From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  1 04:02:44 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:02:44 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and Stoicism
In-Reply-To: <gniiqp+io9l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <god1d4+qr0o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185957

> Alla:
> But I mean, if I understood Kern correctly, then books should show 
> that emotions can be destructive in the major way. And we saw it 
> several times, but I would say not in a major way (IMO of course). 
> Like we see Peter being scared and letting the fear overcome him and 
> betray his friends, in fact we see Marauders' friendship being torn 
> apart by conflicting emotions, no?

Zara:
First, general comment...I may need to get this book. I've not read it, 
and so cannot comment on whether individual arguments in it are 
strained, but the premise as you describe it seems sound. Not so much 
that I think Rowling is a Stoic and consciously tried to write that 
way, but that ideas from that school are shown in the series (it is an 
old and influential school of philosophy that has influenced many 
others, including Christian theologians).

Now to adress the particular point you make...I think the 
destructiveness of emotions not ruled by reason is all over the series. 
Look at Voldemort, for example. Consider his fear of death (how much 
more contrary to "living in agreement with nature" can one get, than to 
make Horcruxes in order to avoid death?). And he is arrogant, causing 
him to make mistakes repeatedly that lead to his eventual downfall. He 
is destructive both to all around him, and to himself.

I would point to the two guys who won our respective hearts, as two 
additional examples. You point to some vague "conflicting emotions" 
that tear the Marauders apart, but overlook to me a much bigger 
Marauder-related deal. Sirius, upon discovering the death of the 
Potters and deducing Peter's betrayal, acts in the grip of violent, 
negative emotions which he does not remotely govern by his faculty of 
reason <bg>, with dreadful consequences, not least of all to himself, 
when little Peter proves a tougher target than Sirius imagined. That 
one thing that helps him stay sane in Azkaban is the knowledge of his 
own innocence, is also a Stoic idea. (Virtue is a necessary and 
sufficient condition for happiness, in Stoic philosophy). Finally, his 
disintegration at 12 GP, his treatment of Kreacher, etc. are all 
examples of Sirius succumbing to negative emotions caused by his 
difficult past with his family. He sets up the situation that permits 
the creation of Voldemort's plan to lure Harry to the Ministry. And 
they demonstrably make Sirius less happy than he might have been.

Turning now to my boy Sev...at least to me, his fall seems very 
definitely associated to allowing negative emotions, including ambition 
for wordly success, jealousy, anger, and humiliation, to rule over his 
reason (there is an inherent contradiction in aspiring to Death 
Eaterdom while one's best friend and love object, whom one respects 
for, among other things, her great magical power, is Muggleborn). Like 
Sirius, Sev is not a happy man - and it seems to me that in his case, 
it is his consciousness of his own past misdeeds that drives this. 
(That virtue is necessary and sufficient for happiness goes hand in 
hand with the idea that vice causes unhappiness.)

There is also a contrast between Albus and Sev, that I see, anyway, 
that goes to the Stoic idea of making reason rather than the passions 
be one's guide. Both of these two characters in their youths had major 
failures to act in accordance with a Stoic idea of virtue (they'd  
posit Albus had a natural obligation to care for his sister, I 
believe). Both he and Sev live with unhappiness caused by this type of 
knowledge, but Albus (at least by the time he is over 100) is handling 
this better (most of the time, he did slip up with the Ring). He is a 
respected, widely loved, influential figure, whereas Sev makes his 
personal relationships more difficult than they need to be in a manner 
I would have to suggest, despite my fondness for Sev, is not always 
consonant with reason.

> Alla:
> But at the same time we have that Love being major theme, and of 
> course sacrifice, etc. Now I do not think that books having major 
> christian themes would have contradicted characters showing stoicism 
> virtues, etc, but isn't sacrificial love especially being shown as a 
> good thing and nothing to be restrained of, but in fact cultivated 
> etc?

Zara:
Is sacrifical love a "passion"? I tend to doubt it. To me it seems that 
it, and the general attitude towards death the series appears to me to 
promote, are both quite consistent with "living in agreement with 
nature". 

I am without my copy of DH at present, but my recollection of Harry's 
walk into the Forest (surely the quitessential moment of sacrificial 
love in the series) suggests Harry was being rather Stoic. First, while 
he feels shocked and betrayed, he immediately and explicitly recognizes 
the *reason* for Albus's plan, and finds it sound, even elegant. 
Second, we find him striving *not* to dwell on those he loves (I seem 
to recall, anyway - for example, he does not dare approach Ginny, I 
always thought because he feared it would break his resolve, which too 
I find Stoic.)

Thanks for a thought-provoking new topic! 




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Sun Mar  1 05:27:55 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:27:55 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apparating and the Theory of Relativity OR 
	Dimensional Travel.
In-Reply-To: <gnuj4v+34bt@eGroups.com>
References: <gnllr6+m08j@eGroups.com> <gnuj4v+34bt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90902282127g58b85a76tf55ca9af23a593c0@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185958

Ken Adams wrote:
> It seems to me that apparition involves
> the disappearance from one place and
> the instantaneous appearance somewhere
> else. This means that speeds must be close to those of light.

Eggplant wrote:
> Just a few days ago in the January 23 2009 issue of the journal
> "Science" it was announced that an atom of ytterbium was teleported,
> apparition style, for a distance of one meter. They accomplished this
> feat by destroying the quantum state of one atom and reestablishing
> the exact same state (complete with quantum entanglements and anything
> else you care to name) in a ytterbium atom one meter away. It was not
> literally instantaneous but close to it because it happened at the
> speed of light.

>From reading about the ytterbium experiment, what was teleported was quantum
state information from one ytterbium atom to another ytterbium atom.  While
this works well for information transfer (and is being viewed as a possible
means of creating a quantum computer), I don't think that this would be the
same as transporting matter from one location to another.  Apparition as
presented in "Harry Potter" (or the transporter in "Star Trek") involves the
transfer of matter and information from one location to another.  While it's
safe to assume that the process would probably be limited to be no faster
than the speed of light, the mechanics, in my opinion, would probably
involve something more similar to the creation of a temporary wormhole (or
inter-dimensional doorway) that would permit matter and information to pass
through undamaged.  I read something similar about similar experiments a few
years ago as part of a discussion about how the "Star Trek" transporter
might work.  In that discussion, some people advocated that the matter
placed within the transporter would be destroyed after a copy is created at
the destination.  A question that then arises is what exactly is the copy:
would it be the actual person that has been transported or would it be
something more similar to a clone with memories downloaded into it?  At that
point, it becomes a metaphysical discussion with no simple answers.  For me,
if apparition (or flue-powder) involves destroying the original person in
order to be magically transported to a different location, I'd use a broom.

tinroof.rusted


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




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar  1 17:58:25 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 1 Mar 2009 17:58:25 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/1/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1235930305.9.20676.m36@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185959

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 1, 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/20090301/0829444b/attachment.html>

From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar  1 20:40:59 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:40:59 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and Stoicism
In-Reply-To: <god1d4+qr0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goersr+7m12@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185960

> Zara:
> First, general comment...I may need to get this book. I've not read 
it, 
> and so cannot comment on whether individual arguments in it are 
> strained, but the premise as you describe it seems sound. Not so 
much 
> that I think Rowling is a Stoic and consciously tried to write that 
> way, but that ideas from that school are shown in the series (it is 
an 
> old and influential school of philosophy that has influenced many 
> others, including Christian theologians).

Alla:

Right, you get no argument from me that the ideas of the Stoicism are 
in some way shown in the series that is agreeable to me. But the way 
I understood the argument and I may need to reread the book since 
before I posted it I just skimmed it is not just that the ideas of 
Stoicism are shown in the book, but that they are praised in the 
book, pretty much at the heart of the book. And about that I am not 
so sure.


Zara: 
> Now to address the particular point you make...I think the 
> Destructiveness of emotions not ruled by reason is all over the 
series. 

Alla:

Ah, but is it always a right thing to do? I suppose I would rephrase 
your sentence a little bit and with that rephrased sentence I will be 
in agreement. I would say that the examples of people trying to 
restrain their emotions and not act according to them are all over 
the series, for sure. Sometimes it is sure a right thing to do, but 
is it always. And of course the disagreement is mainly connected to 
Love, sacrificial or not.

Zara:
> Look at Voldemort, for example. <SNIP> 

Alla:

Absolutely. I agree with your example. But Voldemort's downfall is 
not only in trying to live against the nature, no? It is not just in 
his arrogance, it is also in his inability to understand the Love as 
deepest magic, in inability to understand why Lily's love protects 
Harry. I guess you can say that this is also reason, but to me it is 
mostly emotional - he never knew real love, and he does not get it.

Zara;
> I would point to the two guys who won our respective hearts, as two 
> Additional examples. You point to some vague "conflicting emotions" 
> that tear the Marauders apart, but overlook to me a much bigger 
> Marauder-related deal. Sirius, upon discovering the death of the 
> Potters and deducing Peter's betrayal, acts in the grip of violent, 
> negative emotions which he does not remotely govern by his faculty 
of 
> reason <bg>, with dreadful consequences, not least of all to 
himself, 
> when little Peter proves a tougher target than Sirius imagined. 
That 
> one thing that helps him stay sane in Azkaban is the knowledge of 
his 
> own innocence, is also a Stoic idea. (Virtue is a necessary and 
> sufficient condition for happiness, in Stoic philosophy).<SNIP> 

Alla:

Yes, sure, I agree as to Sirius letting negative emotion rule over 
the reason, when he goes after Peter. However despite the fact that 
his knowledge of his innocence indeed helps him stay sane in Azkaban, 
the thing that forces him to finally escape is the fact that he 
learns that Peter is near Harry and he is afraid that Peter wants to 
kill him, right?

So, to me his love for Harry helps him to escape Azkaban first and 
foremost (and of course desire to kill Peter), I think it is an 
example of emotion being a positive force over any sort of reason, 
because really Sirius is the first one who successfully escapes, 
right?

Or am I misremembering? DE leave afterwards and before there were 
attempts, but no success?

What I am trying to say is that sure, I can see the examples of when 
characters should have acted according to reason instead of listening 
to their emotions a plenty, which seems to be in line with Stoicism.

But it seems to me that when it comes to Love, it is shown more often 
than not to be a force stronger than ANY reason. And I do not think 
it is in line with Stoicism at all, but I could be wrong. Jerri (I 
think) talked about Neostoicism, but I am not familiar with it.

I mean, if Lily was thinking about REASON, she should have stepped 
aside and took a chance that Voldemort would have spared her, no?


Zara:
> Turning now to my boy Sev...at least to me, his fall seems very 
> definitely associated to allowing negative emotions, including 
ambition 
> for worldly success, jealousy, anger, and humiliation, to rule over 
his 
> reason (there is an inherent contradiction in aspiring to Death 
> Eaterdom while one's best friend and love object, whom one respects 
> for, among other things, her great magical power, is Muggleborn). 
<SNIP>


Alla:

Hm, whether I agree or not that Severus' downfall is caused by 
negative emotions (I think they are contributed, but were only one of 
the factors), surely his coming back is connected to positive 
emotion, won't you agree?

I think we are in agreement (sorry if I am wrong) that when Snape 
comes to Dumbledore he is concerned about Lily and Lily only and 
nobody else. And this emotion is what causes him to change somewhat 
and starting to care about other people, saving them, etc.
And again, I know it is an interview, so feel free to disregard, but 
since we are talking about the author's intent, to me it is relevant 
somewhat.

JKR talked about him as cruel man, bully, somebody who loathed Harry 
till the end, BUT he also loved. So to me it seems that author at 
least (whether you agree that she was able to portray it on page) 
thought that Love (the emotion) is Severus' main redeeming factor. I 
do not see how it agrees with Stoicism.


Zara: 
> There is also a contrast between Albus and Sev, that I see, anyway, 
> that goes to the Stoic idea of making reason rather than the 
passions 
> be one's guide. Both of these two characters in their youths had 
major 
> failures to act in accordance with a Stoic idea of virtue (they'd  
> posit Albus had a natural obligation to care for his sister, I 
> believe). Both he and Sev live with unhappiness caused by this type 
of 
> knowledge, but Albus (at least by the time he is over 100) is 
handling 
> this better (most of the time, he did slip up with the Ring). He is 
a 
> respected, widely loved, influential figure, whereas Sev makes his 
> personal relationships more difficult than they need to be in a 
manner 
> I would have to suggest, despite my fondness for Sev, is not always 
> consonant with reason.

Alla:

Is Albus handling it better though? I mean on the surface sure yes he 
seems to be. However, he shelled himself off from caring for other 
people, and here is I am not sure if JKR is  saying that in his youth 
he failed just his obligations, or is his love for his family was 
also not strong enough, you know? And that also caused him having all 
sort of crap with Harry IMO. I mean, you know that I do not have much 
good feeling left about Albus, but I certainly am willing to allow 
that lots of his missteps with Harry were caused by simply *not 
knowing* how to express his affection for the boy. IMO of course.

And well, somehow I do not believe that when he says *fools who love* 
that JKR necessarily meant that he is right in thinking that people 
who love are fools and do stupid things necessarily. Or maybe he is 
being sarcastic himself, I am not even sure.
> > Alla:
> > But at the same time we have that Love being major theme, and of 
> > course sacrifice, etc. Now I do not think that books having major 
> > christian themes would have contradicted characters showing 
stoicism 
> > virtues, etc, but isn't sacrificial love especially being shown 
as a 
> > good thing and nothing to be restrained of, but in fact 
cultivated 
> > etc?
> 
> Zara:
> Is sacrificial love a "passion"? I tend to doubt it. To me it seems 
that 
> it, and the general attitude towards death the series appears to me 
to 
> promote, are both quite consistent with "living in agreement with 
> nature". 
>

Alla:

I did not mean that the only love in the series being a major theme 
is a sacrificial love, sorry. I meant to say that Love is being a 
major theme and that often it evokes a major sacrifice, if that makes 
sense.

Zara:
> I am without my copy of DH at present, but my recollection of 
Harry's 
> walk into the Forest (surely the quintessential moment of 
sacrificial 
> love in the series) suggests Harry was being rather Stoic. First, 
while 
> he feels shocked and betrayed, he immediately and explicitly 
recognizes 
> the *reason* for Albus's plan, and finds it sound, even elegant. 
> Second, we find him striving *not* to dwell on those he loves (I 
seem 
> to recall, anyway - for example, he does not dare approach Ginny, I 
> always thought because he feared it would break his resolve, which 
too 
> I find Stoic.)

Alla:

Very interesting, yes, sure I totally agree that Harry is trying to 
find a reason in the plan. However, finding reason as it is, he still 
wants his loved ones with him and that to me does not feel much like 
Stoicism, you know? I mean, you are right he does not want to 
approach Ginny, but him wanting loved ones, to me does not look like 
someone who shut down his feelings and acts only in according with 
reason. IMO of course.


 Zara:
> Thanks for a thought-provoking new topic!

Alla:
Thanks for responding1





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar  1 23:39:42 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:39:42 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
Message-ID: <gof6bu+hkg1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185961

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185917>:

<< , three stages - Black,White, Red, but I do wonder - the fact that
Hagrid did not die in the last book, doesn't it make a massive blow
into alchemical interpretation? Sort of big OOOPS?  >>

My personal opinion is that Rowling originally intended Hagrid to die
in the last volume for the alchemical symbolism of his given name, but
she became so fond of Hagrid that she couldn't stand to kill him. So
she made Rufus Scrimgeour the 'Red' death of volume 7. I suppose the
character of an expedient Minister of Magic was part of the plot all
along and probably so was his death in the DE coup, but he had no name
or a different name until she needed a non-Hagrid 'red' to die in
volume 7. *waves to Montavilla47
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185920>*

Does Granger give a plausible alchemical description of book 7? Like,
does the alchemical literature talk about wandering in the desert in a
context for which the long camping trip could be a symbol?

Goodlefrood wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185922>:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/links/Scholarly_Articles_000971306819/

<< 6. It is at this point that it is no longer reasonable to compare
the sixth stage of societal development (Distillation) to what Lord
Voldemort had contemplated. This is because the sixth stage is where
nirvana is reached through a process of society commingling into one
and striving towards a common search for truth. >>

I don't know of any human society that commingled into one and strove
toward a common search for 'truth'. If Lord Voldemort dreamed of all
wizards uniting in a selflessly loyal all-consuming effort to keep
Lord Voldemort immortal, that is not less unrealistic than a vision of
Medieval Europe where everyone was selflessly united into a love of
Christ and attempt to live by the teachings of the Gospels, or a
vision of Pharaonic Egypt in which all people's devotion to
maintaining Maat and serving the Son of Ra outweighed their desires to
fill their bellies, their love affairs, and their personal quarrels.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185960>:

<< really Sirius is the first one who successfully escapes [from]
Azkaban >>

Technically, Barty Jr escaped before Sirius did, albeit he was rescued
in a plan that cost the life of one of his rescuers.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185918>:

<< I am afraid I do not understand this as answer to my hypothetical.
I do not believe I ever asked about Snape as good husband to Lily. >>

I thought you were asking whether the character would be a good
husband for the listie, based on the character's character traits and
the listie's response to them. Such as, Snape is viciously sarcastic;
listie would constantly feel hurt by being on the receiving end of the
sarcasm, or listie is accustomed to ignoring verbal abuse. (I hadn't
realized that you meant << I am playing a hypothetical where you
**need** your parents approval and where guy (or girl) must pass it,
>> that the question was actually the listie's *parents'* response to
the character's character traits.)

I was thinking that the character's emotional entanglements may be as
important as his character traits in whether he would be a good
husband for some specific person. In the case of Snape, who loves
Lily, and only Lily, his whole life, some people would be
uncomfortable with a husband continually obsessing over Someone Else,
and other people would figure "she's dead, so he isn't going to leave
me for her, so I don't care how much he obsesses as long as he brings
home his paycheck and puts his dirty robes into the clothes hamper.
It's not like we have House Elves to pick them up off the floor." 

In the case of Sirius, it's not just his thrill-seeking but his
unconditional loyalty. While I might think it a good thing to have a
husband who has dog-like devotion to me, I might not think it a good
thing to have a husband who has dog-like devotion to James Potter, at
least not while James Potter is still alive. As for his devotion to
Harry, people differ on their opinion of marrying someone who is
already a devoted parent, from it's a good characteristic and the
child is a sweetheart, to I want to marry the horse if only I can get
rid of the foal.

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185927>:

<< So I pick Arthur Weasley. In this case, we've already seen his
traits as a husband. He's affectionate, caring, teasing, supportive of
his wife and protective of the family. He sticks to his principles.
Besides, he has red hair. >>

The only reason I didn't choose Arthur -- no, it's not hanging out in
the shed with his eccentric hobby -- is that I think he as well as
Molly wanted many children, and I never wanted any.,

Zanooda wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185941v>:

<< I think I would have chosen Bill Weasley :-). I don't have much
time to write lately, so I can't give lots of canon examples, but IMO
Bill is intelligent, brave, caring and even-tempered, he is sensitive
enough, but not a sissy, and he takes charge, if necessary. He also
has a trait that I value in a husband - he knows how to stand up to
his mother :-), and he does it gently, but firmly. >>

Not to slight listies who said Ron, Percy, a Twin, I'm surprised no
one mentioned Charlie. To me, he's always seemed a good man,
competent, calm, intelligent, kind, and he has a job. I wouldn't pick
him because I think I would like living in a a dragon camp even less
than living a country away from my husband, but some people do marry
field scientists, and isn't there any listie who WANTS to be a dragon
researcher/wrangler?

Mrs. Spicy wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185943>:

<< Cedric Diggory.  He is absolutely handsome and has a great
personality.  What's not to love? >>

His father. Is it worse to have your father-in-law embarrass you in
public or tell you in private that you're not worthy of his son?

Besides, he's taken. Cho.

Someone once wrote an essay saying that in 'the good old days', the
hero of the book would have been Cedric, a school sports champion with
all the Boy Scout virtues, and it reflects the deterioration of
society that the hero now is Harry, a school sports star only by luck,
who is lazy about homework, rude about some adults, and sometimes lies.

That essay reminded me that I would have hated that book. I still hate
books whose purpose is to tell me how inferior I am. It shows that
Rowling is a genius that she made me like characters whom I would have
intensely disliked in real life; in this comment, Ron and Cedric. 

Ron is a nice kid with a good heart. He's loyal and courageous. He
detests racism and is attracted to strong independent women. If I knew
him in real life, I would hate him because the only things he talks
about are Quidditch (I am not into sports) and how attractive or
unattractive various girls are (if I looked less like a chimpanzee, I
would less mind when he says I do).

Cedric is a hero. We are shown that besides being a sports star, he is
honorable (too honorable for real life when he wants a rematch because
he doesn't want an unfair win) and courageous. I believe he does his
homework and gets good marks. I believe he detests racism. The reason
for me in real life to completely lack interest in everything he says
is that he only talks about Quidditch. Apparently the only reason for
me to *hate* him is envy, which is not very admirable on my part,
because Rowling never showed him gloating over his superior virtue. I
am intensely allergic to hearing people brag about their superior virtue,

Geoff wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185939>:

<< A double class is quite simply what it says - twice as long as a
standard class. >>

IMHO in HP a 'double' class means two Houses take it together. Maybe
Hogwarts has a rule that a class for two Houses together is also
double-length. Does canon give any clue about the length of any class?

Tabs wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185949>:

<< I created a mock Hogwarts schedule based on the vague information I
could pick up from the Lexicon and other resources and the only way I
could make all of the information make sense was to break things down
into eight periods in the day of forty minutes each >>

Have you posted it somewhere? I think this Y!Group has a 'Files' section.

Joey wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185935>:

<< Yet [Snape] does not seem to compliment any good potion-maker in
the making, like say Hermione or even Draco. Hmm.. :-) >>

Wasn't there one time he told the class to look at the excellent way
Draco had cut up his flobberworms? I'm not sure it was flobberworms
... if I remembered which book it was, I would try to look it up.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Mar  1 23:59:46 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:59:46 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
In-Reply-To: <gof6bu+hkg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gof7hi+lq7c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185962

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

Geoff:
> << A double class is quite simply what it says - twice as long as a
> standard class. >>
 
> IMHO in HP a 'double' class means two Houses take it together. Maybe
> Hogwarts has a rule that a class for two Houses together is also
> double-length. Does canon give any clue about the length of any class?

Geoff:
Speaking from my experience, permit me to disagree 
with you. In UK school terminology, a double lesson 
is two periods running concurrently. As I said, the 
main reason is usually to give time where there is 
a practical element. Technology, games, science, 
computing all come to mind as classes where I, as 
part of a timetable team, would schedule such a 
lesson. It would sometimes also happen in other 
lessons - Maths, English etc. in order to get the 
timetable to fit together effectively.

I previously postulated that, because Snape seems 
to have been the only Potions teacher, the two house 
combination may have forced onto the timetable. I 
was at one time the only computing teacher in my 
school. In Years 9-11, computing subjects per se 
were option subjects and fitted into option blocks 
but in the lower forms there were some odd groupings 
in order to get everyone into an IT lesson.




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  2 00:22:56 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:22:56 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
In-Reply-To: <gof6bu+hkg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gof8t0+41fn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185963

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:
 
> Not to slight listies who said Ron, Percy, a Twin, I'm surprised no
> one mentioned Charlie. 


zanooda:

I considered Charlie for a second, but he is an outdoor type, and I'm
more of a couch potato, so I don't have much in common with him. We
know Bill can do other things besides his curse-breaking, but I'm not
sure about Charlie. Besides, we don't know much about him - we hardly
ever heard him talk. And he can't get out of having his hair cut by
Molly, while Bill can :-).


> catlady wrote:

> Besides, he's taken. Cho.


zanooda:

But they are *all* taken :-)(except for Charlie, maybe). I thought we
were supposed to consider them as if they were single, and of the
appropriate age, etc. :-)


> catlady wrote:

> Wasn't there one time he told the class to look at the excellent way
> Draco had cut up his flobberworms? I'm not sure it was flobberworms
> ... if I remembered which book it was, I would try to look it up.


zanooda:

Maybe you mean that time when he was "telling everyone to look at the
perfect way Malfoy had stewed his horned slugs" :-)? If yes, it's that
unfortunate first lesson ... :-).





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Mar  2 01:56:01 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:56:01 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
In-Reply-To: <gof6bu+hkg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gofebh+ejdc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185964


> 
> Potioncat wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185927>:

> Catlady:
> The only reason I didn't choose Arthur -- no, it's not hanging out 
in
> the shed with his eccentric hobby -- is that I think he as well as
> Molly wanted many children, and I never wanted any.,


Potioncat:
lol, right after I posted, I gave that some thought, too. I'd want a 
really good contraceptive potion---I wonder what it would be called? 

I think Harry might have wanted a big family, but Ginny would know 
better. So their 3 may have been a compromise--it's a number greater 
than a small family, not yet a large one.


I tried to post this earlier, it was eaten by either Yahoomort, or my 
own antivirus program.





From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Mar  2 02:01:45 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:01:45 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
In-Reply-To: <gof7hi+lq7c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gofem9+9b51@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185965

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> Speaking from my experience, permit me to disagree 
> with you. In UK school terminology, a double lesson 
> is two periods running concurrently. 

Yes, but not everything in the Potterverse is the same as in the UK.

> I previously postulated that, because Snape seems 
> to have been the only Potions teacher, the two house 
> combination may have forced onto the timetable. 

Snape is the only Potions teacher, Flitwick is the only Charms
teacher, McGonagall is the only Transfiguration teacher, Sprout is the
only Herbology teacher, Sinistra is the only Astronomy teacher,
there's only one DADA teacher each year...

Until NEWT preparation, Harry's Gryffindors have Double Potions with
the Slytherins, Double Herbology with the Hufflepuffs, Charms alone,
DADA alone,Transfiguration alone, and we don't know about Astronomy.
I'd like for them to have Astronomy with the Ravenclaws for the sake
of students getting to know each other. I haven't found any example of
a one-House class being called Double whatever.

It could be that Hogwarts has a custom, possibly because of having
only one teacher per subject, that double-length classes have to be
two Houses.

By the way, how long is the 'passing period' between class periods,
and is one of the eight 40 minute periods the lunch period?





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar  2 07:41:52 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:41:52 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
In-Reply-To: <gofem9+9b51@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gog2k0+tifv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185966

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
> <gbannister10@> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking from my experience, permit me to disagree 
> > with you. In UK school terminology, a double lesson 
> > is two periods running concurrently. 
> 
> Yes, but not everything in the Potterverse is the same as in the UK.

Geoff:
True, but I suspect that JKR would tend to base Hogwarts 
on what she knew was the regular practice in UK schools.

Catlady:
> By the way, how long is the 'passing period' between class periods,
> and is one of the eight 40 minute periods the lunch period?

Geoff:
There are slight variations. For many years I worked with
a pattern which followed the structure:  periods 1/2, 
morning break, periods 3/4, lunch, periods 5-8. Break was 
15-20 minutes, lunch 1 hour-1 hour 15 minutes. There was 
no break between periods 5-8 because games we taken by a 
full year always in the afternoon.

We did use a pattern at one time of: periods 1/2, break, 
periods 3-5, lunch, periods 6-8. This gave us quite a late 
lunch but a shorter afternoon which seemed to help with 
pupil concentration and behaviour.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar  2 14:08:05 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:08:05 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and Stoicism
In-Reply-To: <goersr+7m12@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gogp85+vc71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185967

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
 
> What I am trying to say is that sure, I can see the examples of when
 characters should have acted according to reason instead of listening
to their emotions a plenty, which seems to be in line with Stoicism.
> 
> But it seems to me that when it comes to Love, it is shown more
often  than not to be a force stronger than ANY reason. And I do not
think  it is in line with Stoicism at all, but I could be wrong. Jerri
(I  think) talked about Neostoicism, but I am not familiar with it.
> 
> I mean, if Lily was thinking about REASON, she should have stepped 
> aside and took a chance that Voldemort would have spared her, no?

Pippin:
That would be the reasonable choice only if Lily valued her own life
more than Harry's. 

Love gives the characters their greatest power because it overrides
every other instinct, even self-preservation. But the characters often
use that power wrongly or foolishly, even to the ultimate detriment of
those they love. That's most obvious with  characters like Merope, but
even Neville tried to make himself into something he was not out of
love for his Gran. The  result did not please either of them.

Harry's desire to reunite with his lost family leads him to his great
sacrifice, but it might as easily have led him to waste away in front
of the Mirror of Erised. 

The books seem to be saying that while love enables the most
powerful actions, only reason can tell  whether those actions are in
fact suited to their aims. Love can  override reason, but it is unwise
to let it.

Alla:
> JKR talked about him as cruel man, bully, somebody who loathed Harry
 till the end, BUT he also loved. So to me it seems that author at
least (whether you agree that she was able to portray it on page) 
> thought that Love (the emotion) is Severus' main redeeming factor. I
 do not see how it agrees with Stoicism.

Pippin:
It was reason that persuaded Snape that he still had a purpose in life
after Lily perished. He would have been content to die, as Harry would
have been content to waste away in front of the mirror. 

Pippin




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Mar  2 16:27:16 2009
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:27:16 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
In-Reply-To: <gofebh+ejdc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh1d4+5346@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185968

Potioncat:
> lol, right after I posted, I gave that some thought, too. I'd want a 
> really good contraceptive potion---I wonder what it would be called? 


SSSusan:
Trojanus Rubberus, I would suspect.  Or Contracepto!, perhaps? 

;)

Siriusly Snapey Susan






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  2 16:39:11 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:39:11 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <CBB17DA4-86E5-4E72-8D29-8D7201821A2A@aim.com>
Message-ID: <goh23f+il3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185969

JLyon wrote:
<snip> The rest of the female cast are practically names only. In
Ginny's case, just the facts that she allowed her first born to be
named Albus Severus condemns her. Does she have any idea the hell
those two purposely put her husband and supposed love through for
their own enjoyment? Does she have any sense of what is best for Harry
or is she just trying to  be the "perfect wife" as taught to her by
Mollycoddle and live in her dream world? <snip>

Carol responds:
Although the intention of this thread was to consider a particular
person as a husband or wife for ourselves, I'm going to follow your
example and consider Ginny as a wife for Harry.

I don't think she's quite the ideal wife that JKR seems to think she
is (in essence, Harry's reward for his sufferings, as if the HP books
were a Victorian Bildungsroman). for one thing, she's too much like
James Potter for my taste in her hexing of Zacharias Smith and her
knocking over the announcement booth (or whatever the thing was
called) because she didn't like his Quidditch commentary. She does,
however, have one or two things going for her. She stood up to Draco
in Flourish and Blotts in CoS and she pointed out to Harry that she
might be a good person to consult to find out whether he was being
possessed by Voldemort. (Duh, Harry!) I can forgive her lousy poetry
in her first year ("His eyes are as green as a pickled toad"). She was
only a little girl--and quite possibly not in her right mind.

As for consenting to name her son Albus Severus, that's a strong point
in her favor, IMO. It indicates that she understands what Harry
understands--that despite the sufferings those two men caused Harry,
without their help, he would not be alive and Voldemort would not have
been defeated.

Carol, who doesn't like Ginny but acknowledges her few good points,
*especially* her willingness to name her son Albus Severus





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  2 17:01:56 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:01:56 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <gocbtr+3o4o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh3e4+q44n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185970

Potioncat wrote:
> >
> > I recently watched TMTMNBN--CoS. And, suddenly I wondered, why is
Slytherin's hidden chamber called the Chamber of Secrets? All that was
there was a big snake. I mean, that was enough. 
> > 
> > But why "secrets"? Why not The Monstor's Lair; The Horrible
Chamber: The Hidden Menace? Even the legend (although I may not be
firm on the canon) was that there was a monster in the chamber--not
that there were hidden secrets. <snip>

Montavilla47 commented:
> 
> I think it was probably called the Chamber of Secrets because it 
sounded cool.
>
Carol responds:

Possibly, especially as a book title! On the other hand, the chamber
does involve several secrets or mysteries, including whether it exists
(Binns thinks it's just a legend), and, if so, where it is, why no one
has found it, and what it contains. Once it's opened again, there's
the added mystery of who opened it and how he or she did it. (For DD,
who knows that it must have been opened by Voldemort in some
manifestation, the question is not who but how.)

All those mysteries are, of course, solved in the book (with the
possible exception of why DD, who in HBP is shown to understand
Parseltongue, couldn't find the chamber and open it. Maybe he couldn't
hear the Basilisk, or maybe he could understand Parseltongue but not
speak it and consequently couldn't open the chamber even if he'd found
it--in which case, you'd think he'd close Hogwarts to protect the
students, especially the Muggle-borns. Or maybe JKR didn't think about
the implications for her "epitome of goodness" when she showed him
understanding Parseltongue in HBP.) 

The real question, for me, is how the legend got started in the first
place. Did Slytherin include a P.S, in his letter of resignation? "By
the way, my former friends, I have left you a gift, a secret chamber
inhabited by a monster that will one day rid the school of those unfit
to attend it when my true heir opens it. Find it if you can. Salazar."

Carol, seriously wondering how the legend got started since no Heir of
Slytherin appeared until June 1943 (IIRC)




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Mar  2 17:29:39 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:29:39 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goh3e4+q44n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh523+3bpm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185971

> Carol:
> Carol, seriously wondering how the legend got started since no Heir of
> Slytherin appeared until June 1943 (IIRC)

Kemper now:
Well, Tom is the only heir we know of.  There were probably more. 
Maybe Tom was the most ambitious in learning all there was to know of
Hogwarts.  Or, if his magical mum, uncle and granddaddy are any
indication, perhaps he was the only competent Slytherin Hogwarts has
seen since Salazar.

