies as "right v easy" and Harry choosing easy (or to me more like having no strength to resist his anger and thus choosing easy). Same to me with Ron, or sort of same, because I want to repeat the question I asked somewhere in the thread or I meant to ask. Do we know how much horcrux influenced Ron? I mean certainly some influence was implied, but I really do not recall reading that without Horcrux Ron would not have done it. Could somebody please refresh my memory? But say Horcrux influenced Ron A LOT and Ron tried to resist it, then to me the easy will be stopping to resist and falling down prey to Horcrux darkest influences. Same as to me Harry fall down prey to his anger over how his friends were treated by Amicos and Co. This situation is to me actually a good example of why I think books often do not promote Stoicism values as I understand it and as I argued before. To me basically the essense of Stoicism is BUCKLE UP and do the right thing, do the virtuous thing while it is so so incredibly hard to do. And do it no matter what your feelings tell you, if it is a wrong thing. Maybe I totally got wrong the essense of stoicism. But to me both Harry and Ron do as their feelings dictate and NOT what their virtues say if that makes sense. Oh yes, Ron comes back and I will be the last person to condemn Harry for Crucioing the bastard, but again Ron comes and forgiven via Christian themes, he is remorseful,etc. To me it is not Stoicism. Anyways, sorry for going on the tangent. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 26 03:11:24 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:11:24 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186319 > Alla: > > I actually do see it that way, only I see it as Ron initially choosing easy, not right. I am not sure why you think that to apply it here will be stretching the term. Magpie: So we're talking about Ron's decision to leave? Because like I said, for me right vs. easy needs to be heavy on the easy. Iow, the "easy" choice is just that. I don't think it was easy for Ron to leave Harry and Hermione. It was easier than fighting the Horcrux, maybe, but Ron Weasley is committed to his friends and fighting Voldemort. He's been doing it since he was 11. So I just can't see walking away from them as an easy choice for Ron. He did it in an angry moment and then wanted to go back. I don't consider "seems easier in the moment" to work--it has to really be easy. Which is why yeah, I can see how we can apply that to this situation, but it's not one that I think illustrates it very well. Saying it's about giving up or giving in to dark impulses or not fighting anymore--that works for me. But I don't see a tempting, easy path with no bad consequences waiting for Ron when he walks away so that the *only* reason for Ron to stick around is because it is right. I know I'm taking a very narrow, strict view of that phrase, but I think that's necessary to really say we're illustrating it. Especially if Ron had been in his right mind, there would be a lot of things to make leaving Harry and Hermione a difficult choice. The way this story is set up there's not really a lot of places JKR can set that kind of choice up for the good guys to have to choose easy over right since so much is at stake for them. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 04:01:45 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:01:45 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186320 Magpie wrote: > So we're talking about Ron's decision to leave? Because like I said, for me right vs. easy needs to be heavy on the easy. Iow, the "easy" choice is just that. I don't think it was easy for Ron to leave Harry and Hermione. It was easier than fighting the Horcrux, maybe, but Ron Weasley is committed to his friends and fighting Voldemort. He's been doing it since he was 11. So I just can't see walking away from them as an easy choice for Ron. He did it in an angry moment and then wanted to go back. I don't consider "seems easier in the moment" to work--it has to really be easy. Which is why yeah, I can see how we can apply that to this situation, but it's not one that I think illustrates it very well. Saying it's about giving up or giving in to dark impulses or not fighting anymore--that works for me. But I don't see a tempting, easy path with no bad consequences waiting for Ron when he walks away so that the *only* reason for Ron to stick around is because it is right. > > I know I'm taking a very narrow, strict view of that phrase, but I think that's necessary to really say we're illustrating it. Especially if Ron had been in his right mind, there would be a lot of things to make leaving Harry and Hermione a difficult choice. The way this story is set up there's not really a lot of places JKR can set that kind of choice up for the good guys to have to choose easy over right since so much is at stake for them. Carol responds: Interesting perspective, Magpie. I wonder if we've been taking "right vs. easy" beyond its original context and applying it when JKR was thinking in more conventional terms (right vs. wrong or hard vs. easy). It seems to me, off the top of my head, that Harry and Ron both choose to do what's easy rather than what's right when it comes to homework, whether it's inventing dreams for Trelawney or using the Prince's potions hints and letting Slughorn think that Harry is the Potions genius. Harry does the opposite--what he thinks is right vs. the "easy" (or easier) route taken by the other champions--in choosing to rescue hostages other than his own. (Obviously, the other contestants weren't *wrong*--the "victims weren't really going to drown--but certainly they didn't go out of their way and put themselves in danger the way he did. Then again, maybe that was just easy vs. hard! Same with going after "Snape" in SS/PS. He did what he thought was right and knew was hard. The easy way out (letting "Snape" get the stone or trusting DD to stop him) would have been wrong to Harry. And certainly, CoS, in which it really *would* have been wrong not to try to find the Chamber and rescue Ginny, reinforces this view. OTOH, skipping PoA at least for the moment, going after Sirius Black was, again, mistaking the hard thing for the right thing. (The easy choice, doing nothing, would have left Sirius alive and the DEs waiting for a mission that never came.) In the case we're discussing--Ron storming out and "deserting" his friends--I agree that we can't categorize it quite so simply. IMO, he lost his temper under the influence of the Horcrux (combined with frustration, his own magnified insecurities, and a shortage of food) and walked out without thinking of the consequences. The moment he cooled off, he discovered that he couldn't come back and soon or immediately (I forget which), he was caught by Snatchers, a wholly unintended consequence. And he couldn't go home in any case, since he was supposedly suffering from Spattergroit, the whole point of which pretense was to allow him to be with Harry. It's not as if he really had the choice to just go home and give up or as if he really wanted to make that "easy" choice (which would also have been a wrong choice, as I think he knows). I agree with you that Ron could not and would not have made that choice. He wants to fight Voldemort, too, and the absence of any progress since the finding of the locket Horcrux is part of what's making him miserable. At any rate, I don't think we're dealing with "right vs. easy" here, or even with straightforward right vs. wrong. I think we're dealing with the unintended consequences of Ron's (hasty and hot-headed) choice, one of which is being in exactly the right place at the right time to follow the silver doe, and rescue Harry, retrieve the sword, and destroy the Horcrux, which, IMO, he is "meant" to do (it's a highly symbolic and personal act for him as it would not have been for Harry), but "meant" in a sense that Dumbledore, who anticipated his leaving, could not have realized. (Maybe it's only "meant" or intended by the author, but, as it plays out, there's a sense of fate or destiny. (I keep hearing Gandalf's voice saying that Bilbo was *meant* to find the ring and that Frodo, also, was *meant* to have it.) Carol, noting to Potioncat that her newly activated spell check suggested "Sandalwood's" for "Gandalf's" and "smolders" for "Voldemort" From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 26 15:19:44 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:19:44 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186321 > Magpie wrote: > > I know I'm taking a very narrow, strict view of that phrase, but I think that's necessary to really say we're illustrating it. Especially if Ron had been in his right mind, there would be a lot of things to make leaving Harry and Hermione a difficult choice. The way this story is set up there's not really a lot of places JKR can set that kind of choice up for the good guys to have to choose easy over right since so much is at stake for them. > > Carol responds: > Interesting perspective, Magpie. I wonder if we've been taking "right vs. easy" beyond its original context and applying it when JKR was thinking in more conventional terms (right vs. wrong or hard vs. easy). It seems to me, off the top of my head, that Harry and Ron both choose to do what's easy rather than what's right when it comes to homework, whether it's inventing dreams for Trelawney or using the Prince's potions hints and letting Slughorn think that Harry is the Potions genius. Magpie: Yup, those choices to me are examples of right vs. easy, because it really is easy. Where as even in cases like Harry rescuing Ginny or the hostages or the stone or Sirius, I don't see the alternative as easy because it would drive Harry crazy. He'd be (in his mind) letting people die or handing over something to the bad guys. So it's just a clear choice of right and wrong, imo. Sometimes Harry even by-passes an easier but equally (or more) right choice because he's dealing with his own personal need to save people himself. Like I said, it's not that I'm putting down any of these choices as not being as good as they would be if I saw them as right vs. easy. I just don't think that given the situation JKR created and the characters she created, that we see it very often. Except in some of these smaller moments like cheating on tests, where choosing "easy" is really no big deal. I see those choices as actually being easy because they really are, both to do them and to live with them. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 26 15:46:04 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:46:04 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186322 > > Pippin: > > Harry's crucio and many of his other actions are condemned by the excuses he made for them. He doesn't make excuses when he's done something to be proud of. > > Magpie: > Harry doesn't make excuses for the Crucio that I remember--quite the opposite--and his author defends it as not that problematic--and that is a situation I would say works much better as right vs. easy. Pippin: "Potter, that was foolish!" "He spat at you," said Harry. -- DH ch 30 Sounds like an excuse to me. To interpret an action which the author says shows that Harry is not a saint -- in other words, not an example of holiness -- as if JKR thinks too much holiness is a bad thing is still beyond my comprehension. Where in the books is real goodness disparaged? JKR doesn't want Harry as a character to be too perfect -- but that's to make him believable, IMO, not because too much goodness in a real person is some sort of fault. Good grief, even Bella doesn't wish her friends were more cruel! Magpie: Harry's choice of easy and wrong was just fine, with no bad consequences for him on any level in canon. Pippin: As Dumbledore says, we can't always judge an action by its consequences. That offenses are forgiven does not mean that they weren't wrong. Harry can certainly see that those who get the habit of crucio-ing people whenever they feel like it face bad consequences eventually. I understand why you think the reader might assume that Harry is different. But why should Harry think so? We don't see Harry's remorse. But we do see a Harry who doesn't trust himself with the WW's most absolute power, and tries to show respect for the rights of others, including Muggles. Remorse, canon says, is feeling the pain that you caused. It does not say that you have to feel that you are an unforgivable, miserable worthless wretch who doesn't deserve to live. That's not feeling the pain that you caused at all, IMO, because that doesn't have anything to do with realizing what another person suffered -- it's just about you. Magpie: > Ron certainly faces a challenge with the Horcrux, and many other characters also face hard challenges, especially Harry, but I just still think Dumbledore's line is one that sounds nice in the moment and looks great on a movie poster but isn't something we see played out in the story. Pippin: Ron tried to bear the horcrux equally with his friends although he soon realized that he was more susceptible to it than they were. (Making once more the point from the second task that a morally right choice is not necessarily the most sensible option.) When Ron returned, he begged Harry not to ask him to face the thing again, but finally agreed. Those were cases of choosing right over easy, IMO. I think we see this played out everywhere, but most obviously in Draco, who doesn't have the reserves of courage and trust that Ron and Harry have. It's Draco who repeats, over and over again on the Tower, that he has no choice, while Dumbledore explains that Draco does have a choice, but a difficult one. What we see in DH is how Draco learns to recognize a choice when he does not have Dumbledore there to show him options. By absolute standards, what resistance Draco shows in DH is not heroic. But I see him as drawing on all the courage and trust that he has, in hesitating to identify the Trio and in trying to save Goyle, though he's too terrified to come up with anything clever. It would have been easier just to give up and get it over with, as he came close to doing on the Tower. Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 26 16:57:41 2009 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 26 Apr 2009 16:57:41 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/26/2009, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1240765061.10.42899.m5@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186323 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 26, 2009 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 2009 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 17:26:15 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:26:15 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186324 Carol earlier: > > I wonder if we've been taking "right vs. easy" beyond its original context and applying it when JKR was thinking in more conventional terms (right vs. wrong or hard vs. easy). It seems to me, off the top of my head, that Harry and Ron both choose to do what's easy rather than what's right when it comes to homework, whether it's inventing dreams for Trelawney or using the Prince's potions hints and letting Slughorn think that Harry is the Potions genius. > > Magpie: > Yup, those choices to me are examples of right vs. easy, because it really is easy. Where as even in cases like Harry rescuing Ginny or the hostages or the stone or Sirius, I don't see the alternative as easy because it would drive Harry crazy. He'd be (in his mind) letting people die or handing over something to the bad guys. So it's just a clear choice of right and wrong, imo. Sometimes Harry even by-passes an easier but equally (or more) right choice because he's dealing with his own personal need to save people himself. > > Like I said, it's not that I'm putting down any of these choices as not being as good as they would be if I saw them as right vs. easy. I just don't think that given the situation JKR created and the characters she created, that we see it very often. Except in some of these smaller moments like cheating on tests, where choosing "easy" is really no big deal. I see those choices as actually being easy because they really are, both to do them and to live with them. Carol responds: Ron's cheating on the Muggle driver's test falls into the same category, I think. Unfortunately, all these examples seem to work against the precept of "right vs. easy" since the good guys get away with the "easy" (and wrong) choice. (Part of making them human and imperfect, I realize, but it's rather disturbing that even with the Crucio--both easy and wrong, IMO--there are no consequences, intended or otherwise. Well, yeah, Amycus is knocked out, but Stupefy would have achieved the same results with no yielding to the temptation to inflict pain.) The question is, do we see the theme or motif or whatever you want to call it of "right vs. easy" on a larger scale? I think we see it in Harry's choice to face Voldemort and seemingly certain death unarmed. We also see it, perhaps less clearly, in the choices Snape makes in HBP and DH, starting with the "easy" and wrong choice of becoming a Death Eater and the right but difficult choice of going to Dumbledore and spying for him and culminating in the "murder" of Dumbledore on the tower and its consequences. It would have been much easier to wriggle out of the promise to kill Dumbledore by refusing to take the Unbreakable Vow. It would have been much easier to stay in his office after Flitwick alerted him or to join the fight against the DEs, regarded by the other Order members as a hero and DD's true man while Yaxley or Amycus killed DD. (Even if he died, killed by a DE or by the broken UV, such a death would have been easier than carrying out the terrible duty of killing Dumbledore and being viewed by his colleagues and future staff members as a traitor and murderer.) I don't think there's any question that he chose a difficult and painful path, culminating in a painful death, or that he was right to make that choice--IOW, that he chose what was right over what was easy. We see Wormtail making the opposite choice, choosing what's easy (first doing Voldemort's will in betraying the Potters and later, in PoA, returning to Voldemort) over what's right (which would have meant terrible punishment in either case). But serving Voldemort isn't always easy, either, as Wormtail discovers when he has to cut off his own hand and Draco discovers when he's faced with killing Dumbledore or forced to Crucio Thorfinn Rowle. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that JKR consistently maintains the "right vs. easy" view of morality in the books, or if she does so, the absence of consequences for "easy" choices undermines the motif. (Sure, Wormtail eventually gets his just desserts, but not as a direct consequence of betraying the Potters, and many other characters, most notably Dobby, don't deserve their deaths at all. Dobby does what's right and dies as a consequence.) Then, again, if doing the right thing always resulted in a reward and doing the wrong/easy thing always resulted in punishment, the book would be a moral fable and not a novel. In the long run, I think that other themes/motifs are much more important, notably redemption and forgiveness. Without a wrong choice (easy or otherwise) to begin with, neither redemption nor forgiveness is possible. Carol, just exploring the topic to see where it leads From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 26 17:41:00 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:41:00 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186325 > > Pippin: > > > Harry's crucio and many of his other actions are condemned by the excuses he made for them. He doesn't make excuses when he's done something to be proud of. > > > > Magpie: > > Harry doesn't make excuses for the Crucio that I remember--quite the opposite--and his author defends it as not that problematic--and that is a situation I would say works much better as right vs. easy. > > Pippin: > "Potter, that was foolish!" > "He spat at you," said Harry. -- DH ch 30 > > Sounds like an excuse to me. Magpie: In one sense of the word, yes. But I think it's more just like a reason. It doesn't sound like the kind of excuse I would associate with feeling badly about your action. Especially since I know in the next exchange Harry again stands by his decision. Pippin: > To interpret an action which the author says shows that Harry is not a saint -- in other words, not an example of holiness -- as if JKR thinks too much holiness is a bad thing is still beyond my comprehension. Where in the books is real goodness disparaged? Magpie: It's not goodness that's disparaged, but being a goody-two shoes (i.e., "a saint") is never much admired. When people are compared to saints this way, "saint" is used as something inhumanly good. If not used sarcastically, it just means that the person isn't a paragon of virtue, without that being a tragedy. Saints aren't generally considered people you'd want to hang out with. I don't think JKR for one second thinks that it's a shame Harry isn't a saint. Pippin: > JKR doesn't want Harry as a character to be too perfect -- but that's to make him believable, IMO, not because too much goodness in a real person is some sort of fault. Magpie: She doesn't want Harry as a character to be too perfect, exactly. Which is why her saying he isn't a saint isn't much of a criticism. I'm not claiming here that JKR is waging a campaign against goodness. I am saying that JKR doesn't think Harry's un-saintly moments are a matter of concern. If it's so unbelievable for him to be good enough to be a saint, why would it be a problem that he isn't? Harry is good--exceptionally good--without being a saint. > Magpie: > Harry's choice of easy and wrong was just fine, with no bad consequences for him on any level in canon. > > Pippin: > > As Dumbledore says, we can't always judge an action by its consequences. That offenses are forgiven does not mean that they weren't wrong. Magpie: But if in the story we're not seeing anything come of it when the time comes and people choose easy over right, it's really not getting played out in any dramatic way. Choosing one over the other is never set up as something they have to do to succeed. Other things they do have to do to succeed. Pippin: > Harry can certainly see that those who get the habit of crucio-ing people whenever they feel like it face bad consequences eventually. I understand why you think the reader might assume that Harry is different. But why should Harry think so? Magpie: Why would I assume Harry thinks about it at all? He Crucio's in a situation where he thinks it's appropriate and doesn't regret it. Since he has no plans to make a habit of it it's not really an issue. He doesn't have remorse for that but also doesn't want the Elder Wand. Choosing easy over right in that one situation didn't change that. Pippin: > Remorse, canon says, is feeling the pain that you caused. It does not say that you have to feel that you are an unforgivable, miserable worthless wretch who doesn't deserve to live. That's not feeling the pain that you caused at all, IMO, because that doesn't have anything to do with realizing what another person suffered -- it's just about you. Magpie: Nobody said anything about Harry having to feel those things. Harry doesn't feel any sort of remorse for several actions some might consider wrong. And sometimes he feels a twinge of remorse but never has to do anything about it. It's just not a big issue in the books. > Pippin: > > Ron tried to bear the horcrux equally with his friends although he soon realized that he was more susceptible to it than they were. (Making once more the point from the second task that a morally right choice is not necessarily the most sensible option.) When Ron returned, he begged Harry not to ask him to face the thing again, but finally agreed. Those were cases of choosing right over easy, IMO. Magpie: Ron faced bad choices whichever way he turned. Harry wanting him to destroy the Horcrux takes away the "easy" part. There's a bad consequence to not doing it. I just think this is a situation where everyone is too personally invested in everything to truly have an easy choice. I'm sure there are plenty of places we could describe in these terms, but I see no moments that are setting up a stark, dramatic choice that turns on exactly this phrase. What I do see are people faced with a lot of hard choices. It's a slightly different thing. -m From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Apr 26 18:11:18 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:11:18 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Alla: > > Hm, but when did we see anybody in the WW reading fiction? Pippin: > Ron has a collection of comic books, most of which feature The Adventures of Marvin Miggs, the Mad Muggle. (CoS ch 3). Geoff: True, I'd forgotten that. But, in general terms, in the past some contributors have said something like "But that hasn't been stated specifically in canon.." To that, I have replied , "Possibly because it's not relevant." I have pointed out that we are not told when Harry or anyone else goes to the toilet or has a bath (except perhaps if GOF). The school menu for each day is not discussed We do not see lengthy descriptions of the students in "off duty" moments unless it is germane to the plot. Most of the time that reading is mentioned, it involves people in the library and the reasons they are there is usually to study and complete assignments. I suspect that if there is any fiction in the library, there will be very little of it. Although, there must surely be some people who read the fictional pages of "The Quibbler"? :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 19:02:56 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:02:56 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186327 > > Pippin: > > "Potter, that was foolish!" > > "He spat at you," said Harry. -- DH ch 30 > > > > Sounds like an excuse to me. > > Magpie: > In one sense of the word, yes. But I think it's more just like a reason. It doesn't sound like the kind of excuse I would associate