From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 01:13:28 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 01:13:28 -0000
Subject: Prophecies and Chosen Ones
In-Reply-To: <gvv4ot+7p38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvv9vo+88pv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186813

> Alla:
> I mean, I also really really like the interpretation that Pippin and Zara suggested that live actually means die, and I think it works more than well, I think it works perfectly, but that requires the substitute of the whole world to its antonym, right? I am just not sure how this is a fair play on author's part.

Zara:
Thanks! I think it is fair because she introduces the equivalence as reflective of how people in her world might think, very shortly after the text of the Prophecy is presented to us at the end of OotP, namely in Chapter 1 of HBP.

> HBP, "The Other Minister":
> "Back? When you say 'back'...he's alive?"
  <snip PM's memories of previous meeting>
> "Yes, alive," said Fudge. "That is - I don't know - is a man alive if he can't be killed? I don't really understand it, and Dumbledore won't explain properly - but anyway, he's certainly got a body and is walking and talking and killing, so I suppose, for the purposes of our discussion, yes, he's alive."

Zara:
This is (IMO) rather pointed, rather long, and makes clear this distinction is not a mental aberration peculiar to Fudge, as he seems to have gotten these ideas in part from a conversation with Albus Dumbledore. I, at any rate, grasped when I read these lines that they might have bearing on the Prophecy, but it did not interest me enough to pursue it. Other things (erm, people...) interested me a good deal more about HBP. <bg>






From rarpsl at optonline.net  Mon Jun  1 02:24:51 2009
From: rarpsl at optonline.net (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:24:51 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <gvubad+9vtt@eGroups.com>
References: <gvubad+9vtt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p06240830c648eaf1ea85@[192.168.1.11]>

No: HPFGUIDX 186814

At 16:30 +0000 on 05/31/2009, pippin_999 wrote about [HPforGrownups] 
Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identi:

>JKR does rather finesse the issue of how Voldemort went about 
>becoming known by a name he didn't allow people to say...perhaps at 
>first he allowed it to be written?

I may be wrong but I think the speaking of his name allows him to be 
aware of you and what you are saying. Thus the ban is by those who do 
not want him to tune in on them. If you are a DE there is no reason 
to avoid saying his name. Only those who are opposed to him or are 
scared of coming to his attention would have reason to avoid saying 
his name.



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 03:22:17 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:22:17 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <p06240830c648eaf1ea85@[192.168.1.11]>
Message-ID: <gvvhh9+rc12@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186815

Robert A. Rosenberg:
> I may be wrong but I think the speaking of his name allows him to be 
> aware of you and what you are saying. Thus the ban is by those who do 
> not want him to tune in on them. If you are a DE there is no reason 
> to avoid saying his name. Only those who are opposed to him or are 
> scared of coming to his attention would have reason to avoid saying 
> his name.

Zara:
I can't recall of a single Death Eater that refers to Voldemort by that name. A point is made that Severus does not, but of course he would fit into your theory. However, in that scene Harry notes that the term Severues uses ("Dark Lord") is the one Death Eaters use. This seems correct. Crouch, Jr., Bella, Lucius, and Narcissa also use this name when speaking of him. 




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 03:32:47 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 03:32:47 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <gvu586+mqqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvvi4v+k5h1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186816

> > Alla wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >I do wonder why exactly Dumbledore did not scream at the top of his lungs the truth of who Tom Riddle really was. I am wondering if Dumbledore was so deep into his secrets that he thought that this will be something the world better not know, just as when he did not share his suspicions about Tom with anybody while he was still in school.
> > > <snip>
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > 
> > I think you must be right that Dumbledore thought that this information was something that the WW would be better off not knowing or he would have publicized it. The only reason I can think of is one that others have already mentioned, that it would interfere with his investigations.
> > 
> > ...
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, but I will
> point out that Dumbledore may have indeed revealed details of
> Voldemort's past, just not to the world at large. But 
> Dumbledore does seem to communicate with people at the Ministry,
> if not the Minister himself. But they don't seem very eager
> to hear what Dumbledore has to say. 
> 
> Like so much in government, they are not quick to reveal the
> truth about anything. 

Montavilla47:

As a general rule, it's silly to depend on any government to
disseminate important information.  Telling certain key people
in the Ministry doesn't help at all when Voldemort's racist
supporters aren't *in* the Ministry.

Hermione realized this when she used her "connections" to
the press to get Harry's version of events out to the people.  Why
the brilliant Dumbledore never figured this out is unfathomable.

> bboyminn:

> On a similar but unrelated note, and something that makes me
> laugh when I think about it, is Harry showing Scrimgeour the
> scar on the back of his hand. Do we actually know that 
> Scrimgeour knows about Umbridge's 'cutting quill' and how and
> on whom she used it at school? 
> 
> If not, then Scrimgeour must be puzzled as to why Harry is 
> always shaking his fist at him. I think we are meant to think
> that Scrimgeour understands the gesture, but we don't know
> that he does because the story never tells us so. So, 
> every time Harry shakes his fist at Scrimgeour I laugh 
> thinking that Scrimgeour can't figure out why, or can't 
> understand the significants of it.
> 
> Again, I'm just re-emphasizing the point that just because we
> didn't hear about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Montavilla47:
I don't see how Scrimgeour could possibly know about the quill.
Harry didn't tell anyone in authority, including McGonagall and 
Dumbledore.   

Who would have told Scrimgeour?  Umbridge?  Somehow, I 
doubt it.






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 04:20:36 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:20:36 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <gvu9a6+srue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gvvkuk+vm7l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186817

> > Montavllla47:
> > In other words, it wasn't impossible for Harry to become friends with Draco,  but it would have required that Draco modify his values to include respecting Ron and Hermione--even if he wasn't cordial to them.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Right. But the reader is supposed to respect Ron and Hermione, and should feel that Draco needs to modify his values before he can be a worthy friend. 

Montavilla47:
Yeah, but I don't see how that translates to the reader having to conclude that 
friendship between Draco and Harry is impossible.

Look at the first meetings between Eliza Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy.  Darcy
insults Eliza's town, her family, and her looks.  He obviously thinks himself
above all her friends  He persuades his friend to drop Eliza's sister, Jane,
causing both the friend and Jane real emotional pain.

But eventually Eliza and Mr. Darcy come to enough of an understanding to 
get married.  Mr. Darcy, I might add, does not exactly reject everything he 
was taught to believe by his familiy, but he does modify his views.

So does Eliza.

Likewise, in my earlier comparison to Buffy, Cordelia doesn't reject 
everything she believes, she simply modifies to her views enough to 
get along with the uncool Willow and Xander.  Nor to they stop thinking
that Cordelia is a stuck-up Queen Bee.  They just get past that.

It's a very common trope--probably because it's such a common
human experience.  Especially in the U.S., we tend to meet people in
school who have very different backgrounds and values from the ones
we were raised with.  It's far more common for people to learn to 
get along with their differences than to spend years hating those with
contrary views.



> > Montavilla47:
> 
> > So, it's not exactly Draco who finds the Weasleys unbecoming, but Draco trumpeting the classist views of his father.  And those views could have been changed--unless children's minds and souls really are set in stone  at eleven.  
> 
> Pippin:
> Yes, they could have been changed. But Draco doesn't *want* to change,  and canon shows us why: because it would mean turning completely against his family, whom he loves.
> 

Montavilla47:
Well, normally when a character in a story changes his mind or feelings, there's
some kind of event to trigger that change.  So, while I don't see a reason for 
Draco to change his views in PS/SS, there could have been any number of story
events that would have led him to a change.

Like not succeeding in a misguided attempt to kill the Headmaster, or losing
the love of his life, or having a loved one threatened.

Both of these events led to changes:  the first in Draco, the second in Snape,
and the third in Narcissa.  Note that neither change in Draco or Narcissa led to
their being less loved by their family.  Even Bellatrix still cares very much about
Narcissa.


> > Montavilla47:
> > I don't recall Draco saying that people from Muggle families were the  wrong sort. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Still don't have my book, but I'm pretty sure that Draco asks whether Harry's parents are "our kind", meaning a witch and wizard, and says that the other sort shouldn't be let in (to Hogwarts), because they don't know our ways. He asks Harry what his surname is, and at that point they're interrupted. Harry is deeply upset, though to be fair, Draco is back to back with him and can't see the effect his words are having. 
> 
> But yes, Draco is interested in making friends, but only with certain people. He, unlike Sirius, does not think it would be cool to break family traditions.

Montavilla47:
I don't know that if Harry had mentioned that his mother was Muggleborn that
Draco would have rejected him as friend material.  (Surely Draco would have
known that when he offered his hand to Harry?)  I just saw Draco making 
conversation, like kids do when they meet new people.  Now, maybe if Harry
had challenged Draco's views at this point, Draco might have turned cold
and turned his nose up. Or, maybe he would have modified his statement
to something more politic.

Instead, it's Harry who rejects Draco--who reminds him of Dudley.  

> > Montavilla47:
> > I agree.  The ultimate lesson about Draco seems that, while annoying  and potentially murderous, he's not bad enough to kill or be left to  burn to death.
> 
> Pippin:
> So, what's wrong with that as a lesson? Many, many people have been killed or left to die because they were annoying and potentially murderous, and held to views which in the eyes of decent people  were dangerous, self-defeating and obviously wrong.  

Montavilla47:
Did I say there was anything wrong with it?  I don't think that there is.



> > Montavilla47:
> > Who is the biggest bully in this scene?  Voldemort?  Because, while I  agree that Draco would have gladly been the biggest bully up to end of HBP, I don't see any indication that he wanted it after the scene with  Dumbledore on the tower.  
> > 
> > All he seems to want after that, with the exception that ambiguous 
> > scene in the RoR, is to be left alone.
> 
> Pippin:
> But Draco knew that being left alone was not an option. He's just not that independent. He changed sides  when his parents did, and not before.  
> 
> You don't think that naming a kid "Scorpius" is an indication that the parent has some issues?  I know it's a constellation name, but there are lots of constellations that aren't poisonous vermin.


Montavilla47:

Are you seriously asking me to psychoanalyze Draco because he named
his kid Scorpius?  Honestly, I don't read *anything* into that name.  This
is a world where people are named "Albus" and "Severus"  and sometimes
"Albus Severus!"  


> > Montavilla47:
>   
> > 
> > But... Draco did visit Ron in the hospital wing after Ron was bitten by the dragon.  He ended up nicking the letter from Charlie, but there's no way that he could have known it was there when he went.  And, that moment does show that Ron and Draco could hold a civil conversation.
> 
> Pippin:
> Good catch, but surely Draco went because he was hoping to pick up some information about the dragon, which he did. 

Montavilla47:
I'm sure he did go looking for information about the dragon.  But that doesn't
mean he couldn't get along with Ron.  Obviously, they could get along for the 
time it took for the visit.


> > Montavilla47:
> > I think that depends.  Plenty of people in real life are close to their parents and yet end up rejecting at least some of their values.  That's pretty much a natural process.
> > 
> > I mean, Bill probably loves his parents, but he still wears his hair long --rejecting Molly's values regarding hair length.  He also marries a  girl she disapproves of.  
> 
> Pippin:
> Molly's disapproval didn't extend to  risking jail time to put someone in power who won't allow people to grow their hair or marry people she disapproves of. But she did risk jail time to oppose the Ministry, and we saw how the Weasleys treated the son who defied them on that. I don't think Draco would want to be estranged from his father or have to send back his mother's presents in order not to compromise himself with his new friends. 
> 
> Draco could have changed his views, but he'd have had to pay the same price as Percy, Sirius and Andromeda. But why would he even consider changing them, when his relationship with his parents means so much to him? He might challenge them on minor stuff but on the big issues he's Lucius and Narcissa's man. 

Montavilla47:

I don't know that Draco would have had to pay the same price as Percy, Sirius,
or Andromeda.  For one thing, all three of them had siblings.  It's one thing
to reject a child when you have others waiting in the wings than to reject your
only heir.

It's quite possible that, if Draco had changed his views towards Muggleborn,
that Lucius and Narcissa would have agonized over his youthful folly, but 
tolerated it and continued to love him as much as they ever did.

That's the way *most* parents are.






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Jun  1 10:20:25 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 04:20:25 -0600
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Ha?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?rry's_Sadism__=28was:_Lack_of_re-examination=29?=
References: <gvuipo+pesh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7461ACD8C16541AE8CCD87FC7954E0C0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186818

> Carol responds:
> Harry's rescue of Draco is also different from James's rescue of Severus. 
> He didn't care at that moment who Draco was, he simply didn't want him or 
> Goyle to die. And he understood Draco better than James understood 
> Severus; he had seen him fail to kill Dumbledore and had felt a touch of 
> pity for him; he had himself nearly killed Draco through his foolish use 
> of an unknown spell labeled "for enemies" the previous year and knew that 
> he didn't want him dead; and now he sees the wandless, helpless Draco 
> cradling his unconscious friend in his arms (a revelation in itself--Draco 
> actually cares about Goyle and even "C-Crabbe," who has nearly killed them 
> all). We see Harry's moral superiority to Ron (and I like Ron, so it pains 
> me to say it), who only reluctantly rescues Goyle when Harry can't hold 
> both him and Draco. (At least Ron does say later that he would have been 
> sorry that Crabbe had died if he hadn't tried to kill them all.)
>
> Draco has the grace to acknowledge Harry with a nod rather than remaining 
> his enemy, but, then, Harry has saved the whole WW from Voldemort. It's 
> very different from James, whose next act after saving Severus for wholly 
> selfish reasons is to publicly humiliate him.


Shelley:
I would dispute this last line. There might have been a lot of actions 
between the "saving" and the "humiliation", and I think we have enough 
cannon to fill in some of those gaps. We know Snape was a very ungrateful 
rescuee, choosing to believe that he was not rescued, but rather set up. 
Rather than be grateful, he was spitting venom, accusing James of "merely 
getting cold feet", and I think it's that venom that sets Snape apart from 
Draco. Draco is grateful, willing to set aside what came before, while Snape 
continues the fight and I would say, sadly begs for more mistreatment 
because of it. Draco is the better man in the end.

So, I would change that line to read " Draco has the grace to acknowledge 
Harry with a nod rather than remaining his enemy, but, then, Harry has saved 
the whole WW from Voldemort. It's very different from Snape, whose next act 
after being saved is to fight the rescuer, and continue the bad blood that 
led to more publicly humiliations."





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Jun  1 10:38:07 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 04:38:07 -0600
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Ha?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?rry's_Sadism__=28was:_Lack_of_re-examination=29?=
References: <gvvkuk+vm7l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <908F1A7AF9694A4D808ECE0FE73FA6B8@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186819

>> > Montavllla47:
>> > In other words, it wasn't impossible for Harry to become friends with 
>> > Draco,  but it would have required that Draco modify his values to 
>> > include respecting Ron and Hermione--even if he wasn't cordial to them.
>> >
>>
>> Pippin:
>> Right. But the reader is supposed to respect Ron and Hermione, and should 
>> feel that Draco needs to modify his values before he can be a worthy 
>> friend.

Shelley:
What is maturity? You learn to respect people not because of the values that 
they hold (that they match yours, or that they run in your "click"), but 
simply because they are people. You learn to get along with people whom hold 
different values than yourself. I can get along with people who are gay 
while still holding to the belief that homosexuality is wrong, and in this 
regard, Harry could become friends with Draco without forcing him to totally 
give up his beliefs about purebloods being superior. Harry could become 
friends with Draco without Draco being friends with Ron or Hermione. 
Sometimes, other events transcend our fundamental differences, and we can be 
friends despite those differences. So, in that regard, no, I wouldn't agree 
that we should feel that Draco needs to be modified in his values before he 
could be a friend to Harry. Rather, I would see the common background (the 
events with the firefiend) as seed for that friendship to grow, and that 
Draco might be expected to soften his stance on pureblood superiority as a 
result of a strong friendship with Harry, but that Harry would be a strong 
enough person not to just demand that change first.

I think this series shows us that Harry is mature enough to offer that 
branch- he saves Draco's life, willingly, and without regard to Draco's 
ideologies. We don't know how much they interact as adults, but it's not an 
inconceivable idea in my mind of a friendship that might grow based on 
Harry's maturity and not demanding that Draco first change his views before 
Harry offers to Draco kindness and respect. All that would be required for a 
friendship is that Draco return the same. 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 12:34:04 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 12:34:04 -0000
Subject: Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
In-Reply-To: <908F1A7AF9694A4D808ECE0FE73FA6B8@homemain>
Message-ID: <h00hrs+qujj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186820

Shelley:
<SNIP>
I think this series shows us that Harry is mature enough to offer that
branch- he saves Draco's life, willingly, and without regard to Draco's
ideologies. We don't know how much they interact as adults, but it's not an
inconceivable idea in my mind of a friendship that might grow based on
Harry's maturity and not demanding that Draco first change his views before
Harry offers to Draco kindness and respect. All that would be required for a
friendship is that Draco return the same.


Alla:

See, I disagree somewhat, or should I say more disagree than agree. I have no problem with the arguments that people who hold the values opposing to yours could and should be respected. As long as those values do not lead to murders and tortures I should clarify I suppose. So I have no problem with Harry respecting Draco who has the  ideas that purebloods are the superior bread of humans, simply because Draco is fellow human being. As long as Draco does not want to become new Voldemort. But for the life of me I cannot imagine how Harry who fought a war against such thing to come true would respect this value and thus would want to be Draco's friend.

Of course I am sure I am projecting my own ideas of what friendship is here. I mean, I do not need my friends to have values that are hundred percent identical to me and believe me sometimes I can have a heated debate with my friends on some things. However, I am still convinced that friends should have enough in common if that makes sense for the friendship to be real, you know?

To me, I need to **like** my friends, not just respect them if that makes sense. And why would I like somebody who thinks that some humans are better than others?

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun  1 13:52:25 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:52:25 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <gvvkuk+vm7l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h00mep+9ovm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186821


> Montavilla47:
> 
> I don't know that Draco would have had to pay the same price as Percy, Sirius,or Andromeda.  For one thing, all three of them had siblings.  It's one thing to reject a child when you have others waiting in the wings than to reject your only heir.
> 
> It's quite possible that, if Draco had changed his views towards Muggleborn,that Lucius and Narcissa would have agonized over his youthful folly, but  tolerated it and continued to love him as much as they ever did.
> 
> That's the way *most* parents are.
>

Pippin:

::boggles:: 

I can't speak for most parents...But Walburga didn't reach out to Sirius  when he became her only heir. He was still the shame of her flesh and the defiler of her household. And it would have been about as likely as Papas Capulet and Montague giving Romeo permission to court Juliet, IMO. Or Tevye telling Chava that it's no problem that she converted to Christianity and married outside the faith. 

Of course things are different in the Buffyverse. I never got real familiar with it, but I seem to remember Buffy's parents being treated a lot like Hermione treats hers. The idea of a parent having any real authority or influence was laughable. But that's not where Draco lives.

Darcy was his own master, too, IIRC, and Elizabeth was not so far beneath him that his entire social circle would have been scandalized and cut him off. It's not like she was a servant girl or a factory maid, or someone of another faith. 


Pippin













From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Jun  1 16:14:15 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:14:15 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
References: <h00hrs+qujj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6F55C82B88E84ED4BF919606231E8E2E@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186822

> Shelley:
> <SNIP>
> I think this series shows us that Harry is mature enough to offer that
> branch- he saves Draco's life, willingly, and without regard to Draco's
> ideologies. We don't know how much they interact as adults, but it's not 
> an
> inconceivable idea in my mind of a friendship that might grow based on
> Harry's maturity and not demanding that Draco first change his views 
> before
> Harry offers to Draco kindness and respect. All that would be required for 
> a
> friendship is that Draco return the same.
>
>
> Alla:
>
> See, I disagree somewhat, or should I say more disagree than agree. I have 
> no problem with the arguments that people who hold the values opposing to 
> yours could and should be respected. As long as those values do not lead 
> to murders and tortures I should clarify I suppose.


Shelley:
But this is where I separate Draco from the Death Eaters who did such 
things. They were in the recruiting stages with Draco. His heart was not yet 
hardened, not yet tainted by murder, as Dumbledore so clearly pointed out. 
As we see him, he's terrified at the thought of killing Dumbledore, 
terrified at the body that floats above the table, white as a sheet and 
can't even look Voldemort in the eye. He's not a murderer and one who enjoys 
torture- and in that tenderness, he gets to see up close the kind of people 
who are and decides it's not for him. I can see Harry respecting that, even 
if Draco doesn't come a full 180 immediately to champion for the rights of 
the Muggle-born.

> Alla:
So I have no problem with Harry respecting Draco who has the  ideas that 
purebloods are the superior bread of humans, simply because Draco is fellow 
human being. As long as Draco does not want to become new Voldemort.

Shelley:
I don't see evidence in cannon that Draco even attempted to go that 
direction.

Alla:
>But for the life of me I cannot imagine how Harry who fought a war against 
>such thing to come true would respect this value and thus would want to be 
>Draco's friend.

Shelley:
Because forgiveness must come from somewhere, must start somewhere. We see 
in the epilogue that Harry doesn't hold the grudges Snape did, doesn't hold 
the bitterness and jaded view that was displayed in Mad-Eye Moody. We see 
his path is gentler, forgiving, bridging new territory of reconcilation 
forward. Harry doesn't scowl at Draco, even though he had every right to. I 
think part of the forgiveness started the moment he chose to save Draco's 
life from the firefriend, proving what he thought was right.


Alla:
> Of course I am sure I am projecting my own ideas of what friendship is 
> here. I mean, I do not need my friends to have values that are hundred 
> percent identical to me and believe me sometimes I can have a heated 
> debate with my friends on some things. However, I am still convinced that 
> friends should have enough in common if that makes sense for the 
> friendship to be real, you know?
>
> To me, I need to **like** my friends, not just respect them if that makes 
> sense. And why would I like somebody who thinks that some humans are 
> better than others?

Shelley:
As am I projecting my idea of what it is to be a friend. I can be considered 
to be a Born-Again Christian (and we all know how snobby and stuck up some 
of those people can be, shunning themselves from friendships with any 
"sinners"), but yet I have a good friend and his wife who are Neo-Pagan in 
faith. The guy is a Druid. The ideologies can't be any further apart, yet 
that is not what defines our friendship. It's lasted longer than any 
friendship with my "Christian" friends, and this couple is very near and 
dear to my heart. It's about caring for the person, not caring for what they 
believe on an individual topic. I do see Draco and Harry having a lot in 
common- they went through the same school, the same war, the same terrors of 
Voldemort. Yes, I think Draco was terrorized by Voldemort, and I think Harry 
could forgive this young man whom once thought it might be "cool" to do 
something for Voldemort, not knowing what would be the real cost. Draco 
found out that it wasn't all that cool after all, and I think Harry could 
forgive him of that, and already did the moment he saved his life. They 
actually share a lot of history, having been to Hogwarts together. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 16:22:01 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:22:01 -0000
Subject: Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
In-Reply-To: <7461ACD8C16541AE8CCD87FC7954E0C0@homemain>
Message-ID: <h00v79+bnq2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186823

Carol earlier:
> > <snip>
> > Draco has the grace to acknowledge Harry with a nod rather than remaining his enemy, but, then, Harry has saved the whole WW from Voldemort. It's very different from James, whose next act after saving Severus for wholly selfish reasons is to publicly humiliate him.
> 
> 
> Shelley:
> I would dispute this last line. There might have been a lot of actions  between the "saving" and the "humiliation", and I think we have enough cannon to fill in some of those gaps. <snip>
> So, I would change that line to read " Draco has the grace to acknowledge Harry with a nod rather than remaining his enemy, but, then, Harry has saved the whole WW from Voldemort. It's very different from Snape, whose next act after being saved is to fight the rescuer, and continue the bad blood that led to more publicly humiliations."
>
Carol responds:

The actions are canonically about a week apart. (See "The Prince's Tale." Given his detailed responses on the DADA exam, which occurs just before SWM, and his studying of the test after he's taken it, I think it's safe to say that Severus has spent most of that week studying for his OWLs. He has done nothing to antagonize Sirius and James, who merely say "Look who it is" before they sneak up on him and attack him without provocation.

There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his rescuer--at least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.

Carol, whose position in the previous post remains unchanged




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Jun  1 16:50:27 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:50:27 -0600
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Ha?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?rry's_Sadism__=28was:_Lack_of_re-examination=29?=
References: <gvvkuk+vm7l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <30774F6438AA496E8C7C1F103C811571@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186824

>> Pippin:
>> But Draco knew that being left alone was not an option. He's just not 
>> that independent. He changed sides  when his parents did, and not before.

Shelley:
I don't see changing sides as being a "moment" for either Draco's mom, nor 
for Draco. I see for Draco's mom that her husband was Death Eater before, 
but it seems that she didn't know, up close and first hand, what it was to 
have Voldemort in her living room. When Voldemort returns to power, she gets 
a taste first hand of Voldemort, and the changing happens a little more each 
day to her wanting to be free of this wretch. Similarly, Draco is at first 
boasting to be asked of Voldemort to do his task, and as time goes by, we 
see him crying in the bathroom, terrified of the job, white as a sheet in 
the presence of Voldemort and again, wanting a little more each day to be 
free of Voldemort. His mom and he are on similiar paths, but I don't see 
Draco's rejection of Voldemort happening "because" of his mom's change in 
heart. Instead, I think they are simultaneous paths both leading eventually 
to the same conclusion.


>> Pippin:
>> Draco could have changed his views, but he'd have had to pay the same 
>> price as Percy, Sirius and Andromeda. But why would he even consider 
>> changing them, when his relationship with his parents means so much to 
>> him? He might challenge them on minor stuff but on the big issues he's 
>> Lucius and Narcissa's man.
>
> Montavilla47:
> I don't know that Draco would have had to pay the same price as Percy, 
> Sirius,
> or Andromeda.  For one thing, all three of them had siblings.  It's one 
> thing
> to reject a child when you have others waiting in the wings than to reject 
> your
> only heir.
>
> It's quite possible that, if Draco had changed his views towards 
> Muggleborn,
> that Lucius and Narcissa would have agonized over his youthful folly, but
> tolerated it and continued to love him as much as they ever did.
>
> That's the way *most* parents are.


Shelley:
To me, when Draco would have changed his views would have made all the 
difference in the world. Early on, and before Voldemort really made his 
presence known again to the WW, and his parents would have been TERRIFIED 
for his life. They would have been asked, as Bellatrix was, to cut off the 
Muggle-lovers out of their family tree. It wouldn't have been rejection of 
his ideas as much as fear for what price those ideas would come to. Later, 
as Nacissa starts to really loath having Voldemort around, I think she would 
have agreed with some of those ideas (that the idea of pureblood-only was 
all being taken too far!), but again, when is the right time to show that 
without running for your life. There is a natural time for rebellion, and it 
only comes near the end for this family. I still think that Draco saw at the 
end that Voldemort's ideas weren't so hot, but it's unclear how far he would 
take his own views on Muggleborns, whether he truly embraced them as fellow 
wizards, or whether he still struggled with finding a balancing point years 
later. Either way, I see Narcissa as the one to be more sympathetic to 
Draco's change, and Draco's father to be the one that might be harsh on him 
because of it. I would take my cue from the civil rights movement, where 
even after it was "acceptable" to hire a black man as you laborer, it still 
was wildly unpopular and unacceptable to have one as  son-in-law. Draco's 
dad would be steeped in years of tradition, and some of that tradition would 
be very hard for him to accept personally, especially if Draco were to 
choose to act on that change and seek a Muggle-born wife. 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Jun  1 17:02:10 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:02:10 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
References: <h00v79+bnq2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <C25E76D85CFA442694020CECD428DD82@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186825

> Carol earlier:
>> > <snip>
>> > Draco has the grace to acknowledge Harry with a nod rather than 
>> > remaining his enemy, but, then, Harry has saved the whole WW from 
>> > Voldemort. It's very different from James, whose next act after saving 
>> > Severus for wholly selfish reasons is to publicly humiliate him.
>>
>>
>> Shelley:
>> I would dispute this last line. There might have been a lot of actions 
>> between the "saving" and the "humiliation", and I think we have enough 
>> cannon to fill in some of those gaps. <snip>
>> So, I would change that line to read " Draco has the grace to acknowledge 
>> Harry with a nod rather than remaining his enemy, but, then, Harry has 
>> saved the whole WW from Voldemort. It's very different from Snape, whose 
>> next act after being saved is to fight the rescuer, and continue the bad 
>> blood that led to more publicly humiliations."
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> The actions are canonically about a week apart. (See "The Prince's Tale." 
> Given his detailed responses on the DADA exam, which occurs just before 
> SWM, and his studying of the test after he's taken it, I think it's safe 
> to say that Severus has spent most of that week studying for his OWLs. He 
> has done nothing to antagonize Sirius and James, who merely say "Look who 
> it is" before they sneak up on him and attack him without provocation.
>
> There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his 
> rescuer--at least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.
>
> Carol, whose position in the previous post remains unchanged

Shelley:
Are you assuming then, that when everyone was questioned about that night, 
that Snape didn't point a finger at James and crew to say "Look what they 
did to me- I could have been killed!" On the contrary, I see no cannon at 
all that says that Snape changed his mind only after being tormented several 
more times, that he was ok at first and only grew bitter at a later date. I 
see cannon that from the get-go, he's pissed as hell that this crew set him 
up, and he's even more angry when James gets an award for it which he thinks 
is totally out of place. I see no cannon of a mind change only after 
torment, because why would they need to torment him if he was totally 
grateful and thankful for the rescue? Nope, I see it totally in character 
for Snape to be an ungrateful git who only wanted to see the others punished 
for what they did, and angry when the headmaster didn't see things his way. 
I just can't see the change in Snape after more teasings and torment....it 
just doesn't fit with cannon as far as I've read it. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 18:05:56 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:05:56 -0000
Subject: Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
In-Reply-To: <C25E76D85CFA442694020CECD428DD82@homemain>
Message-ID: <h015a4+f6mk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186826

Carol earlier:
> >
> > The actions are canonically about a week apart. (See "The Prince's Tale." Given his detailed responses on the DADA exam, which occurs just before SWM, and his studying of the test after he's taken it, I think it's safe to say that Severus has spent most of that week studying for his OWLs. He has done nothing to antagonize Sirius and James, who merely say "Look who it is" before they sneak up on him and attack him without provocation.
> >
> > There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his rescuer--at least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.
> >
> > Carol, whose position in the previous post remains unchanged
> 
> Shelley:
> Are you assuming then, that when everyone was questioned about that night, that Snape didn't point a finger at James and crew to say "Look what they did to me- I could have been killed!" 

Carol responds:
Of course not. I'm quite sure that's what he said to Dumbledore. He wouldn't have talked about it to anyone else.

Shelley:
> On the contrary, I see no cannon at all that says that Snape changed his mind only after being tormented several more times, that he was ok at first and only grew bitter at a later date. I see cannon that from the get-go, he's pissed as hell that this crew set him up, and he's even more angry when James gets an award for it which he thinks is totally out of place. 

Carol responds:
What award? We don't know whether MWPP received detention or what happened to them, but I don't recall an award. Of course, he's angry that Sirius set him up, but he's not making a big deal of it at that point. All the canon evidence shows that he's absorbed in his exams. Even when he talks to Lily, who says that he ought to be grateful and that she doesn't believe his werewolf theory, his main concern is that she not regard James as a noble hero. He's happy that she views him as an arrogant toerag. He's not seeking revenge or absorbed in a grudge at that point. What changes things and makes him really angry is SWM itself--and especially the consequences of his own words in calling Lily a "Mudblood." That's when all the anger and the grudges set in.  

Shelley:
> I see no cannon of a mind change only after torment, because why would they need to torment him if he was totally grateful and thankful for the rescue?


Carol: I never said that he was thankful and grateful for his rescue. Why should he be? It was done for selfish reasons.

Shelley:
> Nope, I see it totally in character for Snape to be an ungrateful git who only wanted to see the others punished for what they did, and angry when the headmaster didn't see things his way. I just can't see the change in Snape after more teasings and torment....it just doesn't fit with cannon as far as I've read it.
>
Carol responds:
I didn't say that Snape was okay at first with being rescued and only grew bitter at a later date. He thought from the beginning (rightly) that James rescued him only to keep himself and his friends out of trouble. (Imagine what would have happened to them, especially Sirius and Remus, if Severus had actually been bitten.) He thinks, rightly or wrongly, that Sirius tried to murder him, but we only hear that in PoA, not in "The Prince's Tale," so he may well have seen things in a darker light after SWM (or after Sirius supposedly betrayed the Potters to their deaths).

I'm saying that Severus has no reason to befriend or even be grateful to James, who is still his enemy and follows up his "noble" rescue by publicly attacking and humiliating Severus one on one. Unlike Draco, Severus has little reason to be grateful. True, his life was saved, or he was prevented from becoming a werewolf, but not because James cared about *him* in any way or even valued his life as a fellow human being. Instead, he has to bear the humiliation of having been rescued by his enemy without even being able to tell anyone what he was rescued *from.* (I suppose that his fellow students think it was the Whomping Willow. Or maybe no one except a few Gryffindors know about it. Certainly, Severus isn't going to go around talking about it. My guess, and, yes, it's only a guess, is that Lily heard about it from Sirius. What little she knows sounds like his version of the events.)

My original point was to contrast James with Harry, who rescued Draco for noble reasons in contrast to James's selfish motives, and Severus with Draco, who had more reason than Severus did to be grateful to his rescuer. Can you imagine *Harry* publicly humiliating and tormenting Draco after rescuing him? I can't. Lily is right. James is an arrogant toerag--at least while he's at Hogwarts.

Carol, who can think of nothing more humiliating than being first rescued and then publicly tormented by your worst enemy (though, of course, that's not why the incident is Snape's worst memory) 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 18:48:36 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:48:36 -0000
Subject: Does Snape need to be grateful to James? WAS :Draco and Intent:
In-Reply-To: <h017jf+ufk5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h017q4+m3uu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186828

Carol:
<SNIP>
I'm saying that Severus has no reason to befriend or even be grateful to James,
who is still his enemy and follows up his "noble" rescue by publicly attacking
and humiliating Severus one on one. Unlike Draco, Severus has little reason to
be grateful. True, his life was saved, or he was prevented from becoming a
werewolf, but not because James cared about *him* in any way or even valued his
life as a fellow human being.<SNIP>


Alla:

But does it matter why James saved him? I mean, to me the fact that James saved
him pretty much means that he valued his life as a fellow human being, even if 
he could care less about Snape as a *person*. He did not have to do it. He
could have just let Snape die.

What I am trying to say is that to me saving somebody's life, for whatever
reasons just goes to show something about the person who saves the life.

So, no I would not say that Snape should have had befriended James. But did he
have any reasons to be grateful? In my opinion - yeah, his life was just saved.
That to me also says plenty about a person, if the person cannot acknowledge
such an act.

If somebody saved my life, I do not care if this person my bitterest enemy, you
bet I would acknowledge the act of such tremendous value to me.


Oh well, as I mentioned before, JKR in my view certainly granted Snape his wish
as I see it, by letting him die as he did.

JMO,

Alla









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 19:11:39 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:11:39 -0000
Subject: Does Snape need to be grateful to James? WAS :Draco and Intent:
In-Reply-To: <h017q4+m3uu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0195b+5ul0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186829

> Alla:
<SNIP>
> So, no I would not say that Snape should have had befriended James. But did he
> have any reasons to be grateful? In my opinion - yeah, his life was just saved.
> That to me also says plenty about a person, if the person cannot acknowledge
> such an act.
> 
> If somebody saved my life, I do not care if this person my bitterest enemy, you
> bet I would acknowledge the act of such tremendous value to me.
<SNIP>

Alla:

And yes, I am replying to myself, I guess the rule think through first, respond later should apply to me.

So what about Harry and Snape then? Should Harry be grateful to Snape for saving his life? To Snape who died hating him (at least according to the author and I agree since that is what I see in canon)

I guess by your logic Harry has nothing to be grateful for here since Snape could care less about him as a person

Because even by mine he does have to acknowledge the deed (as he did). I would totally thought it would have been a perfect ending for Harry to acknowledge Snape as hero to show how good a person Harry he is.

As I said before I could live without Harry naming his child after Snape, that to me was going above and beyond, but everything else he did? Absolutely IMO

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  1 19:29:36 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:29:36 -0000
Subject: Does Snape need to be grateful to James? WAS :Draco and Intent:
In-Reply-To: <h017q4+m3uu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h01a70+5js0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186830

Note from Carol:

My apologies if an earlier version of this post appears. Yahoo ate it twice, so I'm posting the amended version on the assumption that the others are really gone.

Carol earlier:
>
> I'm saying that Severus has no reason to befriend or even be grateful to James, who is still his enemy and follows up his "noble" rescue by publicly attacking and humiliating Severus one on one. Unlike Draco, Severus has little reason to be grateful. True, his life was saved, or he was prevented from becoming a werewolf, but not because James cared about *him* in any way or even valued his life as a fellow human being. 
> 
Alla responded:
> 
> But does it matter why James saved him?

Carol responds:
It does to Snape. :-)

Alla:
> I mean,  to me the fact that James saved him pretty much means that he valued his life as a fellow human being, even if  he could care less about Snape as a  *person*. He did not have to do it. He could have just let Snape die.

Carol responds:
Could he? He himself might not have gotten in trouble, but Sirius would certainly have been expelled and perhaps arrested, and Remus, the werewolf who bit and killed Severus, would probably have been put to death himself or even soul-sucked, sixteen years old or not. I'm pretty sure that in this instance, James realized the potential consequences to himself and his friends if Severus was actually bitten and Sirius, who had initiated the Prank, did not. Otherwise, he would have gone in himself to rescue Severus, realizing that what he had done was actually dangerous and could get him and Remus in very serious trouble.

Alla: 
> What I am trying to say is that to me saving somebody's life, for whatever reasons just goes to show something about the person who saves the life.
> 
> So, no I would not say that Snape should have had befriended James.  But did he have any reasons to be grateful? In my opinion - yeah, his life was just saved. That to me also says plenty about a person, if the person cannot acknowledge such an act.
> 
> If somebody saved my life, I do not care if this person my bitterest enemy, you bet I would acknowledge the act of such tremendous value to me.

Carol responds:

Any gratitude that Severus may have felt initially (which would, in any case, have competed with his resentment against Sirius and his belief that James was in on the Prank and was only saving his own skin and that of his own friends) would have been instantly undone, IMO, by James's and Sirius's unprovoked attack on him a week later. How can he possibly be grateful to James after that?

If the events had occurred in the opposite order and James had shown any indication that he had saved Severus's life because he valued his existence as a human being, I could see your point. But, as it is, for me, there's all the difference in the world between Harry's rescue of Draco, which is wholly selfless and altruistic, and James's rescue of Severus, which is neither, as demonstrated by James's subsequent behavior in SWM. And the rescued victims react differently as a consequence. (Draco, of course, has additional reason to be grateful to Harry, who not only saved his life twice but defeated Voldemort as well. For the boy Severus to treat the boy James, who remains a bully and subsequently humiliates him publicly, as the adult Draco treats the adult Harry, who saved the Wizarding World, is simply not comprehensible, IMO.

With regard to Harry being grateful to Snape for saving his life (mentioned in your next post), he wasn't at first. Only when he understood Snape's love for his mother and the terrible risks he had taken was he ever grateful. He knew in his first year that Snape hated him but didn't want him to die (Quirrell had told him that much), and he knew that Snape hated his father and had (supposedly) saved him to pay off that life debt, but he never felt any gratitude toward him. Only when he had entered the Pensieve and understood who Snape really was did he feel gratitude for what Snape had done. That's very different from feeling gratitude to a boy who, a week after he saves your life for selfish reasons that have nothing to do with the worth of your life (and Snape, who hates Harry, is well aware of the worth of his life, not as a human being but as the "one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord").

Ultimately, Harry arrives at the wisdom to understand and forgive. Snape, though he's a grown man and does many brave and brilliant things, never reaches that level of understanding. I think he finally begins to understand who Harry is at the end and sees Lily in Harry's eyes instead of seeing only James, but to understand and forgive James and be grateful to *him*? I think that's too much to ask of a man whose emotional development has been stunted, and certainly too much to ask of the boy Severus, especially after SWM.

Carol, who, of course, meant "two on one," not "one on one," in her response to Shelley




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Mon Jun  1 23:37:55 2009
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:37:55 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Clothing - Was Sadism or not ? McGonagall and 
	her punishments
In-Reply-To: <gvsddr+rk2o@eGroups.com>
References: <C507CEA6D07940C5B40671E9C7E5790E@ShaunPC>
	 <gvsddr+rk2o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0906011637o5641d062kc730dd6eda4529a8@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186831

I work in the schools with severely handicapped kids, so they aren't
affected by the dress code rules in a major way. They are either in a
school specifically for their needs with accomodations for
wheelchairs, walkers, special equipment to help them and the ones who
work with them, or if they are in a room on a campus with kids who
aren't in special ed. but are in the SH program, they are simply asked
to wear appropriate clothing, which does not always happen. One kid I
work with has been sent home several times with notes to parents
telling them she needs to wear clothing that fits (not too small) and
that she cannot come to school in clothing with holes in it.
Some of the parents who have kids in the program on regular ed
campuses do choose to dress their kids as close to the uniforms the
other kids wear as possible, though. They do share the playground,
cafeteria and even a few classes with them, after all.

Lynda



From randmath23 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 01:10:48 2009
From: randmath23 at yahoo.com (randmath23)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:10:48 -0000
Subject: How Malfoys earned money?
Message-ID: <h01u6o+aak7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186832

I was wondering how the Malfoy family earned their money.  I cannot find in any of the Harry Potter books that gives any indication of what type of job the Malfoys engaged in.

randmath23 at yahoo.com




From d2dmiles at yahoo.de  Tue Jun  2 01:44:36 2009
From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 03:44:36 +0200
Subject: How Malfoys earned money?
References: <h01u6o+aak7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <0E11EBF85C11476AAAE58B5343556E34@miles>

No: HPFGUIDX 186833

randmath23 wrote:
> I was wondering how the Malfoy family earned their money.  I cannot
> find in any of the Harry Potter books that gives any indication of
> what type of job the Malfoys engaged in.

Miles:
Well, they HAVE money, they do not need to earn it ;).
The Malfoys have been sort of wizard gentry for supposedly centuries, time 
enough to gather magical objects, buildings, knowledge and connections that 
bring money into their vaults without actually "working". Malfoy is great in 
networking, we can see this many times in canon, and one can be sure that 
the Galleons the Malfoys spend on welfare will repay.

Apart from this, JKR didn't plan or describe the economical system of the 
Potterverse. She invented a currency (the currency system being a parody on 
the old UK Pound system), she made some families rich and others poor, but 
the rest is imagination for us readers. I wouldn't recommend diligent 
research on how the Potterverse economics could work - JKR's not only bad at 
math ;). 





From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 13:45:20 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:45:20 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <gvu586+mqqm@eGroups.com>
References: <gvigbq+59ul@eGroups.com> <gvu586+mqqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906020645x7b85d904h86bd249f40343ac5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186834

>Alla wrote:
><snip>
>I do wonder why exactly Dumbledore did not scream at
>the top of his lungs the truth of who Tom Riddle really was.
>I am wondering if Dumbledore was so deep into his secrets
>that he thought that this will be something the world better
>not know, just as when he did not share his suspicions
>about Tom with anybody while he was still in school.

No.Limberger responds:
I suspect that the reason for the secrecy was that
Dumbledore did not want Voldemort to know how much
Dumbledore actually knew.   Dumbledore uncovered a
lot of information about Riddle/Voldemort.  If that were
to become public knowledge, then it would have made it
that much easier for Voldemort to develop defenses. It
would also have made Voldemort do even more to
try and cover up his past, making it that much more
difficult to uncover more important facts about him.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From mros at xs4all.nl  Tue Jun  2 14:12:19 2009
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:12:19 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
Message-ID: <2954.132.229.246.120.1243951939.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>

No: HPFGUIDX 186835

>>Alla wrote:
>><snip>
>>I do wonder why exactly Dumbledore did not scream at
>>the top of his lungs the truth of who Tom Riddle really was.
>>I am wondering if Dumbledore was so deep into his secrets
>>that he thought that this will be something the world better
>>not know, just as when he did not share his suspicions
>>about Tom with anybody while he was still in school.
>
> No.Limberger responds:
> I suspect that the reason for the secrecy was that
> Dumbledore did not want Voldemort to know how much
> Dumbledore actually knew.   Dumbledore uncovered a
> lot of information about Riddle/Voldemort.  If that were
> to become public knowledge, then it would have made it
> that much easier for Voldemort to develop defenses. It
> would also have made Voldemort do even more to
> try and cover up his past, making it that much more
> difficult to uncover more important facts about him.


Marion:

But that is silly!  What defences would Voldemort develop if Dumbledore
gave an interview like,

"Oh yes, this newfangled 'Lord Voldemort' we hear so much of these days.
Ah yes, I knew him when he was little Tom Riddle. Oh dear, yes.. such a
scrawny little boy.. Poor boy, growing up as a half-blood wizard in a
muggle orphanage must've been so difficult. Must be what caused him that
tendency to wet his bed until he was sixteen. Hah, his housemates used to
call him 'Tom Piddle' instead of Tom Riddle! Ach, children... they can be
so cruel.. What did you say? Ah, yes this Voldemort business. No, I don't
know why he feels the need to style himself as a 'lord' and give himself a
new name. There's no shame in having a muggle father, after all, and Tom
Riddle is a good name even for the brightest of wizards.. Lemon drop?"

If Dumbledore had given this interview on the Wireless and in the
newspaper back in the early seventies, Voldemort would *never* have gotten
the support he got, and what could Voldemort have done against it? Any
grandstanding, any big threatening gesture would've been met with a barely
suppressed giggle of 'Tom Piddle! Hihihihi!' and he would've been
powerless.

I thought this was the lesson one was supposed to have learned in second
year with the boggarts. Things that frighten you no longer seem half as
frightening, indeed they seem downright silly, when you've cut them down
to size and LAUGH at them.




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Jun  2 14:17:25 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:17:25 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How Malfoys earned money?
In-Reply-To: <0E11EBF85C11476AAAE58B5343556E34@miles>
References: <h01u6o+aak7@eGroups.com> <0E11EBF85C11476AAAE58B5343556E34@miles>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906020717w7e39b963u5c76fd984f26d5bd@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186836

randmath23 wrote:
>I was wondering how the Malfoy family earned their money.
>I cannot find in any of the Harry Potter books that gives any
>indication of what type of job the Malfoys engaged in.

>Miles wrote <SNIP>:
>JKR didn't plan or describe the economical system of the
>Potterverse. She invented a currency (the currency system
>being a parody on the old UK Pound system), she made
>some families rich and others poor, but the rest is
>imagination for us readers.

No.Limberger responds:
Given that wizards and witches can perform magic, the
notion of needing to earn money seems to run counter to
being magical in the first place; unless it has to do with
laws governing the use of magic (limits) and/or how
skillful each wizard & witch's magic is.  First, as far
as restrictions on the use of magic, the WW does it's
utmost to remain hidden from the muggle world.  Thus,
if a wizard or witch wanted a huge chateau on a large
piece of muggle-owned property, magically taking it from
the muggles would, no doubt, raise a lot of suspicions
and potentially threaten the WW.  Since the Black
family has a hidden row-house in London, it stands to
reason that other wizards and witches also live in
major muggle cities, but secretly.  So, there are clearly
limits imposed on the WW for its own protection. This
would mean that there is a finite amount of property
owned (and magically protected) that could be bought
and sold between WW families.

To buy and sell limited property requires some kind
of currency to be used.  The amount of money then in
possession of any WW family defines their financial
status within the WW, but magical skill also plays a
role in this.  Take Lockhart for example.  He is good at
memory charms, which he used to make wizards &
witches who did daring deeds to forget them so that
he could write them, claim credit and become rich and
famous himself as wizards & witches purchased his
books.  Clearly, Lockhart wasn't good at much else
magically, so he used magic to steal in order to obtain
everything else that he wanted, but couldn't do himself.
Then there are various magical items that each have a
specific purpose.  Take Harry's invisibility cloak, which
is a very rare item.  This would suggest that very few have
the ability to magically produce one.  Otherwise, anyone
could make one and it wouldn't be so valuable.

Thus, between variances in magical abilities and limited
property availability, a WW economy is established.
How, specifically, the Malfoys earned money I don't
know, but given their predilection for dark magic, it
may have been earned in various unscrupulous ways
over the centuries in what would essentially be a WW
black market. Of course, they'd also need to appear
legitimate in some way to avoid raising suspicions
within the WW as to how they earned their money,
which suggests the possibility of WW money laundering.

It's a very interesting topic regardless.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun  2 14:39:49 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:39:49 -0000
Subject: Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
In-Reply-To: <h015a4+f6mk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h03djl+l212@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186837

Carol:
> I'm saying that Severus has no reason to befriend or even be grateful to James, who is still his enemy and follows up his "noble" rescue by publicly attacking and humiliating Severus one on one. 

Pippin:

Young Snape did not feel that he owed his life to James, or he could not have been indifferent to the prospect of James's murder. But whether this was still true in later life, we don't know. I tend to think that Snape's violent reaction to "kill me like you killed him" when he and Harry were talking of James, showed that it wasn't. After all, Snape had no reason to burn with guilt over Dumbledore. 

That doesn't mean he ever stopped hating James, but as Dumbledore pointed out, it's quite possible to hate someone and still feel that you are in their debt. 

What I was  thinking was not that young Snape could have acted like Hermione after her rescue from the troll, but that Hermione could have acted like Snape. It was no secret that Ron and Harry thought she was a nightmare. She could have thought that the boys locked her in with the troll on purpose and only saved her because they had second thoughts about it.  Ron and Harry were clearly afraid she would do just that. 

Instead, she showed them kindness, making them look like heroes who saved her from her own folly, and respect, thanking them for what they did. That, as much as facing the common danger, is what won them over. Of course Hermione meant to be kind and respectful to them all along. *She* thought she was being kind: instructive, helpful and informative, which Ron and Harry perceived as being bossy, interfering and a know-it-all. 

I don't think she did it because she liked them so much in spite of everything. Hermione was no doubt raised to look for the good in people, and to think that she should be kind and respectful to everyone. I'm pretty sure that Snape and Draco weren't, and in Draco's case, he was not only raised without those beliefs, but actively sheltered from them. As we know if we've read ToBtB, Lucius did not approve of books which depict Muggles and wizards on equal terms. 

But it isn't just Death Eaters  who believe that being a wizard means being entitled to take what you want from Muggles or anyone else who is weaker than you, though the DE's took that belief to extremes. It's wizard culture in general. Voldemort did not have to put the populace under the Imperius curse to convince them that Magic is Might. They took it for granted already. 

Hermione pointed to this strain of thought in young Dumbledore's letter, decades before Voldemort.  And though the Gryffindor ideal of chivalry is countercultural to this belief, that is not something that seems to trouble young Gryffindors  when they see something that seems ripe for the taking, unless they are as insightful as Lupin or Hermione.

It's a core belief, central to what being a wizard is all about for a lot of people, which is why it is so difficult to change, even when it seems that someone like Snape or Draco has been given every reason to change it. 

Harry, not being particularly insightful, does not often notice when his behavior falls short of the ideal. But at least he has chosen the ideal, and he has, too,  an instinctive feeling that people should not be treated like toerags unless they deserve it. But as Dumbledore keeps trying to tell him, it's rare for that instinct to be as strong as it is in Harry. What Harry had to learn is that many times the people who seem to deserve it were only trying to do what is best for the people they love. 

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun  2 15:53:11 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:53:11 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <2954.132.229.246.120.1243951939.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <h03ht7+piv7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186838


> 
> 
> Marion:
> 

> If Dumbledore had given this interview on the Wireless and in the
> newspaper back in the early seventies, Voldemort would *never* have gotten the support he got, and what could Voldemort have done against it?
Any grandstanding, any big threatening gesture would've been met with a barely suppressed giggle of 'Tom Piddle! Hihihihi!' and he would've been powerless.

Pippin:

A boggart dementor can be controlled with a simple ridikkulus. A real dementor will suck your soul out while you're trying to think of something funny about the worst day in your life.  And Voldemort was very good at providing people with days like that. 

But he was always careful to refrain from taking public credit for deaths and disappearances until he had built enough support underground to post the Dark Mark with impunity. Until then, he was quite happy to have outsiders think he was no real threat. 

Voldie's original servants, the people from his Hogwarts days, already knew his real name and background. But that would be more than outweighed by the knowledge that he was the Heir of Slytherin and had proved it by opening the Chamber and being a parselmouth. Any DE incautious enough to imply the opposite would have been made an example for the others. If Voldemort wanted the name Riddle forgotten, they'd forget it -- anything to prove their loyalty.

The new recruits were drawn from people who already hated Albus Dumbledore and everything he stood for. Why should they care about anything he had to say? Ridicule from him would only show how blind he was to their master's greatness.

Pippin




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 17:57:38 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:57:38 -0000
Subject: How Malfoys earned money?
In-Reply-To: <h01u6o+aak7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h03p6i+p24n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186839

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "randmath23" <randmath23 at ...> wrote:
>
> I was wondering how the Malfoy family earned their money.  I cannot find in any of the Harry Potter books that gives any indication of what type of job the Malfoys engaged in.
> 
> randmath23 at ...
>

bboyminn:

We've has several long detailed discussion on the Malfoys and 
the wizard economy in general, though those would be buried 
very deep in the past. 

As others have pointed out, the Malfoys started out rich, and 
from then on, it is up to each generation to a least preserve,
if not expand upon, the family wealth. 

To do this, I think Mr. Malfoy's job title would be something
like 'investor'. He uses his wealth, as an example, to 
facilitate other businesses in exchange for a commission. In
this case, he acts like a bank lending money that in turn 
allows the various business transactions, import/export, 
manufacturing, etc... to occur. 

It seems Malfor has a network of friends, let's call them
patrons, who, as friends, would direct their business toward
Malfoy, and in exchange, Malfoy would give preference to 
their businesses.

Also, Malfoy's seem to have a large estate, certainly they
have a large manor house, which implies also large ground.
Which in turn implies a certain amount of agriculture or
agricutlure related business is going on; beef, pork, sheep,
grain, fruits, etc....

Keep in mind, back in earlier centuries, the core of wealth
was in property. Owning land and/or buildings was sure to 
make you rich. 

As to how wizards in general make money, I suspect like all
of us, the work for it. It is easy for us to overlook the
small details, but consider what is necessary to keep a 
wizard business in business. Take Fortescue, he need store 
fixtures, he need pots and pan, refrigeration, tables, chairs,
cutlery (fork, spoons, etc...), he need glass for his 
store fronts, and for his display cases. He need fruit, sugar,
other flavorings, chocolate, cream, milk, etc.... A lot of
other people could make money just keeping Mr, Fortescue 
afloat. 

Consider what it takes to keep Tom's pub and the many other
Pubs afloat. Maker of wine, spirits, beer, ale, soft drinks,
source of food, store fixtures, tables, chairs, drinking
glasses, and the list goes on and on.

Consider publishing, Zonko products, fireworks, houses have
to be built and furnished, in the wizard world there is the
full range of tradesmen and craftsmen you would find in any
culture. All making money. Some are better at it than others.

I do have a theory that a certain amount of trade goes on
between the wizard world and the muggle world. Many muggle-
borns still have connections in the muggle world. If Fortescue
needs strawberries for his ice cream, it wouldn't be that hard
to find a muggle-born who could buy them and transfer them into
the wizard world. I suspect that is one large form of business
that could exist.

I suspect there is a small but limited interchange in the other
direction, from wizards to muggles. Though certainly not anything
enchanted. A fine furniture maker might sell to a muggle-born,
a friend of the muggle-born might admire the piece and wonder
where it came from. The muggle-born might offer to get him/her
and identical piece. So, it could happen with in limits.

So, the central point is, there are plenty of ways for Malfoys
to maintain and expand their wealth. 

So, again, in general, we would just consider Malfoy and 
investor; someone who has enough money to make that money work
for him.

Steve/bluewizard






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 18:00:46 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:00:46 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <2954.132.229.246.120.1243951939.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <h03pce+862t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186840

Alla wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>I do wonder why exactly Dumbledore did not scream at the top of his lungs the truth of who Tom Riddle really was. <snip>
> >
No.Limberger responded:
> > I suspect that the reason for the secrecy was that Dumbledore did not want Voldemort to know how much Dumbledore actually knew.   Dumbledore uncovered a lot of information about Riddle/Voldemort.  If that were to become public knowledge, then it would have made it that much easier for Voldemort to develop defenses. It would also have made Voldemort do even more to try and cover up his past, making it that much more difficult to uncover more important facts about him.
> 
> 
> Marion:
> 
> But that is silly!  What defences would Voldemort develop if Dumbledore
> gave an interview like,
> 
> "Oh yes, this newfangled 'Lord Voldemort' we hear so much of these days.
> Ah yes, I knew him when he was little Tom Riddle. Oh dear, yes.. such a
> scrawny little boy.. Poor boy, growing up as a half-blood wizard in a
> muggle orphanage must've been so difficult. Must be what caused him that
> tendency to wet his bed until he was sixteen. Hah, his housemates used to
> call him 'Tom Piddle' instead of Tom Riddle! Ach, children... they can be
> so cruel.. What did you say? Ah, yes this Voldemort business. No, I don't
> know why he feels the need to style himself as a 'lord' and give himself a
> new name. There's no shame in having a muggle father, after all, and Tom
> Riddle is a good name even for the brightest of wizards.. Lemon drop?"
> 
> If Dumbledore had given this interview on the Wireless and in the
> newspaper back in the early seventies, Voldemort would *never* have gotten
> the support he got, and what could Voldemort have done against it? Any
> grandstanding, any big threatening gesture would've been met with a barely
> suppressed giggle of 'Tom Piddle! Hihihihi!' and he would've been
> powerless.
> 
> I thought this was the lesson one was supposed to have learned in second
> year with the boggarts. Things that frighten you no longer seem half as
> frightening, indeed they seem downright silly, when you've cut them down
> to size and LAUGH at them.
>
Carol responds:

I don't think it's silly at all. In fact, I agree completely with No.Limberger. If Voldemort suspected that Dumbledore was investigating his past, he would never have hidden the Horcruxes in places important to him as scenes of his crimes or his happiness (Hogwarts) or his envy (Gringotts). He'd have probably sealed them all inside that tree in Albania where they could never be found by anyone but him.

But there are other reasons, one of which is that Dumbledore at first had no reason to reveal Voldemort's identity because Tom Riddle had been out of the country for years and no one but Dumbledore suspected that he was up to anything. By the time Dumbledore knew that Tom Riddle was calling himself Lord Voldemort and was gathering followers calling themselves Death Eaters (when he reappeared in Britain for the DADA interview after being who knew where for about ten years), many of them his "friends" from school, his face was already nearly unrecognizable, he had already killed at least seven people, and he had already made at least four Horcruxes (the diary, the ring, the cup, and the diadem). His source for that information was Aberforth, who had overheard them in the Hog's Head. (At that point, maybe it was still okay to call Tom Lord Voldemrot--er, Voldemort.)

Dumbledore knew that Tom Riddle was up to no good even when he was still at Hogwarts, but he couldn't prove that he had killed Moaning Myrtle. Tom had "proved" that Aragog did it. DD also suspected that Tom had killed his parents (he read the Muggle papers and possibly Morfin Gaunt's arrest was reported in the Daily Prophet), but by the time he got the memory from Morfin, it was too late. Morfin died before the Ministry could investigate. He knew that Tom had worked for Borgin and Burke's and disappeared and he suspected that he was responsible for the murder of Hepzibah Smith and the theft of the cup and the locket, but by the time he got the memory from Hokey, it was again too late for the Ministry to investigate. Tom Riddle, still known by that name, had disappeared. Dumbledore had no choice but to remain quiet and, presumably, continue his investigations and his memory collecting.

When Tom reappeared for the DADA interview, DD's suspicions must have been aroused by his altered appearance (I think that's when he first started suspecting that the valuable objects he was stealing were Horcruxes. Since Slughorn was still teaching Potions at that time, that may be when Dumbledore coerced the [altered] memory from him.) But he had no proof of anything. There was no point in announcing to the press that Tom Riddle, the former prefect and Borgin and Burke's employee had temporarily surfaced and was calling himself Lord Voldemort. Neither he nor the Death Eaters had yet performed any crimes that could be traced to them.

And by the time Voldemort surfaced again, having apparently been gathering followers in secret for some twelve years, it would have done no good to publicize his past even if Dumbledore could prove his crimes, which he couldn't do. Voldemort already had followers, and the terror of his actions and those of the Death Eaters far outweighed any unprovable claims that Dumbledore could make that he had once been Tom Riddle--who, BTW, was not a laughable creature like Gregory Goyle but a handsome and intelligent Prefect and Head Boy who had won an award for services to the school. That information might astonish a few people, assuming that they believed it, but it wouldn't make them laugh at him or scorn him. 

And worse, publicizing Voldemort's true identity might arouse Voldemort's suspicions that Dumbledore was investigating his past. Where the Horcruxes were at that point, we don't know. Apparently, he didn't hide them until he'd heard the Prophecy, but DD had no way of knowing that. Dumbledore didn't know how many Horcruxes Tom had made; he might still have thought that there was only one though I don't think so because he knew that both the cup and the locket had been stolen. He didn't know about the diary or the diadem, and Nagini wasn't a Horcrux yet (if LV even knew about her at that time). 

By the time the Potters were killed and Harry had acquired his soul bit, people were already too terrified to speak the name. Even the Death Eaters were presumably being Crucioed for daring to use it or they'd never have developed the habit of calling him the Dark Lord. (I've always suspected that the Dark Mark could sense the name being spoken around it, which is why Snape absent-mindedly clutches his left arm during the first Occlumency lesson and orders Harry not to speak the Dark Lord's name).

>From Godric's Hollow until the end of GoF, there was no point in bringing up Voldemort's name at all. As far as the WW was concerned, the Wicked Witch was dead, having been destroyed miraculously by a fifteen-month-old baby. And by the time DD was trying to persuade the WW that Voldemort had returned, the Ministry was busy suppressing that information and calling DD a deluded old liar.

Then Harry's story came out in "The Quibbler," and Harry would certainly have mentioned that Voldemort was really Tom Riddle since "bone of the father" played as large a role in the restorative potion as Harry's blood and Wormtail's hand, but that knowledge made no difference whatever in terms of either his follower's loyalty (Bellatrix, who either hasn't read the article or wouldn't believe it, anyway, screams at Harry for calling Voldemort a Half-Blood; the other DEs either know it already, having been present in the graveyard, or are unfazed by the information), and the rest of the WW quickly returns to "You Know Who" mode when Voldemort returns.

It seems inconceivable that DD has not told at least the Wizengamot and the high Ministry officials (e.g., Fudge) who Voldemort really is, but Fudge still calls him You Know Who. Surely DD has told McGonagall and the other Order members that Voldemort was once Tom Riddle, but they also say You Know Who (with the exception of Snape, who for reasons of his own says the Dark Lord). In other words, knowing who Tom Riddle was (without knowing about his early murders, which DD can't prove and also can't speak of without risking that LV will find out about his investigations) has no effect whatever on the WW at large, which is concerned with what LV was in VW1 and what he will become if he returns to power.

His followers, both before Godric's Hollow and after LV's restoration to his body, are impressed by his cruelty and power, including his power over *them*, and by whichever of his deeds they know about, those unspecified  "great and terrible" deeds that Ollivander mentions in SS/PS. Once he returns, the mere fact that he (apparently) can't be killed is sufficient to bring in new admirers, those who want to rise to power on his coattails or want to learn more sophisticated forms of torture. Some of them may still have the Pure-blood agenda of the Malfoys and are happy to act on it whether their leader is himself a Pure-Blood or not. He's not, after all, a "Mudblood," and he's authorizing them to murder Muggles and Muggle-borns, and, in Bellatrix's case, to "cleanse" her family of Half-blood "brats" who marry werewolves. (She'd probably happily murder her "blood traitor" sister as well.) Others, like Fenrir Greyback, just want the rewards he can give them for exercising their already extant bloodlust.

I forgot to mention that his earliest followers, his former schoolmates,  may have known or suspected that he wasn't a Pure-Blood, but it made no difference to them because he was the Heir of Slytherin--and both more intelligent and more powerful than they were, quite capable of keeping them under his control. His being Tom Riddle, far from a reason for laughing at him, was a reason to follow him.

IOW, knowing that Voldemort was once Tom Riddle, assuming that DD could prove that allegation to the satisfaction of the fickle WW public, makes no difference to anyone. It makes no difference to Fudge, who fears him regardless, or to McGonagall and Hagrid or Ron or anyone else conditioned to call him You Know Who. All of which hands LV and his followers a weapon after his return to power--anyone who speaks the name "Voldemort" is an enemy, either an Order member or Harry Potter himself.

Carol, realizing that parts of her post are speculation and just trying to figure out why DD didn't expose Tom Riddle and whether it would have made any difference




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 18:41:30 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:41:30 -0000
Subject: How Malfoys earned money?
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90906020717w7e39b963u5c76fd984f26d5bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h03roq+5ftl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186841

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger <no.limberger at ...> wrote:
>
> randmath23 wrote:
> >I was wondering how the Malfoy family earned their money.
> >I cannot find in any of the Harry Potter books that gives any
> >indication of what type of job the Malfoys engaged in.
> 
> >Miles wrote <SNIP>:
> >JKR didn't plan or describe the economical system of the
> >Potterverse. She invented a currency (the currency system
> >being a parody on the old UK Pound system), she made
> >some families rich and others poor, but the rest is
> >imagination for us readers.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Given that wizards and witches can perform magic, the
> notion of needing to earn money seems to run counter to
> being magical in the first place; unless it has to do with
> laws governing the use of magic (limits) and/or how
> skillful each wizard & witch's magic is.  First, as far
> as restrictions on the use of magic, the WW does it's
> utmost to remain hidden from the muggle world.  Thus,
> if a wizard or witch wanted a huge chateau on a large
> piece of muggle-owned property, magically taking it from
> the muggles would, no doubt, raise a lot of suspicions
> and potentially threaten the WW.  Since the Black
> family has a hidden row-house in London, it stands to
> reason that other wizards and witches also live in
> major muggle cities, but secretly.  So, there are clearly
> limits imposed on the WW for its own protection. This
> would mean that there is a finite amount of property
> owned (and magically protected) that could be bought
> and sold between WW families.
> 
> To buy and sell limited property requires some kind
> of currency to be used.  The amount of money then in
> possession of any WW family defines their financial
> status within the WW, but magical skill also plays a
> role in this.  Take Lockhart for example.  He is good at
> memory charms, which he used to make wizards &
> witches who did daring deeds to forget them so that
> he could write them, claim credit and become rich and
> famous himself as wizards & witches purchased his
> books.  Clearly, Lockhart wasn't good at much else
> magically, so he used magic to steal in order to obtain
> everything else that he wanted, but couldn't do himself.
> Then there are various magical items that each have a
> specific purpose.  Take Harry's invisibility cloak, which
> is a very rare item.  This would suggest that very few have
> the ability to magically produce one.  Otherwise, anyone
> could make one and it wouldn't be so valuable.
> 
> Thus, between variances in magical abilities and limited
> property availability, a WW economy is established.
> How, specifically, the Malfoys earned money I don't
> know, but given their predilection for dark magic, it
> may have been earned in various unscrupulous ways
> over the centuries in what would essentially be a WW
> black market. Of course, they'd also need to appear
> legitimate in some way to avoid raising suspicions
> within the WW as to how they earned their money,
> which suggests the possibility of WW money laundering.
> 
> It's a very interesting topic regardless.

Carol responds:
One small point in response to your post. Quite possibly manor houses like the Malfoys' were acquired before the statute of secrecy went into effect. Once the family had acquired it, perhaps through marriage to a Muggle aristocrat (a genealogical detail that would be obscured after a few generations), the family could continue to enrich itself and increase its status by judicious marriages to rich Pure-Bloods, and the manor house could be maintained magically, preferably (in their view) by House-Elves, who would require no wages. Aside from clothes and status symbols (such as white peacocks) and school expenses and wands and food and the occasional poison or Dark artifact, the Malfoys would have very few expenses. No mortgage payments, no utility bills. Like nineteenth-century Muggle aristocrats, they could live off the interest from investments (or whatever interest the Goblins paid them for the use of their gold if they operate like Muggle bankers in that regard, the protection of Goblin-made treasures being a different matter altogether).

What was Lucius intending to do with the Dark objects and potions that he sold to Borgin? Was that a little sideline like the one that Aberforth mentions in DH? Or was that merely a little matter of killing off enemies?

At any rate, Lucius has a great many advantages. His family is wealthy to begin with. He's sufficiently intelligent to have been made a Prefect, and, like a small-scale Tom Riddle, he seems to have the power to charm people and to intimidate them when charm fails. He certainly seems to have Fudge in his pocket up till the end of OoP, at which point things fall apart for poor Lucius. He even does a good job of leading the DEs in the DoM; it's not *his* fault that Snape called in the Order of the Phoenix! 

Seriously, Lucius Malfoy starts off with the advantage of a rich family of which he is presumably the oldest son and heir, adds to that advantage by marrying a rich Pure-Blood wife (not the eldest sister but possibly a co-heiress whose inheritance would be increased when the middle sister, Andromeda, was disinherited. He also seems to have influential connections, some of them perhaps fellow members of the Slug Club (I can't imagine his not having been a member since he was a Slytherin Prefect). He's also connected through his wife's sister to another old and wealthy Pure-Blood family, the Lestranges. Lucius would know how to make the most of his connections and how to manage his money--and how to use it to get his way in more important matters by bribing Fudge. And little matters like new brooms for the whole Slytherin Quidditch team? A drop in the bucket.

Only when he twice fails Voldemort and ends up in Azkaban does his "career" as influential aristocrat and manipulator begin its downturn. Once he loses his wand, he loses all influence even among his fellow Death Eaters. And it goes downhill from there (though I imagine that once LV is dead, Lucius will get a new wand and use his talents for lying and manipulation to restore himself to something like respectability again. After all, he didn't actually fight in the Battle of Hogwarts, and he still has his manor house and his and his wife's money. For all we know, Narcissa will inherit Bellatrix's money as well (assuming that Rodolphus and Rabastan are also dead).

BTW, I hope that no one takes my light tone in this post to indicate that I approve of Lucius Malfoy. I think we're meant to contrast him with Draco, who at least has a conscience and a reluctance to kill, torture, and betray HRH to Voldemort that his father doesn't share. Lucius is the epitome of amorality, IMO.

Carol, wondering once again how Lucius, Bellatrix, and their fellow Azkaban escapees got their wands back, in Bellatrix's case twice




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 20:27:06 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:27:06 -0000
Subject: How Malfoys earned money?
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90906020717w7e39b963u5c76fd984f26d5bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h041uq+6t8j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186842

---  No Limberger <no.limberger at ...> wrote:
>
> randmath23 wrote:
> >I was wondering how the Malfoy family earned their money.
> >I cannot find in any of the Harry Potter books that gives any
> >indication of what type of job the Malfoys engaged in.
> 
> >...
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Given that wizards and witches can perform magic, the
> notion of needing to earn money seems to run counter to
> being magical in the first place; unless it has to do with
> laws governing the use of magic (limits) and/or how
> skillful each wizard & witch's magic is.  ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Thus, between variances in magical abilities and limited
> property availability, a WW economy is established.
> How, specifically, the Malfoys earned money I don't
> know, but given their predilection for dark magic, it
> may have been earned in various unscrupulous ways
> over the centuries in what would essentially be a WW
> black market. ...
> 
> It's a very interesting topic regardless.
> 
> -- 

bboyminn:

I address the general economic aspects in another post, but
there are some new things I will touch on here.

First, we know there are FIVE Exceptions to Gamp's Law of
Elemental Transfiguration. The only one mentioned is food,
you can't make food out of nothing; you can't just make it
magically appear. I suspect that equally you can not 
create base metal, or Elemental metal that will endure.
Gold is on the chart of atomic elements; you can't create
gold from lead, or from potatoes or anything else. 

There are core rules that effect magic. 

Now, in other 'magical' series like Eragon, there are similar
rules. In this case, you can't accomplish something with 
magic unless you could also accomplish it without magic.

In one scene Eragon needs gold, he know that most elements
are disbursed through the environment in small qualties.
Meaning, if you dig long enough, you can probably find a 
trace of gold anywhere in the world, but not enough to 
pay for all the digging.

So, Eragon careful draw elemental gold from the soil, it
takes a long time and a lot of energy but he eventually as
a few small nuggets that he uses to repay an old debt.

I suspect HP wizards could do something similar, they could
draw trace elements from the soil, but not in quantities 
sufficient to be worth the effort. Other valuable items like
silver, precious and semi-precious stones, and similar are
usually not in their final form, or they are trapped in rock.
If a gem is trapped in base rock, you can't pull up the gem
unless you pull up the base rock too, and that could mean
moving a whole mountains. Again, not as easy or as practical 
as it might seem.

So, the point is prospecting could be easier for wizard, but
the amounts would be limited, and while easier than for a
muggles, it would by no means qualify as easy. 

So, limited but not impossible wealth by these means through
magic.

So, again, I suspect that Malfoy and other wizard who have
wealth, simply wheel-and-deal to parlay that wealth into more.

The rest of the wizard world, like the rest of us muggles,
must work for a living, and there seem to be plenty of jobs
in the wizard world. As many jobs as there are in the muggle
world. Every business need tremendous support to supply it
with the good and materials to keep running. We need wizard
farmers, wizard carpenters, wizard stone masons, furniture 
makers, and import/export, broom makers, foresters, etc...,
virtually any job you can think of an the wizard world has
an equivalent. 

Yes, all these tradesmen and craftsmen would use magic to 
accomplish the task, but those who were skilled at it would 
certainly be more in demand than those who tried to do-it-
yourself. 

It seems like very full world, if for the moment, you overlook
the need for raw materials.

Steve/bboyminn 







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 20:39:06 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:39:06 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h03ht7+piv7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h042la+3bdu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186843

Pippin:

A boggart dementor can be controlled with a simple ridikkulus. A real dementor
will suck your soul out while you're trying to think of something funny about
the worst day in your life. And Voldemort was very good at providing people
with days like that.

But he was always careful to refrain from taking public credit for deaths and
disappearances until he had built enough support underground to post the Dark
Mark with impunity. Until then, he was quite happy to have outsiders think he
was no real threat.

Alla:
I disagree with Marion on details, I certainly do not think that it will be as simple as that ? just laugh at him and he will go away. But I do agree with her in principle. Sure, I think that  he may not go away just because people will laugh at  him, but to me  what I argued upthread has the potential substantially diminish his influence. Sorry, Pippin but all of the explanations of why Dumbledore did not disclose that Voldemort is Riddle to me  do not hold up.

Dumbledore was afraid that it will harm his investigations? But as Magpie said Dumbledore is the guy who knew Riddle from the beginning and can go straight to the source if needed, so I am still unclear as to how it will harm his investigations.

Of course I find the explanation that Dumbledore was afraid that it will harm other half bloods and backfire on him to be unconvincing as well, but I already attempted to address it upthread. I think carefully chosen words of this story will be risk very well worth taken.

Now, I CAN possibly see the explanation that Dumbledore would be afraid that Voldie Tom would just simply kill off all people who knew him as Riddle. I agree that it will be very much like Tom, except, well it does not feel very Dumbledore like to me.

Now how many people still know Tom as Tom? I would bet that we can count them on the fingers of two hands, if that many.

Sorry, but after book 7 Dumbledore does not strike me as a guy who would worry much about few lives lost if greater good comes out of it.
Before anybody asks, no I do not think that Dumbledore is a murderous maniac like Voldemort, no I am arguing  in there is no good or evil only power thing.

But yes, if some people fall along the way and say WW could get rid of Voldemort, I do not think Dumbledore would worry much. 

The bottom line to me is this :

I am yet to read convincing argument as to why it is not worth it that Voldemort followers who believe in the "purebloods rule" will know that their leader is not pureblood since they have nothing but absolute contempt for anybody who is not pureblood.

Pippin:
Voldie's original servants, the people from his Hogwarts days, already knew his
real name and background. But that would be more than outweighed by the
knowledge that he was the Heir of Slytherin and had proved it by opening the
Chamber and being a parselmouth. Any DE incautious enough to imply the opposite
would have been made an example for the others. If Voldemort wanted the name
Riddle forgotten, they'd forget it -- anything to prove their loyalty.

Alla:

Are you sure about that? Sure, they probably knew his name. But did they know his background? Somehow I doubt that Tom was going around advertising it. But if canon says so, that certainly would strike a hole in my argument. And wouldn't the fact that he opened the Chamber prove to them exactly that ? that he is a Pureblood?

Pippin:
The new recruits were drawn from people who already hated Albus Dumbledore and
everything he stood for. Why should they care about anything he had to say?
Ridicule from him would only show how blind he was to their master's greatness.

Alla:

I am not saying that Dumbledore should have gone for ridicule either. I am saying he should have gone for the facts, that's all. I mean I think laughter always helps, but not saying that it will have made Voldie just go away.

As to why they would care? Eh because they think that half bloods should not be in charge?

In fact, who says that it necessarily should have come from Dumbledore? Although I see no reason why not. Just give a tip to Rita dear, although since Dumbledore taught him I guess it will be more credible coming from him.

JMO,

Alla





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  2 21:50:11 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:50:11 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h042la+3bdu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h046qj+f2ee@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186844

Alla wrote:
> <snip> The bottom line to me is this :
> 
> I am yet to read convincing argument as to why it is not worth it that Voldemort followers who believe in the "purebloods rule" will know that their leader is not pureblood since they have nothing but absolute contempt for anybody who is not pureblood.

Carol responds:
But Lucius Malfoy and a number of the other Death Eaters must have known that Voldemort's father was a Muggle. They met at his father's grave in a Muggle cemetery. And, IIRC, Wormtail is present when Voldemort mentions his Muggle father to Harry. (I know I should look it up, but bad me! I'm supposed to be working.) And no one except Bellatrix responds with surprise and outrage when Harry brings up Voldemort's Half-Blood status in the DoM.
> 
Pippin:
> Voldie's original servants, the people from his Hogwarts days, already knew his real name and background. But that would be more than outweighed by the knowledge that he was the Heir of Slytherin and had proved it by opening the Chamber and being a parselmouth. Any DE incautious enough to imply the opposite would have been made an example for the others. If Voldemort wanted the name Riddle forgotten, they'd forget it -- anything to prove their loyalty.
> 
Alla:
> 
> Are you sure about that? Sure, they probably knew his name. But did they know his background? Somehow I doubt that Tom was going around advertising it. But if canon says so, that certainly would strike a hole in my argument. And wouldn't the fact that he opened the Chamber prove to them exactly that ? that he is a Pureblood?

Carol responds:
We know for sure that they knew his name, and the Pure-Bloods among them (for example, Lestrange) would have known that there were no Riddles in "Nature's Aristocracy: A Wizarding Genealogy." However, they would have been impressed early on by his ability to speak Parseltongue like Salazar Slytherin himself. And once he had opened the Chamber of Secrets, proving himself to be the Heir of Slytherin and actually killing a "Mudblood" by controlling the Basilisk, they'd have been very reluctant to argue with him. Obviously, as they grin and nudge each other when Slughorn tells Riddle that he must be a Pure-Blood or something like that (sorry I can't remember the dialogue exactly), they obviously think he has a very impressive bloodline, Muggle father or not. None of *them* can claim ancestry from the great Salazar Slytherin himself. I agree with Pippin that they would understand why he wanted the name Riddle forgotten, but I think that they'd be proud to be in on the secret and probably called him Lord Voldemort among themselves. It was only much later, at about the time of the DADA interview (and Riddle's changed appearance would indicate that he'd been practicing Dark magic beyond their powers), that he would have renounced the name completely. He was still Tom Riddle when he worked for Borgin and Burke's.

In any case, Tom Riddle had been widely regarded as a charming, intelligent young man with a promising future. I fail to see how that knowledge, even if it entailed the fact that he was a Half-Blood, would have changed anyone's mind about him. To his followers and to anyone else (other than DD) who was aware of his existence at that point, he was a formidable Dark Wizard. (The DEs, who must have known that Harry Potter was a Half-Blood, were ready to rally around *him* as a replacement if it turned out that he had killed Voldemort when he was a baby through superior Dark magic. Unless they're insane fanatics like Bellatrix, Half-Blood status makes no difference if its outweighed by superior power and ability, especially by a link to Salazar Slytherin. And even Bellatrix refuses to believe the supposed lie that LV is not a Pure-Blood.)

Dumbledore could not, as I said in another post, provide evidence that Tom Riddle was a murderer. The only witnesses had had their memories tampered with and were now dead. And for DD to make such a statement would indicate that he was investigating Voldemort's past. All he could safely say was that Tom Riddle was a Half-Blood who had been raised in an orphanage. But who, other than the original DES who already knew Voldemort's identity, would believe that Voldemort was really Tom Riddle? DD couldn't prove that, either. And, given how well-regarded Tom Riddle was by those who knew him, I don't think that statement would have made any difference. Most people who had known Tom would not believe DD, and anyone who did would just think that a gifted boy had gone badly wrong. What mattered to both his followers and the WW at large was not that LV was a Half-Blood but that he had become, by the time he rose to power around 1970, the most powerful and dangerous Dark Wizard since Grindelwald.

People who learned that Hitler was part-Jewish didn't laugh, nor did they stop fearing him. He was, if anything, even more dangerous because of that connection. Had Voldemort not had a Muggle father, he would have had no reason to hate Muggles and want them exterminated or enslaved. He would merely think, as most Pure-Blood Wizards do, that they were beneath his notice. (IMO, of course.)

Carol, wishing she had time to look up Slughorn's memory




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 00:02:47 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:02:47 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <gvnl2n+2o7u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h04ej7+6kib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186845

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

> Carol again:
> What the author can tell us about her book or her intentions in writing her book is only helpful to some degree with regard to specific characters and circumstances and only if the intentions are actually realized within the book itself. Let's say that she intends Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife (as she does). Not every reader is going to agree with her. Or she intends Dumbledore to be "the epitome of goodness." Again, not every reader will agree that she has succeeded in transferring her intention from her own mind to the text itself.
> 
jkoney:
The problem with your point is even if it is realized in the book, spelled out, spoken plainly, etc. you still have people stating that it isn't true. So it doesn't seem to matter how clear the author is, people are still going to "analyze" the story with their own agendas. Therefore the author is never going to be able to make their intentions known.


> snip>
Carol 
> But literary analysis usually operates on a more sophisticated level. We could look, for example, at the influence of life at the Dursleys on Harry. The story states nothing directly except the incidents themselves and Harry's immediate reaction, but we could argue, for example, that life with the Dursleys was an instance of good coming out of evil (a common motif in the books). It may have toughened him or given him a resilience that, say, the pampered James would not have had. I think we can safely say that it prevented him from sharing Ron's fear of spiders (which derives from the Twins, particularly Fred). Or we could analyze the effects of having the Twins as older brothers on Ron.
> 
> And the influence of one character on another is only one of many things we can examine that JKR never talks about in her interviews and the narrator doesn't state directly in the books. We can look at the parallels between Harry and some other character, say Neville or Snape or LV, and explore their significance.
> 
> We can talk about influences on JKR's writing (in which case, it would be nice to have her input; we don't want to assume that she's read a book she's never heard of). Or we can explore the role of mythology or English boarding school culture or Christianity or any number of elements. We can look at genre. In what ways are the books mystery stories? In what ways does Harry's story match the hero's journey? In what ways is it a Bildungsroman? What about elements of the Gothic novel?

jkoney:
Or we could ask the author if she intended life at the Dursley's to be good coming out of evil or any of your other points. That we we would know for sure what she was trying to do.


>Carol 
> There's a lot more to literary analysis than the author's stated intentions can tell us. What we need to do is examine the text itself, looking for irony, ambiguity, narrative technique, influences, parallels, and many other things. We have to look beyond the literal meaning of the words on the page, which may be ambiguous or misleading or incomplete or just plain wrong (as when Harry will surely die from a Crucio, for example). We need to put it all together. But unlike a jigsaw puzzle, in which there's only one right solution, there are an infinite number of valid readings. (Of course, there are also obviously wrong readings as well, those that are not supported by or are in conflict with the text. "Fenrir Greyback is a tragic hero" is pretty clearly a wrong reading, for example. So is "Wormtail's hand is the unnamed fourth Deathly Hallow.")

jkoney"
Why do we have to break it down to look for irony, ambiguity, etc? You are now taking pieces of the story and trying to analyze them. This isn't some pathogen we are trying to isolate. Take the humor out of the story by itself and you won't have a complete picture of what is happening or why it occurred. 


> > 
> Carol earlier:
> > > Any reading, whether it matches JKR's stated intentions or not, is a "right" reading as long as it can be supported by the text. It's only "wrong" when the next book reveals it as wrong (as Betsy's reading of Draco as Harry's future best friend turned out to be). Until DH came out, both DDM!Snape and ESE!Snape were valid readings because the evidence for both was in the text. We just didn't know which were clues and which were red herrings till we found out in "The Prince's Tale."
> > 
> jkoney:
> > But in this case their is a straightforward right way of reading the interactions of Harry and Draco. By the time the scene on the train is over, if you still believe they are going to be friends then you aren't actually reading the story as it is written. Just because something happened in another book doesn't mean it is going to happen in this one. That is adding things that don't exist to this story.
> > 
> > By the time those first two Harry Draco scenes are over, Harry knows more than enough about Draco: bully, arrogant, etc. that he isn't going to be friends with him. He just left the Dursley's why would he want to hang around with the same type of person?
> > 
> Carol:
> Yes, "Draco is destined to be Harry's best friend" is a "wrong" reading (though I can see why Betsy read that trope into the first book). But we still interpret Draco Malfoy in different ways. Even Harry learns to see him with new eyes, somewhat sympathetically, and Draco himself evolves as a character. That's the type of thing that's subject to analysis. We could ask how the Malfoys function in the novel and what it means to us as readers (regardless of JKR's intention) that they survived relatively unscathed, already having been punished quite severely by LV himself. Note the irony that they would have remained loyal to him had he not done so.
>  
> > > Carol
> > > But there are still many matters for which we have no official canon explanation, or for which the canon explanation is unclear or incomplete (the Elder Wand, for example, or the whole concept of "the Master of Death"). We're still debating character's motivations (and whether there's a rule against hair clips shaped like butterflies!).
> > 
> > jkoney:
> > I agree their are a few things like the elder wand that I would like to have more details on. On others I believe JKR thought we would use some common sense and know that wizards went to the toilet, showered, shaved, etc. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> Yes, but those things aren't matters for literary analysis. However, we might examine the sorts of things that JKR takes for granted and see where that leads us.
> 
> jkoney: 
> > She would think that we would understand that Hogwarts was based on the British boarding school ideas and that they had dress codes. She doesn't go into detail but she gives us a uniform list. From their she expects us to extrapolate to a dress code that these schools would have, such as rules for clothes, shoes, hair, nails and jewelry. All things dress codes normally have. 
> > 
> > That line was an unforgettable one to me. It never occurred to me that McGonegall was doing anything but enforcing (IMO, the obvious) the dress code during a high profile school event. I remember teachers being stressed at these type of events and enforcing every little rule. (I had to dry shave because my cheezy little mustache was showing and it was seen before one event)
> 
> Carol responds:
> Whereas it never occurred to me that she was doing anything except wanting the students in her House to look their best and not embarrass the school. That there might be a rule against wearing colorful hair decorations during the TWT (which happens extremely rarely) never occurred to me. And, of course, any such rules if they exist are suspended for the Yule Ball. It's clear that such regulations don't normally exist or Luna couldn't wear her much more ridiculous accessories, presumably to class though she doesn't have any classes with Harry. And the High Inquisitor herself wouldn't wear a pink Alice band or perky little hair bows in OoP. It might set a bad example for the children.
> 
jkoney
It wasn't the TWT that was the event, it was the school assembly to greet the other schools that was the event. Obviously the Yule Ball had it's own set of rules for dress, etc. otherwise it wouldn't have been such a big deal to have dress robes available.

I think JKR gave her readers too much credit in assuming that they would understand the concept of a boarding school and all the rules that go along with it: dress codes, meal times, remaining on school property, curfews, parental visitation, etc. Then again, I'm glad she didn't spell it all out because I wouldn't have gottent through the first book.






From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 00:16:04 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:16:04 -0000
Subject: Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
In-Reply-To: <h00v79+bnq2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h04fc4+a86e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186846

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > <snip>
> > > Draco has the grace to acknowledge Harry with a nod rather than remaining his enemy, but, then, Harry has saved the whole WW from Voldemort. It's very different from James, whose next act after saving Severus for wholly selfish reasons is to publicly humiliate him.
> > 
> > 
> > Shelley:
> > I would dispute this last line. There might have been a lot of actions  between the "saving" and the "humiliation", and I think we have enough cannon to fill in some of those gaps. <snip>
> > So, I would change that line to read " Draco has the grace to acknowledge Harry with a nod rather than remaining his enemy, but, then, Harry has saved the whole WW from Voldemort. It's very different from Snape, whose next act after being saved is to fight the rescuer, and continue the bad blood that led to more publicly humiliations."
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> The actions are canonically about a week apart. (See "The Prince's Tale." Given his detailed responses on the DADA exam, which occurs just before SWM, and his studying of the test after he's taken it, I think it's safe to say that Severus has spent most of that week studying for his OWLs. He has done nothing to antagonize Sirius and James, who merely say "Look who it is" before they sneak up on him and attack him without provocation.
> 
> There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his rescuer--at least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.
> 
> Carol, whose position in the previous post remains unchanged
>

jkoney:
Since we don't know what Severus was doing, he could have been attacking mudbloods all week and was reviewing his test because he didn't have time to study.

No provocation? Wasn't Snape the one who was trying to find out what the marauders were doing and get them in trouble for it? That in itself is more than enough justification for teenage boys to turn on Snape. Rightly or wrongly they were provoked.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 01:04:19 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:04:19 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h04fc4+a86e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h04i6j+r589@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186847

> jkoney:
> Since we don't know what Severus was doing, he could have been attacking mudbloods all week and was reviewing his test because he didn't have time to study.

Alla:

Yes, he could. And Harry could have waved his wand and apparated to Mars for a little break from camping in DH. I would say that both are just too huge of assumptions to use to argue for or against anything.

jkoney: 
> No provocation? Wasn't Snape the one who was trying to find out what the marauders were doing and get them in trouble for it? That in itself is more than enough justification for teenage boys to turn on Snape. Rightly or wrongly they were provoked.
>

Alla:

How about wrongly? 

I am imagining James kicking himself more than once in the Potterverse afterlife for saving Snape due to what said Snape started for the Potters and especially for their son. And I totally think that Harry's life would have been much better had some Severus Snape had ceased living.

But this? Is just bullying. 

JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 01:22:03 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:22:03 -0000
Subject: Different interpretations WAS: Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h04ej7+6kib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h04j7r+55l1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186848

jkoney:
The problem with your point is even if it is realized in the book, spelled out,
spoken plainly, etc. you still have people stating that it isn't true. So it
doesn't seem to matter how clear the author is, people are still going to
"analyze" the story with their own agendas. Therefore the author is never going
to be able to make their intentions known.

Alla:

Let me ask you this then. So how do you imagine discussion about the story, about this story or any story?

Is your idea of the discussion is to argue this is what author meant to say and as long as we are clear on what author meant to say discussion should end?

No seriously, is it what you would have liked to see?

If this is it, where is the fun of it? Where is the debate? Where are so many different interpretations that we can fight over, or just discuss?


jkoney:
Or we could ask the author if she intended life at the Dursley's to be good
coming out of evil or any of your other points. That we we would know for sure
what she was trying to do.

Alla:

So if she says that yes, that's what she intended to show, then we are done?

And if she says that she intended for Dursleys to be good out of evil, the reader who thinks that she intended to show how easy it is to abuse a  child is just wrong?

jkoney"
Why do we have to break it down to look for irony, ambiguity, etc? You are now
taking pieces of the story and trying to analyze them. This isn't some pathogen
we are trying to isolate. Take the humor out of the story by itself and you
won't have a complete picture of what is happening or why it occurred.

Alla:

We do not have to lol, but to me breaking the book apart is a lot of fun.

And I am pretty sure that she did not mean that we should take those things OUT of the story. I think she meant we should analyze them within the story, if we want to of course.

Jkoney:
I think JKR gave her readers too much credit in assuming that they would
understand the concept of a boarding school and all the rules that go along with
it: dress codes, meal times, remaining on school property, curfews, parental
visitation, etc. Then again, I'm glad she didn't spell it all out because I
wouldn't have gotten through the first book.

Alla:

I am glad that she did not spell it out either, that leads me to believe that she may have decided that she would leave things ambiguous enough in some places to let her readers imagination imagine different things and that would make story even richer in their minds.

JMO,

Alla






From no.limberger at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 13:56:13 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 06:56:13 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h03pce+862t@eGroups.com>
References: <2954.132.229.246.120.1243951939.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
	 <h03pce+862t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906030656m6f3709bfg8db04d15e43227a4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186849

>Carol wrote:
>And worse, publicizing Voldemort's true identity might arouse
>Voldemort's suspicions that Dumbledore was investigating his
>past. Where the Horcruxes were at that point, we don't know.
>Apparently, he didn't hide them until he'd heard the Prophecy,
>but DD had no way of knowing that. Dumbledore didn't know how
>many Horcruxes Tom had made; he might still have thought that
>there was only one though I don't think so because he knew that
>both the cup and the locket had been stolen. He didn't know
>about the diary or the diadem, and Nagini wasn't a Horcrux yet
>(if LV even knew about her at that time).

No.Limberger responds:
Exactly.

>Carol wrote:
>It seems inconceivable that DD has not told at least the
>Wizengamot and the high Ministry officials (e.g., Fudge) who
>Voldemort really is, but Fudge still calls him You Know Who.
>Surely DD has told McGonagall and the other Order members
>that Voldemort was once Tom Riddle, but they also say You
>Know Who (with the exception of Snape, who for reasons of his
>own says the Dark Lord). In other words, knowing who Tom Riddle
>was (without knowing about his early murders, which DD can't
>prove and also can't speak of without risking that LV will find
>out about his investigations) has no effect whatever on the
>WW at large, which is concerned with what LV was in VW1
>and what he will become if he returns to power.

No.Limberger responds:
I tend to believe that Voldemort must have placed some kind
of curse upon anyone who spoke his name before he lost
his powers.  Maybe it was something similar to what was
done in DH, or it could have been something else.  The fact
that he was able to conjure such a curse showed just how
powerful Voldemort was and only made everyone that much
more fearful of him.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 15:44:36 2009
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:44:36 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] How Malfoys earned money?
In-Reply-To: <h01u6o+aak7@eGroups.com>
References: <h01u6o+aak7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0906030844g4d35e8a1wc7842154c9475796@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186850

The Malfoys had family money. How that money was invested, etc. is an
unanswered question.

Lynda



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 19:17:04 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:17:04 -0000
Subject: How Malfoys earned money?
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0906030844g4d35e8a1wc7842154c9475796@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h06i7g+98hb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186851

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lynda Cordova <sweenlit at ...> wrote:
>
> The Malfoys had family money. How that money was invested, etc. is an
> unanswered question.
> 
> Lynda
>

bboyminn:

True, very true, it is an unanswered question until JKR answers
it, but it is not an unspeculated question or answer. 

I think we have enough real world historical models and 
information to make a fair guess how someone like Lucius
maintained and expanded the family wealth. 

Lucius reminds me of the movie "Nicholas Nickleby" 
(Dickens 1838) with Charlie Hunnam and Jamie Bell, as well 
as Nathan Lane -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0309912/

Mean Cold Hearted Uncle Ralph, was essentially an investor. 
He took money from his friends and other investors, and 
invested in assorted business transaction, paid a bit of 
profit to his investors, and keep a lion's share for 
himself. 

Since there was no stock market, I think both Lucius and
Ralph invested directly in business deals or in facilitating
business deals. 

That, and land ownership, were the only way for a rich man 
to make money at that point in historical time. 

Steve/bboyminn




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun  3 12:21:13 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:21:13 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h04i6j+r589@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h05prp+ij6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186852

 
> Alla:
> 
> How about wrongly? 
> 
> I am imagining James kicking himself more than once in the Potterverse afterlife for saving Snape due to what said Snape started for the Potters and especially for their son. And I totally think that Harry's life would have been much better had some Severus Snape had ceased living.
> 
> But this? Is just bullying. 
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>

Potioncat:
Who are you and what have you done with Alla?

The more we discuss the James/Severus confict, the more confused I become about James. The sequence of events that I expected were so different from what turned out...It's so hard to understand how or when James became a good person.

Unless James was just as horrible in his own way as Severus was in his, and it was bravery that redeemed them both. 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  3 19:54:55 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:54:55 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h03pce+862t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h06kef+s2bj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186853

Damn Yahoomort ate my first response!!

Carol responds:

I don't think it's silly at all. In fact, I agree completely with No.Limberger.
If Voldemort suspected that Dumbledore was investigating his past, he would
never have hidden the Horcruxes in places important to him as scenes of his
crimes or his happiness (Hogwarts) or his envy (Gringotts). He'd have probably
sealed them all inside that tree in Albania where they could never be found by
anyone but him.

Magpie:
There's no reason Dumbledore sharing information that is known to him, that Voldemort knows is known to him, would mean that Dumbledore is investigating his past. Dumbledore doesn't need to investigate this stuff.

To be fair, there is a canonical explanation for why Dumbledore and Voldemort act the way they do. I just has nothing to do with a logical plan. It's psychology. Dumbledore likes keeping information for himself so he knows more than anyone else (always vaguely telling them that this keeps it safe) and Voldemort is psychologically compelled to create all his plans around Important Moments in his personal history. Both of them often act against the interests of their own goals because they can't not act this way. 

Carol:
But there are other reasons, one of which is that Dumbledore at first had no
reason to reveal Voldemort's identity because Tom Riddle had been out of the
country for years and no one but Dumbledore suspected that he was up to
anything. By the time Dumbledore knew that Tom Riddle was calling himself Lord
Voldemort and was gathering followers calling themselves Death Eaters (when he
reappeared in Britain for the DADA interview after being who knew where for
about ten years), many of them his "friends" from school, his face was already
nearly unrecognizable, he had already killed at least seven people, and he had
already made at least four Horcruxes (the diary, the ring, the cup, and the
diadem). 

Magpie:
This doesn't give him "no reason" to reveal Voldemort's identity when people started freaking out about him. What the ministry could or couldn't investigate or Dumbledore could or couldn't prove about murders (not that the WW has ever been too big on proof anyway) has no bearing on whether Dumbledore should correctly identify this Lord Voldemort guy as Tom Riddle from Hogwarts, who worked at B&B and applied to be DADA teacher.

Carol:
And by the time Voldemort surfaced again, having apparently been gathering
followers in secret for some twelve years, it would have done no good to
publicize his past even if Dumbledore could prove his crimes, which he couldn't
do. 

Magpie:
It would do the good we've pointed out, to de-mystify the guy when everybody thinks he's the devil. And people also just have a right to know, imo. Why's Dumbledore on Voldemort's side on this issue?

Carol:
Voldemort already had followers, and the terror of his actions and those of
the Death Eaters far outweighed any unprovable claims that Dumbledore could make
that he had once been Tom Riddle--who, BTW, was not a laughable creature like
Gregory Goyle but a handsome and intelligent Prefect and Head Boy who had won an
award for services to the school. That information might astonish a few people,
assuming that they believed it, but it wouldn't make them laugh at him or scorn
him.

Magpie:
Just because it wouldn't "out-weigh" the fear doesn't mean there's no reason to publicize it (we don't know that these claims are unprovable, or that people would reject them for that). Being Prefect and Head Boy who won an award for services to the school actually is quite laughable when you're styling yourself the Badass Dark Lord of All Evil. It makes him human and so as scornable and laughable as any human. Fans certainly have plenty of fun with the idea of Tom Riddle coming up with a cool Goth name and trying to get his lame friends to call him that.

Carol:
And worse, publicizing Voldemort's true identity might arouse Voldemort's
suspicions that Dumbledore was investigating his past.

Magpie:
There's no reason those two things should go together. Dumbledore is only saying things he already knows without investigating anything. Also, didn't Dumbledore only start to suspect Horcruxes after CoS? So why did he keep the guy's secret through the first war at all?

Carol:
>From Godric's Hollow until the end of GoF, there was no point in bringing up
Voldemort's name at all. As far as the WW was concerned, the Wicked Witch was
dead, having been destroyed miraculously by a fifteen-month-old baby. And by the
time DD was trying to persuade the WW that Voldemort had returned, the Ministry
was busy suppressing that information and calling DD a deluded old liar.

Magpie:
The WW was still talking about him as if he was the boogeyman, which was why even though he was defeated they never completely believed he couldn't come back. Why not publicize who the guy really was, a wizard? It's true, and why shouldn't history be accurate? Even if you don't think there's a specific point in telling people who he was (and I would think people would want to write books analyzing the guy) there was certainly no reason to hide or deliberately not say who he was, which DD seemed to do.

Carol:
Then Harry's story came out in "The Quibbler," and Harry would certainly have
mentioned that Voldemort was really Tom Riddle since "bone of the father" played
as large a role in the restorative potion as Harry's blood and Wormtail's hand,
but that knowledge made no difference whatever in terms of either his follower's
loyalty (Bellatrix, who either hasn't read the article or wouldn't believe it,
anyway, screams at Harry for calling Voldemort a Half-Blood; the other DEs
either know it already, having been present in the graveyard, or are unfazed by
the information), and the rest of the WW quickly returns to "You Know Who" mode
when Voldemort returns.

Magpie:
The DEs don't have to know that Tom's a Half-blood just because of that ritual. Where his father's buried doesn't have to out him as a Muggle. I'm not sure what we're supposed to think about Wormtail, who I believe is there but Voldemort's talking to Harry so maybe he's not supposed to be part of the conversation. But Wormtail would already have reasons for not sharing that fact if LV doesn't want him to.

If we were supposed to think Harry outed him in his Quibbler article I would call that a plot hole, not proof that the information shouldn't logically be important to everyone. We never see any DEs who would obviously have *some* reaction to this bit of information reacting to it?in fact, we see Bellatrix angry at Harry for suggesting such a thing after the article's already gone to press. That to me is more evidence to assume it's not widely known?sure Bellatrix wouldn't have believed it if she read it any more than she'd believe it when Harry said it, but other DEs would have their own reactions. More importantly, we never see the WW at large reacting to new information about Voldemort. Why wouldn't they? They seem to have the same curiosity about that sort of thing as Muggles. When people get famous, even for evil things, biographies usually follow.

I think the evidence more implies that Harry just didn't get into Voldemort's background any more than Dumbledore ever did.

Carol:
It seems inconceivable that DD has not told at least the Wizengamot and the high
Ministry officials (e.g., Fudge) who Voldemort really is, but Fudge still calls
him You Know Who. 

Magpie:
It's never inconceivable that DD would keep any secret. He keeps secrets just for the sake of having secrets and justifies it any way he feels like.

Carol:
Surely DD has told McGonagall and the other Order members that
Voldemort was once Tom Riddle, but they also say You Know Who (with the
exception of Snape, who for reasons of his own says the Dark Lord). In other
words, knowing who Tom Riddle was (without knowing about his early murders,
which DD can't prove and also can't speak of without risking that LV will find
out about his investigations) has no effect whatever on the WW at large, which
is concerned with what LV was in VW1 and what he will become if he returns to
power.

Magpie:
I don't see how the information that we never hear of Dumbledore telling the Order who Tom Riddle is, and that the Order all call him some form of Voldemort proves that Dumbledore told them all who he really was and it made no difference to them. It makes a difference to the people we know he told. In fact, the whole winning plan depends on knowing who he is. 

Even if we assumed that Dumbledore had told the Order who he really was, the Order is also the group of people fighting Voldemort the most?they're the least scared of him. We do see Dumbledore occasionally encouraging people to call him Voldemort instead of You-Know-Who. We don't see him encouraging anyone to think of him as Tom Riddle. (And there he's fighting against a cultural pressure to not use the name, which is all part of making Voldemort the boogeyman.)

But the "let me tell you about Tom Riddle stuff" is quite often cloaked in the whole "this is a special lesson just for you, Harry, because you must know this" vibe. Plus we know Dumbledore policy for information is whatever's even stingier than a need-to-know basis.

Carol:
His followers, both before Godric's Hollow and after LV's restoration to his
body, are impressed by his cruelty and power, including his power over *them*,
and by whichever of his deeds they know about, those unspecified "great and
terrible" deeds that Ollivander mentions in SS/PS. 

Magpie:
The fact that people are rightfully scared of things that Voldemort actually does is no reason that calling him by his true name and seeing him for what he really is is useless. Tom Riddle, wizard, may be no less dangerous than Voldemort the superhuman, but he can be less scary. Jack the Ripper got far more fear associated with him than Jeffrey Dahmer, despite JD killing more people. Jack's a mystery. Horror depends on the unknown.

Carol:
Once he returns, the mere
fact that he (apparently) can't be killed is sufficient to bring in new
admirers, those who want to rise to power on his coattails or want to learn more
sophisticated forms of torture. 


Magpie:
Sure, there's always people who'll be drawn to sadistic people. But again, that's no reason to encourage the myth. Voldemort's a man who didn't die due to purely technical reasons having nothing to do with his being invincible. Even if DD didn't want to publicize the Horcrux angle, nobody saw him die to begin with so it didn't have to be even that amazing.


Carol:
I forgot to mention that his earliest followers, his former schoolmates, may
have known or suspected that he wasn't a Pure-Blood, but it made no difference
to them because he was the Heir of Slytherin--and both more intelligent and more
powerful than they were, quite capable of keeping them under his control. His
being Tom Riddle, far from a reason for laughing at him, was a reason to follow
him.

Magpie:
Yes, Dumbledore points out that he's followed around by mean-spirited cowards and sycophants from early on. There's plenty of people who don't care about following a Half-Blood or not. That's no reason not to share the truth with all the people who aren't following Voldemort no matter what his blood status. (And if you make a couple of people who are in it for the blood status think, all the better, I guess.)

Carol:
OW, knowing that Voldemort was once Tom Riddle, assuming that DD could prove
that allegation to the satisfaction of the fickle WW public, makes no difference
to anyone. 

Magpie:
I think it does make sense. It certainly makes sense to Voldemort who's gone out of his way to craft a different name and more mysterious background. 

The books themselves even champion this whole idea of cutting someone down to size and not letting your fear give something more power and mystery than it really has. It just never manages to apply this to Voldemort. Well, the twins do once with You-Know-Poo and the book applauds them for it. It just never connects that impulse to Tom Riddle.

I think the main reason it's done the way it's done is for the plot. DH sets up a situation where the entire country can only show resistance to Voldemort by defiantly hoping and believing Harry will save them. They can only show so much courage?we can't have them acting like the real UK with Hitler, for instance, getting bombed and thumbing their noses at him, or worse yet, setting off to take the guy on by themselves. The whole thing has to be this precious secret that only Harry can handle. 

So it's Harry Dumbledore shares the information with, and Harry who takes that information in like a normal person and thinks of Voldemort as not as grand as he wants to be. But there's also psychological things stuck in to explain why Dumbledore would do this. The guy goes to his grave with all sorts of info that should logically have been shared with people trying to fight Voldemort if he could only let it go. And Voldemort is just as trapped in his inability to think logically rather than symbolically. He could no more hide a Horcrux tree in Albania than he could just let Vincent Crabbe kill Harry. His priorities are rarely efficiency or logic.

Carol:
People who learned that Hitler was part-Jewish didn't laugh, nor did they stop fearing him.

Magpie:
I'm not sure it's true Hitler was part-Jewish (it certainly could be), and I don't know if that was a rumor while he was still alive or not.

But you're mixing up two different things. LV being a Half-blood is not the thing that's supposed to be funny, since there's nothing particular funny about it. It's Voldemort himself that needs to be made into a figure of ridicule, just like Hitler. Hitler was laughed at loudly and often while he was trying to take over the world. Especially by the people defying him. It was part of resistance. You can fear something and still laugh at the person causing it. 

-m





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun  3 15:13:13 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:13:13 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h042la+3bdu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h063u9+p2kh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186856


> 
> Alla:
> I disagree with Marion on details, I certainly do not think that it will be as simple as that ? just laugh at him and he will go away. But I do agree with her in principle. Sure, I think that  he may not go away just because people will laugh at  him, but to me  what I argued upthread has the potential substantially diminish his influence. Sorry, Pippin but all of the explanations of why Dumbledore did not disclose that Voldemort is Riddle to me  do not hold up.

Pippin:

Maybe Dumbledore is afraid that if he spreads a scandal about Voldemort's past, Voldemort will uncover the scandal in his :) People who live in glass houses...

But anyway Alla, Dumbledore has to have some reason for keeping the secret, besides spoiling the plot of CoS ;) Even if you think it is not a good reason, there ought  to be a reason that Dumbledore thought was good. As Percy says, he usually gives a reason for what he does.

 He says two things, first that very few people connected the   boy who had been Tom Riddle with Voldemort. That's in CoS. But in HBP, he says that most people who had known Riddle were afraid to talk. Now, those people must have connected Riddle with Voldemort, because why be afraid to talk about a  harmless schoolboy  who hadn't been heard from in years?

I think Dumbledore is talking about two different groups. Riddle was a school celebrity: one of Slughorn's proteges, a prefect, a top student with a shiny trophy for special services, and popular. So probably most of the students and all of Slughorn's connections knew him by name and reputation at least. But those people wouldn't have any useful information for Dumbledore. And they probably didn't connect the handsome  Riddle of  years ago with the enigmatic and dangerous-looking Lord You Know Who.

But there'd be another group of people who had interacted with Riddle on a daily basis: classmates, other prefects, teachers. Those people might have information Dumbledore didn't have, about Riddle's interest in things that Riddle was too wary to bring up with Dumbledore. About dark magic, or ways to escape death, for example. 

Alla:
> Now, I CAN possibly see the explanation that Dumbledore would be afraid that Voldie Tom would just simply kill off all people who knew him as Riddle. I agree that it will be very much like Tom, except, well it does not feel very Dumbledore like to me.
> 
> Now how many people still know Tom as Tom? I would bet that we can count them on the fingers of two hands, if that many.
> 
> Sorry, but after book 7 Dumbledore does not strike me as a guy who would worry much about few lives lost if greater good comes out of it.

Pippin:
And how will they answer Dumbledore's questions if Voldemort kills them first???? 

It is a reading against canon, IMO, to say that Dumbledore would not worry.  In HBP, Hagrid says he has never seen Dumbledore so worried. We know what he was worried about -- that it was proving harder to keep Draco from hurting anyone  than Dumbledore had expected. 


Alla: 
> The bottom line to me is this :
> 
> I am yet to read convincing argument as to why it is not worth it that Voldemort followers who believe in the "purebloods rule" will know that their leader is not pureblood since they have nothing but absolute contempt for anybody who is not pureblood.

Pippin:
Because people are not as simple or as logical as that. And wizards aren't even trained to be logical. I bet lots of DE's wouldn't care who is  in charge as long as it isn't Muggle lovers who won't let a wizard keep Muggles in their place.  

I am sure there isn't a celebrity in the world today who hasn't had a few unwelcome facts uncovered  about him and spread all over the internet, but actually turning something like that into a wedge that will discredit someone with his core followers is not so easy. 


Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  3 22:03:13 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:03:13 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h05prp+ij6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h06rv1+4hhm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186858

Yahoo eats a lot today.


> Potioncat:
> Who are you and what have you done with Alla?

Alla:
LOL, when had I ever call this scene not bullying? Although you know what, maybe I should not say that. Otherwise  the old post of mine will turn out saying exactly that, lol.

But not as far as I remember no, and as of today I certainly think it was bullying.

 I always disagreed that in the war with Marauders Snape was always the bullied and thought that even if author did not show details, she hinted enough to me. I thought that Marauders using Snape's curse on him smelled very much of karma and of course people who created curses like Sectusemptra to me are anything but innocent

I also  think that nobody forced Snape to go and see what Remus does at nights.

So, no I did not suddenly start to feel much sympathy for Snape, I just do not think that something which is rather simple in meaning to me, could be called something else.

Potioncat: 
> The more we discuss the James/Severus confict, the more confused I become about James. The sequence of events that I expected were so different from what turned out...It's so hard to understand how or when James became a good person.
> 
> Unless James was just as horrible in his own way as Severus was in his, and it was bravery that redeemed them both.

Alla:
Why? You think good person could not have been a bully in his youth?  And James was just as horrible as Snape? I guess to me it really does matter what views they hold and to me the fact that James joined the Order of Phoenix and Snape joined the band of terrorists is what makes one a better person than the other if nothing else.






From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Wed Jun  3 01:58:27 2009
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:58:27 -0000
Subject: How important is Hagrid?
In-Reply-To: <gvi22a+9ecl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h04lc3+p92u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186861

> Carol, willing to bet that Madame Maxime's parents were also a
> Wizard and a Giantess (no Muggles involved and the prospect of
> a Giant marrying a Witch being too horrible to contemplate)

samajdar.parantap:

This is something I have wondered too. How can a man, be it a
wizard, marry and have sex with a giant? Do they use magic to
transfer semen just as an experiment?

Giants don't look like capable of love at first sight ...
having a prolonged contact may soften them a little (like
Grawp) towards men ? but who may have interest in that? Even
Hagrid may not find them sexually attractive (I hope).



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 00:46:39 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:46:39 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h04ej7+6kib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h075hf+351d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186862


> > Carol again:
> > What the author can tell us about her book or her intentions in writing her book is only helpful to some degree with regard to specific characters and circumstances and only if the intentions are actually realized within the book itself. Let's say that she intends Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife (as she does). Not every reader is going to agree with her. Or she intends Dumbledore to be "the epitome of goodness." Again, not every reader will agree that she has succeeded in transferring her intention from her own mind to the text itself.
> > 
> jkoney:
> The problem with your point is even if it is realized in the book, spelled out, spoken plainly, etc. you still have people stating that it isn't true. So it doesn't seem to matter how clear the author is, people are still going to "analyze" the story with their own agendas. Therefore the author is never going to be able to make their intentions known.
> 
Carol responds:
I don't understand your point, or possibly you're misunderstanding mine. An author can and sometimes does state his or her intentions (some of them, anyway, those of which he or she is conscious), but if that intention doesn't come out in the text--if it's undetectable by most or all readers--then the intention has not been realized (in the sense of made real) by the author. Obviously, not all intentions need to be stated. Obviously, she intended Harry and no one but Harry to be the hero, as we would know even if his name weren't part of the title of every book. Obviously, she intended Ron and Hermione to be his best friends, with Ron being just a little bit closer if only because they're both boys and have more in common. Obviously, she intended from the beginning for Ron and Hermione (and Harry and Ginny) to get together. Obviously, all of those intentions were realized. However, she also intended for both of those couples to be ideally suited to each other, and readers may or may not agree that she realized that particular intention. Obviously, she intended life at the Dursleys to be unpleasant.
> 
> jkoney:
> Or we could ask the author if she intended life at the Dursley's to be good coming out of evil or any of your other points. That we we would know for sure what she was trying to do.

Carol:
But why does it matter? What matters is not what she intended (hoped, tried, wanted) to do. What matters is what she actually accomplished, intended or unintended.

Good does come out of evil in many instances that I could cite, starting with Voldemort's own AK backfiring on him. It's there; I can't imagine it happening accidentally, without her knowledge, because it's a persistent motif. But we don't need JKR to tell us whether she intended it or not, and if she were to say that she didn't intend it, it would make no difference because it's in the text.

My point is, we don't need the author to tell us what to look for. We can read and interpret it for ourselves.

Carol, who would have made this post considerably longer if she hadn't been urged to hurry up and finish
>




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 03:20:03 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:20:03 -0000
Subject: How important is Hagrid?
In-Reply-To: <h04lc3+p92u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h07eh3+p11p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186863

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samajdar_parantap" <samajdar.parantap at ...> wrote:

> How can a man, be it a wizard, marry and have sex with a giant? 
> Do they use magic to transfer semen just as an experiment?


zanooda:

Maybe Hagrid's dad used an Engorgement charm on himself, LOL!