Kemper




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar  2 17:47:30 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:47:30 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <goh23f+il3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh63i+2b4f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185972


> Carol responds:
> Although the intention of this thread was to consider a particular
> person as a husband or wife for ourselves, I'm going to follow your
> example and consider Ginny as a wife for Harry.
> 
> I don't think she's quite the ideal wife that JKR seems to think she
> is (in essence, Harry's reward for his sufferings, as if the HP
books were a Victorian Bildungsroman). for one thing, she's too much
like James Potter for my taste in her hexing of Zacharias Smith and
her knocking over the announcement booth (or whatever the thing was
> called) because she didn't like his Quidditch commentary. 

Pippin:
Unlike James Potter, Ginny hexed people when she was provoked, not
because she was bored, and she doesn't seem to have a reputation as a
bully.  Besides, Harry thinks enough of James to have named a child
after him. It shows, I think, that Harry accepted that James outgrew
the worst of his bullying ways. We can probably assume that Ginny did
too, especially since she was never as bad as James in the first place.

Regardless of one's personal opinion about whether  Dumbledore and
Snape deserve Harry's respect, Ginny's agreement shows that she and
Harry are a good match. It would be pretty ugly if Harry thought they
were worthy of the highest honor he could give and she didn't.

 Dumbledore asked Harry's forgiveness for what he had done, and as for
Snape's taunting, it didn't need to be forgiven,  IMO, because Harry
grew noble enough and secure enough to ignore it. 

Pippin





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Mar  2 18:10:17 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:10:17 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <goh63i+2b4f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh7e9+svnf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185973

> Pippin:
> Unlike James Potter, Ginny hexed people when she was provoked, not
> because she was bored, and she doesn't seem to have a reputation as a
> bully.  Besides, Harry thinks enough of James to have named a child
> after him. It shows, I think, that Harry accepted that James outgrew
> the worst of his bullying ways. 

Kemper now:
Ginny's bullying looked different than James'. She became more
aggressive when others were talking poo.  Either hexing or
intentionally running/flying into someone, she was telling them to
mind their place.  

It is a thuggish mentality. 

As for naming his kid James, it only shows that he wanted to honor his
dad, flaws and all.

Kemper






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Mar  2 18:16:42 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:16:42 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goh3e4+q44n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh7qa+fhdn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185974


> Montavilla47 commented:
> > 
> > I think it was probably called the Chamber of Secrets because it 
> sounded cool.

> >
Pippin:
The name was probably coined by Riddle, with his usual flair for the
grandiose. I suppose Salazar confided his knowledge of the chamber to
his offspring, some of whom eventually let slip enough to get the
rumors started. Then, as often happens, the tale was preserved as
legend when the facts had been forgotten by Salazar's family itself. 

Parseltongue may have been rarer  among Slytherin's descendants before
they became so inbred. Perhaps until Riddle's time there never was a
descendant of Slytherin at Hogwarts who was a parselmouth, had a
desire to drive Muggleborns out of the school, and took the legend
seriously enough to spend five years searching for the chamber.
 

Carol:
 you'd think he'd close Hogwarts to protect the students, especially
the Muggle-borns.

Pippin:
According to what McGonagall implies, he was going to close the school
if the attacks escalated. But the students would not necessarily be
safer if they left Hogwarts. The monster doesn't have to stay at the
school after all, it could go anywhere. And once the students left
Hogwarts they would be exposed to the perils that had required the
establishment of the school in the first place. Dumbledore knew all
too well what can happen when young wizards don't have a safe place to
practice magic away from Muggle eyes. 

Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  2 18:18:14 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:18:14 -0000
Subject: Naming kids WAS:  Re: Which Harry Potter character you wou
In-Reply-To: <goh7e9+svnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh7t6+ta5q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185975

> Kemper now:
<SNIP>
> As for naming his kid James, it only shows that he wanted to honor his
> dad, flaws and all.

Alla:

To jewish person though it shows significantly more than that. It shows 
that 
person who is being honored that way is worthy of such honor. I 
**cringe** every time when I think that Harry named his kid Albus 
Severus but I will not deny that Harry gave those two creepy characters 
(IMO)the highest honor he could give them (as Pippin said).

So to me the fact that Harry named his kid James means not just that he 
was honoring his father, but that in his eyes his father was worthy of 
this honor.

Well, at least I am glad that Harry does not have one boy Albus Severus.

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  2 18:24:58 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:24:58 -0000
Subject: alchemy / Alla's question / Hogwarts class
In-Reply-To: <gofebh+ejdc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh89q+3p3j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185976

Potioncat wrote:
> lol, right after I posted, I gave that some thought, too. I'd want a
really good contraceptive potion---I wonder what it would be called? 

Carol responds:
Since not everyone in the WW is a good potion maker and you might not
have the ingredients or the potion itself handy (or it might take a
long time to brew), I think a more practical alternative would be a
spell (Contraceptio?). Of course, you'd have to perform it on
yourself. Performing it on your wife or husband without their consent
would cause a serious argument! And it would have to be a temporary,
one-time only spell or you'd find yourself sterile.

Potioncat: 
> I think Harry might have wanted a big family, but Ginny would know
better. So their 3 may have been a compromise--it's a number greater
than a small family, not yet a large one.

Carol responds:
That's possible. Or maybe, like Molly, Ginny was determined to keep
trying until she had a daughter as well as sons. Luckily for her, the
daughter was the third child rather than the seventh! (My parents did
the same thing, only they had two daughters and successfully tried for
a son. If he'd been another girl, they'd have tried a fourth time.)

Potioncat: 
> I tried to post this earlier, it was eaten by either Yahoomort, or
my own antivirus program.

Carol:
Can an antivirus program eat a post? With me, the cause of lost posts
is usually forgetting to switch to a new window before I look
something up. (OT--sorry.)

Carol, pretty sure that her two posts in one day on Ginny set a new
personal record





From gnb56 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  2 18:13:45 2009
From: gnb56 at yahoo.com (mindi)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:13:45 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore use the pensieve to view Harry's memories?
Message-ID: <goh7kp+r7sq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185977

I was just finishing reading GOF the other day and I was wondering why
instead of making Harry relive the whole LV encounter over again to
tell what happened, why didn't Dumbledore have him extract his memory
of it and view it for themselves in the pensieve?  Then they would have
been able to show that to Fudge too.  Then he would have had to of
taken it as the truth, right?  Just a thought.

mindi



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  2 18:41:25 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:41:25 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goh523+3bpm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goh98l+9u06@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185978

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...>
wrote:
>
> > Carol:
> > Carol, seriously wondering how the legend got started since no Heir of
> > Slytherin appeared until June 1943 (IIRC)
> 
> Kemper now:
> Well, Tom is the only heir we know of.  There were probably more.
Maybe Tom was the most ambitious in learning all there was to know of
Hogwarts.  Or, if his magical mum, uncle and granddaddy are any
indication, perhaps he was the only competent Slytherin Hogwarts has
seen since Salazar.
> 
> Kemper
>
Carol responds:

If any previous Heir had appeared, both Tom and Dumbledore would have
known it if only because the Chamber of Secrets would have been
opened. The Chamber remained a legend *because* it had never been
found or opened. (Binns would have viewed it differently if its
reality had been established by an earlier instance of Petrification
or death at Hogwarts.) 

IIRC, no wizard since Slytherin is widely known to have spoken
Parseltongue. That's a problem, I realize, since we know that the
Gaunts speak it, but my impression is that they never attended
Hogwarts. Gaunt, remember, doesn't acknowledge owls. (I'm surprised
that Merope learned to read. How did she learn to brew a love potion
with no books in the house? Her father certainly wouldn't have taught
her!)

As for an absence of competent Slytherins who predate Tom, we have
Slughorn, for one, and Phineas Nigellus for another.

Carol, who suspects that Parseltongue, like the genes for magic in
Muggle-borns, disappeared for a long time before it resurfaced in the
inbred and outcast Gaunt family




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Mar  2 20:40:23 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:40:23 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goh98l+9u06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gohg7n+34og@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185979

> Kemper:
> Well, Tom is the only heir we know of.  There were probably more.
> Maybe Tom was the most ambitious in learning all ...to know of
> Hogwarts.  Or, if his magical mum, uncle and granddaddy are any
> indication, perhaps he was the only competent Slytherin Hogwarts has
> seen since Salazar.

> Carol responds:
> If any previous Heir had appeared, both Tom and Dumbledore would
have known it if only because the Chamber of Secrets would have been
opened. 

Kemper now:
You mean any previous heir to /open/ the chamber.  I agree.  That
doesn't mean that there were no students of Slytherin's bloodline to
have gone to Hogwarts. 

> Carol:
> ...
> As for an absence of competent Slytherins who predate Tom, we have
> Slughorn, for one, and Phineas Nigellus for another.

Kemper now:
I was referring to the heirs of Slytherin's apparent lack of
ambition/competence and not to students in Slytherin.  Snape was more
than competent, magically not socially.  :)

Kemper




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar  2 23:58:19 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:58:19 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goh7qa+fhdn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gohrqr+2srn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185980

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Montavilla47 commented:
> > > 
> > > I think it was probably called the Chamber of Secrets because it 
> > sounded cool.
> 
> > >
> Pippin:
> The name was probably coined by Riddle, with his usual flair for the
> grandiose.

Geoff:
My interpretation is that the name pre-dates Riddle.

Look at Binns' comments:
'Professor Binns paused again, pursing his lips. looking like a wrinkled 
old tortoise.
"Reliable historical sources tell us this much," he said, "but these honest 
facts have been obscured by the fanciful legend of the Chamber of Secrets. 
The story goes that Slytherin had built a hidden chamber in the castle, of 
which the other founders knew nothing.

Slytherin, according to the legend, sealed the Chamber of Secrets so that 
none would be able to open it until his own true heir arrived at the castle....

...."The whole thing is arrant nonsense of course," he said. "Naturally, the 
school has been searched for evidence of such a chamber many times by 
the most learned witches and wizards. It does not exist..."

..."But, sir," said Seamus Finnigan, "If the Chamber can only be opened by 
Slytherin's true heir, no one else would be able to find it, would they?"

"Nonsense, O'Flaherty," said Professor Binns in an aggravated tone. "If a 
long succession of Hogwarts headmasters and headmistresses haven't 
found the thing -"'
(COS "The Writing on the Wall" from pp.114/15 UK edition)

Binns gives a very distinct impression to me that the name is not unknown
to him both now and in reference to the searches that have taken place.

And again, the way Tom Riddle speaks, later on, suggests that he was 
using a name which he had heard about during his time at Hogwarts and 
not one which he had invented:  
'"I thought someone must realise that Hagrid couldn't possibly be the 
 heir of Slytherin. It  had taken me five whole years to find out everything
I could about the Chamber of Secrets and discover the secret entrance..."'
(COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.230 UK edition)

Just my own personal reading of canon.








From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 00:39:32 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:39:32 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <goh7e9+svnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gohu84+10dhs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185981

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <iam.kemper at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Kemper now:
> Ginny's bullying looked different than James'. She became more
> aggressive when others were talking poo.  Either hexing or
> intentionally running/flying into someone, she was telling them to
> mind their place.  

jkoney:
It seemed to me that she was standing up to bully's. I don't remember 
her starting the taunting and then hexing. I see her taking the bully 
down a peg or two.


>Kemper 
> It is a thuggish mentality. 

jkoney:
In a school where everyone is armed at all times I think there would be 
a thuggish mentality, at least in the backround. The wand eliminates 
the size of Crabbe or Goyle. Someone Ginny's size could stand up for 
themselves.

> Kemper
> As for naming his kid James, it only shows that he wanted to honor his
> dad, flaws and all.
>
jkoney:
Considering everyone everywhere has flaws, if we didn't honor people in 
spite of their flaws we would have a lot more unique names. ;-)

Considering we are told over and over that James grew up and was a 
great guy and that he died a hero, naming your son after him is not a 
big stretch.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 01:40:46 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:40:46 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <gohu84+10dhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goi1qu+a59i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185982

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185918>:

<< I am afraid I do not understand this as answer to my hypothetical.
I do not believe I ever asked about Snape as good husband to Lily. >>

Catlady:
I thought you were asking whether the character would be a good
husband for the listie, based on the character's character traits and
the listie's response to them. Such as, Snape is viciously sarcastic;
listie would constantly feel hurt by being on the receiving end of the
sarcasm, or listie is accustomed to ignoring verbal abuse. (I hadn't
realized that you meant << I am playing a hypothetical where you
**need** your parents approval and where guy (or girl) must pass it,
>> that the question was actually the listie's *parents'* response to
the character's character traits.) <SNIP>

Alla:

Ah, okay thanks for clarifying and sorry for being confusing. Right, 
I definitely played the hypothetical about needing parents' approval, 
but I also meant somebody whom listie will love, so it is sort of 
both. I mean, if listie can fell in love but parents will not 
approve, it does not count for the purpose of my game.

But basically I was getting at presenting why character can be good 
at marriage or long term relationship, you know?

Catlady:
I was thinking that the character's emotional entanglements may be as
important as his character traits in whether he would be a good
husband for some specific person.

Alla:

Well, yes, but the point of my hypothetical is what Zanooda said ? 
consider them all single and at any age you want to, because really 
quite a few of them are dead at the end of the book. I mean, yes 
Snape's love for Lily has to be considered as part of the whole 
package, because without it we will have a different character, but 
certainly for the purpose of this game list member should decide if 
she would be able to deal with Snape's devotion lol. <SNIP>

Jkoney:
<SNIP>
Considering we are told over and over that James grew up and was a
great guy and that he died a hero, naming your son after him is not a
big stretch.

Alla:

I think naming his son after Snape takes a cake as a biggest stretch 
of them all, so after that nothing counts as  a stretch to me.  
Acknowledge what Snape did ? SURE of course, I would have done that 
too, make sure he is publicly praised as a hero, not a traitor, make 
sure he is given all respect due as a hero of war, blah, blah, blah. 
However, I find it totally unbelievable that Harry would do **this** 
for Snape.  Having said that, Harry just died for them all, so I 
judge Christ like figures by very different standards than I judge us 
mere mortals. So every time I hear Albus Severus, I cringe as I said 
up thread, but at the same time I remind myself who Harry is and tell 
myself that Christ like figures are supposed to forgive everybody 
including the bastards like Snape. Oh well.

JMO of course.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar  3 02:46:53 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:46:53 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goh523+3bpm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goi5mt+mogk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185983

 
> Kemper now:
> Well, Tom is the only heir we know of.  There were probably more. 
> Maybe Tom was the most ambitious in learning all there was to know 
of
> Hogwarts.  Or, if his magical mum, uncle and granddaddy are any
> indication, perhaps he was the only competent Slytherin Hogwarts has
> seen since Salazar.


Potioncat:
And not every descendent is the heir...or even an heir. Whatever 
charm Slytherin put on the chamber, it must have not only required a 
certain set of traits in the wizard, but also a strong desire to open 
it. Riddle worked hard. Certainly more than being a Parselmouth was 
needed. Even though that's a rare gift, it must have existed between 
Slytherin and the Gaunts.

Back to the name. JKR may have called it Chamber of Secrets because 
she put some secrets into it. The diary was much more than a wicked 
book. It was a horcrux. The basilisk fang was more than a lost tooth, 
it was one of the few tools that could destroy a horcrux. And there's 
that bit of HBP that was to have been a part of CoS--but was 
postponed.

So, the name fits from what the chamber is to us, the readers, but it 
doesn't quite fit to my mind for the WW.  




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  3 02:53:47 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:53:47 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <gohu84+10dhs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goi63r+hoq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185984

> > Kemper now:
> > Ginny's bullying looked different than James'. She became more
> > aggressive when others were talking poo.  Either hexing or
> > intentionally running/flying into someone, she was telling them to
> > mind their place.  
> 
> jkoney:
> It seemed to me that she was standing up to bully's. I don't remember 
> her starting the taunting and then hexing. I see her taking the bully 
> down a peg or two.

Magpie:
Only if by "standing up to bullies" you mean insulting or hexing people 
who have said something you don't like. I don't think her running into 
or hexing Zach in HBP can be described as standing up to a bully, just 
shutting up somebody who annoys her. Even when Zach is making snide 
remarks in his commentary he's not bullying. The first time she hexes 
him he's just asking her what happened at the MoM. 

-m




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar  3 03:09:19 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:09:19 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <goi63r+hoq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goi70v+pqld@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185985

 
> Magpie:
> Only if by "standing up to bullies" you mean insulting or hexing 
people 
> who have said something you don't like. 

Potioncat:
Ginny and Hermione are real witches aren't they? Hexing, cursing, and 
retaliating against anyone who crosses them. I'm not sure how much of 
their character is "standard drama" of teenaged girls-with-a-wand and 
how much is standard folklore-based witch.






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Mar  3 03:27:24 2009
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:27:24 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <goi70v+pqld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goi82s+a2g9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185986

> > Magpie:
> > Only if by "standing up to bullies" you mean insulting or hexing 
> people 
> > who have said something you don't like. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Ginny and Hermione are real witches aren't they? Hexing, cursing, and 
> retaliating against anyone who crosses them. I'm not sure how much of 
> their character is "standard drama" of teenaged girls-with-a-wand and 
> how much is standard folklore-based witch.

Ceridwen:

This is shifting the discussion.  This particular quotation is about
standing up to bullies.  Hexing, cursing and retaliating against
someone who crosses them is not all "standing up to bullies."  Someone
saying something you don't like is not bullying.  Standing up to
bullying is the issue, not hexing.  Standing up to bullying is the
subject.  Hexing is one method to do so.  Hexing is also a method to
intimidate people who say something you don't like.  Simply because
the person says something you don't like and you hex them, the fact
that you hexed them does not prove they bullied you.  It does mean you
hexed them for a different reason than you hexed the person who
bullied you.  I would even suggest that witches (and wizards) hex
people who neither bully nor say things they don't like.  In other
words, hexing can be used by bullies as well as against them.

Witches (and wizards) hex people.  Not all the people they hex are
bullies.  Sometimes the use of the hex shows annoyance.  Sometimes the
use of the hex shows that the hex-caster is a bully.  Muggles of
either sex do not hex.  They are incapable of hexing.  They can stand
up to bullies, show annoyance, and bully, without hexing.  So can
witches (and wizards).  So both magical and Muggle can stand up to
bullies, show annoyance, and bully without using hexes.  Only witches
(and wizards) can use magic in the form of hexes to stand up to
bullies, show annoyance, and bully.  Since they can use hexes for at
least three different things, then the fact of their using hexes does
not necessarily mean that they used a hex against a bully when they
used a hex.  Ginny hexing Zacharias Smith because he asked her a
question is not standing up to a bully.  It is either showing
annoyance or it is intimidation, a form of bullying.

Ceridwen.




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar  3 03:34:44 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:34:44 -0000
Subject: Which Harry Potter character you would have wanted to bring home
In-Reply-To: <goi70v+pqld@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goi8gk+lde0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185987

 
> Magpie:
> Only if by "standing up to bullies" you mean insulting or hexing 
> people who have said something you don't like. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Ginny and Hermione are real witches aren't they? Hexing, cursing, and 
> retaliating against anyone who crosses them. I'm not sure how much of 
> their character is "standard drama" of teenaged girls-with-a-wand and 
> how much is standard folklore-based witch.

Kemper now:
Hey Potioncat, I'm unclear as to your meaning.  Are you saying that
it's culturally accepted in the WW to hex people who annoy you? 

If so, then I believe Umbridge would have been hexed more than a few
times by her peers... especially from Snape. We don't see the good
adults hexing because they don't like what someone has said.  It seems
if that was acceptable we would have seen it in OP twixt Snape and Sirius.

Kemper




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 03:48:21 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:48:21 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goi8gk+lde0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goi9a5+op2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185988

> Kemper now:
> Hey Potioncat, I'm unclear as to your meaning.  Are you saying that
> it's culturally accepted in the WW to hex people who annoy you? 

Alla:

Not Potioncat, not going answer for her, but really want to change the 
name of the thread now so I will say that absolutely it is much more 
culturally accepted in WW to decide the argument with the wand than in 
the Muggle world. Muggles do not have wands, while wands are pretty 
much extension of who the wizards are, yes?

I would say that to me it means they would use them even in the 
arguments, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, but often when people 
who do not have wands and magic (us, muggles) will think it is not 
acceptable to.

Kemper:
> If so, then I believe Umbridge would have been hexed more than a few
> times by her peers... especially from Snape. We don't see the good
> adults hexing because they don't like what someone has said.  It seems
> if that was acceptable we would have seen it in OP twixt Snape and 
Sirius.

Alla:

I had seen adults doing stuff with the wand when they did not like what 
was said, yes. I do not remember that Sirius or Remus for example 
attacked Snape in the Shrieking Shack, Sirius just begged him to listen.

Snape used his wand in response. No, I know it is not quite the same 
thing, however, I do not think had the similar argument taking place in 
the muggle world the use of the weapon would have been acceptable.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 04:33:36 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:33:36 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goi82s+a2g9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goibv0+nnjh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185989

Ceridwen:
< HUGE SNIP>
>Ginny hexing Zacharias Smith because he asked her a
> question is not standing up to a bully.  It is either showing
> annoyance or it is intimidation, a form of bullying.

Alla:

I would argue however that Ginny knocking down the tent, IS standing 
up to bully and yes I think Zach was doing more than just making 
snide comments. NO, of course he was not bullying her personally, but 
I think the case can be made that he  attempted to bully her whole 
team and I 
think at least as a team member she has a right to be insulted. His 
comments are being heard by everybody, it is not like he is on TV and 
teams do not hear him. Here is only one of his comments.

"Well, there they go, and I think we are all surprised  to see the 
team that Potter's put together this year. Many thought, given Ronald 
Weasley's patchy performance as Keeper last year that he might be off 
the team, but of course, a close personal friendship with the Captain 
does help..." - p.295, HBP, paperback.

Alla:

Yes, sure it will be the best cause of action to ignore him, however 
I really do not think his comments are harmless. He does not simply 
praise an opposing team, he IMO attempts to undermine Ron's 
confidence even more and by extension undermine the whole team. Of 
course he has a right to say it, but I do think that bullying is his 
intention here. Again, I know, Gryffs should have ignored him, 
however IMO it is easier said than done, especially during sportsgame.

And no, I do not think that Lee Jordan's commenting was nearly as 
bad, just extremely biased, but no way I would consider it bullying.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar  3 05:00:23 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:00:23 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goi9a5+op2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goidh7+5m1g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185990

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
 
> Snape used his wand in response. No, I know it is not quite the same
 thing, however, I do not think had the similar argument taking place
in  the muggle world the use of the weapon would have been acceptable.
>

Pippin:

 Snape does not use his weapon to hex anybody, IIRC, but only to warn
Sirius and restrain Lupin.  I can't believe a muggle wouldn't think it
acceptable to warn or restrain  the world's most wanted terrorist and
his accomplice, or that he would think it anything but a waste of time
to argue with them. 

Sirius, OTOH, uses his wand to  bump the unconscious Snape along the
roof of the tunnel. 

Zacharias is older than Ginny (assuming he's in Harry's year),  and,
compared to Ginny,  physically intimidating. He's   skinny, but he's
tall, and he has to be athletic enough to be a Quidditch player. He
didn't just ask an annoying question. He "kept on and on" asking her
about the Ministry battle when she clearly didn't want to talk about it.  

A guy who won't take 'no' for an answer is obnoxious at best. Given
that he seems to expect people to be intimidated by his rudeness, and
that he picks on people he thinks are weaker than he is,   I'd say
that Zacharias is a bully right enough. 

Ginny's certainly guilty of acting like an immature schoolgirl. But
that's what she *is*. 


Pippin




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Mar  3 05:02:18 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:02:18 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goibv0+nnjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goidkq+4din@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185991

> Alla:
> I think the case can be made that he attempted to bully her whole 
> team and I 
> think ... she has a right to be insulted. His comments are being
heard by everybody, it is not like he is on TV and teams do not hear
him. Here is only one of his comments.
> 
> "Well, there they go, and I think we are all surprised  to see the 
> team that Potter's put together this year. Many thought, given
Ronald Weasley's patchy performance as Keeper last year that he might
be off the team, but of course, a close personal friendship with the
Captain does help..." - p.295, HBP, paperback.

Kemper now:
Zachary's comments were intended to sting, true, but they were mostly
true!  Ron was on the team because of his friendship with Harry.  

What else was he doing besides making snide comments?  

Ginny bullied Zachary.  She is not dimwitted, she could have made an
equally snide, stinging comment to him, but she chose violence.


> Alla:
> Yes, sure it will be the best cause of action to ignore him, however 
> I really do not think his comments are harmless. He does not simply 
> praise an opposing team, he IMO attempts to undermine Ron's 
> confidence even more and by extension undermine the whole team. 

Kemper now:
I agree that the attempt is to psych out Ron.  But there is no direct
or implied threat by Zachary; that's why it's not bullying.

Of course, jmo.

Kemper




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  3 05:29:41 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:29:41 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goidkq+4din@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goif85+6gii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185992

> > Alla:
> > I think the case can be made that he attempted to bully her whole 
> > team and I 
> > think ... she has a right to be insulted. His comments are being
> heard by everybody, it is not like he is on TV and teams do not hear
> him. Here is only one of his comments.
> > 
> > "Well, there they go, and I think we are all surprised  to see 
the 
> > team that Potter's put together this year. Many thought, given
> Ronald Weasley's patchy performance as Keeper last year that he 
might
> be off the team, but of course, a close personal friendship with the
> Captain does help..." - p.295, HBP, paperback.
> 
> Kemper now:
> Zachary's comments were intended to sting, true, but they were 
mostly
> true!  Ron was on the team because of his friendship with Harry.  

Magpie:
And Zach probably thought he was the one standing up against the man 
there! I really don't see what Zach is saying there that doesn't fall 
into the realm of normal commenting on a game. In fact, doesn't Zach 
even help them win the game because he lets Harry know he's missed 
the Snitch? (Did Lee bully the Slytherin team with his commentary?)

Zach's being a rather snarky commentator possibly showing bias, but 
he's not bullying an entire Quidditch team. They're not intimidated, 
just annoyed. Well, Ron is possibly also thrown off his game, but 
Ron's thrown off his game by almost anything. Zach, ironically, 
sounds more like he's resentfully sulking at the people *he* thinks 
have all the power at school--Harry Potter and his friends. And he 
winds up semi-conscious for doing it. It's not the first time he's 
been hexed by FoH, though  none of them ever says they're scared of 
him, just annoyed.

-m




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 06:37:09 2009
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:37:09 -0000
Subject: Neville, Harry and Unforgivables (WAS: Which HP character you would bring home)
In-Reply-To: <go8s3m+trvg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goij6l+khus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185993

potioncat wrote:

[snip]
 
> Also, Neville refused to cast the Cruciatus, even took severe 
> punishment for his action. Harry cast one in anger, when it made no 
> sense to do so.

Joey:

I always thought Neville and Harry had a strong dislike for Cruciatus 
and AK respectively because of the impact these 2 curses had on their 
lives i.e. these curses made them lose parental love and care. In 
GoF, Neville was one of those on whom Imperius curse was demonstrated 
by Fake!Moody and Neville also witnessed the AK curse demonstration. 
Yet the way he reacted to Cruciatus was more significant than the way 
he reacted to the other two. Similarly, the way Harry reacted to AK 
was more poignant than the way he reacted to the other two - so much 
so that even when his opponent was LV, he only *disarmed* him!! :-)

Neville refused to cast the Cruciatus when Carrows forced him to 
punish students. He was rebelling against the oppression of those two 
DEs. In Harry's case, he cast the curse on Carrow as the DE had spat 
on McGonagall's face - not a justifiable/logical act, I agree, yet 
pretty understandable considering the fact that one cannot be cent 
percent rational and just when tension/anger levels hit an all-time 
high, IMO. :-)

However, I certainly agree with you that Neville doesn't seem to have 
cast any of the Unforgivable curses in any situation whatsoever (as 
per Canon, at least) unlike Harry who has used both Imperius (at 
Gringotts) and Crucio (against Bellatrix and Carrow).

Cheers,
~Joey, who likes both Neville and Harry for what they are :-)




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 08:22:41 2009
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:22:41 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goi5mt+mogk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goipch+9bvi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185994

> Potioncat:

[snip]

> Back to the name. JKR may have called it Chamber of Secrets because 
> she put some secrets into it. The diary was much more than a wicked 
> book. It was a horcrux. The basilisk fang was more than a lost tooth, 
> it was one of the few tools that could destroy a horcrux. And there's 
> that bit of HBP that was to have been a part of CoS--but was 
> postponed.
> So, the name fits from what the chamber is to us, the readers, but it 
> doesn't quite fit to my mind for the WW.

Joey:

Sorry, I did not go through all posts in this thread. Yet whatever 
secrets you've mentioned above were secrets to majority of the WW as 
well, weren't they? The WW did not seem to know more than the fact that 
a monster that can petrify people is lurking in the CoS.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar  3 13:09:10 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:09:10 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goi9a5+op2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goja5m+imm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185995

Potioncat:
I'm replying to several posts, but I'm using this one as base because 
Alla had the good sense to change the subject line.  ;-)


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185986
>
> > > Magpie before:
> > > Only if by "standing up to bullies" you mean insulting or 
hexing 
> > people 
> > > who have said something you don't like. 
> > 
> > Potioncat then:
> > Ginny and Hermione are real witches aren't they? Hexing, cursing, 
and 
> > retaliating against anyone who crosses them. I'm not sure how 
much of 
> > their character is "standard drama" of teenaged girls-with-a-wand 
and 
> > how much is standard folklore-based witch.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> 
> This is shifting the discussion.  This particular quotation is about
> standing up to bullies.  Hexing, cursing and retaliating against
> someone who crosses them is not all "standing up to bullies."  

Potioncat:
Magpie was making the point, I think, that Ginny was not standing up 
to bullies--pretty much the same point Ceridwin is making.

Yes, I was shifting the discussion a bit. From the subject line, it's 
not the first time. ;-)

I'm neither defending their behavior, nor complaining about their 
behavior. I think it's in keeping with our folklore of what witches 
do. In our fairy tales, and in our (US) court documents, witches are 
reported to hex people and their crops and animals just out of spite 
or jealousy. I think JKR was pulling from that literary background.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185987
> Kemper now:
> Hey Potioncat, I'm unclear as to your meaning.  Are you saying that
> it's culturally accepted in the WW to hex people who annoy you? 
> 
Potioncat:
No, I'm saying in the folklore that JKR drew upon, it was the 
standard. On the one hand, JKR took ordinary kids and put them in a 
magical world. But she also slipped in some very witch-like moments 
from our culture. 

In one of the books Arthur says that someone at work was attempting 
to hex him. I don't remember which book, and I couldn't tell if the 
wizard was mad at Arthur or just fooling around. 

So while much of the time the characters appear very much like us in 
the RW, other times we get the witches and wizards that we were more 
familiar with from literature.




>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185988

> Alla:
> 
> Not Potioncat, not going answer for her, but really want to change 
the 
> name of the thread now so I will say that absolutely it is much 
more 
> culturally accepted in WW to decide the argument with the wand than 
in 
> the Muggle world. Muggles do not have wands, while wands are pretty 
?? much extension of who the wizards are, yes?

Potioncat:
Agreed. I think wizards and witches are quicker to use wands than say-
--we (real we) would use knives or guns or fists---or even our words.

The scene that comes to my mind is Severus and Sirius at 12 GP, wands 
out and poor Harry trying to separate them.




http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185990

Pippin:
> Ginny's certainly guilty of acting like an immature schoolgirl. But
> that's what she *is*. 

Potioncat:
Yes! That's what I mean. Give a bunch of hormonal teenage-girls wands 
and this is what you'll get back. I've seen some intense teenager 
drama in RL. Not a pretty sight! I wouldn't want to add magic to the 
mix.


Wow! I never get this sort of reaction to a post! As soon as I figure 
out what I did, I'm going to do it again!






















From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 13:40:44 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:40:44 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goja5m+imm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojc0s+cpn2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185996

> Potioncat:
> Potioncat:
> Agreed. I think wizards and witches are quicker to use wands than 
say-
> --we (real we) would use knives or guns or fists---or even our 
words.

Alla:

Heh, yes, or even our words :-)

Potioncat: 
> The scene that comes to my mind is Severus and Sirius at 12 GP, 
wands 
> out and poor Harry trying to separate them.

Alla:

And Severus and Sirius are certainly not the only ones, it is just 
they come to my mind as the quickest example of two people erm.. not 
liking what each other would say, like ever.

For example, I was pretty sure that during their altercation in CoS 
Lucius and Arthur used just fists, but now I am not so sure.

"Clearly," said Mr. Malfoy, his pale eyes straying to Mr. and Mrs. 
granger, who were watching apprehensively. "The company you keep, 
Weasley... and I thought your family could sink no lower--"

There was a thud of metal as Ginny's cauldron went flying; Mr. 
Weasley had thrown himself at Mr. Malfoy, knowcking him backward into 
bookshelf." - CoS, p.62, paperback.

Alla:

I am cutting off the rest of the fight, because I wonder, how exactly 
Ginny's cauldron went flying? Did Ginny threw it? Could be, or Arthur 
was fast with his wand or wandless magic? But regardless, here 
clearly Arthur does not like what is being said and reacts NOT with 
words.


Or how about this?

"Lucius Malfoy stood for a moment, and Harry distinctly saw his right 
hand twitch as though he was longing to reach for his wand. Instead, 
he turned to his house - elf.
"We're going, Dobby!" - CoS, p.337

Alla:

Hm, Lucius clearly did not like what Harry and Dumbledore were 
saying. He controlled himself in front of Dumbledore, but he almost 
did not.


