From lkotur at yahoo.com Mon Aug 1 02:42:33 2011 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur) Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:42:33 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191134 To compare the movie to the book - well the movie was the movie and the book was the story. The movie was disappointing in the "Harry is alive" scene when Harry rolled out of Hagrid's arms. The Harry and Voldemort "flying" scenes were contrived and I believe that was done for the 3-D effects- and the Ron - Hermione trying to kill the snake did not work for me. To me in the book, when Harry's body "disappeared" under the invisibility cloak and the panic in the Death Eaters that ensued and Voldemort's curses not working due to Harry's "death" in the forest, was more exciting than the dueling in the movie. In the book when Harry finally reveals himself in the Great Hall, there is a gasp of excitement and you can feel Voldemort sweat. Harry's speech to Tom Riddle and Voldemort's refusal to show remorse was a key point of the story. The final curse from Voldemort killed himself. In the book that was clear - in the movie well not so much (if you knew nothing about the book. Also, Voldemort's body disintegrating - another 3D effect - did not work for me. One last thing the move really screwed up was the disposition of the Deathly Hallows. In the movie Harry breaks the elder wand without repairing his wand broken at Godrics Hallow. (The resurrection stone was left in the forrest like the book) I think the movie should have shown the scene when Harry goes to the Headmaster's office and all the portraits applaud and Harry speaks with Dumbledore's portrait about the Deathly Hallows and repairs his wand with the elder wand. One thing the movie got right on was the "19 years later". That was good. Overall the movie was entertaining and told a story that finished the series, but JKR told one heck of a story that is much better! Larry From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Aug 2 01:47:43 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 01:47:43 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191135 > > Nikkalmati > > > > I see Harry must go willingly in order to make himself a sacrifice but then how does his sacrifice affect anything? Ok, the Horcrux is destroyed and the spells cast by LV after he returns are weaker but is that all Harry's sacrifice achieves? In the end he has to come back to life and let LV kill himself all over again. And what about the blood protection? Is that what brings Harry back? What about the mastery of the Elder Wand? Did that just mean the wand comes to Harry when called? I think the book itself confused the issue of sacrifice and we are just reading it as what should be there, if it had been properly worked out. > > > > Niru: > > Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think the book confused the sacrifice issue. There Harry willingly offers his life both as a way to destroy the Horcrux in him (and as he sees it, himself) and to protect the others. He does not want anyone else to die knowing that it is in his power to stop it. Even though he doesn't actually die, it is the intent that matters. And it is THAT intent which extends protection to all the other people fighting. > Nikkalmati I know that is what supposedly happens and that is what Harry says to LV. but there is still plenty of fighting going on after Harry's sacrifice. Do you think Molly was protected from Bella and was in no actual danger in the Great Hall? Notice LV was fighting and holding off McGonagall, Kingsley, and Slughorn in the Great Hall. Just before Harry reveals himself LV sent these three "blasted backward, flailing and writhing through thr air" [p737 US hardback ed] and Harry sends up a Shield Charm to protect Molly from LV. When Harry says "you can't torture them. You can't touch them [p738]", I can't accept that because that is not what I have been seeing and that is not how Harry is acting. Not consistent. Nikkalmati From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Aug 2 04:03:33 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 04:03:33 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191136 > Nikkalmati > > I know that is what supposedly happens and that is what Harry says to LV. but there is still plenty of fighting going on after Harry's sacrifice. Do you think Molly was protected from Bella and was in no actual danger in the Great Hall? Notice LV was fighting and holding off McGonagall, Kingsley, and Slughorn in the Great Hall. Just before Harry reveals himself LV sent these three "blasted backward, flailing and writhing through thr air" [p737 US hardback ed] and Harry sends up a Shield Charm to protect Molly from LV. When Harry says "you can't torture them. You can't touch them [p738]", I can't accept that because that is not what I have been seeing and that is not how Harry is acting. Not consistent. Pippin: Voldemort's spells fail again and again, first the crucio in the forest, then the silencing charm he casts on the crowd, then the fire spell on Neville and the Sorting Hat, then the body bind curse on Neville. JKR doesn't want us to guess what has happened too quickly, and Harry evidently wants to make doubly sure that people are protected, so he casts shield charms. But shield charms are ordinarily useless against AK, yet Voldemort kills no defenders from the moment Harry returns. Molly is fighting Bella, not Voldemort, so I'm not sure whether she would have been protected. Pippin From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 2 14:18:47 2011 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:18:47 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191137 > > Nikkalmati > > > > I know that is what supposedly happens and that is what Harry says to LV. but there is still plenty of fighting going on after Harry's sacrifice. Do you think Molly was protected from Bella and was in no actual danger in the Great Hall? Notice LV was fighting and holding off McGonagall, Kingsley, and Slughorn in the Great Hall. Just before Harry reveals himself LV sent these three "blasted backward, flailing and writhing through thr air" [p737 US hardback ed] and Harry sends up a Shield Charm to protect Molly from LV. When Harry says "you can't torture them. You can't touch them [p738]", I can't accept that because that is not what I have been seeing and that is not how Harry is acting. Not consistent. > > Pippin: > Voldemort's spells fail again and again, first the crucio in the forest, then the silencing charm he casts on the crowd, then the fire spell on Neville and the Sorting Hat, then the body bind curse on Neville. > > JKR doesn't want us to guess what has happened too quickly, and Harry evidently wants to make doubly sure that people are protected, so he casts shield charms. But shield charms are ordinarily useless against AK, yet Voldemort kills no defenders from the moment Harry returns. > > Molly is fighting Bella, not Voldemort, so I'm not sure whether she would have been protected. > > Pippin > Niru: My feeling was that the protection provided by Harry would work only against Voldemort. Molly would have had no protection against Bellatrix. However, even if Harry had not cast a shield charm, Molly would, in all likelihood, have been protected from Voldemort. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 2 22:09:25 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:09:25 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: Nikkalmati > > I know that is what supposedly happens and that is what Harry says to LV. but there is still plenty of fighting going on after Harry's sacrifice. Do you think Molly was protected from Bella and was in no actual danger in the Great Hall? Notice LV was fighting and holding off McGonagall, Kingsley, and Slughorn in the Great Hall. Just before Harry reveals himself LV sent these three "blasted backward, flailing and writhing through thr air" [p737 US hardback ed] and Harry sends up a Shield Charm to protect Molly from LV. When Harry says "you can't torture them. You can't touch them [p738]", I can't accept that because that is not what I have been seeing and that is not how Harry is acting. Not consistent. Geoff: May I quote the whole of the section you mention because I think that perhaps it sheds a slightly different light: '"You won't be killing anyone else tonight," said Harry as they circled and stared into each other's eyes, green into red. "You won't be able to kill any of them, ever again. Don't you get it? I was ready to die to stop you hurting these people-" "But you did not!" "-I meant to and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"' (DH "The Flaw in the Plan" p.591 UK edition) I read this as being the situation after King's Cross. Effectively, Harry is saying that after he did what his mother did, Voldemort's power has been affected. This 'you can't touch them' is a future thing - it is now the new order of things. Take your instance of McGonagall, Slughorn and Shacklebolt being thrown through the air. Although it speaks of flailing and writhing; it does not say in agony. This is what anyone in that situation would do reflexively. We know that Voldemort did this in absolute fury and I would expect him to have attempted an Avada Kedavra. But we know by p.596 of the UK edition that at least two of them are able to join wholeheartedly in the wave of celebration after the duel is over, having suffered little or no after effects. From lilandriss at yahoo.com Wed Aug 3 05:26:14 2011 From: lilandriss at yahoo.com (Alanna) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 22:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: <4DB8680D.4070001@comcast.net> References: <4DB8680D.4070001@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1312349174.16931.YahooMailNeo@web161309.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191139 Hey all.? I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this weekend and I have a question.? If the school was being run by Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then why were they sending their kids there at all? Lanna :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bart at moosewise.com Wed Aug 3 06:06:42 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 02:06:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Last movie In-Reply-To: <1312349174.16931.YahooMailNeo@web161309.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <4DB8680D.4070001@comcast.net> <1312349174.16931.YahooMailNeo@web161309.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E38E572.8070508@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191140 On 8/3/2011 1:26 AM, Alanna wrote: > Hey all. I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this weekend and I have a question. If the school was being run by Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then why were they sending their kids there at all? > Bart: Explained (like many other unexplained things in all the movies) in the books: a law is passed requiring all children to be sent to Hogwarts. Bart From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Aug 4 00:51:57 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:51:57 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191141 > Geoff: > May I quote the whole of the section you mention because I think that perhaps > it sheds a slightly different light: > > '"You won't be killing anyone else tonight," said Harry as they circled and > stared into each other's eyes, green into red. "You won't be able to kill any > of them, ever again. Don't you get it? I was ready to die to stop you hurting > these people-" > > "But you did not!" > > "-I meant to and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're > protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on > them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't > learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"' > > (DH "The Flaw in the Plan" p.591 UK edition) > > I read this as being the situation after King's Cross. Effectively, Harry is saying > that after he did what his mother did, Voldemort's power has been affected. > This 'you can't touch them' is a future thing - it is now the new order of things. > Take your instance of McGonagall, Slughorn and Shacklebolt being thrown > through the air. Although it speaks of flailing and writhing; it does not say > in agony. This is what anyone in that situation would do reflexively. We know > that Voldemort did this in absolute fury and I would expect him to have > attempted an Avada Kedavra. But we know by p.596 of the UK edition that > at least two of them are able to join wholeheartedly in the wave of > celebration after the duel is over, having suffered little or no after effects. > Nikkalmati I know that is what Harry says, but it still doesn't do much for me. The whole book has been leading up to Harry willingly sacrificing his life for the wizarding world (leading to a comparison with the sacrifice of Christ which saved the souls of everyone before and after) and this is the result? This tempering of LV's power? Not the destruction of evil or the protection of all good witches and wizards from all the bad guys - just a moderation of LV's effectiveness? He can't do anything really, really bad. If his spells are affected, how can he AV himself? Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Aug 4 00:55:59 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:55:59 -0000 Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: <4E38E572.8070508@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > On 8/3/2011 1:26 AM, Alanna wrote: > > Hey all. I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this weekend and I have a question. If the school was being run by Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then why were they sending their kids there at all? > > > > Bart: > Explained (like many other unexplained things in all the movies) in > the books: a law is passed requiring all children to be sent to Hogwarts. > > Bart > Nikkalmati And I think the Death Eaters were eliminating Muggle-borns and their families and any who supported them. That would include anyone who suddenly decided to "home school" their kids. I think the faculty stuck around to do whatever they could to protect the students. In the movie we don't get the sense that Snape is trying to thwart the Carrows, but it is in the books. Nikkalmati Nikkalmati From lilandriss at yahoo.com Wed Aug 3 06:14:27 2011 From: lilandriss at yahoo.com (Alanna) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:14:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: <4E38E572.8070508@moosewise.com> References: <4DB8680D.4070001@comcast.net> <1312349174.16931.YahooMailNeo@web161309.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4E38E572.8070508@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <1312352067.88362.YahooMailNeo@web161312.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191143 Lanna wrote: > Hey all. I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this weekend and I have a question. If the school was being run by Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then why were they sending their kids there at all? > Bart: Explained (like many other unexplained things in all the movies) in the books: a law is passed requiring all children to be sent to Hogwarts. Ah, okay. Thanks! Haven't been able to bring myself to read the last book. Lanna :) From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 3 16:15:24 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: <1312349174.16931.YahooMailNeo@web161309.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <4DB8680D.4070001@comcast.net> <1312349174.16931.YahooMailNeo@web161309.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1312388124.30250.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Lanna: > Hey all.? I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this > weekend and I have a question.? If the school was being run by > Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then > why were they sending their kids there at all? June: I would presume that the parents were not aware of it or I am sure that they would not be sending their children to school. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 3 16:17:52 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:17:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Last movie In-Reply-To: <4E38E572.8070508@moosewise.com> References: <4DB8680D.4070001@comcast.net> <1312349174.16931.YahooMailNeo@web161309.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4E38E572.8070508@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <1312388272.58477.YahooMailNeo@web113904.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191145 >> Lanna wrote: >> Hey all. I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this weekend and I have a question. If the school was being run by Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then why >> were they sending their kids there at all? > Bart: > Explained (like many other unexplained things in all the movies) > in the books: a law is passed requiring all children to be sent > to Hogwarts. June: I had just sent a reply that the parents must not have know, however now that Bart has mentioned it, he is right I had forgotten about that. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Aug 4 06:54:10 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 06:54:10 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: Nikkalmati > > I know that is what Harry says, but it still doesn't do much for me. The whole book has been leading up to Harry willingly sacrificing his life for the wizarding world (leading to a comparison with the sacrifice of Christ which saved the souls of everyone before and after) and this is the result? This tempering of LV's power? Not the destruction of evil or the protection of all good witches and wizards from all the bad guys - just a moderation of LV's effectiveness? He can't do anything really, really bad. If his spells are affected, how can he AV himself? Geoff: No. The **initial** result is a diminution of his ability to send spells. The first confrontation in the forest doesn't lead to a rebound which will kill him; the power of the spell is sufficient to destroy the Horcrux in Harry and the combined protection of Lily's love and the wand reduce its effect on Harry himself. Voldemort is feeling the effect afterwards. The final spell presumably might have had a similar effect on Harry but the rebound obviously had enough power, possibly from what Voldemort put into it plus the wand protecting its master to finish the job. As an aside, the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ did not save the souls of everyone before and after; it had no effect on what happened before. Afterwards, salvation is there for those who actively seek it. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Aug 5 23:31:23 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:31:23 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191147 Geoff: I have just returned from another 50 mile round trip to see DH2 for the second time and decided to make some further comments because I find that on a second visit, other things usually catch my eye. Let me start by saying that I generally felt more satisfied than the first time round. On balance, I felt that the section of the film corresponding to chapters 33-35 were quite well done. The "Princes Tale" section omitted a reasonable amount but it was not material that was absolutely vital to the action. And I have to admit that, putting aside all my dislike of Snape, the scene where he dies was very good. You could see Harry's dislike beginning to ebb away and the thing which he told Voldemort to try - compassion - showing. One little extra in the scene which was outside the book but I thought helped was Snape with Lily's body. You could see Harry re-processing all his feelings about Snape during and after this scene and the Pensieve section. Interestingly, since when have Pensieves floated in the air? I though the use of Imperio in Gringotts was turned almost into a comedy scene with the victims displaying silly grins and I had to feel a pang of sympathy for the dragon. But again, it is the last scene that i am finding the biggest problem. On a second viewing, it seems to be worse. Harry drags Voldemort off the tower and we see this line of some which has been used to represent Apparition going all over the place with glimpses of the two locked together apparently crashing through walls and buildings before the crash landing. I have always understood Apparition to be performed from a specific Point A to a specific Point B; you can't change direction en route... And the final, final confrontation. The duel is interrupted when Neville kills Nagini inside the school, Harry casts another spell but Voldemort just seems to stand there without doing anything before he disintegrates. As I remarked earlier, it seems vaguely reminiscent of Quirrell's death in PS and of a scene in Star Trek: Nemesis. Perhaps in future I shall have to watch the film to the end of Kings Cross and then reach for the book. :-| Two final thoughts. I was surprised when Harry, on a couple of occasions, referred to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" when, in contrast, McGonagall rather tartly tells Flitwick to use his proper name. The other. I think I actually appreciated the stripped-down epilogue with only Harry's conversation with Albus about Slytherin surviving. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Aug 6 07:01:59 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:01:59 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191148 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > Geoff: > I have just returned from another 50 mile round trip to see DH2 > for the second time and decided to make some further comments > because I find that on a second visit, other things usually catch > my eye. > But again, it is the last scene that i am finding the biggest problem. > On a second viewing, it seems to be worse. Harry drags Voldemort > off the tower and we see this line of some which has been used to > represent Apparition going all over the place with glimpses of the > two locked together apparently crashing through walls and buildings > before the crash landing. Geoff (replying to myself): The trouble with writing posts at some forsaken hour in the morning is that the odd typo slips through... This morning, I read the above section and thought "Huh"? The third sentence should begin: "Harry drags Voldemort off the tower and we see this line of black smoke which has been used to represent Apparition" Apologies. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 6 01:18:06 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:18:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1312593486.16076.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191149 > Geoff: > > Two final thoughts. I was surprised when Harry, on a couple of > occasions, referred to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" > when, in contrast, McGonagall rather tartly tells Flitwick to > use his proper name. June: The reason Harry refers to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" in the movie is because (although it isn't in the movie, it is in the extras and also in the book) there was a spell put on the use of Voldemort's name where if anyone said his name, they could be found by him and his death eaters. That is why Xenophilius Lovegood uses Voldemort's name in his house. It summoned the death eaters. When McGonagall uses it however there was no use in not using it as he and his death eaters where there already. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Aug 6 20:44:44 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 20:44:44 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: <1312593486.16076.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: Geoff: > > > > Two final thoughts. I was surprised when Harry, on a couple of > > occasions, referred to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" > > when, in contrast, McGonagall rather tartly tells Flitwick to > > use his proper name. June: > The reason Harry refers to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" > in the movie is because (although it isn't in the movie, it is in > the extras and also in the book) there was a spell put on the use > of Voldemort's name where if anyone said his name, they could be > found by him and his death eaters. That is why Xenophilius Lovegood > uses Voldemort's name in his house. It summoned the death eaters. > When McGonagall uses it however there was no use in not using it as > he and his death eaters where there already. Geoff: Yes, I know. It's because Harry uses his name at the end of Chapter 22 "The Deathly Hallows" that the Snatchers arrive and capture them and take them to Malfoy Manor. But Harry does use the name in several places; people around him are also using the proper name. So I wonder if that was a minor oversight. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 6 23:07:02 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 16:07:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: References: <1312593486.16076.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1312672022.39390.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191151 >> June: >> The reason Harry refers to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" >> in the movie is because (although it isn't in the movie, it is in >> the extras and also in the book) there was a spell put on the use >> of Voldemort's name where if anyone said his name, they could be >> found by him and his death eaters. > Geoff: > Yes, I know. It's because Harry uses his name at the end of > Chapter 22 "The Deathly Hallows" that the Snatchers arrive and > capture them and take them to Malfoy Manor. > > But Harry does use the name in several places; people around him > are also using the proper name. So I wonder if that was a minor > oversight. June: Hhhhmmm, could be but now you have given me an excuse to see it a 4th time, lol. I don't remember anyone else using his name. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 7 16:55:26 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Aug 2011 16:55:26 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/7/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1312736126.8.46881.m7@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191152 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 7, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 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 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bart at moosewise.com Sun Aug 7 21:11:17 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 17:11:17 -0400 Subject: He who must not be named by a specific name... In-Reply-To: <1312593486.16076.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1312593486.16076.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E3EFF75.8000905@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191153 >> Geoff: >> >> Two final thoughts. I was surprised when Harry, on a couple of >> occasions, referred to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" >> when, in contrast, McGonagall rather tartly tells Flitwick to >> use his proper name. > > June: > The reason Harry refers to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" > in the movie is because (although it isn't in the movie, it is in > the extras and also in the book) there was a spell put on the use > of Voldemort's name where if anyone said his name, they could be > found by him and his death eaters. That is why Xenophilius Lovegood > uses Voldemort's name in his house. It summoned the death eaters. > When McGonagall uses it however there was no use in not using it as > he and his death eaters where there already. I still can't figure out why Harry & crew in the book didn't simply call him "Tom", "Riddle", or, my own personal favorite, "Morty" while the taboo was in effect. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 7 21:47:19 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 21:47:19 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > Geoff: > ... > :-| > > Two final thoughts. I was surprised when Harry, on a couple of > occasions, referred to Voldemort as "He who must not be named" > when, in contrast, McGonagall rather tartly tells Flitwick to use > his proper name. > > ... > Steve: That was something that bothered me about the book. Not only does using Voldemort's name direct the DE's to your location, but it breaks protective enchantments. In the books, after Flitwick starts enhancing the protections on the castle, Harry (or someone) uses Voldemort's name which should have undone all of Flitwick and McGonnagall's effort to protect the castle. I think the thinking was that Voldemort already knows where we are, so no point in avoiding the name, but I was equally very sure that saying the name also broke protective enchantments, and it seems foolish to have used the name at Hogwarts, a place that, in that moment, needs all the protection it can get. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Aug 7 22:09:48 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:09:48 -0000 Subject: He who must not be named by a specific name... In-Reply-To: <4E3EFF75.8000905@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Bart: I still can't figure out why Harry & crew in the book didn't simply > call him "Tom", "Riddle", or, my own personal favorite, "Morty" while > the taboo was in effect. Geoff: I don't think even Harry regularly referred to him by any of these names until he used his real name during the last duel. I have a feeling that only Dumbledore used his given name in the timescale of the books. And isn't Morty an invention of these groups? Correct me if I'm wrong please. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Aug 7 22:22:18 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:22:18 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve: > That was something that bothered me about the book. Not only does using Voldemort's name direct the DE's to your location, but it breaks protective enchantments. Geoff: I have a feeling it does not break the enchantments. The only instance where I think we see the taboo in action is when the Snatchers capture Harry and the others and the canon suggests otherwise: '''Come on, Hermione, why are you so determined not to admit it? Vol-" "HARRY, NO!" "-demort's after the Elder Wand" "The name's Taboo!" Ron bellowed, leaping to his feet as a loud crack sounded outside the tent. "I told you, Harry, I told you, we can't say it any more = we've got to put the protection back around us - quickly - it's how they find-"' (DH "The Deathly Hallows" p.360 UK edition) The implication is that the three of them have not put up the protection spells. From bart at moosewise.com Mon Aug 8 03:30:05 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:30:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: He who must not be named by a specific name... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E3F583D.10803@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191157 Geoff: I don't think even Harry regularly referred to him by any of these names until he used his real name during the last duel. I have a feeling that only Dumbledore used his given name in the timescale of the books. And isn't Morty an invention of these groups? Correct me if I'm wrong please Bart: "Morty" was my own invention. The basic idea is that there were plenty of names Harry and crew could have called "Voldemort" without using the awkward "You-know-who" and "He-who-must-not-be named." I was just pointing out a few possibilities. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Aug 9 07:06:13 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 07:06:13 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191158 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Steve: > > > That was something that bothered me about the book. Not only does using Voldemort's name direct the DE's to your location, but it breaks protective enchantments. > > Geoff: > I have a feeling it does not break the enchantments. > > ... > > '"... we can't say it any more - we've got to put the protection > back around us - quickly - it's how they find-"' > > (DH "The Deathly Hallows" p.360 UK edition) > > The implication is that the three of them have not put up the protection spells. > Steve replies: Well, to each his own, but that implies to me that the protections were there but fell, and now the need to put them back before they are found by snatcher or Death Eaters. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 9 23:30:58 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 23:30:58 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191160 Geoff: As Steve remarked on a recent Main post "Each to his own"; what follows are my own thoughts on the meeting between Voldemort and Harry in the forest. In the early days after the publication of the book and in the sometimes intense discussions which took place, I made the point on a number of occasions that my belief was that Harry did NOT die in the Forest encounter and quoted canon to support my view: `"But you're dead," said Harry. "Oh, yes," said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. "Then I'm dead too?" "Ah," said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. "That is the question, isn't it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not." They looked at each other, the old man still beaming. "Not?" repeated Harry. "Not," said Dumbledore. "But ' Harry raised his hand instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there. "But I should have died ? I didn't defend myself! I meant to let him kill me!" "And that," said Dumbledore, Will, I think, have made all the difference."' (DH "King's Cross" p.567 UK edition) `Harry sat in thought for a long time or perhaps seconds. It was very hard to be sure of things like time, here. "He killed me with your wand." "He failed to kill you with my wand," Dumbledore corrected Harry. "I think we can agree that you are not dead - though, of course, " he added, as if fearing he had been discourteous, "I do not minimise your sufferings, which I am sure were severe."' (ibid. p.570) There is obviously the section in the chapter where Dumbledore tells Harry he has the option to go on. This seems to suggest that he has gone to some sort of limbo but ? and this is a big but ? can go back which is not granted when people die. This is obviously some sort of unusual occurrence for unusual circumstances: `He (Dumbledore) looked interrogatively at Harry and Harry nodded. "Which means," said Dumbledore slowly, his eyes upon Harry's face, "that some form of Cedric must have re-appeared." Harry nodded again. "Diggory came back to life?" said Sirius sharply. "No spell can reawaken the dead," said Dumbledore heavily.' (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.605 UK edition) But, to return to the results of the spell. I commented in a recent post that I thought that the Elder Wand had a part to play in the final fight.. When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. It was destroyed in a kind of reversal of what happened in Godric's Hollow where Voldemort's spell rebounded and disembodied him leaving the Horcrux fragment to latch onto baby Harry. There was obviously some sort of reaction because Voldemort was apparently knocked out judging from what Harry could determine without daring to open his eyes. Now, what about the Great Hall duel at the very end? I believe that the Elder Wand came into play here. The sequence of holding the Elder Wand was that Draco disarmed Dumbledore on the Tower but did not take possession because the wand was buried with the Headmaster. However, because he had disarmed him, the wand's allegiance shifted to Draco although he did not have the wand in his possession. When Harry disarmed Draco at the Manor, the Elder Wand was not physically involved but, since Harry had defeated Draco, the wand's master had been defeated and so it's allegiance moved again ? to Harry, Voldemort being ignorant of this change. So when Voldemort rather foolishly attempted an Avadra Kedrava for the third time on Harry, this was someone who was not the master of the wand attempting to defeat the real master without the authority to do so and the wand therefore responded to Harry's Expelliarmus and went to him while Voldemort's spell rebounded ? yet again! and this time he had nothing left with which to cushion or reduce the spell. From huntergreen3 at aol.com Wed Aug 10 03:30:52 2011 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen3 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 03:30:52 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191161 Alla: > > But regardless, the reason that he could not afford to let anybody know is not enough for me to let Harry be abused. The damn protection is already in place and not going to break if Dumbledore is going to check on him Pippin: > You've made it plain there is *no* reason that is enough to let Harry be abused, even if it's a choice between that and death > But as for Dumbledore, I see him as trying not to repeat the mistake he made with Arianna. The thought of her in an institution, lonely and unloved, was so painful that he refused to see how much danger she was in at home, much less along with him on his adventures. > > To deprive Harry of his best chance of life itself because it will break Dumbledore's heart to think of him suffering -- do you not see how self-indulgent that would be? Rebecca: I don't see how it was a choice between "leave Harry alone at the Dursley's and ignore him until he's eleven" and "find somewhere else for Harry". Why exactly would Dumbledore coming to check on Harry ruin the protection? We are not given a reason why he could not come to check on him, the Dursley's certaintly wanted to raise Harry without telling him that he was a wizard, but no one knew that. Hagrid is very surprised to find out that Harry is completely in the dark about all that, wouldn't Dumbledore have mentioned that if he knew? I don't see a reason mentioned in the text why Dumbledore or someone else couldn't have gone to see Harry, even once a year (if only to give him a birthday present). I see it as Dumbledore not being all that interested in Harry's well-being, that he saw him as a weapon, not a person. Also, there are ways to die other than at the hands of dark wizards. Children die every day from neglect and abuse. The small incidents we have seen from Vernon and Petunia don't put an accidental death that far out of the question. Its been mentioned that Mrs. Figg was in charge of keeping an eye on Harry, but IMO she does a rather poor job of it. She only intereacts with Harry once a year, and in the months before he turned 11, she wasn't available at all. In CoS she must have seen Vernon putting bars on Harry's window, and then Harry was nowhere to be seen for several days and there's no indication that she alerted anyone (Ron showed up, as I recall, because Harry hadn't written to him all summer). What if Harry got heatstroke left alone all day in the summer in the unairconditioned second-floor bedroom? (unlikely, but not impossible) I just would find this all more palatable if Dumbledore had left Harry alone because he was worried they'd turn him out if he interfered, was completely surprised by their poor treatment, and afterwards removed Harry from their home as soon as he could each summer (I think only in Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows he leaves before his birthday). The nature of the protection itself is a little murky too. From the beginning of Order of the Phoenix, it appears he has to be inside the house for it to work (the dementers have no problems attacking him). But would it stop someone "dark" from entering the house then? Also in Order of the Phoenix a bunch of wizards enter the house, without Harry welcoming them or opening the door for them or anything. Mr. Weasley even has the house added to the floo netork in GoF, the twins jump through the window easily in CoS, and a whole host of wizards come in in Deathly Hallows. Does it have some "intention check"? What exactly would it do to Bellatrix if she showed up? Or does it stop people who have the dark mark? Also the fact that it only works *inside the house* greatly diminishes the spell, IMO. Harry attended school, so he's out of the house every weekday from the age of five/six on. Why couldn't someone attack him at school? Dumbledore takes a long time to explain the blood protection to him as well, so older Harry has no idea he should stay inside the house to keep himself safe (whether or not he'd actually do so). The protection is so weak that had Sirius actually been hunting down Harry to kill him, he would have suceeded (Padfoot is watching Harry in the bushes before the Knight Bus shows up). I understand why, for the story purpose, Harry lives with relatives who are mean to him (and its one of the aspects that pulled me into the story when I first read it), but like Alla, I find it hard to accept Dumbledore's reasoning that there was nothing else he could do. It was an easy solution for him. I really can't see how he could easily toss Harry aside if he really cared deeply about him, and I really don't think it broke his heart at all. Honestly, I don't think he even thought about him again until his eleventh birthday. -Rebecca (apologies for responding to a 12-day-old post) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 04:06:00 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:06:00 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191162 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > There is obviously the section in the chapter where Dumbledore > tells Harry he has the option to go on. This seems to suggest that > he has gone to some sort of limbo but ? and this is a big but ? > can go back which is not granted when people die. zanooda: I thought it was something like clinical death: for all practical purposes a person is dead, but he/she still *can* be revived. Harry could have "gone on", but he was able to come back to life thanks to the blood he shared with LV. > Geoff wrote: > When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that > Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced > the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. zanooda: But it's impossible to destroy a piece of soul without destroying the object in which it is concealed (the Horcrux). By definition, a Horcrux is an object that contains a piece of soul, and it's this object that must be destroyed, not the bit of soul itself. As long as the object/vessel is functional, the piece of soul in it lives. In our case the object (the Horcrux) is Harry, and it's him who needed to be destroyed (killed) in order to end with the piece of LV's soul inside him. I've always thought it was exactly what happened in the Forest: Harry died (kind of :-), it was clinical death), and, as the object (Harry) was destroyed (died), the piece of LV's soul ceased to exist. Harry's own soul also left his lifeless body and went to the limbo, which is, according to the author, some place between life and death. The soul had two options, either to return to the body, or to "go on". If Harry chose not to return, his death would have become irreversible. That's how I see it, although I have no idea if it's right or wrong :-). I know there are different theories, and they all have their merits. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 10 03:16:51 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:16:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1312946211.16661.