> but who may have interest in that? Even Hagrid may not find 
> them sexually attractive (I hope).


zanooda:

People have strange tastes sometimes :-).





From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Thu Jun  4 03:52:53 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:52:53 -0600
Subject: Speaking Of Money - Harry's
Message-ID: <C554466C5DD64EBC96724092F4389FF2@Marianne>

No: HPFGUIDX 186864

While there is talk of how the Malfoy's made their money, I remember reading somewhere (of course I've forgot) there was a question how James made his money, considering he spent some time in hiding.  It was suggested that he was independently wealthy, and all went to Harry. Which would make Harry a very rich young man.  But wouldn't the money earned interest sitting all those years in Gringotts?

Yet, Harry had to remind himself that he couldn't get the Firebolt and several items.  He had 5 more years to go at Hogwarts.  Maybe Harry didn't realize how well off he was?  I'm assuming Harry was in sole control of his money.  If that was the case, he was very frugal.  While they were on the summer long camping trip in DH, would Harry would have thought to bring along some money, be it muggle or wizarding.

I know.  I'm sure this has already been discussed before, but again I'm very new to these discussions.  I just joined in the middle of DH reading - the first time.

Lots of questions.

Marianne

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




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 06:14:23 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:14:23 -0000
Subject: Speaking Of Money - Harry's
In-Reply-To: <C554466C5DD64EBC96724092F4389FF2@Marianne>
Message-ID: <h07onv+306g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186865

---  "wildirishrose" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> While there is talk of how the Malfoy's made their money, I remember reading somewhere (of course I've forgot) there was a question how James made his money, considering he spent some time in hiding.  It was suggested that he was independently wealthy, and all went to Harry. Which would make Harry a very rich young man.  But wouldn't the money earned interest sitting all those years in Gringotts?
> 
> Yet, Harry had to remind himself that he couldn't get the Firebolt and several items.  He had 5 more years to go at Hogwarts.  Maybe Harry didn't realize how well off he was?  I'm assuming Harry was in sole control of his money.  If that was the case, he was very frugal.  While they were on the summer long camping trip in DH, would Harry would have thought to bring along some money, be it muggle or wizarding.
> 
> I know.  I'm sure this has already been discussed before, but again I'm very new to these discussions.  I just joined in the middle of DH reading - the first time.
> 
> Lots of questions.
> 
> Marianne
> 

bboyminn:

I don't think it is a question of how James made his money,
the money was already there. So the real question is how James
parent made all that money they left to him. 

And I think they make there money in a fashion similar to 
Lucius, just on a smaller scale. Again, in the age that 
wizards seem to live in, relative to a similar age in 
muggle history, facilitating business and/or being a land
owner were the primary forms of wealth.

There is however, one other possibility, that James parents
were somehow business owners similar to Olivander or
Fortescue. Though what business they would have been in, I'm
not sure. Business owners of this type would be more middle 
class than wealthy. But if it was a successful business or
if Mr. Potter invented something, then he could have
accumulated a fair amount of wealth to leave to his children.

I did find it odd that there was no ancestral home and
accompanying land for the Potters, nor a business to be
carried on. I have speculated that at some point in the
first Voldemort war that they cashed everything out, sold
all their holding, on the assumption, that in bad times,
cash is never a bad thing.

As to Harry, I agree Harry showed massive restraint. An 11
year old with a vault full of gold, you would think he would
spend like crazy. But on the other hand, people who lived
through the Great Depression, we both very successful and
very furgal with their money. They knew what hard times were
and spend their lives guarding against it.

Harry certainly knew what hard times were, and I suspect that
kept him from getting carried away with his cash.

As to Harry pulling some money for the long trip in the
final book, I don't think so. Both Harry and Ron have
gotten lazy about working out details. They are so used to
having Hermione to do that for them, they don't even think
about it. But considering how much money Harry has, it 
would have been nice if he had brought a little and considered
converting a certain amount of it to muggle money. 

The Grangers, who are muggles, seem to be able to buy what
ever Hermione needs, so certainly that bank can do muggle
to wizard, and wizard to muggle money exchange. It was 
very short sighted of Harry in my opinion. Hermione cashed
out all her savings account, every penny she had in the
world, meanwhile Harry is sitting on a vault full of gold.

Again, very short sighted of Harry, but also very typical of
him and Ron to leave that to Hermione to work out. 

When they were finally on the run, it was a little late for
a trip to Gringotts. 

Steve/bboyminn
P




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 08:32:09 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:32:09 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h06rv1+4hhm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h080q9+2sq7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186866

> Potioncat: 
> > The more we discuss the James/Severus confict, the more confused I become about James. The sequence of events that I expected were so different from what turned out...It's so hard to understand how or when James became a good person.
> > 
> > Unless James was just as horrible in his own way as Severus was in his, and it was bravery that redeemed them both.
> 
> Alla:
> Why? You think good person could not have been a bully in his youth?  And James was just as horrible as Snape? I guess to me it really does matter what views they hold and to me the fact that James joined the Order of Phoenix and Snape joined the band of terrorists is what makes one a better person than the other if nothing else.
>

Montavilla47:

Snape joined the Order of Phoenix, too.




From mros at xs4all.nl  Thu Jun  4 09:36:21 2009
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:36:21 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
Message-ID: <1910.213.84.254.99.1244108181.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>

No: HPFGUIDX 186867

>> Potioncat:
>> > The more we discuss the James/Severus confict, the more confused I
>> become about James. The sequence of events that I expected were so
>> different from what turned out...It's so hard to understand how or
>> when James became a good person.
>> >
>> > Unless James was just as horrible in his own way as Severus was in
>> his, and it was bravery that redeemed them both.
>>
>> Alla:
>> Why? You think good person could not have been a bully in his youth?
>> And James was just as horrible as Snape? I guess to me it really does
>> matter what views they hold and to me the fact that James joined the
>> Order of Phoenix and Snape joined the band of terrorists is what makes
>> one a better person than the other if nothing else.
>>

Marion:

Ever heard the story of the Good Samaritan? The Samaritans were vilified
people to the ancient Hebrews. Why? Because they believed in a different
god, and were Different and Just Creepy an' Weird and a minority as well.
Well, the parable of the Good Samaritan attempted to show that it doesn't
matter what people believe, it matters what they DO.

The fact that James Potter, rich, pampered Golden Boy, who got pampered at
school by teachers and indulged in his wild, dangerous, bullying ways, the
fact that he was groomed by a nefarous Headmaster (who is more of a
cultleader than an educator) to become a member of said Headmaster's
illegal little club (so he could then go and expand his carousing
vandalism to include harassing muggle policemen) does not impress me of
James Potter's 'goodness'.

James Potter was a smug bully and died a bully. He used the retoric he was
fed to justify his agression against people he didn't like, and never
stopped to think about wether that was ethical or just.
What's the difference between Dudley Dursley and James Potter? (well,
apart from money and looks)
Dudley Dursley at least reconsidered wether his bullying was justified,
wether his victim has 'deserved' it or not (and why shouldn't Harry have
'deserved' being Harry-hunted by Dudley? Harry was weird, and creepy - a
wizard! - and a minority and he looked weird, with that hair, and he wore
crappy clothes and nobody liked him!)
I give credit to Dudley for realizing that his behaviour towards Harry
wasn't justified after all. I give no credit to James Potter.

What did James Potter do what was so bloody wonderful? He was, as I said,
indulged at home and at school. Born with a golden spoon in his mouth.
Petted on the head by his headmaster, been given Head Boy position and
been told lies that confirmed him in his bad behaviour. Things about Dark
Magic and how Slytherins are all Dark Wizards. Things about how 'the
greater good' gives you the right to do morally reprehensible things.
And James Potter swallowed it all, joined Dumbledore's little cult and got
killed when he was barely out of his twenties, still convinced that the
world consisted out of Good Guys and Bad Guys and that he and his fellow
Gryffindors were the Good Guys and Slytherins The Baddies. His beliefs
became his downfall, because they made him blind to the obvious fact that
the groveling toady Gryffindor who used to tag along at school was, in
fact, a traitor.

Lets look at James Potter's beliefs.
James Potter believed that the sun rose and set on his own shoulders.
He believed that he was better than 'dark wizards' and even more better
than muggles
He believed that he had the God-given right to harass others who were
inferior
He believed that Slytherins were creepy Others who totally believed other
things than himself (and therefore wrong and EVIL and not really human in
any way that (*mattered*)
He believed that he was totally justified into hexing Others who believed
different things.
He believed that he was Brave and Heroic in doing so.
He believed that picking out the scrawniest, poorest of Those Icky people,
who had no magical family or moneys to protect him, to harass made him a
Hero (especially when that poor, unkempt, icky person also had the
temerity to be better than him in his studies - the nerve! - and the even
worse temerity to claim to be the friend of a Golden Girl. Why, beating
that workingclass snot up was practically an act of *charity*!)
He believed that the fact that seven years of harrassment might force his
victim to join an club that lashes back at people like him was the perfect
proof of his own beliefs. See! Them Slytherins *are* evil!
He believed that joining the Order of the Phoenix was perfect good fun. It
gave him the opportunity to carrouse on motorcycles with his best bud,
chasing people and hexing them and harrassing policemen, just like old
times at Hogwarts, and it's all justified and for the greater good!

What was so wonderful about James Potter's beliefs that excused his
abhorrent behaviour? More importantly, is the fact that you fight in the
army of the 'good guys' (Us) a carte blanche for torturing, harassing,
pillaging, raping and murdering the 'bad guys' (Them)?

No, James' never raped, pillaged or murdered (as far as we know), but the
frightening moral of the HP books is clear on this; if you belong to the
Good Guys, it's okay, even 'gallant' to torture. What you Belief is far
more important than what you Do. If you belong to the 'bad guys', you are
subhuman, should 'know your place' (nod your head submissively to the
Superior Ubermensch)
I'm sorry, but this is a very dangerous and insidious set of beliefs, and
I will have no part in them.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 11:45:20 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:45:20 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <1910.213.84.254.99.1244108181.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <h08c4g+sfp0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186868

Alla:
> Why? You think good person could not have been a bully in his youth? And
James was just as horrible as Snape? I guess to me it really does matter what
views they hold and to me the fact that James joined the Order of Phoenix and
Snape joined the band of terrorists is what makes one a better person than the
other if nothing else.
>

Montavilla47:

Snape joined the Order of Phoenix, too.

Alla:

Was I really that unclear in what I was trying to say?  In case I really was, sure Snape joined Order of Phoenix AFTER spending some quality time  with the gang of torturers and murderers. And the only part of Snape that to me is worth any respect is for what he did for the Order.



Marion:

Ever heard the story of the Good Samaritan? The Samaritans were vilified
people to the ancient Hebrews. Why? Because they believed in a different
god, and were Different and Just Creepy an' Weird and a minority as well.
Well, the parable of the Good Samaritan attempted to show that it doesn't
matter what people believe, it matters what they DO. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, I did. Does it mean that you compare Death eaters to Good Samaritans? The analogy does not work for me. 


Marion:
<HUGE SNIP>
What was so wonderful about James Potter's beliefs that excused his
abhorrent behaviour? <SNIP>

Alla:

If nothing else ? the fact that he fought in the Order that tried to make WW a better place, that tried to make sure that Voldemort and Co will never be in charge.

Marion:
<SNIP>
What you Belief is far
more important than what you Do. If you belong to the 'bad guys', you are
subhuman, should 'know your place' (nod your head submissively to the
Superior Ubermensch)
I'm sorry, but this is a very dangerous and insidious set of beliefs, and
I will have no part in them.

Alla:

Yes, people who belong to DE to me are bad evil guys, I guess we have to agree to disagree.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 12:46:56 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:46:56 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h063u9+p2kh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h08fo0+v2tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186869

> Pippin:
> 
> Maybe Dumbledore is afraid that if he spreads a scandal about Voldemort's past, Voldemort will uncover the scandal in his :) People who live in glass houses...
> 
> But anyway Alla, Dumbledore has to have some reason for keeping the secret, besides spoiling the plot of CoS ;) Even if you think it is not a good reason, there ought  to be a reason that Dumbledore thought was good. As Percy says, he usually gives a reason for what he does.

Alla:

Does he though? I mean as Magpie said Dumbledore keeps secrets for the sake of keeping secrets IMO and this is very well shown in canon is it not?

So my thing is I do not think he did have any reason except maybe thinking that the less people know the better. 

Or maybe he had some reason, I just do not see it in canon.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
> But there'd be another group of people who had interacted with Riddle on a daily basis: classmates, other prefects, teachers. Those people might have information Dumbledore didn't have, about Riddle's interest in things that Riddle was too wary to bring up with Dumbledore. About dark magic, or ways to escape death, for example. 

Alla:

Sure.

 
> Alla:
> > Now, I CAN possibly see the explanation that Dumbledore would be afraid that Voldie Tom would just simply kill off all people who knew him as Riddle. I agree that it will be very much like Tom, except, well it does not feel very Dumbledore like to me.
> > 
> > Now how many people still know Tom as Tom? I would bet that we can count them on the fingers of two hands, if that many.
> > 
> > Sorry, but after book 7 Dumbledore does not strike me as a guy who would worry much about few lives lost if greater good comes out of it.
> 
> Pippin:
> And how will they answer Dumbledore's questions if Voldemort kills them first???? 

Alla:

But now you are talking about something different I think. I thought that when you say that Dumbledore would worry that Voldemort will kill somebody from this group, he would worry simply because every life counts to him and I do not believe he will.

Now will he worry that he may not get information? Hm, probably. He however can still get to those people first, after all as we see in HBP Dumbledore did not care much what happened to those people AFTER he questioned them. Who was it who he supposedly wanted to get out of jail but did not? Hetsuba (sp?) or somebody else?


Pippin:
> It is a reading against canon, IMO, to say that Dumbledore would not worry.  In HBP, Hagrid says he has never seen Dumbledore so worried. We know what he was worried about -- that it was proving harder to keep Draco from hurting anyone  than Dumbledore had expected. 

Alla:

It is certainly reading against author's intent. But is it reading against the books? Not sure. I do not believe that Dumbledore worried one bit, since he did not stop Draco right after first attack.

I do not believe Dumbledore worried one bit about the life that could be lost unnecessary when he tells Snape to betray their plans to Voldemort in DH.

I really really do not believe that Dumbledore worried or cared what will happen to Snape's soul after Snape kills him.

And of course we know what he wanted Harry to do. Yes, greater good will come out of it. I am saying that he does not care if few lifes are lost in the process, that's all.



> Pippin:
> Because people are not as simple or as logical as that. And wizards aren't even trained to be logical. I bet lots of DE's wouldn't care who is  in charge as long as it isn't Muggle lovers who won't let a wizard keep Muggles in their place.  

Alla:

Of course! If they do not care who is in charge my argument falls apart, I just do not see proof that they will not care.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 15:40:33 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:40:33 -0000
Subject: Draco and Intent: Re: Snape and Harry's Sadism  (was: Lack of re-examination)
In-Reply-To: <h04fc4+a86e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h08pth+9k57@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186870

Carol earlier:
> > 
> > The actions are canonically about a week apart. (See "The Prince's Tale." Given his detailed responses on the DADA exam, which occurs just before SWM, and his studying of the test after he's taken it, I think it's safe to say that Severus has spent most of that week studying for his OWLs. He has done nothing to antagonize Sirius and James, who merely say "Look who it is" before they sneak up on him and attack him without provocation.
> > 
> > There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his rescuer--at least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.
> > 

> jkoney:
> Since we don't know what Severus was doing, he could have been attacking mudbloods all week and was reviewing his test because he didn't have time to study.
> 
> No provocation? Wasn't Snape the one who was trying to find out what the marauders were doing and get them in trouble for it? That in itself is more than enough justification for teenage boys to turn on Snape. Rightly or wrongly they were provoked.
>
Carol responds:

His detailed response on the DADA OWL, much longer than anyone else's, indicates that he has already studied. He's reviewing the exam questions *after* the test, Hermione-style, not studying them at the last minute. And had he been attacking "Mudbloods" all week, Lily would not have tried to defend him from the two self-confessed arrogant little berks who attacked him unprovoked. You don't save someone's life one week and jump out at him with your wand pulled intending to publicly torment and humiliate him, two against one, the next. That's not "cool" even in teenage boy culture, or so I would hope.

Carol, noting that Severus has already faced death for his nosiness and does not consider attacking a kid who's doing nothing wrong, two on one, to be justified under any circumstances




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 15:51:56 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:51:56 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h04i6j+r589@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h08qis+pd71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186871

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > jkoney:
> > Since we don't know what Severus was doing, he could have been attacking mudbloods all week and was reviewing his test because he didn't have time to study.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, he could. And Harry could have waved his wand and apparated to Mars for a little break from camping in DH. I would say that both are just too huge of assumptions to use to argue for or against anything.
> 
> jkoney: 
> > No provocation? Wasn't Snape the one who was trying to find out what the marauders were doing and get them in trouble for it? That in itself is more than enough justification for teenage boys to turn on Snape. Rightly or wrongly they were provoked.
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How about wrongly? 
> 
> I am imagining James kicking himself more than once in the Potterverse afterlife for saving Snape due to what said Snape started for the Potters and especially for their son. And I totally think that Harry's life would have been much better had some Severus Snape had ceased living.
> 
> But this? Is just bullying. 

>
Carol responds:

I don't think James would be kicking himself for saving Severus, considering that had Snape not been spying on Dumbledore, some other Death Eater would have had the same assignment, and if some other DE had overheard some or all of the Prophecy and reported it, Lily would not have had the chance to be saved because Severus (who might or might not have been a DE) would not have known that Voldemort was targeting the Potters and could not have asked LV to spare Lily, giving her the chance for life that enabled her to perform the ancient magic that saved Harry. Granted, Snape did report part of the Prophecy (all of it that he heard) to LV, but he also tried to save Lily. Had he not done so, all three POtters would have been killed and LV would have remained in his body and in control of the WW. It's a good/bad thing, good coming out of evil, which would not have happened had it not been for Snape's involvement. And, setting all that aside, Harry could not have defeated Voldemort if not for Snape's help.

So, if James is the good man he seems to have developed into despite his bullying past, Dead!James will forgive Dead!Severus and be grateful to him, as Harry was, or he would never have named his own son after him.

Carol, who agrees with the part of Alla's post about James's bulling but not that Harry would have been better off without Snape




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 16:38:22 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:38:22 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h08qis+pd71@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h08t9u+6bvk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186872

Carol responds:

I don't think James would be kicking himself for saving Severus, considering
that had Snape not been spying on Dumbledore, some other Death Eater would have
had the same assignment, and if some other DE had overheard some or all of the
Prophecy and reported it, Lily would not have had the chance to be saved because
Severus (who might or might not have been a DE) would not have known that
Voldemort was targeting the Potters and could not have asked LV to spare Lily,
giving her the chance for life that enabled her to perform the ancient magic
that saved Harry. <SNIP>

Alla:

So now it is a certainty that another DE would have had the same assignment? I certainly accept it as a possibility, but I also accept as a possibility that but for Snape no other Death Eater would have overheard the Prophecy and did not report it to Voldemort. And he would have never attacked Potters thus leaving Harry with two parents, who while fighting in the war would have still had a chance to survive and even if they were killed later still give Harry some years of happiness.

Carol, who agrees with the part of Alla's post about James's bulling but not
that Harry would have been better off without Snape

Alla, who can see Snape being forgiven by Lily and James but certainly not them being grateful to him for contributing to putting them both to early grave.






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  4 21:29:10 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:29:10 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h08t9u+6bvk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h09eb6+l2fh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186873

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
> 
> I don't think James would be kicking himself for saving Severus, considering
> that had Snape not been spying on Dumbledore, some other Death Eater would have
> had the same assignment, and if some other DE had overheard some or all of the
> Prophecy and reported it, Lily would not have had the chance to be saved because
> Severus (who might or might not have been a DE) would not have known that
> Voldemort was targeting the Potters and could not have asked LV to spare Lily,
> giving her the chance for life that enabled her to perform the ancient magic
> that saved Harry. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> So now it is a certainty that another DE would have had the same assignment? I certainly accept it as a possibility, but I also accept as a possibility that but for Snape no other Death Eater would have overheard the Prophecy and did not report it to Voldemort. And he would have never attacked Potters thus leaving Harry with two parents, who while fighting in the war would have still had a chance to survive and even if they were killed later still give Harry some years of happiness.
> 

Montavilla47:
Maybe.  Or maybe Voldemort would never have heard the prophecy and 
never invoked it, and consequently, never have been stopped by anything.

In which case, James and Lily, as members of the Order, might have been
killed in a matter of months--just like the other members were.  Remember
that they were "dropping like flies."

And, since the complicated set of circumstances in which Lily's refusal to
stand aside actually meant something (unlike the other mother who shielded
her children) would not have taken place, Voldemort could have killed
James, her, and Harry without the magical backlash.

Or sent his minions to do the same thing.  







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 00:52:00 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:52:00 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h09eb6+l2fh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h09q7g+36qo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186874

> > Alla:
> > 
> > So now it is a certainty that another DE would have had the same assignment? I certainly accept it as a possibility, but I also accept as a possibility that but for Snape no other Death Eater would have overheard the Prophecy and did not report it to Voldemort. And he would have never attacked Potters thus leaving Harry with two parents, who while fighting in the war would have still had a chance to survive and even if they were killed later still give Harry some years of happiness.
> > 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Maybe.  Or maybe Voldemort would never have heard the prophecy and 
> never invoked it, and consequently, never have been stopped by anything.

Alla:

Or maybe this prophecy would have remain an unfulfilled as many other prophecies in MoM. And maybe another prophecy about how to defeat Voldemort would have come to life at some time. OR maybe he would have just been defeated with no prophecy at all.

But we can endlessly come up with what ifs of course. My point is that I find the argument that Lily and James would have been **grateful** to Snape to be mind boggling.

It is to me as if Wormtail for example suddenly become very very very sorry (for real) that he helped Voldie to get a body in GoF and did some sort of great deed to help kill him. And then somebody would say oh yeah, we have to be really grateful to him. After all he helped to get rid of Voldemort, but to me nothing can change that he helped bring Voldemort back. I will be the first one to say that he can atone for this deed, but to be grateful for it?

And maybe it is just the matter of degree to me, but to me there are some deeds for which one just cannot be grateful at all. I mean, I am sure WW could be grateful to Snape, after all Harry did save their asses and Snape is responsible in the round about way for creating the Chosen one. But any of the Potters being grateful to Snape? For what exactly I wonder.

Montavilla47:
> In which case, James and Lily, as members of the Order, might have been
> killed in a matter of months--just like the other members were.  Remember
> that they were "dropping like flies."

Alla:

Yep, I also remember that several order members survived the first war and see no reason why Lily and James could not have been amongst them.


Montavilla47:
> And, since the complicated set of circumstances in which Lily's refusal to
> stand aside actually meant something (unlike the other mother who shielded
> her children) would not have taken place, Voldemort could have killed
> James, her, and Harry without the magical backlash.
> 
> Or sent his minions to do the same thing.

Alla:

Yes, or they would have been defied Voldemort the fourth time and lived till the old age.

JMO,

Alla





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 03:15:39 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:15:39 -0000
Subject: Prophecies and Chosen Ones/ Spoilers for FALLEN by Thomas Sniegoski
In-Reply-To: <gvv9vo+88pv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0a2ks+hbr2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186875

> Zara:
> Thanks! I think it is fair because she introduces the equivalence as reflective of how people in her world might think, very shortly after the text of the Prophecy is presented to us at the end of OotP, namely in Chapter 1 of HBP.
> 
> > HBP, "The Other Minister":
> > "Back? When you say 'back'...he's alive?"
>   <snip PM's memories of previous meeting>
> > "Yes, alive," said Fudge. "That is - I don't know - is a man alive if he can't be killed? I don't really understand it, and Dumbledore won't explain properly - but anyway, he's certainly got a body and is walking and talking and killing, so I suppose, for the purposes of our discussion, yes, he's alive."

<SNIP>

Alla:

Sorry about that Zara, I really wanted to reply to this one and did not do so right away. Even though I am not sure that my point will be a significant one.

I just want to clarify that I of course consider this to be a fair **interpretation** of the Prophecy and as I said upthread I like it very much and as intepretation it is supported within the text.

My beef of the sorts is with the wording of Prophecy itself, that's all. I am just saying that in my opinion Prophecy which is coming true should come true exactly as it is written, you know?

I mean, yes, absolutely I can see how people in WW based on the text that you provided and other hints will think that person who cannot die is not truly alive, absolutely.

But even though it is a part of the meaning of the word that wizards think of, is it really the **whole** meaning of the word alive in Potterverse?

I mean, are we saying that people of Potterverse when they say that person is alive do not mean that such person can talk, laugh, go out with friends, have sex, I don't know, get married, maybe have kids?

Are we saying that the only thing that comes to mind for people of Potterverse when they say "live", they mean die in proper time?

Do you see what I am saying? To me if this is what author meant and I am pretty convinced that this is what she meant, she is being way too ambigious and not introducing a fair prophecy, but sort of cheats instead.

For example Prophecy in the Series Fallen says that the Chosen's destiny will be to help fallen angels who express remorse return home to heaven (paraphrase). I am imagining the prophecy coming through which would have really meant that Kid will have to help fallen angels to return home and that would really mean staying on earth or something like that.

I would have shaken my head and said huh, how exactly it is fair?

And of course in Rick Riordan series, every word is coming true exactly as it was written.

JMO,

Alla




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Fri Jun  5 03:58:56 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:58:56 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h075hf+351d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0a560+68do@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186876

 
> > > Carol again:
> > > What the author can tell us about her book or her intentions in writing her book is only helpful to some degree with regard to specific characters and circumstances and only if the intentions are actually realized within the book itself.

Steve replies:  Perhaps in your opinion, which is what this actually is. In my opinion and in the opinion of those who actually have some degree of respect for what an author has to say about their work after they've completed it, what that author says about her intentions in writing her book is extremely helpful, whether or not those intentions were actually realized within the book or not. 

Carol continues:
 Let's say that she intends Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife (as she does). Not every reader is going to agree with her. Or she intends Dumbledore to be "the epitome of goodness." Again, not every reader will agree that she has succeeded in transferring her intention from her own mind to the text itself.
> > >

Steve replies:  Right you are. Not every reader is going to agree with her.  And as JKoney has astutely pointed out, for very subjective agendas and as I might add, often completely silly or irrational reasons. Maybe the reader doesn't think of Ginny as Harry's ideal wife because they hate the name Ginny or loves bats and hates Ginny's character for using a bat bogey hex and hurting innocent bats. Maybe the reader   
thinks of Dumbledore as the epitome of goodness because Richard Harris was their favorite actor and, why, how could anyone played by Richard Harris in a movie be anything but good? In other words, readers interpret what they read according to their own very subjective agendas. And those readers who actually value the author's work more than they value nitpicking that author's work to death, are genuinely interested in what the author feels and thinks about their characters.
 
> > jkoney:
> > The problem with your point is even if it is realized in the book, spelled out, spoken plainly, etc. you still have people stating that it isn't true. So it doesn't seem to matter how clear the author is, people are still going to "analyze" the story with their own agendas. Therefore the author is never going to be able to make their intentions known.
> > 
> Carol responds:
> I don't understand your point, or possibly you're misunderstanding mine. An author can and sometimes does state his or her intentions (some of them, anyway, those of which he or she is conscious), but if that intention doesn't come out in the text--if it's undetectable by most or all readers--then the intention has not been realized (in the sense of made real) by the author. <SNIP>

Steve replies:

I understood the point Jkoney was making completely. It doesn't matter whether or not the author's intention comes out in the text. Readers are so preoccupied w/ their own subjective agendas in reading the book that you could hit the author's intentions over their head w/ a sledge hammer and they wouldn't feel it. As Jkoney stated, the author's intention won't get the chance to become known because of the personal emotional and psychological and even intellectual agendas of the readers preventing the author's real intentions from being known. Your talking about readers who cry for hours after reading about the death of a favorite character...a favorite fictional character! They could care less why the author wrote that death scene. They could care less what the author intended for that scene. All they see is that their favorite character is dead, or that a character they hate is still alive, or some such subjective plot consideration happening.  

Jkoney isn't saying you can't discuss the author's work or disagree w/ what they wrote, or even agree with it for varying reasons. He (and now I) am simply saying that people are going to discuss the author's work according to their own personal opinions and agendas that may or may not make sense to anyone but them. 
> > 
 
> Carol:
<SNIP>
 My point is, we don't need the author to tell us what to look for. We can read and interpret it for ourselves.

Steve replies:

My point is that while we may not need the author to tell us what to look for in their work, I'm going to value the authors views when offered more than I'm going to value others views based on very subjective and personal agendas. Yes it's fun to read and interpret an author's work for ourselves, and I certainly am in favor of this being done. But those interpretations are often as JKoney wrote according to very personal agendas that may or may not have any thing to do with what the author intended. 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun  5 04:02:49 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:02:49 -0000
Subject: Prophecies and Chosen Ones/ Spoilers for FALLEN by Thomas Sniegoski
In-Reply-To: <h0a2ks+hbr2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0a5d9+e3ri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186877

 
> Alla:
> 
> My beef of the sorts is with the wording of Prophecy itself, that's all. I am just saying that in my opinion Prophecy which is coming true should come true exactly as it is written, you know?

Pippin:
 Nobody would say that the phrase "man of woman born" is generally meant to exclude people delivered by Caesarian. But that's the way it works in Macbeth. 

And it's not only Shakespeare. The word delphic is still used to mean "obscurely prophetic."  Elijah made a prophecy about King Ahab that came true in an obscure way also. So I am afraid that is just the way some prophecies work. After all, Dumbledore did advise being distrustful of them. 

We don't know what power is behind the prophetic messages of the Potterverse, but if it can arrange the stars and planets to spell out messages, surely it is no trouble  to communicate with Voldemort, and if Snape does not do it someone else will.  You don't suppose Harry was Chosen by **Snape**?


Pippin







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 04:42:32 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:42:32 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h09q7g+36qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0a7no+u5tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186879

> Montavilla47:
> > In which case, James and Lily, as members of the Order, might have been
> > killed in a matter of months--just like the other members were.  Remember
> > that they were "dropping like flies."
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yep, I also remember that several order members survived the first war and see no reason why Lily and James could not have been amongst them.

Montavilla47:

Because a major reason those members survived was that Voldemort
was vanquished by baby Harry.  

Had the events at Godric's Hollow not taken place *in precisely the
way that they did,* Voldemort would have mostly likely continued
his rise to power and those surviving order members would be dead.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun  5 05:30:36 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:30:36 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h05prp+ij6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0aahs+ar9g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186880

 
> Potioncat:
> 
> The more we discuss the James/Severus confict, the more confused I become about James. The sequence of events that I expected were so different from what turned out...It's so hard to understand how or when James became a good person.
> 

Pippin:
There wasn't a life-changing event that made James grow up and be a good person. He grew up, and that was the life-changing event. It didn't happen dramatically or symbolically, or overnight. He just stopped being a bully the way Ron stopped making Uranus jokes or Dudley stopped throwing tantrums and screaming "Won't!" 

James always did get along with adults, so it's not like he had to learn how to be sociable. And he never had a grudge against the whole world. As far as James was concerned the status quo could go right on quo-ing.

I'm sure James thought that wizards and Muggles, and purebloods and Muggleborns, could manage to live in peace, and that put him at odds with some of the other purebloods and all of the Death Eaters. But that was grown up stuff-- meanwhile it was the school's job to make rules, and James's to see how many he could break and get away with it. 

But there's a difference between testing your limits, which a lot of teenagers do, and rejecting limits altogether.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun  5 21:55:47 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:55:47 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h06kef+s2bj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0c493+82c2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186881

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> Damn Yahoomort ate my first response!!
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I don't think it's silly at all. In fact, I agree completely with No.Limberger.
> If Voldemort suspected that Dumbledore was investigating his past, he would
> never have hidden the Horcruxes in places important to him as scenes of his
> crimes or his happiness (Hogwarts) or his envy (Gringotts). He'd have probably
> sealed them all inside that tree in Albania where they could never be found by
> anyone but him.
> 
> Magpie:
> There's no reason Dumbledore sharing information that is known to him, that Voldemort knows is known to him, would mean that Dumbledore is investigating his past. Dumbledore doesn't need to investigate this stuff.
>
Carol responds:

Voldemort knows that Dumbledore knows where the orphanage he lived in was and knows that he stole from and otherwise abused the other children. He knows that Dumbledore knows his achievements at Hogwarts and that DD suspects him of being behind some of the "accidents" that happened to various students, including, probably, the death of Moaning Myrtle. He also knows that Dumbledore can't prove any of it. He may know that DD knows he worked for Borgin and Burkes. But that's *all* that Voldemort knows DD knows.

He does not know that Dumbledore knows his ancestry or the location of the Gaunt hovel. He does not know that Dumbledore knows he killed his father and grandparents, framed Morfin, and stole Morfin's ring. He does not know that Dumbledore knows that he stole the cup and locket, killed Hepzibah Smith, and framed Hokey for it. He does not know that Dumbledore knows he's made even one Horcrux, let alone five or six. He does not know that Dumbledore understands him and has a good idea of what some of those Horcruxes are (and later, the exact number), or has a good idea of where at least some of those Horcruxes might be hidden.

If Dumbledore revealed even the small fact of Voldemort's identity, the names of his parents and the fact that his father was a rich Muggle from Little Hangleton, Voldemort would not only suspect but *know* that Dumbledore was investigating his past. He, himself, only knew his father's name, Tom Riddle, and that his grandfather's first or last name was Marvolo. Only lengthy investigation led him to that discovery. Neither eleven-year-old Tom nor Mrs. Cole, who didn't know the name Gaunt, gave DD that information. He would have had to discover it, as Tom did, for himself. And DD would not want Voldemort to know that he was doing any such thing.

Magpie: 
> To be fair, there is a canonical explanation for why Dumbledore and Voldemort act the way they do. I just has nothing to do with a logical plan. It's psychology. Dumbledore likes keeping information for himself so he knows more than anyone else (always vaguely telling them that this keeps it safe) and Voldemort is psychologically compelled to create all his plans around Important Moments in his personal history. Both of them often act against the interests of their own goals because they can't not act this way. 

Carol responds:
That's certainly true. But psychological explanations are not the only explanations, and, surely, if Dumbledore, with his concern for the greater good, thought that the WW would be helped rather than hurt by being given this information, he would have given it. So he must have had reasons beyond his penchant for secrecy for concealing it. And one of those reasons, surely, is his own investigations--as well as his knowledge, acquired through these investigations, of Voldemort's psychology, an advantage that he certainly would not want Voldemort to know that he had.

With regard to the rest of the argument, I still see no advantage in revealing that Voldemort is a Half-Blood. By the time he's dangerous enough that the WW at large has cause to fear him, he's already gathered followers for whom his being a powerful Dark Wizard descended from Slytherin outweighs his being a Half-Blood, and the rest of the WW doesn't care what his blood status is, only that he's a dangerous psychopath and the leader of a terrorist gang.
> 


> Magpie:
> I don't see how the information that we never hear of Dumbledore telling the Order who Tom Riddle is, and that the Order all call him some form of Voldemort proves that Dumbledore told them all who he really was and it made no difference to them. It makes a difference to the people we know he told. In fact, the whole winning plan depends on knowing who he is. 

Carol responds:
I don't know of a single character other than Bellatrix, who refuses to believe it, and Voldemort himself, for whom Voldemort's blood status is important. Knowing it makes no difference in what the Order members call him. Harry, following Dumbledore, insists on saying "Voldemort," but he's not insisting on saying Tom Riddle. And the Order members still call him You Know Who rather than Tom Riddle. They're still, apparently, afraid of the Dark Wizard Voldemort. Unlike Dumbledore, they don't think of him as Tom.

Carol, snipping way too much and responding to too little because she's pressed for time






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun  6 00:50:32 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:50:32 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h09q7g+36qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0cego+2htj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186882


> Alla:

 My point is that I find the argument that Lily and James would have been **grateful** to Snape to be mind boggling.

Pippin:
Why wouldn't they be grateful? Snape saved Harry more than once, and also Lupin and Sirius. Of course nothing can change what Snape did before, but so what? If a person atones for the wrong they did, then they are back at square one, and just as deserving of appreciation from their fellow beings as anyone else. Are Lily and James supposed to hold a grudge against Snape for all eternity? I would hope they have better things to think about. 

> Alla:
> 
> Yep, I also remember that several order members survived the first war and see no reason why Lily and James could not have been amongst them.
> 

Pippin:
Were Order members being killed faster than they were being recruited? They were. Eventually the number of Order members must decline to zero, at which point Lily and James will be dead, along with all of their friends.

Pippin




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun  6 01:00:56 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:00:56 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0c493+82c2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0cf48+entt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186883

> Carol responds:
> 
> Voldemort knows that Dumbledore knows where the orphanage he lived in was and knows that he stole from and otherwise abused the other children. He knows that Dumbledore knows his achievements at Hogwarts and that DD suspects him of being behind some of the "accidents" that happened to various students, including, probably, the death of Moaning Myrtle. He also knows that Dumbledore can't prove any of it. He may know that DD knows he worked for Borgin and Burkes. But that's *all* that Voldemort knows DD knows.

Magpie:
And therefore, Dumbledore saying that Voldemort is Tom Riddle, who came to Hogwarts from that Muggle orphanage, worked at B&B and applied for and got turned down for a job as a teacher, is not revealing anything. If he also said, "Oh, and I found out that he's named after his dad and his mother's father, yeah, he'd be revealed he knew a bit more. But even if you want to make the rather unfounded imo assumption that Dumbledore must guard the secret of Tom's specific parents or else he'll change the hiding places of his Horcruxes (which he probably should already have been hiding in a paranoid way and was incapable from what we've seen of ever not hiding them in places connected with himself) that Dumbledore didn't know about throughout the first war (so why's he guarding his plan to find them? When did he even start this investigation into Tom's past?), that's no reason for hiding the fact that he was orphan Tom Riddle, former head boy and Prefect of Hogwarts who won an award there. He was already from a Muggle orphanage, so 

But to be honest, even the facts about his parents hardly indicate some deep, dangerous investigation on Dumbledore's part that must mean he knows about the Horcruxes. Tom Riddle's named after his family. They're not hard to find. And terrorizing the country is reason enough for people to look into your biography. In fact, if I were Voldemort I'd find it far more suspicious if Dumbledore was never saying anything about who my parents were. I mean, come on, they're painfully easy to find given they share all of my names, and the wisest Wizard ever hasn't ever been interested? (Granted, that's far more logical than Voldemort usually is.)

Carol:
> If Dumbledore revealed even the small fact of Voldemort's identity, the names of his parents and the fact that his father was a rich Muggle from Little Hangleton, Voldemort would not only suspect but *know* that Dumbledore was investigating his past. 

Magpie:
Which is not, imo, so huge a deal as to justify Dumbledore helping Voldemort hide everything about himself. But regardless, Dumbledore doesn't have to reveal this small fact. He's got plenty of other small facts that would do the trick--or at least be a start. Ordinary schoolboy underneath the Dark Magic.

> Magpie: 
> > To be fair, there is a canonical explanation for why Dumbledore and Voldemort act the way they do. I just has nothing to do with a logical plan. It's psychology. Dumbledore likes keeping information for himself so he knows more than anyone else (always vaguely telling them that this keeps it safe) and Voldemort is psychologically compelled to create all his plans around Important Moments in his personal history. Both of them often act against the interests of their own goals because they can't not act this way. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> That's certainly true. But psychological explanations are not the only explanations, and, surely, if Dumbledore, with his concern for the greater good, thought that the WW would be helped rather than hurt by being given this information, he would have given it. 

Magpie:
Dumbledore has a history of concealing information even when it would be helpful. I don't get how the WW would have been hurt during the first Voldemort War by Dumbledore letting them know this was Tom Riddle from Hogwarts. (Which I believe at the time was all he knew anyway.) Dumbledore never needs reasons beyond his penchant for secrecy. Or rather, his penchant for secrecy compels him to make up convoluted justifications in his own mind for hiding information that would actually have been pbviously helpful.

Carol:
So he must have had reasons beyond his penchant for secrecy for concealing it. And one of those reasons, surely, is his own investigations--as well as his knowledge, acquired through these investigations, of Voldemort's psychology, an advantage that he certainly would not want Voldemort to know that he had.

Magpie:
This seems to conflate Dumbledore telling people he's Tom Riddle from Hogwarts and therefore an ordinary Wizard before Dark Magic disfigured him, which he could have told any time between Voldemort's first rise and Dumbledore's death, and Dumbledore broadcasting the specific memories he shares with Harry in secret in HBP that relate directly to his plan to find the Horcruxes. That's a completely different set of information, information that I don't even know if Dumbledore himself had until the last months of his life. Iirc, he didn't even start to think of Horcruxes until the end of CoS gave him the clue. And then it seems like it was in HBP when he started his investigations. There were many years before that when Dumbledore wasn't investigating anything. Those years were all times he could have connected Voldemort with the kid who went to Hogwarts. Especially after Voldemort's first defeat. 

Carol: 
> With regard to the rest of the argument, I still see no advantage in revealing that Voldemort is a Half-Blood. By the time he's dangerous enough that the WW at large has cause to fear him, he's already gathered followers for whom his being a powerful Dark Wizard descended from Slytherin outweighs his being a Half-Blood, and the rest of the WW doesn't care what his blood status is, only that he's a dangerous psychopath and the leader of a terrorist gang.

Magpie:
The fact that he's a Half-blood isn't the important part anyway. But if there actually are people who are devoted to him because they believe in his Pureblood ideology, I don't think it's impossible that some of them might reconsider at this news. Certainly there's no reason to hide his true identity to cover up the fact he's lying about what he is.

> > Magpie:
> > I don't see how the information that we never hear of Dumbledore telling the Order who Tom Riddle is, and that the Order all call him some form of Voldemort proves that Dumbledore told them all who he really was and it made no difference to them. It makes a difference to the people we know he told. In fact, the whole winning plan depends on knowing who he is. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> I don't know of a single character other than Bellatrix, who refuses to believe it, and Voldemort himself, for whom Voldemort's blood status is important. 

Magpie:
I don't see how that relates to my point. I said that the only reference we get to anybody having just learned whether or not Voldemort is a Half-blood after Harry's Quibbler report is somebody afterwards being told he's a Half-blood by Harry and being shocked and angry he'd say such thing. I just see no reason to think Harry mentioned Voldemort being a Half-blood or not in the Quibbler article. Of course I see the logic of why it would come up, but the author didn't write anyone saying, "Wow, turns out the guy's dad was a Muggle--but I don't care, I'm still loyal to him/scared of him!" 

It reads more like the author didn't consider it as something in the article. She still writes as if only Dumbledore, Harry and Harry's friends know this guy is Tom Riddle or what his blood status is. That's more logical to me than thinking that everyone just learned the true identify of their own personal boogeyman but had no interest. Really? There wasn't a crowd in that trophy room the next day having a peek at Tom's trophy? That's far more bizarre human behavior (or Wizard behavior based on what we've seen) than Dumbledore liking to be the guy who knows everything. 

Carol:
Knowing it makes no difference in what the Order members call him. Harry, following Dumbledore, insists on saying "Voldemort," but he's not insisting on saying Tom Riddle. And the Order members still call him You Know Who rather than Tom Riddle. They're still, apparently, afraid of the Dark Wizard Voldemort. Unlike Dumbledore, they don't think of him as Tom.

Magpie:
We don't know if the Order members even know that his name is Tom. But yes, the Order members call him whatever, and are still afraid to say his name. There's a huge superstition that's grown up about the guy in the culture in which they live. Cultural pressure is pretty strong. (If not consistent--Hermione for some reason develops a fear of the name that Harry, also Muggle-raised, never does--and Harry's way makes far more sense as we read.) That, imo, is a pretty obvious reason to at least try to de-mystify him rather than decide there's no point because they're already scared.

And even so, the Order is a group of people who *don't* fear Voldemort the way other people do, so I don't see why they're a good example of why there's no point to this. They're afraid of what Voldemort can actually do, but they don't think he's invincible. Even if people continued to call him "You-Know-Who" it still might make a difference that they knew in their hearts they were talking about a human being. That seed might grow into something. The British are good at that sort of thing I've always thought.

If a small child is afraid of the shadow in the corner because he's thinks he's a giant thinking I think that's a good reason to turn on the light and say, "Look, it's just your coat on the chair." Maybe the kid will still be scared the next time he looks at it, but there was still a good reason to show him the truth for its own sake. And if enough people share the information, and get used to sharing this information, they should get used to it. 

This is the guy that's terrorizing these people. If I were one of them I'd feel I had the right to know everything I could about the guy. I wouldn't appreciate some bearded fellow deciding there was no point because I'd just not believe him and continue to be scared (How come Harry manages it?) I don't see any advantage in that for me. I *do* see a clear advantage to Dumbledore, who gets to assume a paternalistic position and cling to information that makes the rumors I get about Voldemort a bit silly.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 01:39:28 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:39:28 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0cego+2htj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0chcg+34nh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186884

> > Alla:
> 
>  My point is that I find the argument that Lily and James would have been **grateful** to Snape to be mind boggling.
> 
> Pippin:
> Why wouldn't they be grateful? Snape saved Harry more than once, and also Lupin and Sirius.

Alla:

Out of curiosity when exactly did he save Sirius? You don't mean in Shrieking Shack I hope?


Pippin:
Of course nothing can change what Snape did before, but so what? If a person atones for the wrong they did, then they are back at square one, and just as deserving of appreciation from their fellow beings as anyone else. Are Lily and James supposed to hold a grudge against Snape for all eternity? I would hope they have better things to think about. 

Alla:

But I thought they were supposed to be grateful not for Snape's saving Harry's life (by the way when was a second time he saved Harry's life?) but for the fact that Snape sold him to Voldemort and helped made Harry an orphan? And yes, I do find it mind boggling. No, I do not think they should hold grudge for all eternity, although I would be delighted to see them punch Snape, but that's my own satisfaction.

I can totally see them forgiving Snape. Grateful for saving Harry's life? I have no problem with Harry feeling gratitude for that. But I am trying to imagine being that God forbid something happens to me and I cannot protect children in my family whom I love and then person who did something to me saves my child's life. That's nice! I guess can be grateful for that, but I can never be grateful (eh, I will be dead, but we are running with this hypothetical, so I guess my soul will be grateful) for the fact that such person made it impossible for me being there and protect my child in the first place.

I can never be grateful for the sufferings that my child will endure, the hateful relatives that he will be placed with because of that person. Obviously, I am speculating and that is why I am talking from the first person, but that is what I would imagine Lily and James in the afterlife thinking.

So, yes, sure they could be grateful for Snape saving Harry's life in their first year. But it is quite possible that the events would have been so different if they were alive that no such need would have arisen in th first place.


> > Alla:
> > 
> > Yep, I also remember that several order members survived the first war and see no reason why Lily and James could not have been amongst them.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Were Order members being killed faster than they were being recruited? They were. Eventually the number of Order members must decline to zero, at which point Lily and James will be dead, along with all of their friends.

Alla:

Again - there are many maybes. It is not math progression, which will not end till the end. Maybe another event would have come that helped turned the luck in the war. 

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun  6 02:09:37 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:09:37 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cf48+entt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0cj51+50ld@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186885


> 
> Magpie:
> And therefore, Dumbledore saying that Voldemort is Tom Riddle, who came to Hogwarts from that Muggle orphanage, worked at B&B and applied for and got turned down for a job as a teacher, is not revealing anything. 

Pippin:
It reveals that Dumbledore is not going to make it easy for Riddle to leave his past behind as Riddle clearly wants to do. Now, Riddle isn't trying to obscure his past because he believes that purebloods will never follow a halfblood leader. He already knows they will, because he recruited them at Hogwarts. Dumbledore knows this too, because he's been spying on the Death Eaters already and knows who some of them are. 

Riddle is trying to leave his old name behind because *he* doesn't want to be reminded of his previous life. And he's quite capable of eliminating anybody who knew him as Riddle, and those who did know him as Riddle are afraid he will do that. That's why they were afraid to talk. 

But Dumbledore believes that Voldemort's weaknesses lie in those parts of his history and his knowledge of magic which he has always discounted. DD doesn't know, as he begins his investigations, what those weaknesses are, but he does know that if Voldemort kills all the people who knew him as Riddle, it is going to make it rather difficult to obtain information from them. It seems to me as if he started collecting information when Voldemort first returned, trying to find evidence of Voldemort's murderous intent, which only later became evidence in the Horcrux quest.  

People over-estimated the powers of Lord Voldemort, but they under-estimated the powers of Riddle, and that was equally dangerous.   When Voldemort first returned, he was  saying that rumours that he had done terrible things were false. His schoolboy reputation could actually have helped him there, if he had chosen to use it. 

I have yet to understand why DD should sacrifice potential informants for the sake of publicizing information which he already knows that Voldemort can counter, and which in some ways might even be helpful to Voldemort. 


Pippin






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 02:18:01 2009
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:18:01 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0a5n0+of60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0cjkp+nsco@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186886

> >>Carol again:
> > What the author can tell us about her book or her intentions in writing her book is only helpful to some degree with regard to specific characters and circumstances and only if the intentions are actually realized within the book itself.

> >>Steve replies:  
> Perhaps in your opinion, which is what this actually is. In my opinion and in the opinion of those who actually have some degree of respect for what an author has to say about their work after they've completed it, what that author says about her intentions in writing her book is extremely helpful, whether or not those intentions were actually realized within the book or not. 

Betsy Hp:
I think you're presuming a bit much here, Steve.  Nothing Carol has said implies a lack of respect for the author.  In fact, one could argue that by suggesting the author's intent will be clearly set forth within their written work (rather than erratically filled in by later interviews) Carol is showing a deep respect for the author.  She's taking their work seriously and presuming that the author took their work seriously, as well.

I myself do enjoy hearing an author's intent (unless I adored the book beyond the telling and fear having it sullied by later revisionism or too strict interpretations), but if the work is any good it really should stand on its own.  If the work is any good, it should be beyond an author's need to explain.  (Huh.  That's probably why I don't like having my favorites "explained".  Interestingly, my favorite authors tend to steer their readers back to the book[s] when questioned... and wow but I'm digressing.  Sorry.)

> >>Carol continues:
> > Let's say that she intends Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife (as she does). Not every reader is going to agree with her.
> > <snip>

> >>Steve replies:  
> Right you are. Not every reader is going to agree with her.  And as JKoney has astutely pointed out, for very subjective agendas and as I might add, often completely silly or irrational reasons.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think there's some conflation going on here.  First there's the question, "does JKR intend for Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife?"  I agree with Carol that it'd be an uphill battle to say this was *not* JKR's intention.  Not because of interviews where JKR stated as much, but within the books themselves, JKR makes her intention perfectly clear.  We have an ending where Harry is content, happy, feeling all is well with the world, and Ginny is his wife.  The story makes it clear that JKR sees Ginny as Harry's ideal wife, his happy ending.

Second, there's the *completely* different question, "Do you, the reader, feel Ginny is Harry's ideal wife?"  This is where subjective reasons (silly or irrational ones, even! *g*) come into play.  And of course, this has nothing to do with the author at all.  *Clearly* it has nothing to do with the author.  It's asking the question of the *reader*.

For me, the first question has more of actual literary analysis about it (we're more focused on the text) while the second seems like more of a social discussion (we're focusing more on how various people define an "ideal wife" and a satisfying marriage, etc.).  Both sorts of discussion can be fun, though the first is more easily conclusive since it requires textual proof, while the second is mainly personal opinion which isn't really about settled conclusions.

I think where the confusion comes in is that for so long we were dealing with open canon.  We didn't always know JKR's intentions because *she didn't want us to know*.  For example, the final redemption of Snape was supposed to be a surprise.  Readers had an unclear sense of the author's intentions *by design* and therefore relied on the canon they had to try and predict what those intentions actually where. 

For myself, I predicted some things correctly (Snape, the main 'ships), and some not correctly at all (Draco, house unification).  But I'd never argue that my incorrect prediction of JKR's intentions with Draco (that he'd step up to bat and help bring about Voldemort's downfall) means that the text's intentions with that character are somehow non-existent. Draco is as JKR wrote him which was different from what I'd predicted.

> >>jkoney:
> > > The problem with your point is even if it is realized in the book, spelled out, spoken plainly, etc. you still have people stating that it isn't true. So it doesn't seem to matter how clear the author is, people are still going to "analyze" the story with their own agendas. Therefore the author is never going to be able to make their intentions known.
 
> >>Carol responds:
> > I don't understand your point, or possibly you're misunderstanding mine. An author can and sometimes does state his or her intentions (some of them, anyway, those of which he or she is conscious), but if that intention doesn't come out in the text--if it's undetectable by most or all readers--then the intention has not been realized (in the sense of made real) by the author. <SNIP>

> >>Steve replies:
> I understood the point Jkoney was making completely. It doesn't matter whether or not the author's intention comes out in the text. Readers are so preoccupied w/ their own subjective agendas in reading the book that you could hit the author's intentions over their head w/ a sledge hammer and they wouldn't feel it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You're entirely wrong! :D  And I can say that because you've made the mistake of making a far too sweeping statement. (Mwahaha!)  There's no way *all* readers (your implication) are too preoccupied with "their own subjective agendas" that they miss an author's sledge hammer. jkoney is entirely wrong, too, and for the exact same reason.  The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.

I think where you're both getting hung up is the idea that a reader must not only get the author's intentions, they need to *agree* with them.  That's never the case, of course.  Readers are allowed their opinion, though the author is allowed (also of course) to use all her powers of persuasion to sway the reader to her point of view. 

> >>Steve:
> Your talking about readers who cry for hours after reading about the death of a favorite character...a favorite fictional character! They could care less why the author wrote that death scene. They could care less what the author intended for that scene. All they see is that their favorite character is dead, or that a character they hate is still alive, or some such subjective plot consideration happening.  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And you're wrong again. :)  I recently finished a book where a favorite character died and I cried.  I cared *deeply* about why the author wrote that death scene and what his intentions where in having that character die.  Did it work with the flow of the story?  Did it create a smooth ending or was it a false construct meant to just end the damn story all ready?  In this case it worked beautifully with the flow, it segued into another scene that brought the story to a satisfying close while encouraging the reader to imagine what will come after that last page is done.  And it left me deeply, deeply satisfied with the story as a whole and with the author's story-telling skill.

On the other hand, I read a story a while ago (coming soon to a theater near you and I hope to God they changed the ending) where a favorite character died at the end, and it seemed so contrived, seemed to have occurred only to add a "twist" that I *didn't* cry.  The character suddenly became an obvious construct in a fictional story, and *believe me* I wondered deeply at the author's intent. So I read where she explained her intent and it struck me as an intention to provide a twist meant to tidy up what should have stayed messy.  Which convinced me that the ending *was* contrived.

So you see, even while in tears, the author's intentions matter to me. :)  I'm just generally confident that the text itself will make those intentions clear. (If the text doesn't, it's generally a sign the author did something wrong, imo.)

> >>Steve replies: 
> My point is that while we may not need the author to tell us what to look for in their work, I'm going to value the authors views when offered more than I'm going to value others views based on very subjective and personal agendas.

Betsy Hp:
Personal agendas and obviously subjective viewpoints do not make for very compelling arguments, I totally agree.  But if JKR tells me that she intended for students from Slytherin house to come back and fight in the final battle (for example), I'm going to look at the text and say, "you failed in your intentions there, I'm sorry to say."  Because there's no textual support.  Of course, this could easily be fixed in later editions, in which case there *will* be textual support.  But that simply underlines the fact that, because JKR has to explain Slytherin's return outside of the text, it means she made an error and failed to communicate her intention.  Nothing personal or subjective about that, I'd say. 

Betsy Hp (who rather likes readers, for without them we'd have no books and what a hell that would be)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 02:46:40 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:46:40 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cj51+50ld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0clag+dkpv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186887

Pippin:
<SNIP>
> I have yet to understand why DD should sacrifice potential informants for the sake of publicizing information which he already knows that Voldemort can counter, and which in some ways might even be helpful to Voldemort. 

Alla:

Well, I must admit that if Dumbledore had this reason, it seems compelling enough for me. Not that I see any way for Voldemort to **counter** this information of course, I still think that revealing it will be extremely useful, to show that Voldemort is not that all powerful creature, but Tom Riddle.

Neither do I see how revealing this information will be helpful to Voldemort, quite the contrary.

However, I agree that it will be very Tom like to just kill off everybody who may remember him as Riddle and IF Dumbledore had a purpose of getting information out of these people he may have worried that they will be dead before he gets to them.

After all, Potters were dead before Dumbledore got to them.

Hm, as an aside I suddenly decided (or maybe not so suddenly, maybe I wrote about it, just don't remember) that Potters' death may have been a trauma for Dumbledore which adding to Ariana's not added much good for his psycho.

JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 03:26:04 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:26:04 -0000
Subject: Dh reread CH 23
Message-ID: <h0cnkc+psdj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186888

"Stan Shunpike," said Ron.
"Like "ell you are," said the man called Scabior. "We know Stan Shunpike, "e"s put a bit of work our way" - p.363

Alla:

What does put a bit of work our way means here? He worked for us? Or against us? Or something different? Because this could be an answer i Stan really was a DE, no?



"... window was the merest slit in the black rock, not big enough for a man to enter ... a skeletal figure was just visible through it, curled beneath a blanket... dead or sleeping...?" - p.368

"... the emaciated figure stirred beneath its thin blanket and rolled over towards him, eyes opening  in a skull of a face... the frail man sat up, great sunken eyes fixed upon him, upon Voldemort, and then he smiled. Most of his teeth were gone...
'So, you have come. I thought you would... one day. But your journey was pointless. I never had it." - p.369


Alla:

You know what? When JKR wants, she can make me pity ANYBODY. I do feel sorry for Grindelwald here, no matter what crimes he committed. Spending a life time in such horrible conditions only to see the monster whom he basically become to come kill him?
Yeah despite his crimes I do pity him and really hope for forgiveness for him in afterlife.

That also makes me think that the lack of ANY sympathy for Voldemort at the end, baby looking or not, was very deliberate artistic choice, because I have no doubt that her skills are strong enough to manage it.

Mind you, I am **not** saying that she should have made me feel compassion for Voldemort, I am just wondering over my reactions.

"Harry saw Draco's face up close, now, right besides his father's. They were extraordinary alike, exceptr that while his father looked beside himself with excitement, Draco's expression was  full of reluctance even fear" - p.372

Alla:

I am rereading this scene and oh wonders of wonders I am willing to go easier on Draco here. He so so does not want to IMO to do any identification and his lovely parents practically force him. Oh hero he is not, but I really do not think that since he has a strength to reject loving parents, I really do not think that more can be expected of him.

But boy I hate both Malfoys here. Narcissa is soooo eager, sorry I am not buying anything less but self serving reasons for refusing to say that Harry is alive at the end.

And really, soooo many psychopaths in Voldie's employ - Greyback, Bella, one better than another.







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 03:43:29 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:43:29 -0000
Subject: Dh reread CH 23
In-Reply-To: <h0cnkc+psdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0col1+6o83@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186889

> DH:
>
> "Stan Shunpike," said Ron.
> "Like "ell you are," said the man called Scabior. "We know Stan Shunpike, "e"s put a bit of work our way" - p.363
> 
> Alla:
> 
> What does put a bit of work our way means here? He worked for us? Or against us? Or something different? Because this could be an answer i Stan really was a DE, no?

Zara:
In this context, I believe it means he gave them instructions on things they could do for pay. Perhaps where to look for people to Snatch to get a reward, or similar. If he were under Imperius, though, he could do something like that.

> Alla:
> That also makes me think that the lack of ANY sympathy for Voldemort at the end, baby looking or not, was very deliberate artistic choice, because I have no doubt that her skills are strong enough to manage it.

Zara:
The flayed baby under the chair that no one could help did not move you to pity? I suppose the image was somewhat confusing, which might have not helped. I was pretty sure I was looking at the surviving bit of Voldemort's main soul, so it worked for me. Actually, learning Little Tom's backstory also worked for me.

I think the impression with Gellert is longer-lasting, because we also see him trying to do the right thing, throw Voldemort off the scent of the Elder Wand, and admonish him to rethink his priorities.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun  6 03:45:43 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:45:43 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cj51+50ld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0cop7+qp0a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186890

> > Magpie:
> > And therefore, Dumbledore saying that Voldemort is Tom Riddle, who came to Hogwarts from that Muggle orphanage, worked at B&B and applied for and got turned down for a job as a teacher, is not revealing anything. 
> 
> Pippin:
> It reveals that Dumbledore is not going to make it easy for Riddle to leave his past behind as Riddle clearly wants to do.

Magpie:
And why does Riddle want to leave his past behind? Because it helps him to be Voldemort. So why's it obviously a bad thing to make that difficult? He's already terrorizing everyone. We know Voldemort doesn't want to be ordinary. He doesn't want anyone to think of him as ordinary or human. That might make them feel less helpless.

Pippin:
> Riddle is trying to leave his old name behind because *he* doesn't want to be reminded of his previous life. And he's quite capable of eliminating anybody who knew him as Riddle, and those who did know him as Riddle are afraid he will do that. That's why they were afraid to talk. 

Magpie:
They'd be a lot safer if it was common knowledge, then. Killing them isn't going to kill the secret anymore. Shouldn't there be skads of them?

Pippin:
> 
> But Dumbledore believes that Voldemort's weaknesses lie in those parts of his history and his knowledge of magic which he has always discounted. 

Magpie:
Not with any specifics until quite late in the game, iirc. Without the Horcrux knowledge from CoS is there a plan to ferret out information like this for a real reason? And even if he had developed this hobby earlier, why not let some other people in on it? Studying the actual life of the guy terrorizing you is a totally natural impulse. Especially when the guy's been gone for over a decade. In the real world, that seems to be the way it goes, without these dire results. Everybody would want to know about the guy. Frankly, it's a bit of a cheat to say nobody studied the guy and wrote an indepth biography in Harry's childhood anyway.

Pippin:
DD doesn't know, as he begins his investigations, what those weaknesses are, but he does know that if Voldemort kills all the people who knew him as Riddle, it is going to make it rather difficult to obtain information from them. It seems to me as if he started collecting information when Voldemort first returned, trying to find evidence of Voldemort's murderous intent, which only later became evidence in the Horcrux quest.  

Magpie:
That's still sacrificing a rather obvious and potentially powerful morale booster for the whole country based on a vague idea that there was something in his past that would defeat him so he won't ever reveal to anyone something as mundane as "Yeah, I knew him when he was Tom Riddle at Hogwarts." Maybe some other random person might have figured out the secret sooner based on his own musings about Voldemort. The main thing about Dumbledore's way is it guarantees as few people as possible have a chance of figuring it out. (Hopefully there's just him.)

Which does make perfect sense if I imagine Dumbledore as the man he seems characterized as--the kind of person who would look at any Voldemort war as a personal chance to prove his own cleverness, and a man who clung to valuable information like his life depended on it. It still just seems like us making up some dire peril to justify behavior that we've seen as fundamental to Dumbledore on every level. I've no doubt he would tell himself he had to keep the secret to protect somebody, but that's his M.O. about everything. The guy doesn't like to share secrets with anybody. 

Pippin:
> I have yet to understand why DD should sacrifice potential informants for the sake of publicizing information which he already knows that Voldemort can counter, and which in some ways might even be helpful to Voldemort. 

Magpie:
First, because it's not particularly helpful to Voldemort that I can see. He certainly doesn't think it is. Letting him control his own biography lets him control yet another aspect of the game. 

How many years is Voldemort on the scene here? Not as many as he's been defeated. So what would be wrong if Voldemort's biography got written up in history books (where it belongs) while the guy's gone? If Dumbledore got a lot of this info in the many years while Voldemort wasn't around or able to threaten anyone it was a done deal anyway. If he wasn't investigating anything anyway for years, there's no investigation to protect. The actual memories and witnesses actually aren't even essential to the investigation that I remember. It's the path Dumbledore follows but if you had other people following different paths they might have gotten there sooner. It's not so logical a reason for keeping quiet as, the decision to, say, not tell Slughorn that you found special directions in your Potions book because that would ruin your plan to make him think you came up with it due to your mad Potions skillz. 

Imo, Voldemort and Dumbledore are on one level very hard-working plot devices. Both of them work really hard to keep the plot moving, coming up with straightforward plans they then complicate and undermine themselves to create a plot. But this isn't ultimately a big flaw, because JKR molded their personalities around the things they have to do. Voldemort is obsessed with symbolism even when it goes against his goals. Dumbledore loves to manipulate and hold on to information even when it goes against his goals. 

I'm sure Dumbledore himself made up plenty of doomsday scenarios and "logical" reasons to keep secrets and lie. We know he did that. Maybe some of them sounded like these. But his plans always lead to the same place: giving himself more knowledge than others, keeping people in the dark, often about their own lives. I think it would *kill* Dumbledore to have the whole WW walking around knowing who Tom Riddle was. That behavior's already canon. This situation doesn't need to be the one time Dumbledore really would have shared the information and think people had the right to know the truth if only there wasn't this potential danger to somebody somewhere that forced him to keep his mouth shut (if we only imagine one). It's really not even in character to think that way.

His whole personality's bound up in the burden of being smarter than everyone else and so having to make decisions for them. Dumbledore kept Voldemort's secret imo for the same reason he always kept all his secrets. I think he would have benefitted from having someone who called him out on what he was really doing.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 04:02:46 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:02:46 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cop7+qp0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0cpp6+ddnq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186891

> Magpie:
> And why does Riddle want to leave his past behind? Because it helps him to be Voldemort. So why's it obviously a bad thing to make that difficult? He's already terrorizing everyone. We know Voldemort doesn't want to be ordinary. He doesn't want anyone to think of him as ordinary or human. That might make them feel less helpless.


Alla:

Oh yes.


> Magpie:
> I'm sure Dumbledore himself made up plenty of doomsday scenarios and "logical" reasons to keep secrets and lie. We know he did that. Maybe some of them sounded like these. But his plans always lead to the same place: giving himself more knowledge than others, keeping people in the dark, often about their own lives. I think it would *kill* Dumbledore to have the whole WW walking around knowing who Tom Riddle was. That behavior's already canon. This situation doesn't need to be the one time Dumbledore really would have shared the information and think people had the right to know the truth if only there wasn't this potential danger to somebody somewhere that forced him to keep his mouth shut (if we only imagine one). It's really not even in character to think that way. <SNIP>

Alla:

Oh yes, I think you nailed Dumbledore canon based reasoning, it is not like I can SEE Dumbledore worrying for people's lives in canon. I am however saying that at least this inference is reasonable and understandable to me, you know? It is not like I need to imagine Voldemort killing people left and right for any reasons he can come up with and the reason being to stop people from talking seems as good as nay to me.

But of course Dumbledore LURVES keeping secrets, always did. 

I am just thinking that purely utilitarian purpose of getting information for the purpose of maybe keeping more secrets makes at least some sort of sense to me.

JMO,
Alla




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun  6 04:27:31 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:27:31 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0cjkp+nsco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0cr7j+v030@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186892

 
> Betsy Hp:
> You're entirely wrong! :D  And I can say that because you've made the mistake of making a far too sweeping statement. (Mwahaha!)  There's no way *all* readers (your implication) are too preoccupied with "their own subjective agendas" that they miss an author's sledge hammer. jkoney is entirely wrong, too, and for the exact same reason.  The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.
> 
> I think where you're both getting hung up is the idea that a reader must not only get the author's intentions, they need to *agree* with them.  That's never the case, of course.  Readers are allowed their opinion, though the author is allowed (also of course) to use all her powers of persuasion to sway the reader to her point of view. 

Magpie:
I think it's just as impossible to divide readers into those with subjective agendas and those without. All readers have subjective agendas. If we didn't we wouldn't have personalities at all. Something that seems obvious to one person based on their experiences and personality comes across completely differently to someone else. We all filter books through our own tastes, beliefs, emotions and experiences. 

I've seen people who champion the author's interpretation and claim to just "read what's there" and let the author's interpretation rule their readings cheerfully explain away blatant things in the text when it conflicts with something they particularly want or think to be true. And not even see a difference. They don't see themselves as reading against canon if they think of themselves as a person who doesn't do that, they just think this must be what the author meant. "I think what the author wants everyone to think" very easily becomes "If I think something, this is what the author wants everyone to think." 

For instance, even in this very thread. There's the question of Snape being a sadist, which gets into that "is Ginny Harry's ideal wife" territory. It depends on how one defines a sadist and how one sees Snape etc. It doesn't necessarily come down to being a huge fan of Snape or not. There's lots of things that can influence it. But in defense of that argument SWM was brought up and we got this:

Carol:
> There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his rescuer--at
least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.
>
> Carol, whose position in the previous post remains unchanged
>

jkoney:
Since we don't know what Severus was doing, he could have been attacking mudbloods all week and was reviewing his test because he didn't have time to study.

No provocation? Wasn't Snape the one who was trying to find out what the marauders were doing and get them in trouble for it? That in itself is more than enough justification for teenage boys to turn on Snape. Rightly or wrongly they were provoked.

Magpie:
How's that not just as subjective an agenda? The scene clearly shows Snape walking out of an exam and sitting by himself. James and Sirius see him alone, and start picking on him--boredom being the one reason they discuss for it. They're enjoying themselves; they aren't depicted as being particularly vengeful in the scene. On the contrary, iirc, they're happy to see him because they are going to get some pleasure out of causing him pain. He's not provoking them *in this scene.*

JKR says Snape is a sadistic person. I think she probably is writing him demonstrating that (based on her definition of the word) in many scenes. Here he's an innocent victim. Harry thinks so. Sirius and Remus both admit to it. (Well, Remus--who's the more reliable character does--Sirius, who's been established as being more emotionally biased about Snape doesn't. But even his references to Snape being annoying are explaining why it's okay they did this; it's not a claim that they were provoked in this scene when they weren't.)

So what reason is there to even wonder if Snape attacked Mudbloods all week or wonder about all the things that Snape has done to annoy them in the past. We know they find him annoying. We also know he's not provoking them here. They're not even acting out on a memory of a particular thing he's done in the past. His past deeds being justification for what they do here is subjective. Putting any of those past deeds in their head as provocation here seems like changing the scene to fit a desired interpretation.

I don't, btw, think it's necessary to agree with an author's opinion on anything. I doubt anybody's ever agreed with the author on everything in a book. Author's themselves been known to change their own opinions on their own books and characters dramatically over the years, so forcing myself to agree with something they said at any given time seems even more pointless. There's no real people or real life stories in the world people 100% agree on. Authors even have their own subjective biases. Sometimes readers correctly nail them.

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun  6 04:37:16 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:37:16 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cpp6+ddnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0crps+u8tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186893

> Alla:
> 
> Oh yes, I think you nailed Dumbledore canon based reasoning, it is not like I can SEE Dumbledore worrying for people's lives in canon. I am however saying that at least this inference is reasonable and understandable to me, you know? It is not like I need to imagine Voldemort killing people left and right for any reasons he can come up with and the reason being to stop people from talking seems as good as nay to me.
> 
> But of course Dumbledore LURVES keeping secrets, always did. 
> 
> I am just thinking that purely utilitarian purpose of getting information for the purpose of maybe keeping more secrets makes at least some sort of sense to me.

Magpie:
I can see some sense in it too. It's not as illogical as for instance (imo) Voldemort's plan in GoF, for instance. But it's just I would never buy it as Dumbledore's actual motivation, because being Dumbledore he'd jump on this reason because it was the one that led him keep the secret. I can't imagine him giving the alternative any fair consideration--he probably wouldn't even realize he wasn't. The choice where he keeps the secret is always the obvious choice for Dumbledore since he, personally, feels safer, more secure, happier, whatever when he's got more knowledge than everyone else. I think the whole idea would inspire a general unease in him he could easily tell himself was about other people rather than his own issues.


-m




From frankd14612 at gmail.com  Sat Jun  6 04:46:22 2009
From: frankd14612 at gmail.com (Frank D)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:46:22 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape _really_ hate Harry?
Message-ID: <h0csav+1o6s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186894

Explanatory note: The inspiration for this post is an article by
J. Odell, to whom I owe much thanks. The original can be found at
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Loyaulte.html
<http://www.redhen-publications.com/Loyaulte.html>  . I have edited it,
below, with oversight by J. Odell, so that it reflects my own
understanding of the Snape/Harry Potter conflict, with an eye toward
the "son seeking the father" and "usurper/supplanter" themes as
presented in James Joyce's 'Ulysses' and other literature.

After I read the original essay, concerning how, when, and why
Severus Snape became "Dumbledore's Man" and why he so thoroughly and
deeply hated and resented Harry Potter, upon seeing the article's
"bottom line," regarding Snape's resentment of Harry's supplanting
him in the favors of his adoptive-father figure, Dumbledore, I mentally
cried "Bingo!" or words to that effect. Everything fell into place.

I'd appreciate it if the HPfGU list members could consider and discuss
the article's ideas as set forth below.

Frank D


Concerning the Trelawney Prophecy: Although we may be reasonably
confident that we now know the full text and correct wording of that
Prophecy, we surely don't have the full story of what actually happened
at the Hog's Head the night it was delivered. We have two conflicting
versions of the latter; one of those was deliberately incorrect,
and the other was unavoidably incomplete.

Keep in mind the following points:

1. It can't have taken more than a minute to actually make that
Prophecy. It's just not that long. Right from the top, this renders
Dumbledore's statement about interruptions made half-way through it
implausible.

2. Since Book 3 we've all known that Sybill Trelawney has no awareness
of what is going on around her while she is "channeling the Prophecy
demons," only of what was going on before and after.

3. We watched Trelawney actually deliver the Prophecy (from
Dumbledore's memory) in Dumbledore's pensieve. She gave us the whole
thing in one pronouncement. She did not stop in the middle. He did not
tamper with the memory, but extracted it, put it directly into the
pensieve and played it for us.

4. We *only* saw Trelawney delivering the Prophecy. We did not see what
else was going on in the room or hear what was going on outside it.
Dumbledore carefully controlled just what information we were given in
that debriefing.

Question: If Sybill?-who is unaware of her surroundings while in the
grip of a Prophecy?-did not actually see or hear an eavesdropper,
how could she even know that there was one, let alone his identity?

Question: If Snape was discovered halfway through the Prophecy
and thrown from the building, as Dumbledore claims, how would Sybill
have
known he was the person listening at the door?

Question: If Snape was still at the door after the Prophecy was
finished, how can Dumbledore say so confidently that he only heard the
first part of it?

5. Given all of the cloak-and-dagger nonsense over the course of Book5
about that Prophecy record in the Ministry, it is obviously true that
Voldemort was told only the first part of the Prophecy.

6. Sybill reports that there was a "commotion" at the door of the room,
which then flew open to reveal Snape and Aberforth, the barman.

7. Neither apparation nor disapparation has been represented as silent
(not counting the DEs in the Little Hangleton graveyard, who seem to
have mastered the art of doing it silently).

8. We have been told on J.K. Rowling's official website, and seen for
ourselves in the books, that members of the Order of the Phoenix send
messages to one another by means of their Patronuses. Dumbledore
himself taught them this technique. It is a very speedy form of
communication.

Under normal circumstances, Sybill is not as credible a witness as
Dumbledore, but since the whole point of giving us her report on the
events of that evening was to give Harry (and the reader) the
information that Severus Snape was the eavesdropper, it stands to
reason that Sybill must actually have seen him there.

Since Sybill is unaware of what is going on during a prophecy, she has
to have seen him either before she made this Prophecy or afterwards.
>From the report she gives us, she caught sight of him right after she
finished giving the Prophecy.

Consequently, it is obvious that Dumbledore is just not being straight
with us when he claims that the eavesdropper who reported the first
part of the Prophecy to Voldemort was discovered partway through and
was ejected from the building?-and, therefore, had no opportunity to
hear the second half of it. That is the story that Voldemort has
been told; Dumbledore is keeping his stories straight just in case
Voldemort is listening in via Harry. All of which makes Ms. Rowling's
insistence that everything played out exactly as it appears on the
surface without any coordination between the various players, rather
difficult to believe.

And, of course Dumbledore also intended to ever-so-slightly redirect
Harry's attention. There was no purpose to be served by allowing that
particular debriefing session to wander off in pursuit of
the unidentified eavesdropper, after all.

Dumbledore could perhaps have given us a sort-of (but even then not
completely)-plausible story, claiming that the eavesdropper had
heard only the final statement of the Prophecy?-which repeated the
first
part. But he didn't claim that. That wouldn't have matched Snape's
version, which has already been told to Voldemort.

The whole contradiction is there for a reason. It is Ms Rowling's hint
that Dumbledore lies whenever he feels it is justified.

This suggests that "the affair of the interrupted eavesdropper" wasn't
exactly how the incident really happened.

We're stuck with the fact that either it really did happen as Trelawney
tells it, or there is no way that she could have identified the
listener. But, the way that she tells it, if Snape was actually in a
position to hear only one part of the Prophecy, it was probably an
undetermined portion of the last part. However, judging from all of his
subsequent actions, Voldemort clearly only knew about the
information that was presented in the FIRST part.

It now becomes unavoidable that Dumbledore either allowed the first
part of the Prophecy to escape, or he deliberately turned it loose.In
other words, he wanted Voldemort to learn about the first part of the
Prophecy.

Why not the whole thing? The next part of the Prophecy includes a
couple of rather serious cautions, such as marking "The One" as his
equal. Voldemort very likely would not want to take the risk of doing
something like that if he knew about it in advance. Dumbledore couldn't
be sure, so he didn't take the risk of letting Voldemort know about
that part of the pronouncement. He made sure that the second part was
carefully edited out of whatever Voldemort was told.

Which brings us back to Snape, who was at the door of the room at the
end of the Prophecy, and is the Death Eater who told Voldemort only the
first part of it. Snape could only have done that on Dumbledore's
behalf. Otherwise, why did both Dumbledore and Aberforth, who had him
in custody, let him get away without just obliviating those few moments
of the evening's events from his memory, in keeping with established
Ministry policy regarding prophecies? We know that Dumbledore will
permit memory modifications to be performed if it suits him. He allowed
it for Marietta Edgecombe with far less provocation.

Let's take a look at the "Severus Snape, reformed Death Eater" reading.
The official version, which so far as Ms Rowling has ever established,
supposes that Dumbledore, up in his ivory tower, was unaware of the
developing Snape/Lily/James triangle at the time the werewolf caper
("The Prank") took place, and did not follow through on the incident to
the point of being filled in on it until years afterwards. Slughorn,
who was on the front lines in the classroom, and watched it play out
under his own nose, unable to do a thing about it, seems to have
found it painful enough that he never spoke of it to anyone.

So from Dumbledore's vantage point:

1. Severus Snape, to all outside appearances, is a thoroughly nasty
young piece of work.

2. He is, in the main, an intelligent and fundamentally realistic nasty
young piece of work.

3. Ultimately, even thoroughly nasty pieces of work have to answer to
their own consciences.

This young man also has a history. Dumbledore has unfinished business
pertaining to him. The mess concerning the Shrieking Shack ("The
Prank") does not appear to have been resolved to anyone's real
satisfaction, and Snape is now in debt to an enemy (James), which
cannot sit well with him. And he may very well feel that Dumbledore
owes him something over that business, too.

4. When given a choice, a Slytherin will usually choose to save disown
skin. Offering amnesty to one mean-spirited young wizard?so longs he
is willing to give up any current illegal activities?is a very small
price to pay for the possible removal of the former Tom Riddle.

5. Severus Snape wants a job? Give him one.

The big question for us is whether Dumbledore gave him that particular
job by mutual agreement or just let him go to make his report to
Voldemort as an unwitting tool. The Dumbledore who was revealed over
the course of DHs would have been perfectly capable of such an action.

At the end of Book 6, we were faced with the following possibilities:
Perhaps Snape was already on his road to Damascus when he followed
Dumbledore into the Hog's Head that evening. Conversely, maybe
Snape didn't "go to Dumbledore" at all. Maybe it was Dumbledore who
recruited Snape.

Maybe that whole tale of Snape's apparent remorse and Dumbledore's
grand forgiveness when Snape went to work at Hogwarts (which is the
tale that they were both telling) is just one that was originally
cooked up between the two of them as a cover to be fed back to the
DEs, or to anyone else who asked questions.

So, with this "official" version as a jumping-off place: at the
presumed date of the Trelawney Prophecy (which can now be pinpointed to
the week following Halloween, 1979), Severus Snape, then 19 years
of age, would have been inside the DE organization for something over a
year. Long enough for him to have begun to be a little disenchanted;
for rivalries to have become a bit bitter; for him to have been handed
a few stinging disappointments; for him to begin noticing things, and
to begin to ask himself a few questions. He is not a trusting soul.He
does not subscribe to the Blacks' and the Malfoys' built-in assurance
that "of course" nobody could possibly renege on a promise to him. And
he's bright enough to recognize the truth when it's pointed out to
him (except from Harry or Sirius Black).

If Snape had joined up in good faith, he might have been all in favor
of overthrowing the Ministry or subverting some of its policies. But it
was the Ministry that was responsible for maintaining wizarding Secrecy,
which every wizarding-raised child?-and Snape was wizarding-raised;
even
if his family home was in a Muggle town, his mother's family were still
wizards?-had been brought up to regard as his only hope of
continuing
personal safety, and Voldemort had no particular interest in doing
anything about that. In fact, given the direction of the activities
that Voldemort was now proposing, it was only a matter of time before
wizarding seclusion would be impossible to maintain!

Young Snape was more than bright enough to realize that without the
protection that their secluded world gave them, wizards haven't much
chance of surviving as a culture, or indeed, as anything but fugitives,
and you don't get a lot of chance to set up a potions lab and study
arcane branches of magic when you are in hiding and may have to run for
your life at any minute. (The irony is that the whole wizarding world
is already effectively cowering in hiding.)

Even assuming that Snape was on nobody's side but his own, he might
have weighed his options and contacted Dumbledore, whose track record
of taking in waifs, strays, and general outsiders who were in a
position to make themselves useful, as well as his status as the
uncrowned king of wizarding Britain, offered the best chance for Snape
to enlist him as middleman for cutting a deal with the Ministry. All at
the very reasonable price of admitting that Dumbledore was right about
the Dark Lord.

Ergo: Snape was one of Dumbledore's White Hats.

Well, duh. We already know that, now. But I am suggesting that he could
very well have been so then. How can we tell? Consider.

1. What was Snape doing at the Hog's Head that night in the first
place? Voldemort would have hardly assigned one random 19-year-old DE
to follow Dumbledore around whenever he left the Castle, just on
speculation. Nor is the information that there was a Divination
instructor candidate (Trelawney) staying at the Hog's Head?-by that
time
a regular Death Eater hangout?-likely to have interested him
overmuch,
even if he did believe in prophecies. Particularly not if he had any
kind of information on who the candidate was. It was believed by just
about everyone that Trelawney was a charlatan. So why was Snape there
at all? Had he just stepped in for a drink? Had he already arranged to
meet someone else? Why was he there? It's a question that Ms. Rowling
has determinedly ignored.

2. How likely is it that Dumbledore would have tried to, let alone been
able to, successfully recruit Snape on the spot after being caught
eavesdropping, that very night? We know that he must have recruited
Snape at some point, but could Dumbledore really, plausibly have
recruited him that very night? Recruiting Snape, on the spot, on the
strength of his eavesdropping on the prophecy, is extremely unlikely.
Snape is not a trusting soul and he does not change his views easily.
It would have worked only if Snape had come to speak to Dumbledore
about changing sides in the first place. (We don't know that this was
the case. There is nothing to hang that possibility on. But we cannot
ignore it.)

We know that Snape did report only the first half of the Prophecy,
despite his having apparently been in position to have heard the whole
thing, which makes the following possibility unavoidable:

Snape was already "Dumbledore's man" by the time the Prophecy was made.
The report to Lord Voldemort was made at Dumbledore's direction.
Dumbledore lied about the circumstances under which the thing was
supposedly overheard from that time until the night he died.

So why would Dumbledore lie to keep Voldemort (or Harry) from figuring
out that Snape could have heard the second part of the Prophecy as well
as the first part, unless it really, really, mattered?

Is it possible that Snape wasn't anywhere near the Hog's Head that
night, or not until Dumbledore summoned him? We know that members of
the Order of the Phoenix communicate by means of their individual,
unique Patronuses. Dumbledore devised this form of communication. By
the end of Book 6 we had twice seen Order members send such messengers.
Even just the sight of such a messenger would be enough to convey the
fact that so-and-so wants you?now!

That's how it worked when Dumbledore summoned Hagrid in Book 4. That
was how it was supposed to work when Tonks summoned Hagrid in Book 6.
(On that occasion, however, Snape showed up instead, claiming to have
been deputized to substitute. Hagrid was probably still occupied
escorting the new batch of Firsties across the lake). Neither of them
apparated in response to the summons, but at Hogwarts you can't do that
(and Hagrid cannot do that anyway).

But we get no indication that Dumbledore devised this method of
communication just for the Order. Most likely he had been using it
decades earlier.

So, even though it couldn't have taken more than a minute for Trelawney
to deliver the Prophecy, that was just about enough time for Dumbledore
to have fired off a Patronus?-which he would have done as soon as he
realized that this was the genuine article, and that it concerned Lord
Voldemort (which is in the very first phrase of the thing).

Wherever Snape may have been that night (apparently not in the company
of other DEs), having Dumbledore's Phoenix Patronus flash in his face
would have had him apparating to wherever Dumbledore was on the double.
(It isn't just Lord Voldemort who can call his followers to him on
the instant.) The whole thing might have taken no more than the minute
it took Trelawney to deliver the thing.

Dumbledore would have wanted to summon his trusted operative inside the
DE organization as soon as humanly possible. If he was going to
make any kind of use of this development, there was no time to waste.
The report, if they were going to make such a report, had to be made by
the following morning or even sooner. If it was to be believed, they
had to act immediately, especially if Voldemort, another untrusting
fellow, decides to double-check that report.

Sybill Trelawney is a barfly. Dumbledore recognizes the signs. There
will be witnesses as to when she arrived at the Hog's Head, and since
Dumbledore cannot in good conscience let her wander around loose now
that she's channeling messages from "the Prophecy demons," she is
soon going to be celebrating her new job in the taproom downstairs.

The Hog's Head has been a Death Eater dive since before there
officially were Death Eaters. Dumbledore has no control over who might
be loitering about to tell tales. So he'll give them all one to fix the
incident in their minds.

So, Dumbledore summoned both Snape and Aberforth in response to this
new development. Trelawney came out of her trance just after Snape
apparated outside the room, too late to hear what the noise (of
apparation) actually was and to identify it, but quickly enough to
register that there had been a noise at the door.

Snape after apparating either into the hallway or, just possibly, in
the street below and pounding up the stairs to answer the summons, not
knowing that Trelawney was there, threw open the door. Aberforth, who
had also been summoned, was right behind him.

Once Snape and Aberforth threw the door open and saw Trelawney they
backpedaled; Snape with his "likely tale" of coming up the wrong
staircase and Aberforth, improvising, taking Snape by the scruff of the
neck and hauling him away. Anyone who chose to investigate Snape's
report would have learned that Snape had indeed been publicly ejected
from the building "the evening Dumbledore had come to interview the new
Divination instructor up at the school."

After tossing Snape out the front door Aberforth went around and let
him in the back, and once Dumbledore extracted himself from
Trelawney and joined them in the kitchen or Aberforth's private
quarters, they burned the midnight oil discussing what they were going
to do about this opportunity.

If Dumbledore had already made his decision of what to do about it,he
gave Snape his instructions, and after Snape left to make his report
to Voldemort, discussed what he was going to do to limit the damage
with Aberforth.

At this point, of course, none of them had any clue or concern as to
who was going to be put at risk. They were all still dealing with
hypothetical people in mind. Indeed, Dumbledore may have already
been convinced he knew who the Prophecy referred to and that it was not
a child. Until, that is, it finally sank in to him that Voldemort would
believe it concerned a child. And it was Voldemort's interpretation of
the thing that mattered.

If the Prophecy was made, as suggested, within a few days after
Halloween, 1979, right around the time of the foretold child's
conception, even the Longbottoms and Potters were as yet unaware of the
existence of their children.

Turning loose that Prophecy was one of the "hugest" mistakes that
Dumbledore ever made. It locked him into a course of action that was
totally out of character, and put him at cross-purposes with
himself. Believing that most Prophecies are rubbish anyway, he may have
been attempting to goad Voldemort (who he knows believes in them) into
an unwise action and that the matter could be handled before any child
it foretold was actually born. He should have known better.

But then, Dumbledore also acknowledges that he never studied
Divination. He claims that prophecies are virtually always a snare and
a delusion. But he seems to have overlooked the fact that if you mess
with them, they tend to play out as stated. It is clear that on this
matter he was not dealing in one of his many areas of expertise.

The gamble seems (in the end) to have paid off, but the price was much
too high. And Dumbledore trapped himself every bit as surely as he
trapped Voldemort.

Still, that Prophecy must have looked like the most promising
breakthrough in the whole ongoing, ever-escalating 20-plus-year battle
against Voldemort and his Death Eaters. Particularly since by '79
Dumbledore may have had an extremely uncomfortable idea of the kind of
thing he was up against. There are likely to be few magical processes
which could account for the alteration in Tom Riddle's physical
appearance, and if Dumbledore knows enough about Horcruxes to see the
whole subject banned from the school more than a dozen years before he
became Headmaster?-as Slughorn tells us?-then he knows as much
about them
as Tom Riddle does, and he'd had plenty of time to figure it out by
then. But there were other dividends to be paid by setting loose that
Prophecy, and he took the risk.

In the first place, this development offered some hope for the
wizarding world that there really might be an end in sight. Second,it
could be used as bait to tempt Voldemort into the kind of reckless or
ill-considered action that would bring him down. And, third, it could
be used to get Dumbledore's agent higher up the DE hierarchy and into
Voldemort's favor. It's not that surprising that he did choose to
deploy it, despite the fact that he must have known that tangling with
a Prophecy almost invariably brings the meddler to ruin.

Dumbledore (or at any rate, the Dumbledore we thought we knew), now
being thoroughly at cross-purposes with himself, also immediately
started working against the Prophecy, by trying to limit the damage
to innocent bystanders and to keep Voldemort away from the foretold
child for as long as possible. He did this first by attempting to
discover the targeted family's identity and to offer them at least
some degree of protection. It was probably to this end that he founded
the Order of the Phoenix, most likely over the following month or two.
But in its original iteration, the Order did not concern Snape, and he
had no contact with it during the course of VoldWar I.

(Ms Rowling insists that the Order of the Phoenix was up and running by
the time James Potter and his cohort started their final year at
Hogwarts, despite the fact that she can point to no function that it
served which was not already covered by the Ministry. Indeed it appears
to have existed only for the sake of symmetry with the DEs, and to
provide Dumbledore with information, personnel, services and
resources that the Ministry might have balked at turning over to him.)

In the scenario above, Snape was already Dumbledore's man before the
Order of the Phoenix was founded. His first known action on
Dumbledore's behalf was to report the first part, and ONLY the first
part, of the Trelawney Prophecy to Voldemort, at some point around
Halloween, 1979, when he was just 19 years old.

Some additional support for this reading is provided in the Spinner's
End chapter of Book 6. Despite the web of truths, half-truths,
innuendos and outright lies that Snape weaves for the edification of
the Black sisters, Snape was just a tad indiscreet in his rush to score
off Bellatrix when he points out that in contrast to her useless
gesture of putting herself into Azkaban for over a dozen years, he had
kept to his assigned post, as ordered, and that by delaying a mere two
hours in responding to the summons was able to give Voldemort sixteen
years worth of information on Dumbledore's actions. In Book 4, Voldemort
had just returned from an absence of almost fourteen years. Even in the
summer of `96 when this statement was actually made, at Spinner's End,
Voldemort's first defeat had only been fifteen years earlier.

So what event took place sixteen years?-or thereabouts?-before
Voldemort's return at the end of Book 4? Trelawney had made her first
Prophecy. And apparently Snape either had some Voldemort-approved
reason for observing Dumbledore for two years before he started
teaching (in which case, why hadn't he reported these findings at the
time?), or?more likely?Snape claimed to have discovered
retroactive
information concerning Dumbledore's activities that had taken place
before he took up his post at Hogwarts in September of 1981. In
either case we have Snape in association with Dumbledore for nearly two
years before he replaced Horace Slughorn as Potions master of Hogwarts.

It is also hard to believe that Snape could have won Dumbledore's
iron-clad trust on the strength of no more than the eight weeks he is
known to have taught after he first took up that post, in the last
days before Voldemort's first defeat. But throughout Book 6, both he
and Snape are holding to the same cover story; that upon taking up his
post at Hogwarts, Snape confessed reporting the partial Prophecy to the
Dark Lord, expressing his deepest remorse at putting the Potters at
such risk, thereby earning Dumbledore's magnanimous forgiveness and
undying trust. Hmm? In two words: Not likely!

Now, Snape certainly does appear to have had Dumbledore's undying
trust, and there is the strong likelihood that he did indeed feel
regret and remorse, perhaps very deeply, over discovering that he
had endangered the Potters, remorse that was probably only matched, and
perhaps surpassed, by Dumbledore's own. Putting faces on hypothetical
people is apt to be a very painful business, regardless of how noble
your intentions are, or however great the "greater good" over which you
have endangered them may turn out to be. In addition, just because
Snape loathed James Potter, it doesn't necessarily follow that he
wanted him dead. (And until Book 7 we still hadn't been given any real
hint as to what he thought of Lily.)

The likelihood is that Snape was already on "our side" before the
Potters were endangered and before he discovered that it was even about
the Potters. Or the Longbottoms ? who, at that point may have
mattered to Dumbledore a good deal more than the Potters did.

It is not hard to see that Dumbledore just didn't quite think that
Harry had the maturity to be trusted with the whole story. Harry
already had enough on his plate and, had events not overtaken them
all, Harry might have been filled in eventually. The fact that it
wasn't just Snape, but Dumbledore too who endangered Harry's parents
was likely to come as a nasty shock. And of the two, Dumbledore
bears the greater responsibility. He could have certainly
obliviated those few moments from Snape's memory before having
Aberforth throw him out.

When did Severus Snape became "Dumbledore's man"? An alliance between
Snape and Dumbledore had been forged by Halloween, 1979. That much is
plain. Snape had finished school in June of 1978. It isn't difficult to
come up with a variety of plausible reasons for him to turn his coat
during that interval. It originally didn't seem out of reason
to suppose that something about the Regulus/Kreacher affair may have
supplied the final straw to prompt Snape into reconsidering his
options. But, no. Voldemort most likely didn't hide the Locket Horcrux
until after hearing there was a Prophecy about his downfall. Indeed, he
was probably hiding it because there was a Prophecy about his downfall.

We know of no point during the stretch of time between the date at
which Snape finished Hogwarts and the evening that Trelawney spouted
her Prophecy, that Snape and Dumbledore were known to have even met.
But we do know that at least one conversation/confrontation must
have taken place between them before that blank stretch. Regarding the
werewolf caper; ("The Prank"), all Sirius Black was able to say about
the aftermath of that incident was that Snape had been forbidden to
speak of what he had seen. Sirius couldn't have been present at that
interview. Dumbledore would have made sure to speak to each of the
involved parties separately. And an offer of amnesty and/or escape
(a la Draco on the Tower) to a surly 16-year-old who is on the wrong
path would at one time have seemed absolutely in character
for Dumbledore.

Dumbledore is not excessively squeamish about entrusting the young to
dangerous paths in dangerous times, particularly the young whose paths
have already been chosen for them, such as Harry and Draco. Or those
who seem likely to be put in a position where to refuse an offered
path could be even more dangerous than to accept it. This was probably
the case with Severus Snape. The boy was very much at risk of being put
to use by the enemy, willing or not.

Dumbledore wasn't completely isolated in his ivory tower office. He
could hardly have missed the fact that there had been an ongoing war
between this one Slytherin boy and that little gaggle of Gryffindors in
the same year since they all arrived at the school together. And yet
the Slytherin, however awkward, and unpopular, and clearly a fledgling
Dark wizard to boot, was not a gratuitous troublemaker.

Indeed most of the boy's problems seem to have stemmed from having
allowed himself to be taken up by a dangerous crowd in his first year.
Even though most of that particular crowd appeared to have dropped him
by the end of it. Dumbledore was probably well aware of this because he
had his own reasons to keep an eye on that particular crowd. This boy
didn't appear to have made any attempt to keep up the association with
the leaders of that circle since that time. Although he did form
an association with another, not significantly better clique by the
following Autumn. Most of this second group had also now passed out of
the school, although this boy was still tagging along after the last of
them. But he is clever, he was once willing to be useful to his
housemates, and in another couple of years he will be out of Hogwarts,
and his former housemates may not have forgotten him. And Dumbledore
has grave suspicions of where their loyalties will lie.

While Draco's opportunity to make his own choices got derailed by the
unwanted intrusion of a trio of enemies and a werewolf, it is doubtful
that the opportunity for Snape's decision was similarly aborted. Young
Snape was almost certainly on a crash course to soon receive an offer
that he may not be able to refuse, even if?-after having been taken
up
and then summarily dropped by those particular ex-housemates?-such
an
offer wasn't what he now wanted. What did he want? Dumbledore intended
to find out. The possibility that the werewolf caper was Snape's
"turning point" ratchets up considerably when factoring in Phineas
Nigellus's snide little endorsement of Dumbledore's trust in Snape,
which he injected into one of the private lessons with Harry in
Book 6.

And if this is so, we can now finally conclude that the biggest
reason that Snape so hated Harry?-and he did sincerely hate
Harry?-had
very little to do with James, much as Snape honestly loathed James.
Harry had taken his place. James never really mattered to anyone,
not the way Harry did, certainly not to anyone in charge. But,by his
very existence, Harry Potter, "The Boy Who Lived," had effortlessly
supplanted Severus Snape as Dumbledore's most valued young
prot?g?.
Sibling rivalry appears to have been the factor that warped Sirius
Black's life out of shape. It seems that something very much in the
same style may have been riding Severus Snape as well. Dumbledore
probably never realized it. Snape was a superb occlumens, after all.
He would have gladly let Dumbledore continue to believe that it was
all about James. Or at a last resort, that it was about Lily. But it
wasn't. It really was all about Harry, especially by the end.




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




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 14:33:50 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:33:50 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0chcg+34nh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0duoe+g3ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186895

> Alla:
> I can totally see them forgiving Snape. Grateful for saving Harry's life? I have no problem with Harry feeling gratitude for that. But I am trying to imagine being that God forbid something happens to me and I cannot protect children in my family whom I love and then person who did something to me saves my child's life. That's nice! I guess can be grateful for that, but I can never be grateful (eh, I will be dead, but we are running with this hypothetical, so I guess my soul will be grateful) for the fact that such person made it impossible for me being there and protect my child in the first place.

Montavilla47:
A lot of people contributed to James and Lily being killed and Harry
being left alone.  Those people include Sybil, Snape, Dumbledore,
Peter, and Sirius.  Oh, and Voldemort.

If Lily and James were likely to hold grudges after death, they'd
need to hold them against all those people.  Snape might be high
on that list, but he's hardly the number one person responsible.


Alla:
> I can never be grateful for the sufferings that my child will endure, the hateful relatives that he will be placed with because of that person. Obviously, I am speculating and that is why I am talking from the first person, but that is what I would imagine Lily and James in the afterlife thinking.

Montavilla47:
But again, Snape isn't the person most responsible for Harry 
being placed with the Dursleys.  That one was Dumbledore.

And he isn't exactly responsible for the Dursleys being so
hateful.  That's on them. 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun  6 14:58:11 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:58:11 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cop7+qp0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e063+hhjk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186896

Pippin:
> > It reveals that Dumbledore is not going to make it easy for Riddle to leave his past behind as Riddle clearly wants to do.
> 
> Magpie:
> And why does Riddle want to leave his past behind? Because it helps him to be Voldemort. So why's it obviously a bad thing to make that difficult? 

Pippin:
Because Dumbledore believes the things that people want most are the worst for them. Dumbledore's strategy often consists of encouraging Voldemort to go after things that won't really help him reach his goals, or will at least require stealth, and therefore not  acts of mass murder, to achieve. 

Magpie:
He's already terrorizing everyone. We know Voldemort doesn't want to be ordinary. He doesn't want anyone to think of him as ordinary or human. That might make them feel less helpless.

Pippin:
You seem to be conflating two different parts of Voldemort's career. He did not want to be openly known as a terrorist when he first returned. He was playing a double game, on the one hand recruiting fanatics who favored the ruthless suppression of Muggles and Muggleborns, and  meanwhile pretending to the WW at large that the rumors about him were lies, put about by the jealous and ignorant. The Riddle name and reputation might actually have helped him to do that. He wasn't hard over about losing it, at first. After all, he still wanted the Hogwarts job even after Dumbledore made it clear that he'd be calling him Tom.

It seems like it was only the last few years of the first War that Voldemort started taking responsibility for all his work, leaving the Dark Mark over the sites of murders, and making his new name the one that wizards feared to speak. 

I'm sure the articles that Regulus had on his wall didn't describe Voldemort as a mass murderer. He was written up as a hero. 

> Magpie:
> They'd be a lot safer if it was common knowledge, then. Killing them isn't going to kill the secret anymore. Shouldn't there be skads of them?

Pippin:
As you say, Voldemort thinks in symbols. He wouldn't care about killing the secret logically, he'd want to kill it symbolically. There are skads of Muggles and Muggleborns too, but does anyone doubt that Voldemort's eventual purpose was to kill them all?

> Pippin:
> > 
> > But Dumbledore believes that Voldemort's weaknesses lie in those parts of his history and his knowledge of magic which he has always discounted. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Not with any specifics until quite late in the game, iirc. Without the Horcrux knowledge from CoS is there a plan to ferret out information like this for a real reason? 

Pippin:
The knowledge from CoS was that Voldemort had to have made *more than one* horcrux. Dumbledore would have suspected the existence of one horcrux at least since Godric's Hollow. And before that, he was trying to prove to the WW that Voldemort was a murderer. I assumed that was why he had collected the memories of  Morfin and Hokey.

Magpie:
And even if he had developed this hobby earlier, why not let some other people in on it?

Pippin:
He did! He attempted to convince people that Riddle/Voldemort had been responsible for the Riddle murders and for the death of Hepzibah, but he didn't get anywhere. 

Magpie:
 Frankly, it's a bit of a cheat to say nobody studied the guy and wrote an indepth biography in Harry's childhood anyway.

Pippin:
I'm sure Voldemort invented a past that was more to his liking, and that's what's in books like The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts.
> 
> Magpie:

> 
> Which does make perfect sense if I imagine Dumbledore as the man he seems characterized as--the kind of person who would look at any Voldemort war as a personal chance to prove his own cleverness, and a man who clung to valuable information like his life depended on it. It still just seems like us making up some dire peril to justify behavior that we've seen as fundamental to Dumbledore on every level. I've no doubt he would tell himself he had to keep the secret to protect somebody, but that's his M.O. about everything. The guy doesn't like to share secrets with anybody. 

Pippin:
It's true that he has a deep psychological need to keep secrets, but he also has a deep psychological need to see himself as reasonable and good. As I said, he did try to reveal what he'd found out in order to free Morfin and Hokey. 

It's not a fan invention that people who knew things about Voldemort  thought they'd be in danger if they talked about it. It's canon. And there are at least two whom Dumbledore would be sorry to lose: Slughorn and Hagrid. 

Pippin





From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Sat Jun  6 14:59:56 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:59:56 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0cjkp+nsco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e09c+2obs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186897

<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Carol again:
> > > What the author can tell us about her book or her intentions in writing her book is only helpful to some degree with regard to specific characters and circumstances and only if the intentions are actually realized within the book itself.
> 
> > >>Steve replies:  
> > Perhaps in your opinion, which is what this actually is. In my opinion and in the opinion of those who actually have some degree of respect for what an author has to say about their work after they've completed it, what that author says about her intentions in writing her book is extremely helpful, whether or not those intentions were actually realized within the book or not. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think you're presuming a bit much here, Steve.  Nothing Carol has said implies a lack of respect for the author.  In fact, one could argue that by suggesting the author's intent will be clearly set forth within their written work (rather than erratically filled in by later interviews) Carol is showing a deep respect for the author.  She's taking their work seriously and presuming that the author took their work seriously, as well.
> 
> I myself do enjoy hearing an author's intent (unless I adored the book beyond the telling and fear having it sullied by later revisionism or too strict interpretations), but if the work is any good it really should stand on its own.  If the work is any good, it should be beyond an author's need to explain.  (Huh.  That's probably why I don't like having my favorites "explained".  Interestingly, my favorite authors tend to steer their readers back to the book[s] when questioned... and wow but I'm digressing.  Sorry.)
>

Steve replies:

I never said Carol didn't respect the author, that was your presumption and subjective interpretation. Which in and of itself proves my point that most readers view what they read (whether it's a post on an online group site or a book) subjectively, according to their own agenda, and often contrary to what the writer of what is being interpreted intends. Paraphrasing what I wrote (and as I wrote it, I know my own intent and can do so)if a person respects an author's work and respects what that author has to say about their work, they are more likely to find that author's intentions helpful to them than perhaps a person who doesn't respect what that author has to say about their own work. 

Carol continues:
> > > Let's say that she intends Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife (as she does). Not every reader is going to agree with her.
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>Steve replies:  
> > Right you are. Not every reader is going to agree with her.  And as JKoney has astutely pointed out, for very subjective agendas and as I might add, often completely silly or irrational reasons.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think there's some conflation going on here.  First there's the question, "does JKR intend for Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife?"  I agree with Carol that it'd be an uphill battle to say this was *not* JKR's intention.  Not because of interviews where JKR stated as much, but within the books themselves, JKR makes her intention perfectly clear.  We have an ending where Harry is content, happy, feeling all is well with the world, and Ginny is his wife.  The story makes it clear that JKR sees Ginny as Harry's ideal wife, his happy ending.
> 

Steve replies:
     I agree in my own subjective POV that in this case JKR's intent is pretty obvious and is backed up by the ending of Harry being content, etc.  And I also agree w/ Carol and you that it's an uphill battle to say that this was not JKR's intention.  But some readers will still march boldly uphill to prove their own subjective POV of their own in spite of what JKR intends or what the story obviously shows us. If for example the reader doesn't like Ginny as a character, they may ignore the story and what is obvious to 99% of everyone else who reads it and try and believe that Ginny wasn't what JKR intended as an ideal wife.  Makes no sense to me, but sense doesn't always enter into the equation when we're talking about subjective pov's.

Betsy continues: 

> Second, there's the *completely* different question, "Do you, the reader, feel Ginny is Harry's ideal wife?"  This is where subjective reasons (silly or irrational ones, even! *g*) come into play.  And of course, this has nothing to do with the author at all.  *Clearly* it has nothing to do with the author.  It's asking the question of the *reader*.
> 
<SNIP>

Steve replies:
Right, as I said, that is where subjective reasons come into play.

 
> > >>Carol responds:
> > > I don't understand your point, or possibly you're misunderstanding mine. An author can and sometimes does state his or her intentions (some of them, anyway, those of which he or she is conscious), but if that intention doesn't come out in the text--if it's undetectable by most or all readers--then the intention has not been realized (in the sense of made real) by the author. <SNIP>
> 
> > >>Steve replies:
> > I understood the point Jkoney was making completely. It doesn't matter whether or not the author's intention comes out in the text. Readers are so preoccupied w/ their own subjective agendas in reading the book that you could hit the author's intentions over their head w/ a sledge hammer and they wouldn't feel it.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> You're entirely wrong! :D  And I can say that because you've made the mistake of making a far too sweeping statement. (Mwahaha!)  There's no way *all* readers (your implication) are too preoccupied with "their own subjective agendas" that they miss an author's sledge hammer. jkoney is entirely wrong, too, and for the exact same reason.  The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.
> 
> I think where you're both getting hung up is the idea that a reader must not only get the author's intentions, they need to *agree* with them.  That's never the case, of course.  Readers are allowed their opinion, though the author is allowed (also of course) to use all her powers of persuasion to sway the reader to her point of view. 
>

Steve replies: It was meant to be a sweeping statement, but you are correct in saying that my implication that "all" readers are this way was an exageration. What I meant to say was that "many" readers will miss an authors intentions, (not necessarily all).  However, I didn't say that the reader needs to agree with the authors intentions, you did.  What I said or at least meant to say was that the reader because of their own very subjective agendas may or may not see the author's intent, or if they do see or recognize the authors intent in the storyline may or may not care or agree with it. Readers's perception and reaction to an authors work is subjectively viewed whether or not in agreement w/ the author or not.

 
> > >>Steve earlier:
> > Your talking about readers who cry for hours after reading about the death of a favorite character...a favorite fictional character! They could care less why the author wrote that death scene. They could care less what the author intended for that scene. All they see is that their favorite character is dead, or that a character they hate is still alive, or some such subjective plot consideration happening.  
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> And you're wrong again. :)  I recently finished a book where a favorite character died and I cried.  I cared *deeply* about why the author wrote that death scene and what his intentions where in having that character die.  Did it work with the flow of the story?  Did it create a smooth ending or was it a false construct meant to just end the damn story all ready?  In this case it worked beautifully with the flow, it segued into another scene that brought the story to a satisfying close while encouraging the reader to imagine what will come after that last page is done.  And it left me deeply, deeply satisfied with the story as a whole and with the author's story-telling skill.
> 
> On the other hand, I read a story a while ago (coming soon to a theater near you and I hope to God they changed the ending) where a favorite character died at the end, and it seemed so contrived, seemed to have occurred only to add a "twist" that I *didn't* cry.  The character suddenly became an obvious construct in a fictional story, and *believe me* I wondered deeply at the author's intent. So I read where she explained her intent and it struck me as an intention to provide a twist meant to tidy up what should have stayed messy.  Which convinced me that the ending *was* contrived.
> 
> So you see, even while in tears, the author's intentions matter to me. :)  I'm just generally confident that the text itself will make those intentions clear. (If the text doesn't, it's generally a sign the author did something wrong, imo.)
> 
Steve replies:

Once again you misinterpreted what I wrote according to some subjective agenda.  I did not say that there was something amiss w/ those who cried over a scene in a book.  I said that readers who cried for HOURS over a scene in a book are probably not going to care about what the author intended for that scene. As a pschotherapist, I have my own thoughts about a reader crying for HOURS over a work of fiction, but I didn't comment on that here. I will say that I appreciate readers who have such passion for what they read that they laugh, cry and have other strong emotions while reading.  I have such emotions at times as well.  So I meant no disrespect to readers who are able to do so.  It was your misinterpretation of what I wrote that implied I did.

> > >>Steve earlier: 
> > My point is that while we may not need the author to tell us what to look for in their work, I'm going to value the authors views when offered more than I'm going to value others views based on very subjective and personal agendas.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Personal agendas and obviously subjective viewpoints do not make for very compelling arguments, I totally agree.  But if JKR tells me that she intended for students from Slytherin house to come back and fight in the final battle (for example), I'm going to look at the text and say, "you failed in your intentions there, I'm sorry to say."  Because there's no textual support.
<SNIP>

Steve replies:  According to my own subjective agenda w/ regard to this point, I agree with you.  However, some readers ignore what an author intended, don't care what an author intended, and even ignore what subjectively to us seems to be an obvious story line if it goes contrary to what they wanted that story line to be. People often believe what they want to believe, Betsy, according to several personal factors.  That's the main point I'm making.

> 
> Betsy Hp (who rather likes readers, for without them we'd have no books and what a hell that would be)

Steve replies:
 
And on this I totally and subjectively agree.





From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Sat Jun  6 15:04:07 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:04:07 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0cr7j+v030@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e0h8+hlbt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186898

<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Betsy Hp:
> > You're entirely wrong! :D  And I can say that because you've made the mistake of making a far too sweeping statement. (Mwahaha!)  There's no way *all* readers (your implication) are too preoccupied with "their own subjective agendas" that they miss an author's sledge hammer. jkoney is entirely wrong, too, and for the exact same reason.  The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.
> > 
> > I think where you're both getting hung up is the idea that a reader must not only get the author's intentions, they need to *agree* with them.  That's never the case, of course.  Readers are allowed their opinion, though the author is allowed (also of course) to use all her powers of persuasion to sway the reader to her point of view. 
> 
> Magpie:
> I think it's just as impossible to divide readers into those with subjective agendas and those without. All readers have subjective agendas. If we didn't we wouldn't have personalities at all. Something that seems obvious to one person based on their experiences and personality comes across completely differently to someone else. We all filter books through our own tastes, beliefs, emotions and experiences. 
> 
> I've seen people who champion the author's interpretation and claim to just "read what's there" and let the author's interpretation rule their readings cheerfully explain away blatant things in the text when it conflicts with something they particularly want or think to be true. And not even see a difference. They don't see themselves as reading against canon if they think of themselves as a person who doesn't do that, they just think this must be what the author meant. "I think what the author wants everyone to think" very easily becomes "If I think something, this is what the author wants everyone to think." 
> 
> For instance, even in this very thread. There's the question of Snape being a sadist, which gets into that "is Ginny Harry's ideal wife" territory. It depends on how one defines a sadist and how one sees Snape etc. It doesn't necessarily come down to being a huge fan of Snape or not. There's lots of things that can influence it. But in defense of that argument SWM was brought up and we got this:
> 
> Carol:
> > There's no canon whatever to indicate that Severus has fought his rescuer--at
> least not until that rescuer attacks him two on one.
> >
> > Carol, whose position in the previous post remains unchanged
> >
> 
> jkoney:
> Since we don't know what Severus was doing, he could have been attacking mudbloods all week and was reviewing his test because he didn't have time to study.
> 
> No provocation? Wasn't Snape the one who was trying to find out what the marauders were doing and get them in trouble for it? That in itself is more than enough justification for teenage boys to turn on Snape. Rightly or wrongly they were provoked.
> 
> Magpie:
> How's that not just as subjective an agenda? The scene clearly shows Snape walking out of an exam and sitting by himself. James and Sirius see him alone, and start picking on him--boredom being the one reason they discuss for it. They're enjoying themselves; they aren't depicted as being particularly vengeful in the scene. On the contrary, iirc, they're happy to see him because they are going to get some pleasure out of causing him pain. He's not provoking them *in this scene.*
> 
> JKR says Snape is a sadistic person. I think she probably is writing him demonstrating that (based on her definition of the word) in many scenes. Here he's an innocent victim. Harry thinks so. Sirius and Remus both admit to it. (Well, Remus--who's the more reliable character does--Sirius, who's been established as being more emotionally biased about Snape doesn't. But even his references to Snape being annoying are explaining why it's okay they did this; it's not a claim that they were provoked in this scene when they weren't.)
> 
> So what reason is there to even wonder if Snape attacked Mudbloods all week or wonder about all the things that Snape has done to annoy them in the past. We know they find him annoying. We also know he's not provoking them here. They're not even acting out on a memory of a particular thing he's done in the past. His past deeds being justification for what they do here is subjective. Putting any of those past deeds in their head as provocation here seems like changing the scene to fit a desired interpretation.
> 
> I don't, btw, think it's necessary to agree with an author's opinion on anything. I doubt anybody's ever agreed with the author on everything in a book. Author's themselves been known to change their own opinions on their own books and characters dramatically over the years, so forcing myself to agree with something they said at any given time seems even more pointless. There's no real people or real life stories in the world people 100% agree on. Authors even have their own subjective biases. Sometimes readers correctly nail them.
> 
> Steve replies:

You make excellent points here Magpie.  I agree that most if not all agenda's are subjective, especially about fictional media.  It's extremely rare to find someone who has a completely objective agenda.  




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun  6 15:49:04 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:49:04 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0chcg+34nh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e35g+8o3g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186899


> Alla:
> 
> Out of curiosity when exactly did he save Sirius? You don't mean in Shrieking Shack I hope?

Pippin:
Well, Alla, where would you rather be? Inside the castle, safe and warm?  Or lying unconscious in the dark by the lakeshore, with a werewolf on the loose and a pack of frustrated dementors nearby?


> Alla:
> 
> But I thought they were supposed to be grateful not for Snape's saving Harry's life (by the way when was a second time he saved Harry's life?) but for the fact that Snape sold him to Voldemort and helped made Harry an orphan? 

Pippin:
 That's what I get for coming into a thread in the middle. But they're spirits, and it's possible they see what Snape did as a felix culpa if it all came right in the end. Is it even possible for an undamaged soul to hate?