> 
> 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185990
> 
> Pippin:
> > Ginny's certainly guilty of acting like an immature schoolgirl. 
But
> > that's what she *is*. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Yes! That's what I mean. Give a bunch of hormonal teenage-girls 
wands 
> and this is what you'll get back. I've seen some intense teenager 
> drama in RL. Not a pretty sight! I wouldn't want to add magic to 
the 
> mix.
> 
> 
> Wow! I never get this sort of reaction to a post! As soon as I 
figure 
> out what I did, I'm going to do it again!
>





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar  3 14:45:53 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:45:53 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goif85+6gii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojfr1+4lsf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185997


> > 
> > Kemper now:
> > Zachary's comments were intended to sting, true, but they were 
> mostly true!  Ron was on the team because of his friendship with Harry. 

Pippin:
It would be truer to say that Ron's on the team because Hermione hexed
his rival. But AFAWK Ginny doesn't know that and to insinuate that
Harry picks his teammates for their friendship rather than their skill
is to insult her as well. 

Granted she could have made a stinging remark in return. But since
Zach is the one with the magical megaphone, nobody would have heard
it. He is speaking from a position of superior power, which I wouldn't
call sticking it to the man. It's not like he's broadcasting on pirate
radio. He's speaking officially, on behalf of the school. 

> 
> Magpie:
> And Zach probably thought he was the one standing up against the man
 there! I really don't see what Zach is saying there that doesn't fall
 into the realm of normal commenting on a game.

Pippin:
Is it normal to make an unsubstantiated accusation of favoritism? Zach
is saying the kind of things that McGonagall would have forced Lee to
withdraw, perhaps because that's the protocol for auditions or because
she's bending over backwards so as not to look like she's deflecting
criticism from her own house. 

She's irate about what Ginny did, though we don't hear more about the
consequences. But it would be unusual for McGonagall to be irate and
not impose any.

It's true that wizards seem cartoonishly quick to resort to violence,
but it's also true that many times the effects are cartoonishly easy
to reverse. No doubt the grandstand was repaired in seconds and Zach
probably was too. In the real world a student who deliberately did
that much damage to school property, not to mention a fellow student,
 would be in serious trouble.

But in the WW it seems that permanent damage happens rarely enough
(when it's not being  perpetrated by a self-styled dark wizard) that
people put the possibility out of mind and don't like to be reminded
of it. 

Pippin 







From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar  3 15:13:20 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:13:20 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gojfr1+4lsf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojheg+3rk5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185998

> > Magpie:
> > And Zach probably thought he was the one standing up against the 
man
>  there! I really don't see what Zach is saying there that doesn't 
fall
>  into the realm of normal commenting on a game.
> 
> Pippin:
> Is it normal to make an unsubstantiated accusation of favoritism? 

Mapgie:
He's commenting on the team line-up, so yeah, I think that 
speculating that Ron's well-known friendship with Harry had a hand in 
him being on the team would probably be considered within limits to 
mention. As Kemper pointed out, he's not completely far off. Ron 
isn't just on the team because Hermione hexed his rival (although 
that, too, I could imagine him saying in his commentary if it was 
rumored to be true), he's also there because Harry knew he'd get 
along with him more than McClaggen. The year before he was put on the 
team despite not being up to snuff because his brothers were good 
players. Ron really has always been a borderline player given a 
chance because of things outside his skill, including his connections.

Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised or think it would be off-limits if 
Lee Jordan mentioned Lucius buying brooms for the Slytherin team, 
especially if Draco had a season like Ron did the first year. I get 
why Zach's remarks make the team angry, I just don't think it's 
bullying. 

Pippin:
Zach
> is saying the kind of things that McGonagall would have forced Lee 
to
> withdraw, perhaps because that's the protocol for auditions or 
because
> she's bending over backwards so as not to look like she's deflecting
> criticism from her own house. 

Magpie:
Commentary on Quidditch games has always been biased and included 
personal remarks, and I just don't think it's that surprising that 
something like this would get said, however McGonagall says the 
commentary is supposed to go. If McGonagall didn't force Zach to 
retract his statements (as you claim she would have done with Lee), 
perhaps she thought it was okay. I don't recall being told that 
McGonagall was bending over backwards to not look like she's 
deflecting criticism from her own house, etc. 

But however McGonagall feels about what Zach said, whatever 
punishment she did or didn't give to Ginny (perhaps Ginny's claim it 
was an accident saved her), I simply don't think it's bullying. To 
me, bullying requires more than just insulting someone in any 
context. Draco's accused of buying his way onto the team by Hermione, 
but I don't think she's bullying him when she says it.

-m




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 17:00:59 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:00:59 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goi9a5+op2b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojnob+5lba@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 185999

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Kemper now:
> > Hey Potioncat, I'm unclear as to your meaning.  Are you saying that
> > it's culturally accepted in the WW to hex people who annoy you? 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Not Potioncat, not going answer for her, but really want to change the 
> name of the thread now so I will say that absolutely it is much more 
> culturally accepted in WW to decide the argument with the wand than in 
> the Muggle world. Muggles do not have wands, while wands are pretty 
> much extension of who the wizards are, yes?
> 
> I would say that to me it means they would use them even in the 
> arguments, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, but often when people 
> who do not have wands and magic (us, muggles) will think it is not 
> acceptable to.
> 
> Kemper:
> > If so, then I believe Umbridge would have been hexed more than a few
> > times by her peers... especially from Snape. We don't see the good
> > adults hexing because they don't like what someone has said.  It seems
> > if that was acceptable we would have seen it in OP twixt Snape and 
> Sirius.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I had seen adults doing stuff with the wand when they did not like what 
> was said, yes. I do not remember that Sirius or Remus for example 
> attacked Snape in the Shrieking Shack, Sirius just begged him to listen.
> 
> Snape used his wand in response. No, I know it is not quite the same 
> thing, however, I do not think had the similar argument taking place in 
> the muggle world the use of the weapon would have been acceptable.
>
Montavilla47:

I think it would depend on what the weapon was.  It's true that Snape
uses his wand on Lupin and it appears to be in an irritated response
to Lupin's words.  However, Lupin was a danger.  He hadn't taken his
potion and he was shortly to turn into a werewolf.  Snape's use of his
wand can be seen as a prudent precautionary move that causes no
injury to Lupin, but keeps him from harming others.  

So, it would somewhat akin (in Muggle terms) to using restraints on
someone who is not an immediate threat, but could become one.  Police
routinely do this, cuffing suspects whether or not they are brandishing
weapons.  Whether or not the suspect is annoying them at the moment 
is immaterial.

He doesn't use his wand on Sirius, but he warns SIrius that he will, given
any provocation.  

In OotP, both Sirius and Snape pull their wands in response to insults 
from the other--but this is seen (by Harry and by the reaction of the
adults who come into the kitchen) as a disgraceful display--much
like Lucius and Arthur coming to blows in the book store in CoS.  

It's funny, but ever since someone made that comparison of a wand
to a gun, I can't stop thinking that Hogwarts would be the NRA's 
ultimate fantasy.  

Imagine a school where all the kids are issued a gun at age 11 and 
then taught to use their weapon responsibly!  It's the great 
equalizer.  As long as Ginny can point and shoot, she's at no
disadvantage against Crabbe or Goyle.









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 17:30:53 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:30:53 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <gohg7n+34og@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojpgd+hjvn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186000

Carol earlier:
> > If any previous Heir had appeared, both Tom and Dumbledore would
> have known it if only because the Chamber of Secrets would have been
> opened. 
> 
> Kemper responded:
> You mean any previous heir to /open/ the chamber.  I agree.  That
doesn't mean that there were no students of Slytherin's bloodline to
have gone to Hogwarts. 

Carol:
I take "the Heir of Slytherin" to mean the one true heir who not only
is descended from Slytherin (obviously, Slytherin had at least one
child who in turn had descendants clear down to Tom) but can open the
chamber. (See below.)
> 
Carol earlier:
> > ...
> > As for an absence of competent Slytherins who predate Tom, we have
Slughorn, for one, and Phineas Nigellus for another.
> 
> Kemper now:
> I was referring to the heirs of Slytherin's apparent lack of
ambition/competence and not to students in Slytherin.  Snape was more
than competent, magically not socially.  :)

Carol responds:
I didn't mention Snape (who, of course, is both intelligent and more
than competent magically) because I thought you were referring to
Slytherin students in general *before* Tom Riddle's time. (In Harry's
time, we have several Slytherins intelligent and hard-working enough
to get an O in Potions: Draco, Blaise, and Theo among them.) If you
mean students with the last name Slytherin, I expect that the last
name (the male line) died out quickly. Maybe Slytherin had a daughter
or granddaughter who married into another Pure-Blood family. A few
generations later, a great-great-granddaughter (or whatever) must have
married Cadmus Peverell, and that male line also died out, with the
last Peverell daughter marrying a Gaunt. Eventually, the only people
known to have Slytherin ancestry were the Gaunts, who started marrying
each other. 

Be that as it may, the question is whether any students of Slytherin's
bloodline actually attended Hogwarts and why none of them qualified as
what Diary!Tom called Slytherin's "true heir." I agree that, before
the Gaunt era, most if not all of Slytherin's descendants would have
attended Hogwarts (most if not all of them Sorted into Slytherin). I
see no reason why his direct descendants wouldn't have attended
Hogwarts until several of the male lines (Slytherin and Peverell among
them) had died out. But, clearly, none of those students was the Heir
of Slytherin in the sense that Diary!Tom uses the word. The *true*
heir of Slytherin would have to be not only intelligent, ambitious, 
magically gifted, and highly motivated to root "unworthy" students out
of Hogwarts, but also a Parselmouth--the exact combination of traits
that we find in Slytherin himself and in his distant descendant, Tom
Riddle. Every Slytherin descendant before him must have been lacking
in one or more of those key components. Either they lacked the
motivation to open the Chamber of Secrets and release the monster, or
they lacked the ability, or both.

The Peverell blood would, perhaps, have temporarily reinforced the
traits of ambition, intelligence, and magical power in Slytherin's
descendants (who would have continued to attend Hogwarts), but since
no (true) Heir of Slytherin appeared, those students must not have
been Parselmouths. (I'm sure that they knew they were descended from
both Salazar Slytherin and Cadmus Peverell, given that even Marvolo
Gaunt knew his ancestry, and quite possibly they were Pure-blood
supremacists, but either they thought that the Chamber of Secrets was
just a legend or they lacked the ability to open it. None was the
*true* Heir of Slytherin, not only as intelligent and ambitious and
magically gifted and virulently anti-Muggle as Slytherin himself, but
able to hear the Basilisk roaming through the pipes, find its hidden
chamber, and control it as Tom did. He alone had all the qualities
required to become Slytherin's true heir.)

I conjecture that once Slytherin ancestry was (apparently) restricted
to the Gaunts and they started intermarrying, both ambition and
intelligence dwindled, but the gene (or combination of genes) for
Parseltongue resurfaced. Poor and ignorant but regarding themselves as
special, they apparently stopped attending Hogwarts, or, if they
attended, they quickly dropped out. Parseltongue alone did not make
Marvolo or his children "true heirs." Only Tom, with a combination of
qualities resembling those in Slytherin himself, could hear the
Basilisk and open the chamber.

Carol, realizing that this post is mostly speculation but trying to
account for the absence of a "true heir" in the nearly one thousand
years between Salazar and Tom




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 17:34:05 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:34:05 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gojheg+3rk5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojpmd+b6h5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186001

> Magpie:
> Commentary on Quidditch games has always been biased and included 
> personal remarks, and I just don't think it's that surprising that 
> something like this would get said, however McGonagall says the 
> commentary is supposed to go. If McGonagall didn't force Zach to 
> retract his statements (as you claim she would have done with Lee), 
> perhaps she thought it was okay. I don't recall being told that 
> McGonagall was bending over backwards to not look like she's 
> deflecting criticism from her own house, etc. 
> 
> But however McGonagall feels about what Zach said, whatever 
> punishment she did or didn't give to Ginny (perhaps Ginny's claim it 
> was an accident saved her), I simply don't think it's bullying. To 
> me, bullying requires more than just insulting someone in any 
> context. Draco's accused of buying his way onto the team by Hermione, 
> but I don't think she's bullying him when she says it.

Montavilla47:
I think that insults can be bullying, but I don't think that ALL insults are 
bullying.  I agree that Smith can't plausibly intimidate an entire Quidditch
team, especially since he's already been hexed by Ginny.  Size doesn't 
matter in the Wizarding World--magical skill does.  And we are told by
different people that Ginny packs a huge magical punch.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 18:09:16 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:09:16 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gojnob+5lba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojroc+k76k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186002

> > Kemper:
> > > If so, then I believe Umbridge would have been hexed more than 
a few
> > > times by her peers... especially from Snape. We don't see the 
good
> > > adults hexing because they don't like what someone has said.  
It seems
> > > if that was acceptable we would have seen it in OP twixt Snape 
and 
> > Sirius.
>> Montavilla47:
<SNIP>
> In OotP, both Sirius and Snape pull their wands in response to 
insults 
> from the other--but this is seen (by Harry and by the reaction of 
the
> adults who come into the kitchen) as a disgraceful display--much
> like Lucius and Arthur coming to blows in the book store in CoS. 
<SNIP>

Alla:

My point was not to argue whether the altercations and underlying 
reason behind them is acceptable or not. I thought that Kemper's 
point was that using the wand in altercation by good adults is not 
culturally acceptable and I gave several examples based on which I 
make the conclusion that yes, it seems to be acceptable. Again, I am 
not trying to evaluate the incident itself, just the fact that they 
are (good adults including) often quick to take the wand to resolve 
it. So altercations could be seen by disgusting sure (does not stop 
those who seen one as disgusting to use the wand in another though), 
but that does not matter to me, what matters to me is that wands are 
being used to resolve them.

Here is another one - I seriously doubt that anybody in our world who 
failed their job interview could repay unfortunate employer by 
putting a curse on the job.
 
Montavilla47: 
> It's funny, but ever since someone made that comparison of a wand
> to a gun, I can't stop thinking that Hogwarts would be the NRA's 
> ultimate fantasy. 

Alla:

That's one way to think about it of course. I just think that witches 
and wizards are bound to use their wands often simply because of who 
they are. Not that they always should.

 
Montavilla47: 
> Imagine a school where all the kids are issued a gun at age 11 and 
> then taught to use their weapon responsibly!  It's the great 
> equalizer.  As long as Ginny can point and shoot, she's at no
> disadvantage against Crabbe or Goyle.

Alla:
It seems to me that size still often matters especially if other kid 
is still not in full control of their magical ability (Neville and 
Draco and his goons in PS/SS for example)





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 18:54:03 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:54:03 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <goja5m+imm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gojucb+cqr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186003

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

> In one of the books Arthur says that someone at work was attempting 
> to hex him. I don't remember which book, and I couldn't tell if the 
> wizard was mad at Arthur or just fooling around. 


zanooda:

It's from CoS, and the wizard attempting to hex Arthur was none other
than Mundungus Fletcher :-). However, it happened during a Ministry
raid, so Dung probably just was trying to get out of trouble this way,
it was nothing personal :-).




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Mar  3 22:47:06 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:47:06 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gojpmd+b6h5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gokc1a+v4mr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186004

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47"
<montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
> > was an accident saved her), I simply don't think it's bullying. To
 me, bullying requires more than just insulting someone in any 
> > context. Draco's accused of buying his way onto the team by
Hermione,  but I don't think she's bullying him when she says it.

Pippin:

I agree that trading insults is not bullying. But Smith isn't trading
insults with the team, he's insulting them when they're not in a
position to fight back. Harry's methods of choosing his teammates is
fair game, but unless Smith has some proof that there were better
keepers than Ron available, he has no business insinuating that
friendship had more to do with Ron's appointment than skill. 

If Smith knows so much about McLaggen that he knows he's better at
making saves, he should also know about McLaggen's nasty temper and
lack of team spirit. 

Hermione didn't make her accusation in front of the whole school, nor
in such a way that Draco wouldn't be able to respond. And in fact
Draco did, calling her a Mudblood. 

I agree that Zach didn't succeed in intimidating Ginny or the team
(except possibly Ron), but I don't think intimidation was his goal.
Like James, he's an attention-seeking bully, IMO, not a power-seeking
one. In fact that might be the explanation for his persistence, and
for Draco's, too. It doesn't matter if Draco seldom gets the upper
hand  if attention is what he desires.

> Montavilla47:
> I think that insults can be bullying, but I don't think that ALL
insults are  bullying.  I agree that Smith can't plausibly intimidate
an entire Quidditch team, especially since he's already been hexed by
Ginny.  

Pippin:
Ginny doesn't appear to have her wand with her on the Quidditch field,
and in any case she can't leave the game or zap Smith in front of
McGonagall.  Smith would have supposed he was safe.

Size does matter, and so does a bully pulpit  -- just ask Hagrid. :)

Pippin




From jkoney65 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  4 00:38:15 2009
From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:38:15 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gojheg+3rk5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gokihn+dvj3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186005

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Magpie:
> > > And Zach probably thought he was the one standing up against the 
> man
> >  there! I really don't see what Zach is saying there that doesn't 
> fall
> >  into the realm of normal commenting on a game.
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > Is it normal to make an unsubstantiated accusation of favoritism? 
> 
> Mapgie:
> He's commenting on the team line-up, so yeah, I think that 
> speculating that Ron's well-known friendship with Harry had a hand in 
> him being on the team would probably be considered within limits to 
> mention. As Kemper pointed out, he's not completely far off. Ron 
> isn't just on the team because Hermione hexed his rival (although 
> that, too, I could imagine him saying in his commentary if it was 
> rumored to be true), he's also there because Harry knew he'd get 
> along with him more than McClaggen. The year before he was put on the 
> team despite not being up to snuff because his brothers were good 
> players. Ron really has always been a borderline player given a 
> chance because of things outside his skill, including his connections.
> 
> Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised or think it would be off-limits if 
> Lee Jordan mentioned Lucius buying brooms for the Slytherin team, 
> especially if Draco had a season like Ron did the first year. I get 
> why Zach's remarks make the team angry, I just don't think it's 
> bullying. 
> 

jkoney:
But Zach doesn't know how good anyone else at the tryouts were. Ron had ended the season on a high note, playing a great game. He performed well at tryouts and won the position. As the person who held the position it was up to someone else to prove they were better than him. Even without Hermione's help the best that McClaggan would have done would have been to tie Ron. At that point I would still go with experience. Add in McClaggen is a jerk and it isn't really a hard decision.

Zach's comments don't show any inside information that Ron actually performed poorly they are just cheap shots. 


> 
> Magpie:
> Commentary on Quidditch games has always been biased and included 
> personal remarks, and I just don't think it's that surprising that 
> something like this would get said, however McGonagall says the 
> commentary is supposed to go. If McGonagall didn't force Zach to 
> retract his statements (as you claim she would have done with Lee), 
> perhaps she thought it was okay. I don't recall being told that 
> McGonagall was bending over backwards to not look like she's 
> deflecting criticism from her own house, etc. 
> 
> But however McGonagall feels about what Zach said, whatever 
> punishment she did or didn't give to Ginny (perhaps Ginny's claim it 
> was an accident saved her), I simply don't think it's bullying. To 
> me, bullying requires more than just insulting someone in any 
> context. Draco's accused of buying his way onto the team by Hermione, 
> but I don't think she's bullying him when she says it.

jkoney:
I think it's the fact that McGonagall didn't force him to retract his statements like she did with Lee that makes it look like she is bending over backwards.

If you don't think it is bullying than do you believe that verbal insults are a prelude to bullying behavior?

After all if you can get away with insulting someone the next step is verbal or physical intimidation.

If you are going to insult someone, you must expect them to stand up for themselves. Maybe Zach was only expecting words to be thrown back at him. That was his mistake. Zach started it, Ginny finished it. I don't have a problem with it.





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Mar  4 01:05:56 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:05:56 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gokihn+dvj3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gokk5k+5e9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186006

> jkoney:
> But Zach doesn't know how good anyone else at the tryouts were. Ron had ended the season on a high note, playing a great game. He performed well at tryouts and won the position. As the person who held the position it was up to someone else to prove they were better than him. Even without Hermione's help the best that McClaggan would have done would have been to tie Ron. At that point I would still go with experience. Add in McClaggen is a jerk and it isn't really a hard decision.

> Zach's comments don't show any inside information that Ron actually performed poorly they are just cheap shots. 

Magpie:
Cheap shots or no, it's the type of thing I hear said about sports players all the time. Regardless of having a final good game, Zach saw him play last year and that's what he references, isn't it? Zach is being obnoxious, taking a cheap shot and what he sees as the Inner Circle of Harry Potter. I just wouldn't call it bullying.

> jkoney:
> I think it's the fact that McGonagall didn't force him to retract his statements like she did with Lee that makes it look like she is bending over backwards.

Magpie:
I can't remember all the commentary we've ever gotten off-hand, so I'd probably have to re-read them all to see if I had the impression she was bending over backwards specifically, or if JKR just didn't happen to have her do anything because it wasn't about Zach vs. McG but Zach annoying Harry (I say Harry because it's Harry whose pov we're in, not Ron's) and then Ginny his ideal girl taking him out for it.

jkoney:
> 
> If you don't think it is bullying than do you believe that verbal insults are a prelude to bullying behavior?
> 
> After all if you can get away with insulting someone the next step is verbal or physical intimidation.

Magpie:
Sure, they can be. I think when Draco teases Ron about his Quidditch playing in class in OotP he's bullying him. I didn't say that I didn't believe it could be bullying without physical aggression--of course you can bully using only words and psychological intimidation. That's more often the way girls do it IRL. What I said was that I didn't automatically think that made every insult bullying.

I don't know what Zach expected to be thrown back at him. He'd have good reason to think he'd get physically attacked since Ginny had already hexed him on the train for asking her questions about the MoM (not suggested to be bullying by anyone). He wasn't necessarily saying what he said to provoke anybody to attack him at all. Maybe he was just saying it because he thought it was true and should be said. Ginny finishes and starts things throughout HBP (though nobody ever finishes anything with her, of course). I can certainly identify with not having a problem with Ginny's actions. If Zach seen Ginny coming and thrown up an invisible shield so that Ginny ran into it and broke her face I would have been great with it.

-m




From joeydebs at yahoo.com  Tue Mar  3 20:14:34 2009
From: joeydebs at yahoo.com (Debi)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:14:34 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore use the pensieve to view Harry's memories?
In-Reply-To: <goh7kp+r7sq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gok33a+9bls@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186007

> mindi:
> I was just finishing reading GOF the other day and I was
> wondering why instead of making Harry relive the whole LV
> encounter over again to tell what happened, why didn't
> Dumbledore have him extract his memory of it and view it
> for themselves in the pensieve? Then they would have been
> able to show that to Fudge too. Then he would have had to
> of taken it as the truth, right? Just a thought.

joeydebs:

I suspect there is a way to 'falsify' memories (such as Confunding)
which Fudge would claim Dumbledore did to Harry to undermine him.

Also, I suspect Dumbledore thought Harry would deal with it better
if asked to relive it - as a healing process. After all in the
Muggle world we go to therapists and talk to order and deal with
major traumas.



From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  4 04:26:24 2009
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:26:24 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore use the pensieve to view Harry's memories?
In-Reply-To: <gok33a+9bls@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gokvtg+7enn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186008

> > mindi:
> > I was just finishing reading GOF the other day and I was
> > wondering why instead of making Harry relive the whole LV
> > encounter over again to tell what happened, why didn't
> > Dumbledore have him extract his memory of it and view it
> > for themselves in the pensieve? Then they would have been
> > able to show that to Fudge too. Then he would have had to
> > of taken it as the truth, right? Just a thought.
> 
> joeydebs:
> 
> I suspect there is a way to 'falsify' memories (such as Confunding)
> which Fudge would claim Dumbledore did to Harry to undermine him.
> 
> Also, I suspect Dumbledore thought Harry would deal with it better
> if asked to relive it - as a healing process. After all in the
> Muggle world we go to therapists and talk to order and deal with
> major traumas.

Joey:

Interesting thought and discussion! :-)

DD mentioned to Sirius he wanted Harry to talk about it to release the tension so that it will eventually reduce the trauma Harry was facing then (according to him :-)).

Slughorn's modified memory shows that memories can be tampered with.

Even in the case of showing Fudge a clear, untampered memory of Harry's (as Mindi has suggested), I think Fudge will still say it is Harry's hallucination rather than a valid memory of what had really happened. He refused to trust even Snape's proof of Dark Mark getting dark.

Also, I think memories cannot be passed off as solid evidence for/against something, as per WW law - Arabella Figg & Harry had to *narrate* to Amelia Bones what happened on the night of the Dementor attack (OOtP), right? 

Cheers,
~Joey :-)




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  4 04:29:22 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:29:22 -0000
Subject: Standing up  to bullies WAS: Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gokihn+dvj3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gol032+fmer@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186009


> jkoney:
> Zach's comments don't show any inside information that Ron actually performed poorly they are just cheap shots. 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > But however McGonagall feels about what Zach said, whatever 
> > punishment she did or didn't give to Ginny (perhaps Ginny's claim it 
> > was an accident saved her), I simply don't think it's bullying. To 
> > me, bullying requires more than just insulting someone in any 
> > context. Draco's accused of buying his way onto the team by Hermione, 
> > but I don't think she's bullying him when she says it.
> 
> jkoney:
> If you don't think it is bullying than do you believe that verbal insults are a prelude to bullying behavior?
> 
> After all if you can get away with insulting someone the next step is verbal or physical intimidation.
> 
> If you are going to insult someone, you must expect them to stand up for themselves. Maybe Zach was only expecting words to be thrown back at him. That was his mistake. Zach started it, Ginny finished it. I don't have a problem with it.

Montavilla47:
I don't have a big problem with it, either.  But that doesn't mean I think Smith
was bullying anyone.  He was, as you said above, making cheap shots.  But
making cheap shots isn't necessarily bullying.  It's just making cheap shots.

Look, Jon Stewart (and every other comedian in the world) makes cheap shots
at just about every politician in the world.  Rush Limbaugh does the same thing,
with a huge "bully pulpit."   But neither of them is bullying anybody--not Clinton,
not Bush, not Obama, and not even Sarah Palin.  They're just taking shots--
most of them cheap.

Don Rickles made a living insulting everyone he met.  But he didn't bully
them.  Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did his insults ever grow into
physical intimidation.

Yes, insults *can* be intimidating, but they are not always intimidating.
Sometimes they are just hot air.  Which is what Smith's comments strike
me as.







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  4 06:17:08 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:17:08 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore use the pensieve to view Harry's memories?
In-Reply-To: <gokvtg+7enn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gol6d4+91nu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186010

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

> DD mentioned to Sirius he wanted Harry to talk about it to 
> release the tension so that it will eventually reduce the 
> trauma Harry was facing then (according to him :-)).


zanooda:

By "according to him" do you mean Dumbledore :-)? If so, I just wanted to say that according to Harry, talking about what happened really made him feel better. The book says: "...he felt almost as though something poisonous were being extracted from him. It was costing him every bit of determination he had to keep talking, yet he sensed that once he had finished, he would feel better" :-).





From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  4 08:33:08 2009
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 08:33:08 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore use the pensieve to view Harry's memories?
In-Reply-To: <gol6d4+91nu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <golec4+27do@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186011

Joey wrote:
> 
> > DD mentioned to Sirius he wanted Harry to talk about it to 
> > release the tension so that it will eventually reduce the 
> > trauma Harry was facing then (according to him :-)).
> 
> 
> zanooda:
> 
> By "according to him" do you mean Dumbledore :-)? 

Joey:

Yes. :-)

> zanooda:
> If so, I just wanted to say that according to Harry, talking about what happened really made him feel better. The book says: "...he felt almost as though something poisonous were being extracted from him. It was costing him every bit of determination he had to keep talking, yet he sensed that once he had finished, he would feel better" :-).

Joey:

Thanks for the quote! :-) I forgot how Harry eventually felt. I was actually thinking of Harry's (initial) reluctance to narrate the events and Sirius insisting that Harry take rest before he does all the talking, squeezing (gripping? :-)) Harry's shoulder when Harry narrated the event, etc. when I said "according to him." :-)





From gnb56 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar  4 14:08:26 2009
From: gnb56 at yahoo.com (mindi)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:08:26 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Dumbledore use the pensieve to view Harry's memories?
In-Reply-To: <golec4+27do@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gom20q+bio1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186012

Thanks, those are all great points!  They all make sense and I guess if it would have worked out the way I was thinking then there really would have been no point to OOTP?!

Mindi



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Mar  5 02:55:15 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:55:15 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goipch+9bvi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goneuj+9e6n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186013

 
> Joey:
> 
> Sorry, I did not go through all posts in this thread. Yet whatever 
> secrets you've mentioned above were secrets to majority of the WW as 
> well, weren't they? The WW did not seem to know more than the fact that 
> a monster that can petrify people is lurking in the CoS.


Potioncat:
>From inside the story, the name doesn't make sense. (imho) The legend says Slytherin left a monster in a hidden chamber. And somewhere along the line, it developed the name, "Chamber of Secrets." If the legend had been that Slytherin had a chamber that he used to practice his Dark Magic, and write his notes, and he left a monster in the chamber when he left, and maybe his notes are still there too---then Chamber of Secrets makes sense.

>From outside the story I can make JKR's name of Chamber of Secrets fits because she left some little goodies there.

I think I'm the only one who is bothered by the name....That and Lily's letter.





From carylcb at hotmail.com  Thu Mar  5 03:16:38 2009
From: carylcb at hotmail.com (clcb58)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:16:38 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories
Message-ID: <gong6m+kh34@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186014

Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does anyone remember canon examples to support either theory?




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar  5 03:29:38 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:29:38 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goneuj+9e6n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gongv2+9n11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186015


> 
> Potioncat:
> From inside the story, the name doesn't make sense. (imho) The legend says Slytherin left a monster in a hidden chamber. And somewhere along the line, it developed the name, "Chamber of Secrets." If the legend had been that Slytherin had a chamber that he used to practice his Dark Magic, and write his notes, and he left a monster in the chamber when he left, and maybe his notes are still there too---then Chamber of Secrets makes sense.

Pippin:
But it could have happened that way.  Maybe before Slytherin left the school, there was a rumor that he had constructed a secret chamber for just the purposes you suggest, and after he left, people said he had left a monster in there. Maybe some of his students had even been in the room, but couldn't find it or enter it again after he left, not being parselmouths and fearing the monster or other traps that Slytherin might have left to guard it. 

It never made sense to me that Slytherin would have constructed a giant statue of himself and never showed it to anyone.  

Pippin




From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  5 04:32:57 2009
From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (happyjoeysmiley)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:32:57 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories
In-Reply-To: <gong6m+kh34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gonklp+ihsg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186016

clcb58 wrote:
> Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does anyone remember canon examples to support either theory?

Joey:

IIRC, Snape was shown to "replace" the memory back into his head in the OOtP Occlumency lessons. Yet Slughorn is able to give a tampered one and also, the correct one at a later point in time, which is possible only if he is making copies, I suppose. Wonder what others have got to say. :-) 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Mar  5 14:39:48 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:39:48 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories
In-Reply-To: <gong6m+kh34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gooo7k+os5q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186017

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clcb58" <carylcb at ...> wrote:
>
> Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does anyone remember canon examples to support either theory?
>

Pippin:
Dumbledore can discuss the trials, the prophecy, and his interviews with Riddle even when his memories of these events are stored in the Pensieve, so extracting memories can't mean erasing them as thoroughly as a  memory charm would do.  

But there must be some point to Snape storing his memories in the Pensieve and replacing them afterwards. Perhaps while  memories are in the pensieve, one can still recall the facts of an event, but can't picture it in the mind  -- and neither could an invading legilimens. 

Snape must actually have been so good at occlumency that he wouldn't need this defense -- but he didn't want Voldemort to know that. So a great show was made of extracting some memories and placing them in the pensieve.  

Pippin




From joeydebs at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  5 18:10:21 2009
From: joeydebs at yahoo.com (Debi)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:10:21 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories
In-Reply-To: <gooo7k+os5q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gop4id+2p5l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186018

<snip>
> Pippin:
> But there must be some point to Snape storing his memories in the Pensieve and replacing them afterwards. Perhaps while  memories are in the pensieve, one can still recall the facts of an event, but can't picture it in the mind  -- and neither could an invading legilimens. 
> 

You saying about the facts of an event reminded me about something Dumbledore said to Harry when he discovered the Pensieve in Goblet of Fire:
"I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one's leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form."

Debi




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  6 00:00:18 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:18 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories
In-Reply-To: <gooo7k+os5q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gopp2i+pnj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186019

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "clcb58" <carylcb@> wrote:
> >
> > Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does anyone remember canon examples to support either theory?
> >

Montavilla47:

Maybe it's like most computer programs.  You can cut-and-paste or you 
can copy-and-paste.  That would explain why Snape is using the Pensieve
to store memories, while Slughorn is able to extract a copy of his memory.







From spaced_out_space_cadet at hotmail.com  Fri Mar  6 02:13:35 2009
From: spaced_out_space_cadet at hotmail.com (spacedoutspacecadet)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:13:35 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <gongv2+9n11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <goq0sf+jac0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186021

> > Potioncat:
The legend says Slytherin left a monster in a hidden chamber. And somewhere along the line, it developed the name, "Chamber of Secrets."


> Pippin:

Maybe before Slytherin left the school, there was a rumor that he had constructed a secret chamber for just the purposes you suggest, and after he left, people said he had left a monster in there.

