From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  1 03:17:23 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:17:23 -0000
Subject: Patronus question again
Message-ID: <h2ekg3+ees2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187197

Reporting from the uninhibited island with only my Blackberry and Hermione as companions, I bring you the following question and I do realize that the answer is probably painfully obvious and I just forgot it. Is it necessary for the person to see another person's patronus for their patronus to be influenced by it and to change? I am just thinking about whole Snape/Lily thing and wondering if he ever saw her patronus? In fact do we even know (and I just forgot?) that Lily's Patronus was a Doe in the first place? I mean I know she wanted Stag and Doe to match, but this is a symbolism of Harry and Snape patronuses we know, not Lily and James' ones. I mean I think it is also to show the reader without saying much that they completed each other and were well matched, Lily and James I mean, but did it show in their own patronuses as well? Alla 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  1 13:42:11 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:42:11 -0000
Subject: Patronus question again
In-Reply-To: <h2ekg3+ees2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2fp3j+4v52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187198

Alla:
> Reporting from the uninhibited island with only my Blackberry and Hermione as companions, I bring you the following question and I do realize that the answer is probably painfully obvious and I just forgot it. Is it necessary for the person to see another person's patronus for their patronus to be influenced by it and to change? I am just thinking about whole Snape/Lily thing and wondering if he ever saw her patronus? In fact do we even know (and I just forgot?) that Lily's Patronus was a Doe in the first place? I mean I know she wanted Stag and Doe to match, but this is a symbolism of Harry and Snape patronuses we know, not Lily and James' ones. I mean I think it is also to show the reader without saying much that they completed each other and were well matched, Lily and James I mean, but did it show in their own patronuses as well? Alla

Magpie:
We don't know Lily's Patronus. I don't think you need to see the other person's. Lupin's Patronus might or might not be a wolf, but I think Tonks' Patronus just symbolizes Lupin himself, not his Patronus. Likewise, I think Snape's doe happened to be the animal that appeared as a result of his happy memory of Lily, so the doe represents Lily, not necessarily Lily's Patronus. Harry's Patronus is a stag, which is James' animagus form. I wouldn't be surprised if James' Patronus otoh, was eventually a doe, just like Snape's, to represent Lily.

-m




From poppytheelf at hotmail.com  Wed Jul  1 13:57:09 2009
From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:57:09 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2fp3j+4v52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2fpvl+goju@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187199

Alla wrote:

<<In fact do we even know (and I just forgot?) that Lily's Patronus was a Doe in the first place?>>

Magpie wrote:

<<We don't know Lily's Patronus.>>

The reader never sees Lily's patronus, but when Harry views Snape's last memories in the Pensieve in DH, Snape casts his doe patronus in Dumbledore's office and says something to the effect that it's the same patronus as Lily's.  So the implication is that Snape saw Lily cast her doe patronus at some point during her lifetime.

~Phyllis





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  1 15:32:08 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:32:08 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2fpvl+goju@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2fvho+r5d0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187200

> Magpie wrote:
> 
> <<We don't know Lily's Patronus.>>
> 
> The reader never sees Lily's patronus, but when Harry views Snape's last memories in the Pensieve in DH, Snape casts his doe patronus in Dumbledore's office and says something to the effect that it's the same patronus as Lily's.  So the implication is that Snape saw Lily cast her doe patronus at some point during her lifetime.

Magpie:
I don't think he does. Dumbledore suggests that Snape has grown to care for Harry. Snape angrily says, "For him? Never!" He casts his doe Patronus and Dumbledore says "After all this time?" and Snape says "Always."

Neither say he's casting Lily's Patronus. It's that his Patronus *is* Lily just as Tonks' Patronus represents Lupin. Dumbledore knows the doe=Lily.

-m




From keywestdaze at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  1 15:49:36 2009
From: keywestdaze at yahoo.com (Christy)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2fpvl+goju@eGroups.com>
References: <h2fpvl+goju@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <697800.5346.qm@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187201

Phyllis wrote:

<...when Harry views Snape's last memories in the Pensieve in DH, Snape casts his doe patronus in Dumbledore's
office and says something to the effect that it's the same patronus as
Lily's. So the implication is that Snape saw Lily cast her doe patronus
at some point during her lifetime.>

The passage reads:
"But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?"
"For <i>him</i>?" shouted Snape. <i>"Expecto Patronum!"</i>
>From the tip of his wand burst the silver doe: She landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office, and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears.
"After all this time?"
"Always," said Snape.
(DH, pg 687, Am Ed)

There is no indication that Snape saw Lily's patronus (and to my recollection we've never seen it or heard of it either) -- nor IMO does it matter one way or the other what her Patronus is. The point is the form his Patronus takes. IMO this passage implies that his Patronus takes its form because of his love for Lily (a love that remains "after all this time" and "always") and, also perhaps, because his time with her was when he was happiest. I think his regret over his part in her death and his sorrow over his loss also plays a part...making Snape's Patronus bittersweet.

The passage is important because it confirms to Harry that Snape helped him a few months ago in the forest and that Snape's feelings regarding Lily were geniune. (I doubt you can fake a Patronus.)

What I find interesting about this passage is Dumbledore's surprise over Snape's patronus and his surprise and sorrow over the longtivety of Snape's feelings -- he's used Snape's feelings towards Lily to manipulate him for years. Given that an order member can use his or her Patronus to communicate with other members, has Snape never had a reason to use his to communicate with Dumbledore? (I suppose that is possible.) In OOTP, Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape contacted Sirius in response to Harry's cryptic message while in Umbridge's office, and that order members have ways to communicate that are more reliable than the floo network. I assumed he meant that Snape sent a message via Patronus (after seeing Tonks do it in HBP and knowing that Dumbledore did it in GOF). If he used his doe Patronus to contact HQ to verify Sirius was OK, certainly someone noticed the relationship of doe to stag... Sirius might have and died before he had a chance to rib Snape
 about it or tell anyone (I can't imagine he would let that opporunity pass)...


      

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




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  1 16:05:20 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:05:20 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2fpvl+goju@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2g1g0+7h6p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187202

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

> The reader never sees Lily's patronus, but when Harry views 
> Snape's last memories in the Pensieve in DH, Snape casts his 
> doe patronus in Dumbledore's office and says something to 
> the effect that it's the same patronus as Lily's.  
> So the implication is that Snape saw Lily cast her 
> doe patronus at some point during her lifetime.


zanooda:

It was not Dumbledore who said that, it was Harry during the last confrontation with LV: "Snape's Patronus was a doe, the same as my mothers, because he loved her..." etc. How exactly Harry knows that is unclear, but I guess we are supposed to take everything Harry says after his return from the limbo as the truth :-). I think Harry saw his mother's doe when he was a baby, that's why she seemed familiar to him in the forest, and after Snape's memories and the limbo it just all clicked :-).

As for Snape ever seeing Lily's Patronus, I'm not sure it was necessary. I think if he never saw it, the result would be the same. Unlike many readers, I believe that Snape got Lily's doe patronus only after she died - either his patronus changed, or he never cast one before. 

I don't like the idea of Severus having the same Patronus as Lily while she was alive. First of all, that would mean two people had identical patronuses. Isn't it supposed to be unique for each person? Secondly - Lily's Patronus symbolizes her love for James, and for Severus to have this Patronus while both Potters were alive feels kind of, erm, perverted :-). Strange, anyway.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  1 16:44:46 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:44:46 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2g1g0+7h6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2g3pu+jn8r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187203

Phyllis:
> > The reader never sees Lily's patronus, but when Harry views 
> > Snape's last memories in the Pensieve in DH, Snape casts his 
> > doe patronus in Dumbledore's office and says something to 
> > the effect that it's the same patronus as Lily's.  
> > So the implication is that Snape saw Lily cast her 
> > doe patronus at some point during her lifetime.
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> It was not Dumbledore who said that, it was Harry during the last confrontation with LV: "Snape's Patronus was a doe, the same as my mothers, because he loved her..." etc. How exactly Harry knows that is unclear, but I guess we are supposed to take everything Harry says after his return from the limbo as the truth :-). I think Harry saw his mother's doe when he was a baby, that's why she seemed familiar to him in the forest, and after Snape's memories and the limbo it just all clicked :-).

Magpie:
I think it's obviously a slight mistake of wording from Harry and JKR. To say it isn't makes for a far bigger mistake that undermines the whole point of Snape's story. 

Harry means Snape's Patronus was a doe just like his *mother* not just like his *mother's.* He phrased it incorrectly, probably because his mother wasn't actually a deer, and it's too awkward to explain. I can easily imagine Harry making a similar mistake in talking about his own Patronus and saying "It's a stag, just like my father's" forgetting (like so many readers do anyway) that he means it's a stag just like his father was symbolically.

If Harry really meant Snape and his mother happened to share a Patronus it meant it would wander away fro the point of Snape/Lily story we've just been told--who cares if they happen to have similar animals (not the same, since no 2 are the same) as their Patronus? That would just mean they shared a similar happy memory (again, not the same memory because surely Lily's would be Harry or James centered by the time she died).

JKR started leading up to this with that scene in HBP where Tonks comes to get Harry and Snape comes to get Tonks. We have that scene with Snape making a snarky remark about Tonks' Patronus not just as a hint that Tonks is in love with Lupin but, more importantly, to introduce the whole concept of the Patronuses take the shape of the person you love (not the shape of the person you love's Patronus). Lupin doesn't associate wolves with happy memories; Tonks does. 

Zanooda: 
> As for Snape ever seeing Lily's Patronus, I'm not sure it was necessary. I think if he never saw it, the result would be the same. Unlike many readers, I believe that Snape got Lily's doe patronus only after she died - either his patronus changed, or he never cast one before. 

Magpie:
He wouldn't have cast one before. They don't teach it at Hogwarts and DEs don't do them. He wouldn't have seen Lily cast one either.

zanooda: 
> I don't like the idea of Severus having the same Patronus as Lily while she was alive. First of all, that would mean two people had identical patronuses. Isn't it supposed to be unique for each person? Secondly - Lily's Patronus symbolizes her love for James, and for Severus to have this Patronus while both Potters were alive feels kind of, erm, perverted :-). Strange, anyway.

Magpie:
Exactly. It's just a slip of the tongue by Harry and a slip of the keyboard by JKR. Tonks' Patronus is a wolf representing Lupin. Harry's Patronus is a stag representing James. Snape's Patronus is a doe representing Lily. We don't know what Lily's Patronus is and neither does Harry (he didn't learn it in the afterlife or anyplace else--we know what he learned in the afterlife; his reference to Snape's Patronus comes from the scene in Snape's memory). If her Patronus was a doe it would only be a mild coincidence. Snape could never have seen her cast a Patronus since he didn't speak to her post-Hogwarts. We could imagine Peter telling him, but that's getting into the realm of ridiculous fanwank imo (and still doesn't explain how Harry would know it).

Short answer: it's something related to flint but since Harry's saying it, it's just a slip of the tongue.

-m




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  1 17:12:11 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:12:11 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <697800.5346.qm@web55003.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h2g5db+107l8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187204

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Christy <keywestdaze at ...> wrote:


> What I find interesting about this passage is 
> Dumbledore's surprise over Snape's patronus and 
> his surprise and sorrow over the longtivety of 
> Snape's feelings -- he's used Snape's feelings 
> towards Lily to manipulate him for years.


zanooda:

It's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it :-)? It's not like DD had to mention Lily every time he needed something from Snape :-).


> Christy wrote:  

> Given that an order member can use his or her Patronus 
> to communicate with other members, has Snape never had 
> a reason to use his to communicate with Dumbledore? 


zanooda:

I think DD knew Snape's Patronus very well, I just believe that his "After all this time?" has a little different meaning. I suppose DD assumed that Snape's feelings grew colder with time (which doesn't necessarily means that his patronus would change), like feelings are supposed to do :-). He was touched and surprised when Snape showed him, using his Patronus, that he still cared about a woman who died 15 years ago.



> Christy wrote: 

> In OOTP, Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape contacted Sirius 
> in response to Harry's cryptic message while in Umbridge's 
> office, and that order members have ways to communicate 
> that are more reliable than the floo network. I assumed 
> he meant that Snape sent a message via Patronus 


zanooda:

Yeah, me too :-). I suppose, Snape sent his doe to Sirius anonymously, like he sent her to Harry, without speaking. He could send her just to have a look around the house to find out if Sirius is there and not to talk to him. Just a few days ago someone on a Russian forum said that Sirius would have probably died on the spot from a heart attack if this beautiful and gentle doe suddenly gave some sarcastic remark in Snape voice: "While you are drinking here, Black ..." :-).


> Christy wrote:

> If he used his doe Patronus to contact HQ to verify Sirius 
> was OK, certainly someone noticed the relationship of doe to 
> stag... 


zanooda:

More than that, some of the Order members would know and remember Lily's Patronus... . Snape contacted the HQ twice, first time just to check on Sirius, and Sirius was the only one there at the time. Meanwhile, Harry and Hermione went to the forest with Umbridge, and Snape waited for them to come back. When they didn't return, he suspected that Harry found a way to get to London, so he contacted the HQ again. This time there were indeed several Order members there and they all went to the Ministry. But I think that this time Snape could have used Umbridge's fireplace, for example, because her office would be empty. 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  1 17:17:43 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:17:43 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2g3pu+jn8r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2g5nn+42m2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187205

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


> I think it's obviously a slight mistake of wording from 
> Harry and JKR. 


zanooda:

Well, if you trust JKR's interviews :-), she *did* say that Lily's Patronus was a doe. Unfortunately, I must run now and can't get you a quote, but I'll do it in the evening :-).




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  1 18:00:53 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:00:53 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2g5nn+42m2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2g88l+vab2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187206

Magpie wrote:
> 
> > I think it's obviously a slight mistake of wording from Harry and JKR. 
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> Well, if you trust JKR's interviews :-), she *did* say that Lily's Patronus was a doe. Unfortunately, I must run now and can't get you a quote, but I'll do it in the evening :-).
>
Carol responds:
Actually, the kid asking the question spoke about Lily's and James's Patronus being a doe and a stag, but JKR's answer relates to Patronuses sometimes changing to reflect the person you love. IOW, she didn't bother to correct the kid since *Harry's* stag = James and *Snape's* doe = Lily. I quoted the interview somewhere upthread, but I'm not about to try to trace it using this forum's search engine!

But JKR does, occasionally, seem to get Patronuses and Animagi confused.

BTW, someone said that DEs don't use Patronuses and they're not taught at Hogwarts, but I think that should be revised to DEs don't use Patronuses *to communicate* (they use their Dark Marks). For all we know, they might use them for protection against Dementors, which had not yet gone over to Voldemort's side at the time of his return. And Umbridge, a DE associate, could cast one (albeit not as powerful as Harry's). Lupin says that the Patronus charm is advanced magic "well above the Ordinary Wizarding level," but that doesn't mean it's not taught to, say, seventh-year NEWT-level DADA students.

Side note: If Dumbledore actually taught Snape to communicate using a Patronus, he would have seen that it was a doe unless he did so before Lily died. And since DD knew about Snape's love for Lily, Snape had no reason *not* to use it to communicate with him.

And I don't think that Sirius Black would have laughed at Snape's Patronus, which was powerful and beautiful, which Snape must have used to communicate with him both before and after he realized that Harry must have gone to the MoM. You'd think that Lupin, of all people, would figure out its significance, but clearly he didn't. Both in HBP and DH, he thinks that Snape hated both Potters and murdered Dumbledore.

Anyway, I agree with Magpie that Harry's reference to the doe as his mother's Patronus is a slip of some kind, whether on Harry's part or JKR's. He couldn't have known what his mother's Patronus was, and a Patronus is a spirit guardian that sometimes takes a symbolic form representing a loved one but with the possible exception of McGonagall, never represents the person himself.

Carol, thinking that "mother's" for "mother" could be a copyediting error even if it appears in both books because it's the type of correction a copyeditor would make thinking of grammar rather than the sense of the passage--or a correction suggested by a word-processing program that JKR unthinkingly accepted




From mommy2maddyrose at aol.com  Wed Jul  1 16:54:32 2009
From: mommy2maddyrose at aol.com (Hollie)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:54:32 -0000
Subject: Stinging jinx on Harry in DH
Message-ID: <h2g4c8+832r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187207

After rereading DH for the umpteenth time, something caught my attention.  When Harry says Voldemort's name and breaks the protective enchantments, Hermione uses a stinging jinx to make him unrecognizable.  The Snatchers take them to Malfoy Manor where it's still obvious that the jinx has been used.  I don't recall anything ever being said about someone undoing the jinx.  But once they are in the cellar, and even at Shell Cottage, no one says, "Hey, Harry, what happened to your face?"  I realize more important things were happening, but does the jinx just fade away or what?  




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jul  1 21:34:01 2009
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 14:34:01 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Stinging jinx on Harry in DH
In-Reply-To: <h2g4c8+832r@eGroups.com>
References: <h2g4c8+832r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0907011434o6467eb2ctc3fa8edf8f49d6bc@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187208

>
>
> After rereading DH for the umpteenth time, something caught my attention.
> When Harry says Voldemort's name and breaks the protective enchantments,
> Hermione uses a stinging jinx to make him unrecognizable. The Snatchers take
> them to Malfoy Manor where it's still obvious that the jinx has been used. I
> don't recall anything ever being said about someone undoing the jinx. But
> once they are in the cellar, and even at Shell Cottage, no one says, "Hey,
> Harry, what happened to your face?" I realize more important things were
> happening, but does the jinx just fade away or what?

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

Apparently so. I noticed, from my first read, that it is a jinx not a
hex, and in earlier books jinxes didn't hang around until reversed,
like hexes (thinking of some of the wandwork done by Fred and George
as well as others to the Malfoy crowd)

Lynda



From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  1 22:42:04 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:42:04 -0000
Subject: Patronus question again
In-Reply-To: <h2ekg3+ees2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2gons+s2dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187209

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Reporting from the uninhibited island with only my Blackberry and Hermione as companions, I bring you the following question and I do realize that the answer is probably painfully obvious and I just forgot it. Is it necessary for the person to see another person's patronus for their patronus to be influenced by it and to change? I am just thinking about whole Snape/Lily thing and wondering if he ever saw her patronus? In fact do we even know (and I just forgot?) that Lily's Patronus was a Doe in the first place? I mean I know she wanted Stag and Doe to match, but this is a symbolism of Harry and Snape patronuses we know, not Lily and James' ones. I mean I think it is also to show the reader without saying much that they completed each other and were well matched, Lily and James I mean, but did it show in their own patronuses as well? Alla
>

Montavilla47:

Harry tells Voldemort that Lily's patronus was a doe.  But he doesn't have
any real way of knowing that.

There's nothing in the book to suggest that Snape ever saw Lily's 
patronus.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Jul  2 02:43:24 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:43:24 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2g88l+vab2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2h6sc+bss1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187210


> Carol responds:
 Lupin says that the Patronus charm is advanced magic "well above the Ordinary Wizarding level," but that doesn't mean it's not taught to, say, seventh-year NEWT-level DADA students.

Potioncat:
JKR said that the Patronus charm is not taught at Hogwarts. But she was saying that Draco wasn't taught it. Who knows if it was taught in the Marauders' days? Yet, I got the impression that it was not taught at Hogwarts period.

> Carol:
> Side note: If Dumbledore actually taught Snape to communicate using a Patronus, he would have seen that it was a doe unless he did so before Lily died. And since DD knew about Snape's love for Lily, Snape had no reason *not* to use it to communicate with him.

Potioncat:
You don't think Snape's Patronus would be a doe before Lily died? I suspect that whenever he learned it, it never changed.

Carol:
> 
> And I don't think that Sirius Black would have laughed at Snape's Patronus, which was powerful and beautiful, which Snape must have used to communicate with him both before and after he realized that Harry must have gone to the MoM. 

Potioncat:
I used to think that Snape used some other means of communication because if they had known his Patronus was Lily they wouldn't have doubted him. But now I think perhaps it wouldn't be as obvious to them that the doe was Lily. Afterall, I doubt if Minerva's and Delorus's cat Patronuses represent the same person. (And I'm not sure Minerva's represents herself unless she's incredibly self reliant and self confident.)

I'm still not sure how he communicated, but based on DD's comment about the Order's means of communication, I have to think he did use it.

Carol: 
> Anyway, I agree with Magpie that Harry's reference to the doe as his mother's Patronus is a slip of some kind, whether on Harry's part or JKR's. 

Potioncat:
I don't see why Lily's Patronus couldn't be a doe. It does make a nice mate for James's stag--but I don't think it represents James. Clearly, her doe represents someone else. Maybe her mother.






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  2 04:55:59 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:55:59 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2g88l+vab2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2hekv+bc1k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187211

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

> Actually, the kid asking the question spoke about Lily's 
> and James's Patronus being a doe and a stag, but JKR's answer 
> relates to Patronuses sometimes changing to reflect the 
> person you love. 


zanooda:

Yes, but the point is, JKR didn't deny that Lily's Patronus was a doe, which means that it was in fact a doe in the book :-). I do remember that you gave this quote somewhere, but I'll give it once more, as I promised:

- James patronus is a stag and lilys a doe is this a coincidence?
- No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one's life (because they so often become the "happy thought" that generate a Patronus).

Sure, she didn't correct the kid who mixed up James's Patronus and his Animagus form, but, as Lily is not an Animagus, there is nothing to mix up in her case, so I take it that Lily's Patronus *was* a doe. Besides, maybe James's Patronus really was a stag :-). 



> Carol wrote:

> For all we know, they might use them for protection 
> against Dementors, which had not yet gone over to 
> Voldemort's side at the time of his return. 


I think you are right. JKR said DEs don't use Patronuses, but she didn't say they physically *can't* cast them. I suppose they could, if needed. Here is what she said:

- Was snape the only death eater who could produce a full patronus?
- Yes, because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses.


> Carol wrote:

> And I don't think that Sirius Black would have laughed 
> at Snape's Patronus


zanooda:

Maybe not, but I still think that no one, except DD, knew Snape's Patronus. I'll bother you with one more quote from the same web-chat:

- How did snape keep his patronus secret from the rest of the order?
- He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance.



> Carol wrote:
 
> Anyway, I agree with Magpie that Harry's reference to the doe 
> as his mother's Patronus is a slip of some kind


zanooda:

I think Lily's Patronus was a doe :-). Besides, the sentence "Snape's Patronus was a doe, the same as my mother" sounds really strange :-).


> potioncat wrote:

> And I'm not sure Minerva's represents herself unless she's 
> incredibly self reliant and self confident.


zanooda:

I thought it was herself, because her Patronuses had those "spectacle markings" around their eyes :-). And why not? Maybe her Animagism(?) is something that makes her happy... :-). 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jul  2 14:33:34 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:33:34 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2hekv+bc1k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2igfu+mk5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187212

> > Carol wrote:
>  
> > Anyway, I agree with Magpie that Harry's reference to the doe 
> > as his mother's Patronus is a slip of some kind
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> I think Lily's Patronus was a doe :-). Besides, the sentence "Snape's Patronus was a doe, the same as my mother" sounds really strange :-).

Magpie:
But whether it was a doe or not--and certainly it could have been--Harry doesn't know that and that's not what he's saying. It does sound strange to say "the same as my mother" but I think that's why he slips and says the same as his mother's. Snape and Lily having the same Patronus has a totally different meaning than Snape having a doe Patronus because it represents Lily. The first is just a mild coincidence that at best proves that Snape and Lily knew each other and shared a similar happy memory, which Voldemort already knows. Saying that Snape's Patronus is Lily proves that Snape truly loved Lily and was inspired by her. Lily is Snape's guardian spirit. Voldemort underestimated Snape's love for Lily and the strength that that she gave him.

-m




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  2 14:44:15 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:44:15 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2hekv+bc1k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2ih3v+img2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187213

Carol:
> > Actually, the kid asking the question spoke about Lily's 
> > and James's Patronus being a doe and a stag, but JKR's answer 
> > relates to Patronuses sometimes changing to reflect the 
> > person you love. 
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> Yes, but the point is, JKR didn't deny that Lily's Patronus was a doe, which means that it was in fact a doe in the book :-). I do remember that you gave this quote somewhere, but I'll give it once more, as I promised:
> 
> - James patronus is a stag and lilys a doe is this a coincidence?
> - No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one's life (because they so often become the "happy thought" that generate a Patronus).
> 
> Sure, she didn't correct the kid who mixed up James's Patronus and his Animagus form, but, as Lily is not an Animagus, there is nothing to mix up in her case, so I take it that Lily's Patronus *was* a doe. Besides, maybe James's Patronus really was a stag :-). 

Montavilla47:
In which case, both Lily and James would have been 
primarily in love with themselves.  If the Patronus takes
the form of your loved one, then Lily's Patronus would
be a *stag* and James's would have been a *doe.*

I thought I remember reading somewhere that James's
Patronus was a biting teacup, because he was so happy
to have finally learned the spell after a lot of difficulty.
But I have no idea where I read it and it could be dead
wrong.


> > Carol wrote:
> 
> > For all we know, they might use them for protection 
> > against Dementors, which had not yet gone over to 
> > Voldemort's side at the time of his return. 
> 
> 
> I think you are right. JKR said DEs don't use Patronuses, but she didn't say they physically *can't* cast them. I suppose they could, if needed. Here is what she said:
> 
> - Was snape the only death eater who could produce a full patronus?
> - Yes, because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses.


Montavilla47:
What else do the Patroni guard beside Dementors?  And
wouldn't it have been a good idea for the DEs to learn that
spell for the decades in which Dementors were guarding
prisoners in Azkaban?

Of course, there is an alternative to using a Patronus
to protect yourself from Dementors.  We don't know what 
it is, but we know it exists because Snape was teaching that
alternate method in the D.A.D.A. class.


> > Carol wrote:
> 
> > And I don't think that Sirius Black would have laughed 
> > at Snape's Patronus
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> Maybe not, but I still think that no one, except DD, knew Snape's Patronus. I'll bother you with one more quote from the same web-chat:
> 
> - How did snape keep his patronus secret from the rest of the order?
> - He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance.

Montavilla47:
I wonder if JKR forgot that Snape had to communicate with
the Order in OotP.  But there are ways he could have done so
without using a Patronus.   

Someone mentioned using the fireplace in Umbridge's office.
I think he could also have taken advantage of the Phineas 
Nigellus's ability to move from portrait in Hogwarts to portrait
in Grimauld Place.

I always thought he used those methods rather than the
Patronus because those would be quicker--and we don't 
know if a Patronus *can* travel all the way from the north
of Scotland to London or how long it would take.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jul  2 15:26:26 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:26:26 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2hekv+bc1k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2ijj2+9ikd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187214

 
> zanooda:
> 
> Maybe not, but I still think that no one, except DD, knew Snape's Patronus. I'll bother you with one more quote from the same web-chat:
> 
> - How did snape keep his patronus secret from the rest of the order?
> - He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance.
> 

Pippin:
Dumbledore was surprised that Snape's patronus was still a doe, so Snape must indeed have used other means of communication with him and the Order as a rule.  However, Dumbledore would not want Harry to know that there was a reason Snape avoided using his patronus. That gives DD a reason for being  misleading in OOP, referring to the Order's means of communication instead of Snape's when he explains how Snape got in touch with the Order.

 
> > Carol wrote:
>  
> > Anyway, I agree with Magpie that Harry's reference to the doe 
> > as his mother's Patronus is a slip of some kind

Pippin:
Harry speaks as if Voldemort would have understood the significance of Snape's patronus if he'd seen it.  He also seems to think that Voldemort would recognize "either must die at the hand of the other" as being the part of the prophecy. And then there's his expectation that Scrimgeour knows how he got the scars on his hand. In other words, Harry is given to dubious assumptions of a certain kind. 

That his mother's patronus was a doe might be another in itself, though in this case it might be the same sort of subconscious insight that made Harry's patronus take the form of a stag.

 
> > potioncat wrote:
> 
> > And I'm not sure Minerva's represents herself unless she's 
> > incredibly self reliant and self confident.

Pippin:
The domestic cat appears to cherish its independence, yet functionally depends on  human infrastructure. That could be analogous to both Minerva and Dolores -- they feel that they are self-reliant, yet they depend on the Hogwarts and Ministry power structures.


Pippin




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  2 22:20:33 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:20:33 -0000
Subject: Lily's Patronus (WAS: Re: Patronus question again)
In-Reply-To: <h2ih3v+img2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2jbrh+10vcp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187215

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
 
> What else do the Patroni guard beside Dementors?  And
> wouldn't it have been a good idea for the DEs to learn that
> spell for the decades in which Dementors were guarding
> prisoners in Azkaban?


zanooda:

The prisoners don't have wands, so knowing the Patronus charm wouldn't do them any good. I'm sure Sirius knew how to conjure a Patronus, but what's the use ;-(? I wonder what his Patronus was...


> Montavilla47 wrote:
 
> Of course, there is an alternative to using a Patronus
> to protect yourself from Dementors.  We don't know what 
> it is, but we know it exists because Snape was teaching that
> alternate method in the D.A.D.A. class.


zanooda:

Most people think it's some basic Occlumency...


> Montavilla47:

> Someone mentioned using the fireplace in Umbridge's office.


zanooda:

Yes, me :-). But he couldn't have done it when he contacted Sirius for the first time, because Umbridge and the kids were still in her office.


> Montavilla47:

> I think he could also have taken advantage of the Phineas 
> Nigellus's ability to move from portrait in Hogwarts to portrait
> in Grimauld Place


zanooda:

Yes, absolutely, if Snape knew how to get inside DD's office :-).




From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Fri Jul  3 20:29:37 2009
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (Susan Curcio)
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: LV & room of requirement
Message-ID: <898908.48797.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187216

Tried to find this question answered, haven't had any luck:

When LV found the room of requirement, how could he have thought only he knew of it, with the thousands of things already hidden in it?
Great reading, all these discussions!
Susan


      

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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  4 02:15:43 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:15:43 -0000
Subject: @ride and prejudice and Snape redux
Message-ID: <h2me0f+8a7f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187217

So one of many things I decided to do while on the island was rereading of Pride and prejudice and so I finished this pleasant chore yesterday. I thought initially to wait with posting this topic till I get home in a few days because I wanted to dig some old posts on our discussions of some specific anglesof this topic and respond to it. But then I changed my mind, I figured I could always introduce specific angle midthread if I would like to. Let's start with this - do you see many similarities if any between Darcy and Snape? Do you see any differences? Did you see any potential similarities between Snape and Harry story and Elisa and Darcy story before DH? Do you still see it after DH? Happy independence day to american list members! Alla




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sat Jul  4 03:42:49 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:42:49 -0000
Subject: Human Patronus:  WasPatronus question again
In-Reply-To: <h2ekg3+ees2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2mj3p+8j4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187218

I have a very strange question.  Would it be possible for a patronus to take the shape of a person, a human.  If a person is evil, maybe Vader Or maybe a wookie.  A wookie is not a human.  Sorry.  I'm watching Star Wars and reading this thread at the same time.  Some strange questions are going through my mind at the moment.

Marianne
Too many freaks
Not enough circuses


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Reporting from the uninhibited island with only my Blackberry and Hermione as companions, I bring you the following question and I do realize that the answer is probably painfully obvious and I just forgot it. Is it necessary for the person to see another person's patronus for their patronus to be influenced by it and to change? I am just thinking about whole Snape/Lily thing and wondering if he ever saw her patronus? In fact do we even know (and I just forgot?) that Lily's Patronus was a Doe in the first place? I mean I know she wanted Stag and Doe to match, but this is a symbolism of Harry and Snape patronuses we know, not Lily and James' ones. I mean I think it is also to show the reader without saying much that they completed each other and were well matched, Lily and James I mean, but did it show in their own patronuses as well? Alla
>





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jul  4 06:51:39 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:51:39 -0000
Subject: Human Patronus:  WasPatronus question again
In-Reply-To: <h2mj3p+8j4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2mu5r+33b7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187219

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> I have a very strange question.  Would it be possible for a patronus to take the shape of > a person, a human.  

<snip>

> Marianne

Geoff:
Doesn't strike me as a strange question.

My initial reaction is "Why not?". I would just offer this from canon 
to support my view:

'"Well, when it works correctly, it conjures up a Patronus," said Lupin, 
"which is a kind of Anti-Dementor -  a guardian which acts as a 
shield between you and the Dementor."

Harry had a sudden vision of himself crouching behind a Hagrid-sized 
figure holding a large club. Professor Lupin continued, "The Patronus 
is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the  
Dementor feeds upon - hope, happiness, the desire to survive - but 
it cannot feel despair, as real humans can, so the Dementors can't 
hurt it. But I must warn you, Harry, that the Charm might be too 
advanced for you. Many qualified wizards have difficulty with it."

"What does a Patronus look like?" said Harry curiously.

"Each one is unique to the wizard who conjures it."'

(POA  "The Patronus"  p.176 UK edition)

>From that, I draw two points, both perhaps implied assumptions. 
First, we are not specifically told at this point what one does look 
like. The idea of a Patronus having an animal form really surfaces 
later in the book at the lakeside. but there is no suggestion that 
its form cannot be **human**.

Second, Lupin's comment - "it cannot feel despair **as real humans 
can**. This could just be a casual remark but it also could imply that 
a Patronus could appear as a human.

Summing up, why shouldn't a positive force appear in any form 
which fits the need of the wizard calling on it?







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  4 13:25:25 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:25:25 -0000
Subject: @ride and prejudice and Snape redux
In-Reply-To: <h2me0f+8a7f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2nl85+t724@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187220

Alla:
> So one of many things I decided to do while on the island was rereading of Pride and prejudice and so I finished this pleasant chore yesterday. I thought initially to wait with posting this topic till I get home in a few days because I wanted to dig some old posts on our discussions of some specific anglesof this topic and respond to it. But then I changed my mind, I figured I could always introduce specific angle midthread if I would like to. Let's start with this - do you see many similarities if any between Darcy and Snape? Do you see any differences?
>
Montavilla47:

There are very obvious differences between Snape and Mr. 
Darcy.  Mr. Darcy is objectively handsome, while Snape is 
usually described with very unattractive features (which are 
subtly less unattractive in the second chapter of HBP).

Mr. Darcy is rich, and an aristocrat, while Snape is no better
than comfortable in a poor house.  

Mr. Darcy is a gentleman, while Snape is an academic and
a spy.

What I think they have in common is a tendency to speak
their mind without thinking about the effect their words 
may have on the feelings of others.  I would say they both
share a desire to correct their misdeeds, when they become
aware of them.  I suppose they both share a certain blindness
towards their own considerable faults.  And, they are both 
faithful in love.

Alla:
Did you see any potential similarities between Snape and Harry story and Elisa and Darcy story before DH? Do you still see it after DH? 

Montavilla47:
I saw a lot of similarities in the story.  So much so that 
they are almost the same story (with the obvious 
difference that neither Harry nor Snape ever *loves* the
other.)

1.
In P&P, Eliza overhears Mr. Darcy insulting herself and her
friends.  She takes a dislike to him based on this experience.

In HP, Harry is directly insulted by Snape.  He takes a
dislike to Snape to based on this experience.

2. 
Eliza subsequently hears stories that put Mr. Darcy in 
a very bad light.  Because of her dislike of Mr. Darcy and
the charm of the storyteller, she believes the stories 
without question.

Harry hears stories about Snape that make him seem 
angry, petty, and immature.  His dislike of Snape and 
liking for those telling the stories (Dumbledore, Sirius,
and Lupin) make it easy for him to believe the worst 
of Snape.

3.
The final blow to any relationship between Eliza and 
Mr. Darcy comes when Eliza hears, through a third party,
about Mr. Darcy deliberately destroying Jane's chances 
to marry Mr. Bingley.  This is such a horrible action that
it seems very unlikely that Eliza could ever forgive it.

The final nail in the coffin that is Harry and Snape's 
relationship comes when Harry learns, through a 
third party, that Snape overheard that Prophecy and
that he was one who ensured that Voldemort targetted
his family.  This is such a horrible action it seems very
unlikely that Harry could ever forgive it.

4.
After receiving an explanation of Mr. Darcy's actions,
including his regret about his dishonorable behavior
towards Janes, Eliza forgives him, although this takes 
time.

After receiving an explanation of Snape's actions,
including his regret about targetting Lily (although 
not James or Harry), Harry implicitly forgives Snape,
although how long this takes is unknown.


5.
Mr. Darcy helps Eliza's family by paying Wickham to 
marry Lydia.  He tries to hide his good deed from 
Eliza, believing that he has no hope of anything beyond
polite tolerance from her at that point.

Snape helps Harry in many ways, notably protecting
his life, but also by spying on Voldemort, delivering the 
Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, and suffering death to 
deliver Dumbledore's message.  His one condition to 
Dumbledore is that Harry never be aware of why he 
doing so.

***

After reading DH, I still think that the stories are 
very similar.


Alla:
Happy independence day to american list members!

Montavilla47:
Thank you!







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jul  4 14:22:40 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:22:40 -0000
Subject: LV & room of requirement
In-Reply-To: <898908.48797.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h2nojg+9ei6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187221

Susan:
> Tried to find this question answered, haven't had any luck:
> 
> When LV found the room of requirement, how could he have thought only he knew of it, with the thousands of things already hidden in it?
> Great reading, all these discussions!

Pippin:
You can find one of many discussions starting at message 181688. My best answer is that Tom already knew of one room at Hogwarts that he alone could find and held something destined just for him, so it wasn't such a stretch for him to think he had another. It would be just like Tom to think that Hogwarts had provided the contents of the room for him.

Pippin




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  4 19:17:30 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:17:30 -0000
Subject: LV & room of requirement
In-Reply-To: <898908.48797.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h2o9sa+66uv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187222

---  Susan Curcio <susanfullin at ...> wrote:
>
> Tried to find this question answered, haven't had any luck:
> 
> When LV found the room of requirement, how could he have thought only he knew of it, with the thousands of things already hidden in it?
> Great reading, all these discussions!
> Susan
> 
> 

bboyminn:

Remember that Tom Riddle went to Hogwart's and indeed did find more of its secrets than any other students; consider the 'Chamber of Secrets'. 

I think on one hand, it was sheer arrogance. He believed the room sense his immense magical power and reveal itself to him. He, the greatest wizard of all, has learned another of Hogwarts secrets. 

Now, when he actually went into the room, it became clear the centuries of 'someone or other' has been hiding junk there. 

So, it wasn't so much that he believed no one else knew of the room, but more the fact that Hogwarts has given him what he needed when he needed it. In his mind, it was Hogwarts working with him to fulfill his destiny. 

The second part, is that the room with centuries of what was clearly forgotten junk, was the prefect place to hide his object. It was probably clear to him that people added stuff to the room, but never removed anything. It wasn't a storage space, it was a dumping ground. 

So, the room gave him the prefect hiding place, just when he needed it, and what better place to hide a valuable object than in a room full of wasted junk. In a sense, to hide in an immense crowd was the perfect cover. 

So, I don't think he believed that no one knew about the room, just that in all his many years at Hogwarts and with all his other discoveries, he had never heard a hint of the room. Partly because he never considered that the insignificant House Elves might know something he didn't. 

Still, despite all the junk in the room, there had never been a hint of it from anyone else. No student had ever discovered it by accident. There were no rumors of it. No legends of the great secret magic room.  Remember that even Dumbledore only had the vaguest notion of the room.

Now clearly students did discover it, Fred and George used it once. Filch used it occasionally. But each discovered nothing of interest. Fred and George found a bog-standard broom closet. Filch merely found cleaning supplies when he needed them.  

So, no one discovered the greater purpose of the room, beyond Voldemort and Harry. 

So, here is a secondary questions. What did they do with the room after the great battle with Voldemort? Did they leave it alone for other people to discover? Did they cover the entrance with iron bars, so that even if a student were to discover it, they couldn't get in?

steve/bboyminn






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  4 21:35:37 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:35:37 -0000
Subject: LV & room of requirement
In-Reply-To: <h2o9sa+66uv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2ohv9+g34d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187223

Susan Curcio wrote:
> >
> > Tried to find this question answered, haven't had any luck:
> > 
> > When LV found the room of requirement, how could he have thought only he knew of it, with the thousands of things already hidden in it?

bboyminn responded:
> 
> Remember that Tom Riddle went to Hogwart's and indeed did find more of its secrets than any other students; consider the 'Chamber of Secrets'. 
> 
> I think on one hand, it was sheer arrogance. He believed the room sense his immense magical power and reveal itself to him. He, the greatest wizard of all, has learned another of Hogwarts secrets. 
> 
> Now, when he actually went into the room, it became clear the centuries of 'someone or other' has been hiding junk there. 
> 
> So, it wasn't so much that he believed no one else knew of the room, but more the fact that Hogwarts has given him what he needed when he needed it. In his mind, it was Hogwarts working with him to fulfill his destiny. 
> 
> The second part, is that the room with centuries of what was clearly forgotten junk, was the prefect place to hide his object. It was probably clear to him that people added stuff to the room, but never removed anything. It wasn't a storage space, it was a dumping ground. 
<snip>

Carol responds:

I'm not so sure. It seems clear from his thoughts when he discovers that at least one Horcrux is missing that Voldemort thought and still thinks that he's the only one who found the room.

Harry, who desperately needs to hide the HBP's Potions book from Snape (delicious little irony there) instinctively knows that many others have done the same thing before him (one or two students hiding something per year would add up to 1,000 or 2,000 objects, and, of course, the House Elves knew about it). Voldemort, OTOH, doesn't identify anyone and can't imagine anyone in the same predicament as himself--having to hide a Horcrux--so, he interprets the room as having assembled itself for his sole benefit, perhaps magically accumulating all the old and broken junk in Hogwarts and conjuring the rest--not for anyone who needs it but only for him because he alone has been clever enough to find it. That a House Elf or several thousand ordinary students over the years might have found this wonderful room is beyond his comprehension.

*We* know that the room has been used for a millennium as Harry thinks it has because we also see Trelawney using it in the same form for the same purpose, and Draco has summoned the room in the same form for a different purpose, perhaps because the House Elves hid the Vanishing Cabinet there after the Twins stuffed Montague in it. (Too bad they didn't hide it after Peeves first broke it in CoS!) We also know that it appears in other forms for other people, even the Squib Filch, for other purposes. But Voldemort, thinking himself more brilliant than other people (a fault he shares with Dumbledore) and unable to empathize with others (he's not the first or last person to want to hide a valuable or incriminating object) thinks he's the only one who has discovered it. He may or may not realize that the room holds the accumulated junk of a thousand years rather than specially conjured junk, but he doesn't realize that it was placed there item by item by  people or creatures whose magical abilities and intelligence he would consider vastly inferior to his own.

His view is hard to understand at first since we know how the junk got there and Harry easily figured it out, but Voldemort, whose mind works differently from Harry's, would not necessarily have arrived at the correct conclusion in this instance. (Draco, needing a place to repair the broken Vanishing Cabinet, may or may not have thought about how everything got there. It would be interesting to know whether he thought it had appeared solely for his benefit--until Trelawney came along and destroyed that illusion.)

Carol, figuring that at least two or three students a year would have needed to discover the place for it to contain as much junk as the narrator describes (but, of course, JKR could be exaggerating again)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul  4 21:58:05 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:58:05 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
Message-ID: <h2oj9d+moq5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187224

Speaking of silly questions, I'm rereading CoS (which is funnier than I remembered, at least in places) and I was wondering--does Hermione just leave her cauldron in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom when she and the boys aren't adding ingredients to the Polyjuice Potion? She can't very well take it back to her dorm room, and the lacewing flies have to stew for twenty-one days, so it has to stay in the bathroom, right? Which leaves Hermione without a cauldron for at least three weeks. 

So what does she do in Snape's class? There's a passage describing twenty simmering cauldrons right before Harry tosses the firecracker into Goyle's cauldron to distract Snape while Hermione steals the bicorn horn and boomslang skin from Snape's office, making it sound as if Hermione (one of the twenty) has her own cauldron. There's no indication that she's sharing a cauldron, and it would have been extremely suspicious if she arrived at Potions class without one. (Or maybe they keep the cauldrons in a particular dungeon classroom, with each Potions class held in a separate room?)

At any rate, my question is, if Hermione's cauldron is busily bubbling away in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, where did she get another cauldron to use for Potions? (She doesn't know about the Room of Requirement yet, and I don't suppose that even Hermione can just conjure a cauldron out of thin air, especially in second year.)

That leads me to another problem with the Polyjuice story. Supposedly, the fluxweed has to be picked at midnight, which means that it can't just be taken like the leeches, knotgrass, and lacewing flies from the potion ingredients that Snape keeps in his classroom. Did HRH sneak down to a greenhouse or garden under the Invisibility Cloak to pick the fluxweed, of did JKR just forget that detail?

Another interesting thing about that sequence of events--Goyle's Swelling Solution does exactly what it's supposed to do--causes hands and noses of the people its splashed on to swell so that Snape has to give half the class the antidote, Deflating Draft. *Goyle's* potion was perfectly prepared? Did Draco help him with it or is Goyle less stupid than we think he is? Maybe he actually deserved his passing marks in Potions class.

BTW, Moaning Myrtle's bathroom is described in my edition as being on the first floor, but it has to be on the second floor, the same place that the Petrified Mrs. Norris was found. (Or maybe "first" means second--one floor up from the ground floor, which Americans call the first floor--in which case Mrs. Norris was found on the "first" floor--or "first storey," as the British would say.)

Carol, who also noted some problems with consistency (specifically, timing) in her reread of SS/PS but will leave those comments for a later post




From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Sat Jul  4 22:18:07 2009
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 18:18:07 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another silly question
Message-ID: <cad.5220e26a.37812f1f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187225

It's been a while since I read it, but does it say that it has to be picked 
 fresh?  As long as an herb is harvested at the right time, it can be 
stored  (if it's done correctly).
 
Sherrie (who's been a bit busy)
 
 
In a message dated 7/4/2009 5:59:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes:

That  leads me to another problem with the Polyjuice story. Supposedly, the 
fluxweed  has to be picked at midnight, which means that it can't just be 
taken like the  leeches, knotgrass, and lacewing flies from the potion 
ingredients that Snape  keeps in his classroom. Did HRH sneak down to a greenhouse 
or garden under the  Invisibility Cloak to pick the fluxweed, of did JKR 
just forget that  detail?

**************Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the 
grill. (http://food.aol.com/grilling?ncid=emlcntusfood00000005)


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




From d2dmiles at yahoo.de  Sat Jul  4 22:34:35 2009
From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 00:34:35 +0200
Subject: Another silly question
References: <h2oj9d+moq5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <EDF848E81B4E47BC88F11B0E42CD56B6@miles>

No: HPFGUIDX 187227

Carol wrote:
> At any rate, my question is, if Hermione's cauldron is busily
> bubbling away in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, where did she get another
> cauldron to use for Potions? (She doesn't know about the Room of
> Requirement yet, and I don't suppose that even Hermione can just
> conjure a cauldron out of thin air, especially in second year.)

Miles
While I would not assume it's impossible that JKR didn't think about it, in 
later books we learn about owl order services, so, assuming that her 
well-off parents give her good pocket money, she could simply have bought a 
cauldron.
Additionally, it is possible that there are used cauldrons all over the 
place, maybe it is possible to buy an old one second-hand from one of the 
older students ("good as new, I only can't get rid of those dragonblood 
stains on the outside and had my mom buy me a new one").
I think even if this has to happen offpage, it's not unlikely or impossible.

Miles 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jul  4 23:15:07 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:15:07 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2oj9d+moq5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2onpr+6bq5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187228

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of silly questions, I'm rereading CoS (which is funnier than I remembered, at 
> least in places) and I was wondering--does Hermione just leave her cauldron in 
> Moaning Myrtle's bathroom when she and the boys aren't adding ingredients to the 
> Polyjuice Potion? 

Geoff:
The specific piece of canon is:
'There was a clunk, a splash and a gasp from within the cubicle and he 
saw Hermione's eye peering through the keyhole.

"Harry!" she said. "You gave us such a fright. Come in - how's your arm?"

"Fine," said Harry, squeezing into the cubicle. An old cauldron was perched 
on the toilet and a cracking from under the rim told Harry they had lit a 
fire beneath it.'
(COS "The Duelling Club" pp.137/38 UK edition)

It is described as "old" - to me the implication being that it was not Hermione's.
When I taught, there would often be odd cupboards or store areas where 
spare or redundant items were kept. I think this was the case. we know that 
there were such places in Hogwarts. Look at the classroom where the Mirror 
of Erised was kept (PS "The Mirror of Erised" p.152 UK edition) as the sort of 
place in which an old cauldron could end up.

Carol:
> BTW, Moaning Myrtle's bathroom is described in my edition as being on the first floor, 
> but it has to be on the second floor, the same place that the Petrified Mrs. Norris was 
> found. (Or maybe "first" means second--one floor up from the ground floor, which 
> Americans call the first floor--in which case Mrs. Norris was found on the "first" floor--> or "first storey," as the British would say.)

Geoff:
In the UK original, the bathroom is on the second floor as was the attack. 
Harry and the others are coming up from the dungeons and the Deathday 
party:
'"This way,"he shouted and he began to run, up the stairs into the Entrance 
Hall....

...Harry sprinted up the marble staircase to the first floor....

...Distantly, from the floor above and growing fainter still, he heard the voice: 
'I smell blood... I SMELL BLOOD!'...

,,,ignoring Ron and Hermione's bewildered faces, he ran up the next flight 
of stairs three at a time, trying to listen over his own pounding footsteps.

Harry hurtled around the whole of the second floor, Ron and Hermione 
panting behind him until they turned a corner into the last, deserted passage...

...Hermione gave a sudden gasp, pointing down the corridor.

"Look!"
Something was shining on the wall ahead.'
(COS "The Deathday Party" p.105 UK edition)

That firmly puts the attack on the second floor (BTW we would never 
say 'on the second storey' in that context).

And Myrtle's bathroom:

'"As she spoke, they turned a corner and found themselves at the end 
of the very corridor where the attack had happened. They stopped and 
looked. The scene was just as it had been that night, except that there 
was no stiff cat hanging from the torch bracket and an empty chair 
stood against the wall bearing the message 'the Chamber has been 
opened'.

"That's where Filch has been keeping guard," Ron muttered....

....Harry said, "Remember all that water on the floor? Where did that 
come from? Someone's mopped it up."

"It was about here," said Ron, recovering himself to walk a few paces 
past Filch's chair and pointing. "Level with this door."

He reached for the brass doorknob but suddenly withdrew his hand 
as though he'd been burned.

"What's the matter?" said Harry.

"Can't go in there," said Ron gruffly, "that's a girls' toilet."

"Oh, Ron, there won't be anyone in there," said Hermione, standing 
up and coming over."That's Moaning Myrtle's place. Come on, let's 
have a look."'
(COS "The Writing on the Wall" from pp.116-18 UK edition)

I think it is very clear that the action here ends on the second floor. 
The dungeons are in the basement, the Entrance Hall is on the 
ground floor and Harry goes up two floors from there. It would seem 
that the American editors may have erred if there is a discrepancy in 
your edition.




From a1.mills at portset.net  Sat Jul  4 19:56:29 2009
From: a1.mills at portset.net (Andrew)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:56:29 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV & room of requirement
Message-ID: <200907041750.n64HoW1D019680@post.portset.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 187229

This is my first post, I've been reading for a long time but haven't posted so far, but this topic has just given me a sudden thought.  Students could use the room fo requirements and, so it appears, could Filch.  However, I was under the impression that Filch was actually a squib.  How come then that Filch was able to use this magical room?  It would seem that magic was needed to be able to enter the room, yet Filch appeared to have entered it many times to hide all the confiscated items.  Did he therefore have some magical abilities or did he perhaps have help to enter the room?  I can't remember reading an explanation for this in the books but if anyone knows of one I'd be interested in theories. 

Andrew



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 05:47:05 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:47:05 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2onpr+6bq5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2peop+rb3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187230

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:


> In the UK original, the bathroom is on the second floor as 
> was the attack. 


zanooda:

I still think there is some discrepancy here, because the first time Myrtle's bathroom ever mentioned ("The Deathday Party"), it is on the first floor: "'She haunts the girls' toilet on the first floor', said Hermione"(p.101 Br.ed.).




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jul  5 06:06:09 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:06:09 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2peop+rb3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2pfsh+euhi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187231

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10@> wrote:
> 
> 
> > In the UK original, the bathroom is on the second floor as 
> > was the attack. 
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> I still think there is some discrepancy here, because the first time Myrtle's bathroom ever mentioned ("The Deathday Party"), it is on the first floor: "'She haunts the girls' toilet on the first floor', said Hermione"(p.101 Br.ed.).

Geoff:
In a real life situation, it could be a slip of the tongue on Hermione's 
part. in this case, perhaps a slip of the pen?







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 08:25:04 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:25:04 -0000
Subject: LV & room of requirement
In-Reply-To: <h2ohv9+g34d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2po10+g9so@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187232

--- "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Susan Curcio wrote:
> > >
> > > Tried to find this question answered, haven't had any luck:
> > > 
> > > When LV found the room of requirement, how could he have thought only he knew of it, with the thousands of things already hidden in it?
> 
> bboyminn responded:
> > 
> > Remember that Tom Riddle went to Hogwart's and indeed did find more of its secrets than any other students; consider the 'Chamber of Secrets'. 
> > 
> > I think on one hand, it was sheer arrogance. He believed the room sense his immense magical power and reveal itself to him. He, the greatest wizard of all, has learned another of Hogwarts secrets. 
> > 
> > Now, when he actually went into the room, it became clear that centuries of 'someone or other' has been hiding junk there. 
> > 
> > ...
> <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I'm not so sure. It seems clear from his thoughts when he discovers that at least one Horcrux is missing that Voldemort thought and still thinks that he's the only one who found the room.
> 
> Harry, who desperately needs to hide the HBP's Potions book from Snape ... instinctively knows that many others have done the same thing before him ... Voldemort, OTOH, doesn't identify anyone and can't imagine anyone in the same predicament as himself--having to hide a Horcrux--so, he interprets the room as having assembled itself for his sole benefit, ...
>

bboyminn:

I never thought of it that way before. So, Voldemort assumes all the junk in the room was provided by the room as cover within which to hide his object. In a sense, the junk was camouflage to help hide his Horcrux.

That actually makes a lot of sense, and keep Voldemort's view consistent. 

Still, you are right, Harry figures out the truth in a blink.

Steve/bboyminn 




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 08:34:29 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:34:29 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2peop+rb3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2poil+3pf9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187233

---  "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10@> wrote:
> 
> 
> > In the UK original, the bathroom is on the second floor as 
> > was the attack. 
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> I still think there is some discrepancy here, because the first time Myrtle's bathroom ever mentioned ("The Deathday Party"), it is on the first floor: "'She haunts the girls' toilet on the first floor', said Hermione"(p.101 Br.ed.).
>

bboyminn:

I think JKR has admitted to this mistake several times. It is clear that Moaning Myrtle's bathroom has been on several different floors at one time or another. 

Though, we must acknowledge the difference in floor numbering between the UK and USA. Our First Floor is the UK Ground Floor, and since the ground floor is already names, the floor above it would be the First Floor. However, in the USA, the ground floor is designated as the first floor making the UK first floor our second floor. 

So, it could have been confusion among the many editors. Or it could have been confusion on JKR's part. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn





From SnowyHome at aol.com  Sat Jul  4 18:37:12 2009
From: SnowyHome at aol.com (Cathy)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:37:12 -0000
Subject: New Member
Message-ID: <h2o7go+9rto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187234

Hello Everyone,

   I'm new to posting on the List. I've been at Hogwarts for a long time but I've been on another Harry Potter List. I decided I needed to close a door there, open a window,  let in some fresh air, and see who I find in the Common Room here.  The sorting hat must have put me in the other group by mistake. I'm re-sorting myself now.

 I found the new posts realy interesting.
  I want to respond later to the post on Pride & Prejudice since I love all Jane Austen's work and have re-read my favorites many times. Each time they are more meaningful to me. I think she could have taught a few classes at Hogwarts. Her insight into muggles is amazing!

  Geoff's response on the Patronus was great. I printed it out for my Harry Potter files here.

   Marianne's quote at the end of her post: "Too many freaks, not enough circuses" was so funny. I shared it with my husband Fredd (who is a Gemini (the twins) and I think he is most like the Weasley  twins (both of them). We both laughed hysterically over that quote Marianne.Having looked for a circus for myself quite often, I could relate it to me and others I know:-)

  I actualy have not read Book 7 yet. I guess I don't want the series to end so I am glad it is still continuing on this List. I'm still re-reading the other books. I was so focused on the symbolism in the books and now I want to re-read them and sort out the symbolism for myself.  I also recently joined the Leaky Cauldron. It is so immense that I am still learning to navigate it. Technology is a fearful area for me. I'll probably have to put a "Ridiculus" spell on myself to go in there and find my way around. I really enjoyed Melissa's book.

  Glad to find you all here in the Common Room. Look forward to participating.

Cathy





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jul  5 16:58:58 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 5 Jul 2009 16:58:58 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/5/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1246813138.512.99732.m4@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187235

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday July 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20090705/686df746/attachment.html>

From lkotur at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 15:19:15 2009
From: lkotur at yahoo.com (Damit Lazarus)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:19:15 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
Message-ID: <h2qg9j+jq2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187236

I always wondered about wand loyalty.
When Dumbledore's Army was practicing spells in the room of
requirement and used the Expelliarmus charm to disarm one
another, did the wands change allegiance to the "new owner"?

Possible plot hole.

D.L.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jul  5 19:23:46 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:23:46 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2poil+3pf9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2quk2+3dmr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187237

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

zanooda:

> > I still think there is some discrepancy here, because the first time Myrtle's bathroom ever mentioned ("The Deathday Party"), it is on the first floor: "'She haunts the girls' toilet on the first floor', said Hermione"(p.101 Br.ed.).

bboyminn: 
> I think JKR has admitted to this mistake several times. It is clear that Moaning Myrtle's bathroom has been on several different floors at one time or another. 
 
> Though, we must acknowledge the difference in floor numbering between the UK and USA. Our First Floor is the UK Ground Floor, and since the ground floor is already names, the floor above it would be the First Floor. However, in the USA, the ground floor is designated as the first floor making the UK first floor our second floor. 

Geoff:
I don't think the question of UK/US floor numbering is relevant here 
because the discrepancy occurs in the original UK version. I did comment 
earlier today on OTC that JKR originally was writing with a UK readership 
in mind and not knowing how international the books would become.

Although I am something of a nitpicker with books and films, I also do not 
think that the actual floor discrepancy is of particular importance either. It
does not affect the story line. I hadn't noticed until it was mentioned here.
I think that books can get by with errors if you can live them. On Goodreads, 
Alla recently mentioned "To serve them all my days" by R. F. Delderfield. It is 
a book I have read countless times and still enjoy because of the story line 
and the location, both of which I identify closely with. But there are frequent 
lapses. In particular, timelines and ages don't match up but They do not 
detract from the enjoyment of the story and this universe into which I can 
escape when I want to. So, I am not going to bounce off the wall and fuss 
because the floors may have been mixed up in JKR's notes. I get facts mixed 
up  or forget something I said previously in my real world. There are other 
more pressing matters.

Anybody know how many angels can dance on the point of a pin?
:-)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 20:58:57 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 20:58:57 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2peop+rb3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2r46h+brlj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187238

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10@> wrote:
> 
> 
> > In the UK original, the bathroom is on the second floor as 
> > was the attack. 
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> I still think there is some discrepancy here, because the first time Myrtle's bathroom ever mentioned ("The Deathday Party"), it is on the first floor: "'She haunts the girls' toilet on the first floor', said Hermione"(p.101 Br.ed.).
>
Carol responds:

Yes, that was my point (although my edition is American--an old one that still has Voldemort as Slytherin's last remaining "ancestor"). It's not consistent. And first floor makes more sense than second floor for the location of that bathroom, anyway. Why would have the school come rushing into *both ends* of a *second-floor* corridor as they leave the Great Hall? They might rush into a *first-floor* corridor (or more likely still, a ground-floor corridor since the Great Hall is on the ground floor)--at least from the end nearest the Great Hall if not from both ends. but Harry runs up a flight of stairs from the basement to the entrance hall, another flight to the first floor, and a third flight to the second floor (third floor in American English) (138).

Possibly, Gryffindors or Ravenclaws might choose to get to their respective towers by way of the second (third) floor, though it seems like a roundabout way, and it's odd that most if not all of them would choose that route. But why would Hufflepuffs, who live one floor below the Great Hall if I understand the floor plan correctly, and Slytherins, who live in the dungeons under the lake, be rushing up to the second floor after the Halloween banquet? Harry hears "hundreds of feet climbing the stairs," making it sound as if every student who had attended the banquet is heading that way, and the next moment, students are rushing into that particular corridor (which you'd think would be rather secluded given that several of the attacks occur there--admittedly, in this case, while everyone was in the Great Hall) from both directions. (CoS Am. ed. 159)

Draco Malfoy, for unknown reasons, is among them. Filch is apparently attracted by Draco's shout (was he lurking there or at the feast with the students?). Lockhart, Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Snape arrive seconds later despite the absence of any unusual noise. (Draco's shout isn't even in capital letters.) They must have followed the students into this corridor. Hundreds of students, including at least one Slytherin, and several key staff members in a second-floor corridor rather than heading to their respective dormitories and offices? Why?

And, BTW, any theories as to how the Basilisk attacked the students in other locations than outside Moaning Myrtle's bathroom? Yes, it can travel through the pipes, but how can it get out of the pipes if it's not near the exit/entrance to the Chamber of Secrets?

Carol, still unsure where Hermione got the old cauldron that she used to make the Polyjuice potion and wondering how they managed to pick the fluxweed at midnight






From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 17:33:01 2009
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:33:01 -0000
Subject: LV & room of requirement
In-Reply-To: <h2o9sa+66uv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2qo4d+ooes@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187239

> > Susan wrote:
> >
> > Tried to find this question answered, haven't had any luck:
> >
> > When LV found the room of requirement, how could he have thought
> > only he knew of it, with the thousands of things already hidden
> > in it?
> > Great reading, all these discussions!


> bboyminn:

> snip

> So, here is a secondary questions. What did they do with the room
> after the great battle with Voldemort? Did they leave it alone for
> other people to discover? Did they cover the entrance with iron
> bars, so that even if a student were to discover it, they couldn't
> get in?
>


Thanks for answering!
Maybe the ROR couldn't be "controlled" by anyone by barring it up, or maybe they liked the idea that it was there for students/teachers to use.

In DH, after HRH, Malfoy & Goyle flew out of the ROR, they wondered if it would still work after Fiendfyre. Cant remember exactly who had the thought, and I dont have the books around at the moment.
Always a pleasure reading your comments!

Susan






From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 18:58:28 2009
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (Susan Curcio)
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Snape flying away
Message-ID: <103032.74732.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187240

In DH30, Snape crashed through a window to escape the irate Profs.? ?Mcgonagall says "he learned a few tricks from his master". This means he knew how to fly like LV, not that he was an animagus, right?

Susan



From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul  5 23:34:41 2009
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:34:41 -0000
Subject: LV & room of requirement
In-Reply-To: <200907041750.n64HoW1D019680@post.portset.net>
Message-ID: <h2rdah+f54c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187241

> Andrew wrote:
>
> <snip>     However, I was under the impression that
> Filch was actually a squib.  How come then that Filch was able to
> use this magical room?  It would seem that magic was needed to be
> able to enter the room, yet Filch appeared to have entered it many
> times to hide all the confiscated items.  Did he therefore have
> some magical abilities or did he perhaps have help to enter the
> room?

Mike:
Welcome to the posting ranks, Andrew! :)

My impression was that the RoR provided the magic. The Room itself was imbued with magic by the founders. It was the Room that read the minds of its potential users and figured out exactly what they needed. Heck, it even figured out that putting all kinds of books on DADA was what was needed to convince Hermione that this was the right and safe place to train.

As to Filch, yes he was a squib. But that meant he was born of magical parents and he therefore carried the "magical gene." He just wasn't able to access his magic for whatever reason. Nobody in the WW could figure out why they had squibs. The RoR would have read that in Filch, IMO. But more than that, the founders wouldn't have figured that anyone non-magical would be anywhere near the RoR. They wouldn't have put any restrictions on its use. And HRH, nor anyone else that I'm aware of, had to use magic to get into the room. In OotP, the three of them just walked past the room three times concentrating very hard on what they needed. Filch could just as easily have done that and the Room would have provided. 

Can't you just see Filch walking past it once thinking, "Where's my cleanser?", reversing his course thinking, "left it back around the corner". Getting around the corner, not finding it, then walking by a third time cursing his luck that he had to now descend 6 flights of those damn moving staircases to get back to his supplies room. Then, *surprise*, there's another storage closet up here on the 7th floor. BTW, does anyone else think that after you've accessed the RoR the first time with a request that you don't need to walk by it 3 times with the *same* request? I find it hard to picture an on the run Neville having to pause and walk by the RoR three times to get back into his sanctuary.

On Voldemort, I agree with Carol, his arrogance would lead him to believe that only he found the Room. If only because of the reason Steve mentioned, he was hiding a Horcrux. Who else would be making such a request of the RoR? He didn't count on the fact that the Room didn't care *what* he was hiding, only that he was hiding something.

And, I bet the reason Draco was using the same Room was simply because the Vanishing Cabinet had been moved to there. I don't know and we were never told how he found this out. Though I'm sure he was slick enough to weasel that information out of someone. Filch or a house elf that he summoned wouldn't hide that information from him. But he wouldn't want to move it from there for the same reason that he didn't want to take the other one out of B&Bs. Can you see him getting caught levitating that thing down a hallway and trying to explain his way out of that?

Mike, who likes getting out his Plot Hole Filler for these easy ones
;)




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Jul  6 00:24:18 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:24:18 -0000
Subject: typo / Patronus / Fluxweed / Cauldron / Wand Loyalty
Message-ID: <h2rg7i+2tri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187242

Alla wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187197>:

<< Reporting from the uninhibited island with only my Blackberry and Hermione as companions >>

I love the typo. 

Potioncat wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187210>:

<< I'm not sure Minerva's represents herself unless she's incredibly self reliant and self confident >>

It seems to me that a the form of a Patronus shouldn't have to represent a person. As one creates the Patronus by recalling a happy memory, it seems to me that the form of the Patronus could represent that specific happy memory or represent one's happiness in general. As the purpose of the Patronus is protection, its form could represent what makes one feel safe.

So maybe Minerva's Patronus is a cat because her happy memory is the great feeling of success when she first accomplished the Animagus transformation, or maybe something that happened while she was in cat form. Or because her Patronus cat symbolizes a cozy private home and that is what makes her feel safe.

I don't see why the form of a Patronus can't be an inanimate object. I've heard of a fanfic in which James's Patronus was a Nose-Biting Teacup because his happy memory was his success at making one. I think Hermione's Patronus, before she fell in love with Ron, would have been a stack of books -- books were what made her feel safe, and maybe also what made her happy.

The example we were given of a person's Patronus changing because of emotional upheaval (since Remus was evading the real answer, maybe the ONLY emotional upheaval with this effect is romantic love), Tonks's Patronus changing to a wolf representing Remus, was NOT happy: it was miserable unrequited love. This seems to me to be a bit of a contradiction with the Patronus coming from happiness, but what the hey. It would work fine with Snape's Patronus having some other form that changed to the doe either when he realized he had lost Lily or when he found out that she was on LV's hit list.

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187224>:

<< Supposedly, the fluxweed has to be picked at midnight, which means that it can't just be taken like the leeches, knotgrass, and lacewing flies from the potion ingredients that Snape keeps in his classroom. Did HRH sneak down to a greenhouse or garden under the Invisibility Cloak to pick the fluxweed, of did JKR just forget that detail? >>

Maybe one of the ingredients in the potions cabinet is labelled "Fluxweed picked at midnight". Maybe another is labelled "Fluxweed picked at sundown"...