with feeling badly about your action. Especially since I know in the next exchange Harry again stands by his decision. Carol responds: I agree with Magpie here. Harry is defending his action, yes, but he's not excusing it. But maybe that's because McGonagall criticizes it a "foolish" rather than wrong. And when she follows suit by using an Unforgiveable Curse herself, we get the impression that, in JKR's view, there's nothing to excuse, a double standard of morality that seems to violate what's been presented in the earlier books. That, I think, is why many readers find the segment so disturbing. (We certainly don't need it to show that Harry isn't a saint. We know that already. Has anyone counted the number of lies, including lies of omission, that the good characters tell in these books? And that's only one of Harry's imperfections. Too bad JKR can't bring herself to let him actually make a mistake in Quidditch, but I'm getting off the subject.) In any case, the only indication that Harry has learned that vindictiveness and inflicting pain, even on evil people, are wrong is his forgiveness of Snape and Dumbledore, both of whom have had a much greater effect on his personal life, for good and ill, than Amycus Carrow. We can infer from his naming his second son after these characters that he's learned this lesson, and I think, given his rejection of the Elder Wand, we can safely infer that he won't be using any more Unforgiveable Curses, but we never see him directly regretting having Crucio'd Amycus Carrow--an interesting contrast to Draco's reluctance to Crucio Thorfinn Rowle, especially since Harry seems to be using Carrow as a scapegoat and an outlet for his anger. (If it were righteous anger, the Crucio would fail as it did with Bella in OoP.) > Magpie: > But if in the story we're not seeing anything come of it when the time comes and people choose easy over right, it's really not getting played out in any dramatic way. Choosing one over the other is never set up as something they have to do to succeed. Other things they do have to do to succeed. Carol responds: I had to read that last sentence twice to understand it! Just out of curiosity, what are those "other things" that (in your view) the characters have to do to succeed? > Magpie: > Nobody said anything about Harry having to feel those things. Harry doesn't feel any sort of remorse for several actions some might consider wrong. And sometimes he feels a twinge of remorse but never has to do anything about it. It's just not a big issue in the books. Carol responds: I find it interesting that Harry often feels remorse for, say, leading his friends into danger, but ends up doing the same thing again. As you say, the feeling never seems to last or is undermined and nipped in the bud by something else. For example, he regrets using Sectumsempra on Draco and nearly causing him to bleed to death, but his remorse is cut short (sad to say) by Snape's detention, which refocuses his thoughts toward the ostensible unfairness of making him miss Quidditch and what he regards as the petty vindictiveness of Snape's chosen punishment. (Detentions aren't supposed to be enjoyable, Harry!) Remorse is displaced by resentment. I can't tell whether JKR is intentionally leading Harry from regret for his actions or not, but, certainly, self-examination is not one of Harry's strengths. And Ginny's approval of Sectumsempra as "something good" to use against Draco Malfoy doesn't help, either. It's rather like McGonagall's approval of Harry's Crucio. And even Hermione's criticism is sidetracked onto the punishment (he'll miss Quidditch) rather than the wrongness of using an unknown spell labeled as being "for enemies." If there's a moral lesson to be learned from these experiences, Harry doesn't learn it as far as I can see. It's only after he enters the Pensieve and sees Snape's memories that his perspective seems to change. That experience leads simultaneously to empathy and self-sacrifice and ultimately (along with King's Cross) to forgiveness of those who have wronged him (as he's already forgiven Ron). > Magpie: > Ron faced bad choices whichever way he turned. Harry wanting him to destroy the Horcrux takes away the "easy" part. There's a bad consequence to not doing it. I just think this is a situation where everyone is too personally invested in everything to truly have an easy choice. I'm sure there are plenty of places we could describe in these terms, but I see no moments that are setting up a stark, dramatic choice that turns on exactly this phrase. What I do see are people faced with a lot of hard choices. It's a slightly different thing. Carol responds: I agree that this instance is much more complicated than a simple choice of "right vs. easy." For Ron, facing Horcrux!Tom, who expresses and embodies all the secret fears and jealousies that Ron has been harboring and the Horcrux has been nurturing, it's a chance to recognize and conquer the doubts and fears that have been coming between him and the two people he loves best. It's a symbolic triumph with very real consequences for Ron's self-esteem, his relationships, and his happiness. For Harry, it's a revelation, an epiphany. Empathy has never been his strong point; he feels it on occasion, but it's as short-lived as his remorse. Through no fault of his own, he faces problems beyond the ordinary tribulations of growing up and beyond the dangers faced by everyone else in the WW as Voldemort takes over. If you're the Boy who Lived, the Chosen One, sought out by Voldemort and ultimately responsible for defeating him, it's hard to sympathize with fear of failing at Quidditch or envy of Harry's fame and (off-and-on) popularity. For him, Ron has the ideal life, growing up in a (mostly) happy Wizarding family. It's the life Harry might have had if his parents had lived (setting aside the relative poverty that bothers Harry not at all). The Horcrux allows him for the first time to know how Ron feels, to see the thoughts that Ron has never expressed, to understand him. I think that Harry would have forgiven Ron even if he hadn't seen those thoughts and fears enacted--he values Ron's friendship and is glad to have him back, not to mention grateful for being rescued. But the Horcrux vision gives him a first experience with empathy and paves the way, IMO, for the Pensieve excursion in "The Prince's Tale." Forgiving a friend's trespasses and empathizing with that friend's fears and failures prepares him to do exactly the same thing with "the man he hated." Something much deeper than "right vs. easy" is going on here, and it's a crucial scene for Harry's development as well as Ron's. That's how I read it, anyway. Carol, apologizing for jumping the gun on a chapter that Alla hasn't reached yet in her DH reread From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 19:10:18 2009 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:10:18 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Orders re Not taking Harry in HPB Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186328 Snape at the end of the HBP: "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him. Go! Go!" Amedican hardback edition at 603. I understand why Voldemort needed to be the person to kill Harry. I also understand that, at that point, Voldemort didn't want to duel with Harry b/c he didn't yet understand why his wand didn't defeat Harry's in GOF. What I don't understand is why Voldemort would have ordered the DE to leave Harry. Why not kidnap him when they had the chance and then keep him prisoner until Voldemort figured out what to do? Snape seems to be referring to genuine orders. "Have you forgotten" implies that Voldemort gave the DE explicit instructions in that regard. If Snape was lying to protect Harry, how would he explain that to Voldemort that he (Snape) reminded the DE of instructions Voldemort had not given? I suppose Snape could have meant "Leave him to me to bring" but Snape fled when without Harry when Buckbeak intervened. I can't see Voldemort accepting a hippogriff attack as a valid excuse for Snape not bringing him the Chosen One. Again, I'm aware of Snape trying to protect Harry. I just don't see why Voldemort wouldn't have ordered them to bring Harry to him alive, and I don't see how Snape could explain away the fact that they didn't. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 26 20:04:35 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:04:35 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186330 Carol: The question is, do we see the theme or motif or whatever you want to call it of "right vs. easy" on a larger scale? I think we see it in Harry's choice to face Voldemort and seemingly certain death unarmed. We also see it, perhaps less clearly, in the choices Snape makes in HBP and DH, starting with the "easy" and wrong choice of becoming a Death Eater and the right but difficult choice of going to Dumbledore and spying for him and culminating in the "murder" of Dumbledore on the tower and its consequences. Magpie: I feel like these are more things that we have to talk into "right vs. easy" without that really being what they're about, because these characters are already too bound up in events to have an easy way out. Like Harry pretty much believes this is what he has to do to defeat Voldemort. And Snape became a Death Eater more because of emotional reasons than because it was easy--it's not an easy life. I would more describe it as giving in to his darker impulses and bitterness. Same with the UV. It was a hard thing to do, to be sure, but it was already bound up in things that were important to him. He was in no matter what, and he had a personal stake in defeating Voldemort, doing what Dumbledore said, etc. Also I'd say that cowardice is far more highlighted as a danger than taking the easy way. > > Magpie: > > But if in the story we're not seeing anything come of it when the time comes and people choose easy over right, it's really not getting played out in any dramatic way. Choosing one over the other is never set up as something they have to do to succeed. Other things they do have to do to succeed. > > Carol responds: > I had to read that last sentence twice to understand it! Just out of curiosity, what are those "other things" that (in your view) the characters have to do to succeed? Magpie: Heh. It was a weird sentence--sorry. As to what people have to do to succeed I see them having to be brave, and loyal to their friends, to fight for what's good and to protect the innocent (even at the risk of your own death). So, for instance, when Harry goes to save Sirius he has been tricked, but it was his better nature that was tricked. > > Magpie: > > Nobody said anything about Harry having to feel those things. Harry doesn't feel any sort of remorse for several actions some might consider wrong. And sometimes he feels a twinge of remorse but never has to do anything about it. It's just not a big issue in the books. > > Carol responds: > I find it interesting that Harry often feels remorse for, say, leading his friends into danger, but ends up doing the same thing again. As you say, the feeling never seems to last or is undermined and nipped in the bud by something else. For example, he regrets using Sectumsempra on Draco and nearly causing him to bleed to death, but his remorse is cut short (sad to say) by Snape's detention, which refocuses his thoughts toward the ostensible unfairness of making him miss Quidditch and what he regards as the petty vindictiveness of Snape's chosen punishment. (Detentions aren't supposed to be enjoyable, Harry!) Remorse is displaced by resentment. I can't tell whether JKR is intentionally leading Harry from regret for his actions or not, but, certainly, self-examination is not one of Harry's strengths. Magpie: The same thing happens after Harry beats up Malfoy on the Quidditch pitch. Obviously it's not on the same level as what happens with Sectumsempra, but it's a very similar development. Harry does do something he shouldn't do, however much Malfoy goaded him. And McGonagall starts out saying just that. But then Umbridge comes in with her over-the-top punishment and by the end of the day Harry is completely focused on his resentment of his punishment. He's become the innocent victim in the situation. Umbridge was out to get him just like Snape was. Defiance in detention becomes a point of honor. Carol: It's only after he enters the Pensieve and sees Snape's memories that his perspective seems to change. That experience leads simultaneously to empathy and self-sacrifice and ultimately (along with King's Cross) to forgiveness of those who have wronged him (as he's already forgiven Ron). Magpie: Harry does let go of his anger and bitterness at people who wronged him--I think that's another quality that's highlighted as something you need to do. He doesn't have to seek forgiveness for people he has wronged, because he's never really wronged people significantly enough to seek forgiveness. > Carol responds: > I agree that this instance is much more complicated than a simple choice of "right vs. easy." For Ron, facing Horcrux!Tom, who expresses and embodies all the secret fears and jealousies that Ron has been harboring and the Horcrux has been nurturing, it's a chance to recognize and conquer the doubts and fears that have been coming between him and the two people he loves best. Magpie: Yes, there's a lot at stake for Ron in destroying the Horcrux. It also gives him a way to make up for leaving. In Gof, after Ron and Harry fight, Harry notices Ron doing things for him after they make up, obviously trying to make up for his past behavior. Even without the chance to be the conquerer and deal with his own issues, Ron would not want to let Harry down again after deserting him. -m From mros at xs4all.nl Sun Apr 26 20:06:38 2009 From: mros at xs4all.nl (marionrosnl) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:06:38 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186331 > > > Pippin: > > > > Harry's crucio and many of his other actions are condemned by the excuses he made for them. He doesn't make excuses when he's done something to be proud of. > > > > > > Magpie: > > > Harry doesn't make excuses for the Crucio that I remember--quite the opposite--and his author defends it as not that problematic--and that is a situation I would say works much better as right vs. easy. > > > > Pippin: > > "Potter, that was foolish!" > > "He spat at you," said Harry. -- DH ch 30 > > > > Sounds like an excuse to me. Marion That's not an excuse, it's a justification. "Potter, that was foolish (foolhardy)" "He spat at you," said Harry (as if that explained and justified his foolhardy and dangerous behaviour)" Note that the accusation against Harry was not that he did something cruel, or dangerous, or 'Dark', or disquieting, but 'foolish'. Not really an accusation at all, more a 'tut tut, you should've thought about that a bit more (before you did it anyway)' kind of thing. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 20:15:08 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:15:08 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Orders re Not taking Harry in HPB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186332 gelite67 wrote: > > Snape at the end of the HBP: > > "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him. Go! Go!" Amedican hardback edition at 603. > > I understand why Voldemort needed to be the person to kill Harry. > > I also understand that, at that point, Voldemort didn't want to duel with Harry b/c he didn't yet understand why his wand didn't defeat Harry's in GOF. > > What I don't understand is why Voldemort would have ordered the DE to leave Harry. Why not kidnap him when they had the chance and then keep him prisoner until Voldemort figured out what to do? > > Again, I'm aware of Snape trying to protect Harry. I just don't see why Voldemort wouldn't have ordered them to bring Harry to him alive, and I don't see how Snape could explain away the fact that they didn't. > Carol responds: I think it's because the purpose of this particular mission was to kill Dumbledore (and punish the Malfoys in the process). Getting Dumbledore out of the way would (theoretically) give Voldemort much easier access to Harry (especially if Harry attended Hogwarts with the supposed DE Snape as headmaster). Voldemort also knew that the protection on the Dursleys' house would expire when Harry turned seventeen, at which time, it would (supposedly) be much easier to capture and kill Harry. Snape, of course, wanted the Death Eaters off the Hogwarts grounds and used whatever means he could to persuade or order them. Voldemort's wish to kill Harry himself fit his needs nicely. He also reminded them that the Aurors were coming. Even if Voldemort had wanted them to capture Harry on this mission, as he clearly didn't, there was no time for it. So one thing at a time. Now was not the right time to torture or kidnap Harry and Snape could use that fact to his advantage without blowing his cover. Carol, who thinks that Snape did exactly what Voldemort, Dumbledore, and (aside from killing DD) he himself wanted to do From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 21:16:13 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:16:13 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186333 > Pippin: > As long as Dumbledore is alive, the sword is safest in his office. Harry hasn't got the means to protect it, as we saw. Dumbledore never meant to convey the sword itself to Harry by means of his will. As Scrimgeour says, it's not legally Dumbledore's and the Ministry would not allow Harry to have it, as Dumbledore surely would know. The will was a backup plan for letting Harry know that he would need the sword without letting anyone else know why. But IMO Harry would have known what it was for already if Dumbledore's plan had worked properly. Alla: I am really confused about what you seem to be saying here Pippin. So, basically you are saying that Dumbledore does not own the sword, right? However, he deemed it quite fine to will it to Harry. Eh, I know that WW law is quite far from being clear but this goes way beyond being unclear and uneffective IMO. The object that does not belong to you, you cannot will, no? You also seem to be saying that will is just a symbolic gesture? Just a warning to let Harry know that he will need it? However two objects that they will need as well, are also willed and not as warning? I do not know, to me the fact that Dumbledore put it in his will is quite clear sign that sword indeed belongs to him. If he just wanted to let Harry know that he will need a sword, but he cannot get it yet, why not just write a simple letter with the instructions to deliver after his death? And how Harry would have known what it is for? I mean, I see how sword's ownership can be interpreted as murky, but to me there is little doubt that Dumbledore indeed considered himself at least as one of its true owners, IMO. > > Alla: > > > > Hm, but when did we see anybody in the WW reading fiction? > > Pippin: > Ron has a collection of comic books, most of which feature The Adventures of Marvin Miggs, the Mad Muggle. (CoS ch 3). Alla: True thanks for reminding me. I however realized that I sort of found better support for Zara's claim about Hermione not reading fiction. I do not think she likes fiction, because she dropped divination if that makes sense. She considers it fictional, phony branch of magic, something that does not bring true results, right? Maybe she views other fictional stories with the same contempt? Although she says nothing about muggle fairy tales when she mentions them. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 23:13:50 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:13:50 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186334 Pippin: > > Dumbledore never meant to convey the sword itself to Harry by means of his will. As Scrimgeour says, it's not legally Dumbledore's and the Ministry would not allow Harry to have it, as Dumbledore surely would know. The will was a backup plan for letting Harry know that he would need the sword without letting anyone else know why. > > Alla: > > I am really confused about what you seem to be saying here Pippin. So, basically you are saying that Dumbledore does not own the sword, right? However, he deemed it quite fine to will it to Harry. > > You also seem to be saying that will is just a symbolic gesture? Just a warning to let Harry know that he will need it? However two objects that they will need as well, are also willed and not as warning? Carol responds: I'm not Pippin, of course, but I made a similar point in my own post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186314, that the sword is not Dumbledore's to give and that he's telling Harry through the will that Harry will need the sword to destroy the Horcruxes. (He's counting on Hermione, I think, to make the connection between Horcruxes and Basilisk venom and pass on that information to Harry, as she does after Scrimgeour leaves.) Scrimgeour is our only authority on the matter of the sword's ownership, and I see no reason to doubt his word. Here's what he says in "the Will of Albus Dumbledore" after he tells Harry that DD has willed him the sword and Harry asks where it is: "Unfortunately, that sword was not Dumbledore's to give away. The sword of Godric Gryffindor is an important historical artifact, and as such belongs--" Just whom it belongs to, we don't find out (the school? All Gryffindors? The WW?) because Hermione interrupts with "it belongs to Harry! it chose him, he was the one who found it, it came to him out of the Sorting Hat--" Apparently, that feat does not make the sword Harry's (and certainly wouldn't make it Dumbledore's). Scrimgeour responds with, "According to reliable historical sources, the sword may present itself to any worthy Gryffindor. That does not make it the exclusive property of Mr. Potter, whatever Dumbledore may have decided." (The "reliable historical sources" bit is a shrewd move on Scrimgeour's part because it shuts Hermione up, but I see no reason to doubt the statement. Evidently, the sword has "chosen" other worthy Gryffindors before, and we'll see it do so again with Neville. Dumbledore, we later see from his portrait's instructions to Snape, is as familiar with the sword's history as Scrimgeour is, emphasizing that the sword must be taken under conditions of "need and valor." Given those instructions, I suspect that DD knew quite well that he couldn't will the sword to Harry or just hand it to him and tell him that it's his. The sword has to be earned or deserved. To paraphrase Ollivander, the sword chooses the wizard, but unlike most wands and their chosen wizards, the relationship is not permanent.) At this point Scrimgeour asks Harry why he thinks that DD wanted him to have the sword, and the discussion deteriorates into accusations and name calling, two stubborn people, each with his own agenda, misunderstanding and distrusting each other and spectacularly failing to become allies. To return to the Sword of Gryffindor, I think it's pretty clear that Scrimgeour is right: Dumbledore can't will it to Harry because it can't be given by one person (even a worthy Gryffindor) to another. It has to be earned under conditions of "need and valor." That the Sword resided in Dumbledore's office did not make it his to give. He had never, so far as we know, earned it himself, and even if he had, it would not have been his to give. He was only its guardian as headmaster of Hogwarts (as Snape was in his turn, though not himself a Gryffindor). The sword came to Harry in CoS (as DD must have known it would) when he desperately needed it to kill the Basilisk and strove valiantly to save Ginny; it did *not* come to Harry as he dived into the pool to retrieve it (maybe "valiantly" diving into icy water and "needing" the sword to destroy Horcruxes didn't satisfy its criteria for "need and valor"?); it did come to Ron, who valiantly saved Harry and needed the sword to cut the Horcrux chain from Harry's neck (and through his actions earned the right to use it to destroy the Horcrux); it did not stay with Griphook, who took it under the wrong conditions (and was not a Gryffindor); it did come to Neville under conditions of need and valor as he bravely faced Voldemort and earned the right to slay Nagini. All in all, I'd say that Scrimgeour was right. The Sword of Gryffindor does not belong to Dumbledore or to Harry (or Ron or Neville, both of whom later earn the right to wield it--once). It belongs, in a sense, to all Gryffindors and will present itself under the right conditions to the Gryffindor of its own choosing (with or without the aid of the Sorting Hat). Surely, Dumbledore knew that--and knew that Scrimgeour or whoever proved the will would not allow it to be given away. He did, however, wish Harry to know that he would need the Sword of Gryffindor in his quest to destroy the Horcruxes. How better to do that than to "bequeath" it to Harry in his will? As Pippin says, willing the sword to Harry (without actually giving it to him) let Harry know that he would need the sword without letting anyone else (specifically Scrimgeour or whichever Ministry official read the will) know why Harry needed it. With regard to Alla's question about the other objects that are willed to the Trio without explanation, Scrimgeour does try unsuccessfully to unravel their secrets, but DD must have known that he would fail. More important, however, those objects were his to give as the Sword of Gryffindor was not. (Technically, the Snitch was already Harry's and DD was restoring it to its owner.) Unlike the Sword, they did not need to be earned or retrieved in some particular fashion. Carol, who actually snipped a whole section of this long post because it related to Scrimgeour and Harry rather than to the sword and DD's will From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 23:33:28 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:33:28 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186335 > Carol responds: > I'm not Pippin, of course, but I made a similar point in my own post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186314, that the sword is not Dumbledore's to give and that he's telling Harry through the will that Harry will need the sword to destroy the Horcruxes. (He's counting on Hermione, I think, to make the connection between Horcruxes and Basilisk venom and pass on that information to Harry, as she does after Scrimgeour leaves.) Alla: Yes, I know. I however did not find your post to be helpful in clarifying for me why Dumbledore would decide that will the object he does not possess is the best way to let Harry know that Harry needs it. And I chose to ask Pippin even though your post contained similar argument. Carol: > Scrimgeour is our only authority on the matter of the sword's ownership, and I see no reason to doubt his word. Here's what he says in "the Will of Albus Dumbledore" after he tells Harry that DD has willed him the sword and Harry asks where it is: > > "Unfortunately, that sword was not Dumbledore's to give away. The sword of Godric Gryffindor is an important historical artifact, and as such belongs--" Alla: I do tend to doubt it very much, his authority on the subject I mean. Mostly because based on subjects he discussed with Harry (Stan, etc), I do not believe that author intends him to be authority on many subjects unfortunately. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 27 00:35:19 2009 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:35:19 -0000 Subject: banning Beedle / Ron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186336 Potioncat wrote in : << Which reminds me of a situation in canon. In TTOBTB, DD states that Malfoy wanted one of the tales removed because it promoted a point of view not in keeping with proper wizard teaching. >> Before DH, it would occasionally come up on list that someone would criticize Dumbledore for failing to use his power as Headmaster of Hogwarts to indoctrinate the students into such elements of a virtuous worldview as knowing that half-Bloods and Muggle-borns have as much magical power, as much intelligence and skill, as much elegance and charisma as Pure-bloods, as knowing that the value of a human being does not depend on how much magic power (nor even wealth) he/she has, as knowing that Muggles are fully human, and so on. Some could come from requiring Muggle Studies, with the curriculum enhanced to emphasis how clever and artistic Muggles are, how powerful their technology and how beautiful their literature; some from History of Magic taught by a less soporific professor than Binns and requiring essays on the Goblin, Centaur, Muggle, etc side of the various events taught in class; some requiring professors to shoehorn it into technical curricula, such as Snape and McGonagall required to mention whenever the potion or spell being taught had been invented by a Muggle-born or used with great success for heroic purposes by a Half-blood... And whenever I noticed listies saying that, I would say that those are the views of only one faction, not even the majority, of the wizarding community, and Dumbledore would get a lot of complaints from parents on the other side that he was trying to undermine the beliefs, such as wizarding superiority, that they were trying to pass on to their children, possibly enough complaints that the Board of Governors really would remove him. Because it seems to me that we are shown that the wizarding community views the choice (narrowly) to embrace or abhor Dark Magic, and (more broadly) to try to be good or to try to be evil as a mere personal choice, like which Quidditch team or support or whether to decorate one's home in the most austere Modernism (yuck!) or a pastiche of not very accurate Victorian-style reproductions (yum! Except for the cats clawing everything and knocking everything down). This bit of BtB, where Lucius tried to have an old, traditional book removed from the Hogwarts library, supports my theory of how much more trouble Dumbledore would receive for educational innovations with the same purpose. Carol wrote in : << What annoyed me in the books was that Ron, who had been hailed as a Quidditch champion in OoP ("Weasley is our king") was back to the same old insecurities in HBP with the Felix Felicis episode. I think probably I can say that 'self-confident' and 'feeling insecure' are opposites; 25-ish years ago I was in a mlist with some people who spoke of 'internal validation' and 'external validation', where 'internal validation' is roughly the same as 'self-confidence'. Presumably there is some sort of premise that humans need validation, so people who lack internal validation seek validation elsewhere i.e. externally. Meaning that people who seek praise or admiration are guilty of feeling insecure. The above was all explanation of terms that I will use in my reply: In real life, people who lack self-confidence do not gain it from just one gloriously, intoxicatingly, ecstatically joyous and pleasurable instance of external validation. That high wears off and one gradually goes back to one's normal self. So I never understood why you always complained that Rowling depicted Ron realistically in this matter. It seemed to me obvious all along that << his insecurity [is] a terrible burden that he constantly bears and only occasionally reveals to his friends >> just like in real life. I am struck that it took literary analysis for you to figure this out. Sartoris22 wrote in : << Rowling is somehow taking revenge on Sean (the boy on whom Ron is modeled) because Sean never returned her affection. If Hermione is an idealized version of Rowling , then through Ron, Rowling finally gets Sean, but, boy, does she make him suffer for it. >> I don't know anything about it, but I've somehow always felt that Joanne had jilted Sean, and the Hermione-Ron ship was her way of showing that she regretted it. I think the author humiliating the character is about her plot ideas, not about Joanne and Sean. Shelley k12listmomma in : << And there is another thing- personality. A shy person may have one instance of public success, but that single event may not overcome their shy personality. The event is over, and the person retreats to the place where they feel comfortable. (big snip) We see success and think he should have been changed by that, but some insecurities are much deeper than that. Ron remains immature, and insecure, >> You hit the nail on the head about Ron remaining insecure despite one big triumph. Your post is so good that I hate that I come on like just disagreement... but I have various little disagreements. I may have a different idea of 'shyness' than you do, but I never thought of Ron as shy. Isn't he perfectly outgoing about talking to strangers (like Harry on the Hogwarts Express first year). Isn't he perfectly willing to speak up in general conversation in the common room? IIRC when Ron and Harry were on the outs in GoF, Ron had other friends to hang with, but Harry had only Hermione. Ron also remained immature as you wrote, but I think that's not related: normally one doesn't expect one big athletic success to make a young man more mature about considering other people's feelings and thinking through risks before taking them and valuing career success over dating success and all that stuff. I believe a person can grow up to be mature and still be insecure, except in the sense that 'mature' means 'perfect mental health' and therefore no one ever achieves it. << very young man, who had anger issues that his 400 lb father didn't warn his kids of the dangers of being overweight and didn't protect them from repeating that mistake. >> I know nothing about this case but am of the opinion that if the father had tried to prevent the kids from being overweight, the young man would have had anger issues with his father because the father deprived him of food and bullied him about exercise and withheld his love and made it clear that his son was too fat to be loved. The young man would still have grown up to be obese, because obesity is a fate that cannot be avoided any more than Oedipus's best efforts could avoid killing his father and marrying his mother, and the young man would have blamed the obesity on his father for making physical fitness such an supremely unpleasant experience. And, as I have a generally low opinion of parents, almost all of whom are mere mortal human beings with problems of their own, the father may well deserve the anger for some deeper reason, such as he really didn't love or like his children no matter how hard he tried to. << It took a event of blowing his top before his trainer had a good talk with him to get him to face that unresolved issue, and encourage him to have a talk with his dad over it. They did, and it was a moment of healing for this young man. >> And I personally don't believe the common assertion that having a talk with a parent or other childhood oppressor will result in a moment of healing. Sartoris22 wrote in : << I think that Ron is a better friend to Harry then Harry is to Ron >> To which, Magpie replied in : << Part of this is being in Harry's head--if we were in Ron's head we'd probably be getting a lot of Ron thinking about how things effect him too. But a bigger part is I think the roles they each have in their friendship and Harry's a very high maintenance friend that gets along with Ron partially because most of the time Ron's pretty easy-going and follows more naturally than he leads. >> Ron's role in the friendship, AND his role in the plot, which is to be the hero's friend, while Harry's job in the plot is to be the hero. Also, I suspect that Ron was raised knowing more about how to relate with people and have friendships than Harry was. Montavilla47 wrote in : << I don't see why I should believe that Ron "triumphed" over his insecurities when he destroyed the Horcrux when he didn't after winning the Quidditch cup in OotP and realizing he didn't need good-luck potion to win in HBP. >> Because the Horcrux event is magic! Surely magic has even more power than psychiatric drugs to repair damaged minds! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 00:47:27 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:47:27 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186337 > Magpie: > Ron faced bad choices whichever way he turned. Harry wanting him to destroy the Horcrux takes away the "easy" part. There's a bad consequence to not doing it. I just think this is a situation where everyone is too personally invested in everything to truly have an easy choice. I'm sure there are plenty of places we could describe in these terms, but I see no moments that are setting up a stark, dramatic choice that turns on exactly this phrase. What I do see are people faced with a lot of hard choices. It's a slightly different thing. Zara: Here's one: Stay at home, bored, your brilliance and your youth wasted, with your invalid little sister, or spend more time, perhaps even travel to see the world and seek fantastic artifsacts out of legend, with a handsome, amusing, intelligent companion. Notice he has a rather dark side, or ignore it. Consequence of choosing "easy": dead sister, guilt that lasts the rest of your very long life. Another: Reject the overtures of a band of future terrorists because they'd call your best friend a Mudblood and your mother a blood traitor...or, finally enjoy the acceptance you were hoping to find when you came to Hogwarts. Consequence of choosing "easy": it's the first step along a path that will lead foirst to the loss, and later to the death, of that same best friend, now also the woman you love. Another: Ignore the bad behavior of your friends towards others, because you don't believe anyone else will like someone with your condition. Let them in on your potentially deadly secret, or suffer your monthly transformations alone. Consequence of choosing "easy": the worst enemy of you and your friends learns your secret. Another: Make an honest effort to learn a skill from a teacher you hate, or blow him off. Consequence of choosing "easy": You enable a chain of events that leads to the death of your beloved godfather. But I also find that the definition of "easy" in this discussion is being formulated in what I find a very unconventional manner. I don't think we are supposed to consider risking death, torture, the loss of all we hold dear, etc. "easy" just because we would feel guilty or remorseful for choosing something different, because we have principles and want to do what is right. By that definition, no prncipled person ever makes a choice of right vs. easy. (As, any choice but the "right" one is suddenly judged easy by virtue of the person's inclination towards pricipled actions, or by virtue of their friends/family having such inclinations). So I would say both Hermione and Ron *are* making a difficult choice to join Harry. Snape is (having previously made easy ones) now making a difficult choice to live and die as Dumbledore's spy. Harry makes a difficult choice when he goes into the Forest (he, arguably, does have a far stronger pragmatic reason to seek the destruction of Voldemort than anyone else, as Voldemort is certainly seeking the destruction of Harry over all else). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 00:58:57 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:58:57 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Orders re Not taking Harry in HPB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186338 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Again, I'm aware of Snape trying to protect Harry. I just don't see why Voldemort wouldn't have ordered them to bring Harry to him alive, and I don't see how Snape could explain away the fact that they didn't. Zara: Voldemort would have no reason to expect that Harry would wind up encountering the Death Eaters he sent to Hogwarts. The planned called for them to lure Dumbledore (alone) onto the Tower and have Draco kill him there. Harry should have been sleeping in his dorm when it all happened. Snape probably referred to some standing order, and exploited it to protect Harry when the latter unexpectedly wound up in the middle of DUmbledore and Voldemort's competing schemes that night. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 01:16:11 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:16:11 -0000 Subject: Fiction books in WW was :Re: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186339 > Geoff: > True, I'd forgotten that. But, in general terms, in the past some > contributors have said something like "But that hasn't been stated > specifically in canon.." > > To that, I have replied , "Possibly because it's not relevant." I have > pointed out that we are not told when Harry or anyone else goes > to the toilet or has a bath (except perhaps if GOF). The school > menu for each day is not discussed > > We do not see lengthy descriptions of the students in "off duty" > moments unless it is germane to the plot. Most of the time that > reading is mentioned, it involves people in the library and the > reasons they are there is usually to study and complete > assignments. I suspect that if there is any fiction in the library, > there will be very little of it. > > Although, there must surely be some people who read the > fictional pages of "The Quibbler"? > :-) > Alla: Eh, well I will be the first one to say that I believe that narrow interpretation of what is in canon is not my cup of tea. Basically as long as there is a **hint** of something there, I am all for letting our imagination run wild and add the layers, etc. But for me there needs to be at least a hint, as we certainly discovered there is with the WW and fiction reading. However, I find the line of argument that something is not shown because it is irrelevant, but it just has to be there, to be well, strange. Unless it is related to basic human needs, of course, I would have been pretty sure that wizards bathe and use the restroom even if we would have not been shown that. But how we are supposed to guess that they like fiction if we would not have seen any examples of it? I mean, there are no literature classes in Hogwarts, no? We are shown Ron's comic books as Pippin pointed, but before Beedle how many fiction books did we see? I would LOVE to make an assumption that WW loves literature, but unfortunately I find the evidence severely lacking. Even comic books, although I certainly accept as example for what I asked for, I mean, they are not really literature, no? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 01:46:29 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:46:29 -0000 Subject: Fiction books in WW was :Re: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186340 > Alla: > I would LOVE to make an assumption that WW loves literature, but unfortunately I find the evidence severely lacking. Even comic books, although I certainly accept as example for what I asked for, I mean, they are not really literature, no? Zara: The WW has had writers that write plays since at least the fifteenth century, such as the French play "Helas, je me suis transfigure mes pieds" (mentioned in QttA). And I posted this only because I adore the title. ("Alas, I have Transfigured my feet", in French). From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 27 02:01:48 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:01:48 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186341 > Zara: > Here's one: Stay at home, bored, your brilliance and your youth wasted, with your invalid little sister, or spend more time, perhaps even travel to see the world and seek fantastic artifsacts out of legend, with a handsome, amusing, intelligent companion. Notice he has a rather dark side, or ignore it. Consequence of choosing "easy": dead sister, guilt that lasts the rest of your very long life. Magpie: That's choosing the life you want over the life you don't want. Living for what you want for yourself rather than sacrificing for others. It wasn't going to be easy to find the hallows or subjugate all those Muggles. The challenge was part of the appeal. Zara: > > Another: Reject the overtures of a band of future terrorists because they'd call your best friend a Mudblood and your mother a blood traitor...or, finally enjoy the acceptance you were hoping to find when you came to Hogwarts. Consequence of choosing "easy": it's the first step along a path that will lead foirst to the loss, and later to the death, of that same best friend, now also the woman you love. Magpie: Snape didn't become a DE because it was too hard to say no to his friends. He became a DE because it offered power and validation. According to JKR he even thought that by becoming a DE (a hard thing to do--you had to work to be in that elite group) he would impress Lily and win her hand. He had to work for it. Zara: > Another: Ignore the bad behavior of your friends towards others, because you don't believe anyone else will like someone with your condition. Let them in on your potentially deadly secret, or suffer your monthly transformations alone. Consequence of choosing "easy": the worst enemy of you and your friends learns your secret. Magpie: That one's a lot closer. And Lupin does seem to regret it because it was wrong. Though Snape's learning Lupin's secret had no bad consequences for Lupin since Lupin wasn't outed and his friends didn't get in trouble. However, I would still more naturally chalk this up to an example of *cowardice* rather than easy. Which I think the books are far more interested in thematically anyway. Zara: > Another: Make an honest effort to learn a skill from a teacher you hate, or blow him off. Consequence of choosing "easy": You enable a chain of events that leads to the death of your beloved godfather. Magpie: Harry certainly not try at Occlumency, but I wouldn't describe him as "blowing it off" as if it's just too much trouble and he can get away with it. He wants to see what's in the MoM and doesn't realize why he shouldn't know. Zara: > But I also find that the definition of "easy" in this discussion is being formulated in what I find a very unconventional manner. I don't think we are supposed to consider risking death, torture, the loss of all we hold dear, etc. "easy" just because we would feel guilty or remorseful for choosing something different, because we have principles and want to do what is right. By that definition, no prncipled person ever makes a choice of right vs. easy. Magpie: I haven't said any of those things are easy at all. And I disagree that no principled person ever makes a choice of right vs. easy. I tihnk they do. I just think it's a very specific thing to lay out in a story. If somebody tells me the premise they're putting across is right vs. easy, you bet I'm going to define those things clearly and expect the person to show that and not something else that could maybe fit under the umbrella. You really do have to work hard to make sure there's an "easy" in there that goes beyond "not as hard as" or "less appealing than" imo. The books even come up with certain situation that I think fit--it just often ends with the person choosing easy with no bad consequences, because I just don't really think JKR is all that focused on this choice. Because it's not like the books lose anything if I don't see these choices as right vs. easy. Just because Dumbledore said something in a speech and it sounds good doesn't mean the story fails if it's not illustrating that exact speech. It even takes place in a book that's got all this stuff about different countries coming together and that doesn't play out really either. It's not that I think the books are bad for not setting up a bit right vs. easy theme, I just think there's way better ways to describe most of the big choices that have teaching consequences in the books. Zara: (As, any choice but the "right" one is suddenly judged easy by virtue of the person's inclination towards pricipled actions, or by virtue of their friends/family having such inclinations). Magpie: I didn't at all say that the "right" choice was judged easy by virtue of the inclination. I said that for a choice to be easy it really had to be tempting because it's so easy. It's not about claiming these characters aren't making difficult or virtuous choices, it's analyzing what the choice is to me. If Ron is faced with letting Harry down vs. facing something that he fears, I just don't see why I'd describe that as a choice of right vs. easy. Same with Dumbledore going to Hogwarts--of course it was a difficult choice. Of course he made the selfish choice. But I still think it's more accurate to explain the situation by saying Dumbledore is choosing between having the life he wants and sacrificing that life for the good of his sister. I think that description is not only a more accurate description of what Dumbledore is choosing, but it's more thematically resonant as well. Harry is gearing up for a sacrifice. Zara: > So I would say both Hermione and Ron *are* making a difficult choice to join Harry. Snape is (having previously made easy ones) now making a difficult choice to live and die as Dumbledore's spy. Harry makes a difficult choice when he goes into the Forest (he, arguably, does have a far stronger pragmatic reason to seek the destruction of Voldemort than anyone else, as Voldemort is certainly seeking the destruction of Harry over all else). Magpie: Yes, they are. I've never denied they're making hard choices. I said a choice being right and hard doesn't mean they have to have chosen between that and wrong and easy. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 02:36:36 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:36:36 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186342 > > Zara: > > Here's one: Stay at home, bored, your brilliance and your youth wasted, with your invalid little sister, or spend more time, perhaps even travel to see the world and seek fantastic artifsacts out of legend, with a handsome, amusing, intelligent companion. Notice he has a rather dark side, or ignore it. Consequence of choosing "easy": dead sister, guilt that lasts the rest of your very long life. > > Magpie: > That's choosing the life you want over the life you don't want. Living for what you want for yourself rather than sacrificing for others. It wasn't going to be easy to find the hallows or subjugate all those Muggles. The challenge was part of the appeal. Alla: Okay, this is certainly not my definition of easy you are working with. I always thought that right v easy refers to what will be **morally** right v **morally** easy. I do not see how having fun with your friend and implementing the plans of world domination over those silly muggles is not easy in comparison to sacrificing your life to care about your sister. I remember Albus whining about taking care about Ariana, I do not remember him thinking how very hard it will be to go travel with Gellert, even if it included intellectual challenges. When I read your previous post to me about Ron, I thought I understood that your definition of easy is just very narrow (to me), but at least I understood that right v easiER is not working for you and working perfectly well for me. But now I am even more confused. I just do not see how Albus' desire to go around the Globe with Gellert is hard for him LOL. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 02:46:28 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:46:28 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186343 > Magpie: > That's choosing the life you want over the life you don't want. Living for what you want for yourself rather than sacrificing for others. It wasn't going to be easy to find the hallows or subjugate all those Muggles. The challenge was part of the appeal. Zara: And the appeal is what makes it *easy*. I am sorry, but I still find your interpretation of what it means for a choice to be "Easy, not right", amazingly strained. > Magpie: > Snape didn't become a DE because it was too hard to say no to his friends. He became a DE because it offered power and validation. Zara: Which validation he got from those friends. Making ditching them a hard choice, and sticking with them, the opposite (easy). > Magpie: > That one's a lot closer. And Lupin does seem to regret it because it was wrong. Though Snape's learning Lupin's secret had no bad consequences for Lupin since Lupin wasn't outed and his friends didn't get in trouble. However, I would still more naturally chalk this up to an example of *cowardice* rather than easy. Which I think the books are far more interested in thematically anyway. Zara: Snape outs Lupin, eventually. Very delayed bad consequences? Also, I suspect Lupin would have suffered some in school, knowing Snape knew and wondering whether Albus's prohibition would truly hold. Cowardice generally *is* the easy choice. It prevents the difficulty of having to face whatever it is that one fears. Albus goes on about right vs. easy, lauds Harry's Gryffindorness, and tells Snape "we Sort too soon" because in my opinion, he sees himself as delivering the same message in all three places. > Magpie: > Harry certainly not try at Occlumency, but I wouldn't describe him as "blowing it off" as if it's just too much trouble and he can get away with it. He wants to see what's in the MoM and doesn't realize why he shouldn't know. Zara: Snape tells him. In the very first lesson. And while I can see how Snape is a suboptimal teacher, Harry is also being a suboptimal student. > Magpie: > I just think it's a very specific thing to lay out in a story. If somebody tells me the premise they're putting across is right vs. easy, you bet I'm going to define those things clearly and expect the person to show that and not something else that could maybe fit under the umbrella. Zara: I see. I guess where we disagree is that I do not think Rowling, in giving Albus that phrase, was having him talk about some sort of very specific type of moral dilemma (one I confess I still do not understand) that she would then never again bring up in the remaining 5 novels of her series. I thought what she was saying is explaining, psychologically, how nearly all poor moral decisions are made by most people, at least those people who see themselves as generally ethical and well-intentioned people. (I mean people *not* like young Tom, Mr. "there is only power and those too weak to use it"). If one allows oneself to label the options available as right and "wrong", then one is very consciously choosing to do something evil/bad/immoral when doing the "wrong" thing. One might sometimes, and justify it in some way (the ends justify the means, e. g.). But I think she is suggesting that more generally, people will not label the "easier" choices they want to adopt as "wrong". They will frame their desired actions to themselves as also right. "I can bring Ariana along when I go!", "Lily is very magical, no one will mess with *her*", (I have trouble with Lupin; I relate less than the others I picked for my examples), "Snape is just evil and never explains anything in a way I can understand, so why should I listen to him or bother with his homework?" Likewise, Ron separated from Harry and Hermione could have recognized, quite rationally, that his presence there was very unlikely to make a difference, because who can expect a 17 year old to destroy the Horcruxes of the most evil Dark Wizard of all time?! And that therefore, Hermione's insane determination to continue doomed her, and Ron could not save her, so he might as well go back to Hogwarts, eat regular, large, delicious meals, and cease exposing his family to the danger of their ruse with the ghoul being discovered. Not a wrong choice, not at all, just a good deal easier than finding a way back and resuming the lovely life of camping out without food and with a malignant Horcrux, while the Ministry is seeking your companion in a serious manhunt. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 27 02:52:58 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:52:58 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186344 Alla: > But now I am even more confused. I just do not see how Albus' desire to go around the Globe with Gellert is hard for him LOL. Magpie: I'm not saying it was hard for him, I'm just saying that it seems like much more obviously a choice about living for yourself and following your own ambitions vs. sacrificing the life you've dreamed of for yourself to take care of others. You're absolutely right that Dumbledore seemed to be able to live with himself easily enough so yeah, there is some right vs. easy in there, you're right. I didn't give that enough credit. But it still seems like the main thing here in that situation is not wanting to give up the life you've been chasing your whole life to take care of your sister in the little provincial town you hate--no matter whether your brother hates you for it and calls you selfish. I honestly would imagine that Dumbledore looked back on that situation and say he felt selfish, that he put his own needs before his sister's. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 27 02:55:47 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:55:47 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186345 > Magpie: > I didn't at all say that the "right" choice was judged easy by virtue of the inclination. I said that for a choice to be easy it really had to be tempting because it's so easy. Pippin: I think you're right in pointing out that overall the books don't picture serving Voldemort as temptingly easy, though he's very good at disguising his true aims from his new recruits until they're hopelessly compromised. But there's another choice that you're not considering. There's the temptingly easy choice of believing there's nothing you can do. That's what Ron has to struggle against, both in trying to overcome his confidence problems and in choosing to tackle the horcrux. And it's the problem which overcomes most of the wizarding world in DH. Harry doesn't face that particular demon very often, but when he does, it forms some of the most dramatic and disturbing episodes in the books. In fact this situation frames the final three volumes like a pair of bookends. Harry doesn't believe he can do anything to manage his reaction to Cedric's death, and he doesn't believe he can do anything to help the baby-thing at King's Cross. Going back instead of going on at King's Cross is also a choice of right over easy, one which Harry frames explicitly:" Leaving this place would not be nearly as hard as walking into the forest had been, but it was warm and light and peaceful here, and he knew that he was heading back to pain and the fear of more loss." Clearly it is not easy for Harry to offer Voldemort a sincere chance to reform himself, and it comes out sounding more than half like a taunt when he does, but even Voldemort perceives there is something more to it than that. As for Dumbledore, the easy choice was letting himself be swept along by lust and visions of glory, ignoring his reservations until it was too late. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 03:07:18 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:07:18 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186346 Carol earlier: > > I'm not Pippin, of course, but I made a similar point in my own post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186314, that the sword is not Dumbledore's to give and that he's telling Harry through the will that Harry will need the sword to destroy the Horcruxes. (He's counting on Hermione, I think, to make the connection between Horcruxes and Basilisk venom and pass on that information to Harry, as she does after Scrimgeour leaves.) > > Alla: > > Yes, I know. I however did not find your post to be helpful in clarifying for me why Dumbledore would decide that will the object he does not possess is the best way to let Harry know that Harry needs it. And I chose to ask Pippin even though your post contained similar argument. Carol responds: Admittedly, it wasn't my most coherent post. :-) I do hope, though, that even though you chose to respond to Pippin, that you don't mind my responding. I think my position is the same as hers except that she sees the will as a back-up plan and I see it as the only plan. (DD knew that he was going to die and made the needed arrangements.) You and I agree, I think, that he foresaw the need to give HRH the Deluminator, the book, and the Snitch, all of which were his to give (or already belonged to Harry in the case of the Snitch). Apparently, you think that the sword was also his to give. Scrimgeour says that it wasn't, and I've already presented his arguments which, apparently, you're rejecting *because* they're Scrimgeour's. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) They are, however, the only arguments or explanations that we have, and they are not corrected or contradicted elsewhere in the books. Hermione, our usual authority in the absence of Dumbledore, accepts them and stops arguing when Scrimgeour appeals to the authority of "reliable historical sources." My guess is that Hermione has, indeed, read something similar in the Hogwarts library books, quite possibly her old standby, "Hogwarts: A History," which would surely cover the subject of Godric Griffindor's sword. Dumbledore's portrait also seems to agree with Scrimgeour. It (he?) doesn't tell Snape to give the sword to Harry or leave it for him to find. He emphasizes that it "*must* be taken under conditions of need and valor" (DH Am. ed. 689). Interestingly (to me), it's Ron who takes it under these circumstances and Ron who uses it. The next and only other user of the sword is Neville, to whom it also comes under conditions of need and valor, points that JKR takes care to emphasize. Harry never uses it after CoS. Clearly, he is not its rightful owner. If anything, the sword appears to be its own master. We do know one thing for sure: Dumbledore did expect the will to be read. Harry asks Hermione "D'you think he knew the Ministry would confiscate his will and examine everything he'd left us?" and Hermione responds, "Definitely. He couldn't tell us in the will why he was leaving us those things" (132). Hermione also wonders why he didn't give them a hint while he was alive. The answer seems to be that he wanted them to figure out the answers for themselves. "'And the sword,' said Ron finally. . . . 'Why did he want Harry to have the sword?' "'And why couldn't he have just told me?' Harry said quietly. 'It was *there.* it was right there on the wall during all our talks last year. If he wanted me to have it, why didn't he just give it to me then?'" (134). He comes up with no explanations, only that Dumbledore did not give it to him (possibly because he hoped to use it on another Horcrux but possibly, as Pippin and I have both suggested and Scrimgeour has canonically stated, because it wasn't his to give.) But Hermione has already given them part of the answer, informing them that Basilisk venom is one of the few things that can destroy a Horcrux (104). Harry wonders at that point how Dumbledore destroyed the ring (105). They already have the information they need; they just haven't yet put it together. Even when Harry sees the Sword of Gryffindor lying at the bottom of a pool he doesn't figure out why he needs it, but he knows that he must pass some sort of test. "Accio, Sword!" doesn't word for the SoG any more than it worked for the fake Horcrux in HBP: "If it had been that easy, the sword would have lain on the ground for him to pick up, not in the depths of the frozen pool" (368). He remembers that Dumbledore told him back in CoS, "Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled *that* out of the hat." He asks himself what the qualities are that define a true Gryffindor and remembers the Sorting Hat's voice saying, "their daring, nerve, and chivalry set Gryffindor apart" (368). I won't go into more detail here because I've already talked about it in my previous posts except to say that it's Ron, not Harry, who proves himself the "true Gryffindor" (DD's phrase) or the "worthy Gryffindor (Scrimgeour's phrase). Both of them know the sword's history and modus operandi. "It chose Harry," Hermione says earlier, but it chose him only for that occasion. It does not choose him now. I can find no fault (maybe you can) in Scrimgeour's words, "According to reliable sources, the sword may present itself to any worthy Gryffindor." They seem to be proven accurate by this event and by the sword's coming to Neville. Do you have any objection to them other than that they're spoken by Scrimgeour? And if he's right about the sword presenting itself to the worthy Gryffindor of its choice (a point that neither Harry nor Hermione disputes), he would also be right that it's "not the exclusive property of Mr. Harry Potter" (and not Dumbledore's property at all. If I understand your post correctly, you also seem to think it's odd that Dumbledore would decide to use the will to convey a message to Harry (that he needs the sword of Gryffindor to destroy the Horcruxes). Yet Scrimgeour's informing Harry that Dumbledore has (rightfully or wrongfully) willed him the sword serves exactly that purpose. They don't need the sword itself--yet. Snape will deliver it when the time comes. They just need to figure out *why* they need it. Admittedly, this process takes quite awhile. At first, the Trio only "lament... the fact that Scrimgeour had refused to pass on the sword" and try to figure out why he would have given them the other three objects at all(131). And even after they retrieve the locket Horcrux, they're no closer to knowing how to destroy it, not having any Basilisk fangs to hand. However, once they have the Sword of Gryffindor, Harry knows instinctively why they need it--to destroy the Horcrux. He can even tell that "the thing inside" has sensed the presence of the sword and "had tried to kill him rather than let him possess it," which does suggest that Harry would have been worthy a second time, so I could be wrong about entering icy water and needing to destroy a Horcrux not meeting its criteria for "need" and "valor"--but in any case, Ron definitely met them and Harry knows it: He tells Ron that he should destroy the Horcrux "because you got the sword out of the pool. I think it's supposed to be you." Dumbledore has taught Harry "about certain kinds of magic, the incalculable power of certain acts" (374). I won't go into the dramatic confrontation with and victory over the Horcrux, which I want to discuss later, but clearly, Harry is right. The sword is *not* his. Ron has earned the right to use it, more than meeting the criteria of need and valor. I am trying to find the place in the book where HRH finally figure out that the Sword of Gryffindor will destroy the Horcruxes because it's been steeped in Basilisk venom (anybody?), but it doesn't really matter. Harry knew when the time came why he needed the sword, as he would not have known if DD had somehow been allowed to give it to him. As I've already stated, he knew that Scrimgeour would not allow him to give Harry the sword of Gryffindor. That being the case, what mattered was that Harry know that he needed it. And the will was the way to do that without anyone, including Scrimgeour, knowing *why* he needed it. Let me ask you a question, simply trying to understand your position. Do you think that Dumbledore really thought that he owned the sword and had the right to bequeath it? It seems to me that his insistence that Snape set up "conditions of need and valor" (and Snape's already having a plan involving exactly those conditions) indicates otherwise. Do you also think that he didn't know that the Minister would read the will and examine the bequeathed possessions? Harry and Hermione think otherwise. Surely, then, he would also have known that Scrimgeour would not let him pass on the sword of Gryffindor to Harry. Snape (who had already promised to protect the Hogwarts students and must have known that both DD and LV wanted him to be headmaster after DD's death) would do that when the time came. The only point I know of that you object to in my post is the use of Scrimgeour as an authority. I've tried to answer that point and clarify my other reasons for agreeing with Pippin. Are there any other points that you disagree with? (Whether it was the main plan or a back-up plan isn't really important. The point is that, IMO, he knew perfectly well that he couldn't will Harry the sword but needed to convey the message that Harry would need it without explaining why. So, along with figuring out why they needed the objects they did have, they had to figure out why they needed the Sword of Gryffindor, and, when the time came, pass a test of "need and valor" which DD had no doubt that they would pass. Willing a sword that didn't belong to him to convey a cryptic message is perfectly in character for DD in my view. He never tells anyone more than they need to know and often tells them less, and he's been encouraging HRH to figure out riddles since SS/PS. Sorry for the long post. If I knew which parts you find unconvincing, I could concentrate on them. Carol, hoping that Pippin will also post From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 27 03:17:17 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:17:17 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186347 > Zara: > And the appeal is what makes it *easy*. I am sorry, but I still find your interpretation of what it means for a choice to be "Easy, not right", amazingly strained. Magpie: As I said, it's more just very specific. It's not like the characters fail on the morality scale if I don't see them motivated by the ease of the wrong choice. As I said to Alla, I can see the 'easy' element. You're right, we can make just about every choice in the series into right vs. easy. It's still not anything that ever entered my mind upon reading most of them at the same time, but as an exercise, these things can be encapsulated in "easy" vs. "hard." I think, for instance, that the importance of the cowardly choice is that it's cowardly not that it's easy. I can actually totally buy this reading if Dumbledore is just using "easy" as a synonym for "cowardly." Because cowardice etc. is definitely something the books focus on for me. > Zara: > I see. I guess where we disagree is that I do not think Rowling, in giving Albus that phrase, was having him talk about some sort of very specific type of moral dilemma (one I confess I still do not understand) that she would then never again bring up in the remaining 5 novels of her series. Magpie: And I do, so it doesn't really bother me that he says it. She could just be using the phrase in a general way, as I said above. Maybe she really does see it as applying whenever somebody does something that's both hard and good and assumes the bad alternatives are easier and not see a contradiction when the good guys do the wrong thing because it's just easy and helps them out in a pinch and nobody really gets hurt that they can see. I'm not going to say that's wrong or that these choices can't be framed that way. But for me I'd still be using that translation that you suggested above--if for these people 'easy' means 'cowardly' I can just translate the wrong word for the right one and that's the books I read and it all fits together. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 27 03:28:14 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:28:14 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186348 > Alla: > > I am really confused about what you seem to be saying here Pippin. So, basically you are saying that Dumbledore does not own the sword, right? However, he deemed it quite fine to will it to Harry. Eh, I know that WW law is quite far from being clear but this goes way beyond being unclear and uneffective IMO. The object that does not belong to you, you cannot will, no? Pippin: I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK wills often have bequests that can't be enforced, for example because the deceased disposed of the property in question and didn't change the will. Or because ownership of the item is disputed. I could will you my interest in the Brooklyn Bridge, couldn't I? And my executor would have to inform you, regretfully, that the Bridge belongs to the New York Port Authority (or whoever), and so you will not be taking possession of it. You will guess that I must have had some reason for making such an obviously frivolous bequest. I disagree with Carol that the sword did not regard Dumbledore as a worthy Gryffindor and a rightful user. He became one when he took it under conditions of need and valor to destroy the Ring horcrux. But since its guardianship had thus passed to Dumbledore, it wasn't Harry's anymore, and Harry would need to reclaim it properly before he could use it again. Just handing it over with a note wouldn't work, and passing the sword by inheritance does not make you the rightful user as far as the magic is concerned. We had the same situation with Kreacher. Although by the terms of Sirius's will Sirius's house belonged to Harry, it was possible there was magic on the house that wouldn't allow it to be owned by anyone who was not a pureblood. In that case the will could not have been enforced. Dumbledore could have arranged for Harry to take possession of the sword in the proper way before he died, but surely as long as Dumbledore lived, he was better able to guard it than Harry was. He did not expect to be killed before he had demonstrated the use of the sword to Harry,IMO, but I agree with Carol that he trusted that Hermione would be able to tell Harry why Dumbledore would want him to have it if Dumbledore didn't get the chance to do so himself. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 03:53:07 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:53:07 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186349 > Magpie: > I think, for instance, that the importance of the cowardly choice is that it's cowardly not that it's easy. I can actually totally buy this reading if Dumbledore is just using "easy" as a synonym for "cowardly." Because cowardice etc. is definitely something the books focus on for me. Zara: Whereas for me the cardinal virtue of the Potterverse is courage, and its signal, most contemptible vice is cowardice, *because* choosing the hardships of right choices over easy ones, is something the brave are more likely to do. > Magpie: > I'm not going to say that's wrong or that these choices can't be framed that way. But for me I'd still be using that translation that you suggested above--if for these people 'easy' means 'cowardly' I can just translate the wrong word for the right one and that's the books I read and it all fits together. Zara: It's not just "these people", it is me too. That's what I understood the text to mean, without stopping myself to say "Oh gee, I must translate to make any sense of this". Here is the famous phrase in context: > GoF: > "Every guest in this Hall," said Dumbledore, and his eyes lingered upon the Durmstrang students, "will be welcomed back here at any time, should they wish to come. I say to you all, once again - in the light of Lord Voldemort's return, we are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided. Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight it only by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust. Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open. > "It is my belief- and never have I so hoped that I am mistaken - that we are all facing dark and difficult times. Some of you in this Hall have already suffered directly at the hands of Lord Voldemort. Many of your families have been torn asunder. A week ago, a student was taken from our midst. > "Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind, and brave, because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort. Remember Cedric Diggory." Zara: I don't see where your definition of "easy" fits in the context of this speech. Albus does not speak of Voldemort offering people rewards and blandishments, he speaks of Voldemort "spreading discord and enmity". He warns of "dark times", "suffering", and families "torn asunder". And he finishes by asking people to remember Cedric (murdered by Voldemort) when they have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy. To me, it seemed apparent this speech was an exhortation to courage and resistance in the face of disunity and terror. Not, well, I'm still not clear on what you are suggesting Albus meant (or is it should have meant?) here. Choosing to stay out of the strife, or Peter's choice (betraying others to save oneself) are things I do not think it requires an abuse of language to describe as "easy", or certainly, *easier* than the alternatives (joining in a dangerous struggle against the murderous Voldemort, refusing in the face of threats to cooperate with same). From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 04:02:27 2009 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:02:27 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186350 I'm not a fan of Harry as Everyman nor Harry as Jesus figure. I think DD is correct in telling us there's something special about Harry, his capacity to love in spite of his shit life, so it automatically rules out Everyman for me and that doesn't even include Harry's first day in a wizarding establishment with magic people fawning all over him, pawing to touch his robe and be healed (ok, that's a little hyperbolic but the imagery isn't too far off with a 'great scraping of chairs' and he shook all their hands and 'it took 10 minutes to get away from them all.') Similarly, it's easy to rule out Jesus figure. Jesus, a god made everyman, who wept at his friend's death and sweated over his impending crucifixion imploring, pleading or praying that he might get a pass and live. Harry, who witnessed deaths of his peer, his godfather, and his mentor, did not weep. Harry who also dreaded his death, did not question it. He accepted 'Dumbledor's betrayal'. So with man and deity eliminated that only leaves an alien who can go through the motions of being human but not quite mastering the emotions of one. Harry is Superman (with that 'saving people' thing) whose kryptonite doesn't exist. Kemper From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 04:49:33 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:49:33 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186351 Kemper: Similarly, it's easy to rule out Jesus figure. Jesus, a god made everyman, who wept at his friend's death and sweated over his impending crucifixion imploring, pleading or praying that he might get a pass and live. Harry, who witnessed deaths of his peer, his godfather, and his mentor, did not weep. Harry who also dreaded his death, did not question it. He accepted 'Dumbledor's betrayal' sartoris22: I don't want to get into biblical hermeneutics here, but some might question your interpretation of Jesus "imploring, pleading or praying that he might get a pass and live." Even the gospels are inconsistent about Jesus' behavior during his final moments. For example, Matthew says that Jesus' final words were "My God, my God, why has Thou forssaken me," while John says Jesus' last words were "It is finished." Although Jesus' state of mind before and during cruxifiction is debatable, what He and Harry have in common is that they know they must sacrifice themselves for the good of the world and they allow themselves to be killed. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 05:06:04 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:06:04 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I am trying to find the place in the book where HRH finally > figure out that the Sword of Gryffindor will destroy the > Horcruxes because it's been steeped in Basilisk venom (anybody?) zanooda: It's in "The Goblin's Revenge": "The sword can destroy Horcruxes! Goblin-made blades imbibe only that which strengthen then - Harry, that sword's impregnated with basilisk venom!" (p.304). Hermione says it, but I believe Harry guessed it as well :-). From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 06:01:10 2009 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:01:10 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186353 > Kemper earlier: > Similarly, it's easy to rule out Jesus figure. Jesus, a god made everyman, who wept at his friend's death and sweated over his impending crucifixion imploring, pleading or praying that he might get a pass and live. ... > sartoris22: > I don't want to get into biblical hermeneutics here, but some might question your interpretation of Jesus "imploring, pleading or praying that he might get a pass and live." Even the gospels are inconsistent about Jesus' behavior during his final moments. ... Kemper now: Your hermeneutics are off. The reference wasn't on or near the cross. It occurred after dinner in the garden where he sweated and asked God to 'take this cup from me' which I take to mean, "Please, God, can I have a 'Jesus lives' Friday?" Jesus shows his humanity so beautifully in the garden that it makes the Passion more heart felt for the reader whether they believe or not. We can talk more scripture over at HPfGU's Off-Topic sister site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ To bring it back to topic: what are your thoughts if any on Harry as Superman? Kemper From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 06:13:33 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:13:33 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186354 Kemper: To bring it back to topic: what are your thoughts if any on Harry as Superman? sartoris22: My bad. As for Harry as Superman, the main similarities I see is that he is always courageous, proactive, and annoying in his perfection. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 27 14:21:29 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:21:29 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186355 > > Magpie: > > I'm not going to say that's wrong or that these choices can't be framed that way. But for me I'd still be using that translation that you suggested above--if for these people 'easy' means 'cowardly' I can just translate the wrong word for the right one and that's the books I read and it all fits together. > > Zara: > It's not just "these people", it is me too. That's what I understood the text to mean, without stopping myself to say "Oh gee, I must translate to make any sense of this". Magpie: So when Harry decides to take credit for the Prince's work or cheat on his divination homework or Ron decides to Confund the driving instructor, that doesn't at all seem more about "easy" than places where a character is choosing out of cowardice? Because I get that it makes sense, but "cowardice" and "easy" are two different words and I don't see what value there is in conflating the two of them. Especially since, actually, the cowardly choice *isn't* always easy. In fact, I don't think the cowardly choice is easy in many examples of the Potterverse. > Zara: > I don't see where your definition of "easy" fits in the context of this speech. Magpie: It does if I use the translation that easy=cowardly in Dumbledore's speech, perhaps because he assumes cowardly=easy. But since I don't I have to translate to the word that actually fits the concept that he's talking about. If he'd just said "The time when we have to choose what is right over what is cowardly" I'd say there's plenty of examples in canon without wanting to raise my hand and disagree with the idea that because something is cowardly it was easy. Which is probably why I wouldn't be Sorted in Gryffindor. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 14:39:46 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:39:46 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186356 > Magpie: > So when Harry decides to take credit for the Prince's work or cheat on his divination homework or Ron decides to Confund the driving instructor, that doesn't at all seem more about "easy" than places where a character is choosing out of cowardice? Zara: I am not saying that courage vs. cowardice is *exactly the same as* right vs. easy. I am saying that courage vs. cowardice is a prime *example* of right vs. easy (and likely the one Albus had in mind when he spoke the phrase). Cheating in class is another kind of easy, I would agree. Though, even relating to that same example, Harry's fear that Slughorn will realize he has been cheating all year is stated as a motivation for his lies to Snape about the Potions book. This easy choice by Harry is of course shown to have consequences. Harry serves quite a few detentions as a result, and misses the final Quidditch game of the season. On the level of schoolboy infractions (which cheating in class is) this is a serious consequence. > Magpie: > I'd say there's plenty of examples in canon without wanting to raise my hand and disagree with the idea that because something is cowardly it was easy. Which is probably why I wouldn't be Sorted in Gryffindor. Zara: Hmm, no Gryffindor I, either (Ravenclaw all the way) but to me this seems almost a tautology. If not easy, how about "easier"? I mean, why does Peter cut off his own hand? I agree that, *to me*, letting Voldy-baby drown in his cauldron seems the easier choice. (Leaving him in Albania seems even easier, a real no-brainer). But what matters is what Peter thinks. And to me, anyway, it seems that to Peter standing up for himself and trying to strike out on his own, is so incredibly dauntingly difficult, at least in his mind, that he sees himself as having no choice but to comply with the bully du jour. Whether it is not reacting to Sirius's insults as a teen, or performing difficult tasks for Voldemort as an adult. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 27 15:03:29 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:03:29 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186357 > > Magpie: > > So when Harry decides to take credit for the Prince's work or cheat on his divination homework or Ron decides to Confund the driving instructor, that doesn't at all seem more about "easy" than places where a character is choosing out of cowardice? > > Zara: > I am not saying that courage vs. cowardice is *exactly the same as* right vs. easy. I am saying that courage vs. cowardice is a prime *example* of right vs. easy (and likely the one Albus had in mind when he spoke the phrase). Magpie: But I don't see it as a prime example of it, so I have to change the word. Zara: Cheating in class is another kind of easy, I would agree. Though, even relating to that same example, Harry's fear that Slughorn will realize he has been cheating all year is stated as a motivation for his lies to Snape about the Potions book. > > This easy choice by Harry is of course shown to have consequences. Harry serves quite a few detentions as a result, and misses the final Quidditch game of the season. On the level of schoolboy infractions (which cheating in class is) this is a serious consequence. Magpie: Harry's detentions are pretty firmly put into the context of Snape hating Harry, not Harry getting any sort of fair detention for cheating. He's never outed as a cheater and feels his detentions are Snape liking to stick it to him. > > Magpie: > > I'd say there's plenty of examples in canon without wanting to raise my hand and disagree with the idea that because something is cowardly it was easy. Which is probably why I wouldn't be Sorted in Gryffindor. > > Zara: > Hmm, no Gryffindor I, either (Ravenclaw all the way) but to me this seems almost a tautology. If not easy, how about "easier"? Magpie: Easier, I suppose it is, though we're getting back to that problem of any choice you prefer is going to be easier than the one you don't. Just seems like we're watering down the concept when "cowardly" just fits better. I don't have to even change it to "easier" for things like Ron vs. his driving test. Zara: I mean, why does Peter cut off his own hand? I agree that, *to me*, letting Voldy-baby drown in his cauldron seems the easier choice. Magpie: And to me, this is a great example of why "cowardly" is a lot better word choice. The time has come to choose between right vs. easy. Easy in this case being to cut off your own hand. The idea of somebody saying "Well, I just cut off my own hand because it was easier" just sounds hilarious. Where as "I cut off my own hand because I was terrified and feared the alternative even more than cutting off my hand" makes more sense--and is how I would describe the scene. Ironically, Peter's choices probably even aren't truly the ones that lead to easy. But being a coward he always caves to the bully. Zara: (Leaving him in Albania seems even easier, a real no-brainer). But what matters is what Peter thinks. And to me, anyway, it seems that to Peter standing up for himself and trying to strike out on his own, is so incredibly dauntingly difficult, at least in his mind, that he sees himself as having no choice but to comply with the bully du jour. Magpie: Yup, but I think it's established this was also out of fear, right? He was afraid of the other MWPP coming to get him? Not dauntingly difficult, dauntingly scary. He likes to be protected by the biggest bully on the block. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 27 15:56:22 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:56:22 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186358 > Magpie: > And to me, this is a great example of why "cowardly" is a lot better word choice. The time has come to choose between right vs. easy. Easy in this case being to cut off your own hand. The idea of somebody saying "Well, I just cut off my own hand because it was easier" just sounds hilarious. Pippin: Not if you finish the sentence "easier than getting killed." IMO, Dumbledore uses "easy" instead of "cowardly" because he isn't only thinking of cowardice. He's thinking of apathy and defeatism as well. He's thinking of Fudge, who won't admit that Voldemort is back because it's easier to convince himself that things are okay than to admit that he's inadequate to the situation, and who will be trying to persuade others to share his views. Dumbledore is also mindful of his audience, most of whom would not consider themselves cowards, and therefore couldn't imagine themselves being tempted by cowardice. OTOH, being lazy is something they enjoy. You seem to be interpreting the easy choice as "easier to live with" and saying that ought to be the same as "easier to make." That might work if people had perfect information and made decisions rationally. But they don't. For one thing, they're biased towards short term gains. Peter had plenty of time to discover that it's not easy living as a coward, but it was familiar and so, moment to moment, it took less effort than trying to be brave. It isn't easy for Ron to live with his insecurities, but they do give him an excuse for not competing with those he loves. Short term, that's easier than the risk of making his friends and family jealous. Lupin has the insight to know he's a coward, and that's not easy, but it's easier, short-term, than braving the risk of angering a friend. In DH, he finally does something to make Harry angry, Lupin gets angry back, and guess what, the world does not come to an end for either of them. Pippin Where as "I cut off my own hand because I was terrified and feared the alternative even more than cutting off my hand" makes more sense--and is how I would describe the scene. Ironically, Peter's choices probably even aren't truly the ones that lead to easy. But being a coward he always caves to the bully. > > Zara: > (Leaving him in Albania seems even easier, a real no-brainer). But what matters is what Peter thinks. And to me, anyway, it seems that to Peter standing up for himself and trying to strike out on his own, is so incredibly dauntingly difficult, at least in his mind, that he sees himself as having no choice but to comply with the bully du jour. > > Magpie: > Yup, but I think it's established this was also out of fear, right? He was afraid of the other MWPP coming to get him? Not dauntingly difficult, dauntingly scary. He likes to be protected by the biggest bully on the block. > > -m > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 17:32:48 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:32:48 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186359 Pippin wrote: > I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK wills often have bequests that can't be enforced, for example because the deceased disposed of the property in question and didn't change the will. Or because ownership of the item is disputed. Carol responds: Right. And I'm pretty sure that Dumbledore knew that his bequeathing the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry would be disputed. ;-) The point of the bequest was not to *give* Harry the sword but to inform Harry that he would need it and let him figure out why. (Actually delivering the sword to Harry could be accomplished later via Snape.) Pippin: > I disagree with Carol that the sword did not regard Dumbledore as a worthy Gryffindor and a rightful user. He became one when he took it under conditions of need and valor to destroy the Ring horcrux. But since its guardianship had thus passed to Dumbledore, it wasn't Harry's anymore, and Harry would need to reclaim it properly before he could use it again. Just handing it over with a note wouldn't work, and passing the sword by inheritance does not make you the rightful user as far as the magic is concerned. Carol responds: I see your point here and I'm revising my view of Dumbledore accordingly. I still see him as the guardian of the Sword both--before and after Harry used it--because he's headmaster, much as he's also the guardian, not the owner, of the Sorting Hat. (Harry was not the guardian of the sword until after Ron used it, and he lost it to Griphook. Oops.) But I agree that if the need to destroy a Horcrux meets the "need" criterion for Ron (the locket) and Neville (Nagini), it must also meet that criterion for Dumbledore even though the sword was already in his office and didn't come to him as it did to Neville and Harry and he didn't earn the right to use it through valor as Ron did. I suppose, however, that using your last strength to destroy a Horcrux that has already cursed you before calling for help meets the "valor" criterion. So even though the sword didn't choose him or come to him and even though neither Scrimgeour nor Harry knew that DD had used the sword, I'll happily add him to the list of "worthy Gryffindors." However, as Scrimgeour points out, being a "worthy Gryffindor" to whom the sword has come (or, in DD's case, who has used the sword under "conditions of need and valor") does not make the "worthy Gryffindor" the owner of the Sword. Nor does Dumbledore, who is its guardian not its last user but as headmaster (the guardianship passes to Snape, as we see in DH), have the right or the authority to will the sword, as Scrimgeour points out. He starts to say who it belongs to, but Hermione interrupts him. "Unfortunately, that sword was not Dumbledore's to give away. The Sword of Gryffindor is an important historical artifact, and as such belongs----------" (DH Ame. ed. 129). To whom? Not Dumbledore or any one person, apparently. I'm curious to know how others would fill in that blank. I'm torn between Hogwarts and the Wizarding World, but Gryffindor House is another possibility since evidently the sword doesn't aid anyone from any other house. (Whether they could wield it, I don't know, but it wouldn't "choose" them, to use Hermione's word.) At any rate, we see through Neville in particular that Scrimgeour is right in saying that "the sword may present itself to any worthy Gryffindor." Assuming he is also right in saying "That does not make it the exclusive property of Mr. Potter," it would also not be "the exclusive property" of Dumbledore, its guardian and last user but not its owner. Scrimgeour does not question Dumbledore's right to will HRH the Deluminator, the book of runes, or the Snitch (which, in any case, is already more Harry's than his). He does examine those items and try to discover their secrets (which, as Minister for Magic, he is legally entitled to do), but he follows the law in distributing them to their owners when the thirty-one days are up (124). As Harry and Hermione agree, Dumbledore must have known that he would examine the will and the bequeathed items, as the law that Hermione and Scrimgeour discuss allows him to do, and he must have known that Scrimgeour would deliver the items that he had the right to bequeath and withhold the Sword of Gryffindor because, guardian or not, "worthy Gryffindor" or not, it was not his to bequeath. I agree with Pippin's last sentence, "Just handing it over with a note wouldn't work, and passing the sword by inheritance does not make you the rightful user as far as the magic is concerned." Just as possession of the Elder Wand doesn't make you its master, possession of or former use of the Sword of Gryffindor doesn't make you its owner with the right to bequeath it or give it away. As Harry realizes when he tells Ron that Ron is "supposed" to destroy the locket Horcrux, it's the magic that matters. Pippin: > Dumbledore could have arranged for Harry to take possession of the sword in the proper way before he died, but surely as long as Dumbledore lived, he was better able to guard it than Harry was. Carol: By "proper way," do you mean retrieving it "under conditions of need and valor" like those that Snape set up? I think he planned all along to have Snape deliver it in some such way. (The plan is Snape's own, but he already knew the conditions that had to be met.} Pippin: > He did not expect to be killed before he had demonstrated the use of the sword to Harry,IMO, but I agree with Carol that he trusted that Hermione would be able to tell Harry why Dumbledore would want him to have it if Dumbledore didn't get the chance to do so himself. Carol: This is a small point, but I think that if DD had intended for Harry to know that the Sword would destroy Horcruxes because of the Basilisk venom, the time to tell him was when he explained that his hand had been cursed by the ring Horcrux and that Snape had saved him. He promises to tell "that thrilling tale" at a later time but never does, and Harry only finds out that DD used the Sword of Gryffindor to destroy the Horcrux (but not the curse) when he views Snape's memories in the Pensieve. DD knew that Draco was planning to kill him. He even knew, before the visit to the cave, that Draco had succeeded in whatever he was trying to do in the Room of Requirement, which almost certainly meant that DD would die that very night, by Snape's hand if DD's plan succeeded. He thought that he and Harry would find a real Horcrux in the cave. Before they left on that expedition, he had one last chance to tell Harry how to destroy that Horcrux if he himself could not do it. But he forfeited that opportunity. Why would he do that? I think it's because he had already written the will, not as a back-up plan but as the only plan. He intended to tell Harry cryptically, through the will, that he would need the Sword of Gryffindor, leaving him to figure out why. As for delivering the sword, if "conditions of need and valor" that the Sword would recognize and honor did not arise on their own, as they did for Neville, he could arrange to have Snape create them (which is exactly what happened). Carol, noting that Dumbledore works in mysterious ways, even (somehow) arranging for his own portrait to carry on his interaction with Snape From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 17:46:53 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:46:53 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186360 Kemper wrote: > > Similarly, it's easy to rule out Jesus figure. Jesus, a god made everyman, who wept at his friend's death and sweated over his impending crucifixion imploring, pleading or praying that he might get a pass and live. Harry, who witnessed deaths of his peer, his godfather, and his mentor, did not weep. Harry who also dreaded his death, did not question it. He accepted 'Dumbledor's betrayal' Carol responds: Just a small point here. Any interpretation that can be supported by canon is a valid interpretation, and one valid interpretation does not invalidate another. Christ figure, Everyman, and superhero are all in this sense valid approaches whether we agree with them or not because canonical evidence can be used to support them all. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the only possible interpretations any more than "the hero's journey" is the only way to interpret a text. For you, the differences between Christ and Harry "rule out" a Christ figure interpretation, but others have shown that such parallels do exist (and are intended by the author). No Christ figure will be or can be exactly like Christ, just as no other superhero is exactly Superman. Carol, who would be interested in seeing the "superhero" parallels and learning why only Harry qualifies as a superhero in your view when all Wizards can perform magic (a "superpower" from the standpoint of us Muggles) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 18:46:54 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:46:54 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186361 Carol earlier: > > > I am trying to find the place in the book where HRH finally figure out that the Sword of Gryffindor will destroy the Horcruxes because it's been steeped in Basilisk venom (anybody?) > zanooda: > > It's in "The Goblin's Revenge": "The sword can destroy Horcruxes! Goblin-made blades imbibe only that which strengthen then - Harry, that sword's impregnated with basilisk venom!" (p.304). Hermione says it, but I believe Harry guessed it as well :-). > Carol: Thanks very much. That makes sense because it's the chapter in which they find out that a fake Sword of Gryffindor has been stolen and given into the keeping of the DEs. So the kids figure out why they need the Sword of Gryffindor before Snape places it in the icy pool--just as, IMO, Dumbledore intended that they would when he wrote his will. Apparently, the key piece of evidence that they needed to solve the mystery was that the sword was Goblin-made, which tells Hermione that it would have absorbed the Basilisk venom. They already knew that Basilisk venom would destroy a Horcrux and that DD managed to destroy the ring Horcrux after being cursed by it, but they didn't know how. Overhearing the Goblin's conversation and learning from Phineas Nigellus that the last time he saw the sword leave its case was when DD used it to destroy a ring in his office gives them the information they need to put two and two together. (I was wrong about Harry not knowing that DD had used the sword to destroy the Horcrux until the Pensieve memory. Bangs head on desk.) At this point, IMO, Dumbledore's plan of using the will to inform Harry that he needs the Sword and having the Trio (really Hermione with help from Harry) figure out why he needs it has been fulfilled. Step two is getting the sword to Harry under the right conditions. Just after Phineas reveals that he saw DD use the sword to destroy a ring, Harry asks whether he's told Professor Snape what he saw, and Phineas makes his exit, presumably to report to Portrait!DD and Snape. He doesn't overhear them figure out that the sword can be used to destroy Horcruxes, but Portrait!DD will know from his report that they now have sufficient evidence to solve the riddle and that the time is nearing for Snape (who has already given the fake sword to the DEs) to deliver the real sword under the conditions that I've already discussed. The chapter also answers Alla's questions (sorry I didn't look a little farther before posting earlier--I knew it was here somewhere!): After Hermione figures out that the sword can destroy Horcruxes because it has absorbed the Basilisk venom, Harry says, "And Dumbledore didn't give it to me because he still needed it, he wanted to use it on the locket--" Hermione chimes in, "--and he must have realized they wouldn't let you have it if he put it in his will--" Harry: "--so he made a copy--" Hermione: "--and put a fake in the glass case--" Harry: "--and he left the real one--where?" They've solved the riddle (although I don't see why making a copy of the sword was necessary to the original plan if DD knew that Scrimgeour would leave it in the headmaster's office), with the exception of the real sword's being entrusted to Snape. (Does anyone think it was really Snape who made the fake sword after Ginny, Neville, and Luna tried to steal it?) Does that answer your