Space Cadet:
I'm thinking that maybe it's original name was simply the secret chamber or maybe it didn't have a name at all, and along the time line it changed to the Chamber of Secrets because it sounded kind of cool...

Space Cadet hopes that she's doing this right!! :)






From gnb56 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar  5 19:35:36 2009
From: gnb56 at yahoo.com (mindi)
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:35:36 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories
In-Reply-To: <gonklp+ihsg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gop9i8+l2an@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186022


> clcb58 wrote:
> > Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the
> > memory from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does
> > anyone remember canon examples to support either theory?
>
> Joey:
> IIRC, Snape was shown to "replace" the memory back into
> his head in the OOtP Occlumency lessons. Yet Slughorn is
> able to give a tampered one and also, the correct one at
> a later point in time, which is possible only if he is
> making copies, I suppose.


Mindi:

I wonder if they can choose for it to be erased or copied
when they extract the memory, kind of like how on a computer
you can choose to copy or cut something.




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Fri Mar  6 06:14:45 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 22:14:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question about Pensieve memories
In-Reply-To: <gooo7k+os5q@eGroups.com>
References: <gong6m+kh34@eGroups.com> <gooo7k+os5q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90903052214w7741bf16o6bb97c3e44ad0b90@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186023

> clcb58 wrote:
> Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory from the
mind or just make a copy of it?
> Does anyone remember canon examples to support either theory?

> Pippin wrote:
> Dumbledore can discuss the trials, the prophecy, and his interviews with
Riddle even when his memories
> of these events are stored in the Pensieve, so extracting memories can't
mean
> erasing them as thoroughly as a memory charm would do.

> But there must be some point to Snape storing his memories in the Pensieve
and replacing them afterwards.
> Perhaps while memories are in the pensieve, one can still recall the facts
of an
> event, but can't picture it in the mind -- and neither could an invading
legilimens.

> Snape must actually have been so good at occlumency that he wouldn't need
this defense --
> but he didn't want Voldemort to know that. So a great show was made of
extracting some
> memories and placing them in the pensieve.

In my opinion, I don't believe that storing a memory in a pensieve
automatically erases it from the wizard or
witch's mind.  I believe that a copy of the memory is made as quickly as
possible to ensure that the copy is as
accurate as possible.  The pensieve provides the storage medium for the
copied memories outside of a mind.
I agree with Pippin that if placing memories into a pensieve automatically
erases them from the
mind that it would then not be possible for the wizard or witch to be able
to recall those memories while thinking.

Now, if a wizard or witch is concerned that a dark wizard or witch may
attempt to obtain
his or her memories, the wizard or witch could always use a memory charm to
erase the memories
after copying them into a pensieve.  Of course, the wizard or witch would
have to leave an artifact
of some kind in his or her mind to remember that something important had
been stored
away.  This within itself could backfire if a dark wizard or witch were to
find the artifact.
If the wizard or witch then used a memory charm to forget the location of
the pensieve for
added security, he or she would have to leave the location with a trusted
friend or associate.

tinroof.rusted


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  6 15:42:25 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:42:25 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories
In-Reply-To: <gop9i8+l2an@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gorg91+t63n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186024

Mindi wrote:
> 
> I wonder if they can choose for it to be erased or copied when they extract the memory, kind of like how on a computer you can choose to copy or cut something.
>
Carol responds:
I like that idea. However, Morfin Gaunt and Hokey the House-Elf had no choice in the matter when Tom Riddle somehow tampered with their memories and implanted false ones to make them think they'd committed murder, but the true memory was still there underneath or Dumbledore couldn't have accessed it.

I suspect that he removed the memory from his head, tampered with the point of view so that, for example, Hokey couldn't see his hands and know they weren't hers, and then somehow placed it in their heads. But he must have retained the real memory. Otherwise, he wouldn't know that he'd killed his "filthy Muggle father" (and grandparents). He'd certainly remember planning the murders even if he didn't remember carrying them out, but I suspect that, as you put it, he copied and pasted the slightly altered memories and retained the unaltered ones. (Quite a feat for a sixteen-year-old Dark wizard!)

Something similar must have happened with Slughorn, who removed the memory and tampered with it, but the real memory was still there as DD knew or he wouldn't have asked Harry to obtain it.

As for Snape, he didn't want Harry to accidentally Legilimens certain memories (presumably through Protego), so he took the precaution of placing them in the Pensieve (cut and paste?). I suspect that he still remembered which memories they were and that such things had happened; he just couldn't recall the details. (Heck, I can't recall the details of the vast majority of things that have happened to me. People who claim to recall detailed conversations from their past are, IMO, seriously mistaken. Memories really aren't crystal clear and objectively real as they appear in a Pensieve.) 

Dumbledore, too, would have remembered that certain things happened (Karkaroff's hearing in GoF or the visit to young Tom Riddle in HBP), but he, too, wouldn't remember the details if he'd removed the memory unless he was studying it in the Pensieve, in which case he'd have a secondary memory, a memory of the memory, like Harry's memories of his visits to the Pensieve. In a sense, Hokey's and Morfin's and Bob Ogden's and Snape's and Dumbledore's memories are now his memories, too. And we can throw in Tommy Riddle's diary memory (presumably of the copied-and-pasted variety) as well.

Or a particular memory works the way JKR needs it to work in the plot of a particular book in the sequence. Consistency is not her forte.

Carol, just tossing out random thoughts here




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sat Mar  7 19:00:26 2009
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 11:00:26 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <goq0sf+jac0@eGroups.com>
References: <gongv2+9n11@eGroups.com> <goq0sf+jac0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0903071100x232a0e2ax2cd5fcc7d06ae5fe@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186025

All right, I've been following this thread and some good points have been
brought up, but I have some questions:  Why would I assume that all the
secrets the COS has to offer were discovered by Harry and Co.? Why, in fact,
would I assume that Tom Riddle discovered all of the secrets within the
chamber?  Why would I even want to believe either? I think, instead, I'll
let my imagination tell me that perhaps the COS has more to offer other
inquisitive students and possibly adults with curious minds.

Lynda


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




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Mar  7 19:55:40 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 19:55:40 -0000
Subject: Chamber of ....Secrets?
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0903071100x232a0e2ax2cd5fcc7d06ae5fe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <goujfs+32ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186026

> Lynda:
> All right, I've been following this thread and some good points have been
> brought up, but I have some questions:  Why would I assume that all the
> secrets the COS has to offer were discovered by Harry and Co.? Why, in fact,
> would I assume that Tom Riddle discovered all of the secrets within the
> chamber?  Why would I even want to believe either? I think, instead, I'll
> let my imagination tell me that perhaps the COS has more to offer other
> inquisitive students and possibly adults with curious minds.

Kemper now:
I suppose I would find it less likely that Tom didn't discover all there was in the Chamber.  That seems out of character for him.  That's not to say that there isn't more to explore.  Maybe there's some more parsletongue (sp?) chambers within the main.  Either way, those inquisitive students will need to speak snake (or fake it reasonably) to access the chamber.  Not sure if Ron or Harry has shared the 'sound' in order to open the chamber.  That sounds also OOC for Harry, though Ron could have told his kids to sound cool.

fwiw,

Kemper




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Mar  7 23:18:53 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:18:53 -0000
Subject: Hexing in the WW was :Re: Which Harry Potter character
In-Reply-To: <gojroc+k76k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gouvct+nn9u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186027

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/185961

Alla wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186002>:

<< Here is another one - I seriously doubt that anybody in our world who failed their job interview could repay unfortunate employer by putting a curse on the job. >>

Someone in our world who was as much of an evil lunatic as Tom Riddle might murder each person who got the job, becoming a specialized serial killer. We certainly have cases in our world of a person who was fired or otherwise 'disgruntled' about their job killing co-workers as well as supervisors, why not disgruntled unsuccessful applicants? 




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun Mar  8 04:33:26 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose)
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 21:33:26 -0700
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
Message-ID: <10489F03DB5F400189EB07D14DC8F4F0@Marianne>

No: HPFGUIDX 186028

A few years later.  Would the OOTP still be in operation?  I can't imagine the Order continuing on.  After all, the main person they were out to defeat was now dead.  Course all couldn't be wonderful and safe in the WW.  There still had to have been evil still out there.  Not necessarily LV evil, but people up to no good just the same.  Or would have Aurers have that covered.

Any speculation that Harry set up housekeeping at #12 Grimmauld Place after the Battle of Hogwart's?  He did inherit it from Sirius.  Maybe it reminded Harry of too many bad things and he let the house be and it fell apart from lack of care.  Or maybe he sold it.  If the OOTP still existed, maybe it continued to be headquarters for the OOTP?

Would Ginny be willing to set up housekeeping there?  Raise their children there?  I was under the impression that the entire house was pretty gloomy, even though the OOTP did clean it up.  Plus it had some Black family stuff that would not come off the walls.  That would not be cheery to have around.

What about Kreacher?  Harry did send him off to Hogwart's to work in the kitchen.  Did Kreacher come back into Harry's service as a free elf?  I can't imagine Harry keeping him enslaved.

Mariane
A friend will bail you out of jail
A true friend will be sitting in the cell next to you saying:
"We screwed up, but it was fun."

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




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar  8 16:57:04 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 8 Mar 2009 16:57:04 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/8/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1236531424.599.20794.m7@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186029

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 8, 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/20090308/063c7341/attachment.html>

From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Mar  8 20:25:32 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:25:32 -0000
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
In-Reply-To: <10489F03DB5F400189EB07D14DC8F4F0@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gp19js+6se6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186030

 "wildirishrose" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> A few years later.  Would the OOTP still be in operation?  I can't imagine the Order continuing on.  After all, the main person they were out to defeat was now dead. 

Potioncat:
Not too many of the OoP members left either. I doubt it continued.


> "wildirishrose"
> Any speculation that Harry set up housekeeping at #12 Grimmauld Place after the Battle of Hogwart's?  He did inherit it from Sirius.  snip
 Plus it had some Black family stuff that would not come off the walls.  That would not be cheery to have around.

Potioncat:
Since the house belonged to Harry, he could bring any number of spell breakers to help get rid of the Black's Dark Magic. Then again, they always had Bill and he must not have been able to get rid of it! With the house out of the Black family, the old portraits may have given up their hold on the place.

I think they cleaned the place up and lived there.

> "wildirishrose"
> What about Kreacher?  Harry did send him off to Hogwart's to work in the kitchen.  Did Kreacher come back into Harry's service as a free elf?  I can't imagine Harry keeping him enslaved.

Potioncat:
I know there's a lot of members who won't agree, but I think Kreacher continued with Harry. It's what a House-elf wants to do. And with Ginny having a professional Quidditch job, followed by a sports journalism job, the Potters needed the help.

So Harry may have said, "If you ever want to free, I'll present you with clothes, but I won't force them upon you."

Actually, Kreacher may have been able to break some of the spells himself.
>

Just my opinion.





From sway at micindustries.com  Sun Mar  8 06:15:23 2009
From: sway at micindustries.com (jpfinch1)
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 06:15:23 -0000
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
In-Reply-To: <10489F03DB5F400189EB07D14DC8F4F0@Marianne>
Message-ID: <govnpr+e88f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186031

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> A few years later.  Would the OOTP still be in operation? <SNIP>
>
> Any speculation that Harry set up housekeeping at #12 Grimmauld Place after the Battle of Hogwart's? <SNIP>

I think that the OOTP is no longer in existence after the fall of LD as it was really DD organization and no longer needed.

I also think that Harry may have kept Grimmauld Place and completely remodeled it before moving in.  If the things would not come off the walls then remove the wall entirely and start over.

It was also Kreacher"s house and I think Harry would have offered Kreacher his freedom and would have allowed in to return to Grimmauld Place if he wanted.

jpfinch1




From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Mon Mar  9 04:57:54 2009
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:57:54 -0000
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
In-Reply-To: <10489F03DB5F400189EB07D14DC8F4F0@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gp27ki+2rgv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186032

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> A few years later.  Would the OOTP still be in operation?  I can't imagine the Order continuing on.

Doddie here:  

  Given the Epilogue, yes I think the OOTP still was in operation for a while...especially with the DA contingency...most, if not all of whom seem to fight for the order....I'm sure there were more than those in the order that may have needed rounding up post Voldy-defeat..

Wild asked: 
 Any speculation that Harry set up housekeeping at #12 Grimmauld Place after the Battle of Hogwart's?  He did inherit it from Sirius.  Maybe it reminded Harry of too many bad things and he let the house be and it fell apart from lack of care.  Or maybe he sold it.  If the OOTP still existed, maybe it continued to be headquarters for the OOTP?

Doodie responds:

  I do think that Harry set up his home address at #12 despite his holidays spent at The Burrow...He would never abandon Kreacher, and would go back if only to give Kreacher a chance to state his preference.(I always like to think Harry actually did finish his education at Hogwarts.--It must have been great! Not only were folks whispering about him(Harry)...but also all those who fought in the battle as well--would have been great to see Harry experiencing life as a diminished spectacle with others experiencing a highligh upon their lives..(I imagine a time of folks from different houses eating different house tables in the Great Hall!)
> 
Wild asked:
> Would Ginny be willing to set up housekeeping there?  Raise their children there?  

Doddie responds:
  Ginny could set up housekeeping anywhere--she is the daughter of Molly by the by :). Even if none of the order could obliviate any of the "permanent sticking charms"...We're told by JKR that elf magic is different..hence the old portrait taken down and moved to Kreacher's new room, the Black family tree tapestry restored etc. because Harry wanted Kreacher to do so, or because Kreacher wanted to do it himself...Ginny would be a good mom, she could raise her children anywhere.  If I had to speculate both Harry and Ron initially purchased a duplex far from where both were raised and from Hogwarts(perhaps in Wales or perhaps London?)..  Although, I can picture both Ginny and Hermione doing all within their power to convince them to not immediatly purchase homes in Hogsmeade post Hoggy Grad..

DD









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 11 00:49:37 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:49:37 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories - Secondary Memory
In-Reply-To: <gong6m+kh34@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gp71r1+cv75@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186033

--- "clcb58" <carylcb at ...> wrote:
>
> Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory
> from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does anyone remember
> canon examples to support either theory?
>

bboyminn:

The problem here is thinking of memories as single solitary
entities; but they are not. That is, they may be 'single' but
they are not 'solitary'.

Let me explain, many of own memories are false in that we
imagined them. Likely memories from long ago are not memories
of actual events, but memories of the last time you remembered
them. 

They are memories of memories, and this sets up an important 
concept; memories are not solitary. They do not exist in 
isolation. I remember the event, I remember remembering the
event, I remember putting the memory with full knowledge of
what the memories was, into the Pensieve. 

So, a memory of a single solitary event is accompanied by
a myriad of secondary memories associated with that single
solitary event. Even if you purge the core event from your
mind, you still have enough knowledge of the event to know
that you should recover it from the Pensieve when you need 
it again. Or to simply remember that the event actually exists.

It is not as simple as a single memory. 

I think if you place a single first-hand solitary memory in
the Pensieve, the event is gone from your mind, but that does
not mean your knowledge of the event is equally gone. You have
a host of secondary memories to remind you that the event took
place. Even if you don't remember it, you remember the last 
time you remembered it, that secondary memory represents a
new single solitary event that is tangentially tied to the
original event itself.

Hey...I'm just saying....

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 11 01:09:03 2009
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:09:03 -0000
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
In-Reply-To: <10489F03DB5F400189EB07D14DC8F4F0@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gp72vf+qhhp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186034

--- "wildirishrose" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> A few years later.  Would the OOTP still be in operation?  I can't imagine the Order continuing on.  After all, the main person they were out to defeat was now dead.  ...
> 
> Any speculation that Harry set up housekeeping at #12 Grimmauld Place after the Battle of Hogwart's?  He did inherit it from Sirius.
...  
> 
> Would Ginny be willing to set up housekeeping there?  Raise their children there? ...
> 
> What about Kreacher?  Harry did send him off to Hogwart's to work in the kitchen.  Did Kreacher come back into Harry's service as a free elf?  I can't imagine Harry keeping him enslaved.
> 
> Mariane


bboyminn:

A couple of years later yes, but later than that, yes, but not
necessarily active. The Ordor of the Phoenix spans three
generations, Dumbledore's, James', and Harry's. As long as 
someone from those generations is still alive, the Order can
be revived when needed. In that sense, until Harry's generation
parishes from this earth, or a new bad guy comes along, it
exist. 

As far as #12 Grimmauld Place, I DO think Harry lived there.
Were else is he going to go? I think once they got Kretcher's
cooperation, the place cleaned up pretty nicely. I think
Mrs. Black eventually got used to him living there, and she 
calmed down a bit. 

Despite being so dark and dreary, I think the Black House is
pretty nice. Depsite being run down, that is some prime
real estate in London. It has grand old furniture and nice
library. I think once truly cleaned up, it would be very nice.

I do like the idea of the Black Family Tapestry being restored,
and the expunged names being place back on it.

And, I have no doubt that Kretcher was there supervising it all.
He is getting a bit old, so they may have taken on a new Elf,
but I don't see then getting rid of Kretcher. 

As far as Ginny, let's not rush things. Remember, she and Harry
did not get married right away. I think she continued to live at
home, and probably eventually got a place of her own. 

Though, yes, eventually she married Harry, lived in the now
probably very nice and elegant Black House and raised her
children there. 

Just my opinion though.

Steve/bboyminn




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 11 01:32:19 2009
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:32:19 -0000
Subject: Interesting Fact No. 18: The Basilisk
Message-ID: <gp74b3+mt9b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186035

Did you know that translating Basilisk from Greek to Latin gives 
you Regulus? According to the Aberdeen bestiary it does, for more 
see:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/66r.hti & 
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/66v.hti

Could this signify anything or is it just a bizarre coincidence?

Goddlefrood




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 11 04:48:06 2009
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:48:06 -0000
Subject: Question about Pensieve memories - Secondary Memory
In-Reply-To: <gp71r1+cv75@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gp7fq6+i13i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186036

> > "clcb58" wrote:
> >
> > Does extracting a memory for Pensieve viewing erase the memory
> > from the mind or just make a copy of it? Does anyone remember
> > canon examples to support either theory?
> >
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> <big snip> 
> 
> I think if you place a single first-hand solitary memory in
> the Pensieve, the event is gone from your mind, but that does
> not mean your knowledge of the event is equally gone. You have
> a host of secondary memories to remind you that the event took
> place. <snip>

Mike:
Then there's the most important memory duplication of the series: Dumbledore's memory of the Trelawney prophesy. This memory was put into the globe that was stored in the Hall of Prophesies and still remained in DD's head for retrieval to display to Harry. Certainly those prophesies contained true Pensieve-style memories since actual people came out of the broken ones, not just their words. And yet, Dumbledore was still able to have Trelawney emerge out of the Pensieve, not just her disembodied voice.

What I'm saying is that it appears that extracting a memory to any container does not appear to also remove the memory on any kind of permanent basis.

So how do we explain Snape's Occlumency extractions? Well, how about this: If one removes the memory, the freshness is gone but Steve's "secondary memory" survives. In the fullness of time, that secondary memory grows and is able to partially, if not completely, replace the original memory with sufficient detail so as to be displayed again in the manner which DD did with the Prophesy. But there was not sufficient time for this to happen in Snape's case with the Occlumency lessons. Which is why Snape waits till the very last moment to remove his memories, so as to not give them time to regenerate.

YMMV,
Mike, who has always enjoyed trying to parse out the mechanics of JKR's magic




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar 11 07:32:58 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:32:58 -0000
Subject: Interesting Fact No. 18: The Basilisk
In-Reply-To: <gp74b3+mt9b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gp7pfa+bql2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186037

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...> wrote:
>
> Did you know that translating Basilisk from Greek to Latin gives 
> you Regulus? According to the Aberdeen bestiary it does, for more 
> see:
> 
> http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/66r.hti & 
> http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/66v.hti
> 
> Could this signify anything or is it just a bizarre coincidence?
> 
> Goddlefrood

Geoff:
Well, their basilisk is only six inches long....

Perhaps Regulus was a shorty?
:-)




From lfreeman at mbc.edu  Wed Mar 11 15:37:10 2009
From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (lmf3b)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:37:10 -0000
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
In-Reply-To: <gp72vf+qhhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gp8lr6+3t0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186038

> As far as #12 Grimmauld Place, I DO think Harry lived there.
> Were else is he going to go? I think once they got Kretcher's
> cooperation, the place cleaned up pretty nicely. I think
> Mrs. Black eventually got used to him living there, and she 
> calmed down a bit. 

Alternatively, if Harry managed to dislodge the sticking charm, he could have sent the portrait to Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia as an anniversary present!

Louise




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Mar 11 22:07:28 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:07:28 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
Message-ID: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186039

Geoff:
This post has been prompted by the fact that there 
has been some recent discussion on spells and hexes 
and it opens a topic which I have felt I wanted to 
see aired for a very long time and just haven't got 
round to launching and I do not recall it having been 
touched on previously.

To kickstart the thread, in HBP for example, Harry
used the Sectumsempra spell which we learn was 
invented by Snape. This for a long time has posed 
the question for me "How do you invent a spell?"

Did Snape just think up the Latin for "cut always" 
and imagine its result and ? hey presto ? it becomes 
a curse useable by anyone who knows of it? Is this 
how spells developed? Can anyone do this because 
this could mean that the Wizarding World could be 
awash with amateur spells just lurking and waiting 
to be used perhaps unknowingly.

There surely must be some way that new spells are 
"registered" by the magic environment of the 
Wizarding World for want of a better term. There 
must have been a time when spell creation was in 
its infancy. For instance, is it to do with the 
will of the wizard to really want the result, to 
really mean what the spell was for ? as Bellatrix 
pointed out to Harry in the  battle at the Ministry 
when he tried to use Crucio on her?

What are the thoughts of fellow members on this?





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 11 22:36:27 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:36:27 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gp9edb+3653@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186040

Geoff wrote:
><snip>
> To kickstart the thread, in HBP for example, Harry used the Sectumsempra spell which we learn was invented by Snape. This for a long time has posed the question for me "How do you invent a spell?"
> 
> Did Snape just think up the Latin for "cut always" and imagine its result and ? hey presto ? it becomes a curse useable by anyone who knows of it? Is this how spells developed? Can anyone do this because this could mean that the Wizarding World could be awash with amateur spells just lurking and waiting to be used perhaps unknowingly.
> 
> There surely must be some way that new spells are "registered" by the magic environment of the Wizarding World for want of a better term. There must have been a time when spell creation was in its infancy. For instance, is it to do with the will of the wizard to really want the result, to really mean what the spell was for ? as Bellatrix pointed out to Harry in the  battle at the Ministry when he tried to use Crucio on her?
> 
> What are the thoughts of fellow members on this?
>
Carol responds:

Apparently, any old incantation won't do (maybe the Latin has to be at least intelligible to the wand?) since HBP notes that at least one spell had given "the Prince" some trouble and he seems to have tried out several versions of the incantation before it worked the way he wanted it to. And evidently, you can't just use any old countercurse on certain spells, either. Maybe it's more difficult to create a Dark magic spell that doesn't respond to "Finite Incantatem" or other obvious formulas than it is to create, say, a hex like Langlock.

Of course, a powerful and highly skilled Wizard might not need an incantation at all, especially if he and his wand were on the same wavelength, so to speak. But if you're going to create a spell that others can also use, you need an incantation. And it would help if the incantation was memorable and easily pronounced. (I could use a spell to help me organize all my papers, but "Organizatio" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.)

We also know that silly rhyming incantations like the one that would supposedly "turn this stupid fat rat yellow" don't work, or, at least, I don't know of any that work. And some spells, such as Wingardium Leviosa, seem needlessly complex. Why not just use the Latin for "I hover" (in the sense of a transitive verb requiring an unstated object)?

Why do some spells require practice while others--even including Sectumsempra--can be performed the first time (by a person who doesn't even know what the spell does)? Partly, of course, the wizard probably needs to have reached a certain level of skill and power--but how did Harry's wand know how to perform Sectumsempra (or even Levicorpus) when Harry had no mental image of the spell's effects? He certainly didn't "really mean" Sectumsempra, so maybe that bit of advice applies only to the Unforgiveable Curses.

Maybe we shouldn't think too deeply about such questions since whatever explanation we come up with for one spell may not work for a different spell.

In any case, inventing spells, especially at a young age, seems to be highly unusual. Even Hermione (unless her parchment jinx is an exception) seems to research the spell she (or Harry) needs for a particular purpose rather than invent one.

Carol, again just tossing out random ideas with no thesis (main point) or coherent argument






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Mar 12 06:37:45 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 06:37:45 -0000
Subject: Creating spells.
In-Reply-To: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpaajp+4ksd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186041

"Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> How do you invent a spell 

You and I don't have the magic gene so there is no way we can answer that question; we couldn't even make a simple potion even if we read it out of a book because we'd soon get hopelessly confused. People asked Beethoven how he wrote his music and Einstein how he came up with his theory and neither could explain how they did it, they just did it. If you have to ask you can't. 

 Eggplant 





From kersberg at chello.nl  Thu Mar 12 11:04:07 2009
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:04:07 -0000
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
In-Reply-To: <10489F03DB5F400189EB07D14DC8F4F0@Marianne>
Message-ID: <gpaq77+9cnt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186042

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> A few years later.  Would the OOTP still be in operation?  I can't imagine the Order continuing on.  After all, the main person they were out to defeat was now dead.  Course all couldn't be wonderful and safe in the WW.  There still had to have been evil still out there.  Not necessarily LV evil, but people up to no good just the same.  Or would have Aurers have that covered.
> 
> Any speculation that Harry set up housekeeping at #12 Grimmauld Place after the Battle of Hogwart's?  He did inherit it from Sirius.  Maybe it reminded Harry of too many bad things and he let the house be and it fell apart from lack of care.  Or maybe he sold it.  If the OOTP still existed, maybe it continued to be headquarters for the OOTP?
> 
> Would Ginny be willing to set up housekeeping there?  Raise their children there?  I was under the impression that the entire house was pretty gloomy, even though the OOTP did clean it up.  Plus it had some Black family stuff that would not come off the walls.  That would not be cheery to have around.
> 
> What about Kreacher?  Harry did send him off to Hogwart's to work in the kitchen.  Did Kreacher come back into Harry's service as a free elf?  I can't imagine Harry keeping him enslaved.
> 
> Mariane
> A friend will bail you out of jail
> A true friend will be sitting in the cell next to you saying:
> "We screwed up, but it was fun."
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I think the most logical situation is that Harry moved into nr.12 Grimmault Place. 
First: it's his and he wouldn't disrespect the memory of Sirius by throwig the house away or sell it to the next bidder.
Second: moving into the Burrow, would have the warmt but also the control of Molly Weasley breathing in his neck. I think she rigourly defend the virginity of her only daughter, knowing very well from which stock Ginny comes. And canon believing we may espect more from the relation of Harry and Ginny then just holding hands in the sunset.
Third: Harry starts as Auror the same summer and hates Apparating, Portkeys and isn't very fond of the Floo too. I would not be surpriced he takes the Tube to work.

After some time Ginny probably will move in, it is a large house and also potential a pleasant one with a house elf who likes his master. 

The only downside of it that nr.12 Grimmault Place is only inside and with three children growing up there is no space for them to play, run or fly around outside. Would be a little strange for the neighbours that a house that doesn't exist suddenly sprouts three twerps on broomsticks chasing the neighbour stray cats.
( makes me wonder where did Regulus Black practice his flying skills)

I think the Potters will do what a lot of city folk do or aspire when having kids growing up: they move to the countryside as there is not such a thing as a Wizard Suburbia.  In Harry's case that would be one of the Wizard tolerant villages and I think Tinsworth is a likely candidate.
It's there were he found a period of safety and relax, where Godric's Hollow is a place of bad memories. Maybe they keep nr. 12 Grimmault Place as a winterresidence, when the weather makes a coastal place like Tinsworth pretty misserable.




From kersberg at chello.nl  Thu Mar 12 11:07:10 2009
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:07:10 -0000
Subject: #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculate - OOTP
In-Reply-To: <gp8lr6+3t0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpaqcu+10k9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186043

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lmf3b" <lfreeman at ...> wrote:
>
> > As far as #12 Grimmauld Place, I DO think Harry lived there.
> > Were else is he going to go? I think once they got Kretcher's
> > cooperation, the place cleaned up pretty nicely. I think
> > Mrs. Black eventually got used to him living there, and she 
> > calmed down a bit. 
> 
> Alternatively, if Harry managed to dislodge the sticking charm, he could have sent the portrait to Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia as an anniversary present!
> 
> Louise
>
hehehe,
nobody is THAT cruel!




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar 12 20:45:12 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:45:12 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gp9edb+3653@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpbs8o+40bi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186044

In post 186040, Carol wrote:

Geoff:
> > To kickstart the thread, in HBP for example, Harry used the  
> > Sectumsempra spell which we learn was invented by Snape. 
> > This for a long time has posed the question for me "How do 
> > you invent a spell?"

<Snip>

> > What are the thoughts of fellow members on this?

Carol:
> Apparently, any old incantation won't do (maybe the Latin has 
> to be at least intelligible to the wand?) since HBP notes that at 
> least one spell had given "the Prince" some trouble and he 
> seems to have tried out several versions of the incantation before 
> it worked the way he wanted it to. 

<snip>

> And some spells, such as Wingardium Leviosa, seem needlessly 
> complex. Why not just use the Latin for "I hover" (in the sense of 
> a transitive verb requiring an unstated object)?

Geoff:
One of the things I notice about JKR's spells is that often the Latin 
is distorted and occasionally mixed with other sources ? Wingardium 
Leviosa is a good example. I'm not totally certain where the first 
element came from but the use of the letter "w" in Latin is almost 
unknown. Other examples are "Finite Incantatem" and also "Priori 
Incantatem" for which the accurate Latin would see the use of 
"Incantamentum".  

"Avada Kedavra" is a good example of a non-Latin spell. there was 
discussion on this some long while ago (round about post 84780) 
and it was suggested that it was derived from "Abracadabra" and 
was a Middle East language ? Hebrew or Aramaic as possibilities? 

In post 186041 eggplant wrote:

Geoff: 
> > How do you invent a spell 

Eggplant: 
> You and I don't have the magic gene so there is no way we can 
> answer that question; we couldn't even make a simple potion 
> even if we read it out of a book because we'd soon get hopelessly 
> confused. People asked Beethoven how he wrote his music and 
> Einstein how he came up with his theory and neither could explain 
> how they did it, they just did it. If you have to ask you can't. 

Geoff:
I think you're ducking the issue here. When I said "How do you invent 
a spell" I thought it was clear that I was looking at it from a Wizarding 
World point of view and not "ours". I also feel that if we were given the 
relevant ingredients and the instructions for a potion, we ought to be 
able to make it; why should we become hopelessly confused? 

I'm not sure that I buy into your composition analogy. In our world, folk 
know about music and could write down a string of notes on a clef. 
Whether that made a tune would be judged by the hearer. If a Beethoven 
fanatic listens to Schoenberg, he or she might query whether the latter 
is strictly "music". But that has nothing to do with the performance of 
the piece.

If a witch or wizard puts together a series of Latin words, which let us 
assume make sense, what is the likelihood that, when pronounced, they 
would perform a spell? What effort or magical ability needs to be put 
behind it for it to be effective? To reiterate, my point was that if 
spellmaking was easy, the magical world could be swamped in spells 
which hardly anyone knew about and were just "floating" around. And 
what would happen if someone else happened to say those words with 
a wand in their hand?

In the words of Linus "the theological implications alone are staggering."
:-)








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 13 02:31:13 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:31:13 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpcghh+eu60@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186045

> Geoff:
<SNIP>
> To kickstart the thread, in HBP for example, Harry
> used the Sectumsempra spell which we learn was 
> invented by Snape. This for a long time has posed 
> the question for me "How do you invent a spell?"
> 
> Did Snape just think up the Latin for "cut always" 
> and imagine its result and ? hey presto ? it becomes 
> a curse useable by anyone who knows of it? Is this 
> how spells developed? Can anyone do this because 
> this could mean that the Wizarding World could be 
> awash with amateur spells just lurking and waiting 
> to be used perhaps unknowingly.
><SNIP>

Alla:

Oh, pure speculation here, but I always thought that it is sort of backwards to what you described. Meaning that I thought that wizard would imagine the result first and then would come up with the words that better describe the result, if that makes sense. So to me in your example Snape would first imagine what happens to his enemies and then find a word for it.

And it is interesting that you suggest that there must have been a time when spells creation was in infancy, because yeah that makes sense on one hand. However I always thought that some spells, or I guess a lot of them always existed. Wierd, yes? Because if you think about it, I guess it is the same thing as with language, if I do not remind myself that many basic definitions words also developed in time, I would start thinking that some words always existed.




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 13 07:00:51 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:00:51 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpbs8o+40bi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpd0b3+ctt8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186046

, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:

> When I said "How do you invent a spell" 
> I thought it was clear that I was looking
> at it from a Wizarding World point of 
> view and not "ours" 

But that was my point, we can't look at it from a Wizard point of view because we don't have the magic gene. If I could look at writing from Shakespeare's point of view then I could write as well as Shakespeare. I can't.

> if we were given the relevant ingredients 
> and the instructions for a potion, we ought
> to be able to make it; why should we become
> hopelessly confused? 
   