Snape sent the Order to rescue Harry from the MoM. He also rescued Harry from the lakeshore.

Alla: 
> I can never be grateful for the sufferings that my child will endure, the hateful relatives that he will be placed with because of that person. Obviously, I am speculating and that is why I am talking from the first person, but that is what I would imagine Lily and James in the afterlife thinking.

Pippin:
Surely you are not claiming it's Snape's fault that Petunia hated her sister? Maybe if Lily had known how important Petunia was going to be, she'd have gone easy on the frogspawn and the transforming teacups. Come to think of it, Lily might ask herself if she couldn't have given Snape himself a second chance. 

I would think that in the Potterverse afterlife you are supposed to become truly aware of your own shortcomings, not other people's. 

> 
> Alla:
> 
> Again - there are many maybes. It is not math progression, which will not end till the end. Maybe another event would have come that helped turned the luck in the war. 

Pippin:
Yes, maybe Voldemort would retire to Sussex and take up beekeeping ;) But if James and Lily did not think the defeat of Voldemort was worth the risk of their child growing up without them, they were fools to have  joined the Order in the first place. I do not think they would be such cowards that they don't care how many other people suffer to stop Voldemort as long as their family escaped. But maybe you do not see that as cowardice?

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 16:02:04 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:02:04 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h06kef+s2bj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e3ts+kvg5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186900

Magpie wrote:
> <snip> LV being a Half-blood is not the thing that's supposed to be funny, since there's nothing particular funny about it. It's Voldemort himself that needs to be made into a figure of ridicule, just like Hitler. Hitler was laughed at loudly and often while he was trying to take over the world. Especially by the people defying him. It was part of resistance. You can fear something and still laugh at the person causing it. 
> 
Carol:
What's funny about Tom Riddle, the brilliant and handsome orphan who distinguished him at school by becoming first a Prefect and then Head Boy, and by winning an award for services to the school, being Voldemort? It's not remotely funny that he charmed so many people into thinking that he had to potential to be Minister for Magic or that he got away with unprovable murders (had Dumbledore been able to convince the MoM that Hagrid was innocent and Tom Riddle guilty of Moaning Myrtle's murder, he would have done so. Ha, ha, Voldemort's a Half-Blood raised in a Muggle orphanage? I'm not laughing. I see nothing to laugh about. It's a tragedy that he went bad. In fact, his story might even make people feel sorry for him--except for those whom he's already threatened, harmed, or recruited, and knowing his story--the parts that DD can reveal without also revealing that he's investigating Voldemort's past--would, IMO, make no difference.

And his being a Half-Blood *is* the part that people are arguing would make a difference. I'm pretty sure, however, that Lucius Malfoy and others like him know that there are no Riddles in "Nature's Aristocracy," and it makes no difference to them. Why not? Because Voldemort's power gives them power as his followers, and his agenda, insofar as it concerns torturing Muggles and putting Muggle-borns in their place, is his agenda.

We hear Draco, at age eleven, speaking of *two* kinds of Wizards, "our kind" (those with Wizarding blood) and "the other kind" (Muggle-borns). Half-Bloods aren't mentioned, but if only two categories are available, they would fall into the first one.

So, yes, of course, JKR does it for plot reasons. And, yes, of course, Dumbledore is secretive. But if we think of Dumbledore as a character capable of independent thinking, who is not merely JKR's puppet, he must have had reasons for not revealing Tom Riddle's identity.

Carol, who originally thought that Voldemort was foolishly blowing his cover by revealing that he had a Muggle father in GoF but now thinks that it made no difference to the DEs, who had other reasons to follow and fear him




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun  6 16:43:23 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:43:23 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0e3ts+kvg5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e6bb+59ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186901

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Carol, who originally thought that Voldemort was foolishly blowing his cover by revealing that he had a Muggle father in GoF but now thinks that it made no difference to the DEs, who had other reasons to follow and fear him
>

Pippin:
Voldemort only reveals to his followers that his father is buried in this cemetery. He doesn't mention that he was a Muggle. You seem to be assuming the DE's would deduce that since Little Hangleton is a Muggle village. But do they even know that's where they are? They apparated to where the Dark Mark called them, not to coordinates on a map. In any case the Gaunt family lived in Little Hangleton for generations, so why wouldn't wizards be buried in its cemetery too?

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 16:48:54 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:48:54 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cf48+entt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e6lm+94tk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186902

Magpie:

> But to be honest, even the facts about his parents hardly indicate some deep, dangerous investigation on Dumbledore's part that must mean he knows about the Horcruxes. Tom Riddle's named after his family. They're not hard to find. And terrorizing the country is reason enough for people to look into your biography. In fact, if I were Voldemort I'd find it far more suspicious if Dumbledore was never saying anything about who my parents were. I mean, come on, they're painfully easy to find given they share all of my names, and the wisest Wizard ever hasn't ever been interested? (Granted, that's far more logical than Voldemort usually is.)

Carol:
He might have been suspicious that DD never revealed that he was Tom Riddle or revealed what was generally known about Tom Riddle at the time of his disappearance (though I don't know why he would since he would have thought that the lack of information was to his own advantage), but I don't see how you can assume that he'd regard not revealing something he didn't even know that DD knew was suspicious. And I think LV would have realized that knowing who he was, not just his father's name but that his mother's relatives were the Gaunts, would lead Dumbledore to Little Hangleton and the Gaunts's shack, where he could investigate the Riddles' murder and maybe even find out about the ring he'd stolen from Morfin.

Dumbledore kept quiet about that for two reasons, IMO. First, by the time he got the Ministry to look at Morfin's memory, proving Morfin's innocence, Morfin was dead (the same thing happened later with Hokey). With the sole witness dead, he couldn't prove that Tom was guilty. Apparently, the memory alone wouldn't hold up in a court of Wizarding law. And, second, he didn't want Voldemort to find out too soon that he, DD, was investigating his past and remove all the traces.
> 
> Carol:
> > If Dumbledore revealed even the small fact of Voldemort's identity, the names of his parents and the fact that his father was a rich Muggle from Little Hangleton, Voldemort would not only suspect but *know* that Dumbledore was investigating his past. 
> 
> Magpie:
> Which is not, imo, so huge a deal as to justify Dumbledore helping Voldemort hide everything about himself. But regardless, Dumbledore doesn't have to reveal this small fact. He's got plenty of other small facts that would do the trick--or at least be a start. Ordinary schoolboy underneath the Dark Magic.

Carol:
I think it *is* a huge deal. If DD knows who Tom's parents were, he knows or can find out that Tom murdered his father and grandfather and stole Morfin's ring. He can also discover the hiding place for the ring, even if he doesn't know that it's a Horcrux. And if he's investigating that murder, he may be investigating another unsolved murder, that of Hepzibah Smith, as well. After all, he would know that Tom Riddle resigned and mysteriously disappeared just before that murder was discovered.

> 
> > Magpie: 
> > > To be fair, there is a canonical explanation for why Dumbledore and Voldemort act the way they do. I just has nothing to do with a logical plan. It's psychology. Dumbledore likes keeping information for himself so he knows more than anyone else (always vaguely telling them that this keeps it safe) and Voldemort is psychologically compelled to create all his plans around Important Moments in his personal history. Both of them often act against the interests of their own goals because they can't not act this way. 

> Magpie:
> Dumbledore has a history of concealing information even when it would be helpful. I don't get how the WW would have been hurt during the first Voldemort War by Dumbledore letting them know this was Tom Riddle from Hogwarts. (Which I believe at the time was all he knew anyway.) Dumbledore never needs reasons beyond his penchant for secrecy. Or rather, his penchant for secrecy compels him to make up convoluted justifications in his own mind for hiding information that would actually have been pbviously helpful.

Carol responds:
I think I've accidentally deleted a statement you made that we don't know when DD began his investigations (forgive me if I imagined that!). But by the beginning of the first Voldie War, he certainly knew more than that Voldemort was Tom Riddle from Hogwarts (who had, not incidentally, murdered Moaning Myrtle and framed Hagrid). He knew about the murder of Tom Riddle and his parents in Little Hangleton, and he must have known about the Gaunts as well. He obtained memories from Morfin and presumably from Bob Ogden before Morfin died in prison. He would have begun investigating the murder of Hepzibah Smith  and obtained the information from Hokey (who was very old and must not have lasted long in prison) soon after the murder. The memory from Caractacus Burke, which relates to Merope and the locket, would have been obtained at about the same time.

IOW, Dumbledore must have been investigating Voldemort's past for years before Godric's Hollow and probably long before the DADA interview. ("You call what you have been doing 'great', then?"). And the DADA interview would have alerted him to Riddle's changed appearance, a hint that he was making Horcruxes out of those stolen objects. He already knew, through Aberforth, that Riddle was calling himself Voldemort and gathering followers called Death Eaters. I think DD had been gathering memories and information for a long time before Voldemort first started terrorizing the WW (which he didn't even start doing for twelve years or so after the DADA interview).

Carol, for whom the only mystery is what took LV so long to start his reign of terror and what he was up to during those *two* gaps in his history




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 17:06:16 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:06:16 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h09q7g+36qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0e7m8+n736@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186903

Alla:
> > > 
> > > So now it is a certainty that another DE would have had the same assignment? I certainly accept it as a possibility, but I also accept as a possibility that but for Snape no other Death Eater would have overheard the Prophecy and did not report it to Voldemort. And he would have never attacked Potters thus leaving Harry with two parents, who while fighting in the war would have still had a chance to survive and even if they were killed later still give Harry some years of happiness.
> > > 
> > 
> > Montavilla47:
> > Maybe.  Or maybe Voldemort would never have heard the prophecy and 
> > never invoked it, and consequently, never have been stopped by anything.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Or maybe this prophecy would have remain an unfulfilled as many other prophecies in MoM. And maybe another prophecy about how to defeat Voldemort would have come to life at some time. OR maybe he would have just been defeated with no prophecy at all.
> 
> But we can endlessly come up with what ifs of course. My point is that I find the argument that Lily and James would have been **grateful** to Snape to be mind boggling.
> 
> It is to me as if Wormtail for example suddenly become very very very sorry (for real) that he helped Voldie to get a body in GoF and did some sort of great deed to help kill him. And then somebody would say oh yeah, we have to be really grateful to him. After all he helped to get rid of Voldemort, but to me nothing can change that he helped bring Voldemort back. I will be the first one to say that he can atone for this deed, but to be grateful for it?
> 
> And maybe it is just the matter of degree to me, but to me there are some deeds for which one just cannot be grateful at all. I mean, I am sure WW could be grateful to Snape, after all Harry did save their asses and Snape is responsible in the round about way for creating the Chosen one. But any of the Potters being grateful to Snape? For what exactly I wonder.

Carol responds:
For protecting Harry all those years, especially saving his life in his first year, and for risking his own life to fight Voldemort? For sending the doe Patronus to help Harry/Ron retrieve the Sword of Gryffindor? For the last difficult act of magic as he was dying that enabled Harry to defeat Voldemort through self-sacrifice?

Harry was grateful. I think that his family would have been, too.

I'm not saying that they should be grateful that Snape's love of Lily made her ancient magic possible, or even that he went to Dumbledore afterward to beg him to hide "her/them," a futile gesture because of Wormtail's treachery. But I think they would realize that he kept his promise to do "anything" and that he protected Harry for Lily, and, as essentially good people, they would forgive Snape's sin and be grateful for the ways in which he atoned for it, just as Harry himself eventually was.

And, of course, it's not a certainty (though I think it's a probability) that another DE would have been spying on DD and reported the Prophecy. But it *is* a certainty that no other DE would have asked Voldemort to spare Lily and triggered the love magic when LV broke his word. No other DE was in love with Lily. Consequently, if any other DE had reported the Prophecy to LV, all three Potters would have died. And the dead Potters, if they think about it, might actually be glad for Harry's sake, but, no, they won't be grateful to Snape for reporting the Prophecy. I do think, however, that they would forgive him for it given everything else that he has done.

Whether they would forgive *Wormtail*, who merely experienced a twinge of regret at the end of his life after betraying the Potters, killing all those Muggles, killing Cedric, and restoring LV to two bodies, I don't know. Certainly, they have no cause to be grateful to *him.*

Carol, who realizes that we will probably never agree on this point




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 18:56:36 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:56:36 -0000
Subject: Dh reread CH 23
In-Reply-To: <h0cnkc+psdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ee54+d7rm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186904

Alla quoted:
>
> "Stan Shunpike," said Ron.
> "Like "ell you are," said the man called Scabior. "We know Stan Shunpike, "e"s put a bit of work our way" - p.363
> 
> Alla:
> 
> What does put a bit of work our way means here? He worked for us? Or against us? Or something different? Because this could be an answer i Stan really was a DE, no?

Carol responds:
I think that "put a bit of work our way" means that he's an informant like Runcorn at the MoM except on a lower level (reporting to Snatchers rather than to MoM officials). He would probably provide information on runaway Muggle-borns or anyone else that the Snatchers could get a reward for turning in. (What Stan's reward would be is unclear; I suppose that's his job as a junior DE, perhaps without the Dark Mark.) I'm only guessing, but that's what it sounds like to me. However, we still don't know whether he joined willingly or was Imperiused, which could have happened during the second breakout from Azkaban. (We see Pius Thicknesse in league with the DEs throughout DH, but we know that he was under the Imperius Curse. Stan could have been manipulated in much the same way on a smaller scale. I only hope that Thicknesse doesn't receive the same sort of sentence as any DEs that survived the battle. Some sort of restitution would be more appropriate than a prison sentence, IMO. And ditto for Stan--if he was Imperiused.)
> 
Alla quoting: 
> "... window was the merest slit in the black rock, not big enough for a man to enter ... a skeletal figure was just visible through it, curled beneath a blanket... dead or sleeping...?" - p.368
> 
> "... the emaciated figure stirred beneath its thin blanket and rolled over towards him, eyes opening  in a skull of a face... the frail man sat up, great sunken eyes fixed upon him, upon Voldemort, and then he smiled. Most of his teeth were gone...
> 'So, you have come. I thought you would... one day. But your journey was pointless. I never had it." - p.369
> 
Alla:
> 
> You know what? When JKR wants, she can make me pity ANYBODY. I do feel sorry for Grindelwald here, no matter what crimes he committed. Spending a life time in such horrible conditions only to see the monster whom he basically become to come kill him?
> Yeah despite his crimes I do pity him and really hope for forgiveness for him in afterlife.

Carol responds:
I have mixed feelings about Grindelwald. Yes, he seems to have felt remorse for his crimes, and he has unquestionable courage. I admire the way he, a dying, toothless old man, fearlessly confronts Voldemort, taunting him with his lack of knowledge and lying to him. (He also seems to have anticipated that the johnny-come-lately Dark Lord would eventually want the Elder Wand; he knows exactly why Voldie has decided to visit him.) He was always brilliant and merry, with a mischievous streak, and we see that even here.

But, then there are all those crimes, murder, torture, imprisonment of innocent people, and whatever else he did, probably on a larger scale than Voldemort because he was actually in power and wasn't sidetracked by Horcrux-making and fear of death. I do think that, given the opportunity, he would have tried to atone for his crimes by some means other than his own suffering in prison, but how can you make restitution for so many horrendous acts? If it had been "only" the torture of Ariana and Aberforth and he had taken responsibility for Ariana's death, doing nothing more wrong and helping Dumbledore to prevent Voldemort's rise to power when he got out of prison, it would have been different. But to pile on all those crimes afterward with no restitution other than fifty years in prison? Does the prison sentence count as a kind of Purgatory to purge his sins and crimes? I can't help contrasting him with Snape, whose sins were so much smaller and who spent most of his adult life atoning for them by protecting Harry and risking his life to undermine Voldemort. Do they deserve the same fate in the afterlife? I don't think so.

I don't think, of course, that Grindelwald deserves a fate like Voldemort's (which he wouldn't have, anyway, because however battered his soul might be by all those murders, he never split it by making Horcruxes), but I can't imagine him just wandering around free, his wounds healed as Dumbledore's hand is healed, and being happy and loved in the afterlife. Or maybe his wounds could be healed, but he could spend a few hundred years reliving his crimes so that he would really feel the painful remorse that Voldemort would have to feel for his soul to come back together--assuming that the soul bits hadn't been destroyed?

I agree with you--Grindelwald is a sympathetic figure here, especially in contrast to Voldemort. But is fifty years in prison sufficient to atone for his crimes? Unlike Snape, whose crimes are so much smaller, he's made no active restitution, no contribution to the safety and welfare of Wizarding society. I don't know what to feel about him, and I feel strange and guilty for liking him, not only in this scene but in all the other scenes in which he appears. I see why he was so attractive to Dumbledore. There's something wild and fearless and rebellious about him, as well as brilliant and cheerful under the greatest adversity.

Alla: 
> That also makes me think that the lack of ANY sympathy for Voldemort at the end, baby looking or not, was very deliberate artistic choice, because I have no doubt that her skills are strong enough to manage it.

Carol:
I agree. It takes great skill to make a babylike creature terrifying and revolting, and she does it twice.

Alla: 
> Mind you, I am **not** saying that she should have made me feel compassion for Voldemort, I am just wondering over my reactions.

Carol:
So am I. My own reactions, I mean. :-)

Alla quoting: 
> "Harry saw Draco's face up close, now, right besides his father's. They were extraordinary alike, exceptr that while his father looked beside himself with excitement, Draco's expression was  full of reluctance even fear" - p.372
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I am rereading this scene and oh wonders of wonders I am willing to go easier on Draco here. He so so does not want to IMO to do any identification and his lovely parents practically force him. Oh hero he is not, but I really do not think that since he has a strength to reject loving parents, I really do not think that more can be expected of him.

Carol:
I agree. The contrast between Draco's father's face and his own, both seen close up, so alike in their features and so different in their expressions, is a very deliberate and very effective strategy, both from Harry's standpoint (I'm sure that this memory goes into his unconscious mind along with Draco's slight lowering of his wand on the tower) and the reader's. Lucius, even wandless, is still the quintessential Death Eater (not psychotic like Bellatrix but very self-interested, wanting his old position of power back even after all that Voldemort has done to him). Draco, OTOH, is torn between terror for himself and his family and reluctance to turn Harry and his friends over to torture and death, just as he was reluctant to Crucio Thorfinn Rowle and unable to kill Dumbledore. Weak Draco certainly is, but he doesn't have the makings of a Death Eater, in marked contrast to his father. I agree that we can't expect any more of him. He's neither hero nor villain, only a teenager who's found out the hard way that being a DE is anything but glorious.

Alla: 
> But boy I hate both Malfoys here. Narcissa is soooo eager, sorry I am not buying anything less but self serving reasons for refusing to say that Harry is alive at the end.

Carol:
Funny; I don't have any strong feelings toward the Malfoys at all. (Bellatrix is another matter.) I see them (I think!) completely objectively, or at least feel nothing stronger than contempt. I agree that Lucius is acting from pure self-interest, and it's also clear that his views haven't changed at all. He's still perfectly willing to follow the DE agenda, to summon Voldemort so he can kill Harry, which will, he thinks, restore him to his old prestige. (Maybe he'll even get a new wand!) There's no change in his views of "Mudbloods" and "blood traitors," either. Voldemort's mistreatment and humiliation of the Malfoys hasn't yet reached the point where Lucius will cease to be loyal as long as there's still the chance that loyalty will be rewarded.

His eagerness is an interesting contrast to Narcissa's coldness. Her views on Pure-blood superiority clearly haven't changed, either, and she, too, is perfectly willing to hand Harry and his friends over to Voldemort as long as its in her family's interest to do so. But I don't think at this point she feels any personal loyalty to Voldemort, who has, to say the least, abused her family's hospitality (and is about to do worse). Her primary concern, in contrast to Lucius, is Draco. Voldemort's agenda comes second. For her, I think, obedience to Voldemort is a practical necessity, not a matter of personal loyalty, but she has no more sympathy or empathy for Harry and his friends than her husband does.

Both of them are different from Bellatrix, who is insanely devoted to Voldemort, but even she is concerned about self-preservation. She knows that his wrath will be boundless if it turns out that her vault has been broken into--even worse than it is when Harry Potter escapes yet again!

Alla: 
> And really, soooo many psychopaths in Voldie's employ - Greyback, Bella, one better than another.

Carol:
You meant "one no better than another," right? Bellatrix certainly holds Greyback in contempt, and she's more than a match for him and his Snatchers, but in terms of being a psychopath, you're right--it's hard to tell who's worse, him or her.

I can't think of any other DEs that I'd consider psychopaths, though. How would a psychiatrist classify someone like Lucius Malfoy, who seems to be perfectly sane, following his own self-interested Pure-Blood supremacy agenda, coldly Imperiusing people, manipulating and threatening and bribing to get his way? It's hard to say how many actual crimes he's committed, aside from the Imperius Curse and leading the DoM break-in, but he wouldn't have been above killing and torturing teenagers to get the Prophecy orb, and he abused his House-Elf severely. Is he a psychopath, a sociopath, or just a petty tyrant, ruthless and amoral and self-interested, who would have been quite at home as a baron in the court of William I?

Anyway, I think that Narcissa's main priority is already Draco at this point; Lucius's is still himself. Only after they're punished first for letting Harry get away and then nearly killed for hearing about the stolen cup does Lucius finally realize what Draco has already learned; this Dark Wizard is not worth their loyalty and family is more important. As for Narcissa, I think her "self-serving" reason for lying to Voldemort at the end is the same one that led her to go to Snape for help in HBP: her love for her only son and her fear for her safety, which overrides any loyalty to the Dark Lord even before he abuses them and especially afterward. She could have told the truth and perhaps been rewarded, but she had ceased to care one way or another about Harry Potter or Voldemort. All that mattered to her was getting to her son. Of course, she carefully avoids looking at LV to avoid being detected, but her courage is nonetheless greater than Xenophilius Lovegood's in a similar situation. (Which is not to say that I don't sympathize with Xeno; I do.)

Carol, who likes Alla's selection of quotations here, especially the last two, both of which are masterful character sketches in miniature (no doubt *intended* as such by the author but left for the reader to interpret)





From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Sat Jun  6 19:18:58 2009
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 15:18:58 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dh reread CH 23
Message-ID: <d5e.4e7f8f5e.375c1b22@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186905

 
In a message dated 6/5/2009 10:28:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes:

Stan  Shunpike," said Ron.
"Like "ell you are," said the man called Scabior. "We  know Stan Shunpike, 
"e"s put a bit of work our way" -  p.363

Alla:



Down in S. Texas we'd interpret it to mean that he gave them some  work to 
do, (i.e. hired them for a job  or caused recommended them for  a job). 
something along those lines.
 
Melissa 
**************Stay connected and tighten your budget with a great mobile 
device for under $50. Take a Peek! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1221845911x1201401556/aol?redir=http://www.getpeek.com/aol)


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




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun  6 19:55:55 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:55:55 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0e3ts+kvg5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ehkb+vloi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186906

> Magpie wrote:
> > <snip> LV being a Half-blood is not the thing that's supposed to be funny, since there's nothing particular funny about it. It's Voldemort himself that needs to be made into a figure of ridicule, just like Hitler. Hitler was laughed at loudly and often while he was trying to take over the world. Especially by the people defying him. It was part of resistance. You can fear something and still laugh at the person causing it. 
> > 
> Carol:
> What's funny about Tom Riddle, the brilliant and handsome orphan who distinguished him at school by becoming first a Prefect and then Head Boy, and by winning an award for services to the school, being Voldemort? 

Magpie:
Because it's mundane. It's human. Before he was the Lord of All Evil he was...dum dum DUMMMM! A school prefect! 

Carol:
It's not remotely funny that he charmed so many people into thinking that he had to potential to be Minister for Magic or that he got away with unprovable murders (had Dumbledore been able to convince the MoM that Hagrid was innocent and Tom Riddle guilty of Moaning Myrtle's murder, he would have done so. Ha, ha, Voldemort's a Half-Blood raised in a Muggle orphanage? I'm not laughing. I see nothing to laugh about. 

Magpie:
Do you see nothing to laugh about at Hitler either? Because his career was actually a lot worse than Voldemort's and yet people laughed at him. As they should have. The devil doesn't like to be mocked. It takes away his power. There's plenty to laugh about for Tom Riddle and anyone else. People laugh at horrible people who commit acts of evil all the time.


Carol:
In fact, his story might even make people feel sorry for him--except for those whom he's already threatened, harmed, or recruited, and knowing his story--the parts that DD can reveal without also revealing that he's investigating Voldemort's past--would, IMO, make no difference.

Magpie:
The guy's terrorizing them, and they learn he was once a schoolboy (totally human and not invincible at all!) and before that he was in a Muggle orphanage. You can't imagine anybody wanting to find anything to laugh about in that past, but you think they'll feel sorry for him even though he's terrorizing them? 

Here's a reason to find something to laugh at instead: it takes away his power. And it's not just his background they're supposed to be laughing at, it's everything. The prissy voice? The tantrums? The transparent fact that not only was he once a schoolboy but he's still obsessed with being a schoolboy? These are all things to be attacked with humor as much as possible. He's a bit of a riot in the graveyard.

Carol: 
> And his being a Half-Blood *is* the part that people are arguing would make a difference. I'm pretty sure, however, that Lucius Malfoy and others like him know that there are no Riddles in "Nature's Aristocracy," and it makes no difference to them. Why not? Because Voldemort's power gives them power as his followers, and his agenda, insofar as it concerns torturing Muggles and putting Muggle-borns in their place, is his agenda.

Magpie:
Yes, people are, but I'm not particularly arguing it. I did say that if there are people following him because they think he's a Pureblood (since he's pushing that agenda) there might be people who change their minds about him when he lets them down there. Maybe many of them wouldn't care at all, but I don't see why the idea should be dismissed like the two things aren't related.

Carol:
> So, yes, of course, JKR does it for plot reasons. And, yes, of course, Dumbledore is secretive. But if we think of Dumbledore as a character capable of independent thinking, who is not merely JKR's puppet, he must have had reasons for not revealing Tom Riddle's identity.

Magpie:
Of course he would have. He would have created any number of reasons for concealing his identity. He wouldn't actually admit to himself he just wanted to hold onto the secret. He'd come up with elaborate reasons why it was cleverer to do it this way and people needed to be protected. She made him a character of independent thinking and then gave him certain obsessions so that his thinking would lead where it did.

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun  6 20:14:55 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:14:55 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0e6lm+94tk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0einv+h7qk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186907

> Magpie:
> 
> > But to be honest, even the facts about his parents hardly indicate some deep, dangerous investigation on Dumbledore's part that must mean he knows about the Horcruxes. Tom Riddle's named after his family. They're not hard to find. And terrorizing the country is reason enough for people to look into your biography. In fact, if I were Voldemort I'd find it far more suspicious if Dumbledore was never saying anything about who my parents were. I mean, come on, they're painfully easy to find given they share all of my names, and the wisest Wizard ever hasn't ever been interested? (Granted, that's far more logical than Voldemort usually is.)
> 
> Carol:
> He might have been suspicious that DD never revealed that he was Tom Riddle or revealed what was generally known about Tom Riddle at the time of his disappearance (though I don't know why he would since he would have thought that the lack of information was to his own advantage), but I don't see how you can assume that he'd regard not revealing something he didn't even know that DD knew was suspicious.

Magpie:
I didn't assume it. I said that if *I* were Voldemort I would imagine I would assume that Dumbledore would know easily-discovered facts about my past. After all, he's super smart Dumbledore, he's known for profiling his enemies, he likes to know stuff, and this information's easy to find. So I might wonder why he was being so helpful as to continue to talk me up as a mysterious monster. I don't think Voldemort would have been the least bit surprised to learn that Dumbledore knew who his parents were. That's Dumbledore's thing. 

Just saying he took him from the orphanage etc. that's still more than he did.


Carol:
> Dumbledore kept quiet about that for two reasons, IMO. First, by the time he got the Ministry to look at Morfin's memory, proving Morfin's innocence, Morfin was dead (the same thing happened later with Hokey). With the sole witness dead, he couldn't prove that Tom was guilty. Apparently, the memory alone wouldn't hold up in a court of Wizarding law. And, second, he didn't want Voldemort to find out too soon that he, DD, was investigating his past and remove all the traces.

Magpie:
Who cares if he could prove Tom guilty of anything or not? This has nothing to do with Dumbledore telling anyone that Voldemort is Tom Riddle or even saying that he believes that this Tom Marvolo Riddle is the son of Tom Riddle and the daughter of Morvolo.  

> Carol:
> I think it *is* a huge deal. If DD knows who Tom's parents were, he knows or can find out that Tom murdered his father and grandfather and stole Morfin's ring. He can also discover the hiding place for the ring, even if he doesn't know that it's a Horcrux. And if he's investigating that murder, he may be investigating another unsolved murder, that of Hepzibah Smith, as well. After all, he would know that Tom Riddle resigned and mysteriously disappeared just before that murder was discovered.

Magpie:
If you work backwards from the endpoint of the plot and so assume that deviating at all from the stuff that happened in the book ever would lead to Voldemort's victory, then it's a big deal. In the scheme of things, starting from where Dumbledore would have been in the first war? No, I don't think it's a big deal. Things might have gone a lot more smoothly had he done it. We wind up with the country relying on the Chosen One to take out the Dark Wizard (despite Dumbledore claiming he doesn't believe in prophecies). To me that seems clearly just as much Dumbledore's plan as the actual destruction of Voldemort.
 
> Carol responds:
> IOW, Dumbledore must have been investigating Voldemort's past for years before Godric's Hollow and probably long before the DADA interview. ("You call what you have been doing 'great', then?"). And the DADA interview would have alerted him to Riddle's changed appearance, a hint that he was making Horcruxes out of those stolen objects.

Magpie:
And, as per his usual MO, doing nothing about it but waiting and watching and knowing more than anyone else, collecting his little bits of info and hiding them the way Tom collects his totems.

Perfectly understandable in terms of Dumbledore, but not, imo, motivated purely by efficiency or the protection of others. He's acting the way he always acts, keeping others in the dark, because this is between him and Tom. Tom could always count on Albus to keep his secrets until he had to grudgingly share some with Harry. (And even then he hid as much as he could so he could speak in riddles from beyond the grave.) 

-m




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jun  6 22:16:46 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:16:46 -0000
Subject: Dh reread CH 23
In-Reply-To: <d5e.4e7f8f5e.375c1b22@aol.com>
Message-ID: <h0epse+cuq4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186908

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Meliss9900 at ... wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 6/5/2009 10:28:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> dumbledore11214 at ... writes:

Alla:
> Stan  Shunpike," said Ron.
> "Like "ell you are," said the man called Scabior. "We  know Stan Shunpike, 
> "e"s put a bit of work our way" -  p.363

Melissa 
> Down in S. Texas we'd interpret it to mean that he gave them some  work to 
> do, (i.e. hired them for a job  or caused recommended them for  a job). 
> something along those lines.

Geoff:
That would be my reading in the UK also.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  6 23:03:16 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:03:16 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0e35g+8o3g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0esjk+tf68@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186910

Montavilla47:
A lot of people contributed to James and Lily being killed and Harry
being left alone. Those people include Sybil, Snape, Dumbledore,
Peter, and Sirius. Oh, and Voldemort.

If Lily and James were likely to hold grudges after death, they'd
need to hold them against all those people. Snape might be high
on that list, but he's hardly the number one person responsible.


Alla:

Where did I say that Lily and James were likely to hold grudges after death at all???

In fact in the very post you are replying to I said this :

"No, I do not think they should hold grudge for all
eternity, although I would be delighted to see them punch Snape, but that's my
own satisfaction."

So to be clear, again, I do not think they will be holding grudges, it is just to me there is a question of degree between forgiving and being grateful.

I said *I* would like to see them punch Snape in the nose, but it is just a reader's wish ? it does not translate into me thinking that this is what canon should provide or will provide OR that if canon does not provide that, the story will be worse or something.

Among things I would have loved to see in canon was for example Snape and Sirius having hot sex or at least hot kiss. Did I think that canon will provide it or that story will suffer for the lack of it? No, of course not, it is fanfiction matter and same thing I have read several very good stories about Lily or James or both coming back and dealing with Snape. That satisfied me enough.

Just to stress it one more time,  ? NO, I do not think that Lily and James' souls or spirits or whatever will be holding grudges against Snape. I think they will grant him forgiveness. It is the **gratefulness** I am disagreeing with.

As to various people responsible for Lily and James' death and Harry being left alone, the way I see it, each of those people are responsible for their **own** choices. To me the thing is ? it is a possibility that without Snape making his choice first none of those people MAY have had a reason to exercise his.

Oh and could you please clarify how exactly Dumbledore is responsible for Lily and James being killed? I hold him responsible a plenty for how he decided Harry's fate, but no, I do not hold him responsible for their deaths at all.

I mean, I guess he took the cloak, which may have given them some chance, but to me I cannot even assign one percent of responsibility for that.

Sirius is responsible for suggesting that plan, sure, but sorry, I cannot put him high on the list for wanting his friends safer. Although, before you say anything, say he is very responsible for that ? again, without Snape's reporting Prophecy, they may not have NEED to go into hiding, accordingly such suggestion may have not been needed at all.

And then we have Voldemort and Wormtail. And I will still say that even though one of them is a murderous maniac and another one is stinking traitor, I will still say that without Snape starting all that, there is  a chance that they would not have made their choices. Now of course with Voldemort it is highly likely that he would have gone after Potters anyway, but I remain convinced that such encounter would not have HAD TO end in their deaths. After all three of the previous ones did not.

All that I am saying that Snape's actions decreased the possible scenarios very very significantly and increased the death one a lot.

I think that Wormtail is actually the one who would have acted anyway, if Sirius' claim that he was passing the information for the year was true, so I guess I hold Snape less responsible for Wormtail than for Voldemort, if that makes sense.


Montavilla47:
But again, Snape isn't the person most responsible for Harry
being placed with the Dursleys. That one was Dumbledore.

And he isn't exactly responsible for the Dursleys being so
hateful. That's on them.


Alla:

Well, yes of course. See above. All that I am saying that without Snape's actions Harry may have never gone to Dursleys, that's all. I am not saying that Snape is responsible for Dursleys being hateful.

Although if I wanted I could I suppose argue that Snape's actions towards Petunia may have increased her hatred towards wizards, although I do realize that this is way too remote.



Pippin:
<SNIP>
Surely you are not claiming it's Snape's fault that Petunia hated her sister?
Maybe if Lily had known how important Petunia was going to be, she'd have gone
easy on the frogspawn and the transforming teacups. Come to think of it, Lily
might ask herself if she couldn't have given Snape himself a second chance.

Alla:

See my reply to Montavilla47 above.


Pippin:
I would think that in the Potterverse afterlife you are supposed to become truly
aware of your own shortcomings, not other people's.

Alla:

That would make sense, wouldn't it? Unfortunately I have not noticed Dumbledore being truly aware of quite a lot of his own shortcomings, so I am not sure what are you basing it on.

I know spirits who came to help Harry in the walk in the forest came to help for specific task and I would not ask of them to do anything else, but still I have not noticed much of beating in the chest from them.

Pippin:
Yes, maybe Voldemort would retire to Sussex and take up beekeeping ;) But if
James and Lily did not think the defeat of Voldemort was worth the risk of their
child growing up without them, they were fools to have joined the Order in the
first place. I do not think they would be such cowards that they don't care how
many other people suffer to stop Voldemort as long as their family escaped. But
maybe you do not see that as cowardice?

Alla:

Yes, Lily and James signed up for the risk and the possibility of being killed by Voldemort. I do not  believe that they signed up for being grateful to Snape for helping this certain death of them to happen.

JMO,

Alla






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 00:28:37 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:28:37 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <h0crps+u8tm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0f1jl+o6ne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186911

> Magpie:
> I can see some sense in it too. It's not as illogical as for instance (imo) Voldemort's plan in GoF, for instance. But it's just I would never buy it as Dumbledore's actual motivation, because being Dumbledore he'd jump on this reason because it was the one that led him keep the secret. I can't imagine him giving the alternative any fair consideration--he probably wouldn't even realize he wasn't. The choice where he keeps the secret is always the obvious choice for Dumbledore since he, personally, feels safer, more secure, happier, whatever when he's got more knowledge than everyone else. I think the whole idea would inspire a general unease in him he could easily tell himself was about other people rather than his own issues.

Alla:

You know, I thought about it and I realized that this motivation alone while as you said pretty well established in canon is just too ugly for me if that makes sense? And yes, you are probably completely right and I am just deluding myself, but I still want to believe that there is SOME sort of goodness left in Dumbledore. And to me to keep such secret just for the sake of keeping secrets while so much good could have been accomplished by NOT keeping this secret IMO is just ugly.

I mean, again I totally agree that it is established in canon, his need to keep secrets, but my thing is Dumbledore is not really a one trick pony, no? I mean, not always at least lol. I am just saying why can't he have two or three or more motivations? People do have complex motivations, no? And yes, sure, sometimes there is a part of motivation for doing something that is in our subconscious is the one that we do not want to even confess to ourselves, but at the same time there are also motivations which are good and we think we act according to them even if it is not the whole truth.

In Tigana for example when prince releases the wizard from binding he says that he realized that there are limits as to how far he is willing to go even for the cause (Ugh, hate him lol).

So, all nice and good, I however think that the real reason he did so is because he realized that the guy whom he enslaved is a great guy who will join their cause anyway (guess what? He does) and accordingly I thought that this prince has a tendency to lie to himself, you know? I thought it was pretty well established in the text that he wants to see himself, NEEDS to see himself as a great person, etc.

That was my interpetation, still is of course, I am not saying that those were Guy Gavriel Kay's intentions necessarily.

What I am trying to say is that I thought that Prince was lying to himself and to us readers as to his motivations. But then I had a discussion with Zgirnius about this book (we both love it and we talk a lot lol) and she pointed to me that who says that Prince cannot have ALL of those motivations. He does not need to spell them all out, no?


Does that make sense what I am trying to say?

If I do not find the reason for keeping a secret to be plausible, I will say so and the one that Pippin originally suggested that it will backfire on Dumbledore and other half bloods I found to be incredibly implasible. But this one? I think it makes sense, and even if as you said Dumbledore will just lie to himself and this is not really a reason, I am just thinking, why can't he have several reasons?

But I do realize that I am probably deluding myself.

JMO,

Alla

Oh believe me, it is not like I thought of Dumbledore's character




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 01:04:59 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:04:59 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0esjk+tf68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0f3nr+8mmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186912

Alla wrote:
<snip>
> Just to stress it one more time,  ? NO, I do not think that Lily and James' souls or spirits or whatever will be holding grudges against Snape. I think they will grant him forgiveness. It is the **gratefulness** I am disagreeing with.
> 
> As to various people responsible for Lily and James' death and Harry being left alone, the way I see it, each of those people are responsible for their **own** choices. To me the thing is ? it is a possibility that without Snape making his choice first none of those people MAY have had a reason to exercise his.
<snip>
> 
> Sirius is responsible for suggesting that plan, sure, but sorry, I cannot put him high on the list for wanting his friends safer. Although, before you say anything, say he is very responsible for that ? again, without Snape's reporting Prophecy, they may not have NEED to go into hiding, accordingly such suggestion may have not been needed at all.
> 
> And then we have Voldemort and Wormtail. And I will still say that even though one of them is a murderous maniac and another one is stinking traitor, I will still say that without Snape starting all that, there is  a chance that they would not have made their choices. Now of course with Voldemort it is highly likely that he would have gone after Potters anyway, but I remain convinced that such encounter would not have HAD TO end in their deaths. After all three of the previous ones did not.
> 
> All that I am saying that Snape's actions decreased the possible scenarios very very significantly and increased the death one a lot.
> 
> I think that Wormtail is actually the one who would have acted anyway, if Sirius' claim that he was passing the information for the year was true, so I guess I hold Snape less responsible for Wormtail than for Voldemort, if that makes sense.
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, Lily and James signed up for the risk and the possibility of being killed by Voldemort. I do not  believe that they signed up for being grateful to Snape for helping this certain death of them to happen.

>
Carol responds:
But, again, if any other DE had reported the Prophecy to Voldemort, all three would have died because there would have been no chance for Lily to live and consequently, no love magic. (As I said, I don't think that Lily and James should be grateful to Snape for that. The gratitude I think they should feel is for his saving Harry later.) 
But, still, it's better than all three being dead, as would have happened if any other DE had been the spy.

And, of course, the Potters wouldn't have gone into hiding at all if Snape hadn't gone to Dumbledore and begged him to hide "her/them," It's not Snape's fault that the Potters didn't accept Dumbledore's offer to become Secret Keeper (which would have saved all three but left no Prophecy Boy), nor is it Snape's fault that they switched to an untrustworthy Secret Keeper rather than Sirius Black (who would have died rather than reveal their Secret--though given what happened with the 12 GP Secret, they might have been discovered and killed after his death). It's Wormtails' fault, and Wormtail's only, that Wormtail betrayed the Potters, all three of whom would have died thanks to him had it not been for Voldemort's broken promise to Snape and the consequent love magic of Lily's sacrifice. And it's Voldemort's fault, and Voldemort's only, that he chose to kill the Prophecy family in the first place. He could have waited until the Prophecy Boy showed himself and posed a threat. Instead, he chose (to his own detriment) to try to nip the Prophecy in the bud through a triple murder.

Had there been no Prophecy, the Potters might have died, anyway, perhaps Harry along with them as Marlene McKinnons children died along with her. Certainly, there would have been nothing to prevent Voldemort's rise to power, and he would not have become Vapor!mort. Instead, the Prophecy allowed good to come out of evil; yes, the Potters were killed, but that didn't prevent the whole WW (except McGonagall, to her credit) from celebrating the downfall of Voldemort. His foolish attempt to thwart the Prophecy (instead of ignoring it or letting it fulfill itself over time) gave the WW fourteen years of peace. (Just to be clear, I'm not talking about reasons for the Potters to be grateful here. I'm sure they would much rather he had not killed them!) And that would not have happened had it not been for Voldemort's broken promise to Snape. Had Voldemort not acted to thwart the Prophecy (and killed Lily despite his promise to Snape), he would not have fulfilled another portion of the Prophecy, marking Harry as the one with the power to destroy him and (to paraphrase Snape under different circumstances), handing him weapons.

So it's true that had Snape not reported the Prophecy, matters would have been very different. But they would have been even worse if he had not asked Voldemort not to kill Lily. Because he did, and because Voldemort broke his promise to Snape, Harry, not Lily, survived. And Harry, it turns out (no credit to Snape, much less Voldemort, who could not foresee the consequences of their actions), Harry acquired a scar with a soul bit in it and a link to Voldemort that made his defeat possible.

But it's also true that reporting the Prophecy alone was not sufficient to bring about the Potters' deaths, even setting aside the possibility that LV might have interpreted it differently. Snape went to Dumbledore for help, and had the Potters accepted DD as their SK, they would have lived. If they had accepted Sirius Black as their SK, they might also have lived; at any rate, he would not have betrayed them, whatever happened after LV or the DEs found and killed him. If Wormtail had not betrayed their trust, they might also have been safe. (Why they didn't ship him off to Egypt or China, I don't know.) But the combination of circumstances caused Snape's and DD's combined efforts to protect them to fail--and the Prophecy to come true, at least as far as making Harry "the one with the power," despite their efforts and despite DD's ostensible disbelief in prophecies.

I'm sorry if it seems that I'm going around in circles and not responding directly to your post. My point is that Snape's reporting the Prophecy did *not* result in certain death. James, to be sure, was always marked for death, but Lily might have survived and Harry *did* survive, as he would not have had the DE been anyone other than Snape. And one Snape went to Dumbledore, *all three* Potters had a chance to survive, and might well have done so had the Potters not switched to an unworthy Secret Keeper, who betrayed to their deaths *despite* Snape's and DD's best efforts to protect them.

Imagine what might have happened if Snape had not gone first to Voldemort to ask him to spare Lily and then to DD--if, that is, he had acted like any other DE. Voldemort would have killed all three Potters with no obstacles and there would have been no one to fulfill the Prophecy--no vaporization, no scar, no respite for the WW, no DDM!Snape, no Chosen One, no story.

Carol, who thinks that's what's important here, besides forgiveness and redemption through atonement, is the unintended consequences of the characters' actions and, specifically, good coming out of evil




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Jun  7 01:43:25 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:43:25 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0e063+hhjk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0f5vt+fi33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186913


> > Magpie:
> > And why does Riddle want to leave his past behind? Because it helps him to be Voldemort. So why's it obviously a bad thing to make that difficult? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Because Dumbledore believes the things that people want most are the worst for them. Dumbledore's strategy often consists of encouraging Voldemort to go after things that won't really help him reach his goals, or will at least require stealth, and therefore not  acts of mass murder, to achieve. 

Magpie:
Very true to a point (and definitely a method we've seen Dumbledore use), but when what somebody wants is to terrorize and hurt that many people there's something to be said for other plans than letting him takeover so he'll learn it won't really make him happy. Sometimes throwing a monkey wrench into things can be helpful too. But Dumbledore thinking along these lines *does* actually also fit the way I see him behaving. He's treating it like a battle of wills b/w him and Voldemort--it kind of reminds me of Draco 6th year just a little.

 
> Magpie:
> He's already terrorizing everyone. We know Voldemort doesn't want to be ordinary. He doesn't want anyone to think of him as ordinary or human. That might make them feel less helpless.
> 
> Pippin:
> You seem to be conflating two different parts of Voldemort's career. He did not want to be openly known as a terrorist when he first returned. 

Magpie:
I was talking about the first war. 

In the second war Dumbledore actually did go with the "monkey wrench" idea by saying that he'd returned when Voldemort himself didn't want it known.

> > Magpie:
> > They'd be a lot safer if it was common knowledge, then. Killing them isn't going to kill the secret anymore. Shouldn't there be skads of them?
> 
> Pippin:
> As you say, Voldemort thinks in symbols. He wouldn't care about killing the secret logically, he'd want to kill it symbolically. There are skads of Muggles and Muggleborns too, but does anyone doubt that Voldemort's eventual purpose was to kill them all?

Magpie:
No, he wouldn't think logically. But I was countering the idea that people knowing that Voldemort=Tom Riddle=Voldemort murdering everyone he knew because that would be the most logical, efficient response. I don't think it necessarily is the most logical or efficient response.


> > Pippin:
> > > 
> > > But Dumbledore believes that Voldemort's weaknesses lie in those parts of his history and his knowledge of magic which he has always discounted. 
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > Not with any specifics until quite late in the game, iirc. Without the Horcrux knowledge from CoS is there a plan to ferret out information like this for a real reason? 
> 
> Pippin:
> The knowledge from CoS was that Voldemort had to have made *more than one* horcrux. Dumbledore would have suspected the existence of one horcrux at least since Godric's Hollow. And before that, he was trying to prove to the WW that Voldemort was a murderer. I assumed that was why he had collected the memories of  Morfin and Hokey.

Magpie:
So when the guy's defeated the first time he knows he's got a Horcrux and he has all his information but still hasn't found an object he thinks is a Horcrux. He didn't have to prove to anybody that Voldemort was a murderer. Everyone knew he was a murderer (and had over a decade of safety in front of them). Trying to get Morfin and Hokey out of jail was a side issue. 
 
> Magpie:
> And even if he had developed this hobby earlier, why not let some other people in on it?
> 
> Pippin:
> He did! He attempted to convince people that Riddle/Voldemort had been responsible for the Riddle murders and for the death of Hepzibah, but he didn't get anywhere. 

Magpie:
I was confused by this at first as I couldn't remember when Dumbledore went public with this info. Now I see what you meant is that Dumbledore tried to get them exonerated. Yes, he did-but that's a different context than what I'm talking about. 

Though it does rather undermine the idea that Dumbledore is afraid of Voldemort knowing that he's investigating. Wouldn't getting those two freed by a bigger signal than anything that he was hot on Voldemort's trail? His behavior still seems to fit the psychological reading, where Dumbledore is keeping everything secret because he just compulsively does that and comes up with reasons for it, but when faced with somebody in jail etc. he'll try to get them out even though it would be a red flat to LV that he knew what he'd done.

 
> Magpie:
>  Frankly, it's a bit of a cheat to say nobody studied the guy and wrote an indepth biography in Harry's childhood anyway.
> 
> Pippin:
> I'm sure Voldemort invented a past that was more to his liking, and that's what's in books like The Rise and Fall of the Dark Arts.

Magpie:
Which is why I meant I was surprised somebody didn't write an actual biography. 

> Pippin:
> It's true that he has a deep psychological need to keep secrets, but he also has a deep psychological need to see himself as reasonable and good. As I said, he did try to reveal what he'd found out in order to free Morfin and Hokey. 

Magpie:
Yes, he said he did try to free them, but that's not what I meant.

Dumbledore does of course want to see himself as reasonable and good. But since he also sees himself as smarter than anyone and doesn't have any equal confidantes he relies on his own self to tell him when he's being those things. And sometimes he's just wrong. I see that as motivated throughout the entire series. He isolates himself so he winds up encouraging his own obsessions and weaknesses (all the while thinking he's avoiding them).

Pippin:
> 
> It's not a fan invention that people who knew things about Voldemort  thought they'd be in danger if they talked about it. It's canon. And there are at least two whom Dumbledore would be sorry to lose: Slughorn and Hagrid. 

Magpie:
Yes, and I have never meant to imply that there was no danger in this. I do see the danger. I just don't see Dumbledore muzzled by that. I think his secrecy is far more influenced by himself.

Alla:

You know, I thought about it and I realized that this motivation alone while as you said pretty well established in canon is just too ugly for me if that makes sense? And yes, you are probably completely right and I am just deluding myself, but I still want to believe that there is SOME sort of goodness left in Dumbledore. And to me to keep such secret just for the sake of keeping secrets while so much good could have been accomplished by NOT keeping this secret IMO
is just ugly.

Magpie:
I doubt he actually thought if it that way. He just does this so often! DH has him leaving instructions for people via symbols in fairy tale books.

Alla:
I mean, again I totally agree that it is established in canon, his need to keep secrets, but my thing is Dumbledore is not really a one trick pony, no? 

Magpie:
Well, most people in canon pretty do have their one thing they do--or at least their big stumbling block. Since JKR wants him to do this kind of stuff and sees him as the epitome of goodness I doubt she thinks it's ugly either. Maybe she shares his feeling that he needs to know everything. Nobody in canon ever questions it or suggests he's struggled with it.

Alla:
I mean, not always at least lol. I am just saying why can't he have two or three or more motivations? 

Magpie:
He does. He would never say to himself "I'm going to keep this secret because I love secrets!" He'd have all these reasons if anybody asked. He'd probably defend them really well, and never think of himself as anybody who wouldn't do the right thing for all the right reasons.

And it's not like he *isn't* working hard to find this secret info and everything, or in the end doesn't use it to bring down Voldemort. It's like Voldemort. If you asked him why he made up that stupid plan in GoF he would never see anything stupid in it. It would truly seem to him to be the only plan that truly got him what he wanted. If somebody has any questions about the logic of it he'd get angry and think they were stupid and didn't see the obvious problems with it.

Likewise, I'm sure if anybody said to Dumbledore "Why don't you ever call him Tom Riddle in the press? Why not write his biography?" Dumbledore would look grim and say "That would put many people in danger." And he'd totally believe it. I don't think he'd much be able to entertain a more open plan. It would truly seem dangerous and foolhardy to him, I'd think. He thinks it's terribly important that Harry and his two friends be the only ones who know how to bring down Voldemort and do it themselves.

We all seem to agree he's got a thing with keeping secrets. We all also probably agree that he's smart and always has a good "practical" reason for keeping them. It's just the former always seems to me to be influencing the latter, even when we can see things would have been easier if he (or others) had come clean. He tries to make the best choice, but he's always limited by his usual limitations.

It's like Snape with Harry's Occlumency. Snape really does want Harry to learn Occlumency, and would probably say he did everything he could to teach him and being what many people would describe as "nice to him" would be a terrible idea that wouldn't work etc.

-m




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 02:09:22 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:09:22 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0esjk+tf68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0f7gi+quud@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186914

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Montavilla47:
> A lot of people contributed to James and Lily being killed and Harry
> being left alone. Those people include Sybil, Snape, Dumbledore,
> Peter, and Sirius. Oh, and Voldemort.
> 
> If Lily and James were likely to hold grudges after death, they'd
> need to hold them against all those people. Snape might be high
> on that list, but he's hardly the number one person responsible.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Where did I say that Lily and James were likely to hold grudges after death at all???
> 
> In fact in the very post you are replying to I said this :
> 
> "No, I do not think they should hold grudge for all
> eternity, although I would be delighted to see them punch Snape, but that's my
> own satisfaction."
> 
> So to be clear, again, I do not think they will be holding grudges, it is just to me there is a question of degree between forgiving and being grateful.

Montavilla47:

I beg your pardon.  I was assuming that the only thing that
would interfere with their being "grateful" to Snape for the 
times that he saved Harry and for giving his life in service
to the Order would be that they were holding a grudge 
because he told Voldemort about the Prophecy.

My mistake.



Alla:
> As to various people responsible for Lily and James' death and Harry being left alone, the way I see it, each of those people are responsible for their **own** choices. To me the thing is ? it is a possibility that without Snape making his choice first none of those people MAY have had a reason to exercise his.

Montavilla47:
True, but you can take it back from there.  If, for example, 
Dumbledore had chosen to interview Trelawney at the castle
instead of the Hogshead, then Snape would not have overheard
the Prophecy and wouldn't have had to make the decision about
taking the information to Voldemort.

Or, if Sybil had simply eaten a hearty meal that evening,
she would not have been so light-headed and might never
have made the Prophecy in the first place.

Or, if Voldemort had not decided to recruit an army of 
wizards to start a reign of terror, there would have been
no need to vanquish him.  If all he'd done was to murder
a few people, it's quite likely that the wizarding world 
would have ignored him completely.

And thus, Snape would never have been recruited and
wouldn't have felt any pressure to deliver prophetic 
bits of information to him.

Also, if Merope hadn't made the love potion and
seduced Tom Riddle, then Voldemort would never
have been born.  Or, if Tom Riddle hadn't stayed in
his home town, but left for school and then traveled to
South Africa to set up a coffee plantation, then Merope
would never have fallen in love with him.

Obviously, Snape is more to blame than anyone else
(except, I think, Merope), because he did a deliberate
act of ill will, I think it's a bit much to give him primary
blame for the deaths of Lily and James, because the 
primary cause was Voldemort.  

Everything else is secondary to that.


Alla: 
> Oh and could you please clarify how exactly Dumbledore is responsible for Lily and James being killed? I hold him responsible a plenty for how he decided Harry's fate, but no, I do not hold him responsible for their deaths at all.


Montavilla47:
He knew he was seeing a true prophecy when he 
heard it.  He knew that, whether it was a true prophecy
or not, Voldemort was likely to take it seriously and
act upon it.  (If Snape knew that much, so did Dumbledore.)

He knew that the Hogshead was filled with shady 
characters, who might or might not be, but probably
were, connected to Dark Wizardry and probably close
enough to Voldemort to come into his purview.  

He knew that Snape had overheard at least part of the
prophecy.  

As J.Odell's essay points out, Dumbledore had sanctioned
obliviation (to a child!) for far less reason than to save a 
life.  

But he doesn't bother to check what Snape had overheard--
doesn't bother to obliviate that information from a likely
Death Eater or Death Eater associate?  He just lets the 
fellow toddle off to tattle to Voldemort?

That seems to me as irresponsible as Sirius pushing 
Peter as a Secret Keeper.

As you say, Sirius isn't in the first rank of responsibility
for that blunder.  And I wouldn't say that Dumbledore was
majorly responsible for what happened to Lily and James.

But I would say that he was somewhat responsible.

Alla:
> And then we have Voldemort and Wormtail. And I will still say that even though one of them is a murderous maniac and another one is stinking traitor, I will still say that without Snape starting all that, there is  a chance that they would not have made their choices. Now of course with Voldemort it is highly likely that he would have gone after Potters anyway, but I remain convinced that such encounter would not have HAD TO end in their deaths. After all three of the previous ones did not.
> 

Montavilla47:
See, I realize that we are discussing opinions and neither of us
is "right" about this, but I can't help seeing Peter as *more* 
responsible.  Snape knew that he was delivering important 
information to Voldemort, but he really didn't know what 
Voldemort was going to do with that information.  I don't think
he cared what Voldemort did with it.

But Peter definitely knew that breaking the secret keeper charm
would result in the deaths of James, Lily, and Harry.  

And Voldemort not only knew that, but he intended to do that 
by his own hand.  Which makes him the *most* responsible
person.  He's the one with the most choice in the matter--and
he chose to murder not only the baby who threatened him, but 
both of the child's parents (which he didn't need to do at all).

And, if Voldemort was *already* after the Potters as members of
the Order of the Phoenix, then Snape's telling Voldemort 
about the prophecy had only two real effects:  

1.  It bumped the Potter up from "kill if you get the chance"
to "kill NOW!"

2.  It gave Snape the leverage to ask that Lily be spared.

In Snape's mind, that may have seemed like a good 
outcome.  If he doesn't tell Voldemort about the prophecy,
then James and Lily will eventually be killed.  If he does
tell Voldemort about the prophecy, Voldemort might be
grateful enough take Lily off the DE hit list.

It's still skeevy, because Snape had to know he was 
endangering some unknown child.  But it wasn't the action
most directly responsible for the deaths of James and Lily.

Nor was it the first action in the chain.  There were plenty
of choices that took place before Snape heard the prophecy
that might have prevented his choice.






From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 02:16:04 2009
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:16:04 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <h0f1jl+o6ne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0f7t4+87el@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186915

> Magpie:
> I can see some sense in it too. It's not as illogical as for instance (imo) Voldemort's plan in GoF, for instance. But it's just I would never buy it as Dumbledore's actual motivation, because being Dumbledore he'd jump on this reason because it was the one that led him keep the secret. I can't imagine him giving the alternative any fair consideration--he probably wouldn't even realize he wasn't. The choice where he keeps the secret is always the obvious choice for Dumbledore since he, personally, feels safer, more secure, happier, whatever when he's got more knowledge than everyone else. I think the whole idea would inspire a general unease in him he could easily tell himself was about other people rather than his own issues.
> <snip>

lizzyben:

Jumping back in here, just wanted to say I agree w/Magpie's points. IMO the real reason DD kept the secret of Voldemort's identity is just that - DD can't not keep secrets. It's his nature. The more potentially powerful or important the information, the more DD will feel driven to keep it to himself, because doing so increases his *own* power and importance. For DD, his need for secrets is bound up in his need for power, and one feeds the other. 

The secret of Voldemort's identity is arguably THE biggest secret in the Wizarding World, so of course DD will not want to share it. If only DD knows Voldemort's real identity, DD becomes "the only one Voldemort fears" & that's quite a powerful position. In a world where everyone else can't even speak the name, DD is the only one able to call him "Tom" w/complete nonchalance. While people fear LV, they will stand in awe of DD. This makes him better than others, which feeds his ego, & also gives him a power over both Voldemort & the rest of the wizarding world. Why *would* DD share that information? 

And of course he's got rationalizations, etc. but none of them really hold water. And it's all revealed in that telling little moment, when DD insists that everyone else call Riddle by his "proper name": "Lord Voldemort". Why? DD says it is because "fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself." And this is true. "Lord Voldemort" is the name Riddle created for *himself* to inspire fear & horror, thereby increasing people's fear of him. The name of "Tom Riddle", half-blood, Head Boy at Hogwarts, does not inspire the same terror.

So DD insists that all others use the fearsome, horrifying name Riddle created, thereby increasing fear of the thing itself. DD alone does not fear him, and so keeps the "proper name" of Tom Riddle to himself. By insisting that "Lord Voldemort" is his "proper name," DD feeds into the persona that Riddle has created - that Voldemort is a monster, inhuman, aristocratic, invincible. So, in the guise of trying to stop popular fear of Voldemort, DD is actually encouraging it. All while probably believing that he is doing everything possible to end Voldemort's regime. What I love about DD is the way he keeps secrets & lies from *himself* & that's what makes him such an interesting character.


lizzyben




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 04:03:51 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:03:51 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0f7gi+quud@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0fe77+4736@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186916

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
But he doesn't bother to check what Snape had overheard--
doesn't bother to obliviate that information from a likely
Death Eater or Death Eater associate? He just lets the
fellow toddle off to tattle to Voldemort?

That seems to me as irresponsible as Sirius pushing
Peter as a Secret Keeper. <SNIP>

Alla:

Absolutely! If he **does not bother** to check what Snape overheard, he is bearing part of the blame for Potters deaths, I totally agree.

The thing is, I really do not think canon tells us with certainty that he **does not bother** to check.

While I will be the first one to say that JKR's assessment of Dumbledore's mistakes is not as big as mine, I think it is still established in canon that he does make a lot of mistakes.

Are you sure that this could not have happened at all? Dumbledore who thinks that Divination is extremely unreliable discipline goes to interview Sybill and shocked to hear a true prophecy, and by shock I mean that he just does not react as fast as he would have reacted ordinarily?

Maybe he just did not know what he wanted to do and Snape already dissapparated. Maybe since Ariana's death, he is really not as trigger happy in the places where there are a lot of civilians and he was afraid to accidentally hit somebody with the curse.

I never bought the theory of Dumbledore deliberately letting Snape to get away and let Snape talk to Voldemort, probably because despite all his faults I did not see Dumbledore as a monster.

However, if he DID do that and I certainly cannot disprove it, you get no arguments from me, Dumbledore IS responsible for Potters deaths.


Montavilla47:
See, I realize that we are discussing opinions and neither of us
is "right" about this, but I can't help seeing Peter as *more*
responsible. Snape knew that he was delivering important
information to Voldemort, but he really didn't know what
Voldemort was going to do with that information. I don't think
he cared what Voldemort did with it.

But Peter definitely knew that breaking the secret keeper charm
would result in the deaths of James, Lily, and Harry.

Alla:

I just cannot buy that Snape did not know what Voldemort will do with it, I know I said it before, but what exactly Snape would think happen ? Voldemort will invite the prophecy couple for tea and make best buds with them? Sarcasm is directed at Snape here, not at you!

But of course Peter is responsible in a major way for their deaths, I am NOT taking off his responsibility from him, I am just holding him responsible for his own choices, as you said he had to know what will happen if he betrays ? death, etc, to follow.

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
Obviously, Snape is more to blame than anyone else
(except, I think, Merope), because he did a deliberate
act of ill will, I think it's a bit much to give him primary
blame for the deaths of Lily and James, because the
primary cause was Voldemort. <SNIP>


Alla:

I just want to be sure, because I cannot exclude the possibility that you are joking before I am sure. You are seriously saying that Dumbledore choosing to interview Trelawney not in the castle can be considered first act in the chain?

If this is a serious argument, then I just disagree. I consider the first act to be the act of what you called the act of ill will and that was Snape's in my opinion.

HOWEVER, again, to be clear I do NOT give Snape's primary responsibility for James and Lily's deaths. Of course it lies with Voldemort. I hold Snape responsible for starting the chain of events that lead to their deaths, starting it with the act of ill will. So, sure, if we were to put a list of who is primary responsible for Potters' **deaths**, I would put Snape as number three, after Voldemort and Peter. But if we were to put a list of people who made Potters' deaths **possible**, on that list for me Snape is number one, or at the very least he shares this place with Voldemort and nobody else comes even close. IMO of course.

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
Nor was it the first action in the chain.  There were plenty
> of choices that took place before Snape heard the prophecy
> that might have prevented his choice.

Alla:

I just disagree, to me Snape's choice was the first one that truly mattered.

JMO,

Alla






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 04:19:31 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:19:31 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape _really_ hate Harry?
In-Reply-To: <h0csav+1o6s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ff4j+5420@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186917

> Frank D: 
> I'd appreciate it if the HPfGU list members could consider and discuss
> the article's ideas as set forth below.

Zara:
I read this essay at some point between the publication of HBP and DH (and found it very well-written and interesting). Even then, though, I found the claim that there is a contradiction between the statements of Trelawney and Dumbledore about the circumstances in which the Prophecy was given was not likely to be true (as I have no difficulty constructing a course of events consistent with both statements). This aspect was discussed on this list before DH came out. And again after. I think this is the clearest post in which I explain what I think happened and how it is consistent with both statements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/171052

The conclusion that Snape was likely recruited by Albus before he became a Death Eater (in the aftermath of the Prank, in fact), I found an interesting and new idea at the time, but I consider it to have been refuted by DH canon. From "The Prince's Tale" I gather than after being dropped by Lily as a friend, Severus became a Death Eater for his own reasons, and approached Albus for help once he learned that Voldemort planned to kill Lily (the Potters). Their first meeting shown in that chapter, is between just the two of them; there is no reason for them to put on acts. Severus expresses the opinion that his life may be in danger from Dumbledore, for example, which I find inconsistent with a supposition he is already at that time Albus's mole in the Death Eater organization and his most valued young protege.

> J. Odell's essay:
> And if this is so, we can now finally conclude that the biggest
> reason that Snape so hated Harry?-and he did sincerely hate
> Harry?-had
> very little to do with James, much as Snape honestly loathed James.
> Harry had taken his place. 

Zara:
Right, only if we accept DH canon, Snape did not have this ongoing reltionship with Albus as his mentor from some point in his fifth year at Hogwarts, so Harry was not taking his place. 

> J. Odell's essay:
> Or at a last resort, that it was about Lily. But it
> wasn't. It really was all about Harry, especially by the end.

Zara:
Except that it really was. Always. DH canon again! It seems to me that what we have instead is that Snape's issues with Harry do stem from the fact that he is the son of the woman Snape loved by a man he despised, and to make matters worse, reminds him of that guy.

Oh, in your intro you mentioned the word "supplant". A propos of nothing, the meaning of the name "James" is "he who supplants".




From lealess at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 16:44:16 2009
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:44:16 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0f7gi+quud@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0gqp0+pn3b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186918

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Alla: 
> > Oh and could you please clarify how exactly Dumbledore is responsible for Lily and James being killed? I hold him responsible a plenty for how he decided Harry's fate, but no, I do not hold him responsible for their deaths at all.
> 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> He knew he was seeing a true prophecy when he 
> heard it.  He knew that, whether it was a true prophecy
> or not, Voldemort was likely to take it seriously and
> act upon it.  (If Snape knew that much, so did Dumbledore.)

Dumbledore assumed that Voldemort would act on it, certainly.  Dumbledore assumes/projects that Snape knew that, as well.  But was it a reasonable expectation?  I don't think we have enough facts about Voldemort's actions at this time, or how Snape experienced them, to assume that. Yes, the people in the Order defied Voldemort. Yes, Death Eaters were killing Order members in overwhelming numbers. Snape would not necessarily have connected those things with the prophecy, however.  Fighting the Order and Aurors was business as usual.  The prophecy was something else entirely.

> He knew that the Hogshead was filled with shady 
> characters, who might or might not be, but probably
> were, connected to Dark Wizardry and probably close
> enough to Voldemort to come into his purview.  
> 
> He knew that Snape had overheard at least part of the
> prophecy.  

Dumbledore in the Prince's Tale did not even seem surprised that Snape relayed the prophecy to Voldemort.  He only asked how much Snape told.  Dumbledore in The Lost Prophecy tell us that Snape only knew part of the prophecy, "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches..."  Vanquish merely means defeat.  Had Snape heard the bit about "either must die at the hand of the other," he might have been quicker to realize how Voldemort would have acted on the information.

"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry.  I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned --"

So, I think there's room for speculation on how Snape thought Voldemort would interpret the prophecy, if he thought about it at all.  I can imagine scenarios where he thought giving the information was a good thing, but those are speculation only.

<Snip out of order>
> It's still skeevy, because Snape had to know he was
> endangering some unknown child. But it wasn't the action
> most directly responsible for the deaths of James and Lily.

> Nor was it the first action in the chain. There were plenty
> of choices that took place before Snape heard the prophecy
> that might have prevented his choice.

We really don't know Snape's motivations for relaying the prophecy.  We do know that Dumbledore was not surprised.  Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape was essentially just doing his job as a Death Eater.  Let's assume, then, that Dumbledore was correct and did not blame Snape for doing his job, much as he wouldn't blame Snape for informing on the Death Eaters later, leading to the frustration of Voldemort's plans to grab the prophecy (until Harry stepped in), or failing to overcome his shortcomings to teach Harry Occlumency.  Expectations of human failings are all part of the game Dumbledore plays, and part of life.

Snape did not realize that Voldemort would target the Potters for death.  When Snape realized this, he took action with Voldemort to protect at least Lily, and then went to Dumbledore and swore his life in service to protect Lily and the rest of her family.  The only thing that disgusts Dumbledore is that Snape at the time was shortsighted, thinking only of saving Lily.  He doesn't blame Snape for telling the Prophecy.  Snape blames himself enough for that.

> As J.Odell's essay points out, Dumbledore had sanctioned
> obliviation (to a child!) for far less reason than to save a 
> life.  
> 
> But he doesn't bother to check what Snape had overheard--
> doesn't bother to obliviate that information from a likely
> Death Eater or Death Eater associate?  He just lets the 
> fellow toddle off to tattle to Voldemort?

This is the biggest question for me: why did Dumbledore let Snape leave the Hogs Head without questioning or Obliviating him?  In The Lost Prophecy, Dumbledore seems to almost rub his hands together about the Special Powers bit of the prophecy, that "to attack you [Harry] would be to risk transferring power to you -- again marking you as his equal."  I guess we are back to Chess Master Dumbledore, selling out one generation for the promise of a champion in the next, a champion he didn't want to care about, moreover.

Sorry if I'm more scatterbrained than usual.

lealess




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun  7 16:57:53 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 7 Jun 2009 16:57:53 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/7/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1244393873.483.14138.m4@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186919

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 7, 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/20090607/833f5373/attachment.html>

From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 17:56:07 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:56:07 -0000
Subject: Snape and prophecy WAS: Re: Snape and Marauders
In-Reply-To: <h0gqp0+pn3b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0guvn+r276@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186920

Lealess:
Dumbledore assumed that Voldemort would act on it, certainly. Dumbledore
assumes/projects that Snape knew that, as well. But was it a reasonable
expectation? I don't think we have enough facts about Voldemort's actions at
this time, or how Snape experienced them, to assume that. Yes, the people in the
Order defied Voldemort. Yes, Death Eaters were killing Order members in
overwhelming numbers. Snape would not necessarily have connected those things
with the prophecy, however. Fighting the Order and Aurors was business as
usual. The prophecy was something else entirely. <SNIP>

Alla:

So what do you think Snape thought that Voldemort who wants to live forever and who kills people for less than that will do to the parents of the baby who has a chance to kill him?


I cannot prove or disprove of course what Snape thought since we are not in his head, but again IMO to me the idea that he did not know is just as likely as Harry's flight to Mars.

Lealess:
We really don't know Snape's motivations for relaying the prophecy. We do know
that Dumbledore was not surprised. Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape was
essentially just doing his job as a Death Eater. Let's assume, then, that
Dumbledore was correct and did not blame Snape for doing his job, much as he
wouldn't blame Snape for informing on the Death Eaters later, leading to the
frustration of Voldemort's plans to grab the prophecy (until Harry stepped in),
or failing to overcome his shortcomings to teach Harry Occlumency. Expectations
of human failings are all part of the game Dumbledore plays, and part of life. <SNIP>

Alla:

LOLOL. You make it sound that being a Death Eater is just a legit job as any. I mean, then Voldemort was just doing his job as a leader of the DE when he was killing people left and right. And Death Eaters who were torturing Muggles during World Cup were of course just doing their jobs and should not be blamed for it.

Of course Snape was being a good little Death Eater there, performing his duties. How can I dispute that?

But the way I see it being Death Eater is not a **job**, to me it is a crime and anything that was being done as a Death Eater is a crime and deserves to be condemned.

JMO,

Alla





From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 13:56:04 2009
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:56:04 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <h0f7t4+87el@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ggtk+aq09@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186921

Not replying to anybody in particular .. just a few random thoughts ...

1.	If it is soo important for you (as some wizard in ww - not you the group members ) to know who lv really is, and if you hate soo much to be kept in the dark by a bearded man - why no go out and seek the information yourself rather than waiting for the same bearded guy to broadcast the info on television ? He put all the effort to research it - so those who haven't done so must wait till he choose to release the information. He is not paid by the government to run a public information booth on LV. He is not stopping anybody else to do the same research. On one hand we blame him for not telling people all they need to know - on the other he is blamed for playing parental. Not fair. That's the kind of burden people try to force on intellect (As Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged).

2.	Even if you know LV IS Tom Riddle ? that doesn't change the fact that LV is THE most powerful wizard present ? even DD can only match him when he is at his best ? not beat him. Nobody ever actually defeated him in a duel ( w/o help from elder wands or shared core wand or love magic etc ). Even if you laugh at him ? that will be the last thing you do. So giving this info out will not make much difference. General public is not interested to know who he is. All they care about is keeping him as far as possible from themselves and/or their family. Anyone who cannot be considered as general public has his/her own agenda/plan/interest about LV. That is not going to be affected by a little interview from dd.


My first point may be a little subjective. Being a programmer, I always wander how/why people easily claim other people's brain property as their own, when they have neither paid for it nor given it the effort. Researching a historical info is no less a brain property I guess. Sorry if I am wrong legally.


samajdar_parantap



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 18:54:35 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:54:35 -0000
Subject: Dh reread CH 23
In-Reply-To: <h0col1+6o83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0h2db+gnv2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186922

Alla:
>
> What does put a bit of work our way means here? He worked for us? Or against
us? Or something different? Because this could be an answer i Stan really was a
DE, no?

Zara:
In this context, I believe it means he gave them instructions on things they
could do for pay. Perhaps where to look for people to Snatch to get a reward, or
similar. If he were under Imperius, though, he could do something like that.

Alla:

Thanks Zara and everybody else who responded onlist and offlist! I guess here goes my hope for finally finding out if Stan is a Death Eater or not.




Carol responds:
I have mixed feelings about Grindelwald. Yes, he seems to have felt remorse for
his crimes, and he has unquestionable courage. I admire the way he, a dying,
toothless old man, fearlessly confronts Voldemort, taunting him with his lack of
knowledge and lying to him. <SNIP>But, then there are all those crimes, murder, torture, imprisonment of innocent
people, and whatever else he did
 <SNIP>

Alla:
Oh yes of course, I do agree that he committed so many crimes, but I don't know, I guess she just made me believe his remorse. That does not mean that I would have liked him in RL, I would probably never ever bothered to get close to him and maybe not even believed him, but I believe in this scene.


Carol:
<SNIP>
But to
pile on all those crimes afterward with no restitution other than fifty years in
prison? Does the prison sentence count as a kind of Purgatory to purge his sins
and crimes? <SNIP>

Alla:

Country where I came from is sadly famous for horrific conditions of the prisons. So yeah, if it is as bad, I think it does. By going in such prison you are not just loosing your freedom, which IMO should be punishment enough. You stand a pretty good chance to lose your health, your sanity, and a lot of other things, your mindset will just never be the same. No I never had to spend time in prison back there, but it is pretty much common knowledge.

I mean, of course it counts only if he truly felt remorse IMO.


Carol:
<SNIP>
 I agree that Lucius is acting from pure
self-interest, and it's also clear that his views haven't changed at all. He's
still perfectly willing to follow the DE agenda, to summon Voldemort so he can
kill Harry, which will, he thinks, restore him to his old prestige. (Maybe he'll
even get a new wand!) There's no change in his views of "Mudbloods" and "blood
traitors," either. Voldemort's mistreatment and humiliation of the Malfoys
hasn't yet reached the point where Lucius will cease to be loyal as long as
there's still the chance that loyalty will be rewarded.

His eagerness is an interesting contrast to Narcissa's coldness. Her views on
Pure-blood superiority clearly haven't changed, either, and she, too, is
perfectly willing to hand Harry and his friends over to Voldemort as long as its
in her family's interest to do so. But I don't think at this point she feels any
personal loyalty to Voldemort, who has, to say the least, abused her family's
hospitality (and is about to do worse). Her primary concern, in contrast to
Lucius, is Draco. Voldemort's agenda comes second. For her, I think, obedience
to Voldemort is a practical necessity, not a matter of personal loyalty, but she
has no more sympathy or empathy for Harry and his friends than her husband does. <SNIP>

Alla:

Right, I do agree with basically everything you wrote here, I am just saying that I was thinking about Malfoys at the end, you know?

And if there was a slightest hint that their views indeed changed, I would think JKR would have shown it here. As you say, it does not look that way. I do not know though about Narcissa not feeling personal loyalty to Voldemort anymore, I mean she is certainly not feeling it at the end, but here she is still eager even if in the cold way for him to be pleased if they caught such important fugitives IMO.

I am just thinking that this scene to me shows one more time that even if Malfoys really love each other, they are, how to put it? Very crappy people in my opinion. Funnily, I feel a little bit more for Draco than I would usually do after this reread, he does appear pretty terrorized to me, but older Malfoys? Ugh, I wish they were sent to prison for a long time.

I mean, much was made out of Narcissa not telling Voldie that Harry is alive and I just do not think that there was anything else besides it except wanting to see Draco. I think that if Draco was with her, she would have absolutely told on Harry.


Carol, who likes Alla's selection of quotations here, especially the last two,
both of which are masterful character sketches in miniature (no doubt *intended*
as such by the author but left for the reader to interpret)

Alla:

Thanks.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  7 19:16:14 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:16:14 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0gqp0+pn3b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0h3lu+fief@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186923

Lealess wrote:
> Dumbledore assumed that Voldemort would act on it, certainly.  Dumbledore assumes/projects that Snape knew that, as well.  But was it a reasonable expectation?  I don't think we have enough facts about Voldemort's actions at this time, or how Snape experienced them, to assume that. Yes, the people in the Order defied Voldemort. Yes, Death Eaters were killing Order members in overwhelming numbers. Snape would not necessarily have connected those things with the prophecy, however.  Fighting the Order and Aurors was business as usual.  The prophecy was something else entirely.

Carol responds:
Of course, Voldemort couldn't do anything at all (except worry and ponder and fidget and make other plans, maybe beefing up the DEs' attacks on Order members as a preventive measure) until the end of July when (if he was thinking rationally), he might have consulted the Daily Prophet. He might have spent all that time (nine months, if it really happened on October 31, 1979) contemplating the meaning of the Prophecy. He would certainly have given it more thought that young Snape did. But, assuming that he figured out the identity of the two possible Prophecy boys as soon as he read the birth announcements for the last week of July in the Daily Prophet, he must have spent quite some time trying to figure out which one to choose, and he may have delayed telling Snape even then. It looks like late fall or wintertime again when Snape and DD meet on the hillside--certainly not August (unless summer in England/Scotland is unlike summer in most countries!). So in all that time (about a year), unless Snape also read the birth announcements in the Daily Prophet and started fearing for Lily, he probably didn't give the Prophecy much thought. It was just a job that he had done for Lord Voldemort, much like the job he did later for Dumbledore, in which he reported that Draco Malfoy had been assigned to kill DD. His concern in the first instance would have been for his master, not for the unknown "one with the power" and his family. He could not have known who that "one" would be (though he might have guessed that it would be the child of Order members who were being targeted, anyway) and, being at that time a loyal Death Eater, he wouldn't have cared for anything except the potential danger--a long time in the future, he must have thought--from an as-yet-unborn enemy. Not being Voldemort--superstitious, afraid of death, obsessed with his own safety and power--I doubt that he gave it another thought until he found out that Voldemort intended to kill the Potters. Then it became real--and personal.

(Side note: It took Voldemort an inordinate amount of time even after he'd decided to target the Potters. Couldn't he have killed them at any time before they went into hiding? Or did DD send them to Godric's Hollow as soon as Snape told him they were in danger, perhaps a whole year before they were killed? And, if so, why didn't he suggest the Fidelius Charm right away? Or, if he did, why did it take them so long to perform it, regardless of who they chose as SK? Meanwhile, Snape was doing "anything," risking his life to provide information to Dumbledore, and Peter was doing the opposite, protecting his own life by providing information on the Order (everyone but the Potters, apparently--maybe he had a shred of loyalty left?) for a whole year before the Potters were killed. Why did it take so long? It would make more sense plotwise for the Potters to have been killed when Harry was five months old than fifteen. It's just one of those annoying gaps, like Voldemort's two disappearances, that I can't provide a logical explanation for.

Lealess: 
> Dumbledore in the Prince's Tale did not even seem surprised that Snape relayed the prophecy to Voldemort. He only asked how much Snape told.  

Carol:
Right. And that surprises me since no one else seems to know that Snape was a Death Eater at that time. I doubt that he showed up to talk to DD in Death Eater's robes. So DD knew, somehow, that young Snape was a Death Eater (or at least knew that his friends Avery and Mulciber had become DES--they would have made no secret of it--so that would make Snape at least a DE associate) and yet he didn't stop him from reporting the part of the Prophecy that he had heard. But Snape only says that he reported all that he heard--he doesn't say how much that was. DD must know at what point the disturbance outside the door occurred. Essentially, the most he (and LV) could know was that "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord" had by that time been "born as the seventh month dies" to "those who have thrice defied [the Dark Lord]"--nothing about the powers that "the one" would have or "mark[ing] him as his equal." That much DD made sure that LV didn't know.

Now the question is, why would Dumbledore (who ostensibly doesn't believe in prophecies) want LV to have this incomplete information. As others have asked, why didn't he Stun or Obliviate Snape? (Obviously, he couldn't recruit him to his own side then; neither DD nor Snape knew that the Potters would be involved.) Snape may not have known or cared that LV would attack and try to kill a whole family of Order members, or if he suspected that LV would act to preempt the Prophecy, it was, as you said, business as usual for him. But DD, knowing Tom Riddle since his childhood, knowing how he thought, would certainly have known that LV would at least try to kill the child and ought to have cared. The only way I can account for his inaction is by thinking that he must have believed that LV's acting to thwart the part of the Prophecy that he knew about would bring the part he didn't know about to fruition--i.e., it would cause Voldemort to create his own nemesis. He could not have known who the Prophecy boy would be or how that would happen (he certainly could not have anticipated that Snape would plead for Lily's life and that Voldemort would break his promise, enabling Lily to give Harry blood protection through her sacrifice). He must have thought, though, that it was the only way to vanquish Voldemort (who, I think he already knew or guessed from his changed appearance, had created at least one Horcrux)--"the greater good"--the possible deaths of parents already marked for death as Order members to create the means of defeating Voldemort. It sounds cold-blooded and calculating, a calculated risk to someone other than himself, but *if* he knew that Snape was a DE and would report what he had heard to Voldemort, there's no other way to account for his failure to stop him. And, sad to say, I think that would have been true if the DE had been Mulciber or Avery or Lucius Malfoy or even Bellatrix. Or would it? Did he see potential for remorse and repentance in Snape that he would not have seen in some other DE? Did he think that the Prophecy depended in some way on this particular young DE? Again, he couldn't have known any more than Snape did that Lily would be involved, so I'm back to his having a vague hope that the prophecy would somehow backfire on LV (as prophecies in mythology tend to do) if LV tried to thwart it.

So we have Snape, as DD later says, doing his job, with no idea that Lily Potter will be involved, and only coming to regret his action when he finds that she's being targeted, and DD apparently knowing somehow that Snape is a DE (though no one else seems to know it) and letting him reveal the partial Prophecy in the hope that it will be LV's undoing, regardless of consequences to the child and his parents. In this view of events, Snape is merely the messenger, a pawn in DD's plan, even though he must have known that at some point, perhaps soon, perhaps not, LV would go after "the one with the power." As far as he or LV knows, he *already* has the power. Only DD knows that he can acquire the power only *if* LV goes after him. So Snape is far from innocent (though he did not, as Harry later puts it, send LV after his parents), but Dumbledore is knowingly manipulative, knowingly putting innocent people at risk for his own ends, the "greater good."

Does he save lives by doing so? I think he does, actually. The WW has a fourteen-year respite (at the expense of the Potters' lives and Harry's messed-up childhood). But LV is vaporized, the DEs are arrested or go into hiding or claim the Imperius Curse, and no one else except the Longbottoms suffers from their cruelty for a long time. Voldie War I ends, and LV does not take over the MoM or the (British) WW; instead, he goes off to possess rats and snakes in Albania. Good, in short, comes out of evil, at least for the majority of witches and wizards, not to mention Muggles, and at least for the short term, while Harry grows up and LV recoups his strength.

DD (who claims not to understand or believe in divination despite having heard a real prophecy and despite acting as if he does believe it) could not have known exactly how events would fall out. He could only know (as Snape and LV did not) that "the Dark Lord would mark [the Prophecy Boy} as his equal" and that he would "have the power the Dark Lord knows not," which DD would know meant Love. He could not have anticipated coming to love the Prophecy Boy himself. He, like Snape, would only be an instrument for "the greater good."

Lealess wrote:
Dumbledore in The Lost Prophecy tell us that Snape only knew part of the prophecy, "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches..."  Vanquish merely means defeat.  Had Snape heard the bit about "either must die at the hand of the other," he might have been quicker to realize how Voldemort would have acted on the information.

Carol responds:
True, but LV didn't hear that part, either. Maybe, in LV's view, the only way to be "vanquished" was to be killed--which seems odd given that he'd already made all but one of his Horcruxes. Why not think that he was already (to borrow a phrase) the Master of Death and just ignore the Prophecy? Apparently, DD was counting on his paranoia and lack of logic. (What the logically-minded Snape thought, we can't know. Had it been me, I think I would have expected less panic and clearer thinking from the brilliant Lord Voldemort, who had already, as the DEs knew (though they didn't know how), gone farther toward defeating death than anyone before him had done.)

Lealess, quoting: 
> "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry.  I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned --"
> 
> So, I think there's room for speculation on how Snape thought Voldemort would interpret the prophecy, if he thought about it at all.  I can imagine scenarios where he thought giving the information was a good thing, but those are speculation only.

Carol responds:
Ditto. I'm sure he thought that he was doing his duty as a loyal DE, just as he was doing his duty as Dumbledore's man to report that Draco Malfoy had orders to kill DD. The only difference is that he was concerned with the consequences to Draco as well as DD, whereas the unknown, unborn Prophecy child was a mere abstraction. What did it matter to young DE Snape if nameless, faceless people died if the result was a triumph for the Dark Lord and his servants? It's very different when one of the people facing danger has the name and face of the woman he loves. It's a wake-up call, and he spends the rest of his life atoning for that mistaken loyalty, that cold lack of forethought, that blindness to consequences, that indifference to the lives of nameless, faceless people that caused him to endanger the woman he loved--and to protect her son and continue to oppose Voldemort even when his and DD's efforts to protect Lily herself prove vain. 

Lealess: 
> We really don't know Snape's motivations for relaying the prophecy.

Carol responds:
Yes and no. I think we can take it on faith that, as DD said, he was a loyal DE reporting a matter that greatly concerned his master. But what he thought LV would do with that information, we don't know. As I said, I doubt that he gave it much thought until he found out that LV intended to kill the Potters, at which point it ceased to be a matter of no concern to him.

Lealess:
>  We do know that Dumbledore was not surprised.  Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape was essentially just doing his job as a Death Eater.  Let's assume, then, that Dumbledore was correct and did not blame Snape for doing his job, much as he wouldn't blame Snape for informing on the Death Eaters later, leading to the frustration of Voldemort's plans to grab the prophecy (until Harry stepped in), or failing to overcome his shortcomings to teach Harry Occlumency.  Expectations of human failings are all part of the game Dumbledore plays, and part of life.
> 
> Snape did not realize that Voldemort would target the Potters for death.  When Snape realized this, he took action with Voldemort to protect at least Lily, and then went to Dumbledore and swore his life in service to protect Lily and the rest of her family.  The only thing that disgusts Dumbledore is that Snape at the time was shortsighted, thinking only of saving Lily.  He doesn't blame Snape for telling the Prophecy.  Snape blames himself enough for that.

Carol responds:
Agreed, except that I wouldn't consider doing his job a human failing. The human failing was choosing the wrong job and giving his loyalty to the wrong person.

Lealess: 
> This is the biggest question for me: why did Dumbledore let Snape leave the Hogs Head without questioning or Obliviating him?  In The Lost Prophecy, Dumbledore seems to almost rub his hands together about the Special Powers bit of the prophecy, that "to attack you [Harry] would be to risk transferring power to you -- again marking you as his equal."  I guess we are back to Chess Master Dumbledore, selling out one generation for the promise of a champion in the next, a champion he didn't want to care about, moreover.

Carol:
Yes, that's how it sounds to me, too. Unless we consider them all just as pawns in JKR's plot, and I don't like that approach at all.

Carol, who does think that the events at Godric's Hollow made the WW a better place, not only during the fourteen years' respite but ultimately with the creation of "the Chosen One," but still finds the celebration of those events after the Potters' deaths disturbing





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Jun  7 19:41:56 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:41:56 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <h0ggtk+aq09@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0h564+391n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186924

Samajdar_parantap:

> 1.	If it is soo important for you (as some wizard in ww - not you the group members ) to know who lv really is, and if you hate soo much to be kept in the dark by a bearded man - why no go out and seek the information yourself rather than waiting for the same bearded guy to broadcast the info on television ? He put all the effort to research it - so those who haven't done so must wait till he choose to release the information.

Magpie:
That's a different issue. We were talking about why Dumbledore wouldn't want this information to be public. Not why any particular other wizard didn't research the information on his own as best he could. Perhaps many of them did. Maybe there's other wizards sitting on the information too for the same or different reasons. We know of at least one--Slughorn. And he's doing it out of cowardice. DD and Harry have to trick him to get into sharing information that's helpful to bringing LV down--and they do think that he *should* share the information for the greater good. 

But the thread was about Dumbledore, who has a stated goal of wanting to help the WW oppose Voldemort, not wizards that we never see who are complaining that Dumbledore isn't sharing information they don't know he is keeping from them anyway. 

samajdar_parantap:
 On one hand we blame him for not telling people all they need to know - on the other he is blamed for playing parental. Not fair. That's the kind of burden people try to force on intellect (As Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged).

Magpie:
Those are the same things. His not telling people what they need to know is a way of playing parental throughout canon. He decides who can handle what information--he blatantly does this a lot in the series. He never claims the attitude of "why should I have to help anybody with anything?" He seems to more think people should have a responsibility to each other.

samajdar_parantap 
> 2.	Even if you know LV IS Tom Riddle ? that doesn't change the fact that LV is THE most powerful wizard present ? even DD can only match him when he is at his best ? not beat him. Nobody ever actually defeated him in a duel ( w/o help from elder wands or shared core wand or love magic etc ). Even if you laugh at him ? that will be the last thing you do. 

Magpie:
So the last thing the Twins did was put up their You-Know-Poo signs? They were alive and well and running one of the only forms of resistance we saw in DH, which seemed to be doing a lot for morale. Laughing at LV doesn't have to mean laughing in his face when the two of you are alone in a dark alley. It's a normal part of resistance, usually. It helps people be brave.

samajdar_parantap:> 
> My first point may be a little subjective. Being a programmer, I always wander how/why people easily claim other people's brain property as their own, when they have neither paid for it nor given it the effort. Researching a historical info is no less a brain property I guess. Sorry if I am wrong legally.

Magpie:
Nobody's saying that anoyone owns everything (or anything, really) that's in DD's head. The question was about DD's character's motivation since he's already trying to bring LV down without pay. Hermione also does lots of research, only to share it with Harry and Ron, who could have done that research themselves. She might not do that on a homework assignment, but she wouldn't hold the same attitude about the war. (Not that the fact that Voldemort=Tom Riddle required any research on Dumbledore's part.)

-m




From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Jun  7 20:28:49 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:28:49 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0fe77+4736@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0h7u1+6hei@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186925


Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
Obviously, Snape is more to blame than anyone else
(except, I think, Merope), because he did a deliberate
act of ill will, I think it's a bit much to give him primary
blame for the deaths of Lily and James, because the
primary cause was Voldemort. <SNIP>


Alla:

I just want to be sure, because I cannot exclude the possibility that you are joking before I am sure. You are seriously saying that Dumbledore choosing to interview Trelawney not in the castle can be considered first act in the chain?

If this is a serious argument, then I just disagree. I consider the first act to be the act of what you called the act of ill will and that was Snape's in my opinion.

HOWEVER, again, to be clear I do NOT give Snape's primary responsibility for James and Lily's deaths. Of course it lies with Voldemort. I hold Snape responsible for starting the chain of events that lead to their deaths, starting it with the act of ill will. So, sure, if we were to put a list of who is primary responsible for Potters' **deaths**, I would put Snape as number three, after Voldemort and Peter. But if we were to put a list of people who made Potters' deaths **possible**, on that list for me Snape is number one, or at the very least he shares this place with Voldemort and nobody else comes even close. IMO of course.


Julie:
There is an element that I haven't seen brought up yet in this discussion of culpability,
and that is the fact that Snape tried to *undo* his wrong. Yes, he did so primarily for Lily,
and showed no concern about the fate of James or even baby Harry, and Dumbledore
rightly took him to task for that attitude, but I'm sure Snape knew Dumbledore would try
to save them all, not only Lily. He didn't personally care about the Potters' fates outside
of Lily, but Snape had to know full well that his action was going to potentially save all
of three of them. 

For me, Snape's attempt to undo his wrong makes a very big difference in his culpability.
It doesn't erase it of course, but it does mitigate that culpability. Once Snape acted to 
protect the Potters, they were relatively safe from Voldemort, until that was undone by 
Peter. Even then Snape continued to work for Dumbledore for the next 16 years to protect
Harry and to bring about the end of Voldemort (eventually saving those he could along the
way), which also helps to mitigate his culpability (again, not erase or undo it).

I can also agree that Snape is "third" in responsibility (with, if you must apportion it all out,
leaves Dumbledore "fourth" for letting Snape leave with the Prophecy and keeping James'
invisibility cloak, James "fifth" for trusting Peter--and maybe for not letting Dumbledore
be the secretkeeper depending on the reason for that decision--Sirius "sixth" for trusting
Peter, and Lily I suppose would be "seventh" for trusting Peter). 

But I also think about 90% of the responsibility goes to Voldemort and Peter, who never
showed any hesitancy in targeting and killing (Voldemort) nor betraying without remorse 
(Peter) the Potters. Add another 8% to Snape for giving Voldemort the prophecy (which
might have originally been 25%) but then going to Dumbledore and helping him try to
save the Potters. 1% to Dumbledore for being an idiot who manipulates so much he
can't figure out which manipulations will bite him right back in the ass, and a shared
1% to James, Sirius and Lily for youthful stupidity and lack of perception regarding 
Peter. 

As for who made the Potter's death "possible" that is kind of a moot point, since as 
someone else noted, a long chain of events before Snape gave the Prophecy to 
Voldemort led to that point, including everything from Dumbledore bringing Tom to
Hogwarts and basically letting the little psycho do whatever he wanted, to the 
Marauders providing perhaps the final straw that led Snape to join the Death Eaters,
to the Wizarding World being too overpopulated with inbred idiots to deal effectively
with Voldemort and his Death Eaters, ad infintum. Every event, from tiny to large, 
had its effect on the eventual outcome. 

Most importantly IMO, responsibility and blame are two different things. Snape's 
action led directly to the Potters' being targeted.  But his subsequent actions to 
protect the Potters' mitigates his blame in their ultimate deaths. Which I think is
what Lily and James would recognize, the difference between Snape's responsibility
for setting events in motion, and Snape's actual blame for the final result (i.e., their
deaths, Harry's orphan status, and everything that followed from it). And it is what Harry
did recognize when he eventually not only forgave Snape but felt grateful enough 
to Snape to name his second son after him. (Ironically, it seems that Snape was
the only main player that *didn't* see the difference, as he blamed himself until
the end.)

Julie




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jun  7 20:37:59 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:37:59 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h06rv1+4hhm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0h8f7+cls9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186926

 
> Alla:
> Why? You think good person could not have been a bully in his youth?  And James was just as horrible as Snape? I guess to me it really does matter what views they hold and to me the fact that James joined the Order of Phoenix and Snape joined the band of terrorists is what makes one a better person than the other if nothing else.


Potioncat:
I find it hard to believe a bully could turn out good---but I'm open to RL proof. Maybe Pippin is right and James just grew out of it over time. 

Perhaps whatever it was that motivated James to use his magic against others was channelled into use against DEs. Sort of changing his bullying into socially acceptable behavior.

My suggestion before hinged on the value placed on courage. In one book McGonagall speaks well of James and Lily; in another she comments on the trouble James caused in school. I wonder if his courage in the Order caused her to overlook his earlier behavior? 

We know that DD seemed surprised and impressed by Snape's demonstration of courage---years after they had begun their association; and Harry's "forgiveness" of Snape seems to be at least partially based on his admiration of Snape's courage.

That makes me wonder if James the bully was redeemed by his acts of courage? Although we know and Lily knew that James was (at least sometimes) a bully and a rule-breaker...I don't think DD knew the whole story. So he was impressed (imo) by James' courage in saving Severus from a werewolf and may have overlooked some of the other behavior, when he did see it.

I can think of another Head Boy who pulled the wool over a headmaster's eyes.

Yes, James chose the better side at an earlier age than Severus did. Yet Snape also joined the Order and also served it well. If that's our measure of a good person, then both meet it. And no, I wasn't trying to say that James was as bad as Severus. I was just saying that the living James had his faults, yet was esteemed; and I think the adult Snape had his faults but earned respect in the end.


Potioncat, who's read some of the more recent posts in this thread and hopes I tied into them well enough. There's many more to read, and I hope I haven't said something already said that I haven't gotten to. Real life is making it difficult to keep up these days.





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun  7 22:31:14 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:31:14 -0000
Subject: Shunpike/PottersInHiding/SmallFamilies/JamesMoney/MuggleMoney/Prophecy/LVbio
Message-ID: <h0hf3i+d1lr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186927

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186904>:

<< I think that "put a bit of work our way" means that he's an informant like Runcorn at the MoM except on a lower level (reporting to Snatchers rather than to MoM officials). He would probably provide information on runaway Muggle-borns or anyone else that the Snatchers could get a reward for turning in. (What Stan's reward would be is unclear; I suppose that's his job as a junior DE, perhaps without the Dark Mark.) I'm only guessing, but that's what it sounds like to me. However, we still don't know whether he joined willingly or was Imperiused, >>

Stan is such a babbling fool that he could give the Snatchers useful information just by his usual mindless gossip.

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186923>:

<< It took Voldemort an inordinate amount of time even after he'd
decided to target the Potters. Couldn't he have killed them at any time before they went into hiding? Or did DD send them to Godric's Hollow as soon as Snape told him they were in danger, perhaps a whole year before they were killed? And, if so, why didn't he suggest the Fidelius Charm right away? >>

I believe the Potters were in hiding for a year before they were killed. I believe that Peter kept telling LV their hiding place, and Snape kept telling DD that LV knew their hiding place, so DD moved them to yet another hiding place... The pace kept increasing, so eventually LV would act before Snape notified DD, so then DD suggested the Fidelius Charm. As for why he treated the Fidelius Charm as if it were some kind of last resort, it must have more risks than just that if the Secret Keeper dies, the spy can tell LV the Secret, or have some other way of being an expensive spell: if it takes years off the Secret Keeper's life, then Sirius would have been a selfish coward to make Peter do it, but perhaps it takes years off the life of the person who casts it...

All I recall in the way of canon evidence for a year in hiding is Rowling's answers to two times she was asked about Harry's godmother. She said he didn't have a godmother because the ceremony was in such a hurry because the Potters were about to go into hiding (one time) or he didn't have a godmother because the ceremony was while they were in hiding (the other time).

Marianne wildirishrose wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186796>:

<< Why is it in the WW it seems the families are small - 1 maybe 2 children. With the exception of the Weasleys. With WW families that small no wonder the pureblood status would be hard to carry on. >>

I feel sure that two major reasons why Rowling wrote mostly small families are 1) to resemble the modern real world with which she is familiar, 2) to limit the number of characters she had to invent and remember and portray. Even so, she had very many characters to work with.

It may be that wizards live a great deal longer than Muggles. Canon is not very clear on this matter, but IIRC one of Harry's OWL examiners had been one of Dumbledore's OWL examiners, indicating that he'd been in that job for like a hundred years. If their fertility is prolonged in the same ratio as their vigor, wizarding couples could have numerous children, but spaced so as to have only two or three being dependent minors at the same time.

There could be two children the same age with the same surname in the same Hogwarts House, but one's parents are the other one's great-grandparents.

Still, families with inherited wealth might choose to limit the number of children so as not to split the wealth too much. The Muggle English custom is for the oldest son to inherit the family fortune and the other siblings are on their own to earn or marry money to live on, but arrogant wizarding families like the Blacks could feel that it would diminish the glory of their family if some Blacks had to work for a living.

Marianne wildirishrose wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186864>:

<< there was a question how James made his money, considering he spent some time in hiding. It was suggested that he was independently wealthy, and all went to Harry. >>

Marianne, this is a website that makes it easy to find what Rowling said in her interviews through the years: 
<http://www.accio-quote.org/>

JKR herself said that James inherited his money. <http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm>

<<Q:  What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive?

JKR: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both Harry's parents later. >>

The money wasn't the only thing he inherited.

<<Q:  Where did James get his Invisibility Cloak?

JKR: That was inherited from his own father -- a family heirloom! >>

Steve bboyminn wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186865>:

<< I don't think it is a question of how James made his money, the money was already there. So the real question is how James' parents made all that money they left to him. >>

<< I did find it odd that there was no ancestral home and accompanying land for the Potters, nor a business to be
carried on. >>

I suspect the money was made by far more distant ancestors. 

Since DH, we know that that Invisibility Cloak was inherited through the generations from Ignotus Peverell. Maybe some of them used it to be master burglars.

Did DH disprove the theory that the house where the Potters hid in Godric's Hollow was James's ancestral home? Since we learned that the Golden Snitch was invented by Bowman Wright who lived in Godric's Hollow, some have speculated that Bowman Wright was the ancestor who made the money that James Potter inherited. 

And if James really was a Chaser at Hogwarts rather than a Seeker, then him playing with the Snitch in SWM could be a way for him to call attention to his inherited wealth as well as his quick reflexes. However, since Bowman Wright's Famous Wizard card said he was a Half-Blood, if James made a big deal of being descended from him, people wouldn't have said James was a pureblood.

I don't think old wizarding families have to own land. I don't think the Blacks own any land but their house. I imagine it was originally the manor house on their estate, in the countryside where a 'don't think about it' spell was enough to hide an estate, but London grew around them like a fungus, making it too difficult to hide a large amount of land, so they sold the land and hid the house more thoroughly. Of course one could fanfic that they still owned the land, disguised as a Muggle corporation that collected rent from everyone.

<< The Grangers, who are muggles, seem to be able to buy what ever Hermione needs, so certainly that bank can do muggle to wizard, and wizard to muggle money exchange. >>

That's canon. From CoS: "the sight of Hermione's parents, who were standing nervously at the counter that ran all along the great marble hall, waiting for Hermione to introduce them.

"But you're Muggles!" said Mr. Weasley delightedly. "We must have a drink! What's that you've got there? Oh, you're changing Muggle money. Molly, look!" He pointed excitedly at the ten pound notes in Mr. Granger's hand."

There happened to be a question about that in the interview I just quoted: <<Q:  When people trade in Muggle money for Wizard money, what does Gringotts do with the Muggle money?

JKR: Those goblins are sneaky people. They manage to put the Muggle money back into circulation. They are like "fences" -- British slang, do you understand it? >>

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186801>:

<< The thing is, in the Potterverse, living means dying at the appropriate time, which Harry cannot do once Voldemort has taken his blood, >>

But Harry CAN die even after Voldemort has taken his blood -- for example, he could have drowned in the sword-pond. Voldemort having Harry's blood protects Harry only when in the physical presence of Voldemort.

<< The thing is, in the Potterverse, living means dying at the appropriate time (snip) People seem to think this is too tricky or perhaps too sentimental about death >>

Whether it is sentimental about death is irrelevant; what it is *very* tricky. Since canon was completed, it has become apparent that Rowling doesn't read her text as subtly as you do, Pippin, so I feel no confidence that this is the trick that Rowling intended. 

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186877>:

<< We don't know what power is behind the prophetic messages of the Potterverse, but if it can arrange the stars and planets to spell out messages, surely it is no trouble to communicate with Voldemort, and if Snape does not do it someone else will. >>

If real prophecies always come true and this is a real prophecy, then it will come true even if no one repeats it to anyone. If no one had heard the prophecy about Oedipus so that his parents kept him and raised him as a beloved son, he would have killed his father under some other set of circumstances --  accidentally hitting him with a thrown discuss, gathering wild mushrooms for him that accidentally included a poisonous one, going violently mad, or being a nastily ambitious person who wanted to inherit the crown quicker. (I haven't forgotten the 'marry his mother' part, but am too lazy to write anymore Oedipus AU fanfic.)

And if no one had told Voldement about The Prophecy (and it was a real prophecy), it would have come true anyway, just in a different way. Harry's parents could have lived to raise him to a young man who joined the Order and was sent on missions before Voldemort 'marked him as equal' by the Priori Incantatum Effect, and the Power that Voldemort knew not was that the holly and phoenix feather wand fought Voldemort on its own and with unknown spells, rather than Love. And Harry might have been a bit of a 'pampered prince', but he wouldn't have been treated as The Chosen One nor even The Boy Who Lived, because that wouldn't have happened. Of course, then the story would have been much shorter, action-adventure instead of bildungsroman.

And the Order would not have been dropping like flies if Peter's espionage had been eliminated. They wouldn't have had to know that he was the spy to get rid of him by a lucky coincidence, an accidental serious accident, or sending him to America to wait out the war in safety.

Magpie wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186890>:

<< Especially when the guy's been gone for over a decade. In the real world, that seems to be the way it goes, without these dire results. Everybody would want to know about the guy. Frankly, it's a bit of a cheat to say nobody studied the guy and wrote an indepth biography in Harry's childhood anyway. >>

Although Voldemort's been gone well over a decade, the British wizarding folk are still too terrified to say his 'name' and they like not to remember the war. It seems they take a lot longer to get over things than modern Muggles do. If someone did write a biography of Voldemort, no publisher would take it so they'd have to self-publish. No bookshop would take it so they'd have to sell it by owl mail order. And no one would buy it except for kids trying to shock their parents. H'm. Maybe children of Death Eaters would read it to find out what they believed in, and thus decide that they didn't believe in it, so that would be a good but small effect.





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 04:35:04 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:35:04 -0000
Subject: Shunpike/PottersInHiding/SmallFamilies/JamesMoney/MuggleMoney/Prophecy/LVbio
In-Reply-To: <h0hf3i+d1lr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0i4do+jkc3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186928

> Catlady:
> But Harry CAN die even after Voldemort has taken his blood -- for example, he could have drowned in the sword-pond. Voldemort having Harry's blood protects Harry only when in the physical presence of Voldemort.

Zara:
Right, the sense in which Harry cannot live while Voldemort survives is different from the sense in which Voldemort cannot live while harry survives. But there are two different senses that apply. Harry cannot live (as in, lead a normal, boring, peaceful life) while Voldemort survives because of the soul bit and because Voldemort will not rest until Harry is dead.

Whereas Voldemort cannot live while Harry survives in the sense mentioned by Fudge in "The Other Minister" (HBP), that one who cannot die, is not exactly "alive".

> Catlady:
> Whether it is sentimental about death is irrelevant; what it is *very* tricky. Since canon was completed, it has become apparent that Rowling doesn't read her text as subtly as you do, Pippin, so I feel no confidence that this is the trick that Rowling intended. 

Zara:
In this case I think it *is* what she intended all along. The inclusion of the lines of dialogue for Fudge about whether, really, one could say Voldemort was alive convinces me.





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 15:03:11 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:03:11 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0fe77+4736@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0j97f+77c5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186929

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> But he doesn't bother to check what Snape had overheard--
> doesn't bother to obliviate that information from a likely
> Death Eater or Death Eater associate? He just lets the
> fellow toddle off to tattle to Voldemort?
> 
> That seems to me as irresponsible as Sirius pushing
> Peter as a Secret Keeper. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Absolutely! If he **does not bother** to check what Snape overheard, he is bearing part of the blame for Potters deaths, I totally agree.
> 
> The thing is, I really do not think canon tells us with certainty that he **does not bother** to check.


Montavilla47:

It seems to me that if he *does* bother to check, he's even more
responsible!

Alla:
> Are you sure that this could not have happened at all? Dumbledore who thinks that Divination is extremely unreliable discipline goes to interview Sybill and shocked to hear a true prophecy, and by shock I mean that he just does not react as fast as he would have reacted ordinarily?
> 
> Maybe he just did not know what he wanted to do and Snape already dissapparated. Maybe since Ariana's death, he is really not as trigger happy in the places where there are a lot of civilians and he was afraid to accidentally hit somebody with the curse.

Montavilla47:
Why are you making excuses for this man?  Snape didn't disapparate.
He was *thrown* from the building.  

If he was thrown from the building, then someone (probably 
Aberforth) had his hands on him.  Sybil says that Snape was in her 
room long enough for her to come out of her trance and recognize
some of what was going on.  That's long enough for Dumbledore
(who isn't even in a trance) to understand that Snape overheard
what happened in the last few minutes.

And, as Lealess said, Dumbledore was *quite* aware that Snape
had overheard and taken at least part of the Prophecy to Voldemort
when they met in the woods.  His only concern at that point was 
*how much* of the Prophecy Voldemort knew.

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> Obviously, Snape is more to blame than anyone else
> (except, I think, Merope), because he did a deliberate
> act of ill will, I think it's a bit much to give him primary
> blame for the deaths of Lily and James, because the
> primary cause was Voldemort. <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> I just want to be sure, because I cannot exclude the possibility that you are joking before I am sure. You are seriously saying that Dumbledore choosing to interview Trelawney not in the castle can be considered first act in the chain?
> 
> If this is a serious argument, then I just disagree. I consider the first act to be the act of what you called the act of ill will and that was Snape's in my opinion.
> 

Montavilla47:
I see it more as an act of stupidity than ill will.  

Alla:
> HOWEVER, again, to be clear I do NOT give Snape's primary responsibility for James and Lily's deaths. Of course it lies with Voldemort. I hold Snape responsible for starting the chain of events that lead to their deaths, starting it with the act of ill will. So, sure, if we were to put a list of who is primary responsible for Potters' **deaths**, I would put Snape as number three, after Voldemort and Peter. But if we were to put a list of people who made Potters' deaths **possible**, on that list for me Snape is number one, or at the very least he shares this place with Voldemort and nobody else comes even close. IMO of course.

Montavilla47:
I see why you say that and it makes sense--except that the 
Potters' deaths were *already* quite possible.  They were *already*
on the hit list by virtue of having joined the Order of the Phoenix.

As Moody shows us, being in that photograph made one a 
target.  

You say it's possible that, had Snape never delivered that 
Prophecy, that Harry and his parents might have lived happily
for a few more years--or maybe longer.

I agree.  That is possible. But I think it's far less likely than
the outcome toward which the entire first war was heading:
that the Order would have been wiped out within a year
and that Voldemort would have been running the Ministry, 
with full opportunity to pick off anyone he liked.  

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> Nor was it the first action in the chain.  There were plenty
> > of choices that took place before Snape heard the prophecy
> > that might have prevented his choice.
> 
> Alla:
> I just disagree, to me Snape's choice was the first one that truly mattered.


Montavilla47:
I think they all mattered.  Snape's was merely one of the 
more predictable outcomes.  And I think that the person
most likely to have predicted the outcome (aside from
Voldemort), was Dumbledore.









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 18:40:01 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:40:01 -0000
Subject: Snape and Dumbledore and prophecy WAS: Re: Snape and Marauders
In-Reply-To: <h0j97f+77c5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0jlu1+pujf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186930

Alla:
>
> Absolutely! If he **does not bother** to check what Snape overheard, he is
bearing part of the blame for Potters deaths, I totally agree.
>
> The thing is, I really do not think canon tells us with certainty that he
**does not bother** to check.


Montavilla47:

It seems to me that if he *does* bother to check, he's even more
responsible!

Alla:

Sure, if that means that he checks and deliberately lets Snape get away, yes he is even more responsible. The scenario when he is not responsible or somewhat responsible to me is when he does not predict what is going to happen within minutes and does not do anything due to  not getting his wits together, if that makes sense.

Montavilla47:
Why are you making excuses for this man?

Alla:

Why are you prescribing to me the intentions that I do not have in this case? I see nothing wrong with making excuses for fictional character that is when I truly think that his actions are excusable. In those instances I was and will be making such excuses. For example, no matter how wrong Harry was with Infamous Crucio, I am convinced that his actions are completely excusable and did say so and will say so.

But here I have completely different situation. I surely would like for Dumbledore not to let Snape get away deliberately, because to me this is quite a monstrous deed. However, if I think that this is what happened, then this is what happened. I am just **not sure** in good faith that this is what truly happened.

Oh and  as an aside, but I think relevant aside, since we are also discussing Snape's deed here, I guess imagining what Snape thought when he related the Prophecy as him having no idea what Voldemort will do to Prophecy couple and their kid is an excuse too? 

I thought we were discussing *what ifs* here since canon does not tell us enough about what various characters did and think, but I guess what we are really doing here are making excuses.

Montavilla47:
 Snape didn't disapparate. He was *thrown* from the building.

Alla:

Yes, I know. I meant he disapparated after he was thrown from the building.

Montavilla47:
If he was thrown from the building, then someone (probably
Aberforth) had his hands on him. Sybil says that Snape was in her
room long enough for her to come out of her trance and recognize
some of what was going on. That's long enough for Dumbledore
(who isn't even in a trance) to understand that Snape overheard
what happened in the last few minutes. <SNIP>

Alla:

It is still matter of minutes, everything that occurred, no? . If you think that Dumbledore during the matter of those few minutes could have imagined everything that  may happen later on ? Snape reporting the Prophecy, Voldemort acting on it, etc, well that is your interpretation and that is surely one of the possibilities.

If I think that Dumbledore does not always react in a matter of seconds, and does not always react correctly and cannot always predict what is going to happen as a result of his actions, well it is my interpretation.  I am quite angry at Dumbledore for example for taking Cloak to research from James, but even I would not say that Dumbledore imagined that attack will happen so soon and that it will happen at all. 

I took Dumbledore to task for many of his deeds and if I were  **sure** that your scenario is correct, well that will be another monstrous deed of his IMO.

I am just NOT sure, that's all. 

Aberworth and Dumbledore do not even have the best communications after Ariana's death. Yes, they became civil to each other, but I can totally see say Aberworth being so mad that he thrown Snape out without even asking Albus first what to do, Albus thinking (maybe or maybe not) that Snape needs to be obliviated, but being too late.

Montavilla:
And, as Lealess said, Dumbledore was *quite* aware that Snape
had overheard and taken at least part of the Prophecy to Voldemort
when they met in the woods. His only concern at that point was
*how much* of the Prophecy Voldemort knew. <SNIP>

Alla:

How many times Dumbledore is shown being surprised through the books?  I can count one so far. I could be wrong. If he does not show shock after what Snape tells him, to me it does not mean that he indeed was not surprised, more like he hold his surprise to himself.
I would like some canon for Dumbledore being aware that Snape took Prophecy to Voldemort before Snape says it.





From frankd14612 at gmail.com  Sun Jun  7 19:45:53 2009
From: frankd14612 at gmail.com (Frank D)
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:45:53 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape _really_ hate Harry?
In-Reply-To: <h0ff4j+5420@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0h5dh+6097@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186931

> Zara:
> I read this essay at some point between the publication of HBP and DH
(and found it very well-written and interesting). <SNIP> The conclusion that Snape was likely recruited by Albus before he
became a Death Eater (in the aftermath of the Prank, in fact), I found
an interesting and new idea at the time, but I consider it to have been
refuted by DH canon.

> From "The Prince's Tale" I gather than after being dropped by Lily as
a friend, Severus became a Death Eater for his own reasons, and
approached Albus for help once he learned that Voldemort planned to kill
Lily (the Potters). Their first meeting shown in that chapter, is
between just the two of them; there is no reason for them to put on
acts. Severus expresses the opinion that his life may be in danger from
Dumbledore, for example, which I find inconsistent with a supposition he
is already at that time Albus's mole in the Death Eater organization and
his most valued young protege.

Frank D:

Having just reread the Prince's Tale I now see that you are correct.
Here is the relevant passage:
Dumbledore flicked his wand. Though leaves and branches still flew
through the night air around them, silence fell on the spot where he and
Snape faced each other.