Miles wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187227>:

<< Additionally, it is possible that there are used cauldrons all over the place, maybe it is possible to buy an old one second-hand from one of the older students ("good as new, I only can't get rid of those dragonblood stains on the outside and had my mom buy me a new one"). >>

Or from a Sixth Form student who happily stopped Potions at OWL level.

D.L. wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187236>:

<< When Dumbledore's Army was practicing spells in the room of
requirement and used the Expelliarmus charm to disarm one
another, did the wands change allegiance to the "new owner"? >>

I think the text shows that the wands didn't change allegiance - all the students kept using their own wands. Last time this was discussed, some listies pointed out that practicing spells isn't a real combat, so the wands know that the people's intention is just to practice, not to harm each other. It seems to me that that wouldn't apply to the sport of duelling, even when practicing, so either there is a rule about the winner giving the loser back his wand as a gracious gift, or some duellists win more wands than they have room to display, while others run up tabs with Ollivander that it will take them decades to repay...

I think the Elder Wand is the only wand that changes allegiance without some effort by the new wand owner, at least to pick it up and try to use it, maybe have a struggle of wills the first time. 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jul  6 06:32:08 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:32:08 -0000
Subject: typo / Patronus / Fluxweed / Cauldron / Wand Loyalty
In-Reply-To: <h2rg7i+2tri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2s5p8+voap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187243

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

Catlady: 
> It seems to me that a the form of a Patronus shouldn't have to represent a person. As one creates the Patronus by recalling a happy memory, it seems to me that the form of the Patronus could represent that specific happy memory or represent one's happiness in general. As the purpose of the Patronus is protection, its form could represent what makes one feel safe.

Geoff:
Yes, but I can't see Dementors being driven away by being batted round 
the head by a swarm of Hermione's textbooks..... 




From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Jul  6 07:04:59 2009
From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:04:59 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <103032.74732.qm@web45813.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h2s7mr+sj3n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187244

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Susan Curcio <susanfullin at ...> wrote:
>
> In DH30, Snape crashed through a window to escape the irate Profs.? ?Mcgonagall says "he learned a few tricks from his master". This means he knew how to fly like LV, not that he was an animagus, right?
> 
> Susan
>

Karen

That's the way I have always read it. There are passages in DH where Harry 'sees' Voldemort flying without a broom. It must have been a particular mark of Voldemort's favour for him to show Snape how to do it or maybe an indication of how powerful Snape was that he was able to do it. There is no evidence Dumbledore ever flew without a broom, Hagrid referred to his use of Thestrals when he needed transport. 

Perhaps the spell was sufficiently 'dark' or difficult to restrict its use. After all Apparition was sufficiently difficult and dangerous to require a test so unassisted flying was I assume way beyond that level.




From kersberg at chello.nl  Mon Jul  6 10:39:04 2009
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:39:04 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <h2qg9j+jq2j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2sk88+ajss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187245

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Damit Lazarus" <lkotur at ...> wrote:
>
> I always wondered about wand loyalty.
> When Dumbledore's Army was practicing spells in the room of
> requirement and used the Expelliarmus charm to disarm one
> another, did the wands change allegiance to the "new owner"?
> 
> Possible plot hole.
> 
> D.L.
>

this is next to one of the strongest items occuring in HP also the most sloppy executed. 
It was probably developed very late in the writing of the serie. because although taking over wands from each other occurs many times in previous books it had no consequence at all for the use or allegiance.
Ginny by the same definition should be the mistress of Harry'w wand, because she took it form Draco who took it when Dumbledore's Army was caught in book 5.

maybe she really was and did Harry fell in love with her n book 6,
but I don't think JKR has a mind as dirty as mine. 




From kersberg at chello.nl  Mon Jul  6 11:29:36 2009
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:29:36 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance
In-Reply-To: <frc51c+hehm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2sn70+r88k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187246

--- Carol:
It probably still thinks that its master is
Draco until the "resurrected" Harry explains the situation to LV in
the wand's hearing.
kamion writing:

mmm, a wand may have a kind of sense and identity, it doesn't have ears to listen to explinations by rivals. It's a sort of primordial being of power operating beneath the level of conscience, tought or reason.

wand and wizard share a kind of magical channel that connects the wand identitity with that of the wizard, when that is forcefully severed..... like the Draco's Expelliarmus the connection between the Elder Wand and Dumbly was severed, Dumbledore's "wand personality" - that part of his being that was focused on his wand - was destroyed.
And the Elder Wand connected itself with the first personality recognised as the stronger in that particulair conflict.
Unless Dumbledore had beaten the crap out of Draco and took over Draco's hawnthorn wand he lost his mastership of the Elder Wand to Draco Malfoy.
He choose not to do so if ever possible, it was far more coveniant to let Draco in this unrealised mastership, knowing that the focus of Voldemort would sooner or later be on the far stronger wizard Snape.
The death of Dumbledore had nothing to do with change of allegiance.
It changed allegiance again when Draco's "wand personality" was overpowered in the boy's row what was to be expected.... Harry and Draco had this kind of blows all over the serie and Draco lost most of them.
 
I wonder however what in JKR's perspective would happen 
when Harry gives back Draco his hawnthorn wand.
Would the Elder Wand experience this as giving up mastership or still consider Harry as the dominant wizard of the two?  




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  6 17:56:45 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:56:45 -0000
Subject: typo / Patronus / Fluxweed / Cauldron / Wand Loyalty
In-Reply-To: <h2s5p8+voap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2tdst+9j9r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187247

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady@> wrote:
> 
> Catlady: 
> > It seems to me that a the form of a Patronus shouldn't have to represent a person. As one creates the Patronus by recalling a happy memory, it seems to me that the form of the Patronus could represent that specific happy memory or represent one's happiness in general. As the purpose of the Patronus is protection, its form could represent what makes one feel safe.
> 
> Geoff:
> Yes, but I can't see Dementors being driven away by being batted round the head by a swarm of Hermione's textbooks.....
>
Carol responds;

I agree with Geoff. Patronuses also need to run or fly, and, in the case of Order members, to speak, so I think that the normal form of a Patronus is just what we see in the books--some sort of animal or bird. I can imagine it taking the form of a person, too, but that would be a bit scary--rather like a ghost bursting out of someone's wand. But textbooks or inanimate objects of any sort, such as a Quidditch broom or a cauldron? I seriously doubt it.

Carol, imagining Draco with a bat Patronus representing Snape




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  6 18:13:30 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:13:30 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h2s7mr+sj3n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2tesa+j36b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187248

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allthecoolnamesgone" <allthecoolnamesgone at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Susan Curcio <susanfullin@> wrote:
> >
> > In DH30, Snape crashed through a window to escape the irate Profs.   Mcgonagall says "he learned a few tricks from his master". This means he knew how to fly like LV, not that he was an animagus, right?
> > 
> > Susan
> >
> 
> Karen
> 
> That's the way I have always read it. There are passages in DH where Harry 'sees' Voldemort flying without a broom. It must have been a particular mark of Voldemort's favour for him to show Snape how to do it or maybe an indication of how powerful Snape was that he was able to do it. There is no evidence Dumbledore ever flew without a broom, Hagrid referred to his use of Thestrals when he needed transport. 
> 
> Perhaps the spell was sufficiently 'dark' or difficult to restrict its use. After all Apparition was sufficiently difficult and dangerous to require a test so unassisted flying was I assume way beyond that level.
>
Carol adds:

Our only "authority" here is McGonagall, who assumes that Professor Snape learned to fly from his "master," but she also assumes that Snape is a murderer and a loyal DE. So the unanswered question is whether she's right. If Voldemort taught Snape--and only Snape, AFAWK--to fly, why would he do so? Why would he want a second in command with powers resembling his own, especially given the likelihood (in his view) that any new favorite would fail him and fall out of favor as Lucius Malfoy had done? If Voldemort had known that Snape was such a superb Occlumens that he could "hoodwink the Dark Lord" (as Snape expresses it to Bellatrix), he would not have been pleased. He would not have tolerated a potential rival.

That being the case, I'm inclined to think that Snape taught himself to fly, just as he apparently taught himself Occlumency. When and how, I have no idea. The only foreshadowing we have is the constant bat imagery applied to Snape. Other than that, his ability to fly (which he did not demonstrate during the Seven Potters chase) comes out of nowhere.

Carol, wishing as always that Snape could have developed his many talents without ever having joined the DEs




From g2rm2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  6 15:36:29 2009
From: g2rm2002 at yahoo.com (Gloria Rodriguez)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:36:29 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2quk2+3dmr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2t5lt+eqhl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187249

> zanooda:
>
> I still think there is some discrepancy here, because the first
> time Myrtle's bathroom ever mentioned ("The Deathday Party"), it
> is on the first floor: "'She haunts the girls' toilet on the first
> floor', said Hermione"(p.101 Br.ed.).


I don't see any discrepancies. Actually, Myrtle moves around the castle through the pipes. She appears to Harry in the Prefects' Bathroom (HPGOF). So , it is perfectly natural to assume that she goes to other bathrooms to haunt girls (and maybe boys) just for the fun of it.

Gloria




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jul  6 22:28:56 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:28:56 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2t5lt+eqhl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2ttr8+81eh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187250

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Gloria Rodriguez" <g2rm2002 at ...> wrote:
>
> > zanooda:
> >
> > I still think there is some discrepancy here, because the first
> > time Myrtle's bathroom ever mentioned ("The Deathday Party"), it
> > is on the first floor: "'She haunts the girls' toilet on the first
> > floor', said Hermione"(p.101 Br.ed.).
 
Gloria:
> I don't see any discrepancies. Actually, Myrtle moves around the castle through the pipes. She appears to Harry in the Prefects' Bathroom (HPGOF). So , it is perfectly natural to assume that she goes to other bathrooms to haunt girls (and maybe boys) just for the fun of it.

Geoff:
I think we know of  two other bathrooms (or toilets as I suspect they are, 
speaking as a Brit) where Moaning Myrtle has been seen but the "girls' toilet 
on the first floor" seems to be her base.




From vupitar at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Jul  6 16:12:18 2009
From: vupitar at yahoo.co.uk (vupitar)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:12:18 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h2s7mr+sj3n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2t7p2+3s73@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187251

Susan:
> > In DH30, Snape crashed through a window to escape the irate
> > Profs.? ?Mcgonagall says "he learned a few tricks from his
> > master". This means he knew how to fly like LV, not that he was
> > an animagus, right?

> Karen
> That's the way I have always read it. There are passages in DH where
> Harry 'sees' Voldemort flying without a broom. It must have been a
> particular mark of Voldemort's favour for him to show Snape how to do
> it or maybe an indication of how powerful Snape was that he was able
> to do it. There is no evidence Dumbledore ever flew without a broom,
> Hagrid referred to his use of Thestrals when he needed transport.


My understanding is that Voldemort had invented unaided flight magic very recently - Nobody else could do it because nobody else knew how.

Vupitar





From dfetchko at aol.com  Mon Jul  6 21:07:32 2009
From: dfetchko at aol.com (madonnatina)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:07:32 -0000
Subject: Why the Celebration in DH?
Message-ID: <h2tp2k+ivbf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187252



Why would the wedding of Bill and Fleur and Harry's birthday still take place considering the dire circumstances surrounding Harry and the Ministry?  

Quoting HPDH  Harry speaking to Scrimgeour  

"Interesting theory," said Harry.  "Has anyone ever tried sticking a sword in Voldemort? Maybe the Ministry should put some people onto that, instead of wasting time stripping down Deluminators or covering up breakouts from Azkaban.  So is this what you've been doing Minister, shut up in your office, trying to break open a Snitch? People are dying- I was nearly one of them - Voldemort chased me across three counties, he killed Mad-Eyed Moody, but there's been no word about any of that from the Ministry , has there? And you still expect me to cooperate with you!"

DF






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Jul  6 21:26:44 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:26:44 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h2sk88+ajss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2tq6k+970o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187253

"kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote:

> this is next to one of the strongest items occuring in HP also the
> most sloppy executed.

I respectfully disagree. In every book starting from book 1
JKR emphasized over and over again that the wand chooses the
wizard. More than once I wondered why she was making such a
big point about it; In book 7 I found out exactly precisely why.
I think the lady knew what she was doing from day one.

"Damit Lazarus" <lkotur@> wrote:

> Possible plot hole.

I don't think so. I think a plot hole is when the average reader cannot hope to come up with a logical explanation about one aspect of the story. If that is what a plot hole is then this is not one.  I will not insult the intelligence of readers by explaining exactly why a play fight would not change wand allegiances, and fortunately JKR was not that patronizing either.

Eggplant





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul  6 22:57:39 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:57:39 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2ttr8+81eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2tvh3+lqtk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187254

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> I think we know of  two other bathrooms (or toilets as I suspect 
> they are, speaking as a Brit) where Moaning Myrtle has been seen
>  but the "girls' toilet on the first floor" seems to be her base.


zanooda:

Exactly, "girls' toilet on the first floor" is the place where Myrtle  died and which she haunts. Of course, she can visit anywhere she wants - we've seen her in the dungeons at the Deathday party, in the Prefects' bathroom, in a boys' bathroom ("Sectumsempra") and even in the lake :-). However, only one bathroom in the castle is called "Moaning Myrtle's bathroom", and that's the one where she lives and where the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets is.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jul  7 02:43:13 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:43:13 -0000
Subject: Why the Celebration in DH?
In-Reply-To: <h2tp2k+ivbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2uco1+likq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187255

 "madonnatina"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Why would the wedding of Bill and Fleur and Harry's birthday still take place considering the dire circumstances surrounding Harry and the Ministry?  
 snip quote

Potioncat:
Because life goes on. I've forgotten how much time passes between Moody's death and the wedding, but with a war on, couples can't afford to wait. And I would think, there would be a greater need than ever to celebrate life, and the good luck to have another birthday.

jmho






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  7 03:08:40 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:08:40 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2ttr8+81eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2ue7o+om50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187256

> Gloria:
> > I don't see any discrepancies. Actually, Myrtle moves around the castle through the pipes. She appears to Harry in the Prefects' Bathroom (HPGOF). So , it is perfectly natural to assume that she goes to other bathrooms to haunt girls (and maybe boys) just for the fun of it.
> 
> Geoff:
> I think we know of  two other bathrooms (or toilets as I suspect they are, speaking as a Brit) where Moaning Myrtle has been seen but the "girls' toilet on the first floor" seems to be her base.
>
Carol:

But the bathroom containing the entrance to and exit from the Chamber of Secrets is on the *second* floor, which, as I said, seems like an odd place for students and staff to congregate. That's the bathroom in which Moaning Myrtle died. (I know it's not a bathroom in the sense that people bathe in there, but "toilet" is specifically used to designate the, erm, porcelain fixture that Myrtle dives into when she wants to sulk in the U-bend/S-bend depending on the book.)

It doesn't really matter how Moaning Myrtle gets around. We see her in the lake, in the Prefects bathroom, and in the boys' bathroom where Draco is crying in HBP. It's the bathroom she died in that matters because that's the one that contains the sink with the tap that doesn't work.

But my concern is the Basilisk. Yes, he moves through the pipes like Moaning Myrtle (though she can also move through walls like any other ghost), but unlike Myrtle, the Basilisk is solid, and he's also huge, much too huge to fit through the tiny hole in a toilet. How did he get to those other floors? I'm surprised that Ginny, who was being used to control him by Tom Riddle, could get the Basilisk out of and back into the entrance to the CoS without being seen, much less getting it onto some other floor. I won't even ask whether Possessed!Ginny was just waiting for Muggle-borns to show up.

Anyway, the more I think about CoS, the less plausible I find the plot.

Carol, combining thoughts from two different posts because it's all tied together in her head




From kersberg at chello.nl  Tue Jul  7 07:34:17 2009
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:34:17 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h2tq6k+970o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2utpp+nhsk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187257

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
> "kamion53" <kersberg@> wrote:
> 
> > this is next to one of the strongest items occuring in HP also the
> > most sloppy executed.
> 
> I respectfully disagree. In every book starting from book 1
> JKR emphasized over and over again that the wand chooses the
> wizard. More than once I wondered why she was making such a
> big point about it; In book 7 I found out exactly precisely why.
> I think the lady knew what she was doing from day one.
> 
> "Damit Lazarus" <lkotur@> wrote:
> 
> > Possible plot hole.
> 
> I don't think so. I think a plot hole is when the average reader cannot hope to come up with a logical explanation about one aspect of the story. If that is what a plot hole is then this is not one.  I will not insult the intelligence of readers by explaining exactly why a play fight would not change wand allegiances, and fortunately JKR was not that patronizing either.
> 
> Eggplant
>

kamion53 to lkutur@
emphasizing how important it is that the wand chooses the wizard from chapter 5 book1 on and then not taking care of the effects of forcefully taking over wands when it happens through 7 book, but only make a big tamaly in the last about it 
is sloppy executing of a law you set yourself in your work by my book.

kamion to Eggplant
please insult my intelligence by explaining why there are different laws for playfight and fights to the death conisering the wands mechanics and functioning.The fights by the student were serious enough to be taken serious.
Do wands set themself on "playmode" when kids are making "just mischief"?
 





From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Tue Jul  7 08:00:33 2009
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 04:00:33 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why the Celebration in DH?
Message-ID: <d5f.514a04f6.37845aa1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187258

The same reason why the people of Richmond held "starvation parties" in  
1864, & Jeb Stuart hosted a ball in the middle of a war - because in the  
midst of death and destruction, WE are still alive.
 
Sherrie
 
 
In a message dated 7/6/2009 10:44:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
willsonkmom at msn.com writes:

 
 


"madonnatina" wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Why would the  wedding of Bill and Fleur and Harry's birthday still take 
place considering  the dire circumstances surrounding Harry and the 
Ministry? 
snip  quote

Potioncat:
Because life goes on. I've forgotten how much time  passes between Moody's 
death and the wedding, but with a war on, couples can't  afford to wait. And 
I would think, there would be a greater need than ever to  celebrate life, 
and the good luck to have another  birthday.

jmho





**************Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. 
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)


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




From dfetchko at aol.com  Tue Jul  7 03:20:38 2009
From: dfetchko at aol.com (dfetchko at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:20:38 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why the Celebration in DH?
In-Reply-To: <h2uco1+likq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8CBCCC908DD1F3B-F8-197A@webmail-da13.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187259

"madonnatina"  wrote:
> Why would the wedding of Bill and Fleur and Harry's birthday still
> take place considering the dire circumstances surrounding Harry and
> the Ministry?

Potioncat:
> Because life goes on. I've forgotten how much time passes between
> Moody's death and the wedding, but with a war on, couples can't
> afford to wait. And I would think, there would be a greater need
> than ever to celebrate life, and the good luck to have another
> birthday.
>
>jmho


Now why hadn't I thought about that? Moody's death was either the day before or two days before...I guess enough time had elapsed......

d



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  7 14:58:07 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:58:07 -0000
Subject: Why the Celebration in DH?
In-Reply-To: <8CBCCC908DD1F3B-F8-197A@webmail-da13.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <h2vnpv+is7b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187260

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dfetchko at ... wrote:
 
> Moody's death was either the day before or two days before...


zanooda:

More like four days: "'The Trace'll break on the thirty-first', said Harry. 'That means I only need to stay here four days'". The Lexicon also says that Mad-Eye was killed on July 27th... ;-(.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jul  7 15:07:47 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:07:47 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h2utpp+nhsk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2voc3+6j57@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187261

 
> kamion53 to lkutur@
> emphasizing how important it is that the wand chooses the wizard from chapter 5 book1 on and then not taking care of the effects of forcefully taking over wands when it happens through 7 book, but only make a big tamaly in the last about it 
> is sloppy executing of a law you set yourself in your work by my book.
> 
> kamion to Eggplant
> please insult my intelligence by explaining why there are different laws for playfight and fights to the death conisering the wands mechanics and functioning.The fights by the student were serious enough to be taken serious.
> Do wands set themself on "playmode" when kids are making "just mischief"?
>

Pippin:
If wand function is supposed to be intuitive and/or mechanistic, then JKR failed. But  Ollivander consistently describes wands as subtle and sentient devices. That Voldemort doesn't  understand this leads to his downfall, so it seems to be a carefully thought-out part of the plot.  

Viewing the world as his personal toybox, Voldemort is not about to respect the opinions of a mere object. 

But clearly wands rely on their own interpretation of events, and it's up to them to decide whether or not an attack must be taken seriously. As each one is unique, they may not all respond the same way to the same circumstances. 

Hermione takes the Trio's expelliarmus attack on Snape  seriously in PoA, whereas Snape himself dismisses it. Fortunately for Snape, it seems his wand agreed with him. But notice that Sirius is careful not to attempt any powerful magic using Snape's wand except in concert with Lupin.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  7 17:23:09 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:23:09 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h2voc3+6j57@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3009t+hibv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187262

Pippin:
> If wand function is supposed to be intuitive and/or mechanistic, then JKR failed. But  Ollivander consistently describes wands as subtle and sentient devices. That Voldemort doesn't  understand this leads to his downfall, so it seems to be a carefully thought-out part of the plot.  
> 
> Viewing the world as his personal toybox, Voldemort is not about to respect the opinions of a mere object. 
> 
> But clearly wands rely on their own interpretation of events, and it's up to them to decide whether or not an attack must be taken seriously. As each one is unique, they may not all respond the same way to the same circumstances. 
> 
> Hermione takes the Trio's expelliarmus attack on Snape  seriously in PoA, whereas Snape himself dismisses it. Fortunately for Snape, it seems his wand agreed with him. But notice that Sirius is careful not to attempt any powerful magic using Snape's wand except in concert with Lupin.
> 
Carol responds:

Hermione takes the Expelliarmus attack seriously because "we attacked a teacher!" and they could get into serious trouble (note that they don't--Snape says that they were deluded by Lupin). Her reaction has nothing to do with wand allegiance, which she knows nothing about (unless Ollivander told her, as he told Harry, that "the wand chooses the wizard."

IMO, that initial choice and the bond built up between the wand and the wizard as they learn together (mentioned by Ollivander in DH) is usually too strong to be severed by a mere Expelliarmus--unless one wizard actually defeats the other and takes his wand, in which case, the wand will usually yield to the will of the conquering wizard. For that reason, I don't think that the duels count. I agree that wands are sentient, and they know perfectly well that the DA is just practice. Had the disarmed wizards at the MoM (regardless of whether they were kids, Order members, or DEs) not recovered their own wands, however, the wands might have chosen to shift their allegiance. I'm not so sure that all of them would do so willingly, though. It's one thing for Draco's wand to shift allegiance to another kid with similar experience to Draco's or Wormtail's new wand, which hasn't had much time to develop a relationship with him to shift allegiance to Ron, and another for Bellatrix's wand to shift allegiance to whoever Disarmed her. I think the Elder Wand is the only one that simply considers force, and even it can change to a new master (Harry) when it understands the circumstances.

As for someone's remark that wands don't understand human language, I think that's wrong. They not only respond to spoken incantations (at least if they're spoken correctly with the proper arm or hand movements), they also respond, in the case of an experienced wizard with the power of concentration, to unspoken commands--to intent. Probably, like the Sorting Hat and even brooms, they have some sort of Legilimency. (Neville's broom can sense that he's afraid of it; Harry's Firebolt can sense the move he needs to make without any conscious thought on his part.)

Anyway, it's odd that Mr. Weasley tells Ginny not to trust an object that can think for itself if she can't see its brains but lets her have a wand. Maybe he knows intuitively about the bond between a witch or wizard and his or her wand and knows that wands (unless they're broken like Ron's in CoS or are involved in special circumstances like shared cores) don't normally act on their own. But they don't respond well to inexperienced wizards, either.

As to why Harry couldn't use the Snatcher's wand but Hermione could use Bellatrix's hostile one, I have no idea--unless Bellatrix's wand is so powerful that even a witch who hates her can use it (whereas the Snatcher's wand is rather weak, matching his low level of skill and power) or Hermione's skill and determination overrode her aversion to the wand, whereas Harry resented the Snatcher's wand and wanted his own back. I think the wand would *know* that he disliked it and be unwilling to perform for him.

Carol, noting that if wands are capable of allegiance and can choose to yield their will to a wizard's (or not), they must be sentient and capable of thought






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jul  7 17:37:50 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:37:50 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3009t+hibv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3015e+si67@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187263

> Carol, noting that if wands are capable of allegiance and can choose to yield their will to a wizard's (or not), they must be sentient and capable of thought

Magpie:
In DH it seemed like they really couldn't choose exactly, since the whole plot depended on them pretty much switching alliances over power. In the first book--and all the way through HBP--I thought it was implied that wands had certain qualities due to their wood and core that were naturally sympathetic to different people. The wand chose the wizard because you found "your" wand, basically, and then the bond was strengthened as you learned together. Thus a Wizard who was shy would have a wand more suited to their personality than a person who was aggressive. I think DH completely overwrote that with the later addition that all wands respond to strength. If you win somebody's wand it sees you as its master, even if it would never have chosen you in that first moment. (I remember someone once describing it as sort of starting out with a love metaphor that becomes more of a rape thing--the most powerful suitor is the better suitor.)

Ollivander's "well, it's very subtle..." could be considered an out but frankly it seems more like a handwave to me. I've no idea how much of the ultimate Elder wand story JKR had in mind when she wrote the early Ollivander scenes. She might have originally thought that only the Elder wand responded this way, which would solve any problems, but not give her much of a chance to show us the magic before it was important (rather than just tell us), as she always liked to do. 

Whether this comes down to being able to think, I don't know. It seems more like it's not so much a brain but a primitive magical instinct. A lot of the magic in the books works like this, after all. The life debt and the GoF seem to behave by recognizes subtle human behavior around them but I don't think they're really supposed to be doing that. I think it's more like when the correct type of situation (as humans would recognize it) happens, the magic happens. Thus even when a pesron seriously Expelliarimus someone (not in practice) the wand doesn't switch, but when the author's writing a scene that's about one Wizard besting another the wand switches too. At least that's how I read it.

-m




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Tue Jul  7 23:31:36 2009
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:31:36 -0700
Subject: Wand allegiance
Message-ID: <9310090766.20090707163136@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187264

Magpie:
> In DH it seemed like they really couldn't choose exactly, since the
> whole plot depended on them pretty much switching alliances over
> power. In the first book--and all the way through HBP--I thought it
> was implied that wands had certain qualities due to their wood and
> core that were naturally sympathetic to different people. The wand
> chose the wizard because you found "your" wand, basically, and then
> the bond was strengthened as you learned together. Thus a Wizard who
> was shy would have a wand more suited to their personality than a
> person who was aggressive. I think DH completely overwrote that with
> the later addition that all wands respond to strength. If you win
> somebody's wand it sees you as its master, even if it would never
> have chosen you in that first moment.

Dave:
I have to admit that I have never seen it that way -- Even though the axiom "The Wand Chooses the Wizard" is used differently in DH, I thought that this new property was unique to the Elder Wand.  In other words, *only* the Elder Wand changes its allegiance as the result of a duel. -- All other wands still "choose the wizard" in the manner we are led to believe they do in the first book, as you describe above.  For example, in my own view, after disarming Draco, the Elder Wand changed its allegiance to Harry, but Draco's own wand didn't.  I was 100% certain of this up until I started reading this thread... Now I'm only about 90% certain...

Dave




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Jul  7 23:33:43 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:33:43 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h2voc3+6j57@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h30m0n+me31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187265

---  "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > kamion53 to lkutur@
> > emphasizing how important it is that the wand chooses the wizard from chapter 5 book1 on and then not taking care of the effects of forcefully taking over wands when it happens through 7 book, but only make a big tamaly in the last about it is sloppy executing of a law you set yourself in your work by my book.
> > 
> > kamion to Eggplant
> > please insult my intelligence by explaining why there are different laws for playfight and fights to the death considering the wands mechanics and functioning.The fights by the student were serious enough to be taken serious.
> > Do wands set themself on "playmode" when kids are making "just mischief"?
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> If wand function is supposed to be intuitive and/or mechanistic, then JKR failed. But  Ollivander consistently describes wands as subtle and sentient devices. That Voldemort doesn't  understand this leads to his downfall, so it seems to be a carefully thought-out part of the plot.  
> 
>...
> 
> But clearly wands rely on their own interpretation of events, and it's up to them to decide whether or not an attack must be taken seriously. ...
> 
> Pippin
>

bboyminn:

I'm more inclined to agree with Pippin's view of events. I think
people are trying to assigning too ridged a set of rules, and 
too much active intellectual intelligence to wands. 

Wands are magical, but at their core essence they are a stick
of wood and a core substance. 

When we say 'the wand chooses the wizard' are we really saying
'the wand /matches/ the wizard'?

Further, I think the wand interprets part of an encounter by
whether a dueling wizard gives back his opponents wand. If
he gives it back, he clear has to real intent to actively
defeat the opponent.

Further in competition dueling and in the DA club, opponents 
have given their permission to be disarmed or stunned or
otherwise cursed. I don't see how that can constitute a
defeat.

The same with Dumbledore, he gave permission for Snape to kill
him, consequently, their encounter does not count as a defeat.
Dumbledore intended for the last owner of the wand to go
undefeated when Snape killed him. I don't think he intended
Snape to be the new owner, only the new possessor of the wand.
The wand would do his bidding as any wand would, but not to
the extent that it would if Snape was the true owner and
master of the wand.

Again, wand 'transfer' is not down to a ridged set of rules, 
it is down to a very imprecise and subtle interpretation by
the wand. And, I don't think the wand does that by scientific
analysis of the situation; nothing so clinical as that.

It is more a case of a subtle sense of the parties involved
and its own instinctive interpretation of events. This is
not 'active intelligence' in the thinking, planning, plotting,
analysing form. This is a subtle intuitive sense of what is
happening around it.

I think those who can't see the subtle distinction, those who
would force wands into an absolute set of ridged rules, can't 
make sense of what is happening, because what is happening
absolutely does not fit that mind set.

Steve/bluewizard





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  8 01:29:45 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:29:45 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h30m0n+me31@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h30sq9+d3q0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187266

bboyminn:
> 
> I'm more inclined to agree with Pippin's view of events. I think
> people are trying to assigning too ridged a set of rules, and 
> too much active intellectual intelligence to wands. 
> 
> Wands are magical, but at their core essence they are a stick
> of wood and a core substance. 
> 
> When we say 'the wand chooses the wizard' are we really saying
> 'the wand /matches/ the wizard'?
> 
> Further, I think the wand interprets part of an encounter by
> whether a dueling wizard gives back his opponents wand. If
> he gives it back, he clear has to real intent to actively
> defeat the opponent.
> 
> Further in competition dueling and in the DA club, opponents 
> have given their permission to be disarmed or stunned or
> otherwise cursed. I don't see how that can constitute a
> defeat.
> 
> The same with Dumbledore, he gave permission for Snape to kill
> him, consequently, their encounter does not count as a defeat.
> Dumbledore intended for the last owner of the wand to go
> undefeated when Snape killed him. I don't think he intended
> Snape to be the new owner, only the new possessor of the wand.
> The wand would do his bidding as any wand would, but not to
> the extent that it would if Snape was the true owner and
> master of the wand.
> 
> Again, wand 'transfer' is not down to a ridged set of rules, 
> it is down to a very imprecise and subtle interpretation by
> the wand. And, I don't think the wand does that by scientific
> analysis of the situation; nothing so clinical as that.
> 
> It is more a case of a subtle sense of the parties involved
> and its own instinctive interpretation of events. This is
> not 'active intelligence' in the thinking, planning, plotting,
> analysing form. This is a subtle intuitive sense of what is
> happening around it.
> 
> I think those who can't see the subtle distinction, those who
> would force wands into an absolute set of ridged rules, can't 
> make sense of what is happening, because what is happening
> absolutely does not fit that mind set.
> 
> Steve/bluewizard
>
Carol responds:

I don't think that a wand is just a stick of wood and a magical core, or everything that Ollivander says is nonsense. OTOH, you're right that it doesn't, strictly speaking, have intellect. It doesn't plot or plan, for example. It is, however, sentient, according to Ollivander, and it does have the power to choose whether or not it "bends its will," to quote Ollivander, to the wizard who defeats it. (I agree with you that disarming a pretend opponent in a practice duel, or even a formal duel used as a lesson or entertainment--Snape disarming Lockhart--is not a defeat in the sense we're talking about here. Lockhart gets his wand back. (Now, if Harry had found Lockhart's wand after he disarmed him and Ron tossed the wand out the window, that might have been another story, especially after Ron's wand robbed Lockhart of his memory. The wand would probably have worked perfectly well for either boy.)

Regarding Dumbledore wanting Snape to have the Elder Wand, which would work for him but no longer have super powers, what would be the point of that? I think that the whole idea of having Snape kill Dumbledore with Dumbledore undefeated (I agree on that part) is for the Elder Wand to lose its powers altogether. Only when it becomes a useless stick of wood would it cease to be dangerous. Otherwise, someone like Voldemort would still think that he had to kill the wand's owner to get it to work for him. If he tried it and it wouldn't so much as perform a Summoning Charm no matter how hard he tried, he would just toss it away in fury, thinking that someone had buried Dumbledore with a fake wand.

Anyway, that's the only way I can make sense of DD's wanting Snape and only Snape to kill him (setting aside the Unbreakable Vow and the other real but minor reasons that DD gave Snape).

Carol, who still thinks that wands can hear words and sense thoughts and, to a limited extent as relates to wand allegiance, think for themselves (I doubt that they spend their free time composing poems or figuring out how to get back to their former owners, however)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  8 03:45:32 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:45:32 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h2r46h+brlj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h314os+b7l6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187267

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

> And, BTW, any theories as to how the Basilisk attacked the 
> students in other locations than outside Moaning Myrtle's 
> bathroom? Yes, it can travel through the pipes, but how can 
> it get out of the pipes if it's not near the exit/entrance 
> to the Chamber of Secrets?


zanooda:

I think Basilisk always got out of the pipes in MM's bathroom and then just used corridors to move through the castle until it met someone to Petrify :-). Of course it's strange that no one ever noticed an enormous snake in a corridor :-). OTOH, the first attack happened right outside the bathroom, the second one (Colin) happened at night and the fourth one (Hermione and Penelope) happened when everybody was at a Quidditch game. 

So it's only the third attack (Justin and Nick) that raises questions :-). This attack happened when everybody was in class though, except for the 2-nd year Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs. But what about the portraits, why didn't they ever see the Basilisk moving around the castle? To this I have no answer :-).




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jul  8 04:00:11 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:00:11 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h314os+b7l6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h315kb+9dc8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187268

 
> zanooda:

> 
> So it's only the third attack (Justin and Nick) that raises questions :-). This attack happened when everybody was in class though, except for the 2-nd year Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs. But what about the portraits, why didn't they ever see the Basilisk moving around the castle? To this I have no answer :-).
>
Pippin:
Portraits can be blinded or lured to another part of the castle by a diversion. The basilisk itself could be hidden by a disillusionment charm until a suitable victim was located.

Pippin




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jul  8 04:34:34 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:34:34 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3015e+si67@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h317kq+u500@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187269


>
> > Carol, noting that if wands are capable of allegiance and can choose to yield their will to a wizard's (or not), they must be sentient and capable of thought
> 
> Magpie:
> In DH it seemed like they really couldn't choose exactly, since the whole plot depended on them pretty much switching alliances over power. In the first book--and all the way through HBP--I thought it was implied that wands had certain qualities due to their wood and core that were naturally sympathetic to different people. The wand chose the wizard because you found "your" wand, basically, and then the bond was strengthened as you learned together. Thus a Wizard who was shy would have a wand more suited to their personality than a person who was aggressive. I think DH completely overwrote that with the later addition that all wands respond to strength. 


Pippin:
One doesn't have to overwrite the other. In the end Harry prefers the wand that chose him over the two that he won, even though both of them allowed him to do magic that he couldn't do with the holly wand. It shows that Harry learned something since HBP, where he commanded Kreacher to serve him and didn't think of asking Dobby

If there's a choice, IOW, a weak but willing servant is preferable to a powerful one who serves only by constraint. Voldemort made the opposite decision, sacrificing  a wizard that had served him faithfully (as he thought) in order to secure the Elder Wand's allegiance by force. 

Magpie:
> 
> Ollivander's "well, it's very subtle..." could be considered an out but frankly it seems more like a handwave to me.

Pippin:
All explanations come down to handwaves in the end. <g> But perhaps part of it is simple:  underage wizards might just plain lack the power to compel a wand to change its allegiance, even a wand seized by force.
 
If so,  Ollivander would have had no reason to raise the issue with eleven year old Harry during their first meeting, and it would sound contrived if he did. The situations in DH would never arise under ordinary circumstances.   Unless a wizard is seeking  the Elder Wand, or has lost the wand that chose him and for some reason has no access to a wandmaker, he would doubtless prefer to continue to use his own wand rather than replace it with one  taken from  a demonstrably inferior wizard. 

Pippin 






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jul  8 06:36:47 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:36:47 -0000
Subject: Another silly question
In-Reply-To: <h314os+b7l6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h31epv+jrhm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187270

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:

Carol:
> > And, BTW, any theories as to how the Basilisk attacked the 
> > students in other locations than outside Moaning Myrtle's 
> > bathroom? Yes, it can travel through the pipes, but how can 
> > it get out of the pipes if it's not near the exit/entrance 
> > to the Chamber of Secrets?

zanooda: 
> I think Basilisk always got out of the pipes in MM's bathroom and then just used corridors to move through the castle until it met someone to Petrify :-). Of course it's strange that no one ever noticed an enormous snake in a corridor :-). OTOH, the first attack happened right outside the bathroom, the second one (Colin) happened at night and the fourth one (Hermione and Penelope) happened when everybody was at a Quidditch game. 

Geoff:
Like Carol, I am a trifle puzzled as to how a whopping great snake got 
out of the pipes via a toilet. Did Riddles use a shrinking spell or something 
similar on it?





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Jul  7 20:16:58 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:16:58 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h2voc3+6j57@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h30afq+p5o8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187271

"kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote

> please insult my intelligence 

I really don't want to do that, you seem like a nice fellow, but if you insist
.

> by explaining why there are different laws 
> for playfight and fights to the death 

Even a four year old knows that when he points his finger at a friend and says "Bang bang you're dead" the friend is not actually dead. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect sophistication of a similar level from wands, or JKR of her readers.

> Do wands set themself on "playmode" when 
> kids are making "just mischief"? 

See, I know you could figure it out for yourself without being led by the nose by me or JKR.

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote: 

> Hermione takes the Trio's expelliarmus attack
> on Snape seriously in PoA

Yes and there is nothing in further books to suggest that Snape's wand didn't switch allegiances, or that Snape didn't use a different wand from that point on.

None of these things is a plot hole because a solution is readily apparent even if it isn't laboriously spelled out in the text. However JKR isn't perfect and there is indeed a plot hole involving a wand, its just not the one you were talking about.

At the end of book 7  Harry says he's not going to use the Elder Wand again because he doesn't want every two bit punk who fancies himself a great dark wizard trying to defeat him and become the new master of the wand. But this makes no sense, Harry demonstrated in the most convincing way imaginable that he is indeed the master of the Elder Wand and he did it in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people. Use it or not Harry is the new master and now everybody knows it. If Harry wants to die undefeated of old age and stop the bloody legacy of that wand he's going to need to use the most powerful wand he can find to defend himself. Now THAT is a plot hole.

I get the impression that although the Epilogue was written before book 1 was published JKR made some last second changes to make the ending more cheery. Reportedly the very last sentence in the entire Potter saga was "But lately only those who loved him could see Harry's scar", but then it was changed to something so bad I refuse to quote it. It wouldn't surprise me that in the earlier draft Harry kept using the Elder Wand too.    

 Eggplant      





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jul  8 14:01:07 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:01:07 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h317kq+u500@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h328r3+qtt0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187272

> > Magpie:
> > In DH it seemed like they really couldn't choose exactly, since the whole plot depended on them pretty much switching alliances over power. In the first book--and all the way through HBP--I thought it was implied that wands had certain qualities due to their wood and core that were naturally sympathetic to different people. The wand chose the wizard because you found "your" wand, basically, and then the bond was strengthened as you learned together. Thus a Wizard who was shy would have a wand more suited to their personality than a person who was aggressive. I think DH completely overwrote that with the later addition that all wands respond to strength. 

> Pippin:
> One doesn't have to overwrite the other. In the end Harry prefers the wand that chose him over the two that he won, even though both of them allowed him to do magic that he couldn't do with the holly wand.

Magpie:
Harry gets his pick of wands because nobody ever won his holly wand. The former owners of the two he won have wands that chose them and then abandoned them when they were won away. 

Pippin:
It shows that Harry learned something since HBP, where he commanded Kreacher to serve him and didn't think of asking Dobby

Magpie:
I don't think the two things effectively say anything about the other. The main reason Harry seems to use Kreacher in HBP is for plot reasons. But if we search for the character's reason for using him, I suppose he just does it because he can and he doesn't want to bother Dobby by ordering him around until Dobby begs him to do that. That it's a lot easier to work with Kreacher when Kreacher isn't trying to thwart him at every turn is not lost on Harry. It's not like Harry in general had a problem with preferring to make people to do things by force over having them do things for him willingly out of friendship. He always knew it would be difficult to get Kreacher to do something for him and so already usually avoided asking him for stuff. His choosing his own wand in DH doesn't indicate to me that he would choose differently in that same type situation in the future.

But that lesson is pretty elementary. Even more so when it comes to wands. Why would anyone except a person with an incredibly stubborn need to overpower choose to work with a wand that's defective in his hands? Harry actively dislikes working with the blackthorn wand because it doesn't work right, just as he finds it unpleasant dealing with Kreacher when Kreacher's being rude. 

None of which says anything about what the wand prefers, which is the issue in DH. 

Pippin: 
> If there's a choice, IOW, a weak but willing servant is preferable to a powerful one who serves only by constraint. Voldemort made the opposite decision, sacrificing  a wizard that had served him faithfully (as he thought) in order to secure the Elder Wand's allegiance by force. 

Magpie:
A weak but willing servant being preferable to a powerful one that serves by constraint is a totally different issue than wands choosing the person they're compatible with based on subtle personality issues versus wands choosing the person who overpowered the other in a duel. A wizard might prefer the wand s/he has grown fond of through working together (as Harry does--and his wand in fact shows more special powers than any of his others so demonstrates itself the most powerful of the 3 as well), but the wand switches to the stronger wizard. The wand, whether weak or powerful, becomes the willing servant of the winning wizard. 
 
> Magpie:
> > 
> > Ollivander's "well, it's very subtle..." could be considered an out but frankly it seems more like a handwave to me.
> 
> Pippin:

> If so,  Ollivander would have had no reason to raise the issue with eleven year old Harry during their first meeting, and it would sound contrived if he did. The situations in DH would never arise under ordinary circumstances.  Unless a wizard is seeking  the Elder Wand, or has lost the wand that chose him and for some reason has no access to a wandmaker, he would doubtless prefer to continue to use his own wand rather than replace it with one  taken from  a demonstrably inferior wizard.  

Magpie:
Seems to me situations like the one in DH would happen fairly often and it would be a basic thing every wizard should and would know about wands. Wands choose based on personality until they can compare strength, it seems.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul  8 17:16:54 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:16:54 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h30afq+p5o8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h32ka6+g9l9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187273


Eggplant:
> Yes and there is nothing in further books to suggest that Snape's wand didn't switch allegiances, or that Snape didn't use a different wand from that point on. <snip>

Carol responds:
Actually, it's clear that Snape's wand didn't switch allegiance. Sirius Black uses it to help Lupin transform Wormtail into a man and to bounce Snape along through the passageway (but, of course, he wasn't involved in the Expelliarmus, so the wand wouldn't have considered switching its allegiance to him--it was just another wizard's wand to him, just as Lupin's dropped wand is just another wizard's wand to Pettigrew, who nevertheless attacks both Ron and Crookshanks with it before Harry disarms him), but when Sirius transforms into a dog, he leaves Snape's wand behind. Snape uses *his own wand* to conjure the stretchers to carry Sirius Black and HRH to the hospital wing. He has no reason to switch to another wand because he wasn't "defeated" in the sense of being permanently disarmed. They were merely attacking him (three on one) to let Lupin continue his story. The wand that chose Snape and built up a relationship with him is not going to switch loyalty to three weaker, inexperienced wizards just because they temporarily disarmed him, IMO.

Carol, who thinks that Harry is doing the right and sensible thing by keeping the Elder Wand hidden and unused




From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Jul  8 22:29:32 2009
From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone)
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:29:32 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h2tesa+j36b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h336kc+5o23@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187274

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


 If Voldemort had known that Snape was such a superb Occlumens that he could "hoodwink the Dark Lord" (as Snape expresses it to Bellatrix), he would not have been pleased. He would not have tolerated a potential rival.
> 

Karen

Interesting point, I don't see how Voldemort could have known that Snape was an Occlumens as I would imagine that he would not tolerate any hint of concealment from him amongst the Death Eaters. So it must have been a doubled skill not only concealing his mind but concealing the evidence of concealment. Stealth mode for the mind and emotions.

> That being the case, I'm inclined to think that Snape taught himself to fly, just as he apparently taught himself Occlumency. When and how, I have no idea. 

Well I have always thought of Occlumency as partly a character trait which is then enhanced with training, so like any talent really. I have wondered though whether Dumbledore gave Snape training in it once  he had 'turned' him. His survival after Voldemort's return to power was absolutely dependent on his ability to deceive him as to his true loyalty, which we know he only just succeeded in doing and even so Bellatrix still doubted it hence the Unbreakable Vow. However, before Lily's death and V's fall it may have been less pressured after all V 'knew' Snape was 'his' spy but also knew that Dumbledore thought he was 'his' spy on V. So what I am trying to say, not very clearly perhaps is that without the additional hatred of V which Lily's murder provided, Snape had less to conceal in the first War. However, we know from the Princes Tale that Dumbledore knew that V was likely to return and that he, Dumbledore, would need Snape as a spy in the future. So knowing that Snape now had a well of negative emotion towards V to conceal he would need occlumency to an even higher degree than previously. So I think Dumbledore may well have given Snape some intensive Occlumency training in the quiet years after V's disappearance. Even so the 'Are you ready, are you prepared?' at the end of TGoF betrayed anxiety over Snape's possible fate.

Just my thoughts of course.

> Carol, wishing as always that Snape could have developed his many talents without ever having joined the DEs
>
Oh me too. He was obviously PhD level in potions but had to spend his working day teaching 'dunderheads' instead of in research which was probably where his talents would have led him. I read an interesting thought in a Fanfic or on another forum, that his childhood poverty may well have meant he had a second-hand wand. This could have hidden his true ability in areas of magic where a wand was essential as the link with his wand would perhaps not have worked as well as with one which had 'chosen' him from new. However potions seems to rely on the innate power of the Wizard/Witch with less reliance on a wand, which allowed his true ability level to shine through in Potion-making.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  9 03:24:11 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:24:11 -0000
Subject: DH  reread CH 26 - 29
Message-ID: <h33nsr+ujar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187275

So basically nothing jumped at me in new light in CH 26-28, but I want to quote this from chapter 29:

"They do more than teach," said Neville. "They're in charge of all discipline. They like punishment, the Carrows."

"Like Umbridge?"

"Nah, they make her look tame" - p.461

Alla:

One of the things I like about JKR's writing is how much she can say with so few words sometimes. Just think about it, they make Umbridge look tame. After this sentence I do not even need to hear the details of how exactly they treated the students. If it is much worse than what Umbridge did in OOP, that's all excuse I need for Harry getting angry, really.



"It's all down to Neville, he really gets this Room. You've got to ask it for exactly what you need - like "I don't want any Carrow supporters to be able to get in" - and it'll do it for you! You've just got to make sure you close the loopholes! Neville's the man!" - p.464

Alla:

Now, does it mean that Neville has special relationship with the room? Or does it mean that he just figured out and taught everybody how to phrase their demands? Why is it such a big deal how to phrase it? Wouldn't the room read what you wish in your heart? I mean, I understand that wording is important for the spells, charms, incantations magic, but why is it important here?



Alla





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  9 06:46:12 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:46:12 -0000
Subject: DH  reread CH 26 - 29
In-Reply-To: <h33nsr+ujar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h343nk+mp7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187276

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
>...
> 
> Alla:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> "It's all down to Neville, he really gets this Room. You've got to ask it for exactly what you need - like "I don't want any Carrow supporters to be able to get in" - and it'll do it for you! You've just got to make sure you close the loopholes! Neville's the man!" - p.464
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Now, does it mean that Neville has special relationship with the room? Or does it mean that he just figured out and taught everybody how to phrase their demands? Why is it such a big deal how to phrase it? Wouldn't the room read what you wish in your heart? I mean, I understand that wording is important for the spells, charms, incantations magic, but why is it important here?
> 
> 
> 
> Alla
>

bboyminn:

I think of that group Neville was the first to discover the room,
from then on, it was a matter of other joining him there. So,
in a sense it is Neville that created the room, and it is his
wishes that expand it.

I don't think it is so much a matter of how you 'phrase' it,
as I don't think anything is actually said out loud. I think
it is more a matter of 'be careful what you wish for'. 

In creating the room and, having spent the most time there, it
is probably Neville's wishes that control the room. But as more
and more people become involved, how the room acts and what it
does become more complex and more prone to error. Consequently,
Neville has to make sure his desires for the room do not have
any loopholes that could get them caught.

This isn't simply a matter of a schoolboy prank. The stakes 
are very real and very high, perhaps even death. So, what 
the room does and how it acts is extremely important. 
Consequently, Neville's desires for the room are also extremely
important and complex. 

But as Neville wished the room into existence, it is logical 
that he controls the room. If doesn't so readily yield to the
wishes of others, though it may still be influence by them.

So, Neville 'gets the room' because he created it, and it
responds most strongly to his will. But also because 
Neville understands the situation and how grave it really is.
He carries the weight of that grave responsibility on his
shoulders. 

And, I think Neville, in Harry's absents, has become a real
leader. He's taken charge, people yield to him and respond to
his requests, they follow his directions. They look to him 
for leadership and he seems to have taken to the role nicely.
He seems to deliver the decisive leadership that is needed, 
and part of that is providing and controlling to room to keep
everyone safe. 

Steve/bboyminn




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jul  9 06:45:25 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:45:25 -0000
Subject: DH  reread CH 26 - 29
In-Reply-To: <h33nsr+ujar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h343m5+rlft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187277

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

Alla: 
> Now, does it mean that Neville has special relationship with the room? Or does it mean that he just figured out and taught everybody how to phrase their demands? Why is it such a big deal how to phrase it? Wouldn't the room read what you wish in your heart? I mean, I understand that wording is important for the spells, charms, incantations magic, but why is it important here?

Geoff:
No. I believe that Neville is a very shrewd guy who is a quiet thinker. If you 
will excuse the mixed metaphor, he has gradually climbed up our radar 
over the years from the nervous little boy of PS to being in the "last man 
standing" scenario of the Ministry battle. He actually thinks first before 
jumping and, out of Harry's shadow, has obviously carved out his own 
niche at Hogwarts. 

Reminds me very much of the folk you read about in occupied Europe in 
the Second World War who worked quietly behind the scenes to thwart the 
Germans, often at risk to themselves.

That was highlighted for me when my eye caught the following in chapter 
29:
'"...I got this one," he indicated another slash on his face, "for asking how 
her much Muggle blood she and her brother have got."

"Blimey, Neville," said Ron, "there's a time and a place for getting a smart 
mouth."

"You didn't hear her," said Neville. "You wouldn't have stood it either. The 
thing is, it helps when people stand up to them, it gives everyone hope. I 
used to notice it when you did it, Harry."

"But they've used you as a knife sharpener," said Ron, wincing slightly as 
they passed a lamp and Neville's injuries were thrown into even greater relief.

Neville shrugged.'
(DH "The Lost Diadem"  p.462 UK edition)

Quiet heroism.

Just in passing, Alla, are you working from a US edition? I ask because,  
curiously, your quoted page numbers match the UK edition.










From 12newmoons at gmail.com  Thu Jul  9 16:59:58 2009
From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:59:58 -0000
Subject: Obliviate and emotion
Message-ID: <h357me+nl0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187278

I haven't posted here for a while, but I'm doing my annual rereading and a question occurred to me.  When Aunt Marge is deflated and her memory is modified, do you think she has any emotional memory of the event?  That is, erasing the facts of a event is one thing, but erasing the feelings that event produced may be something else.  We sometimes have residual feelings left from an experience of which we have no conscious memory, right?  For instance, we may have a strong dislike or liking for a food or a garment or a piece of music because it's associated in our minds with something that happened when we were eating or wearing or hearing it.  

Thanks for your thoughts!

Laura




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  9 18:35:59 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:35:59 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h336kc+5o23@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h35daf+4knv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187279

Carol earlier:
> > Carol, wishing as always that Snape could have developed his many talents without ever having joined the DEs
> >
> Oh me too. He was obviously PhD level in potions but had to spend his working day teaching 'dunderheads' instead of in research which was probably where his talents would have led him. I read an interesting thought in a Fanfic or on another forum, that his childhood poverty may well have meant he had a second-hand wand. This could have hidden his true ability in areas of magic where a wand was essential as the link with his wand would perhaps not have worked as well as with one which had 'chosen' him from new. However potions seems to rely on the innate power of the Wizard/Witch with less reliance on a wand, which allowed his true ability level to shine through in Potion-making.
>
Carol responds:

I'm pretty sure that Snape had his own wand. We never see him fail at casting a spell. He's always silently vanishing potions. His Expelliarmus against Lockwood is very strong. He easily vanishes Draco's conjured snake and ends all the hexes and jinxes that the Dueling Club kids have used on each other with a single Finite Incantatem. He conjures stretchers in PoA. He invents spells as a teenager, which would be hard to do if his wand didn't work properly for him. He easily (and silently) parries all of Harry's curses at the end of HBP (his Legilimency gives him an additional advantage, of course). His Avada Kedavra is so strong that it sends Dumbledore over the battlements of the Astronomy Tower (I think he must have silently willed his wand to do that so that Fenrir Greyback and the DEs would have no reason to remain on the tower).

Carol, who thinks that Snape was PhD level in DADA as well as Potions, with the possible exception of Dark creatures




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  9 19:02:04 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:02:04 -0000
Subject: DH  reread CH 26 - 29
In-Reply-To: <h33nsr+ujar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h35erc+g0qh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187280

Alla quoted:
> 
> "It's all down to Neville, he really gets this Room. You've got to ask it for exactly what you need - like "I don't want any Carrow supporters to be able to get in" - and it'll do it for you! You've just got to make sure you close the loopholes! Neville's the man!" - p.464
> 
Alla wrote:
> 
> Now, does it mean that Neville has special relationship with the room? Or does it mean that he just figured out and taught everybody how to phrase their demands? Why is it such a big deal how to phrase it? Wouldn't the room read what you wish in your heart? I mean, I understand that wording is important for the spells, charms, incantations magic, but why is it important here?

Carol responds:

I don't thinks that Neville has a special relationship to the room since it responded to the newcomers by providing beds and other necessities in the proper colors and to the girls' need for a bathroom, presumably in the British sense of a place to bathe. (I hope it also provided boys' and girls' "toilets" in the sense of "restroom" and not a charming collection of chamberpots!) It was probably Neville who requested (whether silently or aloud) that the room keep out any Carrow supporters. (I would hope that the Carrows themselves were included in that wish! Did Harry et al. wish for Umbridge to be kept out? I can't remember.)

But this isn't the first time that a character had to ask the room for exactly the right thing. Harry couldn't get in when he wished for a place to find out what Draco Malfoy was up to, probably because Draco had specifically requested the room to reject that request regardless of how it was phrased. But he (and Trelawney) got into the same room when they wished for a place to hide something. Trelawney even got in when Draco was there, apparently because he hadn't specifically requested that no one be able to get in at all when he was there. Other than that, I think it reads minds (as do many other objects in the Potterverse) and senses exactly what each person wants (just as it sensed Hermione's need for spellbooks for the DA lessons even though it was Harry who wished for a place to teach DADA lessons.

BTW, maybe better wording would have provided Dumbledore with modern plumbing rather than chamberpots, which would have been old-fashioned even when he was a student at Hogwarts.

Carol, not really interested in plumbing despite appearances in her recent posts!




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Jul  9 16:50:37 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:50:37 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h32ka6+g9l9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3574t+bq4b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187281

"Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Carol, who thinks that Harry is doing
> the right and sensible thing by keeping
> the Elder Wand hidden and unused 


I don't see why, use it or not Harry is still Master of the Elder Wand and now everybody knows it. And I don't know what you mean by "Hidden", everybody knew Voldemort got the wand from Dumbledore's grave so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess Harry would put
it back. Not that you'd even need to know its location, if somebody defeated Harry the new Master of the Elder Wand could just use any old wand and say "Acio wand" and I imagine it would come to its master. In fact that must be how Voldemort got his wand back after being a disembodied spirit for 13 years.

I wouldn't have stopped using that powerful wand in a million years, but rather than discuss Harry's choice it might be more interesting to discuss JKR's choice. Was it wise of her to make Harry get rid of that wand? I don't think so, besides creating a plot hole and making a character behave in a way that a real Human Being never would it
is also a clich?.

Too many fantasy stories have the object of wonder destroyed at the end, the amazing planet or land of the dinosaurs blows up, the time traveling DeLorean gets hit by a train, the secret lab notes of the mad scientist gets burned, and the Elder Wand gets buried. I suppose writers do that because they think readers want things to return to the Status Quo. I'm not really a big fan of the Status Quo. 
 
 Eggplant     






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  9 19:38:25 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:38:25 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3574t+bq4b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h35gvh+9gs3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187282

Carol earlier:
> 
> > Carol, who thinks that Harry is doing the right and sensible thing by keeping the Elder Wand hidden and unused 
> 
Eggplant responded:
> I don't see why, use it or not Harry is still Master of the Elder Wand and now everybody knows it. And I don't know what you mean by "Hidden", everybody knew Voldemort got the wand from Dumbledore's grave so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess Harry would put
> it back. Not that you'd even need to know its location, if somebody defeated Harry the new Master of the Elder Wand could just use any old wand and say "Acio wand" and I imagine it would come to its master. In fact that must be how Voldemort got his wand back after being a disembodied spirit for 13 years.
> 
> I wouldn't have stopped using that powerful wand in a million years, but rather than discuss Harry's choice it might be more interesting to discuss JKR's choice. Was it wise of her to make Harry get rid of that wand? I don't think so, besides creating a plot hole and making a character behave in a way that a real Human Being never would it is also a clich?.
><snip>
>  
>  Eggplant
>
Carol responds;

Oh, well. This is one of those points on which you and I will never agree.

First, I'm not sure that "everyone" knows what happened with the Elder Wand. I don't think any DEs remained conscious when Harry confronted Voldemort for the last time, and if they did, they were shipped off to what I hope is a more secure Azkaban soon afterwards. The anti-Voldemort faction probably didn't go around spreading the story of the Elder Wand. They would have heard Harry say that Dumbledore wanted it to lose its powers. And certainly, none of them would want to be involved in the history of that bloody wand--or blast open Dumbledore's tomb as Voldemort did. In the unlikely event that Harry consented to a Daily Prophet interview (no reporters were present at the battle), he would probably keep the details to himself. No one need know that he put it back in Dumbledore's tomb, and someone (McGonagall?)could put a protective spell on the tomb so it could not be broken into (not to mention that it took a very powerful wizard with his own very powerful wand--probably the most powerful that Ollivander ever made to judge from SS/PS) to break into the tomb in the first place.)

The only way to break the power of the wand and end the cycle is for Harry to die a natural death. If he's Disarmed or killed using that wand (and it can happen even to a great Wizard like Grindelwald or Dumbledore--I'm not including Voldemort because he wasn't the master of the wand) and a bad guy gets hold of the wand, the cycle will continue.

Now, granted, he could be killed or Disarmed in his career as an Auror, but I don't think that's likely to happen. His reputation as the wizard who vanquished Voldemort would probably scare most people off. (I do think, though, that Harry should complete the training for an Auror and not become one immediately. As Snape told him in HBP, he needs to work on nonverbal spells!)

Notice that Dumbledore was careful not to kill using the Elder Wand. I think that's important. If Harry has to result to killing in his career as an Auror, best to do it with the holly wand and not with the addictive and dangerous Elder Wand. He'd be setting himself up as a target, just like all the previous owners, and the cycle would never end.

Best that as few people as possible know that he's the master of the Elder Wand and that no one except Ron and Hermione know where it's hidden. Meanwhile, the wand would be well-protected. You can't Apparate onto Hogwarts grounds, and the new headmaster/mistress could put the anti-flying spell back on, as well as protective charms on the walls and gates. Hogwarts should have those spells in any case, IMO.

And there's absolutely no evidence that the Elder Wand's new master by default can just say "Accio, Elder Wand!" and it will come to him. If that were the case, Harry would have tried it to keep Voldemort from getting it. I'm not sure, but there might be a distance limit on a Summoning Charm, in any case. As for how Voldemort got his wand back, I thought that JKR said somewhere that Wormtail brought it to him. (Wormtail lost his own wand when he transformed into a rat after blowing up the street, but he apparently went back to Godric's Hollow and found Voldemort's.)

Carol, who sees lots of plotholes in the Elder Wand story, including inconsistencies in wand behavior and no evidence whatever that the Elder Wand isn't working for LV before Harry's self-sacrifice, but sees no problem at all with keeping that evil weapon out of circulation




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jul  9 19:54:12 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:54:12 -0000
Subject: DH  reread CH 26 - 29
In-Reply-To: <h35erc+g0qh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h35ht4+j7gn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187283

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Alla quoted:
> > 
> > "It's all down to Neville, he really gets this Room. You've got to ask it for exactly what you need - ... close the loopholes! ..." - p.464
> > 
> Alla wrote:
> > 
> > Now, does it mean that Neville has special relationship with the room? Or does it mean that he just figured out and taught everybody how to phrase their demands? ...
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I don't thinks that Neville has a special relationship to the room since it responded to the newcomers by providing beds and other necessities in the proper colors and to the girls' need for a bathroom, ...


BBOYMINN:

I'm not so sure. When new people arrive, do new beds appear
because they arrived and wished for a bed? Or, is it because
Neville wished for the beds and bathroom? 

I think whether consciously or subconsciously, it is Neville
who is controlling the room.

Keep in mind that you don't even have to make a specific
conscious wish. When Harry created the DA Club practice room
he didn't specifically wish for books or cushions. The room
understood what was necessary to accomplish the goal and 
provided. When Harry realized his need for a whistle, he simply
thinks 'I need a whistle' and the room provided.

I think the same is true of Neville. When circumstances change,
he see the need. When more people arrive, he is concerned about
where they will sleep, and the room provides. When girls start
to arrive, he is concerned about how they will get along sharing
a bathroom, and the room provides one for the girls. When too
many people show up, Neville naturally thinks it is crowded and
it would be nice if the room was bigger, so it is. 

I don't think Neville, whether out loud or to himself, has to
say 'I need the room to be bigger', he only needs to realize
the need, and the room accommodates.

So, in this sense, I think Neville is controlling the room.

> Carol continues: 
> 
> But this isn't the first time that a character had to ask the room for exactly the right thing. Harry couldn't get in when he wished for a place to find out what Draco Malfoy was up to,... But he (and Trelawney) got into the same room when they wished for a place to hide something. ...
> 
> ....
> 
> Carol, not really interested in plumbing despite appearances in her recent posts!
>

BBOYMINN:

I'm inclined to think that Harry was asking for something the
room couldn't deliver. Just as the room couldn't deliver food,
but the room could create a corridor that lead to food.

Harry was too focused on Draco, where Draco was, what Draco was
up too, but I think in this sense, Draco was like food. Look at
it this way, if you wanted to find someone, you could simply go
to the room and wish to find that person, and where ever they 
were in the world, they would instantly be in the room. That
seems Extremely unlikely. 

So, Harry, in a sense, was wishing for Draco and the room 
couldn't provide Draco; it was beyond its capability even
though Draco was inside the room itself. Just as the room
could not provide food, even though the castle was full of
available food. 

Trelawney, simply wanted to the room where everyone dumped 
their rubbish, and it was clear that room existed for centuries,
and was readily accessible regardless of whether Draco was in
there. Trelawney wished for an existing known room independent
of whether Draco was in there or not. And the room provided.

I think, if Harry had know to wish for the room, that specific
room, rather than Draco, he could have gotten in. In fact, 
when he needed a place to hide his book, as many a person had
needed a place to hide other things over the centuries, the
room provided the 'Room of Hiding Things'. 

I think if Draco had been in there at that moment, Harry would
have been able to get in and find Draco, because he would have
wished for the right thing.

Can't prove it, but that's what I believe.

Steve/bluewizard




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jul  9 23:03:38 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:03:38 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3574t+bq4b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h35t0a+6dht@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187284

Eggplant:
> 
> I don't see why, use it or not Harry is still Master of the Elder Wand and now everybody knows it. And I don't know what you mean by "Hidden", everybody knew Voldemort got the wand from Dumbledore's grave so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess Harry would put
it back.

Pippin:
How can it be both the normal human thing that Harry would keep the wand and use it, and yet not much of a stretch that Harry would put it back in Dumbledore's grave? 

Harry didn't announce that he wouldn't be using the Elder Wand. As far as most of the WW is concerned, they'd expect to face it if they attacked him. Using the holly wand won't change that.  After all, there's no rule that says a wizard can't have more than one wand on his person. 

It's not such a ridiculous  choice. As Magpie pointed out, Harry has never once been defeated using the holly wand. However, all  previous owners of the Elder Wand have been beaten. That's not because the holly wand is super powerful -- it isn't. It is, as Voldemort noted,  because others have always come to Harry's aid when he was about to lose. That's not a matter of luck alone, it's a matter of Harry choosing to consider friendship and bravery more important than magical ability, and cultivating allies who think so as well. 

That's certainly in line with what JKR conveys in other parts of the story. 

Only under Voldemort was there a Darwinian struggle for wands. It's part of the irony that the people who wanted to take wands away from others ended up without them as a direct result of their efforts. 

But under normal circumstances,  there is no scarcity. When the holly wand wears out, as it eventually must, Harry can just go to Ollivander's for a new one. Presumably that's what the Malfoys did after the war. It must have been a bit awkward for them...but Ollivander's  couldn't stay in business for thousands of years by refusing to let bygones be bygones. 

I did wonder why the  goblins wouldn't attack wizards to get their wands. But it isn't the wands themselves that goblins want, but access to the secrets of their making and the status of being lawful wand-carriers, which they obviously can't get by mugging wizards.

Eggplant:
> Too many fantasy stories have the object of wonder destroyed at the end, the amazing planet or land of the dinosaurs blows up, the time traveling DeLorean gets hit by a train, the secret lab notes of the mad scientist gets burned, and the Elder Wand gets buried. I suppose writers do that because they think readers want things to return to the Status Quo. I'm not really a big fan of the Status Quo. 


Pippin:
Wonder is by nature transitory. If the object of wonder remains, it will only become part of the status quo and people will take  it for granted.  

Pippin





From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Jul 10 07:13:31 2009
From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:13:31 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h35daf+4knv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h36pmr+rj06@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187285

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

> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Snape had his own wand. We never see him fail at casting a spell. 

Karen responds

Yes point taken, he was undoubtedly a very powerful wizard exceeding both Dumbledore and Voldemort in some areas of expertise.

> His Avada Kedavra is so strong that it sends Dumbledore over the battlements of the Astronomy Tower (I think he must have silently willed his wand to do that so that Fenrir Greyback and the DEs would have no reason to remain on the tower).