Alchemists were notorious for using obscure symbolism and being very confusing in their instruction manuals. You may have noticed that in the Potter series we are never given a lengthy quotation from a potions book, probably because it would all sound like gibberish to us. The following comes from a Alchemist book and is supposed to be
a step by step guide on how to make a potion; if you have the magic gene the meaning is obvious, clear as a bell, but if you don't, well, imagine that you had one hour to complete this potion and Snape was yelling at you and asking you why you don't just follow the very simple instructions:

"One becomes two, two becomes three, and by means of the third and fourth humor achieves unity; thus two are but one. Invert nature and you will find one part in eight what you seek. Join the male and the female, and you will find what is unrecognized. You will touch with your hands the parts in the fourth house and, you will see with your own eyes the Azoth, the Mercury of Philosophers, which alone will suffice to obtain for you our Stone of Darkness which will appear on the ninth face of the Abyss but not at the flower of night for Saturn and the Antimony of the Sages will appear in blackness and the raven's head without the fifth intersession and all the colors of the world will appear at the hour of the second conjunction and the rainbow also but not the peacock's tail for that is forestalled by the river of lead. Differentiate after the matter has passed through wormwood from ashen-colored to white and yellow with exhausting rectitude you must integrate the stone, our King and Dominator Supreme, issue forth from his glassy sepulcher to mount his bed or his throne in his glorified body. Diaphanous as crystal; compact and most weighty, as easily fusible by fire as resin, as flowing as wax and more so than quicksilver the color of saffron when powdered, but red as rubies when in an integral mass." 

And now Snape says "you have 4 minutes left to complete your potion". Yea, right, just follow the instructions, easy as pie. Actually the above would make far more sense even to Neville than it would to any of us. 
 
 Eggplant  





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Mar 13 13:12:10 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:12:10 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpd0b3+ctt8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpdm3a+7ajn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186047

Eggplant: 
> But that was my point, we can't look at it from a Wizard point of view because we don't have the magic gene. If I could look at writing from Shakespeare's point of view then I could write as well as Shakespeare. I can't.

Potioncat:
Speak for yourself. I live in the real world where there are no magic genes, but if I lived in the Potterverse, I'm sure I'd be a witch. Heck, there are people in the RW who would tell you I am a witch.

Mabye we can't all write like Shakespeare--or even like JKR--we can understand what he's doing. We can write HP posts, and letters and professional reports. We can learn Shakespeare and make his magic reappear on stage....some of us better than others.

You're assuming every wizard can invent new spells. I disagree. I can't create new novels <sigh> but I can enjoy the written ones, and I can enjoy writing here. So I think some wizards and witches can create new spells and adapt existing ones to new purposes--but others can't.

Eggplant:
>    
> Alchemists were notorious for using obscure symbolism and being very confusing in their instruction manuals. You may have noticed that in the Potter series we are never given a lengthy quotation from a potions book, probably because it would all sound like gibberish to us. 
<sni>

Potioncat:
But we did get instructions from the board. Very simple, actually. Add a certain amount of an ingredient at a specific time, stir a certain number of times in a specific direction. Neville didn't seem to not understand the directions, it was that he somehow didn't get the expected results. I can identify with Neville. The same thing used to happen to me in chemistry class. And the few times the experiment went right I was dumbfounded, as well as clueless.

But, to Geoff's question, how does one create new spells? Well, it's hard to determine from JKR. She was fairly inconsistent about that. As someone else already said, Harry sometimes had to practice very hard to make a spell work, but other times the spell worked when he didn't even know what it was supposed to do.

I think Snape is the only active character who that we see invent a spell. And we didn't see the actual process. Hermione may have invented a spell for the DA with both the coins and the curse. At the very least, she took a type of spell and adapted it to her purpose.

I imagine it would take wanting some result and working out a way to make it happen. So maybe Severus thought he'd like a spell that would do more than just nick an opponent (cutting James on the face) and he played with different incantations till he got a very nasty type of cutting spell. Is it a combination of intent, words, and "magic"? Once created, the word, wand and intent to harm an enemy do their magic. I wonder what would have happened if Harry had pointed the wand at someone or something else and said the words in a moment of curiosity rather than as he was being attacked? Afterall, he didn't know what the spell did, but he really wanted the spell to work.

We also see that when Snape used it, the spell removed an ear, but it didn't "keep" cutting. 

Which brings up a more important question...once you create a spell, how do you create the counter-spell?




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Mar 13 16:42:38 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:42:38 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Creating spells
References: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <A1C29C3BAEC94C68BFBC532A4B5F6F98@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186048

Geoff:
There surely must be some way that new spells are "registered" by the magic 
environment of the Wizarding World for want of a better term. There must 
have been a time when spell creation was in its infancy. For instance, is it 
to do with the will of the wizard to really want the result, to really mean 
what the spell was for - as Bellatrix pointed out to Harry in the  battle at 
the Ministry when he tried to use Crucio on her?

What are the thoughts of fellow members on this?

Shelley:
I imagine that in the Ministry of Magic there is a book with a complete list 
of spells that have ever been used- certainly they knew when a spell was 
used in the location of Harry, although they did not know exactly who used 
it, when he was yet an underaged wizard. Exact time, location, and spell 
used was recorded, somehow. In this way, I think that when a new spell was 
created, it's name would appear in that magical log. Thus, at least those at 
the Ministry would know of this new spell, and be able to try it out on 
their own (although, like Harry when he tries out Snape's spell, he may be 
shocked at what happens).

Alla:
Oh, pure speculation here, but I always thought that it is sort of backwards 
to what you described. Meaning that I thought that wizard would imagine the 
result first and then would come up with the words that better describe the 
result, if that makes sense. So to me in your example Snape would first 
imagine what happens to his enemies and then find a word for it.

Shelley:
I think this process makes sense for the creation of a spell- imagine what 
you want it to do, and keep playing with word or effect until you get it 
just right. Once it's finalized, then someone else can just use the final 
name to get the same results, sometimes without even knowing what those full 
results will be. (Which, as we've seen not only applies to Harry, but every 
new student trying a spell for the first time- many of them don't fully 
comprehend what's going to happen either.)

Going back to Geoff's comment on Bellatrix's comment to Harry in the  battle 
at the Ministry when he tried to use Crucio- no I don't think it's a matter 
of  "really mean what the spell was for" but rather a will to do the spell 
itself. Harry was held back by his conscience, since he knew that the spell 
Crucio was meant to inflict real harm, he couldn't bring himself to fully 
accomplish that harm, and so he held himself back from performing the spell 
correctly. Contrast that with the cutting spell, which he did not know the 
results, thus he didn't hold himself back from fully intending to cast the 
spell. Hence, he got full results of harm, since he fully intended to cast 
the spell, even though he regretted it immediately.

Using the music analogy, when a person writes a song, they imagine the tune 
in their head first, then hit the notes, then finally record them. The 
sequence of notes then forms the song. When a person plays the song later 
from the written, all they have to do is pluck the notes as written, and 
after they've done that correctly, they hear the song as the first person 
imagined it to be. I imagine spell creation to be that same sort of process- 
starting with a thought, then physical representation of that thought (in a 
spell name, particular wave of the wand, etc.) then imitation later of that 
name or movement to recreate something like the original thought.






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Mar 13 16:59:40 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:59:40 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Creating spells
References: <gpdm3a+7ajn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <CE36DBBA38A84A84B323C7094084A443@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186049

> Potioncat:
> I think Snape is the only active character who that we see invent a spell. 
> And we didn't see the actual process. Hermione may have invented a spell 
> for the DA with both the coins and the curse. At the very least, she took 
> a type of spell and adapted it to her purpose.

Shelley:
Ah, but I think you might be forgetting Voldemort. You are right, we never 
see the process, but we are told that Voldemort clearly takes Dark Magic 
further than anyone's ever done before, and I think that very strongly 
implies that he created new spells to do it. Certainly, he took the soul 
splitting further than anyone had before, but the flying spell seemed to be 
new, and was simple enough the Snape could recreate it.





From CatMcNulty at comcast.net  Fri Mar 13 16:17:51 2009
From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (Cat)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:17:51 -0000
Subject: What happened to #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculations
In-Reply-To: <gpaq77+9cnt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpe0vf+jf23@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186050

I have been reading the grand speculations regarding the fate of #12 Grimmauld Place.

Here's my theory:

First, I don't think Harry would disrespect the inheritance because Sirius gave it to him. Sirius didn't have much but he did give all that he had. Even though it had been tainted by it's past inhabitants and "presently" was not what either Sirius or Harry liked. The place was still populated with memories of Sirius (good & bad). All memories are cherished because they help keep those we love alive in our hearts.

Secondly, in Sirius' honor, I think that Harry would have cleaned, repaired and blessed the old homestead so that Sirius would be proud! (Maybe it was Harry & Ron's "bachelor pad") Someplace that he (Harry) would be happy and proud to bring his wife to and raise his children in. This would also be a posthumous gift to Sirius, Life and Love were brought back to #12 Grimmauld place.(Don't forget, there were several years in there before Harry and Ginny married. And that would be plenty of time for Harry to fix-up the house. If there were any spells and enchantments on the place beyond his ablity to banish, I think that his connection at the MoM would suffice.)
Also, who is to say that #12 Grimmauld Place was just their city-house and that they had a country or village place as well. Maybe near/in Godric's Hollow?

Third, if Kreacher decided to come back to the house and serve Harry, It would totally be Kreacher's choice. I'm sure Harry would have freed him and of course paid him for his service. Because, Kreature had familial bonds in that house. OH just a thought --- Maybe Harry made a special room just for Kreacher, where he could keep and display all his knick-knacks. The cupboard under the stairs perhaps? It would be palacial for a house elf!

Just Imagining,
Cat





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 13 17:19:50 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:19:50 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpcghh+eu60@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpe4jm+fnr5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186051

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

Geoff:
> > Did Snape just think up the Latin for "cut always" 
> > and imagine its result and ? hey presto ? it becomes 
> > a curse useable by anyone who knows of it? Is this 
> > how spells developed? Can anyone do this because 
> > this could mean that the Wizarding World could be 
> > awash with amateur spells just lurking and waiting 
> > to be used perhaps unknowingly.

Alla:
> Oh, pure speculation here, but I always thought that it is sort of backwards to what you described. Meaning that I thought that wizard would imagine the result first and then would come up with the words that better describe the result, if that makes sense. So to me in your example Snape would first imagine what happens to his enemies and then find a word for it.

Geoff:
I think we may be on the same wavelength here, Alla....  
I was really working along the same route as you in that 
Snape wanted a spell to produce that result and then 
considered what he thought the wording could possibly 
be.

But then, he actually came up with the correct spell - 
maybe after a lot of test runs?






From bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net  Fri Mar 13 20:59:40 2009
From: bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:59:40 -0400
Subject: Creating spells
Message-ID: <C18F8999D5564007A9E41EA0BE40E126@d600xpp>

No: HPFGUIDX 186052

"Geoff:
I think you're ducking the issue here. When I said "How do you invent 
a spell" I thought it was clear that I was looking at it from a Wizarding 
World point of view and not "ours". I also feel that if we were given the 
relevant ingredients and the instructions for a potion, we ought to be 
able to make it; why should we become hopelessly confused? "

1. Can you mix the ingredients of the potion in any old container, or must it be in a magic cauldron?

2. Most of the instructions involve stirring the mixture with one's wand.  Why with the wand?  To 'charge' the ingredients with the potioner's magical energy.

Hence, even if a Muggle had the ingredients and instructions for a potion, it would not work.

Bruce 



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




From capndad1 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 13 19:29:19 2009
From: capndad1 at yahoo.com (capndad1)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:29:19 -0000
Subject: A slight problem with 1983
Message-ID: <gpec6f+cgut@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186053

 I've noticed a slight...difficulty...with the date of Harry's parents deaths, something only our favorite brown-haired young lady might notice. I haven't found any mention of it in past posts, and fervently hope this is not one of those "anomalies-not-to-be-named" that one sometimes finds in groups like this. If it is I have no problem ignoring it, and apologize for bringing it up.

  Harry's parents died in:

1983.

  This makes Harry one year old at that time. Add ten years to that date and we find Harry is eleven years old and starting Hogwarts in:

1993.

  Since this whole thing wrapped up in what would have been Harry's seventh and last year at Hogwarts, adding seven years to that date brings us to:

2000.

  That means that in 2009 we are only about halfway through the 19 year interval before the epilogue.

  Personally, I think it would have been much much nicer to have made the original date of Voldemorts' attack 1973, and thus finished the whole story this year.

  Opinions?

capndad1



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 13 21:42:36 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:42:36 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpd0b3+ctt8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpek0c+jll6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186054

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> > When I said "How do you invent a spell" 
> > I thought it was clear that I was looking
> > at it from a Wizarding World point of 
> > view and not "ours" 

Eggplant: 
> But that was my point, we can't look at it from a Wizard point of view because we don't have the magic gene. If I could look at writing from Shakespeare's point of view then I could write as well as Shakespeare. I can't.

Geoff:
How fo you know you couldn't? This isn't a magic writing 
gene. It's a combination of imagination, grammar and an 
ability to use words effectively which can  be in the grasp 
of anyone in our real non-magical, non-fictional world who 
has been taught to use English properly.

Our magic gene belongs to a fictional world and comparisons 
with the real world are really not viable.

Geoff (earlier):
> > if we were given the relevant ingredients 
> > and the instructions for a potion, we ought
> > to be able to make it; why should we become
> > hopelessly confused? 

Eggplant:
> Alchemists were notorious for using obscure symbolism and being very confusing in their instruction manuals. You may have noticed that in the Potter series we are never given a lengthy quotation from a potions book, probably because it would all sound like gibberish to us. The following comes from a Alchemist book and is supposed to be
> a step by step guide on how to make a potion; if you have the magic gene the meaning is obvious, clear as a bell, but if you don't, well, imagine that you had one hour to complete this potion and Snape was yelling at you and asking you why you don't just follow the very simple instructions

<snip>

> And now Snape says "you have 4 minutes left to complete your potion". Yea, right, just follow the instructions, easy as pie. Actually the above would make far more sense even to Neville than it would to any of us. 
 
Geoff:
But, as Potioncat has observed, that isn't how Snape 
works. He puts the information on the board and since 
he apparently believes that most students are dunderheads, 
probably sets this out very succinctly and precisely!

When I was teaching, I was responsible for setting up the 
computing department in the mid-1980s and for training 
my colleagues, this being in the days when teaching the 
subject was viewed by many of them as making me the 
keeper of the oracle!  Very often I would write very detailed 
instructions. On one occasion, I was thanked for starting 
one of my guides with the immortal words "Make sure that 
your computer is switched on at the wall".

This is the level at which I suspect Snape works explaining 
down to the last detail how to carry out certain basic activities.

Personally, I have suspicions about the place of alchemy in the 
Harry Potter universe at all and I don't see evidence that Snape 
or anyone else is using it in their classes and I feel that using it 
as an example to prove that we couldn't cope  in the Wizarding 
World is just muddying the waters.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 13 23:13:59 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:13:59 -0000
Subject: A slight problem with 1983
In-Reply-To: <gpec6f+cgut@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpepbn+42vp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186055

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "capndad1" <capndad1 at ...> wrote:
>
>  I've noticed a slight...difficulty...with the date of Harry's parents deaths, something only our favorite brown-haired young lady might notice. I haven't found any mention of it in past posts, and fervently hope this is not one of those "anomalies-not-to-be-named" that one sometimes finds in groups like this. If it is I have no problem ignoring it, and apologize for bringing it up.
> 
>   Harry's parents died in:
> 
> 1983.
> 
>   This makes Harry one year old at that time. Add ten years to that date and we find Harry is eleven years old and starting Hogwarts in:
> 
> 1993.
> 
>   Since this whole thing wrapped up in what would have been Harry's seventh and last year at Hogwarts, adding seven years to that date brings us to:
> 
> 2000.
> 
>   That means that in 2009 we are only about halfway through the 19 year interval before the epilogue.
> 
>   Personally, I think it would have been much much nicer to have made the original date of Voldemorts' attack 1973, and thus finished the whole story this year.
> 
>   Opinions?

Geoff:
The dating for Harry is based on canon evidence from COS:

'"Well, this Hallowe'en will be my five hundredth deathday," 
said Nearly Headless Nick, drawing himself up amd looking dignified.'
(COS "The Deathday Party" p.99 UK Edition)

'...an enormous grey cake in the shape of a tombstone, with 
tar-like icing forming the words.

                   Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
                             died 31st October 1492'
(ibid. p.102)

This therefore sets the year as 1992, when Harry is in his 
second year at Hogwarts, hence he would have celebrated 
his 12th birthday on 31st July of that year setting his birth 
year as 1980.

We know that Voldemort killed James and Lily when Harry 
was a year old; that sets the date as 31st October 1981.

I'm not sure from where you get the date of 1983? Perhaps 
you could provide your source.




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Mar 13 16:22:52 2009
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:22:52 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpdm3a+7ajn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpe18s+kpfg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186056

"potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

> how does one create new spells?

If you want to tell Muggles like us how to create new spells it's going to sound pretty vague. Actually I had to do just that for a fanfiction I was writing. For reasons I won't bother to explain
Harry needed to learn that spell Lupin used in PoA, he needed to conjure fire into his bare hands so he looked it up in a book on magic and he ended up improving the spell:

Time to see what makes this fire spell tick Harry thought; ok I understand that part, right, right, that makes sense, wait a
minute why do they say???. Ok now I see, and then you invert that
then repeat this middle part again put that there then just
cancel the remainder out and it all should work.
Well let's give it a try.

Harry held up his index finger and a flame leapt from the tip.
Neat, the flame looks just as the book says it should, but
actually the fire is really no better than what you'd get from a cigarette lighter, I wonder if I can do a little better. Let me
look at that spell again, hmm this part seems too convoluted to me, I'll bet the same thing could be accomplished more directly, yes
that would be better, now there's room to do it twice and double
the heat, no I can fit three of them in there. There seems to be something working at cross purposes too, I mean when you really
think about it 95% of the heat you gain here you lose over there, that won't do, but if I just repeated that part again then turn it inside out the negative would change into a positive and
everything would be pulling in the same direction and the problem would go away. I don't see the point of doing this step here
either, it should be done at the very end because then you can eliminate all that useless overhead.

Harry tried again and a foot long white hot torch roared from his fingertip intense enough to burn through the armor on a battleship. That's better Harry thought.

 Eggplant






From afn01288 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 14 10:42:44 2009
From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (Troy Doyle)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: What happened to #12 Grimmauld Place - Speculations
Message-ID: <181504.85151.qm@web53207.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186057




>I have been reading the grand speculations regarding the fate of #12 Grimmauld Place.

>Here's my theory:
?
afn01288:
This is of course highly speculative in comparison to many other discussions.

>First, I don't think Harry would disrespect the inheritance because Sirius gave it to him. 
?
afn01288:
With this, I strongly agree.? Though quite selflessly during the time covered in canon, I think he graciously allowed use to Order members even if we didn't read about it.
?
(snip)
>Also, who is to say that #12 Grimmauld Place was just their city-house and that they had >a country or village place as well. Maybe near/in Godric's Hollow? 
?
afn01288:
I? think this the most likely arrangement.? I don't think it was a great place to rear his children owing to the seedy neiborhood, yet it may have been a convenient literal "townhouse" when that location in London was useful for him and family/friends.

>Third, if Kreacher decided to come back to the house and serve Harry, It would totally be >Kreacher's choice.Just Imagining,

?afn01288:
I could imagine Kreacher still considering it his home, being most comfortable there, and with his?respect DH and after?for Harry he would help maintain it as a sort of housekeeper to Harry and family or Harry's guests using the house.
?
As a? behest from beloved Sirius, and the only home Harry had, literally i.e. other than being like a family member at the Wealey's?or forced housing with the Dursley's. It was an important?setting for some?significant memories from OOtP-DH.? I was upset and think Harry was when in DH the trio had to leave #12 Grimmauld Place.? Post DH, it's hard to imagine Harry getting rid of the place!



      

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




From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 14 13:13:31 2009
From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:13:31 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A slight problem with 1983
In-Reply-To: <gpepbn+42vp@eGroups.com>
References: <gpec6f+cgut@eGroups.com> <gpepbn+42vp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY116-DS6173050BB628E0EF1EA90A39D0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 186058

capndad1 wrote: 

> That means that in 2009 we are only about halfway through the 19 year
interval before the epilogue.
> 
> Personally, I think it would have been much much nicer to have made the
original date of Voldemorts' attack 1973, and thus finished the whole story
this year.
> 
> Opinions?

Geoff:
The dating for Harry is based on canon evidence from COS:

'"Well, this Hallowe'en will be my five hundredth deathday," 
said Nearly Headless Nick, drawing himself up amd looking dignified.'
(COS "The Deathday Party" p.99 UK Edition)

'...an enormous grey cake in the shape of a tombstone, with 
tar-like icing forming the words.

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
died 31st October 1492'
(ibid. p.102)

Philip:

As far the setting is concerned, I think that as the Harry Potter series was
aimed at children, if not solely for them, the idea was to make it so that
he aged at the same rate they did. Releasing 1 book per year - at least in
the beginning, helps to support this theory.

Seeing as the only date evidence was a death-day date, it seems unlikely
that she made any conscientious effort to place the story in the current
time.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Mar 14 14:29:51 2009
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:29:51 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpe4jm+fnr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpgf0v+ktpv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186059


> Geoff:
> I think we may be on the same wavelength here, Alla....  
> I was really working along the same route as you in that 
> Snape wanted a spell to produce that result and then 
> considered what he thought the wording could possibly 
> be.
> 
> But then, he actually came up with the correct spell - 
> maybe after a lot of test runs?
>

Pippin:
We're told that wizard Baruffio said 's' instead of 'f' and ended up with a buffalo on his chest.  Was there already a buffalo conjuring spell, or did Baruffio accidentally invent one? Canon saith not.

But  magic seems to be a trial and error process. Perhaps the wizards themselves don't understand how it works. We know that Luna's mother was experimenting with a spell when she died, though we don't know if it was a *new* one.

But as far as how Harry was able to perform 'sectum sempra' and 'levicorpus' when he didn't know what they would do -- Harry had his wand with him when he dived into the pensieve in SWM. And while Harry couldn't detect the words of a non-verbal spell, wands obviously must be able to. Is it possible that Harry's wand perceived both spells as Snape performed them, and thus knew  what it was supposed to do when Harry tried them out later?

(I know, not everyone thinks that the cutting spell Snape used on James was sectum sempra, wielded with precision and restraint instead of careless abandon. But  lashing out in one area while acting with peerless self-control in another, is emblematic of adolescence and consistent with Snape's other behavior in this scene.

Pippin

 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Mar 14 17:12:23 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:12:23 -0000
Subject: A slight problem with 1983
In-Reply-To: <BAY116-DS6173050BB628E0EF1EA90A39D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <gpgohn+u667@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186060

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Philip" <philipwhiuk at ...> wrote:
>
> capndad1 wrote: 
> 
> > That means that in 2009 we are only about halfway through the 19 year
> interval before the epilogue.
> > 
> > Personally, I think it would have been much much nicer to have made the
> original date of Voldemorts' attack 1973, and thus finished the whole story
> this year.
> > 
> > Opinions?
> 
> Geoff:
> The dating for Harry is based on canon evidence from COS:

<snip>
 
> Philip: 
> As far the setting is concerned, I think that as the Harry Potter series was
> aimed at children, if not solely for them, the idea was to make it so that
> he aged at the same rate they did. Releasing 1 book per year - at least in
> the beginning, helps to support this theory.
> 
> Seeing as the only date evidence was a death-day date, it seems unlikely
> that she made any conscientious effort to place the story in the current
> time.

Heoff:
Well, yes. the idea is that each book represents one year of 
Harry's school life at Hogwarts.

I think that what you see of the Muggle world just underlines 
the fact that she was writing in the mid-1990s to early-2000s 
and from that point of view - which probably supports your 
thoughts.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 14 18:13:28 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:13:28 -0000
Subject: A slight problem with 1983
In-Reply-To: <gpec6f+cgut@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpgs48+7qnr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186061

"capndad1" wrote:
>
>  I've noticed a slight...difficulty...with the date of Harry's parents deaths, something only our favorite brown-haired young lady might notice. I haven't found any mention of it in past posts, and fervently hope this is not one of those "anomalies-not-to-be-named" that one sometimes finds in groups like this. If it is I have no problem ignoring it, and apologize for bringing it up.
> 
>   Harry's parents died in:
> 
> 1983. <snip>
> 
Carol responds:

According to my (American) edition of DH, Harry's parents died on October 31, 1981, which means that the chronology (Harry's birth in 1980 and his entry into Hogwarts in 1991 is correct.

The only problems I've found are Sir Nicholas's death date, which is first four hundred and then five hundred years before CoS (an inconsistency that I believe has been corrected in later editions) and James's age in the SWM and so-called Prank, which has to be sixteen, not fifteen (as stated repeatedly in OoP) given his birthdate, March 27, 1960. (Both dates are from "Godric's Hollow," DH Am ed. 328.)

Carol, wondering where capndad got the 1983 date




From capndad1 at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 14 17:43:58 2009
From: capndad1 at yahoo.com (Richard Haley)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A slight problem with 1983
In-Reply-To: <gpepbn+42vp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <295014.87731.qm@web52508.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186062



> Geoff:
<SNIP>
> The dating for Harry is based on canon evidence from COS:
<SNIP>
> We know that Voldemort killed James and Lily when Harry 
> was a year old; that sets the date as 31st October 1981.
> 
> I'm not sure from where you get the date of 1983?
> Perhaps 
> you could provide your source.
> 


Someday I'll learn not to trust my memory. Chapter sixteen of DH shows the date of death on the Potter's tombstones as...1981, not 1983.

Ah well, open mouth, insert foot. Thank you for the reply.

capndad1


      



From faithvsion at aol.com  Sat Mar 14 17:25:28 2009
From: faithvsion at aol.com (faithvsion at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:25:28 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A slight problem with 1983
Message-ID: <cab.4153cec3.36ed4288@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186063

Philip:

<<> Seeing as the only date evidence was a  death-day date, it seems unlikely
> that she made any conscientious  effort to place the story in the current
>  time.>>
 

Actually  we are also given the date of Death of James and Lily Potter.  
October  31, 1981 is the date on their headstones( on pg 328 hardcover Scholastic  
edition) in Deathly Hallows when Harry visits their graves in Godric's  
Hollow.  so we know Harry was Born July 31, 1980. the epilogue takes  place in 
2017.  
Where did 1983 come from?
 
Nancy






From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Mar 14 21:47:14 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:47:14 -0000
Subject: basilisk / inventing spells
Message-ID: <gph8l2+j0g3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186064

Goddlefrood wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186035>:

<< Did you know that translating Basilisk from Greek to Latin gives you Regulus? According to the Aberdeen bestiary it does, for more see:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/66r.hti &
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/bestiary/translat/66v.hti

Could this signify anything or is it just a bizarre coincidence? >>

Thanks for the link. The 66v says weasels defeat basilisks. Previously, I had encountered that assertion only on these mlists. Not that it's relevant, as Ron was deliberately kept away from defeating the basilisk and Ginny was unconscious.

Here are some real-life bizarre co-incidences.

1. A 'basilisk' is "Any of various tropical American lizards of the genus Basiliscus, characterized by a crest on the head, back, and tail and the ability to run on the hind legs." (from <http://www.bartleby.com/61/18/B0101800.html>) 

These lizards 'have the unique ability to "walk" on water and, because of this, they have been dubbed as "The Jesus Lizard" or "The Jesus Christ Lizard"' (from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basiliscus_(genus)>)

2. There is a genus related to raccoons named 'Bassariscus'

Pippin wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186059>:

<< We're told that wizard Baruffio said 's' instead of 'f' and ended up with a buffalo on his chest. Was there already a buffalo conjuring spell, or did Baruffio accidentally invent one? Canon saith not.

But magic seems to be a trial and error process. Perhaps the wizards themselves don't understand how it works. We know that Luna's mother was experimenting with a spell when she died, though we don't know if it was a *new* one. >>

I fell in love with the idea, proposed by a listie, that the 'arithmancy' Hermione studies is not the 'arithmancy' known to Muggles; the subject Hermione loves is not any form of divination, but rather a way to calculate magic forces -- not having the magic gene, all I can imagine is that it's something like statics and ballistics in Physics 101, and red-ox in Chem 101... here are the strengths and directions and flavors of all the magic currently in the environment, what needs to change to achieve the desired effect, what action will result in the desired change?

So maybe the desired effect is to levitate a specific object and the needed change is to, like, grab a handful of 'flying energy' that's hovering around pointed in all different directions, and concentrate it 'like a laser beam' so it's going straight into the object, and maybe the way to concentrate it is to scoop it up with your wand, and the way to 'shoot' it is a certain wave in your brain.

Having got that far on arithmancy alone, or on experienced intuition alone (people were throwing stones and javelins long before the mathematics of ballistics was invented), some combination of arithmancy and trial-and-error would find the right wand movement ('swish and flick') to scoop up the desired flavor of magic and not some other flavor. 

And I just suspect that arithmancy is not very helpful in figuring out how to make your brain do that particular wave, but experienced intuition and maybe some other academic subject ('languomancy'?) guides people figuring how saying certain sounds directs the magic brain to wave a particular way. I like that, because it accounts for, once the mage's brain knows how to wave that wave, it is no longer necessary to speak the sounds.

Also because it accounts for why the sounds are not real Latin.





From d2dmiles at yahoo.de  Sat Mar 14 21:43:43 2009
From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:43:43 +0100
Subject: Creating spells
References: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1E90A04AB7744B348A67E9E3DAE6BA3F@miles>

No: HPFGUIDX 186065

Geoff Bannister wrote:
> There surely must be some way that new spells are
> "registered" by the magic environment of the
> Wizarding World for want of a better term. There
> must have been a time when spell creation was in
> its infancy. For instance, is it to do with the
> will of the wizard to really want the result, to
> really mean what the spell was for - as Bellatrix
> pointed out to Harry in the  battle at the Ministry
> when he tried to use Crucio on her?

Miles:
I fear that Geoff will blame me for ducking the question as well ;), but I 
think there is no answer to this question within Potterverse, because 
Rowling never thought of one.

We discussed before that Harry is curiously uninterested in anything 
"theoretical" concerning magic. The only incident we hear of any such thing 
is in HBP, when Slughorn introduces Golpalott's Third Law:

"the antidote for a blended poison will be equal to more than the sum of the 
antidotes for each of the separate components."

While this is pretty easy to understand, Harry does not. Now, if Rowling 
wants this Law to be something really complicated and advanced, so that only 
few students of potion making will understand it, why didn't she come up 
with something really difficult?

If you ask me, she has no "theory" of her magic at all. She has some basic 
ideas what magic can do and what not, but she hasn't planned her magical 
world bottom up. There is not much more to it than what we see.

Just look at the language question. Why are most spells using Latin? What is 
magical about Latin? Did manhood have no magic before Latin was spoken? How 
could there be ancient wizards in Egypt, before there was something like 
"Latin" at all? Aren't there indigene wizards in America and Africa, who 
will not know of Latin at all? And if Latin is important, why is this Latin 
so messed up? And if the language is not important, why aren't there working 
spells in English?

If we try to find the rules of potion making or spell creating from what we 
know from the books, we can only be successful if there are such rules in 
Rowling's notebook or in her head in the first place. Which I doubt ever 
existed. Rowling is not Tolkien.

I don't want to be the killjoy. This discussion can be as entertaining as 
the HP books are, despite their flaws (and this lack of theoretical 
background is one, IMO).

Miles 





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Mar 14 22:17:01 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:17:01 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <1E90A04AB7744B348A67E9E3DAE6BA3F@miles>
Message-ID: <gphact+3549@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186066

 "Miles":
 
> Just look at the language question. Why are most spells using Latin? What is 
> magical about Latin? Did manhood have no magic before Latin was spoken? 

Potioncat:
I think it's just like Europeans in general who lost all the knowledge of the ancients during the Dark Ages. So we have rediscovered and renamed scietific findings or, when we did discover an ancient text, we translated into Latin or English. By the time of Hogwarts' founding, Latin was the language of the educated.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Mar 14 23:34:21 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:34:21 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <1E90A04AB7744B348A67E9E3DAE6BA3F@miles>
Message-ID: <gphett+mh9u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186067

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <d2dmiles at ...> wrote:

Miles
<Snip>
> I don't want to be the killjoy. This discussion can be as entertaining as 
> the HP books are, despite their flaws (and this lack of theoretical 
> background is one, IMO).

Geoff:
You're not being one.

I set out to pose one of those threads lacking in philosophical depth and 
having profound repercussions on the Wizarding World such as many we 
have had recently rumbling on ad infinitum. Threads intended to revive 
the spirits of those of us who think back to those delightful diversions 
such as the whereabouts of Hogwarts, where Riddle got his diary from 
and the mystery - if any - of Mark Evans to scratch away at the dust of 
canon in search of the odd gold nugget.







From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com  Sun Mar 15 01:08:18 2009
From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:08:18 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <1E90A04AB7744B348A67E9E3DAE6BA3F@miles>
References: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com> <1E90A04AB7744B348A67E9E3DAE6BA3F@miles>
Message-ID: <BAY116-DS6AA6268A18C29E0203D51A39A0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 186068

Geoff Bannister wrote:
> There surely must be some way that new spells are
> "registered" by the magic environment of the
> Wizarding World for want of a better term. There
> must have been a time when spell creation was in
> its infancy. For instance, is it to do with the
> will of the wizard to really want the result, to
> really mean what the spell was for - as Bellatrix
> pointed out to Harry in the battle at the Ministry
> when he tried to use Crucio on her?

Miles:
Just look at the language question. Why are most spells using Latin? What is

magical about Latin? Did manhood have no magic before Latin was spoken? How 
could there be ancient wizards in Egypt, before there was something like 
"Latin" at all? Aren't there indigene wizards in America and Africa, who 
will not know of Latin at all? And if Latin is important, why is this Latin 
so messed up? And if the language is not important, why aren't there working

spells in English?