"What request could a Death Eater [i.e., Snape] make of me?"

"The--the prophecy ... the prediction ... Trelawney ..."

"Ah, yes," said Dumbledore.

"How much did you relay to Lord Voldemort?"

"Everything--everything I heard!" said Snape.
Obviously this passage of canon cancels any possibility Snape had been
following Dumbledore's orders that, after supposedly having heard the
entire Prophecy, he was to report only the first part. This puts to rest
the theory that Snape had been recruited by Dumbledore prior to the
occasion of the Prophecy.

>
> > J. Odell's essay:
> > And if this is so, we can now finally conclude that the biggest
> > reason that Snape so hated Harry?-and he did sincerely hate
> > Harry?-had
> > very little to do with James, much as Snape honestly loathed James.
> > Harry had taken his place.
>
> Zara:
> Right, only if we accept DH canon, Snape did not have this ongoing
relationship with Albus as his mentor from some point in his fifth year
at Hogwarts, so Harry was not taking his place.

Frank D:

Point taken.

>
> > J. Odell's essay:
> > Or at a last resort, that it was about Lily. But it
> > wasn't. It really was all about Harry, especially by the end.
>
> Zara:
> Except that it really was. Always. DH canon again! It seems to me that
what we have instead is that Snape's issues with Harry do stem from the
fact that he is the son of the woman Snape loved by a man he despised,
and to make matters worse, reminds him of that guy.
>
> Oh, in your intro you mentioned the word "supplant". A propos of
nothing, the meaning of the name "James" is "he who supplants".

Frank D:

Except that we were not hypothesizing that James was taking Snape's
place (only Harry).

So in sum my "epiphany" was not valid after all. Better corrected than
laboring under a misconception. Thanks for your review.





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




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 20:43:39 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:43:39 -0000
Subject: Dh reread CH 23
In-Reply-To: <h0h2db+gnv2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0jt5r+tr0r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186932

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

> I guess here goes my hope for finally finding out if Stan 
> is a Death Eater or not.


zanooda:

I think JKR intended us to believe that Stan was Imperiused, otherwise why mention his "strangely blank face"? Other victims of the Imperius curse didn't walk around with blank faces, everyone would have known they were Imperiused :-)! Then why does she specifically say that Stan's face was blank? To show us (and Harry) that he was under the curse, IMO :-). 









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 21:27:24 2009
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:27:24 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0cr7j+v030@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0jvns+n63c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186933

> >>Magpie:
> I think it's just as impossible to divide readers into those with subjective agendas and those without. All readers have subjective agendas. If we didn't we wouldn't have personalities at all. Something that seems obvious to one person based on their experiences and personality comes across completely differently to someone else. We all filter books through our own tastes, beliefs, emotions and experiences.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's very true, and a reason for one person loving a book and another hating it, etc.  But I think it's too sweeping to suggest that readers are *so* subjective they'll *necessarily* miss out on what the author is trying to do. That a story cannot be understood or analyzed or thoughtfully interpreted without the author explaining it all.  

For one, it'd mean the author has no hope of shaping the sort of story they're trying to tell.  And I think it dismisses the kind of tropes and universals that story-tellers generally use to shape reader reactions.  (The hero rescuing a puppy, the villain kicking a kitten, a mother protecting her child, eerie sounds in the night, etc.) I think it also sells readers short to suggest that they can't recognize when their experiences contradict what the author is trying to do, that they don't realize they're actually reading against the text.

Of course, none of this is to say that bringing yourself to a book is not a beautiful part of interacting with that book.  It makes for such wonderful discussions and insights! :) But, for myself, what keeps the discussions interesting is either structuring them around the actual text (backing up a pov with textual evidence, iows), or clearly stating that the reader is using the book as a jumping off point to discuss something else (what is an ideal marriage, how do good friends interact, etc.).

> >>Magpie:
> They don't see themselves as reading against canon if they think of themselves as a person who doesn't do that, they just think this must be what the author meant. "I think what the author wants everyone to think" very easily becomes "If I think something, this is what the author wants everyone to think." 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think that's where the textev becomes so important.  It's rarely (if ever!) so utterly conclusive that everyone comes to harmonious agreement (though I'll say I've thought one thing was being said in a story and had text cited to me that changed my mind; so it can happen! *g*) but it at least provides a certain amount of structure.

> >>Magpie:
> I don't, btw, think it's necessary to agree with an author's opinion on anything. I doubt anybody's ever agreed with the author on everything in a book. Author's themselves been known to change their own opinions on their own books and characters dramatically over the years, so forcing myself to agree with something they said at any given time seems even more pointless. There's no real people or real life stories in the world people 100% agree on. Authors even have their own subjective biases. Sometimes readers correctly nail them.

Betsy Hp:
Yes!  This is why an out-of-book statement by an author can be interesting but not necessarily conclusive, for me. After all, intentions change.  And a big reason why I don't go looking for author opinion with books I love.  What if the creator of a story I adored turns out to be a not very nice person?  Or what if their view of their story has soured for one reason or another?  But the work is the work, and once it's done it should have everything it's going to say within its pages.  And the fun of interpreting it is ready to begin. :)


> >>Steve replies:
> I never said Carol didn't respect the author, that was your presumption and subjective interpretation. Which in and of itself proves my point that most readers view what they read (whether it's a post on an online group site or a book) subjectively, according to their own agenda, and often contrary to what the writer of what is being interpreted intends. Paraphrasing what I wrote (and as I wrote it, I know my own intent and can do so)if a person respects an author's work and respects what that author has to say about their work, they are more likely to find that author's intentions helpful to them than perhaps a person who doesn't respect what that author has to say about their own work.

Betsy Hp:
Okay.  I still have a problem with your use of the word "respect".  I don't think respect enters into it, frankly.  (At least, not in the way I'm presuming you mean. *g*)  In saying that I don't put a lot of weight into what an author says about their work, I'm not saying I don't respect the author or the right of that author to have an opinion about their work.  Nor am I saying that I don't find a knowledge of that author's intentions helpful.  

What I am saying is that I think there's a better chance of understanding the author's intentions by looking at the actual book, not statements made afterwords.  I'm under the impression that your opinion differs, and that in fact you think it very hard (because of your use of the phrase "often contrary") for readers to understand anything of what the author is trying to say unless the author explains their intentions in later interviews.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > The story makes it clear that JKR sees Ginny as Harry's ideal wife, his happy ending.

> >>Steve replies:
> <snip> And I also agree w/ Carol and you that it's an uphill battle to say that this was not JKR's intention.  But some readers will still march boldly uphill to prove their own subjective POV of their own in spite of what JKR intends or what the story obviously shows us.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, sure.  But, as I pointed out, the uphill battle is certainly not dependent on an interview JKR gave.  The story makes it clear; anyone trying to say the *story* says something different will have no text to point to.  JKR wrote this part of her series quite clearly.

> >>Steve:
> If for example the reader doesn't like Ginny as a character, they may ignore the story and what is obvious to 99% of everyone else who reads it and try and believe that Ginny wasn't what JKR intended as an ideal wife.  Makes no sense to me, but sense doesn't always enter into the equation when we're talking about subjective pov's.

Betsy Hp:
I think people cling to the idea that this isn't what JKR meant because they still want to love the books and feel they can't if their view isn't supported by the text.  It's an interesting phenomenon and I think one particular to the Harry Potter series because of its immense popularity before it was done, and the fierce battles between readers over authorial intent aided and abetted by the internet.

> >>Steve:
> > > <snip>It doesn't matter whether or not the author's intention comes out in the text. Readers are so preoccupied w/ their own subjective agendas in reading the book that you could hit the author's intentions over their head w/ a sledge hammer and they wouldn't feel it.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.
> > I think where you're both getting hung up is the idea that a reader must not only get the author's intentions, they need to *agree* with them. That's never the case, of course. <snip>

> >>Steve:
> <snip> However, I didn't say that the reader needs to agree with the authors intentions, you did. What I said or at least meant to say was that the reader because of their own very subjective agendas may or may not see the author's intent, or if they do see or recognize the authors intent in the storyline may or may not care or agree with it. Readers's perception and reaction to an authors work is subjectively viewed whether or not in agreement w/ the author or not.   

Betsy Hp:
Where I got the idea that you disliked readers disagreeing with the text is the idea that readers will ignore an author's intent even if hit over the head with a sledgehammer. But this is an area where I think readers can put aside their subjectivity and understand the author's intent, even if they disagree.  Example: I'm not particularly fond of the Weasley family for various and sundry reasons.  That's my subjective view.  But I can put that aside and recognize that JKR intends for me to feel warm and fuzzy about the Weasleys.  I pick that up from the text itself, not my reaction to it (my reaction is negative) but from what the text itself is saying (the text is positive).

> >>Steve:
> People often believe what they want to believe, Betsy, according to several personal factors.  That's the main point I'm making.

Betsy Hp:
I don't disagree with this point.  My disliking the Weasley family goes against JKR's intentions and is definitely shaped by my personal background.  My point is that this doesn't equate with me ignoring JKR's intentions, and that my understanding of her intentions is not dependent on reading or listening to JKR's interviews.

Betsy Hp




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun  8 23:07:36 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:07:36 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0h8f7+cls9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0k5jo+p3g4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186934


> Potioncat:
> I find it hard to believe a bully could turn out good---but I'm open to RL proof. Maybe Pippin is right and James just grew out of it over time. 

Pippin:
Well, that's what Sirius says. "Your father was the best friend I ever had, and he was a good person. A lot of people are idiots at the age of fifteen. He grew out of it." -- OOP ch 29

I don't think this is so unusual, or something that only happens in fiction. Plenty of people get along famously with older siblings who picked on them as kids. 

 And would you say that Sirius also was not a good person? He did bully Kreacher as an adult, but I wouldn't say that he was always picking on weaker people. He was protective of them generally, and I think that was true of James as an adult as well.

 Although James and Sirius made fun of the Muggle policemen in JKR's drabble, it's clear that they would have fought to the death to save them from the Death Eaters. And they didn't have to -- either of them would have been welcome to join Voldemort.

But James and Sirius always had Gryffindor values, they just took it for granted that they were living up to them, and so it never occured to them that they weren't, except when Lupin told them so. But he never had the gumption to put teeth in what he was saying.

That's a very different  behavior than we saw from Draco or young Snape. They fight bravely for the people they love, but they don't trouble much about strangers, never mind enemies. 

It wasn't that Snape became braver than he was before, after all Snape had been a great personal risk from the moment he defected.  It was that Snape came to consider it cowardice to leave Hogwarts to face the Dark Lord while he saved himself, even though there wasn't anyone at Hogwarts whom he cared for personally. 

Potioncat: 
> Perhaps whatever it was that motivated James to use his magic against others was channelled into use against DEs. Sort of changing his bullying into socially acceptable behavior.

Pippin:
I think this is  true. The Marauders, and Sirius at GP, are shown as having literally nothing better to do. They're not abnormally bad-tempered or aggressive but they need a lot of stimulation, and if their circumstances don't provide it, they'll engineer their own. It doesn't help that Kreacher reminds Sirius of the bad old days when he was the one being pushed around by his parents, just as Harry reminds Snape of the bad old days when he was being bullied by James.

I think McGonagall  and Dumbledore only knew about the sort of stuff that Harry found in the files he had to copy, hexing other students in the corridors and such. And that sort of mischief is pretty common in young wizards whose powers sometimes grow faster than their sense of responsibility.

McGonagall and Dumbledore didn't know  about becoming  animagi, or running with Lupin, or making the Marauder's map. It would be incredibly far-fetched  to suppose that four teenaged boys could pull all of that off month after month under the nose of the most powerful wizard in existence -- if you didn't know that they had a super powerful invisibility cloak, and didn't imagine that any such thing existed outside of legend. 


Pippin





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 23:21:38 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:21:38 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0cjkp+nsco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0k6e2+j6uh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186935

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
>snip> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think there's some conflation going on here.  First there's the question, "does JKR intend for Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife?"  I agree with Carol that it'd be an uphill battle to say this was *not* JKR's intention.  Not because of interviews where JKR stated as much, but within the books themselves, JKR makes her intention perfectly clear.  We have an ending where Harry is content, happy, feeling all is well with the world, and Ginny is his wife.  The story makes it clear that JKR sees Ginny as Harry's ideal wife, his happy ending.
> 
> Second, there's the *completely* different question, "Do you, the reader, feel Ginny is Harry's ideal wife?"  This is where subjective reasons (silly or irrational ones, even! *g*) come into play.  And of course, this has nothing to do with the author at all.  *Clearly* it has nothing to do with the author.  It's asking the question of the *reader*.
> 
> For me, the first question has more of actual literary analysis about it (we're more focused on the text) while the second seems like more of a social discussion (we're focusing more on how various people define an "ideal wife" and a satisfying marriage, etc.).  Both sorts of discussion can be fun, though the first is more easily conclusive since it requires textual proof, while the second is mainly personal opinion which isn't really about settled conclusions.
> 

jkoney:
Right, but the problem I'm bringing up is that people mistake the second discussion for the first. They then continue on inspite of what the text actually says. 


Betsy Hp:
> snip> 
> For myself, I predicted some things correctly (Snape, the main 'ships), and some not correctly at all (Draco, house unification).  But I'd never argue that my incorrect prediction of JKR's intentions with Draco (that he'd step up to bat and help bring about Voldemort's downfall) means that the text's intentions with that character are somehow non-existent. Draco is as JKR wrote him which was different from what I'd predicted.

jkoney:
But if you thought that Draco and Harry were going to be friends you were ignoring a large part of the text. This would be subjective on your part. You would be confusing what you think might occur based on other stories with what is actually happening in this one.


> 
> > >>jkoney:
> > > > The problem with your point is even if it is realized in the book, spelled out, spoken plainly, etc. you still have people stating that it isn't true. So it doesn't seem to matter how clear the author is, people are still going to "analyze" the story with their own agendas. Therefore the author is never going to be able to make their intentions known.
>  
> > >>Carol responds:
> > > I don't understand your point, or possibly you're misunderstanding mine. An author can and sometimes does state his or her intentions (some of them, anyway, those of which he or she is conscious), but if that intention doesn't come out in the text--if it's undetectable by most or all readers--then the intention has not been realized (in the sense of made real) by the author. <SNIP>
> 
> > >>Steve replies:
> > I understood the point Jkoney was making completely. It doesn't matter whether or not the author's intention comes out in the text. Readers are so preoccupied w/ their own subjective agendas in reading the book that you could hit the author's intentions over their head w/ a sledge hammer and they wouldn't feel it.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> You're entirely wrong! :D  And I can say that because you've made the mistake of making a far too sweeping statement. (Mwahaha!)  There's no way *all* readers (your implication) are too preoccupied with "their own subjective agendas" that they miss an author's sledge hammer. jkoney is entirely wrong, too, and for the exact same reason.  The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.

jkoney:
Actually I'm saying that the reader doesn't know how to read. And it doesn't matter what's in the text, they are going to use their subjective viewpoint and ignore the facts as they are written.




> Betsy Hp
> I think where you're both getting hung up is the idea that a reader must not only get the author's intentions, they need to *agree* with them.  That's never the case, of course.  Readers are allowed their opinion, though the author is allowed (also of course) to use all her powers of persuasion to sway the reader to her point of view. 
> 

jkoney:
I agree that readers are allowed their own opinion as long as they understand what is actually happening and don't confuse the two.


>




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  8 23:52:37 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:52:37 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0f7gi+quud@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0k885+i9kq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186936

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214@> wrote:
> >
> Alla: 
> > Oh and could you please clarify how exactly Dumbledore is responsible for Lily and James being killed? I hold him responsible a plenty for how he decided Harry's fate, but no, I do not hold him responsible for their deaths at all.
> 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> He knew he was seeing a true prophecy when he 
> heard it.  He knew that, whether it was a true prophecy
> or not, Voldemort was likely to take it seriously and
> act upon it.  (If Snape knew that much, so did Dumbledore.)
> 
> He knew that the Hogshead was filled with shady 
> characters, who might or might not be, but probably
> were, connected to Dark Wizardry and probably close
> enough to Voldemort to come into his purview.  
> 
> He knew that Snape had overheard at least part of the
> prophecy.  
> 
> As J.Odell's essay points out, Dumbledore had sanctioned
> obliviation (to a child!) for far less reason than to save a 
> life.  
> 
> But he doesn't bother to check what Snape had overheard--
> doesn't bother to obliviate that information from a likely
> Death Eater or Death Eater associate?  He just lets the 
> fellow toddle off to tattle to Voldemort?
> 
> That seems to me as irresponsible as Sirius pushing 
> Peter as a Secret Keeper.
>
 
jkoney
I'm not sure that Dumbledore believed it was a real prophecy. I didn't think he held much stock in them.

If Voldemort wanted to spend time interpreting it that would at least distract him. A child about to be born isn't a threat right now. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to go after him. It's going to be years before he could be a threat. If the war was going Voldemort's way why would he waste the time looking for a baby.

Only when Voldemort decided to act did the prophecy come true. Otherwise it would have just been another one on a shelf.

Did it turn out to be a blunder? Yes, but I can't blame Dumbledore for thinking it was a bogus prophecy. Especially since Sybil had never made a real one before that.

What was wrong with Sirius pushing Peter to be the secret keeper. He didn't know Peter was the spy. In fact Sirius was taking a huge risk. Everyone would guess it was him. Their mistake was making it a double blind switch. No one but the four of them knew about it. There was no one to back Sirius up, even if he got a trial.






From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 00:18:09 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:18:09 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0h8f7+cls9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0k9o1+adir@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186937

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Alla:
> > Why? You think good person could not have been a bully in his youth?  And James was just as horrible as Snape? I guess to me it really does matter what views they hold and to me the fact that James joined the Order of Phoenix and Snape joined the band of terrorists is what makes one a better person than the other if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I find it hard to believe a bully could turn out good---but I'm open to RL proof. Maybe Pippin is right and James just grew out of it over time. 
> 
> Perhaps whatever it was that motivated James to use his magic against others was channelled into use against DEs. Sort of changing his bullying into socially acceptable behavior.
> 
> My suggestion before hinged on the value placed on courage. In one book McGonagall speaks well of James and Lily; in another she comments on the trouble James caused in school. I wonder if his courage in the Order caused her to overlook his earlier behavior? 
> 
> We know that DD seemed surprised and impressed by Snape's demonstration of courage---years after they had begun their association; and Harry's "forgiveness" of Snape seems to be at least partially based on his admiration of Snape's courage.
> 
> That makes me wonder if James the bully was redeemed by his acts of courage? Although we know and Lily knew that James was (at least sometimes) a bully and a rule-breaker...I don't think DD knew the whole story. So he was impressed (imo) by James' courage in saving Severus from a werewolf and may have overlooked some of the other behavior, when he did see it.

jkoney:
I think part of it is your definition of bully. If you are including the pranks then I have to disagree with that part. Wizards in general seem to like the pranks, otherwise how would Zonko's and WWW survive?

We really only see James from Snape's point of view. And that ends during their fifth year. We are told from others that James deflated his ego and grew up. We have several people pointing out that James was a good/great guy. None of them mention his courage when they talk about him. 

I think he just grew up.

Courage is definitely one of the points that JKR beats us over the head with. One of the reasons that Peter is so hated is that he didn't have the courage to stand up for his friends.








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun  9 00:30:40 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:30:40 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <h0h564+391n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kafg+su1g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186938

Magpie: 
> 
> But the thread was about Dumbledore, who has a stated goal of wanting to help the WW oppose Voldemort, not wizards that we never see who are complaining that Dumbledore isn't sharing information they don't know he is keeping from them anyway. 

Pippin:
It's relevant in that you're assuming that Dumbledore kept back information when it would be reasonable to think that other wizards would act on it if he gave it to them. The fact that no one else was interested enough to look for it, or indeed to volunteer what they knew to Dumbledore when he set himself up as Voldemort's implacable foe and the protector of those who were threatened by him, argues otherwise.

Outside Hogwarts, the WW Establishment, the social order of the wizarding world,  was not a meritocracy -- it was a semi-feudal, patronage-driven oligarchy.  Many of those who had the power and authority to organize opposition to Voldemort were more interested in protecting or extending their spheres of influence.  Even Scrimgeour, who took the threat of Voldemort seriously, couldn't think outside the box of empire-building. Only when his empire was already lost did he put protecting Harry first. 


> Magpie:
> So the last thing the Twins did was put up their You-Know-Poo signs? They were alive and well and running one of the only forms of resistance we saw in DH, which seemed to be doing a lot for morale. Laughing at LV doesn't have to mean laughing in his face when the two of you are alone in a dark alley. It's a normal part of resistance, usually. It helps people be brave.

Pippin:
We're getting a kind of tunnel vision in this discussion, as if telling people that Voldemort was Tom Riddle was the only way that Dumbledore could help them be brave. But as you point out here, there are lots of ways of doing that which wouldn't reveal Dumbledore's intentions or put people who have information about Voldemort  in additional danger. I think we've reached a consensus that these were reasonable concerns.

Anti-Voldemort humor  is a minor morale booster at best. You No Poo isn't going to change the way anyone thinks about the war, any more than spoofing a general's name was going to change anyone's opinion about the war in Iraq. 

Voldemort did have a strategy during the first war of denying his murderous intentions. According to Sirius, it was only during the last few years of his first rise to power that people understood how far he meant to go. So it is not like there was a lot of  active resistance to boost. 

For a long time, most people were happy to think he wasn't all that dangerous. At that period, making him a figure of fun would have been counterproductive, like the people who read Mein Kampf and jeered at Hitler's ambitions -- why, he'd have to exterminate every Jew in Europe and conquer half the countries in the world to carry out such plans! As if.

Strategically, Dumbledore was trying to get people to think rationally about Voldemort. If they are afraid to say "Voldemort" they are going to be equally afraid to say "Tom Riddle" -- so it hardly  matters which one of those they think is the real name. 

Nor does it exactly cut Voldemort down to size  to know that he was a phenomenal student, recipient of a special award for services to the school, Head Boy, one of Slughorn's exclusive club and tapped for a brilliant ministry career. Most wizards would envy even one of those distinctions. Riddle spent seven years learning everything Hogwarts could teach him, then he spent ten more years learning everything that Hogwarts wouldn't teach him. Pretty impressive, IMO.

You are making a different argument than Alla, who, if I may summarize, thinks Dumbledore should have used the name so that the Death Eaters would realize they were following a non-pureblood. But the only people who really care about that stuff would dismiss it anyway, by Bella's example. And  trying to get people to reject Voldemort because he's not pureblood does not further the goal of getting people to think rationally about him.

According to Snape, what matters to most of the DE's is that they have a powerful figure they can rally around. Voldemort is a symbol. When people put  the American bald eagle on top of a flagpole, do they care  that it is actually a scavenger bird that steals its food and is nearly extinct over much of its range? It still stands  for freedom and strength. It may help for a symbol to be a good example of what it stands for, but it's not absolutely necessary. (And so, too, people can be symbols of goodness even if they don't always set a good example.)

In his followers' eyes, Voldemort stands for more than pureblood supremacy. He also stands for resistance to the  restrictions that the Ministry places on the practice of magic. That he could have achieved success within the system and chose to buck it instead could have a certain appeal. Whatever he lost as an example of pureblood supremacy, he might gain as an example of resistance to Ministry rule.

Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 00:41:22 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:41:22 -0000
Subject: Shunpike/PottersInHiding/SmallFamilies/JamesMoney/MuggleMoney/Prophecy/LVbio
In-Reply-To: <h0i4do+jkc3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kb3i+3phb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186939

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
> > Catlady:
> > But Harry CAN die even after Voldemort has taken his blood -- for example, he could have drowned in the sword-pond. Voldemort having Harry's blood protects Harry only when in the physical presence of Voldemort.
> 
> Zara:
> Right, the sense in which Harry cannot live while Voldemort survives is different from the sense in which Voldemort cannot live while harry survives. But there are two different senses that apply. Harry cannot live (as in, lead a normal, boring, peaceful life) while Voldemort survives because of the soul bit and because Voldemort will not rest until Harry is dead.
> 
> Whereas Voldemort cannot live while Harry survives in the sense mentioned by Fudge in "The Other Minister" (HBP), that one who cannot die, is not exactly "alive".
>
Carol responds:

Maybe. I have actually held that view in the past. :-) But how is that reading a Prophecy, and how does it fit with such elements as "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord" and, especially, "Either must die at the hand of the other," which means, however we may interpret "either," that they must have a final confrontation in which one or both dies?

I don't think we can ignore the fact that "Neither can live while the other survives" follows directly from "Either must die at the hand of the other" and that they're linked by the conjunction "for," indicating a cause/effect relationship between them.

Reading "either" as "one" (because that's the way it worked out), we have "one must die at the hand of the other *because* neither can live while the other survives."

Now, granted, that's not the clearest sentence in the world, but it can't mean "one must die at the hand of the other because neither can live a full life until the other one dies." That just doesn't make sense because one clause doesn't follow logically from the other.

IMO, the only reading that makes sense if we put both halves of the sentence together is "one must die at the hand of the other because they can't both survive the final battle."

In this reading, "Neither can live while the other survives" means "Harry can't live if Voldemort survives the final battle" but also "Voldemort can't live if Harry survives the final battle." Obviously, they can't both survive the final battle or it's not the final battle. I suppose it's still possible that they could both have died, but only if we read "either" as "both."

Carol, pretty sure that *Harry* read it in this way, and DD didn't contradict him




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 01:15:46 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:15:46 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0k6e2+j6uh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kd42+t0ce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186940


> > Betsy Hp:
> > You're entirely wrong! :D  And I can say that because you've made the mistake of making a far too sweeping statement. (Mwahaha!)  There's no way *all* readers (your implication) are too preoccupied with "their own subjective agendas" that they miss an author's sledge hammer. jkoney is entirely wrong, too, and for the exact same reason.  The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.
> 
> jkoney:
> Actually I'm saying that the reader doesn't know how to read. And it doesn't matter what's in the text, they are going to use their subjective viewpoint and ignore the facts as they are written.

Carol responds:

I hope you don't mean that readers in general don't know how to read or that any reader who hears JKR's stated intentions but fails to see them in the text doesn't know how to read. It's important, for one thing, to realize that one of her intentions in the early books, sustained by the interviews, was to fool the reader with regard to Snape. What she wanted us to think as we read (which is not necessarily what we really thought since some of us know an unreliable narrator when we encounter one) and what she wanted us to think after we read the last book are two different things.

At any rate, an author's statements about her own book are just as likely to be subjective as a reader's--she likes certain characters and dislikes others. I probably dislike Umbridge as much as she does, but unlike her, I don't find Umbridge's punishment amusing. I don't dislike Vernon Dursley as much as she does, either. I am not, however, under any delusions that we're intended to admire those characters. The text (which is quite reliable in depicting those two characters) makes it clear that they're not admirable.

Any intelligent reader can interpret a book without the author's help. And anyone who misinterpreted Draco as a potential hero or Snape as the potential murderer of Harry (people were actually betting on that outcome) will be under no such delusions when they've read the final book. Some things are canon fact and indisputable: Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's order; Harry's scar contained a seventh soul bit.

Others remain subject to interpretation and will remain so regardless of what the author says that she intended because the evidence to support those intentions didn't make it into the books. 

At any rate, I have no objection to readers allowing JKR's statements outside the text to color their readings. Me, I'd rather look at the text itself, putting to use all those years I spent learning how to analyze English literature.

It's no different from, say, a historian interpreting a historical document. Its author's statements about it, if any, can only go so far. And it's humanly possible (I'm not saying that this is the case with JKR) to lie about, conceal, or even be mistaken about one's intentions. Ask me what I meant in a post I wrote five years ago, and I might not be able to tell you. The human mind is a very imperfect instrument (as JKR herself demonstrates through inconsistencies in the books themselves).

Carol, who respects JKR for her brilliant and highly enjoyable creation but takes her statements in interviews as the off-the-cuff remarks they are and not as directions on how to read her books




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 01:30:22 2009
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:30:22 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0e0h8+hlbt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kdve+e5u9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186941

> Steve:

> It's extremely rare to find someone who has a completely 
> objective agenda.

Goddlefrood:

Except of course lawyers ;-)





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 01:51:30 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:51:30 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0k9o1+adir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kf72+p08t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186942

jkoney:
<SNIP>
We really only see James from Snape's point of view. <SNIP of the rest of the post>.

Alla:

We are also seeing James from Lily's point of view.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 03:41:46 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:41:46 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0k9o1+adir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kllq+ljob@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186943

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

> We really only see James from Snape's point of view.


zanooda:

In SWM we don't see James from Snape's point of view. JKR explained that Pensieve memories are objective, they don't show events from someone's point of view, but how they really happened :-). 

I think many of us have trouble believing that James changed because we were not *shown* how this happened :-). Yes, we were told many times by different characters that James was a good person, but we never actually saw it. The only scene we *saw* him in, however, is SWM, which was quite shameful, IMO. 

This is a very vivid scene that can't be erased from our minds *just* by other characters saying good things about James. This is something you need to see to believe, not to hear about it :-). Personally, I like to think that James changed after his parents died while he was still at school. There is nothing about it in the books, but I believe that such an event could push the boy in the right direction.

However, I still consider James one of the very few JKR's failures. She is able to create believable and appealing characters with just a few lines, but in this case she didn't manage to show me who James Potter really was ;-). 







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun  9 04:01:31 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:01:31 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0h3lu+fief@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kmqr+pomn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186944

 
> Lealess: 
> > Dumbledore in the Prince's Tale did not even seem surprised that Snape relayed the prophecy to Voldemort. He only asked how much Snape told.  
> 
> Carol:
> Right. And that surprises me since no one else seems to know that Snape was a Death Eater at that time. I doubt that he showed up to talk to DD in Death Eater's robes. So DD knew, somehow, that young Snape was a Death Eater (or at least knew that his friends Avery and Mulciber had become DES--they would have made no secret of it--so that would make Snape at least a DE associate) and yet he didn't stop him from reporting the part of the Prophecy that he had heard.

Pippin:
It's possible that Dumbledore first found out that Snape was a Death Eater when Snape contacted him to arrange the meeting, ostensibly on Voldemort's behalf. "Well, Severus? What message does Lord Voldemort have for me?" 

And it's possible that Dumbledore had been fooled about whether Snape had heard any of the prophecy. Once he realized he'd been fooled about Snape being a DE, he would have to wonder about the eavesdropping also. But before then?

Snape is an expert occlumens, while Dumbledore believes he can usually tell when people are lying. Snape denied he had been eavesdropping and  burst into the room where Dumbledore and Trelawney were meeting, evidently expecting it to be his own.  How many Death Eaters would have the presence of mind or the nerve to put on such a performance, even if they had the occlumency skills to make it possible? Most of the DE's were terrified of Dumbledore. Even Snape was, when he wasn't  acting. 

We don't know if Aberforth  caught  Snape unmistakably with his ear to the door. Snape could have heard him coming and straightened up. In any case, I doubt Dumbledore can modify a memory that's being hidden from him by occlumency, even if he fears that it exists.

Dumbledore does not act as if he believes the prophecy, IMO. He acts as if *Voldemort* believes the prophecy, once he has been told that Voldemort knows of it.  He appears to take no action on account of it until Snape begs him to protect Lily. 

The Potters had other reasons to be in hiding; Voldemort was trying to recruit them.  (We can imagine the idea of James's character that Voldemort had if he got his information from Peter and Snape.) That appears to be the reason the Potters were spared three times. Also, of course, if his close friends were dead, Peter's sources of information would dry up.

I don't think it's because Harry was the prophecy boy that Dumbledore made such an extraordinary effort to try to save him. I think it was because Harry was completely innocent and yet had been chosen specifically to be murdered -- he was not an enemy of Voldemort who had chosen to risk all by defying him, nor was he a random victim  whose innocence (as regards the state of their souls, not their legal culpability for crimes) could not be determined in advance. I am sure that Dumbledore's obsession with saving innocent lives stems from his guilt over his sister's death, but also I am reminded of the ancient Jewish belief that the world is allowed to exist only for the sake of the innocent among us.

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun  9 04:05:38 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:05:38 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0kllq+ljob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kn2i+dfpd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186945

 
> zanooda:
> 
> In SWM we don't see James from Snape's point of view. JKR explained that Pensieve memories are objective, they don't show events from someone's point of view, but how they really happened :-). 
> 
> I think many of us have trouble believing that James changed because we were not *shown* how this happened :-). Yes, we were told many times by different characters that James was a good person, but we never actually saw it. The only scene we *saw* him in, however, is SWM, which was quite shameful, IMO. 

Pippin:
What is shameful about the scene where James is entertaining baby Harry? There's no trace of the arrogant bully there. We'll learn from Lily's letter that he was frustrated about being shut up in the house, and yet (unlike Sirius) we don't see him take it out on other people.

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 04:33:04 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:33:04 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0kf72+p08t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0kom0+ol23@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186946

jkoney:
> <SNIP>
> We really only see James from Snape's point of view. <SNIP of the rest of the post>.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> We are also seeing James from Lily's point of view.
>
Carol responds:

Technically, of course, we only see all of them from Harry's POV. He's the one entering the Pensieve (which stores objective memories), and what commentary the narrator provides is Harry's perception of the events and characters. We do hear other characters comment on both James and Lily, but on the few occasions when we see them (in Snape's memories, Voldemort's memory ot their murder, and their echoes in GoF and shades, for lack of a better word, in DH), it's Harry's perception that counts.

Carol, noting that we don't really get any scenes from Snape's point of view since "Spinner's End" and "the Dark Lord Rising" use an objective narrator and the rest use the limited omniscient narrator writing Harry's perceptions





From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Jun  9 14:16:11 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:16:11 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0cf48+entt@eGroups.com>
References: <h0c493+82c2@eGroups.com> <h0cf48+entt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906090716y1a5b7fa5je063359b2904293d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186947

>Carol wrote:
> If Dumbledore revealed even the small fact of Voldemort's identity,
>the names of his parents and the fact that his father was a rich
<Muggle from Little Hangleton, Voldemort would not only suspect
>but *know* that Dumbledore was investigating his past.

>Magpie responded:
>Which is not, imo, so huge a deal as to justify Dumbledore helping
>Voldemort hide everything about himself.

No.Limberger responds:
I disagree with this conclusion.  At no time did Dumbledore help
Voldemort.  Yes, Dumbledore attempted to help Tom Riddle when he
was young, but not when Riddle became the infamous dark wizard.

Knowledge is power.  Given what Voldemort was doing for years to
harm others in order to extract information from them, there is
very good reason why Dumbledore didn't want Voldemort to even
know that he was investigating his past, let alone reveal how much
he had learned about Voldemort.

>Magpie wrote:
>Dumbledore has a history of concealing information even when
>it would be helpful.

No.Limberger responds:
Dumbledore concealed information when he believed it was for the
greater good.  Sometimes, he was wrong; but overall, he was
cautious and did everything possible to fight Voldemort as
secretly as possible.

>Magpie wrote:
>I don't get how the WW would have been hurt during the first
>Voldemort War by Dumbledore letting them know this was Tom
>Riddle from Hogwarts. (Which I believe at the time was all he
>knew anyway.) Dumbledore never needs reasons beyond his
>penchant for secrecy. Or rather, his penchant for secrecy compels
>him to make up convoluted justifications in his own mind for hiding
>information that would actually have been pbviously helpful.

No.Limberger responds:
The more Voldemort knew that he was being investigated, the more
he would have done to hide as much as possible not only about his
past, but also about his current activities.  There are very good
reasons for secrecy and I totally agreed with how Dumbledore
concealed how much he knew about Voldemort.


-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Jun  9 14:37:24 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:37:24 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0e6lm+94tk@eGroups.com>
References: <h0cf48+entt@eGroups.com> <h0e6lm+94tk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906090737t20180e64t4f28afde3282db07@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186948

>Carol wrote:
>Dumbledore kept quiet about that for two reasons, IMO. First, by the
>time he got the Ministry to look at Morfin's memory, proving Morfin's
>innocence, Morfin was dead (the same thing happened later with Hokey).
>With the sole witness dead, he couldn't prove that Tom was guilty.
>Apparently, the memory alone wouldn't hold up in a court of Wizarding
>law. And, second, he didn't want Voldemort to find out too soon that he,
>DD, was investigating his past and remove all the traces.

No.Limberger responds:
I agree with your reasoning.

>Carol wrote:
>But by the beginning of the first Voldie War, he certainly knew more
>than that Voldemort was Tom Riddle from Hogwarts (who had, not
>incidentally, murdered Moaning Myrtle and framed Hagrid). He knew
>about the murder of Tom Riddle and his parents in Little Hangleton,
>and he must have known about the Gaunts as well. He obtained
>memories from Morfin and presumably from Bob Ogden before Morfin
>died in prison. He would have begun investigating the murder of Hepzibah
>Smith and obtained the information from Hokey (who was very old and
>must not have lasted long in prison) soon after the murder. The memory
>from Caractacus Burke, which relates to Merope and the locket, would
>have been obtained at about the same time.

>IOW, Dumbledore must have been investigating Voldemort's past for
>years before Godric's Hollow and probably long before the DADA
>interview. ("You call what you have been doing 'great', then?"). And the
>DADA interview would have alerted him to Riddle's changed appearance,
>a hint that he was making Horcruxes out of those stolen objects. He
>already knew, through Aberforth, that Riddle was calling himself Voldemort
>and gathering followers called Death Eaters. I think DD had been
>gathering memories and information for a long time before Voldemort first
>started terrorizing the WW (which he didn't even start doing for twelve
>years or so after the DADA interview).

No.Limberger responds:
I completely agree.  Dumbledore clearly had very good reason
to investigate Riddle/LV knowing that Riddle had murdered Moaning Myrtle
at Hogwarts and framed Hagrid.  This occurred years before the DADA
interview.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun  9 14:47:46 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:47:46 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90906090716y1a5b7fa5je063359b2904293d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h0lsmi+s78r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186949

> No.Limberger responds:

> Knowledge is power.  Given what Voldemort was doing for years to
> harm others in order to extract information from them, there is
> very good reason why Dumbledore didn't want Voldemort to even
> know that he was investigating his past, let alone reveal how much
> he had learned about Voldemort.

Magpie:
Him being Tom Riddle did not require investigation on Dumbledore's part.
 
> >Magpie wrote:
> >Dumbledore has a history of concealing information even when
> >it would be helpful.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Dumbledore concealed information when he believed it was for the
> greater good.  Sometimes, he was wrong; but overall, he was
> cautious and did everything possible to fight Voldemort as
> secretly as possible.

Magpie:
He was also fanatical about keeping secrets. He always told himself it was always for the greater good, but he wasn't an objective judge when it came to secrets. The whole last book after he dies becomes a mystery of what exactly Dumbledore wanted everybody to do.

 
> >Magpie wrote:
> >I don't get how the WW would have been hurt during the first
> >Voldemort War by Dumbledore letting them know this was Tom
> >Riddle from Hogwarts. (Which I believe at the time was all he
> >knew anyway.) Dumbledore never needs reasons beyond his
> >penchant for secrecy. Or rather, his penchant for secrecy compels
> >him to make up convoluted justifications in his own mind for hiding
> >information that would actually have been pbviously helpful.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> The more Voldemort knew that he was being investigated, the more
> he would have done to hide as much as possible not only about his
> past, but also about his current activities.  There are very good
> reasons for secrecy and I totally agreed with how Dumbledore
> concealed how much he knew about Voldemort.

Magpie:
The WW knowing he's human does not have anything to do with Dumbledore's investigations. Dumbledore concealed just about everything he knew about Voldemort, not just how much. And he didn't only conceal it from the public but from the people fighting to bring him down.

-m




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 15:29:01 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:29:01 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders WAS :Draco and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0kn2i+dfpd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0lv3t+i4gv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186950

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

> What is shameful about the scene where James is entertaining 
> baby Harry?


zanooda:

Nothing :-). It is a sweet and sad scene (sad because we know what is going to happen in a few minutes ;-)). However, it didn't change my opinion about James. I never doubted that he loved Lily and Harry and died trying to protect them, so it wasn't exactly a revelation. Love for the family is not a sure sign that someone is a wonderful person.

Lucius loves his family and so does Vernon. I'm sure both would protect the loved ones with their lives, but still, both are nasty or even cruel to *other* people and *their* children. The death scene makes me feel sorry for James, sure, but it doesn't show me his transformation. It shows that he was brave, but I always knew that :-).



> Pippin:

> We'll learn from Lily's letter that he was frustrated 
> about being shut up in the house, and yet (unlike Sirius)
> we don't see him take it out on other people.


zanooda:

If Sirius had a wife and a child in the house with him, maybe he wouldn't have taken it out on them, either :-).




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 16:29:39 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:29:39 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0kllq+ljob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0m2lj+pkbn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186951

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65@> wrote:
> 
> > We really only see James from Snape's point of view.
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> In SWM we don't see James from Snape's point of view. JKR explained that Pensieve memories are objective, they don't show events from someone's point of view, but how they really happened :-). 

jkoney:
Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. 

We only see James from scenes that Snape has picked. They are not a fair presentation of the James that actually lived. As someone who hated James he is not going to show anything that shows James in a positive light. So we have to take anything that Snape shows as not being a fair representation of the James that actually lived. 


> zanooda
> I think many of us have trouble believing that James changed because we were not *shown* how this happened :-). Yes, we were told many times by different characters that James was a good person, but we never actually saw it. The only scene we *saw* him in, however, is SWM, which was quite shameful, IMO. 
> 
> This is a very vivid scene that can't be erased from our minds *just* by other characters saying good things about James. This is something you need to see to believe, not to hear about it :-). Personally, I like to think that James changed after his parents died while he was still at school. There is nothing about it in the books, but I believe that such an event could push the boy in the right direction.
> 
> However, I still consider James one of the very few JKR's failures. She is able to create believable and appealing characters with just a few lines, but in this case she didn't manage to show me who James Potter really was ;-).
>

jkoney:
We aren't shown this because it isn't relevent to the story of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) about it. 

Doesn't this seem like she is telling us one thing in text and people aren't believing it? She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 

I can't blame JKR for not stating her intentions clearly on this issue because she wrote it down.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 16:52:49 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:52:49 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0m2lj+pkbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0m411+np0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186952

> jkoney:
> Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. 
> 
> We only see James from scenes that Snape has picked. They are not a fair presentation of the James that actually lived. As someone who hated James he is not going to show anything that shows James in a positive light. So we have to take anything that Snape shows as not being a fair representation of the James that actually lived. 

Alla:

Well, true that. Snape certainly is not going to go out of his way to show anything good about James. He went out of his way to badmouth James to Harry for years. We however are talking about possible failures of the author and author has the absolute power to counter the bad scenes with the good scenes.

She could have shown James doing many good things, like being nice to other people, like fighting against DE, participating in the Order. She did not have to show many scenes, mind you, she chose to tell instead of showing. Show rather then tell is usually much more effective technique.

She for example told us about many crimes that Gellert committed, however what she SHOWED us was old man suffering in prison standing up against Voldemort. I know that this old man is just as much a criminal as Voldemort, however author in this instance manipulated my emotions extremely effectively, because this scene makes me feel sorry for Gellert and that counteracts him being a criminal to a degree. IMO anyway.

Mind you, I am just attempting to explain to you why people may feel that she failed with James. I do not feel the same way at all. That does not mean that other people interpretation is somehow wrong.
 
> jkoney:
> We aren't shown this because it isn't relevant to the story of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) about it. 

Alla:

Showing something good about the hero's father is not relevant to his journey? Father whom Harry resembles and from whom he supposedly got a lot of personality traits? In what hero's journey story his father figures are irrelevant? Could you give some examples please? Because in every story about hero's journey that I read what happened to hero's father and what kind of person he was is **extremely** relevant to the hero's journey. I mean, the most obvious is Star Wars of course, then we have my recent favorite, Percy Jackson and Olympians, again father figure is relevant. Fallen by Thomas Sniegoski also father turns out to be of great significance. It is one of the requirements of this genre.


Jkoney:
> Doesn't this seem like she is telling us one thing in text and people aren't believing it? She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 

Alla:

It will be readers' subjective view getting from the text what was shown there rather than told IMO.

jkoney:
> I can't blame JKR for not stating her intentions clearly on this issue because she wrote it down.

Alla:


I can't either in my case, but I can totally see how people may think that she is not clear enough.

Pippin:

> We'll learn from Lily's letter that he was frustrated
> about being shut up in the house, and yet (unlike Sirius)
> we don't see him take it out on other people.


zanooda:

If Sirius had a wife and a child in the house with him, maybe he wouldn't have
taken it out on them, either :-).

Alla:

Maybe. To me where I agree with Pippin is that this scene shows that James who was taking it on other people, not just Snape grew up, you know?

I totally agree with you that we are not shown that James changed in regard to SNAPE, not that I care one way or another. But I think that James whom Lily is talking about hexing people left and right is shown as not to exist in that scene quite effectively for exact reason Pippin described.

I do agree with you Zanooda though that if we were simply talking about James' love for his family, Malfoys love each other too.

But to me it just enough to hear from all the people how much they loved James and how good he was, etc and then we have this scene. I buy that he grew up, even if he kept hating Snape.

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 17:19:20 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:19:20 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0lsmi+s78r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0m5io+p4ai@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186953

> Magpie:
> The WW knowing he's human does not have anything to do with Dumbledore's investigations. Dumbledore concealed just about everything he knew about Voldemort, not just how much. And he didn't only conceal it from the public but from the people fighting to bring him down.

Carol responds:
Where do you find the idea that anyone thought that he wasn't human? As far as I can recall, everyone--both his own followers and the WW at large--viewed him as a Dark Wizard. No one suspects him of being, say, a super-intelligent Troll or some new kind of monster. Besides, he uses a wand, which is a bit of a hint that he's a Wizard.

They don't know what he's done to make himself look snakelike or (seemingly) impossible to kill (both Voldemort himself and DD are concealing what they know about the Horcruxes, DD for good reason because if LV knows that DD knows about the Horcruxes, he'll make them impossible to find). But they also know that he is or was fully human at one time. The WW isn't ancient Greece, where they might think he was the son of a demon or an evil god. They know there's no "race" of snake-faced men and women with a hatred of Muggles and Muggle-borns and a desire to rule the WW.

As I said before, even those who know that he was once Tom Riddle (including Lucius Malfoy, who was given charge of Tom Riddle's Muggle-bought diary, and Slughorn, who taught him Potions for seven years, and Ollivander, who sold him the yew-and-phoenix-feather wand) are afraid to speak his name. Knowing that he was a super-talented, charming, intelligent, and powerful young Wizard won't make them fear him any less. A self-made monster might even be *more* feared than a natural one. Again, even the people who knew him at age eleven are afraid to speak the name he's chosen for himself, and not one of them calls him Tom Riddle, perhaps because he *isn't* handsome, charming Tom Riddle any more. Knowing his birth name makes no difference in their view of him or their fear of him. It's what he was during VW1 and what he is during VW2 that matters to the entire WW (except Dumbledore, whose possible reasons for keeping Voldie's secrets until it's time to share them with Harry I've already discussed).

Carol, who supposes that we should agree to disagree on this one




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun  9 17:37:45 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:37:45 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0m5io+p4ai@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0m6l9+cdjf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186954

 > Magpie:
> > The WW knowing he's human does not have anything to do with Dumbledore's investigations. Dumbledore concealed just about everything he knew about Voldemort, not just how much. And he didn't only conceal it from the public but from the people fighting to bring him down.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Where do you find the idea that anyone thought that he wasn't human? As far as I can recall, everyone--both his own followers and the WW at large--viewed him as a Dark Wizard. No one suspects him of being, say, a super-intelligent Troll or some new kind of monster. Besides, he uses a wand, which is a bit of a hint that he's a Wizard.

Magpie:
A dark wizard who's gone so far beyond the normal meaning of "wizard" that they're afraid to say his name or ever think he won't return. They don't treat him like a dark wizard, they treat him like the monster he's written as. He's "The Dark Lord" and "Lord Voldemort." Tom Riddle's publicity campaign for himself was very effective. People basically know that Batman is a man too, but in his urban legend incarnations he also goes beyond merely human.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 18:11:07 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:11:07 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0m2lj+pkbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0m8jr+mma0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186955

jkoney wrote:
> 
> We only see James from scenes that Snape has picked. They are not a fair presentation of the James that actually lived. As someone who hated James he is not going to show anything that shows James in a positive light. So we have to take anything that Snape shows as not being a fair representation of the James that actually lived. 
>
Carol responds:
Snape isn't showing that scene to Harry to put James in a bad light. In any case, he knows that Harry has already seen it when he entered the Pensieve without permission during the last Occlumency lesson. He's showing his own worst memory because it shows why his friendship with Lily fell apart. It's his own history and his relationship with Lily, whom he still loves thought she rejected him, that Snape is revealing to Harry. James's part is almost incidental. (Notice that we don't see the so-called Prank, which is supposedly so important to Snape.) Not to mention, of course, that Snape had no good memories of James to show Harry had he been interested in James at all.

But the problem for the reader is that, aside from the scene where he's playing with baby Harry and his appearances after he's dead (the wand echoes, the walk in the forest, and one I forgot to mention before, his appearance with Lily in the Mirror of Erised), JKR chooses not to show James alive through any memories except Snape's, which does not show James (or Sirius--or for that matter, weak Remus and sycophant Peter) in a good light. And that's not because the dying Snape (who previously had tried to prevent Harry from seeing this memory) cares what Harry thinks about James (though the memory certainly does confirm Snape's view of James as an arrogant, strutting bully). We know from *Lily* that Teen!James is a "toerag" who hexes people in the hallways because they annoy him (a charge proven by the detention card involving the hex that doubled the size of a kid's head). We know from Lupin that Lupin was made a Prefect in the vain hope that he'd keep his roommates in line. We see him showing off with the Snitch, knowing that the girls are watching. Even Sirius says that Lily thinks James has a big head, which he does. (Someone should have given *him* a badge that read "Big-head Boy"--or whatever the Twins put on Percy's badge).

IOW, there's no reason to doubt that the memory presents an accurate picture of James at sixteen (not fifteen--JKR can't do math). Sure, he was made Head Boy, but Dumbledore probably didn't know about this incident--at least, I hope he didn't!--and he certainly didn't know that James was an illegal Animagus who went on midnight excursions with a werewolf (and two other illegal Animagi).

We know that James was clever and talented or he couldn't have become an Animagus or helped to create the Marauder's Map. But we also *know* that he was a bully who began his first day on the Hogwarts Express by being unfairly prejudiced against a boy he didn't even know because he wanted to be in Slytherin. We know that he valued chivalry (raising that imaginary sword that I think can only be the Sword of Gryffindor since we don't hear about any other imaginary swords and he's talking about Gryffindor values), but we also know that his idea of courage (rashly running with a werewolf who could have attacked an innocent citizen of Hogsmeade, for example) and his idea of chivalry (rescuing a classmate from a werewolf only to bully him a week later) were in need of revision.

We know that Lily married him, but she was already attracted to him half against her will. We hear (but we don't see) that he stopped hexing people (other than Severus, who "gave as good as he got"), probably to win Lily's approval. But, still, the one experience that some of us thought must have caused him to mature and rethink his priorities, the rescue of Severus from werewolf-Remus) had no such effect. There's no on-page life-changing experience for James (in contrast to Severus, for whom Voldemort's intending to kill Lily changed everything--well, except for a few unpleasant personality traits).

zanooda wrote:
> > I think many of us have trouble believing that James changed because we were not *shown* how this happened :-). Yes, we were told many times by different characters that James was a good person, but we never actually saw it. The only scene we *saw* him in, however, is SWM, which was quite shameful, IMO. 
,snip>
> > However, I still consider James one of the very few JKR's failures. She is able to create believable and appealing characters with just a few lines, but in this case she didn't manage to show me who James Potter really was ;-).

Carol responds:
Exactly.
 
jkoney:
> We aren't shown this because it isn't relevent to the story of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) about it. 
> 
> Doesn't this seem like she is telling us one thing in text and people aren't believing it? She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 
> 
> I can't blame JKR for not stating her intentions clearly on this issue because she wrote it down.
>
Carol responds:

But what's the use of stating her intentions if they're not realized (made "real" in the text)? Sure, the reader knows that James is supposed to be a good guy. A lot of good characters (some of whom didn't know what he was really up to) liked and admired him. McGonagall's grief at the loss of James and Lily is real. 

But, for Harry, we get that moment of great disillusionment about his father when he enters Snape's Pensieve without permission. He learns to his dismay that Snape's view of his father, while it's certainly not the whole story, is not a malicious lie but the truth as he sees it, with solid evidence to back it up. Even talking to Lupin and Black, who excuse James's behavior on the grounds that he was "fifteen" (they can't count, either) doesn't help much. Harry points out that *he's* fifteen, and, however much he may be tempted, he doesn't go around publicly humiliating Draco Malfoy. He still wants to think the best of his father, though, and later hopes that he was the Half-Blood Prince and inventor of the Levicorpus spell that he once used on Severus Snape (lots of irony there). And yet he gets the same sick feeling when he views the SWM a second time, staying well away from his father's conversation, which he can't bear to hear. It's as if he's in denial about his father till the very end. The father Harry wants to believe in is the one he saw in the Mirror of Erised, the one represented by his powerful stag Patronus (the mate to Snape's through another irony).

But for whatever reason, neither the reader nor Harry gets to see much of that good James and nothing at all of his transformation from arrogant berk to courageous Order member (and that little story of James and Sirius tricking Muggle policemen doesn't help at all--even marriage apparently didn't help him to grow up).

JKR's intentions are clear. We're supposed to believe that he changed from a bully to a person worthy of our respect and admiration. But it's not on the page and consequently, for some of us unwilling to take his transformation on faith, it's not convincing, any more than Phineas Nigellus's statement that Slytherin played its part is sufficient to convince many readers to believe JKR's off-page statement that the (older) Slytherin students (minus Draco, Goyle, and the dead Crabbe) followed Slughorn into battle.

Carol, whose lasting impression of James is the unfavorable one so vividly rendered in SWM 






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 18:16:40 2009
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:16:40 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_and_Intent:_Re:_Snape_and_Harry=92s_Sadism__(was:_Lack_of_re-examination)?=
In-Reply-To: <h0k6e2+j6uh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0m8u8+ogr0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186956

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think there's some conflation going on here.  First there's the question, "does JKR intend for Ginny to be Harry's ideal wife?"
> > <snip> 
> > Second, there's the *completely* different question, "Do you, the reader, feel Ginny is Harry's ideal wife?" <snip>  

> >>jkoney:
> Right, but the problem I'm bringing up is that people mistake the second discussion for the first. They then continue on inspite of what the text actually says. 

Betsy Hp:
I've seen that happen, yes.  There's certainly a fluidity to the two ways of looking at things; JKR's intentions and the reader's response can be dealt with (and often is) within the same conversation. But I don't think it always means the reader isn't aware of the difference between the two.  (Of course, sometimes it does, which can be frustrating. *g*)

> >>jkoney:
> But if you thought that Draco and Harry were going to be friends you were ignoring a large part of the text. This would be subjective on your part. You would be confusing what you think might occur based on other stories with what is actually happening in this one.

Betsy Hp:
No, I wasn't.  I was placing too much *importance* on various parts of the text and that was subjective on my part. But my predictions, though wrong, were text-based.  (Interestingly, before HBP came out I *did* start to doubt Draco's story having a redemptive arc.  HBP led me *very* far astray.  About Snape's ultimate story, too, unfortunately.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> The idea that the author cannot possibly make their intentions clear in the text is farcical to me.  It's basically saying a writer cannot write.

> >>jkoney:
> Actually I'm saying that the reader doesn't know how to read. And it doesn't matter what's in the text, they are going to use their subjective viewpoint and ignore the facts as they are written.

Betsy Hp:
You're being too sweeping again, but I can say I've learned a bit more about being a more careful reader after this Harry Potter experience (an experience that's quite unique, I think).  I did ignore warning signs in the text that should have clued me into the nature of this story because I enjoyed other parts of the text. However, with the story all done, the mysteries all wrapped up, JKR's cards laid flat on the table, I feel like I've accepted the facts as written.  And it's by those facts that I interpret the story in its entire.

> >>jkoney:
> I agree that readers are allowed their own opinion as long as they understand what is actually happening and don't confuse the two.

Betsy Hp:
Agreed! :D  Of course, there's the confusion that occurs when the author, herself, seems unclear about what exactly happened.  (Did Slytherin return to aid Harry in his fight against Voldemort?  If so, why isn't it written into the text?  If not, why does JKR claim that they did?  Did she have clear intentions there and fail to get them across or did her intentions change?)

> >>Steve:
> > It's extremely rare to find someone who has a completely objective agenda.

> >>Goddlefrood:
> Except of course lawyers ;-)

Betsy Hp:
Hee! Bless your boots, Goddlefrood. :)

Betsy Hp




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 18:26:33 2009
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:26:33 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape _really_ hate Harry?
In-Reply-To: <h0h5dh+6097@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0m9gp+k07v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186957

> >>Zara:
> > I read this essay at some point between the publication of HBP and DH(and found it very well-written and interesting). <SNIP> The conclusion that Snape was likely recruited by Albus before he became a Death Eater (in the aftermath of the Prank, in fact), I found an interesting and new idea at the time, but I consider it to have been refuted by DH canon.
> > <snip>

> >>Frank D: 
> Having just reread the Prince's Tale I now see that you are correct.
> <big snip of text>

Betsy Hp:
What I find so disappointing is that, imo, the essay is logical and canon is not.  Where the essay provides a neat answer that gives both Snape and Dumbledore some depth (Dumbledore becomes rather coldly calculating, but very, very clever; Snape is given complex and all too human motivations and drives), canon gives us an answer that serves mainly to flatten them. Dumbledore becomes a judgmental, fool.  (How stupid to you have to be to just *let* an eavesdropper go like that?)  Snape becomes pathetic.

It's on a level with putting the prank before the 'mudblood' scene.  It's bizarrely destructive.

In my opinion, anyway.

Betsy Hp




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 18:36:10 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:36:10 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity?
In-Reply-To: <h0m6l9+cdjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ma2q+6qrk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186958

Carol earlier:
> > Where do you find the idea that anyone thought that he wasn't human? As far as I can recall, everyone--both his own followers and the WW at large--viewed him as a Dark Wizard. No one suspects him of being, say, a super-intelligent Troll or some new kind of monster. Besides, he uses a wand, which is a bit of a hint that he's a Wizard.
> 
> Magpie:
> A dark wizard who's gone so far beyond the normal meaning of "wizard" that they're afraid to say his name or ever think he won't return. They don't treat him like a dark wizard, they treat him like the monster he's written as. He's "The Dark Lord" and "Lord Voldemort." Tom Riddle's publicity campaign for himself was very effective. People basically know that Batman is a man too, but in his urban legend incarnations he also goes beyond merely human.
>
Carol responds:
But that's because of what he's done *as* a Dark Wizard. Having gone beyond being merely human doesn't mean that he didn't start out human. The DEs *know* that he started out human; he's told them that he's done more than any other Wizard to become immortal. However, that doesn't keep most of them (aside from Snape and the Lestrange gang) from thinking that he's dead. 

How on earth would knowing that his name was once Tom Riddle (or George Jones or any other name) cause them to view him any differently? they know he was human once. Ollivander sold him his wand; Slughorn taught him and included him in his Slug Club. Lucius (until CoS) has the diary he created at school that proves he's the Heir of Slytherin.

The WW doesn't need urban legends to know that this guy is not normal. All they need to know is what he's done (or some of it) and what he looks like. He has *become* inhuman. He's *made himself* inhuman (and impossible to kill even though he can be vaporized). That's scarier than if he had somehow been born Lord Voldemort, snake-faced super wizard--which, in any case, they would know is impossible.

If Voldemort had killed my family and you said to me, "But he was once Tom Riddle," I would say to you, "What comfort is that? He murdered my family. He's an inhuman monster." What he once was is irrelevant. It's what he became that matters.

As for not treating him as a Dark Wizard, I can't be sure but I think you're mistaken. Wormtail, for example, says that Voldemort has powers that the others can't imagine, but they're Dark powers that "the greatest Dark Wizard of all time" would be expected to develop. Snape speaks of Dark Magic as the enemy that they're fighting and says that Inferi can be created by a Dark Wizard. He also speaks to Bellatrix of the DEs' hope that Harry Potter might be an even more powerful Dark Wizard that they could rally around.

Carol, wondering how people treated that other indisputable Dark Wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, and pretty sure that they feared him even though he kept his handsome face




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Jun  9 21:13:15 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 14:13:15 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? 
	Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <h0h564+391n@eGroups.com>
References: <h0ggtk+aq09@eGroups.com> <h0h564+391n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906091413j7a0feda2pca58df2c759e766e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186959

>Magpie wrote:
>We were talking about why Dumbledore wouldn't want this information to be
>public.

No.Limberger responds:
If you know that there is a homicidal maniac on the loose such as LV, and
you know that this same homicidal maniac may kill anyone who knows
too much after he uses powerful magic to read their minds, would you
knowingly want to endanger others by telling them things that will
automatically make them targets if they are discovered to know too
much?

There are often very valid reasons for not sharing information with just
anyone.  Just because those reasons are not themselves well
understood does not imply that neither exist nor that they are not
important.  Dumbledore was a very wise man.  Did he make some
mistakes?  Yes, he's not perfect and I don't personally know anyone
who is.  But, again, if you are dealing with a power-hungry homicidal
maniac, what are you going to do, especially if you don't have
sufficient evidence to convict someone, let alone have charges
issued against them?  Voldemort tortured and killed people to
learn their secrets.  Voldemort would terrorize, torture and
murder innocent family members and friends of those that he
wanted to get information from.

Consider your local police department.  Do they publicize what
they know about individual that they're investigating?  No, I don't
think so.  Why?  Because it gives those that they are investigating
an opportunity to flee or alter/hide evidence that the police may be
looking for.  The only way to win in such situations is to be
secretive.  Dumbledore did exactly what he believed he had to do
given the circumstances and it is likely that most anyone else
would have done the same.


-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 21:29:58 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:29:58 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0m2lj+pkbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0mk8m+ipu7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186960

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

> We only see James from scenes that Snape has picked. 
> They are not a fair presentation of the James that actually lived.


zanooda:

But, but... this is exactly what I was saying :-)! We are *shown* James in a bad light, and we are only *told* about his good qualities, we never actually see them :-). 


> jkoney65 wrote:

> As someone who hated James he is not going to show anything 
> that shows James in a positive light.


zanooda:

Right, but I was not talking about Snape here, I was talking about JKR :-). Does she hate James too :-)? No, she loves him and, I suppose, wants us to love him, but she failed to convince some of us, as you can see :-).



> jkoney65 wrote:

> We aren't shown this because it isn't relevent to the story 
> of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author
> doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) 
> about it.


zanooda:

Well, it's great that you are satisfied with this character. To me, however, this is not enough to be "told". I need to feel it, and I don't. That's fine, we readers are different this way :-). Besides, what I wanted was one short scene, not an entire novel-inside-the-novel about James. JKR is great in creating characters, just a few lines scene would be enough to convince me :-).


> Jkoney65 wrote:
 
> She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up 
> and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers 
> subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 


zanooda:

I'm not saying James wasn't a great guy. I *know* he was a great guy, because the author keeps telling me that. I just have trouble believing it, LOL! She shouldn't have written "Snape's Worst Memory" so well :-)!





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  9 22:30:22 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:30:22 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0m8jr+mma0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0mnpu+2bsb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186961

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> jkoney wrote:
> > 
> > We only see James from scenes that Snape has picked. They are not a fair presentation of the James that actually lived. As someone who hated James he is not going to show anything that shows James in a positive light. So we have to take anything that Snape shows as not being a fair representation of the James that actually lived. 
> >
> Carol responds:
> Snape isn't showing that scene to Harry to put James in a bad light. In any case, he knows that Harry has already seen it when he entered the Pensieve without permission during the last Occlumency lesson. He's showing his own worst memory because it shows why his friendship with Lily fell apart. It's his own history and his relationship with Lily, whom he still loves thought she rejected him, that Snape is revealing to Harry. James's part is almost incidental. (Notice that we don't see the so-called Prank, which is supposedly so important to Snape.) Not to mention, of course, that Snape had no good memories of James to show Harry had he been interested in James at all.

jkoney:
A scene Harry saw in a pensieve that seems like a set up to a large portion of fans. Why that memory? There is nothing in it to suggest that Snape and Lilly were friends. Hiding his abusive father or his time on DE raids would make sense, but not something that Harry couldn't make any connection with. That scene was chosen because he knew Harry had invaded a pensieve before. It was chosen to show his father in the worst light.


> Carol
> But the problem for the reader is that, aside from the scene where he's playing with baby Harry and his appearances after he's dead (the wand echoes, the walk in the forest, and one I forgot to mention before, his appearance with Lily in the Mirror of Erised), JKR chooses not to show James alive through any memories except Snape's, which does not show James (or Sirius--or for that matter, weak Remus and sycophant Peter) in a good light. >snip>
> 
> IOW, there's no reason to doubt that the memory presents an accurate picture of James at sixteen (not fifteen--JKR can't do math). Sure, he was made Head Boy, but Dumbledore probably didn't know about this incident--at least, I hope he didn't!--and he certainly didn't know that James was an illegal Animagus who went on midnight excursions with a werewolf (and two other illegal Animagi).
> 
> We know that James was clever and talented or he couldn't have become an Animagus or helped to create the Marauder's Map. But we also *know* that he was a bully who began his first day on the Hogwarts Express by being unfairly prejudiced against a boy he didn't even know because he wanted to be in Slytherin. We know that he valued chivalry (raising that imaginary sword that I think can only be the Sword of Gryffindor since we don't hear about any other imaginary swords and he's talking about Gryffindor values), but we also know that his idea of courage (rashly running with a werewolf who could have attacked an innocent citizen of Hogsmeade, for example) and his idea of chivalry (rescuing a classmate from a werewolf only to bully him a week later) were in need of revision.
> 
> We know that Lily married him, but she was already attracted to him half against her will. We hear (but we don't see) that he stopped hexing people (other than Severus, who "gave as good as he got"), probably to win Lily's approval. But, still, the one experience that some of us thought must have caused him to mature and rethink his priorities, the rescue of Severus from werewolf-Remus) had no such effect. There's no on-page life-changing experience for James (in contrast to Severus, for whom Voldemort's intending to kill Lily changed everything--well, except for a few unpleasant personality traits).

jkoney:
We aren't shown but we are specifically told that he did change. Any other reading becomes completely subjective and is how a reader might feel, not what they actually know to be true.

James may have been a bully but he was also being a bully back to another bully. Snape we see in cannon, attack Petunia with a limb, read her personal mail, and hang around with future DE's whose entire existance is based on bullying people. The HBP invented the toe nail growing spell and many others. I doubt he would invent something that he wouldn't use. Otherwise how would other people have figured it out? We see Snape sneaking around after curfew trying to get the Mauraders in trouble. Shouldn't he have just gone to a teacher or his head of house? We see his inner self come out when he calls Lilly a mudblood. If he never had thought it, he wouldn't have said it. Finally we see Snape attack James with his back turned.

James isn't some insane bully and Snape an innocent. We see a couple of scenes of them together. What they have going is a "pissing" contest that started long before and continues afterward. There are no innocents in that scene.

And it was James, for whatever reasons you believe, who saved Snape's life. That's not something Snape was willing to do or even cared about when he met Dumbledore.


> 
> zanooda wrote:
> > > I think many of us have trouble believing that James changed because we were not *shown* how this happened :-). Yes, we were told many times by different characters that James was a good person, but we never actually saw it. The only scene we *saw* him in, however, is SWM, which was quite shameful, IMO. 
> ,snip>
> > > However, I still consider James one of the very few JKR's failures. She is able to create believable and appealing characters with just a few lines, but in this case she didn't manage to show me who James Potter really was ;-).
> 
> Carol responds:
> Exactly.
>  
> jkoney:
> > We aren't shown this because it isn't relevent to the story of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) about it. 
> > 
> > Doesn't this seem like she is telling us one thing in text and people aren't believing it? She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 
> > 
> > I can't blame JKR for not stating her intentions clearly on this issue because she wrote it down.
> >
> Carol responds:

>snip> 
> JKR's intentions are clear. We're supposed to believe that he changed from a bully to a person worthy of our respect and admiration. But it's not on the page and consequently, for some of us unwilling to take his transformation on faith, it's not convincing, any more than Phineas Nigellus's statement that Slytherin played its part is sufficient to convince many readers to believe JKR's off-page statement that the (older) Slytherin students (minus Draco, Goyle, and the dead Crabbe) followed Slughorn into battle.
> 
> Carol, whose lasting impression of James is the unfavorable one so vividly rendered in SWM
>
jkoney:
I'm not sure what faith is needed when it is written out in black and white. No if's, ands, or buts about it. 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 01:35:54 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:35:54 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0mnpu+2bsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0n2lq+d0cf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186962

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > jkoney wrote:
> > > 
> > > We only see James from scenes that Snape has picked. They are not a fair presentation of the James that actually lived. As someone who hated James he is not going to show anything that shows James in a positive light. So we have to take anything that Snape shows as not being a fair representation of the James that actually lived. 
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> > Snape isn't showing that scene to Harry to put James in a bad light. In any case, he knows that Harry has already seen it when he entered the Pensieve without permission during the last Occlumency lesson. He's showing his own worst memory because it shows why his friendship with Lily fell apart. It's his own history and his relationship with Lily, whom he still loves thought she rejected him, that Snape is revealing to Harry. James's part is almost incidental. (Notice that we don't see the so-called Prank, which is supposedly so important to Snape.) Not to mention, of course, that Snape had no good memories of James to show Harry had he been interested in James at all.
> 
> jkoney:
> A scene Harry saw in a pensieve that seems like a set up to a large portion of fans. Why that memory? There is nothing in it to suggest that Snape and Lilly were friends. Hiding his abusive father or his time on DE raids would make sense, but not something that Harry couldn't make any connection with. That scene was chosen because he knew Harry had invaded a pensieve before. It was chosen to show his father in the worst light.

Carol:
Why would he need to show James in the worst light when Harry had already seen that memory? The scenes in "The Prince's Tale," whether they're about watching Lily on the swings with Petunia, losing Lily, begging Dumbledore to save Lily, or casting the doe Patronus, which symbolizes Lily, are all about--Lily. 
> 
> jkoney:
> We aren't shown but we are specifically told that he did change. Any other reading becomes completely subjective and is how a reader might feel, not what they actually know to be true.

Carol:
But that's the point. We're *told.* As an editor, I'm constantly telling my clients that they need to *show,* not tell. And JKR has quite beautifully shown us James being a bully in SWM.

jkoney: 
> James may have been a bully but he was also being a bully back to another bully. Snape we see in cannon, attack Petunia with a limb, read her personal mail, and hang around with future DE's whose entire existance is based on bullying people. 

Carol:
Reading another kid's mail may not be very nice, but it's not being a bully. James tripping Severus and ridiculing him for the House he wants to be in is being a bully. "Attacking" Petunia with a limb appears to be accidental magic comparable to Harry's "blowing up" aunt Marge. Hanging out with bullies is not being a bully yourself, though, granted, it's condoning bullying. Attacking a kid who's studying, two on one, is being a bully. We never actually see Teen!Severus being a bully. And that can't be because Snape, who selected the scenes, doesn't want to show himself in a bad light, because some of the scenes certainly do just that. You're not looking at the canon here; you're speculating about what Teen!Severus and DE!Snape may have done. (Sure, he was undoubtedly a bully as a DE, but SWM happens *before* that, and James can't have known that he intended to become a DE because Sirius Black never knew that he had become one. All they knew was what Lily knew, that Severus's friends Avery and Mulciber were DE wannabes.

We're talking about the very effective presentation of James and Sirius as bullies. It's brilliantly done, and it makes most readers as uncomfortable as it makes Harry. And we see nothing to *show* us that he changed or had any motivation other than Lily lust for changing.

jkoney:
The HBP invented the toe nail growing spell and many others. 

Carol: 

A spell that Harry thought was cool and used on Crabbe much as his father had used a head-sweling spell on a kid whose name I can't remember. And Harry uses another cool HBP spell, Langlock, on the helpless and unsuspecting Filch. Harry isn't much different from the Prince here, except that he's incapable of inventing his own spells. In any case, with the exception of Sectumsempra, which is undeniably dark, and Muffliato, which is so useful that Hermione (who disapproved of the HBP throughout sixth year) uses it among the protective spells that she casts in DH, the spells in the HBP's Potions book are clever schoolboy hexes little different from the spells that the kids cast on each other in the corridors all the time. The HBP was a genius; Harry and Ron happily admit it. And he also happily uses the Prince's Potions improvements to get marks he doesn't deserve in Potions. 

jkoney:
> I doubt he would invent something that he wouldn't use. Otherwise how would other people have figured it out? 

Carol:
Which makes him no different from Harry and his friends--except that he was cleverer.

jkoney:

> We see Snape sneaking around after curfew trying to get the Mauraders in trouble. Shouldn't he have just gone to a teacher or his head of house? We see his inner self come out when he calls Lilly a mudblood. If he never had thought it, he wouldn't have said it. Finally we see Snape attack James with his back turned.

Carol:
Of course, he was wrong to sneak around after curfew to find out what the Marauders were up to, but how is that different from Harry sneaking around after curfew to find out what Draco is up to? What the Marauders were doing was very dangerous, and, IMO, they should have been caught and stopped. But who was Severus supposed to go to for help? It was obvious that the school was sanctioning the presence of a werewolf. He wanted to find out for himself, and he also wanted to convince Lily that James was a toerag. Actually, that's *her* word, and it made him happy--for a little while, until SWM ruined everything. As for attacking James with his back turned, who attacked first, two on one?

jkoney:
> 
> James isn't some insane bully and Snape an innocent. We see a couple of scenes of them together. What they have going is a "pissing" contest that started long before and continues afterward. There are no innocents in that scene.

Carol:
No one is saying that James is "insane," though he's certainly the biggest bully on the playground, whom Wormtail follows for that reason until he finds a genuinely insane and much more dangerous bully to follow. Nor is anyone saying that Severus was an innocent. But he *was* attacked two on one, without provocation, in that memorable scene. And that scene caused Harry to rethink his view of his father; it even, temporarily, gave him sympathy for Snape--even after the adult Snape stepped in and furiously ended the Occlumency lessons. And, the second time around, Harry did his best to keep away from his father because he didn't want to witness that scene again.

jkoney: 
> And it was James, for whatever reasons you believe, who saved Snape's life. That's not something Snape was willing to do or even cared about when he met Dumbledore.

Carol:
But the problem is, he saved Severus's life (certainly out of no personal fondness for him) *before* he attacked him on the playground. He didn't change or learn any lesson from it, which makes it clear that he did it for selfish reasons, to keep himself and his friends out of terrible trouble, and not for altruistic or humanitarian ones. And, sure, Severus became a DE after that. Sure, he came to DD asking him to save *Lily's* life, not James's or their son's. But he ended up asking DD to save them all, promising to do "anything" in return, and spending the rest of his life protecting Harry and undermining Voldemort (admittedly not that difficult for the first eleven years, but he risked his life for a year before Harry was born and for all seven years that Harry was in school or Horcrux-hunting, most particularly the last three.

But we're not talking about Snape. We see Snape quite clearly and can judge his repentance and atonement (and his behavior as a teacher) for ourselves. It's James that we don't see becoming a good guy. What I see is a kid on a train insulting and tripping another kid because that kid doesn't want to be in the House that supposedly represents chivalry (ironically, James's behavior is less than chivalrous), that same kid (who runs with a werewolf and endangers the population of Hogsmeade once a month) bullying and humiliating another student publicly.

I would have liked to care about James, to like him and respect him and feel that Harry had a father to be proud of. All I'm saying is that the James she depicts so memorably in SWM is not yet that admirable person, and we have to take on faith that he did become that person because JKR chooses to *tell,* not *show*, us that he changed.

All those of us who feel cheated by canon!James want is a scene showing his admirable Order member side. The best we get is a young father playing with his baby--and brilliantly laying his wand on the couch because he trusts an untrustworthy friend. I feel sorry for that James, betrayed by the unworthy Wormtail, and I certainly like him better than the arrogant little berk of SWM who isn't even particularly nice to his own friends. But I would have liked to see him being truly chivalrous, maybe standing up for Muggles against DEs. *Something* to make me see that he'd stopped bullying and started protecting someone other than his own wife and child. Something comparable to Snape's "lately, only those whom I could not save" and by his saving not only Draco and Dumbledore and Katie Bell but even Lupin, who thought he was a murderer and a traitor and hated him.

Carol, who understands that we're supposed to like and admire the later James but never got to see that James and undo the bad impression created by the young one 
> 
> 
> > 
> > zanooda wrote:
> > > > I think many of us have trouble believing that James changed because we were not *shown* how this happened :-). Yes, we were told many times by different characters that James was a good person, but we never actually saw it. The only scene we *saw* him in, however, is SWM, which was quite shameful, IMO. 
> > ,snip>
> > > > However, I still consider James one of the very few JKR's failures. She is able to create believable and appealing characters with just a few lines, but in this case she didn't manage to show me who James Potter really was ;-).
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > Exactly.
> >  
> > jkoney:
> > > We aren't shown this because it isn't relevent to the story of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) about it. 
> > > 
> > > Doesn't this seem like she is telling us one thing in text and people aren't believing it? She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 
> > > 
> > > I can't blame JKR for not stating her intentions clearly on this issue because she wrote it down.
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> 
> >snip> 
> > JKR's intentions are clear. We're supposed to believe that he changed from a bully to a person worthy of our respect and admiration. But it's not on the page and consequently, for some of us unwilling to take his transformation on faith, it's not convincing, any more than Phineas Nigellus's statement that Slytherin played its part is sufficient to convince many readers to believe JKR's off-page statement that the (older) Slytherin students (minus Draco, Goyle, and the dead Crabbe) followed Slughorn into battle.
> > 
> > Carol, whose lasting impression of James is the unfavorable one so vividly rendered in SWM
> >
> jkoney:
> I'm not sure what faith is needed when it is written out in black and white. No if's, ands, or buts about it.
>





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 10 02:22:48 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:22:48 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0m2lj+pkbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0n5do+uv40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186963

 
> jkoney:
> We aren't shown this because it isn't relevent to the story of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) about it. 

Potioncat:
Are we told more than once that James was a great guy? I'm sure we all thought so before OoP. I think McGonagall expessed sadness that James and Lily had died. I think Hagrid said they were good people. Where else? (Hagrid thinks DD is the best Headmaster Hogwarts ever had. I doubt it.)


> jkoney:
> Doesn't this seem like she is telling us one thing in text and people aren't believing it? She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 

Potioncat:
But JKR wrote lots of reversals. And after SWM, many of us wondered if James was another one. Were we set up to believe one thing, but have somehing else be true? The same JKR that wrote Hagrid's and McGonagall's comments, also wrote Snape's memories. And she wrote the memories much more vividly.

We aren't ignoring her canon---we are actually perplexed by it. 

I think she pictured James as being a good adult. That much I get. And I see Pippin's point of view about his simply growing up. It's the writing of it that seems somehow unsettling. We think James is a great guy (but I don't know why we thought that) then we saw him being a jerk--several times---and we never see the transformation between the two moments. So it's unclear why we got the good man/bad boy story without the middle transforming scene.

Except that in a way, it gives us a reversal on Snape. First we see the big jerk teacher, then we see the vulnerable 11 year old. We get to see some of the events in his life that may have colored the man he would become. But we never see that for James. 

Of course, if I had to choose more James for less Severus. I'll keep what we got.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 10 03:18:33 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:18:33 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90906091413j7a0feda2pca58df2c759e766e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h0n8m9+l8l4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186965

> >Magpie wrote:
> >We were talking about why Dumbledore wouldn't want this information to be
> >public.
>
> No.Limberger responds:
> If you know that there is a homicidal maniac on the loose such as LV, and
> you know that this same homicidal maniac may kill anyone who knows
> too much after he uses powerful magic to read their minds, would you
> knowingly want to endanger others by telling them things that will
> automatically make them targets if they are discovered to know too
> much?

Magpie:
Occasionally even Dumbledore had to share some information about Voldemort if he wanted somebody to actually get something done about the guy. Those people were pretty much fine. Voldemort often let these people alone. If he'd come back and found his biography circulated I don't know who he'd kill to take that back.

I think in the real world getting this kind of basic info about the guy would be pretty expected. 

Of course there are often valid reasons for not sharing information. Dumbledore being obsessed with knowing stuff other people don't provides a big reason all the time, more so than his being "wise" and therefore needing to schedule secret sharing after his death.

No Limberger:
Dumbledore did exactly what he believed he had to do
> given the circumstances and it is likely that most anyone else
> would have done the same.

Magpie:
Yes, to the first, but I think the second lies madness. Everyone on the planet should never be limited to Dumbledore's choices. Especially if they don't have the benefit of knowing their author will come through with some deus ex machina to make their very strange plan work out.

Carol responds:
But that's because of what he's done *as* a Dark Wizard. Having gone beyond
being merely human doesn't mean that he didn't start out human. The DEs *know*
that he started out human; he's told them that he's done more than any other
Wizard to become immortal. However, that doesn't keep most of them (aside from
Snape and the Lestrange gang) from thinking that he's dead.

Magpie:
I would think it was clear that I'm not suggesting they mistakenly think he's got panda DNA, but that he's made himself so much of a legend and a mystery that most Wizards only know Lord Voldemort as his created identity, so I think the idea of saying look, here's the guy you're dealing with potentially has value. Everyone knows unknown serial killers are human too. Still a big difference when you've got a mundane life and name to go with them.

You've explained that you're not aware of this phenomenon at all and can't imagine why it would make any difference to think of the guy as Tom Riddle, head boy, but I do. And I think Voldemort does too, which is why he prefers being Lord Voldemort. Oh, and so does Dumbledore who makes a point of calling him Tom. As does Harry. True names have power. Power the author has good reasons for not want everybody in her world to share. They look to Harry and Dumbledore.

-m





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 10 03:51:51 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:51:51 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0n5do+uv40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0nakn+mokh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186966

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> 
> I think she pictured James as being a good adult. That much I get. And I see Pippin's point of view about his simply growing up. It's the writing of it that seems somehow unsettling. We think James is a great guy (but I don't know why we thought that) then we saw him being a jerk--several times---and we never see the transformation between the two moments. So it's unclear why we got the good man/bad boy story without the middle transforming scene.

Pippin:
What JKR showed us, brilliantly, was not how James transformed. It was  how Snape could keep perceiving James as such a jerk when everyone else thought he was so wonderful. 

People do keep saying what a great guy James was. Dumbledore, Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, Rosmerta, and Sirius all clearly love him and miss him.  Even Peter Pettigrew and Voldemort have nice things to say about him. Undoubtedly he resisted Voldemort and died trying to save his wife and child, though not in the epic battle that Voldemort boasted of having with him.  

But nothing is compelling enough to  shake the bad impression that teenage James left on us.  Snape's abiding hatred and disdain, which at first seemed completely undeserved, the mark of a character so filled with jealousy and malice that he couldn't even be grateful to the man who saved his life, become more than understandable. 

But even though there were episodes in his father's life that Harry would rather not dwell on, Harry named a son after James. I think that shows us that Harry believed that James had grown beyond those days. 

For me, the glimpse through the window of the happy father playing with his son was telling. It's not just that James loves his family, it's that he's at peace with them. When do we see Vernon or Lucius just enjoy being a dad? Never: they're always in a power struggle with somebody. And so was Sirius at GP, most of the time, even when Harry was there and desperately in need of his company.

Pippin








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 10 04:22:42 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:22:42 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape _really_ hate Harry?
In-Reply-To: <h0m9gp+k07v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ncei+ok57@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186967

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
> Betsy Hp:
> What I find so disappointing is that, imo, the essay is logical and canon is not.  Where the essay provides a neat answer that gives both Snape and Dumbledore some depth (Dumbledore becomes rather coldly calculating, but very, very clever; Snape is given complex and all too human motivations and drives), canon gives us an answer that serves mainly to flatten them. Dumbledore becomes a judgmental, fool.  (How stupid to you have to be to just *let* an eavesdropper go like that?)  Snape becomes pathetic.

Pippin:
ESE!Lupin was logical too.  The trouble is, once you've realized that a character is speaking in code, you can make him mean anything. :) 

It doesn't seem to me that Rejected!Son Snape is less pathetic than Rejected!Lover Snape. Either way, he's attached himself to an unavailable person. The theory makes Snape  even more a victim of Dumbledore's machinations, which makes him flatter and weaker, IMO. 

Canon!Snape walks free in the end, like Tom Bombadil, under no enchantment but his own. He rejects Dumbledore's advice when he chooses,  he has  a plan which he feels no need to share with his former Headmaster, and his hatred of Harry endures despite all of Dumbledore's efforts to talk him out of it.

As for Dumbledore, he let an *accused* eavesdropper go. I can just see Snape playing the outraged innocent, and Dumbledore, with his soft spot for innocence, falling for it lock, stock and cauldron, especially since Trelawney and his brother took the other side. 

Snape had to be clever enough to fool Dumbledore, or  why on earth would Dumbledore think he'd be clever enough to fool Voldemort?

Pippin






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 04:27:30 2009
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:27:30 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0m2lj+pkbn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ncni+qfv8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186968

 
> > zanooda
<snip>
> > 
> > However, I still consider James one of the very few JKR's failures. She is able to create believable and appealing characters with just a few lines, but in this case she didn't manage to show me who James Potter really was ;-).
> >


> jkoney:
> We aren't shown this because it isn't relevent to the story of Harry's journey. We are told it more than once so the author doesn't have to write several scenes (meaningless to the plot) about it. 
> 
> Doesn't this seem like she is telling us one thing in text and people aren't believing it? She seems to make the point quite clear that James grew up and was a good/great guy. So wouldn't this be the readers subjective view overriding what is actually written down? 
> 
> I can't blame JKR for not stating her intentions clearly on this issue because she wrote it down.
>


Annemehr:
The thing is, it isn't only the readers' view that's subjective.  JKR's view of what makes a "great guy" is completely subjective also.  

I'm sure many of us basically see the James that JKR had in mind, and still think he's a jerk.

Take that snippet where James et al make fools of the muggle cops, while they're adult members of the order.  I just wanted to smack him one.  I'm pretty sure JKR intended him to be cool.

If JKR comes out in another interview and says "James was really cool in that scene," am I supposed to agree just because she said so?  And I don't agree to like him, just because she put praise for him in McGonagall's mouth, either.









From no.limberger at gmail.com  Wed Jun 10 13:57:09 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:57:09 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? 
	Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <h0n8m9+l8l4@eGroups.com>
References: <7ef72f90906091413j7a0feda2pca58df2c759e766e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <h0n8m9+l8l4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906100657j18f70554odcf43f1de685c7b4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186969

>Magpie wrote [SNIP]:
>Dumbledore being obsessed with knowing stuff other people don't

No.Limberger responds:
The only thing that I would say Dumbledore was obsessed with was
to defeat LV.

>Magpie wrote:
>Everyone on the planet should never be limited to Dumbledore's choices.

No.Limberger responds:
We are all limited each day by other people's choices.  If you get
stuck in traffic on a freeway, it was both your choice to be on the
freeway as well as everyone else's who then have to slow
down due to excess traffic.  This is also the result of the freeway
designers who designed the road with an expectation that only
a certain number of vehicles would be on the road at any given time,
as well budgetary constraints on how much could be spent on the
highway.

Each of us makes choices every day.  Those choices may seem
at times to only affect us, but they will invariably affect others as
well.  No one for certain can say what all of the consequences of
a particular choice will be because there are simply far too many
unknowns to take into account.  If you get onto a freeway and have
to slow down, say, because a dog runs out in front on your car, then
chances are that anyone immediately behind you will also have to
slow down, and so forth and so forth.  Long after you have departed
the area, chances are that there will still be people slowing down
in the spot where you first hit your brakes because of the amount
of traffic on the road.  Your choice was to save the dog, but you
have also invariably & unintentionally created a minor traffic jam.
Unintended consequences can never be fully accounted for, especially
in an emergency situation when decisions may have to be made
very quickly.

Consider an accident that occurred at a Hyatt Regency
Hotel in the U.S. approximately 20 years ago.  A number of
people were celebrating new years at the hotel and many were
dancing on catwalks over a larger area.  One of the catwalks
slipped from its support cables, falling onto a second catwalk that
consequently slipped from its cables.  Both fell to the ground floor
below, injuring and killing many people.  Were the patrons at
fault for dancing on the catwalks?  Was the engineering firm
that designed the catwalks years earlier responsible for a poor
design?  No.  After a long investigation, it turned out that a
subcontractor during construction chose to save a few cents
by using smaller washers that helped to keep the support cables
in place than what the engineering firm had designed.  Did the
subcontractor do that to deliberately harm others?  No, they
just wanted save a handful of dollars without considering the
consequences of changing the design that they were not
qualified to change in the first place.  Consider Air France's
decision to delay replacing airspeed sensors on their fleet
of Airbus A330's.  This may have resulted in the recent crash
of a plane bound for Paris from Rio de Janeiro over the Atlantic
Ocean that killed over 200 passengers and crew.  Consider
the pilot who chose to land a U.S. Air Airbus plane in a river
flowing next to NYC a few months ago after the engines lost
power due to sucking in a flock of birds.  His decision to land
the plane in the river saved lives.  Had he chosen to try and
land at a nearby airport with no power, there would probably
have been a lot of deaths, both on the plane and on the
ground.

Thus, while you accuse Dumbledore of being obsessive and greedy
for knowledge, I completely disagree.  Dumbledore made choices
that he believed were right at the time.  If he realized that he was
wrong about something, he was not too ashamed to admit it.  An
individual as obsessed as you claim would never be willing to
admit a mistake since that would require sharing information that
they aren't willing to share in the first place.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Wed Jun 10 14:04:27 2009
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri&Dan Chase)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:04:27 -0500
Subject: World Building (was Why did Snape _really_ hate Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <1244625861.1414.72615.m5@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1244625861.1414.72615.m5@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <055D60C90468447EBA375A24E367FB98@JerriPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 186970

>Betsy Hp:
>What I find so disappointing is that, imo, the essay is logical
>and canon is not.  Where the essay provides a neat answer
>that gives both Snape and Dumbledore some depth (Dumbledore
>becomes rather coldly calculating, but very, very clever; Snape
>is given complex and all too human motivations and drives),
>canon gives us an answer that serves mainly to flatten them.
>Dumbledore becomes a judgmental, fool.  (How stupid to you
>have to be to just *let* an eavesdropper go like that?)  Snape
>becomes pathetic.

You bring up a point I have been pondering for some time.  You use the word 
"logical".  I have been finding canon less and less logical from GoF on.  I 
have been a long time reader of Fantasy and Science Fiction.  Both of these 
fields often involve "world building".  I read and enjoyed the first two HP 
books, and then PoA and the wonderful plot twists caught my fancy and I 
became a "true believer".  The reader was learning about the Wizarding World 
as young Harry learned about the Wizarding world.  Sure, there were 
occasions when the WW didn't make logical sense, when numbers didn't add up. 
Little things had Nick been dead 400 or 500 years, had there been modern 
type plumbing "1000 years ago" or so, when the Castle and Chamber of Secrets 
had been built.  And there was a lot we didn't know yet about the Wizarding 
world.  I knew that there was a 7 book series to be completed (I knew that 
from a few chapters into SS/PS, without having read or heard anything about 
the HP trend, it was obvious from the first, to me.)  I assumed that as we 
went further into the books that the world building process would become 
more complete.  As Harry learned more about the WW we would also, and it 
would become as "real" as a subcreation/fictional world can be.

I was wrong.  As each book came out there was more and more complexity but 
the new aspects didn't hang together with the ones we had seen in the 
earlier books.  And interviews and JKR's web site only made the 
inconsistencies worse and more obvious.  How many students at Hogworts, how 
big was the WW, how does the economy work, how come G. didn't win the house 
cup when the "legendary Charlie Weasley" was seeker?  And how long ago was 
that anyway?

I have come to the reluctant conclusion that JKR wasn't a "world builder". 
She created very compelling characters and put them into interesting and 
adventurous situations.  But as far as the Wizarding world and rules of 
magic, too much of the time, in spite of all those years of planning and 
charts and stuff, she seems to have been "making it up as she went along", 
like Hans Solo.  Time turners a great plot device for PoA, suddenly without 
warning they are there, and then break them all so that they can't be used 
later.  (And no explanation as to why someone, on one side of the other 
can't make more.)  Lucky potion a great plot device in HBP, but why doesn't 
Snape or Slughorn or someone make up a batch for the big battle?  Or, why 
doesn't Lord V have someone make some up for his side to use?  And these are 
just a few tiny examples.  And the essay "Why did Snape really hate Harry?" 
and many other great, logical essays about the books which DH sank show many 
more.  She has admitted and the canon show that JKR has a problem with 
"maths", but this seems to extend to logic.  And also, to remembering what 
she has written vs what she planned to write.  This is shown in things like 
the infamous "return of the Slyterines" at the end of DH.  I could list 
many, many more places where the canon doesn't make logical or mathematical 
sense.  And as finally disclosed in DH, not even the character development 
makes logical sense to some readers.

Now, there are good and even great aspects of JKR's creation.  If there 
weren't I wouldn't be part of a group like this.  But it is so much less 
than I had expected, do to lapses in logic, world building, maths and 
similar issues.

Jerri






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 10 15:38:23 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:38:23 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0ncni+qfv8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ok1f+incm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186971


> Annemehr:
> The thing is, it isn't only the readers' view that's subjective.  JKR's view of what makes a "great guy" is completely subjective also.  
> 
> I'm sure many of us basically see the James that JKR had in mind, and still think he's a jerk.
> 
> Take that snippet where James et al make fools of the muggle cops, while they're adult members of the order.  I just wanted to smack him one.  I'm pretty sure JKR intended him to be cool.
> 

Pippin:
What's cool got to do with being a good person? Did the snippet make you think that was JKR's idea of treating Muggles with kindness and respect? 

Everything was so simple back in GoF. It looked like all  Harry had to do over the next three books was kill the monsters and straighten out a few misguided people, himself no doubt among them.  And hey presto!, the wizarding world would once again be just as wonderful as it appeared to be when Harry first discovered it.

Only it turns out that there is no magic for straightening out misguided people. There's only kindness and respect, and they're so slow.  You can hardly blame people for thinking there's got to be another way, especially when telling people what jerks they are makes you feel better, and making people look and feel like the idiots they are  makes you look cool,  and is a lot easier anyway. 

Treating the monsters kindly gets you nowhere, and while canon shows that most  people do have it in them to be more decent than they are,  they aren't likely to get over the effects of years or centuries of abuse and neglect and misguidance and be instantly transformed. 

They'll probably be nearly as obnoxious and dangerous tomorrow as they were the day before. It could take years to see any result, they may never recover completely, and who wants to put up with them that long? 

But which does canon make you think is worth fighting for...the  world that James fought for, where people are at least trying to treat each other with kindness and respect, or the one where everybody wants to be the biggest bully on the playground?

Pippin





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 10 16:30:24 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:30:24 -0000
Subject: Why didn't DD reveal Voldemort's identity? Some Tigana spoilers
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90906100657j18f70554odcf43f1de685c7b4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h0on30+g25s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186972

> >Magpie wrote [SNIP]:
> >Dumbledore being obsessed with knowing stuff other people don't
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> The only thing that I would say Dumbledore was obsessed with was
> to defeat LV.

Magpie:
Not to the point where it overrided his natural personality. As I said elsewhere, it's not that Dumbledore's saying "Well, I want to defeat him, but I'd rather keep this secret!" It's that Dumbledore naturally thinks, "Hmm, how will I defeat him? Well, obviously it's important that I keep everything very secret so only I know it..." One of the main things his team is known for is being completely in the dark about what Dumbledore's really doing and it doesn't actually particularly help anything. It's just the way Dumbledore operates. Which is why one of the main things about being on his team is having personal faith in Dumbledore's wisdom.


> >Magpie wrote:
> >Everyone on the planet should never be limited to Dumbledore's choices.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> We are all limited each day by other people's choices. 

Magpie:
That's not what I meant. I wasn't saying that people should not have to suffer from the effects of Dumbledore's choices--obviously, as you say, that's pointless. He makes a choice, there are consequences. 

What I meant was that I would never ever hold up Dumbledore's choices as the model of what everyone should do, because Dumbledore's got his own problems. Just because he did something does not mean another plan would be a bad idea. It just means this is what Dumbledore did. 


No.Limberger:
> Thus, while you accuse Dumbledore of being obsessive and greedy
> for knowledge, I completely disagree.  Dumbledore made choices
> that he believed were right at the time.  If he realized that he was
> wrong about something, he was not too ashamed to admit it.  An
> individual as obsessed as you claim would never be willing to
> admit a mistake since that would require sharing information that
> they aren't willing to share in the first place.

Magpie:
I say that he was both--and there's plenty of canon to back this up. He didn't consider anyone on his level enough to discuss plans. Things worked out because the author had no intention of not making them work out but that doesn't, imo, mean that everything Dumbledore did was necessary for things to work out. Another person under the same set of circumstances might have found plenty of things he did strange and counter-productive, or would have had a different style of working. I know I felt that way throughout OotP. Dumbledore assures Harry he was doing what he felt was best there too. That doesn't mean he was correct and I'm just not wise enough to see it. We just disagreed.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 16:44:01 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:44:01 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0ok1f+incm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0onsh+fmul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186973

Pippin wrote:
> What's cool got to do with being a good person? Did the snippet make you think that was JKR's idea of treating Muggles with kindness and respect? 
> 
> Everything was so simple back in GoF. It looked like all  Harry had to do over the next three books was kill the monsters and straighten out a few misguided people, himself no doubt among them.  And hey presto!, the wizarding world would once again be just as wonderful as it appeared to be when Harry first discovered it.
> 
> Only it turns out that there is no magic for straightening out misguided people. There's only kindness and respect, and they're so slow.  You can hardly blame people for thinking there's got to be another way, especially when telling people what jerks they are makes you feel better, and making people look and feel like the idiots they are  makes you look cool,  and is a lot easier anyway. 
> 
> Treating the monsters kindly gets you nowhere, and while canon shows that most  people do have it in them to be more decent than they are,  they aren't likely to get over the effects of years or centuries of abuse and neglect and misguidance and be instantly transformed. 
> 
> They'll probably be nearly as obnoxious and dangerous tomorrow as they were the day before. It could take years to see any result, they may never recover completely, and who wants to put up with them that long? 
> 
> But which does canon make you think is worth fighting for...the  world that James fought for, where people are at least trying to treat each other with kindness and respect, or the one where everybody wants to be the biggest bully on the playground?
> 
> Pippin
>
Carol responds:
No one is arguing that James didn't choose the right side. Some of us just see nothing in canon (except playing with his baby) that makes him look like a good man--no indication that he ever stopped being an "arrogant berk." And that little scene with the Muggle cops (which I wish I'd never read) shows that even after Hogwarts, when he was presumably already a married "man," shows that he still hadn't grown up, and certainly hadn't acquired any respect for Muggles, whom he and Sirius seem to regard as comic buffoons. (Did he and Sirius still run with a werewolf on full moon nights? I certainly hope not.)

The main purpose that James serves--for me only--is to contrast with Harry, who, for whatever reason (perhaps that he was taught humility at an early age, as James never was?) is a far better person. Sure, Harry also breaks school rules, but it's usually for what he considers to be a good reason. He's not concerned with having fun at other people's expense and seeing how much he can get away with. the fact that James chose to be in the Order is almost irrelevant. Even arrogant little berks and toerags can choose the right side, apparently, especially if they've (apparently) been indoctrinated by their family to think that Gryffindor is "good" and Slytherin is "bad." (Under the circumstances, choosing Dumbledore's side over Voldemort's doesn't even require a conscious decision.) And, conversely, as we learn in HBP and DH, even Death Eaters can love their families. For all we know, Lucius Malfoy and Theo Nott's father played with their babies, too.

As for trying to tame monsters, that sounds more like Hagrid than James. The best we can say for James with regard to nonhuman creatures is that he probably didn't own a House Elf. Sure, he was friends with a werewolf (who became a nonhuman creature once a month), but that was cool, man. Where do we see him treating anyone outside his very limited circle with kindness and respect? I'm not saying that he didn't do so, only that JKR chose not to show it. The James she chose to depict in detail is an egotistical young bully. The James that McGonagall mourned isn't shown. (Wonder if she would have liked him as well if she'd known that he was an illegal Animagus who roamed the grounds and Hogsmeade with a werewolf once a month, the same werewolf that Dumbledore had confined to the Shrieking Shack to keep the students and villagers safe?)

Carol, for whom knowing that James is on the right side (and a good daddy) is not sufficient reason to find him admirable in other respects (and, yes, I know that's subjective)




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Wed Jun 10 20:48:24 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:48:24 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0nakn+mokh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0p66o+fsvb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186974

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom@> wrote:
> >
> >  
> > 
> > I think she pictured James as being a good adult. That much I get. And I see Pippin's point of view about his simply growing up. It's the writing of it that seems somehow unsettling. We think James is a great guy (but I don't know why we thought that) then we saw him being a jerk--several times---and we never see the transformation between the two moments. So it's unclear why we got the good man/bad boy story without the middle transforming scene.
> 
> Pippin:
> What JKR showed us, brilliantly, was not how James transformed. It was  how Snape could keep perceiving James as such a jerk when everyone else thought he was so wonderful. 
> 
> People do keep saying what a great guy James was. Dumbledore, Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, Rosmerta, and Sirius all clearly love him and miss him.  Even Peter Pettigrew and Voldemort have nice things to say about him. Undoubtedly he resisted Voldemort and died trying to save his wife and child, though not in the epic battle that Voldemort boasted of having with him.  
> 
> But nothing is compelling enough to  shake the bad impression that teenage James left on us.  Snape's abiding hatred and disdain, which at first seemed completely undeserved, the mark of a character so filled with jealousy and malice that he couldn't even be grateful to the man who saved his life, become more than understandable. 
> 
> But even though there were episodes in his father's life that Harry would rather not dwell on, Harry named a son after James. I think that shows us that Harry believed that James had grown beyond those days. 
> 
> For me, the glimpse through the window of the happy father playing with his son was telling. It's not just that James loves his family, it's that he's at peace with them. When do we see Vernon or Lucius just enjoy being a dad? Never: they're always in a power struggle with somebody. And so was Sirius at GP, most of the time, even when Harry was there and desperately in need of his company.
> 
> Pippin
>
Steve replies: 

 Very well stated Pippin.  I think those who are so preoccupied w/ James's behavior at Hogwarts and the lack of written scenes w/ him doing good things as a father apparently consider him more bad than good. And I can actually see this happening from their subjective pov.  I tend to cut him more slack than that, with his bad behavior being done as an adolescent and the vast majority of his behavior as an adult apparently being good.  Being a part of the OotP is a much bigger deal than some of you are making it, in my opinion, as it isn't just a Shcriners club he's part of here, but an active resistance force against LV.  But the other thing others don't seem to be mentioning, that I'm aware of is what Lily thought of him as a husband. If he was such a bad person, wouldn't she have divorced him or wouldn't there be some canon of her criticizing him as an adult? Snape valued Lily to the point of risking his life (and sacrificing it as well?)on her behalf.  If Lily was worthy of Snape's love, wasn't she also worthy of being a good judge of character for James? Just some thoughts.  




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 21:27:36 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:27:36 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0p66o+fsvb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0p8g9+m2c7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186975

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mesmer44" <winterfell7 at ...> wrote:
>
> "pippin_999" <foxmoth@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom@> wrote:
> > >
> > >  
> > > 
> > > I think she pictured James as being a good adult. That much I get. And I see Pippin's point of view about his simply growing up. It's the writing of it that seems somehow unsettling. We think James is a great guy (but I don't know why we thought that) then we saw him being a jerk--several times---and we never see the transformation between the two moments. So it's unclear why we got the good man/bad boy story without the middle transforming scene.
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > What JKR showed us, brilliantly, was not how James transformed. It was  how Snape could keep perceiving James as such a jerk when everyone else thought he was so wonderful. 
> > 
> > People do keep saying what a great guy James was. Dumbledore, Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, Rosmerta, and Sirius all clearly love him and miss him.  Even Peter Pettigrew and Voldemort have nice things to say about him. Undoubtedly he resisted Voldemort and died trying to save his wife and child, though not in the epic battle that Voldemort boasted of having with him.  
> > 
> > But nothing is compelling enough to  shake the bad impression that teenage James left on us.  Snape's abiding hatred and disdain, which at first seemed completely undeserved, the mark of a character so filled with jealousy and malice that he couldn't even be grateful to the man who saved his life, become more than understandable. 
> > 
> > But even though there were episodes in his father's life that Harry would rather not dwell on, Harry named a son after James. I think that shows us that Harry believed that James had grown beyond those days. 
> > 
> > For me, the glimpse through the window of the happy father playing with his son was telling. It's not just that James loves his family, it's that he's at peace with them. When do we see Vernon or Lucius just enjoy being a dad? Never: they're always in a power struggle with somebody. And so was Sirius at GP, most of the time, even when Harry was there and desperately in need of his company.
> > 
> > Pippin
> >
> Steve replies: 
> 
>  Very well stated Pippin.  I think those who are so preoccupied w/ James's behavior at Hogwarts and the lack of written scenes w/ him doing good things as a father apparently consider him more bad than good. And I can actually see this happening from their subjective pov.  I tend to cut him more slack than that, with his bad behavior being done as an adolescent and the vast majority of his behavior as an adult apparently being good.  Being a part of the OotP is a much bigger deal than some of you are making it, in my opinion, as it isn't just a Shcriners club he's part of here, but an active resistance force against LV.  But the other thing others don't seem to be mentioning, that I'm aware of is what Lily thought of him as a husband. If he was such a bad person, wouldn't she have divorced him or wouldn't there be some canon of her criticizing him as an adult? Snape valued Lily to the point of risking his life (and sacrificing it as well?)on her behalf.  If Lily was worthy of Snape's love, wasn't she also worthy of being a good judge of character for James? Just some thoughts.
>
Carol responds:

Just a question, Steve, and please don't think I'm being rude. Why is our interpretation subjective but yours isn't? We're looking at what's on the page, and what's on the page is judged as bullying by Harry himself. To some degree, any interpretation is subjective, but a text-based interpretation is less so than one that's based merely on what we want or feel. (I actually *want* to see a James who's worthy of admiration, but that's not what's depicted in SWM.)

Once again, all we're saying is that the supposedly admirable James whom Lily loved and who is represented by Harry's Patronus is not depicted in the books. Any reader--you, me, or anyone else--is forced to *imagine* him because we never see or hear the living James doing anything admirable, unless you count that touching last scene with his family (which, I confess, I found rather disappointing because Voldemort had led me to expect a battle between him and James).

On the one hand, anything a reader *feels* is subjective, whether JKR intended us to feel those emotions or not. But subjectivity in the negative sense of seeing what we want to see whether it's there or not is another matter. It seems to me that viewing James as admirable despite the lack of supporting evidence (and the evidence to the contrary) is wishful thinking.

As I keep saying, any interpretation that can be supported by canon is a valid interpretation. Can you show us the canon for a believable good James?

And just a note here: It's probably not the best idea to base our view of a character on what other characters say about him or her as opposed to that character's own words and actions (and even those can sometimes be deceptive). The good comments about James are balanced by the bad ones, not to mention that James's friends and admirers were either unaware of what he was up to on full-moon nights or sharers in his mischief.

I'd love to do a post including comments about characters that turned out to be mistaken, starting with Lee or the Twins saying about Fake!Moody, "How cool is he?" In most cases, we find out that these comments are mistaken not through those characters retracting their comments (that almost never happens) but through the character they're speaking of proving them wrong through his own words and actions. But James is a strange case. We never see evidence either way of what he became. Yes, he joined the Order, but what did he do there besides annoy Muggle policemen in a semicanonical side story? All we see him do is hide in Godric's Hollow, mistakenly trusting Voldemort, play with his baby, leave his wand on the couch, and call to Lily that Voldemort is there and he'll hold him off. Sorry, James, but that's hard to do without a wand in your hand.

That little scene is all we get. Any other basis for Reformed!James comes only from the comments of other characters, who, sad to say, are very often mistaken in their judgments.

Carol, trying to distinguish between interpretation based on textual evidence, which is only minimally subjective, and the kind of wishful thinking (e.g., Lily should have married Snape) that can lead to distorted and uncanonical interpretations, which is not what we're doing here




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 21:52:59 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:52:59 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0p8g9+m2c7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0p9vr+ftor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186976

Carol:
<SNIP>
And just a note here: It's probably not the best idea to base our view of a
character on what other characters say about him or her as opposed to that
character's own words and actions (and even those can sometimes be deceptive).
The good comments about James are balanced by the bad ones, not to mention that
James's friends and admirers were either unaware of what he was up to on
full-moon nights or sharers in his mischief.
<SNIP>

Alla:

As I said upthread, I totally understand why people would want more of good James, but I also disagree that it is not *the best idea* to base the interpretation of the character on comments of other characters.

Canon is closed, and I do not see anywhere in the books that comments about Good!Adult James were counteracted as mistaken.

I mean, really if Lily's comments about James as toerag should count as judging James' character (and I think they should), I also think that her marrying him and the way she talks about him in her letter to Sirius also should count as judging his character.

I certainly do not think that the opposing interpretation is worth any less than mine, but mine is also based on canon, even if it is what other characters *say*. To **me** it is enough, but I totally get why for some people (or many people) it is not.

And I also wanted to add it somewhere, so this seems as good place as any about another reason why I totally buy reformed James. Well, of course as an aside  I never thought of him as totally bad guy in school and believed that his interactions with Snape are at least in part based on his hatred of Dark Magic, so it is not like I have to buy the transformation from horrible James to great James, however I certainly think that he did bad things in school as well, so I did think that he needed to grow up.

So anyway, I think of James as good guy because I think of Harry as good guy and no, I do not think Harry has his best features from Lily and worst from James. I think kids inherit a lot of character traits from his parents and I think a lot of good in Harry is from James too.

It is the same reason why I was not in the slightest bit surprised by Molly's display of magical power in DH. I always knew she is very powerful witch, the fact that she is a mom of Charley and Bill showed me as much.

And basically to me, since I think that Harry is basically a good guy with a lot of admirable qualities (and some bad too of course), his parents could not be bad people, to me they just could not. Flawed people, yes, but to me, not bad at all.

JMO,

Alla





From brian at rescueddoggies.com  Wed Jun 10 13:28:30 2009
From: brian at rescueddoggies.com (Brian)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:28:30 -0300
Subject: James and Intent
Message-ID: <4A2FB4FE.7030303@rescueddoggies.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186977

I'm amazed that someone could see James as one of JKR's few failures in 
characterisation.

Nearly ALL the characters are cardboard cutouts.  We never get to know 
Ginny, for example, which is why so man could not accept her for Harry.
Even Ron is a two dimensional character used, by JKR's own words, for 
comic relief.

The ONLY characters we see in depth are Harry, and to a lesser extent, 
Hermione.  Even Harry is unrealistic as an apparently "normal" 
eleven-year-old, highly unlikely having been neglected and living in a 
cupboard for ten years.

JKR had great ideas for a story and situations, but characterisation was 
NOT her strong point.  (As for romance...   haha)

Brian



From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 22:35:34 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:35:34 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0p9vr+ftor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0pcfm+tmp9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186978

> Alla:
> And I also wanted to add it somewhere, so this seems as good place as any about another reason why I totally buy reformed James. Well, of course as an aside  I never thought of him as totally bad guy in school and believed that his interactions with Snape are at least in part based on his hatred of Dark Magic, so it is not like I have to buy the transformation from horrible James to great James, however I certainly think that he did bad things in school as well, so I did think that he needed to grow up.


Montavilla47:
I don't get how a hatred of Dark Magic justifies (or even partially
justifies)  what James and Sirius do to Snape in SWM.  






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 22:48:31 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:48:31 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0pcfm+tmp9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0pd7v+opvj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186979

> > Alla:
<SNIP>
> > And I also wanted to add it somewhere, so this seems as good place as any about another reason why I totally buy reformed James. Well, of course as an aside  I never thought of him as totally bad guy in school and believed that his interactions with Snape are at least in part based on his hatred of Dark Magic, so it is not like I have to buy the transformation from horrible James to great James, however I certainly think that he did bad things in school as well, so I did think that he needed to grow up. <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I don't get how a hatred of Dark Magic justifies (or even partially
> justifies)  what James and Sirius do to Snape in SWM.

Alla:

Nope, not justifies at all, but makes a portrayal of James (to me) to be not just a bully, but also somebody who thought (even if completely wrongly) that his heart was in the right place.

As I mentioned somewhere in this thread I find the speculation that for example Snape was hunting Muggles (or muggleborns) to be completely well, speculative and not shown anywhere in the text.

However, I certainly think that I can **speculate**, note, not prove anything, speculate that if Marauders thought that Snape was doing activities of that sort that it gives them some sort of misguided right to bully him.

Not that they were right of course, it is not like it gives them anything of the sort, but the fact that they were against dark wizards, on its own, well I like it. I dislike what they used that idea for in Snape's case, but like the idea on its own.



JMO,

Alla.





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 10 23:31:17 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:31:17 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0n2lq+d0cf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0pfo5+9rpl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186980

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
>> > jkoney:
> > A scene Harry saw in a pensieve that seems like a set up to a large portion of fans. Why that memory? There is nothing in it to suggest that Snape and Lilly were friends. Hiding his abusive father or his time on DE raids would make sense, but not something that Harry couldn't make any connection with. That scene was chosen because he knew Harry had invaded a pensieve before. It was chosen to show his father in the worst light.
> 
> Carol:
> Why would he need to show James in the worst light when Harry had already seen that memory? The scenes in "The Prince's Tale," whether they're about watching Lily on the swings with Petunia, losing Lily, begging Dumbledore to save Lily, or casting the doe Patronus, which symbolizes Lily, are all about--Lily. 

jkoney:
The first time harry saw the scene was the set up to show James in the worst possible light.


> > 
> > jkoney:
> > We aren't shown but we are specifically told that he did change. Any other reading becomes completely subjective and is how a reader might feel, not what they actually know to be true.
> 
> Carol:
> But that's the point. We're *told.* As an editor, I'm constantly telling my clients that they need to *show,* not tell. And JKR has quite beautifully shown us James being a bully in SWM.
> 
> jkoney: 
> > James may have been a bully but he was also being a bully back to another bully. Snape we see in cannon, attack Petunia with a limb, read her personal mail, and hang around with future DE's whose entire existance is based on bullying people. 
> 
> Carol:
> Reading another kid's mail may not be very nice, but it's not being a bully. James tripping Severus and ridiculing him for the House he wants to be in is being a bully. "Attacking" Petunia with a limb appears to be accidental magic comparable to Harry's "blowing up" aunt Marge. Hanging out with bullies is not being a bully yourself, though, granted, it's condoning bullying. Attacking a kid who's studying, two on one, is being a bully. We never actually see Teen!Severus being a bully. And that can't be because Snape, who selected the scenes, doesn't want to show himself in a bad light, because some of the scenes certainly do just that. You're not looking at the canon here; you're speculating about what Teen!Severus and DE!Snape may have done. (Sure, he was undoubtedly a bully as a DE, but SWM happens *before* that, and James can't have known that he intended to become a DE because Sirius Black never knew that he had become one. All they knew was what Lily knew, that Severus's friends Avery and Mulciber were DE wannabes.

jkoney:
But we start to see a pattern with Snape at a young age. He's aggressive toward Petunia because she is a muggle.

We see that it is Snape in SWM who draws his wand first, not James. Sirius doesn't cast a spell. So it is one on one. Not two on one. While James is apparently more skilled with a wand (drawing faster the first time and flipping Snape upside down after he's been attacked from behind while Snape had his wand out). 

We are meant to see in this scene not only James but the animosity that exists between Snape and the others. She wants us to realize that this isn't a one time incident but has been going both ways for years.

If Snape hadn't been a bully himself, he would have left while Lilly had James distracted. But he didn't go, he attacked from behind. 