question, Alla? Whether or not the sword was DD's to give (I don't think it was, but that doesn't matter), DD knew that Scrimgeour or whoever proved the will wouldn't let Harry have it. Nevertheless, he used the will to communicate to Harry that harry need the sword, trusting that the Trio (especially Hermione) would figure out why they needed it. Once Portrait!DD knows that they had sufficient information to solve the riddle, he apparently tells Snape that Harry will need the sword but can only take it "under conditions of need and valor." Snape forms his plan but can't carry it out until he knows where the Trio is hiding. As soon Phineas Nigellus tells them that the kids (actually just Harry and Hermione at this point) are hiding in the Forest of Dean, Portrait!DD sends Snape out to put his plan into action. Ron rather than Harry retrieves the sword "under conditions of need and valor" and earns the right to use the sword, which the kids now know can be used to destroy a Horcrux. Plan complete. It makes perfect sense to me now (except for DD's creating the fake sword--I think it must have been Snape who did it under circumstances that the Trio could not possibly understand and DD could not have anticipated). Carol, who had forgotten a few pieces of the puzzle but thinks that she has them properly assembled now From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 27 20:55:40 2009 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:55:40 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186362 > > Magpie: > > And to me, this is a great example of why "cowardly" is a lot better word choice. The time has come to choose between right vs. easy. Easy in this case being to cut off your own hand. The idea of somebody saying "Well, I just cut off my own hand because it was easier" just sounds hilarious. > > Pippin: > Not if you finish the sentence "easier than getting killed." Magpie: I gotta say that for me yes, even if you finish the sentence easier than getting killed. "What is easy" just doesn't relate well into "cut off your own hand." Those were two hard things Peter was choosing between there. I think most people would find it easier to die. Pippin: > Peter had plenty of time to discover that it's not easy living as a coward, but it was familiar and so, moment to moment, it took less effort than trying to be brave. Mapgie: Yes, I really do get this reading of "easy." Likewise Sirius finds it easier to run off and fight Voldemort than he does to stay in Grimmauld Place (which makes him feel like a coward). The main point seems to just be that Dumbledore's telling everybody to just do what's right, mmmkay? And that means fighting Voldemort. Whether you're too scared or too protective of your position, or whatever. -m From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 27 22:52:12 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:52:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 References: Message-ID: <3E1EE739BD83495692BF38862AB9376D@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186363 Miles: I had the same unpleasant feeling about that scene in the epilogue. It reminded me why I always had a bad feeling about "shipping" Ron and Hermione. I'm quite sure that Rowling planned them coming together from the beginning, but since I do not like couples of that kind in real life (you know, one bossy partner, always planning for both, setting rules, making decisions, the other partner indulgent, only rarely taking a stand, but usually giving in), I do not like Hermione and Ron as a pair. By the way, am I the only one that sees a reflection of Molly and Arthur? And would it be unfair to think about how JKR's husband might be? Magpie: Re: Ron and Hermione, I have the same view about them. I do think they were always obviously made to come together but to be honest, every time I imagine them as adults I picture them divorced. I know that's not canon, but it's just what I always see in my head. Shelley: I have no problem with marriages where two people are evenly matched. In my own marriage, we are two stubborn first-borns, and in that, we fight a lot at times, but each of us knows who we are and can stand up for ourselves. We have, over the years, come to a place where we are each allowed to have our strengths and we make room for the other. It makes me extremely uncomfortable to see one weak partner and one strong partner- I see the strong potential for abuse in those cases. Yes, honestly, I only ever saw Hermione and Ron as divorced- I don't know how Hermione, a strong, confident woman, would ever put up with a bungling and disappointing Ron. I don't know how Ron would be able to put up with, even in joking, the idea that "she doesn't have confidence in me". That's a match that doesn't work, IMHO. I guess I never saw Molly and Arthur as that kind of reflection- Molly is strong, but I don't ever hear Arthur doubting his wife's confidence in him, or saying that Molly doesn't trust him. I don't ever see Molly manipulating or bullying Arthur in any way, the way that I imagined that a Hermione-Ron pairing would end up. Not that Hermione would ever intend to be superior, but that her confidence would keep coming in contact with Ron's insecurities. Arthur does have his hobbies and his job, even if Molly doesn't always approve of his choices, she doesn't actively tell him "no", he can't do something. Arthur doesn't have those insecurities that keep him from succeeding- he is successful and liked among his peers, and Molly does trust him to as a member of the Order and thinks that he is very important. We don't hear those kinds of affirmations out of Hermione's mouth. Frankly, I didn't think of Rowling's current husband, but her first one. They ended up divorced, and so part of me wondered subconscientiously which character represented her first husband's faults. Shelley From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 27 22:57:44 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:57:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 References: Message-ID: <49423D02E1744ED398353713BAA92068@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186364 > sartoris22: > > I totally get what you're saying here, but Ron's saving grace is that he > argues with Hermione, which is one reason, I think, Hermione likes him. In > OOTP Harry comments on their constant arguing, almost equivalent to our > "get a room." While Ron hiding his driving failure from Hermione is > problematic, I don't think he's really like Arthur, who never challenges > Molly. Shelley: I disagree with the idea that Arthur never challenges Molly. Several instances come to my mind- after the Snake bite, Arthur gets stitches. He knows Molly wouldn't like the idea of a "Muggle" cure, but frankly, he's open to that idea and won't let Molly's lack of understanding of what it is prevent him from seeking that as a treatment option. He's not so afraid of her that it stops him from facing that challenge that he knows will come from her mouth. There are several other instances in the books where he says something to the effect of "Molly won't like this, but I will deal with her". No, he's strong enough to stand his ground when it's necessary. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 23:02:07 2009 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:02:07 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186365 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > I don't see why making a copy of the sword was necessary to the > original plan if DD knew that Scrimgeour would leave it in > the headmaster's office zanooda: I think DD could have done it just to be on the safe side. He couldn't be sure that Scrimgeour will leave it in the headmaster's office. Or, he was afraid that after the school was taken over by the DEs, LV would want to take it for himself - he likes to collect objects of this kind :-). Anyway, it was safer to have the real sword hidden, just in case, so that only Snape knew where it was. All this means that the sword that Ginny & Co tried to steal was actually a fake :-). However, the version of events where the fake sword was made by Snape is also possible, IMO. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 27 23:21:54 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:21:54 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186366 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > Plan complete. It makes perfect sense to me now (except for DD's creating the fake sword--I think it must have been Snape who did it under circumstances that the Trio could not possibly understand and DD could not have anticipated). Pippin: The sword is a well-known and extremely valuable item. People would notice if it disappeared. Pippin From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 27 23:24:13 2009 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:24:13 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186367 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol responds: >snip> > All in all, I'd say that Scrimgeour was right. The Sword of Gryffindor does not belong to Dumbledore or to Harry (or Ron or Neville, both of whom later earn the right to wield it--once). It belongs, in a sense, to all Gryffindors and will present itself under the right conditions to the Gryffindor of its own choosing (with or without the aid of the Sorting Hat). Surely, Dumbledore knew that--and knew that Scrimgeour or whoever proved the will would not allow it to be given away. He did, however, wish Harry to know that he would need the Sword of Gryffindor in his quest to destroy the Horcruxes. How better to do that than to "bequeath" it to Harry in his will? As Pippin says, willing the sword to Harry (without actually giving it to him) let Harry know that he would need the sword without letting anyone else (specifically Scrimgeour or whichever Ministry official read the will) know why Harry needed it. > >> jkoney: The only problem I have with this line of thinking is when is the sword no longer Harry's? Does it happen immediately after he slays the basilisk? Since it doesn't disappear, I would argue that it is Harry's until some other Gryffendor needs it. At that point it would vanish and go to the new person. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Apr 27 23:59:37 2009 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:59:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 References: Message-ID: <02ADA8482F2D4C12A146ABA7B63CA778@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 186368 From: "lealess" > I have no religious affiliation, which is probably why I don't "get" the > concept of redemption. What is its purpose: to lift the burden of sin and > grant entrance into the kingdom of heaven? If that is so, then, within > the context of the books, heaven must be the accepting embrace of the > Wizarding World, or maybe Harry's forgiveness. > > I'm not sure how important a theme redemption really is in the books. I > don't even see the Wizarding World being redeemed for its sins, frankly. Shelley: I agree with you in that the WW is not redeemed of its sins. But, I disagree about the redemption theme in general- redemption is a restoration to an ealier time. You redeem someone who has been sold into slavery- you pay their fee so that you buy their freedom. Harry, through his actions, buys back the freedom of all of the WW. In an earlier post, I tried to illustrate this concept. I will copy it here: " I said you missed the point of sin/salvation in the Christian story, and I said that in specific reference to Harry being a Christ figure in DH, in particular. If you know that the point of having one's sin's removed is restoration and freedom, then you understand what Harry was dying for as a Christ figure, what he was giving back to the WW. He wasn't dying for anyone's sins, but the restoration of the WW back to a time when they didn't live in terror of one Wizard, back to a time when they were all free to have relationships, marry and have kids, have shops and open commerce without manipulation, control or bondage from Voldemort. He was dying for reconciliation. Rowling didn't have to explain all that post-Voldemort liberation, because if you understand that liberation from sin, you understand the JOY that would have been the WW's without Voldemort. Rowling then didn't have to fill in all those details for us- they would have been easily understood." For a Christian, it's not the sin that necessarily that is bad- it's the separation it causes that is bad. Sin separates us from God, and from fellowship with our fellow man. Sin caused Adam and Eve to be afraid of God, to hide from Him, when previously they had an open, free relationship with Him without any fear. They walked with Him, talked with Him, and had fellowship. When sin entered, they cowered in fear at just hearing His voice. Fellowship had been broken. Following this line of thought, it was Voldemort who was the sin- separating families, causing people to fear one another. Removing Voldemort would have caused the WW to be able to come together again, without fear. A common word picture for sin is to say that removing it is to be freed from bondage- sin is often compared to slavery in the New Testament. Voldemort kept the whole WW in bondage. We see Luna's father willing to betray Harry out of fear for his daughter, we see families running underground out of fear of being separated, we see people abandoning livelihoods and businesses out of fear. All of the WW fell into darkness and suspicion of their fellow man because of Voldemort. I guess that is why Harry offered a hand to Voldemort, to say that he could be forgiven, too, that he could be restored into a right relationship with other Wizards, but Voldemort rejected that redemption and reconciliation with other people. As a result, it would take longer for the other wizards who had sided with him to have redemption too. No, in the practical sence, the WW is not redeemed for it's sins, as we think of them in a religious context. The Wizards still make wrong choices, might still abuse Muggles, and so forth. Heaven, and the acceptance into heaven is not the question placed to us in this series, nor was that the choice given to Harry. Harry is only a Christ figure in that he is the key that brings recociliation with other Wizards once Voldemort is removed, that he restores freedom of choice and relationships and lack of fear for all the WW. And he would have done that whether or not Voldemort had "repented" or not. Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 02:49:26 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:49:26 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: <3E1EE739BD83495692BF38862AB9376D@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186369 Shelley wrote: > Yes, honestly, I only ever saw Hermione and Ron as divorced- I don't know how Hermione, a strong, confident woman, would ever put up with a bungling and disappointing Ron. I don't know how Ron would be able to put up with, even in joking, the idea that "she doesn't have confidence in me". That's a match that doesn't work, IMHO. Carol responds: If it weren't for the scene in which Ron destroys the Horcrux, I would agree with you. Much as I like him, he's just too insecure. He praises Hermione for her brilliance, but I can't think of any occasion when she praises him (or isn't surprised when he does well). And I'm not sure that Hermione will ever change (though she does become more rational about the House-Elves). But she does love Ron, and he *does* change. That's the whole point of the Horcrux destruction scene. How can a boy (young man, if you prefer) who has dived into icy water to save the Chosen One and retrieve the Sword of Gryffindor and who has used that Sword to destroy the Horcrux that mocked him (and which symbolically represents his insecurities) ever feel insecure again? He's been judged a "worthy Gryffindor" by the Sword of Gryffindor itself, which puts him in the same category as Harry, a full-fledged hero. From that point on, he doesn't become any more brilliant, but his humor returns, as does his optimism. He even takes the lead in trying to get Harry to focus on Horcruxes instead of Hallows, IIRC. He participates in the adventure with the Cup Horcrux and the dragon without ever expressing fear or messing up, he fights bravely against the DEs in the battle of Hogwarts, and he has the confidence to let *Hermione* destroy the cup Horcrux after he has had the resourcefulness to get them into the Chamber of Secrets in the first place. A Ron who still lacked confidence would have wanted to destroy the cup Horcrux himself to show Hermione that he was "worthy." And Ron stands up to Hermione after he destroys the Horcrux and she's hurling tears and screams and insults at him. Before Harry places a Protego between them, she starts "punching every inch of him that she could reach." "You--complete--*arse*--Ronald--Weasley!" she begins. Admittedly, Ron at first just tells her to "Gerroff!' and starts backing away, but even Harry doesn't blame for retreating several steps when she starts pointing at him and screeching what sounds like a malediction. Ron apologizes and she laughs like Bellatrix Lestrange, completely out of control with rage. Ron looks to Harry for help, and Harry helpfully grimaces with helplessness. But when Hermione shouts "You came back after weeks--*weeks*--and you think it's all going to be all right if you just say you're *sorry*?" Ron stands his ground and shouts, "Well, what else can I say?" Hermione gives a sarcastic retort, Harry, who's glad that Ron is fighting back, tries to intervene by pointing out that Ron has just saved his life, Hermione screams, "I don't care! I don't care what he's done! Weeks and weeks, we could have been *dead* for all he knew--" Ron interrupts with a "bellow" that drowns out Hermione's voice (doesn't sound as if he's afraid or insecure to me): "I knew you weren't dead!" and he comes as close to Hermione as the Shield Charm will allow. He starts off by mentioning the articles in the Prophet and after one interruption by Hermione (whose indignation then conveniently renders her speechless), he explains that he wanted to come back the minute he Disapparate but was prevented from doing so by Snatchers. Hermione listens angrily, but the information is new to her and she lets him speak. When he's finished, she returns to her sarcasm: "Gosh, what a gripping story." She mentions that she and Harry were nearly killed by Nagini and narrowly missed encountering Voldemort. Ignoring Ron's astonished "What?" she continues with her rant. "Imagine losing fingernails, Harry!" Harry reminds him that Ron just saved his life, but she ignores him, asking how Ron found them, at which point he tells the story of the Deluminator, and when Ron mentions that he heard Hermione speak his name in connection with a wand, she turns scarlet. Ron has touched a chord. She remembers, apparently, how much she missed him and from that point on is quiet and reasonable. Ron has won the round. She doesn't hug him and, after he says that at least she hasn't set birds on him again, she does say from her bed that she hasn't ruled it out, but she is no longer screaming, sarcastic, and irrational. Ron's next tactic is to behave with dutiful solemnity around Hermione, but that this behavior does not reflect his real mental state is indicated by his cheerful optimism around Harry. His final tactic is to side with Hermione against Harry, casting the deciding vote that they will go to see Xenophilius Lovegood. Harry calls him on the move, pointing out that he only agreed with her to "get back in her good books," and Ron responds with "All's fair in love and war." IOW, Ron now knows exactly how to deal with Hermione. And he no longer worries, at any point in the remaining chapters, about his own worthiness, nor does he ever at any point doubt Hermione's love for him. Carol, with apologies for going into such detail and for being temporarily obsessed with Ron's triumph over the Horcrux From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 28 14:59:08 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:59:08 -0000 Subject: Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: <3E1EE739BD83495692BF38862AB9376D@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186370 > > Shelley: Yes, honestly, I only ever saw > Hermione and Ron as divorced- I don't know how Hermione, a strong, confident woman, would ever put up with a bungling and disappointing Ron. Pippin: Hermione isn't always confident. She goes into a tizzy every time her grades are due, and I bet it's going to be the same every time there's an evaluation at her workplace. It's Ron who teasingly reminds her that she's got nothing to worry about. Hermione is so much more verbal than Ron that it's easy to think he doesn't know how to assert himself. But have you noticed that when Ron and Hermione are on their own, they do what Ron likes to do? They go to Quidditch matches, they visit the candy store in Hogsmeade, and they *don't* go to the library. Fetching basilisk fangs from the Chamber is Ron's idea as well. But when Harry and Hermione are stuck together it's the other way around. It's Harry who doesn't know how to get his way, whether it's telling her he's really getting tired of hanging out in the library in GoF or giving in on Godric's Hollow in DH. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 28 17:43:39 2009 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:43:39 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186371 Kemper: > To bring it back to topic: what are your thoughts if any on Harry > as Superman? sartoris22: > My bad. As for Harry as Superman, the main similarities I see is > that he is always courageous, proactive, and annoying in his > perfection. SSSusan: Hee. I like that final bit, Sartoris. :) Kemper, I'd point to what Carol wrote -- > Carol, who would be interested in seeing the "superhero" parallels > and learning why only Harry qualifies as a superhero in your view > when all Wizards can perform magic (a "superpower" from the > standpoint of us Muggles) -- and as if you could say more about the superpowers you see within Harry that would qualify him as Superman. I mean, I get why, for you, you come down as neither Jesus nor Everyman, but I want to know how you see Superman in him instead. Is it mostly that Something About Harry capacity? (And if so, how would that be described, exactly?) Is it his willingness to take the risky, dangerous move when others would run or hide? Are you thinking some actual superpowers? Siriusly Snapey Susan, who has always believed there was Something About Harry, even when others rolled their eyes at that, but who isn't so sure she'd ever argue Superman From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 28 18:42:39 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:42:39 -0000 Subject: banning Beedle / Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186372 > Carol wrote in : > > << What annoyed me in the books was that Ron, who had been hailed as a Quidditch champion in OoP ("Weasley is our king") was back to the same old insecurities in HBP with the Felix Felicis episode. Catlady responded: > I think probably I can say that 'self-confident' and 'feeling insecure' are opposites; 25-ish years ago I was in a mlist with some people who spoke of 'internal validation' and 'external validation', where 'internal validation' is roughly the same as 'self-confidence'. Presumably there is some sort of premise that humans need validation, so people who lack internal validation seek validation elsewhere i.e. externally. Meaning that people who seek praise or admiration are guilty of feeling insecure. > > The above was all explanation of terms that I will use in my reply: > > In real life, people who lack self-confidence do not gain it from just one gloriously, intoxicatingly, ecstatically joyous and pleasurable instance of external validation. That high wears off and one gradually goes back to one's normal self. So I never understood why you always complained that Rowling depicted Ron realistically in this matter. It seemed to me obvious all along that << his insecurity [is] a terrible burden that he constantly bears and only occasionally reveals to his friends >> just like in real life. I am struck that it took literary analysis for you to figure this out. Carol responds: My initial reaction to Ron was as a reader, not analyzing the text as a literary critic but simple annoyance with Ron as a character or person (Why are you acting like this? You can play Quidditch! Get over it!) and with JKR for writing a scene so similar to one we'd already gone through with the same outcome (Ron proves that he can play Quidditch when he gets over his mental blocks). My reaction was, okay, we've been here already. Why are you making him go through the same process all over again? I don't think in sociological terms ("internal validation" vs. "external validation") though I do see the point you're making, that praise and recognition are not a permanent cure for low self-esteem. I don't think that I would have arrived at that conclusion on my own, and it certainly was not a given for me as it evidently was for you. I do think in terms of literary analysis, as you know, but my understanding of Ron (not necessarily the same as anyone else's) did not come from literary analysis, which is my after-the-fact explanation of the conclusions I arrived at. It came from Ron's confrontation with the Horcrux, which served for me--as it did, IMO, for Harry and perhaps for Ron himself--as an epiphany. So *that's* why Ron acts as he does. *That's* why he can't get over his lack of self-confidence and realize that he's a good Quidditch player and a loyal friend and that Hermione loves him and whatever. I did understand why Ron would lack confidence given that he's the seventh son that his brothers are all successful in their various ways. That's a lot to live up to without the additional burden of being the best friend of Harry Potter. But I didn't understand why proving himself on the Quidditch field didn't help him to get over it (unless it was because Harry and Hermione didn't witness his saves), and I certainly didn't see