Philip replies:

Perhaps most of the spells are in Latin because Latin was where the concepts
and ideas were introduced. My thought is that once something is discovered,
it is given a name. This name then becomes magical, to use this word is to
invoke the power of the thing behind the name.
In the same way, the word Voldemort has its own magic. It shocks people and
stuns them - perhaps not physically though. While Voldemort existed this
name held power. Something physical, an element of the world doesn't die, it
continues onwards. Therefore until all fire on earth is destroyed, the word
fire still invokes a meaning upon us. So the Flagrante curse has power.
This power becomes real over time, until it is so powerful it creates a
physical effect. 
The strongest spells are associated with deep elements of the human psyche,
control, death and pain. So they have an easily visible and destructive
magical power when the word that has longest been associated with it is
given out.
This is, I think a fairly reasonable explanation. Over time, more magical
words will come into being and increase in power and some, like Voldemort
will die out.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 15 01:38:51 2009
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:38:51 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gphett+mh9u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gphm7b+sldi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186069

> Geoff:
> You're not being one.
> 
> I set out to pose one of those threads lacking in philosophical depth and 
> having profound repercussions on the Wizarding World such as many we 
> have had recently rumbling on ad infinitum. Threads intended to revive 
> the spirits of those of us who think back to those delightful diversions 
> such as the whereabouts of Hogwarts, where Riddle got his diary from 
> and the mystery - if any - of Mark Evans to scratch away at the dust of 
> canon in search of the odd gold nugget.
>


Alla:

And I am so so happy as a reader that you did start this thread. I always thought that the variety of topics (ethical, discussing little detais of canon, any other topics) is what makes this list so great and never would want anybody to think that any topic should not be discussed. So I am keeping my fingers crossed that this thread would thrive and diverge in many other topics, etc.

This however gives me a possibility to ask question which I wanted to ask for some time, and maybe I even did, but if so I do not remember sorry about that.

You mentioned all these cool threads I remember loving to read so much in the past. I never felt that I am language profficient enough to participate in discussion on where some words in canon came from and stuff like that, but I certainly enjoyed reading them.

So, my question is coming, I promise. I certainly agree with you that the threads of the variety that you mentioned decreased after OOP a little bit, and even more after HBP. But wouldn't you agree that it is sort of to be expected based on the direction that books took?

Let me try to explain based on the example that near and dear to my heart and which used to be (to me) one of the biggest mysteries of canon I **could not wait** to be resolved and somehow my guess is that many others could not either :-)

This will be the mystery of how it will all end, no less :)

I cannot express to you how many different varieties of the ending I used to imagine before I read OOP. It was just, I don't know, so so fascinating to me that I had no clue how Voldemort will be defeated.

I mean, of course I could guess that Harry will play a part in it, but what exactly will happen? Will he fight in a battle? Will he do some spectacular magic that we did not see yet? Will he fight alone or will he get a lot of help? Why Voldemort is after him? What will be the role of his friends? And what exactly the name "death eaters" mean to the final resolution of the series, heh.

And then comes OOP and here we go, prophecy. Eh, I mean, of course I will be lying if I say that I saw in my head the end of the book 7 as JKR wrote it. Of course I did not. However, well, prophecy gave me and I am sure many others pretty good idea that the ending will come to the fight between Harry and Voldemort, no?

What I am trying to say that some grand speculations that we discussed became invalid, no? 

And then came HBP with Horcruxes, and that narrowed the ideas even more. I mean, to deal with Voldemort, Harry will have to deal with Horcruxes.

I am not saying that books became bad because of it, quite the contrary. I am just saying that I think that since we lived through the times when JKR was writing the books, I think it is to be expected that the closer we got to the ending, the less things we could discuss, no?

Which is why it is even more wonderful to me when threads like yours start :-)

Hmmm, I know that my post is canon lite, but posting it anyway, since it makes sense in my head.

Alla




From wildirishrose at fiber.net  Sun Mar 15 03:53:49 2009
From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (wildirishrose01us)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 03:53:49 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpd0b3+ctt8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gphu4d+r5i7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186070

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> wrote:


> "One becomes two, two becomes three, and by means of the third and fourth humor achieves unity; thus two are but one. Invert nature and you will find one part in eight what you seek. Join the male and the female, and you will find what is unrecognized. You will touch with your hands the parts in the fourth house and, you will see with your own eyes the Azoth, the Mercury of Philosophers, which alone will suffice to obtain for you our Stone of Darkness which will appear on the ninth face of the Abyss but not at the flower of night for Saturn and the Antimony of the Sages will appear in blackness and the raven's head without the fifth intersession and all the colors of the world will appear at the hour of the second conjunction and the rainbow also but not the peacock's tail for that is forestalled by the river of lead. Differentiate after the matter has passed through wormwood from ashen-colored to white and yellow with exhausting rectitude you must integrate the stone, our King and Dominator Supreme, issue forth from his glassy sepulcher to mount his bed or his throne in his glorified body. Diaphanous as crystal; compact and most weighty, as easily fusible by fire as resin, as flowing as wax and more so than quicksilver the color of saffron when powdered, but red as rubies when in an integral mass." 
> 
> And now Snape says "you have 4 minutes left to complete your potion". Yea, right, just follow the instructions, easy as pie. Actually the above would make far more sense even to Neville than it would to any of us. 
>  
>  Eggplant


Marianne:

I got lost at "One becomes two, two becomes three, and by means of the thir...........

And having Snape breathing down my neck I would have melted as many cauldrons, if not more, than Neville.

Marianne
Death = When The Will Matures




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 15 16:57:00 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 15 Mar 2009 16:57:00 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/15/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1237136220.602.77646.m7@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186071

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 15, 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/20090315/ca671288/attachment.html>

From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Mar 15 16:58:54 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:58:54 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gphu4d+r5i7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpjc4e+10fj7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186072

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wildirishrose01us" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107@> wrote:
> 
> 
> > "One becomes two, two becomes three, 

<snip>

> > 
> > And now Snape says "you have 4 minutes left to complete your potion". Yea, right, just follow the instructions, easy as pie. Actually the above would make far more sense even to Neville than it would to any of us. 
> >  
> >  Eggplant

Marianne:
> I got lost at "One becomes two, two becomes three, and by means of the thir...........
> 
> And having Snape breathing down my neck I would have melted as many cauldrons, if not more, than Neville.

Geoff:
So do I on things alchemical which is precisely why Snape wouldn't 
do that. He may be a pain in the backside but he does present his
instructions clearly, methodically and thoroughly. Otherwise I 
suspect that the number of melted cauldrons etc. would rise 
exponentially and, incidentally, in inverse proportion to the number 
of top passes at OWL and NEWT levels.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Mar 15 21:32:06 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:32:06 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gphm7b+sldi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpjs4m+pqml@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186073

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

Geoff:
> > You're not being one.
 
> > I set out to pose one of those threads lacking in philosophical depth and 
> > having profound repercussions on the Wizarding World such as many we 
> > have had recently rumbling on ad infinitum. Threads intended to revive 
> > the spirits of those of us who think back to those delightful diversions 
> > such as the whereabouts of Hogwarts, where Riddle got his diary from 
> > and the mystery - if any - of Mark Evans to scratch away at the dust of 
> > canon in search of the odd gold nugget.
 
Alla:
> And I am so so happy as a reader that you did start this thread. I always thought that the variety of topics (ethical, discussing little detais of canon, any other topics) is what makes this list so great and never would want anybody to think that any topic should not be discussed. So I am keeping my fingers crossed that this thread would thrive and diverge in many other topics, etc.

<snip>

> I am not saying that books became bad because of it, quite the contrary. I am just saying that I think that since we lived through the times when JKR was writing the books, I think it is to be expected that the closer we got to the ending, the less things we could discuss, no?

Geoff:
My answer would be "no". I will enlarge on that lower down the page...

Alla: 
> Which is why it is even more wonderful to me when threads like yours start :-)
> 
> Hmmm, I know that my post is canon lite, but posting it anyway, since it makes sense in my head.

Geoff:
Let me expand on my last remark. First of all, I have commented on- 
and off-group on several occasions that I sensed a sea change in the 
style of the group after HBP was published. We suddenly seemed to 
get threads which were very involved, sometimes dealing with 
psychological issues while Snape's loyalty and Dumbledore's death 
occupied hours of members' time and I felt that the camaraderie 
which had existed in which we often discussed things in a light-
hearted manner and also dealt with lightweight topics seemed to 
have been lost in a SIbelius-like Scandinavian forest environment 
- if you see what I mean.

I can get a snapshot of  my own feelings by looking at the number 
of posts I sent. I will have been a member of HPFGU for six years in 
July. One thing I have always done is to keep an archive of the posts I 
have sent so that I can sometimes track down a previous discussion 
more easily if I have been involved.

Up to my last post before this one, I have sent 2413 messages. Now 
the interesting statistic (to me) is that in the first full year I was a 
member, I sent 927 posts. This was before the 5-a-day rule although 
I rarely exceeded that. In the last year up to my latest message sent
today, I posted on 91 occasions.

That reveals partly that I have not felt inspired to contribute to those 
threads which have gone round and round on a roundabout, reiterating 
the same ideas (my "famous" tennis match picture) , sometimes 
triggered by members hellbent on always having the last word. 
Sometimes, I have not had the time to construct the sort of reasoned 
post which I like writing. Some of you know that I have had a very 
difficult few months with my daughter's broken marriage, a suicide 
in the family and a road accident demanding my attention. So I have 
spent a lot more time on OTC where I can get away with thinking less...

However, I still feel that by ceasing to introduce lightweight (and 
sometimes lighthearted) threads, we have lost a valuable line of 
communication between ourselves.

I would disagree somewhat with Alla because many of these threads 
were not world-shattering ideas linked to the main thrust of the story 
but created little excursions into the trivia of the books, often hung 
onto flimsy pieces of canon.

OK, perhaps the precise whereabouts of Hogwarts was not absolutely 
essential to the plot. here were interesting spinoffs. Take the thread 
which Shaun and I spent quite a bit of time on - the whereabouts of 
the bookshop where Riddle's diary was purchased and hence possible
locations of the orphanage where he lived.

What was of particular interest to me was that I lived for 45 years in 
South London and know the area pretty well but this thread produced a 
lot of historical material which was a goldmine for me. Those are just 
two topics which I, personally, enjoyed hugely in the past and which still 
carry validity.

I did, of course, spend a fair amount of time maintaining that Harry would 
live, and also hoped that he would not marry Ginny. Those matters are 
settled but were the source of much interchange of ideas - and fun. And 
my own personal views as an evangelical Christian often led to interesting 
exchanges - and again contacts with group members across the glob.

It is this sort of exchange on the group for which I willingly suspend my 
disbelief and which is a vehicle to get to know other members more 
closely and by which I have built friendships with a number of other 
people on the group.

No, Alla, I do not believe that we have run out of discussion ideas which 
are still useable in the post-Voldemort era. But I for one would like to 
have threads which are like eating ice-cream or something similar for 
pudding and not like getting through a mountain of mashed potatoes! 

That way, I avoid mental and intellectual indigestion.
:-)




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 16 19:08:07 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:08:07 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpjs4m+pqml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpm82n+8fi1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186074

Montavilla47:

I think this is an extremely interesting question, but I haven't had
the energy in the last week or so to dig up what I came up with
when I tackled it in a Snape-fic.

This is a conversation I had between Dumbledore and a 14-year-old
Snape after Snape has demonstrated a spell that he accidentally 
created:

Dumbledore: 
There is a theory that all spells exist at all times. The difficulty we have is
that we don't know how to cast them. So, if you were to set a hundred 
wizards with a hundred wands, waving them and shouting out words at 
random, eventually you'd discover every bit of magic in the universe. But it 
would take an infinite amount of time.

Snape:
So, I just happened to do the right movement with the right words?

Dumbedore:
Possibly. There's another theory that we are born with the infinite knowledge 
and that we're simply limited by language and consciousness so that we only 
manage to master a miniscule part of it. In a dream state--such as you 
experienced with your father's memories, your mind was less limited. So, you 
instinctively chose the right words and movement to conjure the spell. But the 
spell was always out there, waiting to be used.

Snape:
So--anything the mind can think about, magic could possibly do?

Dumbledore:
Possibly--although even my mind runs up against some severe limitations.

Snape:
Like what?

Dumbledore:
The obvious one comes to mind. We can't bring back the dead.

****

Beyond that, I remember wondering about the language issue.
For some reason, "Langlock" struck me as more Anglo-Saxon
than Latin.

"Avada Kadavra" is not Latin, so I don't think spells are 
limited to Latinesque phrasing--it may simply be that the Latin
is a universal spell language (at least in Europe).  

Then, there may be some spells are more regional, or with 
regional variants that are invoked using the language of that
region.  Elphias Dodge mentions that he and Dumbledore were
supposed to go on a Grand Tour together--as was the custom 
at the time.  Why go on a tour if not to see the regional
differences in magical practices?

I had a lot of fun in a Harry/Draco story imagining them on a 
world tour, trekking to ancient magical cities in Africa, 
visiting India (where the glamor charms are amazing), learning
a bit about weather magic in the Phillipines (where they are 
sternly warned against experimenting as a small rain shower
in one part of the globe can cause a hurricane in another area),
and stopping in America to watch a test drive of new, cutting-edge
broomstick technology.








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 16 21:21:38 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:21:38 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpm82n+8fi1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpmft2+phcv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186075

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47 at ...> wrote:

Montavilla47:
> I think this is an extremely interesting question, but I haven't had
> the energy in the last week or so to dig up what I came up with
> when I tackled it in a Snape-fic.
> 
> This is a conversation I had between Dumbledore and a 14-year-old
> Snape after Snape has demonstrated a spell that he accidentally 
> created:

<Snip>

> ****
> 
> Beyond that, I remember wondering about the language issue.
> For some reason, "Langlock" struck me as more Anglo-Saxon
> than Latin.
> 
> "Avada Kadavra" is not Latin, so I don't think spells are 
> limited to Latinesque phrasing--it may simply be that the Latin
> is a universal spell language (at least in Europe).  

Geoff:
As has been pointed out in the past, Latin was for centuries the 
lingua franca of educated people, certainly in Europe. It held this 
position because of the influence of the Catholic church and 
because much of education was handled by monks.

"Langlock" is most certainly not Latin. It does strike me as being
 from a Germanic language.

I did comment on "Avada Kedavra" and its source on post 186044
 earlier in this thread.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 16 22:07:24 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:07:24 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpm82n+8fi1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpmiis+m3oh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186076

Montavilla47 wrote:

> <snip> Beyond that, I remember wondering about the language issue. For some reason, "Langlock" struck me as more Anglo-Saxon than Latin. <snip>

Carol responds:
Well, "lock" is certainly English, but "lange" (tongue) is French. Maybe young Severus was literate in several languages! And, clearly, a spell doesn't have to be Latin-based to work. Maybe alliteration and other sound effects play a role?

Montavilla 47:
> Then, there may be some spells are more regional, or with regional variants that are invoked using the language of that region.

Carol responds:
No doubt. Maybe Latin is the usual (but not the only) language among European wizards, but Chinese or African wizards would have little reason to use it.

Montavilla47:
> Elphias Dodge mentions that he and Dumbledore were supposed to go on a Grand Tour together--as was the custom at the time.  Why go on a tour if not to see the regional differences in magical practices? <snip>

Carol responds:
I just assumed that their Grand Tour was a wizarding variant of the Grand Tour that young English gentlemen (in the sense of young men of the upper classes) conventionally took to complete their education in the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries (I don't know whether the Grand Tour continued into the twentieth century, at least when no World War was being fought): London to Paris to Rome and often Florence and Venice, the places regarded by the English as cultural centers. (Athens was off limits because of Ottoman rule of Greece--unless, like Lord Byron, you wanted to fight and die there.) Wizards being Wizards and capable of Apparating could probably extend the tour. I can't imagine Albus and Elphias turning down a chance to see the Egyptian pyramids, for example, had circumstances not intervened. I would hope that they'd include natural wonders, such as Mont Blanc, as well as centers of civilizaion (Wizard or Muggle).

Carol, hoping that Harry and Ron took a Grand Tour together while Hermione was belatedly finishing her last year at Hogwarts since, apparently, they didn't return to school





From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Mar 17 16:43:53 2009
From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (becks3uk)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:43:53 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gp9cn0+h8db@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpok09+s781@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186077

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> Geoff:
> This post has been prompted by the fact that there 
> has been some recent discussion on spells and hexes 
> and it opens a topic which I have felt I wanted to 
> see aired for a very long time and just haven't got 
> round to launching and I do not recall it having been 
> touched on previously.
> 
> To kickstart the thread, in HBP for example, Harry
> used the Sectumsempra spell which we learn was 
> invented by Snape. This for a long time has posed 
> the question for me "How do you invent a spell?"
> 
<snip>

Becks3uk:

I think it has less to do with the word and more to do with focusing the wizard on a certain thought. Wizards can do magic when they are young and have not yet learned that they are wizards. Some wizards  can do non verbal and even wandless magic. Wizards use their wands as a focus for their magical energy (for want of a better word) and though they could do wandless magic before they went to school (e.g. setting a snake on Dudley), they later find it difficult to do magic without a wand. I think the incantations work the same way, it is about finding a word and a way to express what they want to do to themselves and to their wands and that enables them to do it. Then when they have learned it a certain way they can only do it if they repeat it exactly because that is how they focus on that one narrow thought. I mean, even patronuses require the wizard to find their own thoughts within themselves that enable them to produce one. If the incantation was so important how could they do non verbal spells?




From joeydebs at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 17 10:01:02 2009
From: joeydebs at yahoo.com (Debi)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:01:02 -0000
Subject: A slight problem with 1983
In-Reply-To: <BAY116-DS6173050BB628E0EF1EA90A39D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <gpnscu+l6re@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186078

<snip>

> Philip:
>
> As far the setting is concerned, I think that as the Harry Potter series was
> aimed at children, if not solely for them, the idea was to make it so that
> he aged at the same rate they did. Releasing 1 book per year - at least in
> the beginning, helps to support this theory.

True, when I started reading them I was eleven (I didn't realise till years later that the book had been out about two years at the time!) and I was convinced Harry was born 31st July 1988 just two days after me and thus *right now* Harry was at Hogwarts. XD

There's still a little part of me that will always believe that Harry was *really* born in '88. Despite dratted canon! :P

joeydebs



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 17 20:41:04 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:41:04 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpok09+s781@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpp1t0+104ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186079

Becks3uk wrote:
> 
> I think it has less to do with the word and more to do with focusing the wizard on a certain thought. Wizards can do magic when they are young and have not yet learned that they are wizards. Some wizards  can do non verbal and even wandless magic. Wizards use their wands as a focus for their magical energy (for want of a better word) and though they could do wandless magic before they went to school (e.g. setting a snake on Dudley), they later find it difficult to do magic without a wand. I think the incantations work the same way, it is about finding a word and a way to express what they want to do to themselves and to their wands and that enables them to do it. Then when they have learned it a certain way they can only do it if they repeat it exactly because that is how they focus on that one narrow thought. I mean, even patronuses require the wizard to find their own thoughts within themselves that enable them to produce one. If the incantation was so important how could they do non verbal spells?

Carol responds:

With regard to your final question, I think that the incantation is still important. The Witch or Wizard simply *thinks* it rather than speaking it. Of course, brilliant, powerful, experienced Wizards (notably Dumbledore and Voldemort but perhaps Snape, McGonagall, and a few others) can probably conjure nonverbally without an incantation, just a mental image and force of will, but someone like Hermione, who masters nonverbal magic fairly quickly, probably still thinks the incantation. Certainly, the students in Snape's DADA class are still thinking in terms of incantations, whispering them instead of thinking them. (It reminds me of kids who can only read silently if they move their lips.)

Carol, who thinks that both the incantation and wand movement are important in most magic or Flitwick wouldn't make such a fuss about them in the first Charms lesson





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar 17 23:09:12 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:09:12 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gpok09+s781@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gppaio+uq3n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186080

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "becks3uk" <becks3uk at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10@> wrote:

Geoff: 
> > To kickstart the thread, in HBP for example, Harry
> > used the Sectumsempra spell which we learn was 
> > invented by Snape. This for a long time has posed 
> > the question for me "How do you invent a spell?"
> 
> <snip>

Becks3uk:
> I think it has less to do with the word and more to do with focusing the wizard on a certain thought. Wizards can do magic when they are young and have not yet learned that they are wizards. Some wizards  can do non verbal and even wandless magic. Wizards use their wands as a focus for their magical energy (for want of a better word) and though they could do wandless magic before they went to school (e.g. setting a snake on Dudley), they later find it difficult to do magic without a wand. I think the incantations work the same way, it is about finding a word and a way to express what they want to do to themselves and to their wands and that enables them to do it. Then when they have learned it a certain way they can only do it if they repeat it exactly because that is how they focus on that one narrow thought. I mean, even patronuses require the wizard to find their own thoughts within themselves that enable them to produce one. If the incantation was so important how could they do non verbal spells?

Geoff:
This message is a re-post of some things I wrote a couple of hours 
ago and which seem to have disappeared into the mist....

I think that, in some ways, younger wizards can get involved in 
wandless magic by visualising the result that they want rather than 
verbally in their mind possibly because they may be too young to 
really appreciate the words.

It sounds a little crazy perhaps but while I was thinking about this 
post, an analogy came to me. Children, particularly very young ones, 
can often have accidents - particularly falls - and come out possibly 
unscathed while adults suffering the same accident are injured. The 
reason is that the child does not fully understand from experience 
what is happening and so may be relaxed and therefore land safely 
whereas the adult, with memories of other mishaps, tenses up when 
they sense a fall and hold themselves more rigidly.

Hence, a young wizard perhaps comes up against a potential danger 
or threat and  subconsciously thinks of a visual response - Harry 
finishing up on the school roof or re-growing his hair might be 
cited as examples.

As has been already suggested, the adult wizard wants a response 
but voices it and uses the wand as a focus - perhaps even like a 
conductor's baton - to get the required result. Wandless spell-casting 
needs a wizard who can focus internally on the result sought. In my 
analogy, the young wizard relaxes and achieves a result, possibly 
totally unexpected as they go with the flow, but the adult tenses and 
braces themselves for the result.

I hope that makes some sort of sense.







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 18 16:47:04 2009
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:47:04 -0000
Subject: Creating spells
In-Reply-To: <gppaio+uq3n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpr8i8+7k5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186081

> Geoff:
> Hence, a young wizard perhaps comes up against a potential danger 
> or threat and  subconsciously thinks of a visual response - Harry 
> finishing up on the school roof or re-growing his hair might be 
> cited as examples.
> 
> As has been already suggested, the adult wizard wants a response 
> but voices it and uses the wand as a focus - perhaps even like a 
> conductor's baton - to get the required result. Wandless spell-casting 
> needs a wizard who can focus internally on the result sought. In my 
> analogy, the young wizard relaxes and achieves a result, possibly 
> totally unexpected as they go with the flow, but the adult tenses and 
> braces themselves for the result.
> 
> I hope that makes some sort of sense.

Montavilla47:
It makes a great deal of sense to me, and it hits on something
that seems obvious about the series--maybe so obvious that
we tend to overlook it.

There's a huge criticism throughout the books towards "adult"
thinking.  Voldemort's downfall comes because he devalues 
childish things, like folktales and the bonds that love creates.
Harry's best quality is his childish instincts--and his magical
power is usually instinctual.  When he overthinks things (like
when he's obsessing over Dumbledore's past), he gets lost.

So, for all that wand-waving and memorizing spells words,
magic is really just being able to make a wish and having it 
come true.  That's something a child can easily understand--
and it's we adults who get ourselves lost by asking, "How?
How come?"

It is like music, or any kind of self-expression.  A kid knows
he or she is trying to do a cartwheel, even if it doesn't look
like one to an adult.  Therefore, the kid is doing a cartwheel.
Likewise, I knew exactly at three years old what my drawings
were about, even if they only looked like scribbles to my 
parents.

All the wand-waving is about refining those instincts into 
something we all agree is the "proper" spell.  But, it probably
doesn't really matter if you say "Accio" or "Come here!" as 
long as you really want that object to zoom into your hands.






From bird_918 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 18 21:11:44 2009
From: bird_918 at yahoo.com (Bird)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:11:44 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH, EPILOGUE
In-Reply-To: <gltqg4+3bn1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpro2g+rb1l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186082


> > > > "a_svirn" <a_svirn@> wrote:
> > > > 6. What is JKR suggesting by naming Draco's son
> > > > Scorpius?

> > > Potioncat:
> > > I thought it was simply continuing the constellation
> > > tradition.

> > a_svirn:
> > I don't think it is quite that simple. Regulus was
> > somewhat of a control-freak and fond of order and
> > regulations, Sirius was a big black dog. I'll bet
> > little Scorpius is a little venomous too.

> Laura says:
> I agree.  In JKR's world, family is family, for good or
> ill.


Bird:
I'm amazed in all this analyzing of what the name *could*
mean that no one's thought about the implication of the
myth of Scorpius. The scorpion was sent to kill the popular
hunter and hero - Orion. (The whys vary.)

Orion, aside from being the name of the patriarch of the
Black family and the husband-cousin to Wahlburga is also
the constellation where the star Bellatrix can be found.

So... Draco named his son after the thing that killed the
namesake of his Great Uncle and Aunt.

Wikipedia is your friend, people!




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Mar 18 22:48:13 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:48:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH, EPILOGUE
In-Reply-To: <gpro2g+rb1l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gprtnd+sv3q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186083

Bird wrote:
> I'm amazed in all this analyzing of what the name *could* mean that no one's thought about the implication of the myth of Scorpius. The scorpion was sent to kill the popular hunter and hero - Orion. (The whys vary.)
> 
> Orion, aside from being the name of the patriarch of the Black family and the husband-cousin to Wahlburga is also the constellation where the star Bellatrix can be found.
> 
> So... Draco named his son after the thing that killed the namesake of his Great Uncle and Aunt.
> 
> Wikipedia is your friend, people!
>
Carol responds:

Yes, and Draco is named after the constellation Draco, which represents (according to the Greek myth, anyway) the dragon that killed Cadmus's men. Cadmus in turn killed the dragon and sowed its teeth to create a new army. Not much connection with Draco Malfoy that I can see--just the continuation of the Black family tradition of naming its children after constellations. (Unlike Sirius, whose name reflects his doglike loyalty to James Potter and his Animagus form, Draco probably wouldn't have a dragon Animagus--or Scorpius a scorpion Animagus--if they learned that form of magic. (As for the "popular hunter and hero," Orion, at least one version of the myth has Gaia wanting the scorpion to kill him because he had boasted that he could kill all the wild animals of the world and was in the process of carrying out his boast! Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but Bellatrix merely means "woman warrior" or Amazon. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm unaware of any myth in which Gaia's scorpion kills an Amazon.)

On a sidenote, Draco and his wife (Daphne Greengrass's sister, Astoria, according to JKR) seem to be blending the Black family tradition of constellation or star names for children with the general Pure-Blood tradition of giving boys Latin names ending in -us. (It's not, however, the Malfoy family tradition since Lucius's father was Abraxas, a transliteration of the Greek name  with the consonants in the last syllable transposed. No telling how the cut-and-pasted Greek name will show up in Yahoo, but the correct transliteration is Abrasax. Interesting stuff on this name can be found here (I can't vouch for its accuracy since monstropedia seems to be an extension of Wikipedia): 

http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Abraxas

Wonder whether Abraxas' family knew what they were naming their son after!)

To get back to Scorpius, his middle name (again, according to JKR) is Hyperion, so in addition to a constellation, he's named after a Titan (incidentally, a son of Gaia and the father of Helios, the Sun; Eos, the dawn; and Selene, the Moon). Possibly the Greengrass family had a tradition of naming their children after figures in Greek mythology--Daphne, named for a nymph turned into a laurel tree, certainly qualifies. Astoria is not a real name (unless you count the Waldorf Astoria!). It could be a variant of the rare English masculine name Astor, meaning hawk (which ruins my theory), but apparently the name appears as "Asteria" on the Black family tree (Asteria, which is appropriately derived from "aster" [star] was the name of an obscure female Titan). If this source is accurate, she was the goddess of oracles and falling stars: 

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/TitanisAsteria.html

("Apollon," mentioned in the little article, is, of course, the Greek form of Apollo.)

Carol, who prefers to see hope for Scorpius (and the Slytherins in general) regardless of the implications of the (highly varied) myths surrounding Scorpio, especially given the Greengrass connection




From bird_918 at yahoo.com  Thu Mar 19 10:54:33 2009
From: bird_918 at yahoo.com (Bird)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:54:33 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH, EPILOGUE
In-Reply-To: <gprtnd+sv3q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gpt899+3h5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186084

> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, and Draco is named after the constellation Draco, which represents (according to the Greek myth, anyway) the dragon that killed Cadmus's men.
<HUGE SNIP>


Bird:
Well, I just wanted to bring up another interpretation of Scorpius' name that didn't deal directly with scorpions, the animal.

Carol:
>> Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but Bellatrix merely means "woman warrior" or Amazon. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm unaware of any myth in which Gaia's scorpion kills an Amazon.

Bird:
There isn't one. Bellatrix is the name of the brightest star in the constellation Orion.

Carol:
>>but apparently the name appears as "Asteria" on the Black family tree (Asteria, which is appropriately derived from "aster" [star] was the name of an obscure female Titan). If this source is accurate, she was the goddess of oracles and falling stars:

Bird:
I tend to assume JKR intended it as "Asteria" and "Astoria" is a typo, mainly because the former makes sense and the latter doesn't. Aside from everything you've mention, "aster" is also a type of flower sort of how Narcissa related back to the flower narcissus. So it's a Greek myth name, a star name and a flower name all rolled into one.

>>Carol, who prefers to see hope for Scorpius (and the Slytherins in general) regardless of the implications of the (highly varied) myths surrounding Scorpio, especially given the Greengrass connection

Bird:
I tend to think the same way, which is why I wonder if the name isn't an FU to his ancestors. Though this theory would work better if Orion had been a DE supporter. :\





From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Fri Mar 20 07:07:22 2009
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 03:07:22 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC:  DH, EPILOGUE
Message-ID: <d28.444cbbaa.36f49aaa@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186085

 
In a message dated 3/20/2009 12:01:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
bird_918 at yahoo.com writes:

Bird:
There isn't one. Bellatrix is the name of the brightest star  in the 
constellation Orion.


 
 
Actually Rigel is Orion's brightest star (and the 7th brightest in the  night 
sky.)  Bellatrix is the 3rd brightest (22nd in the night sky).  
 
Sorry, I'm an astronomy buff.
 
Melissa
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make meals for Under 
$10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)


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




From winterfell7 at hotmail.com  Sat Mar 21 00:08:49 2009
From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:08:49 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH, EPILOGUE
In-Reply-To: <gprtnd+sv3q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gq1b6h+2qf6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186086


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Bird wrote:
> > I'm amazed in all this analyzing of what the name *could* mean that no one's thought about the implication of the myth of Scorpius. The scorpion was sent to kill the popular hunter and hero - Orion. (The whys vary.)
> > 
> > Orion, aside from being the name of the patriarch of the Black family and the husband-cousin to Wahlburga is also the constellation where the star Bellatrix can be found.
> > 
> > So... Draco named his son after the thing that killed the namesake of his Great Uncle and Aunt.
> > 
> > Wikipedia is your friend, people!
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> Yes, and Draco is named after the constellation Draco, which represents (according to the Greek myth, anyway) the dragon that killed Cadmus's men. Cadmus in turn killed the dragon and sowed its teeth to create a new army. Not much connection with Draco Malfoy that I can see--just the continuation of the Black family tradition of naming its children after constellations. (Unlike Sirius, whose name reflects his doglike loyalty to James Potter and his Animagus form, Draco probably wouldn't have a dragon Animagus--or Scorpius a scorpion Animagus--if they learned that form of magic.

Steve replies:

Sirius is the brightest star in the night time sky.  It is actually a binary star and is located in the Constellation Canis Major, specifically in the eye of the greater dog Canis Major.  Therefore it is known as the dog star. The Zoroastrian translation of Sirius is Spirit of Wisdom and it also means Brightly Radiating One by The Shining ones according to crystal links website: http://www.crystallinks.com/sirius.httl

Steve who prefers that version much more.   




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Mar 21 21:38:05 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:38:05 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:  DH, EPILOGUE
In-Reply-To: <gpt899+3h5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gq3mnt+e3ng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186087

> Bird:
> I tend to think the same way, which is why I wonder if the name isn't an FU to his ancestors. Though this theory would work better if Orion had been a DE supporter. :\

Zara:
According to Sirius,  Orion's likely response to the news that his son Regulus became a Death Eater would have been to consider Regulus "a right little hero". So there was some inclination in that direction, anyway.

The reason I'd find your theory unlikely is that to Draco, Orion is nobody. His mother's uncle, who died the year before Draco was born. 




From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 04:29:54 2009
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:29:54 -0000
Subject: GoF queries ...
Message-ID: <gq4es2+7mfb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186088

Hi all ,

While re-reading GoF , certain questions are appearing in my mind .. not sure whether they have been discussed before. But feel like posting anyway ...

1. Apart from Harry , all other champions are either appearing for
   OWL or in their NEWT/pre-NEWT year - which is supposed to be very
   tough scheduled. So how they could devote 1 year for a game. In
   case of people who are appearing for OWL/NEWT , are they exempt
   from end of year exam , too ? if they are , does competing ( Not
   even winning ) in tri-wizard tournament viewed as a replacement
   for those exams ?
   And all the foreign students who were not competing stayed for the
   whole year to cheer for their champions. Doesn't make much sense.