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191163 > Geoff: > As Steve remarked on a recent Main post "Each to his own"; what follows are my own thoughts on the meeting between Voldemort > and Harry in the forest. > In the early days after the publication of the book and in the sometimes intense discussions which took place, I made the point on a number of occasions that my belief was that Harry did NOT > die in the Forest encounter and quoted canon to support my view: > `"But you're dead," said Harry. "Oh, yes," said Dumbledore matter-of-factly. "Then? I'm dead too?" "Ah," said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. "That is the question, isn't it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not." They looked at each other, the old man still beaming. "Not?" repeated Harry. "Not," said Dumbledore. "But?' Harry raised his hand instinctively towards the lightning scar. It did not seem to be there. "But I should have died ? I didn't defend myself! I meant to let him kill me!" "And that," said Dumbledore, Will, I think, have made all the difference."' > (DH "King's Cross" p.567 UK edition) > `Harry sat in thought for a long time or perhaps seconds. It was very hard to be sure of things like time, here. "He killed me with your wand." "He failed to kill you with my wand," Dumbledore corrected Harry. "I think we can agree that you are not dead - though, of course, " he added, as if fearing he had been discourteous, "I do not minimise your sufferings, which I am sure were severe."' > (ibid. p.570) > There is obviously the section in the chapter where Dumbledore tells Harry he has the option to go on. This seems to suggest that he has gone to some sort of limbo but ? and this is a big but ? can go back which is not granted when people die. This is obviously > some sort of unusual occurrence for unusual circumstances: > `He (Dumbledore) looked interrogatively at Harry and Harry nodded. "Which means," said Dumbledore slowly, his eyes upon Harry's face, "that some form of Cedric must have re-appeared." Harry nodded again. "Diggory came back to life?" said Sirius sharply. "No spell can reawaken the dead," said Dumbledore heavily.' > (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.605 UK edition) > But, to return to the results of the spell. I commented in a recent post that I thought that the Elder Wand had a part to play in the final fight.. When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. It was destroyed in a kind of reversal of what happened in Godric's Hollow where Voldemort's spell rebounded and disembodied him leaving the Horcrux fragment to latch onto baby Harry. There was obviously some sort of reaction because Voldemort was apparently knocked out judging from what Harry could determine > without daring to open his eyes. > Now, what about the Great Hall duel at the very end? I believe that the Elder Wand came into play here. The sequence of holding the Elder Wand was that Draco disarmed Dumbledore on the Tower but did not take > possession because the wand was buried with the Headmaster. > However, because he had disarmed him, the wand's allegiance shifted to Draco although he did not have the wand in his possession. When Harry disarmed Draco at the Manor, the Elder Wand was not physically involved but, since Harry had defeated Draco, the wand's master had been defeated and so it's allegiance moved again ? to Harry, Voldemort > being ignorant of this change. > So when Voldemort rather foolishly attempted an Avadra Kedrava for the third time on Harry, this was someone who was not the master of the wand attempting to defeat the real master without the authority to do so and the wand therefore responded to Harry's Expelliarmus and went to him while Voldemort's spell rebounded ? yet again! and > this time he had nothing left with which to cushion or June: Thank you for posting this Geoff. What you have said is exactly what I thought and I tried to explain it but I must not have worded what I was saying very well or something because no one believed what I was saying. Either that or you are about to get some disagreements on it, lol. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 06:49:17 2011 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:49:17 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191164 > Geoff: > I have just returned from another 50 mile round trip to see DH2 > for the second time and decided to make some further comments > because I find that on a second visit, other things usually catch > my eye. > > Let me start by saying that I generally felt more satisfied than the > first time round. On balance, I felt that the section of the film > corresponding to chapters 33-35 were quite well done. The > "Princes Tale" section omitted a reasonable amount but it was not > material that was absolutely vital to the action. And I have to > admit that, putting aside all my dislike of Snape, the scene where > he dies was very good. You could see Harry's dislike beginning to > ebb away and the thing which he told Voldemort to try - compassion - > showing. One little extra in the scene which was outside the book > but I thought helped was Snape with Lily's body. You could see > Harry re-processing all his feelings about Snape during and > after this scene and the Pensieve section. Interestingly, since > when have Pensieves floated in the air? Niru: Perhaps that is an indication of the writer and director getting it right... I mean people who don't like Snape (like myself) still feel horror seeing him die like that and can't help but feel sorry for him. Plus Alan Rickman and Dan Radcliffe have a done a good job. Incidentally I have some vague memories of the Pensieve floating in the air in HBP as well. Will need to dig up my DVD and see it again to confirm. :-) > But again, it is the last scene that i am finding the biggest problem. > On a second viewing, it seems to be worse. Harry drags Voldemort > off the tower and we see this line of some which has been used to > represent Apparition going all over the place with glimpses of the > two locked together apparently crashing through walls and buildings > before the crash landing. I have always understood Apparition to > be performed from a specific Point A to a specific Point B; you can't > change direction en route... > Niru: I think that tower scene served no purpose at all except to set them up in opposite sides of the courtyard for the final duel. And the movie-makers probably thought it would look great in 3D (it didn't). > And the final, final confrontation. The duel is interrupted when > Neville kills Nagini inside the school, Harry casts another spell but > Voldemort just seems to stand there without doing anything before > he disintegrates. As I remarked earlier, it seems vaguely reminiscent > of Quirrell's death in PS and of a scene in Star Trek: Nemesis. > Niru: Actually I have a big technical issue with the duel being interrupted when Nagini is killed. Presumably at that point, Voldemort has cast the killing curse (the green spell) and Harry has cast 'Expelliarmus' (the red spell). When Nagini is killed, both of them are momentarily distracted. And the AK just seems to dissipate. But the AK cannot just dissipate. It cannot be blocked. It has to hit something or someone. Living beings die and objects shatter when hit by the killing curse. But here it just disappears into thin air? On another note, Voldemort does cast the killing curse again after Nagini is killed (again I'm assuming the green and red spells are the AK and Expelliarmus respectively). But, Harry appears to have sensed victory and is too strong for him this time. Voldemort is trying to force the AK on to Harry. However it is Harry who forces his spell back on Voldemort and flicks his wand. The Elder wand flies to Harry and Voldemort disintegrates. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 10 06:55:23 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:55:23 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: Geoff: > > There is obviously the section in the chapter where Dumbledore > > tells Harry he has the option to go on. This seems to suggest that > > he has gone to some sort of limbo but ? and this is a big but ? > > can go back which is not granted when people die. zanooda: > I thought it was something like clinical death: for all practical purposes a person is dead, but he/she still *can* be revived. Harry could have "gone on", but he was able to come back to life thanks to the blood he shared with LV. Geoff: > > When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that > > Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced > > the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. zanooda: > But it's impossible to destroy a piece of soul without destroying the object in which it is concealed (the Horcrux). By definition, a Horcrux is an object that contains a piece of soul, and it's this object that must be destroyed, not the bit of soul itself. As long as the object/vessel is functional, the piece of soul in it lives. > In our case the object (the Horcrux) is Harry, and it's him who needed to be destroyed (killed) in order to end with the piece of LV's soul inside him. I've always thought it was exactly what happened in the Forest: Harry died (kind of :-), it was clinical death), and, as the object (Harry) was destroyed (died), the piece of LV's soul ceased to exist. > Harry's own soul also left his lifeless body and went to the limbo, which is, according to the author, some place between life and death. The soul had two options, either to return to the body, or to "go on". If Harry chose not to return, his death would have become irreversible. > That's how I see it, although I have no idea if it's right or wrong :-). I know there are different theories, and they all have their merits. Geoff: I take your point. However, I feel that a different and perhaps unique set of circumstances apply here. When attempts were made in the story to destroy a Horcrux, the methods didn't always work. However, what did not happen in these attempts was for someone to try an Avada Kedavra spell, possibly because they were contemplating the destruction of an object. This, combined with the existing power of Lily's love, diverted the power of the spell not to the container (Harry) but to the contents (Voldemort's soul fragment). Personally, I stand by Dumbledore's comments that Harry was not dead and also that no one can be recalled from death.There is obviously lots of space here for people to theorise and disagree (or agree). That is the fun of it. :-)) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 07:03:24 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:03:24 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > Steve: Brief note to Geoff, I replied to your post in the movie thread. > > > Geoff wrote: > > > When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that > > Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced > > the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. > > > zanooda: > > But it's impossible to destroy a piece of soul without destroying the object in which it is concealed (the Horcrux). ... > > In our case the object (the Horcrux) is Harry, and it's him who needed to be destroyed (killed) in order to end with the piece of LV's soul inside him. ... > Steve: The problem is, we need some working definition of "Destroyed". What if someone had poisoned Nagini? Would that have sufficiently rendered the snake useless as a Horcrux, keep in mind that dead inanimate objects can be Horcruxes. And, one could not simply mangle the inanimate Horcruxes to destroy them, the had to be 'mangled' with something capable of destroying the Horcrux itself - Basilisk Fang, Sword of Gryfindor, Feindfire, etc.... What if Harry's heart stopped beating for three beats, is that enough for the Riddle's Spirit to abandon the object, or does it require brain death. Or neither, perhaps it simply needs to be a spell capable of separating the "Spirit" from the "Object", but not necessarily destroying the object in the process. Hermione finds several methods of destroying Horcruxes, but none of them are easy, and all of them are dangerous. Perhaps there is a long list of spells and objects capable of separating the "Object" and the "Spirit". And I believe that is what happens, the Spirit does not die, it simply moves on, what the spell or object does is separates the two so the Spirit is no longer earth bound. Avada Kadavra must work, and under normal circumstances it would mean the death of the living object containing the Spirit. But, at least three times, it does not work on Harry. But, it may have work, and obviously did work, well enough to separate the Spirit from the Object. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From kersberg at chello.nl Wed Aug 10 09:55:15 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:55:15 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191167 this is the part I have most trouble with: The "love" protection from Lilly protected Harry for 17 years till the day he turned 17 and much intrige and drama happens in the first chapters of DH to get Harry under protection and from the Dursley house before the protection of love ends. OK so far so good. Then at the end it is suggested Voldemort fails to kill Harry because of that Lily protection. And even more weird because the fact that with his own resurrection he took Harry's blood, so Lilly's protective spell is still residenting in Voldemorts veins? and still potent? If that was the case, Dumbledore knew the fact... he was a sort of pleased, when he heard what happens when Voldemort was resurrected and used it.... then I have to concluded that the whole charade with the 7 Potters was just a smokescreen with deadly consequenses. it's either this or JKR contradicted her own first law that dead is dead and nobody returns from death, not do dead spels return. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > Geoff: > > > When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that > > > Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced > > > the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 14:54:07 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:07 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191168 > Rebecca: > I don't see how it was a choice between "leave Harry alone at the Dursley's and ignore him until he's eleven" and "find somewhere else for Harry". Why exactly would Dumbledore coming to check on Harry ruin the protection? We are not given a reason why he could not come to check on him, the Dursley's certaintly wanted to raise Harry without telling him that he was a wizard, but no one knew that. Hagrid is very surprised to find out that Harry is completely in the dark about all that, wouldn't Dumbledore have mentioned that if he knew? I don't see a reason mentioned in the text why Dumbledore or someone else couldn't have gone to see Harry, even once a year (if only to give him a birthday present). I see it as Dumbledore not being all that interested in Harry's well-being, that he saw him as a weapon, not a person. Alla: I missed the post from Pippin and I know that we are not supposed to say what is basically 'I agree" and "Thank you", but I am going to say it anyway, because I think Pippin set up a choice which I was not arguing was supposed to be set up. Indeed, where does it say in canon that visiting will stop protection? How about he *tries* to make the circumstances easier for Harry if he needs the protection to be there? Rebecca: > Also, there are ways to die other than at the hands of dark wizards. Children die every day from neglect and abuse. The small incidents we have seen from Vernon and Petunia don't put an accidental death that far out of the question. Its been mentioned that Mrs. Figg was in charge of keeping an eye on Harry, but IMO she does a rather poor job of it. She only intereacts with Harry once a year, and in the months before he turned 11, she wasn't available at all. In CoS she must have seen Vernon putting bars on Harry's window, and then Harry was nowhere to be seen for several days and there's no indication that she alerted anyone (Ron showed up, as I recall, because Harry hadn't written to him all summer). What if Harry got heatstroke left alone all day in the summer in the unairconditioned second-floor bedroom? (unlikely, but not impossible) I just would find this all more palatable if Dumbledore had left Harry alone because he was worried they'd turn him out if he interfered, was completely surprised by their poor treatment, and afterwards removed Harry from their home as soon as he could each summer (I think only in Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows he leaves before his birthday). Alla: Please, the thought of Ms.Figg as safeguard for Harry makes me laugh and not in a good way. She did NOTHING to save him from abuse, what kind of safeguard is she? And while the starving and bar on the room makes me mad every time I think about it, remember in HBP (I think?) Harry remembers that he had to turn away from Vernon hitting him? (paraphrase)? Clearly while we are not shown physical abuse in great detail even JKR hints at what happened besides what occurred in CoS. And you are so right, imagine Dumbledore's face if his precious weapon ended up dead because of what Dursleys did to him? Supposedly protection is because Petunia's blood is near, NOT from Petunia and her relatives. Rebecca: > The nature of the protection itself is a little murky too. > I understand why, for the story purpose, Harry lives with relatives who are mean to him (and its one of the aspects that pulled me into the story when I first read it), but like Alla, I find it hard to accept Dumbledore's reasoning that there was nothing else he could do. It was an easy solution for him. I really can't see how he could easily toss Harry aside if he really cared deeply about him, and I really don't think it broke his heart at all. Honestly, I don't think he even thought about him again until his eleventh birthday. > > -Rebecca (apologies for responding to a 12-day-old post) > Alla: Ok, hopefully I added some of my examples so it is not complete I agree and me too, but THANK YOU so much and there is no expiration date on posr responses as far as I know :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 15:05:21 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:05:21 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191169 Alla: But again what does this has to do with anything I said? The only information Sirius could have given to the Ministry to try to make his case if he was allowed, was the information about Secret keeper and the switch. How was this information a secret that was worth protecting because of loyalty to the Order? The idea that spell itself was worth protecting was the only one I could see, but since this was not it, I am at loss here. Pippin: The Order of the Phoenix is a secret organization, and Order business is not supposed to be discussed with others. Not at all. Not even with your own children, let along Ministry representatives who might be Death Eaters. It is not Sirius's job to decide what Order business can be safely discussed. Dumbledore can decide to do it, as head of the Order. Sirius does not have that right, not only out of loyalty to Dumbledore but to all the other members of the Order. Alla: I can totally see Dumbledore thinking it in his head. But to me all the games Dumbledore plays are not excluded from the review of the justice system. Yes, I know this is sounds funny if we think about what justice system is in WW, but it is still my opinion. If what you are arguing that it is OK to place innocent man in jail to make sure that Order keeps their secrecy for no reason AT ALL IMO, I just disagree. Yes, they wanted the world to believe that Sirius is a Secret keeper, for sure. He was not though and those who were supposed to be under protection from that are dead, now the innocent man is set up and you want it to be under the wraps in order for Order to keep their secrets? What benefit it can serve in the war against Voldemort if nobody would ever learn that Peter was the real secret keeper? As I said before, sure if there is a REAL benefit in the war, I can see it, but spell is well known to everybody, Lily and James are dead. And you think it is beneficial why? I can see the only reason why - for Dumbledore wanting to keep Harry from Sirius' influence. I see no other reasons. Oh and why Dumbledore was supposed to help Sirius IMO. First of all I am arguing that he was supposed to investigate further, just dug a little bit deeper, because I thought that he owes some loyalty to his soldiers too, but Dumbledore surely proved me wrong. If his investigation would have proved that Sirius was guilty, I definitely would not argue that he needs help. But again, all that it took is ONE conversation for him to be convinced of Sirius' innocence. Why this could not have happened thirteen, twelve, or at least TEN years earlier, beats me. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 20:30:01 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:30:01 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" wrote: > > this is the part I have most trouble with: > The "love" protection from Lilly protected Harry for 17 years till the day he turned 17 and much intrigue and drama happens in the first chapters of DH to get Harry under protection and from the Dursley house before the protection of love ends. Steve replies: Not quite, you have to remember that two related but separate things are going on here - 1.) Lily gave Harry protection in the unique way in which she died protecting him. 2.) Dumbledore, seeing the value of Lily's protection, enhanced it with charms and spells unknown, to further protect Harry, as long as he can call the place home where his mother's blood dwells. In short, addtional, separate but related protection at the Dursley's. It is this separate protection given by Dumbledore that breaks when Harry turn 17 and leave 'home'. The breaking of this, has no effect on the protection he was given by Lily's sacrifice. In fact, in the very first book, we see that Lily's protection is still working for him when Quirrel can't touch him. > kamion53 continues: > > OK so far so good. > > Then at the end it is suggested Voldemort fails to kill Harry because of that Lily protection. Steve: More so because of a combination of factors, not just Lily's protection. > kamion53 continues: > > And even more weird because the fact that with his own resurrection he took Harry's blood, so Lilly's protective spell is still residing in Voldemorts veins? and still potent? > > If that was the case, Dumbledore knew the fact... he was a sort of pleased, when he heard what happens when Voldemort was resurrected and used it.... then I have to concluded that the whole charade with the 7 Potters was just a smokescreen with deadly consequences. > Steve replies: Dumbledore is play a 'cat and mouse' game using Snape as a pawn. He must keep Snape in Voldemort good books right up to the very end. So, Snape must let slip the actual time when they are moving Harry, to keep Voldemort thinking that Snape is a trusted and reliable spy. But, if Death Eaters are going to be there when Harry is moved, then they need some alternate method of protecting Harry. And that alternate method is 'The Seven Harrys'. As to Dumbledore being pleased with Voldemort using Harry's blood, we have the Infamous Gleam of Triumph, when he finds out, followed by a deep look of despair when he realizes what it means for Harry, and the ultimate sacrifice Harry must make. > kamion53 continues: > > it's either this or JKR contradicted her own first law that dead is dead and nobody returns from death, not do dead spells return. > >... Steve replies: As Geoff points out, and I agree, Harry was in a state of Limbo, neither living nor dead. So, when he comes back, he is not coming back from being truly dead. Plus there is an element of time distortion. That can be very much seen in the movie "Inception" with Leonardo DeCaprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Dream time and real time are not the same, nor is Limbo time. While a reasonable span of time occurs in Limbo, that might only be a few second in real time. So, from an external perspective, Harry and Voldemort are stunned for a few seconds, then Voldemort recovers, and it appears to those present that Harry does not. But of course, Harry does recover, he just doesn't reveal the fact. Think about the many instances of real people who appear to die, go down a long tunnel toward a bright light, then are told by a dead friend or relative that they must go back, and they do, they return to 'life'. Who is to say, this isn't what happened to both Voldemort and Harry, they didn't die, but they did have what is called a 'near death experience', where by some technical standard they are dead, but not really fully and truly dead. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 10 20:52:07 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:52:07 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" wrote: Kamion: > this is the part I have most trouble with: > The "love" protection from Lilly protected Harry for 17 years till the day he turned 17 and much intrige and drama happens in the first chapters of DH to get Harry under protection and from the Dursley house before the protection of love ends. > OK so far so good. Geoff: I think the situation was that while Harry stayed with those of his own blood, i.e. Petunia's family, he could not be touched while he was at the house each summer. But I think he was still vulnerable if he was away - as when the Dementors attacked at the beginning of OOTP. During this time, it would seem that Lily's protection was still active. When Voldemort duelled with him in GOF, he was away from the house and under age but he was able to hold Voldemort off; whether he could have continued to do so is not clear because the fight was broken off by Harry while the 'shadows' of his parents distracted Voldemort. Kamion: > Then at the end it is suggested Voldemort fails to kill Harry because of that Lily protection. > And even more weird because the fact that with his own resurrection he took Harry's blood, so Lilly's protective spell is still residenting in Voldemorts veins? > and still potent? > If that was the case, Dumbledore knew the fact... he was a sort of pleased, when he heard what happens when Voldemort was resurrected and used it.... Geoff: I have begun to wonder whether Dumbledore's gleam when Harry told him about the encounter was that perhaps Voldemort now possessing some of Harry's blood allowed him to touch Harry and, according to his thinking gave him some control over its effect, However, what if it also gave easier access to the protection if he attacked Harry again. Referring back to my last comment, it was immediately after this that Voldemort failed to defeat Harry as soon as he cast the spell and Harry was able to muster the power to hold him back - power which was attributed to the "twin wand" effect. Was this all or was the bottom line that Voldemort was now weakened in a *duelling* situation? Kamion: it's either this or JKR contradicted her own first law that dead is dead and nobody returns from death, not do dead spels return. Geoff: I'm not sure whether you are referring to Voldemort's return in GOF by these comments. If so, my view is that the word "resurrection" is perhaps misused here because Voldemort was not dead. When the Avada Kedavra rebounded on him at Godric's Hollow, he became disembodied but because of the Horcruxes which already existed, he did not die. He makes this very clear in GOF: '"My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice and it rebounded on me. Aaah... pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from the body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost... but, still, I was alive."' (GOF "The Death eaters" p.566 UK edition) '"We are not playing hide-and-seek, Harry," said Voldemort's soft, cold voice, drawing nearer as the Death Eaters laughed. "You cannot hide from me. Does this mean that you would prefer me to finish it now, Harry? Come out, Harry... come out and play, then... it will be quick... it might even be painless... I would not know... I have never died..."' (ibid. p.574/75) Kamion: ..then I have to concluded that the whole charade with the 7 Potters was just a smokescreen with deadly consequenses. Geoff: I'm afraid that you have lost me here - what consequences are we talking about? Finally, Steve, thank you for your supportive remarks on Movie. I just hope that my concise analysis continues to make some sort of sense; I think that trying to get sense out of this is giving me a headache. Where are the paracetamol tablets? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 21:16:05 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:16:05 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: ... > > Steve: > > The problem is, we need some working definition of "Destroyed". What if someone had poisoned Nagini? Would that have sufficiently rendered the snake useless as a Horcrux, keep in mind that dead inanimate objects can be Horcruxes. > > ... Steve continues that thought: I've had some further idea about the nature and destruction of Horcruxes, and from my previous post, you can see that this extends from my thoughts on Harry as a Living Horcrux. What if Nagini were poisoned, well Nagine would be, more or less sort of, destroyed, but not destroyed by anything specifically known to destroy Horcruxes. I contend that if Nagine were simply killed, the 'spirit' would not separate from he form. Remember inanimate objects can be Horcruxes. When Nagini's corpse rotted to the bone, the 'spirit' would still be bound to it. When the bones turned to dust, the 'spirit' would still be bound to the dust. The Hufflepuff Cup could be reforged and turned into 20 rings, and those rings individually and collectively would still be bound to the bit of Voldemorts sould. Simple forging and normal fire to not have the power to break the bond between object and soul. Riddle's Diary could be thrown into a fire and burnt to ash, and the 'soul' would still be bound to that ash. Fiend Fire could break the bond, but who would be foolish and foolhardy enough to used Fiend Fire in a common forge or to burn a book? So, simply killing Harry, or as some would say - destroying him, would not break the bond. Only very unique and specific spells and magical objects truly have the power to break the bond. What if Voldemort has simply conjure up a spear and stabbed Harry in the chest? Harry would be dead/destroyed but he would still very much be bound to the 'soul' and a working Horcrux. We can only speculate that Avada Kadavra is a sufficient spell to break a Horcrux bond. I would seem so from the flow of the story, but JKR never flat out confirms it. And, really, who would think of using a killing curse against an inanimate object. I suspect in the long history of wizard, very very very few have ever thought to bond a soul fragment to another living thing. That's just too unpredictable. So, simply Harry's death, or if your prefer destruction, is not sufficient to break that Horcrux bond. But perhaps the Avada Kadavra is enough? I speculate that Avada Kadavra is enough to break the bond, and if it were used on the Hufflepuff Cup or the Riddle Diary, there is a chance that simply casting that spell on an inanimate object would break the Horcrux bond between them. But then ... I speculate. Steve/bboyminn From thedossetts at gmail.com Wed Aug 10 21:29:14 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:29:14 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191173 > > Steve: > > > > The problem is, we need some working definition of "Destroyed". What if someone had poisoned Nagini? Would that have sufficiently rendered the snake useless as a Horcrux, keep in mind that dead inanimate objects can be Horcruxes. > > > > ... > > Steve continues that thought: > >snip > > What if Nagini were poisoned, well Nagine would be, more or less sort of, destroyed, but not destroyed by anything specifically known to destroy Horcruxes. > > I contend that if Nagine were simply killed, the 'spirit' would not separate from he form. Remember inanimate objects can be Horcruxes. When Nagini's corpse rotted to the bone, the 'spirit' would still be bound to it. When the bones turned to dust, the 'spirit' would still be bound to the dust. > > The Hufflepuff Cup could be reforged and turned into 20 rings, and those rings individually and collectively would still be bound to the bit of Voldemorts sould. Simple forging and normal fire to not have the power to break the bond between object and soul. > > Riddle's Diary could be thrown into a fire and burnt to ash, and the 'soul' would still be bound to that ash. > >snip > > So, simply killing Harry, or as some would say - destroying him, would not break the bond. Only very unique and specific spells and magical objects truly have the power to break the bond. > >snip > > We can only speculate that Avada Kadavra is a sufficient spell to break a Horcrux bond. I would seem so from the flow of the story, but JKR never flat out confirms it. And, really, who would think of using a killing curse against an inanimate object. > > I suspect in the long history of wizard, very very very few have ever thought to bond a soul fragment to another living thing. That's just too unpredictable. > > So, simply Harry's death, or if your prefer destruction, is not sufficient to break that Horcrux bond. But perhaps the Avada Kadavra is enough? > > I speculate that Avada Kadavra is enough to break the bond, and if it were used on the Hufflepuff Cup or the Riddle Diary, there is a chance that simply casting that spell on an inanimate object would break the Horcrux bond between them. > > But then ... I speculate. > > Steve/bboyminn > Pat: My understanding of the horcruxes is that there are only a few things that can separate the soul from the horcrux container, those things listed in the book (don't have it with me right now or I would quote.) But I also felt (maybe I'm wrong, this was my interpretation) that the act of making the horcrux made the object indestructible by anything *but* one of those things - in other words, a fire would not be able to destroy Tom's diary, even as throwing it down the toilet was unable to do any damage to it. Therefore, the Hufflepuff cup wouldn't be able to be remade into 20 rings - it must stay as the Hufflepuff cup unless the horcrux in it is destroyed, which also will destroy the cup itself. I don't know if we have enough information to say whether or not the Avada Kedavra curse will break a horcrux - but I would speculate that it does not, since Harry was not killed by it, only went into Limbo Land with Voldy. Just my opinion. Food for thought. Pat From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 10 21:34:41 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:34:41 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve: > > The problem is, we need some working definition of "Destroyed". What if someone had poisoned Nagini? Would that have sufficiently rendered the snake useless as a Horcrux, keep in mind that dead inanimate objects can be Horcruxes. Steve continues that thought: > I've had some further idea about the nature and destruction of Horcruxes, and from my previous post, you can see that this extends from my thoughts on Harry as a Living Horcrux. > I suspect in the long history of wizard, very very very few have ever thought to bond a soul fragment to another living thing. That's just too unpredictable. Geoff: This is borne out by Dumbledore: '"The snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as Horcruxes?" "Well, it is inadvisable to do so,: said Dumbledore, "Because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business." (HBP "Horcruxes" p.473 UK edition) Steve: > So, simply Harry's death, or if your prefer destruction, is not sufficient to break that Horcrux bond. But perhaps the Avada Kadavra is enough? > I speculate that Avada Kadavra is enough to break the bond, and if it were used on the Hufflepuff Cup or the Riddle Diary, there is a chance that simply casting that spell on an inanimate object would break the Horcrux bond between them. > But then ... I speculate. Geoff: How do you see Basilisk fangs and the Sword of Gryffindor fitting into your speculations as successful destroyers of Horcruxes? From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 10 21:40:10 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:40:10 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtbthw_mom" wrote: Pat: > My understanding of the horcruxes is that there are only a few things that can separate the soul from the horcrux container, those things listed in the book (don't have it with me right now or I would quote.) But I also felt (maybe I'm wrong, this was my interpretation) that the act of making the horcrux made the object indestructible by anything *but* one of those things - in other words, a fire would not be able to destroy Tom's diary, even as throwing it down the toilet was unable to do any damage to it. Therefore, the Hufflepuff cup wouldn't be able to be remade into 20 rings - it must stay as the Hufflepuff cup unless the horcrux in it is destroyed, which also will destroy the cup itself. > I don't know if we have enough information to say whether or not the Avada Kedavra curse will break a horcrux - but I would speculate that it does not, since Harry was not killed by it, only went into Limbo Land with Voldy. Geoff: As has already been said, I think, it would seem that the Avada Kevadra used by Voldemort in the Forest did not destroy the Horcrux, namely Harry, but did destroy the contents, namely Voldemort's soul fragment. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 22:20:55 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:20:55 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > ... > > Geoff: > As has already been said, I think, it would seem that the Avada Kevadra used by Voldemort in the Forest did not destroy the Horcrux, namely Harry, but did destroy the contents, namely Voldemort's soul fragment. > Steve: That is precisely my point. What ever breaks the bond, does not have to utterly destroy the object. The Cup, Book, and Locket still exist, they are slightly damage, but I consider that incidental to breaking the bond. It is not the object that has to be destroyed, it is the bond that needs to be broken. When the Soul Bit is no longer bound to the object, it then just moves 'on'. The Soul Bit is no longer earth bound. I suspect there is no documentation indicating whether Avada Kadavra has the power to break that bond because it never occurred to any one to try it before. It seems pointless to use Avada Kadavra on an inanimate object. But, give the results we see with Harry, it seems the Killing Curse does break the bond. Remember, I am speculating that it is not Harry himself that needs to be destroyed, it is the bond holding the Soul Bit to him. However, in most common cases across the span of history, it seem most likely that the object is always damaged in the process. And, I speculate that across the span of history, there have been very very few living Horcruxes. Again ... speculation, but fair speculation I think. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Aug 10 22:31:53 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:31:53 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: >... > > Geoff: > How do you see Basilisk fangs and the Sword of Gryffindor fitting > into your speculations as successful destroyers of Horcruxes? > Steve: Again, the Method of Destruction must be strong enough the break the bond, the physical damage to the object is incidental. And, the objects, Diary, Cup, Locket, are not actually destroyed. Harry still uses the Ring. The Book still exists as does the Locket. The Ring has no more than a crack in the stone. When Dumbledore (or Ron) struck the object with the Sword of Gryffindor, it was not with the intention of destroying the object, but of destroying the Horcrux, and to destroy the Horcrux, you must simply unbind it from the object to which is is bound. Again, that invariable damages the object, but I still claim that damage in incidental. Someone else speculated that perhaps the process of making an object into a Horcrux imbues it with some protection against common physical damage. In a sense, making it invulnerable to all but Horcrux destroying magic (of whatever sort). I have mixed feelings on this idea. I think I'm leaning against it though. But whether it is true or not, it doesn't invalidate my previous post as an illustration. IF the Cup could be reforged into 20 rings, it wouldn't matter. Common fire and heat are not enough to break the magic bond holding the Soul Bit to the Object, and by extension, holding the 'soul' earth bound. Striking the Object with the Basilisk imbued Sword of Gryffindor causes only minor damage to the object, but has sufficient magical power to break the bond holding the 'soul' to the object. Steve/bboyminn From ddankanyin at cox.net Thu Aug 11 02:23:56 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:23:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191179 From: "Steve" Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:16 PM > > I speculate that Avada Kadavra is enough to break the bond, and if it were > used on the Hufflepuff Cup or the Riddle Diary, there is a chance that > simply casting that spell on an inanimate object would break the Horcrux > bond between them. > > But then ... I speculate. Dorothy: I might be wrong here, but I thought that the act of willingly dying for the protection of the rest of the world was what not only saved Harry, but destroyed the horcrux within him as well. At least I think that's what JKR intended. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 11 03:19:03 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 03:19:03 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191180 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > So, simply killing Harry, or as some would say - destroying > him, would not break the bond. Only very unique and > specific spells and magical objects truly have the power > to break the bond. zanooda: Don't forget that Harry was not a proper Horcrux :-). The creation of a Horcrux requires a special dark spell and possibly a dark ritual as well to bind a bit of soul to an object. No such spell and ritual were performed at Godric's Hollow, thus the piece of LV's soul is not bound to Harry the way it should - the way another piece is bound to Nagini. But I agree that we can't be sure how living Horcruxes can be destroyed, due to the lack of information on the subject :-). > Steve wrote: > So, simply Harry's death, or if your prefer destruction, is > not sufficient to break that Horcrux bond. But perhaps the > Avada Kadavra is enough? zanooda: "It has to be something so destructive that the Horcrux can't repair itself" :-). Doesn't it describe death, for a living being :-)? From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 11 03:23:44 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 03:23:44 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > When Dumbledore (or Ron) struck the object with the Sword of > Gryffindor, it was not with the intention of destroying the > object, but of destroying the Horcrux, and to destroy the > Horcrux, you must simply unbind it from the object to which > is is bound. zanooda: But, according to the book, the object *is* a Horcrux :-). From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Aug 11 03:24:34 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1313033074.40106.YahooMailNeo@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191184 Geoff: As has already been said, I think, it would seem that the Avada Kevadra used by Voldemort in the Forest did not destroy the Horcrux, namely Harry, but did destroy the contents, namely Voldemort's soul fragment. June My understanding (if I am understanding it correctly) is that the reason Avada Kedavra destroyed the horcrux in Harry is because it was Voldemort himself who cast the curse and that is why Harry had to go to his death (by Voldemort) willingly. From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Thu Aug 11 18:17:52 2011 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:17:52 -0000 Subject: "Was Pottermore hacked?" thread moved to OTC Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191186 Greetings, everyone! Just wanted to let you all know that we've moved the thread which asked whether the Pottermore site had been hacked over to Off-Topic Chatter, since the posts in question didn't really pertain to the HP books or story. If you'd like to comment on that thread, please do so! It can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/40840 We also wanted to let you know that, once Pottermore is live to all, in October, there will be new information coming from JKR pertaining to the story and the characters (yay!). Posts about that new information will certainly be appropriate to the main HPfGU group to the extent that they continue discussion of the canon. Any posts which relate to the mechanics of the site or the beta experience should be posted at OTC. Thanks! Shorty Elf From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Aug 11 19:10:04 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:10:04 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191187 Geoff: I have been pleased to see that the post I sent a few days ago has triggered quite a lot of discussion; I have often posted in the past and the thread has fallen flat with no responses. What I want to do here is to use my thoughts plus the supporting messages from Steve and a number of other members to try to draw this thread together and tie up loose ends if that is possible ? a "theory of everything" for Horcruxes and AKs so to speak. I am going to try to collate all the facts we have from canon before looking, perhaps again, at some of the conclusions members of the group have drawn. Firstly, as someone reminded us only today, and as Slughorn explained to the youthful Tom Riddle, a Horcrux is the object or being in which the soul fragment is stored: `"Just so you understand the term. A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul"' (HBP, "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition). He continues to explain that committing a murder rips the soul but for a wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux, there is Dark Magic involved by encasing the torn fragment: `"Encase? But how-?" "There is a spell, do not ask me. I don't know!" said Slughorn, shaking his head like an old elephant bothered by mosquitoes. "Do I look as though I have tried it ? do I look like a killer?"' (ibid. p.465). So I shall refer to the contents of the Horcruxes as "soul fragments" to try to make it clear to what I am referring. It appears that there are three variations in the way in which Voldemort's soul fragments behave. It would seem that there are some which remain dormant if undisturbed. I think that fragment in the Ravenclaw diadem and in the Hufflepuff cup come into this category. A second set of soul fragments seems to be able to interact with people of their own accord. The soul fragment which manifested itself as teenage Tom Riddle in GOF was obviously able to influence Ginny and try to do the same with Harry and there was the fragment in the locket which, if worn for long periods could affect the wearer psychologically as we saw in DH. The third category was where a living Horcrux was made. Dumbledore tells Harry in HBP that making a living Horcrux is inadvisable and there was little evidence of it having been done often, but Voldemort had turned Nagini into one. But then of course there is Harry... Someone wrote recently that Harry can't be a Horcrux because he wasn't turned into a Horcrux by the planned use of Dark Magic. As Dumbledore put it: `"You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make He left more than his body behind. He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived."' (DH "King's Cross" p.568 UK edition) Inevitably, poor old Harry seems to be the exception to the rule in everything that happens. We have established that the soul fragment can only be destroyed by the use of certain powerful magical weapons or forces. A Basilisk fang was used for the diary and the cup, Gryffindor's sword for the locket and the snake, Fiendfyre finished off the diadem and an AK curse the fragment in Harry. I'm not sure whether we have been told how Dumbledore destroyed the soul fragment in the ring. In the case of the inanimate Horcruxes, every one suffered serious damage or destruction during the killing of the soul fragment and, of course, Nagini wasn't very well after Neville had a talk with her. A thought that has recently occurred to me is whether Voldemort was actually aware that Harry was a Horcrux. The fact that he and Harry shared a mind link might not be what was to be expected and that perhaps he thought it was some quirk related to the Godric's Hollow incident. Did he actually know that Harry spoke Parseltongue? If he had known, I wonder whether he might have taken other measures to control Harry. One point which has been under discussion is why Voldemort failed four times with an AK to kill Harry. and it would seem that in every instance, the situation was different. At Godric's Hollow, Voldemort later acknowledges that "His mother left on him the traces of her sacrifice this is old magic. I should have remembered it. I was foolish to overlook it." (GOF "The Death Eaters" p.566 UK edition). On the second occasion, the spell wasn't completed because Harry broke the link and the "shadows" of the wand victims blocked Voldemort long enough for Harry to get away. The third saw Voldemort cast an AK with no resistance from Harry and the last saw another rebounding effect, this time fatal. With regard to the third duel and final duels, it was my discussion of my take of them which triggered the current series of posts and I feel that perhaps I might just repeat part of what I said in post 191160 instead of rewording it: When Voldemort cast the spell in the forest, I believe that Lily's power of love was still latent in Harry and forced the spell onto the Horcrux fragment in him. It was destroyed in a kind of reversal of what happened in Godric's Hollow where Voldemort's spell rebounded and disembodied him leaving the Horcrux fragment to latch onto baby Harry. There was obviously some sort of reaction because Voldemort was apparently knocked out judging from what Harry could determine without daring to open his eyes. Now, what about the Great Hall duel at the very end? I believe that the Elder Wand came into play here. The sequence of holding the Elder Wand was that Draco disarmed Dumbledore on the Tower but did not take possession because the wand was buried with the Headmaster. However, because he had disarmed him, the wand's allegiance shifted to Draco although he did not have the wand in his possession. When Harry disarmed Draco at the Manor, the Elder Wand was not physically involved but, since Harry had defeated Draco, the wand's master had been defeated and so it's allegiance moved again ? to Harry, Voldemort being ignorant of this change. So when Voldemort rather foolishly attempted an Avadra Kedrava for the third time on Harry, this was someone who was not the master of the wand attempting to defeat the real master without the authority to do so and the wand therefore responded to Harry's Expelliarmus and went to him while Voldemort's spell rebounded ? yet again! and this time he had nothing left with which to cushion or reduce the spell. The way in which Horcruxes are created and the way in which the soul fragments are sealed is perhaps more complex that I thought when these strange objects first speared in HBP and add to that the way in which the "ownership' of the Elder Wand was progressively transferred in a very short space of time ? and the misinterpreting of these transfers by Voldemort have produced quite a puzzle for us innocent readers. I hope that that by trying to get all the evidence correctly marshalled as it were "under one roof", we may be able to satisfactorily understand the events of 2nd May 1998 at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. I now wait for you to have fun picking holes in my theorising. From kckriger at yahoo.com Thu Aug 11 07:05:59 2011 From: kckriger at yahoo.com (ken krieger) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: <1313033074.40106.YahooMailNeo@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1313046359.34966.YahooMailClassic@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191188 Geoff: As has already been said, I think, it would seem that the Avada Kevadra used by Voldemort in the Forest did not destroy the Horcrux, namely Harry, but did destroy the contents, namely Voldemort's soul fragment. June My understanding (if I am understanding it correctly) is that the reason Avada Kedavra destroyed the horcrux in Harry is because it was Voldemort himself who cast the curse and that is why Harry had to go to his death (by Voldemort) willingly. Hi ? There are a couple of things we need to think about, Harry is the true master of the Elder wand and Harry also owns all three of the Deathly Hallows, as the wand's master it would not kill him, The Tale of Three Brothers may be true. Yours Ken From ddankanyin at cox.net Thu Aug 11 19:53:23 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:53:23 -0400 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? References: Message-ID: <25768B248892472F9AE24034A8B691AB@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191189 From: "Geoff" Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:10 PM `"You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make. He left more than his body behind. He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived."' (DH "King's Cross" p.568 UK edition) (snip) A thought that has recently occurred to me is whether Voldemort was actually aware that Harry was a Horcrux. (snip) I now wait for you to have fun picking holes in my theorising. Dorothy: I don't think Voldemort had any idea that Harry actually became a horcrux since he certainly didn't do it on purpose. Voldemort thought that he had to "make" one by virtue of murder, which he did of course, but fell into becoming Vapormort after that one. :) From lkotur at yahoo.com Thu Aug 11 23:29:58 2011 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:29:58 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191190 > Geoff: > > > One point which has been under discussion is why Voldemort failed > four times with an AK to kill Harry. > I now wait for you to have fun picking holes in my theorising. > lkotur: The reason that Harry did not die in the forest is that Voldemort used Harry's blood to return in GOF. That use of Harry's blood meant that Harry could not be killed by Voldemort as long as Voldemort was alive (circular logic) and Harry could not die as long as part of Voldemort's soul remained in Harry. lkotur. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Aug 12 06:51:03 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:51:03 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? In-Reply-To: <25768B248892472F9AE24034A8B691AB@DG22FG61> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorothy dankanyin" wrote: Geoff: > `"You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to > make. He left more than his body behind. He left part of himself > latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived."' > (DH "King's Cross" p.568 UK edition) > (snip) > A thought that has recently occurred to me is whether Voldemort was > actually aware that Harry was a Horcrux. > (snip) > I now wait for you to have fun picking holes in my theorising. Dorothy: > I don't think Voldemort had any idea that Harry actually became a horcrux since he certainly didn't do it on purpose. Voldemort thought that he had to "make" one by virtue of murder, which he did of course, but fell into becoming Vapormort after that one. :) Geoff: Pondering a little further, I think that if Voldemort had realised that he had unintentionally made Harry a Horcrux, he might have been a good deal more cautious in his aim of killing Harry because this would also have destroyed one of his soul fragments. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 12 07:21:59 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:21:59 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191192 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > When Dumbledore (or Ron) struck the object with the Sword of > > Gryffindor, it was not with the intention of destroying the > > object, but of destroying the Horcrux, and to destroy the > > Horcrux, you must simply unbind it from the object to which > > is is bound. > > zanooda: > > But, according to the book, the object *is* a Horcrux :-). > Steve: Well, that's something I've been thinking a lot about lately. I calling the object a Horcrux simply common and convenient usage, or it it literal? Once the spell is cast, that spell creates a Horcrux by bonding the soul and an object. But, it the Bond the Horcrux or is the object the Horcrux, and keep in mind that none of the Horcrux objects has really been destroyed. They still exist, and like the Stone, are still usable. But the BOND has been broken releasing the bonded soul bit. Even if the Bond is the Horcrux, how can we refer to the object without complex and convoluted phrases. Far simpler, it to refer to the object as a 'Horcrux' - language of convenience. So is the use of 'Horcrux' absolute literal truth, or is it merely convenient language? I say the true Horcrux is the Bond. And it is the Bond, not the object, that needs to be destroyed. Again, the ring simply had a crack in the stone; it, the Ring, was in no way 'destroyed'. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 12 07:36:54 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 07:36:54 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > So, simply killing Harry, or as some would say - destroying > > him, would not break the bond. Only very unique and > > specific spells and magical objects truly have the power > > to break the bond. > > zanooda: > > Don't forget that Harry was not a proper Horcrux :-). ..., thus the piece of LV's soul is not bound to Harry the way it should - the way another piece is bound to Nagini. But I agree that we can't be sure how living Horcruxes can be destroyed, due to the lack of information on the subject :-). > Steve now replies: Good point, something I knew, but hadn't really considered. In Harry's case, the soul bit is just clinging to him, and clinging with the intention of staying, as it keep the soul bit earth bound. But you are right, it has not been properly and full bonded to Harry. > > Steve wrote: > > > So, simply Harry's death, or if your prefer destruction, is > > not sufficient to break that Horcrux bond. But perhaps the > > Avada Kadavra is enough? > > zanooda: > > "It has to be something so destructive that the Horcrux can't repair itself" :-). Doesn't it describe death, for a living being :-)? > Steve now replies: That's the tricky part, destructive to what? Destructive to the object or to the bond. Destructive enough, that once the bond is broken, it can't automatically re-bond itself? Again, none of the objects were truly destroyed. The Ring, Cup, Locket are damaged but generally intact. As I said previously, it takes a very special type of magic to undo a Horcrux. The Cup could have been reforged into 20 rings, and the Soul Bond would still be intact, and it would still be an operating Horcrux. Normal fire and heat are not enough to break the Bond. It would have to be a forge fueled by Fiend Fire to have a chance to break that bond, and no one would be foolish enough to fuel a forge with Fiend Fire. I speculate that Nagini could have been killed or died of old age, and the Horcrux Bond would not have been broken, because no un-bonding magic had touch her/him/it. So, the Horcrux soul bit would have clung to the dust of the snakes boned for all time. Just as the Horcrux would have remained bonded to the 20 reforged rings. So many different complicating things come into play in this scene, it is hard to sort out what means what relative to what. - the clinging soul bit - the Elder Wand - the Deathly Hallow in general - Lily's protection in Harry - Harry's protection in Voldemort - Harry's willingness to die without defending himself - and a few I'm probably forgetting Each of these playing its own part in its own way, in some cases completely separate, and in other cases, overlapping in effect. Very complicated. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Aug 12 12:50:25 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:50:25 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191194 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: zanooda: > > Don't forget that Harry was not a proper Horcrux :-). ..., thus the piece of LV's soul is not bound to Harry the way it should - the way another piece is bound to Nagini. But I agree that we can't be sure how living Horcruxes can be destroyed, due to the lack of information on the subject :-). Steve: > Good point, something I knew, but hadn't really considered. In Harry's case, the soul bit is just clinging to him, and clinging with the intention of staying, as it keep the soul bit earth bound. > > But you are right, it has not been properly and full bonded to Harry. Steve: > > > So, simply Harry's death, or if your prefer destruction, is > > > not sufficient to break that Horcrux bond. But perhaps the > > > Avada Kadavra is enough? Geoff: I think in the situation that existed, Harry was probably only likely to encounter an Avada Kedavra which I am sure would be enough. zanooda: > > "It has to be something so destructive that the Horcrux can't repair itself" :-). Doesn't it describe death, for a living being :-)? Steve: > That's the tricky part, destructive to what? Destructive to the object or to the bond. Destructive enough, that once the bond is broken, it can't automatically re-bond itself? > Again, none of the objects were truly destroyed. The Ring, Cup, Locket are damaged but generally intact. Geoff: I don't altogether agree... 'Dumbledore took the diary from Harry and peered keenly down his long, crooked nose at its burnt and soggy pages. (POA "Dobby's Reward" p.244 UK edition) 'The monstrous versions of himself and Hermione were gone: there was only Ron, standing there with the sword held slackly in his hand, looking down at the shattered remains of the locket on the flat rock.' (DH "The Silver Doe" p.307 UK edition) '"So we're another Horcrux down," said Ron and from under his jacket" he pulled the mangled remains of Hufflepuff's cup.' (DH "The Battle of Hogwarts" p.501 UK edition). 'A blood-like substance, dark and tarry, seemed to be leaking from the diadem. Suddenly, Harry felt the thing vibrate violently, then break apart in his hands..' (ibid. p.510) Personally, the use of the words 'mangled' and 'shattered' in these circumstances would not project a sense of 'generally intact' to me. :-)) I assume that you wouldn't make the same observation about Nagini either? :-( From bart at moosewise.com Fri Aug 12 18:34:35 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:34:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E45723B.2030609@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191195 On 8/11/2011 3:10 PM, Geoff wrote: > I now wait for you to have fun picking holes in my theorising. > Bart: Cutting out everything you said for brevity; I'm not so much poking holes in your theorizing as much as offering alternative points of view. The Horcrux thing is something I paid attention to, as looking through the archives of this group (don't bother), you will find that I was very firmly in the "Harry is not a horcrux" camp. Here's where I made my mistake: I was thinking of a horcrux as something created by a specific spell, as opposed to generically a fragment of one's soul kept in a container. Now, due to the rarity of creation of horcruxes, combined by the possibly unprecedented move by Morty to create multiple horcruxes, it is quite possible that Harry is the only case where a horcrux was created by a means other than the standard one. The point here is that while standard horcruxes behave in certain ways, this does not mean that that the Harrycrux would behave in the same manner. Oh, I think you missed one of the AK's; didn't Morty fire off one in the flight of the 7 Harry's? Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 12 18:57:46 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:57:46 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191196 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > ... > > > Steve: > > .... > > > Again, none of the objects were truly destroyed. The Ring, Cup, Locket are damaged but generally intact. > > Geoff: > I don't altogether agree... > > 'Dumbledore took the diary from Harry and peered keenly down his > long, crooked nose at its burnt and soggy pages. > (POA "Dobby's Reward" p.244 UK edition) > > '... there was only Ron, standing there with the sword held > slackly in his hand, looking down at the shattered remains of > the locket on the flat rock.' > (DH "The Silver Doe" p.307 UK edition) > > '"So we're another Horcrux down," said Ron and from under his > jacket" he pulled the mangled remains of Hufflepuff's cup.' > (DH "The Battle of Hogwarts" p.501 UK edition). > > 'A blood-like substance, dark and tarry, seemed to be leaking > from the diadem. Suddenly, Harry felt the thing vibrate violently, > then break apart in his hands..' (ibid. p.510) > > Personally, the use of the words 'mangled' and 'shattered' in these > circumstances would not project a sense of 'generally intact' to me. > :-)) > > I assume that you wouldn't make the same observation about Nagini > either? > :-( > Steve: The Diary might have been singed and soggy, but it was still a book, not a pile of ashes. The Cup was still a cup, though likely bent. And I believe that 'mangled' is an overly dramatic word, in this case, for bend or misshapen. The Diadem is unique as it is the only thing we see destroyed by Fiend Fire. Yes, it broke apart, but it didn't turn to dust. In this case, I will give you that it wasn't 'damaged but generally intact'. But neither was it completely and utterly destroyed. As to the dramatic turn of a phrase, let's consider the Potter house in Godric's Hollow. At various places earlier in the series, we hear the house referenced as 'destroyed', which people took to mean utterly and completely destroyed. Yet, we find later in the series, when Harry visits the house, that only the bedroom in which the event occurred was destroyed. The house is 'generally intact'. "Mangled" doesn't necessarily mean that the Cup was crumpled up like an old piece of paper. It means it was damage to some degree, we can only infer that degree of damage. I contend, in my opinion, that it was certainly 'damaged, but generally intact'. "Burnt and soggy" means damaged, but clearly not destroyed. The Locket is referred to as "Shattered", but do we really know that it was reduced to a handful of metal fragments? That is not the sense I get when Ron shows it to Hermione later in the story. It seems to be 'damaged but generally intact'. But then ... that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Aug 12 19:13:17 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:13:17 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? In-Reply-To: <4E45723B.2030609@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191197 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > On 8/11/2011 3:10 PM, Geoff wrote: > > I now wait for you to have fun picking holes in my theorising. > > > > Bart: > ... > > The Horcrux thing is something I paid attention to, as ... I > was very firmly in the "Harry is not a horcrux" camp. Here's > where I made my mistake: I was thinking of a horcrux as something > created by a specific spell, as opposed to generically a fragment > of one's soul kept in a container. ... > > Bart > Steve: Harry was functionally a Horcrux, but he may not have been literally a Horcrux. He was Horcrux-like. The Soul Bit was clinging to him, or so I speculated, and doing so with the desperate intent of remaining earth bound, but it wasn't necessarily bonded to him the way it would be if it have been bonded by Horcrux Creation Magic. Once again, Harry is, and is involved in, unique and unprecedented forms of magic. Perhaps that is why the Avada Kadavra was so easily able to break the bond between Harry and the soul bit clinging to him, because it was clinging and not bonded in the truest sense. I think very much that by the strict technical definition, Harry was not a Horcrux. Yet, by a more general definition, and functionally, he was. Again, what happens to Harry, several times in the series, is unique in the annals of magic, and is generally unprecedented. At least, that's how I see it. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Aug 12 20:09:47 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:09:47 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? In-Reply-To: <4E45723B.2030609@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191198 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Geoff: > > I now wait for you to have fun picking holes in my theorising. Bart: > Cutting out everything you said for brevity; I'm not so much poking > holes in your theorizing as much as offering alternative points of view. > > The Horcrux thing is something I paid attention to, as looking > through the archives of this group (don't bother), you will find that I > was very firmly in the "Harry is not a horcrux" camp. Here's where I > made my mistake: I was thinking of a horcrux as something created by a > specific spell, as opposed to generically a fragment of one's soul kept > in a container. Now, due to the rarity of creation of horcruxes, > combined by the possibly unprecedented move by Morty to create multiple > horcruxes, it is quite possible that Harry is the only case where a > horcrux was created by a means other than the standard one. The point > here is that while standard horcruxes behave in certain ways, this does > not mean that that the Harrycrux would behave in the same manner. Geoff: A few holes in my theorising will help to ventilate my thinking. :-) I too belonged to the HINAH camp and also plead guilty to making the same interpretational mistake. Bart: > Oh, I think you missed one of the AK's; didn't Morty fire off one > in the flight of the 7 Harry's? Geoff: I didn't bring that one in because I was looking at situations where one might say that the confrontation was "choreographed", by which I mean that Voldemort largely set up the situation. Making myself think a little more about Horcruxes in the last few days presented me with another curiosity for people to chew over, something that puzzles me about the Godric's Hollow night. In "The Princes Tale" we see Dumbledore in the Pensieve memory telling Snape about the piece of Voldemort's soul that had latched onto Harry and then in "Kings Cross", he tells Harry that he was the Horcrux that Voldemort never intended to make. Now, we know that in general a Horcrux is a deliberate object made or adapted to hold a soul fragment. Now Voldemort had already made Horcruxes. I'm not sure of the timeline for Nagini but I suspect that by this date, all the six intended Horcruxes and their soul fragments were in existence. But Voldemort had killed many people and not created Horcruxes so, if killing produces a soul fragment, his being must have been filled with them. Also, he had just killed James and Lily so there were two more fragments kicking around. So. When the Avada Kedavra backfired on Voldemort and he was disembodied, why did one fragment - a single fragment - among all the others escape to go to Harry and not disappear into a non-corporeal form as did the others? From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Aug 12 22:41:34 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:41:34 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve: > > The Diary might have been singed and soggy, but it was still a book, not a pile of ashes. The Cup was still a cup, though likely bent. And I believe that 'mangled' is an overly dramatic word, in this case, for bend or misshapen. > The Diadem is unique as it is the only thing we see destroyed by Fiend Fire. Yes, it broke apart, but it didn't turn to dust. In this case, I will give you that it wasn't 'damaged but generally intact'. But neither was it completely and utterly destroyed. > "Mangled" doesn't necessarily mean that the Cup was crumpled up like an old piece of paper. It means it was damage to some degree, we can only infer that degree of damage. I contend, in my opinion, that it was certainly 'damaged, but generally intact'. > > "Burnt and soggy" means damaged, but clearly not destroyed. > > The Locket is referred to as "Shattered", but do we really know that it was reduced to a handful of metal fragments? That is not the sense I get when Ron shows it to Hermione later in the story. It seems to be 'damaged but generally intact'. > > But then ... that's just my opinion. Geoff: But I still maintain that, if I might use a UK legal term that is used in disputes over goods etc., these items are "not fit for purpose". The diary and the cup and the other item are basically unusable. But again, that's just my two pennyworth. From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Fri Aug 12 13:00:40 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (bearhugger48) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:00:40 -0000 Subject: Harry a horcrux? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191200 Seems odd that LV placed a bit of soul into Harry? He was trying to kill Harry from the get-go, so he did not know. bearhugger48 From kernsac at gmail.com Sat Aug 13 05:53:30 2011 From: kernsac at gmail.com (Peggy Kern) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 22:53:30 -0700 Subject: Harry and Parseltongue Message-ID: <1284C001719F423DA383CE08CEBC0C69@PeggyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191201 Hi, all, from a lurker. Here?s something I?ve wondered about since reading DH: After Voldemort?s death, when Harry was no longer a horcrux, did he lose his ability to speak parseltongue? Did he have that ability because part of Voldemort?s soul was in him? If so, he would have lost that ability, right? Thoughts? Peggy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Aug 13 06:43:38 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 06:43:38 -0000 Subject: Harry and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1284C001719F423DA383CE08CEBC0C69@PeggyPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191202 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Kern" wrote: Peggy: > Hi, all, from a lurker. Here's something I've wondered about since reading DH: After Voldemort's death, when Harry was no longer a horcrux, did he lose his ability to speak parseltongue? Did he have that ability because part of Voldemort's soul was in him? If so, he would have lost that ability, right? Thoughts? Geoff: Unless JKR has said anything in interviews etc., I doubt if we have a definitive answer, but I would go for saying "Yes". As far back as COS, Dumbledore implied that Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue had been transferred from Voldemort at Godric's Hollow. Since the soul fragment which had made Harry a Horcrux had been destroyed during the confrontation in the forest, my feeling is that Harry has lost any powers attributable to that event. From kersberg at chello.nl Sat Aug 13 09:05:15 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:05:15 -0000 Subject: Harry and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1284C001719F423DA383CE08CEBC0C69@PeggyPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191203 JKR has said somewhere that he did loose the ability to speak Parseltongue, he did not loose the scar, but Parseltongue was out. (pitty) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Peggy Kern" wrote: > > Hi, all, from a lurker. Here???s something I???ve wondered about since reading DH: After Voldemort???s death, when Harry was no longer a horcrux, did he lose his ability to speak parseltongue? Did he have that ability because part of Voldemort???s soul was in him? If so, he would have lost that ability, right? Thoughts? > > Peggy > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 13 18:59:39 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 18:59:39 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes ( was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Steve: > > > > The Diary might have been singed and soggy, but it was still a book, not a pile of ashes. The Cup was still a cup, though likely bent. And I believe that 'mangled' is an overly dramatic word, in this case, for bend or misshapen. > > > The Diadem is unique as it is the only thing we see destroyed by Fiend Fire. ... it wasn't 'damaged but generally intact'. But neither was it completely and utterly destroyed. > > > > >.... > > > > The Locket is referred to as "Shattered", but do we really know that it was reduced to a handful of metal fragments? That is not the sense I get when Ron shows it to Hermione ... > > > > But then ... that's just my opinion. > > Geoff: > But I still maintain that, if I might use a UK legal term that is > used in disputes over goods etc., these items are "not fit for > purpose". The diary and the cup and the other item are basically > unusable. > > But again, that's just my two pennyworth. > Steve: Actually, I will concede that point. I claim "damaged, but not destroyed", but that DOES NOT means something as simple as a scratch or chip. Certainly, in all but the most absurd circumstances, the objects are "not fit for purpose". That said, the cup is still a cup, just not a usable cup. The locket is still a locket, just not usable as a locket. The book is sufficiently mangled as to not function as a practical diary any more, but it is still recognizable as a diary. Now, I make one absurd exception. While one could still drink from the cup, it would be awkward and impractical, and the same with the other objects. One could still wear the locket, but only in the absurd sense. The same with the Diary, you could technically write in it, but not in any practical sense. So, sufficiently danged to be definitely "not fit for purpose". Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 13 19:03:28 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:03:28 -0000 Subject: Harry a horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191205 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bearhugger48" wrote: > > Seems odd that LV placed a bit of soul into Harry? He was trying to kill Harry from the get-go, so he did not know. > > bearhugger48 > Steve: He, Voldermort, DIDN'T place it there, it just ended up there by chance. The soul bit, desperate to cling to life and the earth, latched on to the only living thing it could find - Harry. Steve/bboyminn From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 13 11:10:33 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (bearhugger48) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:10:33 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes (was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191206 > Steve: > The Diary might have been singed and soggy, but it was still a book, not a pile of ashes. The Cup was still a cup, though likely bent. And I believe that 'mangled' is an overly dramatic word, in this case, for bend or misshapen. > > The Diadem is unique as it is the only thing we see destroyed by Fiend Fire. Yes, it broke apart, but it didn't turn to dust. > > The Locket is referred to as "Shattered", but do we really know > that it was reduced to a handful of metal fragments? bearhugger48: I am missing something here plz help me to understand. This piece of dark magic Tom Riddle came to know as horcrux from the forbidden library says that a wizard can separate his soul into 7 pieces? Or more, nevertheless has to have some sort of scientific background even in the WW. It would seem that LV had to have control of these pieces and know what he wanted to do with them to make them horcruxes. Then he had to make a decision in what to place them, where to hide them and how to protect them. Given that Lily & James were murdered just before Harry was touched in the head, would account for two pieces of soul not yet placed anywhere. Then LV lost his powers and poof gone. Was the piece attached to Harry-Lily's? And what happened to James' piece? Can we name all 7 pieces. In the Movie DH1 Ron destroys the locket horcrux and said only 3 more to go. At that point, only the book & the ring had been neutralized. Excellent word. Way back in old school-3+3=6 Maybe just a Hollywood booboo. From ki4tia at comcast.net Sat Aug 13 19:02:37 2011 From: ki4tia at comcast.net (Stephanie) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:02:37 -0000 Subject: Difference in Ravenclaw house colors from the book to movies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191207 Just wondering, why did they changed the colors from dark blue and bronze to dark blue silver? Just wondering.. Thanks Stephanie From ki4tia at comcast.net Sat Aug 13 19:05:14 2011 From: ki4tia at comcast.net (Stephanie) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:05:14 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191208 I know JKR said that Harry made sure Snape had a picture in the headmaster office but did he make sure Snape got a proper burial? Just wondering Stephanie From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Aug 13 20:14:39 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:14:39 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes (was:... the Forest scene ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bearhugger48" wrote: bearhugger48: > I am missing something here plz help me to understand. > This piece of dark magic Tom Riddle came to know as horcrux from > the forbidden library says that a wizard can separate his soul into > 7 pieces? Or more, nevertheless has to have some sort of scientific > background even in the WW. Geoff: Let's look at the conversation between Slughorn and Tom to start with: '"How do you split your soul?" "Well, said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation. It is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killiong rips the soul apart..."' HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) So, it seems that every time a person commits murder, their soul is split. But Horcruxes are only created when the murderer WANTS to create one. The conversation continues... '",,,The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion-" "Encase? But how-?" "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" said Slughorn.' (ibid. p.465) So there is no limit on how many times a soul can get split; as I said a day or so ago, Voldemort has killed a lot of people so there must be a lot of soul fragments in his being. Hence there is presumably no limit to the number of Horcruxes. The seven emerges from later in the conversation: '"What I don't understand though - just out of curiosity - I mean, would one Horcrux be much use? Can you only split your soul once? Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces? I mean, for instance, isn't seven the most powerfully magical number, wouldn't seven-?" "Merlin's beard, Tom!" yelped Slughorn. "Seven! Isn't it bad enough to think of killing one person? And in any case... bad enough to divide the soul.. but to rip it into seven pieces..."' (ibid. pp.465/66) So, basically, you can have your soul in many pieces if you kill enough and Voldemort has done; but the number of Horcruxes depends on how many you *make*. It does not follow that every soul fragment becomes a Horcrux. Later on the same chapter, Dumbledore says that a seven-part soul would would greatly appeal to Voldemort, but points out to Harry that the seventh part musr remain inside his body so there are six Horcruxes to be found. He also points out that Voldemort would probably choose objects worthy of the honour of becoming a Horcrux. bearhugger48: > It would seem that LV had to have control of these pieces and know > what he wanted to do with them to make them horcruxes. Then he had > to make a decision in what to place them, where to hide them and how > to protect them. > Given that Lily & James were murdered just before Harry was touched > in the head, would account for two pieces of soul not yet placed > anywhere. Then LV lost his powers and poof gone. Was the piece > attached to Harry-Lily's? And what happened to James' piece? > Can we name all 7 pieces. > In the Movie DH1 Ron destroys the locket > horcrux and said only 3 more to go. At that point, only the book & > the ring had been neutralized. Excellent word. > Way back in old school-3+3=6 Maybe just a Hollywood booboo. Geoff: We do not know which piece remained with Harry; as I said recently, it seems odd that one and only one missed being disembodied. Actually Ron is right. The six Horcruxes (Discounting Voldemort himself) that we know of at this point are: Riddle's diary Gaunt's ring The locket The Hufflepuff cup Nagini One unknown (later revealed as the Ravenclaw diadem) Of these, the first three have been destroyed up to this point. The Trio do not know yet that Harry is a Horcrux - the unintended Horcrux, a fact not known by Voldemort at this time either, so that there were actually eight. From bart at moosewise.com Sat Aug 13 20:27:36 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 16:27:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E46DE38.4030502@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191210 bearhugger48 wrote: > I am missing something here plz help me to understand. This piece of > dark magic Tom Riddle came to know as horcrux from the forbidden > library says that a wizard can separate his soul into 7 pieces? Bart: OK, you have missed several details. Speaking in WW context, a horcrux is a piece of a person's soul torn off the rest of the soul, and placed in an object. A person cannot die if the horcrux is intact, although their life may be even less than the Hogwarts ghosts. The only known way to create a horcrux is a spell that includes, as part of it, a deliberate murder. Morty, being completely out of touch with his soul, has no understanding of why other wizards don't do this, except maybe they're not smart enough. In any case, he felt that one horcrux was still too vulnerable, so he decided to create 7 horcruxes, an apparently unprecedented move. By the time he killed James & Lily, he had created 5 horcruxes (diary, ring, locket, diadem, cup),. which, as far as we know, were four more than anybody else had ever created. When he failed to AK Harry, his soul was in such an incredibly weak state, and ready to split anyway (it is not unreasonable to think that he intended to use Harry's murder to create his 6th Horcrux) that a piece of his soul tore off and attached itself to little Harry, creating a never before seen sort of horcrux (let's call it the Harrycrux. Or not. Your choice). So, here are the 7 horcruxes, in order of destruction: 1) Diary 2) Ring 3) Locket 4) Cup 5) Diadem 6) Harrycrux 7) Nagini Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 13 20:49:17 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry a horcrux? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1313268557.20318.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191211 > bearhugger48: > Seems odd that LV placed a bit of soul into Harry? He was trying > to kill Harry from the get-go, so he did not know. June: Voldemort didn't know that Harry was a horcrux. When the avada kedavra curse failed to kill Harry that bit of Voldemort's soul was released and entered Harry, that is why Voldemort was all but destroyed that night. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 13 20:53:00 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:53:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1284C001719F423DA383CE08CEBC0C69@PeggyPC> References: <1284C001719F423DA383CE08CEBC0C69@PeggyPC> Message-ID: <1313268780.89522.YahooMailNeo@web113902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191212 > Peggy: > Hi, all, from a lurker. Here's something I've wondered about since reading DH: After Voldemort's death, when Harry was no longer a horcrux, did he lose his ability to speak parseltongue? Did he have that ability because part of Voldemort's soul was in him? If so, he > would have lost that ability, right? Thoughts? June: I believe that it says in the last chapter that he did lose the ability to speak parseltonge, however I could be wrong, it has been a while since I last read it. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 13 20:56:35 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: References: <1284C001719F423DA383CE08CEBC0C69@PeggyPC> Message-ID: <1313268995.8712.