why JKR would inflict a similar scene on the reader (other than that the plot required her to foreshadow the effects of Felix Felicis and to have Ron and Hermione at odds with each other again. Now I understand that episode *as a literary device* illustrating that Ron's insecurity is so strongly rooted that no amount of what you call "external validation" can root it out. Only self-understanding and an unequivocally heroic action in which he actually saves the heretofore "superior" Harry can give him the self-confidence and self-esteem ("internal validation") that he needs to accept himself as a person worthy of Hermione's love and Harry's friendship. Once he understands that he is both competent and courageous (a true Gryffindor), he no longer needs praise or applause or even Hermione's approval. He can stand up to her and be confident that she'll come back to him. No more fear that he'll lose Hermione); no more envy of Harry; no more desire to follow in the footsteps of his brothers. He's free of the demons that have tormented him for years, free to be himself. Carol, who hates the abstraction of sociological terms and simply does not think in that way From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Apr 28 21:59:34 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:59:34 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sartoris22" wrote: > > Kemper: > To bring it back to topic: what are your thoughts if any on Harry as Superman? sartoris22: > My bad. As for Harry as Superman, the main similarities I see is that he is always courageous, proactive, and annoying in his perfection. Geoff: In passing, Harry used a Crucio curse on Bellatrix, Sectumsempra on Draco, attempted two Crucios an a Sectumsempra on Snape - most of these in a blind rage and cheated in Potions inter alia. Yes, I agree. He is a trifle annoying in his perfection. :-) He's a good Everyman though.... From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 28 23:38:36 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:38:36 -0000 Subject: Right vs. Easy (Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186374 > Magpie: > I gotta say that for me yes, even if you finish the sentence easier than getting killed. "What is easy" just doesn't relate well into "cut off your own hand." Those were two hard things Peter was choosing between there. I think most people would find it easier to die. > Pippin: Most people haven't turned spy, betrayed their friends, cut off one of their own fingers and murdered thirteen people. Peter's humanity has shrunk along with the intact part of his soul. There isn't much left of him beyond the simple instinct to survive, IMO, and so he cuts off his hand the way an animal would chew its leg off to escape a trap. But there is *something* left. It's kind of amazing that Harry can say, "You owe me, Wormtail" and mean, "You owe me for saving your life" and not "You owe me for betraying my parents and murdering my classmate." Although Harry once agreed that Wormtail should be killed if he tried to escape, that alternative isn't easier for him any more. I do get what you're saying, that it would be more dramatic if Harry had to struggle with his feelings in order to forgive. But forced forgiveness isn't forgiveness at all. "The quality of mercy is not strained" and all that. Harry might have to struggle to understand, but once he does understand, forgiveness has to come naturally. I think that we don't see Harry struggling to understand because he's had the struggle already. He knows how hard it was for Ron to change, how much effort it took for Draco not to fall any further into evil, and how many much braver and savvier wizards were duped by Voldemort. All that changes the way that we, and Harry, see Peter. Harry no longer finds it hard to imagine there could be a smidgen of self-respect in Peter and reach out to it. Pippin > Pippin: > > Peter had plenty of time to discover that it's not easy living as a coward, but it was familiar and so, moment to moment, it took less effort than trying to be brave. > > Mapgie: > Yes, I really do get this reading of "easy." Likewise Sirius finds it easier to run off and fight Voldemort than he does to stay in Grimmauld Place (which makes him feel like a coward). The main point seems to just be that Dumbledore's telling everybody to just do what's right, mmmkay? And that means fighting Voldemort. Whether you're too scared or too protective of your position, or whatever. > > -m > From sartoris22 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 29 01:47:01 2009 From: sartoris22 at yahoo.com (sartoris22) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:47:01 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186378 sartoris22: > My bad. As for Harry as Superman, the main similarities I see is that he is always courageous, proactive, and annoying in his perfection. Geoff: In passing, Harry used a Crucio curse on Bellatrix, Sectumsempra on Draco, attempted two Crucios an a Sectumsempra on Snape - most of these in a blind rage and cheated in Potions inter alia. Yes, I agree. He is a trifle annoying in his perfection. :-) Sartoris22: I'm sorry about the previous posts. I sent them by mistake. I think I catch the irony. Geoff, and I understand your point. But does anyone ever call Harry on what he does? Does anyone ever change his or her opinion about Harry because of what he does? And even if they do, they are always proven to be wrong. Yes, Hermione and Ron are upset at Harry for calling Lupin a coward, but Lupin later admits that Harry is right. Name one bad trait that Harry has. I know he gets angry, but would anyone label Harry an angry person? The worse thing that Ron says about harry is that he wants to play the hero. But Harry is heroic. People think of Superman as perfect, and the good people in Harry Potter seem to consider Harry perfect, too. While I don't consider Harry a Superman figure, I do think that he is annoyingly perfect like Superman. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 29 15:12:38 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:12:38 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186379 > Sartoris22: > I think I catch the irony. Geoff, and I understand your point. But does anyone ever call Harry on what he does? Does anyone ever change his or her opinion about Harry because of what he does? Pippin: Hermione calls Harry on his cheating, McGonagall calls him on the crucio, Snape calls Harry on his arrogance, Dumbledore calls him on his anger when it is unjust. True, Harry doesn't offend anyone he likes so badly that they never forgive him or refuse to trust him again. But a good person, in Rowling's universe, is supposed to trust and forgive. Lily, the good person who doesn't forgive, pays a terrible price for it. So it's not Harry who's annoyingly perfect in that sense. It's everyone who likes Harry. :) Though Dumbledore, come to think of it, never trusted Harry in life as much as Harry thought. Harry's values are good, like Superman's, but unlike Superman, Harry can't always be faithful to them. That's what Dumbledore was trying to say in his "right vs easy" speech, IMO. Voldemort doesn't have to corrupt people's values in order to spread enmity and discord. He just has to make it too hard for people to do what they know is right. The only answer to that, says Dumbledore, is for people to put their faith in friendship and trust. But Rowling does more than ask her characters to trust Harry again. She asks her readers to trust him as well. There's never a time when Harry's got his mind right, as Ron would put it, when Harry thinks torturing people is okay. But there are times when rage and humiliation run away with Harry. Ever since Voldemort tortured him in the graveyard, Harry has been capable of sadistic anger, of taking pleasure in having a target for those feelings. It wasn't that way before -- in the first four books, Harry never really wanted to hurt anyone, he just wanted to make them stop hurting him. But in OOP, Harry imagines how good it would feel to turn Dudley into something with feelers, he's not sorry for Ron and Hermione when he sees how Hedwig has hurt them, and so on. Harry can't get over that, any more than Snape could. But Harry wasn't even aware that he'd changed. He didn't know what Bella was talking about when she said righteous anger wouldn't hurt her for long. It's only when he finally succeeds at the cruciatus curse that Harry understands the difference between righteous anger and sadism. We are asked to trust that now that Harry knows the difference, he will try not to act sadistically, just as he wouldn't let himself fall apart with grief once he knew he had a choice. We see that even though he was furious at Crabbe, Harry didn't want him to die like that. But who knows, he might get an uncontrollable urge to use crucio again, and, IMO, that's why he doesn't want to carry a wand that already knows how to do it. There is one person who changes his opinion about Harry because of what Harry does. Harry Potter. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 29 15:33:16 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:33:16 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186380 > > Sartoris22: > > > I think I catch the irony. Geoff, and I understand your point. But does anyone ever call Harry on what he does? Does anyone ever change his or her opinion about Harry because of what he does? > > Pippin: > > Hermione calls Harry on his cheating, McGonagall calls him on the crucio, Snape calls Harry on his arrogance, Dumbledore calls him on his anger when it is unjust. Alla: Oh beatiful post Pippin, but I wanted to add something from a little bit different angle. I agree with you that Harry is getting called on his various misgivings, whether we think it is sufficient or not. But let's imagine for a second that he would not be getting called on any bad thing that he does by anybody in the book. I mean, I think he is, but certainly opinions differ on how strict different characters are on him. I think Snape is calling on him whem he deserves so or not, Mcgonagall is not particularly calling on him IMO, but again, let's imagine that NOBODY would call him on anything, ever. But does that mean that we should consider him perfect? I mean, us as readers are not going to think that cruciong somebody out of anger is okay (no matter how I for example feel that I can excuse what he did). Do we need the characters to say so? Do we NEED the characters to say that oh, bad Harry for cheating? I know that, really, description of the action for me is enough to say that he is not doing a good thing. If you had read Count of Monte Cristo, nobody of good characters there called Edmond Dantes bad person for exercising his elaborate revenge on those who wronged him. I felt that he had every excuse in the world to do so, so much he suffered, etc. But um, it is still revenge. So, yeah, my two cents. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 29 20:07:48 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:07:48 -0000 Subject: Snape's test Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186381 I've been informed by another poster offlist that she disagrees with my "assumption" that Snape's delivery to of the sword of Gryffindor to Harry constitutes a "test." Of course, my fellow poster is free to disagree with my view, and probably will continue to do so, but to me it seems like a valid inference. So, for my own satisfaction and with no intent to persuade her or anyone else on the list, I want to explain why I consider Snape's plan a "test." Here's what we know about the Sword of Gryffindor (which, BTW, Phineas Nigellus informs us belongs to Hogwarts, not to any one person): It can present itself to any "worthy Gryffindor" (Scrimgeour in "The Will of Albus Dumbledore"). We see it do exactly that with Harry in CoS and with Neville in DH. It must be "taken under conditions of need and valor" (Portrait!DD in "the Prince's Tale"). Snape tells DD that he knows about the "conditions of need and valor" and that he already has a plan. This plan, as we later see, involves placing the sword in a deep, icy pool, to which he leads Harry (and, inadvertently, Ron) using the doe Patronus. He does not just leave the sword on the ground where Harry can easily pick it up. Why not? Because, much as he may *need* it to destroy the Horcrux, no "valor" is involved. Harry himself, IMO, understands that he's being tested and must prove himself to be a "worthy Gryffindor" (Scrimgeour's phrase). He first tries to summon the Sword using Accio, but realizes that "if it had been that easy, the sword would have lain on the ground for him to pick up" (368). Trying to recall what had happened "the last time that the sword had delivered itself to him" (which echoes Scrimgeour's words about the sword "present[ing] itself to a "worthy Gryffindor"), he remembers that he had been in terrible danger then and had called for help. He murmuring "Help," but, of course, that doesn't work, either. He asks himself what Dumbledore had told him last time he retrieved the sword and remembers his saying, "Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled that sword out of the hat." "True Gryffindor"; "worthy Gryffindor"--it's essentially the same thing. He asks himself which qualities define a Gryffindor and remembers the words of the Sorting Hat: "Their daring, nerve, and chivalry set Gryffindor apart." He sighs. Obviously, he is going to have to demonstrate daring and nerve by diving into that frozen pool. "He knew what he had to do. . . . [H]e had thought that it might come to this from the moment he had spotted the sword through the ice." He's not sure where "chivalry" comes in, but he has no question that diving in will require "daring" and "nerve" (pretty much the same thing as "valor" except that valor also implies worthiness). (As an aside, I suppose we can call this an instance of "right vs. easy." Harry can take the easy way out and choose not to dive in, but, of course, he can't retrieve it that way because he won't have earned it. He's already proven that the sword isn't going to come to him this time. He has to place himself in peril by diving in. Obviously, he needs the Sword of Gryffindor, which he now knows can be used to destroy the locket Horcrux. He can't afford to fail the test through cowardice or failure of nerve. Whether Harry would have passed this test--and surely it *is* a test of his worthiness as a "true Gryffindor" or Harry would not have gone over the qualities of a Gryffindor in his head--is unclear because he doesn't get the chance. The Horcrux, sensing the presence of the sword, tries to kill him. What *is* clear, at least to me, is that Ron *does* pass the test. Not only does he dive in, as Harry did, he saves Harry's life, demonstrating not only "daring" and "nerve" but "valor" and "chivalry" and a greater "need" than Harry's. And, of course, he successfully retrieves the sword. In Harry's view, having done so gives Ron the right to use the sword. "You should do it," he tells Ron. And when Ron protests, "Me? Why?" he responds, "Because you got the sword out of the pool. I think it's supposed to be you." Harry has learned from Dumbledore about "certain kinds of magic, . . . the incalculable power of certain acts" (368-374). Clearly, the magic relating to the Sword of Gryffindor is this type of mysterious, incalculably powerful magic. Clearly, Ron has proved himself a "worthy Gryffindor." To return to Snape. Dumbledore has told him that "the Sword must be taken under conditions of need and valor." He cannot, of course, simply hand it to Harry since he can't be seen, but he can't just leave it on the ground, either. (Harry himself recognizes that it can't be that easy; he has to earn the sword.) So Snape must make a plan that involves taking the sword under "conditions of need and valor." He must, that is, make retrieving the sword as difficult and dangerous as possible so that Harry must demonstrate "valor" in order to retrieve it. Snape, who knows quite well what the qualities of a Gryffindor are surely understands that he's setting up a test of Harry's worthiness as a "true Gryffindor." But whether he know so or not, that's exactly what his plan entails. (Harry knows it, as his thoughts reveal.) And the test, through no intention of Snape's, becomes even more difficult when the Horcrux starts to choke Harry. He can no longer pass the test himself, but Ron can and does. Carol, wondering whether Snape would have proven himself "a true Gryffindor" by jumping in and saving Harry had Ron not shown up From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 02:14:39 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:14:39 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 8 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186382 Upon rereading this chapter I have decided that this is one of the best chapters in the book for me. Oh I still love Walk in the forest, King Cross and Epilogue the best, but this one ranks pretty darn close. I do not know what I like the best here. It could be that upon reread I am enjoying too much how well she sets up the mystery of Dumbledore's past, making me think, so who is right? Rita? Dodge? Muriel? None of the above. Assuming that Dumbledore's version of the story is meant to be correct (and I am still not hundred percent sure of that), isn't it beatiful how Muriel is ready to believe Rita (false version) because Batilda told her the true bit of the story (again, if we are to assume DD's version to be true?), Albus' and Amberforth's fight? I just find it well done. In the retrospect I also find it to be cool symbolism that the person who got possessed by ugly snake is the person who is actually an author of the History of Hogwarts? I don't know to me it just foreshadows what Voldemort could have done with Hogwarts itself, and no past and no present would have been, but for Harry. Am I imagining things? Maybe, but to me it makes sense :) Of course I loved the wedding, loved Fred and George's antics. "When I get married," said Fred, tugging at the collar of his own robes, "I won't be bothering with any of this nonsense. You can all wear what you like, and I'll put a full Body-bind curse on Mum untill it's all over" - p.116. Oh Fred. Sob. I loved how Fleur's glow is described as beatifying everybody it fell upon, contrary to dimming everybody else. My heart went out to Harry who was looking at Ginny and remembering their hours together as if he was stealing the hours from the life of normal person. "Hermione, cop hold, let's grab a table... not there! Nowhere near Muriel..." - p.122 Alla: This is just my way to say that I find Pippin's observation about when Ron and Hermione are together they do what Ron likes to do, to be quite spot on, lol. "That's her," he said, pointing at Luna, who was still dancing alone, waving her arms around her head like someone attempting to beat off midges. "Vy is she doing that?" asked Krym. "Probably trying to get rid of a Wrackspurt," said Harry, who recognised the symptoms" - p.125 Alla: Oh, dear, yes I believe that Harry got to know Luna really really well now. "Did Doge really think it was that easy, that Harry could simply choose not to believe? Didn't Doge understand Harry's need to be sure, to know everything?" - p.127 Alla: Something just does not sit well with me about this quote, psychologically speaking, if that makes sense. Is it even possible to choose not to believe something? How do you choose faith? Oh I know there is a saying that people often believe only that they want to, meaning that people will only see good and ignore bad things, even if it stares them in the face. But this is not exactly what Doge is saying, no? He wants Harry to force himself to ignore bad things, right? Is it even possible? And the doom approaching I also found beatiful with Kingsley's Patronus. "The ministry has fallen. Scrimgeour is dead. They are coming" From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 03:17:09 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:17:09 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186383 > DH (cited by Alla): > "Did Doge really think it was that easy, that Harry could simply choose not to believe? Didn't Doge understand Harry's need to be sure, to know everything?" - p.127 > > Alla: > > Something just does not sit well with me about this quote, psychologically speaking, if that makes sense. > > Is it even possible to choose not to believe something? How do you choose faith? Oh I know there is a saying that people often believe only that they want to, meaning that people will only see good and ignore bad things, even if it stares them in the face. > > But this is not exactly what Doge is saying, no? He wants Harry to force himself to ignore bad things, right? Is it even possible? Zara: Whether it is or is not possible, it is an existing strand in Christian philosophy about religion. Blaise Pascal, for example, in his "Thoughts" (Pensees) proposed that as we cannot by reason ascertain whether or not God exists, we ought to choose to believe anyway. (Basically, for probabilistic reasons, it maximizes our chances for a positive outcome). Pascal goes on to stress that faith, real faith, is still important, and provides advice to the person who has taken his suggestion and is endeavoring to believe in God: > Pascal, "Thoughts": > Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you?will quiet your proudly critical intellect... Zara: I'm not saying Albus=God in the Potterverse, but I feel that Harry's doubts about Albus throughout the book are addressing the problem of a would-be believer who has trouble with it. This is a problem Rowling has stated in interviews she herself experiences. So anyway, Doge is, I feel, giving Harry the same advice as Pascal gives the non-believer, and Harry attempts to act on it not by saying Masses, etc. but by following the plan ALbus has made. I don't think it works for Harry, though. The doubts never go away and then of course it seems that Harry;s doubts were fully warranted. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 03:41:15 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:41:15 -0000 Subject: The do-nothing Ministry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186384 I've been thinking about the Ministry for some reason, maybe because Scrimgeour came up in the discussion recently. Setting aside the question of whether he understands the significance of Harry's raised fist and the Umbridge-caused scars on it (I don't see how he can, honestly), I'm wondering whether the Ministry is quite as inefficient as Harry thinks it is. He's judging, IIRC, based on three things: Umbridge is still there, Stan has been arrested but apparently not tried, and Scrimgeour covers up the second mass break-out from Azkaban. But that isn't quite all that the Ministry has--or hasn't--done. Poor Fudge had to choose between yielding the government to Voldemort (which, of course, he couldn't do) and having Voldemort carry out his threat to kill some Muggles. Fudge, showing more backbone than we might expect, refused to yield to Voldemort's blackmail, but the result was the disaster with the bridge. Before he stepped down, he admittedly belatedly but publicly that Voldemort was back and allowed the Daily Prophet to report the break-in, apparently restoring what passes for freedom of the press in the WW, and the Ministry arrested all the DEs involved except Bellatrix Lestrange. Once Scrimgeour takes over, he sends Fudge to inform the Muggle Prime Minister (whom Fudge has kept updated throughout his own term in office) of the true state of affairs. Scrimgeour has already placed Kingsley Shacklebolt on the Prime Minister's staff to make sure that he isn't Imperio'd, and he's had Herbert Chorley, the junior minister hit by a faulty Imperius Curse, placed in St. Mungo's so that he won't endanger his own family. The Ministry is investigating the recent crimes (they know, of course, who's responsible). They've printed and distributed lists of protective measures that the public can take, not concealing the possible danger from Death Eaters, Dementors, or Inferi. Scrimgeour has created a new department whose long name I've forgotten, with Mr. Weasley in charge, to deal with all the fake charms, potions, and amulets that unscrupulous wizards are selling to the gullible and fearful public. Security measures have been increased not only at the Ministry and Gringotts but at the Burrow while Harry is there (not that the Ministry's reading the Weasleys' mail or the security questions are very helpful), and Harry is provided with a Ministry car and an Auror escort to Platform 9 3/4. Hogwarts itself has locks on the gates and Aurors standing guard in Hogsmeade. And, of course, all the Aurors are searching for any known Death Eaters who are still at large and for Voldemort. Ultimately, of course, many if not all of these measures fail. Without the Dementors, Azkaban is apparently no longer secure and there's another mass breakout (this one concealed from the public). Death Eaters penetrate Hogwarts by a means that not even DD could have anticipated, and he is killed. The Ministry is infiltrated, an influential MoM official is Imperio'd, Scrimgeour is murdered, and the DEs take over the Ministry. Up until the Ministry is infiltrated and Scrimgeour is killed, it seems to me that the MoM behaved exactly like a Muggle government under attack. In fact, I'm reminded of 9/11--enhanced security measures, public advisories, speeches, warnings. Of course, JKR planned her books long before 9/11, and she's not American. I suspect that she's basing the MoM on British, not American, government and quite possibly satirizing what she perceives as government inefficiency and bureaucracy, with the takeover by the DEs as a dire warning of the potential consequences. And yet, as Dumbledore says, Scrimgeour is an able and forceful man who has fought Dark Wizards all his adult life and does not underestimate Voldemort. Aside from informing the public about the second breakout from Azkaban, what else could he have done? (Yes, he could have investigated Umbridge if he understood Harry's hints, but it would have been time-consuming and I'm not sure what else it would have accomplished. Someone else would have run the Muggle-born Registration Commission. And Stan Shunpike, guilty or not guilty, is small potatoes in the battle against Voldemort (though, of course, I agree that justice should not be suspended in time of war). True, Scrimgeour would have been better off spending the last month of his life doing something other than studying Dumbledore's will and the artifacts that he willed to the Trio. I can't be sure, but I think he must have expected to find something that would help him in the fight against Voldemort. Unfortunately for him, he could not have been more wrong. Carol, not making any particular point, just wondering what else the Ministry could--and should--have done From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 30 14:45:35 2009 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:45:35 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186385 > > Alla: . > > "Did Doge really think it was that easy, that Harry could simply choose not to believe? Didn't Doge understand Harry's need to be sure, to know everything?" - p.127 > > Alla: > > Something just does not sit well with me about this quote, psychologically speaking, if that makes sense. > > Is it even possible to choose not to believe something? How do you choose faith? Oh I know there is a saying that people often believe only that they want to, meaning that people will only see good and ignore bad things, even if it stares them in the face. > > But this is not exactly what Doge is saying, no? He wants Harry to force himself to ignore bad things, right? Is it even possible? > Pippin: In the end Harry decides he does not need to know the exact truth about what happened to Dumbledore's sister and does not want to make Dumbledore tell him. Harry recognizes that he does not have to have reasons for his trust in Dumbledore beyond knowing that Dumbledore loved him and tried to do his best. I was surprised by that, because Harry always wanted to know everything, and because he felt so much sympathy for Ariana. But then I realized that though the shadows that came from Voldemort's wand were vengeful, the spirits that Harry summoned through the R-stone were at peace. I think there is a very strong sense in canon that justice is for the living, and old crimes can be laid to rest. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 18:08:28 2009 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:08:28 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186386 Zara: Whether it is or is not possible, it is an existing strand in Christian philosophy about religion. Blaise Pascal, for example, in his "Thoughts" (Pensees) proposed that as we cannot by reason ascertain whether or not God exists, we ought to choose to believe anyway. (Basically, for probabilistic reasons, it maximizes our chances for a positive outcome). Alla: Oh, I really liked Pascal's quote and if this is what Doge is saying, I understand I think. But to me asking to choose to believe in place of non-believing is a little bit different from asking to believe in good things and ignore bad ones, if that makes sense. Or maybe you are right and there is no difference. Pippin: In the end Harry decides he does not need to know the exact truth about what happened to Dumbledore's sister and does not want to make Dumbledore tell him. Harry recognizes that he does not have to have reasons for his trust in Dumbledore beyond knowing that Dumbledore loved him and tried to do his best. I was surprised by that, because Harry always wanted to know everything, and because he felt so much sympathy for Ariana. But then I realized that though the shadows that came from Voldemort's wand were vengeful, the spirits that Harry summoned through the R-stone were at peace. I think there is a very strong sense in canon that justice is for the living, and old crimes can be laid to rest. Alla: Yes, well I know that, believe me I do and I agree really that all Harry wants is to forgive Dumbledore. As a reader the only way I can be satisfied with it is by reminding myself that he is indeed dead and as you said, justice is for the living in canon. Had Dumbledore been alive and Harry would have spread his forgiveness on him, I would have been quite angry lol. I am curious why were you surprised though, to me at this point in line of who I think Harry is, him spreading forgiveness was the only way to continue metaphor IMO. I was not even surprised him forgiving **Snape** and Dumbledore he for the longest time thought of as father figure. No, I was not surprised that Harry jumped at the possibility to forgive him. This is not quite what I meant though when I wrote that this phrase does not sit well (choose to believe). I was wondering more in line of what Zara addressed, you know? I am just trying to figure out how person can do that in general and applicable to canon. Because maybe I am translating the nuances incorrectly in my head, but to me choosing to believe that person is good (Dumbledore in that instance) is a little bit different from KNOWING about person doing bad things and ignoring them or forgiving them. It seemed to me that what Doge was asking Harry to do is to just disregard whatever bad things he heard and choose to believe anyways rather than just Harry not wanting to know? Am I making sense? Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 18:32:28 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:32:28 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 6-7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186387 Carol earlier: > > All in all, I'd say that Scrimgeour was right. The Sword of Gryffindor does not belong to Dumbledore or to Harry (or Ron or Neville, both of whom later earn the right to wield it--once). It belongs, in a sense, to all Gryffindors and will present itself under the right conditions to the Gryffindor of its own choosing (with or without the aid of the Sorting Hat). Surely, Dumbledore knew that--and knew that Scrimgeour or whoever proved the will would not allow it to be given away. He did, however, wish Harry to know that he would need the Sword of Gryffindor in his quest to destroy the Horcruxes. How better to do that than to "bequeath" it to Harry in his will? As Pippin says, willing the sword to Harry (without actually giving it to him) let Harry know that he would need the sword without letting anyone else (specifically Scrimgeour or whichever Ministry official read the will) know why Harry needed it. > > > >> > jkoney: > The only problem I have with this line of thinking is when is the sword no longer Harry's? Does it happen immediately after he slays the basilisk? > > Since it doesn't disappear, I would argue that it is Harry's until some other Gryffendor needs it. At that point it would vanish and go to the new person. Carol responds: As I didn't realize when I wrote this post, Phineas Nigellus provides the answer in "The Goblin's Revenge." The Sword never belongs to either Harry or Dumbledore (or to any other "worthy Gryffindor" who earns the right to use it). It belongs to Hogwarts. Phineas accuses Ginny, Neville, and Luna of "thieving from the headmaster." Harry protests angrily that the sword doesn't belong to Snape. Phineas retorts, "It belongs to Professor Snape's school" (DH Am. ed. 302). IOW, the sword belongs to Hogwarts and the current headmaster, whether Snape or DD, is its guardian. (I think that Scrimgeour also would have said that the sword belongs to Hogwarts had he not been interrupted.) After Harry uses the Sword, he doesn't keep it or even consider the possibility of keeping. He puts the sword, the Sorting Hat, and the ruined diary on McGonagall's desk (CoS Am. ed. 332). Although DD later hands him the sword so he can see the name engraved on it (333), Harry doesn't take it with him when he leaves the office. Instead, he leaves it, along with the Sorting Hat, with DD, who had guarded it before Harry used it and continues to guard it afterwards (and later uses it himself, though as I've tried to establish in earlier posts, being a "worthy Gryffindor"--a Gryffindor worthy of using the sword under "conditions of need and valor"--does not make him its owner). Carol, who suspects that Godric Gryffindor willed the sword to Hogwarts and that both Scrimgeour and Dumbledore are aware that he did so From sweenlit at gmail.com Thu Apr 30 19:25:17 2009 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:25:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron WAS: Re: DH reread CH 4-5 In-Reply-To: <02ADA8482F2D4C12A146ABA7B63CA778@homemain> References: <02ADA8482F2D4C12A146ABA7B63CA778@homemain> Message-ID: <43e41d1e0904301225w10359ca8iec616bca42dc2a05@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 186388 lealess: > I'm not sure how important a theme redemption really is in the books. I > don't even see the Wizarding World being redeemed for its sins, frankly. sweenlit: Your point is well taken. For my part, however, I did not expect the redemption of the WW. I expected, rather the individual redemption or perhaps growth and maturity of different fictional characters, which did occur to some extent although not always to the characters I was expecting such a step in. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 30 20:07:24 2009 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:07:24 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: Kemper: > I'm not a fan of Harry as Everyman nor Harry as Jesus figure. > So with man and deity eliminated that only leaves an alien who can go through the motions of being human but not quite mastering the emotions of one. Harry is Superman (with that 'saving people' thing) whose kryptonite doesn't exist. Geoff: Looking at the choices which we have been considering in this thread, on several occasions I have said that I regard Harry as an everyman (with a small "e"). Even as ordinary people, however, within each of us there is the potential to be a hero. It may not involve being a national hero but may call on us to step outside our usual parameters possibly because of an emergency. The sort of scenario I envisage might include: someone dashing in front of a car to rescue a child; going into a river to save someone from drowning; going to help a person being mugged and so on. We may not consider ourselves special but sometimes events intervene. If I may misquote Shakespeare, "Some are born heroes, some achieve heroism and some have heroism thrust upon them". Harry, I believe, fits into the last category. He sees himself as a very ordinary person: `"Hagrid," he said quietly, "I think you must have made a mistake. I don't think I can be a wizard."' (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p,47 UK edition) He feels uncomfortable when he is thrown into the limelight: `Whispers followed Harry from the moment he left his dormitory next day. People queuing outside classrooms stood on tiptoe to get a look at him or doubled back to pass him in the corridors again, staring. Harry wishes they wouldn't because he was trying to concentrate on finding his way to classes.' (PS "The Potions Master" p. 98 UK edition) Just a couple of early quotes to show that he didn't want to be a celebrity. All through the books, we see him trying avoid this. He indicates in the Hogs Head meeting in OOTP that he gets too much attention directed to him. He is at heart, one for the quiet life, perhaps insecure. This why I see him as a typical everyman. Maybe we all secretly hanker after fame and yet, when we see the life style of people who are constantly in the media, do we really seek it? I do not think that I would want to be Prime Minister, or a TV star or a sports star because it would erode the time I like to keep for myself: walking the dog on a deserted moor, going unnoticed through town and I am sure that that is what Harry would go for if the opportunity existed instead of the rumours, half-truths and myths that the Wizarding World has concocted about him ? both good and bad depending on the state of digestion of the Minister of Magic or the editor of the Daily Prophet. The problem facing any person of note is that they have a public persona and a private one and it is often the public one on which they are judged and on which people want to meet them. Not many see the real person. I have said previously that I have a soft spot for Draco Malfoy because I believe that he has virtues which have been squashed by the influence of his father and pureblood society at large. In this regard, I believe that he and Harry have things in common. They became fierce rivals from the very beginning because what they had been told or had instilled into them created a collision course. Malfoy sees Harry as Saint Potter, and in common with the populace at large the Boy Who Lived and Chosen One. Harry sees Draco as an evil, potential Death Eater, arrogant, boastful of his position and someone seeking to get him into trouble. It Is only late in their school careers when events occur when I think that they both begin to see the other's real self. Harry sees Draco wavering in his determination to kill Dumbledore and the doubts surfacing in the confrontation on the Tower; he sees him at Malfoy Manor where he refuses to identify Harry and is obviously fearful and reluctant. Harry's rescue of Malfoy from the Fiendfyre when he could easily left him possibly stems from this. Perhaps it is a tacit recognition of these that leads to the nods at the railway station years later. I remain disappointed that JKR did not build more of a rapprochment between these two into the end story but that is a personal view. Others will disagree with me and I still fail to get excited over Snape ? although I suppose he fits my early criteria of someone thrust into heroism. But to me, Harry remains an everyman who was drawn into exceptional action and, if I might digress into real world events like the military personnel we have remembered today in the UK as part of our withdrawal from Basra. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 20:19:33 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:19:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186390 Carol earlier: So, for my own satisfaction and with no intent to persuade her or anyone else on the list, I want to explain why I consider Snape's plan a "test." Carol again: Sorry about my wording here. It sounds as if I don't want responses! Actually, I'm quite curious as to what other people think (assume that they're not tired of the topic). > Whether Harry would have passed this test--and surely it *is* a test of his worthiness as a "true Gryffindor" or Harry would not have gone over the qualities of a Gryffindor in his head--is unclear because he doesn't get the chance. The Horcrux, sensing the presence of the sword, tries to kill him. > > What *is* clear, at least to me, is that Ron *does* pass the test. Not only does he dive in, as Harry did, he saves Harry's life, demonstrating not only "daring" and "nerve" but "valor" and "chivalry" and a greater "need" than Harry's. And, of course, he successfully retrieves the sword. > To return to Snape. Dumbledore has told him that "the Sword must be taken under conditions of need and valor." He cannot, of course, simply hand it to Harry since he can't be seen, but he can't just leave it on the ground, either. (Harry himself recognizes that it can't be that easy; he has to earn the sword.) So Snape must make a plan that involves taking the sword under "conditions of need and valor." He must, that is, make retrieving the sword as difficult and dangerous as possible so that Harry must demonstrate "valor" in order to retrieve it. > > Snape, who knows quite well what the qualities of a Gryffindor are surely understands that he's setting up a test of Harry's worthiness as a "true Gryffindor." But whether he know so or not, that's exactly what his plan entails. (Harry knows it, as his thoughts reveal.) And the test, through no intention of Snape's, becomes even more difficult when the Horcrux starts to choke Harry. He can no longer pass the test himself, but Ron can and does. Carol again: I need to make clear that I'm not using "test" in the sense of an exam that Snape will grade to determine whether Harry passes or not. I'm using "test" in relation to what's known in literary criticism as the "test motif"--most if not all heroes in the heroic epic and similar genres must pass a test of worth or valor, whether it's Sir Gawain rejecting temptation by the Green Knight's beautiful wife or the boy Arthur pulling the sword from the stone, proving that he's the rightful king (though he doesn't know it). Galadriel uses the word "test" in this sense when she says after rejecting the temptation to wield the One Ring, "I pass the test. I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel." Harry, of course, passes some sort of test (in this sense) in every book, whether it's looking into the Mirror of Erised and seeing the Philosopher's Stone but not wanting it for himself or being possessed by Voldemort and driving him out through love. Knowing that he must face Voldemort unarmed rather than fighting him is another test which Harry, of course, passes with flying colors. With regard to "Snape's test," by which I mean his placing the sword in the icy pool so that Harry can retrieve it "under conditions of need and valor," it doesn't matter whether Snape is consciously setting up a test of Harry's worthiness to wield the Sword of Gryffindor. It's the sword itself that judges the Gryffindor's worthiness. (Interestingly, we don't know what would happen if someone other than a "worthy Gryffindor" attempted to wield it. Would the sword just vanish?) What matters, in terms of the motif, is that Harry's valor be tested by the conditions that Snape sets up regardless of whether Snape is consciously setting up a test or merely following Dumbledore's instructions. Again, the test motif is a literary convention common in heroic literature and, like the Christ figure and Everyman interpretations we've been discussing in other threads, a valid way of looking at a literary work, heroic epic being one of several genres that JKR is working in (the same one that requires the death of the old mentor). Carol, with apologies for sounding like the English teacher she used to be From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 21:49:41 2009 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:49:41 -0000 Subject: MAGICkal elITE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186391 Geoff wrote: > Looking at the choices which we have been considering in this thread, on several occasions I have said that I regard Harry as an everyman (with a small "e"). > > If I may misquote Shakespeare, "Some are born heroes, some achieve heroism and some have heroism thrust upon them". > > Harry, I believe, fits into the last category. He sees himself as a very ordinary person: > `"Hagrid," he said quietly, "I think you must have made a mistake. > I don't think I can be a wizard."' > He feels uncomfortable when he is thrown into the limelight: > Carol responds: I understand your interpretation and in some respects I agree with it. Certainly, there's no question that Harry, having been brought up by the Dursleys who treat him as an unwanted intrusion on their lives, starts off with a very low opinion of himself. However, he quickly gets over the delusion that he "can't be a wizard," and he also discovers, rather too quickly, IMO, that he's a naturally gifted flyer and (with no training or practice at all), an even better Seeker than "the legendary Charlie Weasley." He can't lose a game, it seems, unless there's outside interference from Quirrell or Dobby or Dementors. (It's this sort of thing, IMO, that makes some readers object to Harry as "too perfect." And, certainly, he's not an everyman, meaning "everywizardkid, when it comes to Quidditch. I also agree that he dislikes his fame even during periods of popularity (as early as CoS we see him contrasted with the fame-loving Gilderoy Lockhart). His "dearest ambition," to borrow Mr. Weasley's phrase with regard to knowing how airplanes stay up, is to be Just Harry, to have a life like Ron Weasley's (which Ron, of course, sees as anything but ideal). In the epilogue, we see that (despite his continuing fame), Harry has achieved that level of ordinariness (I want to call it "ordinary wizarding level") to the extent that such a life is possible for the former Chosen One: wife, family, well-paying and prestigious job (admittedly, not quite the life of Mr. Weasley, but still very much what would be called in the U.S. "the American dream"). But wanting to be Just Harry and being Just Harry are two different things. I agree that in many respects, he's just an ordinary wizard kid. He wears glasses and has unruly hair that not even magic can tame. At least in the first four books, he's small and skinny (like Snape as a child). He suffers unfairness and bullying in varying degrees from a variety of characters. He likes to have fun; he breaks the rules; he cheats on his homework; he has problems dealing with girls. His grades in most subjects are above average rather than exceptional, in part because he lets his mind wander in class. So far, setting aside the fact that he's a wizard, he's a kid that any reader can identify with in one respect or another. This is the Harry that we would have seen, probably, had Voldemort not come to power, killed his parents, and given him that scar. The scar itself, though it doesn't give Harry any superpowers, sets Harry apart from everyone else, making him in the narrator's words "a marked man" figuratively and literally. Not only does the scar draw everyone's eyes (sometimes it seems to be the only part of him that people see), it links him, sometimes painfully, with the mind of the very Wizard who wants to kill him. This link in itself, along with the Prophecy Voldemort ironically sets in motion by trying to prevent it from coming true, sets up a destiny for Harry that is anything but ordinary. It's entirely true that this destiny has been "thrust upon him" by events beyond his control and by the choices and actions of others. His survival as a baby of fifteen months was not his own doing nor the result of any extraordinary powers that he possessed. he's famous for something that happened to him, not something that he did. Yet that fame doesn't go away in the ten years that he's absent from the Wizarding World, and when he returns, he's faced with expectations and challenges unlike those that any other young Wizard faces--or rather, in addition to the challenges that other Hogwarts face since he's also expected to take classes and do detention when he breaks the rules. It's useful, I think, to contrast him with Neville, who can be viewed as a foil to Harry (that is, a character is a similar situation who can be compared and contrasted with another character). Neville, too, might have been the Boy Who Lived (assuming that his mother had for some reason been given a chance to live). And Neville, too, lost his parents to Voldemort even though they're technically still alive. But Neville, with neither fame nor scar nor special destiny, is unquestionably an everyman. Though he has a talent for Herbology, he has no extraordinary powers (from a Wizarding perspective). His own family worries that he may be a Squib. He does not even recognize his own remarkable courage, which is overshadowed by his self-doubts. But in Harry's absence, in the face of danger, Neville emerges as a leader, resourceful and courageous. I was thinking when I read your paraphrase of Shakespeare, that Neville, like Harry, had heroism thrust upon him, but now I think that Neville achieved heroism. He only needed the opportunity to reveal who he was all along. And that, I think, is true of all the everyday heroes that we hear about in real life. Harry, in contrast, had heroism thrust upon him. He had choices, certainly, but running away and saving himself as Aberforth suggested was never one of them. Harry as Everyman (everyman)? Yes and no, I think. Certainly, he has elements of ordinariness that help the reader to empathize or identify with him on some level. It's also true, as Snape says, that he's helped by luck and by more gifted friends. And, in the end, it isn't any special powers that help him to defeat Voldemort--just courage and self-sacrifice and an ordinary DADA spell that Snape taught him in his second year. And, yet, without the scar that linked his mind to Voldemort's, he would not have found and destroyed the Horcruxes. In that respect, at least, he's uniquely qualified to defeat Voldemort. And only Harry can sacrifice himself to destroy the Horcrux inside that scar. Without the Prophecy and the events at Godric's Hollow, Harry would not have been forced into being Voldemort's nemesis. There's no question that he's had heroism (and greatness, if we keep the original wording of the quotation) thrust upon him. But does that make him an everyman like Neville (and Ron and many other characters in the books)? Or does it make him something else (a Christ figure or epic hero or superhero)? Carol, not wholly convinced but not rejecting the idea, either From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 30 22:07:07 2009 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:07:07 -0000 Subject: DH reread CH 8 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 186392 > Alla: > Oh, I really liked Pascal's quote and if this is what Doge is saying, I understand I think. > > But to me asking to choose to believe in place of non-believing is a little bit different from asking to believe in good things and ignore bad ones, if that makes sense. Or maybe you are right and there is no difference. Zara: It is different, but (in my opinion) the reason Doge would do such a thing (ignore Rita) is that he has faith in Dumbledore. And he is encouraging Harry in this same belief. It's not so much ignoring the bad ones, as choosing to believe that they do not matter. (In Albus's case, for example - the bad things Rita was writing about are things Albus himself regrets, and happened nearly a century ago. The guy was not about to recereate Grindelwald's regime in Harry's day, whatever Rita might want to suggest).