2. What will happen if your name comes out from the goblet but you
   refuse to compete as you didn't put your name in ? Is the
   punishment even more dangerous than facing dragons?

3. In the beginning it is said that the champion with total highest
   score in the three phases of the game will win. But in the third
   task ? one who touches the cup first wins irrespective of total
   points. Seeker syndrome again ?

samajdar_parantap



From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 22 18:03:03 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 22 Mar 2009 18:03:03 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/22/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1237744983.699.39271.m4@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186089

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 22, 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/20090322/b7b75d33/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 22 21:30:19 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:30:19 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin / Draco's son's name / Triwizard Tournament
Message-ID: <gq6alc+cnf2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186090

Miles wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186065>:

<< Just look at the language question. Why are most spells using Latin? What is magical about Latin? Did manhood have no magic before Latin was spoken? How could there be ancient wizards in Egypt, before there was something like "Latin" at all? Aren't there indigene wizards in America and Africa, who will not know of Latin at all? And if Latin is important, why is this Latin so messed up? And if the language is not important, why aren't there working spells in English? >>

One spell in English is Tonks's 'Locomotor trunk!' Which ought to be 'Locomotor cysta!'

Okay, the idea of the Potterverse is that a lot of stuff that we Muggles think are folktales and superstitions are really true, and a lot of things we Muggles think are proven scientific or historical fact are really cover stories. Modern Muggles think that the Loch Ness monster is a fiction, an optical illusion, or a pleiosaur who somehow survived since the time of dinosaurs, all erroneous beliefs, as FB tells us that Nessie is a kelpie with an unfortunate fondness for publicity.

This has inspired me to include other things that are superstitions in the realiverse as truths in my fanfic Potterverse, such as Atlantis, and humans from early in the genus Homo until the Middle Bronze Age lived in matriarchal groups and civilizations.

In the same spirit, I say that spells aren't in Latin; they are in a different language that was specially invented and engineered to be effective for spell-making. That it is similar to the Muggle language named Latin is because Latin began by ambitious Muggles trying to learn by imitation the powerful language of their wizard king tyrants. (I suppose that a magic intended for magic spells doesn't need any verb tenses or moods except the imperative.)

There is more than one language engineered to be used for magic, including Sumerian and Old Egyptian; the wizards wrote in these magic languages and we have found their writings and assumed it was a spoken language, but the non-wizards (and wizards speaking to non-wizards) really spoke an early form of Babylonian and Middle Egyptian respectively. I assume something similar happened in China and all the other places where civilization was independently invented. Also, it is possibly that the very first language ever was invented by wizards to use in doing magic, and using language to communicate with fellow wizards came along later.

Bird wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186082>:

<< Draco named his son [Scorpius ]after the thing that killed the
namesake of his Great Uncle [Orion] and Aunt [Bellatrix, a star in the constellation Orion]. >>

And explained in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186084>:

<< I wonder if the name isn't an FU to his ancestors. >>

Only to his Black ancestors. I'd be more impressed that this was a sign that Draco had decided that goodness is good business if he issued an FU to his Malfoy ancestors. 

samajdar_parantap wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186088>:

<< In the beginning [of the Triwizard Tournament] it is said that the champion with total highest score in the three phases of the game will win. But in the third task ? one who touches the cup first wins irrespective of total points. Seeker syndrome again? >>

One could excuse this as careless speech on the assumption that the first Champion to enter the maze will touch the Cup first, and the order of entering the maze is based on their points from the first two Tasks. Or it could be that they were simply lying to motivate the Champions to try hard in the first two Tasks rather than rest up for the only one that matters.

<< And all the foreign students who were not competing stayed for the whole year to cheer for their champions. Doesn't make much sense. >>

It would make sense for DD's announced goal that young wizards and witches from different countries should get to know each other, if the guests studied in the Hogwarts classes and ate in the Hogwarts Great Hall with the Hogwarts students, rather than taking their classes and meals as well as sleeping in the conveyance that brought them there. If their Headmasters were teaching all their subjects, then those Headmasters wouldn't have much time for Apparating back to their school to attend to duties there.

<< Apart from Harry , all other champions are either appearing for
OWL or in their NEWT/pre-NEWT year - which is supposed to be very
tough scheduled. So how they could devote 1 year for a game. >>

People in their OWL and NEWT years play Quidditch on their House teams, so the OWL year and NEWT year study schedule is not all-consuming.

<< In case of people who are appearing for OWL/NEWT , are they exempt from end of year exam , too ? if they are , does competing ( Not even winning ) in tri-wizard tournament viewed as a replacement for those exams ? >>

Actually, students in their OWL and NEWT year should not have to take end-of-years exams at all, because the end-of-year exams are really just a check of how well one is doing on preparing for the tests that matter, the tests that give certificates that future employers care about, the OWLs and NEWTs.






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sun Mar 22 22:45:46 2009
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:45:46 -0000
Subject: A slight problem with 1983
In-Reply-To: <BAY116-DS6173050BB628E0EF1EA90A39D0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <gq6f2q+gbl8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186091

 
> Philip:
 
> Seeing as the only date evidence was a death-day date, it seems unlikely
> that she made any conscientious effort to place the story in the current
> time.
>

Hickengruendler:

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, when harry and Hermione visit James and Lily's graves in Godric's Hollow, their death date is mentioned. It's Halloween 1981, which fits exactly with the date from nick's deathday cake.




From sweenlit at gmail.com  Sun Mar 22 23:25:34 2009
From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:25:34 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] GoF queries ...
In-Reply-To: <gq4es2+7mfb@eGroups.com>
References: <gq4es2+7mfb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <43e41d1e0903221625t49a0e26djca1be26ec4435c52@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186092

samajdar_parantap:
And all the foreign students who were not competing stayed for the
whole year to cheer for their champions. Doesn't make much sense.

Lynda:
I don't see why not. They would of course still be having classes just like
Harry does.

Lynda


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




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 23 03:25:54 2009
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:25:54 -0000
Subject: GoF queries ...
In-Reply-To: <gq4es2+7mfb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gq6vg2+hkjq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186093

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

> 1. Apart from Harry , all other champions are either appearing for
>    OWL or in their NEWT/pre-NEWT year - which is supposed to be very
>    tough scheduled. So how they could devote 1 year for a game.


zanooda:

We don't know exactly when and what kind of exams foreign students take. For example, Fleur mentioned in HBP that at Beauxbatons they have some important examination (something similar to OWLs, I suppose) after six years of study, not after five years, like in Britain. We just don't have enough information about foreign schools examination practices to judge :-).  



> 3. In the beginning it is said that the champion with total highest
>    score in the three phases of the game will win. But in the third
>    task ? one who touches the cup first wins irrespective of total
>    points. 


zanooda:

I don't know, when Bagman explained the rules of the third task, he didn't say that the champion who touches the cup first is the winner, he just said that he/she will receive "full marks". I thought "full marks" meant the highest possible grade or something of the sort :-). For instance, the first champion to reach the cup gets 50 points (which are added to his total score), the second one - 45 etc. Of course, I may be wrong, it's just how I understood "full marks" :-). 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Mar 23 08:03:29 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:03:29 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Magical Latin
References: <gq6alc+cnf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5439AE688F844BF8A11F0DCEE2C7A400@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186094

Miles wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186065>:

<< Just look at the language question. Why are most spells using Latin? What 
is magical about Latin? Did manhood have no magic before Latin was spoken? 
How could there be ancient wizards in Egypt, before there was something like 
"Latin" at all? Aren't there indigene wizards in America and Africa, who 
will not know of Latin at all? And if Latin is important, why is this Latin 
so messed up? And if the language is not important, why aren't there working 
spells in English? >>

catlady at wicca.net
One spell in English is Tonks's 'Locomotor trunk!' Which ought to be 
'Locomotor cysta!'

Shelley now:
Actually, I disagree with your assement that the "object" of a spell must be 
in latin. Locomotor is the spell- the trunk is only the object that you want 
to cast the spell on, and is therefore not a part of the spell. For example, 
if a parent were to use this on a child (say a toddler) who was running away 
from that parent, the child's name need not be translated into Latin for the 
parent to bring that child back to him or her. Besides, the name of the 
object isn't always reverse-translatable into Latin- no such things such as 
gameboys, computers, modern vehicles, Nimbus 2000's, etc existed when Latin 
was used, and therefore wouldn't have a name in Latin. It fully makes sense 
that you name the object what you call it in real life, so that there is no 
confusion exactly what it is you are trying to move with that spell.

Actually, a simple answer to "why Latin at all" might simply date back to a 
time when only the most learned men had formal studies in magic, similar to 
the dark ages when only monks could read and kept learning alive, if the 
general population did not have access to magic schools. Those select few 
would have been educated in Latin, meaning most of the spells they created 
would have Latin names as part of keeping that learning segregated from the 
general population.





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 16:49:52 2009
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:49:52 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <5439AE688F844BF8A11F0DCEE2C7A400@homemain>
Message-ID: <gq8ejg+v3g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186095

> Shelley:
> ...
> Actually, a simple answer to "why Latin at all" might simply date back to a time when only the most learned men had formal studies in magic, similar to the dark ages when only monks could read and kept learning alive, if the general population did not have access to magic schools. Those select few would have been educated in Latin, meaning most of the spells they created would have Latin names as part of keeping that learning segregated from the general population.


Kemper now:
An even simpler answer would be tradition.  
As there is at least one spell outside of a Latin root, it would seem that Latin isn't necessary for a spell to work effectively.  Avada Kedavra seems potent and serviceable enough to be getting on with. 

Snape develops his sectumsempra spell, even though he was most likely not educated in Latin at his Muggle primary school... though Geoff prolly has a better hit on that.  Anyway, he teaches in English as do the other professors. 

Maybe as traditionalists, the WW opposes any passage of a magical Vatican II.

Kemper


 





From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 15:36:53 2009
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:36:53 -0000
Subject: GoF queries ... foreign students' studies
In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0903221625t49a0e26djca1be26ec4435c52@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gq8aal+2m0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186096


> samajdar_parantap:
> And all the foreign students who were not competing stayed
> for the whole year to cheer for their champions. Doesn't
> make much sense.
>
> Lynda:
> I don't see why not. They would of course still be having
> classes just like Harry does.


samajdar_parantap:
How will they? They are with just one teacher .. it will be
kind of self-study for them.  In case they attend Hogwarts
classes - I doubt their curriculum can integrate seamlessly.
But yeah - we don't have any information to debate on that.





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Mar 23 18:48:07 2009
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:48:07 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF queries ... foreign students' studies
References: <gq8aal+2m0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <33B5CE952A5C4DE1A5B6E2322CBFE6CB@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 186097

>> samajdar_parantap:
>> And all the foreign students who were not competing stayed
>> for the whole year to cheer for their champions. Doesn't
>> make much sense.
>>
>> Lynda:
>> I don't see why not. They would of course still be having
>> classes just like Harry does.
>
> samajdar_parantap:
> How will they? They are with just one teacher .. it will be
> kind of self-study for them.  In case they attend Hogwarts
> classes - I doubt their curriculum can integrate seamlessly.
> But yeah - we don't have any information to debate on that.


I always wondered if the students had some sort of fireplace and flue powder 
available to them on the ship and carriage, so that they traveled to their 
classes daily at their regular school and then back again to Hogwarts for 
lunch and for the rest of the time. I imagine they could choose lunch at 
either place, if they had enough flue powder to last the entire year, which 
I am sure was arranged beforehand. Certainly, in the cooperation between 
Ministries of Magic and schools, arrangements could have been made for the 
connections to be made for the students to continue to take their normal 
classes. It didn't make much sense to me that Kararoff or Madame Maxine 
alone was their sole teacher, since they would have other duties and events 
to attend to during that time as representatives of their respective 
schools. It also doesn't make sense for them to take Hogwart's classes, as 
the Hogwarts teachers would have a disincentive to teaching the champions 
anything that would have helped them, and the schedules/classes wouldn't 
have aligned. Plus, imagine the hero's welcome even the other students who 
didn't get to compete would have on their daily arrival back at their 
school, since they were witnesses and could report back on what Hogwarts was 
like, what happened at each test, and all that was new that they saw. But, 
even if they didn't have fireplaces connected, I imagine there were magical 
means for the homework and exercises to be delivered to them daily. This was 
a magical world, after all. Daily memories of the classes could have been 
delivered in small vials, and a pensive kept aboard the ship and carriage so 
the students could attend that class that way. We don't have information on 
how they did it, but the subject certainly would provide lots of basis for 
fan writings or spin off stories.

Shelley






From samajdar.parantap at gmail.com  Mon Mar 23 15:32:25 2009
From: samajdar.parantap at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:32:25 -0000
Subject: GoF queries ...
In-Reply-To: <gq6vg2+hkjq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gq8a29+3ieu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186098

> zanooda:
> We don't know exactly when and what kind of exams foreign
> students take. For example, Fleur mentioned in HBP that at
> Beauxbatons they have some important examination (something
> similar to OWLs, I suppose) after six years of study, not
> after five years, like in Britain. We just don't have enough
> information about foreign schools examination practices to
> judge :-).

samajdar_parantap:
Agreed .. examinations may not be a problem. But still
spending a complete year in a carriage / ship sounds
impossible for a group of students - specially when they
are not even in the competition - looks like a big break
in their education.

> <snip>
> zanooda:
>
> I don't know, when Bagman explained the rules of the third
> task, he didn't say that the champion who touches the cup
> first is the winner, he just said that he/she will receive
> "full marks". I thought "full marks" meant the highest
> possible grade or something of the sort :-). For instance,
> the first champion to reach the cup gets 50 points (which
> are added to his total score), the second one - 45 etc. Of
> course, I may be wrong, it's just how I understood "full
> marks" :-).


samajdar_parantap:
Completely missed the "full marks" part :D Thanks for
reminding.





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Mar 23 19:36:20 2009
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:36:20 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin / Scoring of Triwizard Tournament
In-Reply-To: <gq6alc+cnf2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gq8obk+6b9f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186099

> Catlady:
> One spell in English is Tonks's 'Locomotor trunk!' Which ought to be 'Locomotor cysta!'

Zara:
I took this to mean that the spell incantation was "Locomotor!" Rather as one might "Accio broomstick!" or "Accio Professor Dumbledore's Dark Arts Book collection!"

> samajdar_parantap: 
> In the beginning [of the Triwizard Tournament] it is said that the champion with total highest score in the three phases of the game will win. But in the third task ? one who touches the cup first wins irrespective of total points. Seeker syndrome again? 

Zara:
The Champions were allowed into the Maze at different times, depending on their point totals after two challenges. This suggests a scoring scheme comparable to that used in such Muggle athletic events as the Nordic Biathlon. In it, skiers who score a lot of points on the event of shooting at targets, get a head-start in the second and final event, a cross-country skiing race, over skiers who are less accurate in the first event. The winner is the athlete who crosses the finish line first, but I believe that the final scores for the event are given as point totals. There is some correspnedencce between points and time spent skiing, and the initial head starts are granted in such a way that the first person to finish, IS the person with the highest point total.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Mar 23 22:15:58 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:15:58 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin / Scoring of Triwizard Tournament
In-Reply-To: <gq8obk+6b9f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gq91mu+v5r1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186101

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

Catlady:
> > One spell in English is Tonks's 'Locomotor trunk!' Which ought to be 'Locomotor cysta!'
 
Zara:
> I took this to mean that the spell incantation was "Locomotor!" Rather as one might "Accio broomstick!" or "Accio Professor Dumbledore's Dark Arts Book collection!"

Geoff:
Harry does something similar in the first GOF task when he shouts 
"Accio Firebolt".

Shelley makes a useful point when mentioning trying to stop a child 
if the [parent had to translate their name into Latin.

Imagine if Harry had to use the Latin form of a word in a confrontation 
with Voldemort:
"Hang on a minute, Tom old chap. Bear with me, I'm trying to remember 
the Latin word for a hatchet because I want to summon one with which 
to hit."
:-)
you."




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Mar 24 12:49:11 2009
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:49:11 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <gq8ejg+v3g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gqaks7+hiph@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186102

 
> Kemper now:
> An even simpler answer would be tradition.  
> As there is at least one spell outside of a Latin root, it would seem that Latin isn't necessary for a spell to work effectively.  Avada Kedavra seems potent and serviceable enough to be getting on with. 
> 

Potioncat:
It's also tradition in our world that magicians use some sort of ancient or unknown phrase to make their magic work. Just about any birthday party magician will ask the party-goers to "Say the magic words_________" before doing some special trick. (hocus pocus, abracadabra, etc)

So JKR mainly used Latin, ancient yet familiar, and not well known. (At least, not well known in the US) So it gives the air of being magical, and lets some of us work out its meaning. It also gave her some framework for creating her spells.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 24 20:04:29 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:04:29 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <5439AE688F844BF8A11F0DCEE2C7A400@homemain>
Message-ID: <gqbecd+s3m1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186103

Shelley wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> Actually, a simple answer to "why Latin at all" might simply date back to a time when only the most learned men had formal studies in magic, similar to the dark ages when only monks could read and kept learning alive, if the general population did not have access to magic schools. Those select few would have been educated in Latin, meaning most of the spells they created would have Latin names as part of keeping that learning segregated from the general population.

Carol responds:

It could go back even farther to the days of the Roman Empire, when Latin was the lingua franca for the western half of the empire (as Koine Greek was for the eastern half). The various Latin tribes and Romanized Celts (except for those in Britain) all eventually ended up speaking some form of Latin (which later evolved into the Romance languages). Meanwhile, as you say, Church Latin was kept alive and taught to the educated few in western Europe during the Dark Ages and was still taught in the schools and colleges of medieval and Renaissance Europe. Before the Statute of Secrecy, it was probably taught at Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and possibly Durmstrang (depending whether it's east or west of the dividing line between Roman and Greek Orthodox Christianity. We have magical monks and friars at Hogwarts who may well have attended Hogwarts and joined Mugglle monasteries, no questions asked (either that or the Wizards had their own monasteries). Naturally, most of the spells from that era (approximately the 382 BC of the Ollivander family's wandmaking beginnings to AD 1692), at least those created west of what became the Byzantine Empire, would be in Latin because they'd be created by educated Wizards--or, at least, the spells taught at Hogwarts and Beauxbatons would be. Meanwhile, other(probably equivalent) spells would be created in Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian, Gaelic, Chinese, and many other languages. As the Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples became Christianized, they would begin casting most of their spells in Latin (or Greek, in the case of some Slavic peoples) as well.

At any rate, that's how I envision it.

Carol, who is currently reading a history of Europe because she can't find any fiction to hold her interest  





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 24 19:40:23 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:40:23 -0000
Subject: GoF queries ... foreign students' studies
In-Reply-To: <gq8aal+2m0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gqbcv7+237b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186104

Lynda wrote:
> > <snip> They would of course still be having classes just like Harry does.
> 
> 
> samajdar_parantap:
> How will they? They are with just one teacher .. it will be
> kind of self-study for them.  In case they attend Hogwarts
> classes - I doubt their curriculum can integrate seamlessly.
> But yeah - we don't have any information to debate on that.


Carol responds:

Since the story is written from Harry's pov, we don't really know what happened with the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students, so we're free to speculate. Viktor Krum spent a lot of time in the library (but not studying). He and Fleur would also have spent time preparing for each task (we see Viktor swimming in the cold lake, for example, before the second task). Their classmates, however, would have no tasks to prepare for, and, if the Beauxbatons students take their exams after the sixth year as Fleur says, their seventh year is just bonus study, anyway.

However, I can't see a bunch of students from two foreign schools just running around loose around the Hogwarts school and grounds, especially after someone (we know who but DD and his staff don't) put Harry's name in the GoF. They would need to be supervised and they would need something to do (other than eating and sleeping). I see three possibilities: 1) The headmaster or headmistress tutored them in the equivalent of NEWT DADA, Potions, Charms, and Transfiguration (the most important subjects, which probably don't differ that much from the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang curriculum except that Durmstrang ostensibly taught the Dark Arts); 2) the students studied on their own, perhaps using owls to send assignments to their instructors back home, with access to the Hogwarts library and occasional help from the headmaster or -mistress (Madame Maxime being probably more accessible in this regard than Professor Karkaroff); or 3) the Durmstrang and Beauzbatons attended (or at least sat in on) the Hogwarts NEWT-level classes in Potions, DADA, Transfiguration, Charms, Herbology, and any others of interest to them such as Astronomy or Ancient Runes (probably not Muggle Studies, at least among the Durmstrang students). I suspect that Snape, for example, would have been more than happy to work with any gifted Potions students from other schools.

Carol, who thinks that Madame Maxime and Karkaroff must have done *some* teaching, if only to their champions, or they'd have been as bored as their students by the long stay at Hogwarts







From bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net  Thu Mar 26 01:43:26 2009
From: bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:43:26 -0400
Subject: Magical Latin
Message-ID: <EAC8248492D84FA59EC2317A7E88CD51@d600xpp>

No: HPFGUIDX 186105

"Hocus pocus" is  itself corrupted Latin, from "hoc est 
corpus"--"This is the Body," what the priest says when 
he touches the bread at Mass.

"Abracadabra" is Semitic--either Hebrew or Aramaic.  
"Aba-beni-ruach-akadosh"--Father Son & Holy Spirit.

So even our 'real world' "magic words are Latin and 
Hebrew/Aramaic.

BAW



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Mar 26 20:58:12 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:58:12 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <EAC8248492D84FA59EC2317A7E88CD51@d600xpp>
Message-ID: <gqgq94+6drq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186106

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" <bruce_alan_wilson at ...> wrote:

BAW:
> "Hocus pocus" is  itself corrupted Latin, from "hoc est 
> corpus"--"This is the Body," what the priest says when 
> he touches the bread at Mass.
> 
> "Abracadabra" is Semitic--either Hebrew or Aramaic.  
> "Aba-beni-ruach-akadosh"--Father Son & Holy Spirit.
> 
> So even our 'real world' "magic words are Latin and 
> Hebrew/Aramaic.

Geoff:
Wikipedia seems to take a different line to you and, 
interestingly enough, closer to JKR's spelling and use:

'The original Aramaic was either &#1489; 9;, avda kedavra, 
which means, "what was said has been done," or  ;, 
avra kedavra, which means "what was said has come to pass" 
or "caused to perish like the word."'





From no.limberger at gmail.com  Fri Mar 27 15:30:37 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:30:37 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <gqbecd+s3m1@eGroups.com>
References: <5439AE688F844BF8A11F0DCEE2C7A400@homemain>
	 <gqbecd+s3m1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90903270830h4878e22bxeb5190bf6a890a9a@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186107

> Carol responds:
> It could go back even farther to the days of the Roman Empire, when Latin was the lingua franca for the western half of the empire (as Koine Greek was for the eastern half). The various Latin tribes and Romanized Celts except for those in Britain) all eventually ended up speaking some form of Latin (which later evolved into the Romance languages). Meanwhile, as you say, Church Latin was kept alive and
taught to the educated few in western Europe during the Dark Ages and was still taught in the schools and colleges of medieval and Renaissance Europe. Before the Statute of Secrecy, it was probably taught at Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and possibly Durmstrang (depending whether it's east or west of the dividing line between Roman and Greek Orthodox Christianity. We have magical monks and friars at Hogwarts who may well have attended Hogwarts and joined Mugglle monasteries, no questions asked (either that or the Wizards had their own monasteries).
> Naturally, most of the spells from that era (approximately the 382 BC of the Ollivander family's wandmaking beginnings to AD 1692), at least those created west of what became the Byzantine Empire, would be in Latin because they'd be created by educated Wizards--or, at least, the spells taught at Hogwarts and Beauxbatons would be. Meanwhile, other(probably equivalent) spells would be created in
Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian, Gaelic, Chinese, and many other languages. As the Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples became Christianized, they would begin casting most of their spells in Latin (or Greek, in the case of some Slavic peoples) as well.

No.Limberger responds:

I agree that since the ancient Roman Empire once occupied most of Europe,Latin evolved into a universal language. While it was then adopted later by the Roman Catholic Church, I don't believe that the spread of early Christianity would be the underlying reason to draw the few who could afford an education (since there was no free public education in the Middle Ages) to learn Latin.  During the Middle Ages & Renaissance, those who could afford an education would be taught Greek & Latin in order to read works by ancient Greek philosophers and histories of Rome(and other works) that were written in Latin. As Renaissance mathematicians and other educated individuals began to write & publish their own works, they tended to write their works in Latin because of the likelihood that anyone with an education would be able to read them.  Thus, given that there is no indication that anyone in the wizarding world attends church services or is in any way religious, it seems unlikely that there would have been an active influence from the Catholic Church on the wizarding world; but education would more likely be an influence.

There is an additional possible reason for the use of Latin for casting spells.  Unlike English and many other languages, Latin is an inflected language.  A few examples of inflected languages today include Russian, Polish, German (via its definite articles), and Serbo-Croation.  In an inflected language, suffixes are typically added to the ends of nouns and adjectives to indicate the part of speech and/or gender.  Latin contains six declension cases:
the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative cases.

There is also a seventh locative case that is rarely less used.  (By comparison, German has four cases and Serbo-Croation has seven cases.)  English also contains cases, but is not inflected: the cases are defined either by position within the sentence or through the use of prepositions.  With inflection, Latin has no prepositions (it doesn't need any), neither does it have any definite or indefinite articles.  Latin also has a very rich method of verb conjugation.  So, the number of words necessary in English to express an idea is far greater than in Latin.

Additionally, since Latin is inflected, word order makes no difference: regardless of how the words are arranged,
unlike English, the meaning is the same. Thus, for spell casting, fewer words for each spell have to be memorized in Latin.

Hence, Latin simplifies the teaching of spells regardless of the primary spoken language of the wizard or witch, it preserves spells written in ancient times that have been passed down from generation to generation, and it reduces the number of words that have to be memorized for each spell.



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Mar 27 18:36:20 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:36:20 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903270830h4878e22bxeb5190bf6a890a9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gqj6b4+jqbm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186108

Carol earlier:
> > It could go back even farther to the days of the Roman Empire, when Latin was the lingua franca for the western half of the empire (as Koine Greek was for the eastern half). The various Latin tribes and Romanized Celts except for those in Britain) all eventually ended up speaking some form of Latin (which later evolved into the Romance languages). Meanwhile, as you say, Church Latin was kept alive and taught to the educated few in western Europe during the Dark Ages and was still taught in the schools and colleges of medieval and Renaissance Europe. Before the Statute of Secrecy, it was probably taught at Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and possibly Durmstrang (depending whether it's east or west of the dividing line between Roman and Greek Orthodox Christianity. We have magical monks and friars at Hogwarts who may well have attended Hogwarts and joined Mugglle monasteries, no questions asked (either that or the Wizards had their own monasteries).
> > Naturally, most of the spells from that era (approximately the 382 BC of the Ollivander family's wandmaking beginnings to AD 1692), at least those created west of what became the Byzantine Empire, would be in Latin because they'd be created by educated Wizards--or, at least, the spells taught at Hogwarts and Beauxbatons would be. Meanwhile, other (probably equivalent) spells would be created in Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian, Gaelic, Chinese, and many other languages. As the Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples became Christianized, they would begin casting most of their spells in Latin (or Greek, in the case of some Slavic peoples) as well.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> 
> I agree that since the ancient Roman Empire once occupied most of Europe, Latin evolved into a universal language. While it was then adopted later by the Roman Catholic Church, I don't believe that the spread of early Christianity would be the underlying reason to draw the few who could afford an education (since there was no free public education in the Middle Ages) to learn Latin.  During the Middle Ages & Renaissance, those who could afford an education would be taught Greek & Latin in order to read works by ancient Greek philosophers and histories of Rome(and other works) that were written in Latin. As Renaissance mathematicians and other educated individuals began to write & publish their own works, they tended to write their works in Latin because of the likelihood that anyone with an education would be able to read them.  Thus, given that there is no indication that anyone in the wizarding world attends church services or is in any way religious, it seems unlikely that there would have been an active influence from the Catholic Church on the wizarding world; but education would more likely be an influence.
> 
> There is an additional possible reason for the use of Latin for casting spells.  Unlike English and many other languages, Latin is an inflected language.  A few examples of inflected languages today include Russian, Polish, German (via its definite articles), and Serbo-Croation.  In an inflected language, suffixes are typically added to the ends of nouns and adjectives to indicate the part of speech and/or gender.  Latin contains six declension cases:
> the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative cases.
> 
> There is also a seventh locative case that is rarely less used.  (By comparison, German has four cases and Serbo-Croation has seven cases.)  English also contains cases, but is not inflected: the cases are defined either by position within the sentence or through the use of prepositions.  With inflection, Latin has no prepositions (it doesn't need any), neither does it have any definite or indefinite articles.  Latin also has a very rich method of verb conjugation.  So, the number of words necessary in English to express an idea is far greater than in Latin.
> 
> Additionally, since Latin is inflected, word order makes no difference: regardless of how the words are arranged,
> unlike English, the meaning is the same. Thus, for spell casting, fewer words for each spell have to be memorized in Latin.
> 
> Hence, Latin simplifies the teaching of spells regardless of the primary spoken language of the wizard or witch, it preserves spells written in ancient times that have been passed down from generation to generation, and it reduces the number of words that have to be memorized for each spell.
>
Carol again:

first, thanks for responding to my post. I'm glad that someone else is interested in the hypothetical history of the (European) WW.

Let me just respond to a few points. First, between the fall of the western Roman Empire and the Renaissance, no one (or virtually no one) in the West was learning Greek. You had what remained of the Latin peoples, the Romanized Celts, and various barbarians, mostly Germanic but also including Picts, Scots, and even Huns, all of whom at that point spoke their own languages. Latin was preserved in the churches and monasteries. Anyone in the West who was literate read and wrote in Latin. The only education was provided by the Church or by clerics. Even kings and emperors were often illiterate in the so-called Dark Ages. (I like the story of Charlemagne keeping the alphabet under his pillow and struggling to learn it.) Even though Alfred the Great and others promoted literacy in their own languages (in his case, anglo-saxon) as well as Latin, their intention was primarily to spread Christianity (equivalent in their minds to "civilization"). Until the founding of Hogwarts around AD 1000, those Muggle scholars, mostly monks, would have been the only teachers available to young Wizards (unless they were home-schooled). 

The languages of the Gauls and other Romanized Celts eventually evolved into the various Romance languages; the Germanic languages eventually evolved into German, English, Dutch, etc. Some of the Celtic peoples, chiefly in the British Isles, kept their own languages, and young Wizards who weren't sent to the Muggle schools to learn Latin must have learned spells in their own languages. Young Witches would have had even more limited opportunities for education. Perhaps they were taught spells in their native language by their Witch mothers. Unlike Latin, however, none of those languages seems to be a *traditional* spell-casting language (unless such spells aren't taught at Hogwarts) though recent spells seem to have been invented in the language spoken by the inventor ("Obliviate," for example).

All of these peoples (except the Huns) became Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, by about AD 1000 (though there may have been pockets of people secretly practicing old religions such as Druidism as there were certainly "heretics"). Hogwarts, like the Muggle universities it seems to be based on (though it educates younger children of both sexes) would have shared that heritage. Classes most likely would have been conducted in Latin, a lingua franca for the Celtic, Anglo-Szxon, and Norman students, and the Christian holidays Christmas and Easter would have been celebrated then as now (though probably in different ways--no Father Christmas or chocolate Easter eggs, for example). We also have paintings of monks and the ghost of a friar, clear evidence of overlap between the Christian Muggle world and the WW before the Statute of Secrecy in 1692. (I realize that these holidays incorporate pagan elements, but the fact of their celebration suggests a Christian background to the school. The secularization within Hogwarts parallels the secularization of the outside world, especially Britain, but that secularization is largely a twentieth- (and twenty first-) century phenomenon.

With regard to Latin's being an inflected language, that's a good point, not so much because of the declensions as because of the conjugations. Most of the spells use the first-person singular form of the verb. (It would make more sense, IMO, to use the imperative mood, but maybe JKR wasn't familiar with it.) 

Setting aside real Muggle history and speculative WW history, probably the spells are in Latin (or dog Latin, not to be confused with pig Latin!) is that they "sound" magical (and vaguely medieval, in keeping with robes, cloaks, and castles with dungeons).

As a sidenote, I'm surprised that JKR's magical world contains so few Celtic elements. The Celts, especially the Druids, seem much more magical and mystical than the practical-minded Anglo-Saxons. I used to think of the Veil of Death in the Department of Mysteries, or rather, the archway that the veil covers, as a portal to the Underworld perhaps used in ritual sacrifices by the Druids. Maybe Salazar Slytherin was a Druid who considered himself a victim of religious persecution by Christian Muggles, but, clearly, he was in the minority given the celebration of Christian holidays at Hogwarts (and of Christmas by the people of Hogsmeade, if it existed in his time).

Carol, noting that the continued use of Latin as a lingua franca after the fall of the western Roman Empire is intimately connected with the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of Europe, especially Western Europe, as "Christendom" throughout the "Dark" and Middle Ages




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Mar 27 21:13:19 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:13:19 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903270830h4878e22bxeb5190bf6a890a9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gqjfhf+kcve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186109

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger <no.limberger at ...> wrote:

No.Limberger: 
> I agree that since the ancient Roman Empire once occupied most of Europe,Latin evolved into a universal language. While it was then adopted later by the Roman Catholic Church, I don't believe that the spread of early Christianity would be the underlying reason to draw the few who could afford an education (since there was no free public education in the Middle Ages) to learn Latin.  During the Middle Ages & Renaissance, those who could afford an education would be taught Greek & Latin in order to read works by ancient Greek philosophers and histories of Rome(and other works) that were written in Latin. As Renaissance mathematicians and other educated individuals began to write & publish their own works, they tended to write their works in Latin because of the likelihood that anyone with an education would be able to read them.  Thus, given that there is no indication that anyone in the wizarding world attends church services or is in any way religious, it seems unlikely that there would have been an active influence from the Catholic Church on the wizarding world; but education would more likely be an influence.