> 
> jkoney:
> The HBP invented the toe nail growing spell and many others. 
> 
> Carol: 
> 
> A spell that Harry thought was cool and used on Crabbe much as his father had used a head-sweling spell on a kid whose name I can't remember. And Harry uses another cool HBP spell, Langlock, on the helpless and unsuspecting Filch. Harry isn't much different from the Prince here, except that he's incapable of inventing his own spells. <snip>
 the spells in the HBP's Potions book are clever schoolboy hexes little different from the spells that the kids cast on each other in the corridors all the time. 

jkoney:
Right. So either they are all toe-rags or none of them are. It was Snape who sat around inventing spells for this reason. So if they are toe-rags than Snape is the biggest because he went and invented knew ones. Personally I think they are funny.


> jkoney:
> 
> > We see Snape sneaking around after curfew trying to get the Mauraders in trouble. Shouldn't he have just gone to a teacher or his head of house? We see his inner self come out when he calls Lilly a mudblood. If he never had thought it, he wouldn't have said it. Finally we see Snape attack James with his back turned.
> 
> Carol:
> Of course, he was wrong to sneak around after curfew to find out what the Marauders were up to, but how is that different from Harry sneaking around after curfew to find out what Draco is up to? What the Marauders were doing was very dangerous, and, IMO, they should have been caught and stopped. But who was Severus supposed to go to for help? It was obvious that the school was sanctioning the presence of a werewolf. He wanted to find out for himself, and he also wanted to convince Lily that James was a toerag. Actually, that's *her* word, and it made him happy--for a little while, until SWM ruined everything. As for attacking James with his back turned, who attacked first, two on one?

jkoney:
As I said Snape could have gone to a teacher or his head of house and explained is thoughts. The teachers may have given him an answer or sent him to Dumbledore. Snape could have presented his belief that the Mauraders were all going out. That is something the teachers didn't know about and would have wanted to know. But Snape made it personal and wanted to do it himself. Again showing the animosity between them. 

Actually it is Snape who was going to attack first and it was one on one. No one else, including the crowd cast a spell. 

> 
> jkoney: 
> > And it was James, for whatever reasons you believe, who saved Snape's life. That's not something Snape was willing to do or even cared about when he met Dumbledore.
> 
> Carol:
> But the problem is, he saved Severus's life (certainly out of no personal fondness for him) *before* he attacked him on the playground. He didn't change or learn any lesson from it, which makes it clear that he did it for selfish reasons, to keep himself and his friends out of terrible trouble, and not for altruistic or humanitarian ones. And, sure, Severus became a DE after that. Sure, he came to DD asking him to save *Lily's* life, not James's or their son's. But he ended up asking DD to save them all, promising to do "anything" in return, and spending the rest of his life protecting Harry and undermining Voldemort (admittedly not that difficult for the first eleven years, but he risked his life for a year before Harry was born and for all seven years that Harry was in school or Horcrux-hunting, most particularly the last three.

jkoney:
What lesson should James have learned? If anyone should have learned a lesson it should have been Snape. Go to the teacher if you suspect a problem. 

Snape only said to protect them all because he was frantic. He only wanted Lilly protected. It was Dumbledore who intimidated him into saying the right thing.


>Carol 
> I would have liked to care about James, to like him and respect him and feel that Harry had a father to be proud of. All I'm saying is that the James she depicts so memorably in SWM is not yet that admirable person, and we have to take on faith that he did become that person because JKR chooses to *tell,* not *show*, us that he changed.
> 
> All those of us who feel cheated by canon!James want is a scene showing his admirable Order member side. The best we get is a young father playing with his baby--and brilliantly laying his wand on the couch because he trusts an untrustworthy friend. I feel sorry for that James, betrayed by the unworthy Wormtail, and I certainly like him better than the arrogant little berk of SWM who isn't even particularly nice to his own friends. But I would have liked to see him being truly chivalrous, maybe standing up for Muggles against DEs. *Something* to make me see that he'd stopped bullying and started protecting someone other than his own wife and child. Something comparable to Snape's "lately, only those whom I could not save" and by his saving not only Draco and Dumbledore and Katie Bell but even Lupin, who thought he was a murderer and a traitor and hated him.

jkoney:
First we are supposed to have canon to back up our point. In canon it says he changed. But that isn't enough we need to see it. So we get the graveyard scene, the comfort as he walked to Voldemort and the scene in the house playing with baby Harry. 

We see James unarmed charge to his death to try and buy time for his family to escape. "Greater love hath no man..."

If that isn't enough, then I don't think there are any amount of scenes or stories that will make you believe that James is good.
> 
>




From juli17 at aol.com  Thu Jun 11 01:34:20 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:34:20 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0pfo5+9rpl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0pmus+c29f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186981


> jkoney:
> The first time harry saw the scene was the set up to show James in the worst possible light.

Julie:
Weren't you saying something about speculation not supported by the text? There is absolutely nothing in the text that supports this interpretation and many things that support the opposite, including the unlikelihood that Draco would just happen to come to Snape for help at that moment in time, and the level of Snape's rage when he pulls Harry out of his pensieve memories.

> > > 
> > > jkoney:
> > > We aren't shown but we are specifically told that he did change. Any other reading becomes completely subjective and is how a reader might feel, not what they actually know to be true.
> > 
> > Carol:
> > But that's the point. We're *told.* As an editor, I'm constantly telling my clients that they need to *show,* not tell. And JKR has quite beautifully shown us James being a bully in SWM.

Julie:
This is really the salient point. I for one don't dispute the *fact* that James is a good guy (as in on the "good" side) nor that he is a good father and husband and that he loves Lily and Harry. But JKR chose to tell rather than show (and ANY writer or writing reference will advise you to show, show, SHOW, not merely tell, if you want to really reach and move your readers). As it stands, I don't know whether James was just this good guy around his family and friends, while treating pretty much everyone else as pathetic inferiors (as with the Muggle policeman scene), or if he ever actually felt any real sympathy or charity for those less fortunate, good-looking or talented as himself. 

Basically, James comes off to me as the equivalent of a Weasley twin with a meaner sense of humor. While he may have stopped hexing everyone and anyone for Lily, I don't see anything in the text which shows that he lost his sense of entitlement, or his arrogant carelessness, or his lack of empathy for those different than himself. Which again doesn't mean he was a bad person, nor a bad father or husband (not at all), just that he wasn't the super-honorable all-around wonderful guy Harry once imagined. 
 
> 
> jkoney:
> First we are supposed to have canon to back up our point. In canon it says he changed. But that isn't enough we need to see it. So we get the graveyard scene, the comfort as he walked to Voldemort and the scene in the house playing with baby Harry. 
> 
> We see James unarmed charge to his death to try and buy time for his family to escape. "Greater love hath no man..."
> 
> If that isn't enough, then I don't think there are any amount of scenes or stories that will make you believe that James is good.

Julie:
Again, it is an established criteria in writing that it is ALWAYS better to show than to tell. What if in the text Snape had simply told Harry that James and Sirius once without provocation cornered him two on one and hung him upside down to reveal his underwear and humiliate him? Would Harry have believed it, would he have cared, or would he simply have assumed Snape must have done something to deserve it? Would Harry--or we--have felt the same level of discomfort and disillusionment about James without actually "seeing" the scene play out as it did?

Also, we don't *need* to see James acting in a noble or heroic way outside of showing love for his family in a manner typical of most any husband or father. And yet I can say with certainty that Snape, a guy who was far from noble or "good" at that point, would have charged to his death without hesitation in that situation had Lily and Harry been his wife and child--and he probably would have played just as contentedly with that same child of his! 

So it can just stand as it is--and as it does--with us being told that James grew into an all-around great guy. It's just much less satisfying for many of us than if we'd been given even a mere paragraph showing James as this matured and much improved great guy in action. And it leaves James if not a "failure" on JKR's part, certainly less interesting and well-realized a character than he so very easily could have been.

Julie




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 02:16:38 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:16:38 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0pfo5+9rpl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ppe6+9j4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186982

-> > Carol:
> > Why would he need to show James in the worst light when Harry had already seen that memory? The scenes in "The Prince's Tale," whether they're about watching Lily on the swings with Petunia, losing Lily, begging Dumbledore to save Lily, or casting the doe Patronus, which symbolizes Lily, are all about--Lily. 
> 
> jkoney:
> The first time harry saw the scene was the set up to show James in the worst possible light.
> 
Carol responds:
If you're saying that it's a setup by JKR to show James (who until this point has been idealized by Harry) in a bad light, I'd say that you're right. But Snape took that memory out of his mind and placed it in the Pensieve, along with two others, so that Harry *wouldn't* see it (a wise precaution given Harry's accidental Protego, which revealed random memories from Snape's childhood and youth). He did not anticipate being called out of his office to rescue Montague from a toilet, nor could he have known that Harry would violate his trust by entering that memory, which, for a number of reasons, he would not want Harry to see. (It was, after all, his worst memory, but not because of James.) Snape had, on another occasion (when Trelawney was sacked) left the Pensieve on his desk and Harry had followed him out of the office. No doubt he expected the same thing when he returned this time. 
 
> jkoney:
> But we start to see a pattern with Snape at a young age. He's aggressive toward Petunia because she is a muggle.

Carol:
He dislikes Petunia because she's a Muggle. I suspect that his father had something to do with his view of Muggles. But he's no more aggressive toward her than she is toward him, making fun of his clothes and the part of town he lives in. Had she been kind or polite to him, he might have developed a more tolerant view of Muggles in general. 

jkoney: 
> We see that it is Snape in SWM who draws his wand first, not James. Sirius doesn't cast a spell. So it is one on one. Not two on one. While James is apparently more skilled with a wand (drawing faster the first time and flipping Snape upside down after he's been attacked from behind while Snape had his wand out).

Carol responds:
I don't think so. The narrator, speaking from Harry's pov, says that James started it all simply because Sirius said he was bored. Severus draws his wand because James and Sirius are standing over him, apparently with their wands out--a defensive reaction "as if he were expecting an attack." Severus has to drop his bag and plunge his hand inside his robes, and even though the narrator notes that he reacted extremely fast, James has the advantage. He shouts "Expelliarmus!" which would have been pointless if his wand weren't already out. And Sirius follows immediately, hitting the Severus with Impedimenta as he dives for his wand. That's two on one in my view. Both of them advance on him, wands drawn, as he's lying there helpless, taunting him by calling him names and insulting his appearance. While he's still wandless and bound by the jinx, he tries to use a combination of curses and swear words, at which points James fills his mouth with soap bubbles with a Scourgify curse. And so on. It's most definitely two on one, and they're attacking him while he's down. No wonder Severus hits James when he turns his back. He's playing by their rules. And their provocation, according to James himself? "He exists." Sirius, whom you say didn't cast any spells, hits Severus with Locomotor Mortis as soon as James releases him from the Levicorpus spell on Lily's orders. James removes that hex and has his argument with Lily. He orders Severus to apologize, and Severus makes the irremediable mistake of calling her a Mudblood. At that point, the bullying appears to be over. James is still arguing with Lily. But as soon as she leaves and Sirius comments that she probably thinks that James is arrogant, he turns his fury on Severus, again flips him upside down, and offers to take off his pants. Not exactly a fair fight, and definitely two on one.

I don't think we can say that James is more skillful with a wand under those circumstances even though he quickly retaliates after Severus hexes him with Severus's own nonverbal spell, Levicorpus. We see early on that Severus also has quick reflexes. He just doesn't get much chance to use them because *two* people are firing spells at him. Later, according to Sirius, when James and Severus fought one on one, Severus "gave as good as he got." 

> jkoney:
> First we are supposed to have canon to back up our point. In canon it says he changed. But that isn't enough we need to see it. So we get the graveyard scene, the comfort as he walked to Voldemort and the scene in the house playing with baby Harry. 
> 
> We see James unarmed charge to his death to try and buy time for his family to escape. "Greater love hath no man..."
> 
> If that isn't enough, then I don't think there are any amount of scenes or stories that will make you believe that James is good.

Carol responds:
I want to know how and why he changed from the bullying James of the playground, whom Lily calls a toerag and even Sirius admits was an arrogant berk, to the loving father of that tiny scene.

The conversion is not believable. IMO. You're happy with it. I'm not.

It's as if we saw the Severus of that scene suddenly behaving as a loving father a few years later. I wouldn't believe that, either. (In his case, what we get is a remorseful Death Eater, with one scene in between. If he hadn't let the word "Mudblood" slip and he hadn't had DE friends, that might actually have happened, but in his case, too, we'd need a believable maturation.)

Carol, for whom the unfavorable impression of James created by SWM is too powerful to be entirely removed by a few remarks from other characters or one instance of his playing with his baby son




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Thu Jun 11 02:51:26 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:51:26 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0p8g9+m2c7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0prfe+hnfs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186983


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mesmer44" <winterfell7@> wrote:
> >
> > "pippin_999" <foxmoth@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > I think she pictured James as being a good adult. That much I get. And I see Pippin's point of view about his simply growing up. It's the writing of it that seems somehow unsettling. We think James is a great guy (but I don't know why we thought that) then we saw him being a jerk--several times---and we never see the transformation between the two moments. So it's unclear why we got the good man/bad boy story without the middle transforming scene.
> > > 
> > > Pippin:
> > > What JKR showed us, brilliantly, was not how James transformed. It was  how Snape could keep perceiving James as such a jerk when everyone else thought he was so wonderful. 
> > > 
> > > People do keep saying what a great guy James was. Dumbledore, Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, Rosmerta, and Sirius all clearly love him and miss him.  Even Peter Pettigrew and Voldemort have nice things to say about him. Undoubtedly he resisted Voldemort and died trying to save his wife and child, though not in the epic battle that Voldemort boasted of having with him.  
> > > 
> > > But nothing is compelling enough to  shake the bad impression that teenage James left on us.  Snape's abiding hatred and disdain, which at first seemed completely undeserved, the mark of a character so filled with jealousy and malice that he couldn't even be grateful to the man who saved his life, become more than understandable. 
> > > 
> > > But even though there were episodes in his father's life that Harry would rather not dwell on, Harry named a son after James. I think that shows us that Harry believed that James had grown beyond those days. 
> > > 
> > > For me, the glimpse through the window of the happy father playing with his son was telling. It's not just that James loves his family, it's that he's at peace with them. When do we see Vernon or Lucius just enjoy being a dad? Never: they're always in a power struggle with somebody. And so was Sirius at GP, most of the time, even when Harry was there and desperately in need of his company.
> > > 
> > > Pippin
> > >
> > Steve replies: 
> > 
> >  Very well stated Pippin.  I think those who are so preoccupied w/ James's behavior at Hogwarts and the lack of written scenes w/ him doing good things as a father apparently consider him more bad than good. And I can actually see this happening from their subjective pov.  I tend to cut him more slack than that, with his bad behavior being done as an adolescent and the vast majority of his behavior as an adult apparently being good.  Being a part of the OotP is a much bigger deal than some of you are making it, in my opinion, as it isn't just a Shcriners club he's part of here, but an active resistance force against LV.  But the other thing others don't seem to be mentioning, that I'm aware of is what Lily thought of him as a husband. If he was such a bad person, wouldn't she have divorced him or wouldn't there be some canon of her criticizing him as an adult? Snape valued Lily to the point of risking his life (and sacrificing it as well?)on her behalf.  If Lily was worthy of Snape's love, wasn't she also worthy of being a good judge of character for James? Just some thoughts.
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> Just a question, Steve, and please don't think I'm being rude. Why is our interpretation subjective but yours isn't? We're looking at what's on the page, and what's on the page is judged as bullying by Harry himself. To some degree, any interpretation is subjective, but a text-based interpretation is less so than one that's based merely on what we want or feel. (I actually *want* to see a James who's worthy of admiration, but that's not what's depicted in SWM.)
> 
> Once again, all we're saying is that the supposedly admirable James whom Lily loved and who is represented by Harry's Patronus is not depicted in the books. Any reader--you, me, or anyone else--is forced to *imagine* him because we never see or hear the living James doing anything admirable, unless you count that touching last scene with his family (which, I confess, I found rather disappointing because Voldemort had led me to expect a battle between him and James).
> 
> On the one hand, anything a reader *feels* is subjective, whether JKR intended us to feel those emotions or not. But subjectivity in the negative sense of seeing what we want to see whether it's there or not is another matter. It seems to me that viewing James as admirable despite the lack of supporting evidence (and the evidence to the contrary) is wishful thinking.
> 
> As I keep saying, any interpretation that can be supported by canon is a valid interpretation. Can you show us the canon for a believable good James?
> 
> And just a note here: It's probably not the best idea to base our view of a character on what other characters say about him or her as opposed to that character's own words and actions (and even those can sometimes be deceptive). The good comments about James are balanced by the bad ones, not to mention that James's friends and admirers were either unaware of what he was up to on full-moon nights or sharers in his mischief.
> 
> I'd love to do a post including comments about characters that turned out to be mistaken, starting with Lee or the Twins saying about Fake!Moody, "How cool is he?" In most cases, we find out that these comments are mistaken not through those characters retracting their comments (that almost never happens) but through the character they're speaking of proving them wrong through his own words and actions. But James is a strange case. We never see evidence either way of what he became. Yes, he joined the Order, but what did he do there besides annoy Muggle policemen in a semicanonical side story? All we see him do is hide in Godric's Hollow, mistakenly trusting Voldemort, play with his baby, leave his wand on the couch, and call to Lily that Voldemort is there and he'll hold him off. Sorry, James, but that's hard to do without a wand in your hand.
> 
> That little scene is all we get. Any other basis for Reformed!James comes only from the comments of other characters, who, sad to say, are very often mistaken in their judgments.
> 
> Carol, trying to distinguish between interpretation based on textual evidence, which is only minimally subjective, and the kind of wishful thinking (e.g., Lily should have married Snape) that can lead to distorted and uncanonical interpretations, which is not what we're doing here
>
Steve replies:  Minimally subjective is like being minimally pregnant. And, in my post, I mentioned it was IMO, which is a pretty obvious concession to subjectivety. An objective reader would have realized this. A subjective reader would have not.




From mros at xs4all.nl  Thu Jun 11 07:48:09 2009
From: mros at xs4all.nl (marionrosnl)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:48:09 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0pcfm+tmp9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0qcrp+8mqt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186984

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Alla:
> > And I also wanted to add it somewhere, so this seems as good place as any about another reason why I totally buy reformed James. Well, of course as an aside  I never thought of him as totally bad guy in school and believed that his interactions with Snape are at least in part based on his hatred of Dark Magic, so it is not like I have to buy the transformation from horrible James to great James, however I certainly think that he did bad things in school as well, so I did think that he needed to grow up.
> 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I don't get how a hatred of Dark Magic justifies (or even partially
> justifies)  what James and Sirius do to Snape in SWM.
>


Marion:

Apparantly, it's the same mechanism that claims that spewing hate is a sign of 'an ability to love' and that a manipulative, megolamanic puppetmaster is 'the epitome of goodness' *grin*.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 11 14:21:58 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:21:58 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0onsh+fmul@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0r3u6+j466@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186985


> Carol responds:
> No one is arguing that James didn't choose the right side. Some of us just see nothing in canon (except playing with his baby) that makes him look like a good man--no indication that he ever stopped being an "arrogant berk."

Pippin:
He was friends with Hagrid, who, the CoS film to the contrary, is not popular with students in canon. Most of the students would not think sharing their quarters with a werewolf was cool either. James could be cruel to people outside his  circle, but he was willing to include people in it that many others would have shunned. 

It's not a given that he would be on the good side in the war. When Dumbledore was James's age, he was supporting Grindelwald.

Isn't giving your life for the good side and being a good husband and father enough to make a person a good man, even if he was an arrogant berk sometimes? Or are you saying you don't see how anyone who could find it in himself to do those things could ever act like an arrogant berk?   I think JKR shows us that very well through her other characters.  

It seems to me you're setting a standard for James that's beyond what is expected of a normal human. Acting scary and rude to policemen is not admirable, but it's not a crime either, except in places where policemen have way too much power.

It's true that we don't get to know James the way that all the people who admired him  must have known him. But that's because Harry doesn't. That's the tragedy of his loss, that he can never really know his parents. But for those few little glimpses, Harry has to take it on faith that his father became a better person than he was in SWM, and so do we. It becomes part of Harry's willingness to see the good in people. 

Pippin







From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Thu Jun 11 15:53:18 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:53:18 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0r3u6+j466@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0r99e+t2ao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186986

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Carol responds:
> > No one is arguing that James didn't choose the right side. Some of us just see nothing in canon (except playing with his baby) that makes him look like a good man--no indication that he ever stopped being an "arrogant berk."
> 
> Pippin:
> He was friends with Hagrid, who, the CoS film to the contrary, is not popular with students in canon. Most of the students would not think sharing their quarters with a werewolf was cool either. James could be cruel to people outside his  circle, but he was willing to include people in it that many others would have shunned. 
> 
> It's not a given that he would be on the good side in the war. When Dumbledore was James's age, he was supporting Grindelwald.
> 
> Isn't giving your life for the good side and being a good husband and father enough to make a person a good man, even if he was an arrogant berk sometimes? Or are you saying you don't see how anyone who could find it in himself to do those things could ever act like an arrogant berk?   I think JKR shows us that very well through her other characters.  
> 
> It seems to me you're setting a standard for James that's beyond what is expected of a normal human. Acting scary and rude to policemen is not admirable, but it's not a crime either, except in places where policemen have way too much power.
> 
> It's true that we don't get to know James the way that all the people who admired him  must have known him. But that's because Harry doesn't. That's the tragedy of his loss, that he can never really know his parents. But for those few little glimpses, Harry has to take it on faith that his father became a better person than he was in SWM, and so do we. It becomes part of Harry's willingness to see the good in people. 
> 
> Pippin
>
Steve replies:  I agree totally that we are setting unbelievably high standards for james.  Also, it's interesting to me that so many people twist canon, read between the lines, extrapolate to high heaven, put in words like "apparently" and go off on well meaning but very non canon guesswork and supposition to champion their own pet theories but require some kind of unrealistically strict adherence to canon when it comes to having others prove some point like this one w/ James. Sure he was a bully at times as a student.  We acknowledge that.  It's his status as a good father, husband, loyal friend and member of the Order of the Phoenix that we are talking about.  And as another wizard said, (paraphrasing a bit from the Wizard of Oz:): a kind heart is measured not just by how you are able to love, but how well you are loved by others.  James was loved by others as an adult. That was obvious in the books, which as far as memory serves, is where canon comes from.




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 16:05:43 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:05:43 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0r3u6+j466@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ra0n+idf5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186987

> > Carol responds:
> > No one is arguing that James didn't choose the right side. Some of us just see nothing in canon (except playing with his baby) that makes him look like a good man--no indication that he ever stopped being an "arrogant berk."
> 
> Pippin:
> He was friends with Hagrid, who, the CoS film to the contrary, is not popular with students in canon. Most of the students would not think sharing their quarters with a werewolf was cool either. James could be cruel to people outside his  circle, but he was willing to include people in it that many others would have shunned. 
> 

Montavilla47:
That doesn't sound very different from anyone else, including people
like Lucius and Narcissa.  They are cruel or indifferent to people outside
their particular circle.  A circle which includes a werewolf and a mass-
murderer.  

Also people that many others would shun.


Pippin:
> It's not a given that he would be on the good side in the war. When Dumbledore was James's age, he was supporting Grindelwald.
> 
> Isn't giving your life for the good side and being a good husband and father enough to make a person a good man, even if he was an arrogant berk sometimes? Or are you saying you don't see how anyone who could find it in himself to do those things could ever act like an arrogant berk?   I think JKR shows us that very well through her other characters.  
> 

Montavilla47:
I agree that it would make someone a good person, even if he was 
sometimes an arrogant berk.  But I doubt it would make people
forget he was an arrogant berk--unless he at some point made a 
huge change and stopped being one.

Being on the good side didn't stop Sirius from being manic-depressive.  
Even though Harry loved him and wanted to think of the best of Sirius,
he never forgot that that was part of Sirius's character.

The disconnect comes from Hagrid (and others) speaking about James
as if he were the greatest guy in the world--when we can see very 
clearly that he wasn't.  

I was pretty shocked by the Prince's Tale, mainly because of the timing
between the Prank the SWM.  Like most people, I thought that the Prank
was a turning point for James and the reason he grew up.  That he 
behaved so disgustingly afterwards knocked him down a few pegs in my 
mind (and he was never that high to begin with for me).  I was also
pretty disgusted with Lily and Hogwarts after realizing the true context 
for SWM.  

But, I like that James and Lily *aren't* the saints that were depicted in
that statue in Godric's Hollow.  It's natural for people to only tell 
Harry the nice things about their parents and leave out the flaws--
and I'm glad that we got to see them as fairly ordinary, flawed human
beings in the end.  

After all, it was harder and harder to think about Lily's sacrifice as 
"special" when we saw that every other mother in the book would
do the same for her children.  In the end, it turned out the special
magic of her sacrifice came not from her act, but from Voldemort's
broken promise.

It's not as nice a story as the one Harry was first told, but that's 
all right.  It's sort of like Harry himself.  Harry isn't a saint.  He 
isn't particular smart, or clean, or even that interested in other
people.  But, through luck, courage, and a willingness to sacrifice
for others, he became a true hero.

James wasn't particular good either.  But, he chose the side that
would make him a hero and it did.  Same with Lily.


Pippin:
> It seems to me you're setting a standard for James that's beyond what is expected of a normal human. Acting scary and rude to policemen is not admirable, but it's not a crime either, except in places where policemen have way too much power.

Montavilla47:
I guess that in the U.S. policemen have too much power?  Because 
acting scary and rude to a policemen can definitely get you arrested.
Although, maybe it's a misdemeanor and not a crime?  I'm unclear on
the specifics, but I know that it can be and is interpreted as assault.

I was just hearing on the radio that people have been charged with
assault with a deadly weapon for spitting at policemen (this started
because of the AIDS epidemic).

Pippin:
> It's true that we don't get to know James the way that all the people who admired him  must have known him. But that's because Harry doesn't. That's the tragedy of his loss, that he can never really know his parents. But for those few little glimpses, Harry has to take it on faith that his father became a better person than he was in SWM, and so do we. It becomes part of Harry's willingness to see the good in people. 
> 

Montavilla47:
Right.  But I don't think it's a tragedy.  I think it's better that Harry 
know that James wasn't the person who was toted as Quidditch
whiz and Head Boy.  Or rather, he was those things *and* he was
an arrogant berk.

That helps him to (eventually) understand that "epitome of 
goodness" Dumbledore was severely flawed, and that severely
flawed Snape was good and couragous, too.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 17:09:17 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:09:17 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0r3u6+j466@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rdnt+kl08@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186988

Carol earlier:
> > No one is arguing that James didn't choose the right side. Some of us just see nothing in canon (except playing with his baby) that makes him look like a good man--no indication that he ever stopped being an "arrogant berk."
> 
> Pippin:
> He was friends with Hagrid, who, the CoS film to the contrary, is not popular with students in canon. Most of the students would not think sharing their quarters with a werewolf was cool either. James could be cruel to people outside his  circle, but he was willing to include people in it that many others would have shunned. 
> 
,snip>
> 
> Isn't giving your life for the good side and being a good husband and father enough to make a person a good man, even if he was an arrogant berk sometimes? Or are you saying you don't see how anyone who could find it in himself to do those things could ever act like an arrogant berk?   I think JKR shows us that very well through her other characters.  
> 
> It seems to me you're setting a standard for James that's beyond what is expected of a normal human. Acting scary and rude to policemen is not admirable, but it's not a crime either, except in places where policemen have way too much power.
> 
> It's true that we don't get to know James the way that all the people who admired him  must have known him. But that's because Harry doesn't. That's the tragedy of his loss, that he can never really know his parents. But for those few little glimpses, Harry has to take it on faith that his father became a better person than he was in SWM, and so do we. It becomes part of Harry's willingness to see the good in people. 
> 
> Pippin
>
Carol responds:

All I'm saying is that there's nothing in canon to make his transformation believable. He was always close to certain people (if not always tactful with them--the only person he listened to was Sirius), so it's no great transformation for him to love Lily (whom he always desired) and their son.

And, more important *to me*, there's nothing to override the unpleasant impression so vividly created by SWM.

Harry chooses to overlook his father's failings (though SWM is still so painful for him the second time around that he stays as far away from his father as possible). He chooses to forgive, to see the best in James, and to name his son after him (a familiar pattern, also seen with Albus and Severus). But with Snape, and to a lesser degree with Dumbledore, we see why he made that decision. With James, all we get is the scene with James and baby Harry. But, of course, Harry has always known that his father died trying to protect him (the bit about being wandless makes his death pitiable rather than heroic, at least to me). And apparently, for Harry, that's sufficient. He also has the echoes coming out of the wand and the Mirror of Erised, and he knows that his father loved him.

For me, it's much harder to overcome the unfavorable impression created by SWM. The same is true for Sirius Black, who participates in the bullying and considers it entertaining and Remus Lupin, who sits there uncomfortably fearing to assert his authority as prefect. Lupin has already been presented favorably in PoA (though his flaws and weaknesses are still there), and Black has been shown to be a victim of injustice, falsely accused of murder and betrayal, and he clearly cares about Harry, his godson, so however arrogant and rash and unreasonable (and anti Snape ;-) )he still may be, the reader at least gets to see him in a favorable light, especially in GoF as Padfoot.

James, the most important Marauder in terms of his relationship to Harry, is the one we know least, and yet his transformation from arrogant berk and playground bully to Order member and loving father is taken for granted, unexplored. We understand exactly how Lupin and Black (and Snape) got to be the way they are. James gets short shrift. We have to take his transformation on faith because his only motivation seems to be to look good for Lily, to hide the fact that he hasn't changed at all inside him so that she'll date him and eventually marry him.

And, no. Being a loving father isn't sufficient in itself. As someone else pointed out, Vernon Dursley loves his wife and son and would fight to protect them. Nor is being on the good side sufficient. Snape is on the good side, which doesn't keep a lot of readers from considering him a bully as a teacher. As for James's friendship with Hagrid, we don't *see* it, and he probably didn't know that Hagrid was half-giant because Hagrid didn't go around advertising that fact (except to fellow half-giant Madame Maxime). And do we see any indication that James and Sirius actually *liked* Lupin as a person rather than as the werewolf who lent danger and excitement to their lives? Sirius cuts him short when he asks for help with Transfiguration, a subject that he and James don't need to study, having already learned enough to transform themselves into animals (which is probably enough to pass their NEWTs). Nor would Remus's desire to be liked, which makes him useless as a prefect, lead them to respect him. Would they like that quiet boy, whom they don't invite along on most of their pranks, to judge from the numerous detentions involving just James and Sirius, if he weren't a source of adventure for them? Sure, they became Animagi so that they could run with him on full-moon nights, but how much of that was fondness for him and how much was the sheer excitement of doing something exciting and illegal (learning to become Animagi) with the goal of doing something exciting and illegal and dangerous?

Anyway, we know that James was talented and clever based on his becoming an Animagus and on the Marauder's Map. So was Severus, based on his invented spells and Potions improvements. We know that James became an Order member at about 18; Snape became Dumbledore's man at about 20, risking his life in the process. But we also see that James was a bully at sixteen, behaving in ways that made Lily consider him a "toerag." Severus apparently *wasn't* hexing people who annoyed him in the hallways (though he obviously used his spells on someone or they couldn't have become known and Levicorpus couldn't have become a fad); Lily's disapproval of him was based on the boys he associated with, a pair of DE wannabes, and on his slip in calling her a Mudblood. Sure, James wouldn't use that particular word, but that doesn't make him *good.* And sure, he was opposed to Dark magic, but that doesn't make him good, either, since he certainly used non-Dark or semi-dark magic (jinxes and hexes) on any and everybody he pleased. He broke rules for pleasure, not, like Harry, to try to help or protect other people.

Are all bright boys like that at sixteen, showing off and bullying people and generally thinking they're better than anyone who's not part of their own gang (or, for that better, even members of their own gang who aren't as "cool" as they are)? I don't think so. To qualify as genuinely good, he needs to stop being arrogant, to really believe that other people are as good as he is, to help and protect them for that reason and not just because they're part of his group (or, in the case of Severus, because his death or becoming a werewolf would lead to trouble for himself and his friends). We don't see any real change or any maturation process.

I get that he had some good qualities to begin with, notably loyalty to his friends and a fearlessness that passed for courage, but the opposition to Dark magic and the idea of Gryffindor being the House of chivalry (a concept that he doesn't really understand or practice) seems to have been indoctrinated into him by his parents, just as Severus's mother seems to have indoctrinated him with the idea that Slytherin is the best House, the House for brains. Both of them, like Draco later, are the product of their upbringing (and later indoctrination in the values of their respective Houses). For James, the choice of joining Dumbledore against Voldemort was no choice at all. It was a given. But egotistical, arrogant bullies can and do join good causes. They can and sometimes do love their families, who are, after all, part of themselves (Us vs. Them). Even Bellatrix loves her sister (the one who didn't become a "blood traitor", and the Malfoys love each other. 

Did James change? Did he grow up? Or was he simply loyal to his family and protective of them like any other father, even Vernon Dursley? Did he ever learn to care about Muggles or Muggle-borns other than Lily *as people*? If so, why treat the Muggle policemen as mere buffoons? Did he ever learn to care about Remus *as Remus*, and, if so, why would he exclude him from the Secret and suspect him of being the traitor, as he must have done since Sirius did? Sure, he stopped hexing people (other than Severus) in the hallways, but only so that Lily would go out with him. And, once he'd left Hogwarts, he could take out his desire for hexing on DEs (though we don't see him do it). Did he ever stop thinking of himself--rich, talented James Potter--as the center of the universe? We don't see it in canon.

I get that it doesn't matter to you. It does, however, matter to me--again because SWM leaves such a vivid impression. If only he had learned a lesson from the so-called Prank, that even Slytherins who have not yet become Death Eaters deserve life and a chance to choose the right side. Instead, he attacks Severus two-on-one, unprovoked, because he exists just one week later.

Carol, who just wants to be *shown,* not told, that James did more than choose the right side, that he actually grew up




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 17:10:55 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:10:55 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0ra0n+idf5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rdqv+pd77@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186989

Montavilla47:
That doesn't sound very different from anyone else, including people
like Lucius and Narcissa. They are cruel or indifferent to people outside
their particular circle. A circle which includes a werewolf and a mass-
murderer.

Also people that many others would shun. <SNIP>

Alla:

To me the difference is that the people with whom Narcissa and Lucius keep company would be shun by most people because they are criminals first and foremost, and people with whom James kept company would be shunned for completely different reasons.


Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
The disconnect comes from Hagrid (and others) speaking about James
as if he were the greatest guy in the world--when we can see very
clearly that he wasn't.

Alla:

We can't see? I think some people and some people cannot see that.

I do not think even Hagrid talks about him as greatest guy in the world, just the good guy and that I can definitely see, which of course does not mean that he was only good all the time.

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
But, I like that James and Lily *aren't* the saints that were depicted in
that statue in Godric's Hollow. It's natural for people to only tell
Harry the nice things about their parents and leave out the flaws--
and I'm glad that we got to see them as fairly ordinary, flawed human
beings in the end. <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, sure. Funny thing is I come to like care about James **only** after I saw SWM. No, not because I liked what he did in there, but because it gave him a flaw. Before that he was just that, a Saint to me and not the character I cared for at all.

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
James wasn't particular good either. But, he chose the side that
would make him a hero and it did. Same with Lily. <SNIP>

< BIG SNIP>
That helps him to (eventually) understand that "epitome of
goodness" Dumbledore was severely flawed, and that severely
flawed Snape was good and courageous, too.

Alla:

It is of course your right and privilege to decide that James was not particularly good, but I cannot help but be amused at the choice of words there. And I did not mean to disrupt the meaning here, I deliberately cut everything else out just to see the contrast between James and Snape.

James, whom we see act as a bully to Snape once was not particularly "good" but only chose the right side. Snape, who was at some point a member of gang of criminals, who is guilty of being complicit in three deaths at least, who mistreated Harry for years (to me abused), who as a death eater could have done god only knows what is "good" though, but severely flawed.

As I said, I cannot argue with interpretation, but I cannot help but wonder how the guy whose only offense was bullying scene deserves the description "good but flawed" any less than Snape.

To each their own indeed.

JMO,

Alla





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 11 18:39:00 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:39:00 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rdnt+kl08@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rj04+on0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186990


> Carol responds:
> 
> All I'm saying is that there's nothing in canon to make his transformation believable. 

Pippin:
Funny, no one's asking for a scene to explain how Lucius could turn from the friendly schoolboy who patted Severus on the back into a guy whose idea of a post-game celebration is a spot of Muggle torture.

All we know is that he fell into bad company. Does it make a difference whether he  felt evil in his heart or just wanted to impress people? Either way, he made bad choices, and we have no doubt that they really were bad. Is that transformation believable?

Carol:
> And, no. Being a loving father isn't sufficient in itself. As someone else pointed out, Vernon Dursley loves his wife and son and would fight to protect them. 

Pippin:
Agreed. But there's something  different about the way that James is depicted.

We have a chance to see both Vernon and Lucius on occasions when they could have enjoyed just being with their sons. But they don't. Vernon takes Dudley to the Zoo and buys him treats, but  spends the car ride complaining to Petunia about his favorite subjects. He doesn't interact with Dudley except when Dudley whines at him, and it's Dudley's birthday. I can't imagine he pays more attention to entertaining Dudley on other days. We never see him just playing with his son.

In the same way, Lucius brings Draco to the QWC, but spends his time sucking up to Fudge, taking a dig at Arthur and organizing a bit of Muggle torture afterwards, no kids allowed. Draco might as well not exist. And Lucius certainly doesn't seem to enjoy having Draco with him at Borgin and Burkes.

Draco and Dudley get beautiful presents -- but that's no substitute for quality time. Draco and Dudley have to fight for their fathers' attention, generally by being obnoxious. Baby Harry doesn't. We see James being not only a loving father, but a kind, attentive one who respects the needs of his child. James had to grow up to be that way, IMO. Otherwise he would have treated Harry the way he treated Lupin or Peter, which is much like the way that Vernon and Lucius treat their kids.  He loved them, he would have died to protect them, but he had no respect for their needs if they didn't coincide with his. 

Sure, you could imagine that Lucius and Vernon didn't always act that way, and that James had days when he kicked the cat and yelled at Lily. But that's speculation. What the text shows us is two very different approaches to fatherhood. 

Pippin





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 18:47:11 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:47:11 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <4A2FB4FE.7030303@rescueddoggies.com>
Message-ID: <h0rjff+sbda@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186991

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Brian <brian at ...> wrote:

> I'm amazed that someone could see James as one of JKR's few 
> failures in characterisation.
 
> Nearly ALL the characters are cardboard cutouts.


zanooda:

I love JKR's characters :-). I'm not very interested in magic, so I read her books mostly for the characters (and the story of course :-)). I don't think I would care so much about some "cardboard cutouts) :-).
 


> Brian wrote: 
 
> The ONLY characters we see in depth are Harry, and to a lesser 
> extent, Hermione.  


zanooda:

Well, we see everything from Harry's point of view, we have an opportunity to get inside his head - maybe that's why he seems more real to you then the others. Harry is the only character who "feels" and "thinks" on page, the rest of them are only able to "seem" and "look", as we see them through Harry's eyes :-). Even so, I love how most of them are written, but this is of course just a matter of opinion :-).




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 19:18:17 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:18:17 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0p9vr+ftor@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rl9p+en97@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186992

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

> I mean, really if Lily's comments about James as toerag should 
> count as judging James' character (and I think they should), 
> I also think that her marrying him and the way she talks 
> about him in her letter to Sirius also should count as 
> judging his character.


zanooda:

That's a good point :-). But I don't actually doubt that James is a good person at the end of the book, I just wish we were shown how he became this good person, that's all. Lily's opinion is important to me, yes, but I must say that I was disappointed in her a little bit after DH. I really liked her at first in SWM, but then, after reading DH and learning about her childhood friendship with Snape, I now look at SWM scene with totally different eyes. 

It's great that Lily tries to defend Snape, but the way she does it... . That's how you defend someone you barely know, but that's definitely *not* how you defend a close friend. I understand though that it's not Lily's fault - JKR just tried really hard not to let us find out about Lily/Snape's relationship before DH and went a little overboard with that, LOL!





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 19:33:13 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:33:13 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rl9p+en97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rm5p+b0hc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186993

> zanooda:
> 
> That's a good point :-). But I don't actually doubt that James is a good person at the end of the book, I just wish we were shown how he became this good person, that's all. <SNIP>

Alla:

Right, but I also said that I totally understand why people are asking for another scene with James, you know? It is not like this wish is hard to understand for me, believe me.

I am not really arguing anything in this thread, and even when I am arguing something I am really not in the business of changing anybody's mind, and in this thread I really am not even arguing, I am just explaining what things that I read in canon made it for me totally sufficient the way James is shown.

And in fact as I said, SWM to me made something completely different, because before OOP I did love Sirius' character, but as to James, I was like really - oh James, that was Harry's Saint dead father. Whatever.

I've only started liking him after OOP, because that scene to me made him human, even if it showed him in the bad light. But it is not like all the other stuff that I learned about James to me went away, so to me instead of Saint guy, he became good guy with a flaw.

It is extremely interesting how differently we react to the characters.

JMO,

Alla




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 11 19:43:42 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:43:42 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rj04+on0m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rmpe+kmv9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186994

> Pippin:
> Funny, no one's asking for a scene to explain how Lucius could turn from the friendly schoolboy who patted Severus on the back into a guy whose idea of a post-game celebration is a spot of Muggle torture.

Magpie:
I didn't ever consider that a change! (Though I also don't consider James to have changed. He was always a great guy in the way he was a great guy when he died. And he was always the berk he was in the way he was when he was that.)

-m






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 20:01:16 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:01:16 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rdqv+pd77@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rnqc+3dee@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186995

> Montavilla47:
> That doesn't sound very different from anyone else, including people
> like Lucius and Narcissa. They are cruel or indifferent to people outside
> their particular circle. A circle which includes a werewolf and a mass-
> murderer.
> 
> Also people that many others would shun. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> To me the difference is that the people with whom Narcissa and Lucius keep company would be shun by most people because they are criminals first and foremost, and people with whom James kept company would be shunned for completely different reasons.
> 
Montavilla47;

Oh, I agree that there is a big difference, although at the time that
James was befriending Hagrid, the conventional wisdom was that 
Hagrid was a murderer (although it could not be proven), since
people thought that Aragog had killed Myrtle.

So, people weren't shunning Hagrid simply because of his 
heritage, but because of his reputation--which included 
periodically getting drunk and setting his house on fire.


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> The disconnect comes from Hagrid (and others) speaking about James
> as if he were the greatest guy in the world--when we can see very
> clearly that he wasn't.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> We can't see? I think some people and some people cannot see that.

Montavilla47:
Would you call the person who bullied another student for at least
five years the greatest guy in the world?

Alla:
> I do not think even Hagrid talks about him as greatest guy in the world, just the good guy and that I can definitely see, which of course does not mean that he was only good all the time.

Montavilla47:
Hagrid doesn't qualify his praise of James in any way, as well he 
shouldn't.  There's no reason to tell an 11-year-old kid who is 
learning about his father for the first time that his father was 
actually a bully.  

But it definitely gave the impression that James was an 
extraordinarily good person.  Which I don't think he was.

He was a slightly more than ordinarily good person.  And the
only real evidence that he ever changed from the "biggest
bully" in the yard was the report from Sirius and Lupin
 that he stopped hexing people in front of Lily.


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> But, I like that James and Lily *aren't* the saints that were depicted in
> that statue in Godric's Hollow. It's natural for people to only tell
> Harry the nice things about their parents and leave out the flaws--
> and I'm glad that we got to see them as fairly ordinary, flawed human
> beings in the end. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, sure. Funny thing is I come to like care about James **only** after I saw SWM. No, not because I liked what he did in there, but because it gave him a flaw. Before that he was just that, a Saint to me and not the character I cared for at all.

Montavilla47:
I agree.  James was much more interesting after SWM.  I think I probably
liked him better after SWM, simply because we saw him as having this
really cute crush on Lily and looking like an idiot in front of her.  (This
is a great way to generate sympathy for a character--the movies did
the same thing on a smaller scale when Harry does a spit take after 
Cho smiles at him.)


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> James wasn't particular good either. But, he chose the side that
> would make him a hero and it did. Same with Lily. <SNIP>
> 
> < BIG SNIP>
> That helps him to (eventually) understand that "epitome of
> goodness" Dumbledore was severely flawed, and that severely
> flawed Snape was good and courageous, too.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> It is of course your right and privilege to decide that James was not particularly good, but I cannot help but be amused at the choice of words there. And I did not mean to disrupt the meaning here, I deliberately cut everything else out just to see the contrast between James and Snape.

Montavilla47:
I think I was a bit unclear, but I see you focusing in the word "good" 
as though I were saying that James wasn't a good person.  What I mean
was that James wasn't *particularly* good.  Just like Sirius wasn't 
particularly good.  They were both more good than bad, but not 
necessarily more good than, say, Moody or Shacklebolt, or, for
that matter, Dorcas Meadows, about which we know nothing beyond
her involvement in the Order and subsequent death.

What happened in the wizarding world was that the Potters were 
elevated, by accident almost, into semi-divine status. At least, that's 
how I read the whole memorial statue thing.  Which is completely
understandable.  

What I always thought was curious was the way that many fans
bought that story and created a fanon idea that James and Lily's
was a love for the ages--that James was a great hero and that
Lily's love and courage and were so extraordinary that they invoked
a magic akin to the deep magic created by Aslan's sacrifice in 
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

In DH, I think anyway, we found out that they were really more
ordinary and that the blood protection, while definitely triggered
by Lily's love for Harry, was also triggered by Voldemort's 
faithlessness and Snape's love for Lily.  In other words, it was 
a pretty unique set of circumstances, and, had Snape been in 
love with Alice Longbottom instead, and Voldemort more fearful
of pure-bloods than half-bloods, it might have been Neville
with no parents and a scar.

None of which has anything to do with James being a great 
guy.  He could as easily stayed the stuck-up jock that he was
in school and things would have been the same.  

Alla:
> James, whom we see act as a bully to Snape once was not particularly "good" but only chose the right side. Snape, who was at some point a member of gang of criminals, who is guilty of being complicit in three deaths at least, who mistreated Harry for years (to me abused), who as a death eater could have done god only knows what is "good" though, but severely flawed.

Montavilla47:
In addition to seeing James act as a bully to Snape (not once, but 
twice), we have the evidence of the detention cards that James 
regularly hexed other students.  

I think you're being a bit easy on Snape here.  He wasn't just
complicit in the deaths of three people.  He killed someone with
the Unforgiveable curse.  He stood by and watched many die.  
He gave information that was helpful in the deaths of Emmeline
Vance and Sirius Black.

Thing is, most of that was when he was in Dumbledore's 
service.  And, given their relationship in the Prince's Tale,
it's pretty obvious that he was acting under Dumbledore's
orders when he did so.  

So, it's not like being a member of the Order of the Phoenix
creates less opportunity for killing or other illegal activity than
being in the Death Eaters.


Alla:
> As I said, I cannot argue with interpretation, but I cannot help but wonder how the guy whose only offense was bullying scene deserves the description "good but flawed" any less than Snape.

Montavilla47:
I was trying not to directly compare James to Snape.  It 
gets a bit tiresome to keep doing that.  It's obvious that
James was a better person than Snape at the time that
James died.

But it's kind of odd to me that I'm supposed to disregard
James's behavior at 15 on the implication that he grew up
to be a better person, and yet Snape's implied (never shown
or stated) Death Eater crimes from a period of about two
years remain as the most important aspect of his character.

As someone else said, the books show that James was
an arrogant bully from 11-15, a criminal from about 
15 onwards, and a member of the Order from 18-21.

Snape was a snide, anti-social person his whole life,
he was an associate with bullies and future criminals from
11 onwards, a member of the Death Eaters from perhaps
18-20, and a member of the Order from 20-37.

I hold that they are both flawed individuals, and that 
they both ended up on the side of the angels.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 20:52:23 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:52:23 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rnqc+3dee@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0rqq7+amee@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186996

Montavilla47:
Would you call the person who bullied another student for at least
five years the greatest guy in the world?

Alla:

What is the name of this person? Because I certainly do not consider James to be somebody who bullied another student for at least five years. 

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
What I always thought was curious was the way that many fans
bought that story and created a fanon idea that James and Lily's
was a love for the ages--that James was a great hero and that
Lily's love and courage and were so extraordinary that they invoked
a magic akin to the deep magic created by Aslan's sacrifice in
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. <SNIP>


Alla:

What in DH destroyed the idea that James and Lily dearly loved each other?

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
In DH, I think anyway, we found out that they were really more
ordinary and that the blood protection, while definitely triggered
by Lily's love for Harry, was also triggered by Voldemort's
faithlessness and Snape's love for Lily. In other words, it was
a pretty unique set of circumstances, and, had Snape been in
love with Alice Longbottom instead, and Voldemort more fearful
of pure-bloods than half-bloods, it might have been Neville
with no parents and a scar. <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, we know that it could have been Neville absolutely and I certainly think that any mother could have been in these circumstances, but I really disagree that protection was triggered by anything else than Lily's love for Harry. How was it triggered by Snape's love? You mean the fact that he asked for Lily's life and Voldemort told her to stand aside?

That gave her time, sure, but how did it influenced that mysterious ancient magic? I mean, again, I think it could have happened to any mother protecting her child, I think this was one of the points to say that Potters were not divine, but just ordinary people that loved each other, but what Snape has to do with the magic itself I really do not get.


Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
As someone else said, the books show that James was
an arrogant bully from 11-15, a criminal from about
15 onwards, and a member of the Order from 18-21.

Alla:

That's some interesting interpretation, I should say, especially about him being a criminal from 15 onwards. Is him being criminal means in that interpretation him running with werewolf or did he conduct some other criminal activities that I do not remember? If the person interpreted him running with werewolf as criminal activities, well I completely disagree with that. Yes, I know they had close calls and they could have harmed somebody. They did not, so while I will agree that they were careless, I would also say that I consider it act of friendship. Yes, I am sure fifteen year old teenagers liked it too, before you say it. I still say that not everybody will do it for the friend IMO.

I also of course will not agree to him being a bully from eleven years old, but again here I can at least understand how person will extrapolate from one scene.

Montavilla47:
I think you're being a bit easy on Snape here. He wasn't just
complicit in the deaths of three people. He killed someone with
the Unforgiveable curse. He stood by and watched many die.
He gave information that was helpful in the deaths of Emmeline
Vance and Sirius Black.

Thing is, most of that was when he was in Dumbledore's
service. And, given their relationship in the Prince's Tale,
it's pretty obvious that he was acting under Dumbledore's
orders when he did so.

So, it's not like being a member of the Order of the Phoenix
creates less opportunity for killing or other illegal activity than
being in the Death Eaters.

Alla:

Sure, there is plenty of opportunity to do killing in the war.
I have not noticed members of the Order to cease the opportunity to do much killing actually, although I am sure when they were attacked, they fought back.

Snape was already messed up with the Death Eaters, so of course if he decided to atone for it, he would have to be expected to do dirty stuff, I would think.

And he would not even do it without Dumbledore's manipulations. It is not like he came to Dumbledore and say I want to be your spy. I do wonder if Dumbledore did not extract a promise to do anything in exchange for hiding Lily, would he even return?

Montavilla47:
I was trying not to directly compare James to Snape. It
gets a bit tiresome to keep doing that. It's obvious that
James was a better person than Snape at the time that
James died.

But it's kind of odd to me that I'm supposed to disregard
James's behavior at 15 on the implication that he grew up
to be a better person, and yet Snape's implied (never shown
or stated) Death Eater crimes from a period of about two
years remain as the most important aspect of his character.

Alla:

Snape's implied crimes as member of DE is certainly not the only important aspect of his character to me. It is the most important aspect to me in comparison with James only because in part thanks to Snape there is nothing to compare after that, you know?

Hypothetically James say could have got a teacher's job in Hogwarts and if he treated his student the way Snape treated Harry, you bet I will not call him the better person than Snape.

But I am forced to compare them when they are twenty one, at that time to me James is a better person, but of course with his own flaws.

Montavilla47:
Snape was a snide, anti-social person his whole life,
he was an associate with bullies and future criminals from
11 onwards, a member of the Death Eaters from perhaps
18-20, and a member of the Order from 20-37.

Alla:

Snape was just associate with bullies? Him inventing curses that half of the school ended up knowing does not count for even a hint of him being a bully himself?

Montavilla47:
I hold that they are both flawed individuals, and that
they both ended up on the side of the angels.

Alla:

We agree on that, we just disagree on who was more flawed individual out of two.





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 23:21:07 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:21:07 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0ppe6+9j4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0s3h3+9qdd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186997

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
>
> jkoney: 
> > We see that it is Snape in SWM who draws his wand first, not James. Sirius doesn't cast a spell. So it is one on one. Not two on one. While James is apparently more skilled with a wand (drawing faster the first time and flipping Snape upside down after he's been attacked from behind while Snape had his wand out).
> 
> Carol responds:
> I don't think so. The narrator, speaking from Harry's pov, says that James started it all simply because Sirius said he was bored. Severus draws his wand because James and Sirius are standing over him, apparently with their wands out--a defensive reaction "as if he were expecting an attack." Severus has to drop his bag and plunge his hand inside his robes, and even though the narrator notes that he reacted extremely fast, James has the advantage. He shouts "Expelliarmus!" which would have been pointless if his wand weren't already out. And Sirius follows immediately, hitting the Severus with Impedimenta as he dives for his wand. That's two on one in my view. 

jkoney:
Actually the text says they stood up. It doesn't say they drew their wands. 

Snape went for his wand and James disarmed him. Sirius laughted. Then when Snape went for his wand an Impedimenta was cast. I read it as James casting the spell, although after several readings I can see why you might think it was Sirius. Then they walked up to him.

It was Snape who walked towards them across the grass from the "shadows of the bushes." He could have easily walked away from them. He may have reacted so fast because he was looking for a fight. Otherwise why not walk away?

Carol:
Sirius, whom you say didn't cast any spells, hits Severus with Locomotor Mortis as soon as James releases him from the Levicorpus spell on Lily's orders. James removes that hex and has his argument with Lily. He orders Severus to apologize, and Severus makes the irremediable mistake of calling her a Mudblood. At that point, the bullying appears to be over. James is still arguing with Lily. But as soon as she leaves and Sirius comments that she probably thinks that James is arrogant, he turns his fury on Severus, again flips him upside down, and offers to take off his pants. Not exactly a fair fight, and definitely two on one.

jkoney
Yes at that point Sirius freezes him because he came up with his wand again. It's Snape at this point who is continuing the fight not James. Snape already showed that he's willing to attack from behind. 
> 
>  
> > jkoney:
> > First we are supposed to have canon to back up our point. In canon it says he changed. But that isn't enough we need to see it. So we get the graveyard scene, the comfort as he walked to Voldemort and the scene in the house playing with baby Harry. 
> > 
> > We see James unarmed charge to his death to try and buy time for his family to escape. "Greater love hath no man..."
> > 
> > If that isn't enough, then I don't think there are any amount of scenes or stories that will make you believe that James is good.
> 
> Carol responds:
> I want to know how and why he changed from the bullying James of the playground, whom Lily calls a toerag and even Sirius admits was an arrogant berk, to the loving father of that tiny scene.
> 
> The conversion is not believable. IMO. You're happy with it. I'm not.
> 
> It's as if we saw the Severus of that scene suddenly behaving as a loving father a few years later. I wouldn't believe that, either. (In his case, what we get is a remorseful Death Eater, with one scene in between. If he hadn't let the word "Mudblood" slip and he hadn't had DE friends, that might actually have happened, but in his case, too, we'd need a believable maturation.)
> 
jkoney:
Snape was already a junior DE at this point. He invents Sectumsempra, a spell that Snape himself calls Dark Magic in HBP. He's hanging around with other junior DE's (which he doesn't deny), calling other people mudblood, inventing dark spells, etc. If he really believes that is his worst memory than he is fooling himself. The amazing thing is that Lilly put up with it for so long. There aren't alot of Klan members who hang around with "niggers". In the magic world, it's not the color of your skin, but your blood that makes you unworthy of living.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 23:49:02 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:49:02 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rqq7+amee@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0s55e+j13s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186998

 
> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> In DH, I think anyway, we found out that they were really more ordinary and that the blood protection, while definitely triggered by Lily's love for Harry, was also triggered by Voldemort's faithlessness and Snape's love for Lily. In other words, it was a pretty unique set of circumstances, and, had Snape been in love with Alice Longbottom instead, and Voldemort more fearful of pure-bloods than half-bloods, it might have been Neville with no parents and a scar. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, we know that it could have been Neville absolutely and I certainly think that any mother could have been in these circumstances, but I really disagree that protection was triggered by anything else than Lily's love for Harry. How was it triggered by Snape's love? You mean the fact that he asked for Lily's life and Voldemort told her to stand aside?
> 
> That gave her time, sure, but how did it influenced that mysterious ancient magic? I mean, again, I think it could have happened to any mother protecting her child, I think this was one of the points to say that Potters were not divine, but just ordinary people that loved each other, but what Snape has to do with the magic itself I really do not get.
>
Carol responds:
I agree with Montavilla47. In fact, I thought it was canon that Snape's request to Voldemort to spare Lily's life followed by Voldemort's broken word was what distinguished her sacrifice from any other mother's--and from James's. As Dumbledore insists to Harry and Voldemort also tells him, Lily could have lived. She had a choice because Voldemort gave her one. Now, granted, not many mothers would have accepted that choice--step aside and let me kill your son and I'll let you live--but that was the arrangement Voldemort had made with Snape--he'd promised to let Lily live (as long, presumably, as she didn't fight or make trouble). But then Voldemort, who could have kept his word and merely Stunned her, decides to kill her as well. And that decision, as I understand it, triggered the ancient magic that made her sacrifice, her exchange of her own life for Harry's, into ancient magic. If he had simply killed her and let Harry live, he would not have been vaporized, but he'd have left the Chosen One alive, not a choice he wanted to make. If he had simply killed Stunned Lily and kept his promise to Snape, he wouldn't have triggered the ancient magic, either. He'd have nipped the Prophecy in the bud as he desired. But he was trying to have it both ways, breaking his promise to spare Lily by killing her and then trying to kill Harry, too. The result was the AK rebounding on him and not killing Harry.

That these were special circumstances are made clear by the fact that no one but Harry ever survived the Killing curse. Marlene McKinnon, who must have loved her children as much as Lily loved Harry and must have tried to protect them, was killed along with them. The mother in DH who stood in front of her children, vainly throwing out her arms to protect them, triggered no ancient magic. We're not shown the aftermath, but almost certainly, Voldemort kills the children along with the mother.

The circumstances of Lily's self-sacrifice are unique because she had a choice. She, unlike James, had a chance to live, but she chose to die ("Kill me, not him!"). But Voldemort not only broke his promise to Snape by killing Lily, he violated an implied promise to Lily, who gave her life in exchange for Harry's.

Those circumstances would not have been duplicated had Voldemort gone after the Longbottoms. Snape was not in love with Alice, so he would not have pleaded with LV to spare her life. She would have had no more chance to live than Marlene McKinnon or the unknown mother in DH. She would not have had the choice that Voldemort gave to Lily. It was the choice, as I understand it, that changed her death from an ordinary murder to a magical self-sacrifice.

That's what makes Snape so important to the story (I don't mean that it makes him "good"!). He's tied in with the fate of the Potters not only as the DE who reported the Prophecy but as the one who got Voldemort to promise him not to kill Lily. That's why it's so important that it was Snape and not some other DE who reported the Prophecy. Had it not been for Voldemort's broken promise to Snape, there could have been no Chosen One. (Unintended consequences yet again.) At least, that's how I see it and I thought that was how Harry saw it, too.

Carol, wishing she had time to go back to check the canon now




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 11 23:59:13 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:59:13 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0s55e+j13s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0s5oh+goev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186999

> Carol responds:
> I agree with Montavilla47. In fact, I thought it was canon that Snape's request to Voldemort to spare Lily's life followed by Voldemort's broken word was what distinguished her sacrifice from any other mother's--and from James's. As Dumbledore insists to Harry and Voldemort also tells him, Lily could have lived. <SNIP>But then Voldemort, who could have kept his word and merely Stunned her, decides to kill her as well. And that decision, as I understand it, triggered the ancient magic that made her sacrifice, her exchange of her own life for Harry's, into ancient magic. <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, what can I say it is news for me, but I will happily eat my words if this is indeed what triggered the magic. Again, what happened as you described, factual circumstances of Lily's death, I am aware of them of course. But my point is that I do not remember that this is what triggered the magic, I thought it was left vague and I thought it was done on purpose, because Voldemort could never understand that Love could be so powerful, etc. I thought she did not want to give us how magic happened, what there the reasons besides it.

But if you say that Snape's bargain and Voldemort's agreement are what triggered the ancient magic, I would certainly appreciate some canon about it.

Thanks,

Alla








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 00:21:22 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:21:22 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0s3h3+9qdd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0s722+lecp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187000

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > jkoney: 
> > > We see that it is Snape in SWM who draws his wand first, not James. Sirius doesn't cast a spell. So it is one on one. Not two on one. While James is apparently more skilled with a wand (drawing faster the first time and flipping Snape upside down after he's been attacked from behind while Snape had his wand out).
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > I don't think so. The narrator, speaking from Harry's pov, says that James started it all simply because Sirius said he was bored. Severus draws his wand because James and Sirius are standing over him, apparently with their wands out--a defensive reaction "as if he were expecting an attack." Severus has to drop his bag and plunge his hand inside his robes, and even though the narrator notes that he reacted extremely fast, James has the advantage. He shouts "Expelliarmus!" which would have been pointless if his wand weren't already out. And Sirius follows immediately, hitting the Severus with Impedimenta as he dives for his wand. That's two on one in my view. 
> 
> jkoney:
> Actually the text says they stood up. It doesn't say they drew their wands. 
> 
> Snape went for his wand and James disarmed him. Sirius laughted. Then when Snape went for his wand an Impedimenta was cast. I read it as James casting the spell, although after several readings I can see why you might think it was Sirius. Then they walked up to him.
> 
> It was Snape who walked towards them across the grass from the "shadows of the bushes." He could have easily walked away from them. He may have reacted so fast because he was looking for a fight. Otherwise why not walk away?

Carol responds:
I don't even know how to react to this reading. Severus was studying his notes. Sirius looked at him "like a dog that has scented a rabbit" and says, "Excellent. Snivellus." Severus stows away his papers and emerges from the shadows. James and Sirius stand up (surely they have their wands in their hands, stated or not), Remus and Peter remain sitting, but Remus pretends not to know what's about to happen, burying his face in his book with a frownline visible on his forehead while Peter looks from Sirius and James to Severus with a look of anticipation on his face. Obviously, he knows they're about to attack Severus, who at this point has done nothing more than set off across the grass. When James says loudly, "All right, Snivellus?"  it's not some friendly greeting. He reacts by dropping his bag and starting to pull out his wand. There's nothing about James thinking *he's* being attacked. He obviously already has his wand in his hand. JKR doesn't need to say so. It's a given. As I said before, Harry knows that his father attacked Snape and not the other way around:

"Harry tried to make a case for Snape having deserved what he had suffered at James's hands--but hadn't Lily asked, "What's he done to you?" And hadn't James replied, "It's more the fact that he *exists*, if you know what I mean?' Hadn't James started it all simply because Sirius said he was bored? Harry remembered Lupin saying back in Grimmauld Place that Dumbledore had made him prefect in the hope that he would be abe to exercise some control over James and Sirius.... But in the Pensieve, he had sat there and let it all happen" (OoP am. ed. 653).

If Severus were the aggressor, why would Harry feel so sick over this incident? Why would he actually identify with Snape, his least favorite teacher, who has just furiously ejected him from his office and ended the Occlumency lessons? "What was making Harry so horrified and unhappy was not being shouted at or having jars thrown at him--it was that he knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape felt as his father had taunted him, and that judging from what he had just seen, his father had been every bit as arrogant as Snape had always told him" (650).

Two years later, in DH, Harry can't bear to watch this scene again and keeps himself as far from his father as possible.

> jkoney:
> Snape was already a junior DE at this point. He invents Sectumsempra, a spell that Snape himself calls Dark Magic in HBP. He's hanging around with other junior DE's (which he doesn't deny), calling other people mudblood, inventing dark spells, etc. ,snip>

Carol responds:
Associating with DE wannabes (they haven't yet joined up, according to Lily) is not the same as being a junior DE. Yes, he invented Sectumsempra, which he labeled "for enemies," but there's no evidence that he had done so at this point. (The little cutting hex that he hits James with doesn't so much as leave a scar. There's no evidence that he's "cut always" or even needs to go to the hospital wing.) At any rate, James doesn't say, "We attacked him because he deserved it. He hates Muggle-borns and Dark Magic and associates with junior DEs." He says that he does so because Severus Snape, the boy he rescued just the week before, *exists.*

I'll take Harry's interpretation, thanks.

Carol, tired of the topic and ready for a new one




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 01:57:23 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:57:23 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0s5oh+goev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0scm3+c9tg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187001

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > I agree with Montavilla47. In fact, I thought it was canon that Snape's request to Voldemort to spare Lily's life followed by Voldemort's broken word was what distinguished her sacrifice from any other mother's--and from James's. As Dumbledore insists to Harry and Voldemort also tells him, Lily could have lived. <SNIP>But then Voldemort, who could have kept his word and merely Stunned her, decides to kill her as well. And that decision, as I understand it, triggered the ancient magic that made her sacrifice, her exchange of her own life for Harry's, into ancient magic. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, what can I say it is news for me, but I will happily eat my words if this is indeed what triggered the magic. Again, what happened as you described, factual circumstances of Lily's death, I am aware of them of course. But my point is that I do not remember that this is what triggered the magic, I thought it was left vague and I thought it was done on purpose, because Voldemort could never understand that Love could be so powerful, etc. I thought she did not want to give us how magic happened, what there the reasons besides it.
> 
> But if you say that Snape's bargain and Voldemort's agreement are what triggered the ancient magic, I would certainly appreciate some canon about it.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alla
>
Carol responds:

You're welcome. I hope no one minds if I start with what JKR said in her interviews as background, not as solid evidence. I've already stated that an author's stated intentions are only important insofar as they show what he or she was trying to do and insofar as they're successfully realized (carried out). But here's what JKR said after HBP in the  interview:

# Why did Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? JKR: "Can't tell you." [Carol comments, now we know why. Because he promised Snape that he would do so.]
# If Lily had stood aside and let Voldemort kill Harry, she would have been allowed to live. She had a very clear choice and very consciously lay down her life.
# Why didn't James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? "Because [Lily] could have lived and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway." James "wasn't given a choice [whereas Lily] could have saved herself."
# Did Lily know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No ... it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen."

There's probably more canon evidence than I'm remembering now (maybe zanooda or someone will help me out!), but here's what I've found so far.

In HBP, Harry says, "But she [Merope] had a choice, not like my mother--" and Dumbledore cuts him off with the seemingly unimportant point, "Your mother had a choice too" on which he doesn't elaborate (HBP Am. ed. 262). It seems to me to be the sort of detail that JKR likes to throw in because it will be important later, rather like Harry's passing by the Vanishing Cabinet in which Montague got stuck the year before as he's trying to hide the HBP's Potions book.

Earlier in HBP, Harry (who has learned about the Prophecy only a few months before) thinks about Neville and what might have happened if Voldemort had chosen to go after him instead of Harry. "Had Voldemort chosen Neville, it would be Neville sitting opposite Harry bearing the lightning-shaped scar and the weight of the prophecy . . . . or would it? Would Neville's mother have died to save him, as Lily had died for Harry? Surely she would .... But what if she had been unable to stand between her son and Voldemort? would there then have been no 'Chosen One" at all? An empty seat where Neville now sat and a scarless Harry who would have been kissed good-bye by his own mother, not Ron's?" (140, ellipses in original).

Harry, of course, doesn't know what would have happened. He thinks that Lily's standing between him and Voldemort was what caused the ancient magic. But we see with the mother who spreads her arms to protect her children that no such spell was triggered. Mother love alone didn't do it. Nor did James's murder trigger it. As JKR says in the interview, he wasn't given a choice. LV intended to murder him all along.

There's the murder scene itself, played over and over in Harry's mind in PoA through the Dementors before we see the whole thing through Voldemort's and Harry's combined perspective in DH.

For example, in one of the Patronus lessons, Harry hears:
"Not Harry! Not Harry! Please--I'll do anything--"
"Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!"
"Harry!" (PoA Am. ed. 209). 

Few mothers would take the choice that he's giving her, but it *is* a choice. As Voldemort tells Harry in the graveyard (not that Voldemort is always truthful), that his mother died in an attempt to save him and that her "foolish" sacrifice caused the Killing Curse to rebound on him (GoF Am. ed. 652-53), but earlier, in SS/PS, he tells Harry "Your mother needn't have died . . . she was trying to protect you" (Am. ed. 294, ellipses in original). So from the very first book, James's death (supposedly a good fight but really just a murder) is distinguished from Lily's, not because James didn't love his wife and son and not because he didn't try to protect them (with or without a wand--at least he called out to Lily to warn her), but because, unlike Lily, he wasn't given a choice. He could not have lived, so his death created no ancient magic.

I'm not sure, but I think that Voldemort's word, "sacrifice," is the operative one. Lily gave up her life for the sake of Harry's, a sacrifice that LV violated by trying to kill Harry as well as Lily, but she would not have had that opportunity--she would not have been ordered at least twice to "stand aside"--had it not been for Snape's request. (James's death, though he also tried to protect his family, is not a sacrifice because he did not willingly give it up.)

In DH, we find out, of course, that Snape went to Voldemort to ask him to spare Lily (as Harry makes a point of reminding Voldemort before their final confrontation), and in the Godric's Hollow sequence, we see Voldemort giving Lily three chances or warnings before he decides that it would be "more prudent to finish them all off" (DH Am. ed. 344)--IOW, he decides to break his promise to Snape and kill her before killing Harry, which, of course, he fails to do.

That's all the canon I can find right now though maybe others can find more. And maybe this is another case of JKR's *intentions* not quite making it onto the page. (smile)

But, as I read it, it's Lily's choice to die for Harry that makes her sacrifice unique and enables Harry, alone in the WW, to survive a Killing Curse (twice). And, were it not for Snape asking Voldemort to spare her, she would not have had that choice.

Carol, wishing she could find a place where the narrator says straight out that Snape's request made the difference but thinking that all the pages devoted to him (in contrast to any other character besides Harry) are indirect testimony to his importance in Harry's story 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 02:08:45 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:08:45 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0scm3+c9tg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0sdbd+md3v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187002

Carol:
<SNIP of canon, go UPTHREAD and you can read it there>
But, as I read it, it's Lily's choice to die for Harry that makes her sacrifice
unique and enables Harry, alone in the WW, to survive a Killing Curse (twice).
And, were it not for Snape asking Voldemort to spare her, she would not have had
that choice.

Carol, wishing she could find a place where the narrator says straight out that
Snape's request made the difference but thinking that all the pages devoted to
him (in contrast to any other character besides Harry) are indirect testimony to
his importance in Harry's story


Alla:

Right, I think this basically the key point to me. I completely agree that but for Snape's request Lily would not have had a choice. I mean, who knows maybe Voldemort would have suddenly decided he wants her for himself, or something, but this is not our story.

Snape's request made her choice possible. My point is not where is the evidence of the fact why and how this choice was made possible, because this is what the canon you quoted to me seems to point to.

I know that Snape went to ask for Lily's life and Voldemort ordered her to step aside. What I do not see is how the fact that he made this choice possible transforms into him making the ancient magic possible if that makes sense.

What I am trying to say is that let's  speculate that Snape did not go to Voldemort and Voldemort would have no intention to spare Lily, however, something else I don't know, distracted Voldemort for a second or minute, or whatever and Lily still got that time.

I don't know about you, but I still know nothing about what happened, besides the fact that her love triggered the magic.

Not sure if that makes sense. To make a long story short, I know what Snape did, but this does not answer my question how he helped magic to work.

JMO,

Alla






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 04:10:47 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:10:47 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0sdbd+md3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0skg7+7cae@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187003

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol:
> <SNIP of canon, go UPTHREAD and you can read it there>
> But, as I read it, it's Lily's choice to die for Harry that makes her sacrifice
> unique and enables Harry, alone in the WW, to survive a Killing Curse (twice).
> And, were it not for Snape asking Voldemort to spare her, she would not have had
> that choice.
> 
> Carol, wishing she could find a place where the narrator says straight out that
> Snape's request made the difference but thinking that all the pages devoted to
> him (in contrast to any other character besides Harry) are indirect testimony to
> his importance in Harry's story
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Right, I think this basically the key point to me. I completely agree that but for Snape's request Lily would not have had a choice. I mean, who knows maybe Voldemort would have suddenly decided he wants her for himself, or something, but this is not our story.
> 
> Snape's request made her choice possible. My point is not where is the evidence of the fact why and how this choice was made possible, because this is what the canon you quoted to me seems to point to.
> 
> I know that Snape went to ask for Lily's life and Voldemort ordered her to step aside. What I do not see is how the fact that he made this choice possible transforms into him making the ancient magic possible if that makes sense.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that let's  speculate that Snape did not go to Voldemort and Voldemort would have no intention to spare Lily, however, something else I don't know, distracted Voldemort for a second or minute, or whatever and Lily still got that time.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I still know nothing about what happened, besides the fact that her love triggered the magic.
> 
> Not sure if that makes sense. To make a long story short, I know what Snape did, but this does not answer my question how he helped magic to work.
> 
> JMO,
> 
> Alla
>
Carol responds:

I'm not saying that Snape helped the magic to work, not even unintentionally. I'm just saying that his going to Voldemort gave Lily the choice to live, which Voldemort would not have given to Lily otherwise. He would just have killed her without thought as he killed James, in which case there would have been no ancient magic because Lily's death would not have been her choice and therefore a sacrifice.

We know that no one but Harry ever survived the Killing Curse and that he survived it because of his mother's accidental love magic. We know that James, who also died for Harry, didn't evoke the same magic through his death. We know that Lily, unlike James, was given a choice to live ("step aside") or die. We know that she chose to die. That choice was the difference between her death and James's.

And Lily would not have been given that choice had Snape not gone to Voldemort. what matters is not that she got a little extra time. What matters, according to Dumbledore and JKR (and even Voldemort in his perverse way), is that she *chose* to die. That's what made her death magically powerful in a way that James's was not. She could have lived, but she sacrificed herself for Harry.

If it weren't for Snape, she would not have been given that choice.

Of course, if Snape had had his way and Voldemort had merely Stunned Lily, Harry would have died because there would have been no Love magic. We'd have just had an angry, unhappy Lily and no story. But if Snape hadn't made his request because some other DE had reported the Prophecy and he didn't know about it, there would have been no Love magic, either, because Lily would just have been killed, like James, without being given the choice of living or dying. So all three Potters would have died and again there would be no story.

Snape's request results in a promise from Voldemort to spare Lily (which Snape doesn't put much faith in or he wouldn't have gone to Dumbledore). Voldemort, in turn, actually attempts to honor that promise, giving Lily three chances to stand aside--that is, to choose her own life over Harry's. By choosing not to stand aside and begging him to kill her, not Harry, she turns her death into a magical sacrifice. But it's only magical because she actually had the choice. JKR says that he really would have let her live if she had moved out of his way. And that's what makes the difference. Not the half minute more of life that the orders to stand aside gave her, but the choice to die to save her son.

Now Lily knows that Voldemort is not trustworthy, and, in theory, there's nothing to keep him from killing Harry. She doesn't know about the Love magic. In ordinary cases, it wouldn't be there. He would just have cold-bloodedly killed her like he killed the woman and (presumably) her children in DH. That woman also tried to save her children, but her action didn't create Love magic. But Voldemort didn't give her the chance to live that he gave Lily. She was no different from anyone else who got in his way, anyone else that he decided to kill.

Lily is the only one of Voldemort's victims who had a chance to live, a chance given to her by Snape's request. And that's what makes her death different from anyone else's.

Carol, who feels like she's just repeating the same point, but it's the choice that made her death magical, and she wouldn't have had that choice if it weren't for snape's request






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 04:11:11 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:11:11 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0scm3+c9tg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0skgv+e7bv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187004

> > > Carol responds:
> > > I agree with Montavilla47. In fact, I thought it was canon that Snape's request to Voldemort to spare Lily's life followed by Voldemort's broken word was what distinguished her sacrifice from any other mother's--and from James's. As Dumbledore insists to Harry and Voldemort also tells him, Lily could have lived. <SNIP>But then Voldemort, who could have kept his word and merely Stunned her, decides to kill her as well. And that decision, as I understand it, triggered the ancient magic that made her sacrifice, her exchange of her own life for Harry's, into ancient magic. <SNIP>
> > 
> > Alla:
> > But if you say that Snape's bargain and Voldemort's agreement are what triggered the ancient magic, I would certainly appreciate some canon about it.

Montavilla47:

Carol did an excellent job at citing the canon.  It's never, to my knowledge,
stated outright that the difference was Voldemort giving the Lily the choice to
step aside that made the difference, but there is no other explanation.

We see other mothers protecting their children without Voldemort getting
vaporized.  The sacrifice that James made in protecting his family did not
trigger the magic, either.

The thing that distinguishes Lily's sacrifice is that she was given a choice
and she chose to protect her child.  

So, I'm not saying that it was Snape and Voldemort who triggered the 
special blood protection.  It was Snape's request, *plus* Voldemort's 
agreement to that request, *plus* Lily's refusal to step aside, *plus*
Voldemort's breaking his word to Snape that triggered the magic.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Jun 12 13:05:48 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:05:48 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0skgv+e7bv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0tjrc+nbf0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187005


> 
> Montavilla47:
  
> 
> So, I'm not saying that it was Snape and Voldemort who triggered the 
> special blood protection.  It was Snape's request, *plus* Voldemort's 
> agreement to that request, *plus* Lily's refusal to step aside, *plus*
> Voldemort's breaking his word to Snape that triggered the magic.


Potioncat:

Lily wasn't just trying to protect Harry, she offered to take his place. She didn't have to die. (Uh-oh, now we have Lily as a Christ figure, and her name only strengthens the image.)

How does Harry's sacrifice in DH compare to Lily's? Because it seems that also had an effect on LV's magic against the Hogwarts army.

Potioncat, wishing she could pour through canon and take a bigger part in this thread

 





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Jun 12 13:55:41 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:55:41 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0r99e+t2ao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0tmot+c2m1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187006


> Steve replies:   Also, it's interesting to me that so many people twist canon, read between the lines, extrapolate to high heaven, put in words like "apparently" and go off on well meaning but very non canon guesswork and supposition to champion their own pet theories but require some kind of unrealistically strict adherence to canon when it comes to having others prove some point like this one w/ James. 


Potioncat:
Actually, Steve, I think very few people do all those things you suggest. 

There are valid ways of looking at canon and different readers are going to interpret canon differently without any twisting going on.

So I think those readers who are not bothered by James as he is/was find canon sufficient for the purpose, while those of us who question it, do not. But no one in either case has to twist canon.

The best part of discussing our different points of view on canon is that it gives each of us a chance to see the other side--a view we might now have been able to come up with on our own. 

What I've taken away from this thread isn't so much "how did James change from bully to good man" but, rather how James's story affected the plot and how his story affected Harry's develoment. To my mind, what "wasn't" learned about James impacted Harry greatly.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 12 14:13:01 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:13:01 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0skg7+7cae@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0tnpd+j8e4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187007

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

> 
> Of course, if Snape had had his way and Voldemort had merely Stunned Lily, Harry would have died because there would have been no Love magic. We'd have just had an angry, unhappy Lily and no story. 

Pippin:
I'm not sure this holds up. What matters is Lily's willingness to die if she didn't stand aside, not whether Voldemort actually killed her. Harry makes this clear.

"I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people--"
"But you did not!"
"--I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did."
--DH ch 36

Lily didn't just instinctively throw herself in the way, as any mother might have done. She consciously cast her life between them, and though she couldn't know for certain it would have a magical effect, I think part of the magic came from her intention that it would. She chose not only to die, but to trust  love alone to defend her son.

There would have been no love magic if Lily had not believed she could save herself by stepping aside, and Snape is responsible for seeing that she had that choice. But if Voldemort had honored his promise and simply stunned her when she refused to step aside, I think the magic would have worked just the same. 

Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 14:17:25 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:17:25 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0tnpd+j8e4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0to1l+2r1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187008

Carol responds:

I'm not saying that Snape helped the magic to work, not even unintentionally.
I'm just saying that his going to Voldemort gave Lily the choice to live, which
Voldemort would not have given to Lily otherwise. He would just have killed her
without thought as he killed James, in which case there would have been no
ancient magic because Lily's death would not have been her choice and therefore
a sacrifice. <SNIP>

Alla:

Right, well, I am not disputing that without Snape giving Voldemort a prophecy first and asking him for Lily's life second gave Lily's chance to live. 
But I am disputing that Snape was a  figure without whom there would have been no ancient magic if that makes sense.

What I am trying to say is that of course I know that he contributed to set of the circumstances which led to the magic, that's not my point. My point is that I think that any **reason** under which Lily would have been given a choice to step aside and did not step aside would have lead to ancient magic.

For example, we speculated wildly as to why Lily was given a choice before DH came out and we knew for sure that Snape asked for her life, yes?

One of the speculations I remember was that Lily worked in the Department of Mysteries, researched the veil and other fun things and Voldemort wanted her alive because he wanted to know results of her research or something like that.

So, here is what I am saying, say it was true, say this was the reason why Lily was asked to step aside and did not, do you think that magic would not have worked? If so, *this** what I would like to see a canon, why a willing sacrifice (which yes, I know JKR distinguished in interview from James' sacrifice) of this nature would not work.

Let me stress this again, I *know* that willing sacrifice seems to be the key, what I am disagreeing with is the uniqueness of Snape's contribution to this sacrifice, I mean NOT that he contributed, but why any other hypothetical reasons under which Voldemort would have given her a  choice would not work.

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
We see other mothers protecting their children without Voldemort getting
vaporized. The sacrifice that James made in protecting his family did not
trigger the magic, either.

Alla:

Actually, while I am sure mothers died protecting their children, could you tell me where else in the book we see mothers sacrificing their lives for their children? It seems to me that while any mother could have been in Lily's shoes, what she did was indeed pretty unique on pages.

But sure, I know that James' sacrifice did not trigger the magic.

Montavilla47:
The thing that distinguishes Lily's sacrifice is that she was given a choice
and she chose to protect her child.

Alla:

Yes.

Montavilla47:
So, I'm not saying that it was Snape and Voldemort who triggered the
special blood protection. It was Snape's request, *plus* Voldemort's
agreement to that request, *plus* Lily's refusal to step aside, *plus*
Voldemort's breaking his word to Snape that triggered the magic.

Alla:

If you are using triggered as meaning Snape and Voldemort contributing to the set of circumstances that led to magic, I agree. Snape gave Voldemort the prophecy and then came to beg for Lily's life.  If you are using triggered as started the magic, I do not agree. In my opinion we are not shown for sure what started the magic besides Lily's sacrifice.

I do not know that  any other reason for giving Lily a choice to step aside would not have made magic possible. 

Pippin:
Lily didn't just instinctively throw herself in the way, as any mother might
have done. She consciously cast her life between them, and though she couldn't
know for certain it would have a magical effect, I think part of the magic came
from her intention that it would. She chose not only to die, but to trust love
alone to defend her son.

Alla:

Oh, that's a good point.

Pippin:
There would have been no love magic if Lily had not believed she could save
herself by stepping aside, and Snape is responsible for seeing that she had that
choice. But if Voldemort had honored his promise and simply stunned her when she
refused to step aside, I think the magic would have worked just the same.

Alla:

Right, to me Lily's intentions are the key to the magic and everything else are circumstances that led to it, but I am very interested in hearing if you think that if Voldemort had other reasons for giving her that choice, if you think magic would have still worked.

Thanks

Alla





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 15:22:07 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:22:07 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0tnpd+j8e4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0trqv+99i6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187009

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Of course, if Snape had had his way and Voldemort had merely Stunned Lily, Harry would have died because there would have been no Love magic. We'd have just had an angry, unhappy Lily and no story. 
> 
> Pippin:
> I'm not sure this holds up. What matters is Lily's willingness to die if she didn't stand aside, not whether Voldemort actually killed her. Harry makes this clear.
> 
> "I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people--"
> "But you did not!"
> "--I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did."
> --DH ch 36
> 
> Lily didn't just instinctively throw herself in the way, as any mother might have done. She consciously cast her life between them, and though she couldn't know for certain it would have a magical effect, I think part of the magic came from her intention that it would. She chose not only to die, but to trust  love alone to defend her son.
> 
> There would have been no love magic if Lily had not believed she could save herself by stepping aside, and Snape is responsible for seeing that she had that choice. But if Voldemort had honored his promise and simply stunned her when she refused to step aside, I think the magic would have worked just the same. 

Montavilla47:

Okay... I'm not exactly going to disagree because to my mind the
important distinction was that Lily had a *choice* in the matter.

But how many people willingly died to keep Voldemort from
hurting other people?  Do those deaths not matter because
the people who died weren't relying on love to save others, but 
on their wands to do it?

Instead, all they had to do was believe in love?   If the first
person Voldemort killed had simply believed that allowing
him or herself to be killed without resisting would protect
everyone else in the world, would we never have gotten the
first war at all?

I think there was another factor floating around in there and
that Voldemort's broken promise to Snape.  

Bear with me, because I'm heading into the soupy swamps of 
speculation here....

Remember when Dumbledore gets all dreamy and philosophical
about that bond that's created when one wizard saves the life
of another one?

Remember how we all theorized that Snape was under a life
debt to James because of the Prank?

And that Unbreakable Vow which causes you to die if you break it?

What if Snape didn't ask for Voldemort to spare Lily once 
Voldemort decided to target the Potters?  What if he asked the 
Dark Lord to spare her earlier on?  Say, when he first brought
the Prophecy to him?

Perhaps Voldemort was more grateful to learn about that Prophecy
than we think--and the promise to spare Lily was an implicit tit-
for-tat.  (IOW, "You, Snape, have saved me from a deadly danger by
telling me this, in return, I promise that this woman you "desire" 
is safe from our campaign.")

Of course, when Voldemort realizes that their child is the one in
the Prophecy, he targets the Potters and sets up one part of the 
trigger.  The other part is the choice that Lily makes.

And then it makes more sense that Snape distrusts Voldemort's
promise and goes to Dumbledore.  A lot more sense (to my mind)
than Snape asking Voldemort to spare her *after* he's definitely
targeted them.  Because, how dumb would he have to be to 
believe for a second that Voldemort would let in her live in 
those circumstances?

As for Harry's death making the difference in the final battle,
I have to accept that that's what happens--even though I don't 
find it as clearcut as Harry does.  (It's like that Elder Wand that 
doesn't work as well as Voldemort expects... when it seems to us
readers to be working perfectly well.)

But in any case, the effect of Harry's sacrifice could either be
from the Harry/Voldemort blood/mind/soul connection (which
is unique to them), or because Voldemort again breaks his 
promise to leave the castle alone if Harry will come to him
in the woods.

Or because Harry does the Aslan thing and goes specifically to 
die. But, and maybe this is a small distinction, it seems like 
Harry is going to die because he knows that it will make 
Voldemort more vulnerable, but Voldemort is still going to be
immortal at that point.  He didn't kill the snake and thus his 
death is only taking people closer to defeating Voldemort.

He isn't trusting that his death is going to protect others.
He isn't trusting, as you say Lily did, in love alone.  




 






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 15:48:53 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:48:53 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0to1l+2r1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ttd5+nl3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187010

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> We see other mothers protecting their children without Voldemort getting
> vaporized. The sacrifice that James made in protecting his family did not
> trigger the magic, either.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Actually, while I am sure mothers died protecting their children, could you tell me where else in the book we see mothers sacrificing their lives for their children? It seems to me that while any mother could have been in Lily's shoes, what she did was indeed pretty unique on pages.
> 
> But sure, I know that James' sacrifice did not trigger the magic.

Montavilla47:

We see Narcissa *risking* her life for simply the chance to see her
son again.  

Do you believe that she wouldn't have made the same choice Lily 
did had she been in the same circumstances?  Do you believe that
she, or Petunia, wouldn't have refused the choice to step aside so
that Voldemort could kill her son?  Did you see that mother in
Bulgaria step aside to save herself and leave her children vulnerable?

> 
> Montavilla47:
> The thing that distinguishes Lily's sacrifice is that she was given a choice
> and she chose to protect her child.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> So, I'm not saying that it was Snape and Voldemort who triggered the
> special blood protection. It was Snape's request, *plus* Voldemort's
> agreement to that request, *plus* Lily's refusal to step aside, *plus*
> Voldemort's breaking his word to Snape that triggered the magic.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> If you are using triggered as meaning Snape and Voldemort contributing to the set of circumstances that led to magic, I agree. Snape gave Voldemort the prophecy and then came to beg for Lily's life.  If you are using triggered as started the magic, I do not agree. In my opinion we are not shown for sure what started the magic besides Lily's sacrifice.
> 

Montavilla47:
I agree that we don't know what triggered the magic.  I'll agree that it
could have been Lily's choice alone.  But she would not have had that
choice if the other events hadn't occurred.  

Alla:
> I do not know that  any other reason for giving Lily a choice to step aside would not have made magic possible. 

Montavilla47:
Yes, but I don't see that it really matters.  It didn't happen a 
different way.  It happened the way that it happened.  And
the way that it happened happened because of both Snape's
and Voldemort's choices.  Without those choices, it would
not have happened.

Whether the trigger included the broken promise (in which
case Snape's and Voldemort's choices contributed *more) or
it didn't (in which case they contribute less), is splitting hairs.

This isn't a story in which Lily is offered the choice to step
aside because she has information Voldemort wants or 
because she's so darn pretty he'd like to take her away to 
his lair.  It's a story in which Lily is offered the choice because
her childhood friend still loves her even though he's 
supposed to hate her.  

Which brings it all back to Love.  With a capital Luh.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 12 15:58:54 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:58:54 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rnqc+3dee@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ttvu+mkgs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187011

 
> Montavilla47:
> Hagrid doesn't qualify his praise of James in any way, as well he 
> shouldn't.  There's no reason to tell an 11-year-old kid who is 
> learning about his father for the first time that his father was 
> actually a bully.  
> 
> But it definitely gave the impression that James was an 
> extraordinarily good person.  Which I don't think he was.
> 
> He was a slightly more than ordinarily good person.  And the
> only real evidence that he ever changed from the "biggest
> bully" in the yard was the report from Sirius and Lupin
>  that he stopped hexing people in front of Lily.

Pippin:
They say that he got his head deflated a bit, and stopped hexing people for the fun of it. Snape was an exception, because  Snape cursed James every chance he got, but all that happened behind Lily's back. I think we can safely extrapolate that Snape didn't begin cursing James every chance he got until after SWM.

 At the time of SWM, James attacks  Snape because he exists. Snape's into the Dark Arts, and James hates that,  but that's not the reason Snape gets picked on. He gets picked on  for the same reasons any kid gets picked on: because he's unpopular, and weedy, and will try to fight when he can't win.

There's no reason for Lupin and Sirius to say that  James grew up and was a good person if they don't think that this is the case. They could have said he was justly provoked by Snape. But they don't. Sirius knows and  admits they were acting shamefully, though only Lupin cared about that at the time. 

Sirius told Harry that he was truly his father's son. I think he's speaking of  extraordinary courage and also the determination to do whatever he thinks should be done. I don't think anyone is disputing that JKR showed us these qualities in James as well, though neither were much in evidence in SWM. He always had them, he just hadn't found a purpose for them. 

But I think I see what you're saying. We got the idea from the earlier books that James was noble, and a lot of people were expecting to be told how he became a noble person. Or else they think he is supposed to have been a noble person and JKR should have shown us that and probably thinks that she did.

But it isn't every character who gives us that impression. Hagrid says that James and Lily were as good a witch and wizard as he ever knew. Head boy and girl at Hogwarts in their day. Close to Dumbledore. Those are fine character references, but not extraordinary. When Rosmerta and the Hogwarts staff discuss James and Sirius at The Three Broomsticks, it's as an amusing pair of troublemakers. 

Of course Hagrid wasn't going to tell eleven year old Harry on their first meeting that before James grew up to be Head Boy, he was in trouble constantly, or that he'd been best friends with a boy who became a Death Eater. But from the conversation in Hogsmeade, which Harry wasn't supposed to overhear, he clearly hadn't forgotten.

It's Dumbledore and Voldemort who sell the idea that James and Lily were noble. Voldemort claims to have won an epic battle with James. It wouldn't sound so grand to say that he murdered a wandless wizard who was caught by surprise. 

(I don't feel cheated of the epic battle. It's not like James could win, and it always did seem a bit fishy to me that Lily and Harry hadn't had time to escape. Besides, it sets things up so that Voldemort dies the way James did: wandless and betrayed.)

Then Dumbledore gives an account of Snape's rescue that puts James in the best possible light,  allowing Harry (and the hapless reader) to assume that Snape was the school bully, and James a favorite target.  Later he tells Harry that he's sure that James would have spared Peter's life, again allowing us to assume that it was for the noblest of reasons.

And it's Dumbledore who explains the magic of Lily's love, making it sound as if it's the depth of her love and not the choice she made to trust in it that was unusual. 

We know that Dumbledore wanted to inspire Harry with ideals of sacrifice and noblesse oblige. I won't say that Dumbledore didn't believe that James and Lily were noble. But I think they got a lot nobler after they were dead <g>. 

There are no wizarding princes. The purebloods aren't nature's nobility and the Gryffindors aren't either. They both have the same base instincts. All the Gryffindors have is a slightly better strategy for dealing with them -- when they bother to use it.

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 12 17:07:21 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:21 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0trqv+99i6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0u209+s1o3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187012


> Montavilla47:
> 
> Okay... I'm not exactly going to disagree because to my mind the
> important distinction was that Lily had a *choice* in the matter.
> 
> But how many people willingly died to keep Voldemort from
> hurting other people?  Do those deaths not matter because
> the people who died weren't relying on love to save others, but 
> on their wands to do it?

Pippin:
The deaths mattered, in the sense that those people did brave and worthy things. But they didn't invoke the power of love magic. If Lily had faced Voldemort with her wand, she'd have had only the power of her wand to help her. And it wouldn't have been enough.

Montavilla:
> Instead, all they had to do was believe in love?   If the first
> person Voldemort killed had simply believed that allowing
> him or herself to be killed without resisting would protect
> everyone else in the world, would we never have gotten the
> first war at all?

Pippin:
Maybe, if they thought they could escape and yet *chose* to face Voldemort and die, thereby placing protection on those whom they loved,  that would have invoked love magic. But to protect everyone, they would have had to have been willing to die for everyone.  I don't think it's "scientific" -- choice + love magic + love = protection. I think a lot depends on the courage and moral certainty of the person who invokes the power.

Montavilla:
Because, how dumb would he have to be to  believe for a second that Voldemort would let in her live in  those circumstances?

Pippin:
Voldemort had been trying to recruit Lily and James, so Snape would have thought she was safe until he found out that Voldemort thought Harry was the prophecy child. And as we see, Voldemort wasn't hard over on killing Lily. But Snape was probably aware that Voldemort was capricious and would not hesitate to kill or break his promises on a whim.

Montavilla:
> He isn't trusting that his death is going to protect others.
> He isn't trusting, as you say Lily did, in love alone.
>

Pippin:

But he is! We just don't find out about it until he tells Voldemort what he did. I don't think it's about Voldemort breaking his promises, though that's an interesting idea. 

Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 17:30:23 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:30:23 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0tjrc+nbf0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0u3bf+4c0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187013

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > Montavilla47:
>   
> > 
> > So, I'm not saying that it was Snape and Voldemort who triggered the 
> > special blood protection.  It was Snape's request, *plus* Voldemort's 
> > agreement to that request, *plus* Lily's refusal to step aside, *plus*
> > Voldemort's breaking his word to Snape that triggered the magic.
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> 
> Lily wasn't just trying to protect Harry, she offered to take his place. She didn't have to die. (Uh-oh, now we have Lily as a Christ figure, and her name only strengthens the image.)
> 
> How does Harry's sacrifice in DH compare to Lily's? Because it seems that also had an effect on LV's magic against the Hogwarts army.
> 
> Potioncat, wishing she could pour through canon and take a bigger part in this thread
>
Carol responds:
Right. She was trying to take his place, to die instead of Harry. But that only works if she has the choice of living or dying, just as Harry had the choice of walking into the forest to face Voldemort or not and raising his wand or not. It's the choice that makes it a sacrifice. And neither Harry, who found out through Snape's memories that he had to sacrifice himself if he wanted to defeat Voldemort, nor Lily, who was given the choice to live or die because of Snape's request to Voldemort, could have sacrificed themselves without Snape's contribution to the chain of events.

None of which takes away from the power of either sacrifice. And Snape, of course, would have been happier if Lily hadn't made hers.

All I'm saying is that if some other DE had witnessed the Prophecy and reported it to Voldemort, Snape either would not have known about it or any request he made to LV to spare Lily would have been ignored. The other DE certainly would not have made such a request. Snape's request sets up Lily's choice, which she would not have had otherwise. And her choice to die rather than live sets up the ancient magic that backfires on Voldemort when he tries to kill the son she died to protect.

That's what Dumbledore means when he tells young Potions master Snape "You know how and why she died" and it's how he's able to persuade Snape to protect Harry so her sacrifice won't be in vain. But she could not have made that sacrifice, as I think Snape knows (and DD certainly knows) if Snape hadn't made that request of Voldemort in the first place.

IOW, that's why it's so important that Snape and no one other DE witnessed part of the Prophecy and reported it to Voldemort. (Of course, the Secret Keeper part of the plot wouldn't have happened, either, if Snape hadn't gone to Dumbledore.) He's woven intricately into the plot from the beginning. Take away Snape and you have either no story or a very different story. Setting aside his later promise to protect Harry so that Lily's sacrifice won't have been in vain, which effects the plot of the stories but not the events at Godric's Hollow, all of his actions in that short span of time--overhearing and reporting the Prophecy, regretting his part in it and begging Voldemort to spare Lily, going to Dumbledore and promising to do "anything" if he protects them, which leads to the Fidelius Charm and the fatal choice by the Potters to make Peter the SK--lead, through unintended consequences, to Harry's becoming the Chosen One.

It's not just that events would be different had DE!Snape not reported the Prophecy and Voldemort not acted on it. They would have been different if Lucius Malfoy or Macnair or Mulciber or any DE besides Snape had overheard it. No other DE would have gone to Voldemort to beg him to spare Lily, giving her and her alone the choice to live, with consequences intended by none of the participants, including Lily herself. (Obviously, Snape wasn't deliberately setting up ancient magic that would save Harry and not Lily, which was contrary to his own hopes and intentions (sparing Lily), any more than Voldemort or Lily herself knew what would happen. Had Voldemort known it, he'd have kept his promise to Snape and let her live! And Lily couldn't have known it either since no one had survived the Killing Curse before.) And no other DE would have gone to Dumbledore to beg for Lily's safety, feeling such deep remorse that he risked his life from that point on to work with Dumbledore. (Imagine DD hiring any other DE to teach at Hogwarts!) And, apparently, had that particular young DE not gone to Dumbledore to beg him to spare Lily, DD would not have sent the Potters into hiding or (a year or so later) suggested the Fidelius charm.

Take away Snape and the events in the middle of "The Prince's Tale," and the whole edifice collapses. But, then, as I said earlier, if Voldemort had kept rather than broken his promise to Snape, we'd have no story, either.

Carol, who sees some plot holes in this structure in terms of timing but thinks it's beautiful in terms of character interrelationships, irony, unintended consequences on more than one level, and the importance of choice in relation to sacrifice and the power of Love






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 17:44:11 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:44:11 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0rm5p+b0hc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0u45b+6amm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187014

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

> I've only started liking him after OOP, because that scene to 
> me made him human, even if it showed him in the bad light.


zanooda:

And I've started disliking him after OotP, LOL! But either way, I agree with you that it is much better to have a Toerag James than a Saint James :-). Even my husband, who doesn't like HP books and thinks JKR is a bad writer, says that showing James as a bully was a brilliant move :-).


> Alla wrote:

> It is extremely interesting how differently we react to 
> the characters.


zanooda:

It is, isn't it :-)? I find it fascinating how much of ourselves we bring to our understanding of the characters.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 17:46:56 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:46:56 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0tnpd+j8e4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0u4ag+hobt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187015

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Of course, if Snape had had his way and Voldemort had merely Stunned Lily, Harry would have died because there would have been no Love magic. We'd have just had an angry, unhappy Lily and no story. 
> 
> Pippin:
> I'm not sure this holds up. What matters is Lily's willingness to die if she didn't stand aside, not whether Voldemort actually killed her. Harry makes this clear.
> 
> "I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people--"
> "But you did not!"
> "--I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did."
> --DH ch 36
> 
> Lily didn't just instinctively throw herself in the way, as any mother might have done. She consciously cast her life between them, and though she couldn't know for certain it would have a magical effect, I think part of the magic came from her intention that it would. She chose not only to die, but to trust  love alone to defend her son.
> 
> There would have been no love magic if Lily had not believed she could save herself by stepping aside, and Snape is responsible for seeing that she had that choice. But if Voldemort had honored his promise and simply stunned her when she refused to step aside, I think the magic would have worked just the same. 
> 
> Pippin
>
Carol responds:

Hm. It's a minor point. My main point was the one you concede here, that Snape's request made her choice to sacrifice herself possible. But I think that the sacrifice itself is actually needed. Harry did step up wandlessly to receive an AK that would have killed him had it not been for the shared drop of blood. Merely intending to do that and being Stunned instead would not have served the purpose. And I can't see Lily's blood magically protecting Harry if she hadn't died herself. Why would the AK have rebounded if she hadn't actually died for him? And certainly, there would have been no blood protection (and no need for it) if she had lived. Voldemort himself says that "the woman's foolish sacrifice" protected Harry. I don't think that would have happened if Lily hadn't died.

The irony is that Voldemort's "prudent" act of killing all three, violating his promise to Snape, isn't prudent at all. He should merely have Stunned her, ignoring her choice to die and preventing her sacrifice. Instead, he broke his promise to Snape and accepted her choice to die in place of her son, only to dishonor her choice by attempting to kill the son, too. That, I think, is what triggered the magic. She chose to die *instead* of Harry, not *along with* Harry. Voldemort "prudently" decided to kill the whole family (James being already dead and not affecting the outcome one way or the other), thereby bringing about his own downfall.

IOW, Lily, unlike Harry, actually had to die for her choice to take effect. The intention to die for Harry would not, IMO, have sufficed.

Carol, who sees no reason for the AK to backfire on LV if LV had not violated an implied magical contract with Lily, her life for Harry's




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 18:47:29 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:47:29 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0to1l+2r1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0u7s1+dgp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187016

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

> My point is that I think that any **reason** under which 
> Lily would have been given a choice to step aside and 
> did not step aside would have lead to ancient magic.


zanooda:

I think that whatever reason LV might have had for offering Lily "the choice", the ancient magic would have been triggered anyway. If he said "step aside" because he decided to keep her as his love slave, it still would have given her that choice. I think that this time JKR explained it right, and I believed it even before I read that interview. Snape's request *was* what led to the ancient magic being evoked, but it *could have been* something else (theoretically, of course :-)).

This was always my belief, because, to be honest, I never put much trust in all the "magical contract" theories, although I find them fascinating. To me, any contract must take into consideration both parties intentions, not just one's. LV never agreed to take Lily's life instead of Harry's, he never stated his intention to spare Harry, in fact, he never had this intention. 

He never even bothered to try and trick Lily into believing that they might have a deal. If he said "OK, I'll let him live but I'll kill you" - than I would have believed it was a contract, LOL. JMO, of course. So to me, it was plain old love magic, no contracts :-).


> Carol wrote:

> Lily, unlike Harry, actually had to die for her choice to 
> take effect. The intention to die for Harry would not, IMO, 
> have sufficed.


zanooda:

This is my belief too, the intention alone is not enough, IMO, although we can't prove it :-). And I kind of think that Harry died as well, in a way. It was something like clinical death, wasn't it? He could have "gone on", right? He could have never woken up...





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 18:51:29 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:51:29 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0to1l+2r1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0u83h+50hf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187017

Alla wrote:
> 
> Right, well, I am not disputing that without Snape giving Voldemort a prophecy first and asking him for Lily's life second gave Lily's chance to live. But I am disputing that Snape was a  figure without whom there would have been no ancient magic if that makes sense.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that of course I know that he contributed to set of the circumstances which led to the magic, that's not my point. My point is that I think that any **reason** under which Lily would have been given a choice to step aside and did not step aside would have lead to ancient magic. <snip>

Carol responds:
But we don't need to search for hypothetical reasons. We know that Snape's request is the reason that Voldemort intended to spare Lily. Otherwise, she would have died like James. She was, after all, both a member of the Order of the Phoenix (and consequently already on his hit list) and a Muggle-born. No other DE would have asked Voldemort to spare her life. Snape is the only one who cared about her.


Alla wrote: 
> So, here is what I am saying, say it was true, say this was the reason why Lily was asked to step aside and did not, do you think that magic would not have worked? If so, *this** what I would like to see a canon, why a willing sacrifice (which yes, I know JKR distinguished in interview from James' sacrifice) of this nature would not work.

Carol responds:

Well, sure. If he had told her for any other reason to step aside, actually intending to spare her, actually giving her the choice to live or die, the ancient magic would have worked. But there was no other reason except his promise to Snape, which JKR says he would have kept had she chosen her own life over Harry's. But my point is, Snape's request is the canonical reason that she was given that choice, so hypotheticals don't matter. And, sorry to repeat, but surely no other DE would have made any such request.

Alla wrote:
> 
> Let me stress this again, I *know* that willing sacrifice seems to be the key, what I am disagreeing with is the uniqueness of Snape's contribution to this sacrifice, I mean NOT that he contributed, but why any other hypothetical reasons under which Voldemort would have given her a  choice would not work.

Carol responds:

I guess we're just concerned with different things, then. My point is that the choice is important and that without Snape's request, there's no canonical reason why she would not have died like James. Both Voldemort and Dumbledore stress that she didn't have to die. And the reason that she didn't have to die is Voldemort's (broken) promise to Snape to spare her. If she'd been given the choice to live or die for some other reason, the ancient magic would still have worked, but we'd be discussing that reason rather than Snape as the indirect and unwitting cause of her having that choice.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> We see other mothers protecting their children without Voldemort getting vaporized. The sacrifice that James made in protecting his family did not trigger the magic, either.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Actually, while I am sure mothers died protecting their children, could you tell me where else in the book we see mothers sacrificing their lives for their children? It seems to me that while any mother could have been in Lily's shoes, what she did was indeed pretty unique on pages.
> 
> But sure, I know that James' sacrifice did not trigger the magic.

Carol responds:
I mentioned two such mothers, Marlene McKinnon, who was killed along with her family and must surely have tried to protect them and the mother we see in DH. (There's also the hypothetical example of Neville Longbottom's mother that I quoted earlier, in which Harry thinks that all that matters is stepping between Voldemort and her son--he's unaware of the importance of choice.) Since we don't have a description of Marlene McKinnon's death in canon, I can't quote it, but here's the one of the other mother, who behaves very much like Lily but without triggering any ancient magic that backfires on Voldemort:

"Abandoning the attempt to close the door, she began to back down the dark hall, and Harry [Voldemort] followed, gliding toward her, and his long-fingered hand had drawn his wand.

"'Where is he?'

"'[German phrase that I can't copy.] He move. I know not! I know not!'

He raised the wand. She screamed. Two young children came running into the hall. She tried to shield them with her arms. There was a flash of green light--" (DH 233).

The chief difference between this scene and Lily's death scene is the absence of a choice. The mother tries to shield her children with her arms--as any mother would do and as Marlene McKinnon must have done unless she tried to fight back using a wand, equally uselessly--and LV kills her as he killed Lily.

Harry says, "I've just seen Voldemort killing a woman. By now, he's probably killed her whole family. And he didn't need to. It was Cedric all over again, they were just *there.* (DH 233).

I suppose we could argue that Harry may be wrong and that Voldemort may have left the children alive, but he didn't leave his own grandparents alive when he killed his father, and, as Harry says, he had no reason to kill the woman, either, so why imagine that he would spare her children? If, as seems likely, he killed the two children after their mother stood between him and Voldemort, spreading her arms exactly as Lily did in a vain effort to protect them, then clearly her action triggered no ancient magic. Voldemort survives unvaporized to kill again.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> The thing that distinguishes Lily's sacrifice is that she was given a choice and she chose to protect her child.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes.

Carol:
Right. And that's the key point. It's the one that distinguishes her from James and from other mothers who also tried to protect their children and died in the attempt. Lily and Lily alone had the choice to live. And the reason that she had that choice is Voldemort's promise to Snape to spare Lily (the important information that JKR concealed in the post-HBP interview).
> 
> Montavilla47:
> So, I'm not saying that it was Snape and Voldemort who triggered the special blood protection. It was Snape's request, *plus* Voldemort's agreement to that request, *plus* Lily's refusal to step aside, *plus* Voldemort's breaking his word to Snape that triggered the magic.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> If you are using triggered as meaning Snape and Voldemort contributing to the set of circumstances that led to magic, I agree. Snape gave Voldemort the prophecy and then came to beg for Lily's life.  If you are using triggered as started the magic, I do not agree. In my opinion we are not shown for sure what started the magic besides Lily's sacrifice. <snip>

Carol responds:
I can't speak for Montavilla, but what I'm saying is that Snape's begging Voldemort to spare Lily's life set up the circumstances, giving her the choice to live that no one else had, including James and the mother I just described. But, yes, it was the choice itself, Lily's choice to die in place of her son, that actually triggered the magic. It couldn't have happened without Snape, but his request and Voldemort's promise were contributing factors, necessary conditions, whereas Lily's choice to die was the cause. Had she for some inhuman, unmotherly reason (imagine a female Wormtail as a mother) chosen to live and allowed Voldemort to kill Harry, obviously the magic wouldn't have worked. But I also think that if Voldemort had honored his promise to Snape, Stunning her rather than killing her and ignoring her choice, it wouldn't have worked, either. 

Just dying without a choice doesn't trigger the magic. Without Snape's request and Voldemort's promise, we'd have had three dead Potters. Just asking him to kill her, not Harry, wouldn't have worked, either, if she hadn't actually had the choice--that is, if he didn't actually intend to spare her if she stepped aside. (The mother in the DH scene is implicitly trying to spare her children, putting her body between Voldemort and herself. That didn't trigger the magic.) Again, three dead Potters. And begging him to kill her instead of Harry, even with a choice, would not have worked unless he actually killed her, unless she actually sacrificed herself to save her son and then Voldemort dishonored her intentions by trying to kill Harry, too. Had he just Stunned her, we'd have had a living Lily but a dead Harry, the outcome that young DE Snape, to his discredit, was hoping for and the reason that DD said "You disgust me." Nevertheless, that request, selfish though it was, set up the events that followed, making Lily's choice possible. 

IMO, LV's double betrayal--first killing Lily and breaking his promise to Snape and then dishonoring Lily's choice of dying instead of her son--caused the AK to backfire on the caster as no other AK had ever done. He couldn't kill Harry because of the Love protection created by her choice. Had he honored that choice, he wouldn't have been vaporized.

> Pippin:
> Lily didn't just instinctively throw herself in the way, as any mother might have done. She consciously cast her life between them, and though she couldn't know for certain it would have a magical effect, I think part of the magic came from her intention that it would. She chose not only to die, but to trust love alone to defend her son.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, that's a good point.

Carol responds:
It's an interesting perspective, anyway. Unfortunately, we don't know her thoughts. We do know that it was her choice to die instead of Harry that mattered.
> 
> Pippin:
> There would have been no love magic if Lily had not believed she could save herself by stepping aside, and Snape is responsible for seeing that she had that choice. But if Voldemort had honored his promise and simply stunned her when she refused to step aside, I think the magic would have worked just the same.

Carol responds:
I disagree. The sacrifice had to be real and complete, her life for his, for it to work. And the fact that she had to protect him, choosing his life over hers actually given that choice (in contrast to everyone else) made the difference as merely *intending* to die but being Stunned instead would not have done.

Carol, who doesn't have time to look up all the blood protection quotes but who's pretty sure that they relate to Lily's *actual* sacrifice as opposed to her mere *intention* to die--not *for* but *instead* of Harry




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 12 21:12:05 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:12:05 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0to1l+2r1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ugb5+lnfq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187018

Alla:

> 
> So, here is what I am saying, say it was true, say this was the reason why Lily was asked to step aside and did not, do you think that magic would not have worked? If so, *this** what I would like to see a canon, why a willing sacrifice (which yes, I know JKR distinguished in interview from James' sacrifice) of this nature would not work.

Pippin:
Logically, it should work. But the Potterverse isn't all about logic. It's all about "the incalculable power" of acts of need and valor. I wouldn't want to say that Snape's attempts to save Lily didn't fall into that category. Voldemort didn't know or care that Snape's request was driven by love, but that's not to say that the magic wouldn't know. It might play into Voldemort's willingness to offer a choice, and even Lily's belief that she had a choice. 

I can see the appeal of the broken magical contract, too, but that makes it about rules, and I think the idea is that there's something beyond rules here. "Incalculable" to me means that ancient magic can't be reduced to a formula. 

Pippin




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 21:15:37 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:15:37 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0u209+s1o3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0ughp+sbki@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187019

Pippin:
We know that Dumbledore wanted to inspire Harry with ideals of sacrifice and
noblesse oblige. I won't say that Dumbledore didn't believe that James and Lily
were noble. But I think they got a lot nobler after they were dead <g>.

Montavilla47:
I clipped just this bit of your post to put in this reply to say that I 
completely agree with you about James and Lily.  

> Montavilla:
> > Instead, all they had to do was believe in love?   If the first
> > person Voldemort killed had simply believed that allowing
> > him or herself to be killed without resisting would protect
> > everyone else in the world, would we never have gotten the
> > first war at all?
> 
> Pippin:
> Maybe, if they thought they could escape and yet *chose* to face Voldemort and die, thereby placing protection on those whom they loved,  that would have invoked love magic. But to protect everyone, they would have had to have been willing to die for everyone.  I don't think it's "scientific" -- choice + love magic + love = protection. I think a lot depends on the courage and moral certainty of the person who invokes the power.

Montavilla47:

That an interesting idea.  I'm not sure I like it, though--just because 
it seems like the power of invoking magic is then coming from 
confidence more than anything else.  And that just doesn't sit well
with me asthetically.  It means that nervous, insecure people are
inherently powerless.

Maybe they are, but I don't really like that as a moral. :)


> Montavilla:
> Because, how dumb would he have to be to  believe for a second that Voldemort would let in her live in  those circumstances?
> 
> Pippin:
> Voldemort had been trying to recruit Lily and James, so Snape would have thought she was safe until he found out that Voldemort thought Harry was the prophecy child. And as we see, Voldemort wasn't hard over on killing Lily. But Snape was probably aware that Voldemort was capricious and would not hesitate to kill or break his promises on a whim.

Montavilla47:
He'd been trying to recuit them (as JKR mentioned in an interview),
but he'd also been trying to kill them, unless the "defied three times"
phrase refers to them refusing to be recruited three times rather than 
escaping death at his hands three times.

My understanding was that it meant that James and Lily had narrowed
avoided being killed on three occasions, and that the Longbottoms had
also done so.

And, since Lily and James were members of the Order of the Phoenix,
a group dedicated to fighting the Death Eaters, I don't think Snape
could have been very confident of Lily's safety at any time.



> Montavilla:
> > He isn't trusting that his death is going to protect others.
> > He isn't trusting, as you say Lily did, in love alone.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> But he is! We just don't find out about it until he tells Voldemort what he did. I don't think it's about Voldemort breaking his promises, though that's an interesting idea. 
> 

Montavilla47:
As long you aren't dismissing it out of hand, I'm happy.  As I 
said, it's purely speculative.  