Karen responds

Aside from reasons why Severus would have wanted Dumbledore's body off the tower I think it served the authors purpose of creating some doubt over whether he was actually dead and what spell had actually been used. I don't think there's another example in the books of an Avada Kedavra causing the body to fly backwards, for example the Riddle family just died on the  spot still at the table. I seem to remember forum threads post HBP arguing that Dumbledore was not really dead at all and that it was all a set up between him and Snape. 
> 
> Carol, who thinks that Snape was PhD level in DADA as well as Potions, with the possible exception of Dark creatures
>

Karen responds

Yes he didn't have a lot of success with animals did he. JKR seems to have used that to intensify the readers distrust of him. She taps into the idea that animals sense character as most of the major good characters had their pet or familiar, but Snape doesn't and seems to dislike and be distrusted by all the creatures he comes into contact with. Perhaps they sense his potion-making skill and are just showing a healthy sense of self-preservation :)





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Jul 10 11:55:22 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:55:22 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h36pmr+rj06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h37a7a+mc47@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187286

 
> Karen responds
> 
> Yes he didn't have a lot of success with animals did he. JKR seems to have used that to intensify the readers distrust of him. She taps into the idea that animals sense character as most of the major good characters had their pet or familiar, but Snape doesn't and seems to dislike and be distrusted by all the creatures he comes into contact with. Perhaps they sense his potion-making skill and are just showing a healthy sense of self-preservation :)


Potioncat:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I think Carol's comment had to do with the error Snape made about dark creatures in Lupin's DADA class. I don't remember now which wee beastie it was. Couldn't have been very important if Snape didn't know much about it. <g>

Fluffy bit him, but that's because Snape didn't know how to calm him. Quirrell only knew because he tricked Hagrid into telling. I've never quite figured out how Snape managed to get out with just a little scrape.

Trevor didn't seem particularly nervous around him--and Snape restored him to his pre-potion health.

Crookshanks is the only other animal I remember being near Snape. It's significant that Crookshanks didn't hiss or complain about Snape's presence--a sign to many of us that Snape was "friend."

Well, there's a certain large black dog that might have given Snape some trouble, but we never actually saw that.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 10 17:04:34 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:04:34 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h36pmr+rj06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h37sb2+1n9k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187287

Karen wrote:
> 
> Yes he [Snape] didn't have a lot of success with animals did he. JKR seems to have used that to intensify the readers distrust of him. She taps into the idea that animals sense character as most of the major good characters had their pet or familiar, but Snape doesn't and seems to dislike and be distrusted by all the creatures he comes into contact with. Perhaps they sense his potion-making skill and are just showing a healthy sense of self-preservation :)
>
Carol responds:

Then again, he never caused Crookshanks's hair to stand on end, making him act like an animal Sneakoscope (and they are together in at least one scene in PoA). But Buckbeak's attack on Snape definitely serves the purpose you're talking about, intensifying the reader's distrust of Snape (except, of course, for readers who remained DDM! Snapers!). But aside from his relationships with animals, Dark (like Fluffy) or otherwise, he's exceptional at DADA as well as Potions. Harry could have learned a lot about dueling, including the use of nonverbal defensive and offensive spells (and alternate methods of dealing with Dementors), from him if he'd only been willing to listen. And let's not forget his reasonably good Legilimency and exceptional Occlumency. Altogether a brilliant, talented, and powerful wizard who ought to have had an exceptional career.

Carol, wishing that Snape had survived to remain headmaster post-Voldemort, assuming that that's what he would have wanted to do






From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 10 17:09:41 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:09:41 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h35t0a+6dht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h37skl+jm84@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187288

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> Eggplant:
> > 
> > I don't see why, use it or not Harry is still Master of the Elder Wand and now everybody knows it. And I don't know what you mean by "Hidden", everybody knew Voldemort got the wand from Dumbledore's grave so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to guess Harry would put
> it back.
> 
> Pippin:
> How can it be both the normal human thing that Harry would keep the wand and use it, and yet not much of a stretch that Harry would put it back in Dumbledore's grave? 
> 
> Harry didn't announce that he wouldn't be using the Elder Wand. As far as most of the WW is concerned, they'd expect to face it if they attacked him. Using the holly wand won't change that.  After all, there's no rule that says a wizard can't have more than one wand on his person. 

jkoney:
Most people would assume that Harry is either going to use the wand, which they will be able to see or he won't use it in which case (being Harry) he would have put it back in Dumbledore's tomb. 

Carrying a second 14 inch piece of wood along would be uncomfortable let alone difficult to hide. Unless he puts it in his moleskin pouch, but that would take too long to get out if he is in trouble and has lost his first one.



> Pippin
> It's not such a ridiculous  choice. As Magpie pointed out, Harry has never once been defeated using the holly wand. However, all  previous owners of the Elder Wand have been beaten. That's not because the holly wand is super powerful -- it isn't. It is, as Voldemort noted,  because others have always come to Harry's aid when he was about to lose. That's not a matter of luck alone, it's a matter of Harry choosing to consider friendship and bravery more important than magical ability, and cultivating allies who think so as well. 

jkoney:
I think the Elder wand must be more powerful, otherwise the legend wouldn't have originated around it. 
> 
> Pippin 
> Only under Voldemort was there a Darwinian struggle for wands. It's part of the irony that the people who wanted to take wands away from others ended up without them as a direct result of their efforts. 

jkoney:
I think it would be better said that only under Voldemort was the Darwinian struggle for wands made known to us. 

In times of piece it wouldn't matter because no one would be trying to disarm their opponents.






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Jul 10 17:39:11 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:39:11 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h35t0a+6dht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h37ubv+i2ef@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187289

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote: 

> Harry didn't announce that he wouldn't be
> using the Elder Wand. As far as most of 
> the WW is concerned, they'd expect to face
> it if they attacked him. Using the holly
> wand won't change that. 

Don't you think people would find it odd that somebody would have the most powerful wand in the world but never use it? Don't you think they'd wonder where it was? 

> it's a matter of Harry choosing to consider
> friendship and bravery more important than
> magical ability, and cultivating allies
> who think so as well. 

During the half century Dumbledore used the Elder Wand he certainly valued friendship and bravery and cultivated allies and I see no reason Harry couldn't do the same. And I agree that magical ability isn't everything, but it's certainly something.

> Only under Voldemort was there a Darwinian
> struggle for wands. 

The Elder Wand is far older than Voldemort.

> Wonder is by nature transitory. If the object 
> of wonder remains, it will only become part 
> of the status quo and people will take
> it for granted. 

Ok I'll give you that.

 Eggplant 






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Jul 10 16:58:02 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:58:02 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h35gvh+9gs3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h37ruq+nffo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187290

 "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Carol, who sees lots of plot holes
> in the Elder Wand story  

I only see one plot hole, not lots.

> no evidence whatever that the Elder Wand
> isn't working for LV before Harry's self-sacrifice

Nobody said the wand wasn't working for Voldemort, just that it was working no better than his old wand; it would have if he was the master of it.

> but sees no problem at all with keeping
> that evil weapon out of circulation 

Not defending that wand with everything you've got is a poor way to keep it out of circulation. And Dumbledore used that "evil" wand for half a century and certainly did a lot of good with it in that time. Harry should be able to do at least as well because even Dumbledore admits that Harry is the better man. 
 
> I'm not sure that "everyone" knows what
> happened  with the Elder Wand. [
] The
> anti-Voldemort faction probably didn't
> go around spreading the story of the Elder Wand.

Hundreds, probably thousands of people just witnessed an incredibly dramatic event and you expect every single one of them to remain silent about it forever? That just isn't going to happen.   

> No one need know that he put it
> back in Dumbledore's tomb

Everybody knows the wand was once in Dumbledore's tomb and if somebody is looking for it again that would be the first place
they'd look. 

> someone (McGonagall?) could put a protective spell
> on the tomb so it could not be broken into

If it's so easy why didn't they do it the first time? Even
Dumbledore admits that he can't cast an unbreakable protective spell. 

> The only way to break the power of the 
> wand and end the cycle is for Harry to
> die a natural death.

Historically a great many people are more than willing to kill to get that wand, so if Harry wants to die in his bed of old age he'd better have the most powerful magic available to defend himself.

But I just don't understand why a writer would even want to try to convince a reader that any of these crazy logical convolutions were realistic. Why not simply have Harry keep the wand? If that means that Harry is condemned to lead an interesting life and the 19 years before the epilogue have not been completely uneventful then so be it.

Eggplant
  





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 10 22:11:44 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:11:44 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h37ruq+nffo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h38eb0+oppr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187291

Carol earlier:
Carol, who sees lots of plot holes
> > in the Elder Wand story  

Eggplant responded:
> I only see one plot hole, not lots.

Carol again:

As I said, we'll never agree on this one. :-)

Carol earlier: 
> >[I see] no evidence whatever that the Elder Wand isn't working for LV before Harry's self-sacrifice

Eggplant: 
> Nobody said the wand wasn't working for Voldemort, just that it was working no better than his old wand; it would have if he was the master of it.
> 
Carol responds:
But where's the evidence that it isn't working absolutely perfectly? We never see it not doing exactly what he wants it to do. He just suddenly starts thinking that he needs to kill Snape to make himself master of the wand with no reason whatever for doing so. We don't even know if Ollivander talked to him about wand behavior as he did to Harry. If he knew how the Elder Wand "thought" and remembered something that Ollivander had said, or if we had seen it not working, fine. Instead, we see it kill a lot of DEs, create Nagini's bubble, clear the green potion in the cave and so on--it couldn't possibly work better than it did because it worked perfectly.

As for other plot holes, the wandlore is inconsistent between DH and the other books. The only thing that works *for me* is Ollivander's statement that wand behavior is complex. He talks about what *usually* happens but makes allows for the possibility of variation. And only variation can account for the inconsistencies. A few wands, such as the Snatcher's wand that Harry tries to use, don't work at all for those who aren't their masters, yet Hermione can use Bellatrix's still hostile wand with no problem other than psychological discomfort? but most of the time, whether or not a wand has been "won," wizards seem to have no great difficulty using other wizards' wands. Black uses Snape's and Wormtail uses Lupin's in PoA with no problem at all. Inconsistency, thy name is JKR.

Carol earlier (overly snipped so that I'm not quite sure what I said here):
> > but sees no problem at all with keeping that evil weapon out of circulation 

Eggplant: 
> Not defending that wand with everything you've got is a poor way to keep it out of circulation. And Dumbledore used that "evil" wand for half a century and certainly did a lot of good with it in that time. Harry should be able to do at least as well because even Dumbledore admits that Harry is the better man. 

Carol:
Using it against opponents isn't keeping it out of circulation at all. Dumbledore was careful not to kill with the wand because he knew what it could do to the mind of a master who used it to seek power, not to mention that *every single master of that wand before Harry* was either killed or Disarmed, including Dumbledore. The wand doesn't make a wizard unbeatable. It just makes him a target for others who are equally deluded. You'd think the WW would learn that lesson and leave bad enough alone.

 Carol earlier: 
> > I'm not sure that "everyone" knows what happened  with the Elder Wand. [
] The anti-Voldemort faction probably didn't go around spreading the story of the Elder Wand.

Eggplant: 
> Hundreds, probably thousands of people just witnessed an incredibly dramatic event and you expect every single one of them to remain silent about it forever? That just isn't going to happen. 

Carol responds:
Yes, but of those hundreds of people (I don't think there were thousands, all were either DEs (now dead or imprisoned) or supporters of Harry who are not about to fight him or challenge him. If they think about the Elder Wand at all, they probably think of it as Harry's just reward. And witnesses of events like that are notoriously unreliable. If the story spreads, it will probably take the form of legend and be about as accurate as accounts of what happened with Sirius Black and the twelve Muggles. Rita Skeeter, who wasn't present, will probably publish her version. Harry will probably refuse an interview and state that he's said enough. (You know how accurate accounts in the Daily Prophet are--not accurate at all, even when Rita Skeeter isn't the reporter.)

Carol earlier: 
> > No one need know that he put it back in Dumbledore's tomb

Eggplant: 
> Everybody knows the wand was once in Dumbledore's tomb and if somebody is looking for it again that would be the first place they'd look. 

Carol responds:
"Everybody" knows no such thing. True, Voldemort said that he took it from there, but only a few hundred people heard him, and, as I said, none of them has both the motive and the opportunity to find it. Most people would either assume that he would use it or they'd assume that he'd hide it in some other place, for example, his Gringotts vault or Hogwarts. Besides, maybe Voldemort with his supposed loyal DE as headmaster can just enter the Hogwarts grounds to desecrate DD's tomb, but normally the grounds are protected. Unless you count Sirius Black, who was an Animagus and knew at least one still-secret passage into the castle, no other hostile person ever got into the school. (Lucius Malfoy was a school governor and the parent of a student, not an active DE, when he entered the school in CoS.)

Carol earlier: 
> > someone (McGonagall?) could put a protective spell
> > on the tomb so it could not be broken into

Eggplant: 
> If it's so easy why didn't they do it the first time? Even Dumbledore admits that he can't cast an unbreakable protective spell. 

Carol responds:

No one saw the need. Only Dumbledore, who was dead and hadn't expected to be Disarmed by Draco, knew that his wand was the Elder Wand. He thought that it would have lost its powers when he died undefeated. So no need to put extra protection on the tomb. No one dreamed that Voldemort or anyone else would break into it.

And I don't recall Dumbledore saying that he couldn't cast an unbreakable protective spell. Can you show me that quotation, please? (I do think that the protections he personally put on the castle ended when he died just as the freezing spell he put on Harry ended then, but that doesn't mean that anyone else, even Voldemort, could break them. And it took the Ministry and all the DEs to break the protections on the Weasleys' house after the wedding. The one protection they didn't include was the Fidelius Charm. All Harry needs to do is make some trusted person whom no one will suspect the Secret Keeper (not to mention not advertising the Fidelius Charm, so no one even knows there's a Secret), and no one will ever know where the wand is hidden. If the Fidelius Charm works the way I think it does, everyone who once knew that the wand had been buried with DD will forget it.

But who in the WW has a motive to take the wand from the hero who defeated Voldemort? Everyone believed Harry was special even when he "defeated" Voldemort as a toddler. Now they know that he survived *another* AK and vanquished Voldemort permanently. They undoubtedly attribute powers to him that he doesn't have. Who's going to volunteer to fight him? Not Draco, that's for sure. And not Lucius Malfoy, either. And any other Dark Wizards that we know of are dead or in Azkaban.

Honestly, I'd do the same thing if I were Harry. But I'd find a career other than Auror because there aren't any bad guys left to fight.

Carol earlier: 
> > The only way to break the power of the wand and end the cycle is for Harry to die a natural death.

Eggplant: 
> Historically a great many people are more than willing to kill to get that wand, so if Harry wants to die in his bed of old age he'd better have the most powerful magic available to defend himself.

Carol:
Historically, one or two people per century were willing to kill to get the wand, and all of them ended up dead or defeated themselves. Even Gregorovitch (who, I hope, didn't murder to get the wand--wonder how it came to him?) and Grindelwald ended up being murdered by the same maniac, Voldemort, after they had both lost it to someone else. Who in their right mind would want a wand with that bloody history? It only killed Voldemort because it backfired on him, unwilling to kill its rightful master. But it acted in that instance of its own accord.

With Voldemort dead, where's the Dark Wizard willing to take that kind of risk?

And Harry doesn't need the most powerful wand available. His holly wand, of course, had a special connection to Voldemort that no longer exists and it wasn't involved in the final battle, but he won that battle with *Draco's* wand. All Harry needs (aside from an opponent) is a wand that works well for him. He doesn't need a more powerful wand than anyone else. All he needs is more practice with nonverbal spells and a few spells besides Expelliarmus, Stupefy, and Protego in his arsenal. (Okay, I know those aren't the only spells he uses, but they're the main ones.) He doesn't even need to kill, only to outduel his opponents. As long as he can do that, he'll have no problem dying a peaceful, natural death. And if the time ever comes when he wants to retire because he's lost his skill (always assuming that anyone wants to kill or defeat the savior of the WW, which I find unlikely in the extreme), he can always retire to a cottage on the ocean protected by a Fidelius Charm.

Unbeatable Wand? How is it that everyone who advertises that they're using it ends up dead? He has to let the thing go unused and allow it to be forgotten, meanwhile making sure that he has backup so that if he's ever disarmed, he gets his own wand back. (I doubt that his wand would switch loyalties in any case. It's been through too much with Harry!)

Eggplant:
> 
> But I just don't understand why a writer would even want to try to convince a reader that any of these crazy logical convolutions were realistic. Why not simply have Harry keep the wand? If that means that Harry is condemned to lead an interesting life and the 19 years before the epilogue have not been completely uneventful then so be it.

Carol:
And I just don't understand why any reader would want Harry to use the Elder Wand. It's not quite the One Ring, but its bloody history needs to be ended, and Harry wants a peaceful life with his family. The last thing he wants is to spend it fighting to keep the mastery of the Elder Wand.

Carol, who sees nothing convoluted in JKR's solution to the problem (but lots of problems in the rest of the Elder Wand plot)




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 10 23:41:34 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:41:34 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h38eb0+oppr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h38jje+lbok@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187292

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
>> Carol earlier: 
> > >[I see] no evidence whatever that the Elder Wand isn't working for LV before Harry's self-sacrifice
> 
> Eggplant: 
> > Nobody said the wand wasn't working for Voldemort, just that it was working no better than his old wand; it would have if he was the master of it.
> > 
> Carol responds:
> But where's the evidence that it isn't working absolutely perfectly? We never see it not doing exactly what he wants it to do. He just suddenly starts thinking that he needs to kill Snape to make himself master of the wand with no reason whatever for doing so. We don't even know if Ollivander talked to him about wand behavior as he did to Harry. If he knew how the Elder Wand "thought" and remembered something that Ollivander had said, or if we had seen it not working, fine. Instead, we see it kill a lot of DEs, create Nagini's bubble, clear the green potion in the cave and so on--it couldn't possibly work better than it did because it worked perfectly.

jkoney:
The evidence would be Voldemort stating that it isn't working any better than his regular wand. He would be the only one who could tell us if this wand is allowing him to perform more powerful magic, and he tells us that it isn't.


>snip

> Eggplant: 
> > Not defending that wand with everything you've got is a poor way to keep it out of circulation. And Dumbledore used that "evil" wand for half a century and certainly did a lot of good with it in that time. Harry should be able to do at least as well because even Dumbledore admits that Harry is the better man. 
> 
> Carol:
> Using it against opponents isn't keeping it out of circulation at all. Dumbledore was careful not to kill with the wand because he knew what it could do to the mind of a master who used it to seek power, not to mention that *every single master of that wand before Harry* was either killed or Disarmed, including Dumbledore. The wand doesn't make a wizard unbeatable. It just makes him a target for others who are equally deluded. You'd think the WW would learn that lesson and leave bad enough alone.

jkoney:
We know that whether or not Harry uses the Elder wand, if he is defeated the wand will submit to the one who defeated him. Why risk not using the best wand available? His wand is good the Elder wand is better. It doesn't make any sense to use the second best if the best is available.


> 
>  Carol earlier: 
> > > I'm not sure that "everyone" knows what happened  with the Elder Wand. [
] The anti-Voldemort faction probably didn't go around spreading the story of the Elder Wand.
> 
> Eggplant: 
> > Hundreds, probably thousands of people just witnessed an incredibly dramatic event and you expect every single one of them to remain silent about it forever? That just isn't going to happen. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> Yes, but of those hundreds of people (I don't think there were thousands, all were either DEs (now dead or imprisoned) or supporters of Harry who are not about to fight him or challenge him. If they think about the Elder Wand at all, they probably think of it as Harry's just reward. And witnesses of events like that are notoriously unreliable. If the story spreads, it will probably take the form of legend and be about as accurate as accounts of what happened with Sirius Black and the twelve Muggles. Rita Skeeter, who wasn't present, will probably publish her version. Harry will probably refuse an interview and state that he's said enough. (You know how accurate accounts in the Daily Prophet are--not accurate at all, even when Rita Skeeter isn't the reporter.)


jkoney:
you really believe that no one will ever talk about what happened? That's a pipe dream. They may not even mean to tell the story but the truth will come out. Who doesn't believe that someone like Seamus will be sitting around a bar having a firewhiskey or six when someone asks him to tell the tale of the defeat of Voldemort. All he has to do is tell the tale and answer some questions from the other patrons. Word will get around to others.

> 
> Carol earlier: 
> > > No one need know that he put it back in Dumbledore's tomb
> 
> Eggplant: 
> > Everybody knows the wand was once in Dumbledore's tomb and if somebody is looking for it again that would be the first place they'd look. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> "Everybody" knows no such thing. True, Voldemort said that he took it from there, but only a few hundred people heard him, and, as I said, none of them has both the motive and the opportunity to find it. Most people would either assume that he would use it or they'd assume that he'd hide it in some other place, for example, his Gringotts vault or Hogwarts. Besides, maybe Voldemort with his supposed loyal DE as headmaster can just enter the Hogwarts grounds to desecrate DD's tomb, but normally the grounds are protected. Unless you count Sirius Black, who was an Animagus and knew at least one still-secret passage into the castle, no other hostile person ever got into the school. (Lucius Malfoy was a school governor and the parent of a student, not an active DE, when he entered the school in CoS.)

jkoney:
Well hopefully no one else will become an animangus or no one will find another secret passage into the school. After all Filch knew them all, well except for the ones the Maruaders knew that he didn't and I'm sure they knew them all.

It seems to me that Quirril left the school grounds and he got back in.


> 
> Carol earlier: 
> > > someone (McGonagall?) could put a protective spell
> > > on the tomb so it could not be broken into
> 
> Eggplant: 
> > If it's so easy why didn't they do it the first time? Even Dumbledore admits that he can't cast an unbreakable protective spell. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
>snip> 
> But who in the WW has a motive to take the wand from the hero who defeated Voldemort? Everyone believed Harry was special even when he "defeated" Voldemort as a toddler. Now they know that he survived *another* AK and vanquished Voldemort permanently. They undoubtedly attribute powers to him that he doesn't have. Who's going to volunteer to fight him? Not Draco, that's for sure. And not Lucius Malfoy, either. And any other Dark Wizards that we know of are dead or in Azkaban.
> 
> Honestly, I'd do the same thing if I were Harry. But I'd find a career other than Auror because there aren't any bad guys left to fight.

jkoney:
Right, once you capture the bad guys no one ever takes their place. After the War to End all Wars, we never had another one.

Let's get real. There are always going to be bad guys because someone always wants power, wealth, etc. and they don't want to follow the rules to get it. Therefore there are always going to have to be good guys who will fight them. 


> 
> Carol earlier: 
> > > The only way to break the power of the wand and end the cycle is for Harry to die a natural death.
> 
> Eggplant: 
> > Historically a great many people are more than willing to kill to get that wand, so if Harry wants to die in his bed of old age he'd better have the most powerful magic available to defend himself.
> 
> Carol:
> snip>

> With Voldemort dead, where's the Dark Wizard willing to take that kind of risk?

jkoney:
If they thought that after Grindelwald they were sadly mistaken.

As I said above there is always going to be another bad guy. The way for him to make his name is to kill Harry Potter. (Think of Henry Fonda in My Name is Nobody, or John Wayne in the Shootist, or even Wild Bill Hickock) Harry has a bullseye on his back whether he wants to admit it or not. 


> Snip

> Eggplant:
> > 
> > But I just don't understand why a writer would even want to try to convince a reader that any of these crazy logical convolutions were realistic. Why not simply have Harry keep the wand? If that means that Harry is condemned to lead an interesting life and the 19 years before the epilogue have not been completely uneventful then so be it.
> 
> Carol:
> And I just don't understand why any reader would want Harry to use the Elder Wand. It's not quite the One Ring, but its bloody history needs to be ended, and Harry wants a peaceful life with his family. The last thing he wants is to spend it fighting to keep the mastery of the Elder Wand.
> 

jkoney:
Dumbledore managed to use it for fifty years without a problem. Harry's will is just as strong and he's a better person. Why people wouldn't want him to be able to protect himself to the best of his abilities is beyond me.




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sat Jul 11 05:20:58 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:20:58 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h35t0a+6dht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h397fq+ldgp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187293

> Pippin:
> 
> But under normal circumstances,  there is no scarcity. When the holly wand wears out, as it eventually must, Harry can just go to Ollivander's for a new one. Presumably that's what the Malfoys did after the war. It must have been a bit awkward for them...but Ollivander's  couldn't stay in business for thousands of years by refusing to let bygones be bygones. 
> 


Marianne:

A wand wears out??  I wouldn't have thought so???  Didn't Ron inherit Charlie's old wand?  The only way that Ron's wore out is when he broke it.  Maybe I'm wrong.

And why wouldn't have Percy, Fred or George inherited Charlie's old wand?

Question.  I've read all about the interview J.K.R. has done explaining things about the books.  Where would I find those interviews at?

Marianne




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sat Jul 11 05:56:52 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:56:52 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h336kc+5o23@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h399j4+q7f3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187294

> Karen
> 
> 
So I think Dumbledore may well have given Snape some intensive Occlumency training in the quiet years after V's disappearance. Even so the 'Are you ready, are you prepared?' at the end of TGoF betrayed anxiety over Snape's possible fate.

Marianne:

Hope I've got the right person that goes with the thread.

Also at the end of "Are you ready?  Are you prepared" there is also:

"I am." said Snape.

He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangly.

"Then good luck," said Dumbledore, and he watched, with a trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius.


I was always under the impression  at the good luck paragraph that the apprehenison on Dumbledore's face was because he didn't totally trust Snape and perhaps had a bit of worry that Snape would not be his spy and go to and stay with LV and DE.  Not necessarily Snape's fate in the end.

Marianne




From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Jul 11 08:36:52 2009
From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:36:52 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h399j4+q7f3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h39iv4+vqqv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187295

 
> Marianne:
> 
> Hope I've got the right person that goes with the thread.

Karen responds

Yes you have.
> 
> I was always under the impression  at the good luck paragraph that the apprehenison on Dumbledore's face was because he didn't totally trust Snape and perhaps had a bit of worry that Snape would not be his spy and go to and stay with LV and DE.  Not necessarily Snape's fate in the end.
> 
> Marianne
>

Karen responds:

It just goes to show how we all read things differently. When I first read this part I 'knew' that Snape was a double agent and that he was utterly loyal to Dumbledore for some reason that we were not to know until later in the series. Dumbledore however did know Snape's motivation, his love for Lily, so would he truly have thought that Snape would go back and willingly serve the one who had murdered Lily, and thereby bring about the death of her son, the only bit of her still left in the world.

I did have a post HBP doubt about Snape's loyalty, but only a slight one, and thought even on the sketchy evidence we had that he had been ordered to preserve his cover at all costs short of Harry's death. 
Dumbledore told Harry on a number of occasions that he trusted Professor Snape completely so for that reason I didn't read that dialogue as showing a lack of trust but rather a real worry that he was sending him to an unpleasant death. I felt at the time and still do that even though Dumbledore 'used' Snape, he did care for him personally not just as a tool which served his masterplan. 

Karen (allthecoolnamesgone)




From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Jul 11 08:44:34 2009
From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:44:34 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h37sb2+1n9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h39jdi+nt19@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187296

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

> Carol, wishing that Snape had survived to remain headmaster post-Voldemort, assuming that that's what he would have wanted to do
>

Karen responds

Yes it would have been facscinating to see more of him. I'm a fanfic addict of the 'Snape survives' genre or of those which fill in all the scenes which must have taken place, but which we couldn't be given in the books as they would have revealed too much too soon. One of my favourites is 'Into the Ether' by Duj in which Snape writes a series of letters to Hermione of the future which re-examine all the events of the books from his perspective.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jul 11 13:35:21 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:35:21 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h397fq+ldgp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3a4ep+qedf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187297


> Marianne:
> 
> A wand wears out??  I wouldn't have thought so???  Didn't Ron inherit Charlie's old wand?  The only way that Ron's wore out is when he broke it.  Maybe I'm wrong.

Pippin:
Unicorn hair was showing through on Charlie's old wand -- presumably that's why Charlie replaced it. Ollivander also speaks of Lily buying her first wand. It sounds from that as though an ordinary wand in normal use has about ten years in it. Dumbledore also says something about magical objects wearing out in Tales of Beedle the Bard, IRRC. 

Voldemort must have taken  good care of his yew wand to have it last so long. 

Marianne:
> And why wouldn't have Percy, Fred or George inherited Charlie's old wand?

Pippin:
Canon doesn't say, but perhaps the budget just wouldn't stretch to a new wand for Ron after outfitting the others. 

Marianne:
> Question.  I've read all about the interview J.K.R. has done explaining things about the books.  Where would I find those interviews at?

Pippin:
You'll find summaries and links at Accio quote:
http://www.accio-quote.org/index.html

Pippin





From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 11 07:00:28 2009
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:00:28 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h37a7a+mc47@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h39dac+306n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187298

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

snip> 
> Fluffy bit him, but that's because Snape didn't know how to calm him. Quirrell only knew because he tricked Hagrid into telling. I've never quite figured out how Snape managed to get out with just a little scrape.
>
Susan writes:

How DID Snape stop Quirrell from going down the "trap door" after the stone the first time, when Snape was bitten by Fluffy???
Susan




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jul 11 14:54:09 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:54:09 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h38jje+lbok@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3a92h+km3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187299

 
> jkoney:
> Dumbledore managed to use it for fifty years without a problem. Harry's will is just as strong and he's a better person. Why people wouldn't want him to be able to protect himself to the best of his abilities is beyond me.
>

Pippin:
What protection do you think the Elder Wand can give?

I don't think the Elder Wand can magically overpower one's will like the One Ring or a horcrux. But it's still an invitation to hubris, or, in modern terms, poor decision-making due to macho thinking and a false sense of invulnerability. 

 There are a lot of contests in canon where being master of the Elder Wand wouldn't have made any difference. 

James would still have left his wand on the sofa.

 Voldemort and Quirrell would still have underestimated Lily's love magic. 

Diary!Riddle would still have neglected to keep an eye on the diary.

Sirius and Bella would still have forgotten to duck. 

Graveyard!Voldemort would still have given Harry back his wand. 

Dumbledore, who *was* master of the Elder Wand, decided to protect Harry instead of himself. 

Harry knows all this, and he knows that he himself is prone to recklessness. Using the wand would not be playing to his strengths.  

I agree that other dark wizards will arise. There will be some people who  want to kill Harry just because he exists.  But it won't be so easy for them to find allies now that the WW is treating its citizens more fairly. Enemies will know that even if they succeeded in killing its master, the Elder Wand isn't going to do them any good unless they can get to it before someone else does. But any enemy so foolish as to want it will be foolish in other ways that Harry and his allies can exploit.

The  weaknesses of the Elder Wand should be  obvious to anyone who studies its history (as opposed to its legend.) It can't warn its owner of a surprise attack or a clever thief. Hogwarts, though, is well defended against those things. According to Luna,  everything  ever stolen at Hogwarts is eventually returned, and she may be right. Even Ravenclaw's tiara came back.

Most wizards, even the dark ones, seem to have too much fear of tearing their souls to become killers, and most of them probably  think that the wand has to pass by murder. That's what the legends say, and people who want the wand want it because they believe the legends.  

Pippin 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 11 15:42:27 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:42:27 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3a92h+km3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3abt3+iagd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187300

> Pippin:
> What protection do you think the Elder Wand can give?
> 
> I don't think the Elder Wand can magically overpower one's will like the One Ring or a horcrux. But it's still an invitation to hubris, or, in modern terms, poor decision-making due to macho thinking and a false sense of invulnerability. 
> 
>  There are a lot of contests in canon where being master of the Elder Wand wouldn't have made any difference. 
><SNIP>

Alla:

But all those examples that you cited and I snipped do not really work for me, because most of them are really not fights and if in the example of fight one of the participants did have elder wand, how do we know that it will not make a difference?

But do not get me wrong, I totally see that Harry would not have been using elder wand, only I do not see any justifications that you are bringing it up. I mean, really, the most powerful weapon to defend himself, if it was a different series, I would say - eh why not?

But here especially after book 7 to me it is very clear that guns and their magical equivalents, strong magical powers are very last thing that will bring JKR's characters victory.

I think JKR wants the hero whose power comes from self sacrifice, not from being the strongest fighter physically, from somebody who has friends who will stand up for him, not that he had to know all the magic tricks, etc.

So what I am trying to say is that to me Harry not using Elder wand goes very well in line of how I see one of the series main ideas, but it does not hold against any common sense scrutiny of why one would not want to use a very strong magical gun for self defense.

She wanted to make Harry a pacifist, forgive your enemy and put the other cheek kind of guy in my opinion. I mean I know that he fought a war, I am just saying that this is the kind of view IMO he comes to have after the war if that makes sense.


I for some reason reminded of Heralds of Voldemar series by Mercedes Lackey. Heralds and their Companions guard all that is good and just, but boy they do not hesitate to use their powers to do so if needed. Potter Series though imo stand for totally different idea.

JMO,

Alla




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Jul 11 20:19:09 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:19:09 -0000
Subject: Flying  // Aurors never run out of work
Message-ID: <h3as3t+6a19@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187301

Soon I will be leaving for San Francisco for Azkatraz, and tourism before and maybe after. We're driving, so we haven't even decided yet whether to leave on Monday or Tuesday or probably not Wednesday, because our room reservation starts Wednesday night. We didn't buy tickets for the cancelled IMAX show so I wonder if we can get tickets at the movie theater for the replacement 2-D group showing of The Movie.

Karen wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187244>:

<< After all Apparition was sufficiently difficult and dangerous to require a test so unassisted flying was I assume way beyond that level. >>

According to Quidditch Through the Ages, wizarding folk need a flying object or flying animal because the only forms of unassisted flying known to magic are either to Levitate at a rigid height of five foot above the ground or to transform into a flying animal. There's a line about few Animagi have forms that are flying animals and a wizard Transfigured into a bat or a bird would have only a bat's or a bird's brain and therefore not remember why he wanted to fly.

I did improve Levitate in my fanfic, so that it could be used to ascend by Levitating a rigid five feet from a vertical wall.

Vupitar wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187251>:

<< My understanding is that Voldemort had invented unaided flight magic very recently - Nobody else could do it because nobody else knew how. >>

That would indeed explain how LV can do it even though canon (QTTA) says it's impossible. Was Rowling thinking that SNAPE had invented it very recently and taught it to LV?

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187291>:

<< Honestly, I'd do the same thing if I were Harry. But I'd find a career other than Auror because there aren't any bad guys left to fight. >>

There are always bad guys to track down and capture, even if no Dark Wizard seeks to conquer the wizarding world for the next hundred years, such as an obsessively infatuated witch who murders her lover's wife (or her daughter's rival for Head Girl). She might have done so with an elaborate plot, like TMR murdered Hepzibah Smith, that required real investigation to find out whodunnit.

<< He doesn't even need to kill, only to outduel his opponents. As long as he can do that, he'll have no problem dying a peaceful, natural death. >>

He also needs eyes in the back of his head. The murderess's sister may want to avenge her, even if said avenger viewed Harry as the savior of the wizarding world rather than as the conqueror who defeated her people, the purebloods.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 11 20:24:02 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:24:02 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h399j4+q7f3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3asd2+jtci@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187302

Karen wrote: 
> So I think Dumbledore may well have given Snape some intensive Occlumency training in the quiet years after V's disappearance. Even so the 'Are you ready, are you prepared?' at the end of TGoF betrayed anxiety over Snape's possible fate.
> 
Marianne responded:
snip>
> Also at the end of "Are you ready?  Are you prepared" there is also:
> 
> "I am." said Snape.
> 
> He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangly.
> 
> "Then good luck," said Dumbledore, and he watched, with a trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius.
> 
> 
> I was always under the impression  at the good luck paragraph that the apprehenison on Dumbledore's face was because he didn't totally trust Snape and perhaps had a bit of worry that Snape would not be his spy and go to and stay with LV and DE.  Not necessarily Snape's fate in the end.
>
Carol responds:

Possibly that was Harry's impression and the reader is supposed to share it, but if Dumbledore didn't completely trust him, he wouldn't have sent him on a mission that could backfire so completely. I'm sure that his apprehension and his silence reflected concern for Snape, both as a person and an excellent staff member and, probably more important to Dumbledore, an irreplaceable spy who had already shown his loyalty and determination to undermine Voldemort by spying "at great personal risk" during the year or so between the time he came to Dumbledore to ask him to protect "her--them" and the vaporization of Voldemort at Godric's Hollow. If he didn't trust Snape completely, he certainly wouldn't have allowed him to teach at Hogwarts, not to mention allowing him to be alone with Harry for various detentions. Snape had, after all, attempted to thwart Quirrell and had saved Harry's life. And Voldemort had killed Lily. Dumbledore knew quite well that Snape would never be a loyal DE again.

I doubt that he would have asked him if he were ready and prepared (meaning, I think, have you prepared your cover story) and wished him good luck if he weren't sure that he was on his own side. He's afraid that Snape may not come back (if his Occlumency fails or his story has holes in it, he'll be killed). And where will Dumbledore find another former DE willing to take the risks that Snape takes, to lie and spy and protect Harry? Snape is one of a kind and irreplaceable.

Carol, noting that the description of Snape's pale face and glittering eyes echoes, perhaps deliberately, the description of Harry as he prepares to enter the third-floor corridor in SS/PS




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 11 20:57:57 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:57:57 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h39dac+306n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3aucl+sdj2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187303

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

> How DID Snape stop Quirrell from going down the "trap door" 
> after the stone the first time, when Snape was bitten by Fluffy???


zanooda:

Quirrell didn't intend to go after the stone at Halloween, he just wanted to try and find out what was guarding it: "You're too nosy to live, Potter. Scurrying around the school on Halloween like that, for all I knew you'd seen me coming to look at what was guarding the Stone" (p.289).

I think at that point Quirrell didn't know any of the Stone defenses yet, it was too early for him to attempt anything. We don't even know if he actually entered Fluffy's room, because, as he said, "Snape went straight to the third floor to head me off". Even if he did, he wouldn't be able to pass Fluffy, not knowing how. 

I wonder, why Quirrell needed to learn the secret from Hagrid, couldn't he overcome the dog some other way (I mean other than music) - to use Avada Kedavra, for example :-). Or, if he could knock out a troll, why not a giant dog?




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jul 11 22:02:10 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:02:10 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3abt3+iagd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3b252+54he@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187304

Alla wrote:
> 
> But all those examples that you cited and I snipped do not really work for me, because most of them are really not fights and if in the example of fight one of the participants did have elder wand, how do we know that it will not make a difference?
> 
> But do not get me wrong, I totally see that Harry would not have been using elder wand, only I do not see any justifications that you are bringing it up. I mean, really, the most powerful weapon to defend himself, if it was a different series, I would say - eh why not?
> 
> But here especially after book 7 to me it is very clear that guns and their magical equivalents, strong magical powers are very last thing that will bring JKR's characters victory.
> 
> I think JKR wants the hero whose power comes from self sacrifice, not from being the strongest fighter physically, from somebody who has friends who will stand up for him, not that he had to know all the magic tricks, etc. <snip>

Carol responds:

right. Very good, Alla! I think you've hit on the right answer. From the beginning, the strongest magic (as Dumbledore tells Voldemort and Voldemort foolishly refuses to believe) is Love magic. Baby Harry doesn't defeat the Dark Lord through superior powers; he survives through no will or effort or power of his own because Voldemort gave her the choice to live or die and she chose to give her life in place of Harry's, so that when LV tried to kill Harry, too, her sacrifice protected him. Later, he survives, as Snape puts it, through luck and the help of more talented friends. And he defeats Voldemort first through self-sacrifice (love) and then through luck (the elder Wand). I'm oversimplifying, but I'm trying to say that Harry's successes are almost never a matter of his skill and a wizard (unless we count Quidditch matches) or his power (except for his Patronus, which again he learned to produce through the luck of having a Dementor boggart to practice on and the help of a more knowledgeable friend, Professor Lupin). They're always about friendship and luck and love. And those things, we can be pretty sure, will remain with Harry until the end of his days.

And in the unlikely event that a new Dark Wizard shows up who's foolish enough to want to defeat Harry (not necessarily kill him unless, as Pippin says, he believes the myth rather than history) and, after that, somehow obtain the hidden Elder Wand, that simply wouldn't happen. Love, luck, and the help of more talented friends--not to mention his very good wand--Harry will win again because Harry always does--especially since his opponent wouldn't be using the "unbeatable" Elder Wand.

Anyway, I realize that I'm exaggerating in that last paragraph based on JKR's reluctance to have Harry lose in any contest (except the duel with Snape at the end of HBP), but, seriously, I think that it isn't about power or magical ability. It's about the themes that Alla outlined, all of which have been the keys to Harry's success and without which, even with the scar link and the ability to speak Parseltongue, he'd never have been able to defeat Voldemort. And that's what all the wizards who died after winning the Elder Wand failed to understand: love is the most powerful magic, and the world's most powerful wand merely turns you into a target.

Harry is wise not to use it and to let people forget about it, as people always do. As for an accurate version of events in the WW--that has yet to happen (with the single exception of Harry's interview), whether it's Rita Skeeter's biographies, the Daily Prophet, or Hogwarts, a History, which didn't reveal the full truth about the Chamber of Secrets.

The thing is, though, that if Harry uses the Elder Wand, which *can* be defeated ad both DD and Grindelwald demonstrated, he risks losing it to someone else and its power won't end. The cycle of violence will continue. He *has* to keep it out of circulation (and remain undefeated himself, which he can easilydo with his usual Expelliarmus and quick reactions--not to mention backup).

Carol, whose post has been interrupted so many times that it's undoubtedly incoherent




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jul 12 03:33:03 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:33:03 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3abt3+iagd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3blhf+gvo4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187305

 
> Alla:
> 
> But all those examples that you cited and I snipped do not really work for me, because most of them are really not fights and if in the example of fight one of the participants did have elder wand, how do we know that it will not make a difference?

Pippin:
I don't know what you mean by not really fights. Could you explain?

 Whether the Elder Wand would make a difference is what we are discussing -- so far no one has said specifically how they expect the Elder Wand to make a difference. We've already disposed of the idea that no one would dare  to attack Harry if he had it. It might not attract the same enemies, but enemies there would be. 


Where is the canon that the Elder Wand has defensive powers that other wands do not have? 

Alla:
> But do not get me wrong, I totally see that Harry would not have been using elder wand, only I do not see any justifications that you are bringing it up. I mean, really, the most powerful weapon to defend himself, if it was a different series, I would say - eh why not?

Pippin:
Sure! If the Elder Wand was in the hands of a different character, or in a universe where love magic was not so powerful, why not? But in the Potterverse it's not suitable for Harry. Dumbledore was right for the wrong reasons, IMO. Harry would not be tempted to take over the WW, mwahahahaha. But the wand would be a temptation for Harry to indulge the weaknesses he does have: his tendencies to be reckless and to rely too much on his own abilities, ignoring others who could be of help. 

Pippin










From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 12 06:18:51 2009
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (susanfullin)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:18:51 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h3aucl+sdj2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3bv8b+3ef4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187306

> Susan <susanfullin@> wrote:
> > How DID Snape stop Quirrell from going down the "trap
> > door" after the stone the first time, when Snape was
> > bitten by Fluffy???
>
> zanooda:
>
Snip
>
> I wonder, why Quirrell needed to learn the secret from
Hagrid, couldn't he overcome the dog some other way (I mean
other than music) - to use Avada Kedavra, for example :-).
Or, if he could knock out a troll, why not a giant dog?
>


Susan:

LV was "present" in Quirrell's turban too! He couldn't
figure something else out? Of course, then we'd have a
different story.

Susan




From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Sun Jul 12 10:11:50 2009
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:11:50 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape flying away
Message-ID: <ca3.554cf1d0.378b10e6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187307

Fluffy is Cerberus, the dog who guarded the entrance to Hades' realm in  
Greek mythology.  Only one person was ever able to pass him - Orpheus, who  
lulled him with the same beautiful music with which he had pacified mortal  
beasts.  Mythologically, music would be the ONLY way to pacify  Fluffy.
 
Knock him on the head?  Which one?
 
Sherrie
 
 
In a message dated 7/12/2009 3:53:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
susanfullin at yahoo.com writes:

 
 


> Susan <susanfullin@> wrote:
> > How DID Snape stop  Quirrell from going down the "trap
> > door" after the stone the  first time, when Snape was
> > bitten by Fluffy???
> 
>  zanooda:
> 
Snip
> 
> I wonder, why Quirrell needed to  learn the secret from 
Hagrid, couldn't he overcome the dog some other way  (I mean 
other than music) - to use Avada Kedavra, for example :-). 
Or,  if he could knock out a troll, why not a giant  dog?
>

Susan:

LV was "present" in Quirrell's turban too!  He couldn't 
figure something else out? Of course, then we'd have a  
different story.

Susan



_Messages  in this topic _ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187240;_ylc=X3oDMTM4ZWRydWdzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJ
ZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BG1zZ0lkAzE4NzMwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNDczODUy
MTgEdHBjSWQDMTg3MjQw) (16)  _Reply (via web post) _ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyMzdtOG11BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxN
zYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BG1zZ0lkAzE4NzMwNgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0a
W1lAzEyNDczODUyMTg-?act=reply&messageNum=187306) | _Start  a new topic _ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMjY3MmdrBF9TAzk3
MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGME
c3RpbWUDMTI0NzM4NTIxOA--) 
_Messages_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ3JqOTY0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYw
NmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTI0NzM4NTIxOA--)   | _Files_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZWE2MGpnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElk
AzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzEyNDcz
ODUyMTg-)   | _Photos_ (http://groups.
yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZTdnaTBkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0
MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTI0NzM4NTIxOA--)   | _Links_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNmE2NnVjBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz
E0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW
1lAzEyNDczODUyMTg-)   | _Database_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJjZWhuYzByBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3
BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2RiBHN0aW1lAzEyNDczODUyMTg-)   | _Polls_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMHU3b203BF9T
Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bv
bGxzBHN0aW1lAzEyNDczODUyMTg-)   | _Members_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGJmdTRkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNj
YEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTI0NzM4NTIxOA--) 
  
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__MUS
T_READ_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ) 



MARKETPLACE
 
_Mom  Power: Discover the community of moms doing more for their families, 
for the  world and for each other_ 
(http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14k4e9nm9/M=493064.12016295.13271503.10835568/D=groups/S=1707544108:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1247
392418/L=/B=Xg5jC0PDhFw-/J=1247385218982403/K=jf.tKEGy_cYIvdj0F4JnWw/A=56973
81/R=0/SIG=11eaa5dke/*http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mompowergroup/)  


 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkM29pNmthBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjQ3Mzg1MjE4
)  
_Change  settings via the Web_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY3M1dmEyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNz
A3NTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzEyNDczODUyMTg-)  (Yahoo! ID 
required) 
Change settings via email:  _Switch  delivery to Daily Digest_ 
(mailto:HPforGrownups-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery: Digest)  | _Switch  
format to Traditional_ 
(mailto:HPforGrownups-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change Delivery Format: Traditional)  
_Visit  Your Group _ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbW10a2JjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlY
wNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMjQ3Mzg1MjE4) | _Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use _ 
(http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/) | _Unsubscribe  _ 
(mailto:HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=) 

 

 
Recent Activity
    *    23
_New  Members_ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOTBzajNuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHN
lYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNDczODUyMTg-) 

_Visit  Your Group _ 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups;_ylc=X3oDMTJla2RxcTA1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3NTQ0MTA4BHNlY
wN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI0NzM4NTIxOA--) 
 
 
 
Yahoo! News
_Odd  News_ 
(http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14h2ieg38/M=493064.12016309.12445701.8674578/D=groups/S=1707544108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1247392418/L=/B=Xw5jC0PDhFw-/
J=1247385218982403/K=jf.tKEGy_cYIvdj0F4JnWw/A=3848614/R=0/SIG=12t4qk00m/*htt
p://news.yahoo.com/i/757;_ylt=A9FJqYzfwK5EFCQAswis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRp
BHNlYwM3NTc-)  
You won't believe 
it, but it's true
 
Yahoo! Groups
_Small  Business Group_ 
(http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14h1s8hhf/M=493064.12016272.13586184.8674578/D=groups/S=1707544108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1247392418/L=/B=Y
A5jC0PDhFw-/J=1247385218982403/K=jf.tKEGy_cYIvdj0F4JnWw/A=5758219/R=0/SIG=12
4m43uve/*http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/BankofAmerica_SmallBusiness/)
  
Own a business? 
Connect with others.
 
Yahoo! Groups
_Mom  Power_ 
(http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hpmf9n4/M=493064.12662709.13497510.8674578/D=groups/S=1707544108:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1247392418/L=/B=YQ5jC0PDhFw-
/J=1247385218982403/K=jf.tKEGy_cYIvdj0F4JnW
w/A=5689702/R=0/SIG=11eaa5dke/*http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mompowergroup/)  
Community just for Moms 
Join the discussion



.

**************Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. 
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)


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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jul 12 15:04:21 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:04:21 -0000
Subject: Another choose the character game
In-Reply-To: <h243mm+triu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3cu1l+di51@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187308

Alla wrote:

> 
> To make a long story short, which character you would trust to watch your back. I suppose it is a test of personal loyalty?
> 
> And of course the stipulation that you are on the character good side applies and of course please use canon to explain why.
snip
> 
> The problem with Snape of course that I do not **want** to be on his good side, but he certainly passes this test with flying colours.
> 


Potioncat:
Good question, Alla. And might I say, you've become more objective about Snape in the past couple of years. <g>

So, the idea is, who would I want to go behind enemy lines with? With the idea they'd be watching my back?

First I'd choose Snape. He's proved his ability to stick to his commitment, to stay cool under pressure and to protect his charge even when he doesn't like him. In Snape's case, you don't have to be on his good side to be protected. (Harry) You don't even have to be on his side. (Draco) But, with one stipulation for Snape---I'd want his mission to be my protection. If his mission was the mission at all costs
I might end up as snake food.

My next choice is Shacklebolt. He managed to stay under cover while right in the forefront. That is, he seemed to manage to stay prominent in the MoM while serving with the Order.

Neville has already proved his worth behind enemy lines. So of course I'd choose him.

Ron comes next. Yes, Ron. He couldn't go with Harry when Harry faced LV, but he kept to the underlying mission in support of Harry. He found the means to destroy the cup, even after the loss of his brother.

Luna would be on the short list, but she is drifty enough to make me a bit nervous. 

Any one missing?
Well, you didn't ask who I "wouldn't" want as my back up. <eg>





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jul 12 15:09:32 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:09:32 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <h3bv8b+3ef4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3cubc+51fh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187309

Zanooda:
> > I wonder, why Quirrell needed to learn the secret from
> Hagrid, couldn't he overcome the dog some other way (I mean
> other than music) - to use Avada Kedavra, for example :-).
> Or, if he could knock out a troll, why not a giant dog?
> >
> 
> 
> Susan:
> 
> LV was "present" in Quirrell's turban too! He couldn't
> figure something else out? Of course, then we'd have a
> different story.

Pippin:
I think Voldemort wanted to get through the barriers undetected. A brute force attack would probably raise alarms.  Once he got the stone, he would still need  time to brew up the elixir and to create a rudimentary body which could imbibe it, so the longer the theft remained undiscovered, the better.

In any case, Fluffy, like other magical creatures, could be highly resistant to magic. A stunning spell, or even an AK, might not work. 

Pippin 







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jul 12 15:40:11 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:40:11 -0000
Subject: Why the Celebration in DH?
In-Reply-To: <h2vnpv+is7b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3d04r+80nl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187310

 
> zanooda:
> 
> More like four days: "'The Trace'll break on the thirty-first', said Harry. 'That means I only need to stay here four days'". The Lexicon also says that Mad-Eye was killed on July 27th... ;-(.


Potioncat:
I didn't believe it. Seemed to me it was weeks. But the Lexicon says 4 days and I found the canon source. Harry was picked up four days before his birthday, according to chapter 2.

So having a wedding 4 days after Moody's death seems---unfeeling. Yet, the wedding was being planned all along. Just a few days before the wedding most of the wedding party risked their lives to get Harry. Anyone could have died in that raid. So they must have given some thought to "what if" and decided to go on with the ceremony regardless of outcome.

And I'm sure that's what Moody would have wanted.





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jul 12 16:58:50 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 12 Jul 2009 16:58:50 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/12/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1247417930.8.2916.m4@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187311

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday July 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20090712/74442bb8/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 12 17:03:54 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:03:54 -0000
Subject: Why the Celebration in DH?
In-Reply-To: <h3d04r+80nl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3d51q+ksrl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187312

Potioncat wrote:
<snip>
> 
> So having a wedding 4 days after Moody's death seems---unfeeling. Yet, the wedding was being planned all along. Just a few days before the wedding most of the wedding party risked their lives to get Harry. Anyone could have died in that raid. So they must have given some thought to "what if" and decided to go on with the ceremony regardless of outcome.
> 
> And I'm sure that's what Moody would have wanted.
>
Carol responds:

I'm not surprised at all that the wedding was celebrated so shortly after Moody's death. Look at all the parties and celebrations that were held on the very night that the Potters were killed, the news of Voldemort's defeat having somehow spread throughout the WW very quickly. Those celebrations always struck me as callous (and I don't even like the Potters), but I suppose the good news outweighed the bad in the minds of most people, even those (like Dedalus Diggle) who had personally known James and Lily (McGonagall and Hagrid excepted; even DD asks McGonagall why she isn't celebrating twenty-four later--apparently the parties are still going on). So it doesn't surprise me at all that Bill and Fleur continued with their wedding plans despite the death of a tough old Auror who was ready to die in the line of duty at any point. And I agree that Mad-eye would have wanted it that way. A celebration that size, though? They might as well have invited Madame Maxime and her house-size carriage and advertised it to the whole country. 

Carol, who thinks that Lupin and Tonks had the right idea with their small, nearly secret wedding, news of which got out anyway




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jul 12 17:08:12 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:08:12 -0000
Subject: Where Are They Now? Character Game
Message-ID: <h3d59s+cuhh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187313

In post 187887 Carol signed off with these words,
> 
> Carol, wishing that Snape had survived to remain headmaster post-Voldemort, assuming that that's what he would have wanted to do.

Potioncat:
And that made me wonder, what would Snape have wanted to do if he had survived? For that matter, what are the many different characters doing now?--that is what have they done since that last battle with Tom Riddle? 

Here's the game. Basing your theory on canon tell us what you think certain characters are doing now. Just for fun, you may add an "if the character had survived" clause. You may choose to use or ignore any information from JKR interviews. You may flesh out the details we learned in the epilogue or go for characters we didn't learn about.

And for more fun, if any other list member feels canon doesn't support your idea...well, you know the rest.

Potioncat




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 12 18:12:17 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:12:17 -0000
Subject: Why the Celebration in DH?
In-Reply-To: <h3d04r+80nl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3d921+t0it@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187314

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

> Anyone could have died in that raid. So they must have given 
> some thought to "what if" and decided to go on with the 
> ceremony regardless of outcome.


zanooda:

I think it also depends on *who* would have died. If it was any of the Weasleys, I believe they would have postponed the ceremony. And of course, if Bill or Fleur were killed, it would have been physically impossible to hold the wedding... ;-(.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 12 18:25:31 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:25:31 -0000
Subject: Snape flying away
In-Reply-To: <ca3.554cf1d0.378b10e6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <h3d9qr+2rtr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187315

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at ... wrote:

> Fluffy is Cerberus, the dog who guarded the entrance to 
> Hades' realm in  Greek mythology. 


zanooda:

Never thought that Fluffy *was* Cerberus himself, more like a reference to him :-). Or maybe one of his pups, LOL! If you think Fluffy *is* Cerberus, who is guarding the entrance to the land of the dead now? No wonder we see dead people in the books again and again... :-).


> MadameSSnape wrote:
  
> Knock him on the head?  Which one?


zanooda:

LOL! I doubt that Quirrell actually knock the troll on the head (although that's what Ron did :-)). It was probably the Stunning spell or something. Although while you stun Fluffy's one head, the other two can eat you...





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 12 20:01:46 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:01:46 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3blhf+gvo4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3dffa+cpf7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187316

> > Alla:
> > 
> > But all those examples that you cited and I snipped do not really work for me, because most of them are really not fights and if in the example of fight one of the participants did have elder wand, how do we know that it will not make a difference?
> 
> Pippin:
> I don't know what you mean by not really fights. Could you explain?

Alla:

What I meant is that for me to see that Elder wand would or would not have made a difference I will at least hypothetically need to see it *in the fight*. For example, sure James would have left any wand on the sofa. But how is it relevant to trying to figure out how much more effective Elder wand would or would not have been in the fight than his regular wand if the fight did not happen? So if hypothetically they would have duelled in canon and James lost and you would have advanced the argument that it does not matter if he duelled with his wand or elder wand, well I would have certainly disagreed with you, but it would have been more relevant IMO.

Same thing with all your other examples, for example how is it relevant that Voldemort and Quirrel would have underestimated Lily's love magic to evaluate how strong the magical gun is, you know?

I can sort of see hypothetical relevance of only one of your examples and even that one to me is barely there, that is Voldemort still giving Harry his wand. Are you sure that if it was Elder wand Voldemort would have given it back to harry? I really doubt it, I think Voldemort even with all his desire to make a silly show out of murdering Harry would have kept that wand to himself. And even if he gave it back to Harry, Priori would not have happened, but who says that Harry would not have defeated him without Priori, at least temporarily (I know he could not permanently defeat him yet due to Horcruxes of course)

Pippin:
>  Whether the Elder Wand would make a difference is what we are discussing -- so far no one has said specifically how they expect the Elder Wand to make a difference. We've already disposed of the idea that no one would dare  to attack Harry if he had it. It might not attract the same enemies, but enemies there would be. 
> 
> 
> Where is the canon that the Elder Wand has defensive powers that other wands do not have? 

Alla:

Right, I know that this is what we are discussing, and eh, I am not advancing the idea that nobody will attack the Harry if he has the wand, it seems silly to me, of course they will IMO. 

All that I am saying though, and I am pretty ambivalent to whether Harry will or will not use it is that Elder wand is more effective weapon that ANY other weapon we had seen so far. I am talking about magical weapons of course. But JKR IMO is saying that Love magic is more effective than any other weapon, which is fine by me, but if we are removing that message, I do not see any logical reasons for Harry not to use the wand  for self defense.

And if this wand has the greatest offensive powers, to me it automatically means that it is the best one for self defense too. IMO of course. You will not be arguing against it having the greatest offensive powers? 

> 
> Alla:
> > But do not get me wrong, I totally see that Harry would not have been using elder wand, only I do not see any justifications that you are bringing it up. I mean, really, the most powerful weapon to defend himself, if it was a different series, I would say - eh why not?
> 
> Pippin:
> Sure! If the Elder Wand was in the hands of a different character, or in a universe where love magic was not so powerful, why not? But in the Potterverse it's not suitable for Harry. Dumbledore was right for the wrong reasons, IMO. Harry would not be tempted to take over the WW, mwahahahaha. But the wand would be a temptation for Harry to indulge the weaknesses he does have: his tendencies to be reckless and to rely too much on his own abilities, ignoring others who could be of help. 


Alla:

Then we disagree more than agree, I think. I do not believe that not using Elder wand  has much to do with "Harry" and that it has everything to do with JKR. In other words, from within the story, I cannot find any reason for Harry to not use it as self defense weapon, besides the fact that JKR wants him to be above it, if that makes sense.

I am glad we agree that Harry will not be tempted to take over the world with it, LOL. I find it another stupid projection of Dumbledore of who he thought Harry was.

But you are saying that Harry can only be reckless if he has elder wand? I completely disagree. I really do not think it matters one way or another, I think if Harry will be reckless he can easily be reckless with his own wand and I think he really learned his lesson after the war about relying on others.

So, in short I remain of the opinion that if JKR was not arguing that Harry's powers should come from different source, I do not see any reasons for Harry not to use the wand for self defense. Or I should say I do not see any **other** reasons for him to not do so.

JMO,

Alla




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 13 00:54:54 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:54:54 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance _Re-Read the Story
In-Reply-To: <h37skl+jm84@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3e0ku+gfsv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187317

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth@> wrote:
> >
> > Eggplant:
> > > 
> > > I don't see why, use it or not Harry is still Master of the Elder Wand and now everybody knows it. ...
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > How can it be both the normal human thing that Harry would keep the wand and use it, and yet not much of a stretch that Harry would put it back in Dumbledore's grave? 
> > 
> > Harry didn't announce that he wouldn't be using the Elder Wand. ...
> 
> jkoney:
> Most people would assume that Harry is either going to use the wand, which they will be able to see or he won't use it in which case (being Harry) he would have put it back in Dumbledore's tomb. 
> 
> ...

bboyminn:

Just my opinion, but I think we need to go back and read that passage, the duel between Harry and Tom, again.

Yes, the Elder Wand and its true ownership is discussed, and it makes perfect sense to us because we've been following along in the book. But the people in that hall have not been reading the book, they don't know the details that we know.

I suspect, that to most of them, the conversation between Harry and Voldemort made little sense. I'm sure they vaguely understood bits and pieces, but I'm not sure how much beyond that.

As to Harry announcing anything about the Elder Wand, I think not. Again, we the readers are privileged to what was said and done in Dumbledore's office, but other than Harry, Ron, and the portraits, no one knows what was said. 

Further, Harry is not explaining everything in detail to the portraits. Ron and Hermoine might know about the whereabouts of the Ring and the Cloak, but the portraits don't. He is very vague in what he says. He says the Ring is lost and he doesn't know where and he isn't going to look for it. Dumbledore may understand, but the portraits don't. Harry says he is keeping the cloak, to which Dumbledore agrees. Yet, the importance and context of the Cloak are never explained. Finally, Harry says he is going to put the wand back where it belongs, but he doesn't specifically say where that is.

So, the fate of the wand is completely unknown to anyone but Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Dumbledore's portrait. 

As to those who heard Harry and Voldemort's conversation, I think it is a mystery to them. Certainly they heard words that they recognized - Elder Wand, Death Stick, owner, master, etc, but do they know specifically which wand they are talking about. Is it Voldemort's wand, is it Harry's wand? And how does it all fit in. I think most likely everyone who heard the conversation was thoroughly confused and I don't think Harry would ever make any effort to dispel their confusion. 

Yes, some may reach the right conclusion, but what you know and what you can prove, and who will believe you are all very different things. I think the Mystery of the Elder Wand is left at just that - a mystery. People can speculate, people can reach conclusions, people can know with certainty, but they can't prove it, and they can gather any worthwhile details. That is assuming any of them would want to pursue the mystery beyond Pub gossip. 

And dark wizard intent on getting the Elder Wand is going to have a very tough time sorting out that mystery. I'm sure with enough effort they could trace it to its more recent history, but that still doesn't solve the final mystery. Where is the wand? What was done with it? Was it destroyed? Was it stored? If so where? 

I think to see this clearly, you have to separate yourself from it as a reader. You have to put yourself in the place of various people involved. We know a lot. We have all the pieces of the puzzle laid out before us. But, the people IN THE STORY don't have even remotely that level of detail or that level of certainty. It is a confusing mystery to them.

They can never really truly figure it out, though I'm sure it will keep the tea shops and pubs buzzing for years to come.

Steve/bboyminn




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Mon Jul 13 04:33:41 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:33:41 -0000
Subject: Ron's Hand-Me-Downs/Was Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3a4ep+qedf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3edf5+1hnn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187318

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>> Marianne:
> > And why wouldn't have Percy, Fred or George inherited Charlie's old wand?
> 
> Pippin:
> Canon doesn't say, but perhaps the budget just wouldn't stretch to a new wand for Ron after outfitting the others. 
> 

Marianne:

Maybe I think too personally, and it know it makes a big part of the story line, but I always felt bad that Ron got all the used things and not anything new, not until a new wand and his new broom when he was made prefect.

And those godawful dress robes.  Don't you think Molly would have did something to improve them to something a little less awful?  Again, I know it was part of the story line.

Marianne
The Fall Won't Kill You
The Landing Will




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Mon Jul 13 04:40:42 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:40:42 -0600
Subject: Tonk's Patronus
Message-ID: <AF14F490997F45ACAC59C564779D99E7@Marianne>

No: HPFGUIDX 187319

When Tonk's patronus changed, I never read (that I know of) that it had turned to a wolf.  What was her original?  Or is this something that I've missed by not hearing the interviews.

I really need to listen to those interviews.

Marianne
Too Many Freaks
Too Many Circuses

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




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Jul 12 15:59:45 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:59:45 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h38eb0+oppr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3d19h+dfbo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187320

 "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> But where's the evidence that it
> [Voldemort's wand] isn't working
> absolutely perfectly?

As powerful as Voldemort was he wanted to be even more powerful, that was his entire reason for perusing the Elder Wand, but when he finally got it he informs Snape that he's no more powerful than he was before. That is no more a plot hole than Malfoy possessing the Hand of Glory even though we don't actually see him purchase it.

> We don't even know if Ollivander talked to 
> him [Voldemort] about wand behavior 
> as he did to Harry. 

Oh I think we do. Ollivander was even apologetic to Harry about it; but I can cut him some slack, the poor man was tortured. 

> it couldn't possibly work better than it did 

Of course it could! Undoubtedly Voldemort wished he could just flick his wand and Hogwarts along with Harry Potter would just dissolve into dust and needed no help from Giants or Spiders or Werewolfs to do it. Even Voldemort wasn't powerful enough to do that, but if he was Master of the Elder Wand he might have been able to pull it off, or at least come close. It all makes logical sense, I just don't understand how you can say this is a plot hole.

> A few wands, such as the Snatcher's wand
> that Harry tries to use, don't work at all
> for those who aren't their masters

That is just untrue. And it's no more a mystery than that some shoe sizes are more comfortable to my feet than others. No plot hole
that I can see. 

> most of the time, whether or not a wand has
> been "won," wizards seem to have no great
> difficulty using other wizards' wands.
 
No plot hole here either, as Oleander says if you are any sort of Wizard at all you could use almost any wand, but don't expect to
get the very best results with any old wand.

> Inconsistency, thy name is JKR. 

That's a bit strong for one plot hole.
 
> Using it against opponents isn't
> keeping it out of circulation 

I think it is if you want to break that circle.

> Dumbledore was careful not to kill with the wand 

And I'm not suggesting that Harry use it for the next 50 years to become a serial murderer. Dumbledore used it for half a century with good results, and Harry is a better man.

> It just makes him a target for others
> who are equally deluded.

Perhaps but that can't be helped. Harry remains the Master of the Elder Wand and there is nothing he can do about it, except get himself defeated. As I say that may mean that Harry is condemned to lead an interesting life, but why would a writer want to avoid hinting at that?

> If they think about the Elder Wand at all,
> they probably think of it as Harry's just reward.

I think the Elder Wand is Harry's just reward too, and like them I'd be puzzled why nobody ever sees him use it and I'd wonder where it was. I don't think it would take me long to come up with a pretty good guess. 

Me:
>> Everybody knows the wand was once in 
>> Dumbledore's tomb and if somebody is
>> looking for it again that would be the
>> first place they'd look.

You:
> "Everybody" knows no such thing. True,
> Voldemort said that he took it from there,
> but only a few hundred people heard him 

In addition to all the people at the Battle of Hogwarts there were thousands of people at Dumbledore's funeral and probably an equal number of non humans; They saw him buried with his wand, as is apparently Wizard custom. I'm thinking of the sad song "Odo The Wizard". 

> I don't recall Dumbledore saying that
> he couldn't cast an unbreakable protective spell.

I do, he told Harry that's why his mother's protective spell was so important, and even that won't last forever. 

> But who in the WW has a motive to take the
> wand from the hero who defeated Voldemort?

Someone who wasn't a very nice person I would think, such people are never in short supply. Harry's defeat of Voldemort was great but he hasn't destroyed evil forever. There is always another dark wizard.

> The last thing he wants is to spend it 
> fighting to keep the mastery of the Elder Wand. 

Harry's wishes on this matter are irrelevant, and anyway for a moment stop putting yourself in the position of Harry and put yourself in the position of JKR. What's the point of implying that your main character's life was very dull after you stopped writing about him? I really think this getting rid of the Elder Wand business was a last minute change because unlike the rest of the plot it doesn't seem to be well thought out. 