Geoff:
I would agree that Latin acted as a lingua franca. In the same way, 
English does today, especially with speakers who belong to a small 
linguistic group. It is widely used also in communications for air traffic 
and naval contacts and, of course, the spread of computing which has 
most basic commands in English has encouraged this development 
even further.

However, as I said a few days ago, education was often conducted in 
the monasteries and abbeys so that students would not only be taught 
in Latin but would also come in contact with Christianity - in particular 
Catholicism.

I might say that the fact that we see no particular evidence of worship 
in the Wizarding World does not rule it out. It is just not germane to 
the story lines n the same way that we are not told regularly when Harry 
goes for a bath or changes his socks.

No.Limberger:
> There is an additional possible reason for the use of Latin for casting spells.  Unlike English and many other languages, Latin is an inflected language.  A few examples of inflected languages today include Russian, Polish, German (via its definite articles), and Serbo-Croation.  In an inflected language, suffixes are typically added to the ends of nouns and adjectives to indicate the part of speech and/or gender.  Latin contains six declension cases:
> the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative cases.
> 
> There is also a seventh locative case that is rarely less used.  (By comparison, 
German has four cases and Serbo-Croation has seven cases.)  English also 
contains cases, but is not inflected: the cases are defined either by position 
within the sentence or through the use of prepositions.  With inflection, Latin 
has no prepositions (it doesn't need any), neither does it have any definite or 
indefinite articles.  Latin also has a very rich method of verb conjugation.  So, 
the number of words necessary in English to express an idea is far greater 
than in Latin.

Geoff:
You seem to have overlooked French which certainly has inflections for 
gender.

English does contain remnants of inflections which can operate without 
prepositions, especially personal pronouns. Examples include: him, her, 
me, mine.... inter alia.

Odd that I studied Latin to the equivalent of OWL level and do not recall 
a locative case; my Oxford Latin primer seems not to know either. In the 
UK, the cases are normally quoted in the order Nominative, Vocative, 
Accusative, Genitive, Dative and Ablative but that's perhaps a matter of 
taste.

The great virtue of using extra words in English is that we can express 
far more nuances of meaning than Latin - and many other modern 
languages.

No.Limberger:
> Additionally, since Latin is inflected, word order makes no difference: regardless of how the words are arranged,
> unlike English, the meaning is the same. Thus, for spell casting, fewer words for each spell have to be memorized in Latin.
> 
> Hence, Latin simplifies the teaching of spells regardless of the primary spoken language of the wizard or witch, it preserves spells written in ancient times that have been passed down from generation to generation, and it reduces the number of words that have to be memorized for each spell.

Geoff:
Quite true. You can play with word order in English - and also in 
German - to an extent but the classic Hogwarts case of this is, of course, 
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" which, although slighty inaccurate 
Latin can be shunted around without losing its meaning.







From bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net  Sat Mar 28 22:49:42 2009
From: bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:49:42 -0400
Subject: Magical Latin
Message-ID: <07CE8B4A2CBB418EB4C87BE04C3DA8B4@d600xpp>

No: HPFGUIDX 186110

No.Limburger:

"Thus, given that there is no indication that anyone in the wizarding world attends church services or is in any way religious, it seems unlikely that there would have been an active influence from the Catholic Church on the wizarding world; but education would more likely be an influence."

NO indication?

>Harry was baptized.
>The Hogwarts ghosts include monks, nuns, and friars.
>Bible quotes on the Potter and Dumbledore monuments.
>Wizardling families represented in the Christian graveyard in DH.
>Wizards celebrate Christmas, All Saints, and Easter (the only carols mentioned specifically were religious ones, not secular).

There is more indication of religious life among the Wizards than among the Muggles!  When did the Dursleys ever go to church, or send Dudders to Sunday School?

BAW

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




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Mar 29 16:57:52 2009
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 29 Mar 2009 16:57:52 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 3/29/2009, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1238345872.13.48356.m2@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186111

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday March 29, 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/20090329/84f7e258/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Mar 29 22:24:40 2009
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:24:40 -0000
Subject: Why Latin / foreign students / abracadabra
Message-ID: <gqosf8+66nn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186112

k12listmomma Shelley wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186094>:

<< Actually, a simple answer to "why Latin at all" might simply date back to a time when only the most learned men had formal studies in magic, similar to the dark ages when only monks could read and kept learning alive, if the general population did not have access to magic schools. Those select few would have been educated in Latin, meaning most of the spells they created would have Latin names as part of keeping that learning segregated from the general population. >>

Carol, in the same thread, wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186108>:

<< Anyone in the West who was literate read and wrote in Latin. The only education was provided by the Church or by clerics. Even kings and emperors were often illiterate in the so-called Dark Ages. (I like the story of Charlemagne keeping the alphabet under his pillow and struggling to learn it.) Even though Alfred the Great and others promoted literacy in their own languages (in his case, anglo-saxon) as well as Latin, their intention was primarily to spread Christianity (equivalent in their minds to "civilization"). Until the founding of Hogwarts around AD 1000, those Muggle scholars, mostly monks, would have been the only teachers available to young Wizards (unless they were home-schooled). >>

The question is how much the wizarding general population was separate from the Muggle general population in Antiquity, Late Antiquity aka Early Middle Ages, and High Middle Ages. In the Potterverse, I believe they were in contact (all those court wizards and village witches really were wizards and witches) but the wizarding folk had enough view of themselves as a separate community that they were able to elect their own separate government, such as the Warlocks Council and Chief Wizard Barbarus Bragge. They had owl mail as a much more reliable postal system than European Muggles had then, and they had Apparation and broomstick flight and hippogriff flight to get together in person. 

In Britain, the wizarding culture did not collapse as much as the Muggle culture did when the Romans left, as shown by the ability of the Ollivander family wand making business to keep track of the exact year the business was founded. I think they never lost their business records to fires, wars, or similar disruptions.

The magical community as a separate community would be very concerned to teach their children magic, with whatever language and literacy that involved... Somehow I am reminded of Jews in the Diaspora who managed to teach Hebrew/Aramaic language and literacy to most of their sons without attending monastery schools, and they didn't even have owl mail. Home schooling, tutors, little bitty schools paid for by parents and donors... I don't think most wizards and witches would have been willing to entrust their children to Muggle teachers, regardless of being monks.

The wizarding community as a separate community would be more concerned to keep their magical learning away from learned Muggles than from unlearned wizards. 

The wizarding community may have been multiple communities separated by language, with British, Gaelic, Pictish, Saxon, and Latinate speaking communities. If so, translation spells (a pebble to put in your mouth so all your listeners hear you in their own language, or a feather to put in your ear so you hear everything in your own language) must have been valuable.

samajdar_parantap wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186096>:

<< In case [the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students] attend Hogwarts classes - I doubt their curriculum can integrate seamlessly. >>

Nowadays in developed countries, most Muggles think that the exchange student advantages of experiencing a foreign country and meeting foreign friends (and hopefully improving one's ability to speak their language) outweigh the disadvantages of adjusting to the host country's curriculum.

Geoff wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/186106>:

<< Wikipedia seems (snip) closer to JKR's spelling and use (snip) avra kedavra, which means "what was said has come to pass" or "caused to perish like the word."'>>

Thanks! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra> While 'what was said has come to pass' resembles modern phrases like 'so mote it be' and 'as I have said, so it be done', 'caused to perish like the word' seems more relevant to the 'inverted cone' shown in the Wikipedia article 'as an incantation to be used as a cure for fevers and inflammations'. The word vanishes in the inverted cone and the fever vanishes as well. Maybe I should try it on my current obnoxious cold.




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Mar 31 03:12:11 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:12:11 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <07CE8B4A2CBB418EB4C87BE04C3DA8B4@d600xpp>
References: <07CE8B4A2CBB418EB4C87BE04C3DA8B4@d600xpp>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90903302012y2b6b4fc6q180c398c49d48749@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186113

>BAW responded:
>Harry was baptized.
>The Hogwarts ghosts include monks, nuns, and friars.
>Bible quotes on the Potter and Dumbledore monuments.
>Wizardling families represented in the Christian graveyard in DH.
>Wizards celebrate Christmas, All Saints, and Easter (the only carols
mentioned specifically were religious ones, not secular).

>There is more indication of religious life among the Wizards than among the
Muggles! When did the Dursleys ever go to church,
>or send Dudders to Sunday School?

No.Limberger responds:

I have no recollection of Harry Potter ever being baptized.  If you have a
reference, I would be interested in reading it.  I also have no
recollection of any quotations from the bible on the Potter or Dumbledore
monuments, but would appreciate a reference
so that I could read it.

As for the holidays, Christmas, as it is called today by Christians, is a
much more ancient Pagan holiday that celebrates the
perceived rebirth of the sun as it apparently moves towards the northern
hemisphere shortly after the winter solstice.  The holiday
was adopted and rewritten by the Roman Catholic Church to be a celebration
of the birth of Jesus in an effort to remove Pagan
holidays from the minds of Pagan Europeans, but Pagan symbols such as
evergreen trees, lights and the yule log remain.
Halloween (or what some Christians call "All Saints Day") was originally
called Samhain, and is, again, originally a Pagan
celebration that viewed that day as when the veil between the worlds of life
& death was its thinnest, permitting
communication between the living and the dead.  In Mexico, this is
celebrated as "La Dia de los Muertos" or "The Day of the Dead"
and is a time when families travel to the graves of loved ones to remember
their loved ones.  Easter, as it was renamed by
Christians, was also a Pagan holiday known as Ostara that celebrates the
return of spring and fertility: hence the symbolism of
eggs and rabbits, which remain as remnants of the original Pagan holiday.

My impression of the wizarding world as designed by JK Rowling is that
wizards & witches predate Christianity by countless
centuries.  Thus, while a significant portion of the muggle world adopted a
particular religion, this could easily be regarded
as relatively unimportant in the wizarding world.  While it's possible that
some wizards & witches may be Christian, the fact
that there are wizards & witches in living throughout the world means that
they would also be living in predominantly
non-Christian countries.  Wizards & witches are a minority and my impression
is that they, like other minority groups (in this case,
muggle minorities) are not necessarily going to adopt the beliefs of the
prevailing majority.  Just becuase people put up
Christmas trees doesn't mean that they are Christian.  Christman trees are
very popular in Japan, which is predominantly
Bhuddist/Shinto.

Religion is a topic that is very vague in JK Rowling's Harry Potter books &
universe.  If it is really as Christian as some suggest
here, then it is doubtful that so many Christian churches would be opposed
to them and they would not be having Harry Potter
book burnings as some have done.  Reference:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/pottera.htm.




From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Tue Mar 31 04:36:51 2009
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:36:51 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Latin
Message-ID: <c83.341c6df9.3702f7e3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186114

In a message dated 3/30/2009 10:22:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
no.limberger at gmail.com writes:

. If it is really as Christian as some suggest
here, then it is  doubtful that so many Christian churches would be opposed
to them and they  would not be having Harry Potter
book burnings as some have  done.
 
Not necessarily. 
 
I would suspect that many who have participated in book  burnings haven't  
read the books.
 
A case in point.  I was sitting in a hospital waiting  room reading GOF.   A 
35-ish man,  nicely dressed and rather  clean cut was sitting across from me.  
He saw my book and immediately  started in on how the books promoted 
witchcraft and were very satanic  * in  their teaching*. 
 
I just rolled my eyes him and asked if he had  even bothered reading one.  I 
wasn't a bit  surprised when he said  no.
 
 
Mel
 
**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a 
recession. 
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)


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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar 31 06:57:09 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:57:09 -0000
Subject: Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin)
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903302012y2b6b4fc6q180c398c49d48749@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gqses5+2r0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186115

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, No Limberger <no.limberger at ...> wrote:

No.Limberger:
> I have no recollection of Harry Potter ever being baptized.  If you have a
> reference, I would be interested in reading it.  I also have no
> recollection of any quotations from the bible on the Potter or Dumbledore
> monuments, but would appreciate a reference
> so that I could read it.

Geoff:
Two points from this.

First, you need to remember that JKR is English and the 
Harry Potter books are set within the UK environment 
and culture.

If a reference is made to a child's godfather, then this 
will immediately imply to a UK reader that the child was 
baptised, probably within the Church of England (or the 
Roman Catholic Church).

Sirius Black is clearly designated as Harry's godfather in 
more than one place in the books.

Second, the epitaphs on the two gravestones are most 
certainly Christian.

That on the grave of Kendra and Ariana Dumbledore reads:
"Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also". This 
is a quote from Christ's Sermon on the Mount which occurs 
in the New Testament - Matthew 6:21 - and is also quoted 
again at Luke 12:34. 
(DH "Godric's Hollow" p.266 UK edition)

The quote on the Potters' grave is ""The last enemy that 
shall be destroyed is death" which is taken from Paul's first 
letter to the Christians at Corinth - 1 Corinthians 15:26.
(ibid. p.268)

I shall come back to some of your other observations 
hopefully later today when i have more time - it being 
but 07:55 here in the UK at the moment.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 31 14:09:24 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:09:24 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903302012y2b6b4fc6q180c398c49d48749@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gqt86k+trjk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186116

> No.Limberger responds:
> 
 While it's possible that
> some wizards & witches may be Christian, the fact
> that there are wizards & witches in living throughout the world means that
> they would also be living in predominantly
> non-Christian countries.  Wizards & witches are a minority and my impression
> is that they, like other minority groups (in this case,
> muggle minorities) are not necessarily going to adopt the beliefs of the
> prevailing majority.  Just becuase people put up
> Christmas trees doesn't mean that they are Christian.  Christman trees are
> very popular in Japan, which is predominantly
> Bhuddist/Shinto.

If it is really as Christian as some suggest
> here, then it is doubtful that so many Christian churches would be opposed
> to them and they would not be having Harry Potter
> book burnings as some have done. 

I think Geoff already identified the gravestone quotes, and pointed out that if Sirius is a godfather that means Harry was baptized. Others have mentioned that we have a friar wandering the halls of Hogwarts. But also, there's no indication that Wizards live predominantly in non-Christian countries. From what we see Wizard culture actually does reflect the culture of their country (they receive Muggleborns from that culture every year as well) and we hear about Wizards throughout Europe and from America. Non-Christians live in all those countries, of course, but none of them are non-Christian countries.

As to whether there would be book burnings if they were as Christian as people suggest, sure they would. The characters in HP--both Muggles like the Dursleys and Wizards like the Weasleys--are basically secular but with the same religious touchstones as people in Muggle England. (Basically a Christian background, but with students from other backgrounds as well--the Patils might be Hindu, for instance, and Anthony Goldstein might be Jewish.) I'm sure Dudley was baptized just like Harry was, whether or not the Dursleys attend church regularly. The Christian objection to Potter has nothing to do with the characters being Christian or not, but to the fact that they do magic, which some consider teaching witchcraft to kids. Religiously, the Potterverse is pretty much just the UK.

-m




From kenadams705 at btinternet.com  Tue Mar 31 13:32:08 2009
From: kenadams705 at btinternet.com (KEN ADAMS)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:32:08 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin)
References: <gqses5+2r0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <515633.47784.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186117

No.Limberger:
> I have no recollection of Harry Potter ever being baptized. If you have a
> reference, I would be interested in reading it. I also have no
> recollection of any quotations from the bible on the Potter or Dumbledore
> monuments, but would appreciate a reference
> so that I could read it.

Geoff:
Two points from this.

First, you need to remember that JKR is English and the
Harry Potter books are set within the UK environment
and culture.

If a reference is made to a child's godfather, then this
will immediately imply to a UK reader that the child was
baptised, probably within the Church of England (or the
Roman Catholic Church).

Sirius Black is clearly designated as Harry's godfather in
more than one place in the books.

Second, the epitaphs on the two gravestones are most
certainly Christian.

Ken:
The grave of Kendra and Ariana Dumbledore reads:
"Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also". This
is a quote from Christ's Sermon on the Mount which occurs
in the New Testament - Matthew 6:21 - and is also quoted
again at Luke 12:34.
(DH "Godric's Hollow" p.266 UK edition)

The quote on the Potters' grave is ""The last enemy that
shall be destroyed is death" which is taken from Paul's first
letter to the Christians at Corinth - 1 Corinthians 15:26.
(ibid. p.268)


But Geoff? IIRC the message on the grave didn?t mean anything to Harry. Which implies that he was unaware that he was looking at Christian writing presumably because he had no background in Christianity.
I also agree with No. that the various Christian holidays are much younger than those of the early celts and could be considered as being usurped by Christians for, essentially, propaganda purposes.
I am unsure what role Godparents fill in the wizarding world but you are surely aware that they are used in UK today by non-Christians and in many other cultures. It implies, to me, not so much a devotion to God, as to their parents best friend.
Over to you.

KEN



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 31 17:06:11 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:06:11 -0000
Subject: Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin)
In-Reply-To: <515633.47784.qm@web87012.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <gqtii3+9io8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186118

Ken wrote:
> But Geoff?  IIRC the message on the grave didn???t mean anything to Harry. Which implies that he was unaware that he was looking at Christian writing presumably because he had no background in Christianity.

> I also agree with No.[Limburger] that the various Christian holidays are much younger than those of the early celts and could be considered as being usurped by Christians for, essentially, propaganda purposes.

Carol responds:
Harry's lack of awareness of biblical quotations and their significance has nothing to do with the WW per se. It merely indicates that the Dursleys (who reared him, at least nominally) are secular Muggles who probably don't go to church. They do, however, celebrate Christmas, if only as another way of indulging Dudley and showing Harry his insignificance (in their view) by giving him a tissue or a toothpick. If they were not at least nominally Christian (like most of the English) they'd choose some other holiday, such as Hanukkah, to serve this purpose. 

As for the Christian legacy of Europe, to deny it is to deny history. Certainly, the missionaries incorporated pagan elements into their holidays to persuade the pagans to convert, but a century later, those formerly pagan tribes were firm in their Christianity. Roman Catholicism was the unifying element in European culture at the time of the founding of Hogwarts and for many centuries afterward. It's only in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries that Europeans (and Americans) have begun denying their Christian heritage. Had JKR set the stories in the nineteenth century or earlier, she would probably have included a chapel as part of the setting. (Geoff can tell use whether Eton and other public [private] schools in England still have them today.)

Ken:
> I am unsure what role Godparents fill in the wizarding world but you are surely aware that they are used in UK today by non-Christians and in many other cultures. It implies, to me, not so much a devotion to God, as to their parents best friend.

Carol responds:
The tradition of godparents in England is Christian in its origins and relates to baptism. It does seem, however, as if it's become secularized in the WW. Lupin simply names Harry as Teddy's godfather without any ceremony, religious or otherwise, being involved. Possibly, if they hadn't all been hiding from Voldemort at the time and life in the WW had been normal, the matter would have been handled differently.

I think, personally, that JKR avoided making the WW overtly Christian (despite the open and lavish celebration of Christmas rather than "the holidays") to avoid controversy. Possibly, she didn't want anyone to feel that she was "imposing" religion on her readers, or she wanted the British WW to reflect the secularization of modern Muggle England. But there's no escaping those Bible verses, placed by Dumbledore on the graves of his mother and sister and of the Potters, or the church-attending citizens of Godric's Hollow, a town that includes Witches and Wizards as well as Muggles among its residents.

Anyone who is European or has European ancestors (mine are mostly English) owes a great debt to our Judeo-Christian heritage, as we do also to the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome (and to a lesser degree to the various Celtic and Germanic cultures). And the WW, which was part of Christendom/Europe until 1692 and still incorporates Muggle elements via Muggle-borns and Half-Bloods, owes the same cultural debts (as we see in part from the mostly Latin spells and the celebration of Christian holidays, however secularized they may be). Little things like Mr. Weasley's "bless them" with regard to Muggles also show this heritage. 

Why deny it? That heritage (modified by scientific knowledge and eighteenth-century political philosophy) is how we (meaning European and American Muggles, as well as any others with a European heritage) came to be who we are, and it would apply at least equally to the WW, which (Mr. Weasley and Charity Burbage aside) would be largely unimpressed by modern Muggle science and technology (Wizarding wireless and Slughorn's odd knowledge of genes to the contrary).

Carol, who suspects that most European Wizards and Witches considered themselves part of Christendom even after Muggles started burning them though they might have translated "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" rather differently than the Muggles did




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Mar 31 17:21:46 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:21:46 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical 
	Latin)
In-Reply-To: <gqses5+2r0d@eGroups.com>
References: <7ef72f90903302012y2b6b4fc6q180c398c49d48749@mail.gmail.com>
	 <gqses5+2r0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90903311021w37e885aaicf708ebff502ad89@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186119

>Geoff responded:
>If a reference is made to a child's godfather, then this
>will immediately imply to a UK reader that the child was
>baptised, probably within the Church of England (or the
>Roman Catholic Church).

>Sirius Black is clearly designated as Harry's godfather in
>more than one place in the books.

No.Limberger responds:

Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, but this does not imply
that Harry was ever taken to a church by James & Lily
Potter to be baptized.  The term "godfather" is used for a
man who is either a sponsor or guardian of a child and does
not necessarily imply that it is used only with regard to
a baptism.

>Geoff responded:
>That on the grave of Kendra and Ariana Dumbledore reads:
>"Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also". This
>is a quote from Christ's Sermon on the Mount which occurs
>in the New Testament - Matthew 6:21 - and is also quoted
>again at Luke 12:34.
>(DH "Godric's Hollow" p.266 UK edition)
>The quote on the Potters' grave is ""The last enemy that
>shall be destroyed is death" which is taken from Paul's first
>letter to the Christians at Corinth - 1 Corinthians 15:26.
>(ibid. p.268)

No.Limberger responds:

Thank you for the citations, very much appreciated.  There are
several things that can be pointed out here.  Throughout the
several thousand pages contained within the seven books, these
are the only two known possible places in which JK Rowling may have
copied from the bible.  The question is: why?  Did she do this
simply to make her books sound more Christian or to imply
that certain characters may be Christian?  I don't think so.  I believe
that she used specific quotes to express a specific meaning
that is relevant to the story itself.


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




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Mar 31 17:34:34 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:34:34 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <gqt86k+trjk@eGroups.com>
References: <7ef72f90903302012y2b6b4fc6q180c398c49d48749@mail.gmail.com>
	 <gqt86k+trjk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90903311034k614a8e0dr2ca8c2574fd09498@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186120

>m responded:
>if Sirius is a godfather that means Harry was baptized.

No.Limberger responds:
Not necessarily.  This is a presumption based upon a preference.

>m responded:
>Others have mentioned that we have a friar wandering the halls of Hogwarts.

No.Limberger responds:
The ghosts that wander the halls of Hogwarts are not limited to friars.

>m responded:
>there's no indication that Wizards live predominantly in non-Christian
countries.

No.Limberger responds:
I never said that.  What I said is that wizards & witches live throughout
the world,
which includes countries that are predominantly non-Christian as 2/3 of the
world
is not Christian.

>m responded:
>As to whether there would be book burnings if they were as Christian as
people
>suggest, sure they would.

No.Limberger responds:
Some Christian groups in the U.S. have burned Harry Potter books.  This is a

fact, and many Christian groups in the U.S. continue to preach against
reading
any Harry Potter books.

>m responds:
>I'm sure Dudley was baptized just like Harry was, whether or not the
Dursleys
>attend church regularly.

No.Limberger responds:
Again, this is presumption based upon a preferred definition of the term
"godfather",
which I responded to Geoff earlier.


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




From no.limberger at gmail.com  Tue Mar 31 13:52:06 2009
From: no.limberger at gmail.com (No Limberger)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:52:06 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <c83.341c6df9.3702f7e3@aol.com>
References: <c83.341c6df9.3702f7e3@aol.com>
Message-ID: <7ef72f90903310652g7731489am531e47789354b5bf@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186121

>Mel responded:
> I would suspect that many who have participated in book burnings haven't
>read the books.

>A case in point. I was sitting in a hospital waiting room reading GOF. A
>35-ish man, nicely dressed and rather clean cut was sitting across from me.

>He saw my book and immediately started in on how the books promoted
>witchcraft and were very satanic * in their teaching*.

>I just rolled my eyes him and asked if he had even bothered reading one. I
>wasn't a bit surprised when he said no.

No.Limberger responds:

Chances are that if a Christian believes that something is satanic, there
is a high likelihood that the Christian will avoid contact with the thing.

Your encounter doesn't surprise me.  There are probably churches to this
day that preach against Harry Potter even though those who preach against it
have probably never bothered to read any of the books for themselves for the
very reason (or excuse) that I cited above.  Also, by remaining ignorant of
the
books' contents, they can continue to use them as something to preach
against.


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




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Mar 31 19:59:33 2009
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:59:33 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903311034k614a8e0dr2ca8c2574fd09498@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gqtsn5+iu6b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186122

> >m responded:
> >Others have mentioned that we have a friar wandering the halls of Hogwarts.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> The ghosts that wander the halls of Hogwarts are not limited to friars.

Magpie:
I'm confused as to what that means. I didn't say they were limited to friars, but just that friars exist as something that exists and is recognized. Just as they would be in the UK. References to specific religions are all Christian (that I remember) but the characters are mostly secular. Harry knows what a friar is, but can't quote the Bible. 

> >m responded:
> >As to whether there would be book burnings if they were as Christian as
> people
> >suggest, sure they would.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Some Christian groups in the U.S. have burned Harry Potter books.  This is a
> 
> fact, and many Christian groups in the U.S. continue to preach against
> reading
> any Harry Potter books.

Magpie:
I know they have. I was saying that the fact that they burn them and preach against them does not mean that the characters in the book don't live in a world that mirrors the modern UK as far as its association with Christianity. For some people witchcraft and wizardry is anti-Christian, and that's a big part of the objection. Other Christians consider the books not only good but pro-Christian.

 
> >m responds:
> >I'm sure Dudley was baptized just like Harry was, whether or not the
> Dursleys
> >attend church regularly.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Again, this is presumption based upon a preferred definition of the term
> "godfather",
> which I responded to Geoff earlier.

Magpie:
My apologies there--JKR once referred to Harry's "christening" in an interview and I think I incorporated it into the text in my head.

So what are you saying about how the books are/aren't in terms of Christianity? I thought you were claiming that Wizards had some alternative religious identity to the religious identity of modern people in the UK. Which would mean some devout Christians, some secular people, some nominal Christians, and many other religions as well--Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist etc. All the religions you'd find in the UK. Though some of those would have been introduced to the UK relatively recently compared to others. I've no doubt the Dursleys consider themselves CoE but probably only go to church on certain holidays, if at all. What they would consider "normal"--mainstream, but not too religious.

-m




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Mar 31 21:15:12 2009
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:15:12 -0000
Subject: Magical Latin
In-Reply-To: <gqtsn5+iu6b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <gqu150+rj2r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186123

Magpie wrote:
> > >Others have mentioned that we have a friar wandering the halls of Hogwarts.
> > 
> > No.Limberger responded:
> > The ghosts that wander the halls of Hogwarts are not limited to friars.
> 
Magpie replied:
> I'm confused as to what that means. I didn't say they were limited to friars, but just that friars exist as something that exists and is recognized. Just as they would be in the UK. References to specific religions are all Christian (that I remember) but the characters are mostly secular. Harry knows what a friar is, but can't quote the Bible. <snip>

Carol adds:
He also knows what a vicar is (he thinks that Draco's dress robes at the Yule Ball make him look like a vicar) indicating specific knowledge of Anglican clergy. The Fat Friar, like the monks in one of the paintings, demonstrates the one-time connection between the British (or English) WW and British (or English) Muggledom at a time when that Muggledom was exclusively Roman Catholic. (They presumably predate Henry VIII.)

With regard to other religious groups in the WW (mentioned by No.Limburger in other posts in this thread), they're not really relevant here as the HP books are about the British WW (the Patil twins may be from India, true, but India was once a British colony) and specifically, Hogwarts, which is in Scotland but contains mostly English students, as well as a few from other parts of the British Isles or the Commonwealth.

China, no doubt, has its own schools of Witchcraft and Wizardry, perhaps under some other name, as does Egypt and Saudi Arabia and any number of other nations (even Peru has Wizards; one of the Weasley brothers had a Peruvian penpal at one time). But their cultural and religious backgrounds are not relevant to the British WW as depicted in the HP books (except incidentally in relation to, say, the QWC).

Carol, who is curious about No.Limburger's ID and hopes he'll enlighten us on his choice of moniker over at OTChatter




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Mar 31 22:54:38 2009
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:54:38 -0000
Subject: Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin)
In-Reply-To: <7ef72f90903311021w37e885aaicf708ebff502ad89@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <gqu6ve+5r9f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 186124

Geoff:
I felt I needed to reply to a number of points raised in the question 
of the Christian input into the Wizarding World. I am  drawing from 
a number of replies and may pr?cis some comments rather than 
quote the original in full.

To begin with, in order to save me persistently saying "I believe 
that" or "in my opinion" of "I feel that", I am going to outline the 
parameters within which I am working. Not everyone will hold the 
same views but these are the beliefs to which I subscribe and hence 
underpin my replies.

If you have been on this group for any time, you may well know that 
I am an evangelical Christian. Originally, I was a nominal member of 
the church but, at the age of 21 in  my last year of teacher training, 
I had an experience of meeting with Christ and felt called to a real 
faith and believe that the Holy Spirit lives within me. Let me 
emphasise that this does not make me a saint ? in the usually accepted 
meaning ? nor infallible nor someone who can do no wrong. Far from 
it. However, my experience is that of millions upon millions of people 
worldwide and of a fair number of people who belong to HPFGU.

No.Limburger makes reference to the coincidence of Christian 
festivals with earlier pagan celebrations and the influence of the 
Catholic Church. I have always been given to understand that there 
is an earlier relationship. In the 1st century AD, many of the Christians 
in the Roman Empire were slaves and did not have the luxury of being 
able to choose their own dates for festivals. So the Church often held 
its celebrations at a time coincident with the older ones ? Christmas 
being round about the time of the Saturnalia ? to allow these folk to 
be able to join on worship.

He (or she?) goes on to say: 
"Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, but this does not implythat Harry 
was ever taken to a church by James & LilyPotter to be baptized. The 
term "godfather" is used for aman who is either a sponsor or guardian 
of a child and doesnot necessarily imply that it is used only with regard 
to a baptism."

I do not know this writer's nationality but I, as a native Englishman, 
disagree with that. If a person in the UK says "She is my godmother" 
or "My godfather says
." the great majority of folk here will automatically 
assume that the speaker has been baptised either in the Church of 
England or the Catholic Church. 

Ken suggested that the messages on the gravestones meant nothing 
to Harry implying that he had no Christian background. My wife and I 
worked until recently with a boys' club in the Baptist church to which 
I belong. We frequently found that members of the club had only a 
very sketchy knowledge of much of the Christian faith depending on 
what had been taught to them in school or whether they had any 
Christian background in their family.

One of the problems which affects Christianity, certainly in the UK, 
is the number of people who profess nominal faith and whose only 
contact with the church is when, as it is sometimes humorously 
described, someone is "hatched, matched or dispatched", which 
hardly qualifies the claim of being a believer. Teaching in schools 
is often as part of a multi-faith progamme and some denominations 
suffer from ageing congregations. Referring back to baptism and 
godparents, it is very common for parents who have no contact at 
all with a church to ask for baptism (or in the non-conformist 
churches dedication). In my own family, our first grandchild was 
baptised a year or so ago though neither our daughter or her 
husband ever go to worship.

As to the Wizarding World, in addition to the occasional overt 
reference such as the epitaphs, there is certainly a Christian 
sub-text to be discerned. Jo Rowling herself has said that she 
wrote it from the standpoint of being a Christian. Other 
members have pointed out that there are mention of such folk 
as friars and vicars. 

However, it is not necessary to have such open comment. 
Tolkien wrote from a Christian point of view and, although 
there is no open worship in LOTR, we are conscious of it from 
references within the books' own historical frameworks. Of the 
three writers often quoted here in this context, C.S.Lewis is the 
most upfront about faith.

Finally, Christian opposition to the books. Like some folk, when 
the books first appeared, I took little interest and when some 
members of my church began to raise objections when the first 
film appeared. I went along with their views without bothering to 
see the films or read the books. However, after seeing COS, I read 
all the books and have seen all the films and am quite convinced 
that the dangers perceived by some Christian groups are not 
present. After all, if you come out against JKR, what about JRRT 
and CSL?

Both these writers have magic, both good and bad; both have 
witches and wizards who are deeply evil and there are those on 
the side of good who are not all black and white characters but 
have a good measure of grey in them as do so many in the 
Potterverse. And yet no one threatens to burn these well-loved 
stalwarts of literature.

As Steve might say "Just one man's opinion".








From bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net  Tue Mar 31 23:27:36 2009
From: bruce_alan_wilson at verizon.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:27:36 -0400
Subject: Magical Latin
Message-ID: <C336ABCA4F71456786F74CBBB72F6A55@d600xpp>

No: HPFGUIDX 186127

When was Harry baptized? We don't know exactly, but we know that 
Sirius was his godfather. That's what a godfather is--someone who 
makes the baptismal vows for a child too young to make them for 
him/herself and promises to see to it that the child is brought 
up in the Christian faith and life.

As for Christian opposition to Harry Potter, the kindest thing 
that may said about those Christians is that they do not represent 
mainstream Christianity. Connie Neal, John Killinger, John Granger, 
Francis Bridger, and Edmund Kern are far more representative than 
the likes of Abenes an "Balaam's Ass".

BAW