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 12 21:33:52 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:33:52 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0s722+lecp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0uhk0+sn7k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187020

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > jkoney: 
> > > > We see that it is Snape in SWM who draws his wand first, not James. Sirius doesn't cast a spell. So it is one on one. Not two on one. While James is apparently more skilled with a wand (drawing faster the first time and flipping Snape upside down after he's been attacked from behind while Snape had his wand out).
> > > 
> > > Carol responds:
> > > I don't think so. The narrator, speaking from Harry's pov, says that James started it all simply because Sirius said he was bored. Severus draws his wand because James and Sirius are standing over him, apparently with their wands out--a defensive reaction "as if he were expecting an attack." Severus has to drop his bag and plunge his hand inside his robes, and even though the narrator notes that he reacted extremely fast, James has the advantage. He shouts "Expelliarmus!" which would have been pointless if his wand weren't already out. And Sirius follows immediately, hitting the Severus with Impedimenta as he dives for his wand. That's two on one in my view. 
> > 
> > jkoney:
> > Actually the text says they stood up. It doesn't say they drew their wands. 
> > 
> > Snape went for his wand and James disarmed him. Sirius laughted. Then when Snape went for his wand an Impedimenta was cast. I read it as James casting the spell, although after several readings I can see why you might think it was Sirius. Then they walked up to him.
> > 
> > It was Snape who walked towards them across the grass from the "shadows of the bushes." He could have easily walked away from them. He may have reacted so fast because he was looking for a fight. Otherwise why not walk away?
> 
> Carol responds:
> I don't even know how to react to this reading. Severus was studying his notes. Sirius looked at him "like a dog that has scented a rabbit" and says, "Excellent. Snivellus." Severus stows away his papers and emerges from the shadows. James and Sirius stand up (surely they have their wands in their hands, stated or not), 

jkoney:
Sirius says Snivellus softly, so we know Snape didn't hear him. He then packs his bag and proceeds across the lawn. He is near enough that James and Sirius stand up. If their wands were out Harry would have mentioned it. So we know that they are still in their pockets.

Carol
 When James says loudly, "All right, Snivellus?"  it's not some friendly greeting. He reacts by dropping his bag and starting to pull out his wand. There's nothing about James thinking *he's* being attacked. 

jkoney:
Yes, James was insulting him. We see Draco do this all the time and no one pulls out a wand. So this is going to be a verbal sparring match until Snape goes for his wand. James is quicker on drawing his wand and disarms him. If someone is pulling their wand on me, I'm going to think he is going to attack. It's a very reasonable assumption.

Carol
He obviously already has his wand in his hand. JKR doesn't need to say so. It's a given. As I said before, Harry knows that his father attacked Snape and not the other way around:

jkoney:
Why is it obvious that he has his wand out. It's not stated. He was playing with the snitch right before this and we know the wand wasn't out then.

Harry knows? Isn't our narrator unreliable? Doesn't Harry often mistake information that he's seen or heard, especially when he doesn't have all the facts.


> Carol:
> "Harry tried to make a case for Snape having deserved what he had suffered at James's hands--but hadn't Lily asked, "What's he done to you?" And hadn't James replied, "It's more the fact that he *exists*, if you know what I mean?' 

jkoney:
Lupin tells us that "Snape was a special case, I mean he never lost an opportunity to curse James, so you couldn't really expect James to take that lying down, could you?"

So we know that Snape was also a bully. 

We can now see why "the fact that he exists" comes into play. They both curse each other all the time. And they do it because the other exists.

I also wonder why Snape followed them down after the test. Sat near them and then walked past them when he left the shadows and reacted like he was expecting an attack. It almost seems like Snape wanted a confrontation after the incident a week before.

jkoney, who is glad he's re-read the scene numerous times to see that while definitely not James' finest hour it also isn't nearly as bad as people seem to remember. 






From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com  Sat Jun 13 00:38:14 2009
From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:38:14 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Greetings from the Hexquarters!
Message-ID: <h0usdm+j7h1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187021

Greetings from Hexquarters!

In the last few weeks, the Elves have noticed several posts where list members
are leaving in huge chunks of the previous conversation in the thread.

We would like to remind everybody that we ask that you snip quoted material
down to the bare minimum necessary for understanding of your new
comments. You can always assume that posters who participate in the discussion
read the thread in its entirety. If you as a member think most or all of the
post to which you are replying is
necessary for clarity, you might consider deleting all
of it and providing a post number or link.


Please refer to the relevant portion of the HBF for further guidance:

2.3.2 Snipping

People do not like to have to scroll through acres of irrelevant material to
find the part
you're replying to (not to mention your new comments!) so please snip (delete)
all quoted
material, leaving only the minimum necessary for others to understand your
reply. This
basic consideration helps those with slow internet connections and bandwidth
concerns.

Snipping properly can be trickier than it sounds, though, so here are some
additional
guidelines:

You should assume that anyone reading your response has already read all of the
other
messages in the thread, so it is not necessary to reproduce the gist of the
entire thread in
your reply.

If you've quoted more than a paragraph without inserting a comment of your own,
or if
the quoted material is longer than your own remarks, you probably haven't
snipped
enough.

If you are using Yahoo's automatic attribution feature (which happens when
hitting
"reply" to a message), please make sure to remove any unnecessary information,
including names of people who are not being quoted in your message. Don't forget
to
delete Yahoo footers and ads at the end of the post.


Thank you,

List Elves







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 04:16:41 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 04:16:41 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0uhk0+sn7k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h0v979+rjbh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187022

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

> Lupin tells us that "Snape was a special case, I mean he 
> never lost an opportunity to curse James, so you couldn't 
> really expect James to take that lying down, could you?"
 
> So we know that Snape was also a bully.


zanooda:

If we knew of an instance where Snape and a few of his Slytherin friends caught James alone and taunted him and did humiliating things to him - then yes, we would have known Snape was a bully. Just cursing someone in a hallway between classes is not bullying, IMO, and we can't know about anything else from Lupin's words. Besides, we are not discussing Snape, we are discussing James :-).


> jkoney65 wrote:

> I also wonder why Snape followed them down after the test.
> Sat near them and then walked past them when he left the 
> shadows and reacted like he was expecting an attack. 


zanooda:

Oh please :-)! He didn't even see them! He was reading his examination paper the entire time! And he "reacted like he was expecting an attack" because, knowing those two, he was always expecting an attack :-)!


> jkoney65 wrote:

> It almost seems like Snape wanted a confrontation after the 
> incident a week before.

Yeah, he is just that stupid to want a confrontation one against two, possibly four :-). Really wise :-).


zanooda, wishing we could agree to disagree :-).





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 05:26:00 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:26:00 -0000
Subject: DD's guesses.
Message-ID: <h0vd98+7vp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187023

Can anyone tell me when exactly did DD find out about Harry being a Horcrux? Did he know from the very beginning? But how? Only from the scar on the boy's head? Or did he guess later, when Harry started to show some signs, like Parseltongue, headaches, mental connection etc.? I can't figure it out, and for some reason it bugs me :-).


zanooda




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 12:15:49 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:15:49 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h0v979+rjbh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1059l+3sss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187024


> zanooda:
> 
> If we knew of an instance where Snape and a few of his Slytherin friends caught James alone and taunted him and did humiliating things to him - then yes, we would have known Snape was a bully. Just cursing someone in a hallway between classes is not bullying, IMO, and we can't know about anything else from Lupin's words. 

Alla:

So does this standard of who is being a bully and who is not applies to James or is it a special one for Snape?

Do you consider James hexing people according to Lily and his detention cards an evidence of him being a bully to other people besides Snape?



zanooda:
Besides, we are not discussing Snape, we are discussing James :-). <SNIP>

Alla:
You mean because topic says so? I would think that since scene involves them all we can discuss them all, but here you go, topic changed LOL.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 14:07:53 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:07:53 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10be0+i73c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h10brp+a06q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187026

Montavilla47:

We see Narcissa *risking* her life for simply the chance to see her
son again.

Do you believe that she wouldn't have made the same choice Lily
did had she been in the same circumstances? Do you believe that
she, or Petunia, wouldn't have refused the choice to step aside so
that Voldemort could kill her son? Did you see that mother in
Bulgaria step aside to save herself and leave her children vulnerable? <SNIP>

Alla:

Sure Narcissa was risking her life, I still would not put what she did on the same level as Lily, not to say that she would not have done it, I think any *normal* mother would protect her child with her life. My point is that I do not see anybody else in the book doing what Lily did, I am sure given the chance they would, just that author did not show it.

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
I agree that we don't know what triggered the magic. I'll agree that it
could have been Lily's choice alone. But she would not have had that
choice if the other events hadn't occurred. <SNIP>

Alla:
Sure, had the prophecy not being given to Voldemort she may not ever *needed* that choice and had Snape not gone to Voldemort to bargain for her life, Voldemort could have just killed her. I am only wondering what triggered the spell, the circumstances around it are canon.


Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
This isn't a story in which Lily is offered the choice to step
aside because she has information Voldemort wants or
because she's so darn pretty he'd like to take her away to
his lair. It's a story in which Lily is offered the choice because
her childhood friend still loves her even though he's
supposed to hate her.

Which brings it all back to Love. With a capital Luh.


Alla:

As an aside of the sorts, do you really consider what Snape did to Lily to be story about love?

I mean putting aside  my belief that without Snape giving the prophecy to Voldemort they may not have needed any hiding, any protection and may have survived, do you think that the fact that he went to ask for her life at first to *Voldemort* not *Dumbledore* is story about love?

When I first read it, I think I felt as if I want to take a shower, so EWWWWW this made me feel. I mean, if Snape went straight to Dumbledore, sure this would have been about atonement and about trying to save the woman he still loves for me.

But he went to Voldemort, what exactly Snape thought that he will do? What if Voldemort indeed made sure that Lily survived? Did Snape think that Lily will rush in his arms, what with her husband and baby's graves are still fresh? It tells me how little Snape respected Lily, how he did not give a flying fig about her choices, about her family. It tells me that it was all about Snape and what he wanted.

I am speculating of course, but I believe I am speculating based on the canon facts, after all we know that Snape still only wants Dumbledore to save Lily till Dumbledore chastises him.

No, I am not saying that Snape needed to love James and Harry, but I *am* saying that if he truly loved Lily, he may have given more thought about what Lily would have wanted and that something most definitely included her husband and baby being alive.

Maybe Snape hoped that he would put Lily under Imperio and she would become his slave or something?

As another aside, the fact that Voldemort was even willing to consider Snape's request tells me more about his implied crimes as Death Eater than anything else. I mean, how valuable Snape has to be to Voldemort at twenty something if he would truly agree to not kill somebody for him.

And this is actually one of the reasons that I cannot buy your speculation that their agreement actually contributed to the spell itself.

I just feel that this magic is something that is incredibly *good* in nature and Snape's agreement with Voldemort is something too selfish and evil to contribute to the spell of that power.

But of course I cannot argue against it, I am just explaining why it does not work for me.

Snape certainly contributed to circumstances, I just disagree that he is in any way contributed to magic itself  IMO.

Pippin:
Logically, it should work. But the Potterverse isn't all about logic. It's all
about "the incalculable power" of acts of need and valor. I wouldn't want to say
that Snape's attempts to save Lily didn't fall into that category. Voldemort
didn't know or care that Snape's request was driven by love, but that's not to
say that the magic wouldn't know. It might play into Voldemort's willingness to
offer a choice, and even Lily's belief that she had a choice. <SNIP>

Alla:

Right, well see above, I do not know if magic will respect much Snape's attempt to bargain for Lily's life with Voldemort, but of course we are just speculating here, I am just so curious what started this spell, but I do think that it was left ambiguous on purpose IMO.







From kleroy33 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 11:09:55 2009
From: kleroy33 at yahoo.com (kleroy33)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:09:55 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0v979+rjbh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h101e3+1d89@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187027

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65@> wrote:
>
> > Lupin tells us that "Snape was a special case, I mean he
> > never lost an opportunity to curse James, so you couldn't
> > really expect James to take that lying down, could you?"
>
> > So we know that Snape was also a bully.


I think it was a tit for tat battle.  It started on the train to Hogwarts the 1st year and escalated from there.

Initially Snape probably had the upper hand over James (we are told Snape came into Hogwarts with a lot of dark magic.)  I would think that over the course of their school life the battle between these two just continued to rise.


kleroy33



From LauraNPSP64 at aol.com  Sat Jun 13 13:10:00 2009
From: LauraNPSP64 at aol.com (LauraNPSP64 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:10:00 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's guesses.
Message-ID: <cc7.56387351.3764ff28@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187028

 
In a message dated 6/13/2009 1:26:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
zanooda2 at yahoo.com writes:

>Can  anyone tell me when exactly did DD find out about Harry being a 
>Horcrux? Did  he know from the very beginning? But how? Only from >the scar on the 
>boy's  head? Or did he guess later, when Harry started to show some >signs, 
>like  Parseltongue, headaches, mental connection etc.? I can't >figure it out, 
>and  for some reason it bugs me  :-).


I believe Dumbledore began to believe Harry was a horcrux at the end of  
Chamber of Secrets. He tells Harry in Half-Blood Prince that it was  Harry 
that put him on to the fact that Lord Voldemort had made horcruxes. And at  the 
end of Chamber of Secrets, he tells Harry that he believes that Voldemort  
transferred some of his powers to Harry the night he tried to kill Harry 
when he  was a baby. He even agrees with Harry at the end of Chamber of Secrets 
that  he put "a bit of himself in Harry."
 
 I do not believe that He knew from the beginning that Voldemort made  the 
horcruxes, but he seemed to know exactly what that diary was in Chambers of  
Secrets. He may have suspected beforehand, but I don't think he knew for 
sure  until he was handed the destroyed diary. Otherwise I think he would have 
spent  the 10 years between the death of Lily and James and Harry starting 
school  looking for the horcruxes. 
 
Laura



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Jun 13 14:34:31 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:34:31 -0000
Subject: Snape and love (was What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10brp+a06q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h10ddn+a8cr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187029

 
> Alla:
> 
> As an aside of the sorts, do you really consider what Snape did to Lily to be story about love?

Potioncat:
First, I haven't had a HP book in my hands in a long time, so some of this is rusty memory.

But, yes, I think Snape continued to love Lily through all the years. I'm not so sure that it had ever fully reached romantic love, if it did, it transformed into a different type of love (courtly, familial, friend).

Alla:> 
> But he went to Voldemort, what exactly Snape thought that he will do? What if Voldemort indeed made sure that Lily survived? Did Snape think that Lily will rush in his arms, what with her husband and baby's graves are still fresh? It tells me how little Snape respected Lily, how he did not give a flying fig about her choices, about her family. It tells me that it was all about Snape and what he wanted.

Potioncat:
First --jmo---I don't think Snape was thinking at all. I think he heard LV's plan to go after the Potters and Severus' reaction was "I must save Lily." And if he was thinking, how could he have asked LV to spare the One With the Power?

And it seems reasonable to me that he would go to LV first. Look how frightened he was at that hilltop meeting with DD. So he went to LV, got the promise, then had some second thoughts of his own--screwed up the courage and went to DD.

Snape hadn't yet even considered Lily's family. 
> 

>Alla: 
> No, I am not saying that Snape needed to love James and Harry, but I *am* saying that if he truly loved Lily, he may have given more thought about what Lily would have wanted and that something most definitely included her husband and baby being alive.

Potioncat:
I know what you mean. I'm not so much excusing his not having Harry and James in mind as well, as understanding that he was trying to save Lily.


> Alla:
> As another aside, the fact that Voldemort was even willing to consider Snape's request tells me more about his implied crimes as Death Eater than anything else. I mean, how valuable Snape has to be to Voldemort at twenty something if he would truly agree to not kill somebody for him.

Potioncat:
I think LV was making an easy promise to a DE who had pleased him in some way. And I can't deny that I've considered too that Snape had to have done something to be such an estemed member of the club. On the other hand, LV's favors are arbitrary and fleeting.


> Alla:
> I just feel that this magic is something that is incredibly *good* in nature and Snape's agreement with Voldemort is something too selfish and evil to contribute to the spell of that power.
> 
> But of course I cannot argue against it, I am just explaining why it does not work for me.

Potioncat:
It looks like I've missed a post or two about magical contracts, but I've also thought that was a contributing factor in the magic. Magical agreements seem to carry weight in a rather illogical manner. The fact that someone else put Harry's name in the goblet and so bound Harry to compete is in contrast with our ideas of contracts.
> 

> Alla:
> Right, well see above, I do not know if magic will respect much Snape's attempt to bargain for Lily's life with Voldemort, but of course we are just speculating here, I am just so curious what started this spell, but I do think that it was left ambiguous on purpose IMO.


Potioncat:
Right. And of cours, JKR was writing this in a way to make it fit her plan. I'm sure there are aspects of it that we consider that she never gave a thought to. 

Not that I'm saying she should have, mind you.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 15:07:16 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:07:16 -0000
Subject: Snape and love (was What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10ddn+a8cr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h10fb4+15g3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187030


> > Alla:
> > 
> > As an aside of the sorts, do you really consider what Snape did to Lily to be story about love?
> 
> Potioncat:
> First, I haven't had a HP book in my hands in a long time, so some of this is rusty memory.
> 
> But, yes, I think Snape continued to love Lily through all the years. I'm not so sure that it had ever fully reached romantic love, if it did, it transformed into a different type of love (courtly, familial, friend).


Alla:

Before I get off the computer I need to clarify, because I am sure that Snape continued to love Lily through years. What I should have written is that I do not consider Snape's bargaining for Lily's life only with Voldemort to be an *act* of love. That event to me is not love, it is selfish obsession. But sure through years he did what I would consider acts of love, although when I saw him tearing apart that letter, I thought that was an act of obsession too.

I am sure you know medieval knights and their loves for the ladies who were often married, etc. I mean, I am not talking about realistic stories, but the legends, ballads, of how they would love the lady their whole life, etc. So I cannot make up my mind if JKR was writing that story with Snape, or some horribly twisted parody (not that I mind it if it is so) of that story.

> Potioncat:
> First --jmo---I don't think Snape was thinking at all. I think he heard LV's plan to go after the Potters and Severus' reaction was "I must save Lily." And if he was thinking, how could he have asked LV to spare the One With the Power?

Alla:

If he was not thinking, sure I can forgive him. The thing is though, even when he comes to Dumbledore, he at first does exactly same thing, asks only for Lily's life till Dumbledore shames him, so was he still not thinking at that point?


Potioncat: 
> And it seems reasonable to me that he would go to LV first. Look how frightened he was at that hilltop meeting with DD. So he went to LV, got the promise, then had some second thoughts of his own--screwed up the courage and went to DD.
> 
> Snape hadn't yet even considered Lily's family. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Oh sure, it seems reasonable to me, I am not disputing that.  After all, it is not like he did not go to Dumbledore eventually. I am not seeing that it was an act of  great love, you know? I see that he wanted this woman for years, did not realize that couple whom he sold to Voldemort would not be couple he does not know (as if this makes any better, Snape dear), but oh so familiar to him couple. So, I see him still wanting Lily and running to his boss begging for her life.

I guess then he got some of his brilliant mind together and realized Ooops, Voldemort may not keep his promise and went to Dumbledore. Not because he realized how horrible it is that he got into this gang in the first place of course and till Dumbledore shames him and manipulates him he does not even suggest first that he is going to do something about it.

Only my opinion of course,

Alla




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Jun 13 17:04:42 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:04:42 -0000
Subject: Snape and love (was What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10fb4+15g3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h10m7a+fqqs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187031

 
> Alla:
> 
> Before I get off the computer I need to clarify, because I am sure that Snape continued to love Lily through years. What I should have written is that I do not consider Snape's bargaining for Lily's life only with Voldemort to be an *act* of love. 

Potioncat:
To a certain point, bargaining for Lily's life with LV doesn't make sense, but we also know that LV tried to recruit James and Lily and that makes less sense.

I mean, here's a half-blood DE asking for a Muggle-born witch.

But that aside, he was asking for Lily's life to be spared--and he was asking a maniac. So I think it was an act of love to save Lily's life.


> Alla:
> I am sure you know medieval knights and their loves for the ladies who were often married, etc. I mean, I am not talking about realistic stories, but the legends, ballads, of how they would love the lady their whole life, etc. So I cannot make up my mind if JKR was writing that story with Snape, or some horribly twisted parody (not that I mind it if it is so) of that story.

Potioncat:
I agree that this is the basis for the Severus/Lily story--which ever way JKR intended.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> If he was not thinking, sure I can forgive him. The thing is though, even when he comes to Dumbledore, he at first does exactly same thing, asks only for Lily's life till Dumbledore shames him, so was he still not thinking at that point?

Potioncat:
Good point. While he certainly couldn't have asked LV to spare James or Harry, he could have asked DD to. So if he is thinking, he isn't thinking beyond just saving her life.
> 
 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh sure, it seems reasonable to me, I am not disputing that.  After all, it is not like he did not go to Dumbledore eventually. I am not seeing that it was an act of  great love, you know? I see that he wanted this woman for years, did not realize that couple whom he sold to Voldemort would not be couple he does not know (as if this makes any better, Snape dear), but oh so familiar to him couple. So, I see him still wanting Lily and running to his boss begging for her life.

Potioncat:
Here's where we differ. And we will probably continue to differ because it's speculation (unless someone can find canon.) There is a difference between wanting a person and loving a person. If courtly love is the model, then Snape wasn't hoping to get Lily for himself, but simply to save her life. I don't think he expected Lily to become his, nor was that his goal. JMO.


> Alla:
> I guess then he got some of his brilliant mind together and realized Ooops, Voldemort may not keep his promise and went to Dumbledore. Not because he realized how horrible it is that he got into this gang in the first place of course and till Dumbledore shames him and manipulates him he does not even suggest first that he is going to do something about it.
> 
> Only my opinion of course,


Potioncat:
Sadly, my opinion too. I still can't fully understand what Severus Snape, the Half-blood Prince, is doing in the DEs.

Both Severus and Regulus---DEs who went good--acted because someone they cared about was being harmed by LV.




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 13 17:40:31 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:40:31 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10brp+a06q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h10oaf+6a7l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187032

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> This isn't a story in which Lily is offered the choice to step
> aside because she has information Voldemort wants or
> because she's so darn pretty he'd like to take her away to
> his lair. It's a story in which Lily is offered the choice because
> her childhood friend still loves her even though he's
> supposed to hate her.
> 
> Which brings it all back to Love. With a capital Luh.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> As an aside of the sorts, do you really consider what Snape did to Lily to be story about love?

Montavilla47:

Love stories contain bad actions as well as good actions.  
Romeo kills Juliet's beloved cousin.  Mr. Darcy nearly ruins
Eliza's sister's life by his actions, and he ruins the reputation
of her entire family by his inaction.  Jo March almost lets
her sister be killed because of a conflict.

Yet these are all shown to be loving relationships.


Alla:
> I mean putting aside  my belief that without Snape giving the prophecy to Voldemort they may not have needed any hiding, any protection and may have survived, do you think that the fact that he went to ask for her life at first to *Voldemort* not *Dumbledore* is story about love?

Montavilla47:
I don't see how that makes a difference.  He went first to the
person who seemed most able to prevent harm to Lily.  When
he wasn't satisfied that Voldemort would keep that promise,
he went to Dumbledore.

It's not like Dumbledore has a monopoly on love.


Alla:
> When I first read it, I think I felt as if I want to take a shower, so EWWWWW this made me feel. I mean, if Snape went straight to Dumbledore, sure this would have been about atonement and about trying to save the woman he still loves for me.

Montavilla47:
Why?  Voldemort was the one who was planning to kill
Lily.  Surely it makes more sense to ask him to let her live
than a third party who may or may not be around at the 
time that Voldemort shows up.


I agree, though, that by going to Voldemort first, Snape
is showing that he hadn't yet atoned for his joining the 
Death Eaters or changed his mind about their tactics or 
aims.

And I agree that it's less noble than immediately turning
coat and joining the good side.  On the other hand--and I
can hardly believe I'm saying this about anything in HP--
it's probably more realistic.


Alla:
> But he went to Voldemort, what exactly Snape thought that he will do? What if Voldemort indeed made sure that Lily survived? Did Snape think that Lily will rush in his arms, what with her husband and baby's graves are still fresh? It tells me how little Snape respected Lily, how he did not give a flying fig about her choices, about her family. It tells me that it was all about Snape and what he wanted.

Montavilla47:
We don't know what was in Snape's head.  But Harry tells
Voldemort (who certainly thought Snape wanted to get into
Lily's bed) that Snape didn't save her in order to have a 
romantic or carnal relationship with her.  He says quite clearly
that Snape saved her because she was his "friend."

I don't think that we have to believe Harry here.  But I don't 
think it's inconceivable given that after Lily refused Snape's 
apology, he stopped pursuing her.  That argues that he did 
respect her decision in dumping him.


Alla:
> I am speculating of course, but I believe I am speculating based on the canon facts, after all we know that Snape still only wants Dumbledore to save Lily till Dumbledore chastises him.

Montavilla47:
And again, Snape was never in any position to save Harry,
since the whole reason for Voldemort to target the Potters
in the first place is the kid who is going to grow up and kill
him.

He might have been in a position to ask for James's life as
well as Lily's, but that's sort of like Harry begging Voldemort
to spare Draco (before Harry began to feel sympathy for 
Draco).  

Heh.  I wonder--if Dumbledore had decided that Snape was a 
danger to society and put him on a list of DeathEaters to be 
captured and sent to jail, would James (or even Lily) have begged 
Dumbledore to spare their former classmate?

Would they have gone to Voldemort and pledged to do 
"anything" in order to save him?

Alla:
> No, I am not saying that Snape needed to love James and Harry, but I *am* saying that if he truly loved Lily, he may have given more thought about what Lily would have wanted and that something most definitely included her husband and baby being alive.

Montavilla47:
Yeah, probably he would have, if he were thinking straight.
But there were many reasons that he wouldn't be thinking
straight at that time, including his own miserable family life,
the people he was associating with at the time, and the 
general contempt for other people that was the Death Eater
mindset.

Alla:
> Maybe Snape hoped that he would put Lily under Imperio and she would become his slave or something?

Montavilla47:
That's not what he asked for.  If he wanted that, he could
certainly have asked for it, and I'm sure Voldemort would 
have been happy to oblige.

You can speculate all you like on Snape having selfish, 
perverted hopes for a post-James Lily, but, IMO, the 
canon indicates that all Snape wanted was for Lily to be 
alive.  

Dumbledore comforts Snape with the idea that Lily is 
still alive (at least a little) in Harry.  He does not comfort
Snape by pointing out that, had Lily lived, she still would
have hated Snape and loved James.


Alla:
> As another aside, the fact that Voldemort was even willing to consider Snape's request tells me more about his implied crimes as Death Eater than anything else. I mean, how valuable Snape has to be to Voldemort at twenty something if he would truly agree to not kill somebody for him.

Montavilla47:
Very valuable.  He had brought Voldemort information
about a huge threat.  

Alla:
> And this is actually one of the reasons that I cannot buy your speculation that their agreement actually contributed to the spell itself.
> 
> I just feel that this magic is something that is incredibly *good* in nature and Snape's agreement with Voldemort is something too selfish and evil to contribute to the spell of that power.
> 
> But of course I cannot argue against it, I am just explaining why it does not work for me.
> 

Montavilla47:
You definitely aren't obligated to buy that part.  I think that 
providing the choice is enough of a contribution to the unique
circumstances in which Harry survived.  

And, I don't really buy Pippin's idea that Lily's *belief* in love
was what triggered the magic.  We don't have to agree on the 
exact thing that made it happen.

But I do think that the idea that magic is either good or bad
is an odd one.  I think of magic as being "natural" and 
unpredictable, the way that wild animals are unpredictable and
only somewhat controllable.







From juli17 at aol.com  Sat Jun 13 21:27:44 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:27:44 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0uhk0+sn7k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h115kg+5m1u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187033


> 
> jkoney:
> Sirius says Snivellus softly, so we know Snape didn't hear him. He then packs his bag and proceeds across the lawn. He is near enough that James and Sirius stand up. If their wands were out Harry would have mentioned it. So we know that they are still in their pockets.

Julie:
Even if their wands weren't out at this moment, James clearly had his wand out by the time Snape tried to pull out his own wand. As noted earlier by Carol, James shouted "Exspelleramus!" BEFORE Snape could get his wand all the way out. James couldn't have disarmed Snape if James didn't already have his own wand out and in position. (Remember, wandless magic isn't taught until 6th year, and there is not a shred of canon that implies James--or Snape, or anyone else in their year--was able to perform wandless magic before the subject was even taught). 

James disarmed Snape as Snape was pulling his wand out. Ergo, James already had his wand in hand and in position to perform magic. I am being repetitive, I know, but only to emphasize that this is a canon FACT. Period.

> 
> Carol
>  When James says loudly, "All right, Snivellus?"  it's not some friendly greeting. He reacts by dropping his bag and starting to pull out his wand. There's nothing about James thinking *he's* being attacked. 
> 
> jkoney:
> Yes, James was insulting him. We see Draco do this all the time and no one pulls out a wand. So this is going to be a verbal sparring match until Snape goes for his wand. James is quicker on drawing his wand and disarms him. If someone is pulling their wand on me, I'm going to think he is going to attack. It's a very reasonable assumption.

Julie:
We certainly have never seen anything wrong with Snape's reflexes. At the very least I suppose you could say that they go for their wands at the same time, but even that seems unlikely. Particularly given that Snape had to drop his bag to go for his wand, while James and Sirius were already setting their plan to go after Snivellus in motion. And clearly they must be aware Snape isn't going to just let them do things to him for their own entertainment unless they divest him of his wand first. (Or unless you assume they simply wanted to verbally taunt Snape, maybe along the lines of arguing whose mother wears the largest Army boots. Though I can't see ratty little Peter practically salivating as he does if that's as exciting as he thinks it's going to get!)

I also note that if Snape supposedly walked *toward* James and Sirius with intent to engage them, as you've suggested, why wouldn't such a clever, wary, Dark Arts loving wizard who has tons of experience with these two from their five years of mutual hexing back and forth *already* have his wand out if he wants to engage them? Instead Snape walks deliberately toward a fight, knowing he'll have to DROP his bag and lose precious seconds going for his wand?? Is he really that stupid?

No, Snape obviously assumed he could go his own way. Maybe because they were all in a public area with lots of other students around, and he reasoned the two Marauders wouldn't actually start anything if Snape ignored them and minded his own business. That is until James said "All right, Snivellus?", which Snape obviously took as an indication that James and Sirius were not going to just let him pass (presumably from past experience). At which point Snape went for his wand, but it was already too late, as James was certainly expecting the move and didn't have a bag in the way of reaching for his own ready wand. 

To Harry it is very clear that James and Sirius were the aggressors, intending to taunt and bully Snape (as they flat out stated!), while Snape initially was walking away, book bag in hand and wand stowed in his robe until James called him out. Later, adult Remus and Sirius in no way dispute Harry's interpretation of the incident in question; in fact they are clearly ashamed of it to the point of assuring Harry that James grew out of such shameful behavior. There is no argument on page about who incited this incident or who was in the wrong, so I'm not sure how it's possible to really debate it here ;-)

Whether Snape "deserved" it based on his supposed equal participation in the mutual hexing war between him and the Mauraders, and whether it's okay that James and Sirius bullied an ugly, snarky Slytherin git who was into the Dark Arts and would eventually become a Death Eater (while they were against the Dark Arts and would eventually be on the good side of the battle line) is another matter altogether. 

It might be more interesting though to ask why JKR wrote it this way, i.e., choosing to show teenage James and Sirius as the aggressors against Snape in two different scenes while never showing any moments where teenage Snape is the aggressor. Yet once they are adults we are only told that Snape chose the bad side, and James the good side, without being shown any scenes of their actual actions for those opposing sides, except for Snape giving the prophecy to Voldemort (an act that is relatively indirect--though it obviously had enormous consequences in the end--compared to torturing Muggles or feeding poison to captured Order members, etc).

I don't question that Snape chose the bad side and was responsible for that choice and any pain and death that resulted directly or indirectly from it, nor that James chose the good side and was equally responsible for the lives that were saved directly or indirectly because of his involvement and his defiance of Voldemort. I just wonder why JKR chose not to merely allude to their lives and choices as young adults for the most part rather than actually show them. (And yes, there was only so much she could write into the books, but she did choose to write out the tedious Giant scenes, and various scenes about the welfare of Elves, and other similar side threads to the main story.)

Julie





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun 13 21:53:43 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:53:43 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10brp+a06q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11757+ponn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187034

 
> Alla:
> 
> As an aside of the sorts, do you really consider what Snape did to Lily to be story about love?
> 
> I mean putting aside  my belief that without Snape giving the prophecy to Voldemort they may not have needed any hiding, any protection and may have survived, do you think that the fact that he went to ask for her life at first to *Voldemort* not *Dumbledore* is story about love?
> 
> When I first read it, I think I felt as if I want to take a shower, so EWWWWW this made me feel. I mean, if Snape went straight to Dumbledore, sure this would have been about atonement and about trying to save the woman he still loves for me.
> 
> But he went to Voldemort, what exactly Snape thought that he will do? What if Voldemort indeed made sure that Lily survived? Did Snape think that Lily will rush in his arms, what with her husband and baby's graves are still fresh? 

Pippin:
 Toerag!James is the only James Snape ever knew. Even Harry couldn't understand how Lily could have fallen for him and wondered once or twice if she had been forced to marry him. A parent rejecting the child of an unloved parent isn't outside Snape's experience either. Why wouldn't Snape think that Lily would long to be free of James and the child she'd been forced to give him? Perhaps he couldn't really think that Lily loved Harry until she died to save him. 

Anyway, if the silver doe doesn't convince you that Snape's feelings for Lily were honorable, I'm not sure what would.  

"Snape was Dumbledore's, Dumbledore's from the moment you started hunting down my mother. And you never realized it, because of the thing you can't understand. You never saw Snape cast a Patronus, did you, Riddle?"

How can it not be about love? 

 Harry insists that Snape loved Lily since childhood and that he was Dumbledore's spy "from the moment you [Voldemort] threatened her." Harry is exaggerating a little, but I'm sure the intent is to make the reader feel that Voldemort lost Snape's allegiance the moment Snape realized that Lily was in peril. Snape obviously did not understand Lily's needs at all, but he did know they counted more for him than Voldemort's.

It took a while for Snape to realize that Dumbledore was his only chance, but it was always love that motivated him to try to save Lily, IMO. Whatever hopes he cherished for himself, he gave them up without hesitation when Dumbledore insisted that he choose between them and Lily's life. Would an obsessed person do that? 

As for Snape not daring to ask unless he thought Voldemort owed him something, what did he have to lose? Lily pleaded with Voldemort to spare Harry and even said she'd do anything. Is that supposed to mean she was a loyal DE and thought Voldemort would reward her?

Pippin




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 13 23:53:54 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 23:53:54 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0tmot+c2m1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11e6i+j3mq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187035

 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Actually, Steve, I think very few people do all those things you suggest. 
> 
> There are valid ways of looking at canon and different readers are going to interpret canon differently without any twisting going on.
> 
><SNIP>
 
Steve replies:
   There are some online posters who do make a valiant effort to objectively stick to canon as best as possible to offer an interpretation of text that presents valid support for a particular pov. But I've also read much more than a few posts by others (and to some degree at times by myself) where canon is interpreted loosely to say the least. I've seen people present 9 or 10 very logical, rational and essentially very perceptive and intelligent examples of canon supporting a point and one not so great example and in the rebuttal post the 10 great examples were totally ignored as if they didn't exist and the not so great example was countered by some rather biased and often unusual extrapolation of canon or reading between the lines in some way. Perhaps this is an effective debating tactic, to only argue against the weaker points of someone's expressed pov and pretend that no strong points of that person's pov was made. But IMO it does the first poster a grand disservice by refusing to offer counter arguments against all of the points that the 1st poster made.  If someone uses canon effectively and presents a very sound pov, I tell them so, even if it is an admission that their argument makes better sense than mine. 

But to get back to my original point. I've observed that more than a few people do tend to read between the lines, manuever and twist canon around to make their points, ignore canon that might show things counterproductive to their pov, and push their pet theories forward in whatever ways they can think of to try and show that their pov is the right one, or the best one, or whatever. JKR didn't always present character's motives and actions in clear and simple ways. And readers who are emotionally attached to and subjectively biased in favor of some characters often become over zealous in defense of these characters.  Some stick to canon very well.  Perhaps as you believe, even most do.  But some don't.

  Because I'm visually impaired, I don't read the actual text, but listen to the books on CD.  That makes it kind of tough at times to research canon to make sensible points that I wish to make. 

Steve, who genuinely wishes that he had a lot more time to research canon and the ability to wisely refer to canon as effectively as most of the people in HPFGU are capable of.        




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 00:01:09 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:01:09 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1059l+3sss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11ek5+bt3n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187036

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

> Do you consider James hexing people according to Lily 
> and his detention cards an evidence of him being a bully 
> to other people besides Snape?


zanooda:

No, I don't, although I know that many people won't agree with me :-). A victim of bullying is someone who is hurt repeatedly, over time, so, unless that boy whose head grew twice its side was James's constant target, he was not a victim of bullying, IMO. Bullying is defined as "an act of *repeated* aggressive behavior in order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally". 

The victim of a bully feels him\herself singled out, specifically targeted all the time. If James and Snape just met in a hallway and exchanged a hex or two, neither of them is a bully in this case. I want to emphasize that this is only my personal opinion, nothing else :-). That's how I understand bullying :-).
 
 
> > zanooda:

> > Besides, we are not discussing Snape, we are discussing 
> > James :-). 
 
> Alla:

> You mean because topic says so? I would think that since scene 
> involves them all we can discuss them all, but here you go, 
> topic changed LOL.


zanooda:

LOL! I didn't want to say we shouldn't discuss Snape :-). I wanted to say that for me it makes no difference what Snape did to "deserve", in some readers' opinion, what he got in SWM. Even if Snape ever did the same thing to James, it doesn't make James's behavior in SWM more admirable (to me, of course :-)). Do you see what I mean? I'm not sure I explained it well :-). 

Talking about Snape being a bully is trying to find an excuse for James, and I don't see it as an excuse, that's all I wanted to say. I don't mind switching to Snape (Carol will be happy :-)). Besides, we already changed topic, because it started as a discussion about JKR's writing and now it is a discussion about James :-). 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 00:43:56 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:43:56 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h11757+ponn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11h4c+aegf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187037

Potioncat:
Here's where we differ. And we will probably continue to differ because it's
speculation (unless someone can find canon.) 

Alla:

Of course we are speculating and just trying to find some canon to make inferences.

Potioncat:
There is a difference between
wanting a person and loving a person. 

Alla:

Sure I agree with that, however, I would say that even though it is completely possible to want a person without loving such person, to me if we are talking about romantic love, if one loves a person, one generally wants her or him as well. It had been my experience anyway.

.

Potioncat:
If courtly love is the model, then Snape
wasn't hoping to get Lily for himself, but simply to save her life. I don't
think he expected Lily to become his, nor was that his goal. JMO.

Alla:
But that is sort of my point, because to me if courtly love is the model, then Snape would be thinking about how to make lady happy and do whatever she wants, you know?

Knights were perfectly happy (in literature of course) to gaze at the lady from a far, to carry her sign to the tournaments to do the good deeds in her name, etc, etc. They were not wanting to get rid of the lady's family (at least in the stories that I read) and of course unless they were courting the lady to get married.

That's the reason why I am not sure if it is a courtly love or a parody of it, because while Snape certainly does good deeds in the name of Lily, before he is doing it, he does not give a fig (IMO) if her family will be dead or not and to me it is more than speculation that Lily would not want to live when her husband and baby will be dead.




Montavilla47:
We don't know what was in Snape's head. But Harry tells
Voldemort (who certainly thought Snape wanted to get into
Lily's bed) that Snape didn't save her in order to have a
romantic or carnal relationship with her. He says quite clearly
that Snape saved her because she was his "friend."

I don't think that we have to believe Harry here. But I don't
think it's inconceivable given that after Lily refused Snape's
apology, he stopped pursuing her. That argues that he did
respect her decision in dumping him.

Alla:

Well, actually before I decide whether or not I believe Harry here, could you please point me to canon where he says quite clearly that Snape saved her because she was his "friend".

Because if we are talking about final confrontation scene, as Pippin says Harry tells Voldemort that Snape loved her since childhood which as far as I am concerned really does not hurt my argument, because as I said above IMO loving a person, if we are talking about romantic love of course pretty much always includes wanting a person, although opposite is not always true.  I cannot find where is  Harry saying that Snape saved her because she was his friend?

Here is what I could find though and I can see that Pippin already quoted paragraph before the ones that I will be quoting:

"Snape's Patronus was a Doe," said Harry, "the same as my mother's because he loved her for nearly all of his life, from the time they were children. You should have realized," he said, as he saw Voldemort's nostrils flare, "he asked you to spare her life, didn't he?"
"He desired her, that's all," sneered Voldemort, "but when she had gone, he agreed  that there were other women, and of purer blood, worthier of him-"
"Of course he had told you that," said Harry, "but he was  Dumbledore's spy from the moment you threatened her, and he's been working against you ever since! Dumbledore was already dying when Snape finished him!" ? p. 593, brit.ed.

Alla:

So, do I believe Harry here? Sure I do. I just differ with him in what ways I think Snape loved Lily since they were children. I would say that his love was not noble enough at the point he was asking for her life.  Here is what I get from this dialogue. I am sure Harry is making some sort of rebuttal to Voldemort's claim that Snape only desired her, although I really am unclear how strong of the rebuttal "Of course he had told you that and he was Dumbledore's" is supposed to be. I am interpreting that the rebuttal is that Snape loved her, not  *just* desired her, but again I just do not see how that contradicts the idea that Snape wanted her for himself in more ways than one, not just sexual one.

Montavilla47:
And again, Snape was never in any position to save Harry,
since the whole reason for Voldemort to target the Potters
in the first place is the kid who is going to grow up and kill
him. <SNIP>

 Alla:

It is irrelevant for the point that I am making whether Snape was in any position to save Harry. I am saying that if he truly loved Lily at that point of his life,  he would have considered what Lily wanted and yes, tried, regardless if he knew one hundred percent that he is going to fail. After all what kind of knight would put lady, her husband and child in danger in the first place and then say, oh heck I will save you, but your family can burn for all I care. Something tells me that he would not see this lady giving him any handkerchiefs ( or headscarf, or whatever it was) to wear during the tournaments anymore.

Alla:
> Maybe Snape hoped that he would put Lily under Imperio and she would become
his slave or something?

Montavilla47:
That's not what he asked for. If he wanted that, he could
certainly have asked for it, and I'm sure Voldemort would
have been happy to oblige.

Alla:

I did not mean that Voldemort would put Lily under Imperio, I meant that Snape himself would do it next time he comes to visit or something like that. It is pure speculation of course.

Montavilla47:
You can speculate all you like on Snape having selfish,
perverted hopes for a post-James Lily, but, IMO, the
canon indicates that all Snape wanted was for Lily to be
alive.

Alla:

Snape putting Lily under Imperio is of course pure speculation, what is not speculation however is that Snape only asked for her life, nobody else's. That tells me that it was not about what Lily wanted and of course I am speculating further based on that. Canon does not tell us either way that the only thing that Snape wanted for Lily was to be alive IMO, that is why the fact that he did not ask for her family to be spared to me seems a reasonable basis for speculation that Snape did not only wanted Lily to be alive, but wanted her as part of loving her.

Because we are told that he never stopped loving her by Harry, so to me that may mean that he never stopped wanting her either. 


Montavilla47:
Dumbledore comforts Snape with the idea that Lily is
still alive (at least a little) in Harry. He does not comfort
Snape by pointing out that, had Lily lived, she still would
have hated Snape and loved James. <SNIP>

Alla:

I frankly did not notice that Dumbledore was comforting Snape at all that night IMO. And how the idea that had she lived she still would have hated Snape is a comfort at all?

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
But I do think that the idea that magic is either good or bad
is an odd one. I think of magic as being "natural" and
unpredictable, the way that wild animals are unpredictable and
only somewhat controllable.

Alla:

Well, according to different writers magic can be different, it can be good, it could be bad, it could be as you said wild and unpredictable and IMO JKR left us a wild field to speculate on that. I do not believe that all magic in Potterverse is either good or bad, but IMO the ancient magic is good because of it being based on love and I actually think it can be unpredictable too.




Pippin:
Toerag!James is the only James Snape ever knew. Even Harry couldn't understand
how Lily could have fallen for him and wondered once or twice if she had been
forced to marry him. A parent rejecting the child of an unloved parent isn't
outside Snape's experience either. Why wouldn't Snape think that Lily would long
to be free of James and the child she'd been forced to give him? Perhaps he
couldn't really think that Lily loved Harry until she died to save him.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Exactly! It is all about Snape, what he knows, what he experienced, what he wants in my opinion. If he truly loved Lily, I think he would have done his best to look at situation from her POV and maybe he would have seen that she married a husband whom she loved and had a child that she adored.

And maybe he would have grasped that Lily would much rather be dead than alive without her husband and child in my opinion.

Pippin:
Anyway, if the silver doe doesn't convince you that Snape's feelings for Lily
were honorable, I'm not sure what would. <SNIP>

Alla:

Oh I am sure that the more time passed since Lily's death the more honorable and more resembling the knight's love his love became. But that is loving the idea of Lily and doing a good deeds in her name. Am I sure that Snape would have loved alive Lily same way had she came back for some magical reason for example? No, I am not.

And when he is confronted with not even alive Lily, but with the piece of her handwriting, what does he do? Steals it from the house that belongs to her child. Yeah, I think it was obsessive all right.

So again, I cannot make up my mind, I certainly see parts of courtly love in his story, but I also see pretty ugly parts IMO.

As to Patronus, yep, for the longest time I thought that Patronus Magic is pretty much good, Guardian protector and all that to me gives good thoughts. Silver Doe was beautiful and I think it reflects Snape loving idea of Lily and doing good noble things in her name.

However, Umbridge has patronus too, so I do not think that Patronus in itself to me proves something about character anymore.







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 00:46:39 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:46:39 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10brp+a06q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11h9f+m4hu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187038

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

> Did Snape think that Lily will rush in his arms, what 
> with her husband and baby's graves are still fresh? 


zanooda:

No, he just wanted Lily to live. He didn't care about her husband and child, but her he loved.


> Alla wrote:

> Maybe Snape hoped that he would put Lily under Imperio and she 
> would become his slave or something?


zanooda:

Oh, Alla, give poor Snape some credit :-). He wouldn't have moaned "like wounded animal" and he wouldn't have looked "like a man who had lived a hundred years of misery", when Lily died, *just* because he lost a potential plaything :-). I'm sure he never wanted to make her a love slave, but I believe that's what he said to LV. 

I hope he was smart enough not to say "Please don't kill her, my Lord, I looove her" :-). He probably said that she was pretty and he wanted her, and that she was his old enemy's wife, and wouldn't it be cool if he had her as his mistress, and "please my Lord, let me have her as a reward".





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 01:06:22 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:06:22 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h101e3+1d89@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11iee+f6rb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187039

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kleroy33" <kleroy33 at ...> wrote:
>
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65@> wrote:
> >
> > > Lupin tells us that "Snape was a special case, I mean he
> > > never lost an opportunity to curse James, so you couldn't
> > > really expect James to take that lying down, could you?"
> >
> > > So we know that Snape was also a bully.
> 
> 
> I think it was a tit for tat battle.  It started on the train to Hogwarts the 1st year and escalated from there.
> 
> Initially Snape probably had the upper hand over James (we are told Snape came into Hogwarts with a lot of dark magic.)  I would think that over the course of their school life the battle between these two just continued to rise.
> 
> 
> kleroy33
>
Carol responds:

Sirius Black, not exactly an objective witness, says that Severus Snape came to school knowing more curses than half the seventh years, but I suspect that's an exaggeration given what he said to Lily about not being able to do magic outside school once they turned eleven. In any case, the "curses" were most likely jinxes and hexes of the type that we see in his sixth-year Potions book (which he must have been writing in before sixth year since he had already invented Levicorpus as of SWM). With the exception of Sectumsempra, which he certainly had not yet invented at age eleven, none of the spells we see in that book (Levicorpus and its countercurse, Muffliato, Langlock, the toenail hex) is Dark magic.

However, I agree that he and James were evenly matched--in a fair fight, one-on-one. And I don't think that changed around the time of SWM. (Look at the adult Snape's duelling skills.) Sirius Black says that "he gave as good as he got" in encounters with James after SWM, presumably in sixth or seventh year.

Carol, who seriously doubts that Severus was practicing Dark magic at age eleven




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 14 01:27:53 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:27:53 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h11h4c+aegf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11jmp+gbbv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187040

 
> Alla:
> 
> Exactly! It is all about Snape, what he knows, what he experienced, what he wants in my opinion. If he truly loved Lily, I think he would have done his best to look at situation from her POV and maybe he would have seen that she married a husband whom she loved and had a child that she adored.

Pippin:
Oh dear, oh dear. "If you really loved me, you'd understand what I need" ???? --  Sorry, love does not work like that and not only in real life.  I can think of a lot of people in canon who love and honestly have no idea what the person they love needs, or what would make that person truly happy,  starting with the Dursleys and Dudley. 

In fact the Dursleys understand Dudley's needs so little that they do more harm to Dudley in trying to take care of him than they do to Harry by neglecting him as much as they dare.

As to courtly love, of course Snape wanted Lily. But that in itself does not make his love impure or unclean, not in the Potterverse, IMO. Rowling has said that one of the things that she did not like about the Narnia books was the way that Susan was put down for wanting romantic love. No where in the books is physical desire shown to be unworthy, except when it is forced on someone. 

There is no canon that Snape ever tried or expected to force his attentions on Lily in any way, though no doubt that's what Voldemort thought he would do if he could. 

I agree that being able to cast a patronus does not mean you are a good or noble person. But IMO, it does mean that you love whatever the patronus represents. Who says Umbridge doesn't love  cats?

Pippin











> 
> And maybe he would have grasped that Lily would much rather be dead than alive without her husband and child in my opinion.
> 
> Pippin:
> Anyway, if the silver doe doesn't convince you that Snape's feelings for Lily
> were honorable, I'm not sure what would. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh I am sure that the more time passed since Lily's death the more honorable and more resembling the knight's love his love became. But that is loving the idea of Lily and doing a good deeds in her name. Am I sure that Snape would have loved alive Lily same way had she came back for some magical reason for example? No, I am not.
> 
> And when he is confronted with not even alive Lily, but with the piece of her handwriting, what does he do? Steals it from the house that belongs to her child. Yeah, I think it was obsessive all right.
> 
> So again, I cannot make up my mind, I certainly see parts of courtly love in his story, but I also see pretty ugly parts IMO.
> 
> As to Patronus, yep, for the longest time I thought that Patronus Magic is pretty much good, Guardian protector and all that to me gives good thoughts. Silver Doe was beautiful and I think it reflects Snape loving idea of Lily and doing good noble things in her name.
> 
> However, Umbridge has patronus too, so I do not think that Patronus in itself to me proves something about character anymore.
>





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 03:41:06 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 03:41:06 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love LONG
In-Reply-To: <h11ek5+bt3n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11rgi+3h1a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187041

> zanooda:
<SNIP>
> The victim of a bully feels him\herself singled out, specifically targeted all the time. If James and Snape just met in a hallway and exchanged a hex or two, neither of them is a bully in this case. I want to emphasize that this is only my personal opinion, nothing else :-). That's how I understand bullying :-).

Alla:

And that is exactly what I was hoping you would say. Not in a "gotcha" sense, but because that is how I feel too, but precisely for that reason I disagree that we can label James as bully in anywhere but SWM. Because to me hexing in the hallways seems like an activity for many young wizards and I am sure plenty including Snape gave James back as good as they could.


> zanooda:
> 
> LOL! I didn't want to say we shouldn't discuss Snape :-). I wanted to say that for me it makes no difference what Snape did to "deserve", in some readers' opinion, what he got in SWM. Even if Snape ever did the same thing to James, it doesn't make James's behavior in SWM more admirable (to me, of course :-)). Do you see what I mean? I'm not sure I explained it well :-). 
> 
> Talking about Snape being a bully is trying to find an excuse for James, and I don't see it as an excuse, that's all I wanted to say. I don't mind switching to Snape (Carol will be happy :-)). Besides, we already changed topic, because it started as a discussion about JKR's writing and now it is a discussion about James :-).


Alla:

Well, I just found it to be a little bit hard to understand argument since threads switch in midair and as you note  the change in topics can be abrupt. I mean if we started to discuss Ron and Hermione and not that we are not entitled to switch to whatever new topic we like, but I would understand your surprise better, you know?

To me talking about Snape in this scene makes a difference in a sense of what SWM is, is it a sign of the ongoing war between Marauders and Snape OR is it just an accident of ugly bullying, whether isolated or not.

It may make no difference to you for example that in HBP we learned that James is using Snape's own hex on him to turn him upside down. It however makes a *huge* difference to me, not for evaluation of this scene of course,  but for the evaluation of their whole relationship. To me author hints quite loudly here, that while it is a bullying, Snape also did stuff before which came back to bite him in the *ss.

I think that he used all of the curses he invented and not all people he used them on deserved them for example. Otherwise how indeed Marauders and half the of the school learned it? It may sound as excuse for you, but for me it is truly what I see in canon. IMO SWM of course does not show Snape as an agressor, quite the contrary, he is a victim here, but all the little things to me say that while he is a victim here, that's not permanent at all,

And of course I do think that it is perfectly reasonable to interpet the scene that Snape was moving closer to James and Sirius. We are not Looking with his eyes, we do not know if he saw them or not.

Do I think he was looking for a fight? Nope, not at all. I however think that it is very plausible that he was looking to eavesdrop on them, since we know that Snape always made Marauders' business his own and here he moves closer to them.

Do you see what I mean?

I do have problems figuring out how this particular scene can be intepreted as anything else than bullying, I however have no problems whatsoever thinking  that their relationship was NOT James and Sirius bullying poor Snape all the time and not ever vice versa and this scene to me holds some hints of that.

Pippin:
Oh dear, oh dear. "If you really loved me, you'd understand what I need" ???? --
Sorry, love does not work like that and not only in real life. I can think of a
lot of people in canon who love and honestly have no idea what the person they
love needs, or what would make that person truly happy, starting with the
Dursleys and Dudley.

Alla:

 Pippin, and I mean it very respectfully,  I do not think that you (or anybody here) are in the position to  tell me that my experiences did not happen. Maybe "if you truly love me you'd understand what I need" was not been your experience, but it certainly had been mine. 
I am not saying that it works out that way in every little thing, but in the big things that truly matter, yeah, it had been my experience more than once  that people who love me, do know what I need and gasp, even put my needs before their own if the need arises. And I had done the same thing.

Obviously I had experienced the opposite thing too, BUT even then it had not been my experience that person who loved me or claimed to loved me did not understand what I need. Oh no person understood very acutely, just was not doing anything about it. 


But of course I can think of a lot of people in canon who do not know what other person needs AND I can think of a lot of people in canon who do know what other person needs.


People (including me) had been saying how badly Molly treats Arthur for example,  I winced more than once when Molly was lecturing him in front of their children, but it looks like Molly's attitude is exactly what Arthur needs to be happy IMO.

Same thing with Ron and Hermione, I would never be able to deal with the person with whom I am arguing constantly, but it looks like that is exactly what these two need from each other.

Are you thinking about Lupin not understanding what Tonks needed? If yes, then sorry, I have really big doubts about him truly loving her.

He always seemed to know what Sirius needed though when they are adults ;)

I am sure there are examples for both ways in canon of course, I am however too sleepy to think of more right now.

But we were talking about whether Snape's love for Lily counts as courtly love, or at least that is what I was discussing lol and to me to count as such, as idealised love, it is doubly necessary to show that Snape understands the needs of the object of his desire, if that makes sense.


Pippin:
<SNIP>
As to courtly love, of course Snape wanted Lily. But that in itself does not
make his love impure or unclean, not in the Potterverse, IMO. Rowling has said
that one of the things that she did not like about the Narnia books was the way
that Susan was put down for wanting romantic love. No where in the books is
physical desire shown to be unworthy, except when it is forced on someone. <SNIP>

Alla:

Of course this alone does not make his love unpure and unclean, but IF (not I say if because I am speculating) he wanted Lily at the expense of her husband and child being dead, yes, to me it does make his love well, less than admirable.

And  if you mean Merope, I do hope that JKR wanted to show her conduct as unworthy even if an object of pity, because to me she raped Tom Riddle and I cannot say that it is anything less than that.



JMO,

Alla





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 04:03:30 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:03:30 -0000
Subject: DD's guesses.
In-Reply-To: <cc7.56387351.3764ff28@aol.com>
Message-ID: <h11sqi+sq3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187042

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, LauraNPSP64 at ... wrote:

> I believe Dumbledore began to believe Harry was a horcrux 
> at the end of Chamber of Secrets. He tells Harry in 
> Half-Blood Prince that it was  Harry that put him on 
> to the fact that Lord Voldemort had made horcruxes.


zanooda:

I see what you mean, but I think the diary only alerted DD to the fact that LV made *multiple* Horcruxes. I had an impression that at that time (end of CoS) DD already knew, or strongly suspected that LV created at least one Horcrux, he just didn't know that there were more than one. He must have gotten suspicious when he saw how much LV changed physically when he came to ask for a teaching position.


> LauraNPSP64 wrote:

> He may have suspected beforehand, but I don't think he 
> knew for sure until he was handed the destroyed diary. 


zanooda:

But if he suspected it earlier than CoS, couldn't he also suspect that Harry was a Horcrux :-)? What DD says about Harry's wound in SS/PS confuses me. You know, that he wouldn't want to cure the cut even if he could, that scars can be useful etc. :-). That's why I wondered if he knew even then, although I don't see how.   





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 04:33:23 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:33:23 -0000
Subject: Snape and love (was What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h10m7a+fqqs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h11uij+gj7i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187043

 > Potioncat:
> Here's where we differ. And we will probably continue to differ because it's speculation (unless someone can find canon.) There is a difference between wanting a person and loving a person. If courtly love is the model, then Snape wasn't hoping to get Lily for himself, but simply to save her life. I don't think he expected Lily to become his, nor was that his goal. JMO.
> 
Carol responds:
I hope that I can make this a bit more than an "I agree" post! I do this young Snape was selfish in that he only cared about saving the girl he loved and not her wife and child, but it's rather like (IMO) a parent concerned with saving his own child from a school fire and not thinking about the other children. I don't think his desperate wish to save her had anything to do with sexual desire or delusions about her gratitude to him for getting Voldemort to spare her life (which would have been unrealistic in the extreme). It's just that he didn't want her to die and he felt terrible remorse for having revealed the Prophecy when he found out that the girl he loved might die because of what he had done. At that point, he didn't care one way or the other about Harry or James. He just wanted to save Lily's life, just as Harry (for less selfish reasons) wanted to save Sirius Black's life at the MoM, only he wanted to do it himself through direct action. Harry wasn't thinking about a reward or gratitude, only about the life of someone he cared about. I think that was the case with Snape, too, except that in his case, he couldn't save Lily himself--he had to rely on older, more powerful Wizards--and his love was complicated by guilt at having been the one to endanger her in the first place with his information.

There's nothing disgusting about it. It would have been much worse if he *hadn't* felt guilty and wanted to save the girl who had once been his best friend and whom, I think, he loved in both a romantic and a chivalrous way (the knight and his lady kind of courtly love where everything he does is in the name of the lady--or maybe that came later, with the doe Patronus after Lily died and he idealized her memory).

Anyway, I don't think the kind of love matters. You don't beg Voldemort, of all people, or Dumbledore, the powerful leader of the other side, to spare the life of someone you only desire sexually. He *loved* her, as the purity and beauty of his Patronus shows.

Carol, just stating her opinion and not wanting to argue with anybody about it




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 06:50:51 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:50:51 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love LONG
In-Reply-To: <h11rgi+3h1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h126kb+45pi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187044

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

> ... that is how I feel too, but precisely for that reason 
> I disagree that we can label James as bully in anywhere but SWM.


zanooda:

I never thought James acted as a bully to everyone at Hogwarts or that bullying was his favorite pass-time :-). Even if he did, we don't know anything about it. When Lupin says that James was "hexing people just for the fun of it", it doesn't necessarily mean he targeted specific students. In fact, it is quite possible that Snape was James's (and Sirius's) only permanent target, because, as Lupin  said, "Snape was a special case" :-). Again, this is in accordance with my understanding of bullying, so someone may not agree :-).



> Alla:
 
> Well, I just found it to be a little bit hard to 
> understand argument since threads switch in midair 
> and as you note the change in topics can be abrupt. 


zanooda:

I wasn't talking about a change of topic, and I'm sorry if someone understood it this way. I wanted to say that Snape's previous actions and his personality traits have nothing to do with James's behavior in SWM (again, to me :-)). I don't care what spells he invented and if he ever used them on James. I don't care that he was an aspiring DE. 

What James did in SWM was cruel and disgusting, and I would still think that even if it was done not to Snape, but to Voldemort or Bella :-). That's what I meant when I said it was not about Snape at all, but about James :-). I didn't want to say we shouldn't talk about Snape, just that Snape himself doesn't matter to me in this discussion, it could have been anyone else :-). So I'm sorry if someone understood it as if I was telling people what to write and what not to write, LOL.





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 14 06:58:48 2009
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 06:58:48 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h11ek5+bt3n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h12738+igbb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187045

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
Alla:
> > Do you consider James hexing people according to Lily 
> > and his detention cards an evidence of him being a bully 
> > to other people besides Snape?
> 
> 
> zanooda:
*(snip)*
> Bullying is defined as "an act of *repeated* aggressive behavior in > order to intentionally hurt another person, physically or mentally".

Ceridwen:
Another person, or an entity.  By hexing a lot of other students, one student can intimidate an entire group along the lines of making an example, firing a warning shot, and so on.  Defy the bully and this is what any of the members of a certain group can expect.  Isn't that what Voldemort and his Death Eaters do?  They target individuals with the implication that this will happen to anyone else who defies LV and his agenda.

We don't know that James did this with the boy whose head grew or the other hexes for which he got detention.  We can debate over the reason James got detention so many times - how many times was he not caught, or was he caught every time and given detention? or why he hexed people - were they all suspected Dark Arts aficionados, and if so was he trying to intimidate that group by the individuals he chose to hex? or was it just Slytherins? and so on.

And before someone asks, yes, we can do this with Snape too, only without as much canon.  Notice his name didn't come up in the detention cards for whatever reason.  And besides...

zanooda:
> Even if Snape ever did the same thing to James, it doesn't make James's behavior in SWM more admirable (to me, of course :-)).
*(snip)*
> Talking about Snape being a bully is trying to find an excuse for James, and I don't see it as an excuse, that's all I wanted to say.

Ceridwen:
James's behavior is less admirable to me in SWM.  He's supposed to be the Good Guy.  I expect more out of the Good Guys than I do from the Bad Guys.  I want to see the change after this but I wasn't shown.  I was given third-hand rumors of his change but no evidence.  Without evidence I'm left with the doubt that the praise is only because he was a friend, or only because he's dead and people don't want to speak ill of the dead.

I put more burden on Good Guys because it's harder to resist the urge to bully if you can, or take revenge, or attack someone who has wounded you, than it is to give in.  The Bad Guys already have failed by giving in to baser urges.  I do expect the Good Guys to rise above.  My standards for them are higher.

Snape joined the DEs after SWM.  He failed.  He had to work his way back.  James joined the Good Guys but was that just because he was taught by his parents to dislike the Dark Arts, or because he disliked Snape for being perceived as an obstacle on his way to Lily, or was it because he really changed?

Ceridwen.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 14:11:01 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:11:01 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h12738+igbb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h130dl+png8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187046

> Ceridwen:
> Another person, or an entity.  By hexing a lot of other students, one student can intimidate an entire group along the lines of making an example, firing a warning shot, and so on.  <SNIP>

Alla:

I do not think we have canon for any people whom James hexed to be intimidated by him, for all I know he got back twice as much hexing as he dished out. No, to me it is not bullying at all, IMO of course.


Ceridwen:
> We don't know that James did this with the boy whose head grew or the other hexes for which he got detention.  We can debate over the reason James got detention so many times - how many times was he not caught, or was he caught every time and given detention? or why he hexed people - were they all suspected Dark Arts aficionados, and if so was he trying to intimidate that group by the individuals he chose to hex? or was it just Slytherins? and so on.

Alla:

Well, it is of course school offense, so sure James was breaking the rules, but was it bullying? To me on the information we have it was not.

Ceriwen: 
> And before someone asks, yes, we can do this with Snape too, only without as much canon.  Notice his name didn't come up in the detention cards for whatever reason.  And besides...

Alla:

Okay, fair enough you think that by hexing each other in the hallway James and Snape were mutual bullies to each other?

And can I suggest one reason why Snape's name did not come up in the detention slips chosen **by Snape** to give Harry? I do not think they were random at all, I think he went through them before give it to Harry, IMO of course.



> Ceridwen:
> James's behavior is less admirable to me in SWM.  He's supposed to be the Good Guy.  I expect more out of the Good Guys than I do from the Bad Guys.  I want to see the change after this but I wasn't shown.  I was given third-hand rumors of his change but no evidence.  Without evidence I'm left with the doubt that the praise is only because he was a friend, or only because he's dead and people don't want to speak ill of the dead. <SNIP>

Alla:

Eh well, as an aside I did not notice Dumbledore hesitating to speak ill about Sirius so I dounbt that James being dead would have stopped anybody had they truly wanted, but that's just an aside. I am not talking about SWM here (not that I am saying you should not be lol), but I am specifically asking about hexing in the hallways. To be sure, is that a correct summary of what you said? You are saying it is totally okay for one teenager to hex people in the hallways, because well, he is going to join Death Eaters, but another teenager is supposed to just take it and not respond because he is a good guy and will join order of Phoenix? Could you please clarify?

I think they are both guilty of breaking school rules by doing it and should not be doing it, but neither do I call them bullies based on that.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 14 15:33:38 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 15:33:38 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love LONG
In-Reply-To: <h11rgi+3h1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1358i+o64p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187047


> Alla:
> 
> And that is exactly what I was hoping you would say. Not in a "gotcha" sense, but because that is how I feel too, but precisely for that reason I disagree that we can label James as bully in anywhere but SWM. Because to me hexing in the hallways seems like an activity for many young wizards and I am sure plenty including Snape gave James back as good as they could.
> 

Pippin:
Bullying is habitual aggressive behavior against  weaker individuals, IMO. One on one, if James and Snape were evenly matched then it would not be bullying by that definition, regardless of which one was more aggressive. But according to the detention cards, James and Sirius acted together, occasionally accompanied by Lupin and Pettigrew, against single students like Bertram Aubrey.  That *is* bullying, because it's two, or three, or four, against one. 

 It is  clear from canon that attacks on Snape were habitual.
Go out with me, James says to Lily, and I'll never lay a wand on old Snivellus again. And Lupin asks rhetorically if he ever told James and Sirius to lay off Snape.

> Alla:
> 
>  Pippin, and I mean it very respectfully,  I do not think that you (or anybody here) are in the position to  tell me that my experiences did not happen. Maybe "if you truly love me you'd understand what I need" was not been your experience, but it certainly had been mine. 

Pippin:
I didn't know you were speaking from experience. I thought you were daydreaming. My bad.

It is not just me, though. Many counselors and therapists use this as a classic example of  unrealistic expectations. I thought it worked for me too, right up until it didn't. :) YMMV.

In canon, sometimes Hermione understands exactly what Ron or Harry needs before they do themselves, and sometimes her attempts to anticipate their needs are laughable. But Harry certainly never thinks that if she really cared about him or Ron, she wouldn't get it wrong. All the fun is in the fact that she really does care, but she just doesn't get it, because being a teenage boy is outside her experience.

And there are times when the Trio get it wrong in really big ways, Ron thinking that Harry and Hermione want each other, or Harry thinking that Ron is going to pitch a fit if he finds out that Harry has fallen for his sister.  

In Snape's case, he hadn't spoken to Lily in four or five years, and wouldn't have been able to see her regularly, or at all if she was in hiding already as an Order member,  so how would he know that she was happy? As I said, even Harry didn't understand how she could have been.


Pippin




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Jun 14 16:32:52 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:32:52 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h11h4c+aegf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h138nk+udcn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187048

Potioncat:
I had to hunt for the post that Alla and I were discussing. Boy, it's hard to do that with this system! Here's the comment:

> Alla earlier:
> 
> Oh sure, it seems reasonable to me, I am not disputing that.  After all, it is not like he did not go to Dumbledore eventually. I am not seeing that it was an act of  great love, you know? I see that he wanted this woman for years, did not realize that couple whom he sold to Voldemort would not be couple he does not know (as if this makes any better, Snape dear), but oh so familiar to him couple. So, I see him still wanting Lily and running to his boss begging for her life.

 
> Alla more recently:
> 
> Sure I agree with that, however, I would say that even though it is completely possible to want a person without loving such person, to me if we are talking about romantic love, if one loves a person, one generally wants her or him as well. It had been my experience anyway.

Potioncat:
There still is a difference between how we see Snape's feelings for Lily. Yes, in romantic love, a person wants the other person. Generally they want each other. But in this case, romantic love hasn't worked out, or perhaps Severus's love for Lily had never become a romantic love. Yet he still has a love for her. A love for an old friend. So I don't think he had "wanted" her all those years.

I also don't think he "wanted" her all those years after. But, once he killed DD and severed his ties to the Order and now had no source of strength for his mission, he went to 12GP for a token of Lily, as a source of strength. Which explains too why he tore off James and Harry. And he wouldn't be the first person to remove someone from a photo.


> 
 
> Alla:
> But that is sort of my point, because to me if courtly love is the model, then Snape would be thinking about how to make lady happy and do whatever she wants, you know?

Potioncat:
I see what you mean. So perhaps courtly love is a basis rather than a model. Courtly love was also public and accepted. (If I'm correct.)

Or, here's a better example of a type of love.

Sirius sat in Azkaban all those years without ever trying to clear his name, but when he saw Harry was in danger from Pettigrew, he escaped. It was his love of Harry that motivated his risk. Certainly he hadn't been wanting Harry all those years.

I know, it's not the same thing exactly as what Severus felt or did for Lily, but I think it's closer than a desire-oriented version.











From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 14 16:59:23 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 14 Jun 2009 16:59:23 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/14/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1244998763.10.17693.m2@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187049

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 14, 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/20090614/736d9cc3/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 17:46:20 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:46:20 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h11jmp+gbbv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h13d1c+9j4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187050

Pippin wrote:
> <snip> I agree that being able to cast a patronus does not mean you are a good or noble person. But IMO, it does mean that you love whatever the patronus represents. Who says Umbridge doesn't love  cats?

Carol responds:
It's interesting, though, that Umbridge's Patronus and weaker than Harry's (and, I think, weaker than Snape's though we never see them together). that's not an indication of relative goodness, per se, since Hermione's Patronus is also weak (a failure of confidence, in her case). But I think we're meant to notice that Harry's Patronus and Snape's are a matched pair, both powerful and beautiful. Maybe that says something about the power of James as an inspiration for Harry (the Patronus takes its form before Harry sees SWM) and the power of Snape's love for (the idealized) Lily, with which Umbridge's fondness for cats (and "foul" kittens with ribbons decorating her office) can't compare.

Carol, who thinks that Umbridge's cat Patronus (like Filch's "sweet" Mrs. Norris) reflects JKR's own dislike of cats, though other depictions of cats in the books (McG's Patronus and Animagus form, Crookshanks, even Mr. Tibbles and the rest of Mrs. Figg's cats) don't match the pattern





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 19:29:03 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:29:03 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h130dl+png8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h13j1v+5pcu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187051

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

> And can I suggest one reason why Snape's name did not come 
> up in the detention slips chosen **by Snape** to give Harry? 
> I do not think they were random at all, I think he went through 
> them before give it to Harry, IMO of course.


zanooda:

It's easier for me to assume that Snape was just smarter about rule-breaking than the Marauders :-). His name is not on any of the cards because, if indeed he was guilty of some misdeed, he was careful not to get caught :-). I suppose James and Sirius didn't really tried to avoid punishment, they didn't care about their many detentions, considering them a part of being "cool" :-).

I'm not sure that Snape went through the detention cards, because the boxes are described as all "cobwebbed", so they don't seem to have been disturbed. Sure, Snape showed Harry from which box to start, but that was probably the one corresponding with James's first year at Hogwarts. However, Snape obviously took trouble to locate this box and to find a James-and-Sirius detention card to show Harry. 

BTW, I don't think it was a smart move, because any good Harry could have gotten from his punishment was totally eradicated by the fact that Snape managed to make it look in Harry's eyes like a personal revenge :-).






From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 14 21:49:03 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:49:03 -0000
Subject: eagles/wizard technology/Hagrid/a few things in the James thread
Message-ID: <h13r8f+3373@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187052

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186938>:

<< when people put the American bald eagle on top of a flagpole, do they care that it is actually a scavenger bird that steals its food >>

Ravens (who symbolize wisdom) and eagles (who symbolize courage) are famously carrion eaters, the birds of Odin who gather at the battlefield to feast after the battle, but I thought the bald eagle ate fishes. IIRC I read an article about its larger Siberian cousin the white-shouldered eagle diving for salmon and ripping open the salmon skin that lesser birds aren't strong enough to tear.

Jerri wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186970>:

<< had there been modern type plumbing "1000 years ago" or so, when the Castle and Chamber of Secrets had been built. >>

In accordance with the wizarding view that Muggles invented technology to imitate that which wizards did by magic, of course modern type plumbing (and modern type castles) existed IN THE WIZARDING world 1000 years ago when Hogwarts Castle was built. They probably existed many thousands of years ago in Atlantis. Muggles who saw these things when they visited wizards figured out how to accomplish the same result without magic. Muggle technology became independent when Muggles who had no contact with wizards started inventing new things that wizards later imitated, such as Wizarding Wireless; I think this happened roughly when Muggles tamed electricity.

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186985>:

<< He was friends with Hagrid, who, the CoS film to the contrary, is not popular with students in canon. >>

Hagrid was popular enough for former students to write DD all those letters in his defense in GoF: "I have shown you the letters from the countless parents who remember you from their own days here, telling me in no uncertain terms that, if I sacked you, they would have something to say about it ?"

<< It's not a given that he would be on the good side in the war. When Dumbledore was James's age, he was supporting Grindelwald. >>

Albus supported the handsome and charming Grindelwald before he had seized any power. This could be analoguous with supporting the handsome and charming Tom Riddle while he was still a Hogwarts student, but not with suppporting the snake-faced commander of terrorists, Lord Voldemort. Anyway, canon gives us the young Tom Riddle with hangers-on who had no more intelligence than they had conscience, while giving us young Grindelwald partnering with Albus as an equal and eventual co-emperor.

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186990>:

<< Funny, no one's asking for a scene to explain how Lucius could turn from the friendly schoolboy who patted Severus on the back into a guy whose idea of a post-game celebration is a spot of Muggle torture. >>

It never occurred to me that anyone would think that Lucius was a 'friendly student' just because he was a good Slytherin prefect. If patting little Sevvie on the back was sincere rather than just a job duty, it still was only friendliness to people in his chosen group, friendliness which he might perhaps have expressed by inviting them to join in on some Muggle-torture. No contradiction. (Alas for me, Magpie already said this.)

Kleroy33 wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187027>:

<< I think it was a tit for tat battle. It started on the train to Hogwarts the 1st year and escalated from there. Initially Snape probably had the upper hand over James (we are told Snape came
into Hogwarts with a lot of dark magic.) I would think that over the course of their school life the battle between these two just continued to rise. >>

What distresses some of the listies is that it WASN'T 'the battle between these two'; it was the battle between Severus versus both James and Sirius, with some signs that Sirius may have been much more anti-Severus than James was. If Severus had had a constant companion on his side in two against two fights, they wouldn't be so distressed.

It would have been difficult for Severus to have the upper hand against two opponents, even with superior knowledge of magic. If  he took a moment to hex one opponent who didn't know how to use a wand, the other equally ignorant opponent could use that moment to physically jump on Sevvie and knock him down. We were shown Hogwarts students fighting physically with Neville versus Crabbe and Goyle in the Quidditch stands in PS/SS.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 14 22:18:51 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:18:51 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h138nk+udcn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h13t0b+4eag@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187053

> Potioncat:
> There still is a difference between how we see Snape's feelings for Lily. Yes, in romantic love, a person wants the other person. Generally they want each other. But in this case, romantic love hasn't worked out, or perhaps Severus's love for Lily had never become a romantic love. Yet he still has a love for her. A love for an old friend. So I don't think he had "wanted" her all those years.

Alla:

Ah, but my question is here how do you know that the love he has for her is the love of the old friend? I mean if we are still speculating, sure that is one of the possibilities, but I find it interesting that I cannot find in canon that this is how Snape's love is characterised, you know?

I mean, I totally think it is possible, but is there something in there which is a direct counterpoint against my speculation?

Now that I said it, I realise that I am not exactly sure what my speculation is since I am struggling with defining how I see Snape's love for Lily.

I mean, one thing I am sure of is that I definitely see strong obsessive undertones to it, but as I also said I see undertones of courtly love - his love for Lily guided him to do better things, etc, etc.

To be honest with you it is the hardest for me to see that his love was only the love of the old friend, although sure I can see that it could be true under certain circumstances.


Potioncat:
> I also don't think he "wanted" her all those years after. But, once he killed DD and severed his ties to the Order and now had no source of strength for his mission, he went to 12GP for a token of Lily, as a source of strength. Which explains too why he tore off James and Harry. And he wouldn't be the first person to remove someone from a photo.

Alla:

But it is not his! This episode is what tells me that Snape has obsession with Lily still, you know, not just thinks of her fondly and keeps in his  heart as talisman as Doe would suggest IMO.

That's all wonderfully sweet to go and search for token of affection, strength from old friend to remember her by. Except Snape went to the house which belongs to her child now and **stole** the part of the letter which contained her love. Her love was addressed to a dear friend, but not to Snape. This piece of memory now belongs to Harry, to her orphan child and I still see Snape being unable to deal with the fact that his friend did not leave HIM any pieces of affection (that we know of, maybe he had something that we never read about) and went to steal from others.

If Snape indeed had a sweet memory of his friend in his heart, I would think his memory would have been enough to guide him in the difficult times, etc, etc. I would think that at least now he would have realised that such friend would have really wanted her child to have that letter.

But not only Snape contributed to the reason that Harry now has no alive mother, he proceeded to take away from him one of the few things Harry can remember her by.

You are absolutely right, Snape will not be the first person to tear somebody from the picture, somebody whom he does not want in the picture, except again, the picture is not his and it is quite creepy to me that not only he stole the sentimental things that belong to Harry, but he now damaged it irrevocably.

> > Alla:
> > But that is sort of my point, because to me if courtly love is the model, then Snape would be thinking about how to make lady happy and do whatever she wants, you know?
> 
> Potioncat:
> I see what you mean. So perhaps courtly love is a basis rather than a model. Courtly love was also public and accepted. (If I'm correct.)

Alla:

Right, that is why I am inclined to think that it is not the exact courtly love, it is just the fact that he does all these things in the name of Lily all these years, that's what made me think about it initially.


Potioncat: 
> Or, here's a better example of a type of love.
> 
> Sirius sat in Azkaban all those years without ever trying to clear his name, but when he saw Harry was in danger from Pettigrew, he escaped. It was his love of Harry that motivated his risk. Certainly he hadn't been wanting Harry all those years.
> 
> I know, it's not the same thing exactly as what Severus felt or did for Lily, but I think it's closer than a desire-oriented version.

Alla:

Yes, well, I know what you are saying, but the example does not work for me in a sense that Sirius wanting Harry - EWWWWW, the ages difference and basically related in a way.

Now, say Sirius escaped because he secretly wanted Lupin - sure, works fine for me, you know? 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun 15 00:47:10 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:47:10 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h13t0b+4eag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h145me+nfu7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187054


> Alla:

> 
> I mean, I totally think it is possible, but is there something in there which is a direct counterpoint against my speculation?

Pippin:
I know you are not asking me, but the fact that Snape agrees so quickly to saving them all is proof to me that this is more than an obsession. It is like the judgment of Solomon in reverse. Snape is not willing to let Lily be killed if he cannot have her.

> Alla:
> 
> But it is not his! This episode is what tells me that Snape has obsession with Lily still, you know, not just thinks of her fondly and keeps in his  heart as talisman as Doe would suggest IMO.

Pippin:
It's not like there was something of Lily's that he could ask for. Snape did not go and take something from the house at Godric's Hollow, as he could have done.  He  found the letter while he was searching GP and took it on impulse. Of course it was not his, but it is not like it was one of Harry's prized possessions.  Harry did not even know it existed. 

Snape would have to search GP to make sure there was nothing that would show he was the one who tipped off the Order that Harry had gone to the MoM. That would be pretty hard to explain to Voldemort. He knows that with all the Order now secret keepers, it is not going to be possible to keep the other DE's out of GP forever. They are the ones who are going to get whatever is in the house, not Harry.

Pippin





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 15 00:50:17 2009
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:50:17 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h130dl+png8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h145s9+pfrq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187055

Alla:
> 
> Okay, fair enough you think that by hexing each other in the hallway James and Snape were mutual bullies to each other?

Ceridwen:
No, I think they mutually hexed each other in the hallways.  When it got down to zeroing in on Snape and hexing him "because he exists," then it turns into bullying.  After DHs, I got the impression that James really disliked Snape from the first train ride and had it out for him.

Alla:
> And can I suggest one reason why Snape's name did not come up in the detention slips chosen **by Snape** to give Harry?

Ceridwen:
I think this is one area where we can speculate to our hearts' content.  *g*  We're not shown that Snape culled these cards, but we're not shown that he didn't.  Debate may last forever. ;)

> > Ceridwen:
> > James's behavior is less admirable to me in SWM.  He's supposed to be the Good Guy.
> 
> Alla:
*(snip)*
> You are saying it is totally okay for one teenager to hex people in the hallways, because well, he is going to join Death Eaters, but another teenager is supposed to just take it and not respond because he is a good guy and will join order of Phoenix? Could you please clarify?

Ceridwen:
I'm not talking about random hexing in the hallways there.  Most of the students seem to do it at one point or another, even in Harry's time.  Sure, breaking the rules - this was one of the first rules of Hogwarts that we learned, wasn't it?  But not bullying or intimidating.

I'm certainly *not* against self-defense.  That's counter-productive.  I'm talking again about the way James and Sirius seemed to target Snape when he wasn't bothering them.  The only canon explanation we have is that they did it "because he exists" which is not a good reason, in my opinion.  That's what put it over the top to bullying.  They saw him, they targeted him, they ganged up on him two to one, and the prefect in their group studiously ignored what they were doing.

And since this appears to have happened after Sirius set Snape up to run into a werewolf, the implication to me as a reader is that James and Sirius and, possibly, Remus and Peter (boy, Peter sure enjoyed it, didn't he?), think they can do whatever they want and Snape had better take it *or else.*  I can see it from about two directions here - that James & Co. did this to anyone they disliked in order to intimidate them, or that they specifically targeted Snape and only Snape.  Either way it's bullying, in my opinion, and that makes the Marauders bullies to me.

My aside was that we can happily speculate about the hexings in the hallways, who did what, whether this person was unlucky enough to get caught every time or only sometimes got caught, if it was a one-on-one vendetta or if they did it to everyone equally, if it was just schoolkid high spirits or something else, etc.  I don't think that, given what we do have in canon, we'll ever come to a consensus.

Ceridwen.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 01:19:20 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:19:20 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love and Lily's letter
In-Reply-To: <h145s9+pfrq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h147io+o2co@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187056

Alla:
> > 
> > Okay, fair enough you think that by hexing each other in the hallway James and Snape were mutual bullies to each other?
> 
> Ceridwen:
> No, I think they mutually hexed each other in the hallways.

Alla:

Me too! :)

Ceridwen:
When it got down to zeroing in on Snape and hexing him "because he exists," then it turns into bullying.  

Alla:

Totally, we are shown this in SWM, my point is that we are not shown this anywhere else with certainty at least and we are given hints that it was a war, this time Snape was the victim.

Ceridwen:
After DHs, I got the impression that James really disliked Snape from the first train ride and had it out for him.

Alla:

And I got the impression that Snape disliked them just as much in that scene and had it out for them just as much. I mean, how dare Sirius reject that lovely house that Snape so wants to get into. And I also suspect (although I cannot prove it at all) that he felt threat in James right away. Yeah, I know they are just eleven years old, still have this feeling that he was threatened that James could take his friend away from him.

> Ceridwen:
> I think this is one area where we can speculate to our hearts' content.  *g*  We're not shown that Snape culled these cards, but we're not shown that he didn't.  Debate may last forever. ;)

Alla:

Sure :)

> Ceridwen:
> I'm not talking about random hexing in the hallways there.  Most of the students seem to do it at one point or another, even in Harry's time.  Sure, breaking the rules - this was one of the first rules of Hogwarts that we learned, wasn't it?  But not bullying or intimidating.

Alla:

I am though, because somebody upthread (Montavilla? Or maybe somebody else, not sure) brought this up as evidence of bullying, James randomly hexing people that is, and to me it is just not, at least not with the information we have.

Ceridwen: 
> I'm certainly *not* against self-defense.  That's counter-productive.  I'm talking again about the way James and Sirius seemed to target Snape when he wasn't bothering them.  The only canon explanation we have is that they did it "because he exists" which is not a good reason, in my opinion.  That's what put it over the top to bullying.  They saw him, they targeted him, they ganged up on him two to one, and the prefect in their group studiously ignored what they were doing.

Alla:

Yes they certainly did in SWM, I completely agree. But when SWM is being turned into them continuously bullying Snape for five years (I know you did not say it, I am reacting to the thread), I am saying no, sorry, I disagree, at the very least we do not have enough evidence and we have some hints (IMO) that Snape was a very active participant (and not just in self defense) of this little war they had.


Ceridwen: 
<SNIP>
I can see it from about two directions here - that James & Co. did this to anyone they disliked in order to intimidate them, or that they specifically targeted Snape and only Snape.  Either way it's bullying, in my opinion, and that makes the Marauders bullies to me.

Alla:

I see a third direction, which is just as speculative as ever, they targeted Snape and Snape did all he could to make their life hell as well, probably with the help of Lucius Malfoy.


Ceridwen:
> My aside was that we can happily speculate about the hexings in the hallways, who did what, whether this person was unlucky enough to get caught every time or only sometimes got caught, if it was a one-on-one vendetta or if they did it to everyone equally, if it was just school kid high spirits or something else, etc.  I don't think that, given what we do have in canon, we'll ever come to a consensus.

Alla:

Yeah, speculations are fun!

Pippin:
I know you are not asking me, but the fact that Snape agrees so quickly to
saving them all is proof to me that this is more than an obsession. It is like
the judgment of Solomon in reverse. Snape is not willing to let Lily be killed
if he cannot have her.

Alla:

I am not saying that it is only obsession, I am saying that it has obsessive undertones to me.

Pippin:
It's not like there was something of Lily's that he could ask for. Snape did not
go and take something from the house at Godric's Hollow, as he could have done. 
He found the letter while he was searching GP and took it on impulse. Of course
it was not his, but it is not like it was one of Harry's prized possessions. 
Harry did not even know it existed.

Alla:

So he does not get to have something of Lily, if there is nothing he could ask for. Letter was Harry's possession as everything that was on the property and I think it is a pretty good guess based on how Harry reacted when he read it that it IS about to become his very *prized* possession. Dumbledore does not hesitate to agree with Harry that Mundungus was wrong when he was selling the goblets, I do not see how the essence of what Snape did is any different, only to me it is creepier, since Snape to me attempts to steal something that has sentimental value and attempts to fool himself into pretending that when Lily wrote with love, she wrote it to him. I am speculating, but I do not see why he would take only this part of the letter and not the whole letter, if he would not want to read and reread and pretend that it was written to him.
And Mundungus just steals to make profit, which to me is equally disgusting, but at least Mundungus does not claim that Sirius loved him or something.


JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 01:41:05 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:41:05 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h13t0b+4eag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h148rh+p41f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187057

Alla wrote:
> I mean, one thing I am sure of is that I definitely see strong obsessive undertones to it, but as I also said I see undertones of courtly love - his love for Lily guided him to do better things, etc, etc.
> 
> To be honest with you it is the hardest for me to see that his love was only the love of the old friend, although sure I can see that it could be true under certain circumstances.

Carol responds:

It's hard to know for sure since we don't see Snape in his DE years or even Severus in his last two years at school, after Lily has rejected him, but as far as I can tell, the obsessive element comes after he finds out that Voldemort is targeting the Potters. At that point, it seems to me, he becomes obsessed with keeping Lily alive. He states outright that he'll do "anything" if Dumbledore will protect Lily, and he keeps his word, spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk." When his efforts (and Dumbledore's) fail and Lily is killed, he wants to die. Dumbledore persuades him to live and to protect Harry so that Lily's death won't have been in vain. He remains obsessive, loving a dead woman "always" and protecting Harry not for his own sake but for Lily (the idealized pure and beautiful Lily of his Patronus, who is, I think, rather different from the cheeky Gryffindor girl he actually knew and very different from the woman who fell in love with James, a real person who probably doesn't even exist in his mind. After all, the last time he spoke with Lily, not counting her fierce refusal to hear his apology, she had called James a "toerag"). His obsession is driven in part by never-to-be-requited love and in part by guilt and remorse. But desire, as far as I can see, plays no part in int.
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> > I also don't think he "wanted" her all those years after. But, once he killed DD and severed his ties to the Order and now had no source of strength for his mission, he went to 12GP for a token of Lily, as a source of strength. Which explains too why he tore off James and Harry. And he wouldn't be the first person to remove someone from a photo.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> But it is not his! This episode is what tells me that Snape has obsession with Lily still, you know, not just thinks of her fondly and keeps in his  heart as talisman as Doe would suggest IMO.
> 
> That's all wonderfully sweet to go and search for token of affection, strength from old friend to remember her by. Except Snape went to the house which belongs to her child now and **stole** the part of the letter which contained her love. Her love was addressed to a dear friend, but not to Snape. This piece of memory now belongs to Harry, to her orphan child and I still see Snape being unable to deal with the fact that his friend did not leave HIM any pieces of affection (that we know of, maybe he had something that we never read about) and went to steal from others.

Carol responds:
I think we need to consider the circumstances. It's not as if, like Mundungus, he had immediately gone to Order Headquarters to steal what had been Sirius's property and sell it for personal profit. He only comes there (apparently after the Seven Potters incident though it would make more sense to me if it were just after the death of Dumbledore), he's in desperate straits. He's just taken part in the Seven Potters chase on Dumbledore's orders and has accidentally Sectumsempra'd George Weasley's ear in saving Lupin. Dumbledore expects him to protect the students of Hogwarts and maintain seeming loyalty to LV while the rest of the WW hates him as the supposed murderer of Dumbledore. 

Unlike Harry, he has no one to confide in, no one to whom he can confess his true loyalties. He knows he can never enter 12 GP again--he's probably just had to face and deal with "Old Dusty," the fake ghost of Dumbledore that Moody set up before he died. Finding that bit of Lily--that photo and her signature--brings him to tears. He has, at that point, nothing except his status with Voldemort to keep him alive, no support from Dumbledore (unless we count DD's portrait) or anyone else to keep him motivated. The Order members and his former colleagues see him as a murderer and a traitor. If he's going to continue opposing Voldemort and protecting Harry in these excruciatingly difficult circumstances (there's no guarantee that he'll become Hogwarts headmaster, much less deliver the crucial message to Harry that will enable him to vanquish Voldemort), he needs moral support from someone. If Snape were the medieval Catholic that he in some ways resembles (IMO), he could go into a church, fall on his knees, and beseech God to help him. But he has no one.

And so he takes what isn't his, her signature on a letter and her photograph, to give him what hope is possible in those circumstances, not thinking that it belongs to Harry, not thinking logically at all, as I think Harry understands when he witnesses the memory and does not begrudge the loss of those bits of his mother to the man who loved her. Harry has the rest of the photo and the letter, the part that tells him what was happening in those last months of his parents' life (I'll ignore the annoying problems with chronology here), and possibly that's enough for him. But Harry also has his friends, Ron and Hermione. He has the goodwill of the Wizarding World (all but the few who are affiliated with Voldemort). Snape has no real friends, only the burdens he has always carried along with the new ones created by the "murder" of Dumbledore and the demands that Portrait!DD is still placing upon him. If any man ever needed courage to do what he had to do in the face of the opprobrium of the whole WW, it was Severus Snape at that moment. I don't think we can judge him by ordinary standards of behavior in such circumstances. I suspect that he's still burning in the private hell that Harry saw burning in his face when he mentally compared Snape's pain to that of Fang in the burning house (though he didn't understand it then). Snape could have taken the whole letter, but he left most of it for Harry, taking only that little token of Lily's love and the part of the photo that showed her picture, to have a bit of her with him during this terribly difficult time. He may even have sensed that time was growing short for him, that he would need to do what he had to do for Harry and the WW very soon. I think that, for him, Lily's photo and signature perform much the same service that Lily, James, Lupin, and Black perform for Harry as he walks toward seemingly certain death. They give him the courage to do what he must do. When we next see him, his very last appearance in the book though not his last scene in terms of his life, he's himself, perfectly in control, ready to carry out a plan he's already made to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry under conditions of need and valor. He's doing it partly for DD, partly because it's necessary (though he doesn't know how) to enable Harry to defeat LV, but mostly, as always, for Lily, to protect and help her son as long as he still can.

Alla:
> 
> You are absolutely right, Snape will not be the first person to tear somebody from the picture, somebody whom he does not want in the picture, except again, the picture is not his and it is quite creepy to me that not only he stole the sentimental things that belong to Harry, but he now damaged it irrevocably.

Carol responds:
I understand how you feel, but my own reaction is very different. I think his pain and his emotional need are very great, and I think that Harry understands this need perfectly. Possibly, for him, that scene confirms Snape's love for Lily, proving that the Patronus really represents her and that he did indeed protect Harry and undermine Voldemort and risk his life repeatedly for her.

Carol, pretty sure that if there were any element of perversion or salacious desire in Snape's love, Harry would not have called it love or publicly defended Snape to Voldemort in the hearing of hundreds of people




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Mon Jun 15 05:51:32 2009
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:51:32 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:eagles/wizard technology/Hagrid/a few things in the Ja...
Message-ID: <cf4.532828fb.37673b64@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187058

In a message dated 6/14/2009 4:49:58 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
catlady at wicca.net writes:

Pippin  wrote in 
<_http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.<Whttp://grouphttp:/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186938) >:

<<  when people put the American bald eagle on top of a flagpole, do they 
care  that it is actually a scavenger bird that steals its food  >>

Ravens (who symbolize wisdom) and eagles (who symbolize  courage) are 
famously carrion eaters, the birds of Odin who gather at the  battlefield to 
feast after the battle, but I thought the bald eagle ate  fishes. IIRC I read an 
article about its larger Siberian cousin the  white-shouldered eagle diving 
for salmon and ripping open the salmon skin that  lesser birds aren't 
strong enough to tear.
 
_http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle3.html._ 
(http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle3.html.) 
 
This is off topic but for factual information on American Bald Eagles  
(including food sources) please follow this link.  While they will scavenge  for 
food if necessary, carrion is not their primary food  source. They are 
birds of prey with fish (either salt water or fresh)  being their favorite meal.
 
 
Mel



**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322979x1201367215/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)


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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun 15 12:14:26 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:14:26 -0000
Subject: Lily's letter (was What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h148rh+p41f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15dv2+liod@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187059

Pippin in 187054:
> Pippin:
> It's not like there was something of Lily's that he could ask for. Snape did not go and take something from the house at Godric's Hollow, as he could have done.  He  found the letter while he was searching GP and took it on impulse. Of course it was not his, but it is not like it was one of Harry's prized possessions.  Harry did not even know it existed. 
> 
> Snape would have to search GP to make sure there was nothing that would show he was the one who tipped off the Order that Harry had gone to the MoM. That would be pretty hard to explain to Voldemort. He knows that with all the Order now secret keepers, it is not going to be possible to keep the other DE's out of GP forever. They are the ones who are going to get whatever is in the house, not Harry.

Potioncat:
Have you said this before? For some reason I've had the impression--from the group at large, I think--that Snape was looking for the letter. That's one reason Lily's letter never sat well with me. What would make Snape expect to find a letter from Lily at 12 GP? But that he was looking for something else makes a lot more sense. And explains why he was crying.


> 
> Carol wrote in post 187057:
> I think we need to consider the circumstances. It's not as if, like Mundungus, he had immediately gone to Order Headquarters to steal what had been Sirius's property and sell it for personal profit. He only comes there (apparently after the Seven Potters incident though it would make more sense to me if it were just after the death of Dumbledore), he's in desperate straits. He's just taken part in the Seven Potters chase on Dumbledore's orders and has accidentally Sectumsempra'd George Weasley's ear in saving Lupin. Dumbledore expects him to protect the students of Hogwarts and maintain seeming loyalty to LV while the rest of the WW hates him as the supposed murderer of Dumbledore. 


Potioncat:
Why do you think this happened after the Seven Potters? I was certain it happened immediately after killing DD. I'll try to look later, I think JKR has said so in an interview. 




From malfoydnl at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Jun 15 06:41:34 2009
From: malfoydnl at yahoo.co.uk (malfoydnl)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:41:34 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h147io+o2co@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h14qeu+s1cs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187060


> 
> Alla:
> 
> I see a third direction, which is just as speculative as ever, they targeted Snape and Snape did all he could to make their life hell as well, probably with the help of Lucius Malfoy.
> 
> 


I don't see any of this (above) in canon.

Sirius is a bully in canon, his treatment of Kreacher is another proof of how he treats people.  

Lucius Malfoy was older than Snape and therefore would not have been at school for all the time Snape was there.

Lucius was also a prefect, and yes I know Draco was a prefect, but Draco was a prefect because Dumbledore believed in him.  Presumably whoever made Lucius a prefect made him one for the same reasons.

Off topic, slightly, I can never understand why, in the era the HP books are set that anyone sees Lucius Malfoy as a willing Death Eater.  He's the last one to arrive at Voldemort's 're-birth', Voldemort clearly does not like or trust him, and therefore uses him above others to further intimidate him, but unlike Regulus who can commit suicide to prove he came over to the light, Lucius has a wife and son he clearly adores, and does not want to lose them.  Talk about, between a rock and a hard place.  

Kate








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 13:48:44 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:48:44 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h14qeu+s1cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15jfs+ustn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187061

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "malfoydnl" <malfoydnl at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > I see a third direction, which is just as speculative as ever, they targeted Snape and Snape did all he could to make their life hell as well, probably with the help of Lucius Malfoy.
> > 
> > 
> 
Kate: 
> I don't see any of this (above) in canon.
> 
> Sirius is a bully in canon, his treatment of Kreacher is another proof of how he treats people.  
> 
> Lucius Malfoy was older than Snape and therefore would not have been at school for all the time Snape was there.

Alla:

Yes, that is why it is speculation :) about the years Lucius was in school while Snape was there.

Kate:
<SNIP>
> Off topic, slightly, I can never understand why, in the era the HP books are set that anyone sees Lucius Malfoy as a willing Death Eater.  He's the last one to arrive at Voldemort's 're-birth', Voldemort clearly does not like or trust him, and therefore uses him above others to further intimidate him, but unlike Regulus who can commit suicide to prove he came over to the light, Lucius has a wife and son he clearly adores, and does not want to lose them.  Talk about, between a rock and a hard place.  

Alla:

I do not see a rock and a hard place at least in the second war. Say Lucius really really wanted to get out during the first war, but could not. Fine, I can understand that.

But *nobody* forced him to arrive to Graveyard at all and yes, I know it required a little bit of taking a stand, maybe. He did not. But what's most important to me is that he appeared to me to be quite willing participant in the activities at the World cup, he appeared to be quite willing participant in the battle of MoM, very eager I would say.

And of course I wonder who forced him to that little diary stunt with giving to Ginny? His lord is dead, nobody is there to threaten him, right?

It seemed to me that he was very very eager and willing for him to come back.

And of course we hear how much Lucius hates bloodtraitors which is of course while not a sign of being DE per se, points me to the direction that Lucius is quite okay to be one of them, IMO of course.

And even in DH, when I agree Lucius is very clearly out of favor and disgraced and humiliated by Voldemort, he is still so eager for Draco to identify Trio to get back in the favor with his Lordship.

Yes, IMO Lucius is very willing Death Eater, always was.

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun 15 14:03:48 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:03:48 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love and Lily's letter
In-Reply-To: <h147io+o2co@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15kc4+6ehg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187062


> 
> Alla:
> 
> So he does not get to have something of Lily, if there is nothing he could ask for. 

Pippin:
No, he just has to go and get himself killed without even a reminder of the person he is doing it for. Harry would understand. Harry was not the rightful owner of the resurrection stone, either. Dumbledore stole it. 

Alla:
 but at least Mundungus does not claim that Sirius loved him or something.

Pippin:
Lily was Snape's best friend -- she did love him, once.  I'd be interested in a response to my point that Snape had no reason to think that Harry was ever going to get the letter. He might not even have known that Harry had found the rest of the letter at GP. 

 We don't know what happened to the house once the DE's got inside, do we? For all we know they trashed it completely. Or maybe Bella moved in for a while. I doubt she'd have been very careful of her dear cousin's legacy. She wouldn't want anything that a mudblood had touched, much less written. 

I suppose the last page of the letter and the photo of Lily remained where Snape put them, in the pocket of his robes. If Harry wanted them so much he would know where they are. But I would think he let them be buried with Snape. He was not so obsessed with his mother that no one else was allowed to love her. And he, unlike Snape, had a whole album with pictures of Lily in it, and the memory of her love in his very skin.

Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 14:18:48 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:18:48 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love and Lily's letter
In-Reply-To: <h15kc4+6ehg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15l88+ekc7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187063

> Pippin:
> No, he just has to go and get himself killed without even a reminder of the person he is doing it for. Harry would understand. Harry was not the rightful owner of the resurrection stone, either. Dumbledore stole it. 

Alla:

It is not like that person made a contract with Snape under which he was entitled to something of hers in order to go get himself killed. Snape decided that, so I do not think that he gets to pick a reward that does not belong to him for that. And if *Harry* stole the resurrection stone, I would have thought it just as bad.

> Pippin:
> Lily was Snape's best friend -- she did love him, once.  I'd be interested in a response to my point that Snape had no reason to think that Harry was ever going to get the letter. He might not even have known that Harry had found the rest of the letter at GP. 

Alla:

Sorry, I did not respond to it, because I did not think it was relevant. It is not up to Snape to decide that DE may take away family posessions, so he will steal them first.


Pippin:
>  We don't know what happened to the house once the DE's got inside, do we? For all we know they trashed it completely. Or maybe Bella moved in for a while. I doubt she'd have been very careful of her dear cousin's legacy. She wouldn't want anything that a mudblood had touched, much less written. 

Alla:

Again, I think it is completely irrelevant IMO of course. They may have trashed it, or they may have been disgusted that they did not even touch anything that belongs to Mudblood. I am talking about what Snape did.


Pippin:
> I suppose the last page of the letter and the photo of Lily remained where Snape put them, in the pocket of his robes. If Harry wanted them so much he would know where they are. But I would think he let them be buried with Snape. He was not so obsessed with his mother that no one else was allowed to love her. And he, unlike Snape, had a whole album with pictures of Lily in it, and the memory of her love in his very skin.

Alla:

Oh,I see. So having the *complete* letter that his mother wrote and the *complete* picture, not the half of it means that Harry is obsessed with his mother?

Yes, he has the album of pictures, it is however not up to Snape to decide what else Harry should and should not have.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun 15 14:41:51 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:51 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love and Lily's letter
In-Reply-To: <h15l88+ekc7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15mjf+5oh2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187064

 
> Alla:
> 
> It is not like that person made a contract with Snape under which he was entitled to something of hers in order to go get himself killed. Snape decided that, so I do not think that he gets to pick a reward that does not belong to him for that. And if *Harry* stole the resurrection stone, I would have thought it just as bad.

Pippin:
Harry knew it was stolen. So if Snape bought the letter from Mundungus, that would be okay?
 
> > Pippin:
> > Lily was Snape's best friend -- she did love him, once.  I'd be interested in a response to my point that Snape had no reason to think that Harry was ever going to get the letter. He might not even have known that Harry had found the rest of the letter at GP. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Sorry, I did not respond to it, because I did not think it was relevant. It is not up to Snape to decide that DE may take away family posessions, so he will steal them first.

Pippin:

Snape is an Order member. Of course it is up to him to guard the Order's possessions from Death Eaters. 


> Alla:
> 
> Oh,I see. So having the *complete* letter that his mother wrote and the *complete* picture, not the half of it means that Harry is obsessed with his mother?

Pippin:
Yes, if he felt that he could not share anything of hers with someone else who loved her.

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 14:57:58 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:57:58 -0000
Subject: James and Intent And Snape and Love and Lily's letter
In-Reply-To: <h15mjf+5oh2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15nhm+sl9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187065

> Pippin:
> Harry knew it was stolen. So if Snape bought the letter from Mundungus, that would be okay?

Alla:

Okay? Of course it will not be okay, but I would not hold Snape responsible for stealing it. 

>> Pippin:
> 
> Snape is an Order member. Of course it is up to him to guard the Order's possessions from Death Eaters. 

Alla:

It is Harry's possession, not Order's possession. Harry let Order use the Headquarters, it did not become their possessions.

And if Snape was guarding them, I have not noticed him returning them to Harry, say with the memories before he died.

Not that all of it makes Snape's action any better to me of course.


> > Alla:
> > 
> > Oh,I see. So having the *complete* letter that his mother wrote and the *complete* picture, not the half of it means that Harry is obsessed with his mother?
> 
> Pippin:
> Yes, if he felt that he could not share anything of hers with someone else who loved her.

Alla:

That's a strawman the way I see it. How did we go from Snape stealing what is not his to Harry not being able to share anything of his mother with someone else who loved her?

I would have no problem with Harry in the goodness of his heart sharing something of Lily's with Snape and I have no doubt he would have done that. But Snape deciding it? Nope, creepy and possessive and just plain wrong and unexcusable the way I see it.

JMO,

Alla






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 16:07:47 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:07:47 -0000
Subject: Lily's letter (was What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h15dv2+liod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15rkj+2nso@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187066


Carol wrote in post 187057:
> > I think we need to consider the circumstances. It's not as if, like Mundungus, he had immediately gone to Order Headquarters to steal what had been Sirius's property and sell it for personal profit. He only comes there (apparently after the Seven Potters incident though it would make more sense to me if it were just after the death of Dumbledore), he's in desperate straits. He's just taken part in the Seven Potters chase on Dumbledore's orders and has accidentally Sectumsempra'd George Weasley's ear in saving Lupin. Dumbledore expects him to protect the students of Hogwarts and maintain seeming loyalty to LV while the rest of the WW hates him as the supposed murderer of Dumbledore. 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Why do you think this happened after the Seven Potters? I was certain it happened immediately after killing DD. I'll try to look later, I think JKR has said so in an interview.
>
Carol responds:

Although it would make sense for it to have happened sooner, almost immediately after his "murder" of Dumbledore, for example, the memory appears *after* he's ordered to confund Mundungus and to "play his part" in the Seven Potters chase (but before he's sent to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry). If the memories are in chronological order, then he must have already Sectumsempra'd George's ear, which would explain his emotional state, along with encountering "Old Dusty"  (though, I agree, having just killed DD on DD's orders would be an even better explanation).

If it happened immediately after he killed DD, we have to wonder why JKR placed that memory out of sequence and whether others are out of sequence as well (though they don't seem to be).

Anyway, my point is that the burden DD has placed on Snape and his need for emotional support from Lily--the need to have some small reminder of her--explains why he would take her signature and her part of the photo. Obviously, he wouldn't have wanted a photo of her with James, and he didn't need a reminder of Harry. I think he was surprised to find the letter, it moved him deeply, and he didn't think about its not belonging to him, only that it was a bit of her to comfort him and encourage him in his dangerous mission to help her son. As I said, unlike Harry, he doesn't have friends working with him and providing him moral support. I'm not trying to excuse him, only to explain why I think he did it. Lily was everything to him--the reason he was still alive, the motivation for the risks he took.

Carol, thinking how dangerous the Mirror of Erised would have been for Snape




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 15 16:44:51 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:44:51 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h15jfs+ustn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h15tq3+5utn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187067

Alla:
> > > 
> > > I see a third direction, which is just as speculative as ever, they targeted Snape and Snape did all he could to make their life hell as well, probably with the help of Lucius Malfoy.
> > > 

> Kate: 
> > I don't see any of this (above) in canon.
<snip> 
> > Lucius Malfoy was older than Snape and therefore would not have been at school for all the time Snape was there.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, that is why it is speculation :) about the years Lucius was in school while Snape was there.

Carol responds:

That would have been only first and possibly second year. Lucius is 41 in (IIRC) October of Harry's fifth year, so he's six or seven years older than Snape, who was not yet 35 at that time.

So unless Lucius has a birthday in September or October, in which case he'd have still been in sixth year, he must have been in his seventh year when he welcomed little Severus into Slytherin. He might have been Severus's protector for that short time, and possibly Severus ran errands for him or some such thing (which would account for Sirius Black's "lap dog" taunt), but they would not have run around together at school. Big boys and little ones spend very little time together from what we've seen at Hogwarts (and what I've seen in real life).

There's no evidence that Lucius bullied small Gryffindors (though judging from Draco's behavior, I'd be surprised if he didn't bully first and second years in general, with the possible exception of Severus and other promising Slytherins).

BTW, I disagree with the definition of bullying I've seen on the list lately--choosing a specific target and continually bullying that person. I think that, for example, Draco's using a Leglocker Curse on Neville in first(?) year for his own amusement was a form of bullying, whether or not he specifically and repeatedly targeted Neville. And, for the same reason, I think that James hexing people who annoyed him because he could was a form of bullying, too. Not arguing, just stating that I disagree with the opinion that his behavior was just high-spirited boyishness typical of the Hogwarts students. It's just possible--and I'm not arguing that this is the case--that no one came to Severus's aid because they were all afraid of retaliation from James--except, of course, for the Wormtails who were amused by a Slytherin's humiliation. (Which doesn't say much for Ron and Harry being amused later by Draco the bouncing ferret. Maybe all it says is that kids don't think!)

> Kate:
> <SNIP>
> > Off topic, slightly, I can never understand why, in the era the HP books are set that anyone sees Lucius Malfoy as a willing Death Eater.  He's the last one to arrive at Voldemort's 're-birth', Voldemort clearly does not like or trust him, and therefore uses him above others to further intimidate him, but unlike Regulus who can commit suicide to prove he came over to the light, Lucius has a wife and son he clearly adores, and does not want to lose them.  Talk about, between a rock and a hard place.  
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I do not see a rock and a hard place at least in the second war. Say Lucius really really wanted to get out during the first war, but could not. Fine, I can understand that.
> 
> But *nobody* forced him to arrive to Graveyard at all and yes, I know it required a little bit of taking a stand, maybe. He did not. But what's most important to me is that he appeared to me to be quite willing participant in the activities at the World cup, he appeared to be quite willing participant in the battle of MoM, very eager I would say.
> 
> And of course I wonder who forced him to that little diary stunt with giving to Ginny? His lord is dead, nobody is there to threaten him, right?
> 
> It seemed to me that he was very very eager and willing for him to come back.
> 
> And of course we hear how much Lucius hates bloodtraitors which is of course while not a sign of being DE per se, points me to the direction that Lucius is quite okay to be one of them, IMO of course.
> 
> And even in DH, when I agree Lucius is very clearly out of favor and disgraced and humiliated by Voldemort, he is still so eager for Draco to identify Trio to get back in the favor with his Lordship.
> 
> Yes, IMO Lucius is very willing Death Eater, always was.
> 
> Alla
>
Carol responds:

On this point, I agree with Alla. I think Lucius's attitude after he's lost his wand and been humiliated by Voldemort and yet still wants to resume his old position as LV's right-hand man is all the proof we need that Lucius was a willing DE. He certainly wants to capture the Prophecy Orb and give it to Voldemort--and he would have been willing to torture and even kill six teenagers to get it. (He would have succeeded had Snape not summoned the Order.) We see from CoS how he treated Dobby. We also see how he manipulates Fudge and Imperios at least two people in an attempt to help LV get the Prophecy Orb before he leads the DEs against Harry and his friends in the MoM. We also see him participating in the Muggle-baiting (Voldemort indicates that he organized that bit of "sport") at the TWT.

I'm afraid that Lucius Malfoy is not a good guy. About the only good things I can say about him are that he was apparently kind to Severus, welcoming him into Slytherin and maintaining their friendship well past Hogwarts (not such a good thing if he's the one who recommended that LV recruit young Snape!) and that he seems to love his family. But he holds Muggles and Muggle-borns in contempt, abuses House Elves, manipulates and threatens people to get his way, and happily endangers Muggle-born students in the hope of disgracing Dumbledore and the "blood traitor" Weasleys. I'd say that he was perfectly happy as a DE--as long as LV gave him privileges and authority over other DEs. And if he'd had a wand and Draco had been with him, I think that he (and Narcissa) would have fought on the side of the DEs, desperate to show Voldemort that he was loyal and deserved to be rewarded.

Carol, who sees no difference between young James and Draco in the bullying department regardless of House or later affiliation




From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Jun 15 18:24:13 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:24:13 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h13t0b+4eag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h163kd+e10i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187068

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Potioncat:
> > There still is a difference between how we see Snape's feelings for Lily. Yes, in romantic love, a person wants the other person. Generally they want each other. But in this case, romantic love hasn't worked out, or perhaps Severus's love for Lily had never become a romantic love. Yet he still has a love for her. A love for an old friend. So I don't think he had "wanted" her all those years.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Ah, but my question is here how do you know that the love he has for her is the love of the old friend? I mean if we are still speculating, sure that is one of the possibilities, but I find it interesting that I cannot find in canon that this is how Snape's love is characterised, you know?
> 
> I mean, I totally think it is possible, but is there something in there which is a direct counterpoint against my speculation?
> 
> Now that I said it, I realise that I am not exactly sure what my speculation is since I am struggling with defining how I see Snape's love for Lily.
> 
> I mean, one thing I am sure of is that I definitely see strong obsessive undertones to it, but as I also said I see undertones of courtly love - his love for Lily guided him to do better things, etc, etc.
> 
> To be honest with you it is the hardest for me to see that his love was only the love of the old friend, although sure I can see that it could be true under certain circumstances.

Julie:
Snape is quite an odd character, when you think about it (and that's not a bad thing). He's supposed to be this big, bad Death Eater who has an obsessive love for a Muggleborn girl who has rejected him to marry his worst enemy. And what does Snape do? Does he hate her and shift the blame to her, this mere "Mudblood" girl who would dare reject HIM, her better (at least he has one Wizarding parent and she has none!), who'd deigned to offer his friendship and love despite here inferior status? Alternately, does he obsessively pine after her, come up with ways to sabotage her relationship with his hated enemy, keep some crazy altar filled with bits of her possessions he's stolen? Does he hurt or kill James so no one can have Lily if he can't, does he dose Lily with Love potions or Imperio her to love him?

Before DH came out, my argument against Snape loving Lily was that a guy with his background and personality wouldn't just take that kind of rejection lying down. Yet that is just what he did. Snape was, dare I say it, noble. Which is why I do see Snape's love as a courtly type of love far more than an obsessive type of love. The obsession only kicked in once Voldemort targeted the Potters, and the obsession was with keeping her alive, and later with atoning for her death and his part in it--with gaining her forgiveness in a sense, not with gaining her love (which he'd already lost and blamed no one but himself for losing). 

I think this is what Harry also perceives later when he sees Snape's memories. Snape's love was never about possessing Lily. It was, for want of another word, a pure love. (And, yes, he ignored Harry and James fate when he initially went to Dumbledore, but given his lack of effort to "win" Lily back after she'd rejected him, this seems to be not because Snape thought he could eventually take their place in Lily's heart, but because he wasn't thinking at all beyond "I must save Lily! I must save Lily!") He loved her truly because of who she was, not for what he could get from her, which is why he so willingly let her go with no more than that single, hopeless plea outside the Gryffindor common room.  