 Eggplant






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jul 13 12:28:32 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:28:32 -0000
Subject: Tonk's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <AF14F490997F45ACAC59C564779D99E7@Marianne>
Message-ID: <h3f99g+hjdf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187321

 "wildirishrose"  wrote:
>
> When Tonk's patronus changed, I never read (that I know of) that it had turned to a wolf.  What was her original?  Or is this something that I've missed by not hearing the interviews.
> 
> I really need to listen to those interviews.


Potioncat:
Nope, don't need the interviews--at least for this one.

Tonks' Patronus was a nice bit of misdirection on JKR's part. Harry sees a big animal when she casts it on the way to Hogwarts. Snape mentions that her new Patronus is weaker than her former one. Lupin explains (at Christmas?) that sometimes an emotional shock will cause the Patronus form to change. So Harry thinks the Patronus is a big dog representing Sirius. When it all comes together, we realise the Patronus is a wolf, representing Lupin. 

We're never told what the former Patronus was.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jul 13 14:42:54 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:42:54 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3dffa+cpf7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3fh5e+7p0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187322

 
> Alla:
 For example, sure James would have left any wand on the sofa. But how is it relevant to trying to figure out how much more effective Elder wand would or would not have been in the fight than his regular wand if the fight did not happen?

Pippin:
My point exactly. There's no advantage to superior weapons if the enemy doesn't give you a chance to use them. 

  "The best defense is a good offense" applies to sports and conventional warfare. It works for an isolated enemy, if the  enemy lets you know who he is and where he can be found. It doesn't help if  he's hiding among your friends or using innocent people as shields.  Against the criminals and terrorists that Harry would be fighting as an auror, canon says the best defense is "constant, never-ending vigilance." 


If Harry could treat the Elder Wand with the care it deserves, and not mishandle it the way he mishandled most of the other magical items that came his way, he could be as safe a guardian for it as Dumbledore was.  But Harry  doesn't have the innate caution or the self-discipline that Dumbledore had. Plus he'd be under pressure from Ron, who lusts for victory, and Hermione, who thinks she knows what's best for everybody without the trouble of asking them. 

Now, if you want to say they have all learned their lessons and will not act like that any more, fine. But I don't think so. The lesson you learn in the Potterverse is not how to get over your weaknesses. Instead you learn what your weaknesses are, and not to put yourself in situations where they will get the better of you. 

In any case, carrying the wand increases the chances that someone will be able to take it from Harry, and that person will almost certainly *not* be a safe guardian. 

The defenses of Hogwarts have stood for a thousand years and never fallen to assault, so I think we can say that they work better defensively than the Elder Wand itself, which has been captured many times. The spells guarding Hogwarts never sleep, never get tired or distracted or ill, and evidently do not weaken with age. Harry is not going to be so durable. 

Alla:
> I can sort of see hypothetical relevance of only one of your examples and even that one to me is barely there, that is Voldemort still giving Harry his wand. Are you sure that if it was Elder wand Voldemort would have given it back to harry? 

Pippin:
Actually, I was thinking of Voldemort being armed with the Elder Wand to begin with. There wouldn't have been the brother wand effect. But Harry still would have been protected by Lily's blood in Voldemort's reconstituted body. If  Harry's expelliarmus  worked, then a wandless Voldemort might be facing a still-living Harry who was free of the soul bit, still had his own wand, and possibly Voldemort's also. 


Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 13 16:13:53 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:13:53 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3fh5e+7p0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3fmg1+ltnb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187323

Alla:
For example, sure James would have left any wand on the sofa. But how is it
relevant to trying to figure out how much more effective Elder wand would or
would not have been in the fight than his regular wand if the fight did not
happen?

Pippin:
My point exactly. There's no advantage to superior weapons if the enemy doesn't
give you a chance to use them.

Alla:
I still feel that for me your argument does not work. What do you mean there is no point in it? If I fail to use a gun I have properly against the criminal, does it mean that I should not even bother to keep stronger gun simply because most likely the situation will be the same? 

Oh and I did not mean that Voldemort will not give him a chance, I meant that most likely storyline would not have changed, that's all. Meaning that JKR would have still wanted James to leave any wand on the sofa. From within the story, who knows, maybe James would have been more cautious knowing how strong and powerful his gun is and it will be real bad thing to keep it far from your body.

Power of love as a weapon works just fine for me **on the symbolical, metaphorical level**. Because  I undoubtedly believe that  when one goes out and does incredible things in the name of those we love, be it family, friends or country, well it helps to actually feel those powerful emotions, whether you are risking your life, or just doing whatever needs to be done and sacrificing other  things ? your health, your money, whatever it is.

But I mean, nobody would really suggest that soldier on the battlefield, policeman, firefighter, you name it, would go against enemy, against criminal with **only power of love** as their weapon, right? That would be in my opinion very silly to put it mildly and I would say criminally irresponsible and putting their lives in additional unnecessary danger too. I mean, I know I am stating the obvious, but I am just trying to explain why the idea of magic love being a strong weapon can only be a symbol to me, and if we are looking at it under more everyday view, well to me it does not work.

I mean, I know that we are talking about series full of magic, and elder wand is a magical gun too, but to me it is more realistic gun if that makes sense. And any explanation why Harry should not be using it to defend himself, well, I don't know, just not working for me, except when we are saying that we should only look at his powers in symbolic light and not realistic, or as much realism as magic allows.

Pippin:
"The best defense is a good offense" applies to sports and conventional
warfare. It works for an isolated enemy, if the enemy lets you know who he is
and where he can be found. It doesn't help if he's hiding among your friends or
using innocent people as shields. Against the criminals and terrorists that
Harry would be fighting as an auror, canon says the best defense is "constant,
never-ending vigilance."

Alla:

So, what if the terrorist already spotted you? You would not think that using the most powerful gun will still be a good idea?

Pippin:
If Harry could treat the Elder Wand with the care it deserves, and not mishandle
it the way he mishandled most of the other magical items that came his way, he
could be as safe a guardian for it as Dumbledore was. But Harry doesn't have
the innate caution or the self-discipline that Dumbledore had. 

Alla:

So what kind of the innate caution Harry does not have that Dumbledore did? Would it be the same innate caution that made Dumbledore put the ring on his finger the moment he had it? Without taking a second to think that , I don't know it could be a horcrux?  What kind of discipline Harry did not have that Dumbledore did? Would it be the same discipline that made Dumbledore to ask  **already targeted** James to lend cloak to him? Without taking some time to restrain him and think that maybe, just maybe cloak may come in handy to him and his family if the attack may happen?

And still as you said, Dumbledore managed just fine to be a good guardian for a wand. Something tells me that Harry could have managed no worse, IMO of course.


Pippin:
Plus he'd be
under pressure from Ron, who lusts for victory, and Hermione, who thinks she
knows what's best for everybody without the trouble of asking them. Now, if you want to say they have all learned their lessons and will not act
like that any more, fine. But I don't think so. The lesson you learn in the
Potterverse is not how to get over your weaknesses. Instead you learn what your
weaknesses are, and not to put yourself in situations where they will get the
better of you.

Alla:

He will be under innate pressure from Ron and Hermione to constantly use the wand? I just do not think so. I totally agree with you about one of the lessons in Potterverse to learn what your weaknesses are and not to get yourself into the situations, however, I also think (or at least I hope) that some growth and maturity occurs for the characters. Ron may still bicker with Hermione and hide from her the exact way of him passing the driving test in the epilogue, but I sincerely doubt that Ron in his middle thirties will abandon his friends again had the war to happen, because he will think that his wife loves his best friend better than him. I totally agree that they still have weaknesses, but yes, I think that they got over acting as kids all the time and the behavior that you are describing to me is how they would have acted as teenagers. IMO of course.

Pippin:
In any case, carrying the wand increases the chances that someone will be able
to take it from Harry, and that person will almost certainly *not* be a safe
guardian.

The defenses of Hogwarts have stood for a thousand years and never fallen to
assault, so I think we can say that they work better defensively than the Elder
Wand itself, which has been captured many times. The spells guarding Hogwarts
never sleep, never get tired or distracted or ill, and evidently do not weaken
with age. Harry is not going to be so durable. <SNIP>

Alla:

Oh, **now** we are talking. :) Sure, if Harry is concerned that he is not unstoppable and it is simply dangerous to allow the possibility of elder wand  to pass to somebody else, I can see him doing it. However, I have to put a qualifier, if Harry is doing that, I think he is doing that realizing that he is sacrificing his own defenses to a degree. That would be totally in character for Harry to do, martyr as he is, but  I still think that for his own self defense elder wand would have done just fine.

JMO,

Alla





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Jul 13 17:01:04 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:01:04 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3fh5e+7p0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3fp8g+28fu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187324

 "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

>  Harry doesn't have the innate caution
> or the self-discipline that Dumbledore had. 

That is contrary to cannon. Dumbledore was a good man but not perfect. Dumbledore used the wand for 50 years doing a lot of good with it in that time. Dumbledore admits that Harry is an even better man. I conclude that Harry could do even more good with it than Dumbledore did.

> carrying the wand increases the chances that
> someone will be able to take it from Harry,
> and that person will almost certainly *not*
> be a safe guardian.

If someone can defeat Harry even though he has the Elder Wand then it would be child's play to defeat him if he wasn't using it; then that person would be the new master of the Elder Wand. I agree he would not be a safe guardian. 

> There's no advantage to superior weapons
> if the enemy doesn't give you a chance
> to use them. 

By that same reasoning there is no reason Harry shouldn't stop using any wand at all to defend himself. I don't get it, JKR could have avoided the need for all these unconvincing and convoluted explanations with a simple stroke of her pen; All she had to do is have her character do the logical thing that any real flesh and blood Human Being would do and keep the Elder Wand. It would certainly make for a more interesting ending to the story. I'd prefer to think that Harry spends the next 50 years disrupting evil plots to take over the world and dodging assassins. But if he insists on not using that wand Harry will only spend a few months dodging assassins. 

It's more logical, more realistic, and it's artistically superior too, so why not do it? I think it was a last minute change.

 Eggplant





From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Jul 13 18:27:41 2009
From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:27:41 -0000
Subject: Where Are They Now? Character Game
In-Reply-To: <h3d59s+cuhh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3fuat+nncv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187325

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

> 
> Here's the game. Basing your theory on canon tell us what you think certain characters are doing now. Just for fun, you may add an "if the character had survived" clause. You may choose to use or ignore any information from JKR interviews. You may flesh out the details we learned in the epilogue or go for characters we didn't learn about.

Karen responds:

If he had survived I really don't think Snape would have wanted to be Headmaster at Hogwarts for the following reasons:

I don't see teaching as his 'chosen' career it was forced on him by both his 'masters' so was a function of his cover personality, not I feel his true one. I really can't see him wanting to continue to teach 'Dunderheads', although I can imagine he would have been happy to teach  at NEWT level. However can you imagine any other teacher being prepared to teach potions 'under' Snape, especially when they would probably have been his pupil in the past.

He was fairly solitary, although that was a result of his teenage experience and life as a spy but I think that would have continued, albeit with a few close friends amongst those he considered his intellectual equals. Wouldn't he have wanted a life where he could pursue his own interests without having to 'be' what he he was not? So a role as headmaster having to keep the ministry, governors, parents and staff happy would I feel have seemed to him not much different to 'managing' Voldemort and Dumbledore.

Karen






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jul 13 18:41:20 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:41:20 -0000
Subject: Where Are They Now? Character Game
In-Reply-To: <h3fuat+nncv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3fv4g+q4ke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187326


> 
> Karen responds:
> 
> If he had survived I really don't think Snape would have wanted to be Headmaster at Hogwarts for the following reasons:
> 
> I don't see teaching as his 'chosen' career it was forced on him by both his 'masters' so was a function of his cover personality, not I feel his true one. 

Potioncat:
I agree that  he didn't want to teach potions. I sort of wonder if he didn't want to teach DADA even as a kid. It sort of channels his attraction to the Dark Arts in a positive direction, and teaching it allows him to demonstrate his ability.

So I can imagine (if Snape had survived) some recovery time spent at Spinner's End, some research opportunities, with perhaps a request from Shacklebolt from time to time. Then a few years later, a call from Headmistress McGonagall to be the new, long term DADA master.

That leads me to Neville. Do you suppose the adult Neville still has scars from his 7th year at school? Perhaps first years find him a little frightening at first, until they see his pleasant personality. So he is the cool professor, all scarred from his heroics in the last war, who lives over the Three Broomsticks (or maybe the Leaky Cauldron.) I imagine he's the type to sponsor a club or two and to be available to help students.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jul 13 18:54:09 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:54:09 -0000
Subject: Where Are They Now? Character Game
In-Reply-To: <h3fv4g+q4ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3fvsh+9270@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187327

 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I agree that  he didn't want to teach potions. I sort of wonder if he didn't want to teach DADA even as a kid. 

Potioncat correcting herself:
"I sort of wonder if he didn't want to teach" is a Southern way of saying, "I think he wanted to teach DADA."

Just thought maybe it wasn't so clear the other way, ya'll.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 13 20:47:31 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:47:31 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3d19h+dfbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3g6h3+ur3j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187328

Carol earlier:
> 
> > But where's the evidence that it [Voldemort's wand] isn't working> absolutely perfectly?

eggplant responded: 
> As powerful as Voldemort was he wanted to be even more powerful, that was his entire reason for perusing the Elder Wand, but when he finally got it he informs Snape that he's no more powerful than he was before. That is no more a plot hole than Malfoy possessing the Hand of Glory even though we don't actually see him purchase it.

Carol again:
Maybe it's not possible for Voldemort to be more powerful than he already is. In any case, the only spells he attempts to cast with the Elder Wand (before Harry's self-sacrifice messes up his spell casting and before he sics Nagini on Snape)--multiple murders of DEs, Nagini's bubble, clearing the potion in the cave--don't need to be any more powerful than they are. He does not attempt any spectacular magic other than the extremely successful bubble for Nagini. He simply has no grounds for suddenly doubting the Elder Wand after successfully using it for about a month. It *is* a plot hole, IMO, and unless you can show me evidence that the wand didn't do what he wanted it to, I will continue to hold that view. (Voldemort's word is not evidence at all given all the times we've seen him lie, starting with James putting up a good fight in SS/PS. And, of course, he can also be simply mistaken, as in his inability to understand Snape's love of Lily.)

With regard to Draco, the plot hole is not his possessing the Hand of Glory, which I think must have been brought to him by one of the DEs at who came through the Vanishing Cabinet or else the Room of Requirement supplied it. In either case, Draco had presumably paid for it at some point though we don't see him do so in either of the visits to Borgin and Burke's that Harry witnesses. Possibly, he bought it by owl order at the same time that he bought the cursed necklace, which he left with the Imperiused Rosmerta, and asked Borgin to hold it for him.) The plot hole is in *Ron's* having seen Draco with the Hand of Glory, which Harry never even told Ron about so far as we know. (And why would he? Lucius Malfoy refused to buy it for Draco in CoS, and Harry has no way of knowing that it will be important later.) We don't see the Hand of Glory during Draco's second visit to Borgin--he leaves the shop without having made a purchase. And, obviously, he can't have sneaked it into the school when everyone was being searched by Secrecy Sensors. If they detected Crabbe's Shrunken Head, they obviously would have detected a Hand of Glory.

So, sure, Draco could somehow have acquired the Hand of Glory. That's not the problem. The problem is that Ron could not have seen "that shriveled hand that Malfoy had."

BTW, I just finished reading PoA, and for some reason, Wood (and therefore JKR) still thinks it's been seven years (rather than nine) since Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup. Funny; it was seven years in SS/PS, too (and yet they hadn't won the cup since Charlie was Seeker, which would have been the previous year if he's really only three years older than Percy).

The problem is, JKR trusts her memory too often rather than consulting the relevant book--which I suppose is why she says three times that James was fifteen in SWM yet gives him a March birthday in DH, meaning that he, like Remus, Severus, and Lily (I don't know about Sirius or Peter) would have been sixteen at that time.

And there are dozens of other such errors (even S-bend vs. U-bend for Moaning Myrtle). And I've given up trying to follow directions when HRH are trying to find the Divination classroom--or figuring out why Ron and Hermione try to go to the Owlery from the third floor by way of the Entrance Hall in SS/PS.

Carol earlier:
> > it couldn't possibly work better than it did 

Eggplant: 
> Of course it could! Undoubtedly Voldemort wished he could just flick his wand and Hogwarts along with Harry Potter would just dissolve into dust and needed no help from Giants or Spiders or Werewolfs to do it. Even Voldemort wasn't powerful enough to do that, but if he was Master of the Elder Wand he might have been able to pull it off, or at least come close. It all makes logical sense, I just don't understand how you can say this is a plot hole.

Carol responds:
Even Voldemort knows that magic has its limits. Now if we had seen him express such a wish or desire (and Harry has been inside his mind just before LV came to Hogwarts, at which point, he was thinking about Horcruxes and not the Elder Wand), it would be different. If we had seen him attempt really spectacular magic (which Snape says he's performed with that wand) and complain that it wasn't sufficiently spectacular (as it is, he credits the spectacular results to his own abilities), we'd have grounds for thinking that the Wand has failed him. The problem is, it's done everything he's asked of it, performing just as well as his own very powerful wand, the wand that chose him and is suited to him and has never failed him except when it was thwarted by Lily's Love Magic (Voldemort's own fault for breaking his word) or it happened to encounter its own brother, and that was *Voldemort's* fault--his evil desires couldn't compete with Harry's love and courage, especially when Harry had the echoes cheering him on.

Where is the evidence that the Elder Wand could do what you say it could do? Look at the duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore. It isn't the Elder Wand that keeps Voldemort from AKing Dumbledore. It's Fawkes swallowing the Killing Curse. Both of them are casting spectacular curses (LV's probably Darker), but Dumbledore never decisively wins that battle. Voldemort loses it because he tries and fails to possess Harry and then the Ministry shows up--noting to do with the Elder Wand at all. (Of course, Dumbledore could have cast an AK, too, but he knew it would be futile--Vapor!mort all over again.)

Carol earlier:
> > A few wands, such as the Snatcher's wand that Harry tries to use, don't work at all for those who aren't their masters

Eggplant: 
> That is just untrue.

Carol:
Untrue? Have you forgotten that Harry can't make the Snatcher's wand work for him in DH? Maybe I should have said "at least one wand," although we also see Neville having trouble with his father's wand. And we also have Ollivander's words that "a wizard will never get such good results with another wizard's wand," which are really only illustrated with the Snatcher's wand. (I can quote if necessary; it's in DH after Ron returns and Harry has lost his own wand.) And it's possible, though we can't know one way or the other, that Ron's mediocre performance in SS/PS is partly the result of using Charlie's wand. The only spell we see him performing correctly is Wingardium Leviosa on the troll's club. (In CoS, of course, his wand is broken.) 

Eggplant:
> And it's no more a mystery than that some shoe sizes are more comfortable to my feet than others. No plot hole that I can see. 

Carol responds:
I don't see your point. I'm not talking about the size and shape of a wand--of course, Hagrid's sixteen-inch-wand (assuming that it were unbroken) would be awkward for the average wizard. Possibly, Umbridge's stubby one would, too. But I'm not talking about wand size or even wand wood and wand cores, which you'd think would be more important given Ollivander's words in SS/PS. I'm talking about inconsistency. Why, if Harry feels uncomfortable with the Snatcher's wand and can't even undo the Engorgio spell he's performed on a spider, can Hermione use a wand she feels even more uncomfortable with, Bellatrix's, not only in the Gringott's robbery but in the battle of Hogwarts? The only spell she has trouble casting, IIRC, is the Patronus Charm, which has always been her feeblest spell, anyway. And we see Black in PoA using Snape's wand with no problem. We see Wormtail using Lupin's wand with no problem. (HRH's and Snape's wand have all had Expelliarmus performed on them and yet work fine when they're restored to their owners.)

It's just like having Lupin transform into a werewolf when the moon comes out from behind a cloud rather than when the full moon first appears in the sky, cloud or no cloud. If clouds made a difference, he wouldn't transform on a cloudy night. Or, better yet, he could stay indoors away from the moonlight and he'd be fine. But plot needs trump logic and consistency (and math) every time.

Carol earlier: 
> > most of the time, whether or not a wand has been "won," wizards seem to have no great difficulty using other wizards' wands.

Eggplant:  
> No plot hole here either, as Oleander says if you are any sort of Wizard at all you could use almost any wand, but don't expect to get the very best results with any old wand.

Carol responds:
What's not "best results" about a spell that does what its supposed to do? Almost the only time we see a wand not giving "the best results" is when Harry tries to use the Snatcher's wand and can't. Other reasons for a wand not working are failure to pronounce the spell correctly ("Stubefy") or a broken wand (Ron's in CoS; Harry's in DH) or inexperience of the caster (Harry has trouble learning some spells but immediately learns others; no consistency there, either.) Almost everyone except Hermione has trouble with Transfiguration spells, but, again, that's the inexperience of the caster, not the wand the student is using. And Ron's wand backfires on Lockhart not because Lockhart isn't its master or has been Disarmed but because the wand is broken; we've already seen it backfire on Ron.

Carol earlier: 
> > Inconsistency, thy name is JKR. 

Eggplant: 
> That's a bit strong for one plot hole.

Carol:
True, but as you can see from this post, I wasn't thinking of just one plot hole. I haven't even mentioned Lily's letter to Sirius and how it could have gotten to 12 GP (or the inconsistency in dating there). Every time I read one of the books, I have to get past a plot hole or an inconsistency. *What* skulls in the Slytherin common room? And why would Hermione, who knows perfectly well that Penelope Clearwater is a Muggle-born, choose *her* name? (I suppose it's evidence that she was too hysterical to think clearly.)

Carol earlier:  
> > Using it against opponents isn't keeping it out of circulation 

Eggplant: 
> I think it is if you want to break that circle.

Carol:
No. Keeping it out of circulation means not using it. Exposing the thing to public view reminds people of its existence and if the type of wizard who's willing to kill and steal to own it still exists in the WW, that person will find a way to get the wand (as Grindelwald did and the person who murdered Antiochus Peverell did). Just Disarm him when his back is turned and you've got it. OTOH, it's pointless to Disarm Harry of his own wand (most people, as Steve said, won't understand that doing so would also make that person the master of the Elder Wand *if* the Elder Wand knew about it and *if* it chose to abandon Harry, the wizard who defeated Voldemort) if they didn't know where the Elder Wand was hidden because of a Fidelius Charm or couldn't get to it because of protections on Hogwarts.

As long as Harry dies a natural death and gets his wand back any time he's disarmed, he'll remain master of the Elder Wand. And even if he's not its master, if the new master can't get to the wand, at least it's out of circulation. BTW, if I were Ginny and Harry were killed (not likely given the way the story is written), I'd burn the d****d Elder Wand or stab it with a Basilisk fang or the Sword of Gryffindor. If you can destroy a Horcrux, you can destroy a Hallow. 

Carol earlier:
> > Dumbledore was careful not to kill with the wand 

Eggplant: 
> And I'm not suggesting that Harry use it for the next 50 years to become a serial murderer. Dumbledore used it for half a century with good results, and Harry is a better man.

Carol again:
No question that Harry is a better man, but he's not nearly as powerful or brilliant or knowledgeable as Dumbledore. And DD could use it for half a century only because no one knew that he had it. Let's face it. For what Harry needs--a wand that will serve him well and faithfully--the holly wand is exactly what he needs (especially if he masters nonverbal spells). Thanks to Snape, Harry has learned and mastered Expelliarmus. And that spell, combined with Harry's phenomenal luck, defeated Voldemort. With Expelliarmus plus his own wand plus luck plus friends plus a few more DADA spells that he's good at, Harry doesn't need the Elder Wand, and he would be foolish in the extreme to bring it into public view where others would be constantly aware of it and a few Dark wizards, undeterred by its bloody history, might be tempted to take it.

Carol: 
> > It just makes him a target for others who are equally deluded.

Eggplant: 
> Perhaps but that can't be helped. 

Carol:
Sure it can. Just take the wand out of the public eye and let people forget about it. As Steve pointed out, hardly anybody would have fully understood the conversation between Harry and Voldemort. Their thoughts and fears would have been focused on the battle to come, and they wouldn't have the background knowledge that Harry had to understand wandlore. Nor, I think would anyone watching that battle (including the Malfoys) have wanted anything to do with the wand that Voldemort tried to use to kill Harry Potter.
Harry remains the Master of the Elder Wand and there is nothing he can do about it, except get himself defeated. As I say that may mean that Harry is condemned to lead an interesting life, but why would a writer want to avoid hinting at that?

Eggplant:
> I think the Elder Wand is Harry's just reward too, and like them I'd be puzzled why nobody ever sees him use it and I'd wonder where it was. I don't think it would take me long to come up with a pretty good guess. 

Carol responds:
But the people who think it's Harry's just reward aren't going to go after it, and no one else was present at that last battle (the DEs were all dead or unconscious). Sure, there will be pub talk, but just like the story about the murder of the Riddles, it will be talk by people who don't know the whole truth, and pretty soon it will pass into legend. We see two things happening with incidents in the WW about which people don't know all the facts; either they're preserved in incorrect form as common "knowledge" like Sirius Black's "murder" of thirteen people or the legend of the Chamber of Secrets or they're forgotten about (like Harry's various triumphs over LV or Diary!Riddle and the Basilisk. Neither Harry nor Dumbledore ever presents the full story, and the ignorance of the DA members about these exploits shows how little they really know. Something similar is bound to happen with the battle of Hogwarts. A few conflicting details will get out, but no one except Harry (and maybe Ron and Hermione) will know all the details. The Daily Prophet will no doubt present its own incorrect version. Speculation will flourish. Harry will still be famous. The only difference is that now he won't be in constant danger from Voldemort and he's indifferent to popular opinion (and fame and "glory").

> 
> Me (er, Eggplant):
> >> Everybody knows the wand was once in Dumbledore's tomb and if somebody is looking for it again that would be the
> >> first place they'd look.
> 
> You (er, me, er, Carol earlier):
> > "Everybody" knows no such thing. True, Voldemort said that he took it from there, but only a few hundred people heard him 

Carol: 
> In addition to all the people at the Battle of Hogwarts there were thousands of people at Dumbledore's funeral and probably an equal number of non humans; They saw him buried with his wand, as is apparently Wizard custom. 

Carol responds:
No, they didn't. They saw Hagrid carrying Dumbledore's body covered in a cloth. It might have been a wax dummy for all they knew. Neither Dumbledore nor his wand was visible, and we have no idea whether wizards are usually buried with their wands. Maybe the wand is usually broken; maybe it's generally kept as an heirloom. Maybe a wand can be willed to another wizard, requested by its master to take a new owner. We just don't know. But not one person other than Hagrid would have known that the wand was there. Harry didn't. Voldemort only guessed it. Too bad he didn't guess wrong. (If DD had had his way, the wand *wouldn't* have been there. Snape would have had it--and, I hope, it would have been only a stick of wood. Imagine if Snape had presented the dead wand to Voldemort as a (supposed) mark of his triumph over him. The search for the Elder Wand would have ended at the point when LV realized that the Elder Wand had lost its powers.)

Eggplant:
I'm thinking of the sad song "Odo The Wizard". 

Carol:
I don't think we can count a drinking song as representing invariable WW tradition. In any case, isn't Odo's wand broken? (I could be wrong; I don't have time to go back and look.) Too bad we don't wee any other wizarding funerals.

Carol earlier: 
> > I don't recall Dumbledore saying that he couldn't cast an unbreakable protective spell.

Eggplant: 
> I do, he told Harry that's why his mother's protective spell was so important, and even that won't last forever. 

Carol responds:
That's completely different. A spell cast to protect a child using its mother's love (which for all we know is unique to DD) would naturally end when the child was no longer a child. OTOH, DD says elsewhere that some of his protective magic won't end as long as anyone at Hogwarts is loyal to him, and some of the protective spells, for example the anti-Apparition spells around Hogwarts, seem to have been cast by the Founders but are still in effect a thousand years later. Salazar Slytherin protected the Chamber of Secrets so that it could only be found by his own true heir (or someone who had a bit of the true heir's soul in a scar, a possibility that Slytherin didn't foresee). Not all spells end with the caster's death or Hogwarts would have fallen into ruins or become visible to Muggles centuries earlier. Some of the spells that Orion Black cast on 12 GP also remain, IIRC.

Carol earlier: 
> > But who in the WW has a motive to take the wand from the hero who defeated Voldemort?

Eggplant: 
> Someone who wasn't a very nice person I would think, such people are never in short supply. Harry's defeat of Voldemort was great but he hasn't destroyed evil forever. There is always another dark wizard.

Carol:
Yes, but Dark wizards don't grow on trees. We've seen the Slytherins of Harry's time and not one of them, including Draco, seems powerful enough or motivated enough to defeat Harry. Dark Wizards of the caliber of Grindelwald or Voldemort seem to come along only once or twice in a century. Sure, there will always be evil people. Prejudice hasn't been eradicated; we don't know what happened to Umbridge. Some of the Snatchers may still be running around. You'll always have petty lawbreakers of the Mundungus Fletcher or Willy Widdershins type running around. But someone who wants the most powerful wand in the world for the sole purpose of--what? Winning all duels? Defeating the great Harry Potter? Ruling the WW? As long as the wand is safely hidden and Harry keeps silent about the details (which were surely foggy to any listeners--you must know how unreliable the human memory is and how even eye witnesses remember things differently minus a Pensieve--people will forget what they know or think they know and people who weren't present will get only an inaccurate version of the story. And if a Fidelius Charm is cast on the wand, even its existence will be largely forgotten.

Carol earlier: 
> > The last thing he wants is to spend it fighting to keep the mastery of the Elder Wand. 

Eggplant: 
> Harry's wishes on this matter are irrelevant, and anyway for a moment stop putting yourself in the position of Harry and put yourself in the position of JKR.

Carol responds:
Please don't tell me what to do. And Harry's wishes are not irrelevant. His choices at the end of the book--to keep the Invisibility Cloak without, of course, advertising that it's a Hallow; to leave the Resurrection Stone where it lies; and to put the Elder Wand back after using it to repair his own--show who he is, just as choices always do in the HP books. And what he wants (peace for the WW, a normal life for himself) *is relevant to that choice. But, actually, I am putting myself in the position of JKR. Her hero Harry is never defeated except through accident or interference (Dobby), and luck, friends, coincidence, or dei ex machina (hope my Latin plural is corrrect!) always save him. So, JKR chooses the outcome that's in character for Harry and appropriate to the themes of the book. *She* wants the power of the Elder Wand ended as much as Harry and DD do. And she's not going to allow some future Dark Wizard (for the sake of argument, Scorpius Malfoy although I'd rather see little Scorpius fall in love with Rose Weasley) defeat him. "All was well," and, I suspect, all will remain well with "the hero who vanquished the Dark Lord." 

Eggplant:
 What's the point of implying that your main character's life was very dull after you stopped writing about him? I really think this getting rid of the Elder Wand business was a last minute change because unlike the rest of the plot it doesn't seem to be well thought out. 

Carol responds:
Very dull? All Harry has ever wanted since SS/PS is to be Just Harry with a normal life and a loving family (and, since HBP, to marry Ginny Weasley). I'll bet anything that getting rid of the Elder Wand was planned from the beginning as the right thing to do, both sensible with regard to getting rid of a perennial source of strife and in character for Harry.

Carol, who suspects that Harry's job and kids (especially James) give him as much excitement as he wants (if he's bored, he can watch a Quidditch match or visit Charlie and his dragons in Romania)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 13 21:13:35 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:13:35 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3fmg1+ltnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3g81v+bf68@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187329

Alla wrote:
> 
> Oh, **now** we are talking. :) Sure, if Harry is concerned that he is not unstoppable and it is simply dangerous to allow the possibility of elder wand  to pass to somebody else, I can see him doing it. However, I have to put a qualifier, if Harry is doing that, I think he is doing that realizing that he is sacrificing his own defenses to a degree. That would be totally in character for Harry to do, martyr as he is, but  I still think that for his own self defense elder wand would have done just fine.

carol responds:
I agree with Pippin that carrying the Elder Wand greatly increases the chance that it will get into the wrong hands and that the new master, whoever it might be, would be much less safe as a guardian than Harry. Even Grindelwald and Dumbledore lost the Elder Wand for all their skill and power and precautions, and both of them were far more brilliant and powerful than Harry. If you're not carrying the darn thing, no one else can get hold of it. And I don't think that the general public will suddenly become aware that you can become the master of a wand you've never seen by Disarming that wand's master. Nor would a person who knew that, had the skill to disarm Harry, *and* had the desire to be the master of the Elder wand be able to obtain it if it were hidden at Hogwarts under proper protections.

But what I wonder is why anyone (other than someone like Grindelwald who knew it was a Hallow and wanted to rule the world or a psychopath like Voldemort) would even want the Elder Wand. A Wizard doesn't need the Elder Wand to kill or torture. The DEs managed just fine with their own wands and the Unforgiveable Curses. Any fool can cast a Dark curse. Even Crabbe and Goyle learn to cast the Cruciatus Curse; Harry almost accidentally casts Sectumsempra (not that he's a fool, just that he didn't need an special knowledge or any wand other than his own); and Crabbe casts Fiendfyre with no difficulty. Grindelwald could probably have built his fortress and killed and imprisoned people without the Elder Wand. Hogwarts was built without it; Salazar Slytherin built the Chamber of Secrets without it. Voldemort created his Horcruxes without it and set up the protections around the ring Horcrux and earned the reputation as the most powerful Dark Wizard in a century that includes Grindelwald without it. His own wand, as Ollivander points out, is extremely powerful. Had he not tried to kill Harry with the Elder Wand, using his own instead once he understood that he wasn't the Elder Wand's master, he would probably have succeeded in killing Harry, who was using Draco's wand.

All the Elder Wand does is choose the master it thinks is most powerful and inflame passions of people who want to own it, thinking that its the most powerful wand in the world. It kills no more effectively than any other wand, and its master can be defeated or even killed, as its bloody history shows.

Carol, noting that Dumbledore performed astonishing magic while he was still at Hogwarts using a wand that must have chosen him and defeated Grindelwald using his own wand and suspecting that he would have been just as great had he not used the Elder Wand




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 13 21:33:52 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:33:52 -0000
Subject: Where Are They Now? Character Game
In-Reply-To: <h3fv4g+q4ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3g980+63v0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187330

Potioncat wrote:
> I agree that  he didn't want to teach potions. I sort of wonder if he didn't want to teach DADA even as a kid. It sort of channels his attraction to the Dark Arts in a positive direction, and teaching it allows him to demonstrate his ability.
> 
> So I can imagine (if Snape had survived) some recovery time spent at Spinner's End, some research opportunities, with perhaps a request from Shacklebolt from time to time. Then a few years later, a call from Headmistress McGonagall to be the new, long term DADA master.
<snip>

Carol responds:

I can't see Snape going from headmaster to a mere teacher again regardless of subject. I think he probably had his fill of teaching DADA after that one year; no more satisfying, really, than teaching NEWT potions. He still had to deal with incompetency and insubordination. He might have wanted to remain as headmaster for a year or two (he'd like the prestige and the authority, especially if he finally got respect from non-Slytherin students as a hero in the fight against Voldemort.

But, ultimately, I think he'd rather be free to pursue his intellectual pursuits, maybe publish his spells and potions improvements in new or revised textbooks for future generations of Hogwarts students or, better yet, work as an Unspeakable in the Department of Mysteries, a perfect job for a man who can keep a secret and loves magical research. I can just see him, still wearing sweeping black robes, happily descending into the mysterious depths of the MoM each day. there's something medieval and Gothic about him, and I think he'd be happy there. And I think he'd like his own dungeon office surrounded by potions of his own making. He may not have liked *teaching* Potions to pre-NEWT-level dunderheads, but he loved the subject itself, brewing and improving potions, that most poetic and mysterious of Hogwarts subjects. Sure, he was expert at dueling, too, and must have appreciated the chance to teach a subject that he was good at that his students didn't hate, but I think that he loved potion-making itself as much as he enjoyed showing someone up in a duel (Lockhart or Harry)--maybe even more. Working for the MoM would allow him to pursue any field of research that he chose.

And who knows? Maybe he'd meet a female Unspeakable who put Lily Potter out of his thoughts.

Or maybe he's have wanted to be an independent scholar with no boss and no "master."

Carol, who thinks that Snape would never submit to orders from another headmaster after having been headmaster himself

Carol, who 




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 14 17:37:50 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:37:50 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3g81v+bf68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3ifpe+4ggp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187331

 "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Hogwarts was built without it; 
> Salazar Slytherin built the Chamber
> of Secrets without it.

Actually we don't know that. Nobody knows exactly when Hogwarts was built or exactly how old the Elder Wand is.

 Eggplant







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 14 17:31:03 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:31:03 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3g6h3+ur3j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3ifcn+1i7a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187332

"Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Maybe it's not possible for Voldemort to
> be more powerful than he already is.
 
There is absolutely nothing in the books to suggest that, and it's absolutely certain Voldemort thought he could become more powerful, otherwise he's have no reason to go after the Elder Wand. Logically the first thing you'd do when you get a new and improved wand is try to do something you couldn't do before, and this must have been when Voldemort became disappointed.  

> Voldemort's word is not evidence at all
> given all the times we've seen him lie

So if a character explains something it's still a plot hole because maybe the character is lying. If so than all literature is one big plot hole. By the way what would be Voldemort's motivation to tell Snape he was dissatisfied with his new wand if really he was not when he knew Snape would be dead in about two minutes. For that matter if he was happy with his new wand why did he kill someone he thought of as a loyal and useful lieutenant?   

> The problem is, it's done everything
> he's asked of it

The very fact that when Voldemort says he's unhappy with his new wand the battle is still going on and he's still outside the walls of Hogwarts not inside makes it abundantly clear that his wand has NOT done everything he's asked of it.

> Where is the evidence that the Elder Wand
> could do what you say it could do?

Ollivander knew more about wands than anyone but even he said the Phoenix wand was broken beyond repair, but Harry fixed it easily with the Elder Wand. 

> He simply has no grounds for suddenly
> doubting the Elder Wand after successfully
> using it for about a month. It *is* a plot hole 

It's not even a plot dimple, but refusing to use the Elder Wand is a plot canyon. Fortunately that last piece of silliness is confined to the very end of the book and can be rectified by just changing a few dozen words. I confess I do that mentally when I reread the book.

> The plot hole is in *Ron's* having seen
> Draco with the Hand of Glory, which Harry
> never even told Ron about so far as we know. 

You call that a plot hole?! Is it really inconceivable to you that sometime in the last 5 years Harry told his best friend that Draco was interested in the Hand of Glory?

> there are dozens of other such errors
> (even S-bend vs. U-bend for Moaning Myrtle). 

And I wouldn't give that trifle the grand title of "plot hole" either because nobody cares if Moaning Myrtle lives in the S bend or the U bend. But people do care about Harry's future life making some sort of sense and it wouldn't unless he uses the Elder Wand. 

> I don't recall Dumbledore saying that
> he couldn't cast an unbreakable protective spell. 

In Order of the Phoenix on page 835 Dumbledore says:

"I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power" 

> Have you forgotten that Harry can't 
> make the Snatcher's wand work for him in DH? 

Read it again, Harry hated the wand and it didn't work nearly as well as he thought it should, but it's just not true that it didn't work at all. If you or I could do magic like that we'd be the wonder of the age. 

 Eggplant





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jul 15 13:49:15 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:49:15 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3ifcn+1i7a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3kmor+dd1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187333

Eggplant:
> > The plot hole is in *Ron's* having seen
> > Draco with the Hand of Glory, which Harry
> > never even told Ron about so far as we know. 
> 
> You call that a plot hole?! Is it really inconceivable to you that sometime in the last 5 years Harry told his best friend that Draco was interested in the Hand of Glory?

Magpie:
Actually, if there's a hole it's that Harry saw Draco *without* the Hand of Glory. Last we saw Draco didn't get it, then Ron speaks of him having years later. Which isn't exactly a plot hole since we just have to assume that at some point Draco got the thing and many people in the school knew about it but Harry/the narrator never mentioned it so we the readers didn't know about it. I think it was a small mistake on JKR's part since I believe she refers to Draco getting the Hand in CoS, referring to the very scene where he doesn't get it.

So a small mistake but not a plot hole since there's no reason Ron can't simply tell us that he knows Draco has a Hand of Glory by sixth year.

So basically, I agree here. It's not a plot hole. It's a Flint. But not even a true Flint since Ron isn't directly contradicting something, he's just telling us information we didn't know and not giving us all the details about it.

Carol:
> > Have you forgotten that Harry can't 
> > make the Snatcher's wand work for him in DH? 

Eggplant: 
> Read it again, Harry hated the wand and it didn't work nearly as well as he thought it should, but it's just not true that it didn't work at all. If you or I could do magic like that we'd be the wonder of the age. 

Magpie:
Right. DH is pretty clear what happens when you use a wand that isn't yours. You can use it, it just feels off and doesn't seem to work as well as the wand that is yours.

-m





From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Jul 15 14:18:09 2009
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:18:09 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3g81v+bf68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3kof1+ofbo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187334

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> But what I wonder is why anyone (other than someone like Grindelwald who knew it was a Hallow and wanted to rule the world or a psychopath like Voldemort) would even want the Elder Wand. A Wizard doesn't need the Elder Wand to kill or torture. 
>

It is just human nature to want the best/most powerful gadget. You see this in real life as well as in the Potterverse. In any pursuit which involves using a piece of equipment a certain percentage of people involved in the pursuit will constantly upgrade their equipment to the latest and greatest. Or the oldest and finest in those rare cases where modern gear is judged inferior to the work of the old masters. Violins are a good example of that. Voldemort is surprised to learn that the Elder Wand does not help him much. Should he be? Part of the problem is that he is not its true owner but even if he were it is doubtful that it would help him much. And that is simply because he is at such a high level of skill already. Voldemort's expectations of what the wand would do in the hands of someone of his skill level are undoubtedly completely unrealistic. Poor equipment can hold a person back while they are learning, excellent equipment can enable you to rise to your natural potential. Oddly enough people who have honed their skills to a fine edge can often do nearly as well with poor equipment as with excellent.

I think the power of the wand is undoubted. As has been pointed out it certainly helps Harry perform the "impossible" task of repairing his own wand and that with a simple schoolboy spell. So it definitely helps a somewhat mediocre wizard a great deal. Harry treats it as a thing to be handled with extreme care and Dumbledore does not contradict this attitude. I think the implication is that the wand itself is somewhat evil in nature and it probably tends to corrupt anyone who uses it. Dumbledore was immune to this and Harry probably is too. Generally it is a thing to be kept out of the wrong hands though and why they don't just snap the thing in two as you suggest or "unmake" it in some more spectacular magical fashion is beyond me. I think its attraction to a certain type of person is as undoubted as its power, otherwise there would be no need to "defuse" it.

Remember too that in addition to the individual wizards and witches who might seek it out for the ordinary human reasons given above there is a cult of hundreds, thousands, or more who are seeking the Hallows for effectively religious reasons. These are the types of people who would eventually puzzle out Harry's comments to Voldemort at the end and reach the correct conclusions about their meaning. It is no great leap of intellect to posit that great dark wizards would seek out the Death Stick and it would be startling if the greatest of them all did not obtain it. So it is rather obvious to suspect that Voldemort would have the Elder Wand under his control if not on his person. This makes it all the more important to deal with it. I find Harry's solution poetic but rather weak as a practical solution. Too much like keeping the Ruling Ring as a memento of Sauron's defeat.

>
Had he not tried to kill Harry with the Elder Wand, using his own instead once he understood that he wasn't the Elder Wand's master, he would probably have succeeded in killing Harry, who was using Draco's wand.
>

Well, that assumes he had his old wand on his person, which he might not have. He did not learn who the Elder Wand's true master was until seconds before his death so he had little time to switch wands even if he had the other in his pocket. Doing so in a deadly faceoff would expose him to attack so it wasn't really an option. But technically you are right, I guess. I guess because this "unblockable" curse has been blocked by so many different means by the end of the book that it seems rather ineffective on someone who is prepared to deal with it. In magical stories in general curses are things that are called down upon a person and which seek the target out with the unerring accuracy of a laser guided bomb. In the Potterverse curses are fired like bullets from a gun and can be avoided by the simple expedient of stepping aside and letting them pass harmlessly by. Harry certainly has the reflexes and physical agility to do that.

So, on a completely different subject am I the last person to discover that Fenrir is a character out of the Elder Edda? I just started on the latest Tolkien book, *The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrun*, and in stanza 13 of the first section I read:

The wolf Fenrir
waits for Odin,
for Frey the fair
the flames of Surt,
the deep Dragon
shall be the doom of Thor--
shall all be ended, 
shall Earth perish?

Could the flames of Surt be anything like FiendFyre???

Ken, a visitor from the past




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jul 15 15:20:31 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:20:31 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3fmg1+ltnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3ks3v+ra6r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187335

Alla:
> But I mean, nobody would really suggest that soldier on the battlefield, policeman, firefighter, you name it, would go against enemy, against criminal with **only power of love** as their weapon, right?

Pippin:
Nobody is suggesting that Harry go unarmed. It is just that if the EW has great power for good, it has failed to show it in the last 1000 years or so. It isn't neutral like a gun that has no mind of its own. It has a personality  and not a nice one, according to ToBtB. Why should Harry have to struggle with that? Can he really do as much good with such a wand as with the one that chose him freely?


> 
> Alla:
> 
> So, what if the terrorist already spotted you? You would not think that using the most powerful gun will still be a good idea?

Pippin: 

But the power is a myth! Harry's life was threatened at the MoM and Dumbledore was not ready to lose him. If DD could have stunned Voldemort or turned him into a newt, he would have. Dumbledore's greatest deed, according to canon, was defeating Grindelwald. He didn't need the Elder Wand to do that. 


AFAWK, the Elder Wand is only superpowerful at two things: killing, and mending broken wands. Harry is philosophically opposed to the first and the second is not going to  help him much in a fight. 

Policemen do not necessarily have the biggest guns available. They have guns that are big enough to stop someone who's coming at them. IIRC,  the reason for using a bigger gun is not that it's easier to kill, in fact just the opposite. If somebody gets hit in the arm or a leg with a .45, they're going to be knocked down even if the wound is not fatal, whereas with a smaller bullet they might keep on coming even while they're bleeding to death. 

>From what we saw at the MoM, a wizard who's powerful enough to block ordinary spells can block the spells of the Elder Wand too, except for AK and whatever other killing spells the Elder Wand knows. But Harry doesn't want to use those powers. 


> Alla:
> 
> So what kind of the innate caution Harry does not have that Dumbledore did? Would it be the same innate caution that made Dumbledore put the ring on his finger the moment he had it? 

Pippin:
Yup. How many times has somebody had to rescue Dumbledore? Once. Now, how many times has somebody had to rescue Harry?

Alla:
Without taking some time to restrain him and think that maybe, just maybe cloak may come in handy to him and his family if the attack may happen?

Pippin:
If James thought his family needed the cloak for protection,  he wouldn't have left the house wearing it, much less lent it to Dumbledore.  

Alla:
> And still as you said, Dumbledore managed just fine to be a good guardian for a wand. Something tells me that Harry could have managed no worse, IMO of course.
> 

Pippin:
Dumbledore was a good guardian until it was taken from him. If he couldn't hang on to it, it's hardly reasonable for Harry to think he could do better. Considering all the sacrifices Harry and his friends made to save the wizarding world from tyranny, I can't imagine him doing anything he thinks would make it more likely that tyranny will rise again. If he did such a thing just to make his own life a little longer, he'd be no better than Peter Pettigrew. He'd have no business being an auror, much less guardian of the wand.

> 
> Pippin:
> Plus he'd be under pressure from Ron, who lusts for victory, and Hermione, who thinks she knows what's best for everybody without the trouble of asking them. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> He will be under innate pressure from Ron and Hermione to constantly use the wand? I just do not think so. I totally agree with you about one of the lessons in Potterverse to learn what your weaknesses are and not to get yourself into the situations, however, I also think (or at least I hope) that some growth and maturity occurs for the characters.

Pippin:
No, I don't think they'd constantly press him to use the wand. But that's not to say they'd never do so.

Ron still hates losing at anything so much that he cheated on his driver's test, with nothing more at stake than the embarrassment of having to take it again. Hermione seems to be as bossy as ever.  Harry didn't like the way they were looking at the wand as teenagers, but there's nothing in canon to show that growth and maturity makes you incapable of abusing power later in life. 

The best way to keep yourself from abusing power, according to canon, is not to have so much of it that no one can stop you when you try. 

Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 15 17:57:13 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:57:13 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3kmor+dd1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3l59q+dv5c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187336

-
> Carol:
> > > Have you forgotten that Harry can't  make the Snatcher's wand work for him in DH? 
> 
> Eggplant: 
> > Read it again, Harry hated the wand and it didn't work nearly as well as he thought it should, but it's just not true that it didn't work at all. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Right. DH is pretty clear what happens when you use a wand that isn't yours. You can use it, it just feels off and doesn't seem to work as well as the wand that is yours.

Carol responds:

Except that we never see any other wizard (except Neville using his "father's wand, and his problem appears to be a lack of confidence) having as much trouble as Harry does with the Snatcher's wand. In DH, Hermione is even more uncomfortable with the wand that Crucio'd the Longbottoms into insanity yet has no difficulty getting it to work for her, in contrast to Harry.

"A large spider sat in the middle of a r=frosted web in the brambles. Harry took aim at it with the wan Ron had given him the previous night, which Hermione had since condescended to examine, and had decided was made of blackthorn.

"'*Engorgio!'

The spider gave a little shiver, bouncing slightly in the web. Harry tried again. This time the spider grew slightly larger.

<snip>

"'Sorry--*Reducio*.'

"*The spider did not shrink.* [My emphasis] Harry looked down at the blackthorn wand. Every *minor spell* [my emphasis] he had cast with it so far that day had seemed less powerful than those the had produced with his phoenix wand. The new one felt obtrusively unfamiliar, like having somebody else's hand sewn to the end of his arm" (DH Am. ed. 391-92).

Harry requires two attempts to perform a feeble Engorgio and can't perform Reducio *at all* with the blackthorn wand. These are spells that he can perform perfectly well with his own wand, but the blackthorn wand doesn't work correctly for him, in part because it feels uncomfortable and unfamiliar but also, it would seem based on Ollivander's remarks, because the wand itself is not cooperating with him. It hasn't formed a bond with him and doesn't consider him its master.

This wand behavior is, in fact, exactly what we would expect from Ollivander's statement way back in SS/PS that a wizard will never get such good results from another wizard's wand, and yet we see witches and wizards using other people's wands, even those of people they hate (Black using Snape's; Hermione using Bellatrix's) with no problem at all--even, Hermione's case, when she has actively expressed hatred for and discomfort with the wand. It's inconsistent, period.

If this wand behavior were consistently depicted, we would not only see Hermione having trouble with Bellatrix's wand (which probably hates her as much as she hates it if wands have feelings), we would also see Voldemort having some sort of difficulty or discomfort with the Elder Wand. Instead, he uses it with no problem at all and no complaints--until JKR's plot requires him to have an excuse to kill Snape in a particular, wandless way, that will give Snape time to pass his memories to Harry and look into Harry's eyes.

There is, however, no evidence that Voldemort feels discomfort with the Elder Wand or feels that it isn't working properly for him. It does everything he asks of it perfectly until Harry's self-sacrifice interferes. Just how LV could expect results more spectacular than Nagini's bubble, I don't know. (That's the only extraordinary piece of magic, other than making the green potion clear, that he asks the wand to perform.)

Only a few hours before he decides to kill Snape, he thinks that the Elder Wand (which has just slashed through the air killing the Goblin and all the wizards who didn't escape after hearing that the cup had been stolen) is his--"Dumbledore, dead on his orders; Dumbledore, whose wand was his now" (549-50). *His.* Not a word about the wand not working for him, no discomfort with it such as Harry experienced with the blackthorn wand.

I'll grant you that it's not a plot hole, but it's an inconsistency and an annoyance that interferes with the believability of the story *for me.* Clearly, it doesn't bother either of you. But it's bad enough not to check for consistency between books (the Hand of Glory that wasn't bought in CoS and that Ron has supposedly actually seen, despite all the precautions against Dark objects in HBP). It's another to have wands behave inconsistently in one book--DH--and to have Voldemort perfectly satisfied with the Elder Wand one moment, considering it his, only to have him, on the same day, after having killed all those people, made the green potion transparent (note that the Elder Wand in DD's hands could not transfigure or Vanish that potion, whose protections were created with Voldemort's own yew wand), and created Nagini's bubble, he suddenly decides, with no provocation, that the wand isn't behaving properly for him and that his extraordinary magic is only extraordinary because he's performing it and consequently, he needs to kill Snape?

I could see him thinking that if his AKs had merely Stunned people or if Nagini's bubble had popped. But there's absolutely no reason for him to think that the wand is failing him in any way. He has not even felt uncomfortable with it as we might expect him to feel if the wand considered Harry its master. (I think it still thinks its master is Draco, but that should make no difference. He had no trouble using Lucius Malfoy's "poor stick" to kill Mad-eye Moody.)

Anyway, enough said. I'm never going to agree that Voldemort's dissatisfaction with the Elder Wand has any basis in canon or that the Elder Wand subplot (or wandlore in general) is consistently or satisfactorily handled.

Carol, not caring whether it's a plot hole or a Flint because it's not convincing or believable (to me) either way




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 15 18:07:17 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:07:17 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3ks3v+ra6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3l5sl+qdnp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187337

Pippin wrote:
> Nobody is suggesting that Harry go unarmed. It is just that if the EW has great power for good, it has failed to show it in the last 1000 years or so. It isn't neutral like a gun that has no mind of its own. It has a personality  and not a nice one, according to ToBtB. Why should Harry have to struggle with that? Can he really do as much good with such a wand as with the one that chose him freely?

Carol responds:

For the benefit of those (like me) who haven't bought or read "The Tales of Beedle the Bard," could you quote what it says for us? Aren't the annotations supposed to be Dumbledore's?

Carol, who supposes that ToBtB, like FBaWtFT and QTtA, can be considered semicanonical, more so than the interviews, anyway!




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 15 16:15:05 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:15:05 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3ks3v+ra6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3kva9+96tc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187338

 "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:



> if the EW has great power for good, it has> failed to show it in the last 1000 years or so.
 
Are you saying that Dumbledore never did any good in his life?

> The best way to keep yourself from abusing power,
> according to canon, is not to have so much of it
> that no one can stop you when you try. 

No, according to canon the only person who can be entrusted with great power is someone who doesn't want it; somebody like Harry. Love of power was Dumbledore's weakness but even so he did OK with that wand, Harry could do better. He is after all a better man.

 Eggplant





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 15 19:44:08 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:44:08 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot
Message-ID: <h3lbi8+m5n2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187339

Setting aside failings, inconsistencies, and general confusion or lack of adequate explanation (why DD wanted Snape to have the Elder Wand and what he expected to happen), it seems to me that the Elder Wand subplot does work in one respect: like Voldemort's original attempt to thwart the Prophecy, which results in his vaporization, his attempt to thwart the brother wands effect and find the most powerful wand in the world backfires on him, not only because the Elder Wand ends up killing him (Godric's Hollow all over again but with no Horcruxes to hold his battered soul to earth) but also because it diverts him from securing his hold on the British WW and extending his power a la Grindelwald, and, more important, prevents him from going after Harry immediately, which enables Harry to find and (with help) destroy all the Horcruxes but Nagini (good thing she remained alive or he might have died along with the soul bit in his scar). If LV had failed to discover who Grindelwald was (which might have happened if Harry hadn't accidentally revealed the photograph of DD's youthful friend and companion at Bathilda's house) and had given up the search after learning that Harry had been using the blackthorn wand rather than his own, LV might well have won the battle against Harrry. The Prophecy would still have come true--"either must die at the hand of the other"--only it would have been Harry who died. As it is, Voldemort's second attempt to thwart the Chosen One, along with his attempt to acquire a wand he didn't fully understand (he didn't know it was a Hallow, for one) backfired on him yet again. Nice artistry on JKR's part, allowing the plot to go full circle back to Godric's Hollow, even giving Snape, who, in a sense, started it all, a crucial role at the end (which he would not have had if LV hadn't gone gallivanting all over Europe, murdering people who were no threat to his power and allowing Harry time to find even the Ravenclaw Horcrux).

I still don't like the Elder Wand plot for other reasons (no point in repeating my objections and boring everyone), but I'm wondering what others think might have happened if, say, Ollivander had kept quiet about the Elder Wand or Harry had not dropped the photo of Grindelwald. At any rate, suppose that Harry had faced Voldemort before Voldemort found the Elder Wand and Voldemort found a way to Disarm him (or Harry's holly wand was already broken) so there was no Priori Incantatem and Voldemort was using his own yew wand, of which he was indisputably master. He'd have destroyed the soul bit in Harry, but Harry would have the shared drop of blood holding him to "life." If the true Horcruxes still existed (for example, at Godric's Hollow), would Harry have been vaporized? And if the other Horcruxes, including Nagini, had been destroyed, would Harry have been killed? (I'm pretty sure that the Love Magic would not have been activated if Harry had fought back instead of sacrificing himself, but that's a different aspect of the plot.)

Carol, thinking that the most effective element of the Elder Wand plot was keeping Voldemort sidetracked (as he was with the Prophecy in OoP), giving Harry time to hunt Horcruxes (and allowing JKR to stretch out the story for almost a Hogwarts school year) 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 15 19:56:55 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:56:55 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3ks3v+ra6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3lca7+e0vj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187340

Pippin:
Nobody is suggesting that Harry go unarmed. It is just that if the EW has great
power for good, it has failed to show it in the last 1000 years or so. It isn't
neutral like a gun that has no mind of its own. It has a personality and not a
nice one, according to ToBtB. Why should Harry have to struggle with that? Can
he really do as much good with such a wand as with the one that chose him
freely?

Alla:
Wand has personality? Isn't it a bit of stretch?  Now sure if you want to argue that the wand is somewhat dark after being used in killings so many times, I can see that, but wand having personality and with which Harry will be struggling no less? What  part of ToBtB  are you basing this on?

Wands have subtle intelligence when they choose their master or see the winner,  but I do not remember canon telling us that wands have personalities like people do? It seems to me that their intelligence is limited to choosing their masters, or submitting to their masters and I especially do not see the evidence in canon that some wands are **inclined** to do murder more than other wands. I think that Voldemort's wand is dark too and Harry and Hermione did not like Bella's wand because it killed Sirius, right? But it seems to me that wand will do what the owner will tell it and as you said Harry does not want to do killings, he is opposed to them.

In short, I do see the argument that Harry may not want this wand as dark wand that killed people, but again this to me is a **symbolical** objection, something that Harry may decide on philosophical moral ground, which is totally fine by me, but just does not cut it in the practical magical way. IMO of course.

Pippin:

But the power is a myth! Harry's life was threatened at the MoM and Dumbledore
was not ready to lose him. If DD could have stunned Voldemort or turned him into
a newt, he would have. Dumbledore's greatest deed, according to canon, was
defeating Grindelwald. He didn't need the Elder Wand to do that.

Alla:

What power is the myth? That elder wand can be the most effective in the fight? I am not saying that the real elder wand can create miracles, I am saying that elder wand is more effective than any other wand. I don't know, maybe I will discover that I always imagined wandlore rules incorrectly, but I always viewed wand as extension of the wizard, not the human being in the form of wand, who can do stuff that the owner cannot. So yeah, sure Dumbledore could not cast the spell he needed to effectively stun Voldemort, that's to me is Dumbledore's problem, you know?

His mental magical power was not enough for that, regardless of the wand IMO. But the way I see IF Dumbledore was able to do it, the spell would have been much *stronger* than same spell done with any other wand

Pippin:
AFAWK, the Elder Wand is only super powerful at two things: killing, and mending
broken wands. Harry is philosophically opposed to the first and the second is
not going to help him much in a fight.

Alla:

Only at mending broken wands? Something that Ollivander was not able to do? I view this not as an example of a one thing, but as an example that wand can do extraordinary stuff, just that this was one isolated example of that.

And sure, who says that Harry has to do killings with that? I would guess that Harry's stupefy would have been stronger with it.
Alla:
>
> So what kind of the innate caution Harry does not have that Dumbledore did?
Would it be the same innate caution that made Dumbledore put the ring on his
finger the moment he had it?

Pippin:
Yup. How many times has somebody had to rescue Dumbledore? Once. Now, how many
times has somebody had to rescue Harry?

Alla:

Oh dear. We all know what Dumbledore had been doing when he was Harry's age and yes, I would say he certainly needed someone to deliver at least a good smack to him and rescue him from his idiocy.  We are not been given any indication that between ending the war and becoming the man he was in his middle thirties Harry needed rescuing *once*.  So again, I think Harry would have done no worse and maybe even better.

Alla earlier:
Without taking some time to restrain him and think that maybe, just maybe cloak
may come in handy to him and his family if the attack may happen?

Pippin:
If James thought his family needed the cloak for protection, he wouldn't have
left the house wearing it, much less lent it to Dumbledore.

Alla:

I really do not care what James' mindset  was when he lent cloak to Dumbledore. For all I know maybe he was feeling so guilty for refusing  Dumbledore's offer to be his secret keeper that he decided to indulge his old teacher even if at risk for himself and his family.

You were arguing that Dumbledore had inner discipline and well, I do not see any when he fails to restrain his desire to touch and research one of the hallows and failed to think ahead and maybe imagine that the true owner may need the Invisibility cloak, true Invisibility cloak more, because he and his wife and little one are in hiding. And maybe maybe Dumbledore's little research project can wait. I see it as Dumbledore seeing what he wants and going after it, discipline be d*mned.


Pippin:
Dumbledore was a good guardian until it was taken from him. If he couldn't hang
on to it, it's hardly reasonable for Harry to think he could do better.

Alla:

I am with Eggplant on that, if Dumbledore was saying that Harry is the better man, I can totally see that he could do better.

Pippin:
Considering all the sacrifices Harry and his friends made to save the wizarding
world from tyranny, I can't imagine him doing anything he thinks would make it
more likely that tyranny will raise again. If he did such a thing just to make
his own life a little longer, he'd be no better than Peter Pettigrew. He'd have
no business being an auror, much less guardian of the wand. <SNIP>

Alla:

That's a different issue and as I said upthread, I totally see Harry doing it to make sure, just in case somebody would take it from him and make sure that new tyrant does not appear. This however to me has nothing to do with how good elder wand can help Harry defend himself.

Pippin:
No, I don't think they'd constantly press him to use the wand. But that's not to
say they'd never do so.

Ron still hates losing at anything so much that he cheated on his driver's test,
with nothing more at stake than the embarrassment of having to take it again.
Hermione seems to be as bossy as ever. Harry didn't like the way they were
looking at the wand as teenagers, but there's nothing in canon to show that
growth and maturity makes you incapable of abusing power later in life.

Alla:

Well, we just disagree then on that and there is no way to prove that any of us is right or wrong I think. I think this type of thing is just too dire, too idiotic and just too childish. I think they are way past it, but of course it is speculation. I am saying that they are past acting like this in life or death situations. Ron may still hate losing, but I doubt that in war situation Harry can think of him any less than 100 reliable. And I somehow doubt that for all her bossiness Hermione will for example refuse to comply with the order of her superiors if need occurs in the time of war.


JMO,

Alla







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jul 15 21:01:59 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:01:59 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3kva9+96tc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3lg47+5uur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187341


Eggplant: 
> No, according to canon the only person who can be entrusted with great power is someone who doesn't want it; somebody like Harry. Love of power was Dumbledore's weakness but even so he did OK with that wand, Harry could do better. He is after all a better man.

Pippin:
He's the better man *because* he doesn't want it, doesn't think he could do better with it, and, unlike Dumbledore, isn't egotistical enough to think that it's going to be safer in his pocket than anywhere else. 


>From Dumbledore's notes in ToBtB on the Elder Wand:

A full century later, another unpleasant character, this time named Godelot, advanced the study of Dark Magic by writing a collection of dangerous spells with the help of a wand he described in his notebook as 'my moste wicked and subtle friend, with body of ellhorn, who knows ways of magick most evile.' (*Magic Moste Evile* became the title of Godelot's masterwork.

As can be seen, Godelot considers his wand to be a helpmeet, almost an instructor. Those who are knowledgeable about wandlore will agree that wands do indeed absorb the expertise of those who use them <snip>
Nevertheless, a hypothetical wand that had passed through the hands of many Dark Wizards would be likely to have, at the very least, a marked affinity for the most dangerous kinds of magic.

Most witches and wizards prefer a wand that has "chosen" them to any kind of second-hand wand, precisely because the latter is likely to have learned habits from its previous owner that might not be compatible with the new user's style of magic. The general practice of burying (or burning) the wand with its owner, once he or she has died, also tends to prevent any indiviual wand learning from too many masters. Believers in the Elder Wand, however, hold that because of the way in which it has always passed allegiance between owners -- the next master overcoming the first, usually by killing him -- the Elder Wand has never been destroyed or buried, but has survived to accumulate wisdom, strength and power far beyond the ordinary.

---
(a footnote identifies ellhorn as an ancient name for elder)

Dumbledore goes on to say that while every man who claims to have owned the Elder Wand (no witch has ever done so) has insisted that it is "unbeatable" the known facts of its passage demonstrate that it has not only been beaten hundreds of times, but that "it attracts trouble as Grumble the Grubby Goat attracted flies."
 

Pippin




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Jul 16 03:31:08 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:31:08 -0000
Subject: Where Are They Now? Character Game
In-Reply-To: <h3g980+63v0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3m6ts+vth2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187342


> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> But, ultimately, I think he'd rather be free to pursue his intellectual pursuits, maybe publish his spells and potions improvements in new or revised textbooks for future generations of Hogwarts students or, better yet, work as an Unspeakable in the Department of Mysteries, a perfect job for a man who can keep a secret and loves magical research. 

Potioncat:
This is probably it. Publishing his own works, another win against Lockhart.

At one of the sister sites, someone asked about Umbridge and Fudge.

I think Umbridge ended up in prison for war crimes. (Perhaps JKR said it in an interview.) Anyway, I can't see her serving in Shacklebolt's ministry.

But, what about Fudge? Did he leave the MoM after introducing the 2 Ministers? Was he involved in any way? We heard nothing about him. I wonder if he managed to quietly survive, staying under the radar, so to speak.





From bookworm857158367 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 16 14:10:37 2009
From: bookworm857158367 at yahoo.com (bookworm857158367)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:10:37 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
Message-ID: <h3ncct+nrgj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187343

I saw the new Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince last night and I thought the symbolism the director used was interesting. In at least two of the scenes, Ginny is depicted in front of the famous medieval unicorn and woman tapestry. All sorts of parallels could be drawn there. Ginny is really Ginevra, the Italian form of the name Guinevere, and maybe is intended to represent a queen to Harry's king.

The unicorn is an allegory for the Christ figure and Harry is arguably a Christ figure in the last book, willingly sacrificing himself. Dumbledore sacrifices himself in this movie. 

Or maybe the director just thought it was a really cool backdrop for the Ginny/Harry scenes. 

Bookworm857158367




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 16 14:25:23 2009
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:25:23 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h3ncct+nrgj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3nd8j+li75@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187344

Bookworm:
> I saw the new Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince last night and I thought the symbolism the director used was interesting. In at least two of the scenes, Ginny is depicted in front of the famous medieval unicorn and woman tapestry. All sorts of parallels could be drawn there. Ginny is really Ginevra, the Italian form of the name Guinevere, and maybe is intended to represent a queen to Harry's king.

Ceridwen:
If I recall correctly, the woman in that tapestry is used to distract the unicorn so it can be slain/captured.  It is after this that the unicorn is depicted in its fencing.

I always thought that giving Ginny the Italian form of Guinevere and then having her as Arthur's daughter re-imagined this part of the legend and got rid of that pesky triangle between Guinevere, Arthur and Lancelot, which erases the unhappy ending of their relationships.

Bookworm:
> The unicorn is an allegory for the Christ figure and Harry is arguably a Christ figure in the last book, willingly sacrificing himself. Dumbledore sacrifices himself in this movie. 

Ceridwen:
Nice catch.  In the tapestries, the unicorn stops to un-poison a fountain even though it is pursued.

Bookworm:
> Or maybe the director just thought it was a really cool backdrop for the Ginny/Harry scenes. 

Ceridwen:
Or he might have been thinking about the unicorn in relation to virgins.  Young girls, even these days, are thought of as innocents, virgins or novices to life.  And it does send a subtle message of Ginny as Harry's intended.

Ceridwen.




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 15 16:28:54 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:28:54 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling a year in the life
Message-ID: <h3l046+r751@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187345

People in the USA may be interested that on Thursday July 16 at 8pm ABC will air a documentary called "JK Rowling a year in the life".

 Eggplant





From bookworm857158367 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 16 17:32:33 2009
From: bookworm857158367 at yahoo.com (bookworm857158367)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:32:33 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h3nd8j+li75@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3no7h+ga8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187346

Here's a publicity shot of actress Bonnie Wright in front of the unicorn tapestry:
http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/potter-cast-pose-inside-french-half-blood-prince-train-64892/

It looks to me like a very clear association is being made between Ginny and the queen in the tapestry.

This seems to be the Lady and the Unicorn tapestry from the 16th century rather than the Hunt for the Unicorn tapestry that was used in the Last Unicorn. I think the tapestries also made an appearance in another of the movis. There's a lion in another of the tapestries (symbol of Gryffindor?) and the unicorn has had a traditional place in British heraldry as well as in previous Harry Potter movies. One of the tapestries has the motto ? Mon Seul D?sir, meaning "according to my desire alone / by my will alone / love desires only beauty of soul / to calm passion," according to Wikipedia. The traditional allegory of the unicorn in medieval stories associates it with both fertility and purity, with the unicorn a Christ symbol and the virgin as the Virgin Mary. 

Here's Wikipedia's description of the tapestries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lady_and_the_Unicorn 

I'd assume that Harry and Ginny are both still virgins in the scene in the movie, though I've also always assumed that all the references to "snogging" are actually code words for more explicit messing around since JK Rowling could hardly get too sexually explicit with a book intended for pre-teens. 

The scene in the movie is really quite lovely and symbolic and about innocence and discovery, set in an attic filled with old things with the unicorn and lady tapestry as a backdrop.

Bookworm857158367 

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at ...> wrote:
>
> Bookworm:
> > I saw the new Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince last night and I thought the symbolism the director used was interesting. In at least two of the scenes, Ginny is depicted in front of the famous medieval unicorn and woman tapestry. All sorts of parallels could be drawn there. Ginny is really Ginevra, the Italian form of the name Guinevere, and maybe is intended to represent a queen to Harry's king.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> If I recall correctly, the woman in that tapestry is used to distract the unicorn so it can be slain/captured.  It is after this that the unicorn is depicted in its fencing.
> 
> I always thought that giving Ginny the Italian form of Guinevere and then having her as Arthur's daughter re-imagined this part of the legend and got rid of that pesky triangle between Guinevere, Arthur and Lancelot, which erases the unhappy ending of their relationships.
> 
> Bookworm:
> > The unicorn is an allegory for the Christ figure and Harry is arguably a Christ figure in the last book, willingly sacrificing himself. Dumbledore sacrifices himself in this movie. 
> 
> Ceridwen:
> Nice catch.  In the tapestries, the unicorn stops to un-poison a fountain even though it is pursued.
> 
> Bookworm:
> > Or maybe the director just thought it was a really cool backdrop for the Ginny/Harry scenes. 
> 
> Ceridwen:
> Or he might have been thinking about the unicorn in relation to virgins.  Young girls, even these days, are thought of as innocents, virgins or novices to life.  And it does send a subtle message of Ginny as Harry's intended.
> 
> Ceridwen.
>





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jul 16 18:36:37 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:36:37 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling a year in the life
In-Reply-To: <h3l046+r751@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3nrvl+5mjl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187347

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:

Eggplant:
> People in the USA may be interested that on Thursday July 16 at 8pm ABC will air a documentary called "JK Rowling a year in the life".

Geoff:
Thanks for the tip. Sounds quite interesting - I hope we'll 
get it over this side...

Just in passing, ITV1 aired a programme about "HBP behind the 
scenes" a few days ago which was interesting but I don't think 
leaked any secrets.




From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 16 14:33:14 2009
From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
Message-ID: <149227.22954.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187348

Bookworm:
> <snip> In at least two of the scenes, Ginny is
depicted in front of the famous medieval unicorn
and woman tapestry. All sorts of parallels could
be drawn there. <snip>


dragonkeeper:
I have always read that unicorns are the symbol of
innocence. In that case, we see that a lot in the
Half Blood Prince with death, love, and loss.




















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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 16 19:10:35 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:10:35 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3lg47+5uur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3ntvb+eqrl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187349

Pippin:

>From Dumbledore's notes in ToBtB on the Elder Wand:

A full century later, another unpleasant character, this time named Godelot,
advanced the study of Dark Magic by writing a collection of dangerous spells
with the help of a wand he described in his notebook as 'my moste wicked and
subtle friend, with body of ellhorn, who knows ways of magick most evile.'
(*Magic Moste Evile* became the title of Godelot's masterwork.

As can be seen, Godelot considers his wand to be a helpmeet, almost an
instructor. Those who are knowledgeable about wandlore will agree that wands do
indeed absorb the expertise of those who use them <snip> <SNIP>

---
(a footnote identifies ellhorn as an ancient name for elder)

Dumbledore goes on to say that while every man who claims to have owned the
Elder Wand (no witch has ever done so) has insisted that it is "unbeatable" the
known facts of its passage demonstrate that it has not only been beaten hundreds
of times, but that "it attracts trouble as Grumble the Grubby Goat attracted
flies."


Alla:

Thanks. I am trying to decide where to start with listing the reasons why this statement does not satisfy me as evidence of Elder wand having personality.

Okay, first of all don't you think that Dumbledore picks and chooses whom he believes and whom he does not in deciding what Elder wand is and what not?

For some reasons the hearsay testimony of a wizard who may or may not have been completely sane is completely believable to Dumbledore , but the idea of Elder wand being unbeatable or at least very powerful is a myth? Before you ask I believe both of these statements had been not complete myths but just exaggerations.

And I mean, we KNOW that not everything about Hallows and three brothers is to be taken literally, right? We know that they possibly created the Hallows, NOT Death gave it to them, etc. So again, how do we know that this statement is 100% correct?

And even if it is correct in his mind, had you never referred to your, I don't know, favorite gadget as your friend? I mean, I would not refer to my computer for example as my wicked and subtle friend, but I had certainly heard a friend say something to the effect that computer taught him so much and it had been his wonderful mentor, or something like that. How do we know that this was not what this character meant? And even in more literal sense computers help people learn these days, no? We have learning computer programs; people can take classes on line, etc. This does not mean that computer has personality though.

I mean, this all is of course no more than interesting aside, but no I cannot buy that elder wand has a human like personality.

JMO,

Alla






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 16 16:16:20 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:16:20 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3l59q+dv5c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3njok+rer1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187350

"Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> There is, however, no evidence that 
> Voldemort feels discomfort with the Elder Wand 

Voldemort says very clearly that the Elder Wand is working no better and no worse than his previous wand. He's complaining that it brought him no new powers. How on Earth is that a plot hole?

> It[The Elder Wand] does everything he asks of it perfectly

A small Syllogism:

Voldemort is outside the walls of Hogwarts.
Voldemort wants to be inside the walls of Hogwarts.
Voldemort has the Elder Wand.
Voldemort is still outside the walls of Hogwarts.

Therefore the Elder Wand is not working perfectly for Voldemort.

> Just how LV could expect results more
> spectacular than Nagini's bubble, I don't know. 

I've been reading your posts for a number of years so I'm not going to insult you by agreeing with the above. I believe you can imagine more amazing things than Nagini's bubble. I believe Voldemort could too. 

> it's bad enough not to check for consistency
> between books (the Hand of Glory that 
> wasn't bought in CoS 

Suppose that one day you see a person show interest in an item at Wal-Mart but not buy it. Five years later you learn that the person owns the item. Would you really be completely flummoxed and be unable to figure our how that could have possibly come about? 

> despite all the precautions against
> Dark objects in HBP). 

Draco could have bought it anytime in the last 5 years, and the Vanishing Cabinet was only a few feet from where he got it. Besides, although it was purchased in a shop with a rather unsavory reputation and aesthetically it needs improvement (the design team at Apple could really give it a makeover), judging strictly on what the thing actually does it's not clear to me that the Hand of Glory is any darker than Decoy Detonators, Peruvian Darkness Powder, or Muggle Infrared Goggles. 

 Eggplant     







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jul 16 22:18:45 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:18:45 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3ntvb+eqrl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3o905+hqpp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187351

 
> Alla:
> 
> Thanks. I am trying to decide where to start with listing the reasons why this statement does not satisfy me as evidence of Elder wand having personality.
> 
> Okay, first of all don't you think that Dumbledore picks and chooses whom he believes and whom he does not in deciding what Elder wand is and what not?

Pippin:

Dumbledore's commentaries are supposed to have been written some eighteen months before his demise, when he had been master of the wand for years and had had plenty of time to research its abilities. 

I can't think of any reason why he (or JKR) would relay this story if  he (she) didn't think was relevant. JKR offers slyly that readers who have read book 7 will note that Dumbledore did not tell all he knew about the Hallows. But there's no hint that  the information he does provide is to be distrusted.  In any case, Dumbledore was certainly in a position to find out whether the wand could instruct its owner in its use or not. 

There are other objects in the wizarding world that can be said to have a sort of personality and an affinity for certain kinds of wizards. The Marauder's Map can tell the difference between suspicious professors and  mischief-minded students. It insults the former  and will provide the latter with instructions on its use and even initiate them into its secrets.

I don't think Harry, or Ron or Hermione is especially tempted by dark magic. I'm not saying Ron or Hermione would bash Harry over the head to get the wand. But as the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Wizards have  for too long relied on superior force when dealing with others. In the epilogue, Harry is trying to change that. Using the Elder Wand would be a step in the wrong direction.

How can Harry and his friends convince others that if they are willing to trust and get to know their fellow beings,  they won't need dark magic or overwhelming force to protect themselves, when they themselves aren't willing to do without it?

Pippin





From alinabonci at shaw.ca  Fri Jul 17 00:40:10 2009
From: alinabonci at shaw.ca (Alina Bonci)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:40:10 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot
References: <h3lbi8+m5n2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8399BCBB927D456984B1530C35E08379@ALI>

No: HPFGUIDX 187352

Hi,

I am new to the list, and I've enjoyed reading complex interpretations of the HP books on here. In regards to the much debated Elder Wand, I also had a question that hasn't been addressed, as far as I've seen. I wonder why Dumbledore never told Snape that he wanted the latter to get the Elder Wand. I know Snape was somewhat frustrated with Dumbledore's secrecy around the Horcruxes, and yet he obeyed the headmaster trustingly. But it seems that the Elder Wand directly concerned him (Snape), and I don't understand why Dumbledore would not have told him about about his intentions. Is it because he never intended Snape to own it, because he anticipated it would backfire in the hands of Voldermort and hence help Harry? If he did think that far, he would have known Draco was the true owner, so why would he want Snape to own a wand whose true owner was someone else?  
Thanks.  

Alina





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 17 01:21:30 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:21:30 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <149227.22954.qm@web53303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h3ojmq+rka4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187353

Bookworm wrote:
> > <snip> In at least two of the scenes, Ginny is depicted in front of the famous medieval unicorn and woman tapestry. All sorts of parallels could be drawn there. <snip>
> 
> 
> dragonkeeper:
> I have always read that unicorns are the symbol of innocence. In that case, we see that a lot in the Half Blood Prince with death, love, and loss.

Carol responds:
"Always the innocent are the first to die," as Firenze says of the unicorn in SS/SS, and we see it followed up a few books later by Cedric's death. His wand had a unicorn-hair core. (IIRC, we used to speculate about unicorn-hair wands symbolizing impending doom.) 

However, none of this has anything to do with HBP, as far as I know. The medium that must not be named made up Ginny's unicorn Patronus, didn't they, or did JKR mention it in an interview? I don't remember its being mentioned in OoP (the DA chapters), and she doesn't cast it anywhere else.

So, sure, nice symbolism of innocence and virginity, but it's completely uncanonical. There's no such tapestry anywhere in the books.

Carol, thinking that this might be a good topic to bring up on the Movie list




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Jul 17 01:24:33 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:24:33 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling a year in the life
In-Reply-To: <h3nrvl+5mjl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3ojsh+ef3j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187354

 
> Geoff:
> Thanks for the tip. Sounds quite interesting - I hope we'll 
> get it over this side...
> 
> Just in passing, ITV1 aired a programme about "HBP behind the 
> scenes" a few days ago which was interesting but I don't think 
> leaked any secrets.

Potioncat:
A Year in the Life was very interesting. I think it must have aired before. At any rate, as you say Geoff, there was nothing new.

Except as she was sketching out a family tree I saw Percy has a daughter named Lucy and that George's children are Fred and Roxanne. 

The show started with a sort of parlor game, with the interviewer asking "What is your favorite______?" (virtue, quality in a man, quality in a woman, etc etc) The answers were so very Harry Potter! Of course, that was the topic of the interview, so how could it be otherwise. But I found it interesting.

She discussed her father briefly. It didn't come up, but I think his name is Peter. They showed a photo of him and my reaction was "That's wormtail!" (canon, not movie.)







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 17 01:40:38 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:40:38 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3ntvb+eqrl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3okqn+oim1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187355

Alla w:
> 
> Thanks. I am trying to decide where to start with listing the reasons why this statement does not satisfy me as evidence of Elder wand having personality.
> 
> Okay, first of all don't you think that Dumbledore picks and chooses whom he believes and whom he does not in deciding what Elder wand is and what not?
> 
> For some reasons the hearsay testimony of a wizard who may or may not have been completely sane is completely believable to Dumbledore , but the idea of Elder wand being unbeatable or at least very powerful is a myth? Before you ask I believe both of these statements had been not complete myths but just exaggerations. <snip>

Carol responds:

Funny. I had the opposite reaction. Dumbledore is our authority on most matters (he can be wrong, but he's usually in the ball park, at least). And in this case, he's writing about the Elder wand, which he used from 1945 until his death in 1997 (JKR says 1996, but she can't do math!).

I'm just curious. What do those of you on this list who think that the Elder Wand is extraordinarily powerful (IOW, unlike DD, you believe the legend) but has no personality (other than choosing the winner in a fight) think about the effect of the Elder Wand on Dumbledore's abilities? Would he have been the great wizard he was without it? Could he have cast those powerful spells against Voldemort without it?

I think he would have been just as great without it. After all, his great knowledge had more to do with great age and experience, not to mention the intellect he was always boasting about it, than with the wand he was using, and he was already powerful and highly skilled when he defeated Grindelwald (who lost the duel despite having the Elder Wand.)

Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with Dumbledore, but I want to know what others think about its effect on his greatness (I think we can agree that he was greater in terms of magical skill and power than either LV of GG.). How much of that greatness was "the powers native to him" (as Tolkien would say) and how much was the Elder Wand?

And does anyone think that LV's sudden urge to kill anything and everything from an innocent goblin and the DE witnesses to the goblin's story to his own supposedly loyal lieutenant, Severus Snape, was the malign influence of the Elder Wand? We've never seen him completely lose control before (and I see no evidence, as I've said, that the Elder Wand wasn't working for him--no logical or sensible reason to murder Snape). Could the wand have influenced him (or Draco's wand made the Crucio of Amycus easier and more tempting for Harry)? That seems possible based on DD's words as quoted by Pippin a few posts back.

Carol, who thinks that the Elder Wand's power is mostly its ability to stir up strife (even its own maker was murdered)





From sydney_freud at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 17 02:09:42 2009
From: sydney_freud at yahoo.com (sydney_freud)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
Message-ID: <944822.57637.qm@web65707.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187356

> Carol:
> I'm just
curious. What do those of you on this list who think that the Elder Wand is
extraordinarily powerful (IOW, unlike DD, you believe the
> legend)
but has no personality (other than choosing the winner in a fight) think about
the effect of the Elder Wand on Dumbledore's abilities?
> Would he
>have been the great wizard he was without it? Could he have cast >those powerful
>spells against Voldemort without it?
?

Dumbledore
himself admitted his own weaknesses at times and, while he was clearly not
dominated by a selfish thirst for power and immortality beyond consideration for
others, he probably did find some relief in knowing that he had the Elder
Wand.?This is especially true?because he knew Voldermort's powers and skill grew
with time and that he would have to confront him on several occasions.?I see it
as a sort of insurance he signed up for, guaranteeing his survival long enough
to leave followers and enough knowledge that these followers?would know how to
fight off evil. He?would probably have been?a great wizard without the wand just
as well, but just like Ron believing he had drunk Felix Felicis before the
Quidditch match, Dumbledore?must have felt somewhat more able due to the wand...
sort of a placebo. ??
?
The?person
still masters the instrument, but I think the author's intention is to?personify
the wands a bit to the point where they borrow something from their masters.
It's only Voldermort who does not believe in?these "old magic" tricks?- he uses
Malfoy's and then the Elder Wand, just like he undermines the power of love,
sacrifice?and remorse. And we know this ignorance turns against him. Not
necessarily to the extent of developing its own personality, the wand moulds
itself after the user,?doesn't it say so in the book?????????

sydney_freud





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 17 03:14:14 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:14:14 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3njok+rer1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3oqa6+82ht@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187357

Carol earlier:
> 
> > There is, however, no evidence that  Voldemort feels discomfort with the Elder Wand 

Eggplant: 
> Voldemort says very clearly that the Elder Wand is working no better and no worse than his previous wand. He's complaining that it brought him no new powers. How on Earth is that a plot hole?

Carol again:
But there's nothing to back him up, no evidence to indicate that his statement or his perception is accurate. And what has he asked of the wand that would require new powers?

Carol: 
> > It[The Elder Wand] does everything he asks of it perfectly
> 
> A small Syllogism:
> 
> Voldemort is outside the walls of Hogwarts.
> Voldemort wants to be inside the walls of Hogwarts.
> Voldemort has the Elder Wand.
> Voldemort is still outside the walls of Hogwarts.

Carol:
Technically, a syllogism has three parts, not four. :-) But I don't quite understand what you're talking about. Voldemort is inside the Shrieking Shack, which suggests that either he Apparated there or he entered it via the Whomping Willow. If the first, he first, he can get onto the Hogwarts grounds by following the tunnel. If the second, he was already on the Hogwarts grounds. His DEs are in the Forbidden Forest, after all. And then we find him on the Hogwarts grounds, announcing to the staff and students that if they turn Harry over to him, no one else needs to die. I really don't understand why you think that LV can't get onto the Hogwarts grounds, with or without the Elder wand. 

Eggplant: 
> Therefore the Elder Wand is not working perfectly for Voldemort.

Carol:
Er, wrong? As I said, he has no trouble getting onto the Hogwarts grounds. Nothing, repeat, nothing, that he attempts with the Elder Wand fails to work for him--until Harry's self-sacrifice. He even hits Harry with an AK that would have killed him along with the soul bit were it not for the shared drop of blood. (That would have happened regardless of the wand he used.)

Carol earlier: 
> > Just how LV could expect results more spectacular than Nagini's bubble, I don't know. 

Eggplant: 
> I've been reading your posts for a number of years so I'm not going to insult you by agreeing with the above. I believe you can imagine more amazing things than Nagini's bubble. I believe Voldemort could too. 
> 

Carol:
Sigh. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were willfully misunderstanding me. As it is, though, I expect it's my fault for being unclear. Of course, I don't think that Nagini's bubble is the most spectacular piece of magic possible! I meant that I don't see how his attempt to create a protective bubble for Nagini could have been any more beautiful and effective than it was. (Alas for Snape, *he* could be pulled inside it but *she* could not escape--and yet she could move freely and be content, while Voldemort could see her and keep her with him without carrying her on his shoulders. For what he intended, it was perfect--and probably unique to the history of magic.

But Voldemort did not think of the kinds of amazing things you seem to be imagining, nor did he attempt them. And everything that he did attempt worked (again, until Harry's Love Magic proved more powerful than the Elder Wand in the hand of "the most powerful Dark Wizard in a century").

Eggplant:
> Draco could have bought it anytime in the last 5 years, and the Vanishing Cabinet was only a few feet from where he got it. Besides, although it was purchased in a shop with a rather unsavory reputation and aesthetically it needs improvement (the design team at Apple could really give it a makeover), judging strictly on what the thing actually does it's not clear to me that the Hand of Glory is any darker than Decoy Detonators, Peruvian Darkness Powder, or Muggle Infrared Goggles. 

Carol responds:

Once again, I'm not saying that Draco would not have had the wand, though I disagree that a Dark object intended for use by thieves and plunderers wouldn't have been detected. I'm saying that Ron would not have seen it or known about it.

Carol, hoping that we can drop the thread here because we're just repeating the same arguments and will never convince each other





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Jul 17 15:00:25 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:00:25 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3oqa6+82ht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3q3m9+p2j8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187358

Eggplant:
>> He's [Voldemort's] complaining that
>> it brought him no new powers.

"Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> But there's nothing to back him up,
> no evidence to indicate that his statement
> or his perception is accurate.

What new powers did the Elder Wand give Voldemort? Yes he was powerful after he got that new wand, but he was powerful with his
old one; the point is there was no change and Voldemort thought
there should have been. It's really clear as a bell and I don't
see how in the world you can call that a plot hole.

> Voldemort is inside the Shrieking Shack, [
.]
> I really don't understand why you think
> that LV can't get onto the Hogwarts grounds,
> with or without the Elder wand.

Rather than get into a futile discussion about if the Shrieking Shack is considered inside or outside the walls of Hogwarts the point is that the battle is NOT over yet. Voldemort has the Elder Wand but he still isn't master of all he surveys. If it was working at 100% he would have been.

> Voldemort did not think of the kinds of
> amazing things you seem to be imagining

Voldemort could think of winning the war, but the war has still not been won.

> nothing, that he attempts with the Elder Wand
> fails to work for him

When a race car driver gets a new car that is supposed to be faster the first thing he'll do is try it out to see if it really is faster than the old car, and the first thing Voldemort would do is try to do something with the Elder Wand that he couldn't do before. The outcome was disappointing.

> Carol, hoping that we can drop the thread here

You mean you're hoping to have the last word. Sorry.

By the way, somebody asked why Dumbledore planed for Snape to become the new Master of the Elder Wand and didn't just snap the wand in half. I like to think the reason is that he believed that would be an act of barbarous vandalism. It's bad enough he destroyed the Philosopher's Stone.

 Eggplant






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 17 16:17:09 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:17:09 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3q3m9+p2j8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3q865+8hv3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187359

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
> Eggplant:
> >> He's [Voldemort's] complaining that
> >> it brought him no new powers.
> 
> "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> 
> > But there's nothing to back him up,
> > no evidence to indicate that his statement
> > or his perception is accurate.
> 
> What new powers did the Elder Wand give Voldemort? Yes he was powerful after he got that new wand, but he was powerful with his
> old one; the point is there was no change and Voldemort thought
> there should have been. It's really clear as a bell and I don't
> see how in the world you can call that a plot hole.
> 
> > Voldemort is inside the Shrieking Shack, [
.]
> > I really don't understand why you think
> > that LV can't get onto the Hogwarts grounds,
> > with or without the Elder wand.
> 
> Rather than get into a futile discussion about if the Shrieking Shack is considered inside or outside the walls of Hogwarts the point is that the battle is NOT over yet. Voldemort has the Elder Wand but he still isn't master of all he surveys. If it was working at 100% he would have been.
> 
> > Voldemort did not think of the kinds of
> > amazing things you seem to be imagining
> 
> Voldemort could think of winning the war, but the war has still not been won.
> 
> > nothing, that he attempts with the Elder Wand
> > fails to work for him
> 
> When a race car driver gets a new car that is supposed to be faster the first thing he'll do is try it out to see if it really is faster than the old car, and the first thing Voldemort would do is try to do something with the Elder Wand that he couldn't do before. The outcome was disappointing.
> 
> > Carol, hoping that we can drop the thread here
> 
> You mean you're hoping to have the last word. Sorry.
> 
> By the way, somebody asked why Dumbledore planed for Snape to become the new Master of the Elder Wand and didn't just snap the wand in half. I like to think the reason is that he believed that would be an act of barbarous vandalism. It's bad enough he destroyed the Philosopher's Stone.
> 
>  Eggplant
>
Carol responds:

Barbarous vandalism to destroy a weapon that has a bloody trail of murder behind it? I don't think so.

Oh, and you can have the last word. I don't mind. I still don't agree with you on this point and never will, but there's no point in prolonging the debate.

Carol, who has nothing more to say on the subject




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jul 17 16:28:21 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:28:21 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3oqa6+82ht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3q8r5+cii0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187360


> Carol again:
> But there's nothing to back him up, no evidence to indicate that his statement or his perception is accurate. And what has he asked of the wand that would require new powers?

Pippin:
I understand the aesthetic preference for showing over telling. But in this case it would give us an entirely different story, one in which Harry had concrete evidence, independent of Voldemort's perceptions, that the Elder Wand had not given Voldemort its allegiance.

I can understand  thinking it's a plot hole that Harry didn't get any proof, since Harry acts as confidently as if he had it. One might think that Harry was supposed to have it, and JKR forgot to tell us what it was. 

But what the story tells us, IMO, is that Harry had confidence in other things. He had faith in his ability to interpret Voldemort's perceptions and decide whether Voldemort was deluding himself or not. He had faith that Dumbledore was more correct than Voldemort about how the Elder Wand chooses its next master. And at bottom, Harry had faith that there must be a way for love to prevail over hatred and violence. 

 
Pippin






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Jul 17 20:35:42 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:35:42 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3q865+8hv3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3qnau+vm2c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187361

 "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Barbarous vandalism to destroy a weapon 
> that has a bloody trail of murder behind it?
> I don't think so.

Like any tool the Elder Wand can be used as a weapon, but it can be used in an infinite number of other ways too. And like any valuable and unique object some people would be willing to kill to possess it, but that doesn't mean you should destroy all wonderful objects in the world. And historically most of the murders you talk about were not committed with the Elder Wand; they were committed with other wands by people who wanted to steal it.  

If I had a piece of paper on which was written the secret of how to cure cancer I'm sure there are people, lots of people, willing to murder for the fame and glory possessing that paper would engender. But that doesn't mean that the moral thing for me to do is immediately burn the paper to ashes and forget about the dream of curing cancer.

 Eggplant    






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Jul 17 21:01:53 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:01:53 -0000
Subject: Why Harry would not use Elder Wand? WAS: Re: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3lg47+5uur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3qos1+vup1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187362

 "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> He's [Harry's] the better man *because* 
> he doesn't want it, doesn't think he could
> do better with it, and, unlike Dumbledore,
> isn't egotistical enough to think thatit's
> going to be safer in his pocket than anywhere else.

It's true that Harry doesn't want power and doesn't think he could handle it well, but on that second point Harry is clearly wrong. As Dumbledore says in book 7 page 718:

"It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well." 
 
 Eggplant





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 17 22:53:44 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:53:44 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3q8r5+cii0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3qvdo+r9a2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187363

Beatrice:  I have been away for a long time (off having more babies and such), but wanted to add my two cents:
>
> 
> > Carol again:
> > But there's nothing to back him up, no evidence to indicate that his statement or his perception is accurate. And what has he asked of the wand that would require new powers?

Beatrice:  When I read this, I took LV's word for the fact that he did not feel the connection to the weapon and its power probably the way Harry felt about the hawthorne wand he got from Ron.  While LV is a particularly powerful wizard, and the wand is a really excellent wand, no one would EXCEPT LV would probably ever notice that the connection one feels between their own wand or a wand that has been won was missing in this case.  I am thinking (assuming - but not without a basis as we know what Harry's experience is with a wand that is not his own.) that unlike Harry, who finds Draco's wand "friendlier to his hand"  LV does not feel that kind of connection to the wand.  He thinks that he needs to conquer / kill the owner of the wand to make that connection complete.  Think also of the moment when Harry is reunited with his own wand in the final chapter he feels like "wand and hand were rejoicing."
> 
> Pippin:
> I understand the aesthetic preference for showing over telling. But in this case it would give us an entirely different story, one in which Harry had concrete evidence, independent of Voldemort's perceptions, that the Elder Wand had not given Voldemort its allegiance.
> 
> I can understand  thinking it's a plot hole that Harry didn't get any proof, since Harry acts as confidently as if he had it. One might think that Harry was supposed to have it, and JKR forgot to tell us what it was. 

Beatrice:  See, I think here that telling us instead of showing us is a way creating suspense for the reader.  As I was reading DH, I forgot about Draco disarming DD.  I believed as LV did that Snape was the master of the elder wand.  In fact, when I read the part about LV breaking into DD tomb, I (who always believed in DMSnape) thought that this is how LV will truly end at the hand of Snape who is master of the wand.  After, the final duel, however, I made a mad dash for my copy HBP to check on the order of events.
> 
> But what the story tells us, IMO, is that Harry had confidence in other things. He had faith in his ability to interpret Voldemort's perceptions and decide whether Voldemort was deluding himself or not. He had faith that Dumbledore was more correct than Voldemort about how the Elder Wand chooses its next master. And at bottom, Harry had faith that there must be a way for love to prevail over hatred and violence. 

Beatrice:  This is a really nice way to put things.  And while not connected, we do have the narrator's comments on it.  When Harry catches the wand the text states: "Harry saw Voledmort's green jet meet his own spell, saw the Elder Wand fly high, dark against the sunrise, spinning across the enchanted ceiling like the head of Nagini, spinning through the air toward the master it would not kill, who had come to take full possession of it at last."  (743-4 - Amer.)


> 
>  
> Pippin
>





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 17 23:11:44 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:11:44 -0000
Subject: Wand allegiance.
In-Reply-To: <h3l59q+dv5c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3r0fg+m697@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187364

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> -
> > Carol:
> > > > Have you forgotten that Harry can't  make the Snatcher's wand work for him in DH? 
> > 
> > Eggplant: 
> > > Read it again, Harry hated the wand and it didn't work nearly as well as he thought it should, but it's just not true that it didn't work at all. 
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > Right. DH is pretty clear what happens when you use a wand that isn't yours. You can use it, it just feels off and doesn't seem to work as well as the wand that is yours.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Except that we never see any other wizard (except Neville using his "father's wand, and his problem appears to be a lack of confidence) having as much trouble as Harry does with the Snatcher's wand. In DH, Hermione is even more uncomfortable with the wand that Crucio'd the Longbottoms into insanity yet has no difficulty getting it to work for her, in contrast to Harry.
Snip

Beatrice:

Actually, I think that Ron indicates in SS /PS that he has Charlie's old wand or is it Bill's and the "unicorn hair is poking out," if memory serves.  I actually think that the fact that these two characters and (Draco who borrows his mother's wand to confront Harry in the RoR at the end of DH, oooohh and "kevin" who enlarges a slug at the Quidditch world cup with "daddy's wand")  represent something very different.  They are borrowing the wand of  a relative someone with whom they have an affinity and a bond.  Thus the wand might work better for them rather than for a stranger or an outright enemy.  I think that Harry even thinks to himself (he doesn't state it because he doesn't want to irritate Hermione more) that Hermione ought to take the Hawthorne wand and Harry will take hers which seems to indicate that he is more comfortable using his friend's wand rather than some random snatcher.  

Although, I guess you could argue that the wand is now Ron's so it should work better for Harry, but the wand is new to Ron and perhaps it hasn't bonded with him in the way that Hermione's wand bonded with her.

Also if you think of the wands as taking on characteristics of their masters, the bond between the wand and the wizard probably deepen and strengthen over time the trio's original wands witness their friendships from very early on.  Maybe wands are more like a pet, certainly, not like a mere strip of wood.




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jul 19 16:59:46 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 19 Jul 2009 16:59:46 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/19/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1248022786.506.96078.m2@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187365

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday July 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20090719/e38f50ae/attachment.html>

From va32h at comcast.net  Sun Jul 19 20:23:44 2009
From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:23:44 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h3ojmq+rka4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3vvcg+ag6t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187366

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
 about unicorn-hair wands symbolizing impending doom.) 
> 
> However, none of this has anything to do with HBP, as far as I know. The medium that must not be named made up Ginny's unicorn Patronus, didn't they, or did JKR mention it in an interview? I don't remember its being mentioned in OoP (the DA chapters), and she doesn't cast it anywhere else.
> 
> So, sure, nice symbolism of innocence and virginity, but it's completely uncanonical. There's no such tapestry anywhere in the books.

va32h writes:
Ginny did not have a unicorn patronus in the OOTP film; it was a horse.

I don't know if the "medium that must not be named" is a joke or if you really have utter contempt for the films, but I do feel that the movies are a part of the HP universe, and thus worthy of discussion, even if they are not the precious "canon". 

va32h








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jul 19 20:30:03 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:30:03 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h3vvcg+ag6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h3vvob+9e6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187367

 
> va32h writes:
 
> I don't know if the "medium that must not be named" is a joke or if you really have utter contempt for the films, but I do feel that the movies are a part of the HP universe, and thus worthy of discussion, even if they are not the precious "canon". 

Potioncat:
It is a sort of joke on ourselves and is sometimes written as TMTMNBN. Generally on this site, posts are supposed to be canon based. So a movie would only be discussed here when there is some canon connection--otherwise, it should not be named.

Most of us do not have contempt for the movies at all. In fact, we're usually discussing them just as eagerly at the HPfGU sister site for HP-movies.

 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jul 19 21:18:31 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:18:31 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h3vvob+9e6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h402j7+4pou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187368

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > va32h writes:
>  
> > I don't know if the "medium that must not be named" is a joke or if you really have utter contempt for the films, but I do feel that the movies are a part of the HP universe, and thus worthy of discussion, even if they are not the precious "canon". 
> 
> Potioncat:
> It is a sort of joke on ourselves and is sometimes written as TMTMNBN. Generally on this site, posts are supposed to be canon based. So a movie would only be discussed here when there is some canon connection--otherwise, it should not be named.
> 
> Most of us do not have contempt for the movies at all. In fact, we're usually discussing them just as eagerly at the HPfGU sister site for HP-movies.

Geoff:
I might add that I coined the phrase "the medium that dare not speak its 
name" several years ago - and I hope that is recognised as a nod in the 
direction of Oscar Wilde.
:-)

Many of us enjoy the films as much as the books - I came to the books via 
the films as it happens.

I think Potioncat has outlined our views very clearly....





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 19 22:47:02 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:47:02 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <8399BCBB927D456984B1530C35E08379@ALI>
Message-ID: <h407p6+afbf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187369

---  "Alina Bonci" <alinabonci at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> ... I wonder why Dumbledore never told Snape that he wanted the latter to get the Elder Wand. ... But it seems that the Elder Wand directly concerned him (Snape), and I don't understand why Dumbledore would not have told him about about his intentions. Is it because he never intended Snape to own it, ...? ...
> 
> Alina
>

bboyminn:

Well, you've touch on one of the most confusing and debated 
aspects of the whole Elder Wand Subplot. 

I think Dumbledore might have intended Snape to have the wand,
though I confess that is pretty thin, but I don't think
Dumbledore wanted Snape or anyone to OWN the Elder Wand.

Remember, Snape isn't really defeating Dumbledore, he is acting
on Dumbledore's orders and with Dumbledore's conscent. That
hardly constitutes a defeat. 

I think with Dumbledore's death, he expected the wand to then
be ownerless. Its current Master never having been truly 
defeated, but none the less, now dead.

Slight flaw in that though. I suspect in its very long history,
the Wand must have lost its owner in ways other than defeat. Yet,
eventually the wand transferred its allegiance to the new
possessor of the Wand. 

So, even after Dumbledore's undefeated death, could a new
possessor of the Wand have come along that the Wand would
have accepted as an owner? I don't know, but it seems like
it might have done so in the past. 

Steve/bboyminn




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 02:39:16 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:39:16 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h3vvcg+ag6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h40lck+ug0j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187370

Carol earlier:
 
> > However, none of this has anything to do with HBP, as far as I know. The medium that must not be named made up Ginny's unicorn Patronus, didn't they, or did JKR mention it in an interview? I don't remember its being mentioned in OoP (the DA chapters), and she doesn't cast it anywhere else.
> > 
> > So, sure, nice symbolism of innocence and virginity, but it's completely uncanonical. There's no such tapestry anywhere in the books.
> 
va32h responded:
> Ginny did not have a unicorn patronus in the OOTP film; it was a horse.
> 
> I don't know if the "medium that must not be named" is a joke or if you really have utter contempt for the films, but I do feel that the movies are a part of the HP universe, and thus worthy of discussion, even if they are not the precious "canon". 

Carol again:

Thanks for the correction. I was pretty sure that Ginny's Patronus wasn't specified in the book and I couldn't remember what is was in the film (not one of my favorites).

"The medium that must not be named" is a joke, yes. It's the way the way long-time list members refer to the films because this list is intended for discussion of the books (canon) and the movie list is for, er, the medium that must not be named. As I'm sure you figured out, yhat term (which I don't claim credit for--it was used here before I joined) is an allusion to or a play on "He Who Must Not Be Named" in the books. (I've always wondered whether JKR got it from Ryder Haggard's "She Who Must Be Obeyed" in the book "She," or maybe from a British sitcom that borrowed that epithet for the wife of one of the characters. Sorry that, not being British, I can't remember the name of the TV show.)

Carol, whose opinion of the films (most of which she rather likes) can be found on the Movie List if you care to look 




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Jul 20 04:01:15 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:01:15 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h407p6+afbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h40q6b+phre@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187371

 "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

> I suspect in its very long history, the Wand must
> have lost its owner in ways other than defeat.
> Yet, eventually the wand transferred its
> allegiance to the new possessor of the Wand.


Good point. Harry didn't have to defeat anybody to become Master of his Phoenix Wand, it's just that the wand had no master at the time he walked into Oleander's shop and the wand apparently rather liked Harry and thought he'd make a good master. In the same way somebody is going to be master of the Elder Wand. I'd prefer it be Harry, he can be trusted with power, most can't.

Eggplant





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jul 20 06:35:01 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:35:01 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h40lck+ug0j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4136l+2696@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187372

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

Carol:
> "The medium that must not be named" is a joke, yes. It's the way the way long-time list members refer to the films because this list is intended for discussion of the books (canon) and the movie list is for, er, the medium that must not be named. As I'm sure you figured out, yhat term (which I don't claim credit for--it was used here before I joined) is an allusion to or a play on "He Who Must Not Be Named" in the books. (I've always wondered whether JKR got it from Ryder Haggard's "She Who Must Be Obeyed" in the book "She," or maybe from a British sitcom that borrowed that epithet for the wife of one of the characters. Sorry that, not being British, I can't remember the name of the TV show.)

Geoff:
It came from John Mortimer's books which went on to be a TV series, 
"Rumpole of the Bailey".

I have to admit that I've never given thought to why Voldemort, as a character, 
received that "title". Perhaps in the same way that real world dictators were 
publicly referred to other than by their names - "Der F?hrer" or "Il Duce" for 
instance.





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 12:02:23 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:02:23 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h40q6b+phre@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h41mcf+qg3c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187373

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
>  "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> 
> > I suspect in its very long history, the Wand must
> > have lost its owner in ways other than defeat.
> > Yet, eventually the wand transferred its
> > allegiance to the new possessor of the Wand.
> 
> 
> Good point. Harry didn't have to defeat anybody to become Master of his Phoenix Wand, it's just that the wand had no master at the time he walked into Oleander's shop and the wand apparently rather liked Harry and thought he'd make a good master. In the same way somebody is going to be master of the Elder Wand. I'd prefer it be Harry, he can be trusted with power, most can't.
> 
> Eggplant
>
Beatrice:  Also don't forget the way that Grindlewald captured the wand from Gregorovitch.  Just by stunning him and Dumbledore didn't kill Grindlewald....we don't know what spell was used to capture the wand here, but definitly not captured through killing the last owner.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jul 20 14:23:59 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:23:59 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h407p6+afbf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h41ulv+4a31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187374

 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Slight flaw in that though. I suspect in its very long history,
> the Wand must have lost its owner in ways other than defeat. Yet,
> eventually the wand transferred its allegiance to the new
> possessor of the Wand. 

Pippin:
Dumbledore believed that the Elder Wand could only pass by conquest, which does not necessarily mean killing. He expected that if the owner could manage to die undefeated, the wand's bloody history would come to an end at last. 

But  Dumbledore couldn't be sure that his theory of the Elder Wand was correct. If the Elder Wand could not be disabled, as he thought, then at least it would be in the hands of someone who was unalterably anti-Voldemort,  thoroughly acquainted with Dark Magic and yet averse to using it, and, as an exceptionally skilled healer, could  at least impart to the wand and its subsequent masters a talent for something besides combat.

Personally,  I'd have to be deathly ill before I'd let  anyone experiment on me with a wand that had chosen so many murderers as its master. And if it were in the hands of an amateur like Harry... ::shudders:: 

 Healing charms are a lot more complicated than "reparo" and things can go wrong even if the wand and its owner have good intentions.

But if Eggplant's theory of the wand is correct and it has no more innate malice than a car or a gun, no desire to tempt its master to acts of cruelty or bloodlust or domination, then I see no reason why there shouldn't be thousands of wizards who could own and use it safely. Law-abiding gun owners do not suddenly become criminals if they get a bigger gun, and I see no reason why law-abiding wand owners should behave differently.

 In that case, maybe the best thing Harry could do is pick a fight with a short-tempered but not extremely violent healer and hope, but not plan, to lose. Snape would be ideal, if he weren't dead. :)

Pippin






From aorta47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 13:53:10 2009
From: aorta47 at yahoo.com (aorta47)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:53:10 -0000
Subject: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry
In-Reply-To: <h4136l+2696@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h41ss6+oif9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187375

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

Geoff:

> I have to admit that I've never given thought to why Voldemort, as a character, received that "title". Perhaps in the same way that real world dictators were publicly referred to other than by their names "Der F?hrer" or "Il Duce" for instance.

Mark:

In the Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview part 2 [1], Rowling says that one inspiration for this was the Kray twins. 

"On a more prosaic note, in the 1950s in London there were a pair of gangsters called the Kray Twins. The story goes that people didn't speak the name Kray. You just didn't mention it. You didn't talk about them, because retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can inspire. It's not something to be admired."    [1] http://tinyurl.com/lqhu3o





From jamiesonwolf at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 14:28:39 2009
From: jamiesonwolf at gmail.com (Jamieson Wolf Villeneuve)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:28:39 -0000
Subject: Penseive Question...
Message-ID: <h41uun+qiu4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187376

Hello all, 

Here's something I've been thinking about


I've just finished reading the series again in preparation for the new movie (which I saw on Saturday and it was AWESOME!) and something occurred to me; I was wondering what everyone else thinks about this



When someone takes a memory out of their heads and puts it into the Pensieve, do they still remember it? Will they still be able to recall the memory in their minds, even though the memory is in the Penseive? 


Or, while the memory is in the Pensieve, do they have no mental record of that memory? I'm curious to what everyone else thinks. Thoughts anyone? 


Cheers,
Jamieson 





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Jul 20 15:17:35 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:17:35 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h41ulv+4a31@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h421qf+cqt5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187377

 "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:


> Snape would be ideal, if he weren't dead.
 
I disagree. If I were a wizard I'd sleep more soundly in my bed knowing Harry was Master of the Elder Wand rather than Snape;
he may not have been Voldemort's man but I still don't like him.

By the way, what was Dumbledore's original plan? How exactly
did he intend Snape to become the new master of that wand?
  
Eggplant





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jul 20 16:08:28 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:08:28 -0000
Subject: Penseive Question...
In-Reply-To: <h41uun+qiu4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h424ps+aa0j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187378

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jamieson Wolf Villeneuve" <jamiesonwolf at ...> wrote:

> Or, while the memory is in the Pensieve, do they have no mental record of that memory? I'm curious to what everyone else thinks. Thoughts anyone? 
> 

Pippin:
This seems to be an unsettled issue in canon. Harry thinks the memory is removed from the mind of the person storing it. He supposes that is why Snape takes three memories from his mind before each occlumency lesson and stores them in the pensieve -- to protect them from any accidental incursions by Harry. 

But this seems unlikely. In the first place, as we now know, Snape had far more than three memories  to conceal from Harry, and in the second place, he had been hiding all of those memories and many more from the far more powerful legilimency of Voldemort himself. 

More likely, Snape was only making a show of protecting his secrets with the pensieve in order  to disguise the fact that he could actually protect them with occlumency. Dumbledore seems able to discuss the trials he witnesses in the pensieve without putting the memories back in his head first. But no doubt it's a complex piece of magic and can work in more than one way, depending on how the wizard (and JKR) want it to function.

Pippin 





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 16:29:41 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:29:41 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h421qf+cqt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4261l+ehub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187379

---  "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>  
> ...
> 
> By the way, what was Dumbledore's original plan? How exactly
> did he intend Snape to become the new master of that wand?
>   
> Eggplant
>


bboyminn:

That's just it though, I don't think Dumbledore expected anyone
to become the Master of the Elder Wand. I think he intended to
die undefeated, and therefore the last and final Master of the
Elder Wand.

Now, somewhere in the books, someone speculated that Dumbledore
intended Snape to be the Master, but, while that seems a 
reasonable assumption by the character, it seems logically
unsound from the view of the reader. Snape didn't defeat 
Dumbledore, he carried out Dumbledore's order, and acted with
Dumbledore's conscent. No defeat, no new Master.

So, it is possible that Dumbledore wanted Snape to have the wand,
but to not be its Master. He wanted the wand to have no Master
after his death.

Steve/bboyminn





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 16:25:47 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:25:47 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h421qf+cqt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h425qb+oo2k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187380

> > pippin:
> > Snape would be ideal, if he weren't dead.

> eggplant:  
> I disagree. If I were a wizard I'd sleep more soundly in my bed knowing Harry was Master of the Elder Wand rather than Snape;
> he may not have been Voldemort's man but I still don't like him.

Kemper now:
Disliking someone is an emotional reason not to trust someone, not a valid one.  Harry liked Crouch Jr as his professor.


> By the way, what was Dumbledore's original plan? How exactly
> did he intend Snape to become the new master of that wand?

Kemper now:
Dumbledore may not have been completely confident that his theory of the Elder Wand's allegiance passes from possessor to possessor (I don't think no witch/wizard truly owns it, or is its master) due to conquest.  If he were wrong, he hoped/planned that Snape would become its master when Snape killed him.

I think the plan all along was that Snape was to kill Dumbledore as the ring's curse came to the end of its course, giving Snape some added Death Eater cred that he would need to maintain close proximity (if not relationship) to Voldemort to continue Dumbledore's plan.

Dumbledore trusted Severus Snape completely.  I presume that means with the Elder Wand as well. 

Kemper




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 16:37:56 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:37:56 -0000
Subject: Penseive Question...
In-Reply-To: <h41uun+qiu4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h426h4+15d1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187381

---  "Jamieson Wolf Villeneuve" <jamiesonwolf at ...> wrote:
>
> Hello all, 
> 
> ... 
> 
> When someone takes a memory out of their heads and puts it into the Pensieve, do they still remember it? Will they still be able to recall the memory in their minds, even though the memory is in the Penseive? 
> 
> 
> Or, while the memory is in the Pensieve, do they have no mental record of that memory? I'm curious to what everyone else thinks. Thoughts anyone? 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jamieson
>

bboyminn:

I've always speculated that there are primary and secondary 
memories. A primary memory is my memory of an actual event.
A secondary memory, as an illustration, is the last time
I remembered the event is question. That act of remembering
is a completely separate event in and of itself. Yet it
contains a version of the content contained in the primary
memory. 

So, when I lose a primary memory to the Pensieve, I still
have the secondary memories to draw on. Though the secondary
memories are not as prominent or as vivid as the primary. 

As another illustration, you can remember placing a specific
memory about a specific event into the Pensieve. That is a 
limited separate event. You know what memory you stored, and
when you stored it. That allows you to continue to know it
exists, and to recover it when you need it.

Because the secondary memories are much less substantial and
prominent than the primary memory, I think they are more
difficult to read. They don't recall with the ease or clarity
of a primary memory.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From frankd14612 at gmail.com  Mon Jul 20 15:37:25 2009
From: frankd14612 at gmail.com (Frank D)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:37:25 -0000
Subject: "You Know Who" (was Re: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry)
In-Reply-To: <h41ss6+oif9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h422vl+9oko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187382

> Geoff:
> > I have to admit that I've never given thought to why
Voldemort, as a character, received that "title". Perhaps
in the same way that real world dictators were publicly
referred to other than by their names "Der F?hrer" or
"Il Duce" for instance.
> >
>
> Mark:
> In the Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview part 2
[1], Rowling says that one inspiration for this was the
Kray twins.
>
> "On a more prosaic note, in the 1950s in London there
were a pair of gangsters called the Kray Twins. The story
goes that people didn't speak the name Kray. You just
didn't mention it. You didn't talk about them, because
retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an
impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince
someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that
demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can
inspire. It's not something to be admired."
[1] http://tinyurl.com/lqhu3o
>


Frank D:

The concept of absit nomen, ansit omen (banish the name and
the associations attached to it go away with it) goes back a
much longer way.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 17:16:44 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:16:44 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h40q6b+phre@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h428ps+512v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187383

Eggplant: 
> Good point. Harry didn't have to defeat anybody to become Master of his Phoenix Wand, it's just that the wand had no master at the time he walked into Oleander's shop and the wand apparently rather liked Harry and thought he'd make a good master. <snip>

Carol responds:

The holly and phoenix feather wand must have been made at about the same time as its brother wand (I can't imagine Ollivander leaving that second phoenix feather lying around unused for fifty-plus years before using it). If that's the case, the holly wand must have rejected (not worked for) a number of young wand buyers until Ollivander began to think that it wasn't suitable for anyone at all. He certainly considers it a long shot when he hands it to Harry, knowing that "its brother gave [him] that scar." And yet, in contrast to the wands that Ollivander snatches away from Harry because they're clearly not "the perfect match" (he calls Harry a "tricky customer"), the holly wand feels right to him. He feels "a sudden warmth in his fingers" and he instantly knows what to do. Instead of just standing there like an idiot or "foolishly" waving the wand around, he swishes it through the air and produces a shower of red and gold sparks that shoots out from the end of the wand like a firework. Clearly, that wand has chosen him and both Hagrid (who claps and cheers) and Ollivander (who claps Harry on the shoulder and cries "Bravo!") know it. It's not a mere matter of the wand sort of liking Harry. It's an case of perfect compatibility between wand and wizard even before Harry develops a relationship with his wand. (True, he does struggle later with certain spells, but there's usually a reason, either they're too advanced or he has some sort of mental block.)

My question is *why* that particular wand chose Harry. Of course, there's a kind of immortality or Christ symbolism attached to its components (immortality for the phoenix feather and Christ for the holly, in contrast to the more sinister kind of earthly immortality attached to yew, which also happens to be both strong and flexible--longbows were made of it--and poisonous. So we have the good witch--er, wizard--and the bad wizard with similar yet contrasting wands. But there's also a sense of that wand actively and enthusiastically choosing Harry after sitting on the shelf unchosen and unchoosing for some fifty years. Has that wand already developed an antipathy to its brother wand instinctively knowing what "great and terrible things" that wand ended up doing? That seems unlikely, however much personality and will we (and Ollivander) attribute to wands. Did it sense that Harry was the Chosen One who could defeat Riddle/Voldemort, the wizard chosen by its brother wand? Or did it sense the bit of Voldemort in him, the power and the desire for immortality, that must have attracted its brother to young Tom Riddle?

Anyone have any theories (besides JKR's plot needs) as to why that wand chose Harry (in contrast to all those other wands that did not exhibit the same strong and obvious initial and mutual attraction)?

Two things that I find of interest. First, its not just a compatibility between Harry and phoenix feathers in general since one of the wands he tried out was made of maple and phoenix feather. It's this particular phoenix feather, or rather, a feather from this particular phoenix (Fawkes), the same phoenix whose feather was the core of Voldemort's wand. (I think the yew/phoenix feather combination symbolizing poison and immortality was important in that wand, which, BTW, must have been more than usually powerful to begin with and would have become much more so after working with Voldemort for nearly sixty years, in contrast with, say, "Lucius Malfoy's poor stick.") Ollivander expects Harry to "do great things" because that wand's brother chose him.

Also interesting to me--Ollivander says in GoF that he doesn't use Veela hair as a wand core because Veela-hair wands tend to be "temperamental"--more testimony from Ollivander that wands have personalities. (I suspect that Fleur's wand was made for her rather than choosing her. I'd have liked to see Harry trying to use it so we could see how a "temperamental" wand performs--or fails to perform.)

BTW, Eggplant, oleander is an ornamental shrub that grows in my yard and happens to be poisonous. Tea brewed from its flowers will kill you. You wouldn't want to fall on a sharp oleander twig, either, or you'd be sent to the emergency room. I don't suppose it would work well as wand wood, unlike yew, which is also poisonous. I don't even know whether it grows in England. I'm not sure, but I've always suspected that the "vander" part of "Ollivander" had something to do with "wandmaker." Maybe the original Ollivander had an olive-wood wand?

Carol, wondering why JKR included the detail of the magical measuring tape when it seems to serve no purpose





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 17:42:46 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:42:46 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h421qf+cqt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42aam+jpk0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187384

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
>  "pippin_999" <foxmoth@> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Snape would be ideal, if he weren't dead.
>  
> I disagree. If I were a wizard I'd sleep more soundly in my bed knowing Harry was Master of the Elder Wand rather than Snape;
> he may not have been Voldemort's man but I still don't like him.
> 
> By the way, what was Dumbledore's original plan? How exactly
> did he intend Snape to become the new master of that wand?
>   
> Eggplant
>
Carol responds:

I don't think he did. I think he intended to end the power of the wand by dying at Snape's hand by his own choice. The only way for that to work, as far as I can see, would be for the wand to lose its powers altogether and become a useless stick of wood. (I don't think that Snape would have been tempted to use it even if he knew what it was; he was perfectly happy with his own wand. But if it didn't lose its powers and Voldemort learned that he had it, he'd have been in great danger. I suppose that as the Elder Wand's master he could have killed Voldemort using it, but would he have had the opportunity and would he have done so at the right time, knowing that *Harry* had to face Voldemort and be "killed" by him to destroy that last soul bit? That wouldn't have worked.) As I said, the Elder Wand subplot is full of flaws. I would like to hear, though, what JKR thinks DD thought would happen after Snape killed him. Maybe Snape, as its master, could have destroyed it; or, if it lost its powers, he could have burned it. And, being the superb Occlumens that he was, he could have pretended ignorance as to its fate when LV tried and failed to find it in DD's tomb, assuming that LV succeeded in tracing it before Harry found the Horcruxes. Of course, there was always the alternate possibility that Harry would take it as a Hallow, but I doubt that DD seriously thought that might happen. Harry breaking into DD's tomb? I would hope not!)

Anyway, DD can't have expected LV to kill Snape to get the Elder Wand or his plan to have Snape tell Harry about the soul bit in his scar would have fallen through. Or maybe he thought that LV would try and fail to kill Snape using the Elder Wand--or Snape as its master could kill LV, revealing his loyalties after Harry was "killed"? Surely, if Draco hadn't disarmed DD and accidentally become the Elder Wand's master, Portrait!DD would have told Snape what he wanted and expected him to do with the thing and Snape would have done it, but since Snape could do nothing about it under the circumstances, he kept him in the dark, with (to Snape fans) extremely unfortunate consequences.

None of it makes sense to me, and I wish that Dumbledore had simply destroyed the Death Stick the moment it entered his possession. Or better yet, JKR had come up with some better way to end the books (and distract LV while Harry looked for the Horcruxes).

Carol, who considers the Elder Wand merely a plot device to enable Harry to defeat LV the second time (and give LV an implausible motive for murdering Snape without using AK)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 20 17:50:09 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:50:09 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h428ps+512v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42aoh+d1cm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187385

> Carol responds:
> Also interesting to me--Ollivander says in GoF that he doesn't use Veela hair as a wand core because Veela-hair wands tend to be "temperamental"--more testimony from Ollivander that wands have personalities. (I suspect that Fleur's wand was made for her rather than choosing her. I'd have liked to see Harry trying to use it so we could see how a "temperamental" wand performs--or fails to perform.)

Magpie:
It doesn't necessarily mean they have personalities like humans do. People often refer to machines as being tempermental. I assumed Ollivander just means that he doesn't find Veela hair to be reliable enough as a wand core. (I also get a subtle, unfortunate sexist connotation.)

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 18:06:26 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:06:26 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4261l+ehub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42bn2+harf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187386

Eggplant:
> > By the way, what was Dumbledore's original plan? How exactly did he intend Snape to become the new master of that wand?
>
> bboyminn:
> 
> That's just it though, I don't think Dumbledore expected anyone to become the Master of the Elder Wand. I think he intended to die undefeated, and therefore the last and final Master of the Elder Wand.
> 
> Now, somewhere in the books, someone speculated that Dumbledore intended Snape to be the Master, but, while that seems a reasonable assumption by the character, it seems logically unsound from the view of the reader. Snape didn't defeat Dumbledore, he carried out Dumbledore's order, and acted with Dumbledore's conscent. No defeat, no new Master.
> 
> So, it is possible that Dumbledore wanted Snape to have the wand, but to not be its Master. He wanted the wand to have no Master after his death.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>
Carol responds:
It was Voldemort who assumed that DD wanted Snape to become master of the wand, but both DD's actions and Harry's suggest that he was wrong. Clearly, both of them think that the only way to end the bloody cycle of violence is by making it impossible for the wand to take a new master. As things were, the cycle of violence *didn't* end since LV thought that by killing Snape (and later, Draco, as he thought), he could make himself the master of the wand.

The problem is, if everything else occurred as it does in DH (Harry's wand attacking Voldemort on its own, LV torturing Ollivander for more information, Harry coincidentally and conveniently dropping the photo of young Gellert Grindelwald at Godric's Hollow, LV would have broken into the tomb in any case--and finding that it wasn't there, he would surely have suspected that Snape, its new master, had taken it. And then what? The only way for that to work would be for Snape to hand over the powerless wand to Voldemort and explain that Dumbledore had done something to it to rob it of its powers--or to say, using Occlumency, that he didn't know what had become of it and that perhaps it had been burned.

Anyway, the wand still works perfectly well for Voldemort even though he's not its master--as well as the powerful wand that chose him and performed all that "great and terrible magic" that Ollivander mentioned (and he didn't even know about the Horcruxes). *We* know that it also created an army of Inferi, the protections on the cave, and all those Dark Marks on the arms of his DEs. So if the Elder Wand works that well for someone who's not its master, it's still a dangerous instrument. The only way to end its power and prevent people like LV from thinking they can master it is to, first, hide it and make people forget about it (except for eccentrics like Xeno Lovegood who want it as a Hallow), and, second, to die undefeated, so that it loses its powers altogether. Either that or the power that made people kill to possess it would destroyed--and surely, the original owner and maker had placed no such curse on it since by so doing he'd be dooming himself.

I guess that the only way we'll ever find out what DD expected to happen with the wand is by asking JKR. Maybe she'll explain it in an interview or the encyclopedia (if she ever writes it). 

Carol, who can't believe that she's still posting on a topic that she hates!




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 18:45:56 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:45:56 -0000
Subject: "You Know Who" (was Re: Ginny and the unicorn tapestry)
In-Reply-To: <h422vl+9oko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42e14+bfoo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187387

Mark wrote:
> > In the Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview part 2 [1], Rowling says that one inspiration for this was the Kray twins.
> >
> > "On a more prosaic note, in the 1950s in London there
> were a pair of gangsters called the Kray Twins. The story
> goes that people didn't speak the name Kray. You just
> didn't mention it. You didn't talk about them, because
> retribution was so brutal and bloody. I think this is an
> impressive demonstration of strength, that you can convince
> someone not to use your name. Impressive in the sense that
> demonstrates how deep the level of fear is that you can
> inspire. It's not something to be admired."
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/lqhu3o

> 
> Frank D:
> 
> The concept of absit nomen, ansit omen (banish the name and the associations attached to it go away with it) goes back a much longer way.
>
Carol adds:

I agree. I think the concept behind "He Who Must Not Be Named" is a variation on "speak (talk) of the devil and he'll appear." 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html

The same idea may have been behind the prohibition on the name Kray--who knows? However, JKR may have specifically named the Kray brothers to indicate that the fear of Voldemort's name was not mere superstition like "talk of the devil," which even wizards use lightly--Ludo Bagman uses it in GoF (Am. ed. 90) in reference to Barty Crouch, Sr. I suspect that the DEs started using "the Dark Lord" rather than Voldemort when he wanted to make them fear him. Maybe he tortured them for using it. (Snape's Dark Mark seems to hurt when Harry uses the name, which suggests that if he uses it himself, Voldemort will know. And, certainly, if using that name is an indication that you're a DD supporter, Snape wouldn't want to speak it.)

As for ordinary citizens, they must have stopped speaking it for similar reasons. Maybe DEs tortured them for saying it and they began, with good reason, to fear the consequences. From there, the fear would become contagious, akin to "speak of the Devil." And, of course, in DH, LV takes advantage of the superstition to magically detect anyone who speaks his name. Ron's warnings not to say the name finally have a basis in WW reality.

At any rate, the Kray twins appear to be a "prosaic" afterthought in JKR's response. Here's the rest of it:

"ES: What prompted people to start referring to Voldemort as You-Know-Who and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named?

"JKR: It happens many times in history - well, you'll know this because you're that kind of people, but for those who don't, having a taboo on a name is quite common in certain civilizations. In Africa there are tribes where the name is never used. Your name is a sacred part of yourself and you are referred to as the son of so-and-so, the brother of so-and-so, and you're given these pseudonyms, because your name is something that can be used magically against you if it's known. It's like a part of your soul. That's a powerful taboo in many cultures and across many folklores. <snip Kray twins portion of the quote>"

Personally, I don't think that readers need to look at African cultures (or the Kray twins) for an explanation. "Speak/talk of the devil and he'll appear" is part of English (and, by extension, American) folklore. (Contrast LOTR, in which words really do have that kind of power, and no wand is needed for an incantation to be effective.)

BTW, even today many people use euphemisms for things they're afraid or embarrassed to name, including "pass away" for "die" or "mentally challenged" for "retarded," which is itself a euphemism. It's just human nature, I suppose.

I still think that the specific euphemism "He who must not be named" has some connection with "She who must be obeyed," whereas "the Dark Lord" (which rather suggests Sauron) seems intended by the DEs to suggest dangerous dark powers ("Dark wizard" plus "Lord Voldemort") and "You Know Who" is short but rather silly. Snape wouldn't be caught dead saying it, but it's convenient shorthand as a way to speak casually of LV as if he were an eccentric neighbor like Mrs. Figg--certainly, as the Weasley Twins' "U-No-Poo" suggests, the euphemism isn't remotely frightening. It's rather like my parents referring to me (back in the Dark Ages when I was about three) as "Little C."

Carol, who finds the concept understandable but irritatingly overplayed in the earlier books






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 18:52:48 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:52:48 -0000
Subject: Canon Veelas  WAS Re: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h42aoh+d1cm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42ee0+4hfk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187388

> Magpie:
> It doesn't necessarily mean they have personalities like humans do. People often refer to machines as being tempermental. I assumed Ollivander just means that he doesn't find Veela hair to be reliable enough as a wand core. (I also get a subtle, unfortunate sexist connotation.)

Alla:

Hm, why? I certainly do not remember, but is it specified in the canon definition of veela that only female veelas exist? I strongly suspect that I got it from bad fanfiction that male veelas exist too, but I am not sure one way or another.

I mean I know we only see female veelas, but it does not necessarily mean that only females exist?

Thanks.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 20 19:51:00 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:51:00 -0000
Subject: Canon Veelas  WAS Re: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h42ee0+4hfk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42hr4+fh0p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187389

> > Magpie:
> > It doesn't necessarily mean they have personalities like humans do. People often refer to machines as being tempermental. I assumed Ollivander just means that he doesn't find Veela hair to be reliable enough as a wand core. (I also get a subtle, unfortunate sexist connotation.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Hm, why? I certainly do not remember, but is it specified in the canon definition of veela that only female veelas exist? I strongly suspect that I got it from bad fanfiction that male veelas exist too, but I am not sure one way or another.
> 
> I mean I know we only see female veelas, but it does not necessarily mean that only females exist?

Magpie:
Whether or not there are supposed to be male veelas the fact that we only see them as females and they're consistently associated with feminine wiles etc. I think makes them all-female in this universe. And it just seems like given all we see of Veelas, the idea that Veela hair is too tempermental links to those Veela turning into harpie-like creatures when they get angry etc., which Arthur cheerfully makes into a lesson about why you shouldn't just go for the pretty face etc.

I don't think it's meant to be a big sexist jab, but it does seem to me to go along with the characterization of Veela, which in turn fits into a lot of the basic characterization of the female sex in the books. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 20:09:04 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:09:04 -0000
Subject: Canon Veelas  WAS Re: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h42hr4+fh0p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42it0+8j1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187390

> Magpie:
> Whether or not there are supposed to be male veelas the fact that we only see them as females and they're consistently associated with feminine wiles etc. I think makes them all-female in this universe. And it just seems like given all we see of Veelas, the idea that Veela hair is too tempermental links to those Veela turning into harpie-like creatures when they get angry etc., which Arthur cheerfully makes into a lesson about why you shouldn't just go for the pretty face etc.
> 
> I don't think it's meant to be a big sexist jab, but it does seem to me to go along with the characterization of Veela, which in turn fits into a lot of the basic characterization of the female sex in the books. 

Alla:
But I was wondering if male veelas are mentioned in canon. If they are not, then I certainly agree with you, but if they are, even if as a footnote somewhere, I do not see why I should make a conclusion that only female veelas exist if they are not.

I am not asking anybody to *imagine* male veelas, I am asking if they exist in Potterverse. And if they are, so we see female veelas as guests to Hogwarts, why can't male veelas be elsewhere.

However, again, let me stress if they do not exist, I think you are right and it can be easily construed as having sexist connotation IMO.

I mean, for example we only see the dragons of certain breeds in canon, but there are more mentioned in  Fantastic Beasts, right? (also do not remember exactly).

I will not decide that only dragons of certain breeds exist in canon when they are not. 

JMO,

Alla




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jul 20 20:34:42 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:34:42 -0000
Subject: Canon Veelas  WAS Re: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h42it0+8j1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42kd2+k5kp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187391

> > Magpie:
> > Whether or not there are supposed to be male veelas the fact that we only see them as females and they're consistently associated with feminine wiles etc. I think makes them all-female in this universe. And it just seems like given all we see of Veelas, the idea that Veela hair is too tempermental links to those Veela turning into harpie-like creatures when they get angry etc., which Arthur cheerfully makes into a lesson about why you shouldn't just go for the pretty face etc.
> > 
> > I don't think it's meant to be a big sexist jab, but it does seem to me to go along with the characterization of Veela, which in turn fits into a lot of the basic characterization of the female sex in the books. 
> 
> Alla:
> But I was wondering if male veelas are mentioned in canon. If they are not, then I certainly agree with you, but if they are, even if as a footnote somewhere, I do not see why I should make a conclusion that only female veelas exist if they are not.