IMO :-)

Julie




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 15 20:57:46 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:57:46 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h11jmp+gbbv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h16cka+6kvc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187069

"pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Exactly! It is all about Snape, what he knows, what he experienced, what he wants in my opinion. If he truly loved Lily, I think he would have done his best to look at situation from her POV and maybe he would have seen that she married a husband whom she loved and had a child that she adored.
> 
> Pippin:
> Oh dear, oh dear. "If you really loved me, you'd understand what I need" ???? --  Sorry, love does not work like that and not only in real life.  I can think of a lot of people in canon who love and honestly have no idea what the person they love needs, or what would make that person truly happy,  starting with the Dursleys and Dudley. 


Steve replies:  From a counselor's pov, in real life, love does work like that many times. Many people who truly love someone, go the extra mile to make a special effort to empathize with what that person needs and if it is within their power to do so, will make an effort to do so.  True, some people have no clue what others that they love want or need.  But if those people are in loving relationships w/ that person, and if that person is aware of the lack of empathy and understanding going on there, it is going to affect the future of that relationship. It's been my experience that women are a bit more inclined to and usually better able to empathize w/ what the men in their relationships want and need than vice versa. But there are men out there willing and able to do this as well.
Some people don't care if others really know what they feel or not.  Some require it. Some want to have their feelings remain their own, and fear that kind of intimacy or empathy. Some hope for empathy but expect a lot less.  

Canon shows that Snape did love Lily. And when you do love someone, looking at that person's pov is a lot easier to do and in many cases a lot more desireable to do than if you don't love that person.  I'm not sure if Snape took the time to try and understand how Lily felt and why she felt about things.  It would seem like his own pov and his own allegiances to Slytherin and his peer group got in the way of considering Lily's pov at times, but that's IMO of course, and those who know canon on Snape would be better qualified to address that question.  




From malfoydnl at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Jun 15 19:34:08 2009
From: malfoydnl at yahoo.co.uk (malfoydnl)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:34:08 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h15jfs+ustn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h167ng+f6ng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187070

>
> Alla:
>
> Yes, that is why it is speculation :) about the years Lucius was in school while Snape was there.


But what speculation can there possibly be?  We know what year pupils become Prefects, and that Lucius was born in 1954 or 1955, so to within a year we would know.


Alla:
> I do not see a rock and a hard place at least in the second war. Say Lucius really really wanted to get out during the first war, but could not. Fine, I can understand that.
>
> But *nobody* forced him to arrive to Graveyard at all and yes, I know it required a little bit of taking a stand, maybe. He did not. But what's most important to me is that he appeared to me to be quite willing participant in the activities at the World cup, he appeared to be quite willing participant in the battle of MoM, very eager I would say.
>
> And of course I wonder who forced him to that little diary stunt with giving to Ginny? His lord is dead, nobody is there to threaten him, right?
>
> It seemed to me that he was very very eager and willing for him to come back.
>
> And of course we hear how much Lucius hates bloodtraitors which is of course while not a sign of being DE per se, points me to the direction that Lucius is quite okay to be one of them, IMO of course.
>
> And even in DH, when I agree Lucius is very clearly out of favor and disgraced and humiliated by Voldemort, he is still so eager for Draco to identify Trio to get back in the favor with his Lordship.
>
> Yes, IMO Lucius is very willing Death Eater, always was.


Well you're entitled to your opinion but personally I find it a strange one.

The hard facts are that Death Eaters are branded.  If you don't return when you get the call, Voldemort finds you and kills you.

Lucius was one of the first Death Eaters to return to 'the light'  after the first war.  He was taken to task about not looking for Voldemort by Voldemort if I recall correctly, although I haven't read that book minutely for a while.  Why would he 'take a stand' when he is an intelligent man and knows this will get him killed?  Far safer to go along with it - for now.  To keep himself, and his wife and son safe.

Where is the canon that Lucius was one of the Death Eaters in masks at the world cup?  None that I've seen.  Draco is hanging around, separated from his parents, are we to believe that Narcissa is also masked?  If she isn't where is she, if Lucius is?

If he really wanted to identify Harry and Ron and Hermione, at Malfoy Manor, he has met them all, has he not?  Why would he need Draco? Lucius was a frequent visitor to the school as a School Governor, I find it difficult to believe that he would not recognise the three himself if had REALLY wanted to identify them.  He saw them at the ministry when he was accompanied by Bellatrix and Voldemort.  Harry had him arrested, you would have thought that would have burnt Harry and his friends faces on the inside of his eyelids.  And yet he can't decide and has to ask Draco, who also can't decide?  And we are expected to believe this?

As for the diary, well it's plain that Ginny's father despises Lucius, for some reason, which I've always found very strange since Ginny's father is always breaking the wizarding rules so hardly one to hold anyone else to account.  Since Lucius had no real concept of what the diary was, what better way to get rid of more descriminating evidence (he was after all disposing of others via Knockturn Alley) and set up someone he must be aware is, lets say, less than respectful about him.


Kate









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 02:33:03 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:33:03 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 24-26
Message-ID: <h1708v+rm56@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187071

"The Dumbledore in Harry's head smiled, surveying Harry over the tips of his fingers, pressed together as if in prayer.
XXXXX
Am I meant to know but not to seek? Did you know how hard I'd find that? Is that why you made it so difficult? So I'd have time to work that out?" ? p.391


Alla:

I know we discussed it in the past and I am totally sold on the idea that Harry looking for answers about Dumbledore and trying to find out whether he should  follow his path or his own, and why and how can be viewed as metaphor of religious believer going through tough times, crisis of faith so to speak.

But I am still very interested regardless of whether you agree with the previous sentence or not, what can be the meaning of the sentence `Am I meant to know but not to seek?"




"She tasted disgusting, worse than Gurdyroots!" ? p. 422

Alla:

Anybody knows off the top of their head what Gurdyroots is? I would think some smelly plant, but I am too lazy to look it up.

"Hermione sighed and set to work, muttering under her breath as she transformed various aspects of Ron's appearance. He was to be given a completely fake identity, and they were trusting to the manevolent aura cast by Bellatrix to protect him" ? p.422

Alla:

I am sorry, what the heck are they talking about? Do they mean that Ron will be hidden in the sight of Bella? Would he become magically invisible? Or do they mean that the aura of Bella's magic is so strong that it will hide Ron's magic? 

But Travers does see Ron later on. Am confused.


"The Thief's Downfall!" said Griphook, clambering to his feet and looking back at the deluge on to the tracks, which Harry knew, now, had been more than a water. "It washes away all enchantment, all magical concealment! They know there are impostors in Gringotts, they have set off defenses against us!" ? p.431


Alla:

I can't help but marvel how much stronger the magic of other races is often shown to be. I mean, elves can apparate where wizards can't , and goblins just set up a waterfall that just does away with polyjuice potions, and presumably with any other protections wizards can think of. I would guess that it includes disillusionment charms and all similar things. I find it very cool.










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 02:45:43 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:45:43 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h167ng+f6ng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1710n+7veb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187072

Kat:
<SNIP>
Why
would he 'take a stand' when he is an intelligent man and knows this will get
him killed? Far safer to go along with it - for now. To keep himself, and his
wife and son safe.

Alla:

Well, how long now would have lasted? When was he planning to stop participating in killings and tortures? I do not believe not returning to Graveyard would have required much of taking of the stand though. Some, but in my opinion not much. It is not as if I require Lucius to fight against his former master, god forbid.  That in my view requires taking a real stand, but yes, if he is not a criminal anymore, I believe he should have taken the stand of not fighting. But I do not believe he ever truly returned to light, his antics with diary IMO support that if nothing else.


Kate:
Where is the canon that Lucius was one of the Death Eaters in masks at the world
cup? None that I've seen. <SNIP>

Alla:

Here is some.

"Your exploits at the Quidditch World Cup were fun, I daresay
 but might not your energies have been better directed towards finding and aiding your master?" ? p.650

Kate:
Since Lucius had no real concept of what the diary was, what better way to get
rid of more descriminating evidence (he was after all disposing of others via
Knockturn Alley) and set up someone he must be aware is, lets say, less than
respectful about him.

Alla:

I am 99% sure that Lucius had a very real concept of what the diary was, canon (or taking my word back) will be provided tomorrow evening.

Alla





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun 16 02:49:28 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:49:28 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h167ng+f6ng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1717o+vpsb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187073

Kate: 

> Where is the canon that Lucius was one of the Death Eaters in masks at the world cup?  None that I've seen.  Draco is hanging around, separated from his parents, are we to believe that Narcissa is also masked?  If she isn't where is she, if Lucius is?

Magpie:
I think it's implied, especially when Voldemort suggests that he arranged it. But no, we have no proof. Though I didn't take Draco hanging around watching to suggest his parents would have nothing to do with it. 

Kate:
> 
> If he really wanted to identify Harry and Ron and Hermione, at Malfoy Manor, he has met them all, has he not?  Why would he need Draco? Lucius was a frequent visitor to the school as a School Governor, I find it difficult to believe that he would not recognise the three himself if had REALLY wanted to identify them.  He saw them at the ministry when he was accompanied by Bellatrix and Voldemort.  Harry had him arrested, you would have thought that would have burnt Harry and his friends faces on the inside of his eyelids.  And yet he can't decide and has to ask Draco, who also can't decide?  And we are expected to believe this?

Magpie:
This one was written pretty clearly imo. Lucius did want to identify them because they would have possibly gotten him out of trouble with Voldemort. But he doesn't want to make a mistake since Harry's disfigured from the curse and he doesn't know Ron and Hermione by sight as well as Draco does. Narcissa brings them in saying Draco can identify them and Lucius agrees. Harry looks at his face when he's pushing Draco to do it and he looks eager where Draco is scared and reluctant. It's too important to not leave it up to the person who knows best, and that's Draco, who he encourages when he's reluctant. I thought the scene made a point of showing that Draco's reluctant but Lucius isn't.

Kate: 
> As for the diary, well it's plain that Ginny's father despises Lucius, for some reason, which I've always found very strange since Ginny's father is always breaking the wizarding rules so hardly one to hold anyone else to account.  

Magpie:
Arthur sees the rules he breaks as technical and not hurting anybody. He sees Lucius as a DE who went free who wants to harm people. It's not the rules he has a problem with with Lucius, it's what he assumes he's doing. I think Arthur's approach to the rules he himself breaks is pretty bad but I have no trouble understanding why he thinks Lucius is different.

Kate:
Since Lucius had no real concept of what the diary was, what better way to get rid of more descriminating evidence (he was after all disposing of others via Knockturn Alley) and set up someone he must be aware is, lets say, less than respectful about him.

Magpie:
He seems to understand that it opens the Chamber of Secrets and releases the basilisk. I thought he wanted to frame Arthur Weasley's kid for it.

-m




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 04:01:35 2009
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:01:35 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 24-26
In-Reply-To: <h1708v+rm56@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h175ev+s8kj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187074

Alla wrote:

> "Hermione sighed and set to work, muttering under her breath as she transformed various aspects of Ron's appearance. He was to be given a completely fake identity, and they were trusting to the manevolent aura cast by Bellatrix to protect him" ? p.422
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I am sorry, what the heck are they talking about? Do they mean that Ron will be hidden in the sight of Bella? Would he become magically invisible? Or do they mean that the aura of Bella's magic is so strong that it will hide Ron's magic? 
> 
> But Travers does see Ron later on. Am confused.

I thought it meant that questions from people around about a new face (I mean the disguised Ron) will be minimal (or even zero) if he is accompanied by a cruel, sneering, snobbish, generally-feared-by-everyone Bellatrix. I don't think it meant anything about hiding Ron. 

Cheers,
~Joey :-)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 05:20:11 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:20:11 -0000
Subject: DH reread CH 24-26
In-Reply-To: <h1708v+rm56@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h17a2b+faht@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187075

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


> Anybody knows off the top of their head what Gurdyroots is? 
> I would think some smelly plant, but I am too lazy to look it up.


zanooda:

Gurdyroots look like green onions :-). The book doesn't say they are smelly though, just that their infusion has a disgusting taste and a color of beetroot juice. I like beets juice though, so I imagine Gurdyroot infusion as prune juice - I tasted it once and it was really yucky :-). The color fits too... :-).




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun 16 13:01:50 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:01:50 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h14qeu+s1cs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1853u+feln@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187076

Kate: 
> Off topic, slightly, I can never understand why, in the era the HP books are set that anyone sees Lucius Malfoy as a willing Death Eater.  He's the last one to arrive at Voldemort's 're-birth', Voldemort clearly does not like or trust him, and therefore uses him above others to further intimidate him, but unlike Regulus who can commit suicide to prove he came over to the light, Lucius has a wife and son he clearly adores, and does not want to lose them.  Talk about, between a rock and a hard place.  


Potioncat:
Yes, but the world isn't divided into good people and DEs. If Lucius had quit following LV he wouldn't have become a good person, and certainly wouldn't have joined DD.

Whatever Lucius believed during the first reign of the Dark Lord, he doesn't seem at all happy to have the old man back. If you ask me, Lucius had become the new Biggest Bully and he didn't like having to give up his position. Especially since his new position wasn't too secure and kept slipping lower.

So I think he would have been very happy to be the Big Boss of the DEs, it was LV he didn't care for.

 





From mros at xs4all.nl  Tue Jun 16 13:48:56 2009
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:48:56 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And 
     Snape
Message-ID: <1768.132.229.246.115.1245160136.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>

No: HPFGUIDX 187077

> Kate:
>> Off topic, slightly, I can never understand why, in the era the HP books
>> are set that anyone sees Lucius Malfoy as a willing Death Eater.  He's
>> the last one to arrive at Voldemort's 're-birth', Voldemort clearly does
>> not like or trust him, and therefore uses him above others to further
>> intimidate him, but unlike Regulus who can commit suicide to prove he
>> came over to the light, Lucius has a wife and son he clearly adores, and
>> does not want to lose them.  Talk about, between a rock and a hard
>> place.
>
>
> Potioncat:
> Yes, but the world isn't divided into good people and DEs. If Lucius had
> quit following LV he wouldn't have become a good person, and certainly
> wouldn't have joined DD.
>
> Whatever Lucius believed during the first reign of the Dark Lord, he
> doesn't seem at all happy to have the old man back. If you ask me, Lucius
> had become the new Biggest Bully and he didn't like having to give up his
> position. Especially since his new position wasn't too secure and kept
> slipping lower.
>
> So I think he would have been very happy to be the Big Boss of the DEs, it
> was LV he didn't care for.
>


Marion:

Interesting, you seem to think that the only 'good people' in the WW are
Dumbledore supporters. Well, that's your opinion, but I for one would
think twice or even thrice before alliancing myself to some Glorious
Leader, who uses people like they are loaves of bread, who loves Power,
but is so afraid of actually using it that he refuses to act directly,
preferring to keeping information that might help others for himself and
reaping power and admiration for being so 'mighty'.
In fact, I would hesitate to align myself with ANY 'Glorious Leader' with
a personality cult fetish.

Lucius Malfoy calls Dumbledore a fool who ruined Hogwarts, and I happen to
think he was right. Dumbledore was a dreadful headmaster. During his reign
of Hogwarts several students died (Myrtle, Cedric), all of which could've
been prevented if only Dumbledore had seen fit to share information (and
isn't it amazing that during Snape's year as Headmaster, a year where
actual DE's run riot through Hogwarts, not one student actually got hurt?)
Dumbledore employed dreadful, ineffective, dangereous teachers (a ghost
for History, Quirrell, Barty Crouch, Hagrid, Trelawny.. the list goes on
and on). We know why Dumbles is such a dreadful Headmaster: he just
doesn't care about the children being taught anything. He uses Hogwarts as
his personal headquarters, where he can influence gullibe childeren to
think that he knows best and indoctrinate them into his personal belief,
the belief that Ambition is the greatest evil evah.

I very much doubt that Slytherin was stamped 'House of Evil' before
Dumbledore got his bum on the headmaster chair, but as soon as he is in
power, things subtly change, until it's become normal to think that if
it's Slytherin, their motives must be Evil.

Even the people on this list have fallen into this trap. It never ceases
to amaze me how people on this list can 'doublethink' into believing that
a character that we see to hesitate to harm children (in the Ministry
raid), to want to get rid of Dumbledore as Headmaster (and for very good
reasons) and to protect their family and loved ones whilst at the same
time thwarting the Dark Lord, that this character is somehow an evil bully
who wants to take over the world, whilst at the sametime doublethinking
themselves into the firm belief that a schoolyard bully who with his group
of cronies regularly hexes those he doesn't like (giant slugs, anyone),
who hexes helpless squibs in the back (Langlock? Filch?) and who is proud
of the fact that he can actually summon the evil and wish to torture to
Crucio, to think that this is a 'good person'.

Dumbledore and Voldemort are two sides of the same coin, if you ask me.
'The enemy of my enemy must be my friend', that was probably what Lucius
and Snape were thinking when they joined Voldemort. Alas, once branded you
have no choice. Neither will you get any help from the Ministry, who was,
at the time, firmly in *Dumbledore's* pocket.
Clever Lucius, for trying to get influence at the Ministry. If you want to
break the powerbase of Dumbledore, start by crumbling his cred at the
Ministry.

And he almost succeeded, if it weren't for those pesky children.




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 15:29:43 2009
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:29:43 -0000
Subject: Lucius and DD was Re: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <1768.132.229.246.115.1245160136.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <h18dp7+75d1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187078


> > Potioncat:
> > Yes, but the world isn't divided into good people and DEs. If Lucius had quit
> > following LV he wouldn't have become a good person, and certainly wouldn't have
> > joined DD.

> > Whatever Lucius believed during the first reign of the Dark Lord, he
> > doesn't seem at all happy to have the old man back. If you ask me, Lucius
> > had become the new Biggest Bully and he didn't like having to give up his
> > position. Especially since his new position wasn't too secure and kept
> > slipping lower.
> >
> > So I think he would have been very happy to be the Big Boss of the DEs, it
> > was LV he didn't care for.
> >
> 
> 
> Marion:
> 
> Interesting, you seem to think that the only 'good people' in the WW are
> Dumbledore supporters.

Annemehr:

The way I read that, Potioncat only said the DD supporters are a subset of "good people."  Which could be debated also, but is beside the point regarding Lucius's morality.


Marion:

> Well, that's your opinion, but I for one would
> think twice or even thrice before alliancing myself to some Glorious
> Leader, who uses people like they are loaves of bread, who loves Power,
> but is so afraid of actually using it that he refuses to act directly,
> preferring to keeping information that might help others for himself and
> reaping power and admiration for being so 'mighty'.
> In fact, I would hesitate to align myself with ANY 'Glorious Leader' with
> a personality cult fetish.
> 
> Lucius Malfoy calls Dumbledore a fool who ruined Hogwarts, and I happen to
> think he was right. Dumbledore was a dreadful headmaster. During his reign
> of Hogwarts several students died (Myrtle, Cedric), all of which could've
> been prevented if only Dumbledore had seen fit to share information (and
> isn't it amazing that during Snape's year as Headmaster, a year where
> actual DE's run riot through Hogwarts, not one student actually got hurt?)

Annemehr:

A couple of points here:

Actually, Dippet was headmaster when Myrtle died.  However, you are quite right that DD bears huge responsibility for Myrtle's death.  As we see in his Pensieve memories of the Gaunts, he is a Parselmouth and so would have been able to hear the Basilisk in the walls.  And according to the memory of the child Tom in the orphanage, he knows Tom was also a Parselmouth.  There is no way that DD didn't know what was going on.  And yet he let Tom go on, Myrtle get killed, and Hagrid take the blame.

You exaggerate a bit saying no one got hurt during Snape's headship, what with all the crucioing of students, but it's true he seems to have done very well under the circumstances.

Marion:

> Dumbledore employed dreadful, ineffective, dangereous teachers (a ghost
> for History, Quirrell, Barty Crouch, Hagrid, Trelawny.. the list goes on
> and on). We know why Dumbles is such a dreadful Headmaster: he just
> doesn't care about the children being taught anything. He uses Hogwarts as
> his personal headquarters, where he can influence gullibe childeren to
> think that he knows best and indoctrinate them into his personal belief,
> the belief that Ambition is the greatest evil evah.

Annemehr:

Given DD's friendship with Slughorn, I don't think that's quite accurate.  I don't see him indoctrinating anyone to think ambition is evil.  I do see him trying to amass a monopoly on power in the WW and then sitting on it.  He hoards nearly all the information there is to be known, and only releases just as much as he must to as few people as possible in order to bring down his only rival in power, LV.

DD was careful that his plan would continue after the death he knew was coming, because he didn't merely want power for himself.  He wanted *no-one* to wield power.  He thought it was dangerous.

As you said above: "I for one would
> think twice or even thrice before alliancing myself to some Glorious
> Leader, who uses people like they are loaves of bread, who loves Power,
> but is so afraid of actually using it that he refuses to act directly,
> preferring to keeping information that might help others for himself and
> reaping power and admiration for being so 'mighty'."

Yeah, I agree.  One person having too much power is dangerous, but then so is no-one having any power (i.e. information) to defend themselves.

Marion:
> I very much doubt that Slytherin was stamped 'House of Evil' before
> Dumbledore got his bum on the headmaster chair, but as soon as he is in
> power, things subtly change, until it's become normal to think that if
> it's Slytherin, their motives must be Evil.


Annemehr:

You seem very sure that any school-wide anti-Slytherin feeling had nothing to do with Salazar's split from the other three founders and an ancient rumor of a monster hidden in a Chamber of Secrets.

I'm not at all sure how strongly the anti-Slytherin feeling extends beyond Harry's circle of friends, either - and with them, it's personal.  True, the rest of the school tends to root against Slytherin for the House Cup, but that is explained by the fact that they'd won it, what, seven years in a row before Harry's first year.  On the other hand, the rest of the school is quick enough to turn against Harry many times.  They're pretty fickle as a whole.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun 16 15:31:03 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:31:03 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <1768.132.229.246.115.1245160136.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <h18drn+ejhh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187079

 
> 
> Marion:
> 
> Interesting, you seem to think that the only 'good people' in the WW are
> Dumbledore supporters. Well, that's your opinion, 

Potioncat:
No it isn't. 

If it sounded that way, it wasn't supposed to. I was responding to several posts. My opinion is that Lucius was very content to be a DE, but he didn't like following LV. He wanted to be in charge and continue his own agenda of ridding the WW of Muggleborns.


Marion:
 (and
> isn't it amazing that during Snape's year as Headmaster, a year where
> actual DE's run riot through Hogwarts, not one student actually got hurt?)

Potioncat:
As much as I like Snape, I don't agree that no one got hurt. Neville is scarred, a first year was hanging in the dungeon and one student was so severely punished that Neville backed off on the resistence.

I also agree that DD wasn't a good headmaster, and I thought that long before DH---but I don't see him as so horrible as you. Just differing opinions, I think.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 16 16:34:53 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0000
Subject: Lucius and DD was Re: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h18dp7+75d1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h18hjd+usnp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187080

 
> Annemehr:
> 
> A couple of points here:
> 
> Actually, Dippet was headmaster when Myrtle died.  However, you are quite right that DD bears huge responsibility for Myrtle's death.  As we see in his Pensieve memories of the Gaunts, he is a Parselmouth and so would have been able to hear the Basilisk in the walls.

Pippin:
All we see is that DD understood what was being said in the Ogden and Morfin memories.  But Morfin could have told him that, since Dumbledore questioned him extensively. Morfin's memory was collected after the Riddle murders, which occured after Myrtle's death. There's no canon that Dumbledore could translate parseltongue on his own, or even recognize it out of context -- when it's coming from behind a wall instead of from a human mouth, for example.  


Dumbledore knew that Tom was a parselmouth, but how would you suggest that he prove it? Tom was far too clever to expose himself the way that Harry did. The incidents at the orphanage would not have convinced anyone. As Snape says, nobody cares  about kids doing wandless magic.

Hagrid let himself be blamed rather than expose Aragog. That was his choice. 

> Marion:
> 
> > Dumbledore employed dreadful, ineffective, dangereous teachers (a ghost for History, Quirrell, Barty Crouch, Hagrid, Trelawny.. the list goes on and on). 

Pippin:
Yup. But they are accomplished in their fields and knowledgeable about their subjects. Wizards can be  dangerous, dreadful, ineffective people despite their knowledge and power.  That's one lesson Dumbledore did want his students to learn. 

> Annemehr:
> 
> Given DD's friendship with Slughorn, I don't think that's quite accurate.  I don't see him indoctrinating anyone to think ambition is evil.  I do see him trying to amass a monopoly on power in the WW and then sitting on it.  He hoards nearly all the information there is to be known, and only releases just as much as he must to as few people as possible in order to bring down his only rival in power, LV.

Pippin:
Dumbledore hoarded information on horcruxes and Riddle's background. We've discussed the pros and cons of that. But he didn't prevent people from learning how to defend themselves from  magical attacks. Voldemort  did that, by hexing the DADA professorship. 

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 17:08:02 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:08:02 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1717o+vpsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h18jhi+c4fk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187081

Magpie:
> I think it's implied, especially when Voldemort suggests that he arranged it. But no, we have no proof. Though I didn't take Draco hanging around watching to suggest his parents would have nothing to do with it. 

Carol responds:
As someone else has pointed out, Voldemort identifies Lucius as the organizer of the Muggle-baiting "fun" at the TWT. As Lucius doesn't deny it, I think we can safely presume that he really was in charge and certainly that he participated. (Since Narcissa wasn't with Draco, she probably did, too, but there we can only speculate.)

> Magpie:
> This one was written pretty clearly imo. Lucius did want to identify them because they would have possibly gotten him out of trouble with Voldemort. But he doesn't want to make a mistake since Harry's disfigured from the curse and he doesn't know Ron and Hermione by sight as well as Draco does. Narcissa brings them in saying Draco can identify them and Lucius agrees. Harry looks at his face when he's pushing Draco to do it and he looks eager where Draco is scared and reluctant. It's too important to not leave it up to the person who knows best, and that's Draco, who he encourages when he's reluctant. I thought the scene made a point of showing that Draco's reluctant but Lucius isn't.

Carol:
I agree. Harry sees the physical similarity in their faces, which makes the contrasting expressions all the stronger. Lucius is eager to touch his Dark Mark and bring Voldemort. The only thing that stops him at that point is Bellatrix, who sees the Sword of Gryffindor and fears Voldemort's wrath if HRH have been in her vault.
 
>
> Magpie:
> He seems to understand that it [the diary] opens the Chamber of Secrets and releases the basilisk. I thought he wanted to frame Arthur Weasley's kid for it.

Carol responds:
Not only that, based on what Dobby overhears, he's expecting or hoping that Muggle-borns will be hurt or killed. (Why Dobby thinks that will harm Harry is unclear.) He's also disposing of a dangerous Dark object (we see him earlier selling poisons and other unidentified Dark stuff to Borgin), and I think we can assume that he hopes to disgrace Dumbledore (the old Muggle lover, as Draco calls him) as well as the Weasley family. 

As for why Arthur Weasley dislikes Lucius, it's true that the data on the ages of the Weasleys is conflicting (more JKRish inconsistencies), but if the Weasleys left school and got married just as Voldemort was returning (ca. 1970), they'd have been just a little older than Lucius, who would have been about sixteen at that time. They would have known him or known of him, and even if he didn't advertise his ambition to be a DE at that early point, they would have known about his prejudice against "Mudbloods" and Muggles, just as he would have known that the Weasleys, especially the Muggle-loving Arthur, were "blood traitors." I suspect it's an old antagonism similar to that between Draco and Ron, who would have disliked each other even if Harry had not been involved.

We have only to see them in Flourish and Blotts in CoS to see the conflict between their values.

As for why Lucius didn't go looking for Voldemort after Godric's Hollow (point that Kate raised in her post), I think that Snape is right in saying that Lucius believed him to be dead. Only the insanely devoted Bellatrix and her little clique refused to believe that he hadn't been killed.

Carol, granting that Lucius is not a mad fanatic like Bellatrix and that he has a strong sense of self-preservation but pretty sure that he was a loyal DE even after Voldemort abused his hospitality




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 16 17:37:49 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:37:49 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h18jhi+c4fk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h18l9d+8qj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187082


> Carol responds:
> Not only that, based on what Dobby overhears, he's expecting or hoping that Muggle-borns will be hurt or killed. (Why Dobby thinks that will harm Harry is unclear.)

Pippin:

Dobby knew that the diary belonged to Voldemort, as he admits at the end of CoS, and so he feared that it would be dangerous to Harry, who was too important to be put at any increased risk, as he explained at the start. If Dobby knew that getting rid of Dumbledore was part of the plan, he would think that Harry was going to lose his most powerful protector, too.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 18:52:01 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:52:01 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <1768.132.229.246.115.1245160136.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID: <h18pki+263u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187083

Marion wrote:
<snip>
> Lucius Malfoy calls Dumbledore a fool who ruined Hogwarts, and I happen to think he was right. Dumbledore was a dreadful headmaster. During his reign of Hogwarts several students died (Myrtle, Cedric), all of which could've been prevented if only Dumbledore had seen fit to share information <snip>

Carol responds:
Can you explain how Cedric's death could have been explained if DD had shared information? Unfortunately for Cedric, DD had not yet realized that Fake!Moody was a DE imposter. As for Myrtle, DD was the Transfiguration teacher (and presumably Head of Gryffindor House) at that time. He may have been assistant headmaster considering that he's the one who was sent to inform Tom Riddle that his name was down for Hogwarts. But the headmaster at the time was the inept Armando Dippet, who was deceived by Tom Riddle's charm.

Marion:
> Dumbledore employed dreadful, ineffective, dangereous teachers (a ghost for History, Quirrell, Barty Crouch, Hagrid, Trelawny.. the list goes on and on). We know why Dumbles is such a dreadful Headmaster: he just doesn't care about the children being taught anything. He uses Hogwarts as his personal headquarters, where he can influence gullibe childeren to think that he knows best and indoctrinate them into his personal belief, the belief that Ambition is the greatest evil evah.

Carol responds:
Granted, he employs ineffective and sometimes dangerous teachers. Why he doesn't dismiss Professor Binns, I don't know. Maybe he can't. Trelawney is employed for her own protection to teach a subject that he (perhaps wrongly?) considers to be useless. Later, he employs Firenze to co-teach the same subject for the same reason. Hagrid, too, is employed for his own protection (though the students in COMC would have been better off with the highly competent substitute whose name I can't remember; Hagrid should, IMO, have remained as gamekeeper and "keeper of the keys and gates" or whatever he's called in SS/PS. And filch, whom you don't mention, is employed as groundskeeper for much the same reason; he's a Squib, and DD has given him semiuseful employment in the WW. (Fortunately, he's also prevented from using "the old punishments" apparently used by Filch's predecessor, the one whose whipping left Arthur Weasley scarred for life.) And he employs Snape, his valuable spy/counterspy, as Potions teacher, trusting (rightly) that he will not harm the students and actually knows his subject. (He keeps him away from the DADA class for good reason, but not the one he gave young Snape.) The curse on the DADA class is Voldemort's fault, not DD's. He finally resorts to allowing Umbridge to teach DADA because (IMO) it's not yet time to allow Snape to teach it and he has no other option.

Marion: 
> I very much doubt that Slytherin was stamped 'House of Evil' before Dumbledore got his bum on the headmaster chair, but as soon as he is in power, things subtly change, until it's become normal to think that if it's Slytherin, their motives must be Evil.

Carol responds:
I agree that Slytherin was not the House of Evil when Slughorn was there, though it must have had a reputation as a House that valued blood status even then. Nor would Slughorn as HoH have inspired anyone to evil. Unfortunately for him, a certain charming young Dark Wizard in the making had been Sorted into Slytherin House and was gathering followers impressed by his ability to speak Parseltongue (and perhaps by other powers that Tom mentions in his first encounter with DD) and, later, by his proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin (opening the Cos and releasing the Basilisk, killing a Muggle-born). That incident alone could not have helped the reputation of Slytherin House. And many people must have noticed that, with the presumed exception of Sirius Black, most of LV's followers, including those who claimed that they'd been Imperio'd, came from Slytherin. If anything changed Slytherin's reputation from a bunch of ambitious, blood-conscious snobs (who could nevertheless be cheerful and somewhat likeable like Slughorn) to Dark-Magic-loving, "Mudblood"-hating bigots likely to join the DEs when they left Hogwarts, it was Riddle/Voldemort, not Dumbledore.

Marion: 
> Even the people on this list have fallen into this trap. It never ceases to amaze me how people on this list can 'doublethink' into believing that a character that we see to hesitate to harm children (in the Ministry raid), to want to get rid of Dumbledore as Headmaster (and for very good reasons) and to protect their family and loved ones whilst at the same time thwarting the Dark Lord, that this character is somehow an evil bully who wants to take over the world,

Carol:
I assume that you're speaking of Lucius Malfoy, who does indeed tell Bellatrix not to hurt Harry *while he's carrying the Prophecy orb.* However, let's look at some of the other things he says during the MoM raid (which he handled with relative efficiency until the Order arrived, though I wonder what Theo Nott would think of his ruthless abandonment of the injured Nott Sr. if he knew about it).

"Don't do anything," he says to Bellatrix. "*Not yet.*"

"Now give me the prophecy," he says to Harry, "or we start using wands. <snip commentary> Hand over the prophecy and no one need get hurt."

"I TOLD YOU, NO!" he yells at Bellatrix. "If you smash it--"

Clearly, the only thing deterring Lucius from harming Harry and company is fear of punishment if the Prophecy orb is destroyed (a fear that proves to be quite valid). He later blocks Bellatrix's Stupefy, aimed at Harry for calling LV a Half-Blood, for the same reason.

However, he does nothing when Bellatrix steps forward intending to torture "the smallest one" (Ginny). (Bellatrix, too, is deterred by Harry's threat to smash the Prophecy orb. She may be more erratic and fanatical than Lucius, but they have the same goal--retrieve the Prophecy orb for the Dark Lord so he can kill Harry Potter.)

"DO NOT ATTACK! WE NEED THE PROPHECY!" and "WAIT UNTIL WE'VE GOT THE PROPHECY!" make Lucius's motive crystal clear. He's not being merciful; he's being (relatively) sensible and self-preserving but at the same time loyal to LV, whom he knows quite well wants Harry dead, preferably by his own hand. He (Lucius) was in the graveyard, after all.

He tells Harry not to play games and informs him that the Dark Lord wondered why he didn't come running to find out the wording of the Prophecy. He seems at this point incredulously delighted at Harry's naivete. He's also, of course, providing useful information to Harry about LV's motives and how the Hall of Prophecy works, but that's not his intention. He probably thinks that Harry will be dead or in LV's hands soon, so it doesn't matter. Either that or he's stalling for time.

Once the kids have smashed the shelves and temporarily escaped, he regroups the disorganized DEs, ordering them to leave the injured Nott, and pairs himself with Mulciber, who, according to Lily, was using or trying to use Dark Magic in fifth year and who, according to Karkaroff, is an Imperio specialist. He tells the others to "be gentle with Potter *until we've got the prophecy. *You can kill the others if necessary.*"

Just before the Order members show up, he tells Harry that his race is run and orders him to give him the prophecy (the murderer Dolohov's wand is pointed straight at Harry's face and the other eight are surrounding him). When Neville tries to support Harry, a DE seizes him and Lucius says "Your grandmother is used to losing family members to the Dark Lord. Your death will not come as a great shock." He makes no move to stop Bellatrix, who Crucio'd Neville's parents into insanity (along with her followers) from giving Neville a taste of the same medicine. At that point, Harry is ready to give the prophecy orb to Lucius, but the Order arrives.

We don't see much of Lucius in the fight that follows because Tonks immediately Stuns him. When he recovers, however, he lunges at Harry, presses his wand hard into Harry's ribs, and snarls at him to give him the Prophecy. Harry tosses the orb to Neville and Lucius points his wand at him instead, only to be blasted off Harry by Harry's Impedimenta. He aims his wand at Harry and Neville again (as if he can't make up his mind which to aim at) but Lupin jumps between them. Someone, probably Lucius, fires a spell at Harry but misses. At that point, Neville drops the Prophecy, DD arrives, and the battle is over for Lucius.

A character who hesitates to harm children? Somehow, that's not the picture I get of Lucius. As for the scene in "Malfoy Manor," he just wants to be sure that the swollen-faced kid really is Harry Potter before he summons LV and gets punished yet again.

Marion:

> whilst at the sametime doublethinking themselves into the firm belief that a schoolyard bully who with his group of cronies regularly hexes those he doesn't like (giant slugs, anyone), who hexes helpless squibs in the back (Langlock? Filch?) and who is proud of the fact that he can actually summon the evil and wish to torture to Crucio, to think that this is a 'good person'.

Carol:
You make Harry sound like James, who is indeed a schoolyard bully who (AFAWK) only saved Severus to keep himself and his friends out of trouble (but hardly comparable to a DE willing to kill and torture kids to retrieve a Prophecy orb so the Dark Lord can kill the Boy who Lived). As for Harry, wasn't it Ron who tried to make Draco "Eat slugs"? I agree that on occasion, Harry and his friends act with inadequate provocation. I agree that it was wrong to use Langlock on the defenseless Filch and I disapprove of the Crucio of even so evil a person as Amycus Carrow. But you're disregarding a lot of things that Harry did, selflessly rescuing Ginny in Cos, for example, and sacrificing himself to save the WW in DH (not knowing that he's not going to die).

Harry, as JKR takes pains to point out, isn't perfect. He misjudges people. He makes mistakes. He takes a long time to learn to how to stop seeking revenge and to forgive. But, at heart, he's essentially a good person despite these flaws.

Lucius Malfoy, however, is interested primarily in himself. He gives the diary to Ginny knowing full well that it will release the Basilisk and endanger the students. He manipulates others through threats and bribery. And he's perfectly happy serving Voldemort (and teaching his son to be a Voldie disciple, too) as long as he has a position of power and authority as LV's right-hand man. (It might be worthwhile to contrast him with Snape, who puts that same position to very different uses.)

I understand that you don't like Dumbledore, who is unquestionably manipulative and secretive. Evidently, you don't like Harry much, either. :-) And I certainly have reservations of my own about some of their actions and some of JKR's apparent values (pleasure in punishing characters she doesn't like). But I don't think you're going to persuade anyone that Harry is as much of a bully as Lucius Malfoy or that Lucius Malfoy is nothing but a loving father who only wants to rid Hogwarts of a foolish old headmaster by accusing those who disagree with you of "doublethink."

Carol, not answering the last point because the post is too long already







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 16 20:07:12 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:07:12 -0000
Subject: Lucius and DD was Re: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h18dp7+75d1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h18u1g+rc59@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187084

Annemehr wrote:
> 
> A couple of points here:
> 
> Actually, Dippet was headmaster when Myrtle died.  


Carol responds:

Right.

Annemehr:
However, you are quite right that DD bears huge responsibility for Myrtle's death.  As we see in his Pensieve memories of the Gaunts, he is a Parselmouth and so would have been able to hear the Basilisk in the walls.  And according to the memory of the child Tom in the orphanage, he knows Tom was also a Parselmouth.  There is no way that DD didn't know what was going on.  And yet he let Tom go on, Myrtle get killed, and Hagrid take the blame.

Carol responds:

Do we actually know that DD is a Parselmouth? It's possible to understand a language without speaking it, and we never hear him speak it. And if Professor Binns is correct, Dumbledore searched for and failed to find the Chamber of Secrets. Apparently, Slytherin enchanted the CoS so that only his true heir could find it, open it, and control the Basilisk. If that was the case, Dumbledore wouldn't be able to find it even if he could speak the word "Open" in Parseltongue (and he also wouldn't have been able to control the Basilisk had he done so).  Ginny can open the CoS because she's possessed by the Horcrux. Harry can open it in part because he has part of Voldemort inside his scar, so that he shares a part of LV's mind and soul, and in part because Diary!Tom wants him to. (He must already know from Ginny that Harry is a Parselmouth.) Ron, too, can open the CoS, but he knows where it is. He could never have found it had it not been for Harry and could never have opened it had it not been for his gift for mimicry. (Of course, had the Basilisk still been alive, he and Hermione would have died.)


Nor would DD necessarily be able to hear the Basilisk in the pipes (and know what it is) simply because he speaks Parseltongue. Harry can hear it, true, but he has a bit of Slytherin's "true heir" in his scar. Ron, who knows Parseltongue when he hears it, hears nothing. Dumbledore managed to get a position for poor thirteen-year-old Hagrid (and presumably kept him out of Azkaban), but he couldn't keep him from being expelled. (I just realized that he could have repaired the pieces of the broken wand that Hagrid hides in his umbrella using the Elder Wand. No wonder Hagrid says, "Great man, Dumbledore!"), but if he could have proven Hagrid's innocence (and Tom's guilt), he surely would have done so. And if he could have prevented Myrtle's murder, I think he'd have done that, too.

At any rate, I think we should take Binns at his word that DD tried and failed to find the Chamber of Secrets. Sure, he should have questioned Moaning Myrtle, but it apparently never occurred to him that she could reveal the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets. And, as I said, it's just possible that even though he could understand Parseltongue, he couldn't speak it. Unlike Mermish, it's not a living language that he could learn by consorting with intelligent beings like the merchieftainess. He couldn't call snakes to him to learn their language and they wouldn't have taught him if he could. Tom Riddle and the Gaunts were born knowing it; Harry acquired the ability through the scar bit. How DD could possibly have learned it without being born a Parselmouth is unclear; he must have studied it in books written by the "wise and good" but unidentified Parselmouths he mentioned to Harry.

Or maybe, like Snape, he just knows Parseltongue when he hears it and knows that *Harry* understands what the Gaunts are saying. Being intelligent and knowing the circumstances behind those memories, perhaps having visited them multiple times, he has figured out what the Gaunts are saying to each other.

Carol, whose train of thought was interrupted by a phone call and hopes that she remembered everything she intended to say!




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 16 20:42:45 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:42:45 -0000
Subject: Lucius and DD was Re: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h18u1g+rc59@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h19045+2h6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187085

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
 He could never have found it had it not been for Harry and could never have opened it had it not been for his gift for mimicry. (Of course, had the Basilisk still been alive, he and Hermione would have died.)

Pippin:
The basilisk could not enter the Chamber proper until it was called. Normally, it lived behind the statue of Slytherin, in the  same manner as Fluffy, the obstacle troll of Book One and other treasure guardians of the WW. Presumably there is a spell that transports food in and waste out. A pity that Neville did not know it, since it would have made life in the RoR far more convenient.

 Unless  Ron said "Speak to me, Slytherin, greatest of the Hogwarts Four" in parseltongue, he and Hermione would be safe, unless someone had called the basilisk and not returned it to its lair.

Pippin




From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Tue Jun 16 18:58:12 2009
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:58:12 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1710n+7veb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h18q04+kcbe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187086

> Kat:
> Why
> would he 'take a stand' when he is an intelligent man and knows this will get
> him killed? Far safer to go along with it - for now. To keep himself, and his
> wife and son safe.
> 
> 
> Kate:
> Where is the canon that Lucius was one of the Death Eaters in masks at the world
> cup? None that I've seen. <SNIP>
> 

> 
> Kate:
> Since Lucius had no real concept of what the diary was, what better way to get
> rid of more descriminating evidence (he was after all disposing of others via
> Knockturn Alley) and set up someone he must be aware is, lets say, less than
> respectful about him.
> 

The real HP interpretation :::


Actually we all interpreted HP books incorrectly. Here is the correct interpretation : 

DD was the greatest dark wizard of all times. One prophecy was made by Professor Trelawney ( the scene was omitted from the books to misguide the readers) that either a foreign dark wizard or a heir of slytherin will have any chance of ever defeating him. So DD prepared a big plan of world domination. Once he got Grindelwald out of his way, he made sweet innocent and talented Tom Riddle a scapegoat. Actually DD killed and tortured people using LVs mask ? so that people believed that Tom Riddle is the actual villain. Bellatrix and Malfoys were the only people who knew the truth so DD framed those innocent people also. 

In the epilogue, actually DD is the emperor of the world and since Harry is his right hand man , all is well for him. 

Everything we see in HP books that contradicts this story is either a mistake of Harry's POV or the author's mistake or Devil trying to fool us or snurgles are behind it.

Do I need to say "In my opinion" ??

Sorry for being .. dont know what.

Parantap





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 17 03:06:09 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:06:09 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1710n+7veb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h19mj1+3u25@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187087

> Alla:
> 
> I am 99% sure that Lucius had a very real concept of what the diary was, canon (or taking my word back) will be provided tomorrow evening.

Alla:

Replying to myself, I see that Magpie already posted a gist of what I was thinking about, but I will quote some anyway.

"The same person as last time, Lucius," said Dumbledore. "But this time, Lord Voldemort was acting through somebody else. By means of this diary" - p.335, paperback.

And then it goes till the end of the page and the next one - the plan to frame Ginny, how Dobby points at Lucius and everything else.

I wanted to find something else though, but maybe I dreamt it up - I thought that somewhere in DH or HBP there is a reference to Voldemort being unhappy how Lucius did not safeguard the diary horcrux well. I will check it more at the later time.

Alla




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 17 03:24:20 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:24:20 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h19mj1+3u25@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h19nl4+j824@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187088


> Alla:
> I wanted to find something else though, but maybe I dreamt it up - I thought that somewhere in DH or HBP there is a reference to Voldemort being unhappy how Lucius did not safeguard the diary horcrux well. I will check it more at the later time.


Potioncat:
I think it must be in DH. I remember something along that line too. Check out the Prince's Tale....maybe? I'm pretty sure Lucius didn't know the Diary was a Horcrux, but there's something about LV's wrath at the loss of the diary. This is why I think Lucius was acting on his own when he slipped the diary into Ginny's things. 

So obviously, if he's using his master's belongings for his own purposes, he isn't expecting LV to come back, and he's comfortable moving along on his own agenda.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Jun 17 03:54:56 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:54:56 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h19nl4+j824@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h19peg+nd3o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187089

 
> > Alla:
> > I wanted to find something else though, but maybe I dreamt it up - I thought that somewhere in DH or HBP there is a reference to Voldemort being unhappy how Lucius did not safeguard the diary horcrux well. I will check it more at the later time.
> 
Pippin:
It's in HBP chapter 23.
"When Voldemort discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all its powers, I am told that his anger was terrible to behold."

"But I thought he meant Lucius Malfoy to smuggle it into Hogwarts?"

"Yes, he did, years ago, when he was sure he would be able to create more Horcruxes, but still Lucius was supposed to wait for Voldemort's say-so, and he never received it, for Voldemort vanished shortly after giving him the diary.

"No doubt he thought that Lucius would not dare do anything with the Horcrux other than guard it carefully, but he was counting too much upon Lucius's fear of a master who had been gone for years and whom Lucius believed dead. Of course, Lucius did not know what the diary really was. I understand that Voldemort had told him the diary would cause the Chamber of Secrets to reopen because it was cleverly enchanted. Had Lucius known he held a portion of his master's soul in his hands, he would undoubtedly have treated it with more reverence--but instead he went ahead and carried out the old plan for his own ends: By planting the diary upon Arthur Weasley's daughter, he hoped to discredit Arthur and get rid of a highly incriminating magical object in one stroke."

According to Dumbledore, then, Lucius only knew the diary would open the chamber,  not that it would possess or sap the life of the person he gave it too, which only a horcrux could have done.  Incidentally, this shows that Lucius knew that TM Riddle was Voldemort and expected other people to know also -- otherwise there wouldn't be anything incriminating about an old diary.

Pippin







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 17 03:58:17 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:58:17 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h19nl4+j824@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h19pkp+3vq1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187090

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

> > Alla:

> I thought that somewhere in DH or HBP there is a reference 
> to Voldemort being unhappy how Lucius did not safeguard 
> the diary horcrux well. 
 
 
> Potioncat:

> I think it must be in DH. 


zanooda:

No, it's in HBP, "Horcruxes" chapter. I don't have this book at the moment, so I can't give you the quote or the page until tomorrow, but basically DD says there that Lucius didn't know the diary was a Horcrux, otherwise he would have been more careful with it. According to DD, Lucius only knew that the diary would open the Chamber and let the monster out. DD also says that LV's anger, when he found out about the diary's destruction, was "terrible to behold" (or something of the sort :-)). 




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 14:47:39 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:47:39 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] World Building (was Why did Snape _really_ hate 
	Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <055D60C90468447EBA375A24E367FB98@JerriPC>
References: <1244625861.1414.72615.m5@yahoogroups.com>
	 <055D60C90468447EBA375A24E367FB98@JerriPC>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906170747v19358737kf3cfb1601573b3d6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187091

>Jerry wrote:
>Sure, there were occasions when the WW didn't make logical sense,
>when numbers didn't add up. Little things had Nick been dead 400 or
>500 years, had there been modern type plumbing "1000 years ago"
>or so, when the Castle and Chamber of Secrets had been built.

No.Limberger responds:
I'd like to address the comment about plumbing.  Plumbing actually
goes back quite far into antiquity.  The Minoan palace of Knossos on
the island of Crete in the Aegean Sea, which was built circa 1700 B.C.E.
had four separate drainage systems that emptied into sewers made
of stone.  (Reference: http://www.theplumber.com/eng.html).  The
palace even had flush-able toilets.  Greeks developed cold & hot
water systems.  Public baths in ancient Rome received their water
via plumbing.  In fact, the term 'plumbing' comes from the Latin word
"plumus", which means lead.  To get water into ancient Rome and
other Roman sites, ancient Romans built aqueducts, the ruins of
which remain in any locations around the ancient world.  Thus,
it's entirely feasible, imo, that 1000 years ago, a group of wizards
could have installed essentially modern plumbing into Hogwarts.

>Jerry wrote:
>How many students at Hogworts, how big was the WW, how
>does the economy work, how come G. didn't win the house
>cup when the "legendary Charlie Weasley" was seeker? And how
>long ago was that anyway?

No.Limberger responds:
JKR probably didn't regard providing answers to questions such
as these as being suitably relevant to the overall story.  Could
JKR have made the descriptions of the WW much more detailed?
Yes, but I think that she did a very good job.  No author answers
absolutely every question.

>Jerry wrote:
>I have come to the reluctant conclusion that JKR wasn't a
>"world builder".

No.Limberger responds:
I disagree with this statement.  Yes, JRK built the WW.  If
her descriptions leave some things up to the readers'
imaginations, there is nothing wrong with that.

>Jerry wrote:
>She created very compelling characters and put them into
>interesting and adventurous situations. But as far as the
>Wizarding world and rules of magic, too much of the time,
>in spite of all those years of planning and charts and stuff,
>she seems to have been "making it up as she went along",

No.Limberger responds:
Every author of fiction makes things up.  That's the point of
fiction.  A story is a set of ideas dreamed up by an author
who is able to put them into written form.  The more interesting
the characters and settings, the more interesting the
stories become.  If JKR believed that she needed to sit
down and explain all possible rules of magic (for example), how
much time would that have taken and would that have been
more a distraction than something that would have contributed to
the overall plot?  JRK, imo, wrote enough about the WW in
order to convey the story within what comes across as a
very plausible world of magic and wizardry.

>Jerry wrote:
>I could list many, many more places where the canon
>doesn't make logical or mathematical sense.

No.Limberger responds:
Personally, I don't find it necessary to obsess whether each
and every element in a story is completely logical or whether
each and every aspect of a fantasy universe is explained to
the smallest detail.  Instead, I enjoy the stories, characters
and WW for what they are.  Sure, I'd enjoy it if I knew a bit
more about particular characters or the WW at large, but
I can certainly fill in some of the blanks in my own mind
from what is conveyed.  The encyclopedia that JKR is
working on will probably fill in some of the things that she
didn't include in the books.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Wed Jun 17 19:17:02 2009
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:17:02 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] World Building (was Why did Snape _really_ hate 
	Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90906170747v19358737kf3cfb1601573b3d6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1244625861.1414.72615.m5@yahoogroups.com>
	 <055D60C90468447EBA375A24E367FB98@JerriPC>
	 <7ef72f90906170747v19358737kf3cfb1601573b3d6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0906171217l1840988cw954ad06b7e564374@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187092

I answered the plumbing question in my head very simply. Hogwarts the
castle is ancient, as is the school. However, even in the WW standards
of modern sanitation must be met (Let's face it even the Amish have
modern plumbing and such to due sanitation laws). So, Hogwarts simply
installed modern lavarotories to keep up with sanitation laws. And,
keep in mind, the school is magical, and the drains merely opened to
the chamber. Certainly an enchanted castle can accomodate that.

Lynda



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 17 23:17:10 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:17:10 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h19peg+nd3o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1bthm+86t7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187093

Pippin wrote:
<snip quotes>
> 
> According to Dumbledore, then, Lucius only knew the diary would open the chamber,  not that it would possess or sap the life of the person he gave it too, which only a horcrux could have done.  Incidentally, this shows that Lucius knew that TM Riddle was Voldemort and expected other people to know also -- otherwise there wouldn't be anything incriminating about an old diary.
> 
> Pippin
>
Carol responds:

I don't quite understand the logic of your last paragraph. Yes, it shows that Lucius knew who Voldemort was. He also knew, as Draco informs the Polyjuiced Ron and Harry, that last time the Chamber was opened, a "Mud-blood" died. Since the diary contains the memory of Tom Riddle framing Hagrid (and presumably others, since DD says that it proved Tom Riddle was the Heir of Slytherin), I'd say that it was indeed a highly incriminating magical object--it proved that Tom Riddle had killed Moaning Myrtle. For Lucius to have it in his possession makes him an accomplice to that crime, and suggests that he intends to use it for similar purposes.

If you mean, though, that just having a possession of Tom Riddle's is incriminating because it would prove that he was a trusted associate of Voldemort's, I suppose that's true enough. But I don't think that's the main reason it's incriminating. A diary that opens the Chamber of Secrets and (presumably) releases the monster within would be a Dark and dangerous object even if it weren't a Horcrux, and Lucius is getting rid of it along with the stuff he's selling to Borgin.

IMO, he wants to discredit Dumbledore as well as the Weasleys, and he wouldn't mind at all if another "Mudblood" dies. (Cf. Draco: "I hope it's Granger.") It's clear from his talk in front of Dobby that he knew that students would be endangered by his action (and no one would be disgraced if they weren't!).

BTW, the unnamed source of DD's information has to be Snape.

Carol, thanking Pippin for providing those detailed quotes




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 17 23:32:21 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:32:21 -0000
Subject: World Building (was Why did Snape _really_ hate Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0906171217l1840988cw954ad06b7e564374@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <h1bue5+3vgm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187094

Lynda Cordova wrote:
>
> I answered the plumbing question in my head very simply. Hogwarts the castle is ancient, as is the school. However, even in the WW standards of modern sanitation must be met (Let's face it even the Amish have modern plumbing and such to due sanitation laws). So, Hogwarts simply installed modern lavarotories to keep up with sanitation laws. And, keep in mind, the school is magical, and the drains merely opened to the chamber. Certainly an enchanted castle can accomodate that.
> 
> Lynda
>
Carol responds:
But the problem is that the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets, which was created by Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago, is a water faucet (or tap) in a girls' restroom with what appears to be early twentieth-century plumbing. How could that faucet have been there a thousand years ago unless the ancient wizards had modern plumbing? It isn't just the drain pipe that Harry slides down--it's the serpent-marked faucet on the sink that doesn't work that we're concerned about. (And Dumbledore appears to have used chamber pots at one time--wonder how long ago that was?)

Anyway, I suppose that the school could have had Roman-style plumbing upgraded to twentieth-century style later, but the implication is that the sink that doesn't work, and the serpent-decorated faucet has been there for a thousand years. It seems to be just another instance (like the Charlie Weasley problem) that JKR didn't reason out fully. But at least, in this case, we can figure out a solution for ourselves.

How she'll solve the seven-year discrepancy in Charlie's age (which I noticed the first time I read SS/PS) I don't know. I guess that Gryffindor somehow didn't win the Quidditch Cup in the time he was there even though elsewhere someone says that they haven't won it since Charlie left!

Carol, who finds such matters distracting but not sufficient reason to stop reading the books




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 18 01:42:02 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:42:02 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1bthm+86t7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1c61a+ceg9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187095


> Pippin wrote:
 Incidentally, this shows that Lucius knew that TM Riddle was Voldemort and expected other people to know also -- otherwise there wouldn't be anything incriminating about an old diary.

> Carol responds:
> 
> I don't quite understand the logic of your last paragraph. 

Pippin:

I was assuming that Lucius only knew that the diary would open the chamber because Voldemort told him so.    If it were found in a search of the Malfoy house, there would be nothing to connect it with Voldemort or the Chamber of Secrets -- except the name. If it weren't for that, I don't suppose an auror would give it a second glance.  Horcruxes don't seem to set off dark detectors, or Harry would never have gotten in and out of Hogwarts 6th year. <g>

Pippin





From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 02:24:56 2009
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:24:56 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
Message-ID: <h1c8ho+bk5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187096

(apologies if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it on a search)

After watching CoS with my young already-a-HP-fan daughter (who shares Harry's and JKR's birthday!), I went back to a few passages in the book.

And it occurred to me...

How did Ron and Harry get onto the Hogwarts grounds??

We know from GoF that DD placed charms around the entrances.  We also know that even in the first three books that the students are safe at Hogwarts.  And of course, no one can Apparate into Hogwarts.

1. Maybe DD's charms are keyed to students and staff?  But even if they are, it seems that everyone has to enter via the front gate or via the boat docks (except for the Marauder Map's entrances, but those are all underground).  AFAIK no one (even staff) flies in via broomstick.  It would be inconsistent to prohibit Apparition but not broomsticks.

2. Side question: By the time of HBP, are DD's charms enhanced, or are they the same as they've always been?  IIRC even the Marauder's Map's entrances are sealed off, although I don't remember if it's only sealed off to "outsiders".

Still, we're left with the notion that a flying car can traverse DD's perimeter.  So why can two students come in via Ford Anglia, but no one can saunter in from Hogsmeade (or elsewhere) by broomstick or Apparition, but only via the front gates?

Maybe DD already knew from the headcount of students coming off the Hogwarts Express that Ron and Harry weren't on the train.  And maybe he deduced (from the Evening Prophet) that Ron and Harry were the likely drivers.  And maybe he had a special Anglia-sized hole in the perimeter charm.

But that's a lot of maybes.

'tis odd that JKR didn't address this with a throwaway line like "Professor Dumbledore's charm detected your approach, and he allowed you onto the grounds, else you'd have likely bounced onto the front steps of Honeydukes!"

kennyg1864



From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 03:58:19 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:58:19 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1c8ho+bk5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ce0r+vd8c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187097

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:

> AFAIK no one (even staff) flies in via broomstick.It would be 
> inconsistent to prohibit Apparition but not broomsticks.


zanooda:

You forgot Charlie's friends flying in on broomsticks in PS/SS to take Norbert to Romania... :-).





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 04:28:52 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:28:52 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h15jfs+ustn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1cfq4+rpkd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187098

> > > Alla:
> > > 
> > > I see a third direction, which is just as speculative as ever, they targeted Snape and Snape did all he could to make their life hell as well, probably with the help of Lucius Malfoy.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> Kate: 
> > I don't see any of this (above) in canon.
> > 
> > Sirius is a bully in canon, his treatment of Kreacher is another proof of how he treats people.  
> > 
> > Lucius Malfoy was older than Snape and therefore would not have been at school for all the time Snape was there.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, that is why it is speculation :) about the years Lucius was in school while Snape was there.

Montavilla47:

If Lucius was a prefect when Snape started school, then he would have been 
gone by Snape (and the Marauders') fourth year.  For the three years he was 
present, he would have been a prefect and subject to higher standards of 
behavior than other students.

If Lucius had teamed up with Snape in order to make James and Sirius's life 
hell for the three years that Lucius was there, I think it would have rated 
a mention from Sirius when he discussed Snape's school buddies in GoF.  





From sweenlit at gmail.com  Thu Jun 18 05:04:03 2009
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:04:03 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building (was Why did Snape _really_ 
	hate Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <h1bue5+3vgm@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0906171217l1840988cw954ad06b7e564374@mail.gmail.com>
	 <h1bue5+3vgm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0906172204t4b017c35rfebdfb008a7acfad@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187099

Carol:
But the problem is that the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets, which
was created by Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago, is a water
faucet (or tap) in a girls' restroom with what appears to be early
twentieth-century plumbing. How could that faucet have been there a
thousand years ago unless the ancient wizards had modern plumbing?

Lynda:
I understand the problem. I did think of that myself. My answer (very
possibly not Rowling's though) is that Hogwarts is a castle imbued
with centuries of ancient magic. So, perhaps, by some means unknown to
those who
designed the modernized bathrooms, the magic of the castle caused the
opening to the COS to fix itself to the new, modernized drain system.
Much in the same way, food is magicked onto the tables of the dining
room for every meal. Maybe castle proud House Elves even helped as
part of their duty to the school's headmaster/staff/students of the
time.

Lynda



From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 06:07:28 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:07:28 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h19peg+nd3o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1clj0+csct@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187100

> Pippin:
<snip>
> "No doubt he thought that Lucius would not dare do anything with the Horcrux other than guard it carefully, but he was counting too much upon Lucius's fear of a master who had been gone for years and whom Lucius believed dead. Of course, Lucius did not know what the diary really was. I understand that Voldemort had told him the diary would cause the Chamber of Secrets to reopen because it was cleverly enchanted. Had Lucius known he held a portion of his master's soul in his hands, he would undoubtedly have treated it with more reverence--but instead he went ahead and carried out the old plan for his own ends: By planting the diary upon Arthur Weasley's daughter, he hoped to discredit Arthur and get rid of a highly incriminating magical object in one stroke."
> 
> According to Dumbledore, then, Lucius only knew the diary would open the chamber,  not that it would possess or sap the life of the person he gave it too, which only a horcrux could have done.  Incidentally, this shows that Lucius knew that TM Riddle was Voldemort and expected other people to know also -- otherwise there wouldn't be anything incriminating about an old diary.

Montavilla47:

My understanding was that Lucius intended for someone to open
the Chamber of Secrets.  Unless he thought that Ginny was going
to read the *blank* pages of the diary and thus get the instructions
for opening the Chamber *and* be motivated on her own to do so,
I think Lucius must have known that the diary was capable of 
at least persuading people to do its bidding.

That's not to say that Lucius knew it was a Horcrux.  He obviously
didn't.  It's possible that he knew how to communicate with it (as
Harry and Ginny discovered by writing in it), and the diary persuaded
Lucius to smuggle it into the school, knowing it could then open
the Chamber.

It's possible that Voldemort, in giving the diary to Lucius, expected
the then infant Draco to be the one possessed into opening the 
Chamber and Lucius came up with the switch in order to safeguard
his son--although it's possible that Lucius didn't understand all
that much about it--other that it was a way to embarrass 
Dumbledore and embarrassing Arthur was an added bonus.

It's even possible that the diary did more than "persuade" Lucius.
If it could possess Ginny, it could possess Lucius.  It might have
wanted to get into that school and used Lucius's hatred of Arthur
as a motivator.

That's all speculation, of course.  My point was that, the way
I read it, the incrimination was to come from Ginny opening
the Chamber, not from Ginny having the diary in her possession.








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Jun 18 12:18:22 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:18:22 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h16cka+6kvc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dbae+a0sl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187101

 
> Steve replies:  From a counselor's pov, in real life, love does work like that many times. Many people who truly love someone, go the extra mile to make a special effort to empathize with what that person needs and if it is within their power to do so, will make an effort to do so.  True, some people have no clue what others that they love want or need.  But if those people are in loving relationships w/ that person, and if that person is aware of the lack of empathy and understanding going on there, it is going to affect the future of that relationship. 

Potioncat:
I hope you're not saying that if one person doesn't automatically know what the other person wants/needs then there isn't love. Now, I'd have to agree that having learned what the other wants/needs and making no effort to provide it (within reason) is a different matter.

Ron had to read a book to find out how to please Hermione (no smirking out there). We saw him listening more and stopping himself to reconsider her feelings.

(Well, I had to work canon in, didn't I?)




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Thu Jun 18 13:44:50 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:44:50 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: World Building (was Why did Snape _really_ 
	hate Harry?)
In-Reply-To: <h1bue5+3vgm@eGroups.com>
References: <43e41d1e0906171217l1840988cw954ad06b7e564374@mail.gmail.com>
	 <h1bue5+3vgm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906180644p3089b29fp69a7308fc208b32c@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187102

>Carol wrote:
>But the problem is that the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets,
>which was >created by Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago,
>is a water faucet (or tap) in a girls' restroom with what appears to
>be early twentieth-century plumbing. How could that faucet have
>been there a thousand years ago unless the ancient wizards had
>modern plumbing?

No.Limberger responds:
Salazar Slytherin made the Chamber of Secrets, as well as the
secret means of getting to it.  He no doubt deliberately hid the
chamber in the drainage/sewage system so that the basilisk
would have no difficulty infiltrating many areas of the castle
unnoticed.  Thus, the only plausible explanation, imo, is that
1000 years ago, the WW had what we would consider to be
modern plumbing or a reasonable facsimile.

>Carol wrote:
>I suppose that the school could have had Roman-style plumbing
>upgraded to twentieth-century style later, but the implication is
>that the sink that doesn't work, and the serpent-decorated faucet
>has been there for a thousand years.

No.Limberger responds:
To do such an upgrade, imo, could have easily exposed the
location of the Chamber of Secrets, as well as the secret
entrance through the sink areal; unless Slytherin placed some
kind of curse upon the entrance and its connecting network
of pipes that leads to the Chamber of Secrets that would
provide additional protection.  I prefer the view that the WW
had the equivalent of modern plumbing and fixtures 1000 years
earlier, unless, like the Room of Requirement, Hogwarts
bathrooms could transfigure themselves to continually appear
to keep up with current bathroom fixture designs without
disturbing Slytherin's handiwork.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 14:16:01 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:16:01 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h19nl4+j824@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1di71+1qq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187103

Alla:
> > I wanted to find something else though, but maybe I dreamt it up - I thought
that somewhere in DH or HBP there is a reference to Voldemort being unhappy how
Lucius did not safeguard the diary horcrux well. I will check it more at the
later time.
>
Pippin:
It's in HBP chapter 23. <SNIP canon go UPTHREAD to read it>

Alla:

Aha, thank you so much for typing it up.

Pippin:
According to Dumbledore, then, Lucius only knew the diary would open the
chamber, not that it would possess or sap the life of the person he gave it
too, which only a horcrux could have done. Incidentally, this shows that Lucius
knew that TM Riddle was Voldemort and expected other people to know also --
otherwise there wouldn't be anything incriminating about an old diary.

Alla:

Well, my original point was to argue against the idea that Lucius has no idea what diary is really, I mean even if he does not know that it is a Horcrux, isn't it enough that he knows that Diary would open the Chamber and gives it to Ginny anyway, not just disposes of some unknown dark arts item?

I do not understand though how it will not be incriminating if other people do not know connection between Riddle and Vodlemort's names, they would still know that Diary opened the Chamber?

Potioncat:
<SNIP>
I'm pretty sure Lucius didn't know the Diary was a
Horcrux, but there's something about LV's wrath at the loss of the diary. This
is why I think Lucius was acting on his own when he slipped the diary into
Ginny's things.

So obviously, if he's using his master's belongings for his own purposes, he
isn't expecting LV to come back, and he's comfortable moving along on his own
agenda.

Alla:

Oh I agree with you that Lucius was acting on his own and would have been quite happy if Voldie would not have come back, thank you very much, heh. It does not mean to me though that his agenda was much different from Voldie's agenda. I know you did not say that, I am responding to the thread. I believe we are in agreement on that.

JMO,

Alla




From harry.read at westminster.org.uk  Wed Jun 17 18:49:37 2009
From: harry.read at westminster.org.uk (readharry85)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:49:37 -0000
Subject: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h0qcrp+8mqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1bds1+rv35@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187104

Alla:
> > > And I also wanted to add it somewhere, so this seems as good place as any about another reason why I totally buy reformed James. Well, of course as an aside  I never thought of him as totally bad guy in school and believed that his interactions with Snape are at least in part based on his hatred of Dark Magic, so it is not like I have to buy the transformation from horrible James to great James, however I certainly think that he did bad things in school as well, so I did think that he needed to grow up.

Montavilla47:
> > I don't get how a hatred of Dark Magic justifies (or even partially
> > justifies)  what James and Sirius do to Snape in SWM.

> Marion:
> Apparantly, it's the same mechanism that claims that spewing hate is
> a sign of 'an ability to love' and that a manipulative, megolamanic
> puppetmaster is 'the epitome of goodness' *grin*.


Or that someone who slipped an eleven-year-old girl a cursed diary in an attempt to exterminate Muggle-borns 'hesitated to harm children' - oh, wait, that was you, sorry.

readharry85




From kennyg1864 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 12:13:28 2009
From: kennyg1864 at yahoo.com (kennyg1864)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:13:28 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1ce0r+vd8c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1db18+47pn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187105

kennyg1864:
> > AFAIK no one (even staff) flies in via broomstick.It would be
> > inconsistent to prohibit Apparition but not broomsticks.

zanooda:

> You forgot Charlie's friends flying in on broomsticks in PS/SS to
> take Norbert to Romania... :-).


[Ed McMahon voice] You are correct, sir!

(er...ma'am)

This actually makes the "leaky Hogwarts charm" worse...as Charlie's friends aren't even current Hogwarts students! (presumably)

(and no exceptions for alumni either, since almost every wizard in the UK is a Hogwarts alumnus)

Anybody care to unravel this inconsistency?  "DD's charm repels only those (adult) wizards with bad intentions (with a loophole for transporters of illegally-procured dragons, as long as they're being taken out of Hogwarts, not in)"?

kennyg1864




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 15:42:53 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:42:53 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1cfq4+rpkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dn9t+kk3c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187106

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:

> If Lucius was a prefect when Snape started school, then he would 
> have been gone by Snape (and the Marauders') fourth year.  


zanooda:

I wonder if other Snape's Slytherin friends (Mulciber, Avery & Co) were also a year or two older than him. That would explain why they were not around during and after that DADA OWLs exam, and why Snape was all alone there with no one to come to his aid... :-).



> montavilla47 wrote:

> My point was that, the way I read it, the incrimination was 
> to come from Ginny opening the Chamber, not from Ginny having 
> the diary in her possession.


zanooda:

That's how I see it as well. My guess is Lucius believed the diary was supplied with some kind of built-in Imperius curse :-). Anyone who opened it or used it would be put under the curse and therefore would obey the diary's command and re-open the Chamber.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 18 15:44:34 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:44:34 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1di71+1qq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dnd2+877j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187107


> Alla:
> 
> I do not understand though how it will not be incriminating if other people do not know connection between Riddle and Voldemort's names, they would still know that Diary opened the Chamber?

Pippin:
Dumbledore said that Lucius wanted to get rid of a highly incriminating item. But why did Lucius think that just possessing the diary would incriminate him unless he knew that people would recognize the Riddle name? Nobody except Voldemort would know there was a diary involved.

Suppose you are an auror, and you are searching the Malfoy house for dark items. You notice an old Muggle diary dated fifty years previously, never written in, inscribed by one TM Riddle, a name you don't recognize. It doesn't appear to be enchanted, doesn't set off dark detectors,doesn't burn your eyes out or make you speak in limericks or anything like that. 

Okay, it's a little odd to find a Muggle item in a pureblood wizard's house. You question Lucius about it and he says, "No idea...long before my time, I'm afraid. Lots of old rubbish in a house like this. It's due of a good cleaning out, but try to get House Elves to do a decent job these days. You can't get good help anymore." (He's a good liar, since he convinced Crouch's tribunal that he'd been under the Imperius curse.) 

Even if you made the connection between the date of the diary and the date of Moaning Myrtle's death, why would you even dream they are connected? 

Am I missing something?

I don't think Lucius probed the uses of the diary himself. Surely the soul bit within would have made more use of a skilled dark wizard than it could of eleven year old Ginny Weasley, if it had the choice.

Pippin






From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 15:52:45 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:52:45 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1dnd2+877j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dnsd+6sdr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187108

> > Alla:
> > 
> > I do not understand though how it will not be incriminating if other people do not know connection between Riddle and Voldemort's names, they would still know that Diary opened the Chamber?
> 
> Pippin:
> Dumbledore said that Lucius wanted to get rid of a highly incriminating item. But why did Lucius think that just possessing the diary would incriminate him unless he knew that people would recognize the Riddle name? Nobody except Voldemort would know there was a diary involved.
> 
> Suppose you are an auror, and you are searching the Malfoy house for dark items. You notice an old Muggle diary dated fifty years previously, never written in, inscribed by one TM Riddle, a name you don't recognize. It doesn't appear to be enchanted, doesn't set off dark detectors,doesn't burn your eyes out or make you speak in limericks or anything like that. 

Montavilla47:

But who is to say that it wouldn't set off dark detectors? It probably 
would.  

Which brings up an interesting question.  If Harry was a Horcrux and
Horcruxes are extremely dark magical objects--why didn't Harry set
off dark detectors in HBP?  They were scanning for dark magical 
objects all over Hogwarts that year.






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 15:55:19 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:55:19 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1db18+47pn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1do17+59ea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187109

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:

> DD's charm repels only those (adult) wizards with bad intentions?


zanooda:

Maybe :-). Otherwise, I have only two guesses:

1. JKR didn't think in detail about security measures until later books :-).

2. Some security measures were not there at the beginning of the story (books 1-2), but were added due to certain circumstances (for example, Sirius's escape from Azkaban, LV being at large in HBP etc.). 
 





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 16:04:10 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:04:10 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1dnsd+6sdr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dohq+rmro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187110

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:

> Which brings up an interesting question.  If Harry was a Horcrux and
> Horcruxes are extremely dark magical objects--why didn't Harry set
> off dark detectors in HBP?  


zanooda:

That's probably because an object becomes a Horcrux (a Dark object) only after some dark magic is used on it. There is a dark spell which creates a Horcrux. In Harry's case there was no dark spell, no incantation at all. There was nothing for the dark detectors to detect, IMO. Just a guess :-).




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 18 16:16:57 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:16:57 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1do17+59ea@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dp9p+j2ev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187111


Zanooda:
> 2. Some security measures were not there at the beginning of the story (books 1-2), but were added due to certain circumstances (for example, Sirius's escape from Azkaban, LV being at large in HBP etc.).
>

Pippin:
Additional security measures were taken at the beginning of HBP, as Tonks tells Harry. Dumbledore later has to lift some of these charms so he and Harry can fly back to Hogwarts. But there were no charms against entering or leaving by air before. Thus Sirius can escape via Hippogryff, and Harry and his friends can leave via thestral in OOP.

Charming Hogwarts against aerial entry and exit probably interferes with owl post. Maybe that's why they didn't do it until HBP when owls were being checked anyway.

Pippin
 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 16:29:27 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:29:27 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1c8ho+bk5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dq17+a3in@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187112

kennyg wrote:
<snip>
> 
> How did Ron and Harry get onto the Hogwarts grounds??
> 
> We know from GoF that DD placed charms around the entrances.  We also know that even in the first three books that the students are safe at Hogwarts.  And of course, no one can Apparate into Hogwarts.

<snip>

Carol responds:

Zanooda mentioned Charlie and his friends flying in on broomsticks in SS/PS. There's another instance of something much bigger flying onto the Hogwarts grounds: Madame Maxime's house-sized flying coach with its flying horses. And, of course, the Thestrals fly Harry and his friends to the Ministry in OoP--presumably, the Thestrals fly home afterward. That must be how Harry's friends returned to Hogwarts though Harry himself goes by portkey!

So though I agree with you that it makes little sense to have anti-Apparition spells on Hogwarts but no anti-flying charms, I don't think the anti-flying charms were put in place until HBP, when Snape informed Dumbledore that Draco was under orders to kill him. Since Draco was unlikely to act without DE backup, Dumbledore took unusual precautions to keep them out: anti-flying spells, chains on the gates, anti-climbing spells on the walls, guarding the secret passages into the school (how he knew about them all, I don't know).

I think that until then, Dumbledore relied on the ancient protections against harm to students and staff that Snape mentions to Harry during one of the Occlumency lessons but doesn't specify. (We don't know of any student other than Moaning Myrtle who's actually died in the school itself or on the grounds; Cedric was far away when he was killed.) And in CoS, Voldemort was still in vapor form, having left Quirrel's body. The danger in CoS comes from a source that DD didn't anticipate, the diary.

The first new protective measures appear to have been taken in PoA against Sirius Black, who nevertheless was still able to get into the school twice. I don't recall additional spells being placed in GoF, but maybe DD put them there after Wormtail escaped. And you'd think that additional spells would have been placed after LV was restored to his body, but the only new spells I recall were placed in HBP. And those seem to have dissolved when Dumbledore died--there were no chains on the gate to keep the Death Eaters from escaping. (Either that or Snape removed them so that Draco could escape and the DEs would leave the grounds, but I think Harry would have noticed if he did that.) Anyway, as of CoS, no new protective measures have been added. The DEs aren't active (they think that LV is dead). Lucius Malfoy (who is busy making trouble on his own) has no trouble getting into Hogwarts.

(Aside to Pippin: I do think that Filch's Dark detectors would have detected the Dark magic in the diary, but they weren't in use then. It was, after all, not just a Horcrux. It was enchanted, as LV told Lucius Malfoy, to open the Chamber of Secrets and release the monster--which is why it wasn't hidden like the other Horcruxes, just held in reserve until LV was ready to use it. Harry had no such Dark spells on him, and the soul bit in him had not been placed there by Dark magic. Just my opinion.)

Carol, just letting her thoughts flow and not presenting any coherent argument




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 16:53:59 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:53:59 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1cfq4+rpkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1drf7+r7nt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187113

Montavilla47:
> 
> If Lucius was a prefect when Snape started school, then he would have been gone by Snape (and the Marauders') fourth year.  For the three years he was present, he would have been a prefect and subject to higher standards of behavior than other students.
> 
> If Lucius had teamed up with Snape in order to make James and Sirius's life hell for the three years that Lucius was there, I think it would have rated a mention from Sirius when he discussed Snape's school buddies in GoF.
>
Carol responds:
As I said earlier, he'd have been gone before that. He's mentioned as being 41 when Snape is still 35 (October of Harry's fifth year, which would be 1995). So he's about six years older than Snape and was probably in his seventh year (unless he was one of the older sixth years). At most, their school years overlapped by two years and more likely by one year. And how many sixteen- or seventeen-year-olds run around with eleven-year-old children? I can't imagine the suave Lucius Malfoy doing any such thing. I do think, though, that he noticed the precocious little boy and paid him some special attention, perhaps letting him run errands for him, which would account for their later friendship and Sirius Black's snide taunt, "Lucius Malfoy's lapdog," in OoP.

I agree with you that he would have been mentioned in the list of Snape's school "gang" if they'd run around together. That list does include "the Lestranges," not the always forgotten Rabastan but Rodolphus and his future wife, Bellatrix Black. We know that Bellatrix is also older than Snape--she was out of school by the time that Sirius (and therefore Severus) was fifteen--but maybe Severus was a junior member of the gang, along with Avery. Oddly, Mulciber isn't mentioned, but, then, consistency isn't one of JKR's virtues.

Anyway, I certainly agree that there's no evidence, not even the tiniest hint, that big boy Lucius and little boy Severus teamed up to bully anyone, nor does the young Severus we see on the Hogwarts Express seem at all the bully type. He just seems eager to get to Hogwarts and learn as much magic as he can and to be Sorted into Slytherin, the House of "brains." *He* doesn't bully Sirius and James. They bully him.

Carol, who was thinking that Bellatrix was at least as old as Lucius (for some reason other than the untrustworthy Black family tree)




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Thu Jun 18 17:12:35 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:12:35 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1dq17+a3in@eGroups.com>
References: <h1c8ho+bk5r@eGroups.com> <h1dq17+a3in@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906181012w3fb0c662nf860294e188dc4a3@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187114

>Carol wrote:
>Zanooda mentioned Charlie and his friends flying in on broomsticks in
>SS/PS. There's another instance of something much bigger flying onto
>the Hogwarts grounds: Madame Maxime's house-sized flying coach
>with its flying horses. And, of course, the Thestrals fly Harry and his
>friends to the Ministry in OoP--presumably, the Thestrals fly home
>afterward. That must be how Harry's friends returned to Hogwarts
>though Harry himself goes by portkey!

No.Limberger responds:
There are also the owls that deliver mail.  This is the first known instance
of anything flying into Hogwarts grounds, which includes an owlery.

I would suspect that there was no perceived danger from someone
flying onto Hogwarts grounds as the preferred method of travel by
LV and DE's is apparition.  Granted, this would be a security breach,
but since LV was essentially powerless for SS, PS and PoA and
since the DE's were hiding, permitting flying into Hogwarts at that
time was okay.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 17:25:54 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:25:54 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1dbae+a0sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1dtb2+v9on@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187115

Steve wrote:

> > From a counselor's pov, in real life, love does work like that many times. Many people who truly love someone, go the extra mile to make a special effort to empathize with what that person needs and if it is within their power to do so, will make an effort to do so.  True, some people have no clue what others that they love want or need.  But if those people are in loving relationships w/ that person, and if that person is aware of the lack of empathy and understanding going on there, it is going to affect the future of that relationship. 
> 
Potioncat responded:
> I hope you're not saying that if one person doesn't automatically know what the other person wants/needs then there isn't love. Now, I'd have to agree that having learned what the other wants/needs and making no effort to provide it (within reason) is a different matter.
> 
> Ron had to read a book to find out how to please Hermione (no smirking out there). We saw him listening more and stopping himself to reconsider her feelings.
> 
> (Well, I had to work canon in, didn't I?)
>
Carol adds:
To get back to fifteen- or sixteen-year-old boys knowing what a girl wants and trying to respect her feelings, Harry has no clue why Cho is crying all the time and has to deal with the "chest monster" when he see Dean kissing Ginny. He doesn't want to upset Ron by asking Ginny out (which shows that he doesn't understand Ron, either--Ron's been hinting for ages that he's like to see them together), but he doesn't consider Ginny's feelings. Sure, she wrote that silly valentine when she was eleven ("His eyes are as green as a pickled toad"), but she's shown no sign lately that she's more interested in Harry than in Dean. And Ron (from GoF through half of DH) is even worse in terms of understanding Hermione. He makes no attempt at all to understand Lav Lav; he just enjoys snogging her publicly.

I don't see how we can expect more of Severus Snape at the same age. True, he's been Lily's friend for a long time and he taught her about the WW when they were both nine or ten, but she's the one who's drawing away from him. She wants him to give up his friendship with Avery and Mulciber, which he, at that point, simply can't do. He just wants her to see that James Potter is an arrogant toerag. They're kids; they don't spend much time together because they're in different Houses (Ron has less excuse; he's in the same House and most of the same classes as Hermione and spends a lot of time in her company. I like Ron, but he's emotionally dense!)

Once Lily stops talking to Severus, it's impossible for him to know what she wants. No doubt he thinks that she's making a serious mistake by getting closer to James Potter and actually going out with him, but he probably thinks as Harry does that he must have forced her against her will. (We never read about boys giving love potions to girls, but it could happen, with potentially serious consequences for the girl.) And once they're out of school, they never even see each other. She's in the Order and he's a DE. All he knows is that, married or not, he still loves her (I think the Lily he loves is the purely imaginary pure and innocent being symbolized by his Patronus, but also his childhood friend. If there's a touch of desire it's no more than Harry feels for Ginny.) And what he wants for her when he hears that LV is targeting her is her safety, her life. It never occurs to him that she might not want to live without her husband and child.

He never really understands her, but how could he? He can't comprehend the possibility that she might actually love James Potter, for one, or that she might feel the same way about her child that he feels about her. (Lily wants Harry to live even if it means that he's an orphan; Snape wants Lily to live even if it means that she's a childless widow.) And, as Harry understands and Voldemort doesn't, it has nothing to do with desiring her for himself. He just, quite simply, can't bear the idea of her being murdered, especially if it's partly his own fault.

Carol, who thinks that most teenagers are too busy trying to figure out themselves to truly understand anyone else's thoughts and feelings





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun 18 18:11:21 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:11:21 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1c8ho+bk5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1e009+ltkc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187116

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kennyg1864" <kennyg1864 at ...> wrote:
>
> (apologies if this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it on a search)
> 
> After watching CoS with my young already-a-HP-fan daughter (who shares Harry's and JKR's birthday!), I went back to a few passages in the book.
> 
> And it occurred to me...
> 
> How did Ron and Harry get onto the Hogwarts grounds??

Geoff:
I know I'm supposed to be an expert on canon but haven't currently got 
time to follow this one up. I can only speak from memory - so I may be 
corrected.

We know that you cannot Apparate into Hogwarts but is there anywhere 
in canon that specifically states that you cannot fly into Hogwarts?

We have now mentioned a lot of aerial traffic which needs access and, as 
someone has suggested, intruders are unilkely to launch an attack via 
broomsticks, the owl post needs to arrive, so I wonder if, like the other 
methods mentioned, the Ford Anglia fell outside Hogwarts restrictions?






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 18:30:12 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:30:12 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1dtb2+v9on@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1e13k+l94b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187117

Carol adds:
To get back to fifteen- or sixteen-year-old boys knowing what a girl wants and
trying to respect her feelings, Harry has no clue why Cho is crying all the time
and has to deal with the "chest monster" when he see Dean kissing Ginny.
< BIG SNIP>
I don't see how we can expect more of Severus Snape at the same age. <BIG SNIP>


Alla:

I do. I am not talking about Severus Snape God forbid trying to respect and understand what teenage Lily wants. I mean, I still maintain that such things happen even among teenagers, but I certainly am not talking about that. Pippin brought up the examples of teenagers not getting what the other wants on the regular basis in life  and while I think that there are plenty of examples to the opposite in the book I am certainly not arguing that teenagers can be pretty clueless. I do not find them relevant though to my original point.

I am talking about twenty something (twenty one?) year old Severus Snape, trying to understand that maybe, just maybe the girl who used to be his best friend, is happy in **her marriage**  and loves her husband and baby.

If you think that this is too much to ask of twenty one year old to make an assumption that the woman is **happy** in her marriage and would not want to be alive at the expense of her husband and baby, well all I can say is that I strongly disagree.

He knows that Lily is married and had a baby for quite some time now, and I think he should have made an assumption (absent any knowledge he has to the contrary) that she is happy rather than not.



>Carol, 
>who thinks that most teenagers are too busy trying to figure out
>themselves to truly understand anyone else's thoughts and feelings

JMO, 

Alla, who thinks that at the point of his life when Severus Snape was asking about Lily's life only he was not a teenager anymore.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun 18 18:38:25 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:38:25 -0000
Subject: World Building
In-Reply-To: <h1bue5+3vgm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1e1j1+a18e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187118

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

Carol:
> But the problem is that the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets, which was created by Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago, is a water faucet (or tap) in a girls' restroom with what appears to be early twentieth-century plumbing. How could that faucet have been there a thousand years ago unless the ancient wizards had modern plumbing? It isn't just the drain pipe that Harry slides down--it's the serpent-marked faucet on the sink that doesn't work that we're concerned about. (And Dumbledore appears to have used chamber pots at one time--wonder how long ago that was?)
 
> Anyway, I suppose that the school could have had Roman-style plumbing upgraded to twentieth-century style later, but the implication is that the sink that doesn't work, and the serpent-decorated faucet has been there for a thousand years. 

Geoff:
Two points initially. First, to be pedantic, the tap controls the entrance to 
the Chamber - it is *not* the entrance itself.

Second, I see no implication that the tap has been there for a thousand years. 
I sometimes find pieces of equipment that may be, say, fifty years old, but 
which have been re-equipped with up to date control gear...

I would presume that some of the Heirs of Slytherin - if not all - knew about 
its existence. Tom Riddle said that he searched for five years to find the 
entrance (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.230 UK edition). This implies that 
some of the Heirs had left clues. We don't know how often an Heir of Slytherin 
had been in the school but I am prepared to believe that the tap had already 
been marked by Riddles' time. I consider the possibility of an earlier 
Heir using magic to update the entrance technique when the taps were 
originally installed as being feasible.





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 18:57:33 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:57:33 -0000
Subject: Ron and Harry and that flying car
In-Reply-To: <h1dp9p+j2ev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1e2mt+rlbf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187119

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

> But there were no charms against entering or leaving by air 
> before. Thus Sirius can escape via Hippogryff, and Harry 
> and his friends can leave via thestral in OOP.


zanooda:

Right, Fred and George also flew away on their brooms :-). But I thought there won't be restrictions on flying out, only on flying in (if any at all :-)).


> pippin wrote:

> Charming Hogwarts against aerial entry and exit probably 
> interferes with owl post. Maybe that's why they didn't do 
> it until HBP when owls were being checked anyway.


zanooda:

That sounds very reasonable :-).




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 18 19:06:34 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:06:34 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1e13k+l94b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1e37q+hrad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187120

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

> He knows that Lily is married and had a baby for quite some 
> time now


zanooda:

Didn't Snape/DD scene on the top of the hill take place right after LV found out that Lily had a baby, at the end of July? It's not to justify Snape's behavior, not at all, just a canon question :-). I assumed it happened right after she had the baby. I may be wrong though, it was just my impression :-).





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 18 20:47:04 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:47:04 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1e13k+l94b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1e948+g9gr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187121

- 
> Alla:
 
> If you think that this is too much to ask of twenty one year old to make an assumption that the woman is **happy** in her marriage and would not want to be alive at the expense of her husband and baby, well all I can say is that I strongly disagree.
<snip>
> He knows that Lily is married and had a baby for quite some time now, and I think he should have made an assumption (absent any knowledge he has to the contrary) that she is happy rather than not.
> 

Pippin:

In the traditions of courtly love (and arranged marriages), the general  assumption is that the wife is *not* happily married. In fact the courtly lover could never be his lady's husband. That romantic love could lead to happy marriage is a thoroughly modern idea which many people in the past would have thought insane. So even if he'd heard that James and Lily had married for love, Snape wouldn't necessarily assume they were happy, especially if he feared Lily's love was the product of a potion or an Imperius curse. 

Bellatrix doesn't seem to care much about her husband, and if Snape got his ideas of what marriage was like from her and from his own mother, it would confirm whatever he knew from tales of courtly love. Lucius and Narcissa seem to be close as of DH, but they didn't in earlier books, and it could be that adversity drew them together. 

Slughorn isn't married, Dumbledore never married, Hagrid never married, and if Flitwick or McGonagall are married, they never refer to the fact. So I am curious about where you think Snape should have gotten this assumption of happy marriage from.   He doesn't seem to have been close to Arthur and Molly and I don't think he'd have been watching "Ozzie and Harriet" do you? :)


Pippin




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 18 21:13:13 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:13:13 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1e948+g9gr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1eal9+sbaq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187122

> > Alla:
>  
> > If you think that this is too much to ask of twenty one year old to make an assumption that the woman is **happy** in her marriage and would not want to be alive at the expense of her husband and baby, well all I can say is that I strongly disagree.
> <snip>
> > He knows that Lily is married and had a baby for quite some time now, and I think he should have made an assumption (absent any knowledge he has to the contrary) that she is happy rather than not.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> In the traditions of courtly love (and arranged marriages), the general  assumption is that the wife is *not* happily married. In fact the courtly lover could never be his lady's husband. That romantic love could lead to happy marriage is a thoroughly modern idea which many people in the past would have thought insane. 

Magpie:
Snape was a teenager in the 1970s. Why would he be getting his ideas about love from courtly romances in the middle ages?

Pippin:
So even if he'd heard that James and Lily had married for love, Snape wouldn't necessarily assume they were happy, especially if he feared Lily's love was the product of a potion or an Imperius curse. 

Magpie:
He wouldn't necessarily assume it but I didn't get the impression his problem was that he really didn't think Lily was happy. I doubt he wanted to think too much think about how happy they were or not. I don't remember him ever seeming to think that Lily was under any potion or Imperius curse. He saw her drifting towards James right in front of him at Hogwarts. I think he'd be more likely to just think that she'd get over him than to really see himself as saving her from a loveless marriage.

Pippin: 
> Bellatrix doesn't seem to care much about her husband, and if Snape got his ideas of what marriage was like from her and from his own mother, it would confirm whatever he knew from tales of courtly love. Lucius and Narcissa seem to be close as of DH, but they didn't in earlier books, and it could be that adversity drew them together. 

Magpie:
Do we have some reason to think Snape is learning anything from tales of courtly love? He's a boy at school where people are dating in the 70s. I'm sure he didn't want to think of Lily and James being happy, but I suspect his reasoning sounded more like any modern (even if a bit old-fashioned) person wanting to believe the person they liked would eventually dump or get dumped by the inferior person than the misperception that marriage=unhappily yoked together through arrangement. Surely he'd assume that if he was married to Lily they'd be happy. If he imagined Lily as trapped in the arrangement it seems like it would be aggressively delusional.

Pippin:
He doesn't seem to have been close to Arthur and Molly and I don't think he'd have been watching "Ozzie and Harriet" do you? :)

Magpie:
He might have. We know Snape had a good example of marriage not being about being happy from his own home and that would have kept him from assuming married people had to be happy, but I would think nevertheless that his ideas about couples were fairly close to reality when wishful thinking didn't get involved. If he imagined Lily was unhappy in her marriage I think it would probably be more about projection--he knows James is a horrible person and so must have started bullying Lily the way he bullied Snape or that she'd finally seen his true colors. 

-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 18 21:42:26 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:42:26 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1eal9+sbaq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ecc2+eub6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187123


> Magpie:
> Snape was a teenager in the 1970s. Why would he be getting his ideas about love from courtly romances in the middle ages?

Pippin:
Because for the pureblood families, not much has changed. Their marriages are still arranged, with the threat of being disinherited (or worse) if the prospective spouse isn't properly pedigreed. 

We don't see any Slytherins dating at Hogwarts, do we? Except for Draco escorting Pansy Parkinson, and we know she's an eligible pureblood. 

Snape's not a pureblood, but they're his role models. 

I was just reacting to Alla's idea that Snape's devotion to Lily seemed to be based on ideals of courtly love and pointing out that loving someone who was married to someone else is in the tradition of courtly love, not a violation of it.    It might be interesting to know whether Alla thinks it was conscious on Snape's part, or just a literary allusion by the author. 

Pippin




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Thu Jun 18 23:07:32 2009
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:07:32 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron and Harry and that flying car
Message-ID: <d02.59ed8edc.376c22b4@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187124

 
In a message dated 6/17/2009 9:42:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
kennyg1864 at yahoo.com writes:

Still,  we're left with the notion that a flying car can traverse DD's 
perimeter. So  why can two students come in via Ford Anglia, but no one can 
saunter in from  Hogsmeade (or elsewhere) by broomstick or Apparition, but only 
via the front  gates?



It could be as simple as Dumbledore never expecting a flying car to try to  
breach the school's perimeter so there was no provision for it in the  
protective charms.
 
 
<<Zanooda:
 You forgot Charlie's friends flying in on broomsticks in PS/SS  to 
take Norbert to Romania... :-).

Kenny:
This actually makes the "leaky Hogwarts charm" worse...as Charlie's friends 
 aren't even current Hogwarts students! (presumably) >>
 
 
Or perhaps Dumbledore got wind of the plan  (after all he didn't need  a 
cloak to be invisible) and made an exception for that event.
 
Melissa
**************Dell Days of Deals! June 15-24 - A New Deal Everyday! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222677718x1201465083/aol?redir=http:%2F%2F
ad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215692163%3B38015526%3Be)


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




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 18 23:12:05 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:12:05 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1ecc2+eub6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ehk5+scd7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187125

> > Magpie:
> > Snape was a teenager in the 1970s. Why would he be getting his ideas about love from courtly romances in the middle ages?
> 
> Pippin:
> Because for the pureblood families, not much has changed. Their marriages are still arranged, with the threat of being disinherited (or worse) if the prospective spouse isn't properly pedigreed. 

Magpie:
Sirius makes clear that his family expected them to marry other Purebloods from good families (and they disinherited Andromeda for marrying a Muggleborn) but there's nothing about them being arranged or necessarily loveless. I would actually imagine--and this is pure speculation--that if Snape's role models were the Pureblood Malfoys that he would imagine them as loving each other--which they seem to do.  

Pippin:
> We don't see any Slytherins dating at Hogwarts, do we? Except for Draco escorting Pansy Parkinson, and we know she's an eligible pureblood. 

Magpie:
Right, we see Draco and Pansy who seem to be a normal dating couple to me who happen to both be Purebloods. Not really different than Molly and Arthur on that score (even if they're very different people).

Pippin: 
> Snape's not a pureblood, but they're his role models. 

Magpie:
But the only thing we see being important for those Purebloods *wasn't* important for Snape since he loved a Muggleborn. According to their values, ironically, James would probably be better for Lily because he was from a good Pureblood family. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 19 02:22:05 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:22:05 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1ehk5+scd7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1esod+mhc5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187126

Pippin:

In the traditions of courtly love (and arranged marriages), the general 
assumption is that the wife is *not* happily married. In fact the courtly lover
could never be his lady's husband. <SNIP>

Alla:

I  am not even sure how such a simple assumption that Potioncat and myself were discussing initially became so complicated. Yes, that's exactly one of my points in the tradition of courtly love, courtly lover loves the lady from afar and is NOT her husband. I mean obviously there are stories where they may have affairs, but I am talking about the stories of platonic love, where lady is his flag, his guiding star, blah, blah, blah. Where he wears lady's headscarf on his sleeve when he wins tournaments, etc.  Did you understand me to compare James' love to courtly love? If that is what happened I am sorry, I certainly was not. I was comparing Snape's love to courtly love and he was of course not the lady's husband. In fact I was not even comparing necessarily, I was wondering if author had courtly love in mind as one of the ideas, one of the foundations to develop this storyline or whether author was parodying courtly love or was doing something completely different. And no, I was not saying that Snape got his ideas from courtly stories, I was saying that author may have thought about it, so I guess I am with Magpie on that too.

I was wondering if author is alluding to it or not.


Pippin:
Because for the pureblood families, not much has changed. Their marriages are
still arranged, with the threat of being disinherited (or worse) if the
prospective spouse isn't properly pedigreed.

Alla:

Well, Magpie already addressed it and I agree with her, to me having arranged marriage means just that ? parents or whatever relatives **arrange** marriage between two particular people. I do not see much indication of anything like that happening in Potterland, although I certainly agree that purebloods are expecting to marry each other. But to me it is not arranged marriage necessarily, just limiting the marriage pool.

Pippin:
I was just reacting to Alla's idea that Snape's devotion to Lily seemed to be
based on ideals of courtly love and pointing out that loving someone who was
married to someone else is in the tradition of courtly love, not a violation of
it. <SNIP>


Alla:

Well, again yes of course!  The violation of traditions of courtly love is being **selfish** about what lady wants as I perceive it, NOT loving somebody who is married to somebody else. 

The wishes of the lady are pretty much the laws in these stories of courtly love are they not?

Pippin:
It might be interesting to know whether Alla thinks it was conscious on
Snape's part, or just a literary allusion by the author.

Alla:

No, of course I do not think that it was conscious on Snape's part, lol, in a sense that I do not think that when he decided to do things in the name of Lily he was thinking that he was becoming her knight, her troubadour, but the fact that he did decide to do that,  makes him such knight whether he thought about it or not, if that makes sense.

But my initial wonder was whether it was a literary allusion by the author or not.

JMO,

Alla




From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Jun 19 02:34:15 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:34:15 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1e13k+l94b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1etf7+luof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187127

Alla wrote:
> I am talking about twenty something (twenty one?) year old Severus Snape, trying to understand that maybe, just maybe the girl who used to be his best friend, is happy in **her marriage**  and loves her husband and baby.
> 
> If you think that this is too much to ask of twenty one year old to make an assumption that the woman is **happy** in her marriage and would not want to be alive at the expense of her husband and baby, well all I can say is that I strongly disagree.
> 
> He knows that Lily is married and had a baby for quite some time now, and I think he should have made an assumption (absent any knowledge he has to the contrary) that she is happy rather than not.
> 

Julie:
I'm still of the mind that Snape didn't *think* about it at all. He wasn't concerned about the state of Lily's marriage or anything else, only that he'd given Voldemort information that Voldemort was now going to use to target the woman he loved. He seemed to me single-mindedly focused on finding a way to save Lily, to undo his horrible if unwitting betrayal of her. 

If Snape did spare a momentary thought for James or Harry, he would have known their fates were out of his hands when it came to Voldemort. Voldemort's whole objective was to get rid of that prophecy child--Harry--and Snape could hardly ask for the life of his worst enemy even if he'd had any interest in doing so. Asking for Lily's life on whatever pretext he could manage was a difficult enough proposition to bring to Voldemort.

When it came to Dumbledore, again if Snape gave it any thought before begging for Lily's life, he would have known James and Harry's fates were out of his hands there also. Once he asked Dumbledore to protect Lily, the greatest wizard of the Light was certain to include Harry and James in that protection. There couldn't be any real doubt about that.

So Snape asked for what was vital to him in his clearly agitated state, and let the rest of the chips fall where they would. But I also can't see that he had *any* forethought about what it would all mean for Lily, whether she would be happy or sad, or whether he would be in any way involved in her future. He simply wasn't looking beyond keeping her alive. 

But I do agree with you on one point, Alla. I think Snape would have believed Lily was reasonably happy with James. He hated James and probably thought James had charmed Lily in some (nonmagical) way, given that she couldn't see what a jerk he really was, but from all canon evidence Snape also respected Lily too much to believe she would have stayed with James if she'd been unhappy. She liked where she was and Snape, who would have certainly been miserable about it, accepted her choice without protest or retaliation. Nothing in canon suggests he thought any different after he realized Voldemort had targeted her along with Harry and James.

Julie 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Jun 19 11:27:50 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:27:50 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lucius was James and Intent  And Snape
In-Reply-To: <h1di71+1qq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1fsnm+emc3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187128

 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh I agree with you that Lucius was acting on his own and would have been quite happy if Voldie would not have come back, thank you very much, heh. It does not mean to me though that his agenda was much different from Voldie's agenda. I know you did not say that, I am responding to the thread. I believe we are in agreement on that.


Potioncat:
Yes, I think Lucius was a very willing DE, but that he had started to see himself as the Dark Lord and wasn't too happy that LV came back. Not only did he have to stop being the top boss, he fell pretty rapidly within the organization.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 19 15:09:29 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:09:29 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1esod+mhc5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1g9n9+vq9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187129

 
 
> Pippin:
> Because for the pureblood families, not much has changed. Their marriages are still arranged, with the threat of being disinherited (or worse) if the prospective spouse isn't properly pedigreed.
> 
> Alla:
 But to me it is not arranged marriage necessarily, just limiting the marriage pool.

Pippin:
"If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry purebloods your choice is very limited, there are hardly any of us left." --Sirius, OOP ch 6. 

If  choice is limited to the handful of people that the parents have already approved, that's arrangement, de facto if not de jure. There just isn't  a lot of room for considerations of compatibility or chemistry or love-matches. 

 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, again yes of course!  The violation of traditions of courtly love is being **selfish** about what lady wants as I perceive it, NOT loving somebody who is married to somebody else. 
> 
> The wishes of the lady are pretty much the laws in these stories of courtly love are they not?

Pippin:
Oh yes. But your thought seems to be that Snape should have assumed that Lily would wish to die than live on with her lovely family destroyed. And I'm saying, why would Snape think her family was lovely?

I'm not supposing Snape grew up reading The Boy's King Arthur, just that the purebloods must have had stories of love and courtship which were more satisfactory to them than ToBtB, which Lucius wanted banned. Those stories probably did not take it for granted that most marriages were happy.

It's easy for the fans to imagine that James and Lily must have had a fairytale marriage because to us they are fairytale characters. But that's not what they are to Snape, so why should *he* idealize their marriage? 

Lily did try to save herself and Harry after James was already doomed, so she was willing to live without her husband at least.

In any case, Snape did not know that Dumbledore was going to ask him to be a spy. He would have expected to die or be sent to prison after he had delivered his warning to Dumbledore, so he was not going to be in any condition to take Lily for himself. But he was at that point still in general sympathy with the DE cause. 

And being in sympathy with the DE cause, he would support Voldemort in  whatever was necessary to win, except that he could not bear to think of Lily dead. I mean, it was not a David and Uriah situation where Uriah was one of David's officers and the only reason David wanted him dead was to get Bathsheba for himself. James and Harry were a threat to Voldemort, and Snape would want them removed regardless. 

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 19 15:56:02 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:56:02 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1g9n9+vq9q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1gcei+r9l3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187130

Pippin:
"If you're only going to let your sons and daughters marry purebloods your
choice is very limited, there are hardly any of us left." --Sirius, OOP ch 6.

If choice is limited to the handful of people that the parents have already
approved, that's arrangement, de facto if not de jure. There just isn't a lot
of room for considerations of compatibility or chemistry or love-matches.

Alla:

Except to me canon seems to show enough room for that ? as previously discussed Lucius and Narcissa seem to love each just fine IMO and as Magpie said, Draco and Pancy seem to be pretty normal dating couple in that sense.

I am not disputing that it is a limited choice, as I stated before I just understand arranged marriage as something different. For example, one of my classmates in law school was from India and her brother got married to the girl whom his parents went to India and picked for him ? THAT is an arranged marriage how I understand it. I am not even saying that things like that do not happen between purebloods, it is entirely possible that they do. I just do not see them in the book, thus I will not agree that the default choice of marriage between purebloods is the arranged one. IMO of course.

This is a fun thing to discuss, but again what does this has to do with whether Snape's love to Lily was based in part on the courtly love or not?

Pippin:
Oh yes. But your thought seems to be that Snape should have assumed that Lily
would wish to die than live on with her lovely family destroyed. And I'm saying,
why would Snape think her family was lovely? <BIG SNIP>

Alla:

And I am saying that to me your second sentence is not the only continuation of the first one. The first one states my position almost correctly. Except not for the reason you are stating in the second one. Yes, I think that Snape should have assumed that Lily  would rather die than live with her husband and baby being dead. Only I do not think it should matter one bit what **Snape** thinks of her family, whether it is lovely, ugly, or what say you. I am saying that Snape should have respected **Lily** enough that absent any information to the contrary that she is happy where she is. She did not leave her husband, didn't she? She just had a baby with him.
But  let's even assume for the sake of this argument  (which I am not, I am not conceding too at all) that Lily is unhappy with her husband and Snape even knows it. Are you saying that Snape's default line of thinking should be that Lily **wants** her husband and her baby dead?

Are you saying that he thinks that little of Lily? It is to me a huge jump to make from the marriage where she may have quarrels with her husband and to want her husband dead. And to assume that she wants her baby dead
 Are you sure that you do not want to go along with Snape who looks like selfish prick to me and just wants Lily alive for himself? Because the one who would think that Lily is such a person who would want her husband and baby dead to me looks even more despicable. IMO of course. 

Alla





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 19 16:05:57 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:05:57 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1g9n9+vq9q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1gd15+4li0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187131

Pippin:
<SNIP>
In any case, Snape did not know that Dumbledore was going to ask him to be a
spy. He would have expected to die or be sent to prison after he had delivered
his warning to Dumbledore, so he was not going to be in any condition to take
Lily for himself. But he was at that point still in general sympathy with the DE
cause. <SNIP>

Alla:

Okay, yes the case of bad copying and pasting again, but maybe it is good that this one going in the separate post.

Sure, this one I think is the strongest argument that I had seen so far that Snape did not think of taking Lily for himself. I still would not say that it is conclusive, because we are not in Snape's head.

Maybe he expected to fool Dumbledore and run away after he delivered his warning, after all he did leave after he eavesdropped the Prophecy, maybe he thought that he will get Lily later after he is out of prison, since she would have chance to get over her family deaths, even better for him.

But still I like it.





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 19 16:53:28 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:53:28 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1gcei+r9l3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1gfq8+i39r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187132

> Pippin:
> Oh yes. But your thought seems to be that Snape should have assumed that Lily
> would wish to die than live on with her lovely family destroyed. And I'm saying,
> why would Snape think her family was lovely? <BIG SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And I am saying that to me your second sentence is not the only continuation of the first one. The first one states my position almost correctly. Except not for the reason you are stating in the second one. Yes, I think that Snape should have assumed that Lily  would rather die than live with her husband and baby being dead. Only I do not think it should matter one bit what **Snape** thinks of her family, whether it is lovely, ugly, or what say you. I am saying that Snape should have respected **Lily** enough that absent any information to the contrary that she is happy where she is. 

Montavilla47:

On the other hand, if she's dead, she has no choice whatsoever.
We could also argue that by *asuming* she'd rather die than
live on without her husband and child, Snape would not be 
respecting Lily either.

As it was, he got Voldemort to give her the *choice.*  She chose
to die, a choice that caused Snape devastating grief (not that 
Lily was in any way obligated to think about what her death 
would do to him).   


Alla:
>She did not leave her husband, didn't she? She just had a baby with him.
> But  let's even assume for the sake of this argument  (which I am not, I am not conceding too at all) that Lily is unhappy with her husband and Snape even knows it. Are you saying that Snape's default line of thinking should be that Lily **wants** her husband and her baby dead?
> 

Montavilla47:
Are you saying that Snape had any power to save either James
or Harry?  Because as I see it, Snape's only power to save either
one of them consisted of going to Dumbledore and letting him 
know that the Potters were in danger.  Which, as I recall, he did.

Of course, he was only asking Dumbledore to protect Lily.  But,
if he had thought about it for half a minute, he would have 
realized that Dumbledore wouldn't protect Lily while leaving her
family out.  Which supports the idea that Snape wasn't thinking
at all beyond, "Lily!  Must save!"


Alla:
> Are you saying that he thinks that little of Lily? It is to me a huge jump to make from the marriage where she may have quarrels with her husband and to want her husband dead. And to assume that she wants her baby dead
 Are you sure that you do not want to go along with Snape who looks like selfish prick to me and just wants Lily alive for himself? Because the one who would think that Lily is such a person who would want her husband and baby dead to me looks even more despicable. IMO of course. 

Montavilla47:

There's a difference between wanting your husband and 
baby dead and wanting to live even if they do die.  People do
outlive their families.  

I'm sure they would prefer not to have their loved ones die, but
there are millions of people who have lost their entire families 
and yet not killed themselves in order to avoid the pain of living 
on.  Are those people such monsters that the firemen who 
pulled them out of burning buildings, or the coast guard who 
lifted them out of floods or oceans despicable?

I'm sure that, as James ran towards the certain death of 
confronting Voldemort, he would rather have had Lily live on,
even if Harry still had to die.








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 19 17:33:42 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:33:42 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1gfq8+i39r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1gi5m+p7f5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187133

Montavilla47:
Are you saying that Snape had any power to save either James
or Harry? Because as I see it, Snape's only power to save either
one of them consisted of going to Dumbledore and letting him
know that the Potters were in danger. Which, as I recall, he did.

Alla:

I am pretty sure that I already replied to this argument somewhere upthread, but if I did not, I am not saying that Snape had any power to save James or Harry. I think it is irrelevant though to the point I am making and the point being is that if Snape cared about what Lily would have wanted, he owed it to her to **try**, yes even if he knew that he will most likely fall.

Montavilla47:
Of course, he was only asking Dumbledore to protect Lily. But,
if he had thought about it for half a minute, he would have
realized that Dumbledore wouldn't protect Lily while leaving her
family out. Which supports the idea that Snape wasn't thinking
at all beyond, "Lily! Must save!"

Alla:
I am talking about Snape's intentions only, of course Dumbledore would not have protected Lily's only. I do not think what Dumbledore would have done is relevant to Snape's mindset though, IMO.

Montavilla47:

There's a difference between wanting your husband and
baby dead and wanting to live even if they do die. People do
outlive their families.

I'm sure they would prefer not to have their loved ones die, but
there are millions of people who have lost their entire families
and yet not killed themselves in order to avoid the pain of living
on. Are those people such monsters that the firemen who
pulled them out of burning buildings, or the coast guard who
lifted them out of floods or oceans despicable?

I'm sure that, as James ran towards the certain death of
confronting Voldemort, he would rather have had Lily live on,
even if Harry still had to die.


Alla:

 You are really comparing Snape to the firemen who can only save one injured person from the burning house? In case it is a serious argument I will say that firemen did not burn the house first and then give the choice that they only pull one person out because that's the only person  they want to save.

Of course people outlive their families, but if somebody who is complicit in putting the whole family in danger decides who  lives and who dies, without trying to save them all, yes I think it is despicable.

It is one thing if by accident or unplanned murder one of them would have survived, of course they would have probably found a strength to survive, but to give them a choice from potential murderer?

Lily showed that she would rather die than let Harry die, so I think yes, it is pretty safe to assume what her answer will be, which again does not mean that she may not have found a will to survive to go forward and fight (and maybe AK Snape if he came to her later on)

Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
> I'm sure that, as James ran towards the certain death of 
> confronting Voldemort, he would rather have had Lily live on,
> even if Harry still had to die.

Alla:

I do not share your certainty at all. I would think that James would certainly wanted both of them alive, or at least one of them alive, but I am pretty sure that if somebody asked James would he live if the price would be their lives, by choice not accident, somehow I think he would have said no.

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 19 17:35:11 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:35:11 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1gd15+4li0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1gi8f+4pgj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187134

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Pippin:
> <SNIP>
> In any case, Snape did not know that Dumbledore was going to ask him to be a
> spy. He would have expected to die or be sent to prison after he had delivered
> his warning to Dumbledore, so he was not going to be in any condition to take
> Lily for himself. But he was at that point still in general sympathy with the DE
> cause. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, yes the case of bad copying and pasting again, but maybe it is good that this one going in the separate post.
> 
> Sure, this one I think is the strongest argument that I had seen so far that Snape did not think of taking Lily for himself. I still would not say that it is conclusive, because we are not in Snape's head.
> 
> Maybe he expected to fool Dumbledore and run away after he delivered his warning, after all he did leave after he eavesdropped the Prophecy, maybe he thought that he will get Lily later after he is out of prison, since she would have chance to get over her family deaths, even better for him.
> 
> But still I like it.
>
Carol responds:

It's obvious from "The Prince's Tale" that young Snape (who, BTW, would be twenty at that point if it's soon after Harry's birth) is concerned only about one thing--Lily's life. It's not just that he wants her alive, it's that he doesn't want to be responsible for her death. He's feeling anguished love, fear, and remorse. And though he's afraid that DD will kill him, I think he's mostly afraid of dying before he delivers his message (a fear we see again just before LV pulls him into Nagini's bubble).

I'm not so sure that he's still a loyal DE, though. He quickly agrees to DD's protecting the whole family, and just by going to Dumbledore, he has betrayed Voldemort. More important, he's willing to do "anything" to save Lily. Harry says later that from the moment Voldemort targeted Lily, Snape was Dumbledore's man. I don't think it happened quite that quickly. It's more that from the moment Voldemort targeted Lily, he ceased to be a loyal DE. And from the time Dumbledore promised to protect them, he became Dumbledore's man. And he remains Dumbledore's man after Lily's death even though he would prefer to die himself because DD persuades him that they can work together to protect Harry so that Lily's death won't be in vain.

I agree that he isn't thinking about Lily's feelings in the matter. I don't think it's comprehensible to him that she could love James or that he thinks about that at all. He simply wants Lily--his beautiful, idealized Lily whom he's loved since childhood--to be alive, especially if her death would be partly his own fault. He tries to prevent it and fails and then he devotes his life to her memory--or to her service, continuing to serve the cause she died for, protecting the life of her son and to undermine the cause of her murderer.

I do see elements of courtly love--I can't help thinking of the Man of La Mancha ("to love pure and chaste from afar; to fight the unbeatable foe") when I see his doe Patronus--but I don't think that his love for Lily is a parody of courtly love, however far he may be from the ideal knight (or she from the ideal lady he thinks she is). It's more of a tragedy, IMO. His remorse redeems him because it leads him to atone for his sins, to save people when he can instead of watching them die (even Montague probably counts as someone that he has saved), but he still dies because of that fatal flaw, reporting the partial Prophecy to Voldemort, the sin that caused his whole plot and character arc--and, for that matter, the whole story of Harry Potter, Chosen One.

Anyway, I don't see how he can be expected to understand her. She's marrying someone he knows to be an arrogant bully. He hasn't seen her for two years. He has no idea of their home life. All he cares about is saving the life of his beloved Lily--and undoing the wrong of reporting the Prophecy, which he never would have done if he'd had any idea that it would involve Lily.