Magpie:
I don't think male Veelas are ever mentioned anywhere. (I think they're female in mythology too.) But I could just not know about a reference. I would get the same vibe from "tempermental" whether or not JKR would say there were male Veelas or not due to the way all the Veelas we see are characterized, but I'm not sure if JKR's ever said or originally thought out Veelas as being only female or both male and female.  I mean, if JKR was asked and said there are fewer male Veelas but they exist I would still think that "tempermental" would be part of the female characterizations (tied to female sexuality etc.) we see throughout canon. 

-m




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 22:30:36 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:30:36 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h425qb+oo2k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h42r6c+i440@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187392

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
>
> > > pippin:
> > > Snape would be ideal, if he weren't dead.
> 
> > eggplant:  
> > I disagree. If I were a wizard I'd sleep more soundly in my bed knowing Harry was Master of the Elder Wand rather than Snape;
> > he may not have been Voldemort's man but I still don't like him.
> 
> Kemper now:
> Disliking someone is an emotional reason not to trust someone, not a valid one.  Harry liked Crouch Jr as his professor.
>

jkoney:
But we know that Dumbledore and Voldemort both trusted Snape. Voldemort didn't kill Snape because he didn't trust him, but because he thought Snape was the master of the Elder wand.

Obviously one of them was wrong about Snape.

His position as a spy automatically makes you question his word. Especially since he once worked for Voldemort. 

So I agree with Eggplant that I would much rather trust Harry than Snape.




From frowningangel at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 20 18:23:22 2009
From: frowningangel at yahoo.com (Mari)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Penseive Question...
In-Reply-To: <h41uun+qiu4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <406983.26538.qm@web30402.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187393

Jamieson:

When someone takes a memory out of their heads and puts it into the Pensieve, do they still remember it? Will they still be able to recall the memory in their minds, even though the memory is in the Penseive?

Or, while the memory is in the Pensieve, do they have no mental record of that memory? I'm curious to what everyone else thinks. Thoughts anyone?


MARI:

I believe they can still remember it because if you remember in half blood prince Slughorn had already given a memory to Dumbledore even though it was altered he still gave him the memory and was later able to give the full memory to Harry. Which leads me to think that they can still retain the memory I think its more like a copy of the memory.

Blessed Be
MARI
zone 10
www.facebook.com/mari.t.hernandez



From MidasFunding at aol.com  Tue Jul 21 00:17:38 2009
From: MidasFunding at aol.com (midasgoal)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:17:38 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h42r6c+i440@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h431f2+f3ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187394

> > > pippin:
> > > Snape would be ideal, if he weren't dead.

> > eggplant:
> > I disagree. If I were a wizard I'd sleep more soundly in my bed
> > knowing Harry was Master of the Elder Wand rather than Snape;

> jkoney:
> But we know that Dumbledore and Voldemort both trusted Snape.
> Voldemort didn't kill Snape because he didn't trust him, but
> because he thought Snape was the master of the Elder wand.
<SNIP>

midasgoal:

Dumbledore's plan went a bit wrong in that Draco disarmed him before Snape killed him as planned. If the plan had worked Dumbledore would have died undefeated and the power of the wand would have died with him. The plan took a bit of a twist but Harry disarmed Draco and became the true master of the Elder Wand. Just as Harry would not look for the resurrection stone, he would return the Elder Wand to Dumbledore's grave. Now we simply have to wait and see if Harry will die before he is defeated. If he does then the power of the Elder Wand will truly end. J K Rowling was smart enough to leave a little wiggle room if she decides, for lack of a better phrase, It Ain't Over.



From sydney_freud at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 21 02:16:42 2009
From: sydney_freud at yahoo.com (sydney_freud)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Weasley symbolism
Message-ID: <510230.83573.qm@web65706.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187395

Hi everyone,

I don't remember where I read/heard this but J.K. Rowling was once defending the reputation of a weasel, which inspired the Weasley family name in the books. I looked up the symbolism for a weasel to see what she meant and it appears that in a lot of European countries, the animal stands for a girl that weaves continuously (hard working like Molly?), is quite rebellious and stubborn. It is also heavily related to hair (hence the red hair?) and to fertility (hence the large number of Weasley offspring?). This aggregate of descriptors might sound weird, but I can definitely see some parallels with the Weasley family. 
I got the info from Ivan Evseev's "Dictionary of symbols and cultural archetypes" (1994). 

sydney_freud



From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Jul 21 06:56:59 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:56:59 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h42r6c+i440@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h43orr+th1i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187396

> jkoney:
> But we know that Dumbledore and Voldemort both trusted Snape. Voldemort didn't kill Snape because he didn't trust him, but because he thought Snape was the master of the Elder wand.
> 
> Obviously one of them was wrong about Snape.
> 
> His position as a spy automatically makes you question his word. Especially since he once worked for Voldemort. 
> 
> So I agree with Eggplant that I would much rather trust Harry than Snape.

Kemper now:
So you would trust Harry more than Snape because Snape was a spy?  
Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts.  

We haven't seen that from Harry who became a little more comfortable, a little more cozy with the Cruciatus curse.  To quote The Emperor: [Luke]Give in to your anger, with each passing moment you make yourself more my [the Dark Side's] servant.

My trust goes to Snape.

Kemper





From jamess at climaxgroup.com  Tue Jul 21 13:26:07 2009
From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:26:07 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Canon Veelas  WAS Re: More thoughts on the Eld
	er Wand subplot - Owner?
Message-ID: <7530E6461433DB4BA73E5C07756C6B50347F63@skoll.fareham.climax.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 187397

> > Magpie:
> > Whether or not there are supposed to be male veelas the fact that we
only see them as females and they're consistently associated with feminine
wiles etc. I think makes them all-female in this universe. And it just seems
like given all we see of Veelas, the idea that Veela hair is too
tempermental links to those Veela turning into harpie-like creatures when
they get angry etc., which Arthur cheerfully makes into a lesson about why
you shouldn't just go for the pretty face etc.
> > 
> > I don't think it's meant to be a big sexist jab, but it does seem to me
to go along with the characterization of Veela, which in turn fits into a
lot of the basic characterization of the female sex in the books. 
> 
> Alla:
> But I was wondering if male veelas are mentioned in canon. If they are
not, then I certainly agree with you, but if they are, even if as a footnote
somewhere, I do not see why I should make a conclusion that only female
veelas exist if they are not.

Magpie:
I don't think male Veelas are ever mentioned anywhere. (I think they're
female in mythology too.) But I could just not know about a reference. I
would get the same vibe from "tempermental" whether or not JKR would say
there were male Veelas or not due to the way all the Veelas we see are
characterized, but I'm not sure if JKR's ever said or originally thought out
Veelas as being only female or both male and female. I mean, if JKR was
asked and said there are fewer male Veelas but they exist I would still
think that "tempermental" would be part of the female characterizations
(tied to female sexuality etc.) we see throughout canon. 

James:

Male Veelas are directly implied by the text even though they are never
mentioned. We are given a string distinction between full Vellas and part
Vellas (thru interbreeding with humans). The existence of that distinction
requires that there is some way for full Vellas to breed, which requires
males of the species.



From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 21 13:47:49 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:47:49 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h43orr+th1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h44gu5+qp0b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187398

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
>
> > jkoney:
> > But we know that Dumbledore and Voldemort both trusted Snape. Voldemort didn't kill Snape because he didn't trust him, but because he thought Snape was the master of the Elder wand.
> > 
> > Obviously one of them was wrong about Snape.
> > 
> > His position as a spy automatically makes you question his word. Especially since he once worked for Voldemort. 
> > 
> > So I agree with Eggplant that I would much rather trust Harry than Snape.
> 
> Kemper now:
> So you would trust Harry more than Snape because Snape was a spy?  
> Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts.  
> 
> We haven't seen that from Harry who became a little more comfortable, a little more cozy with the Cruciatus curse.  To quote The Emperor: [Luke]Give in to your anger, with each passing moment you make yourself more my [the Dark Side's] servant.
> 
> My trust goes to Snape.
> 
> Kemper
>
Beatrice:  These are both good points. I particularly like the Star Wars parallel.  I maybe wrong, but it seems that Dumbledore didn't really trust anyone with the Elder wand. It doesn't seem that DD told Snape or Harry of the significance of his wand, which implies that he didn't trust either of them.  Although, one could argue that he does leave the story of the Deathly Hollows for the trio hoping that it will give them the information that they need, but they won't act on that information.

The Elder wand for me is really about temptation.  Using it to kill LV would be the temptation for Snape and Harry, but DD doesn't want to damage their souls any more than he wants Draco to damage his.  The fear of the Elder wand is not that Harry or Snape will be corrupted by the wand and start killing people like LV, the fear is that if they possess the wand it will lead others to covet the wand and leave them open to countless attacks by others who are blinded by their own desire for power.  In DD view, anyone who desires power is not fit to wield it, because power corrupts.  Take LV's comments at the end of SS/PS  (I am paraphrasing here) There is no good or evil.  Only power and those too weak to seek it... While LV is not just corrupted by power, his need for power and control are symptoms of something much worse.

Harry is disturbed by the desire that he sees in Ron and Hermione's eyes.  Not that Ron and Hermione would seek to overthrow Harry, but Harry knows that if even they are envious and covet the wand imagine the thousands or millions of others who are less scrupulous. If Harry were to keep the wand then he while possessing a fabulous wand would also leave him and the wand vulnerable to misuse.  I think the DD didn't intend anyone to be the master of the wand.  Snape would not be master of the wand, because DD would simply choose not to defend himself against Snape's attack.  Perhaps the closest albeit most imperfect parallel to this is DA practice:  while students were stunning and disarming each other all over the place, no wands changed allegiance, because they are disarming each other by mutual consent.  This is in a way to DD's death at the hands of Snape and Harry's "death" at the hands of LV.  In both cases the "victims," are actually willing participants.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jul 21 15:17:02 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:17:02 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Canon Veelas  WAS Re: More thoughts on the Eld er Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <7530E6461433DB4BA73E5C07756C6B50347F63@skoll.fareham.climax.co.uk>
Message-ID: <h44m5e+dvvb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187399

> James:
> 
> Male Veelas are directly implied by the text even though they are never
> mentioned. We are given a string distinction between full Vellas and part
> Vellas (thru interbreeding with humans). The existence of that distinction
> requires that there is some way for full Vellas to breed, which requires
> males of the species.

Magpie:
I completely follow that logic--if there are full Veelas it means they have mothers and fathers and a full Veela must have two Veela parents. But I'm not sure that really translates into the author imagining male Veela and then implying them. She avoids the question by giving half-Veelas Wizard fathers. Plus her history with genetics in the books has never been too dependent on that kind of logic. If called on to create a male Veela she might be starting from scratch. They would probably be very vain, I guess. But I still think the Veelas that we see draw from certain female stereotypes/ideas and the Veela hair draws on that same stereotype.

-m





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 21 21:27:29 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:27:29 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h43orr+th1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h45bs1+o3md@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187400

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:
>
> > jkoney:
> > But we know that Dumbledore and Voldemort both trusted Snape. Voldemort didn't kill Snape because he didn't trust him, but because he thought Snape was the master of the Elder wand.
> > 
> > Obviously one of them was wrong about Snape.
> > 
> > His position as a spy automatically makes you question his word. Especially since he once worked for Voldemort. 
> > 
> > So I agree with Eggplant that I would much rather trust Harry than Snape.
> 
> Kemper now:
> So you would trust Harry more than Snape because Snape was a spy?  
> Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts.  
> 
> We haven't seen that from Harry who became a little more comfortable, a little more cozy with the Cruciatus curse.  To quote The Emperor: [Luke]Give in to your anger, with each passing moment you make yourself more my [the Dark Side's] servant.
> 
> My trust goes to Snape.
> 
> Kemper
>
jkoney:

I'm not sure Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts as much as how they led to the death of Lilly.

Snape has already been to the dark side and must fight against it every day. Adding the wand to it would just be increasing the burden. 

Harry's action was brief and he didn't go back after Carrow once he released him. He's already showing his self control.

Snape was a member of the DE's for a while. In order to be marked and to be in the inner circle he must have already performed dark/evil acts. I can't picture Voldemort just giving him a free pass.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 21 22:36:54 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:36:54 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h45bs1+o3md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h45fu6+ep4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187401

jkoney wrote:
<snip> 
> Snape was a member of the DE's for a while. In order to be marked and to be in the inner circle he must have already performed dark/evil acts. I can't picture Voldemort just giving him a free pass.
>
Carol responds:

Not necessarily. We don't know how DE recruitment works, and the evidence (admittedly not confirmed) seems to indicate that Draco had a Dark Mark *before* he began his mission. Despite Snape's  many talents (potion making, dueling, Occlumency, and spell invention among them) we know of only one job he had as a DE, spying. If he didn't have a Dark Mark before he reported the Prophecy to Voldemort, he certainly earned one then.

Carol, noting that just spying on Dumbledore was taking a great risk (though not as great as spying on Voldemort)




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 05:09:33 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:09:33 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h45bs1+o3md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h466ud+egjf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187402

> Kemper earlier:
> So you would trust Harry more than Snape because Snape was a spy?  
> Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts.  
> > 
> > We haven't seen that from Harry who became a little more comfortable, a little more cozy with the Cruciatus curse.  To quote The Emperor: [Luke]Give in to your anger, with each passing moment you make yourself more my [the Dark Side's] servant.
> > 
> > My trust goes to Snape.

> jkoney:
> I'm not sure Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts as much as how they led to the death of Lilly.
> 
> Snape has already been to the dark side and must fight against it every day. Adding the wand to it would just be increasing the burden. 
> 
> Harry's action was brief and he didn't go back after Carrow once he released him. He's already showing his self control.

Kemper now:
I agree that he regrets Lily's death more.  But it's evident in The Prince's Tale that he recognizes it was his involvement with the Dark Arts or at least his support of the Dark Arts that brought her death and it is that which he strives to atone for: from his use of Mudblood against her to his chastising of Phineas for using the term to refer to Hermione when no one living was around to hear it, to prove he had changed; from his initial, selfish desire for Lily to live at the expense of James and Harry (see Dumbledore's contempt) to his Expecto Patronum for Harry (see Dumbledore's eyes full of tears), Snape is well into the light.

Harry regains his self control immediately after the Crucio, that's true.  But there's no need for Snape to regain self control even after Harry casts cruios and sectumsempras at him during the Flight of the Prince. There's no need to regain the self control because Snape never lost it.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 14:44:12 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:44:12 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h466ud+egjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h478js+g73i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187403

Kemper now:
I agree that he regrets Lily's death more. But it's evident in The Prince's
Tale that he recognizes it was his involvement with the Dark Arts or at least
his support of the Dark Arts that brought her death and it is that which he
strives to atone for: from his use of Mudblood against her to his chastising of
Phineas for using the term to refer to Hermione when no one living was around to
hear it, to prove he had changed; from his initial, selfish desire for Lily to
live at the expense of James and Harry (see Dumbledore's contempt) to his
Expecto Patronum for Harry (see Dumbledore's eyes full of tears), Snape is well
into the light. <SNIP>


Alla:

Not evident to me at all, sorry. It is especially not evident to me that his Expecto Patronum was for Harry. I read it as Snape's shock at Dumbledore's suggestion "For him?". I read it as his indignant response that everything that he is doing is still for Lily.

Having said that, while I do not believe that Snape changed in this way at all, I believe that he changed in a sense that he will not be tempted by Dark Arts.

JMO,

Alla.





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 15:35:15 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:35:15 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h478js+g73i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47bjj+t8r6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187404

> Kemper earlier:
> ... to his
> Expecto Patronum for Harry (see Dumbledore's eyes full of tears), Snape is well into the light. <SNIP>
 
> Alla:
> Not evident to me at all, sorry. It is especially not evident to me that his Expecto Patronum was for Harry. I read it as Snape's shock at Dumbledore's suggestion "For him?". I read it as his indignant response that everything that he is doing is still for Lily.

Kemper now:
Dumbledore asks "Have you grown to care for the boy?"
Snape replies, "For *him*?".  He casts the Patronus charm.
Dumbledore asks, "After all this time?"
Snape answers "Always." 

Which to me reads that Snape has always cared for the boy.  I take 'always' to have started upon learning of Lily's death, which seems to be when the remorse occurs.


> Alla:
> Having said that, while I do not believe that Snape changed in this way at all, I believe that he changed in a sense that he will not be tempted by Dark Arts.

Kemper now:
Yeah!

Kemper




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 15:48:26 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:26 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h47c48+rdsp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47cca+6ff2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187406

 Kemper now:
> Dumbledore asks "Have you grown to care for the boy?"
> Snape replies, "For *him*?". He casts the Patronus charm.
> Dumbledore asks, "After all this time?"
> Snape answers "Always."
>
> Which to me reads that Snape has always cared for the boy. I take 'always' to
have started upon learning of Lily's death, which seems to be when the remorse
occurs.

Alla:

Right, but Patronus Charm is Lily, which to me shows that Snape never cared for
the boy and is indignant how dare Dumbledore to suggest it and shows him who is his inspiration, his love and Dumbledore's
after all his years I read that after all his years since he first came to him
he still loves Lily.

And of course you do not have to take JKR's interview into account, but since to
me it only confirms an author's intent which I already see portrayed in the
text, I do take it into account. And she said that Snape hated Harry till the very end.

I mean, we see the clear indication that Snape did not care swat for Harry when
he first came to Dumbledore, so I do not see where you get especially that he still cared for the boy.

I could see the argument that he changed to care for him, not that I would ever agree to it based on how he treated Harry and the indignation that I see in this scene.

And before you say it, yes I know he protected Harry's life... till Dumbledore told him not to that is, that does not show me that he cared for Harry as person one bit. IMO of course.

> > Alla:
> > Having said that, while I do not believe that Snape changed in this way at
all, I believe that he changed in a sense that he will not be tempted by Dark
Arts.
>
> Kemper now:
> Yeah!


Alla:

LOL :)







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 16:11:58 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:11:58 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h45bs1+o3md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47doe+bias@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187407

> >Kemper:
> > My trust goes to Snape.

> jkoney:
> 
> I'm not sure Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts as much as how they led to the death of Lilly.
> 
> Snape has already been to the dark side and must fight against it every day. Adding the wand to it would just be increasing the burden. 
> 
> Harry's action was brief and he didn't go back after Carrow once he released him. He's already showing his self control.

Montavilla47:
Heh.  If Harry is showing self-control there, then I think Snape wins the
self-control contest when he is being repeatedly attacked and insulted by
the guy who nearly messed up everything by killing Snape's ward with a 
spell he stole from Snape.

Beatrice said something earlier which was interesting about Dumbledore
trusting neither Harry nor Snape with the Elder Wand and it struck me 
as quite ironic that Dumbledore is always telling people to trust both
Harry and Snape, and yet, as it turned out, he really didn't trust either of
them.


> jkoney:
> Snape was a member of the DE's for a while. In order to be marked and to be in the inner circle he must have already performed dark/evil acts. I can't picture Voldemort just giving him a free pass.

Montavilla47:
Not according to Bellatrix.   According to her, Snape was always "slithering" out of 
the hard assignments.  He had landed that cushy spy job, and he proved his 
ability as a spy in overhearing the prophecy and then getting away before he was
obliviated.

It's possible that Voldemort took that as a skill worth more than the ability to
torture or kill.  In such a case, it would probably work better for him NOT to 
have Snape do such deeds, but leave him relatively "undarkified" so that 
Dumbledore would hire him.

I'm not saying that IS the case, merely that it a possibility.  In the books, 
Dumbledore makes a point of asking Snape how many people he's SEEN killed, 
not how many he HAS killed.  And Snape worries about his soul being
torn when he kills Dumbledore.  Both of those moments support the idea
that Snape has never killed anyone, and the only responsibility he has for 
any deaths is the one he bears for James and Lily.

Which is interesting, when you think about it, because we see Snape
in the midst of deepest remorse.  The kind of remorse necessary to 
repair your soul.  So, perhaps he is the illustration of someone both 
tearing and repairing their soul.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jul 22 16:25:01 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:25:01 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h47bjj+t8r6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47egt+f5p4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187408

> > Kemper earlier:
> > ... to his
> > Expecto Patronum for Harry (see Dumbledore's eyes full of tears), Snape is well into the light. <SNIP>
>  
> > Alla:
> > Not evident to me at all, sorry. It is especially not evident to me that his Expecto Patronum was for Harry. I read it as Snape's shock at Dumbledore's suggestion "For him?". I read it as his indignant response that everything that he is doing is still for Lily.
> 
> Kemper now:
> Dumbledore asks "Have you grown to care for the boy?"
> Snape replies, "For *him*?".  He casts the Patronus charm.
> Dumbledore asks, "After all this time?"
> Snape answers "Always." 
> 
> Which to me reads that Snape has always cared for the boy.  I take 'always' to have started upon learning of Lily's death, which seems to be when the remorse occurs.

Magpie:
I'm with Alla in thinking it clearly says the opposite. Snape says "For *him*?" with an emphasis on him to make the point that he cares for someone, but not that guy. The Patronus Charm shows the form of the person he actually cares for. Dumbledore is moved to tears I think to see the symbol of Lily. 

If he was talking about Harry there would be no reason to say "After all this time?" because his care for Harry would be something that was recent and existing at that moment since his relationship with Harry is current. "After all this time" refers to the fact that Lily's been dead and gone for over a decade at this point, yet Snape is still inspired by his love for her. Snape's always confirms that yes, he still and always will love Lily no matter how long it's been since he's seen her.

Snape made it clear he didn't care for Harry many times over the years he knew him. That's why Dumbledore phrases his question as Snape "growing to care" for Harry, meaning over the years he's known him, directly contrasting to the "after all this time" love he's carried for Lily. 

-m




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Jul 22 16:54:04 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:54:04 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h47egt+f5p4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47g7c+maiu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187409

> Kemper earlier:
> Dumbledore asks "Have you grown to care for the boy?"
> Snape replies, "For *him*?".  He casts the Patronus charm.
> Dumbledore asks, "After all this time?"
> Snape answers "Always." 
> 
> Which to me reads that Snape has always cared for the boy.  I take 'always' to have started upon learning of Lily's death, which seems to be when the remorse occurs.

> Magpie:
> I'm with Alla in thinking it clearly says the opposite. Snape says "For *him*?" with an emphasis on him to make the point that he cares for someone, but not that guy. The Patronus Charm shows the form of the person he actually cares for. Dumbledore is moved to tears I think to see the symbol of Lily. 
> 
> If he was talking about Harry there would be no reason to say "After all this time?" because his care for Harry would be something that was recent and existing at that moment since his relationship with Harry is current. "After all this time" refers to the fact that Lily's been dead and gone for over a decade at this point, yet Snape is still inspired by his love for her. Snape's always confirms that yes, he still and always will love Lily no matter how long it's been since he's seen her.
> 
> Snape made it clear he didn't care for Harry many times over the years he knew him. That's why Dumbledore phrases his question as Snape "growing to care" for Harry, meaning over the years he's known him, directly contrasting to the "after all this time" love he's carried for Lily. 

Kemper now:
Okay.  I can understand that reading.
But it makes more sense to me that he casts the patronus 'for /him/' with emphasis meaning 'I can't believe you don't think I care about him after all I have done over all these years you old bitty!' "Expecto Patronum!"

Perhaps Dumbledore is addressing the shape of the patronus 'after all this time' knowing that the Doe equals Lily (which I don't like but whatevs.)

I think Snape made it clear that he didn't /like/ Harry which is different than not caring for him.

Kemper




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 16:56:18 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:56:18 -0000
Subject: Canon Veelas  WAS Re: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h42it0+8j1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47gbi+ab2k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187410

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Magpie:
> > Whether or not there are supposed to be male veelas the fact that we only see them as females and they're consistently associated with feminine wiles etc. I think makes them all-female in this universe. And it just seems like given all we see of Veelas, the idea that Veela hair is too tempermental links to those Veela turning into harpie-like creatures when they get angry etc., which Arthur cheerfully makes into a lesson about why you shouldn't just go for the pretty face etc.
> > 
> > I don't think it's meant to be a big sexist jab, but it does seem to me to go along with the characterization of Veela, which in turn fits into a lot of the basic characterization of the female sex in the books. 
> 
> Alla:
> But I was wondering if male veelas are mentioned in canon. If they are not, then I certainly agree with you, but if they are, even if as a footnote somewhere, I do not see why I should make a conclusion that only female veelas exist if they are not.

Montavilla47:
I'm 99% sure that only female Veela are mentioned in the books.  I just 
checked the online HP Lexicon (which would include reference to 
Fantastic Beasts), and there is no mention of male Veela.  

Fleur's relation to the Veela is through her mother's line.  Her grand-
mother was a Veela, and her mother had only daughters.  So, I suppose
it's quite possible that there are only female Veela and that they 
reproduce in pure form either asexually or that, like bees, they employ
a type of Veela drone?

Alla:
> I am not asking anybody to *imagine* male veelas, I am asking if they exist in Potterverse. And if they are, so we see female veelas as guests to Hogwarts, why can't male veelas be elsewhere.

Montavilla47:
By all evidence, no.  There aren't male Veela.  Or, if they do exist at all, they
are very different from the female, possibly very rare, and the primary 
association with Veela is as a female.

Another possibility is that "Veela" is the feminine name, and the masculine
name for a member of the same species is different.  For example, we don't
talk about male cows.  A cow is female.  A male member of the cow species is
a bull.  Likewise bees.  Male bees are called drones and their only function is 
to impregnate the female queen.  All the other bees are technically female and
they do a variety of functions in the hive, including gathering, nurturing the 
young, and fighting anything that threatens the hive.


Alla:
> However, again, let me stress if they do not exist, I think you are right and it can be easily construed as having sexist connotation IMO.

Montavilla47:
I find it pretty sexist whether male Veela do or don't exist.  The literary
point of including Veela, it seems to me, is to embody the idea of the 
feminine and make it grotesque.

But, then, I suppose the same thing could be said about the trolls and
male stereotypes.  The only difference is that there is no specific line
between trolls and something masculine, as there is between the Veela
and a "pretty face."





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 17:10:22 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:10:22 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h466ud+egjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47h5u+vrlq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187411

Beatrice: I will be dividing this post into two sections.  The first will deal with the initial question of Snape's worthiness of the Elder wand and the second will talk about this psychology, specifically centering on Harry and Lily.

> > Kemper earlier:
> > So you would trust Harry more than Snape because Snape was a spy?  
> > Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts.  
> > > 
> > > We haven't seen that from Harry who became a little more comfortable, a little more cozy with the Cruciatus curse.  To quote The Emperor: [Luke]Give in to your anger, with each passing moment you make yourself more my [the Dark Side's] servant.
> > > 
> > > My trust goes to Snape.
> 

> > jkoney:
> > I'm not sure Snape regretted his actions with the Dark Arts as much as how they led to the death of Lilly.
> > 
> > Snape has already been to the dark side and must fight against it every day. Adding the wand to it would just be increasing the burden. 
> > 
> > Harry's action was brief and he didn't go back after Carrow once he released him. He's already showing his self control.

> Kemper: Harry regains his self control immediately after the Crucio, that's true.  But there's no need for Snape to regain self control even after Harry casts cruios and sectumsempras at him during the Flight of the Prince. There's no need to regain the self control because Snape never lost it.

Beatrice: Perhaps that is the worst part of Snape's action, that he doesn't lose self-control.   Harry uses sectumsepra in essence, because he doesn't know what it does.  It is a spell that pops into his head as he is in full "fight" mode and as soon as he sees what it does he immediately regrets his actions and punishes himself emotionally for a long time after.  And most importantly he NEVER uses it again.  Snape, on the other hand, uses it deliberately during Harry's flight from Privet Drive.  True, we learn that he actually intends to use it against Death Eaters rather than against George/Harry, but no one who believes that Harry's act of using the Cruciatus Curse is unforgivable seems to believe that it is appropriate to use this kind of curse against any enemy no matter how terrible.  (I should note here that I have defended or at least excused Harry for this act, but I won't rehash this here.).  Harry, to me is more worthy, because he may act on his emotions and make mistakes, but he knows that they are his mistakes and he regrets them (or most of them).  Also, when Harry learns of the Elder wand he desires it so that he can save himself during his final battle with LV.  He does not desire it to bring about LV's destruction.  It is a fine line, but I think an important one.  While we don't know if Snape desires the wand at all, there is a part of me that believes that Snape's actions while heroic are ultimately acts of vengeance first against his abusive, muggle father; then against his romantic rival, James; and finally, against the person who murdered the only person he ever loved, LV.  Harry, on the other hand, only ever seeks vengeance in moments of heightened emotion.  In contrast to Snape, whose entire life centers around vengeance.  He is controlled certainly, but as I write this it occurs to me that Snape cannot survive the novel, because he will have no purpose after LV is destroyed.


> 
> Kemper now:
> I agree that he regrets Lily's death more.  But it's evident in The Prince's Tale that he recognizes it was his involvement with the Dark Arts or at least his support of the Dark Arts that brought her death and it is that which he strives to atone for: from his use of Mudblood against her to his chastising of Phineas for using the term to refer to Hermione when no one living was around to hear it, to prove he had changed; from his initial, selfish desire for Lily to live at the expense of James and Harry (see Dumbledore's contempt) to his Expecto Patronum for Harry (see Dumbledore's eyes full of tears), Snape is well into the light.

Beatrice: First, let me say again that I think that Snape is one of the most interesting and compelling characters in the series.  One of the major flaws of the "medium that must not be named" is that they have reduced his character to a cartoon-kind of Jesuit brother, who proctors study halls dispensing corporal punishments with relish ?a total waste of a great character and an even greater waste of a really talented actor ? okay rant over.

 I don't know that Snape's "initial selfish desire" has changed at all.  When we first see him as a child, his desire is Lily and only Lily.  Snape is willing to do whatever he needs to do to be close to her and to separate her from other (eg. Petunia).  Snape already hates muggles, but makes an exception for Lily.  The reader is led to believe that Snape's hatred comes from the abuse he receives at the hands of his father.  While here Harry sympathizes and may even feel a kind of kinship with Snape because of the way the Dursleys treat him, Harry is able to move beyond the Dursleys perhaps because of his mother's love and her sacrifice.  Snape's mother sacrifices nothing for him or nothing that we can see remaining with the man who abuses both of them rather than shielding her son from damage.

So we move into Snape's adolescence and young adulthood.  Snape is tormented by James certainly.  Both boys are fueled by their feelings for Lily and their contempt for the other position on matters of pure blood.  Not that I excuse James's behavior, but then again neither does Harry and we are only privy to a couple moments of their rivalry.   Snape still hates muggles despite the fact that his great love is muggle-born. Snape seems to place her above muggles and muggle-borns by virtue of his feelings for her.  Even so, he can't hide his hatred and the growing darkness in his heart and eventually drives her away.  

As adults, Snape and Lily find themselves on opposite sides of a very great divide.  Snape seems to relish his position as a Death Eater and as we know relates the prophesy that ultimately sends LV after Lily Potter and her family.  We hear with contempt that Snape has begged for her life over that of her husband and son.  Perhaps Snape even sees this as an opportunity to rid himself of his rivals for Lily, but he also recognizes the danger here.  He doesn't trust that the Dark Lord will spare Lily, perhaps he has seen too much of the Dark Lord's "mercy" and his "rewards."  So Snape goes to Dumbledore as a means to an end and accepts his mission in return for DD's protection of Lily, oh yeah and her family as an after-thought.  

When Lily is murdered and Harry survives, Snape is devastated, but ultimately feels nothing for Harry other than a duty toward Lily at DD's urging.  Snape meets Harry and immediately sees James and Harry's mediocrity.  Snape is angry.  He hates Harry.  He wants Harry to be like Lily perhaps, but doesn't allow himself to her in him.  Snape protects Harry and abuses him at the same time.  Snape protects him, because ultimately he is Lily's son, abuses him because Harry is also James's son and  perhaps because he sees mediocre Harry as unworthy of Lily's love and sacrifice.  IMO  Snape never changes in this position.  Snape has more than one opportunity to see Lily's nature in Harry and Snape fails utterly and completely.  Snape even sees the abuse that Harry is subject to at the hands of the Dursleys and cannot muster any compassion for him.  Harry, on the other hand, is ashamed of his father's treatment of Snape and quite sympathetic to Snape's younger abused self.  When if ever does Snape show compassion for anyone other than himself and Lily?  Even in death Snape only has a moment of looking at Harry's eyes, Lily's eyes before he dies.  Throughout his life, Snape seems motivated by his own selfish desires, no consumed by them and his horrible prejudices.  That he simply shifts his prejudices from one faction to the other is hardly surprising given the way in which he is scarred, but it hardly makes him a noble or worthy person.
> 







From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 17:36:52 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:36:52 -0000
Subject: oops....
Message-ID: <h47ink+tat1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187412

I mispelled psychology.....sorry, my bad. - Beatrice




From susanfullin at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 20:14:00 2009
From: susanfullin at yahoo.com (Susan Curcio)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Snape's Patronus (was Re: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?)
In-Reply-To: <h47egt+f5p4@eGroups.com>
References: <h47egt+f5p4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <643531.19630.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187413

Magpie:
> I'm with Alla in thinking it clearly says the opposite.
Snape says "For *him*?" with an emphasis on him to make
the point that he cares for someone, but not that guy. The
Patronus Charm shows the form of the person he actually
cares for. Dumbledore is moved to tears I think to see the
> symbol of Lily.


Susan writes:
I agree with this, except the part about DD moved to
tears after seeing Snape's Patronum. I always thought
that it was SNAPE that had tears in his eyes, as DD
turned to him after seeing the doe. Am I the only one
who thinks this?



From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Jul 22 21:03:17 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:03:17 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h47g7c+maiu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h47uql+v1s6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187414

Sorry for that last message, somehow it got sent way too soon

 "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> wrote:

> I think Snape made it clear that he
> didn't /like/ Harry which is different than not caring for him.

Yes I think that's true, and in a way that is the opposite of Dumbledore, he liked Harry, loved him even, but he didn't care for him. 

Dumbledore says: "If I know him he [Harry] will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort".
 
So if everything had gone according to Dumbledore's plan then both Harry and Voldemort would have died in their first encounter in the forest that night. But as Harry says, Dumbledore overestimated him; he was unable to dispose of the snake. When Harry confronted Voldemort
in the Forbidden forest both were injured, both were knocked out but Voldemort didn't die because the Snake still lived and Harry didn't die because the snake still lived. If Harry had killed the snake both would have died.

This is what Dumbledore wanted this is what he expected. When Snape responds with horror:
 
"You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" 

Dumbledore seems to dismiss Snape's reservations as trivial: 

"Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and woman have you watched die?" 

Snape: You have been raising him like a pig for slaughter."

Dumbledore: But this is touching Severus, have you grown to care for the boy after all?

Dumbledore is sneering. Dumbledore is sneering at Snape because he is reluctant to passively watch a 17 year old boy get murdered, even one he didn't like. 

I'm not saying Dumbledore was happy about the prospect of Harry's death, he certainly was not! And I'm not criticizing him; Dumbledore did what had to be done in a time of war, but at least in this instance Dumbledore's emotions seem a little more human than Dumbledore's. And this is coming from a founding member of the I Hate Snape club. 

Eggplant 

PS: My negative feelings toward Snape have softened a bit after book 7 came out, but I still wouldn't want to get stuck in a elevator with the man.






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 22:16:47 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:16:47 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h47h5u+vrlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4834f+88k1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187415

> Beatrice: 
I will be dividing this post into two sections.  The first will deal with the initial question of Snape's worthiness of the Elder wand and the second will talk about this psychology, specifically centering on Harry and Lily.
> 

<snip>
> > Kemper: Harry regains his self control immediately after the Crucio, that's true.  But there's no need for Snape to regain self control even after Harry casts cruios and sectumsempras at him during the Flight of the Prince. There's no need to regain the self control because Snape never lost it.
> 
> Beatrice: Perhaps that is the worst part of Snape's action, that he doesn't lose self-control.   Harry uses sectumsepra in essence, because he doesn't know what it does.  It is a spell that pops into his head as he is in full "fight" mode and as soon as he sees what it does he immediately regrets his actions and punishes himself emotionally for a long time after.  

Montavilla47:
Um.  No, he doesn't.  Harry feels bad for about ten minutes, while Draco
is lying on the floor bleeding and Snape is healing him.  Then, when
Snape returns from taking Draco to the Hospital Wing and begins 
questioning Harry, that guilty feeling is transformed into defiance and
anger.

Later on, when Harry discusses it with his friends, he's mainly annoyed 
at Hermione for being shocked and blaming the Prince, and relieved
that Ginny is defending him.  Any other guilt he might feel is 
transfered to the Prince for "betraying" Harry by inventing the spell in
the first place.

Beatrice:
And most importantly he NEVER uses it again. 

Montavilla47:
Yes he does.  He uses it in the cave when he's surrounded by
Inferi.  It doesn't work on them, of course, but he's incorporated it
into his repertoire of spells.  As Hermione later incorporates the 
Muffliato spell she scorned in HBP.

Beatrice:
Snape, on the other hand, uses it deliberately during Harry's flight from Privet Drive.  True, we learn that he actually intends to use it against Death Eaters rather than against George/Harry, but no one who believes that Harry's act of using the Cruciatus Curse is unforgivable seems to believe that it is appropriate to use this kind of curse against any enemy no matter how terrible.  (I should note here that I have defended or at least excused Harry for this act, but I won't rehash this here.).  

Montavilla47:
Crucio is an unforgivable curse, and it's only purpose is to cause pain.
Sectumsempra is a spell not currently approved by the Ministry 
(whatever that means) and "Dark Magic" (according to Snape who ought
to know).  "Dark Magic" and "Unforgivable are not the same thing.

We don't know what Snape intended for his spell to do to the other
Death Eater.  Maybe he intended to cut off the other DE's hand.  Maybe
he wanted to cause a distraction by simply cutting in a controlled manner.
Maybe he wanted to cut off the front of the broom and cause it to unbalance.
Or maybe he wanted to cut the guy's ear off.

We can't know that.  What we do know (although how Harry knows this
I can't figure out), is that Snape was attempting to use the spell in order
to *protect* someone, while Harry was using Crucio to avenge an insult
towards someone he cared about.

Beatrice:
Harry, to me is more worthy, because he may act on his emotions and make mistakes, but he knows that they are his mistakes and he regrets them (or most of them).  Also, when Harry learns of the Elder wand he desires it so that he can save himself during his final battle with LV.  He does not desire it to bring about LV's destruction.  It is a fine line, but I think an important one.  

Montavilla47:
Harry's survival is Voldemort's destruction.  If Harry is "merely" hoping to
survive their encounter, then he's denying his entire quest.

Beatrice:
While we don't know if Snape desires the wand at all, there is a part of me that believes that Snape's actions while heroic are ultimately acts of vengeance first against his abusive, muggle father; then against his romantic rival, James; and finally, against the person who murdered the only person he ever loved, LV.  Harry, on the other hand, only ever seeks vengeance in moments of heightened emotion.  In contrast to Snape, whose entire life centers around vengeance. 

Montavilla47:
I beg to differ.  

We see that Snape doesn't care much for his father (when he's ten), not that
Snape desires or contemplates any sort of vengence towards his father.

We see Snape (in a moment of heightened emotion), accidentally harm
a muggle, Petunia.  He is described as scared and ashamed immediately
afterward, denying that he even did it at all, let alone intentionally.  I don't
see any evidence of vengance there.  If he is acting in vengence, his reaction
shows no satisfaction.

When James and Sirius attack Snape, he acts in a moment of heightened 
emotion.  There is only that remark about Snaoe "giving as good as he 
got" to indicate that Snape acted vengefully toward James at any time.  
Which is no more vengeful than Harry and Draco firing spells at each 
other in nearly every book, or Harry making Goyle's toenails grow.

When Snape approaches Dumbledore, it is to beg protection for
Lily, not to ask for revenge against Voldemort.  When Snape is 
devastated by LIly's death, he isn't thinking about revenge or anything
besides his own grief.  Dumbledore doesn't appeal to Snape on 
the basis of revenge, but on the basis of protection.  To *protect*
Lily's son and thus keep her sacrifice alive. 

Beatrice:
>He is controlled certainly, but as I write this it occurs to me that
>Snape cannot survive the novel, because he will have no purpose 
>after LV is destroyed.

Montavilla47:
There are a number of Snape fans who feel that Snape's life
has been hogtied by his obligation to Dumbledore--an obligation 
motivated by a desire to protect, not a desire for vengeance.

But Snape is not nothing once Voldemort is dead.  Snape is 
a genius at potions and a knowledgeable opponent of the 
Dark Arts.  He was ambitious.  Without the need to channel
that ambition into destroying a great evil, he could use it to
invent new spells or potions or publish textbooks in either 
Potions or D.A.D.A.

He doesn't seem to like teaching that much.  At least not
Potions (he seems a lot happier to me teaching D.A.D.A.), 
but there are any number of other professions he could 
take up--such as cursebreaking for Gringotts--and many
brilliant projects he could undertake.

> Beatrice:
>  I don't know that Snape's "initial selfish desire" has changed at all.  When we first see him as a child, his desire is Lily and only Lily.  Snape is willing to do whatever he needs to do to be close to her and to separate her from other (eg. Petunia).  Snape already hates muggles, but makes an exception for Lily.  

Montavilla47:
I don't see that Snape hates muggles.  He hates Petunia, but then, so does
everyone except Lily.

Beatrice:
The reader is led to believe that Snape's hatred comes from the abuse he receives at the hands of his father.  While here Harry sympathizes and may even feel a kind of kinship with Snape because of the way the Dursleys treat him, Harry is able to move beyond the Dursleys perhaps because of his mother's love and her sacrifice.  

Montavilla47:
Really?  When does Harry show any love towards muggles?

Beatrice:
> So we move into Snape's adolescence and young adulthood.  Snape is tormented by James certainly.  Both boys are fueled by their feelings for Lily and their contempt for the other position on matters of pure blood.  

Montavilla47:
I don't see Snape or James's conflict as coming out of differing views on 
pure blood, but being personal.  Which is what Dumbledore tells Harry in 
the first book.  If they do feel intellectual contempt for each other, it's not
on the basis of blood, but on the basis of House affiliation, which is not 
quite the same thing.


Beatrice:
Not that I excuse James's behavior, but then again neither does Harry and we are only privy to a couple moments of their rivalry.   Snape still hates muggles despite the fact that his great love is muggle-born. Snape seems to place her above muggles and muggle-borns by virtue of his feelings for her.  Even so, he can't hide his hatred and the growing darkness in his heart and eventually drives her away.  

Montavilla47:
Where does Snape ever show hatred for muggles?  Except for that moment of 
heightened emotion, where he calls Lily a mudblood, the only thing he does is 
condone his friends teasing a muggle-born girl.

Harry condones his friend permanently scarring a Ravenclaw girl.  That 
doesn't mean he hates Ravenclaws.  He condones his friends shutting a 
Quidditch player in a cabinet for days.  That doesn't mean he hates 
Quidditch players.

Beatrice:
> As adults, Snape and Lily find themselves on opposite sides of a very great divide.  Snape seems to relish his position as a Death Eater and as we know relates the prophesy that ultimately sends LV after Lily Potter and her family. 

Montavilla47:
When do we ever see Snape "relishing" his position as a Death Eater?

Beatrice:
 We hear with contempt that Snape has begged for her life over that of her husband and son.  Perhaps Snape even sees this as an opportunity to rid himself of his rivals for Lily, but he also recognizes the danger here.  He doesn't trust that the Dark Lord will spare Lily, perhaps he has seen too much of the Dark Lord's "mercy" and his "rewards."  So Snape goes to Dumbledore as a means to an end and accepts his mission in return for DD's protection of Lily, oh yeah and her family as an after-thought.  

Montavilla47:
Right, but there's no indication--ever--that Snape saw this as an 
opportunity to rid himself of his rivals for Lily.  Dumbledore's contempt is 
based on Snape's indifference towards James and Harry, not any hidden or
blatant desire on Snape's part to free up Lily for himself.

It seems that if that motivation were supposed to be part of Snape's 
thinking, then Dumbledore would have brought that up, instead of 
mere indifference.


Beatrice:
> When Lily is murdered and Harry survives, Snape is devastated, but ultimately feels nothing for Harry other than a duty toward Lily at DD's urging.  Snape meets Harry and immediately sees James and Harry's mediocrity.  Snape is angry.  He hates Harry.  He wants Harry to be like Lily perhaps, but doesn't allow himself to her in him.  Snape protects Harry and abuses him at the same time.  Snape protects him, because ultimately he is Lily's son, abuses him because Harry is also James's son and  perhaps because he sees mediocre Harry as unworthy of Lily's love and sacrifice.  IMO  Snape never changes in this position.  Snape has more than one opportunity to see Lily's nature in Harry and Snape fails utterly and completely.  

Montavilla47:
I agree with all of that, with the except of the word "abuses," because I don't 
believe that Snape did abuse Harry.  He was hard on Harry.  He was unfair
to Harry.  That doesn't necessarily rise to the level of abuse.

Beatrice:
Snape even sees the abuse that Harry is subject to at the hands of the Dursleys and cannot muster any compassion for him.  

Montavilla47:
That's ambiguous.  I think his question about the dog is a tiny bit 
of compassion.  But I understand if you don't think that.

Beatrice:
Harry, on the other hand, is ashamed of his father's treatment of Snape and quite sympathetic to Snape's younger abused self.  

Montavilla47:
I agree with you there.  Harry is definitely more compassionate than
Snape about that.  Although, I'm not sure there needs to be a contest.

Beatrice:
When if ever does Snape show compassion for anyone other than himself and Lily? 

Montavilla47:
When he swears an unbreakable vow to Narcissa to protect her son.  In 
contrast to Dumbledore, Snape vows to protect Draco without asking 
anything in return.

Beatrice:
Even in death Snape only has a moment of looking at Harry's eyes, Lily's eyes before he dies.  Throughout his life, Snape seems motivated by his own selfish desires, no consumed by them and his horrible prejudices.  

Montavilla47:
Yes, he *seems* that way.  That's because the author is playing a 
twist on us.  The whole point of the Prince's Tale is to show us that
Snape, who seemed to be motivated by envy, selfish ambition, 
horrible prejudice and vengeance, was instead motivated by love.

Beatrice:
That he simply shifts his prejudices from one faction to the other is hardly surprising given the way in which he is scarred, but it hardly makes him a noble or worthy person.


Montavilla47:
I was going to beg to differ again, but I don't think it's right
to call him a "noble or worthy person" either.  He's a person.
And in every person the "noble and worthy" is implied.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 22:22:20 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:22:20 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus (was Re: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?)
In-Reply-To: <643531.19630.qm@web45811.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <h483es+eju2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187416

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Susan Curcio <susanfullin at ...> wrote:

> I always thought that it was SNAPE that had tears in his eyes, 
> as DD turned to him after seeing the doe. Am I the only one
> who thinks this?


zanooda:

I've always thought the tears were Dumbledore's, not Snape's :-).

"Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears". 

I believe if it was Snape, it would have been something like "...turned back to Snape whose eyes were full of tears"... :-).






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jul 22 22:22:47 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:22:47 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h47uql+v1s6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h483fn+jfvh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187417

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:

Eggplant:
> I'm not saying Dumbledore was happy about the prospect of Harry's death, he certainly was not! And I'm not criticizing him; Dumbledore did what had to be done in a time of war, but at least in this instance Dumbledore's emotions seem a little more human than Dumbledore's. And this is coming from a founding member of the I Hate Snape club. 

Geoff:
Just for clarification, I think there's a typo there.... Is what you are really saying: 
"but at least in this instance Snape's emotions seem a little more human than 
Dumbledore's."?





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 22 22:24:11 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:24:11 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h47uql+v1s6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h483ib+esar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187418

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
> Sorry for that last message, somehow it got sent way too soon
> 
>  "kempermentor" <iam.kemper@> wrote:
> 
> > I think Snape made it clear that he
> > didn't /like/ Harry which is different than not caring for him.
> 
> Yes I think that's true, and in a way that is the opposite of Dumbledore, he liked Harry, loved him even, but he didn't care for him. 
> 
> Dumbledore says: "If I know him he [Harry] will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort".
>  
> So if everything had gone according to Dumbledore's plan then both Harry and Voldemort would have died in their first encounter in the forest that night. But as Harry says, Dumbledore overestimated him; he was unable to dispose of the snake. When Harry confronted Voldemort
> in the Forbidden forest both were injured, both were knocked out but Voldemort didn't die because the Snake still lived and Harry didn't die because the snake still lived. If Harry had killed the snake both would have died.
> 
Beatrice:  This is not how I read this at all.  I believe that DD always believed that Harry would survive his encounter with LV.  He simply couldn't tell Snape this.  First, DD knew that LV took Harry's blood which would tie Harry to LV's body thus binding him to earth because LV was taking Lily's sacrifice into himself.  Second, DD needed Harry not to fight back, because by not fighting back it meant that Harry was giving his own protection to the whole Wizarding World, and Harry would not technically be disarmed or vanquished by LV (this works out for the ownership of the Elder wand that DD did not forsee.). Third, Harry must believe that he was truly going to die in order to provide the same protection that Lily gave to him.  Fourth, Snape could not know this in case LV was able to read Snapes mind.  Fifth, I don't believe that DD expected Harry to kill the snake before he "dies" at the hands of LV.  Remember that DD tells Snape to tell Harry all this WHEN LV fears for the life of the snake.  DD believes that Harry, et al will be discovered to be hunting horcruxes and then Nagini will be placed under protection right next to LV.  LV will only lift that protection when he believed that the threat to Nagini and himself was eliminated, eg. when Harry is dead.  Notice that LV immediately removes the enchanted cage from Nagini after Harry's 'death' and then Neville is able to kill the snake.  

> This is what Dumbledore wanted this is what he expected. When Snape responds with horror:
>  
> "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" 
> 
> Dumbledore seems to dismiss Snape's reservations as trivial: 
> 
> "Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and woman have you watched die?" 
> 
> Snape: You have been raising him like a pig for slaughter."
> 
> Dumbledore: But this is touching Severus, have you grown to care for the boy after all?
> 
> Dumbledore is sneering. Dumbledore is sneering at Snape because he is reluctant to passively watch a 17 year old boy get murdered, even one he didn't like. 

Beatrice:  DD sneering?  No, well, maybe a little.  DD is reminding Snape of his own humanity, perhaps hoping that Snape has come to care for Harry a little over the years despite his open hostility toward Harry.  I think that DD finds it difficult to believe that one could know Harry and not care for him.  Think of all of the friendships, and love that Harry inspires throughout all of the novels....far too many to list here.  Snape alone seems to be impervious to Harry's kindness and friendship.  (Well along with other Death Eaters.

> 
> I'm not saying Dumbledore was happy about the prospect of Harry's death, he certainly was not! And I'm not criticizing him; Dumbledore did what had to be done in a time of war, but at least in this instance Dumbledore's emotions seem a little more human than Dumbledore's. And this is coming from a founding member of the I Hate Snape club. 
> 
> Eggplant 
> 
> PS: My negative feelings toward Snape have softened a bit after book 7 came out, but I still wouldn't want to get stuck in a elevator with the man.
>





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 23 00:37:49 2009
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:37:49 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h483ib+esar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48bct+3ih4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187419

Beatrice: 
> This is not how I read this at all. I believe that DD always
> believed that Harry would survive his encounter with LV. He simply couldn't
> tell Snape this. First, DD knew that LV took Harry's blood which would tie
> Harry to LV's body thus binding him to earth because LV was taking Lily's
> sacrifice into himself. 

Ceridwen:
If the events at the end of GoF are one reason why you believe DD always believed Harry would survive, then you must actually believe that DD only began to believe that LV's using Harry's blood would bind Harry (I take it you mean Harry here?) to the earth / not allow him to die / create a Horcrux for Harry after the events of GoF and not before.  Before then, DD could not have anticipated any effect from this action because this action did not exist.

Beatrice:
> Second, DD needed Harry not to fight back, because by
> not fighting back it meant that Harry was giving his own protection to the whole
> Wizarding World, and Harry would not technically be disarmed or vanquished by LV
> (this works out for the ownership of the Elder wand that DD did not forsee.).

Ceridwen:
How does this show that DD always believed Harry would survive?  Until DHs, Harry was particularly known for taking action.  PS/SS - went to save the Philosopher's Stone.  CoS - Went into Chamber of Secrets to save Ginny Weasley.  PoA - snuck into Hogsmeade in his Invisibility Cloak after being told by several people not to; followed the dog dragging Ron into the Shrieking Shack and confronted a murderer.  GoF - Saved extras in his underwater task.  OotP - Rushed off to the Ministry.  HBP - at this point DD knew Harry well enough to petrify him on the Astronomy Tower.  Harry is the opposite of not fighting when the fight presents itself.  And, in the absence of DD's knowledge, how can Harry assume that on this occasion he isn't supposed to vanquish the Dark Lord, he's supposed to let the Dark Lord vanquish him?  I don't think this shows that DD could have had the assurance that Harry would not fight when a fight was upon him in order to survive later.

Beatrice:
> Third, Harry must believe that he was truly going to die in order to provide the
> same protection that Lily gave to him. 

Ceridwen:
In my opinion, I don't see how this shows that Dumbledore always believed Harry would survive.  This is another thing Dumbledore needs for Harry to do or believe, yet he doesn't tell him.

Beatrice:
> Fourth, Snape could not know this in
> case LV was able to read Snapes mind. 

Ceridwen:
This doesn't show why DD thought Harry would survive.  It makes a decent leap of logic for why DD didn't tell Snape, but then, it would negate the other things that DD did tell Snape even though LV might be able to read his mind - like the fact that DD was dying all year and that it was Snape who gave him the extra time, that DD asked, even badgered, Snape to kill him instead of allowing or forcing Draco to do it, that the Seven Potters was going to happen.  All of these things would have put a glitch in DD's plans if LV read them in Snape's mind, yet DD told Snape.  I think Aberforth's reading of his brother was correct - he liked to keep secrets and he learned that very young.  It does show that DD might have kept his beliefs from Snape, but not why DD held those beliefs.

Beatrice:
> Fifth, I don't believe that DD expected
> Harry to kill the snake before he "dies" at the hands of LV.
*snipping rest on same topic*

Ceridwen:
This shows what you believe DD thought, and it sounds reasonable.  This doesn't show why DD believed Harry would ultimately survive his duel with LV.

Beatrice:
*snipping*
> I think that DD finds it
> difficult to believe that one could know Harry and not care for him.

Ceridwen:
He may.  He likes Harry well enough himself and it's hard for someone to imagine others not liking the same people that someone likes.  It happens, though; it doesn't make a person any less human for not liking someone that other people like.  No one can be liked by everyone.  No one can like everyone.  It removes a person's humanity to demand that they like someone against their inclinations.  In my opinion, in such a case, the most that can be expected is that the person who doesn't like the other person be somewhat civil, and the best course of action would be to make sure they're not forced together too often.

Eggplant:
> PS: My negative feelings toward Snape have softened a bit after book 7 came
> out, but I still wouldn't want to get stuck in a elevator with the man.

Ceridwen:
LOL!  I wouldn't mind being stuck in an elevator with Snape (I presume you mean in a stalled elevator).  Our one building's elevators don't work more than half the time -  I think Snape'd be just the person to get the darned things moving again ASAP.  :)

Ceridwen.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 00:49:01 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:49:01 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h48bct+3ih4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48c1t+ckhf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187420

> Ceridwen:
> He may.  He likes Harry well enough himself and it's hard for someone to imagine others not liking the same people that someone likes.  It happens, though; it doesn't make a person any less human for not liking someone that other people like.  No one can be liked by everyone.  No one can like everyone.  It removes a person's humanity to demand that they like someone against their inclinations.  In my opinion, in such a case, the most that can be expected is that the person who doesn't like the other person be somewhat civil, and the best course of action would be to make sure they're not forced together too often.
 <SNIP>

Alla:

Actually I agree to a large extent. I always thought that it would have done Snape's mental health a whole lot of good if he would have been able to like Harry.

However, however I certainly do not think that Snape should have been FORCED to like Harry. In fact I do not think that Dumbledore should have forced Snape to protect Harry either.

What I do not agree is the extent that you seem to be saying one person who dislikes each other should behavein this situation.

In my opinion teacher who dislikes (or in my view hates) the student better made sure that he is more than somewhat civil to such student. Teacher who dislikes the student and who is complicit in the deaths of his parents like Snape was IMO should be even more civil.

And by civil I just mean not to show his hatred, that's all. I think at that Snape failed spectacularly.

But no, I do not think Dumbledore had any right to force Snape to like Harry.

JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 01:03:21 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:03:21 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4834f+88k1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48csp+bk53@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187421

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
I beg to differ.

We see that Snape doesn't care much for his father (when he's ten), not that
Snape desires or contemplates any sort of vengeance towards his father.

We see Snape (in a moment of heightened emotion), accidentally harm
a muggle, Petunia. He is described as scared and ashamed immediately
afterward, denying that he even did it at all, let alone intentionally. I don't
see any evidence of vengeance there. If he is acting in vengeance, his reaction
shows no satisfaction.

Alla:

I do not see any evidence of vengeance either in his demeanor here. What I do see however is the early evidence that Snape belongs right there with Slytherins. I do not see evidence of vengeance, what I do see however is the evidence of sneakiness. I think we established that Snape is a good actor (except where James and Harry are concerned), so sure IMO of course he would play being all ashamed of himself, etc. Why? I speculate to make an impression of Lily. I also think that he is already jealous of Petunia and this is what caused this accident too. He may not show satisfaction on his face, but I think it is very likely that in his heart he was very satisfied.

Petunia after all his rival for being Lily's playmate, etc. I do not like Petunia, never did for her behavior to Harry, but I do see her as victim here.

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
I don't see that Snape hates muggles. He hates Petunia, but then, so does
everyone except Lily. <SNIP>

Alla:

There is also his hesitation to Lily's question and of course him joining DE. We do not know of course the exact reasons why he joined, but I think that it is not a huge leap of logic at all that he joined because he just may have liked the ideas of the organization that he was joining a lot.


Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
Where does Snape ever show hatred for muggles? Except for that moment of
heightened emotion, where he calls Lily a mudblood, the only thing he does is
condone his friends teasing a muggle-born girl. <SNIP>

Alla:

Only if "mudblood" is considered teasing, but I get the impression that it considered to be much more than teasing and as I am sure I said before that I think that under stress person often shows his true colors and a lot of bad things that person has control over when he is calm may come out to the general public. IMO of course.

Montavilla47:
Right, but there's no indication--ever--that Snape saw this as an
opportunity to rid himself of his rivals for Lily. Dumbledore's contempt is
based on Snape's indifference towards James and Harry, not any hidden or
blatant desire on Snape's part to free up Lily for himself.

Alla:

I know we had been through this, but I think that the fact that he does not care for their lives indicates in itself that he may have wanted Lily for himself, no reminder from Dumbledore needed.

And here is a question I wanted to ask when we discussed it last time, but I do not believe I did. People are sure that Snape did not talk to Lily after that scene and before her death and in fact never saw her. Where does it say so in canon? For all I know Snape stood under her windows for hours and hours, watching her, etc and wishing that he could have had her and wishing for James to die asap, etc.

Where does it say in canon that Snape never saw Lily after they had that apology scene?


JMO,

Alla





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jul 23 01:30:43 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:30:43 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h48csp+bk53@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48eg3+9stf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187422

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> I don't see that Snape hates muggles. He hates Petunia, but then, so does
> everyone except Lily. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> There is also his hesitation to Lily's question and of course him joining DE. We do not know of course the exact reasons why he joined, but I think that it is not a huge leap of logic at all that he joined because he just may have liked the ideas of the organization that he was joining a lot.

Magpie:
Doesn't he say something like "she's only a Muggle" when Lily complains that Petunia's mad at her?

I don't get the impression he has a burning hatred of Muggles (though I would think his Half-Blood Prince identity to him is clearly the superior half and the inferior half) but I think even at his youngest he's got the basic Wizard disdain for them that only would have gotten more pronounced at Hogwarts and in Slytherin.

For Muggleborns--who knows? I don't think he hated them either, probably, but I think he probably thought he was superior to them as a Half-Blood.

-m




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 02:15:31 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:15:31 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h48csp+bk53@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48h43+9nfe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187423

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> I beg to differ.
> 
> We see that Snape doesn't care much for his father (when he's ten), not that
> Snape desires or contemplates any sort of vengeance towards his father.
> 
> We see Snape (in a moment of heightened emotion), accidentally harm
> a muggle, Petunia. He is described as scared and ashamed immediately
> afterward, denying that he even did it at all, let alone intentionally. I don't
> see any evidence of vengeance there. If he is acting in vengeance, his reaction
> shows no satisfaction.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I do not see any evidence of vengeance either in his demeanor here. What I do see however is the early evidence that Snape belongs right there with Slytherins. I do not see evidence of vengeance, what I do see however is the evidence of sneakiness. 

Montavilla47:
I'll give you the sneakiness.  What I was arguing against was a charge that
Snape's entire life centered around vengeance.  

Alla:
I think we established that Snape is a good actor (except where James and Harry are concerned), so sure IMO of course he would play being all ashamed of himself, etc. Why? I speculate to make an impression of Lily. I also think that he is already jealous of Petunia and this is what caused this accident too. He may not show satisfaction on his face, but I think it is very likely that in his heart he was very satisfied.

Montavilla47:
I won't dispute that Snape is a good actor, but his talent doesn't seem 
to lie in crying crocodile tears.  He seems to always be downplaying 
his emotions, except for that spectacular tantrum he threw in PoA--
and that seemed completely genuine.  

Hiding your emotions and drawing up emotions on command are 
different things.  Being good at one doesn't mean you're good at the
other.  In my experience, the opposite is true.  Being good at hiding
your emotions makes you terrible at displaying ones you don't have.

Even if Snape was happy at Petunia's distress, he was quite unhappy
at Lily's reaction.

Alla: 
> Petunia after all his rival for being Lily's playmate, etc. I do not like Petunia, never did for her behavior to Harry, but I do see her as victim here.

Montavilla47:
Perhaps you would be less sympathetic if she were being eaten
by a snake?  Or if the thing hitting her on the head were a glass
of mead?

;-)

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> I don't see that Snape hates muggles. He hates Petunia, but then, so does
> everyone except Lily. <SNIP>
> 
> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> I don't see that Snape hates muggles. He hates Petunia, but then, so does
> everyone except Lily. <SNIP>
>
> Alla:
>
> There is also his hesitation to Lily's question and of course him joining DE.
We do not know of course the exact reasons why he joined, but I think that it is
not a huge leap of logic at all that he joined because he just may have liked
the ideas of the organization that he was joining a lot.

>Magpie:
>Doesn't he say something like "she's only a Muggle" when Lily complains that
>Petunia's mad at her?

>I don't get the impression he has a burning hatred of Muggles (though I would
>think his Half-Blood Prince identity to him is clearly the superior half and the
>inferior half) but I think even at his youngest he's got the basic Wizard
>disdain for them that only would have gotten more pronounced at Hogwarts and in
>Slytherin.

>For Muggleborns--who knows? I don't think he hated them either, probably, but I
>think he probably thought he was superior to them as a Half-Blood.> 


Montavilla47:
I'll agree that he thought he was superior to both muggles and 
muggle-born.  But that doesn't mean he hates them.  That's 
because I'm drawing a line between contempt and hate.  But I 
don't want to insist on that line.  If you choose to put contempt 
and hatred in the same basket, then it's hate.  I just don't see
those two things as exact equivalents.


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> Where does Snape ever show hatred for muggles? Except for that moment of
> heightened emotion, where he calls Lily a mudblood, the only thing he does is
> condone his friends teasing a muggle-born girl. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Only if "mudblood" is considered teasing, but I get the impression that it considered to be much more than teasing and as I am sure I said before that I think that under stress person often shows his true colors and a lot of bad things that person has control over when he is calm may come out to the general public. IMO of course.

Montavilla47:
It was considered more than teasing to Lily.  How it looked to
anyone else is anyone's guess.  And Lily seems quick to jump to
other people's defense--unless she's attacking them.  

I'm not trying to minimize whatever it was that happened to 
Mary McDonald.  I just don't know if it's better or worse than,
say, James enlarging someone's head, or Draco enlarging 
Hermione's teeth, because it's not specific and because the 
person getting outraged at it has gotten outraged about 
five times in the same chapter from things ranging from
childish insults to bodily harm.

> 
> Montavilla47:
> Right, but there's no indication--ever--that Snape saw this as an
> opportunity to rid himself of his rivals for Lily. Dumbledore's contempt is
> based on Snape's indifference towards James and Harry, not any hidden or
> blatant desire on Snape's part to free up Lily for himself.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I know we had been through this, but I think that the fact that he does not care for their lives indicates in itself that he may have wanted Lily for himself, no reminder from Dumbledore needed.
> 
> And here is a question I wanted to ask when we discussed it last time, but I do not believe I did. People are sure that Snape did not talk to Lily after that scene and before her death and in fact never saw her. Where does it say so in canon? For all I know Snape stood under her windows for hours and hours, watching her, etc and wishing that he could have had her and wishing for James to die asap, etc.
> 
> Where does it say in canon that Snape never saw Lily after they had that apology scene?

Montavilla47:
As far as I know, canon doesn't indicate either way.  Perhaps
Snape and Lily did make up.  Perhaps they had a torrid affair
and Harry is really Snape's son.  Hehe.

But, since the Prince's Tale shows this apology scene as the 
last one in the series, storytelling traditions support the notion
that, even if they did speak again, nothing in their relationship
changed from that point onward.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 02:30:56 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:30:56 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h48h43+9nfe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48i10+qtlq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187424

Alla:
<SNIP>
> Petunia after all his rival for being Lily's playmate, etc. I do not like
Petunia, never did for her behavior to Harry, but I do see her as victim here.

Montavilla47:
<HUGE SNIP>
Perhaps you would be less sympathetic if she were being eaten
by a snake? Or if the thing hitting her on the head were a glass
of mead?

;-)


Alla:

Somehow I miss your point here. Smiley seems to indicate irony and/or sarcasm, but I really cannot figure it out. Could you help me?

Are you trying to say that it is somehow hypocritical of me to find the person being a victim in one situation and hate the person in many other situations? If that is what you are saying, could you explain why is it hypocritical? Unless the person is a cartoonish monster, even the most horrible person could be in situations where one can feel pity, no?  If this is not what you are trying to say, could you please clarify what you meant?

For example, I hope you do not suspect me of having sympathy for Snape?

And I still think that Dumbledore behaved towards him as bastard when Snape came to him right after Lily died and when Dumbledore insisted Snape to kill him.

Granted this is not a precise analogy, since in this situation I feel at least some sort of sympathy for Petunia, because she did not do anything wrong, but to me it works, because I do not as much feel sympathy for Petunia (some) as find Snape already behaving as sneaky little bastard.

I deeply despise Lucius Malfoy and his wife and their son and I now feel some sort of pity for Draco on the Tower and some pity for Narcissa in book 7.

In short, I would like to know what you meant here if you don't mind.

Alla, puzzled.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jul 23 02:49:46 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:49:46 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h48h43+9nfe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48j4a+q30r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187425

> Montavilla47:
> I'll agree that he thought he was superior to both muggles and 
> muggle-born.  But that doesn't mean he hates them.  That's 
> because I'm drawing a line between contempt and hate.  But I 
> don't want to insist on that line.  If you choose to put contempt 
> and hatred in the same basket, then it's hate.  I just don't see
> those two things as exact equivalents.

Magpie:
FWIW, I don't consider them equivalents either. I get the impression that Snape joined the DEs more for the feeling of power and belonging and all that that it offered rather than the chance to punish muggles or muggleborns. His contempt made it easy to accept that side of it, but I doubt it was the big appeal. 

Snape might have had some personal anger surrounding Muggles or Muggleborns due to his father, but I don't remember any canon that pointed to that being a big motivation for him. He seemed far more motivated by Lily than anything to do with his parents or his background. I mean, I think blood was something he was aware of just the way he was aware of himself as a Wizard and so superior to Petunia and bonded to Lily, but it wasn't his central conflict.

-m




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 23 05:18:13 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:18:13 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h483ib+esar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h48rql+rjsh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187426

 "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> 

> DD needed Harry not to fight back
 
Agreed

> because by not fighting back it meant
> that Harry was giving his own protection
> to the whole Wizarding World 

But that sort of thing is very rare, so rare that Voldemort knew nothing about it. In fact the only other time something like that happened was with Harry mother and, as Dumbledore well knew, she died as a result. I don't see how Dumbledore had any reason to think the outcome would different this time.

This interpretation is reinforced in the Kings Cross chapter, provided you think that really was Dumbledore and not just Harry's imagination; I think it was wise of JKR to keep that a little ambiguous. Even if it was all just imagination it certainly shows that Harry thought Dumbledore had betrayed him. It also shows that Harry forgives him. 

The Kings Cross Dumbledore talks about the "flaw in the plan", he says the plan would work brilliantly as long as Harry was just an abstraction, but as he got to know him he started to love him and didn't know if he had the strength to continue. It turned out he did have the strength. When he needed to Dumbledore could be as coldly rational as Don Vito Corleone. I don't know how else to explain Dumbledore's reaction when he first sees Harry at Kings Cross, he is delighted, surprised, embarrassed and apologetic. 

 Eggplant      





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Jul 23 11:08:43 2009
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:08:43 -0000
Subject: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h48c1t+ckhf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h49gbr+dple@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187427

Alla:
> What I do not agree is the extent that you seem to be saying one person who
dislikes each other should behavein this situation.

In my opinion teacher who dislikes (or in my view hates) the student better made
sure that he is more than somewhat civil to such student. Teacher who dislikes
the student and who is complicit in the deaths of his parents like Snape was IMO
should be even more civil.

Ceridwen:
This all goes back to Dumbledore.  I mentioned that a person who dislikes (or hates, hate is strong, few people hate even fewer people, IMO) another person should be civil to that person when they meet.  Meeting someone you dislike does happen.  At a party, a friend's wedding, walking along the street, etc.  Something like the cold civility between Harry and Draco in the epilogue.

Now for Dumbledore's meddling.  He forced Snape and Harry into close quarters.  I mentioned that these two people, as a pair of people one of which dislikes the other, should not be forced together too often.  Dumbledore forced Snape to teach Harry.  If the Hogwarts curriculum is anything like the college curriculum where I attend, and it seems to be, then Snape saw Harry at least twice a week every week and was expected to interact with him on a teacher/student basis.  Considering the emotional nature of dislike, especially visceral dislike of the sort Snape seems to have, this is a Very Bad Idea.  I suspect as well that there's a component of guilt that actually physically hurts, involved.  You know the type of hurt, the one that makes your stomach churn and all sorts of "what-ifs" go through your mind, which causes other physical symptoms like shaking in some, or muscle tension.  Snape seemed tense with Harry from the first scene, in my opinion.

Forcing Snape into close proximity with Harry on a regular basis was probably one of Dumbledore's worst mistakes.  Then DD got to liking Harry.  It seems that he thought that, if Snape would only spend *more* time with Harry, he would like him.  And so the Occlumency lessons.  It helped ease DD's mind, IMO, that Snape was probably the best person besides Dumbledore himself to teach them.  Still, overall, DD did neither Snape nor Harry any favors by forcing this extra proximity.  Not everyone will like the same people a friend likes.  As it turns out, DD was less a friend of Snape's than he was a conquering manager.  He was trying the impossible and he had the muscle to insist.

Maybe, if Snape had wanted to be a teacher, he could have managed being less annoyed by Harry in his class.  The up-side for him then would have been teaching.  After The Prince's Tale, I think Dumbledore forced Snape into the position in the first place, causing undue stress anyway.  He's already stressed at doing what he doesn't want to do and now he's forced to face Harry, a person he dislikes, someone who reminds him of someone he dislikes, a person who reminds him of someone he did like who gave their life for Harry to exist, and a graphic reminder of probably the worst mistake Snape ever made. And DD believes LV's coming back and wants Snape to try Occlumency with this homicidal maniac.  I think Snape was already stretched to his limit through Dumbledore's machinations before Harry ever heard of Hogwarts.

For being civil to Harry because his information ultimately saw to the death of Harry's parents, I don't think he has to continually apologize and wear saccloth and ashes in Harry' s presence.  I think he's already doing so internally and seeing Harry may actually give pain.  He's taken a stand against LV, he's utilizing his position by doing something extremely dangerous in order to atone.  This causes more stress.

People under a load of stress have a hard time behaving as civilized people would behave.  I don't think that forcing Snape and Harry into proximity was a good idea on Dumbledore's part.  I think, at his age, he should have known that and made other arrangements that would have kept the two apart.

So, I think it was impossible for Snape to behave any more civilly to Harry than he did, due to factors mentioned above and made worse by Dumbledore's insistence that he and Harry be together.  I'm convinced that Snape was acting his most civil given those factors.  I think he was in an impossible situation and had no way out.  Sure, due to his own original mistake of joining the DEs, but how much punishment does a person need?  His remorse seemed genuine enough.  Why continue to flog the dead horse?

Ceridwen.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 11:41:59 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:41:59 -0000
Subject: Snape and Harry and Dumbledore yes AGAIN WAS: Re: More thoughts
In-Reply-To: <h49gbr+dple@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h49ia7+hii6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187428

Ceridwen:
<HUGE SNIP>
So, I think it was impossible for Snape to behave any more civilly to Harry than
he did, due to factors mentioned above and made worse by Dumbledore's insistence
that he and Harry be together. I'm convinced that Snape was acting his most
civil given those factors. I think he was in an impossible situation and had no
way out. Sure, due to his own original mistake of joining the DEs, but how much
punishment does a person need? His remorse seemed genuine enough. Why continue
to flog the dead horse?

Alla:

I just  disagree. As you know I think Snape started abusing Harry from the very first lesson and made Harry dislike him. Thus while I totally agree with you that Dumbledore put Snape in position of teaching Harry, I do not think Dumbledore put two people together who dislike each other, I think he put together one person who disliked a child and this person this child to dislike him by his actions.

To me Snape acting most civil will be not singling Harry out when he does not so deserve, to me Snape acting most civil will not be telling Harry tales about his father, no matter how true Snape thinks they are and the list goes on and on lol. I am sure you had seen this list a million times by now.

I put a lot of blame on Dumbledore after DH, trust me, I do. But I am not going to take what I think Snape's is and I think he should have forced himself not to show Harry his undeserved hatred (I go by hatred, because I think I see it in the books and JKR said he hated Harry, I understand you go by dislike).

I mean, I could care less if Snape shuts the door in his dungeons and screamed on the top of his lungs how much he hated Potter and his filthy father, you know? It is his business, but when he shows it to Harry, it is not just his business anymore.

And another thing, yes Dumbledore should have known, but on the other hand, Harry is a child, I would think that he had a very hard time imagining before his first lesson that Snape would hate a **child** who did not do anything to him that much.

When he saw it, sure, I think he should have interfered and made sure Snape was as far from Harry as possible, but before their first lesson, I don't know if he could have imagined.

And do not even start me on Occlumency lessons, for that I will never forgive Dumbledore.

JMO,

Alla





From zfshiruba at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 11:22:27 2009
From: zfshiruba at yahoo.com (zfshiruba)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:22:27 -0000
Subject: ravenclaws and classes
In-Reply-To: <94nbe1+opam@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h49h5j+fotn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187429

In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/10476
Rosa said:

> <snip> Of course, Hermione is the only exception to all of this, as
> she opted to take them all during 3rd year.
> Assuming that each student could only add two courses, does that
> mean that Hermione was the only Gryffindor in Arithmancy, Ancient
> Runes, and Muggle Studies during her third year?


Where does it say that students can only add two courses? Hermione signs up for all five electives in 3rd year. She drops Muggle Studies and Divination, leaving her with Arithmancy, Ancient Runes, and Care of Magical Creatures.

zfshiruba



From jnoyl at aim.com  Thu Jul 23 15:40:36 2009
From: jnoyl at aim.com (JLyon)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:40:36 -0700
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Ow
Message-ID: <5E804A46-5204-4AF3-85CA-E4AA634A1693@aim.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187430

In all this discussion of Snape's psychology, do not forget that  
according to Trelawney, Snape and Bumbles were present and heard the  
entire prophesy. This means that the two bastards planned what to  
tell Moldie and set-up the Potters. Either this or Trelawney was in  
error and that seems doubtful.

IMO, there is no way to read canon and not see both "men" as truly  
despicable and horrible.

JLyon




From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 19:49:40 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:49:40 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Ow
In-Reply-To: <5E804A46-5204-4AF3-85CA-E4AA634A1693@aim.com>
Message-ID: <h4aesk+fm0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187431

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JLyon <jnoyl at ...> wrote:
>
> In all this discussion of Snape's psychology, do not forget that  
> according to Trelawney, Snape and Bumbles were present and heard the  
> entire prophesy. This means that the two bastards planned what to  
> tell Moldie and set-up the Potters. Either this or Trelawney was in  
> error and that seems doubtful.
> 
> IMO, there is no way to read canon and not see both "men" as truly  
> despicable and horrible.
> 
> JLyon
>
Beatrice:  I think that you misread here.  Snape overheard the prophesy, but was removed from the building BEFORE he heard the whole thing. Snape then reported to LV on the prophesy and THEN to his horror LV decided that the prophesy referred to the Potters not to the Longbottoms.  After this, Snape went to DD to warn DD about LV's intention to the Potters or more specifically to Lily.  Then Snape agrees to spy on LV in return for DD protection for Lily oh yeah and her husband and son.




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 20:58:55 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:58:55 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h48i10+qtlq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4aiuf+l2ks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187432

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Alla:
> <SNIP>
> > Petunia after all his rival for being Lily's playmate, etc. I do not like
> Petunia, never did for her behavior to Harry, but I do see her as victim here.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> <HUGE SNIP>
> Perhaps you would be less sympathetic if she were being eaten
> by a snake? Or if the thing hitting her on the head were a glass
> of mead?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Somehow I miss your point here. Smiley seems to indicate irony and/or sarcasm, but I really cannot figure it out. Could you help me?
> 

Montavilla47:

I was trying to indicate a teasing point, rather than irony or
sarcasm.  I, too, think that Petunia is a victim at this moment 
and, no matter how insulting she was being, she certainly didn't
deserve to have a branch dropped on her head.

The other instances I brought up were, in one case, when Snape
was being killed--something you have noted with satisfaction in
the past.  The second was another time when Petunia was being 
hit in the head--only this time it was a glass of mead and not
a tree branch.  (I don't recall if you were perturbed at that or not.)

I would think that if you are sympathetic with Petunia in the 
branch situation, it would follow logically that you'd be 
sympathetic with both Snape in the snake situation and 
Petunia when she was being in the head repeated with a 
hard glass object.

But I don't think these things do follow logically.  So, while
I was teasing you, I didn't want it to rise to the level of a 
serious argument.  

Hence the smily wink face.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 21:27:57 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:27:57 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4aiuf+l2ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4akkt+ogj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187433

Montavilla47:

I was trying to indicate a teasing point, rather than irony or
sarcasm. I, too, think that Petunia is a victim at this moment
and, no matter how insulting she was being, she certainly didn't
deserve to have a branch dropped on her head.

Alla:
Ah, okay thank you I understand now.

Montavilla47:
The other instances I brought up were, in one case, when Snape
was being killed--something you have noted with satisfaction in
the past. 

Alla:
Absolutely I was satisfied and am satisfied with him being killed.

Montavilla47:
The second was another time when Petunia was being
hit in the head--only this time it was a glass of mead and not
a tree branch. (I don't recall if you were perturbed at that or not.)

Alla:
 Nope, was not perturbed at all.

Montavilla47:
I would think that if you are sympathetic with Petunia in the
branch situation, it would follow logically that you'd be
sympathetic with both Snape in the snake situation and
Petunia when she was being in the head repeated with a
hard glass object.

But I don't think these things do follow logically. So, while
I was teasing you, I didn't want it to rise to the level of a
serious argument.

Hence the smily wink face.

Alla:
But the thing is though as much as those situations seem similar to you they are drastically different from the one we were discussing as far as I am concerned.  Therefore these things do not follow logically to me not just because of my emotional reactions to them, but also because I would find it **illogical** to react to them in the same way. 

I am extremely satisfied at Snape being killed as carmic punishment for all he did to Harry first and foremost and second because I am pleased that third generation of Potters, Weasleys and Grangers will not have to undergo his wrath. Yeah, yeah I know it is just a story. I am still delighted every time I imagine that kids get to study in the Hogwarts without Snape.

And same thing with Petunia, although as much as I dislike her, contrary to Snape I would not be happy to see her dead. But little knocking on her head for all she did to Harry? Yes, did not bother me at all.

But the situation we were discussing, to me is so drastically different that I do not see any logic in comparing my reaction at all. Petunia as far as I am concerned did not do anything wrong here, so why would I be satisfied here?

In short, I just do not get your humor here, sorry.  

Alla





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 21:29:07 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:29:07 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4834f+88k1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4akn3+gbvh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187434


> <snip>
> > > Kemper: Harry regains his self control immediately after the Crucio, that's true.  But there's no need for Snape to regain self control even after Harry casts cruios and sectumsempras at him during the Flight of the Prince. There's no need to regain the self control because Snape never lost it.
> > 
> > Beatrice: Perhaps that is the worst part of Snape's action, that he doesn't lose self-control.   Harry uses sectumsepra in essence, because he doesn't know what it does.  It is a spell that pops into his head as he is in full "fight" mode and as soon as he sees what it does he immediately regrets his actions and punishes himself emotionally for a long time after.  
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Um.  No, he doesn't.  Harry feels bad for about ten minutes, while Draco
> is lying on the floor bleeding and Snape is healing him.  Then, when
> Snape returns from taking Draco to the Hospital Wing and begins 
> questioning Harry, that guilty feeling is transformed into defiance and
> anger.
> 
Beatrice: If I remember correctly, Harry is trying to protect his book, not avoid taking responsibility for his actions.  In fact, Harry never defends his actions (other characters point out that Draco was about to use an unforgivable curse on Harry, but Harry never makes excuses for himself).  Harry does defend the "Prince," ironically Snape, when Hermione starts condemning the book again.  Harry mentions several times how horrible he feels and even indicates that he deserves to have detention every Saturday for the rest of the year for what his curse did.  Also, it might be important to note here that when Harry sees what his curse does he yells "no!" and tries to stop the flow of blood not run away or make excuses for himself.

> Later on, when Harry discusses it with his friends, he's mainly annoyed 
> at Hermione for being shocked and blaming the Prince, and relieved
> that Ginny is defending him.  Any other guilt he might feel is 
> transfered to the Prince for "betraying" Harry by inventing the spell in
> the first place.

Beatrice: See above.
> 
> Beatrice:
> And most importantly he NEVER uses it again. 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Yes he does.  He uses it in the cave when he's surrounded by
> Inferi.  It doesn't work on them, of course, but he's incorporated it
> into his repertoire of spells.  As Hermione later incorporates the 
> Muffliato spell she scorned in HBP.

Beatrice:  Sure, but can you harm a dead body?  What I meant to say is that he never uses it on a human being again.  How Harry managed not to soil himself during that inferi attack is beyond me.  He uses that spell because it is the worse thing he can imagine.  What I was trying to say is that Harry may use these terrible curses, but for the most part he tries not to repeat his mistakes and feels badly for harming anyone even if it is necessary (perhaps Carrow is the exception here - but we don't know what Harry feels in the aftermath of the battle).  Snape on the other hand, is more like a soldier/warrior who - or at least in the one battle we truly see him in action.  We see him use a spell whose effects he is very familiar with and Lupin even tells us that Sectemsepra "was his speciality."    
> 

> 
> Montavilla47:
> Crucio is an unforgivable curse, and it's only purpose is to cause pain.
> Sectumsempra is a spell not currently approved by the Ministry 
> (whatever that means) and "Dark Magic" (according to Snape who ought
> to know).  "Dark Magic" and "Unforgivable are not the same thing.

Beatrice:  Just because there are only three "unforgivable" curses as detailed by the Ministry  (See my eyes roll at the word Ministry)  doesn't mean that there are things that should not be done.  Perhaps Sectumsempra is not on the list because it is not a widely used or known spell.  Or perhaps because the Ministry needs to leave some spells open for people to defend themselves.  Or perhaps their government is just as efficient as muggle governments.  The MoM doesn't place the spells for creating Horcruxes on this list either, but while you can learn about the three aforementioned curses Hermione can only find information on Horcruxes in one book in the restricted section not removed by DD and that book refuses to do more than mention how horrible it is and 

> Beatrice:
> Harry, to me is more worthy, because he may act on his emotions and make mistakes, but he knows that they are his mistakes and he regrets them (or most of them).  Also, when Harry learns of the Elder wand he desires it so that he can save himself during his final battle with LV.  He does not desire it to bring about LV's destruction.  It is a fine line, but I think an important one.  
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Harry's survival is Voldemort's destruction.  If Harry is "merely" hoping to
> survive their encounter, then he's denying his entire quest.
> 

Beatrice:  The only time Harry indicates that he must kill LV is with horror.  Harry only ever talks about surviving and ending LV's reign of terror.  Not the least part of which is because the author wants us to wonder how Harry is going to be able to do this without tearing his soul...


> Beatrice:
> While we don't know if Snape desires the wand at all, there is a part of me that believes that Snape's actions while heroic are ultimately acts of vengeance first against his abusive, muggle father; then against his romantic rival, James; and finally, against the person who murdered the only person he ever loved, LV.  Harry, on the other hand, only ever seeks vengeance in moments of heightened emotion.  In contrast to Snape, whose entire life centers around vengeance. 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I beg to differ.  
> 
> We see that Snape doesn't care much for his father (when he's ten), not that
> Snape desires or contemplates any sort of vengence towards his father.
> 
> We see Snape (in a moment of heightened emotion), accidentally harm
> a muggle, Petunia.  He is described as scared and ashamed immediately
> afterward, denying that he even did it at all, let alone intentionally.  I don't
> see any evidence of vengance there.  If he is acting in vengence, his reaction
> shows no satisfaction.
> 
Beatrice:  I disagree here, but I think that Alli answered this point really well. 

> When James and Sirius attack Snape, he acts in a moment of heightened 
> emotion.  There is only that remark about Snaoe "giving as good as he 
> got" to indicate that Snape acted vengefully toward James at any time.  
> Which is no more vengeful than Harry and Draco firing spells at each 
> other in nearly every book, or Harry making Goyle's toenails grow.

> 
> Montavilla47:
> There are a number of Snape fans who feel that Snape's life
> has been hogtied by his obligation to Dumbledore--an obligation 
> motivated by a desire to protect, not a desire for vengeance.
> 
> But Snape is not nothing once Voldemort is dead.  Snape is 
> a genius at potions and a knowledgeable opponent of the 
> Dark Arts.  He was ambitious.  Without the need to channel
> that ambition into destroying a great evil, he could use it to
> invent new spells or potions or publish textbooks in either 
> Potions or D.A.D.A.
> 
> He doesn't seem to like teaching that much.  At least not
> Potions (he seems a lot happier to me teaching D.A.D.A.), 
> but there are any number of other professions he could 
> take up--such as cursebreaking for Gringotts--and many
> brilliant projects he could undertake.

Beatrice:  Don't mistake me here.  I suppose there are lots of people like Snape who walk around just fine.  I was really talking about a larger literary pattern of character development the idea of characters who are both driven by losing people they love - but are unable to love again, and those who are consumed with vengence.

> 
> > Beatrice:
> >  I don't know that Snape's "initial selfish desire" has changed at all.  When we first see him as a child, his desire is Lily and only Lily.  Snape is willing to do whatever he needs to do to be close to her and to separate her from other (eg. Petunia).  Snape already hates muggles, but makes an exception for Lily.  
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I don't see that Snape hates muggles.  He hates Petunia, but then, so does
> everyone except Lily.

Beatrice:  Okay, why then become a Death Eater?  Surely not for the health benefits?  The snazzy uniforms?  Sorry I don't mean to be flip here or to disparage your argument which although I disagree, is nicely constructed.  What I am trying to say here is that Snape must agree with the ideology here, even if he is deluding himself to thinking it is "for the greater good."  Even Lily points out that Snape calls everyone of her birth "mudblood" and only seems to make an exception for her.
 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Really?  When does Harry show any love towards muggles?
> 
Beatrice:  Love?  Well, maybe not love, but he is certainly disguisted by their ill treatment (too many points to mention here.)  He even saves Dudley' life in OotP and helps the Dursleys who wouldn't lift a finger for Harry go into hiding.

> Montavilla47:
> I agree with you there.  Harry is definitely more compassionate than
> Snape about that.  Although, I'm not sure there needs to be a contest.
> 
Beatrice:  Well, I thought we were measuring their worth for the wand?

> Beatrice:
> When if ever does Snape show compassion for anyone other than himself and Lily? 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> When he swears an unbreakable vow to Narcissa to protect her son.  In 
> contrast to Dumbledore, Snape vows to protect Draco without asking 
> anything in return.

Beatrice:  On DD's orders.  We know that DD has already injured his hand when Snape make the unbreakable vow from (DH) and DD gives Snape his orders on the night that he is injured.  AND DD's orders are as follows; Stay undercover as a DE, do whatever you need to to make it believable; Kill DD to save Draco's soul; protect Draco Malfoy from LV and from himself (as he is still just a young man and may live to regret his choices); etc.  There is more but these are the most important points

> 
> Beatrice:
> Even in death Snape only has a moment of looking at Harry's eyes, Lily's eyes before he dies.  Throughout his life, Snape seems motivated by his own selfish desires, no consumed by them and his horrible prejudices.  
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Yes, he *seems* that way.  That's because the author is playing a 
> twist on us.  The whole point of the Prince's Tale is to show us that
> Snape, who seemed to be motivated by envy, selfish ambition, 
> horrible prejudice and vengeance, was instead motivated by love.
> 

Beatrice:  Love, yes...but unlike Harry it is really only one person that he seems capable of loving.  Maybe you could argue that he loves Dumbledore, but he really has very little kindness in him unlike Harry.  Don't mistake me, I feel for Snape, I really do.  I just think that he is terribly damaged as a character, terribly interesting, too...






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jul 23 22:52:31 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:52:31 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4akn3+gbvh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4apjf+a0an@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187435

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

Beatrice:
> > And most importantly he NEVER uses it again. 

Montavilla47:
> > Yes he does.  He uses it in the cave when he's surrounded by
> > Inferi.  It doesn't work on them, of course, but he's incorporated it
> > into his repertoire of spells.  As Hermione later incorporates the 
> > Muffliato spell she scorned in HBP.

Geoff:
Come now, let's be realistic. Harry is suddenly grabbed by an Inferus 
and is being pulled across the rock towards the water and he sees "an 
army of the dead rising from the black water" (HBP "The Cave" p.538 
UK edition). He managed to throw off this first one by using 'Petrificus 
Totalus' but "many more Inferi were already climbing on to the rock, 
their bony hands clawing at its slippery surface, their blank frosted 
eyes upon him, trailing waterlogged rags, sunken faces leering." (ibid)

Harry tries 'Petrificus' again which stops a handful and follows this up 
with 'Impedimenta' and 'Incarcerous' but this makes very little impression. 
So what should he do now? Offer them chocolate eclairs in the hope 
of persuading to leave?

Desperate times need desperate measures. You can't use an AK on a 
dead person; the most dangerous spell he knows is 'Sectumsempra' 
so he tries it, although this in turn fails.

This is not part of his repertoire; it comes to mind when he is in dire 
straits in a moment when he fears that he is going to die as his only 
hope. Yes, I know that he then admits to Dumbledore that he forgot 
about fire and had panicked but, in those circumstances, i think I 
would too.

But your suggestion presupposes that he will consider using it ad lib 
in the future. He knows what it can do; he has been devastated by 
what he nearly did to Draco. After that, I cannot see him wanting to 
use the spell except in a life-threatening scenario. Harry may have 
been unwise to use the spell on Draco but he was using it in self-
defence and now knowing what it does, will he use it on another 
person again? I seriously doubt it. Although he has used 'Crucio' - 
or tried to more than once, has he ever used an AK?






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 23:04:49 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:04:49 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4akn3+gbvh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4aqah+fcn7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187436

> > > Beatrice: Harry uses sectumsepra in essence, because he doesn't know what it does.  It is a spell that pops into his head as he is in full "fight" mode and as soon as he sees what it does he immediately regrets his actions and punishes himself emotionally for a long time after.  
> > 
> > Montavilla47:
> > Um.  No, he doesn't.  Harry feels bad for about ten minutes, while Draco
> > is lying on the floor bleeding and Snape is healing him.  Then, when
> > Snape returns from taking Draco to the Hospital Wing and begins 
> > questioning Harry, that guilty feeling is transformed into defiance and
> > anger.
> > 
> Beatrice: If I remember correctly, Harry is trying to protect his book, not avoid taking responsibility for his actions.  

Montavilla47:
Harry is trying to protect his book, more than avoid responsibility
for his actions.  But he also complains to McGonagall about the 
detentions he receives for nearly killing a fellow student.  

And he spends those detentions thinking about how much he
hates Snape and how Snape is ruining his chances to play
Quidditch or spend time with Ginny.  Not in feeling bad about 
having almost killed a fellow student.

Beatrice:
In fact, Harry never defends his actions (other characters point out that Draco was about to use an unforgivable curse on Harry, but Harry never makes excuses for himself).  

Montavilla47:
Nor does he need to, since his friends are doing that for him.

Beatrice:
Harry does defend the "Prince," ironically Snape, when Hermione starts condemning the book again.  Harry mentions several times how horrible he feels and even indicates that he deserves to have detention every Saturday for the rest of the year for what his curse did.  Also, it might be important to note here that when Harry sees what his curse does he yells "no!" and tries to stop the flow of blood not run away or make excuses for himself.

Montavilla47:
Harry does defend the Prince, but he also feels betrayed by the Prince, IIRC, 
like a favorite pet who suddenly turned savage.

Harry's reaction does show remorse at the moment, and it speaks well for
Harry.  But I'm not sure it speaks better for him than most normal people
in that situation.  I know that Draco shows no remorse when he breaks
Harry's nose in the train at the beginning of the year, but I'd be willing to
bet that if Harry had suddenly started bleeding in a dozen places, Draco
would have been just as horrified.

Quite probably, teen!Snape would have been just as horrified if his
spell had produced that reaction.  

The only analogous situation that I can think of with Snape was 
when he was ten and Petunia was hit--and he denied doing it.  But
I don't think the situations are really close enough, either in how they
came about, the outcomes, or the maturity level of the participants to 
make a good comparison.


> > Montavilla47:
> >He uses [Sectumsempra] in the cave when he's surrounded by
> > Inferi.  
> 
> Beatrice:  Sure, but can you harm a dead body?  What I meant to say is that he never uses it on a human being again.  
<snip>
What I was trying to say is that Harry may use these terrible curses, but for the most part he tries not to repeat his mistakes and feels badly for harming anyone even if it is necessary (perhaps Carrow is the exception here - but we don't know what Harry feels in the aftermath of the battle).  

Montavilla47:
That is not always the case.  For example, he uses curses on Draco 
several times throughout the books without feeling any remorse.  In 
GoF, Harry and his friends leave Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle unconscious
in the train compartment with their faces sprouting tentacles without
a second thought.  In OotP, they stuff them into the overhead 
compartments in a jellified, boneless state.  (They are described 
as resembling giant slugs.)

Harry is even less sympathetic when others are caused pain by
his friends or associates.  He has no sympathy for whatever trauma
Umbridge suffered at the hands (and hooves) of the centaurs.  He
notes, "with satisfaction" that Marietta is still facially scarred months
after she is cursed by Hermione.


Beatrice:
Snape on the other hand, is more like a soldier/warrior who - or at least in the one battle we truly see him in action.  We see him use a spell whose effects he is very familiar with and Lupin even tells us that Sectemsepra "was his speciality."  

Montavilla47:
Yes, but Snape *is* a soldier and an adult.  He is also an 
accomplished dueler.  By the way, I didn't notice him 
running away or making excuses in that broom battle.

  
> > Montavilla47:
> > Crucio is an unforgivable curse, and it's only purpose is to cause pain.
> > Sectumsempra is a spell not currently approved by the Ministry 
> > (whatever that means) and "Dark Magic" (according to Snape who ought
> > to know).  "Dark Magic" and "Unforgivable are not the same thing.
> 
> Beatrice:  Just because there are only three "unforgivable" curses as detailed by the Ministry  (See my eyes roll at the word Ministry)  doesn't mean that there are things that should not be done.  Perhaps Sectumsempra is not on the list because it is not a widely used or known spell.  Or perhaps because the Ministry needs to leave some spells open for people to defend themselves.  Or perhaps their government is just as efficient as muggle governments.  The MoM doesn't place the spells for creating Horcruxes on this list either, but while you can learn about the three aforementioned curses Hermione can only find information on Horcruxes in one book in the restricted section not removed by DD and that book refuses to do more than mention how horrible it is and 

Montavilla47:
But, there are still only three Unforgivable spells, as specified by the 
author.  And Sectumsempra, while designated "Dark" by its creator 
(which makes it "Dark" to me), is not one of those spells.  If 
Sectumsempra were meant to be as dire as an Unforgivable, then 
I don't think JKR would have designated those three spells as 
especially bad.


> > Beatrice:
> > Harry, to me is more worthy, because he may act on his emotions and make mistakes, but he knows that they are his mistakes and he regrets them (or most of them).  

Montavilla47:
I'm snipping my rebuttal, because I realize that you are focusing this
on Harry's worthiness for the wand, and my answer was based on a more
general question.  My apologies.


> > Montavilla47:
> > There are a number of Snape fans who feel that Snape's life
> > has been hogtied by his obligation to Dumbledore--an obligation 
> > motivated by a desire to protect, not a desire for vengeance.
> 
> Beatrice:  Don't mistake me here.  I suppose there are lots of people like Snape who walk around just fine.  I was really talking about a larger literary pattern of character development the idea of characters who are both driven by losing people they love - but are unable to love again, and those who are consumed with vengence.


Montavilla47:
I'm not sure I understand what this larger pattern of character
development is.  Are you making a distinction between characters
who lose people they love--and are unable to love again, and those
characters who are consumed with vengeance?

I would put Snape into the first category, but not into the second.
I see Snape as consumed with *responsibility*, but not with 
vengeance.  If anything, vengeance is an obstacle that he must
try (and sometimes, but always fail) to overcome into order to 
fulfill the responsibility he took on when he asked for Dumbledore's
help.

> > Montavilla47:
> > I don't see that Snape hates muggles.  He hates Petunia, but then, so does
> > everyone except Lily.
> 
> Beatrice:  Okay, why then become a Death Eater?  Surely not for the health benefits?  The snazzy uniforms?  Sorry I don't mean to be flip here or to disparage your argument which although I disagree, is nicely constructed.  What I am trying to say here is that Snape must agree with the ideology here, even if he is deluding himself to thinking it is "for the greater good."  Even Lily points out that Snape calls everyone of her birth "mudblood" and only seems to make an exception for her.

Montavilla47:
I think Snape agreed with the ideology to a certain extent in his youth.  
At the very least, he didn't *disagree* with it--and only made the exception
for Lily.  But it seems the intention to show that he *disagreed* with it 
at the end of the book, when he told Phineas Nigellus not to use the word
"mudblood."

But, again, I don't see the evidence that Snape *hated* either muggles
or muggle-born.  What I see is that Snape was *indifferent* about the 
fates of people he didn't specifically love (i.e., Lily).  It's not his *hatred*
that disgusts Dumbledore.  It's his *indifference.*

What changes in Snape over the years from when he begs 
Dumbledore to protect Lily to when he dies giving Harry that 
final message is that Snape is no longer indifferent, even to those
people, like Harry or Lupin, that he hates or despises.  He is now
trying to save everyone he can.

Just like Harry.


> > Montavilla47:
> > Really?  When does Harry show any love towards muggles?
> > 
> Beatrice:  Love?  Well, maybe not love, but he is certainly disguisted by their ill treatment (too many points to mention here.)  He even saves Dudley' life in OotP and helps the Dursleys who wouldn't lift a finger for Harry go into hiding.

Montavilla47:
Except for Mr. Roberts and his family, the Dursleys are the
only Muggles we ever see in the series.  Except for saving 
Dudley's life (and Harry was saving his own life as much as 
he was saving Dudley's at that point), Harry never does a 
single act of kindness for any muggle.

And he steals the identifies of two muggles without any
respect for their feelings on the subject.  I wouldn't say
that Harry dislikes muggles in general, but I don't see a 
lot of love there.

> > Beatrice:
> > When if ever does Snape show compassion for anyone other than himself and Lily? 
> > 
> > Montavilla47:
> > When he swears an unbreakable vow to Narcissa to protect her son.  In 
> > contrast to Dumbledore, Snape vows to protect Draco without asking 
> > anything in return.
> 
> Beatrice:  On DD's orders.  We know that DD has already injured his hand when Snape make the unbreakable vow from (DH) and DD gives Snape his orders on the night that he is injured.  AND DD's orders are as follows; Stay undercover as a DE, do whatever you need to to make it believable; Kill DD to save Draco's soul; protect Draco Malfoy from LV and from himself (as he is still just a young man and may live to regret his choices); etc.  There is more but these are the most important points.

Montavilla47:
But DD doesn't not order Snape to swear an Unbreakable Vow.  By making
that vow, Snape is endangering his cover--if Voldemort were to find out,
then it could cause Snape problems.  

Snape could kill DD without swearing any vow.  The vow only ties his hands.
Having pondered that vow for two years, the only practical reason I could
find for Snape to take the vow was to protect Draco from Voldemort.  And it
was a big risk.

And it showed compassion for Narcissa Malfoy.  Which was my point.

> > Beatrice:
> > Even in death Snape only has a moment of looking at Harry's eyes, Lily's eyes before he dies.  Throughout his life, Snape seems motivated by his own selfish desires, no consumed by them and his horrible prejudices.  
> > 
> > Montavilla47:
> > Yes, he *seems* that way.  That's because the author is playing a 
> > twist on us.  The whole point of the Prince's Tale is to show us that
> > Snape, who seemed to be motivated by envy, selfish ambition, 
> > horrible prejudice and vengeance, was instead motivated by love.
> > 
> 
> Beatrice:  Love, yes...but unlike Harry it is really only one person that he seems capable of loving.  Maybe you could argue that he loves Dumbledore, but he really has very little kindness in him unlike Harry.  Don't mistake me, I feel for Snape, I really do.  I just think that he is terribly damaged as a character, terribly interesting, too...

Montavilla47:
Does it really matter if you love only one person, as long as you
love?  Snape may be damaged, but I don't think that necessarily
makes him unworthy of the responsibility of the Elder Wand.

I think it's the damage he's had and the obstacles he's overcome
that make him worthier than a young man who is rash and often
runs into action without thinking.

Mind you, I think Harry is a lot more "worthy" at the end of the
story than he was, say, at the end of HBP.  And I don't think he 
would be a bad person to hold the wand.

It's just that if I had my druthers, I'd give it to Snape.







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jul 23 23:06:32 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:06:32 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Ow
In-Reply-To: <h4aesk+fm0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4aqdo+pb5h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187437

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

> > JLyon <jnoyl@> wrote:

> > ... do not forget that  according to Trelawney, 
> > Snape and Bumbles were present and heard the  
> > entire prophesy.


> Beatrice:

> I think that you misread here. Snape overheard the 
> prophesy, but was removed from the building BEFORE he heard 
> the whole thing.


zanooda:

Many readers see a contradiction here :-). Yes, in OotP we find out that the eavesdropper only heard the beginning of the prophecy and then was thrown out of the building. However, in HBP Trelawney told Harry that she witnessed Snape being caught eavesdropping at the door ("The Seer Overheard"). To many people this means that Snape was only caught after he heard the entire prophecy and Trelawney came out of the trance.

For the record, I don't think it is much of a contradiction, because Snape could have been prevented from hearing the second part of the prophecy even if he was still at the door, IMO. I imagine Aberforth caught him eavesdropping at the very beginning of the prophecy and started shouting at him, and Snape tried to talk his way out of this mess, so he could easily miss the rest of it.

Meanwhile, Trelawney finished with the prophecy, came out of the trance and DD opened the door to find out what was the commotion. This way we have Snape still at the door for Trelawney to see him, and at the same time he didn't hear the second part of the prophecy, because Aberforth distracted him. 

Besides, DD never said *when* exactly the eavesdropper was "thrown from the building", just that he was discovered *and* thrown out :-). I guess he didn't want to say that there was something in between, because that meant to tell Harry who the eavesdropper was...





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 00:31:06 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:31:06 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4aqah+fcn7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4avca+459c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187438

> Montavilla47:
> Harry does defend the Prince, but he also feels betrayed by the Prince, IIRC, 
> like a favorite pet who suddenly turned savage.
> 
> Harry's reaction does show remorse at the moment, and it speaks well for
> Harry.  But I'm not sure it speaks better for him than most normal people
> in that situation.  I know that Draco shows no remorse when he breaks
> Harry's nose in the train at the beginning of the year, but I'd be willing to
> bet that if Harry had suddenly started bleeding in a dozen places, Draco
> would have been just as horrified.

Beatrice:  Maybe.  But that is a big maybe.  I was hoping to see a better ending for Draco myself.  Thought I saw a glimmer in the Malfoy Manor chapter, but lost complete faith in him at the end of the novel.  

> Montavilla47:Quite probably, teen!Snape would have been just as horrified if his
> spell had produced that reaction.  
> 
> The only analogous situation that I can think of with Snape was 
> when he was ten and Petunia was hit--and he denied doing it.  But
> I don't think the situations are really close enough, either in how they
> came about, the outcomes, or the maturity level of the participants to 
> make a good comparison.

Beatrice:  yeah, somehow I don't think so.  First, it seems that Snape may actually be the author of that particular spell.  I make this assumption purely on the basis that most of the notes in the margins of that text seem to be of his own discoveries and when Harry attempts to use levicorpus against him after DD's death Snape screams at him that he is just like his father who used his (Snape's) own spells against him... Even if Snape didn't create the spell, he knows what it does as he designates it "for enemies."

 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Yes, but Snape *is* a soldier and an adult.  He is also an 
> accomplished dueler.  By the way, I didn't notice him 
> running away or making excuses in that broom battle.

Beatrice:  No, how could we when we see precious little of him in DH.  Although you could read Snape's inclusion of the memory to Harry a way of defending that particular action...

> Montavilla47:
> But, there are still only three Unforgivable spells, as specified by the 
> author.  And Sectumsempra, while designated "Dark" by its creator 
> (which makes it "Dark" to me), is not one of those spells.  If 
> Sectumsempra were meant to be as dire as an Unforgivable, then 
> I don't think JKR would have designated those three spells as 
> especially bad.

Beatrice:  Well, it may not give you an "automatic" life sentence in Azkaban like the other three spells, but it might be considered a crime depending on the circumstances.

> > > Montavilla47:
> > > There are a number of Snape fans who feel that Snape's life
> > > has been hogtied by his obligation to Dumbledore--an obligation 
> > > motivated by a desire to protect, not a desire for vengeance.
> > 

> 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I'm not sure I understand what this larger pattern of character
> development is.  Are you making a distinction between characters
> who lose people they love--and are unable to love again, and those
> characters who are consumed with vengeance?


Beatrice: okay, but let's be blunt here.  What if LV decided that it was Neville Longbottom who was the true threat?   Would there even be a story?  Would Snape be simply indifferent to their plight?  Their suffering?  Would he ever have turned from his Death Eater ideology?

> 
> Montavilla47:I would put Snape into the first category, but not into the second.
> I see Snape as consumed with *responsibility*, but not with 
> vengeance.  If anything, vengeance is an obstacle that he must
> try (and sometimes, but always fail) to overcome into order to 
> fulfill the responsibility he took on when he asked for Dumbledore's
> help.
>

> Montavilla47:
> I think Snape agreed with the ideology to a certain extent in his youth.  
> At the very least, he didn't *disagree* with it--and only made the exception
> for Lily.  But it seems the intention to show that he *disagreed* with it 
> at the end of the book, when he told Phineas Nigellus not to use the word
> "mudblood."

Beatrice:  There are lots of people who don't "disagree" with the ideology, but they didn't choose to become Death Eaters.  Snape chooses to be in LV's inner most circle, not simply to be a sympathizer on the sidelines.
> 
> Montavilla47:But, again, I don't see the evidence that Snape *hated* either muggles
> or muggle-born.  What I see is that Snape was *indifferent* about the 
> fates of people he didn't specifically love (i.e., Lily).  It's not his *hatred*
> that disgusts Dumbledore.  It's his *indifference.*

Beatrice:  And how many people were indifferent to the plight of Jews in the 1930's and 1940's in Europe?  How many people are indifferent to Rwanda?  Crotia?  IMO, indifference is just as bad if not worse.


> Montavilla47:
> Except for Mr. Roberts and his family, the Dursleys are the
> only Muggles we ever see in the series.  Except for saving 
> Dudley's life (and Harry was saving his own life as much as 
> he was saving Dudley's at that point), Harry never does a 
> single act of kindness for any muggle.

Beatrice:  Well, in his small part of the muggle world he is despised and looked at with fear.  At any rate, we don't see much of any interaction in the muggle world for Harry probably because it is less interesting to the narrative of the story.
> 
> Montavilla47:And he steals the identifies of two muggles without any
> respect for their feelings on the subject.  I wouldn't say
> that Harry dislikes muggles in general, but I don't see a 
> lot of love there.

Beatrice:  I think that you are reaching here for something negative, but I find this far from compelling.  Harry is hardly using their credit cards to buy internet porn or go on holiday.  He is using a disguise to save his life.
> 
> > > Beatrice:
> > > When if ever does Snape show compassion for anyone other than himself and Lily? 
> > > 
> > > Montavilla47:
> > > When he swears an unbreakable vow to Narcissa to protect her son.  In 
> > > contrast to Dumbledore, Snape vows to protect Draco without asking 
> > > anything in return.
> > 
> > Beatrice:  On DD's orders.  We know that DD has already injured his hand when Snape make the unbreakable vow from (DH) and DD gives Snape his orders on the night that he is injured.  AND DD's orders are as follows; Stay undercover as a DE, do whatever you need to to make it believable; Kill DD to save Draco's soul; protect Draco Malfoy from LV and from himself (as he is still just a young man and may live to regret his choices); etc.  There is more but these are the most important points.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> But DD doesn't not order Snape to swear an Unbreakable Vow.  By making
> that vow, Snape is endangering his cover--if Voldemort were to find out,
> then it could cause Snape problems.  

Beatrice:  Actually, I think he is deepening his cover here.  Snape indicates to DD that LV intends Snape to be the one to kill DD in the end.  Snape makes the unbreakable vow because it is essentially the same promise he has already made to DD AND because it helps Bellatrix to trust him more.  Bellatrix doubts Snapes loyalty and his willingness to make the unbreakable vow puts paid to many of her doubts.  Also, I thought that perhaps this is another way for LV to test Snape's loyalty.  As he trusts no one, perhaps he would be pleased to have Narcissa swear to this as her ends are also LV's ends.


> 
> Montavilla47:
> Does it really matter if you love only one person, as long as you
> love?  Snape may be damaged, but I don't think that necessarily
> makes him unworthy of the responsibility of the Elder Wand.

Beatrice:  As to the first question, no.  But that is not the question of the post the question is who is more worthy?  A man who can only love one person and lives his life trying to make right the events that he puts into motion that ultimately cause the death of the one person he loves?  Or a man who life is all about loving, sacrifice, freeing other people, and creating friendship?

> Montavilla47:Mind you, I think Harry is a lot more "worthy" at the end of the
> story than he was, say, at the end of HBP.  And I don't think he 
> would be a bad person to hold the wand.
> 
> It's just that if I had my druthers, I'd give it to Snape.
>

Beatrice;  But if you had your druthers then ultimately the wand would end up mastered by Voldemort as he kills Snape for that purpose.





From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Jul 24 04:17:59 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 04:17:59 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4akkt+ogj1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4bcln+m6f2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187439


> 
> Alla:
> But the thing is though as much as those situations seem similar to you they are drastically different from the one we were discussing as far as I am concerned.  Therefore these things do not follow logically to me not just because of my emotional reactions to them, but also because I would find it **illogical** to react to them in the same way. 
> 
> I am extremely satisfied at Snape being killed as carmic punishment for all he did to Harry first and foremost and second because I am pleased that third generation of Potters, Weasleys and Grangers will not have to undergo his wrath. Yeah, yeah I know it is just a story. I am still delighted every time I imagine that kids get to study in the Hogwarts without Snape.

Julie:
As I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong), you believe Snape
atoned for his Death Eater days and for relaying the Prophecy
to Voldemort by turning to Dumbledore, and working for 17 years
to protect Harry (and later, saving all those he could). But you
think Snape was still very guilty of being abusive to Harry at
Hogwarts, both in and out of class. And that is why you are 
satisfied with his death and feel no sympathy for him or for
his suffering while he died.

Alla:
(I'm switching your paragraphs so I can respond briefly to the
second paragraph first...if that makes sense!)

> But the situation we were discussing, to me is so drastically different that I do not see any logic in comparing my reaction at all. Petunia as far as I am concerned did not do anything wrong here, so why would I be satisfied here?<

Julie:
I suppose some found it humorous that child Snape dropped the
branch on Petunia the same way some found it humorous that 
Hagrid put a pig tail on Dudley, or that the twins baited 
Dudley with the toffee. In neither case with Dudley did he 
do anything wrong at the moment (though in Petunia's case she
was actually being quite insulting to Severus). But we as 
readers know that Dudley is a little snot and if he doesn't
deserve the treatment he gets for anything in the moment, 
some see it as justice nonetheless for previous and later
actions. 

Alla: (back to paragraph one)
> And same thing with Petunia, although as much as I dislike her, contrary to Snape I would not be happy to see her dead. But little knocking on her head for all she did to Harry? Yes, did not bother me at all.

Julie: 
It didn't bother me that Petunia got knocked on the head either.
But what I really what to address is the fact that while you
dislike Petunia for her treatment towards Harry, you don't wish
to see her dead, but you did wish to see Snape dead for his 
treatment of Harry. That is a position that I don't hold at
all and it honestly confuses me.

Granted Snape was not nice to Harry. He was mean, vindictive,
and verbally abusive at times. But Snape was only Harry's 
teacher (and his protector as we later learned). Harry wanted
and expected nothing from Snape except to be taught what he 
needed to know (and if he'd been in the loop, perhaps for
Snape to watch over his physical safety). And to be treated
with some dignity.

I have no argument that Snape failed as a teacher to Harry
at least in part, and failed to treat Harry with dignity.
I will even agree that this was hurtful to Harry, if only in
a minor way, given that one teacher generally falls quite
a far behind in importance compared to friends and family.
Especially family.

And that is where Petunia comes in. Petunia took Harry in
grudgingly, then proceeded to house him in a cupboard, work
him like a slave, dress him only in several sizes too large
hand down clothing, deny him gifts and holiday celebrations
and most family outings. In fact she willingly and completely
ostracized him from any meaningful sense of family, made it
clear he was an interloper, and denied him the most basic comfort,
that of a parent's affection. For nearly ten years, while she 
was his guardian, his mother-figure and his AUNT, she denied
him any love whatsoever.

Being an aunt myself, what she did to Harry is unimaginable. 
And far more hurtful and emotionally-scarring than anything
Snape could ever do to him (Unless you count Snape telling
Voldemort the prophecy, but again, he did his best to undo
that action, and in the end it was Peter Pettigrew, and
Voldemort, who denied Harry his parents and tried to deny
him his life). Harry may be unnaturally resilient, but the
first thing he said when Dumbledore brought up Petunia taking
him in (OotP) was that "She doesn't love me! She doesn't give
a damn---"  

I still remember feeling Harry's pain and bewilderment in that
moment. How much worse can it be than someone who is supposed to
raise you and care for you doesn't give even the tinest damn?
Snape has nothing, absolutely nothing on Petunia when it comes
to meanness. And Petunia never regretted her treatment of Harry, never repudiated her actions toward him. At least Snape did
experience regret, even if it was intially only for Lily.   

So to me, Snape paid back most of what he owed Harry, by
protecting him and spying for Dumbledore, and by saving
those he could and helping to bring down Voldemort. Did he
repay everything he owed? Maybe not, given he never looked
at Harry and recognized his unjust bias and meanness toward
the boy, nor apologized for it (though he also never got
the opportunity, something I think was a mistake on JKR's
part--not whether Snape *would* have recognized his errors
and apologized--but that he was not given the opportunity).
But at least he made the effort, and quite a painful and
costly one it was in the end. Petunia, OTOH, never made 
any effort that we saw, and got off scot-free for her crime.

Which is why I have plenty of sympathy for Snape, dying in
agony with his throat all but ripped out, a gross overpayment
IMO for the balance sheet of his life, and only disgust for
Petunia, whose bump on the head didn't begin to pay the debt
on her balance sheet. And why I feel certain in the afterlife
Dumbledore so looked forward to experiencing, Snape will be
rewarded, and Petunia will see little in the way of reward. 

Julie 






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 06:55:18 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:55:18 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4avca+459c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4blsm+o37u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187440


> > Montavilla47:
> > I know that Draco shows no remorse when he breaks
> > Harry's nose in the train at the beginning of the year, but I'd be willing to
> > bet that if Harry had suddenly started bleeding in a dozen places, Draco
> > would have been just as horrified.
> 
> Beatrice:  Maybe.  But that is a big maybe.  I was hoping to see a better ending for Draco myself.  Thought I saw a glimmer in the Malfoy Manor chapter, but lost complete faith in him at the end of the novel.  

Montavilla47:
Yes, I find Draco's lack of resolve disappointing as well.  But
I'm more disappointed in the author than in the character
about that.

I think, though, that that was JKR's intention, since she is *so*
careful to balance any good impulses Draco has with cowardly
ones.  The interpretation I draw is that it ultimately doesn't 
matter that Draco isn't "on" Harry's side.  He cares enough about
his friend, Goyle, to risk his life for him, and that's enough for
Draco to deserve redemption--although not quite enough
for Draco to deserve Harry's friendship, or a full head of hair.


> > Montavilla47:Quite probably, teen!Snape would have been just as horrified if his
> > spell had produced that reaction.  

> 
> Beatrice:  yeah, somehow I don't think so.  First, it seems that Snape may actually be the author of that particular spell.  I make this assumption purely on the basis that most of the notes in the margins of that text seem to be of his own discoveries and when Harry attempts to use levicorpus against him after DD's death Snape screams at him that he is just like his father who used his (Snape's) own spells against him... Even if Snape didn't create the spell, he knows what it does as he designates it "for enemies."


Montavilla47:
Of course it's Snape own spell.  But Snape did not use it in the way
that Harry did--which was wild and uncontrolled and nearly
caused Draco to bleed out.

Had Snape used the spell and caused the damage that Harry
did, as a teenager, I think he would have been as horrified.  Of
course we don't know that.  I'm simply basing that assumption 
on what any normal person's reaction would be.  I don't think 
think Harry is extraordinarily compassionate to be horrified 
when he nearly kills someone.   That's the normal reaction to
such a thing.

> > Montavilla47:
> > Yes, but Snape *is* a soldier and an adult.  He is also an 
> > accomplished dueler.  By the way, I didn't notice him 
> > running away or making excuses in that broom battle.
> 
> Beatrice:  No, how could we when we see precious little of him in DH.  Although you could read Snape's inclusion of the memory to Harry a way of defending that particular action...

Montavilla47:
You could, but I would say he was merely explaining his action.


> > Montavilla47:
> > But, there are still only three Unforgivable spells, as specified by the 
> > author.  And Sectumsempra, while designated "Dark" by its creator 
> > (which makes it "Dark" to me), is not one of those spells.  If 
> > Sectumsempra were meant to be as dire as an Unforgivable, then 
> > I don't think JKR would have designated those three spells as 
> > especially bad.
> 
> Beatrice:  Well, it may not give you an "automatic" life sentence in Azkaban like the other three spells, but it might be considered a crime depending on the circumstances.

Montavilla47:
So can any spell, including Expecto Patronus, which nearly lands
Harry in jail.



> > Montavilla47:
> > I'm not sure I understand what this larger pattern of character
> > development is.  Are you making a distinction between characters
> > who lose people they love--and are unable to love again, and those
> > characters who are consumed with vengeance?
> 
> 
> Beatrice: okay, but let's be blunt here.  What if LV decided that it was Neville Longbottom who was the true threat?   Would there even be a story?  Would Snape be simply indifferent to their plight?  Their suffering?  Would he ever have turned from his Death Eater ideology?

Montavilla47:
I think he would have been indifferent and probably continued
to be a Death Eater, but I still don't understand what that has
to do with being consumed by vengeance.


> > Montavilla47:
> > I think Snape agreed with the ideology to a certain extent in his youth.  
> > At the very least, he didn't *disagree* with it--and only made the exception
> > for Lily.  But it seems the intention to show that he *disagreed* with it 
> > at the end of the book, when he told Phineas Nigellus not to use the word
> > "mudblood."
> 
> Beatrice:  There are lots of people who don't "disagree" with the ideology, but they didn't choose to become Death Eaters.  Snape chooses to be in LV's inner most circle, not simply to be a sympathizer on the sidelines.

Montavilla47:
Which was most likely motivated by ambition, since that's one of 
the more obvious of Snape's characteristics.  Snape's shown as a 
child and young man to be more ambitious than racist, at least to
my interpretation.


> > Montavilla47:But, again, I don't see the evidence that Snape *hated* either muggles
> > or muggle-born.  What I see is that Snape was *indifferent* about the 
> > fates of people he didn't specifically love (i.e., Lily).  It's not his *hatred*
> > that disgusts Dumbledore.  It's his *indifference.*
> 
> Beatrice:  And how many people were indifferent to the plight of Jews in the 1930's and 1940's in Europe?  How many people are indifferent to Rwanda?  Crotia?  IMO, indifference is just as bad if not worse.

Montavilla47:
That's exactly the point.  Snape doesn't need to hate muggles or 
muggle-born, because the point of the story is that being 
indifferent to other people's suffering is just as bad as hating them.

If JKR had wanted to take Snape from a point of being as hate-
filled as any Death Eater, she would have.  She didn't.  She made
him indifferent.

And while that's just as bad, it isn't the same thing.

> > Montavilla47:
> > Except for Mr. Roberts and his family, the Dursleys are the
> > only Muggles we ever see in the series.  Except for saving 
> > Dudley's life (and Harry was saving his own life as much as 
> > he was saving Dudley's at that point), Harry never does a 
> > single act of kindness for any muggle.
> 
> Beatrice:  Well, in his small part of the muggle world he is despised and looked at with fear.  At any rate, we don't see much of any interaction in the muggle world for Harry probably because it is less interesting to the narrative of the story.
> > 
> > Montavilla47:And he steals the identifies of two muggles without any
> > respect for their feelings on the subject.  I wouldn't say
> > that Harry dislikes muggles in general, but I don't see a 
> > lot of love there.
> 
> Beatrice:  I think that you are reaching here for something negative, but I find this far from compelling.  Harry is hardly using their credit cards to buy internet porn or go on holiday.  He is using a disguise to save his life.

Montavilla47:
He's still using someone--a muggle--without consent or 
respect for their individual personhood.  I'm not trying to make
Harry worse than he is.  I just note that stealing somebody's hairs
is stealing, and stealing them to perform magic is something that
has historically horrified people.

And I don't think it shows love or compassion.  It shows a callous
indifference.


> > Montavilla47:
> > It's just that if I had my druthers, I'd give it to Snape.
> >
> 
> Beatrice;  But if you had your druthers then ultimately the wand would end up mastered by Voldemort as he kills Snape for that purpose.

Montavilla47:
I think you're setting forth a false argument here.  This
discussion wasn't about the situation in the book, but
about which person might handle the responsibility of the
wand better than the other.

I think the premise of the discussion was that both 
Harry and Snape were alive and the threat of Voldemort 
gone.  If not, then the discussion is moot, since Snape
would be dead.






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Jul 24 05:42:54 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:42:54 -0000
Subject: Harry the monster?  (was: Snape's Psycology)
In-Reply-To: <h4aqah+fcn7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4bhku+u85f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187441

 "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:

> Harry feels bad for about ten minutes,
> while Draco is lying on the floor bleeding 
 
That means Harry felt bad for ten minutes more that I'd have felt if I had defended myself from someone who attacked me, unprovoked, with an Unforgivable curse. If Harry had killed Draco I don't believe he'd even be charged with a crime much less convicted, not if there was any justice in the world. I wouldn't feel guilty for one second if it were me and if Harry felt guilty I'd tell him to stop being such a wimp.

> He [Harry] has no sympathy for whatever
> trauma Umbridge suffered at the hands 
> (and hooves) of the centaurs.

So when you first read the book you wept for Umbridge? 

 Eggplant







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 12:11:04 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:11:04 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4bcln+m6f2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4c8co+krks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187442

> Julie:
> As I recall (and correct me if I'm wrong), you believe Snape
> atoned for his Death Eater days and for relaying the Prophecy
> to Voldemort by turning to Dumbledore, and working for 17 years
> to protect Harry (and later, saving all those he could). But you
> think Snape was still very guilty of being abusive to Harry at
> Hogwarts, both in and out of class. And that is why you are 
> satisfied with his death and feel no sympathy for him or for
> his suffering while he died.

Alla:

Close but not quite. Yes I believe that Snape changed in a sense that he is not going to be tempted by his Death Eater days and he probably atoned for them to general population if that makes sense. However, however, I do not agree that he came even close to atone for relaying Prophecy to Voldemort **to Harry**,again not sure if that makes sense, will be happy to clarify later.  Because since yes I believe he abused Harry in Hogwarts in and out of class, that to me not what person who wants to atone for contributing to taking away from the child the care and kindness of his parents does.

I do not ask for Snape to love or even like Harry, however neither do I think that Snape has any right to say that he atoned for helping to take Harry's parents away from him.

For all these reasons yes I was happy that he is dead and feel no sympathy for him.

Oh and of course because I do not want (in my imagination or if JKR ever decides to go back to Potterverse) to see Harry's kids to hear Snape badmouthing Harry as he badmouthed Harry's dad to him.



>> Julie: 
> It didn't bother me that Petunia got knocked on the head either.
> But what I really what to address is the fact that while you
> dislike Petunia for her treatment towards Harry, you don't wish
> to see her dead, but you did wish to see Snape dead for his 
> treatment of Harry. That is a position that I don't hold at
> all and it honestly confuses me.
> 
<SNIP>

Alla:

We clearly disagree about Snape, but I want to address Petunia briefly. 
Trust me, I find her treatment of Harry's despicable. If she were to put in prizon for that, sure. But dead? No, just too extreme for me, that's all.

By the way, I said I was **glad** to see Snape dead, not that I wanted him to die, you know, I would much preferred him to be thoroughly humiliated by Harry as a payback for what he did(but alas this is not what JKR had in mind lol).

It is **when** he died, I was happy, sort of after the fact, if that makes sense. Sorry, as I said, will be happy to clarify.

JMO,

Alla




From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 12:59:56 2009
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:59:56 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4bcln+m6f2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4cb8c+trjt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187443

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > Alla:

> > I am extremely satisfied at Snape being killed as carmic punishment for all he did to Harry first and foremost and second because I am pleased that third generation of Potters, Weasleys and Grangers will not have to undergo his wrath. Yeah, yeah I know it is just a story. I am still delighted every time I imagine that kids get to study in the Hogwarts without Snape.
> <SNIP>
> Julie:
> 
> I have no argument that Snape failed as a teacher to Harry
> at least in part, and failed to treat Harry with dignity.
> I will even agree that this was hurtful to Harry, if only in
> a minor way, given that one teacher generally falls quite
> a far behind in importance compared to friends and family.
> Especially family.
SNIP>
> Which is why I have plenty of sympathy for Snape, dying in
> agony with his throat all but ripped out, a gross overpayment
> IMO for the balance sheet of his life, and only disgust for
> Petunia, whose bump on the head didn't begin to pay the debt
> on her balance sheet. And why I feel certain in the afterlife
> Dumbledore so looked forward to experiencing, Snape will be
> rewarded, and Petunia will see little in the way of reward. 
> 
Beatrice:  I, too, see the death of Snape as justice, although in a different way.  First, the way he dies is horrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even Petunia...lol.  I see Snape's death differently.  Snape is unable to move on with his life.  He is consumed from a small child until his death with Lily.  He torments the children and read this as plural, when does he really show kindness to anyone?  Maybe Dumbledore, maybe Malfoy, but how much of his care of Malfoy is simply part of his orders? Just like Petunia, Snape protects Harry, although I use the word protect loosely here, because of a memory of Lily.

Snape's death, for me, isn't really about punishment; it is about reward.  Snape hasn't been able to "move on" in this life.  I see his life as a blessing, hopefully he will see Lily again and be able to "go on" as Dumbledore puts it.  Snape's dying is terrible, but having Snape live would be more cruel.  I hope that Snape will be able to "go on."





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jul 24 14:04:37 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:04:37 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4c8co+krks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4cf1l+vgh5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187444

 
> Alla:
>  that to me not what person who wants to atone for contributing to taking away from the child the care and kindness of his parents does.

Pippin:
I don't get it. I agree that Snape has plenty to feel guilty about, but why should Snape feel guilty for taking Harry away from the love and protection of his parents when everyone agrees that it's still with him? 

IMO, it plays down the sacredness of human life to say that the Potters were especially valuable because they were good parents. If they had been bad parents, would Snape's crime be any less?

And I do not see why Snape's atonement, which included saving Harry from murder, torture and capture by Voldemort's forces, should not apply to Harry as well as it applies to everyone else who was harmed by Snape's actions. 

If Rowling had wanted to make it plain that Harry's fears about Snape were justified, she could have. Instead it's plain that most of Harry's fears about Snape were baseless. By exaggerating the harm that Harry suffered at Snape's hands, we undermine the story, which is that Harry feared hatred too much when the real threat was  indifference and desire for power. 

Pippin





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 15:29:13 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:29:13 -0000
Subject: Harry the monster?  (was: Snape's Psycology)
In-Reply-To: <h4bhku+u85f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4ck09+2sik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187445

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
>
>  Montavilla47 wrote:
> > He [Harry] has no sympathy for whatever
> > trauma Umbridge suffered at the hands 
> > (and hooves) of the centaurs.
> 
> Eggplant:
> So when you first read the book you wept for Umbridge? 

Montavilla47:
Not when she got carried off, but I did feel sympathetic for
her later, when she was in the hospital wing.  I felt quite
indignant when the children made clopping noises to scare
her and then laughed about it.

Mind you, I didn't include that in my argument because 
the text doesn't indicate *Harry* joining in on that laughter.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 16:33:13 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:33:13 -0000
Subject: Umbridge the Monster?  WAS :Re: Harry the monster?  (was: Snape's Psycology)
In-Reply-To: <h4ck09+2sik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4cno9+dnu8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187446

> > Eggplant:
> > So when you first read the book you wept for Umbridge? 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Not when she got carried off, but I did feel sympathetic for
> her later, when she was in the hospital wing.  I felt quite
> indignant when the children made clopping noises to scare
> her and then laughed about it.
> 
> Mind you, I didn't include that in my argument because 
> the text doesn't indicate *Harry* joining in on that laughter.
>


Alla:

See, this is a very good example of how different people view things and characters.  This is the reaction I find impossible to understand. I cannot master a tiny shred of sympathy to the monstrocity like Umbridge. This character is the main reason why I do not bother rereading OOP so hard I find to read about Harry's detentions and her sadism to everybody else, all that I was hoping for when centaurs took her is that she will end up dead. But I am not about to say that I find your reaction illogical or anything like that. I would just say that this is something *I* do not understand and probably never will.

Alla




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jul 24 19:40:11 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:40:11 -0000
Subject: Umbridge the Monster?  WAS :Re: Harry the monster?  (was: Snape's Psycology)
In-Reply-To: <h4cno9+dnu8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4d2mr+uidp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187447

> > > Eggplant:
> > > So when you first read the book you wept for Umbridge? 
> > 
> > Montavilla47:
> > Not when she got carried off, but I did feel sympathetic for
> > her later, when she was in the hospital wing.  I felt quite
> > indignant when the children made clopping noises to scare
> > her and then laughed about it.
> > 
> > Mind you, I didn't include that in my argument because 
> > the text doesn't indicate *Harry* joining in on that laughter.
> >
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> See, this is a very good example of how different people view things and characters.  This is the reaction I find impossible to understand. I cannot master a tiny shred of sympathy to the monstrocity like Umbridge. This character is the main reason why I do not bother rereading OOP so hard I find to read about Harry's detentions and her sadism to everybody else, all that I was hoping for when centaurs took her is that she will end up dead. But I am not about to say that I find your reaction illogical or anything like that. I would just say that this is something *I* do not understand and probably never will.
> 

Montavilla47:
I probably wouldn't have minded if Umbridge had been killed
by the centaurs.  I was as happy as anyone else when she was
carried off by them.

Just like I was happy when Gilderoy Lockhart got his comeuppance.
But, if he had ended up as a mental case in St. Mungo's and children
came in to point and laugh at him, I would have felt that was over
the top.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 26 14:44:21 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:44:21 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 30
Message-ID: <h4hq45+4a3b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187448

"Professor McGonagall rose to her feet, pointed her wand at the groggy Death Eater and said 'Imperio.'
Amycus got up, walked over to his sister, picked up her wand, then shuffled obediently to Professor McGonagall and handled it over along with his own. Then he lay down on the floor beside Alecto" - p.478

Alla:

I am going to ask a question, which I suspect belongs to the "I missed something really obvious" type, but hey, I will ask it anyway.

When one says "Imperio" it causes the subject to do anything caster wants, right? But doesn't caster also need to speak this specific order as well? I really am annoyed that I cannot check my GoF now, but doesn't Harry when Fake!Moody teaches them Imperio hears the voice in his head saying Jump? And he tries to resist it, etc?

Or are we to assume that Minerva casted nonverbal specific command? On the other hand Harry in the Gringott also does not say specific command, just Imperio? Is magic which forms this spell just adjusts itself to make sure the subject does whatever caster wants without speaking the specific command? Does the magic just know?


"Professor McGonagall moved faster than Harry could have believed: her wand slashed through the air and for a split second Harry thought that Snape must crumble, unconscious, but the swiftness of his Shield Charm was such that McGonagall was thrown off balance" - p.481, brit.ed.


Alla:

How does Harry know what Minerva is casting here? That he expects that Snape must crumble, unconscious? Is it just due to what sort of wand movements he sees (slashing equals attack?) or something else?

I just was under impression that not only he knew that she was attacking, but he also figured specific charm or curse, maybe I was wrong.

"I can act from here," said Flitwick, and although he could barely see out of it, he pointed his wand through the smashed window and started muttering incantations of great complexity. Harry heard a weird rushing noise, as though Flitwick had unleashed the power of wind into the grounds." - p.483


Alla:

Flitwick strengthens the Hogwarts protective charms here, yes? Why is the remark that he could barely see? How is it important for him to see? I mean it is not like target of his incantation is portrayed somewhere?




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jul 26 16:58:51 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 26 Jul 2009 16:58:51 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/26/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1248627531.2035.71246.m3@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187449

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday July 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20090726/2bd96a6e/attachment.html>

From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Jul 26 18:38:54 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:38:54 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4c8co+krks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4i7ru+dts8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187450


> 
> Alla:
> 
> Close but not quite. Yes I believe that Snape changed in a sense that he is not going to be tempted by his Death Eater days and he probably atoned for them to general population if that makes sense. However, however, I do not agree that he came even close to atone for relaying Prophecy to Voldemort **to Harry**,again not sure if that makes sense, will be happy to clarify later.  Because since yes I believe he abused Harry in Hogwarts in and out of class, that to me not what person who wants to atone for contributing to taking away from the child the care and kindness of his parents does.
> 
> I do not ask for Snape to love or even like Harry, however neither do I think that Snape has any right to say that he atoned for helping to take Harry's parents away from him.
> 
> For all these reasons yes I was happy that he is dead and feel no sympathy for him.