Carol, who thinks that Snape must have empathized very strongly with Narcissa when she came to him with the plea to protect her beloved son as he had come to DD to beg him to protect Lily




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 19 18:48:41 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:48:41 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1gi8f+4pgj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1gmi9+s82k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187135

Carol:
<SNIP>
I'm not so sure that he's still a loyal DE, though. He quickly agrees to DD's
protecting the whole family, and just by going to Dumbledore, he has betrayed
Voldemort. More important, he's willing to do "anything" to save Lily. <SNIP>

Alla:

I disagree. Regardless of his consideration or not consideration of Lily's feelings he helped put three people in danger, in mortal danger. He does not show any remorse when he comes to Dumbledore about putting the innocent baby in danger. To me it is absolutely a mindset of Death Eater, even if he wants to save somebody he loves.

To me his absolute, unequivocal remorse would have been a sign that he ceased to be a Death Eater.  I do not see it, he is still willing to let two people die when he comes to Dumbledore.

He may have stopped his personal loyalty to Voldemort, but it does not mean IMO that he ceased to be a Death Eater in heart. 

Just as Lucius in my opinion would have been happier had Voldemort not come back, but that does not mean IMO that his Death Eater mindset changed.

To me Snape at that point in time  is a Death Eater, who wants to save and do anything for the person he loves (or obsesses over depends on POV). I think his mindset changes in time and he indeed learns to value any life. I always thought him saving Lupin was a sign of that change, the biggest one.

But Snape who comes to Dumbledore that night? Disgusts me, big time. Of course he agrees to do anything, Narcissa also lies to Voldemort in order to find her son, that does not mean to me that she changed her views.

I do not think that had he had no doubts that Voldemort will save Lily that he would have ever come to Dumbledore.

JMO,

Alla





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Jun 20 13:52:04 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:52:04 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1gd15+4li0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ipi4+pmga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187136

 
> Alla:

> Maybe he expected to fool Dumbledore and run away after he delivered his warning, after all he did leave after he eavesdropped the Prophecy, maybe he thought that he will get Lily later after he is out of prison, 

Pippin:
All I can say is, if Snape is so obsessed, and  thinks he is as clever as that, why would he need Voldemort to get rid of James and Harry for him? Why get rid of them at all? Why not steal Lily or lure her away as soon as Voldemort said he could have her? 

But there is not the slightest canon that Snape even thought of doing such things.

>From Voldemort's pov, and from Harry's, Snape stopped being a loyal DE as soon as he thought anything was more important than fulfilling his master's wishes. But evidently it took Snape himself some time to realize that he couldn't oppose Voldemort on one issue and still support him in others. 

Snape wouldn't be shocked or revolted that Voldemort intended to kill a baby. What do you think would have happened to Neville, when dear Uncle Algie dropped him out the window, if he hadn't bounced? Augusta doesn't seem to have thought any less of old Algie for it. That's the Longbottoms, mind you, a family that wouldn't have anything to do with the Dark Arts.

 I'm afraid the purebloods are just not very sentimental about babies -- after all, if they didn't think they could disown their  grandchildren, there wouldn't *be* any pureblood families. 

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 20 15:22:41 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:22:41 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1ipi4+pmga@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ius1+ujjs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187137

> > Alla:
> 
> > Maybe he expected to fool Dumbledore and run away after he delivered his warning, after all he did leave after he eavesdropped the Prophecy, maybe he thought that he will get Lily later after he is out of prison, 
> 
> Pippin:
> All I can say is, if Snape is so obsessed, and  thinks he is as clever as that, why would he need Voldemort to get rid of James and Harry for him? Why get rid of them at all? Why not steal Lily or lure her away as soon as Voldemort said he could have her? 
> 
> But there is not the slightest canon that Snape even thought of doing such things. <SNIP>

Alla:
Oh dear.  I have no clue why he would not do that. Maybe he was so cruel and wanted to make sure that Lily sees with her own eyes that her family is dead dead dead and that she could never get back to them, while if Snape kidnapped her maybe she still had some hopes. But as you said there is not a slightest canon for that.

There was however the part of my previous post where I said that this is to me the strongest argument for Snape not really wanting Lily for himself. Your inference that Snape thought he will die or go to prison after he visits Dumbledore.

There was also part where I said that I like it.

These speculations (of course we have no canon for them) were intended to show that we do not know what Snape really thought when he went to Dumbledore, because there is really not the slightest canon to show that Snape thought that he was going to go to prison or die when he was going to him, isn't it?

It is quite logical and strong inference to me, because he is a DE and he may think that hey, what else he is going to get by pretty much surrendering to opposing side, but this is not one hundred percent full proof inference to me, that's all.

And I gave you canon-based reason of why Snape will be perfectly justified in thinking that he CAN and will get away from Dumbledore. After all he **already** did once.

I am not really attempting to rebut your argument Pippin, I am attempting to explain why I cannot issue complete agreement. Again, I like it, it makes sense to me, but other possibilities also make sense.

Any other inference about Snape not wanting Lily for himself does not hold up for me, but this one does, I am just not 100% sure, that's all.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
Snape wouldn't be shocked or revolted that Voldemort intended to kill a baby. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes and it disgusts me.

Pippin:
What do you think would have happened to Neville, when dear Uncle Algie dropped
him out the window, if he hadn't bounced? Augusta doesn't seem to have thought
any less of old Algie for it. That's the Longbottoms, mind you, a family that
wouldn't have anything to do with the Dark Arts.

Alla:

What you think he intended to kill him??? I disagree. We had seen several times that wizard kids often shown more resistant to physical injuries. I did not like Uncle Algie doing it at all, however I did not think for one second he intended to kill the boy, I thought that maybe he would do same thing as Dumbledore did when Harry was falling after Quidditch. I am sure he would not let him die.

Pippin:
I'm afraid the purebloods are just not very sentimental about babies -- after
all, if they didn't think they could disown their grandchildren, there wouldn't
*be* any pureblood families.

Alla:

There is a  big difference to me between disowning and killing. And somehow I speculate that even Snape's mother loved him and certainly did not want him to dead, I doubt that this he could learn even in his childhood. No, I think he too eagerly learned the philosophy of his master ? innocent lives including babies are worth nothing, etc.

JMO,

Alla





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 20 21:56:16 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:56:16 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1ius1+ujjs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1jlu0+2mt3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187138

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Alla:
> > 
> > > Maybe he expected to fool Dumbledore and run away after he delivered his warning, after all he did leave after he eavesdropped the Prophecy, maybe he thought that he will get Lily later after he is out of prison, 
Alla wrote:
> Any other inference about Snape not wanting Lily for himself does not hold up for me, but this one does, I am just not 100% sure, that's all.
> 
Carol responds:

But we don't need inferences. All we need is canon. He went first to Voldemort and then to Dumbledore not because he wanted Lily (certainly Dumbledore wouldn't have "given" Lily to Snape!) but because we wanted to save her life. The only person (if we can call him that) who ever refers to Snape as desiring Lily is Voldemort, the one character in the books who has no idea what love is. (Harry knows better.)

> Pippin:
> <SNIP>
> Snape wouldn't be shocked or revolted that Voldemort intended to kill a baby. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes and it disgusts me.

Carol responds:

We really don't know whether he thought about a baby dying at all until he learned that Voldemort intended to target the Potters, and then his fears for Lily overpowered any thought of anyone or anything else. He didn't protest against Dumbledore's "you disgust me" because he knew that already--he had gone to DD at the risk of being killed. He was perfectly willing for DD to protect "them" as long as he protected "her."

We don't know what young Snape's principles were at that point, but it's clear that he could no longer support Voldemort, the man who wanted to kill the woman he loved, and he was ready to do "anything" to stop him.

>From that point on, whether he believed in Voldemort's goals or not (and I'll speculate on that in a minute), he was opposed to Voldemort himself and therefore to the DEs who supported him, without whom he could not come to power. He was, as Harry puts it, Dumbledore's man, not Voldemort's, and he remained so--surprisingly--after Lily was killed. Harry's survival gave him no comfort (he shrugs off that unimportant bit of information as if it were an annoying fly), but Harry's survival *becomes* important--a goal worth dying for--once DD persuades him that Lily's sacrifice will be in vain if Harry dies. 

Whatever he believed in before is no longer important. All that's important is doing whatever it takes to protect Harry. (Of course, he later manages to pull himself together, to be a Potions teacher who actually cares whether his students get good marks and a Head of House who actually cares whether his team wins the Quidditch match, but under it all is the man who will lie and spy and risk his life for Dumbledore and for Lily. It's not, IMO, a matter of principle at all until he reaches the stage of preferring to save lives rather than watch people die. It's personal.

The question is, why did he join the DEs at all and what did he actually believe. It seems to me that his DE beliefs could not have been all that strong in the first place or he couldn't have set them aside and started actively working against Voldemort. I can't imagine, say, Lucius Malfoy doing the same thing. JKR says in an interview that he thought that Lily would admire him if he joined the DEs. That sounds ridiculous; he knew that she hated Avery and Mulciber, the DE wannabes, and actually referred to Mulciber (the future Imperious specialist) as "evil." Could Snape, usually so logical (at least as an adult) really be that dim? Maybe he thought that if she was attracted to James Potter, she must be attracted to bullies, but he also knew that she regarded Potter as a toerag and disapproved of his hexing people in the hallways. It makes no sense (sorry, JKR) that he would expect her to act like Pansy Parkinson twenty years later, idolizing a "man" with a mission from the Dark Lord. 

Other possible motives? His friends were joining the DEs and no doubt expected him to join them. The former prefect he had (presumably) admired, Lucius Malfoy, was a DE and perhaps had told him how wonderful it was, how LV would "honor him above all others" is he knew about young Snape's talents with potions and invented spells. I think, and of course I'm just guessing, he thought that he'd have more scope for experimental magic, some or most of it Dark, than he'd have as, say, a Ministry employee. We know that as a child not yet in Hogwarts he expected to go far; we know that he considered Slytherin the House of Brains. Possibly, he was still under that delusion.

We know, too, that he disliked Muggles based on his father's abuse and Petunia's unfriendliness. Maybe that was a motive. But he can't have strongly believed in Pure-Blood superiority knowing that he himself was a Half-Blood and Lily was a Muggle-born, yet they were as talented as anyone in their year. (He didn't know that WPP were Animagi and had made the Marauder's Map, but I think he would still have held that view if he had; his potion improvements and invented spells showed him to be equally clever.) At any rate, there's a difference between going along with the crowd and actually believing in your heart that Pure-Bloods are superior. (If he knew that Dumbledore and LV were also Half-Bloods, he'd have even less reason to truly believe that propaganda.)

It seems to have cost him no effort to throw those beliefs aside (which is not to say that his acting and lying and spying didn't require effort--quite the contrary). We never hear him say "Mud-Blood" as an adult or give any indication that he holds those view (other than believing, rightly, that werewolves can be dangerous). And eventually, he reprimands Phineas Nigellus (a non-DE Slytherin type) for using the term. 

I think there can be no question that he continued to consider Wizards superior to Muggles, but so does most of the WW. But that's not the same as continuing to believe in Muggle-baiting.

At any rate, when I say that he ceased to be a DE from the moment LV targeted Lily, I mean that he ceased to be a supporter of LV, whom he now must have seen clearly as a murderer and a maniac. How much thought he gave to the principles that LV supposedly stood for, we can't possibly know. I don't think he ever cared all that much about Pure-Blood superiority. As for the rest of what LV stood for--his own immortality and power--Snape would have done and did everything he could to fight that. And, no doubt, if he'd known about the Horcruxes, he's have destroyed them, too.

> Pippin:
> What do you think would have happened to Neville, when dear Uncle Algie dropped him out the window, if he hadn't bounced? Augusta doesn't seem to have thought any less of old Algie for it. That's the Longbottoms, mind you, a family that wouldn't have anything to do with the Dark Arts.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> What you think he intended to kill him??? I disagree. We had seen several times that wizard kids often shown more resistant to physical injuries. I did not like Uncle Algie doing it at all, however I did not think for one second he intended to kill the boy, I thought that maybe he would do same thing as Dumbledore did when Harry was falling after Quidditch. I am sure he would not let him die.
> 
Carol:
I agree with Pippin here. Had Neville not bounced, it would have been too late to save him with a cushioning charm (the whole point was to see whether he bounced--and consequently lived--when he landed).

Carol, who is equally disgusted with DD's statement that he didn't care about the deaths of nameless and faceless people as long as Harry lived





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 21 02:37:14 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:37:14 -0000
Subject: rightful owner of the resurrection stone / Slythie followers of LV
Message-ID: <h1k6cq+bne2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187139

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187062>:

<< Harry was not the rightful owner of the resurrection stone, either. Dumbledore stole it. >>

Maybe Harry WAS the rightful owner of the resurrection stone (the Peverell ring). It was passed as an inheritance to Marvolo and the only surviving descendent of Marvolo was TMR, but it is hard to argue that TMR was a less rightful owner than DD, because TMR got it by causing Marvolo and Morfin to die by framing them for his murder of the Riddles. Harry, descended from Ignotus Peverell, may have been the closest living relative, therefore rightful heir, of Antioch Peverell, original owner of the stone. (Carol, would Agnotus been as suitable a name as Ignotus for the Invisibility Cloak Wearer?)

However, I'm more inclined to think that DD acquired it rightfully, rather than stealing it from TMR. I feel that it was ownerless property at the time (as TMR was not a rightful owner) and therefore legitimate salvage. Would British laws about treasure trove apply to it?

Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187083>:

<< many people must have noticed that, with the presumed exception of Sirius Black, most of LV's followers, including those who claimed that they'd been Imperio'd, came from Slytherin. >>

Surely many of LV's followers, whether or not they claimed Imperio, were from other Houses. Because canon tells us that in those bad days, the first Voldemort Reign of Terror, no one knew whom to trust. So they couldn't use a guideline like 'People who were in Hufflepuff or Gryffindor are trustworthy'.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 21 15:19:10 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:19:10 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1ius1+ujjs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1lj1e+sc74@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187140


> Alla:
> 
> What you think he intended to kill him??? I disagree. We had seen several times that wizard kids often shown more resistant to physical injuries. I did not like Uncle Algie doing it at all, however I did not think for one second he intended to kill the boy, I thought that maybe he would do same thing as Dumbledore did when Harry was falling after Quidditch. I am sure he would not let him die.

Pippin:
Carol has already pointed out that things don't bounce until they make impact. I am sure JKR had in mind the kinds of things that used to happen to RL children who were thought to be changelings (often the mentally disturbed or deformed.) They were exposed or held to the fire in hopes of forcing the fairies to restore the human child they had supposedly stolen. IIRC there are cases where the parents were exonerated of murder because of this belief. 

Algie  no doubt would swear he was certain that Neville was magical, and was only trying to put the matter to rest. And had he been wrong, it would probably have all been hushed up, and everyone would have quietly agreed, after the second firewhiskey, that it was for the best. 
 
> Pippin:
> I'm afraid the purebloods are just not very sentimental about babies -- after all, if they didn't think they could disown their grandchildren, there wouldn't *be* any pureblood families.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> There is a  big difference to me between disowning and killing. And somehow I speculate that even Snape's mother loved him and certainly did not want him to dead, I doubt that this he could learn even in his childhood. No, I think he too eagerly learned the philosophy of his master ? innocent lives including babies are worth nothing, etc.

Pippin:
Alla, Lucius Malfoy sent his own child to safety and then went off to torture some Muggles, including two children. That's the pureblood way: every life is not worth the same, and only some lives are worth saving. 

Pippin








From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 21 16:59:11 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 21 Jun 2009 16:59:11 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/21/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1245603551.14.89979.m4@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187141

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 21, 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/20090621/63f8a25e/attachment.html>

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 21 17:13:44 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:13:44 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1jlu0+2mt3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1lpo8+d31b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187142

Carol:

JKR says in an interview that he thought that Lily would admire him if he joined the DEs. That sounds ridiculous; he knew that she hated Avery and Mulciber, the DE wannabes, and actually referred to Mulciber (the future Imperious specialist) as "evil." Could Snape, usually so logical (at least as an adult) really be that dim? 

Pippin:
It's ridiculous if you think Snape loved a pure, idealized image of Lily. But I don't think his patronus shows us that. Harry's patronus does not change when his image of James gets deflated a bit. Though it is a symbol of James, it is  a projection of what's best in Harry, not James. 

Snape knows all too well that people are impressed by a show of strength, and he could see that Lily was impressed by James's power whether she wanted to be or not. Look at the way Ginny reacts to Harry's sectum sempra, or the way Harry is proud of Hermione's jinxing ability. And then there's  Harry's crucio. Or Molly AK-ing Bella. Something in people loves a kickass, and JKR won't let us forget it. 

"Sectum Sempra" is marked "for enemies" not "for picking on people." If Snape didn't think it was very wrong to use the Dark Arts on people who deserved it, he had lots of company. As for Avery and Mulciber, that was "only a bit of fun" not serious dark magic. He wouldn't expect Lily to be impressed by that. 

Harry has it partly wrong in HBP, but only partly: "He'd play up the pure-blood side so he could get in with Lucius Malfoy and the rest of them...He's just like Voldemort. Pure-blood mother, Mugggle father---ashamed of his parentage, trying to make himself feared using the Dark Arts, gave himself an impressive new name -- *Lord* Voldemort -- the Half-Blood *Prince* '

Harry is wrong that Snape is just like Voldemort and only wanted to be feared, and wrong that the person he wanted to impress most was Lucius Malfoy. But the rest of it agrees with JKR's  remarks. "Death Eater" is after all an even more impressive title than "prince". 

I think JKR plays down the issue of Snape's motives in the story because her characters have a lot of different reasons for becoming DE's, and she does not want Snape's reason to become *the* reason. But it is in there, if somewhat obscured by Harry's misreading of events. 

I think we can also see that Snape  hated some Muggles personally, and would have reason to resent the fact that they were under Ministry protection. But once they were out of his life, it probably didn't matter to him any more. 

As for Muggleborns, he didn't have anything against them personally, but they were a convenient scapegoat, convenient, that is, in the sense that both pureblood and  halfblood Slytherins could unite in disdaining them. 

And since it wasn't personal for him, he could easily shift away from it, both in thinking it was obvious that Lily wasn't like *them*, and in finding other scapegoats instead. 


Pippin




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 21 20:19:26 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:19:26 -0000
Subject: What triggered ancient magic? WAS: Re: James and Intent
In-Reply-To: <h1dbae+a0sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1m4ke+k987@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187143

<willsonkmom at ...> wrote:  

> > Steve earlier:  From a counselor's pov, in real life, love does work like that many times. Many people who truly love someone, go the extra mile to make a special effort to empathize with what that person needs and if it is within their power to do so, will make an effort to do so.  True, some people have no clue what others that they love want or need.  But if those people are in loving relationships w/ that person, and if that person is aware of the lack of empathy and understanding going on there, it is going to affect the future of that relationship. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I hope you're not saying that if one person doesn't automatically know what the other person wants/needs then there isn't love. Now, I'd have to agree that having learned what the other wants/needs and making no effort to provide it (within reason) is a different matter.
> 
> Ron had to read a book to find out how to please Hermione (no smirking out there). We saw him listening more and stopping himself to reconsider her feelings.
> 
> (Well, I had to work canon in, didn't I?)

Steve replies:
    No, I wasn't saying that not knowing what the person you love wants or needs means that you don't really love that person. I just meant that when this is the case, your empathic understanding and emotional awareness of the person you love is limited. In time it's possible to get better at knowing what the person you love needs and wants.  In Ron's case, he used that book.  But it was Ron's genuine desire to understand and please Hermione that prompted him to get and use the book. Hopefully, in time, as Ron matured and learned through trial and error (and Hermione's encouragment and help) he became more empathetic to his wife and children's needs.  But even if 
Ron continued to need the help of  his family (and that book..lol) to know what they were feeling, needing and wanting, I'd bet he still continued loving them deeply.        




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Sun Jun 21 21:04:32 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:04:32 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1lpo8+d31b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1m790+fcea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187144

"pippin_999:wrote:
>
> Carol:
> 
> JKR says in an interview that he thought that Lily would admire him if he joined the DEs. That sounds ridiculous; he knew that she hated Avery and Mulciber, the DE wannabes, and actually referred to Mulciber (the future Imperious specialist) as "evil." Could Snape, usually so logical (at least as an adult) really be that dim? 
> 
> Pippin:
> It's ridiculous if you think Snape loved a pure, idealized image of Lily. But I don't think his patronus shows us that. Harry's patronus does not change when his image of James gets deflated a bit. Though it is a symbol of James, it is  a projection of what's best in Harry, not James. 
> 
> Snape knows all too well that people are impressed by a show of strength, and he could see that Lily was impressed by James's power whether she wanted to be or not.
<SNIP>

Steve replies:  I agree w/ Pippin about what Snape's Patronus means and that Snape knows that people are impressed w/ a show of strength. I don't think JKR's comments, however off the cuff they may be (and what if she wasn't wearing cuffs when she said it?), are ridiculous at all. I think it's entirely plausible and quite possible that Snape thought Lily would admire him if he joined the DE's. Many boys and men in love are so hopeful that their love will eventually be returned that they believe that the object of their affection (and/or obsession?) will eventually admire them when they rise in status, become more powerful, and end up on the "winning" side.  Perhaps the smartest thing to do to impress Lily would have been for Snape to abandon his plans to join the DE's and to join the cause Lily was on. But canon shows Snape not doing this, whether or not he seriously considered it.

Is there canonic evidence of Snape mentioning in thought or dialogue that Lily's feelings toward Avery and Mulciber meant she wouldn't admire Snape becoming a DE? If not, than I see no valid reason to not consider Snape thinking as JKR says that he thought that Lily would admire him if he became a DE.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 21 23:12:50 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:12:50 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1lj1e+sc74@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1mepi+vngh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187145

Pippin:
<SNIP>
Algie no doubt would swear he was certain that Neville was magical, and was
only trying to put the matter to rest. And had he been wrong, it would probably
have all been hushed up, and everyone would have quietly agreed, after the
second firewhiskey, that it was for the best. <SNIP>

Alla:

We just see it differently. I am not disputing that Neville could have died had he been not magical, but I see no proof in canon that Uncle Algie deliberately put his life in danger and could not care less about it.  What if he was indeed truly convinced that Neville is magical? Careless of him? Maybe, if he did not have a charm ready.  By the way, I mentioned an example of how he could be saved, I did not mean that cushioning charm is the *only* way to do so. But in any event I do not see how we can compare him with somebody who put the baby in mortal danger and when coming to somebody who theoretically at least could save this baby not to ask for his life?

Sorry,  I do not even see where you are coming from with the idea (if that's your idea)  that Uncle Algie and Snape are anywhere close to each other on the scale of putting babies' life in danger.



Alla:
>
> There is a big difference to me between disowning and killing. And somehow I
speculate that even Snape's mother loved him and certainly did not want him to
dead, I doubt that this he could learn even in his childhood. No, I think he too
eagerly learned the philosophy of his master ? innocent lives including babies
are worth nothing, etc.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
Alla, Lucius Malfoy sent his own child to safety and then went off to torture
some Muggles, including two children. That's the pureblood way: every life is
not worth the same, and only some lives are worth saving.

Alla:

Sorry, you lost me again here Pippin. Yes, that is exactly what Lucius Malfoy did, what does it prove or disprove in regards to my thought about Snape learning his master's philosophy?

The only thing I would dispute here is that I would say that it is not a pureblood way, it is to me a Death Eater's way who just happens to be a pureblood.

Oh wait, did you mean that I should have put a qualifier in my sentence about Snape's learning his master's philosophy? That pureblood life for Voldemort is worth saving more than non pureblood? I do not see it if that's what you meant. James was a pureblood, Longbottoms were purebloods. Maybe I will put a qualifier that the lifes of those who do not support him are worth nothing to him, but I thought that was obvious.


JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 00:21:28 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:21:28 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1m790+fcea@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1miq8+i62f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187146

Carol earlier:
> > 
> > JKR says in an interview that he thought that Lily would admire him if he joined the DEs. That sounds ridiculous; he knew that she hated Avery and Mulciber, the DE wannabes, and actually referred to Mulciber (the future Imperious specialist) as "evil." Could Snape, usually so logical (at least as an adult) really be that dim? 
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > It's ridiculous if you think Snape loved a pure, idealized image of Lily. But I don't think his patronus shows us that. Harry's patronus does not change when his image of James gets deflated a bit. Though it is a symbol of James, it is  a projection of what's best in Harry, not James. 

> <SNIP>
> 
> Steve replies:  I agree w/ Pippin about what Snape's Patronus means  <snip>

Carol responds:

Wait. You two think that Snape's Patronus--a doe--represents the best of Snape? Doesn't that make nonsense of "For him? Expecto Patronum!" (when Snape casts his Patronus to show that he'd been protecting Harry for Lily and that he still loved her, "Always"?

Does that mean you think that Tonks's Patronus, obviously Werewolf!Lupin, represents "the best of tonks" rather than the man she loves?

I don't think so. I think that Tonks' Patronus represents her idealized Moony (or the best of Lupin), Harry's represents the best of James (the father who died for him), and Snape's (a beautiful and pure female creature) represents the best in Lily (or Snape's idealized Lily, whose name also symbolizes purity).

It's the Animagus form, IMO, that represents the true (and sometimes idealized self), which is why the not always magnificent James has that magnificent Animagus form, which is represented in *Harry's* Patronus. Now, granted, not every Wizard has an animagus form, and JKR seems to have been a bit confused on the subject, occasionally giving someone the same form for both (McGonagall) or a Patronus form that would have been perfect for that character as an Animagus form (Luna's hare; Dumbledore's phoenix). But I'm pretty sure that Hermione's otter Patronus represents Ron (weasel/otter/mustelid family) and his Jack Russell terrier represents Hermione.

At any rate, a Patronus, according to JKR's website, is a  spirit guardian, not a symbol of the Witch or Wizard's ideal self. And if we look specifically at Snape's spirit guardian, we see "a silver-white doe, moon-bright and dazzling, picking her way over the ground, still silent, and leaving no hoofprints in the fine powdering of snow. She stepped toward him, her beautiful head with its wide, long-lashed head held high" (DH Am. ed. 366).

Brave and brilliant though Snape is, that's an odd Patronus if it represents the best in *him.* Surely, it would be male, at least, and would resemble him in some way. (Since he has a "prowling walk," why not a lynx like Kingsley's?) But a Patronus doesn't have to be the same sex as its caster; clearly, Tonks' Patronus (the new one) represents Remus Lupin, not some aspect of herself. And Snape casts it for Dumbledore as proof of his love for Lily.

Steve:
> Is there canonic evidence of Snape mentioning in thought or dialogue that Lily's feelings toward Avery and Mulciber meant she wouldn't admire Snape becoming a DE? If not, than I see no valid reason to not consider Snape thinking as JKR says that he thought that Lily would admire him if he became a DE.

Carol responds:

Lily calls them "your little Death Eater friends" (even though she indicates that they haven't joined up yet). And she says that Severus can't wait to join up, either. Doesn't sound as if she'd admire him for becoming a DE to me.

here's the actual canon:

"You and your precious little Death Eater friends--you see, you don't even deny it! You don't even deny that's what you're all aiming to be!! you can't wait to join Youi-Know-Who, can you?" (675-76)

So, yeah. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that Lily won't admire him if he becomes a DE.

Carol, who thinks that Lily's Animagus form would have been a doe, and the Patronus is the pure spiritual essence of that doe as Harry's Patronus is the pure spiritual essence of Jame's stag
>




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Mon Jun 22 02:33:04 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:33:04 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1miq8+i62f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1mqh0+og3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187147

<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
 
> > > JKR says in an interview that he thought that Lily would admire him if he joined the DEs. That sounds ridiculous;

<SNIP> 
 
> Steve earlier:
> > Is there canonic evidence of Snape mentioning in thought or dialogue that Lily's feelings toward Avery and Mulciber meant she wouldn't admire Snape becoming a DE? If not, than I see no valid reason to not consider Snape thinking as JKR says that Lily would admire him if he became a DE.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Lily calls them "your little Death Eater friends" (even though she indicates that they haven't joined up yet). And she says that Severus can't wait to join up, either. Doesn't sound as if she'd admire him for becoming a DE to me.
> 
> here's the actual canon:
> 
> "You and your precious little Death Eater friends--you see, you don't even deny it! You don't even deny that's what you're all aiming to be!! you can't wait to join Youi-Know-Who, can you?" (675-76)
> 
> So, yeah. I'd say that's a pretty good indication that Lily won't admire him if he becomes a DE.
>
Steve responds:  We were talking about Snape's belief in Lily admiring him joining the DE's, not whether Lily herself did in fact admire him for doing so. JKR said that he (Snape) thought that Lily would admire him if he joined the DE's and you wrote that that sounded ridiculous. I asked for canonic evidence that Snape in thought or spoken dialogue mentions that Lily's feelings towards Avery or Mulciber meant she wouldn't admire him becoming a DE.  You didn't do so. So while your quotes were nice, and I totally agreed with them accurately showing Lily's pov, they didn't pertain to the question at hand concerning Snape's POV, and his perception of what Lily thought. 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun 22 15:43:52 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:43:52 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1miq8+i62f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1o8ro+dp0c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187148

 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Wait. You two think that Snape's Patronus--a doe--represents the best of Snape? 

Pippin:
Not exactly. I think it's *made* out of what's best in Snape: his love for Lily, which it represents, and which did not alter when it alteration found. It *serves* as his spirit guardian. The patronus, said Lupin, is a projection of "hope, happiness, the desire to survive" and is, "unique to the person who casts it."  The doe is made out of Snape's feelings, not Lily's, you see? 

> Carol responds:
> 
> Lily calls them "your little Death Eater friends" (even though she indicates that they haven't joined up yet). And she says that Severus can't wait to join up, either. Doesn't sound as if she'd admire him for becoming a DE to me.

Pippin:
Just as Lily's friends can't understand what she sees in Snape, Lily can't understand what Snape sees in Mulciber and Avery, or the Death Eaters. Snape is so offensive to Lily's friends that they can't see past it to the good in him. Similarly, the idea of being a Death Eater is so offensive to Lily that she doesn't even *want* to understand why it's attractive to him; she can't imagine anyone wanting to be a Death Eater except out of sheer perversity. And it's so attractive to Snape that he doesn't get how  it can be so offensive to her. 

It isn't that they don't want to make the effort to understand each other. I agree that effort is a sign of love. But when people come from different backgrounds and are raised with different ideals, then it can take a lot more effort than expected. You can think you have made yourself plain in a way that any reasonable person would understand, and someone who cares about you should certainly pick up on, and find that you haven't gotten through at all. It's exhausting.  And it was OWL year when everyone was exhausted already.

Snape knows (or thinks) that he's not perverse, therefore it must be that she simply can't understand. Snape is determined to have the power and recognition he's always dreamed of having, and which he is never going to get from people who judge everyone by their clothes and their looks and their surnames. And he expects that when he does have them he'll be just as attractive as James, who eventually did win Lily despite Lily saying he was just as bad as  Snape. 


Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Jun 22 16:06:49 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:06:49 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1mepi+vngh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1oa6p+25qv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187149

Alla:
> Sorry,  I do not even see where you are coming from with the idea (if that's your idea)  that Uncle Algie and Snape are anywhere close to each other on the scale of putting babies' life in danger.

Pippin:

Neville wouldn't have been any less dead if he'd been killed for not being magical than if he'd been killed for being the prophecy boy. And this was Algie's second attempt. The first time Neville nearly drowned (a form of torture, according to some) but did anyone think Algie might be going a bit too far? Apparently not. 

I am trying to show that you can love and still be part of a culture that doesn't put the same value on every child's life. I don't have the reference, but I believe there's a letter extant from an ancient Roman traveler to his pregnant wife, where he writes touchingly about his love for her, and his hopes for their child. And then he says, in his final line, that if it's a girl, she should drown it.

There are and have been cultures where an unwanted child has no more value than an unwanted kitten, but the people who believe this are not psychopaths who are incapable of love. 

Salazar Slytherin had a child of his own, and left a basilisk so that child's descendants could hound other children out of Hogwarts on pain of death. Voldemort didn't have to teach his disciples that some lives were worth less than others. It was  engrained in their culture already.

Pippin





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun 22 17:35:58 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:35:58 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1miq8+i62f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ofdu+s9e2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187150

Carol:
 But I'm pretty sure that Hermione's otter Patronus represents Ron (weasel/otter/mustelid family) and his Jack Russell terrier represents Hermione.

Potioncat:
I was going to jump in and agree with all the part that I snipped, (and still agree with) but Pippin has since restated the opinion which also makes perfect sense to me. Also agree with the otter Patronus representing Ron.

But I am curious, why do you think the Jack Russell represents Hermione? I could understand his Patronus form representing Hermione, but I thought the Jack Russell had more in common with Fred and George.

Was Ginny's Patronus a horse only in the movie? (Equus, anyone?)


On a different topic
> 
> Carol responds to Steve:
> 
> Lily calls them "your little Death Eater friends" (even though she indicates that they haven't joined up yet). And she says that Severus can't wait to join up, either. Doesn't sound as if she'd admire him for becoming a DE to me.

Potioncat:
Maybe this was the point when Severus realized that becoming a DE wasn't going to impress Lily, but he's also lost her at this point any way. So he may have simply continued on a path he had already set.

Oddly enough I was listening to an audio autobiography of CS Lewis and he made some comment that fit Snape perfectly. I just wondered if anyone knows if JK Rowling read much CS Lewis? I can't quite remember how it went, if I get a chance I'll look it up.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 17:41:32 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:41:32 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1o8ro+dp0c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ofoc+8ri3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187151

Carol earlier:
> > 
> > Wait. You two think that Snape's Patronus--a doe--represents the best of Snape? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Not exactly. I think it's *made* out of what's best in Snape: his love for Lily, which it represents, and which did not alter when it alteration found. It *serves* as his spirit guardian. The patronus, said Lupin, is a projection of "hope, happiness, the desire to survive" and is, "unique to the person who casts it."  The doe is made out of Snape's feelings, not Lily's, you see? 

Carol responds:

Actually, JKR makes it quite clear that Snape's Patronus represents Lily herself rather than his love for her (though I have to resort to an interview, not canon, for the reference):

"Chely: James patronus is a stag and lilys a doe is that a coincidence? [The kid got the question wrong--it should be Harry's is a stag and Lily's is a doe, but it's the answer that matters here!]

"J.K. Rowling: 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 generates a Patronus)."

J.K. Rowling and the Live Chat, Bloomsbury.com, July 30, 2007 (2.00-3.00pm BST).

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html  

So Snape's Patronus (like Tonks's) is "the image of the love of [his] life," Lily--as he envisions her--beautiful and shining and pure.

So, sure, she's what constitutes the little happiness he feels. But the Patronus represents or symbolizes Lily as Snape imagines her, not his love for Lily, just as Harry's represents the idealized James who died trying to save him (and whose voice he heard during one of the Patronus lessons). Tonks' Patronus, too, mutated to take the image of the love of her life, in this instance, his werewolf incarnation. The image represents the Lupin she loves, not her love for him.

You see? :-)

Carol, who agrees that Snape's love didn't alter when it alteration found and appreciates the Shakespearean allusion but still thinks that the spiritual guardian is an idealized incarnation of the beloved person's essence as perceived by the caster









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 18:02:58 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:02:58 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1ofdu+s9e2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1oh0i+itl2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187152

Carol earlier:
>  But I'm pretty sure that Hermione's otter Patronus represents Ron (weasel/otter/mustelid family) and his Jack Russell terrier represents Hermione.
> 
> Potioncat:
> I was going to jump in and agree with all the part that I snipped, (and still agree with) but Pippin has since restated the opinion which also makes perfect sense to me. Also agree with the otter Patronus representing Ron.
> 
> But I am curious, why do you think the Jack Russell represents Hermione? I could understand his Patronus form representing Hermione, but I thought the Jack Russell had more in common with Fred and George.

Carol responds:

I can't see Fred or George representing Ron's idea of happiness. If my theory that the Patronus often symbolizes a loved person, Ron's could, I suppose, represent his mother, but more likely, it would be Harry or Hermione. And since hers apparently represents him (his best, most playful side), I think his would represent her just out of fairness and parallelism--not to mention that he loved her long time before he realized it, and her intellect got him out of trouble as far back as SS/PS when she figured out how to deal with the Devil's Snare.

At any rate, here's a description of Jack Russell terrier characteristics that I think fits Hermione pretty well:

"The Jack Russell is a happy, bold, energetic dog; they are extremely loyal, intelligent and assertive. Their greatest attribute is their working ability, closely followed by their excellent qualities as a companion."

Now, granted, some of these traits are more applicable than others (for example, she's not notably happy though only really unhappy when Ron is acting jealous or obnoxious), but I don't think we can question her intelligence or her loyalty, and she's certainly assertive when she's seeking revenge! She works hard and she's an excellent companion, as she shows especially in DH. Which means that, like Sirius Black, she has certain traits of man's best friend--and JKR's favorite dog breed in particular. (Thank goodness, unlike Sirius, she doesn't have a barklike laugh!)

Of course, just as the otter is JKR's favorite animal, the Jack Russell terrier is her favorite dog, so there may be no more to it than that! :-)

Carol, thinking that Snape's Patronus must always have been Doe!Lily rather than mutating into her as Tonks's original Patronus mutated into Werewolf!Lupin (Moony)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 20:22:17 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:22:17 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1oa6p+25qv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1op5p+a59k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187153

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

>  but did anyone think Algie might be going a bit too far? 
> Apparently not. 


zanooda:

Let's not forget though that Algie didn't *intend* to throw Neville out of the window :-). He dropped him accidentally, because his wife offered him a meringue... :-).




From randmath23 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 19:34:46 2009
From: randmath23 at yahoo.com (randmath23)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:34:46 -0000
Subject: Patronus
Message-ID: <h1omcm+4e1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187154

>From randmath23

I was wondering if the Ministry of Magic also keeps a record of
what a person's patronus is? I have wondered why Voldemort did
not check his death eaters, especially his "inner circle" if
they were able to perform the patronus charm. Dumbledore knew
for certain that Snape could not be a true death eater, since
he was able to perform the Patronus Charm.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun 22 22:18:23 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:18:23 -0000
Subject: Patronus
In-Reply-To: <h1omcm+4e1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ovvf+eihs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187155


>
> From randmath23
> 
> I was wondering if the Ministry of Magic also keeps a record of
> what a person's patronus is? I have wondered why Voldemort did
> not check his death eaters, especially his "inner circle" if
> they were able to perform the patronus charm. Dumbledore knew
> for certain that Snape could not be a true death eater, since
> he was able to perform the Patronus Charm.


Potioncat:
How do you get that? I thought that a Patronus could only be used for good purposes, or at least, not for Dark Purposes, yet Umbridge---of all people---was able to cast one and sustain it for quite a while.

IIRC, only members of the Order knew how to use the Patonus as a Messenger Patronus. One would have to wonder if Wormtail could cast one, or if Hagrid can.





From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Jun 22 23:01:13 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:01:13 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic?
In-Reply-To: <h1mepi+vngh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1p2fp+9ie5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187156


>
> Pippin:
> <SNIP>
> Algie no doubt would swear he was certain that Neville was magical, and was
> only trying to put the matter to rest. And had he been wrong, it would probably
> have all been hushed up, and everyone would have quietly agreed, after the
> second firewhiskey, that it was for the best. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> We just see it differently. I am not disputing that Neville could have died had he been not magical, but I see no proof in canon that Uncle Algie deliberately put his life in danger and could not care less about it.  What if he was indeed truly convinced that Neville is magical? Careless of him? Maybe, if he did not have a charm ready.  By the way, I mentioned an example of how he could be saved, I did not mean that cushioning charm is the *only* way to do so. 

Julie:
We don't really have any evidence either way (whether Uncle Algie cared if Neville was hurt or killed should he not have magic, or whether Algie would have thrown out a cushioning charm or similar at the last moment). But Uncle Algie did choose a method that put Neville's life in actual danger, rather than making Neville only *think* he was in actual danger. And there have to be dozens of ways to fake actual danger to force out Neville's magic (e.g., conjuring a giant snake that attacks Neville but will disappear the moment its teeth actually touch the boy. Or whatever.) Not to mention, Neville doesn't say anything like, "Uncle Algie says I was never really in danger as he had already charmed the sidewalk into a trampoline." If Uncle Algie intended to interfere should Neville's magic not assert itself, apparently Neville is not aware of that fact. 

JKR never brought up the issue in the books that I recall, but what do wizard families do with their Squibs? I suspect in the old days they acted much like many human cultures who held life cheap, and simply left an unwanted baby out in the cold or drowned it (once common with girl babies in China for instance). Or treated their Squibs as slaves like Merope's father did with her. One would hope in the current WW most families would love their Squib babies as much as their Wizard babies, but given Uncle Algie's frustration with Neville's lack of obvious magic ability, I don't think that is usually the case. If Neville was as valuable and loved a member of the family without magic as with magic, Algie would have just waited for Neville's magic to assert itself or not, content to love the boy either way. 


Alla:
But in any event I do not see how we can compare him with somebody who put the baby in mortal danger and when coming to somebody who theoretically at least could save this baby not to ask for his life?
> 

Julie:
Which makes me wonder what would have happened if Dumbledore had replied to Snape's request to save Lily by saying, "Certainly, my boy. I will place a protective charm on Lily so that when Voldemort comes to get the Potters, he will only be able to kill James and baby Harry, while Lily will survive unscathed. Shall I send her to you once it is all over?"

Methinks Snape would have been quite speechless with disbelief, as would the readers, that Dumbledore would ever consider not saving either James or baby Harry. Not to mention that realization would quickly strike, even while staring at Dumbledore's (likely) placid expression. "You wouldn't--I didn't mean that you shouldn't save the baby, or..." Snape grimaced, "his father."

"You didn't?" Dumbledore asked lightly.

Snape's pale face flushed, and he averted his face momentarily before focusing his fevered gaze again on Dumbledore. "Of course you must save them all! Just promise me you will!"

(I would have liked this version better too, as it would have fit with my original conception of Dumbledore as someone who preferred to shame and manipulate with gentle reprimands rather than harsh, direct attacks.) 

My point is, Snape knows instinctively that Dumbledore, beacon of the light side, is never going to agree to save Lily without also saving James and Harry. (And Snape knows Dumbledore also isn't going to refuse to help the Potters, even if Snape thinks he will likely suffer arrest, imprisonment or even death by going to Dumbledore with this information.) 

Even so, I'm not sure it matters. Snape was a willing Death Eater, even if he joined them more to gain respect and power, and perhaps to seek revenge against those who'd wronged him, than because he had any deep-seated belief in Pureblood superiority or any real desire to torture and kill Muggles. Snape's motives don't alleviate his culpability in the acts that Voldemort and the DEs carried out against Muggles and Muggleborns, whether he directly participated or not. But those motives might explain how Snape was able to change over the years he worked for Dumbledore from a man who only cared that the woman he loved was saved, to a man who in the end saved those he could (like Lupin) even if it might blow his cover, and reacted with fury at Phineas Nigellus' use of the term "Mudblood."  

> Alla:
> >
> > There is a big difference to me between disowning and killing. And somehow I
> speculate that even Snape's mother loved him and certainly did not want him to
> dead, I doubt that this he could learn even in his childhood. No, I think he too
> eagerly learned the philosophy of his master ? innocent lives including babies
> are worth nothing, etc.

Julie:
I do think the WW holds childhood as less sacred than Muggles society. At the very least Wizards are more willing to see children injured (maybe because they can usually be healed so much faster from their injuries) and even put into mortal danger (the Triwizard Tournament) than any Muggle parent would allow. And it does seem the WW in general may hold some lives (Wizards) more valuable than others (Squibs). 

I also think Snape did learn the philosophy of his master in regards to Muggles and Muggleborn lives being worth nothing, rather than being raised to believe it. Or he wouldn't have loved Lily. More likely though, he didn't "learn" it (as in come to truly believe it) so much as he subverted his own initial views because accepting Voldemort's views and burying his own conscience was what would lead to achieving his own goals. Much later, after prolonged association with Dumbledore, and after taking a good, objective look at Voldemort's self-serving goals from the other side, Snape came to recognize and honor his true belief that all lives had worth, especially the innocent ones, as well as the lives of those he heartily disliked, like Lupin and Harry.

Julie 

Julie




From miamibarb at comcast.net  Mon Jun 22 23:23:05 2009
From: miamibarb at comcast.net (Barbara)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:23:05 -0000
Subject: Slythie followers of LV
In-Reply-To: <h1k6cq+bne2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1p3op+fjpj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187157

While the majority of LV's inner circle (Death Eaters) are associated with Slytherin, many (like Luna's father) are coerced into doing evil things, making them untrustworthy, but hardly followers. 

> Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187083>:
> 
> << many people must have noticed that, with the presumed exception of Sirius Black, most of LV's followers, including those who claimed that they'd been Imperio'd, came from Slytherin. >>
> 
> Surely many of LV's followers, whether or not they claimed Imperio, were from other Houses. Because canon tells us that in those bad days, the first Voldemort Reign of Terror, no one knew whom to trust. So they couldn't use a guideline like 'People who were in Hufflepuff or Gryffindor are trustworthy'.
>





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 22 23:54:02 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:54:02 -0000
Subject: Slythie followers of LV
In-Reply-To: <h1p3op+fjpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1p5iq+ukpk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187158

"Barbara" <miamibarb at ... quoted me as follows:
> 
> > Carol wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187083>:
> > 
> > << many people must have noticed that, with the presumed exception of Sirius Black, most of LV's followers, including those who claimed that they'd been Imperio'd, came from Slytherin. >>
> > 
> > Surely many of LV's followers, whether or not they claimed Imperio, were from other Houses. Because canon tells us that in those bad days, the first Voldemort Reign of Terror, no one knew whom to trust. So they couldn't use a guideline like 'People who were in Hufflepuff or Gryffindor are trustworthy'.

"Barbara" <miamibarb at ...> responded:
>
> While the majority of LV's inner circle (Death Eaters) are associated with Slytherin, many (like Luna's father) are coerced into doing evil things, making them untrustworthy, but hardly followers. 

Carol again:

Just for the record, only the first quoted paragraph is mine. The second is Catlady's response to my post. As you've quoted me, it looks as if I'm contradicting myself!

I pretty much agree with you (most actual DEs other than Wormtail appear to have been in Slytherin). Fenrir Greyback, of course, wasn't in any House (and wasn't in the inner circle, FWIW), but the Snatchers also create the impression that they were in Slytherin. (I'm ignoring Harry's unaccountable reference to skulls in the Slytherin common room here.)

Carol, wondering which House Stan Shunpike was in, assuming that he attended Hogwarts for at least a few years




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 00:21:59 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:21:59 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse  LONG
In-Reply-To: <h1p2fp+9ie5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1p777+pcgf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187159

Julie:
We don't really have any evidence either way (whether Uncle Algie cared if
Neville was hurt or killed should he not have magic, or whether Algie would have
thrown out a cushioning charm or similar at the last moment). But Uncle Algie
did choose a method that put Neville's life in actual danger, rather than making
Neville only *think* he was in actual danger. <SNIP>

Alla:

Actually if what Zanooda says is true (and I completely forgotten it, sorry Zanooda am not doubting you, just do not have PoA to get a quote) uncle Algie did not choose anything at all, it was an accident, so yes, I think we do have evidence.

Even if it was not an accident, uncle Algie did not go to Dark wizard and told him to go and test Neville's magic and kill him if he is not magical, right?


Julie:
<SNIP>
(I would have liked this version better too, as it would have fit with my
original conception of Dumbledore as someone who preferred to shame and
manipulate with gentle reprimands rather than harsh, direct attacks.) <SNIP>

Alla:

LOL! But it would make Snape actually care about the life of the baby, but since JKR wanted to show that he did not, I do not see how this version could have played out. I have no problems with Dumbledore's behavior at their first meeting; I think Snape deserved everything Dumbledore said and more. I have lots of problems with Dumbledore's behavior on their second meeting, I think he behaved as complete bastard, but I still think Snape deserved everything Dumbledore said and more.

Julie.
My point is, Snape knows instinctively that Dumbledore, beacon of the light
side, is never going to agree to save Lily without also saving James and Harry.
<SNIP>

Alla:

LOL again, sorry. So, if Snape *knows instinctively*, why is he not asking it out loud?

Julie:
<SNIP>
Even so, I'm not sure it matters. Snape was a willing Death Eater, even if he
joined them more to gain respect and power, and perhaps to seek revenge against
those who'd wronged him, than because he had any deep-seated belief in Pureblood
superiority or any real desire to torture and kill Muggles.

Alla:

Oh I agree that it does not matter because Snape was a willing Death Eater of course. I do not think that Snape did not have beliefs in Pureblood superiority though. Although I cannot prove it of course with certainty. I think Snape really wanted to be the same status and to me his name always indicated his desire to be something he could never achieve, not his pride in his heritage. IMO of course.

Julie:
But those motives might explain how Snape was able to change over the years he
worked for Dumbledore from a man who only cared that the woman he loved was
saved, to a man who in the end saved those he could (like Lupin) even if it
might blow his cover, and reacted with fury at Phineas Nigellus' use of the term
"Mudblood."

Alla:

Or maybe the death of the woman he loved taught him that he has no right to pass judgments on whose life is worth more and who should be dead and that could have nothing to do with the motives he joined (whatever those motives were).

Julie:
I do think the WW holds childhood as less sacred than Muggles society. At the
very least Wizards are more willing to see children injured (maybe because they
can usually be healed so much faster from their injuries) and even put into
mortal danger (the Triwizard Tournament) than any Muggle parent would allow. <SNIP>

Alla:

I am going to bring up Pippin's quote here, because I think you both are arguing similar point.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
I am trying to show that you can love and still be part of a culture that
doesn't put the same value on every child's life. I don't have the reference,
but I believe there's a letter extant from an ancient Roman traveler to his
pregnant wife, where he writes touchingly about his love for her, and his hopes
for their child. And then he says, in his final line, that if it's a girl, she
should drown it. <SNIP>


Alla:

So um, sure of course WW holds childhood less sacred than Muggle society.  One just has to look at some staff that is happening in Hogwarts to see it. Do I like it ? Sometimes I do, often I do not, and I mostly like it in physical sense, not in emotional one, since to me the fact that they are wizard kids, they are sort of expected to be tougher physically.

But to me there is a long way to go from Triwizard tournament where participants can die from the competition gone wrong to go around **killing** kids by choice.

So, I see no proof that WW is okay with deliberate killing of the kids, unless we are talking About Death Eaters. I see no proof that they are willing to do what Pippin brought up about that Roman, or what ancient Spartans did with their newborns.

I think they are **certainly** allow their kids to take much more risks and to some extent I think it is justifiable by the fact they have magic and to some extent to me it is not at all justifiable.

I mean, it is a world that is totally okay with three seventeen year olds saving their asses and IMO not doing nearly enough to help them.

But I do not think WW by and large is okay with what Snape did by giving three innocents (whoever they may be)  to Voldemort to eat. I see no proof that they are.

Julie:
<SNIP>
I also think Snape did learn the philosophy of his master in regards to Muggles
and Muggleborn lives being worth nothing, rather than being raised to believe
it. Or he wouldn't have loved Lily. <SNIP>

Alla:

Oh, I don't know, to me his hesitation when Lily asks him about the difference showed that he knew pretty well. I think he loved Lily despite the fact that she was Muggle born, not because she was. As she is telling him that why she should be any different if he calls everybody of her heritage that word. (paraphrasing).

Julie:
<SNIP>
Much later, after prolonged association with Dumbledore, and after taking a good, objective look at Voldemort's self-serving goals from the other side, Snape came to recognize and honor his true belief that all lives had worth, especially the innocent ones, as well as the lives of those he heartily disliked, like Lupin and Harry.

Alla:

I do not think we know that this was ever his true belief, but I totally think that he came to have such belief in Dumbledore's clutches, erm sorry service.


JMO,

Alla






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 00:53:32 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:53:32 -0000
Subject: Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
Message-ID: <h1p92c+9r60@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187160

So, imagine you know your next vacation is on the island where there are no people. Which Harry Potter character you would invite with you and why, please use canon explaining :)

For me it is easy I would invite Hermione. I would make sure I would be on her good side first of course, but she seems to read all non fiction books in the world. I am a city girl, I need to know what to do and how to survive there, even if there will be plenty of food in the uncooked way and nice weather and Hermione showed that she can do camping just fine in DH.

Alla.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 03:56:13 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:56:13 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse  LONG
In-Reply-To: <h1p777+pcgf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1pjot+4ln7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187161

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

> I completely forgotten it, sorry Zanooda am not doubting you, 
> just do not have PoA to get a quote


zanooda:

It's not in PoA, it's in SS/PS/ "The Sorting Hat": "Great Uncle Algie  came round for dinner, and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my Great Auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go" (p.125 or 93).




From sherriola at gmail.com  Tue Jun 23 04:23:41 2009
From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:23:41 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <h1p92c+9r60@eGroups.com>
References: <h1p92c+9r60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <A065F861441548328F70A998B668A848@Pensieve>

No: HPFGUIDX 187162

Alla:
So, imagine you know your next vacation is on the island where there are no
people. Which Harry Potter character you would invite with you and why,
please use canon explaining :)


Sherry now:

OOO, cool topic, Alla!  If I'm being practical, I'd say Molly.  I think,
she'd drive me crazy, but from Harry's point of view about her cooking, I
think she could possibly find a way to make sand taste good.  I'd need to
eat after all.  And if I had to eat bugs or other weird things to survive,
molly could probably make them seem like something else.  In all the books
that feature meals prepared by Molly Weasley, the tables are groaning under
the weight of all the food.  I don't even like to eat all that much, but
those descriptions even get to me!

Alla:
For me it is easy I would invite Hermione. I would make sure I would be on
her good side first of course, but she seems to read all non fiction books
in the world. I am a city girl, I need to know what to do and how to survive
there, even if there will be plenty of food in the uncooked way and nice
weather and Hermione showed that she can do camping just fine in DH.



Sherry now:

Yes, you have a point, if anyone could figure out a way to turn stones into
soft beds, or whatever, it would be Hermione.  Too bad neither my choice nor
yours would really have much sense of humor.  I'm thinking laughter would
help get through the time, but I guess practicality would be better than
fun.

Sherry




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 08:40:24 2009
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:40:24 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Voldemort apparate?
Message-ID: <h1q4do+3010@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187163

In OOtP climax, Voldemort did apparate along with Bellatrix. Also, he's too powerful a wizard to find apparating / disapparating difficult.

So, why does he *fly* to Godric Hollow / Malfoy Manor (in DH) when he realizes that he can get *Harry Potter* once he reaches the place?! 

One can't apparate / disapparate inside Hogwarts, alright. One can certainly apparate to Hogsmeade? So, why did he fly all the way down (in DH climax)?

Any thoughts? :-)

Sorry if this topic has been discussed already.

Cheers,
~Joey :-)





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Jun 23 12:17:26 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:17:26 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why didn't Voldemort apparate?
References: <h1q4do+3010@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <110A45758B7E4CC79968D7C625362FB1@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 187164


From: "happyjoeysmiley" <happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com>


> In OOtP climax, Voldemort did apparate along with Bellatrix. Also, he's 
> too powerful a wizard to find apparating / disapparating difficult.
>
> So, why does he *fly* to Godric Hollow / Malfoy Manor (in DH) when he 
> realizes that he can get *Harry Potter* once he reaches the place?!
>
> One can't apparate / disapparate inside Hogwarts, alright. One can 
> certainly apparate to Hogsmeade? So, why did he fly all the way down (in 
> DH climax)?
>
> Any thoughts? :-)
>
> Sorry if this topic has been discussed already.
>
> Cheers,
> ~Joey :-)

Shelley:
1) Because I think Rowling thought it would "look cool" if Voldemort did so.
2) Some people have theorized that there is a distance limit to apparation, 
hence the need of Wizards to use of other devices to travel (brooms, magic 
carpets of the past, Voldemort's invention of flying).

Shelley 




From joeydebs at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 09:15:14 2009
From: joeydebs at yahoo.com (Debi)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:15:14 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Voldemort apparate?
In-Reply-To: <h1q4do+3010@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1q6f2+itan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187165

Joey:
<snip>
>
> So, why does he *fly* to Godric Hollow / Malfoy Manor (in DH) when he realizes that he can get *Harry Potter* once he reaches the place?! 
> 
> One can't apparate / disapparate inside Hogwarts, alright. One can certainly apparate to Hogsmeade? So, why did he fly all the way down (in DH climax)?
> 

Joeydebs:
Wasn't there something about an anti-apparition ward in Hogsmeade that the Death Eaters themselves set up? Malfoy Manor would certainly have an anti-apparition ward as the Death Eaters apparating to the gate suggests...

Or maybe Voldemort was just savouring victory on the way like any good villan does? ;)




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 14:37:38 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:37:38 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Voldemort apparate?
In-Reply-To: <110A45758B7E4CC79968D7C625362FB1@homemain>
Message-ID: <h1qpbi+vrgm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187166

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" <k12listmomma at ...> wrote:

> 2) Some people have theorized that there is a distance 
> limit to apparation


zanooda:

It seems so, because at Malfoy Manor Harry "... could feel Voldemort flying through the sky from far away, over a dark and stormy sea, and soon he would be close enough to Apparate to them..." (p.473). LV had to travel to the Malfoy Manor from continental Europe, which is comparatively far from England :-). 

However, Harry's statement contradicts somewhat this one from "Quidditch through the Ages": "Apparition becomes increasingly unreliable over very long distances, and only highly skilled wizards are wise to attempt it across continents" (p.48). Here it sounds like it's *not* impossible to Apparate over long distances, just unreliable.

Another thing: when checking for Horcruxes, LV had Nagini with him. Apparition is a very unpleasant sensation: like squeezing through a very tight rubber tube or something of the kind :-). Maybe LV didn't want to Apparate with an irritable snake on his shoulders, who knows how she will react :-)?




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 17:16:48 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:16:48 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Voldemort apparate?
In-Reply-To: <h1qpbi+vrgm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1r2m0+2e68@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187167

"k12listmomma" wrote:
> 
> > 2) Some people have theorized that there is a distance limit to apparation
> 
zanooda responded:
> 
> It seems so, because at Malfoy Manor Harry "... could feel Voldemort flying through the sky from far away, over a dark and stormy sea, and soon he would be close enough to Apparate to them..." (p.473). LV had to travel to the Malfoy Manor from continental Europe, which is comparatively far from England :-). 
> 
> However, Harry's statement contradicts somewhat this one from "Quidditch through the Ages": "Apparition becomes increasingly unreliable over very long distances, and only highly skilled wizards are wise to attempt it across continents" (p.48). Here it sounds like it's *not* impossible to Apparate over long distances, just unreliable.
> 
> Another thing: when checking for Horcruxes, LV had Nagini with him. Apparition is a very unpleasant sensation: like squeezing through a very tight rubber tube or something of the kind :-). Maybe LV didn't want to Apparate with an irritable snake on his shoulders, who knows how she will react :-)?
>
Carol responds:

I thought the same thing with regard to Nagini. He wants to keep his precious Horcrux (and dear pet) safe, and maybe you can't Apparate with a creature that can't hold on to you.

Also, if Apparition is limited by distance ("increasingly unreliable"  as distance increases), it would probably be unwise to do it over "a dark and stormy sea." What if you misjudged the distance? You'd drown. (I expect, though, that the English Channel is narrow enough, at least between Dover and Calais, that it would be safe for an experienced Wizard to attempt. <shrug>)

Maybe Voldemort likes to look beneath him as he flies if he's not certain of his destination, for example, when he was looking for Nurmengard, which is probably protected against Apparition and by a number of other spells? In the Seven Potters chase, of course, he needed to remain airborne, so Apparition wouldn't work, and, unlike the DEs, he didn't have to rely on a broom. (It would have been interesting if Snape's broom had been shot from under him and *he* showed at that point that he could fly broomless, too. <smile>)

Which brings up the question of how Snape learned to fly. Did Voldemort teach him alone of the DEs? Did he figure it out himself? Did he teach *Voldemort* how to fly? McGonagall's comment about learning from his master sounds to me like the kind of remark that's usually undermined later, and to some extent, it is--Voldemort isn't really Snape's master. But still, why only Snape and Voldemort--unless it's strictly for effect, so that Snape can escape from McGonagall and fly off looking like a giant bat.

Carol, thinking that flying simply shows great powers that most Wizards don't have (and DD didn't need because he had Fawkes)




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 23 20:19:54 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:19:54 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse  LONG
In-Reply-To: <h1p777+pcgf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rdda+bp9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187168

 
> Alla:

<snip>
> Even if it was not an accident, uncle Algie did not go to Dark wizard and told him to go and test Neville's magic and kill him if he is not magical, right?

Pippin:
Zanooda is right, I had forgotten about the meringue. But still, Algie was holding Neville by his ankles from an upstairs  window, and he obviously wasn't paying a lot of attention to what he was doing.  It's an early appearance of the "holding someone upside down" motif, and I'm sure *that's* not an accident. 

I'd also forgotten that the pier and the dangling weren't the only  incidents. Algie "kept trying to catch me off my guard and force some magic out of me," says Neville. So there were lots of chances for an accident to happen.

 
> 
> Alla:

> 
> But I do not think WW by and large is okay with what Snape did by giving three innocents (whoever they may be)  to Voldemort to eat. I see no proof that they are.

Pippin:

 Snape did not ask anyone to kill Harry or James. Is there canon that if  Voldemort had decided that he should just wait to see if the prophecy showed signs of coming true before he acted,  Snape would have been in there saying, "No, my lord, you must strike now?"  He just didn't think they were worth saving, an opinion much of the WW seems to share when it comes to werewolf children or giant children, or lowlife children like Morfin.  

And Aberforth wanted to hold the DE children hostage. Not much point in that if he wasn't willing to let them be harmed. 

But that wasn't my argument. I said that Snape might not expect Lily to mourn the loss of a husband or a child that she didn't want, and that there were examples of rejection in his background and in the culture of the WW generally. 

 We're told in DH that Squibs are usually sent to Muggle schools and encouraged to live as Muggles. But it isn't beyond Muriel's imagination that some families might do away with such a child instead. She's no Death Eater, nor does she accuse Kendra of dark magic. Algie's examples shows us how it could happen.

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 23 20:28:23 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:28:23 -0000
Subject: Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <h1p92c+9r60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rdt7+f03h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187169

Alla:

>
> So, imagine you know your next vacation is on the island where there are no people. Which Harry Potter character you would invite with you and why, please use canon explaining :)

Pippin:
Dibs on Snape!  because of his extensive library :veg: And because he could fly us to land.  You did allow us to  stipulate we'd be on their good side. :)

But that's if I'm choosing for company. For survival skills, I'd pick Sirius. Not only does he have proven experience, I'd get a dog into the bargain and an excellent swimmer.  Once again, stipulating that I'd be on his good side.

Now, if I can't be sure of that, I'd pick Dumbledore or Arthur. At least they're aware that they have a bad side and try to control it. I'd far rather be patronized or have a wineglass bounced off my head than be scarred for life.

Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 20:36:47 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:36:47 -0000
Subject: Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <A065F861441548328F70A998B668A848@Pensieve>
Message-ID: <h1recv+dvsd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187170

> Sherry now:
> 
> Yes, you have a point, if anyone could figure out a way to turn stones into
> soft beds, or whatever, it would be Hermione.  Too bad neither my choice nor
> yours would really have much sense of humor.  I'm thinking laughter would
> help get through the time, but I guess practicality would be better than
> fun.


Alla:

Oh yeah, I know laughter will be fun :) Too bad we are only allowed to have one person hehe.

However the reason I am posting I just wish to clarify - you do not have to choose practicality as the reason you would pick a character, you could pick ANY character for ANY reason, you know?

Now, me, as much as I would love the good company and laughter and believe me, I won't be able to enjoy Hermione's company alone for a long period of time, I also know myself. I am able to cook a good meal if I buy groceries from supermarker, but not if the ingredients for such meal are still growing on the field, or running around.

And if I cannot relax, I am afraid I won't be able to laugh much, so looks like I do need Hermione lol, even if I would gladly take some other people with me for fun.

Oh well, at least she will tell me stories from her books.

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Jun 23 20:49:31 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:49:31 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1ofoc+8ri3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rf4r+8apm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187171


> Carol, who agrees that Snape's love didn't alter when it alteration found and appreciates the Shakespearean allusion but still thinks that the spiritual guardian is an idealized incarnation of the beloved person's essence as perceived by the caster
>

Pippin:
Okay, but how does that show that Snape loved the idealized incarnation and didn't love Lily as she was? 

Anyway, we were discussing how Snape could want to be a DE when he knew that Lily thought they were evil. But re-reading, he wasn't paying attention when Lily said that. They could have had a dialogue about it, but they didn't. 

It was instead the sort of conversation that Dumbledore speaks of where each person is more interested in proclaiming their own point of view than in understanding what the other has to say. The result was that Lily thought she'd already given him an ultimatum: "You've made your choice" while Snape expected that if he could only convince her his apology was sincere, they could go on as before. 

If Lily hadn't broken off their relationship, they might have come to a mutual understanding eventually, much as Ron and Hermione did about the House Elves. At this point of the story, though, they're both relying on received wisdom, just  as Ron and Hermione were in GoF.

 Neither had any  first hand knowledge of what it means to be a DE. Even if some of Snape's older friends had already joined up, they wouldn't have been at liberty to tell Snape what it was really like. 
It's easy to take an extreme position when what you know has already been distilled to remove any possibility of nuance.

Pippin






From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Jun 23 22:33:23 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:33:23 -0000
Subject: Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <h1p92c+9r60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rl7j+1uav@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187172

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> So, imagine you know your next vacation is on the island where there are no people. Which Harry Potter character you would invite with you and why, please use canon explaining :)
> 
> For me it is easy I would invite Hermione. I would make sure I would be on her good side first of course, but she seems to read all non fiction books in the world. I am a city girl, I need to know what to do and how to survive there, even if there will be plenty of food in the uncooked way and nice weather and Hermione showed that she can do camping just fine in DH.
> 
> Alla.
>

Julie:
Great question! Much as I love Snape as a character, I have to admit I wouldn't really want to spend a lot of time alone with him. He doesn't strike me as much of a conversationalist! Truthfully none of the primary characters would interest me, either because they are too young (those still in school), or too prickly or annoying (which includes all those of the Mauraders age group!).

So upon reflection, my choice would be Charlie Weasley. He has plenty of experience roughing it, enough strength to take care of any dirty work, the Weasley good sense of humor, and no doubt he has some great tales to tell about his life as a dragon keeper. He might even bring a baby dragon with him, if I ask nicely :-)


Julie 






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 22:38:53 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:38:53 -0000
Subject: Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <h1recv+dvsd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rlht+lqhc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187173

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

> I am able to cook a good meal if I buy groceries from 
> supermarket, but not if the ingredients for such meal 
> are still growing on the field, or running around.
> <SNIP> 
> so looks like I do need Hermione lol


zanooda:

But Hermione is a really bad cook, and I never saw her cast a household spell :-). Can we choose whoever we want *plus* a house-elf :-)? If not, maybe I would take Bill or Charlie - they must have some camping skills (because I have none :-)).




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 22:47:15 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:47:15 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1rf4r+8apm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rm1j+ricj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187174

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Carol, who agrees that Snape's love didn't alter when it alteration found and appreciates the Shakespearean allusion but still thinks that the spiritual guardian is an idealized incarnation of the beloved person's essence as perceived by the caster
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> Okay, but how does that show that Snape loved the idealized incarnation and didn't love Lily as she was? 

Carol responds:

While she was alive, he loved her as she was--or as he understood her to be. (I don't think Teen!Severus accepted her attraction to James as real since she denied it herself, and he never saw her after they left Hogwarts, which left plenty of room for an imaginary Lily to fantasize about and idealize. We see him doing just that when he takes the signature of the letter and pretends that it was written to him.0

But I'm talking about the Patronus representing an idealized Lily--pure and bright and beautiful and flawless, just as Harry's Patronus represents the idealized James who died for Harry and would not have let his friends kill Wormtail. (Harry holds onto that James even after he witnesses SWM. No doubt the wand echo in the graveyard helped.)

Pippin:
> 
> Anyway, we were discussing how Snape could want to be a DE when he knew that Lily thought they were evil. But re-reading, he wasn't paying attention when Lily said that. They could have had a dialogue about it, but they didn't. 
> 
> It was instead the sort of conversation that Dumbledore speaks of where each person is more interested in proclaiming their own point of view than in understanding what the other has to say. The result was that Lily thought she'd already given him an ultimatum: "You've made your choice" while Snape expected that if he could only convince her his apology was sincere, they could go on as before. 
> 
> If Lily hadn't broken off their relationship, they might have come to a mutual understanding eventually, much as Ron and Hermione did about the House Elves. At this point of the story, though, they're both relying on received wisdom, just  as Ron and Hermione were in GoF.
> 
>  Neither had any  first hand knowledge of what it means to be a DE. Even if some of Snape's older friends had already joined up, they wouldn't have been at liberty to tell Snape what it was really like. 
> It's easy to take an extreme position when what you know has already been distilled to remove any possibility of nuance.

Carol:
Okay. That makes sense. I agree that neither of them really had any idea what DEs were like, Had Severus known, he might have listened to her and understood her objections--or not wanted to join up himself. (we see how deluded Draco is about the "glory" of receiving an assignment from Voldemort. Regulus was also deluded as to how admirable Voldemort was. Most likely, Severus and his friends were similarly deluded, sheltered as they were in the safe haven of Hogwarts.

As it was, the DE/Order conflict probably looked like nothing more than an extension of the antipathy between Slytherin and Gryffindor that we saw with little James and little Sev on the Hogwarts Express and in SWM and see again in Harry's time at Hogwarts.

If that's correct, it makes sense that he thought he might earn Lily's respect and admiration by becoming a DE and showing her how powerful and exciting they "really" were. She, OTOH, would have hated them even more had she known what they were really like.

If, however, he listened and understood that she hated the DEs (and both of them really knew what they were), it would be absurd to think that she'd admire him for becoming one.

Anyway, I don't see much connection between the very human and unforgiving Lily that we see after SWM and the Lily represented by Snape's Patronus. His view of her must have become less and less accurate as they grew further apart and completely idealized, all flaws removed and nothing but beauty and purity remaining, after her death (just as James, as I think you said yourself, became "good" after his death--or seconds before-- and that good, brave, loving James is the one we see in the stag Patronus).

Just the way I see it.

Carol, hoping we've moved closer to understanding each other's positions now





From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 23 23:12:06 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:12:06 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1rm1j+ricj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rng6+10j89@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187175

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
>> Pippin:
> > 
> snip> > 
> >  Neither had any  first hand knowledge of what it means to be a DE. Even if some of Snape's older friends had already joined up, they wouldn't have been at liberty to tell Snape what it was really like. 
> > It's easy to take an extreme position when what you know has already been distilled to remove any possibility of nuance.
> 
> Carol:
> Okay. That makes sense. I agree that neither of them really had any idea what DEs were like, Had Severus known, he might have listened to her and understood her objections--or not wanted to join up himself. (we see how deluded Draco is about the "glory" of receiving an assignment from Voldemort. Regulus was also deluded as to how admirable Voldemort was. Most likely, Severus and his friends were similarly deluded, sheltered as they were in the safe haven of Hogwarts.

jkoney:
You don't think they knew enough about the DE's? 

If they knew the DE's existed, that means that the DE's must have already been committing terrorist like acts (killing, burning, etc) and those acts must have been reported as being committed by DE's. Otherwise they never would have heard of them.

If they don't understand, than deluded is probably not a strong enough word.


> Carol:
> As it was, the DE/Order conflict probably looked like nothing more than an extension of the antipathy between Slytherin and Gryffindor that we saw with little James and little Sev on the Hogwarts Express and in SWM and see again in Harry's time at Hogwarts.
> 
> If that's correct, it makes sense that he thought he might earn Lily's respect and admiration by becoming a DE and showing her how powerful and exciting they "really" were. She, OTOH, would have hated them even more had she known what they were really like.
> 
> If, however, he listened and understood that she hated the DEs (and both of them really knew what they were), it would be absurd to think that she'd admire him for becoming one.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see much connection between the very human and unforgiving Lily that we see after SWM and the Lily represented by Snape's Patronus. 

jkoney:
Why should Lilly be unforgiving? She had held out hope that Snape wasn't truly like his friends only to find out that he considered her a mudblood just like all the rest. At that point an apology is meaningless. Snape's thought process has been shown. Not only does he say that about others, he says it about her. Someone she thought was her best friend doesn't believe she should exist in the magical world. I believe that Lilly's delusion of Snape ended right there.

He on the other hand realized this. That's why his patronus showed the best of her. He knew she was right all along. 









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun 23 23:30:03 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:30:03 -0000
Subject: Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <h1rdt7+f03h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1rohr+4duv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187176

>
> Alla:
> 
> >
> > So, imagine you know your next vacation is on the island where there are no people. Which Harry Potter character you would invite with you and why, please use canon explaining :)
> 
> Pippin:
> Dibs on Snape!  because of his extensive library :veg: And because he could fly us to land.  You did allow us to  stipulate we'd be on their good side. :)

Potioncat:
An island? No people? You mean, lots of sun and sand, no AC, no one to cook? Is this your idea of a vacation?

Well, I don't like too much sun, or too much ocean, so I'm going to have to fight Pippin for Snape.

Based on canon, I know Severus doesn't care for sun either (keeps to the shade after OWLS). So I figure after about an hour or so, he can fly us to some place shadier and cooler, with someone to serve us chilled wine.




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 24 20:56:30 2009
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:56:30 -0000
Subject: Vacation on the uninhabited island with Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <h1p92c+9r60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1u3tu+jas0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187177

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> So, imagine you know your next vacation is on the island where 
> there are no people. Which Harry Potter character you would invite 
> with you and why, please use canon explaining :)


Jen: I'm with Potioncat on wondering how this would be a vacation. ;) It sounds more like being stranded on a deserted island.  If it's for a time-limited vacation, say a week, I'd take Snape when Potioncat & Pippin don't have him.  Hopefully he won't be too surly to tell his side of the story from his own POV.  I'd like to hear Lily's story in her own words too.  George would be fun; he'd keep me laughing at least. 


Alla: 
> For me it is easy I would invite Hermione. I would make sure I
> would be on her good side first of course, but she seems to read 
> all non fiction books in the world. I am a city girl, I need to 
> know what to do and how to survive there, even if there will be 
> plenty of food in the uncooked way and nice weather and Hermione 
> showed that she can do camping just fine in DH.


Jen: Charlie Weasley's my pick if we're talking about survival.  He sounds practical, stable and has lots of outdoor experience. Maybe he could fill in a few gaps in the Weasley story.  Lupin is another possibilty if he has Wolfsbane Potion with him.  

Hehe, this is fun Alla!





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 25 00:47:11 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:47:11 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1rng6+10j89@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1uhef+9idk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187178


> 
> jkoney:
> You don't think they knew enough about the DE's? 
> 
> If they knew the DE's existed, that means that the DE's must have already been committing terrorist like acts (killing, burning, etc) and those acts must have been reported as being committed by DE's. Otherwise they never would have heard of them.

Pippin:
Hindsight is twenty-twenty.

At the time, nobody knew who to trust, according to Hagrid and Sirius, and that means nobody knew whose information was reliable. Voldemort and his followers were still heroes in the eyes of many. 

Carol:
> > Anyway, I don't see much connection between the very human and unforgiving Lily that we see after SWM and the Lily represented by Snape's Patronus. 
> 
Pippin:
I think the patronus was inspired by the happiness Snape felt as her friend, and that he had  already learned to cast it before the break-up. It's the kind of spell someone very interested in DADA would want to learn on their own.

It has a far nobler aspect than Lily herself. But isn't that one of the morals of the book, that you don't need to be an especially noble person to do a noble deed, nor to inspire nobility in others?


> jkoney:
> Why should Lilly be unforgiving? She had held out hope that Snape wasn't truly like his friends only to find out that he considered her a mudblood just like all the rest.

Pippin:

That's what she thought, but it probably wasn't true. How do you know what Snape's thought process was? Haven't you ever said something in rage that you wished you could take back?

Of course Snape should have stood up for Lily from the beginning and told his friends never to use that word, but that kind of courage is rare, just as Lupin never had the courage to tell his friends to lay off Snape. And Snape's friends weren't kids whose parents would have washed their mouths out with scurgify -- they'd learned to say "mudblood" from respectable adults like Phineas Nigellus. This was an issue the WW needed to settle for itself which went far beyond the walls of Hogwarts. 

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 25 02:04:43 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:04:43 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1uhef+9idk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h1ulvr+78vo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187179

> > jkoney:
<SNIP>
> > Why should Lilly be unforgiving? She had held out hope that Snape wasn't truly like his friends only to find out that he considered her a mudblood just like all the rest.
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> That's what she thought, but it probably wasn't true. How do you know what Snape's thought process was? Haven't you ever said something in rage that you wished you could take back? <SNIP>

Alla:

No? You think he called her that, but he did not really *mean* it?

As to saying something in rage that we wished we could take back, um absolutely. Except, see the problem is that in my personal experience if I say something  mean when I am angry, it is often something I really and truly **mean**, just something that I do not want another person to be aware of.

So, certainly this is a personal projection, but as you said since we are not in Snape's head, I think it is just as valid as any - IMO when person is under stress, the ugliness usually comes out, since you are too angry to restrain yourself and keep it in your mind.

So I speculate that Snape always thought of Lily as mudblood, thought that it was an inferior thing to be - to be muggleborn, but also to him mudblood, but loved Lily despite that and finally under stress let his true thoughts show.

Just speculating,

Alla, who completely agrees with jkoney on this one. 







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 25 15:29:28 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:29:28 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h1ulvr+78vo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h2054o+p5un@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187180


> 
> Alla:
> 
> No? You think he called her that, but he did not really *mean* it?
<snip>
> So I speculate that Snape always thought of Lily as mudblood, thought that it was an inferior thing to be - to be muggleborn, but also to him mudblood, but loved Lily despite that and finally under stress let his true thoughts show.
>

Pippin:
When did he ever treat her as an inferior before SWM? We should have seen hints of it, and we should have seen the point where Snape stopped feeling she was inferior. 

Did he ever express any surprise that she was as magical as anyone? No doubt Snape had heard people say that  Muggleborns were inferior, and that's why he hesitated before saying that her birth wouldn't make any difference.

But he didn't think it should apply to Lily.   IOW, if only his friends knew what she was *really* like, they'd consider her an exception, just as Slughorn did. But he was under a lot of pressure from his friends, and so was Lily.

Who knows how many times Snape heard his friends say that Mudbloods  wouldn't stand by the WW when they were needed? Binns says that is what Slytherin himself believed.  And how many times did Lily hear the same things said about Slytherins?

If Hermione came on a bunch of kids harassing her best friend, would she have asked "What's he done to you?"   Lily was already losing trust in Snape, not because of anything he had done personally, AFAWK, but because of the people he was associating with. I can't blame her for being suspicious, but it made her act just the way Snape had been told Mudbloods were going to act. 

 Then he had to go and prove *her* suspicions, by using the "unforgivable word" -- but IMO it didn't prove anything except that he trusted the wrong people (and had poorer impulse control than Lily, who managed to suppress her momentary urge to laugh at him.) 

 They both trusted the people who were nice to them, just as Harry did. But nice is not the same as enlightened.

Doubtless young Snape thought the world would be a better place once the "right" people were in charge, and if some people had to be shoved aside to make that happen, well, better Them than Us. Of course canon shows us the problem with that kind of thinking, but it's something a lot of characters had to learn the hard way.

Pippin










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 25 17:01:18 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:01:18 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h2054o+p5un@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h20agu+fpq2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187181

Pippin wrote:
<snip>
>  Then he had to go and prove *her* suspicions, by using the "unforgivable word" -- but IMO it didn't prove anything except that he trusted the wrong people (and had poorer impulse control than Lily, who managed to suppress her momentary urge to laugh at him.) 

Carol responds:

I'm snipping the parts of the post that I agree with. I'm just not sure that Lily had better impulse control than Severus. After all, it's easier to suppress mild amusement that you're rightly ashamed of than it is to suppress anger, and *she* wasn't being attacked two on one and being publicly humiliated with her own spells used against her. (I think it was a further humiliation to have a girl step up to protect him, Prefect or not, and, as you say, she wasn't acting like his friend.) Once *she's* insulted by being called a "dirty little Mud-blood," as you say, her suspicions that he's just like his friends take over, and she insults *him* by calling him "Snivellus."

If we assume (as Lily does) that calling Lily a Mud-blood means that he must have been habitually using that word to refer to other Muggle-borns, we have to assume that Lily has been habitually referring to her one-time best friend as "Snivellus," or at least mentally applying that term to him. Obviously, she had heard Sirius and James calling him or referring to him by that revolting epithet just as he had heard his Slytherin friends calling or referring to Muggle-borns as "Mud-Bloods." But we can't assume that either of them has actually used the term or even thought in those terms. Either that or Lily is lying when she says they're still best friends. (Obviously, Severus isn't lying about his feelings for her. He loves her.)

Carol, who finds calling someone "Snivellus" an odd illustration of impulse control




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Thu Jun 25 17:22:26 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:22:26 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Patronus
In-Reply-To: <h1omcm+4e1n@eGroups.com>
References: <h1omcm+4e1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90906251022v246a2fdela86985cadd38b011@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187182

>randmath23 wrote:
>I was wondering if the Ministry of Magic also keeps a record of
>what a person's patronus is? I have wondered why Voldemort did
>not check his death eaters, especially his "inner circle" if
>they were able to perform the patronus charm. Dumbledore knew
>for certain that Snape could not be a true death eater, since
>he was able to perform the Patronus Charm

No.Limberger responds:
I am not aware that ability to perform a Patronus Charm means
that someone is not a death eater.  Presuming that casting
of a Patronus Charm is something that would be taught at
Hogwarts, anyone who graduates from Hogwarts (whether
death eater or not) would be able to do this.  Now, given
that the Patronus Charm requires a very happy memory to
be successfully cast, if a particular death eater has no happy
thoughts, then, no, that particular death eater would be
unable to cast one; but that would be true for anyone that
was unable to recall a happy memory.

I am also not aware of the Ministry of Magic tracking what
shape each individual's Patronus Charm takes, nor whether
LV tested whether any death eater could perform the charm.

-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limberger!"


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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 25 18:38:02 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:38:02 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h2054o+p5un@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h20g6a+nc4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187183

Pippin:
When did he ever treat her as an inferior before SWM? We should have seen hints
of it, and we should have seen the point where Snape stopped feeling she was
inferior.

Did he ever express any surprise that she was as magical as anyone? No doubt
Snape had heard people say that Muggleborns were inferior, and that's why he
hesitated before saying that her birth wouldn't make any difference.

But he didn't think it should apply to Lily. IOW, if only his friends knew
what she was *really* like, they'd consider her an exception, just as Slughorn
did. But he was under a lot of pressure from his friends, and so was Lily. <SNIP>


Alla:

This is exactly my point.  Only I would say that he hesitated not just because he **heard** from other people that Muggleborns were inferior, but because he learned and adopted that philosophy at early age.

But really after rereading what you wrote, I really agree with a lot of it. I said that Snape loved Lily **despite** who she was, so sure I agree he thought that it should not apply to her. 

Only when you think that the group to which person belongs is inferior, I think you are lying to yourself (not you, hypothetical you and  in this instance I mean Snape) that you do not think that one person of this group is inferior, I think sooner or later the bulb will go off in your head that oh no, this person belongs to this group, he or she is absolutely the same and I was deluding myself.

It reminds me of when person would say, oh I do not like jews, but my best friend is a Jew, or I do not like gays but my best friend is gay, or I do not like Black people but my best friend is black person.

And I always want to say when I hear this silliness, really, you consider yourself to be a friend of this person, when you cannot come to peace with such a huge part of who this person is? I always think, I hope your so called "best friend" will run for his or her life from you as far as possible that to me is a RL equivalent of the situation between Snape and Lily.


Only my speculative opinion of course, but based on Snape's hesitation and him eventually joining Death Eaters, I think it has at least canon based reasons for it.


Pippin:
If Hermione came on a bunch of kids harassing her best friend, would she have
asked "What's he done to you?" Lily was already losing trust in Snape, not
because of anything he had done personally, AFAWK, but because of the people he
was associating with. I can't blame her for being suspicious, but it made her
act just the way Snape had been told Mudbloods were going to act.

Alla:

Lily did not defend him enough as best friend needs to be defended, but association with DE wannabe would make me start loosing trust in my friend too. And there is of course another IMO plot overriding character consistency. As Zanooda (I think) said that JKR tried soo hard to not let us know before time that Snape and Lily were friends, that of course she would not show Lily acting as best friend should, but probably as prefect defending a stranger. Regardless though, even if Lily did not defend him at all, which I would find wrong, to me the fact that he called her that word shows what **he** believed in as well, not just that he associated with wrong people. 


Pippin:
<SNIP>
Doubtless young Snape thought the world would be a better place once the "right"
people were in charge, and if some people had to be shoved aside to make that
happen, well, better Them than Us. Of course canon shows us the problem with
that kind of thinking, but it's something a lot of characters had to learn the
hard way.

Alla:

Well,yeah, one of my original points was that these were Snape's learned views and NOT something that he just did by abandoning his original principles whatever they were. I am saying that his original views seemed to be pretty ugly. I think he learned the value of every life because of Lily's death and in Dumbledore's service. Too bad that he did not learn that he needs to treat people the way he wants to be treated if you ask me, but that's an aside. And I surely agree that several characters needed to learn that.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Jun 26 15:03:18 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:03:18 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h20g6a+nc4r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h22nvm+8buq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187184

 
> Alla:
> Only when you think that the group to which person belongs is inferior, I think you are lying to yourself (not you, hypothetical you and  in this instance I mean Snape) that you do not think that one person of this group is inferior, I think sooner or later the bulb will go off in your head that oh no, this person belongs to this group, he or she is absolutely the same and I was deluding myself.
> 
> It reminds me of when person would say, oh I do not like jews, but my best friend is a Jew, or I do not like gays but my best friend is gay, or I do not like Black people but my best friend is black person.
> 

Pippin:
You think a person can not dislike dogs in general, but have a soft spot for one particular pooch? It's inevitable that they'll turn on that dog eventually?  

I  agree with you on your specific example, because  someone who says "Jews are inferior" is most likely being hostile on purpose. But that's in our society, where equality is a right, and expressions of bias against people are considered crude and everyone knows it.

But that's not the situation in Snape's world. When Slughorn says "You mustn't think I'm prejudiced" he really believes he isn't, IMO. When he says that it's surprising a Muggleborn would do so well, that's based on what he thinks is observable, empirical evidence. 


After all, he's been teaching for years. He doesn't know that he's not a reliable observer, or that his interpretation of the evidence is going to be skewed by his expectations. He's never heard of sensitivity training or consciousness raising exercises.

Canon doesn't play fair with us -- It shows us two utterly brilliant Muggleborn witches and the only  Muggleborn who really doesn't seem to adapt to the WW at all is Myrtle, who'd be a disaster anywhere. But does that make sense? 

 By the law of averages, half of all Muggleborn students should  struggle more than the other half. But we never meet them, so our  impression is that  Muggleborn students are obviously brilliant, like Hermione and Lily, and anyone who can't see that they're just as magically adept as any other wizard must be blinded by hate or very obtuse. 

Snape and Slughorn could see that Lily was brilliant, but they'd also see a lot of Muggleborn students who weren't, and they'd attribute their struggles to the fact that they were Muggleborn. It wouldn't take much to think that Muggleborns were naturally weaker at magic, considering the cultural disadvantages that Muggleborns face, and which Snape and Slughorn probably never thought about. I don't suppose anyone vets the OWLs and NEWTs for cultural bias. They probably never even heard of such a thing.

 So yes, Snape  learned that Muggleborns were inferior, but he wasn't taught that as a philosophy, IMO, he was taught that as a fact, like "cats are fuzzy". 

Generalizations like that are "sticky" -- if you see a hairless cat, you're likely to think it's an unusual cat, not that everything you ever learned about cats is wrong. 

It's like Lily herself, really. We were told that Lily was a heroine, and so we expected her to act like one all the time. We want to put a heroic cast on her actions even when Harry himself can't bear to watch what he knows she's going to do. We'll even go so far as to say that JKR deliberately had her act out of character in a major scene.

But JKR covered herself on that one.  Snape had already observed that Lily was acting strange: "I thought we were friends." Just speculating, but if Lily wondered out loud if Snape wasn't involved in what happened to Mary, she'd be no different than Snape refusing to believe that James hadn't been in on the prank. 

I don't think that Snape calling Lily Mudblood has to prove that he'd always detested  Muggleborns.  What, you think she called him Snivellus because she always had something against people with big noses? She called him that because she knew it would hurt.

Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 26 15:55:50 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:55:50 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h22nvm+8buq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h22r26+f5nm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187185

Pippin:
You think a person can not dislike dogs in general, but have a soft spot for one
particular pooch? It's inevitable that they'll turn on that dog eventually?

I agree with you on your specific example, because someone who says "Jews are
inferior" is most likely being hostile on purpose. But that's in our society,
where equality is a right, and expressions of bias against people are considered
crude and everyone knows it.

But that's not the situation in Snape's world. When Slughorn says "You mustn't
think I'm prejudiced" he really believes he isn't, IMO. When he says that it's
surprising a Muggleborn would do so well, that's based on what he thinks is
observable, empirical evidence. <SNIP>


Alla:
Do I really need to address dogs' analogy? But yes, if I knew that person thinks that dogs as a group are disgusting, evil, inferior creatures, I would have had a hard time believing that person may love one dog.

And I really do not care if Slugghorn does not realize that he is prejudiced. I think what matters is that us readers realize that he is prejudiced, no? Moreover, *Harry* seems to realize that he is prejudiced and I think that it supposed to mean that author wants for WW eventually to realize that to, IMO

I do not know if Slugghorn surprise is based on the empirical evidence, but again, who cares even if he **thinks** that he has that evidence and not just parroting what he had been taught.

Let me give you a real life example, out of approximately 500 people in my law school  class we had (roughly, of course I do not remember for sure) probably twenty or less black people there. You will not be arguing of course that this can be taken as any sort of **evidence** that black people do not do well in the studies of law,  or not smart enough to get into law school in the first place?

So, if somebody is stupid enough not to recognize the underlying reasons why this is still happening which has nothing to do with the intelligence, talent, drive, why am I supposed to cut this character a slack? If this character cannot let go of his prejudices I mean? At the most I may pity the character IF such character does not engage into active acts of hatred against the group, like I pity Slughorn, but Snape did engage in those acts, he joined the evil gang for goodness sake. Of course before you say so, he came back, but we are talking about the times when Snape and Lily split up and for the views Snape had at the time I have nothing but contempt, IMO of course. 

But again, I surely recognize that my views on this matter are strongly influenced by personal experiences.  If I know that person thinks that the ethnic group I belong to is inferior in any way, shape or form, there is absolutely no way I will extend a friendly affection to such person. I will not waste my time on trying to explain why it is so very wrong to think of the whole group of people that way, I will just ignore this person unless I absolutely have to interact with such person, but it is not going to be interaction in a social way.

This all makes me look at Snape and Lily interactions and think that Lily indeed was a Saint for sticking with Snape for years.  This is certainly much more than I would have done, but I realize that we apparently differ on what Snape's views were in the first place.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
Snape and Slughorn could see that Lily was brilliant, but they'd also see a lot
of Muggleborn students who weren't, and they'd attribute their struggles to the
fact that they were Muggleborn. It wouldn't take much to think that Muggleborns
were naturally weaker at magic, considering the cultural disadvantages that
Muggleborns face, and which Snape and Slughorn probably never thought about. I
don't suppose anyone vets the OWLs and NEWTs for cultural bias. They probably
never even heard of such a thing.

Alla:

Well, first of all I think it is a very big and largely unsupported assumption to make that they see a lot of muggleborn students struggling at magic and being weaker students. As you said, canon gives two exceptionally talented muggleborns witches and rather than assume that canon does not play fair, I will make an assumption that this is exactly what author wants to show based on the few representatives of the group. Just as I assume that Draco Malfoy was meant to be a typical Slytherin based on whom we were meant to create an opinion about Slytherin house.

But say that they do see some muggleborn students who are weaker (although I definitely would like some canon on this and not conceding to it), this is justifies them how?

So they cannot comprehend that they have no right to decide that the group of people cannot be deemed inferior, I think that is their problem, society problem, etc.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
So yes, Snape learned that Muggleborns were inferior, but he wasn't taught
that as a philosophy, IMO, he was taught that as a fact, like "cats are fuzzy". <SNIP>

Alla:

What is the saying? You say potato I say potato? What difference does it make if he was taught as a philosophy or fact? 

Pippin:
<SNIP>
I don't think that Snape calling Lily Mudblood has to prove that he'd always
detested Muggleborns. What, you think she called him Snivellus because she
always had something against people with big noses? She called him that because
she knew it would hurt.

Alla:

Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that. Again, call it personal projection if you wish, but in my life long experience, person who calls you the vile name based on your belonging to social group or race, or whatever usually cannot stand this group.

But I certainly agree that Lily called him because she knew it would hurt. If I knew that there is a group of people with big noses who are being discriminated against in WW, I would have thought otherwise.


JMO,

Alla





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 27 03:29:26 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 03:29:26 -0000
Subject: Another choose the character game
Message-ID: <h243mm+triu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187186

So I wanted to post something before my computer access will be significantly decreased during the next week, but since nothing jumped at me in the last few chapters of DH that I cared to post (have not finished yet, so I am sure something will in the very last ones heh), I decided to post another game of the sorts.

Okay, I was trying to define the parameters for choosing the character and failed to find the exact translation of the wonderful expression in russian language which I think reflects it perfectly.

So, I guess you guys will have to deal with an approximate translation - which character you would have chosen to go to get intelligence behind the enemy lines, to spy on the enemy,  maybe even to capture the enemy.

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.


Okay, this one is actually very hard for me, I would trust quite a few of HP characters to watch my back, but I guess Sirius would come first and foremost, somebody who would go to such lengths to try to ensure the wellfare of the friends' child, yeah I want to have that person on my side when we are behind the enemy lines.

Harry will do to of course, but hey I would like for once to relieve the younger generation from fighting even if only temporarily ( this is NOT the condition of the game, you can choose whoever you want to, it is just my personal reason).


And please do not fall off the chairs, but I would choose Snape to watch my back behind the enemy lines, assuming that I am on his good side lol, somebody who is so loyal to his boss that he would kill him on the boss' request, yeah, he can be personally loyal all right.

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.

Alla




From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sat Jun 27 21:18:53 2009
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:18:53 -0000
Subject: Another choose the character game
In-Reply-To: <h243mm+triu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h262bt+2gc5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187187

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

My first choice would be Neville, because I would know for sure, that he would never stop defending me, no matter, what happens. Also, since he has improved magically, there would be a far lesser chance, that he caused any unfortuante accident. But I really think almost all the good and even most of the grey characters (I mean Snape and Percy, especially, and even Scrimgeour, if he's on my good side) would qualify, since they have all proven, that they would risk for someone else.

I guess I wouldn't choose Sirius or Hagrid, because even though they have their heart in the right place, they are too unreliable because they're too hot-headed.




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Jun 27 21:28:21 2009
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:28:21 -0000
Subject: Another choose the character game
In-Reply-To: <h243mm+triu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h262tl+vra7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187188

Alla:
> To make a long story short, which character you would trust to watch your back. I suppose it is a test of personal loyalty?

Ceridwen:
I don't think it would be a test of personal loyalty given that you and this character are on the same side.  Despite possible differences, you have the same goal.  Sure, it would be nice if you and said character were friendly, but it isn't necessary as long as you and she or he both are known to do your duty to the best of your abilities.  The mission has a better chance of success if the parties get through it alive and it will also increase your side's morale.

Alla:
> And of course the stipulation that you are on the character good side applies and of course please use canon to explain why.

Ceridwen:
I'll stretch the definition of being on a character's good side to include being someone the character trusts and the character being someone I trust in a certain situation if that's okay.

Alla's list:
*Sirius
*Harry (if necessary, would prefer him to rest for future mission)
*Snape

Ceridwen:
*Snape:
He's proven.  He can keep his composure.  The mission comes first - see The Dark Lord Ascending in HBP.  He does not even flinch when Charity Burbage, a lost cause, pleads to him in tears.  Snape is able to keep his cover.  He apparently has high success rates for information gathering and coming through - see the way the Order greets his briefing in OotP.  He is well-versed in dueling and in stealth - see CoS and HBP.  He is proven to cover for comrades - saving Lupin's life in The Prince's Tale flashback to The Seven Potters in DHs.

*McGonagall:
She is no-nonsense.  She does what she needs to do even if she regrets it.  With the (what I consider to be a) glitch in DHs where she praised Harry's Cruciatus aside, she is known for being fair-minded, thoughtful, and discerning.  She is good with magic, she is brave - see OotP where she is stunned five to one.  She is loyal and there is no question of her loyalty to the Order and therefore to any member thereof.

If I was a Death Eater, I would want Narcissa Malfoy to watch my back.  In this case, I think there must be some level of personal trust beyond merely being on the same side - see her betrayal of Voldemort himself in DHs when she hides the fact that Harry is alive.  Her feelings would come into play for her so I would expect to be on her good side personally if I were to go on a mission with her.  I would want Narcissa because of the quiet strength she showed when under duress in DHs in every scene where we see the Malfoys as a family interacting with the Death Eaters, and in the scene we see of her when she is defending Draco in Diagon Alley against the trio.

Ceridwen.




From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Jun 28 01:03:28 2009
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:03:28 -0000
Subject: Courtly love in Potterverse WAS: What triggered ancient magic
In-Reply-To: <h22r26+f5nm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h26fh0+ft87@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187189

\
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that. Again, call it personal projection if you wish, but in my life long experience, person who calls you the vile name based on your belonging to social group or race, or whatever usually cannot stand this group.
> 
> But I certainly agree that Lily called him because she knew it would hurt. If I knew that there is a group of people with big noses who are being discriminated against in WW, I would have thought otherwise.
> 

Julie:
My lifelong personal experience with teenagers has taught me that going for the jugular is typical when they are angry or humiliated. There is no forethought, just immediate reaction, which is what I saw with Snape. He called Lily "mudblood" because he knew instinctively that it would hurt her feelings (and given that she was beautiful, smart and socially adept, there were few other insults to choose from, unlike with someone as ugly and socially inept as Snape). 

But I don't doubt Snape did see Muggleborns in general as inferior, since a good portion of the WW seemed to view them that way. And virtually *all* of the WW right up to Harry's day view Muggles themselves as definitely inferior, even those who have no evil intent against them at all (like the Weasleys) and merely treat them in a patronizing manner. The WW rather reminds me of America in the 1950s, where in part of the U.S.--the South to be exact--blacks were openly spoken of and treated as inferior, and it was even socially acceptable to call them by the epithet "nigger." Much as it is socially acceptable (or at least not punishable) to call fellow students "Mudbloods" at Hogwarts. Given that environment, his own upbringing, and the attitude among Slytherins that was not just tolerated but accepted at school, Snape's attitude isn't really surprising (nor Draco's), even if it is wrong. Lily is right to admonish him for it, though sinking to his level by calling him "Snivellus" isn't much of a step up from Snape's own insult to her. 

BTW, I know JKR wrote that whole worst memory scene portraying Severus and Lily as virtual strangers to keep readers from guessing their relationship as best friends, and she shortchanged characters in other scenes too in favor of plot. I accept that, but it doesn't change that the scene is now canon. And given that a lot of posters here harp on what is and isn't canon, it is canon that Lily looked like a pretty lousy friend here, trying not to laugh at Snape's predicament (and NO, real friends do not laugh while watching a friend's humiliation, it just isn't funny. It's uncomfortable at best--if you don't have the courage to intervene like Lupin--and a downright personal affront, if you do have the courage to intervene.) But Lily didn't intervene because she was enraged on Snape's behalf, as she was initially amused until she apparently realized that she *should* be angry. And even after admonishing James on Snape's behalf ("What did he ever do to you?"--and where has she been for five years if she doesn't yet know about the all out war between the Marauders and Snape?), Lily spends more time argue-flirting with James than showing any genuine concern for Snape, right up until Snape insults her. I can't help but wonder if Snape recognized that fact, subconsciously if not consciously.

In any case, it doesn't make me dislike Lily, but it does tarnish her oh so wonderful image a bit. She may have been nicer than most to befriend Snape in the first place (though their mutual and highly unusual gift of magic amongst ungifted Muggles certainly played a part in their unlikely friendship), but she wasn't more than average as a friend later (and again, I'm not knocking her, just saying she doesn't appear to me to have been exceptional in the area of empathy and nonjudgmental acceptance of others--as Luna absolutely is, for instance). I do think Snape rather idealized her, especially after he played his regrettable part in getting her killed. Good person she was, but as saintly as he viewed and remembered her, no.

Julie  




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 03:13:21 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:13:21 -0000
Subject: Lily and Snape, response to Julie
Message-ID: <h26n4h+h4kd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187190

Sorry about replying by starting new topic, but I am replying from my Blackberry and it does not allow me to bottom post, so I figured I am technically not violating any rules by just referencing your points, and we were due for changing the name of the thread anyway me thinks :). So here we go. Of course this scene is now canon, where did I say that it is not? I said that I believe that JKR tried really hard not to reveal that they were best friends and thus made Lily defend him as if she were defending a stranger and I stand by what I said, but I certainly agree that she did not defend him enough - for the best friend that is. The thing is though, she *did* defend him, didn't she? If she and Snape were only classmates I would have no problems with her behavior,except that urge to laugh. Since they did know each other very well, sure I have some problems with her behavior, urge to laugh was not good at all, but you know, all my problems with her behavior end after he called her name.So again, this scene is certainly canon. I think though it is a totally reasonable point to pander over whether if this was not a secret, whether JKR would have wrote this scene same way. Just as I think it is a reasonable point to think about whether had the Sirius not to be in prison till POA, whether Dumbledore had been portrayed as not moving a finger to help him. One can certainly argue that this was in character for Dumbledore to be such an asshole or for whatever other reasons to act that way and goodness knows after DH I do not have much energy to argue against it. One can certainly argue that it was in character for Lily to be an ass in this scene. Again I totally respect this, but I think I am allowed to have my doubts  right?  Regardless, I certainly do not think that she was acting as saint in that scene, when I said that she was a saint I meant that she was one for putting up with Snape before that, I meant that she did not walk away right after she knew that snape called all muggleborns that name - I never doubted that Lily was speaking from personal experience when she accuses Snape of that. For that I called her saint, but certainly not for this scene. Oh and I can never agree that by calling him Snivellius she stoops to his level, I think she so has many steps to go to his level. She uses mean revenge on one person, he thinks of her whole social group or ethnicity as inferior and she insults him back, only to me her insult to him is a righteous anger transformed into mean nickname and his insult shows his disgusting world view. IMO of course. Alla 




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 05:47:21 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:47:21 -0000
Subject: Another choose the character game
In-Reply-To: <h243mm+triu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h27059+76oi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187191

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

> my computer access will be significantly decreased during 
> the next week


zanooda:

Going on vacation to an uninhabited island, Alla :-)? Is Hermione with you :-)?


> Alla:

> ...which character you would trust to watch your back.


zanooda:

I like your choice of Sirius and Snape, and not only from the point of view of loyalty. They are both more than suited for a reconnaissance mission. Sirius can disguise himself very well, and Snape is equally good at stealth, I suppose, and he is a Legilimens :-). I'm not sure they could work well together though, so I wouldn't risk it taking them both at the same time, because your mission would fail :-).




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Jun 28 15:33:55 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:33:55 -0000
Subject: Lily and Snape
In-Reply-To: <h26fh0+ft87@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h282h3+t0d0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187192

 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that. Again, call it personal projection if you wish, but in my life long experience, person who calls you the vile name based on your belonging to social group or race, or whatever usually cannot stand this group.

Pippin:
But the whole point here is that the usual assumption was wrong. Harry thought, because of that word, that Snape hated his mother and all Muggleborns, and so Dumbledore was fooled, Snape was never sorry that Lily was dead, and Snape didn't give a damn about her.  

I really do not think Snape was considering the overall political implications of calling someone a mudblood while he was being tortured.

Probably he did see Muggleborns in general as inferior, as much of the WW did, but that doesn't mean he was emotionally invested in hating them. If not, it would make it relatively easy for him to drop the idea once something he *was* emotionally invested in was threatened. 

I think you have to have a violent hatred of *something* to willingly become involved with violence against the innocent, but it's possible Snape never took the DE anti-mudblood philosophy seriously. 

Look at Barty Crouch Jr. For him, being a DE was all about getting back at his father.  Muggle torture was a waste of time that should have been spent trying to bring Voldemort back to power, so he could deal with the people that Crouch *really* hated.  

Julie:
 But Lily didn't intervene because she was enraged on Snape's behalf, as she was initially amused until she apparently realized that she *should* be angry. 

Pippin:
Where do you get that she was initially amused? Some of the students were amused, but others were apprehensive. The girls by the lake are behind James as he advances on Snape. James looks over his shoulder at them. They're not looking at him initially, they're dangling their toes in the water. So we can't blame Lily if she didn't see what was going on immediately. 

The almost smile (it wasn't a laugh) makes her look bad. But many others were cheering -- Snape must have looked awfully silly. If she knew it was his own curse that had caught him, well, that makes it funny too. But she goes right back to being furious. 

I love the way, "What's he done to you" changes meaning. We don't know whether she said it the way I initially read it, as trying to shame James, or as I re-read it when I knew she was upset about what had happened to Mary. But if she said it the second way, it certainly makes Snape's reaction more understandable. 

I don't see a lot of argue-flirting. I do see that James had a gift for getting Lily's attention which would make Snape extremely jealous. We see, in her last words, that she has had her eye on James, despite her disgust with him, and Snape must have noticed that. 

But where she really went wrong, IMO,  was that she  threatened to hex James herself while Snape was wandless unless they left him alone. What she should've done was try to get Snape's wand and give it back to him. It's not so much that she wasn't treating Snape like a friend as  that she wasn't treating him like an equal. 

She was being patronizing. She was treating Snape as her inferior, though I don't think she meant to, and he retaliated in kind. 

Julie:
 but as saintly as he viewed and remembered her, no.

Pippin:
The patronus is Lily as Snape's heart's desire, as she would have appeared had he seen her in the Mirror of Erised. And that, as Dumbledore warned Harry, will  give us neither knowledge nor truth. 

Pippin




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 28 16:58:51 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 28 Jun 2009 16:58:51 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/28/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1246208331.500.16862.m8@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187193

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 28, 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/20090628/81ddca4a/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 28 20:13:12 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:13:12 -0000
Subject: LilyAnimagus/SnapePatronus/UpsideDownMotif/DEs/ImpulseControl/Desert Island
Message-ID: <h28iso+9pgh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187194

Carol thought in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187146>:

<< that Lily's Animagus form would have been a doe >>

Feisty Lily? Surely her self-image would have been more that she was the noble fighter for justice than that she was the passive beauty who inspired the noble fighter. Surely her Animagus would have been something with a bit more of an aggressive (protectively aggressive) than a doe. Maybe a mother bear, except that I fantasize that slender and red-haired were also part of her self-image. Maybe a red-brown greyhound? Aghan hound? A kestrel?

Randmath23 wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187154>:

<< Dumbledore knew for certain that Snape could not be a true death eater, since he was able to perform the Patronus Charm. >>

I think what was proof to Dumbledore was that Snape's Patronus was still the purity and beauty of Lily, not that he had a Patronus. The silver doe proved not that Snape was good, but that serving Lily (by protecting her hated son) was still his top priority.

As Potioncat mentioned, Umbridge was quite able to cast a Patronus that protected her and her fellow judges from the Dementor guards at the condemnation of Mary Cattermole. I still think Umbridge might have been a Death Eater; if not, she was just as evil as them on her own initiative. So I think being a Death Eater doesn't prevent casting a Patronus.

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187168>:

<< It's an early appearance of the "holding someone upside down" motif, and I'm sure *that's* not an accident. >>

You'd have it be a signal that the weak are being abused by the strong, even though Ron demonstrated and Remus said that kids were fine with being Levicorpus'ed for a moment.

Rowling may not have been conscious that she repeatedly used 'the holding someone upside down' motif. It could be that she used it deliberately so literary scholars could analyze it or it have come frequently to her writing fingers because it was always in the back of her mind.

Reasons for it always being in the back of her mind could range from it having been done in a children's book which she read so much she had it by heart back in those days, so phrases and words from that book still unconsciously appear in her speech and writing, to she was traumatized at an early age by bullies who dangled her upside down. 

(Here are two examples of in between: in her teens she was highly amused by a movie comedy scene in which someone was dangled upside down; she wrote an essay at school or university analyzing fiction in which being upside down was a bad thing or a good thing.)

It could both be unconscious AND a signal that the weak are being abused by the strong, especially if it came from a traumatic memory of having been bullied.

"jkoney65" wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187175>:

<< If they knew the DE's existed, that means that the DE's must have already been committing terrorist like acts (killing, burning, etc) and those acts must have been reported as being committed by DE's. Otherwise they never would have heard of them.

If they don't understand, than deluded is probably not a strong enough word. >>
  
Maybe we shouldn't waste the really strong words on such a super-common attitude. As an USAmerican from the second half of the twentieth century, I was raised to believe in the heroism of our Founding Fathers and Revolutionary War volunteers and of the French Resistance against Hitler. I at least avoided being brainwashed about the heroism of IRA bombers and gunmen, but I swallowed hook line and sinker the propaganda about the Afghan mujihadeen being 'freedom fighters' against Soviet invaders.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.

Carol found in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187181>:

<< calling someone "Snivellus" an odd illustration of impulse
control >>

I did not perceive that it had anything to do with impulse. It seemed to me that she almost cold-bloodedly consciously decided to use that name to signal him that she had changed sides. 

He called her 'mudblood', she blinked in surprise, and she quickly calculated that calling her that name meant that their friendship was not important to him. Then she quickly calculated that if their friendship wasn't important to him, it wasn't important to her either, so there was no reason for her to be on his side any longer, so there was no reason for her not join the Gryffindor side with the Gryffindor popular guys.

Alla wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187186>:

<< So, I guess you guys will have to deal with an approximate translation - which character you would have chosen to go to get intelligence behind the enemy lines, to spy on the enemy, maybe even to capture the enemy. 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 Hickengruendler replied in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187187>:

<< I guess I wouldn't choose Sirius or Hagrid, because even though they have their heart in the right place, they are too unreliable because they're too hot-headed. >>

And Ceridwen replied in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187188>:

<< I don't think it would be a test of personal loyalty given that you and this character are on the same side. Despite possible differences, you have the same goal. >>

Alla admitted that what she said in the question might not be exactly what she meant in the question, I am influenced by what she said in the question, so I feel that sneaking ability is just as important as loyalty, courage, same goal, etc. 

I think Sirius has great sneaking ability as a black dog who is able to Apparate. He sneaked around Little Whinging and Hogwarts. Depending on the bad guys, they might even pat his head and give him leftover food while he listened to their information and made a mental map of their location and its booby traps.

McGonagall as a cat Animagus who can Apparate would be even better than Sirius at sneaking, altho' less good at swimming, fighting, and catching balls (but better at climbing). Unless the bad guys are cat lovers, she wouldn't have as good a chance of being coddled by them.

Wormtail might have even better sneaking ability than Padfoot or Puss, but I don't want Peter. He would betray the mission out of sheer evilness.

If we're trying to capture some enemies, not just spy on them or assassinate a couple of them, then physical strength might be relevant. A big dog has more physical strength than a cat and Sirius has more physical strength than Minerva. But, with magic, being able to leap on a enemy, thus knocking him down and knocking his wand out of his hand, and holding him down while one's partner ties him up might not matter as much as duelling skills, such as being able to cast a fast, well-aimed, and powerful Stunner.

On the thread, I think I would choose Sirius rather than Minerva because it seems that Minerva freezes ot panicks momentarily when confronted with unexpected dangers, and Sirius responds as spinal reflex, not even taking the time for his brain to find out what's going on. Someone wrong with my memory: I can't remember in which book to search for Minerva freezing.

Changing topic to choosing an Animagus form. A tiger would be good at fighting, and at swimming, and at sneaking in a forest, but almost completely unable to sneak in a human settlement. Escaped tigers in the suburbs are discovered by their pawprints, and I think they have even fewer places to hide in the city. And most humans want to shoot an escaped tiger dead rather than shoot it with a tranquilizer dart and capture it -- very few want to pat its head and feed it leftovers.

A wolf or a bear would have the same problems, except if the wolf happened to be able to disguise itself as a dog.

A raccoon. They live in the wilderness, the country, the suburbs, and the city so no one could get suspicious about seeing one, and THEY HAVE HANDS. Humans are more likely to shoot them for sport or food than a cat or dog, and less likely to let them come inside an occupied part of a building to listen to their plans.

Raccoons have a relative named cacomistle. According to an article years ago in SMITHSONIAN (which called them ringtails), their little hands are even more dextrous than raccoon hands, they are amazingly agile, amazing climbers, and super-duper-good at hiding. 

If the Animagus form truly shows the inner person, mine would probably be a hog (a clean hog, maybe a pretty color like the black and white scheme called 'tuxedo' on cats and dogs), and that would be useless for anything but giving children piggyback rides.

Zanooda wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/187191>:

<< I like your choice of Sirius and Snape, and not only from the point of view of loyalty. They are both more than suited for a reconnaissance mission. Sirius can disguise himself very well, and Snape is equally good at stealth, I suppose, and he is a Legilimens :-). I'm not sure they could work well together though, so I wouldn't risk it taking them both at the same time, because your mission would fail :-).  >>

That was one of my hopes after GoF, that Dumbledore would send them on a dangerous mission that required teamwork together, and their loyalty to DD would cause them to actually try to do the mission, and they would become friends. 





From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Sun Jun 28 20:56:57 2009
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:56:57 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: LilyAnimagus/SnapePatronus/UpsideDownMotif/DEs/ImpulseControl/Desert Island
In-Reply-To: <h28iso+9pgh@eGroups.com>
References: <h28iso+9pgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6FF2974E-DC8B-498C-8C3A-8581B1B60912@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 187195


On 2009, Jun 28, , at 12:13, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote:

> Feisty Lily? Surely her self-image would have been more that she  
> was the noble fighter for justice than that she was the passive  
> beauty who inspired the noble fighter. Surely her Animagus would  
> have been something with a bit more of an aggressive (protectively  
> aggressive) than a doe. Maybe a mother bear, except that I  
> fantasize that slender and red-haired were also part of her self- 
> image. Maybe a red-brown greyhound? Aghan hound? A kestrel?


After having watched the mother fox bring her kits to our back yard  
to play, I think she might be a fitting patronus - ever watchful,  
clever.

Laura Walsh
---
Laura Lynn Walsh
lwalsh at acsalaska.net





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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 28 22:45:27 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:45:27 -0000
Subject: LilyAnimagus/SnapePatronus/UpsideDownMotif/DEs/ImpulseControl/Desert Island
In-Reply-To: <h28iso+9pgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <h28rq7+4k2d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 187196

Carol earlier:
> 
> << that Lily's Animagus form would have been a doe >>
> 
> Feisty Lily? Surely her self-image would have been more that she was the noble fighter for justice than that she was the passive beauty who inspired the noble fighter. Surely her Animagus would have been something with a bit more of an aggressive (protectively aggressive) than a doe. Maybe a mother bear, except that I fantasize that slender and red-haired were also part of her self-image. Maybe a red-brown greyhound? Aghan hound? A kestrel?

Carol responds:

I wouldn't call lily aggressive. At most, she's cheeky to slughorn and, I suppose, assertive with regard to James. In the face of voldemort, however, she's terrified and begging abjectly--granted, she's begging him to spare Harry and not herself, but she's not attacking him with fists and nails since she doesn't have her wand. and, of course, there's one famous doe, the mate of a stag, who died and left a baby son--Bambi's mother.

Anyway, I' still sure that she would have been a doe if she had been an Animagus simply because JKR wanted Harry's parents to be a matched pair. Doe or deer symbolism may well play a part. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with it.

Now Narcissa, a mother who hexes her own sister and says she'll do anything to save her son--she wouldn't be a mother bear (insufficiently graceful and beautiful), but maybe a tigress.

Narcissa and Lily? Both flowers but with differing symbolism--a matched yet contrasting pair.

Carol, wondering how Snape felt when he learned that Harry's Patronus was a stag, almost certainly the mate of his beautiful doe