Julie:
I guess we differ on a fundamental point, which is that I do
think Snape atoned for his part in relaying the Prophecy, first
by trying to undo his wrong (which he did by going to DD; it
was Pettigrew and of course Voldemort who "undid Snape's undo"
if you will ;-). And secondly, by spending the rest of his life 
in service to Dumbledore and to protecting Harry. That to me
does atone for his part in helping take Harry's parents away
from him.

Alla:
> 
> Oh and of course because I do not want (in my imagination or if JKR ever decides to go back to Potterverse) to see Harry's kids to hear Snape badmouthing Harry as he badmouthed Harry's dad to him.
> 

Julie:
I'm not convinced this would have happened, had Snape lived.
Snape spent his adult life in service first to Voldemort, and
then to Dumbledore. Even more so, he spent his adult life in
atonement to Lily. If he'd lived, all his debts would have 
been paid, and to the fullest, given that Harry didn't die as 
Snape was told and fully expected would happen. Snape at this
point could wash his hands of it all, knowing he'd kept his
promise to Lily and that Harry was free to live his own life
too (no doubt, preferably out of Snape's sight!).

I doubt Snape would have stayed at Hogwarts. He wasn't that
fond of children (to say the least), nor of teaching unless
it was to those few students who had a true grasp of the
subject and a focused desire to learn. If there were a
wizarding equivalent of Unversity doctorate programs, that
is where Snape might fit as a teacher, but not teaching 
easily distracted children. Otherwise I could see Snape
going off to do his own thing, be it potions research, 
DADA or whatever.

In any case, I think it is entirely possible, even likely,
that with so many burdens removed, Snape would be a new man.
Not that he'd ever turn into a social butterfly or anything,
but that he might actually be able to leave behind some of
the bitterness and misery of his youth. And, yes, there might
well be a rapproachment between him and Harry, even an
apology. But we'll never know. 

> 
> >> Julie: 
> > It didn't bother me that Petunia got knocked on the head either.
> > But what I really what to address is the fact that while you
> > dislike Petunia for her treatment towards Harry, you don't wish
> > to see her dead, but you did wish to see Snape dead for his 
> > treatment of Harry. That is a position that I don't hold at
> > all and it honestly confuses me.
> > 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> We clearly disagree about Snape, but I want to address Petunia briefly. 
> Trust me, I find her treatment of Harry's despicable. If she were to put in prizon for that, sure. But dead? No, just too extreme for me, that's all.
> 
> By the way, I said I was **glad** to see Snape dead, not that I wanted him to die, you know, I would much preferred him to be thoroughly humiliated by Harry as a payback for what he did(but alas this is not what JKR had in mind lol).
> 
> It is **when** he died, I was happy, sort of after the fact, if that makes sense. Sorry, as I said, will be happy to clarify.

Julie: 
Okay, I understand. It is more of an after the fact thing. I
personally wouldn't want Snape to be thoroughly humiliated 
by Harry if he'd lived, only because I don't like the idea of
Harry stooping to Snape's level. If something caused Snape
to be chastened and recognize how wrong he'd been about Harry,
that would have worked perfectly for me. Just not Harry 
deliberately humiliating Snape after everything he found out
about Snape's past motivations and actions, because that is
not Harry's character, IMO.

Julie 




From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Jul 26 18:56:22 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:56:22 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4cb8c+trjt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4i8sm+87vt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187451


> > 
> Beatrice:  I, too, see the death of Snape as justice, although in a different way.  First, the way he dies is horrible and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even Petunia...lol.  I see Snape's death differently.  Snape is unable to move on with his life.  He is consumed from a small child until his death with Lily.  He torments the children and read this as plural, when does he really show kindness to anyone?  Maybe Dumbledore, maybe Malfoy, but how much of his care of Malfoy is simply part of his orders? Just like Petunia, Snape protects Harry, although I use the word protect loosely here, because of a memory of Lily.
> 
> Snape's death, for me, isn't really about punishment; it is about reward.  Snape hasn't been able to "move on" in this life.  I see his life as a blessing, hopefully he will see Lily again and be able to "go on" as Dumbledore puts it.  Snape's dying is terrible, but having Snape live would be more cruel.  I hope that Snape will be able to "go on."


Julie:
I have difficulty seeing death as a reward. And as I mentioned
in my last post, I think if Snape had lived he might well have
been able to move on with his life. Snape's lived his adult 
life in service, playing a role first for Voldemort, then for
Dumbledore, never being his own man. Yes, his life was cruel
in many ways (most of which he brought on himself, which he
acknowledges), but that doesn't mean it would continue to be
cruel once he'd paid his debt to Lily and was truly free for
the first time in his tortured adulthood.

And if his life isn't cruel any longer, Snape himself might
be less cruel. Doing something *he* wants to do, be it as a
researcher, spell inventor, or whatever pasttime gives him 
some measure of satisfaction and peace, he might become if
not a nice man, at least a reasonably decent one ;-)

I do see your point, and I strongly suspect Snape will be
at peace in the afterlife. But I also think JKR took the 
easy way out, killing Snape as a way of "rewarding" him for
his miserable life of atonement, rather than letting him 
live and for the first time take control of his own life.
It's quite possible, even realistic that a still young 
man (at 38, I believe?) like Snape will change his outlook
on the world, overcome his bitterness and find a strong 
measure of meaning and purpose over the course of the many
years left to him, dying a very different person, maybe 
even one with a very different view of one Harry James
Potter. Much, much stranger things have happened ;-)

Julie, still sad for Snape's lost potential.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 26 19:40:44 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:40:44 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 30
In-Reply-To: <h4hq45+4a3b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4ibfs+g9av@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187452

Alla wrote:
> 
> I am going to ask a question, which I suspect belongs to the "I missed something really obvious" type, but hey, I will ask it anyway.
> 
> When one says "Imperio" it causes the subject to do anything caster wants, right? But doesn't caster also need to speak this specific order as well? I really am annoyed that I cannot check my GoF now, but doesn't Harry when Fake!Moody teaches them Imperio hears the voice in his head saying Jump? And he tries to resist it, etc?
> 
> Or are we to assume that Minerva casted nonverbal specific command? On the other hand Harry in the Gringott also does not say specific command, just Imperio? Is magic which forms this spell just adjusts itself to make sure the subject does whatever caster wants without speaking the specific command? Does the magic just know?

Carol responds:
I'm not sure, but I think that the voice Harry hears in his head is what Fake!Moody wants him to do. I don't think that Fake!Moody tells him out loud to jump onto the desk--in contrast to Voldemort, who speaks his commands out loud so that the DEs will hear them (and is, of course, unpleasantly surprised and furious when Harry casts off the Imperius).

I think that the *wand* understands the will of the spellcaster, much as the Room of Requirement does, and makes the victim do whatever the spellcaster wants him to do, whether that's to force a Goblin take him to a vault in Gringotts and run his fingernail down the door to open it (shiver!) or hide (Travers) or lie down like a good boy so he can be tied up. (It's more complex when the Imperius is long-term; how Voldemort controls Crouch Sr. for a whole year, I don't know, especially when Crouch is fighting the curse. Maybe, since Voldie and Wormtail seem to be living with Crouch in his "deserted" house, he repeatedly reapplies the Curse, with Wormtail forcing Crouch to hide under the Invisibility Cloak while he writes those letters to Percy--and Wormy and LV somehow conceal themselves????)

Anyway, I think it's the wand sensing the will of the spellcaster and forcing the victim to do whatever the spellcaster wants him to do without the spellcaster having to specifically state that action in words aloud or silently. Maybe he pictures the action in his mind much as Dumbledore must picture a chair before he conjures one (which is why his conjured chairs are comfortable and McG's are stiff-backed and severe, like her--they have a different mental image of a chair).

In contrast, the Confundus spell merely confuses the victim rather than forcing him to perform a specific action, which makes it odd that Snape used it rather than Imperius on Mundungus but explains, possibly, why he had to state exactly what he wanted Mundungus to do in detail. Must have been a strong, long-lasting Confundus spell to work that way.

As a sidenote, JKR's spells don't work consistently. I just noticed in OoP that Ginny uses Scourgify to vanish the Stink Sap rather than Evanesco, the usual Vanishing spell. Later in the book, Scourgify produces soap bubbles in Severus's mouth. So I think a particular spell does whatever JKR wants it to do at a particular moment. Consistency is not one of her virtues as a writer, gifted though she is in other respects.
>
> Alla:
> 
> How does Harry know what Minerva is casting here? That he expects that Snape must crumble, unconscious? Is it just due to what sort of wand movements he sees (slashing equals attack?) or something else?
> 
> I just was under impression that not only he knew that she was attacking, but he also figured specific charm or curse, maybe I was wrong.
> 
Carol responds:
I think that Harry simply expects her to cast a Stunning Spell, which seems to be the chief offensive spell used by the good guys (as opposed to Avada Kedavra). No need to, say, transfigure him into a toad when all she needs to do is knock him out. At any rate, it's the spell that Harry himself would have cast under those circumstances (Snape hasn't done anything except reveal his presence, after all).

Snape, however, probably knows exactly what McGonagall is going to do and knows that a Protego is his best defense.

Alla:
> 
> Flitwick strengthens the Hogwarts protective charms here, yes? Why is the remark that he could barely see? How is it important for him to see? I mean it is not like target of his incantation is portrayed somewhere?
>
Carol responds:

I think it's just an offhand remark about Flitwick's tiny size. He probably has to stand on tiptoe to see onto the grounds and point his wand out the window. I think the target of his incantation is the grounds themselves.

What *I* don't understand is why he would need to provide additional spells when Hogwarts is protected, according to Snape, by all sorts of ancient spells (which have, till now, prevented any deaths in Hogwarts or its grounds other than Moaning Myrtle's). Surely, the protections on Hogwarts wouldn't have ended with Dumbledore's death, just as those ancient protections (such as the anti-Apparition spell) didn't end with the deaths of the Founders. (DD himself removed his own anti-flying spell, but the other protections would remain--unless Snape removed the locks on the gates so that he, Draco, and the DEs could get off the grounds.)

In any case, Flitwick's new spell--probably something like the protective spells that Hermione cast around the tent earlier in the book--doesn't seem to have done much good against the combined power of LV, the DEs, and the Imperio'd Minister for Magic, Pius Thicknesse.

Carol, wondering what Snape would have done to McGonagall if he'd really been a DE and not merely defending himself (probably Sectumsempra)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jul 26 23:32:00 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:32:00 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4avca+459c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4ip1g+10o9l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187453

Montavilla47:
> > Quite probably, teen!Snape would have been just as horrified if his spell had produced that reaction.  
> > 
> > The only analogous situation that I can think of with Snape was  when he was ten and Petunia was hit--and he denied doing it. But I don't think the situations are really close enough, either in how they came about, the outcomes, or the maturity level of the participants to make a good comparison.

Carol responds:

I think that Severus hitting James with the little cutting hex (which doesn't act like a full-fledged Sectumsempra and doesn't require any complicated countercurse) is probably a bit closer. He doesn't feel any remorse there, but neither do his antagonists.

As for the tree branch falling on Petunia, I think the closest analogy, given that Severus is nine or ten years old and wandless, is thirteen-year-old Harry's accidentally "blowing up" Aunt Marge (or eleven-year-old Harry's accidentally loosing a snake on Dudley). Either way, the kid is angry, and he performs accidental magic, which explains Severus's confused reaction and his denial. He did do it, and he *was* furious at Petunia for spying on him and Lily, but he didn't mean to do it. At any rate, that's how I read the scene. It has nothing to do with Muggle-hating any more than Harry's accidental attacks on Aunt Marge and Dudley make him a Muggle-hater. (A Dursley hater, maybe. <smile>) Hagrid's unprovoked attack on eleven-year-old Dudley after he's called Vernon "a great Muggle" comes closer to Muggle hating. The less said about it, the better if we want to think of Hagrid as a good guy.

Beatrice: 

> yeah, somehow I don't think so.  First, it seems that Snape may actually be the author of that particular spell.  I make this assumption purely on the basis that most of the notes in the margins of that text seem to be of his own discoveries and when Harry attempts to use levicorpus against him after DD's death Snape screams at him that he is just like his father who used his (Snape's) own spells against him... Even if Snape didn't create the spell, he knows what it does as he designates it "for enemies." <snip>

Carol responds:
There's no need to assume. Of course, it was his spell. That's how he (and probably he alone) knew the countercurse. My theory (not shared by everyone, I realize) is that he adapted the cutting hex he used on James into something more sinister ("for enemies") after SWM. He'd want to get revenge on them at that point, especially after Lily rejected his friendship and started openly liking James. But he also at some point seems to have invented that complex, chanted countercurse (which Harry didn't find in the potions book, so I assume that it came later, after his "return" to "our side," as DD expresses it in GoF).

> 
> > Montavilla47:
> > But, there are still only three Unforgivable spells, as specified by the author.  And Sectumsempra, while designated "Dark" by its creator (which makes it "Dark" to me), is not one of those spells.  If Sectumsempra were meant to be as dire as an Unforgivable, then I don't think JKR would have designated those three spells as especially bad.
> 
> Beatrice:
>  Well, it may not give you an "automatic" life sentence in Azkaban like the other three spells, but it might be considered a crime depending on the circumstances. <snip>

Carol responds:
I don't think anyone even knew about Sectumsempra, including the MoM. Lupin acts as if it were Snape's signature spell, which is odd because Severus could hardly have performed Sectumsempra at school without being expelled (Madam Pomfrey, not being an expert at Dark magic, couldn't have cured it any more than Molly Weasley could restore George's ear). And if Sirius Black, who went to Azkaban just after Godric's Hollow, at which point Snape was already teaching Potions at Hogwarts, didn't know that Snape had been a Death Eater, Lupin wouldn't have known it, either, until they were both members of the Order.

However, unlike Avada Kedavra, for which there's no countercurse and which there's no way to block (unless you're Harry Potter!), Sectumsempra can be repaired with Snape's complex chanted countercurse, and it doesn't always kill. I think if the MoM knew about it, they'd certainly consider it Dark Magic (as Snape, who should know, does) but they wouldn't consider it Unforgiveable. (Crucio, of course, is designed specifically to torture and can be put to know other use, which makes *it* Unforgiveable--despite occasional bending of the rules by the likes of Crouch, Fake! Moody (a secret DE), Umbridge ("what Cornelius knows won't hurt him), and, of course, Harry. The Imperius Curse (Harry and McGonagall bend the rules there) is probably Unforgiveable because of how it can be used--or rather, abused. It's odd, given that the MoM has no objection to Obliviating people's memories, especially if they're Muggles, that they'd object to the invasion of someone's mind via the Imperius Curse, but if it can be used to make people commit murder and other horrific acts, I can see why they'd want to regulate it, rather like gun control in the U.S. Maybe they think that making its mere use a crime punishable by life imprisonment in Azkaban will prevent its misuse. In any case, Sectumsempra doesn't fit the same picture since it *can* be healed, at least by Severus Snape.

> Beatrice: 
> okay, but let's be blunt here.  What if LV decided that it was Neville Longbottom who was the true threat?   Would there even be a story?  Would Snape be simply indifferent to their plight?  Their suffering?  Would he ever have turned from his Death Eater ideology? <big snip>

Carol responds:

The whole point of the Snape subplot is that he loved Lily, not Alice Longbottom or anyone else. And no other DE loved either of them. So if LV had gone after the Longbottoms first (or chosen Neville over Harry and left the Potters alone), Neville would have died with his parents because there would have been no request to spare her, no chance for her to live, no choice between her life and her son's, and no love magic. All three Longbottoms would have died. By the same token, if some other DE had reported the Prophecy to LV, that DE would not have begged him to spare Lily (or Alice), so, again, there would have been no Love Magic and no Boy Who Lived (with a Horcrux in his scar).

As for Snape, I'm afraid that, yes, he'd have been indifferent to the Longbottoms' plight and would have remained a Death Eater. But the fact that *his* reporting the Prophecy endangered the woman he loved made him go first to LV and then, quite understandably distrusting LV, to Dumbledore. His remorse and his desperate fear prompted him to do "anything" to keep her from being killed, and, once she actually died, "anything" to protect her son to keep Lily from having died in vain. (No doubt there was an element of vengeance against those responsible for killing her, as well, which we see in his violent hatred of Sirius Black, the supposed betrayer of the Potters in PoA, but his vengeance toward LV is more controlled and confined to repeatedly risking his own life to lie to him and spy on him, and his vengeance against the weak and cowardly Wormtail seems to be confined to sneering at him, insulting him, and ordering him around.

I don't know whether Snape ever really swallowed the DE ideology. After all, he was a Half-Blood, not a Pure-Blood snob like the Malfoys, and his nickname, the Half-Blood Prince, seems to reflect mixed feelings about Pure-blood supremacy. But he was ambitious; he wanted a chance to use his many talents and his intelligence; and he wanted, I think, to feel a sense of belonging. He certainly wanted to be admired (but I still find it hard to swallow that he thought he could make Lily admire him by becoming a DE; he must have had very unclear notions about what the DEs actually did if he thought that). But I do think that if he'd stayed with them long enough and had done more than spying (he clearly hasn't killed anybody), he would have become hardened to suffering. Instead, he fears for the safety of one person, experiences unbearable remorse for his part in that person's death even though he did his best to prevent it (not just going to LV and DD but spying for DD "at great personal risk"), and after Lily's death worked to protect Harry and to subvert LV in every way (more so, of course, after Harry entered Hogwarts and particularly after LV returned to his body). And by HBP, perhaps sooner, he's no longer able to watch people die without doing something about it if he can. (It must have been excruciating for him to watch Charity Burbage die without being able to save her.)

In short, a brilliant young man made the mistake of joining the Death Eaters and could have become no better than Lucius Malfoy or Travers or Yaxley, if not quite so horrible as Fenrir Greyback. Instead, love and remorse turned him into Dumbledore's most valuable spy and, in HBP and DH, his trusted lieutenant who could do what no one else could do, from agreeing to kill Dumbledore to protect Draco's soul and prevent DD from suffering at the hands (or teeth) of LV's true supporters to becoming headmaster and protecting the students as best he could (imagine Yaxley as headmaster; he'd have sacked all the teachers and hired an all-DE staff) and secretly helping Harry in DH.

Snape is one of a kind, a DE turned to the good side by love and remorse. Neither DD nor Harry could have succeeded without his help. (Snape is the reason that DD knows LV's plans in OoP and HBP, for example.)

> > Montavilla47:
> > But DD doesn't not order Snape to swear an Unbreakable Vow.  By making that vow, Snape is endangering his cover--if Voldemort were to find out, then it could cause Snape problems.  
> 
> Beatrice:  Actually, I think he is deepening his cover here.  Snape indicates to DD that LV intends Snape to be the one to kill DD in the end.  Snape makes the unbreakable vow because it is essentially the same promise he has already made to DD AND because it helps Bellatrix to trust him more.  Bellatrix doubts Snapes loyalty and his willingness to make the unbreakable vow puts paid to many of her doubts.  Also, I thought that perhaps this is another way for LV to test Snape's loyalty.  As he trusts no one, perhaps he would be pleased to have Narcissa swear to this as her ends are also LV's ends.

<snipping stuff on who's worthier to wield the Elder Wand, which, IMO, no one should wield>

Carol responds:

Yes and no. Snape must have had multiple reasons for deciding to take the Unbreakable Vow (which did not originally include the provision about "doing the deed"--Narcissa only asked him if he'd swear to protect and watch over Draco). Yes, both DD and LV wanted him to kill Dumbledore, but he himself didn't want to do it, as we see in at least three different scenes. He resists the original request, accepting only reluctantly when DD has persuaded him that saving Draco's soul won't harm his if he's doing it to give an old man a painless and dignified death. (He also knows that DD needs him to stay under cover though he probably doesn't know at that point that DD wants him to become headmaster.) He objects again even after he's taken the UV, saying that maybe he doesn't want to do it any more. And we see his "hatred and revulsion" (surely, self-hatred and revulsion similar to Harry's as he force-fed DD that horrible potion) just before he kills him on the tower. Even knowing all but one of DD's reasons for wanting  Snape to kill him, Snape doesn't want to do it, and we see his torment in his face when Harry calls him a coward. (Whether Pippin is right that he's also thinking about James, I don't know, but he's certainly not happy about what DD has just insisted that he do.)

Yes, he wants to persuade Bellatrix of his loyalty to LV, but if she doesn't believe his earlier arguments, she probably won't believe him now. After all, Narcissa has gone behind LV's back in coming to Snape for help, so none of them is likely to report the UV to LV. (Bellatrix seems to conclude that Snape is after Draco's "glory" and convince him of the same motive.) And he certainly wants to aid the tearful and desperate Narcissa, possibly to keep her from doing something drastic that will result in her death as well as Draco's. (We see Snape's chivalric side here, coming to Narcissa's aid and not only asking nothing in return, in contrast to DD, but putting himself in an intolerable position, the ultimate "binding magical contract" in which he must literally do or die. He intends to watch over and protect Draco, anyway, so accepting those two provisions seems like only a small risk (had he not been on the spot to save Draco from Sectumsempra, though, the UV might have killed him then). And the third provision, terrible though it is, is inescapable at that point. He wants Bellatrix to think that he'd loyal to LV, but more important, he's bound to Narcissa with rings of fire; there's no telling what would happen if he refused the third provision. And Narcissa is counting on him; he can't let her down or she'll do something desperate. He can't let Dumbledore down; DD would expect him to take the vow. For all their sakes (Draco's and DD's especially, I think), he puts himself at greater personal risk than ever. Unless DD dies from the ring curse before Draco can find a way to kill him (presumably with DE back-up; he's not going to confront DD alone), Snape is in the intolerable position of killing DD or dying himself. Just wanting to keep his cover is not sufficient motive. It's a terrible decision (and extremely heartless and selfish of Narcissa to request it of him), but he's promised to do "anything," and he keeps his promise.

Carol, almost hating Narcissa and DD for placing that burden on him and wishing that DD had burnt the Elder Wand, his real motive for asking Snape to kill him




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 27 04:10:15 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:10:15 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4ip1g+10o9l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4j9b7+q305@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187454

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Montavilla47:
> > > Quite probably, teen!Snape would have been just as horrified if his spell had produced that reaction.  
> > > 
> > > The only analogous situation that I can think of with Snape was  when he was ten and Petunia was hit--and he denied doing it. But I don't think the situations are really close enough, either in how they came about, the outcomes, or the maturity level of the participants to make a good comparison.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I think that Severus hitting James with the little cutting hex (which doesn't act like a full-fledged Sectumsempra and doesn't require any complicated countercurse) is probably a bit closer. He doesn't feel any remorse there, but neither do his antagonists.
> 

Montavilla47:
I agree with most of your post, but I want to clarify something here.  
When Snape used the cutting curse on James (and I'm going to assume
that it's some form of Sectumsempra), he did so in a controlled manner--
even though he was quite upset.

When I say that Teen!Snape would have been horrified if he'd done 
what Harry did to Draco (as Harry was horrified), I mean that if he had
used the spell and it had produced the same result.  That is, if James
had suddenly started bleeding in a dozen different places and going into
shock.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jul 27 20:04:35 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:04:35 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4ip1g+10o9l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4l18j+59hd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187455


> Carol responds:
> I don't think anyone even knew about Sectumsempra, including the MoM. Lupin acts as if it were Snape's signature spell, which is odd because Severus could hardly have performed Sectumsempra at school without being expelled (Madam Pomfrey, not being an expert at Dark magic, couldn't have cured it any more than Molly Weasley could restore George's ear).

Pippin:
That's only a problem if the spell Snape used on James was not sectum sempra.  A knife can produce a single tiny cut that stops bleeding in moments and heals without a trace, and yet the same weapon could just as easily deliver many deep and terrible wounds. I don't see why a spell that acts like a knife should behave otherwise just because it has "always" in its name. JKR obviously isn't pedantic about spell names, or she never could have made Ennervate the countercurse for stunning.:)

I wonder if Lupin  learned the names of Snape's nonverbal spells through legilimency -- it's not definite that he has the ability but there's certainly canon to support it. The Marauders, experimenting with the spell (hopefully on something inanimate) could then have discovered its dreadful potential. 

 That would make sense out of their belief that Snape was "up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts" but also "careful and clever enough to stay out of trouble." James could hardly complain that  the little scratch he received was Dark Magic absent other proof. We know there are other cutting spells, presumably safe and legal, since Ron is supposed to have used one to hack the lace off his dress robes.

SWM happens after the prank, when Snape already believes that the Marauders have tried to kill him, so it's no wonder that he would arm himself with a deadly spell, just in case. But his use of dark magic didn't  protect him from the Marauders, it just made them feel more justified in attacking him.

Carol:
> Carol, almost hating Narcissa and DD for placing that burden on him and wishing that DD had burnt the Elder Wand, his real motive for asking Snape to kill him

Pippin:
Surely if the Elder Wand could be burnt, Dumbledore would have done it. I doubt even Fiendfyre would work. And I suspect its true master could summon the wand from anywhere, even the heart of a volcano or the bottom of the sea, as ready to serve as ever. 

It is one of those devices, familiar to all fantasy enthusiasts, which can only be destroyed in a particular way. Its purpose is to demonstrate a character's resolve and his moral fiber, not his ingenuity in disposing of unwanted thingies.

Pippin 






From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Mon Jul 27 22:41:24 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:41:24 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4i7ru+dts8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4laek+mv22@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187456

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:
>
> Julie:
> I guess we differ on a fundamental point, which is that I do
> think Snape atoned for his part in relaying the Prophecy, first
> by trying to undo his wrong (which he did by going to DD; it
> was Pettigrew and of course Voldemort who "undid Snape's undo"
> if you will ;-). And secondly, by spending the rest of his life 
> in service to Dumbledore and to protecting Harry. That to me
> does atone for his part in helping take Harry's parents away
> from him.


jkoney:
Atonement for his actions would be more believable to people if he had done it without Dumbledore roping him into it. Also if he done if for Harry and not just for the memory of Lilly.

>From the time he went to Dumbledore til the end he never cared about Harry, it was always for Lilly. That doesn't show me much if any growth in the character.


> 
> Alla:
> > 
> > Oh and of course because I do not want (in my imagination or if JKR ever decides to go back to Potterverse) to see Harry's kids to hear Snape badmouthing Harry as he badmouthed Harry's dad to him.
> > 
> 
> Julie:
> I'm not convinced this would have happened, had Snape lived.
> Snape spent his adult life in service first to Voldemort, and
> then to Dumbledore. Even more so, he spent his adult life in
> atonement to Lily. If he'd lived, all his debts would have 
> been paid, and to the fullest, given that Harry didn't die as 
> Snape was told and fully expected would happen. Snape at this
> point could wash his hands of it all, knowing he'd kept his
> promise to Lily and that Harry was free to live his own life
> too (no doubt, preferably out of Snape's sight!).
> 
> I doubt Snape would have stayed at Hogwarts. He wasn't that
> fond of children (to say the least), nor of teaching unless
> it was to those few students who had a true grasp of the
> subject and a focused desire to learn. If there were a
> wizarding equivalent of Unversity doctorate programs, that
> is where Snape might fit as a teacher, but not teaching 
> easily distracted children. Otherwise I could see Snape
> going off to do his own thing, be it potions research, 
> DADA or whatever.

jkoney:
If he had lived, I doubt even Harry backing him would have influenced the people to forgive the man who killed Dumbledore. I'm not saying it would be right, but the herd mentality tends to rule.

Also, I don't believe he would have been allowed to teach anymore. His earliest students would now have children approaching school age. I doubt they forgot how he was or how he acted. They would not want their children taught by a deatheater that killed Dumbledore (who inspite of the things printed after his death, is still seen as a hero. One of the people who first told us Voldemort was back). I believe his days at Hogwarts were over. Maybe he could have gotten a job at Durmstrung, but he wouldn't have been welcome in England. 

>> Julie: 
> Okay, I understand. It is more of an after the fact thing. I
> personally wouldn't want Snape to be thoroughly humiliated 
> by Harry if he'd lived, only because I don't like the idea of
> Harry stooping to Snape's level. 

jkoney:
It may have been fitting to humiliate Snape, but Harry was definitely the better man and wouldn't have done it.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 00:11:14 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:11:14 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4l18j+59hd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4lfn2+7tqo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187457

Carol earlier:
> > I don't think anyone even knew about Sectumsempra, including the MoM. Lupin acts as if it were Snape's signature spell, which is odd because Severus could hardly have performed Sectumsempra at school without being expelled (Madam Pomfrey, not being an expert at Dark magic, couldn't have cured it any more than Molly Weasley could restore George's ear).
> 
> Pippin:
> That's only a problem if the spell Snape used on James was not sectum sempra.  A knife can produce a single tiny cut that stops bleeding in moments and heals without a trace, and yet the same weapon could just as easily deliver many deep and terrible wounds. I don't see why a spell that acts like a knife should behave otherwise just because it has "always" in its name. JKR obviously isn't pedantic about spell names, or she never could have made Ennervate the countercurse for stunning.:)

Carol:
And "Renervate " the spell Harry used to try to restore Dumbledore. And don't get me started on the Disillusionment Charm that actually "illusions"! Nevertheless, we see in DH that Mrs. Weasley can't restore the ear that George lost to Sectumsempra (I'll bet that Snape could have), and saving Draco requires an elaborate, chanted countercurse. In contrast, Dumbledore heals his own knife cut with a silent flick of a wand, something that James (or Madam Pomfrey) must have been able to do with James's little cut, which certainly did not last "always," either in terms of bleeding or remaining unhealed. We never hear of his having a scar, either, which is why I'm pretty sure that the nonverbal hex Severus used on James wasn't Sectumsempra, which I doubt he would have worked out in one short week, not to mention that he clearly didn't anticipate being ambushed two on one after the DADA exam. So, until JKR informs me otherwise, I'll stay with my theory. (She also owes us an explanation for why kids were using Levicorpus, a *nonverbal* spell written in Severus's *NEWT* Potions book at the end of *fifth* year, but I suppose we can supply our own explanations--Severus was practicing advanced potions at home and making notes in his mom's old book long before sixth year, and some Slytherin that he'd told the Levicorpus spell to couldn't do nonverbal spells and so gave away both the incantation and countercurse by speaking them out loud--but I do wish she pay attention to what she's written elsewhere. Consistency in a fiction series is a virtue.)

Pippin: 
> I wonder if Lupin  learned the names of Snape's nonverbal spells through legilimency -- it's not definite that he has the ability but there's certainly canon to support it. The Marauders, experimenting with the spell (hopefully on something inanimate) could then have discovered its dreadful potential. 

Carol:
I doubt very much that he was a skilled Legilimens in fifth year even if he became one later. I like my explanations better. (I see *no* explanation for how Lupin could have considered Sectumsempra Snape's signature spell when he didn't even know that he was a DE other than Flint.)

Pippin: 
>  That would make sense out of their belief that Snape was "up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts" but also "careful and clever enough to stay out of trouble." James could hardly complain that  the little scratch he received was Dark Magic absent other proof. We know there are other cutting spells, presumably safe and legal, since Ron is supposed to have used one to hack the lace off his dress robes. <snip>

Carol:

Exactly. Other, legal cutting spells exist, none of which is Dark Magic or Severus wouldn't have had to invent Sectumsempra. (And no, I don't think the component parts of that particular spell are accidental. JKR may be careless, but Snape is not. :-) )There's no indication whatever that that little hex was Dark Magic. Neither James nor Lily reacts as if it were, and he's certainly not incapacitated by it in any way. (Contrast the amount of bleeding we see in George Weasley. And I suspect that the DE would have lost a hand had Snape not missed, forcing him to take the DE to safety and undo the "mistake," which would conveniently have taken them both out of the chase. BTW, how did Snape know that the fake Harry he'd Sectumsempra'd was George?)

> 
> Carol:
> > Carol, almost hating Narcissa and DD for placing that burden on him and wishing that DD had burnt the Elder Wand, his real motive for asking Snape to kill him
> 
> Pippin:
> Surely if the Elder Wand could be burnt, Dumbledore would have done it. I doubt even Fiendfyre would work. And I suspect its true master could summon the wand from anywhere, even the heart of a volcano or the bottom of the sea, as ready to serve as ever. 
> 
> It is one of those devices, familiar to all fantasy enthusiasts, which can only be destroyed in a particular way. Its purpose is to demonstrate a character's resolve and his moral fiber, not his ingenuity in disposing of unwanted thingies.

Carol:
I'm not so sure about that. If Horcruxes can be destroyed with Fiendfyre or Basilisk venom despite all the protective spells placed on them, I see no reason why the Elder Wand couldn't (unless its master is reluctant to destroy it, as DD may have been). There's no indication in the wandlore that Ollivander cites that the wand is indestructible. Heck, it's not even unbeatable despite its reputation.

Carol, agreeing to disagree since she's already made all her points and doesn't want to repeat them




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jul 28 11:01:22 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:01:22 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4lfn2+7tqo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4mlq2+ta4b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187458

 
> Carol:
snip
(Contrast the amount of bleeding we see in George Weasley. And I suspect that the DE would have lost a hand had Snape not missed, forcing him to take the DE to safety and undo the "mistake," which would conveniently have taken them both out of the chase. BTW, how did Snape know that the fake Harry he'd Sectumsempra'd was George?)

Potioncat:
Did he know? Certainly, later he would have. At the end of the chase, everyone would know that LV had been following the real Harry. Snape would have heard that George lost his ear--possibly from mumblings at school, or there may have been something in the paper about the odd injury a prominent young businessman had sustained. And I'll bet George made up a good story about it!

Now I'm wondering if in Snape's memory we see George as George, but I don't have time to go look. Even if we do, it would be Snape's memory ofthe event almost a year later.





From caaf at hotmail.com  Tue Jul 28 13:19:59 2009
From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:49:59 +0530
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
References: <h4lfn2+7tqo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY109-DAV34DEE30EA381573EC1623CA150@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 187459

Cyril here:

Snipping most of Carol's post which I do not disagree with.


Carol:
And "Renervate " the spell Harry used to try to restore Dumbledore. And don't get me started on the Disillusionment Charm that actually "illusions"! Nevertheless, we see in DH that Mrs. Weasley can't restore the ear that George lost to Sectumsempra (I'll bet that Snape could have), and saving Draco requires an elaborate, chanted countercurse.

Cyril:
The one difference that I see in this case with George is that he probably was not carrying the ear with him. In the heat of battle it would have fallen to the ground and probably lost. So the question is not about healing the 'cut' but rather growing a new ear in its place. Maybe even Snape would not have been able to fix it, unless he got the original ear back and then just healed the cut.

JMO,
Cyril.



From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 15:35:46 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:35:46 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4lfn2+7tqo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4n5si+9tvs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187460


> Carol:
>  (She also owes us an explanation for why kids were using Levicorpus, a *nonverbal* spell written in Severus's *NEWT* Potions book at the end of *fifth* year, but I suppose we can supply our own explanations--Severus was practicing advanced potions at home and making notes in his mom's old book long before sixth year, and some Slytherin that he'd told the Levicorpus spell to couldn't do nonverbal spells and so gave away both the incantation and countercurse by speaking them out loud--but I do wish she pay attention to what she's written elsewhere. Consistency in a fiction series is a virtue.)


Montavilla47:
I think there's a much simpler explanation.  Snape could have taught 
the spell to Lily, who was, he thought, his best friend.   When first
used it, Harry and Ron thought it a fun and essentially harmless spell.
It would be natural for Snape to want to share a fun joke with Lily.

If Snape then discovers James using it (in the SWM), he has even more
reason to snap at Lily, because it would mean she had taught it to 
James (or possibly, to one of her friends, who passed it along).






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 17:17:58 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:17:58 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <BAY109-DAV34DEE30EA381573EC1623CA150@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <h4nbs6+3tgu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187461

Carol earlier:
> Nevertheless, we see in DH that Mrs. Weasley can't restore the ear that George lost to Sectumsempra (I'll bet that Snape could have), and saving Draco requires an elaborate, chanted countercurse.
> 
> Cyril:
> The one difference that I see in this case with George is that he probably was not carrying the ear with him. In the heat of battle it would have fallen to the ground and probably lost. So the question is not about healing the 'cut' but rather growing a new ear in its place. Maybe even Snape would not have been able to fix it, unless he got the original ear back and then just healed the cut.
> 
> JMO,
> Cyril.
>
Carol responds:
A Summoning Charm ("Accio ear!") could have retrieved the ear, but Mrs. Weasley didn't have the skill to reattach it. In fact, considering that the spell is Dark Magic and Snape needed his own chanted (or half-sung) countercurse to heal Draco (with Dittany later to prevent scarring), she shouldn't have been able to heal the wound at all. (George is left with a hole in the side of his head which I presume is the ear canal, but no bleeding.) At any rate, if anyone could reattach the ear, it would have been Snape, the only person, AFAWK, who knew the countercurse to Sectumsempra. (BTW, even Dittany works differently in DH than it does in HBP, where it merely prevents scarring. Hermione uses it in DH to stop the bleeding from Ron's Splinching. (We didn't see any bleeding, IIRC, when Susan Bones Splinched herself in HBP. However, in that instance, Snape was one of the teachers who hovered around her and Harry didn't know which of them put her back together or how.)

BTW, given George's personality (he actually joked about having a missing ear--talk about a "talking point" or as we would say in the U.S., a conversation piece--and enjoyed being easily distinguishable from Fred), he might not have wanted to have his ear restored. 

Carol, who cried over George's bravery at the same time she groaned over his egregious puns




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 17:35:35 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:35:35 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology
In-Reply-To: <h4n5si+9tvs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4nct7+mfn2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187462

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Carol:
> >  (She also owes us an explanation for why kids were using Levicorpus, a *nonverbal* spell written in Severus's *NEWT* Potions book at the end of *fifth* year, but I suppose we can supply our own explanations--Severus was practicing advanced potions at home and making notes in his mom's old book long before sixth year, and some Slytherin that he'd told the Levicorpus spell to couldn't do nonverbal spells and so gave away both the incantation and countercurse by speaking them out loud--but I do wish she pay attention to what she's written elsewhere. Consistency in a fiction series is a virtue.)
> 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I think there's a much simpler explanation.  Snape could have taught the spell to Lily, who was, he thought, his best friend.   When first used it, Harry and Ron thought it a fun and essentially harmless spell. It would be natural for Snape to want to share a fun joke with Lily.
> 
> If Snape then discovers James using it (in the SWM), he has even more reason to snap at Lily, because it would mean she had taught it to James (or possibly, to one of her friends, who passed it along).
>
Carol responds:
It *is* an essentially harmless spell unless it's used to humiliate and abuse people (Severus in SWM and the Muggle Mrs. Roberts, who, in addition to being levitated like her family, is flipped upside down to expose her "voluminous drawers"). It's certainly less dark than, say, a hex that makes the victim suffer from painful boils. It can be useful (McGonagall uses something like it to leave the Carrows hanging after she's tied them up). But, like most of the spells in the books other than Dark curses, it can be abused.

That aside, your explanation works as well as any, but, still, Levicorpus and its countercurse Liberacorpus are nonverbal, so JKR ought to have provided *some* explanation as to how they could become a fad during Snape's and Lupin's fifth year, not to mention why he's using a sixth-year Potions book during his fifth year. I really think that she just forgot the chronology, just as she forgets that James is sixteen, not fifteen, during those scenes. (If she wanted him to be fifteen, she should have given him a summer birthday, not a March one.) We readers shouldn't have to invent explanations to explain real or apparent inconsistencies.

BTW, can anyone figure out an explanation for Harry's detentions with Umbridge, assigned on Monday for "every day this week," beginning on a Tuesday? On Monday night, he goes to dinner with Ron and Hermione and then heads up to Gryffindor Tower, but on Tuesday, which ought to have been the second day, he gobbles a bite of dinner before 5:00 (has the dinner hour also changed? Since when have they eaten dinner at 4:30 or 4:45?) and hurries off to his *first* detention!

Sure, it's a small thing, but it annoys me, just as it annoys me that the Gryffindors-only DADA class suddenly has thirty students instead of ten (of whom only a familiar five or six speak up).

Carol, sorry to be hypercritical but still in copyeditor mode after a long project with a tight deadline

Carol, who finally remembered to put the "h" in "psychology" in the thread title




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jul 28 17:49:39 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:49:39 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology
In-Reply-To: <h4nct7+mfn2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4ndnj+brjk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187463

Carol earlier:
<snip> But, like most of the spells in the books other than Dark curses, it can be abused. <snip>

Carol again:

Sorry to be unclear. I meant that most spells can be either used or abused. With Dark magic, it's different. Those spells, with rare exceptions like Snape's evil-seeming but necessary AK, can't be put to good uses. They're created to control or torture kill the living or to abuse the dead (Inferi, "bone of the father," etc.) or for other cruel or evil purposes, so they can't really be abused. To use them is to abuse not the spell but the victim. Cruciatus, for example, is designed to torture and can't be used for any other purpose, as I tried to say in another post but acciedntally typed "can" for "can't."

Carol, wasting a post but wanting to prevent misunderstanding





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 01:38:09 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:38:09 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 30
In-Reply-To: <h4hq45+4a3b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4o961+af59@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187464

> 
> "Professor McGonagall moved faster than Harry could have believed: her wand slashed through the air and for a split second Harry thought that Snape must crumble, unconscious, but the swiftness of his Shield Charm was such that McGonagall was thrown off balance" - p.481, brit.ed.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How does Harry know what Minerva is casting here? That he expects that Snape must crumble, unconscious? Is it just due to what sort of wand movements he sees (slashing equals attack?) or something else?

Zara:
Several spells have been described in the books as looking like bolts or jets of variously colored light. I presume Minerva chose to case the Stunning Spell, Stupefy, which appears as a red bolt of light. Severus's chosen defense, a Shield Charm, would not prevent Minerva's spell from shooting across the hall in his direction, it would merely deflect it harmlessly, so that Harry could see what she was casting from the color. This would also be consistent with his expectation that Severus would be rendered unconscious, as that is what Stupefy does.




From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Jul 29 04:07:25 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:07:25 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4laek+mv22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4ohtt+ch54@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187465

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" <juli17@> wrote:
> >
> > Julie:
> > I guess we differ on a fundamental point, which is that I do
> > think Snape atoned for his part in relaying the Prophecy, first
> > by trying to undo his wrong (which he did by going to DD; it
> > was Pettigrew and of course Voldemort who "undid Snape's undo"
> > if you will ;-). And secondly, by spending the rest of his life 
> > in service to Dumbledore and to protecting Harry. That to me
> > does atone for his part in helping take Harry's parents away
> > from him.
> 
> 
> jkoney:
> Atonement for his actions would be more believable to people if he had done it without Dumbledore roping him into it. Also if he done if for Harry and not just for the memory of Lilly.

Julie:
I don't see how it would be more believable, given Snape's
character at the time. He *was* a working Death Eater, so to
speak. That he had a change of heart for any reason is a 
bigger leap than any other Death Eater took.

> 
> From the time he went to Dumbledore til the end he never cared about Harry, it was always for Lilly. That doesn't show me much if any growth in the character.
> 

Julie:
No, he didn't care for Harry. But what does that have to do
with anything? Or maybe it says more that he kept doing it
even though he so greatly disliked Harry. 

As for growth in his character, I think it is telling that 
at the beginning Snape only did it for Lily. But by the end,
Snape did what was right just because it was right, like
saving Lupin during the Seven Potters chase (he could have
let his old enemy die without affecting his promise for Lily;
in fact it would have been safer to do so), and accepting
that it was more important to destroy Voldemort than to 
protect Harry's life. 


Julie




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jul 29 09:07:40 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:07:40 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4laek+mv22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4p3gs+51nm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187466

 
> 
> jkoney:
> Atonement for his actions would be more believable to people if he had done it without Dumbledore roping him into it. Also if he done if for Harry and not just for the memory of Lilly.

Pippin:
I think most people with something serious to atone for have to be roped into it at first. If their judgment was  good enough to recognize the  full extent of the wrong they were doing, they probably wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Snape did not come to Dumbledore to clear his conscience  but only to persuade Dumbledore to save Lily. He does not feel any concern, still less remorse, for the harm that threatens Harry or James. 

Snape wouldn't have understood at the time that Dumbledore was already doing all he could with the resources he had, and the only thing that could be done to make Lily or anyone else safer would be to increase those resources -- by  enlisting Snape. 

After Lily died, Snape still was not thinking of clearing his conscience. He only wanted to die, not caring or perhaps not knowing that he would take the pain of his torn soul with him. I don't think he believed that any atonement was possible.  But Dumbledore asked him to protect Harry so that Lily would not have died in vain. 

I don't think Snape ever grew to care for Harry, but he did learn to value other lives than Lily's, even the life of his old enemy Lupin. And he allowed the unconscious Sirius the dignity of a stretcher, which is more than Sirius did for him.
 

> jkoney:
> If he had lived, I doubt even Harry backing him would have influenced the people to forgive the man who killed Dumbledore. I'm not saying it would be right, but the herd mentality tends to rule.
> 
Pippin:
Harry has a lot of influence over the herd. If we believe JKR, he eventually got Snape's portrait installed in the Headmaster's office, so while I doubt that Snape would have wanted to return as Headmaster, it doesn't seem impossible that he could have.

No one in the books complains about Snape's teaching methods. Harry floats the idea that he deliberately sabotaged the occlumency lessons, but if anyone did that, it was Harry, who wanted his visions to continue. 

The Gryffindor kids hate that Snape's unfair, but nobody, even Harry, ever says that he'd be a better teacher if he was fairer. A better role model as a human being, certainly, but it's abundantly clear that Hogwarts does not consider that when hiring staff.

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jul 29 09:41:19 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:41:19 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic was Re: Snape's Psychology
In-Reply-To: <h4ndnj+brjk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4p5fv+61e7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187467


> Carol earlier:
> <snip> But, like most of the spells in the books other than Dark curses, it can be abused. <snip>
> 
> Carol again:
> 
> Sorry to be unclear. I meant that most spells can be either used or abused. With Dark magic, it's different. Those spells, with rare exceptions like Snape's evil-seeming but necessary AK, can't be put to good uses. 

Pippin:

I don't think it's that black and white. In ToBtB, Dumbledore writes that  Cruciatus, Imperius and Avada Kedavra were designated as Unforgivable and strictest penalties attached to their use in 1717. At the time that Beedle was writing, he says, cruciatus was not illegal. 

So this is not ancient prohibition. 

That makes anti-Dark measures more like gun control than a religious taboo. I think that's part of what the war is about, with some of the older wizarding families still resenting the loss of that freedom. Meanwhile, people coming from a Muggle background would be more inclined to frame it as we do, as  a moral issue.

I think there still is no broad consensus in the WW about which spells, if any, are too terrible to be used. IMO, that is why Dumbledore was so desperate to keep the existence of horcruxes a secret. I think he feared that many wizards  would consider the murder of  a faceless, nameless Muggle a small price to pay for immortality.

 In any case, I think the point of canon is that no matter what spells you consider dark or what actions you consider unforgivable, it is easier to hate and punish your enemies for doing them than to prove yourself a better person by not doing them yourself.

Pippin





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 13:30:03 2009
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:30:03 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psycology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4n5si+9tvs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4pisr+kh5l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187468

<snip>
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I think there's a much simpler explanation.  Snape could have taught 
> the spell to Lily, who was, he thought, his best friend.   When first
> used it, Harry and Ron thought it a fun and essentially harmless spell.
> It would be natural for Snape to want to share a fun joke with Lily.
> 
> If Snape then discovers James using it (in the SWM), he has even more
> reason to snap at Lily, because it would mean she had taught it to 
> James (or possibly, to one of her friends, who passed it along).


lizzyben:

That would also explain why Lily's expression "twitched" into a smile when James used the spell on Snape. Snape was hoisted on his own petard, in a way - actually literally hoisted into the air w/his own attack spell. Lily might think that was ironic &/or funny, which would only increase Snape's rage.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 13:52:49 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:52:49 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4p3gs+51nm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4pk7h+bjiu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187469

jkoney:
> Atonement for his actions would be more believable to people if he had done it
without Dumbledore roping him into it. Also if he done if for Harry and not just
for the memory of Lilly. <SNIP>

Julie:
I don't see how it would be more believable, given Snape's
character at the time. He *was* a working Death Eater, so to
speak. That he had a change of heart for any reason is a
bigger leap than any other Death Eater took. <SNIP>

Alla:

I would agree that Snape's sudden change of heart, him thinking something like , oh dear I just realized how horrible I had been, I must go to Dumbledore and must atone will not be believable. I mean, obviously I just stated the gist of what I think will not be believable, it does not have to be in the same words.
However, I really do not see how Snape's *slow* change of heart will not be believable. I am talking about the scenario when he comes to Dumbledore and I suppose to the question why are you here or something like that tells Dumbledore couple sentences about him slowly realizing how horrible of a mess he got himself into and realizing that he is not cut out for torturing and murdering innocents, etc. Do you see what I am saying? This sort of change of heart even if it occurred off page and we would just learn about it I would believe.

And I guess I do disagree that when he came to Dumbledore he took a bigger leap than what any DE took. I suppose I do not see what he did as that much different of what Narcissa did when she came to Snape to beg for Draco's life. I know, I know, analogy is not exact, but to me it is close enough, because really neither action to me requires of the begger to abandon his views. 

But certainly I agree that Snape learned that killing people is wrong over the years.

Pippin:
I think most people with something serious to atone for have to be roped into it
at first. If their judgment was good enough to recognize the full extent of
the wrong they were doing, they probably wouldn't have done it in the first
place.

Alla:

So, most people who did something wrong cannot figure it out until somebody forced them to do it? 

Pippin:
Snape did not come to Dumbledore to clear his conscience but only to persuade
Dumbledore to save Lily. He does not feel any concern, still less remorse, for
the harm that threatens Harry or James.

Alla:

Exactly.

Pippin:
Snape wouldn't have understood at the time that Dumbledore was already doing all
he could with the resources he had, and the only thing that could be done to
make Lily or anyone else safer would be to increase those resources -- by 
enlisting Snape.

Alla:

Well, I guess I am with Snape here (oh dear, did I just say that?), I also did not understand that Dumbledore was already doing everything he could to save Potters. I mean, it is not like Potters were already asked to go into hiding before Snape came to Dumbledore, right?

It felt to me that Dumbledore enlisting Snape was his first action not the continuing effort to save  Potters.

Pippin:
After Lily died, Snape still was not thinking of clearing his conscience. He
only wanted to die, not caring or perhaps not knowing that he would take the
pain of his torn soul with him. I don't think he believed that any atonement was
possible. But Dumbledore asked him to protect Harry so that Lily would not have
died in vain.

Alla:

Suicidal man, Pippin, he is clearly portrayed as suicidal man. And instead of showing him some kindness, at least telling him that yes, Order needs his services, but take time before you decide or something like that Dumbledore coldly manipulates him into his service.

I will be the last person to say that Snape did not deserve what Dumbledore did, but OMG I thought Dumbledore was despicable here.

And no, I do not think he was concerned one bit about Snape's soul here. With him asking Snape to kill him in HBP he showed me the exact opposite.

Pippin:
I don't think Snape ever grew to care for Harry, but he did learn to value other
lives than Lily's, even the life of his old enemy Lupin. <SNIP>

Alla:

I would agree with this yes.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
The Gryffindor kids hate that Snape's unfair, but nobody, even Harry, ever says
that he'd be a better teacher if he was fairer. A better role model as a human
being, certainly, but it's abundantly clear that Hogwarts does not consider that
when hiring staff.

Alla:

Sorry, but "kids complain that teacher is unfair" means to me that yes, he would have been better teacher if he was fairer.

Just as when I say that I complained that one of my law school teachers used to come to lectures drunk, you bet that means that I thought he would be a better teacher if he was not drunk LOL.

It would be redundant IMO to spell it out.

And sure Hogwarts hired some unfair teachers (which I maintain Snape is on top of the list, but opinions differ of course), however they also hired some very fair ones IMO





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 14:03:22 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:03:22 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 30
In-Reply-To: <h4ibfs+g9av@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4pkra+ggis@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187470

Carol:
<SNIP>
I think that the *wand* understands the will of the spellcaster, much as the
Room of Requirement does, and makes the victim do whatever the spellcaster wants
him to do, whether that's to force a Goblin take him to a vault in Gringotts and
run his fingernail down the door to open it (shiver!) or hide (Travers) or lie
down like a good boy so he can be tied up. <SNIP>

Alla:

Right, based on how Imperio is used in DH (and I still cannot check on GoF) this was my thought too. The reason I asked was I was not sure if this is the way Imperio worked in GoF and it just feels wierd to me that this particular spell works this way without caster needing to specify what she or he wants. I mean some spells already ask for something specific, but say Accio! requires you to name the object you want, right?

And if wand understands the will of the speaker, why can't they just say Accio and wand figures out what caster wants?




From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Wed Jul 29 15:39:46 2009
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:39:46 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4pk7h+bjiu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4pqg2+k8c8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187471

>> Alla:

>> Suicidal man, Pippin, he is clearly portrayed as suicidal man. And >> instead of
>> showing him some kindness, at least telling him that yes, Order
>> needs his
>> services, but take time before you decide or something like that
>> Dumbledore
>> coldly manipulates him into his service.

Parantap :

Wouldn't it be a little bit too idealistic to do otherwise ?? Person X is fighting a war against Y, and one of the spies of Y comes to X for help. Isn't it natural for X to take as much advantage of the situation as possible? When a person is leading the battle to save their country/community, the first and foremost consideration is the welfare of the community. Everything else comes next.

 It's not like I am trying to argue that end always justifies the means ? certainly we cannot support Crouch's authorization of torture and suspension of justice system. But in this particular case ? it would have served no purpose to ask Snape to think things through and decide. It might have been better for Snape himself, but the order would/could have lost its most valuable future spy. If I imagine myself in such a situation (like DD's) I don't see myself giving Snape any more respect than an unexpected good opportunity which can be exploited greatly for my sides benefit ? just what DD did.
You may be on the side of good or evil, but when you are actually fighting, all that matters is winning.  Otherwise you are dead ? your values will only determine whether you spend the afterlife crying under a bench or sitting over it with a smiling face.  I would choose to win, and leave the thoughts of afterlife till death.

One more thing, Potters are two adults who are supposed to be capable of taking care of themselves and their kid. So it's not likely that people will think about nothing but their well-being, if they come to know that Potters are threatened, unless they have special interest in Mrs Potter. Agreed, one should not try and increase the danger, but that is not what DD is doing here. He is just trying to make the most of the situation.



Parantap ( My opinion on this matter may be biased by the fact that I strongly disbelieve in existence of any kind of afterlife ).





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jul 29 16:02:49 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:02:49 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4pk7h+bjiu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4prr9+uq5q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187472


> 
> Alla:
> 
> So, most people who did something wrong cannot figure it out until somebody forced them to do it? 

Pippin:
I think they tend to maintain their indifference or rationalizations or excuses until something interferes with that behavior, yes. In canon, only Lupin seems to regret anything before he is faced with the consequences, and even so, as he admits, remorse was not enough to make him change. 

> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, I guess I am with Snape here (oh dear, did I just say that?), I also did not understand that Dumbledore was already doing everything he could to save Potters. I mean, it is not like Potters were already asked to go into hiding before Snape came to Dumbledore, right?
> 
> It felt to me that Dumbledore enlisting Snape was his first action not the continuing effort to save  Potters.

Pippin:
It's not clear when the Potters went into hiding. They were already Order members, and it seems that Voldemort had been trying to recruit them. Presumably Voldemort was already attempting to kill or subvert as many Order members as he could. 

Throughout canon, Dumbledore had to balance the safety of the Order members themselves against the fulfillment of their purpose: to block the rise of Voldemort and defend the innocent and helpless. But his resources were not great enough. Despite whatever Dumbledore did,  Voldemort always got his man, inside the Order or outside it -- except for Harry.

I don't know that Snape had anything specific in mind that Dumbledore could do to save Lily. Just taking her out of the fight would not be enough. I think Snape thought, or hoped, that as the most powerful wizard in existence, the only one whom Voldemort feared, Dumbledore had to be able to do *something*, he just had to. Remember, Snape himself was still very young.

If Snape had thought there was something he himself could do to save Lily, he would have done it. But evidently he felt helpless beyond asking Voldemort to spare her. The ironic thing is that it would have been enough, if Lily had not decided to save Harry instead.

 
> Alla:
> 
> Suicidal man, Pippin, he is clearly portrayed as suicidal man. And instead of showing him some kindness, at least telling him that yes, Order needs his services, but take time before you decide or something like that Dumbledore coldly manipulates him into his service.

Pippin:
You mean, Dumbledore should have offered Snape a reason to live that didn't benefit the Order or help Lily's son survive? Why? Are those bad things that it was wrong to ask Snape to do them? 

Snape stayed at Hogwarts  for ten peaceful years before he actually had to run any risks on Harry's behalf, so it is not like Dumbledore took advantage of Snape's state of mind to rope him into  a suicide mission that he wouldn't have agreed to otherwise. 

It's clear to me that Dumbledore did not want Snape to be suicidal, far from it. A suicidal spy would not survive long enough to be useful. 

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 16:06:31 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:06:31 -0000
Subject: Snape's Psychology: WAS: More thoughts on the Elder Wand subplot - Owner?
In-Reply-To: <h4pqg2+k8c8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4ps27+san8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187473

Parantap :

Wouldn't it be a little bit too idealistic to do otherwise ?? Person X is
fighting a war against Y, and one of the spies of Y comes to X for help. Isn't
it natural for X to take as much advantage of the situation as possible? When a
person is leading the battle to save their country/community, the first and
foremost consideration is the welfare of the community. Everything else comes
next.

It's not like I am trying to argue that end always justifies the means ?
certainly we cannot support Crouch's authorization of torture and suspension of
justice system. But in this particular case ? it would have served no purpose to
ask Snape to think things through and decide. It might have been better for
Snape himself, but the order would/could have lost its most valuable future spy.

Alla:

Well, that is why there is no right answer in these debates, right? One person thinks that no, it is not too idealistic to ask Snape to cool off and decide before committing himself to be a spy and another person thinks it is and  it is always a question of what one considers going too far.

But see, to me it is also a question of slippery slope, because really, didn't Crouch Sr. wanted to win too? Why can't we support his authorization of torture then? After all if winning is ALL that matters, he also worked for good guys to win.  No, I do not support it, but neither do I like what Dumbledore does here. How far is too far? Who will determine the line that cannot be overstepped without good guys turning into bad guys?

Dumbledore does not put any physical enslavement here on Snape, he binds him metaphorically because Snape loved Lily.

Prince Alessan in book "Tigana" goes several steps furhter than Dumbledore here. He physically enslaves wizard Erlein, because his goals are noble and brave and (he thinks at first) any means are good for him to help him save his country. Is he going too far? 

But again, to me it is not even a question of whether Snape deserved it or not, I think he did. To me it is a question of Dumbledore's character.  And yeah, I think he went too far, even if Snape deserved it ten times over.

Parantap:
One more thing, Potters are two adults who are supposed to be capable of taking
care of themselves and their kid. So it's not likely that people will think
about nothing but their well-being, if they come to know that Potters are
threatened, unless they have special interest in Mrs Potter. Agreed, one should
not try and increase the danger, but that is not what DD is doing here. He is
just trying to make the most of the situation. <SNIP>

Alla:

I  was not saying that Dumbledore is trying to increase the danger though. I was responding to Pippin's suggestion that Dumbledore is already working hard to save the Potters and I did not see it at all. I think he started thinking about it only after Snape came to him.

And sure, he is trying to make the most of the situation, I agree. I just do not like the way he goes about it.

JMO,

Alla





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 16:46:14 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:46:14 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 30
In-Reply-To: <h4o961+af59@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4pucm+idl1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187474

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
> > 
> > "Professor McGonagall moved faster than Harry could have believed: her wand slashed through the air and for a split second Harry thought that Snape must crumble, unconscious, but the swiftness of his Shield Charm was such that McGonagall was thrown off balance" - p.481, brit.ed.
> > 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > How does Harry know what Minerva is casting here? That he expects that Snape must crumble, unconscious? Is it just due to what sort of wand movements he sees (slashing equals attack?) or something else?
> 
> Zara:
> Several spells have been described in the books as looking like bolts or jets of variously colored light. I presume Minerva chose to case the Stunning Spell, Stupefy, which appears as a red bolt of light. Severus's chosen defense, a Shield Charm, would not prevent Minerva's spell from shooting across the hall in his direction, it would merely deflect it harmlessly, so that Harry could see what she was casting from the color. This would also be consistent with his expectation that Severus would be rendered unconscious, as that is what Stupefy does.
>
Carol responds:
Must have been a *really* fast Protego (Shield Charm) if Snape cast it after she had cast the Stunning Spell if that's what it was. I think that either he used Legilimency or read her arm movements to determine which spell it was--or used a Protego because it would deflect any jinx, hex, or spell other than an Unforgiveable Curse. Harry, however, can't use Legilimency or, apparently, parry a curse with the proper countercurse by reading arm movements, both of which we know Snape can do because of his duel with Harry in HBP. I think that Harry, correctly or incorrectly, anticipated a Stunning Spell because that's what he would have used. IIRC, it was the spell most commonly cast by the Order members in the battle in the MoM. (Later, in the battle of Hogwarts, we see mostly red and green jets of light, as if everyone on each side knows only one spell, or at least highly favors Stupefy for the good guys or AK for the DEs. Expelliarmus also casts a red or scarlet light, but clearly that's not what Harry is anticipating here.)

Carol, pretty sure that Snape knew exactly what McGonagall intended but Harry was only guessing, perhaps correctly





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 17:08:31 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:08:31 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 30
In-Reply-To: <h4pkra+ggis@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4pvmf+2vl0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187475

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

> I mean some spells already ask for something specific, 
> but say Accio! requires you to name the object you want, right?


zanooda:

Not necessarily. If the object is in plain sight, you don't need to name it, just to point, like Harry did with the Triwizard cup in the graveyard :-). As for Imperio, no one says what he wants to be done out loud. In GoF Imperiused Harry hears Mad-Eye's voice inside his head, but I think it's just that - inside the head, not outside :-). As Harry describes it in DH, the order seems to flow from the mind through the arm into the wand, and believe this exactly how it works. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 17:14:55 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:14:55 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic was Re: Snape's Psychology
In-Reply-To: <h4p5fv+61e7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4q02f+eov1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187476

Carol earlier:
> > <snip> But, like most of the spells in the books other than Dark curses, it can be abused. <snip>
> > 
> > Carol again:
> > 
> > Sorry to be unclear. I meant that most spells can be either used or abused. With Dark magic, it's different. Those spells, with rare exceptions like Snape's evil-seeming but necessary AK, can't be put to good uses. 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> I don't think it's that black and white. In ToBtB, Dumbledore writes that  Cruciatus, Imperius and Avada Kedavra were designated as Unforgivable and strictest penalties attached to their use in 1717. At the time that Beedle was writing, he says, cruciatus was not illegal. 
> 
> So this is not ancient prohibition. 
> 
> That makes anti-Dark measures more like gun control than a religious taboo. I think that's part of what the war is about, with some of the older wizarding families still resenting the loss of that freedom. Meanwhile, people coming from a Muggle background would be more inclined to frame it as we do, as  a moral issue.
> 
> I think there still is no broad consensus in the WW about which spells, if any, are too terrible to be used. IMO, that is why Dumbledore was so desperate to keep the existence of horcruxes a secret. I think he feared that many wizards  would consider the murder of  a faceless, nameless Muggle a small price to pay for immortality.
> 
>  In any case, I think the point of canon is that no matter what spells you consider dark or what actions you consider unforgivable, it is easier to hate and punish your enemies for doing them than to prove yourself a better person by not doing them yourself.
> 
> Pippin
>
Carol responds:

I'm not talking about legality. I'm talking about the uses to which these curses can be put. It's conceivable that Imperius can be used for good, but it has a huge potential for abuse. Snape's AK was a necessary evil--he had to give DD a quick, painless death that the DEs would not question--but under normal circumstances, a spell that can't be blocked and is designed for killing and only killing, would be regarded as evil, a spell that good wizards don't use (except, I suppose, in war). Even the Auror Moody never killed unless he had to, as with Evan Rosier. But with regard to the Cruciatus Curse, it's designed solely for torture and can't be used for anything else. Of course, it was legal until ca. 1717. Muggles also used torture. (I'm not sure when they stopped cutting off people's hands for theft.) But that doesn't make it right or in any way justifiable.

We don't get a clear definition of Dark Magic, true. But it seems to involve either the potential for abuse (Imperius), cruelty (Cruciatus; the potion/incantation used to restore Voldemort using the flesh of a servant and the blood of an enemy), inescapable death (AK), or something like necromancy, abuse of the dead (Inferi, "bone of the father." Snape considers his own spell, Sectumsempra, Dark magic, apparently because it inflicts damage that can kill and requires a special, complex countercurse to undo. The curses on the opal necklace and the ring Horcrux are also Dark Magic beyond Madam Pomfrey's skill to undo or heal; even Snape can only remove them from the respective objects and confine them long enough to send Katie to St. Mungo's or give DD a year to live. Hermione mentions potions with no antidotes. The potion in the cave, which cause excruciating pain, burning thirst, and unendurable hallucinations, can't be vanished, transfigured, or poured on the ground; its only antidote is the water that will cause the Inferi to drown the victim. Neither Dumbledore nor Voldemort can change its nature; DD has to drink it and LV forces Kreacher to do so; later he makes it transparent so he can see that the Horcrux is gone but that would not make it any less evil. And, of course, Horcruxes themselves require murder to create and mutilate the soul, making them the Darkest of all Dark magic just as Dementors, who suck the souls of humans are the Darkest of Dark creatures.

IOW, as far as I can see, Dark magic is either cruel or in some other way evil and either difficult or impossible to reverse. Legality has nothing to do with it.

Carol, whose point was that it's difficult to "abuse" Dark magic, which is intended to abuse the victim or desecrate something sacred in the first place




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jul 29 17:37:08 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:37:08 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 30
In-Reply-To: <h4pvmf+2vl0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h4q1c4+lvm6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187477

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214@> wrote:
> 
> > I mean some spells already ask for something specific, 
> > but say Accio! requires you to name the object you want, right?
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> Not necessarily. If the object is in plain sight, you don't need to name it, just to point, like Harry did with the Triwizard cup in the graveyard :-). As for Imperio, no one says what he wants to be done out loud. In GoF Imperiused Harry hears Mad-Eye's voice inside his head, but I think it's just that - inside the head, not outside :-). As Harry describes it in DH, the order seems to flow from the mind through the arm into the wand, and believe this exactly how it works.
>
Carol adds:

Exactly. And Mrs. Weasley just says "Accio! Accio! Accio!" when she's summoning Nosebleed Nougats and so forth from Fred and George's pockets and the cuffs of their jeans. 

And there's also the matter of nonverbal spells. I think that when a fully qualified and highly skilled wizard wants to conjure, say, a chair or a stretcher, he or she only needs to picture the object in his or her mind rather than reciting a nonverbal spell. (Snape says that concentration is the key to nonverbal spells; no doubt it gets easier with time and practice.) 

With regard to Imperius, some of the orders are so complex that it would be hard to think them in words; much faster to picture them mentally, especially if you want them to be carried out instantly or over the long term. 

Of course, there are discrepancies with all these spells. (How can DD conjure Madam Rosmerta's mead when you can't conjure food or, presumably, drinks [other than the temporary water spell, Aguamenti]? Maybe he summoned them instead?)

Carol, who thinks that wands must be able to read a skilled wizard's mind and intentions or nonverbal spells would be impossible