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191213 > Geoff: > Unless JKR has said anything in interviews etc., I doubt if we > have a definitive answer, but I would go for saying "Yes". > June: I thought it said in the book itself that he had lost the ability but maybe it was an interview. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Aug 13 21:59:25 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 21:59:25 -0000 Subject: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191214 Geoff: Following June's question, I did a little digging and discovered the following information given by JKR at a Bloomsbury Live Chat in 2007: "Whose murders did Voldemort use to create each of the Horcruxes? JKR: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. Nagini - Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued). The diadem - an Albanian peasant. The ring - Tom Riddle Senior. Can Harry speak Parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux? JKR: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so." Hope that sheds a little more light into some of the darker corners. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 14 05:23:00 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:23:00 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > So. When the Avada Kedavra backfired on Voldemort and he was > disembodied, why did one fragment - a single fragment - among all > the others escape to go to Harry and not disappear into a > non-corporeal form as did the others? zanooda: I remember, when we discussed this before, someone came up with the idea that, while a murder does rip a soul, the resulting soul bit doesn't get entirely separated from the rest of the soul until placed into an object using the Horcrux-creating spell. Whoever came up with this theory suggested that the ripped soul was somewhat like a roll of toilet paper: it is torn to pieces (kind of :-)), but the pieces are not separated from one another yet. When we need a piece, we tear away the one at the end of the roll. The same thing with the ripped apart soul: the soul bits don't float around independently, but all stay together, seemingly in one piece, and at Godric's Hollow only the last, the most freshly cut bit of soul got separated from the whole. I'm not sure that this is how it really works, but I find a certain logic in this theory :-). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 14 06:50:32 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:50:32 -0000 Subject: The Nature & Destruction of Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bearhugger48" wrote: > > > Steve: > > The Diary might have been singed and soggy, but it was still a > book, ... The Cup was still a cup, ... > > > > The Diadem is unique as it is the only thing we see destroyed by > Fiend Fire. Yes, it broke apart, but it didn't turn to dust. > > > > > The Locket is referred to as "Shattered", but do we really know > > that it was reduced to a handful of metal fragments? > > > bearhugger48: > ... > This piece of dark magic Tom Riddle came to know as horcrux from > the forbidden library says that a wizard can separate his soul into > 7 pieces? Or more, nevertheless has to have some sort of scientific > background even in the WW. Steve: This is your first mistake. Historically, people would just place one piece of one soul in one object, then if the event of death, their own soul/self would remain earth bound. However, Tom Riddle thought that the number 7 was an auspicious number. A magical number of power, so he personally concluded that 7 Horcruxes would be extra powerful. But, that idea was purely his invention. One could have 100 Horcruxes, but it would mean personally killing 100 people, and it would mean fragmenting the soul into 100 pieces. To most, that would be unthinkable. > bearhugger48: > > It would seem that LV had to have control of these pieces and know > what he wanted to do with them to make them horcruxes. Then he had > to make a decision in what to place them, where to hide them and how > to protect them. Steve: It has been discussed that a very specific act of magic must occur to create a true Horcrux. And yes indeed, Harry was not make a Horcrux with that magic. The soul bit was NOT bonded to him, it merely clung to him. > bearhugger48: > > Given that Lily & James were murdered just before Harry was touched > in the head, would account for two pieces of soul not yet placed > anywhere. Then LV lost his powers and poof gone. Was the piece > attached to Harry-Lily's? And what happened to James' piece? Steve: Again, a slight misconception. You can create many soul fragments that are never placed any were. Voldemort tended to use significant death to specifically create Horcruxes. But not every soul fragment was committed to this purpose. > bearhugger48: > > Can we name all 7 pieces. > ... Steve: Yes we can, and though I don't recall it, we can speculate on whose death went into each Horcrux. I'll leave that aspect to someone else. Though it is probably available from the Harry Potter Lexicon. 1.) - Diary 2.) - Ring 3.) - Locket 4.) - Cup 5.) - Diadem 6.) - Snake 7.) Though not technically a Horcrux, the seventh piece of Voldemort soul is in Voldemort. This is the piece that is held earth bound by the other pieces. This is the piece of Voldemort that survived to live again. Taking this last point and expanding on it. Voldemort asked Slughorn about splitting his soul into 7 piece (from memory), not about creating 7 Horcruxes. And those 7 piece are 6 Horcruxes, and then the bulk of his soul remaining inside himself for the auspicious 7. The unintended 8th Horcrux was Harry. The theory is that by the time Voldemort reach Godric's Hollow, he had killed many times, and by that time, his soul and his self were very unstable. Next, the magic that saved Harry was extremely rare and unusual, not a lot of documentation or knowledge of such an event. When the curse rebounded from Harry onto Voldemort, a shattered bit of Voldemort's soul was blasted free, and it clung to the only living thing it could find - Harry. As pointed out earlier in this thread, Harry was Horcrux-like. He was functionally a Horcrux, but because the specific magic hadn't been performed, he wasn't technically a Horcrux. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 14 07:06:25 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:06:25 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" wrote: > > I know JKR said that Harry made sure Snape had a picture in the > headmaster office but did he make sure Snape got a proper burial? > > Just wondering > Stephanie > Steve: Keep in mind that Snape' body wasn't the only body lying around. There were many many people killed on both sides, and one assumes, they were all gathered up and give a proper burial. In most case, they, the bodies, were probably turned over to their families for internment in what ever tradition was consistent with their beliefs. Snape didn't have family to my knowledge, but that does not mean they just threw him in a ditch somewhere. It seems perfectly reasonably that is body was dealt with properly. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 14 07:21:28 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:21:28 -0000 Subject: The Creation of a Horcrux-like Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191218 There is a lot of magic that surrounds Harry Potter and his life that is unprecedented. Mysteries of magic here to for unknown. No one has every survived a Killing Curse, with the exception of Harry Potter who has survived at least three direct hits. My theory as to how Harry ended up a Horcrux-like object, I will call the "Soul Shrapnel Theory". It was random change that when the curse rebounded on Voldemort and his very unstable soul, That one bit of soul was randomly blasted in Harry's direction, and hit him like a piece of shrapnel. Finding life, the soul shrapnel clung to it. And like a bit of metal shrapnel, the soul bit didn't just bound off Harry, it cut into him, and there if found life to cling to. Again, this is an unprecedented, unheard of, and completely unknown bit magic. Now other bits of Voldemort's fragmented soul also went flying off in all directions, then quickly reconstituted themselves around the remaining in tack part of Voldemort and his soul. Remember, that all this fragments of soul, including Voldemort main soul, are earth bound, held here by the existance of Horcruxes. The remaining soul and soul bits constitute Voldemort "Self". Collectively, they are the identity that lived on and remained earth bound. These are the bits that collectively reconstituted themselves into Voldemort new body. So, in a sense, Harry was simply hit by some Soul Shrapnel, and once it stuck to him, it stayed stuck, it clung to the nearest and dearest life it could find, until the final book when Voldemort unstuck it himself. The Soul Shrapnel Theory of Harry the Horcrux-like object. Steve/bboyminn From ki4tia at comcast.net Sun Aug 14 13:14:26 2011 From: ki4tia at comcast.net (Stephanie) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:14:26 -0000 Subject: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191219 > Geoff: > Following June's question, I did a little digging and discovered the following > information given by JKR at a Bloomsbury Live Chat in 2007: > > "Whose murders did Voldemort use to create each of the Horcruxes? > > JKR: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous > owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. Nagini - Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort > could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the > victim was subdued). The diadem - an Albanian peasant. The ring - > Tom Riddle Senior. > > Can Harry speak Parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux? > JKR: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so." > > Hope that sheds a little more light into some of the darker corners. > Thank you, just one dumb question just cause I can't remember right now. Ridde took something that belong to the four founders of Hogwarts. Hufflepuff's Cup Ravenclaw's Diadem I can't remember what did he used for Gryffindor or Slytherin, what were these? Thanks! Stephanie From ki4tia at comcast.net Sun Aug 14 13:18:41 2011 From: ki4tia at comcast.net (Stephanie) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:18:41 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191220 > Steve: > > Keep in mind that Snape' body wasn't the only body lying around. There were many many people killed on both sides, and one assumes, they were all gathered up and give a proper burial. > > In most case, they, the bodies, were probably turned over to their families for internment in what ever tradition was consistent with their beliefs. > > Snape didn't have family to my knowledge, but that does not mean they just threw him in a ditch somewhere. It seems perfectly reasonably that his body was dealt with properly. > Thank you, I was hoping he wouldn't be left there being as Harry really knew he was a good guy at that point. Although I always wondered at that point he listened to Snape to go look at his memories as much as he hated him. Stephanie From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Aug 14 00:36:44 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1313282204.48905.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Geoff: Following June's question, I did a little digging and discovered the following information given by JKR at a Bloomsbury Live Chat in 2007: "Whose murders did Voldemort use to create each of the Horcruxes? JKR: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. Nagini - Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued). The diadem - an Albanian peasant. The ring - Tom Riddle Senior. Can Harry speak Parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux? JKR: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so." Hope that sheds a little more light into some of the darker corners. June: aha, I knew I had read somewhere that he lost the ability to speak Parseltongue, I just couldn't remember where lol. Thank you for? looking this up Geoff. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sun Aug 14 15:23:30 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:23:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3ED82B3552C64DAE89834121A6874359@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191222 Stephanie: >> I can't remember what did he used for Gryffindor or Slytherin, what were > these? > Liz: Slytherin's Locket. He didn't use anything for Gryffindor. However, Godric Gryffindor's Sword was used to destroy most of the Horcruxes. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sun Aug 14 15:26:17 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 16:26:17 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489AB7959F1248FF94C5983B67AEF7E9@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191223 Stephanie: > Thank you, I was hoping he wouldn't be left there being as Harry really > knew he was a good guy at that point. Although I always wondered at that > point he listened to Snape to go look at his memories as much as he hated > him. Liz: I think curiosity took over there. Can't really say more as not got that far in the books yet! Although, knowing Harry's character, he would want to know what was going on, and why Snape would offer him the memories. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 14 16:55:25 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 14 Aug 2011 16:55:25 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/14/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1313340925.8.48274.m3@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191224 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 14, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 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 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 14 18:26:00 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:26:00 -0000 Subject: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" wrote: ... > > > > > ... Riddle took something that belong to the four founders of Hogwarts. > > Hufflepuff's Cup > Ravenclaw's Diadem > > I can't remember what did he used for Gryffindor or Slytherin, what were these? > > Thanks! > Stephanie > Steve: The third item was Syltherin's Locket. He never managed to get his hands on anything from Gryffindor, though I'm sure he would have liked to have used Gryffindor's Sword. But by the time he had access to it, he already had his 7 soul bits. (6 Horcruxes and himself) Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Aug 14 18:55:26 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:55:26 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes and AKs: A theory of everything? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: zanooda: > Whoever came up with this theory suggested that the ripped soul was somewhat like a roll of toilet paper: it is torn to pieces (kind of :-)), but the pieces are not separated from one another yet. When we need a piece, we tear away the one at the end of the roll. Geoff: Surprisingly, I must have missed that thread. Mark you, after the mayhem and carnage following the Gringotts break-in, using your toilet paper analogy, Voldemort's head ought to have been filled with confetti. :-( From jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net Sun Aug 14 19:07:22 2011 From: jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net (jacob brandt) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue Message-ID: <1313348842.11449.yint-ygo-j2me@web180116.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191227 >> Stephanie: >> ... Riddle took something that belong to the four founders of >> Hogwarts. >> >> Hufflepuff's Cup >> Ravenclaw's Diadem >> >> I can't remember what did he used for Gryffindor or Slytherin, >> what were these? >Steve: > The third item was Syltherin's Locket. He never managed to get > his hands on anything from Gryffindor, though I'm sure he would > have liked to have used Gryffindor's Sword. But by the time he > had access to it, he already had his 7 soul bits. (6 Horcruxes > and himself) Jacob: LV tried getting the sword when he went to see Dumbledore about getting a job. That's when Voldemort hid the diadem in the room of requirement. From bart at moosewise.com Mon Aug 15 02:55:35 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:55:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E488AA7.90609@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191228 Stephanie wrote: > Thank you, just one dumb question just cause I can't remember right > now. Ridde took something that belong to the four founders of > Hogwarts. Hufflepuff's Cup Ravenclaw's Diadem I can't remember what > did he used for Gryffindor or Slytherin, what were these? Bart: First, don't forget the standard quoting method in this group; it's not just the rules, it's a good idea. Second, he had the amulet of Slytherin, and nothing from Gryffindor. Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Aug 14 21:40:06 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1313358006.77022.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191229 Stephanie: Thank you, I was hoping he wouldn't be left there being as Harry really knew he was a good guy at that point. Although I always wondered at that point he listened to Snape to go look at his memories as much as he hated him. June: I can actually picture Harry doing something for Snape. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Aug 14 21:41:58 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <3ED82B3552C64DAE89834121A6874359@TrekyPC> References: <3ED82B3552C64DAE89834121A6874359@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <1313358118.55221.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191230 Stephanie: >> I can't remember what did he used for Gryffindor or Slytherin, what were > these? > Liz: Slytherin's Locket. He didn't use anything for Gryffindor. However, Godric Gryffindor's Sword was used to destroy most of the Horcruxes. June: It could be that he met his downfall in Harry before he had a chance to use something of Gryffindor's. Hey maybe Harry counts lol. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Aug 16 01:04:09 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:04:09 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191231 "Stephanie" wrote: > > I know JKR said that Harry made sure Snape had a picture in the > headmaster office but did he make sure Snape got a proper burial? > Potioncat: Snape didn't need a proper burial. The very moment Harry, Ron and Hermione left the room, two House Elves appeared and went to Severus-- who was as near death as you can come without crossing over--They Magicked him to St. Mungo's where he was more or less restored to health. He assumed a new identity and is living in Hoboken, NJ. "Balderdash!" you say. Wait, I have canon. Hogwarts prevented Umbridge from using the Headmaster's office, but it allowed Headmaster Snape full use of it and of the former Headmaster portraits. The portraits knew full well where Snape's loyalties were and if there had been doubt, Harry announced in presence of the castle what Snape had done. And of course Portrait!DD could serve as witness. So there was no doubt of Snape's validity. Therefore, the only reason a portrait did not appear, is that none was required; Snape was not dead. Harry is an adult---I grudgingly admit--but a young one. He was unlikely to be tasked with organizing burials.The MOM would have had primary responsibility for it, but in some cases, families were already there. Hogwarts would have a role in students' and teachers' remains and maybe the Order had a part. With so many possible responsible parties--it's easy for no one to take responsibility while everyone assumes someone has. Being organized is not a strong trait of the WW anyway and I think it was easy to miss the fact that Snape was missing. So, I say again, Snape is alive and living in Hoboken, NJ---supported by canon and interpretation of canon. I rest my case. Potioncat, who is fully willing to concede the Hoboken part. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 02:33:18 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 02:33:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Horcrux Hunt (was the Soul Shrapnel Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191232 > Steve/bboyminn wrote: > > > > My theory as to how Harry ended up a Horcrux-like object, I will > call the "Soul Shrapnel Theory". > > It was random chance that when the curse rebounded on Voldemort and his very unstable soul, that one bit of soul was randomly blasted in Harry's direction, and hit him like a piece of shrapnel. Finding life, the soul shrapnel clung to it. And like a bit of metal shrapnel, the soul bit didn't just bound off Harry, it cut into him, and there it found life to cling to. Mike: This is the easiest to understand explanation I've heard. I like it! > Steve continues: > > Now other bits of Voldemort's fragmented soul also went flying off in all directions, then quickly reconstituted themselves around the remaining intact part of Voldemort and his soul. Mike: They go blasting apart because Voldemort's soul is very unstable, Dumbledore said just that in HBP. Yep, I really like this theory, Steve. > Steve finishes with: > > So, in a sense, Harry was simply hit by some Soul Shrapnel, and once it stuck to him, it stayed stuck, it clung to the nearest and dearest life it could find, until the final book when Voldemort unstuck it himself. Mike: One question: Why did the soul piece cling to Harry? Put another way, if soul bits want to seek a living body, why didn't the other soul bits attach themselves to Harry instead of reconstituting with Voldemort's main soul bit that is lifeless, "less than the meanest ghost"? So now I'm gonna solicit some further opinions. When Hagrid shows up with baby!Harry outside of the Dursley's home, McGonagall asks Dumbledore to fix Harry's cut on his forehead before it turns into a scar (as we all know, the lightning bolt scar). Dumbledore declines to do so. Did Dumbledore know then that the forehead cut was a result of "Soul Shrapnel" hitting him? Did Dumbledore realize then that Harry had a piece of Voldemort's soul in him? Or did it take the events of Chamber of Secrets for Dumbledore to realize Harry's "bit" of Voldemort was a soul bit? When do you all think Dumbledore began his search for Voldemort's Horcruxes? He seemed to have collected a lot of memories about Voldemort, going a long way back. But when did he realize that he needed to review those memories for clues on Horcruxes? Mike From chichi32310 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 15 00:43:06 2011 From: chichi32310 at yahoo.com (mary) Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:43:06 -0000 Subject: Help finding something please Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191233 Does anybody know of any stories where harry finally gets tired of snape and start up his own potion classes??? Mary ********* ELF NOTE: Fanfic discussion is not allowed on the main board. Therefore, if you so choose, please respond to Mary off list. In webview, after clicking reply, change the "TO:" pull-down box to Mary. If responding from email, click the "Respond to sender" link at the bottom of the post. Thank you. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Aug 16 03:07:08 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:07:08 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191234 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: > > > "Stephanie" wrote: > > > > I know JKR said that Harry made sure Snape had a picture in the > > headmaster office but did he make sure Snape got a proper burial? > > > > > Potioncat: > Snape didn't need a proper burial. The very moment Harry, Ron and Hermione left the room, two House Elves appeared and went to Severus-- who was as near death as you can come without crossing over--They Magicked him to St. Mungo's where he was more or less restored to health. He assumed a new identity and is living in Hoboken, NJ. > > "Balderdash!" you say. Wait, I have canon. > > Hogwarts prevented Umbridge from using the Headmaster's office, but it allowed Headmaster Snape full use of it and of the former Headmaster portraits. The portraits knew full well where Snape's loyalties were and if there had been doubt, Harry announced in presence of the castle what Snape had done. And of course Portrait!DD could serve as witness. So there was no doubt of Snape's validity. Therefore, the only reason a portrait did not appear, is that none was required; Snape was not dead. > snip > Nikkalmati Hoboken? I can only conclude that we (the reader) have been deliberately left hanging. There is no mention of any grave or memorial for Snape, although I doubt he would have been totally forgotten. Therefore, we are left to speculate. It would have been so easy to mention something. The lack of a portrait is also significant, even though Jo has answered a question about it by saying Harry would have made sure Snape got a portrait. As Potioncat says, the castle knew full well his loyalites and I believe the fact he fled the castle would not have made a difference. So, I conclude, the door has intentionally left ajar in order that we may speculate that Snape is not really dead. Would that be kind or cruel? Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Aug 16 03:49:13 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:49:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Horcrux Hunt (was the Soul Shrapnel Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191235 - Mike: > > > So now I'm gonna solicit some further opinions. When Hagrid shows up with baby!Harry outside of the Dursley's home, McGonagall asks Dumbledore to fix Harry's cut on his forehead before it turns into a scar (as we all know, the lightning bolt scar). Dumbledore declines to do so. > > Did Dumbledore know then that the forehead cut was a result of "Soul Shrapnel" hitting him? Did Dumbledore realize then that Harry had a piece of Voldemort's soul in him? Or did it take the events of Chamber of Secrets for Dumbledore to realize Harry's "bit" of Voldemort was a soul bit? > > When do you all think Dumbledore began his search for Voldemort's Horcruxes? He seemed to have collected a lot of memories about Voldemort, going a long way back. But when did he realize that he needed to review those memories for clues on Horcruxes? > > Mike > Nikkalmati It seems very likely that DD was suspicious about the scar. He tells MM that scars can come in handy, or something like that. I believe DD had been hunting for Horcrux evidence for a very long time. DD says "I was able to secure a visit to Morfin in the last weeks of his life, by which time I was attempting to discover as much as I could about Voldemort's past. " [HBP pp. 367-68. US Hardback] How long did he live in Azkaban? DD took the memory from Hepzibah's elf "by the time I traced her and managed to extract this memory, her life was almost over." [HBP p 439 US hardback] She is described as "the tiniest and oldest house-elf Harry had ever seen" [p 433]. Do you think she lived much beyond the death of her mistress? That was just before Tom left Burgin & Borks. DD also attempted to get the memory from Slughorn, but was given a partial fake. He most likely did that before Slughorn left Hogwarts, which would be before Snape took over Potions. DD has been looking for a very long time. Nikkalmati Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Aug 16 03:55:05 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:55:05 -0000 Subject: My take on the Forest scene (also posted on Movie) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: >very big snip> > So when Voldemort rather foolishly attempted an Avadra Kedrava for > the third time on Harry, this was someone who was not the master of > the wand attempting to defeat the real master without the authority > to do so and the wand therefore responded to Harry's Expelliarmus > and went to him while Voldemort's spell rebounded ? yet again! and > this time he had nothing left with which to cushion or reduce the spell. > Nikkalmati A very reasonable interpretation of events. I have just one question, however. What caused this third and fatal rebound? Nikkalmati From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 03:57:42 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 03:57:42 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191237 > Potioncat: > > Snape didn't need a proper burial. The very moment Harry, Ron and Hermione left the room, two House Elves appeared and went to Severus-- who was as near death as you can come without crossing over--They Magicked him to St. Mungo's where he was more or less restored to health. He assumed a new identity and is living in Hoboken, NJ. > > "Balderdash!" you say. Wait, I have canon. > > Hogwarts prevented Umbridge from using the Headmaster's office, but it allowed Headmaster Snape full use of it and of the former Headmaster portraits. The portraits knew full well where Snape's loyalties were and if there had been doubt, Harry announced in presence of the castle what Snape had done. And of course Portrait!DD could serve as witness. So there was no doubt of Snape's validity. Therefore, the only reason a portrait did not appear, is that none was required; Snape was not dead. Mike: Ah, but you haven't taken into account the lttle known and less written about codicil to the Headmaster portrait rule: it's called the anti-Deathly Hallows rule, Elder wand codicil. Also known as the "Death and the Deathstick Divergence" rule, or Dat DD rule. See, you can become master of the Deathstick by killing the former master. But you can't become Headmaster of Hogwarts by killing the former Headmaster. So like Voldemort could wield the Elder wand, so Snape could use the Headmasters' office. But neither was the true owner of that position in the eyes of the Wizarding World. Hence, when Snape kicked the bucket, the codicil kicked in. There was probably a lot of harrumphing around the dead-headmasters' boardroom table, but in the end, rules is rules. Sorry to say, Snape got a water color finger painting and it's hanging in Moaning Myrtle's loo. Wait... that's not true, I'm not really sorry to say. Mike, willing to concede the type of paint used :>) From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 05:17:25 2011 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:17:25 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191238 > > Steve: > > > > Snape didn't have family to my knowledge, but that does not mean they just threw him in a ditch somewhere. It seems perfectly reasonably that his body was dealt with properly. > > Niru: My feeling is that Harry would have taken responsibility for Snape's burial. Harry would have felt a certain amount of obligation to do so. That he feels gratitude(?) towards Snape can be extrapolated from the fact that he names his 2nd child after Snape. That same feeling would likely have led him to take care Snape's funeral arrangements. > > Thank you, I was hoping he wouldn't be left there being as Harry really knew he was a good guy at that point. Although I always wondered at that point he listened to Snape to go look at his memories as much as he hated him. > > Stephanie > Niru: Considering the long history of animosity between Harry and Snape, I think it was remarkable that Harry even approached the dying Snape. It is one of the things he does that make Harry the hero of the story, the "good" guy if you will. However, he takes the memories to the Pensieve because at that point, he has seen how many people have died so far (especially Fred, Remus and Tonks). He wants to escape being himself. Escape into someone else's mind even if that mind is Snape's. I don't have the book so I can't say which page and so on. But this is in the The Prince's tale chapter (Bloomsbury edition). Plus Harry's usual curiosity is probably playing a role as well. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 16 06:26:51 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:26:51 -0000 Subject: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1313358118.55221.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: Stephanie: > > > >> I can't remember what did he used for Gryffindor or Slytherin, what were > > these? Liz: > Slytherin's Locket. > He didn't use anything for Gryffindor. However, Godric Gryffindor's Sword > was used to destroy most of the Horcruxes. June: > It could be that he met his downfall in Harry before he had a chance to use something of Gryffindor's. Hey maybe Harry counts lol. Geoff: I think that is unlikely. As we saw in Slughorn's memory of his conversation with teenage Tom Riddle, the latter was rather obsessed with the thought of seven being a powerful magic number and of making that number of Horcruxes. In post 191209, I wrote about this and listed the seven Horcruxes which Voldemort intended to have - one of which had to be himself. So it would seem that he didn't lan anything for Gryffindor; maybe this was the not unusual Hogwarts Gryffindor-Slytherin antipathy surfacing again. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 16 10:40:36 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:40:36 +0100 Subject: Snape's death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191240 Liz: Going off on a little tangent now, but all this talk of Snape's death has got me curious! Why didn't LV use AK on Snape? I haven't got to reading DH yet, only about half way through OotP, or seen the film but I know Nagini was used. This, to me, seems to indicate LV didn't want to kill Snape, he showed 'feelings' for him, even a bit of remorse? This is SO out of character for LV! Of course, it was vital to the story that Snape wasn't killed outright, because of the memories, but what are everyone's feelings about the method of death? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 11:00:55 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:00:55 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191241 This message is a Special Notice for all members of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this post is also being delivered off-list (to email inboxes) to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) -------------------------------------------------------------------- POA Chapdisc 22: Owl Post Again Summary Harry and Hermione make it to the hospital wing in the nick of time to replace their time-turned selves. Snape bursts in, with Fudge and Dumbledore in tow and accuses Harry of "doing something" to help Black escape. The next day, Hagrid tells the trio about the revelation of Lupin's secret to the whole school and his subsequent resignation from it. Harry rushes off to stop him, but Lupin insists he must leave. Lupin returns the Marauder's Map to Harry. Dumbledore shows up and Lupin makes a hasty exit. Harry tells Dumbledore about the prediction Trelawney made, and Dumbledore gives her credit for her "second" real prophecy. Dumbledore also tells Harry that Pettigrew is now indebted to him for saving his life and that Sirius has told him everything about the Marauders having become animagi. On the train home, Harry gets an owl post from Sirius that includes a consent letter for Hogsmeade visits. We learn that it was Sirius who bought the Firebolt. In the end, Harry looks forward to a more promising summer now that he can play the escaped murderer godfather card with the Dursleys. Questions: Everyone pull out your time-turners and give them about five thousand turns. Now that you are back where you were when you just finished reading this book for the first time 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? 2. "Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible." Was he ashamed of himself in front of Dumbledore? Was this more evidence of his cowardice? 3. Dumbledore tells Harry that the life debt is "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". Knowing now how Pettigrew's debt plays out, are you satisfied with Dumbledore's proclamation? Do you think JKR did this supposedly grave issue justice? 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? 5. Dumbledore also tells Harry that "the time may come when he will be glad he saved Pettigrew's life." For those Lord of the Rings fans amongst the group, how would you compare and contrast this James/Harry-Wormtail connection with the Bilbo/Frodo-Gollum connection? 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? 9. There are so many more questions that could be posed from this chapter. But I'll leave it to our esteemed members to pose them? :o) ~Mike~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "POST DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=33 Next, we're on to Goblet of Fire. If you would like to volunteer to lead a GOF chapter discussion, please drop a note to HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com (without the space). From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 16 11:19:29 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:19:29 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191242 Questions: Everyone pull out your time-turners and give them about five thousand turns. Now that you are back where you were when you just finished reading this book for the first time. 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? Liz: 2 thoughts. Snape was highly intelligent and was bound to know about the time-turner and he possibly had witnessed something similar with the Marauders when they were at school. 2. "Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible." Was he ashamed of himself in front of Dumbledore? Was this more evidence of his cowardice? Liz: Ashamed, yes. He had at worst lied to DD, at best withheld the truth. He knew this revelation was also going to give DD a hard time and his continued presence was bound to cause more grief. 3. Dumbledore tells Harry that the life debt is "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". Knowing now how Pettigrew's debt plays out, are you satisfied with Dumbledore's proclamation? Do you think JKR did this supposedly grave issue justice? Liz: Haven't read DH yet, but from my understanding, it seems more to do with feeling guilty than anything magical. If someone saves your life, you feel you owe them, regardless of the magic involved. From this, my understanding is that the 'magic' is more a feeling, like love was considered magic. 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? Liz: No, as said above, I think it's more of an 'I owe him' more than magic. 5. Dumbledore also tells Harry that "the time may come when he will be glad he saved Pettigrew's life." For those Lord of the Rings fans amongst the group, how would you compare and contrast this James/Harry-Wormtail connection with the Bilbo/Frodo-Gollum connection? Liz: Not a LorR fan! 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? Liz: Erm... not sure on this. But I think I swept over that litle snippet and didn't register the 'second prophecy' bit! 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? Liz: I wouldn't put it past DD to know about the Marauder's Map, but saw it has harmless fun. Knowing the nicknames would be fairly easy, just eavesdrop a little! I'm sure the Marauder's used their nicknames quite often, probably being proud of them! 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? Liz: Hermione was told not to, and Hermione being Hermione wouldn't break rules! Although, telling the boys would have encouraged them to break the rules with it. Imagine if they had the opportunity... Harry was bound to want to get Malfoy into trouble, etc. If I had the time-turner, then no I wouldn't have told them, I wouldn't want to lose the advantage I have! (I'm a Slytherin) Great questions Mike, thanks. From poohmeg20 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 12:29:10 2011 From: poohmeg20 at yahoo.com (poohmeg20) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:29:10 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191243 > Questions: > > Everyone pull out your time-turners and give them about five thousand turns. Now that you are back where you were when you just finished reading this book for the first time > > 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? > Megan: I don't think Snape was exactly creating a rational analysis of possibilities at that point - in his mind, he had just lost his chance to be seen as a hero for taking down one of his top two high school tormentors, possibly because of Harry, the daily reminder of said tormentors. That actually was one of my favorite moments for him - he didn't really seem human to me until that point, when he lost his s*** beyond the point of rationality. :) > 2. "Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible." Was he ashamed of himself in front of Dumbledore? Was this more evidence of his cowardice? > Megan: I thought it was actually a pretty logical reaction to the possibly forming lynch mob of angry parents who had just found out their students had spent the year in the presence of a werewolf. That wasn't his first rodeo, and he probably didn't want it to be his last. > 3. Dumbledore tells Harry that the life debt is "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". Knowing now how Pettigrew's debt plays out, are you satisfied with Dumbledore's proclamation? Do you think JKR did this supposedly grave issue justice? > Megan: I thought it was going to come up again in a more obvious way. It seemed like somehow that was going to be connected to the big overall mystery, and I don't think it was, at least in the sense that I expected. I actually didn't even make the connection between this conversation and Pettigrew's death until after the fact - I thought it was a really odd way to kill someone off, even by magical standards, until I read some online comments linking it to this. > 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? > Megan: No, I don't think it's as powerful as love - and I don't think it's really presented as such in the books. Like I said in the previous answer, I thought the life debt issue would turn out to be bigger than it did, but it never seemed like it was going to be an overarching theme of the series like love. Which is not to say it doesn't exist - even in the real world, someone having saved your life (or that of someone you love) is a pretty powerful thing. > 5. Dumbledore also tells Harry that "the time may come when he will be glad he saved Pettigrew's life." For those Lord of the Rings fans amongst the group, how would you compare and contrast this James/Harry-Wormtail connection with the Bilbo/Frodo-Gollum connection? > Megan: Sorry, I've only seen the movies for LOTR, so I have no idea! > 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? > Megan: No. One of the things I loved about Dumbledore in the earlier books was how he would throw out these random numbers when he was talking - it was like he just knew every fact in the universe off the top of his head, right down to the number. So I just took this as another one of those, and never thought the content of the first prediction would come up. If I'd had to guess at the time, I probably would have said that she predicted what was for lunch or what color socks Dumbledore wanted or something. :) > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? > Megan: I think I just assumed that in British that must be a more common term for a stag - even though I only have read the American editions, there are still a lot of things in there that sound pretty British to me, so that's usually what I assume. So it didn't occur to me at the time that it was connected to the map, but now that you mention it, maybe Sirius had told him by then. > 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? > Megan: McGonagall probably told her not to tell anyone, including them, and at that point she was still generally doing whatever teachers said - so it didn't surprise me that she didn't tell them. I don't think I would have, either - if they had used it for some unauthorized after hours shenanigans, it's not like the grown-ups wouldn't have known where they got it. > 9. There are so many more questions that could be posed from this chapter. But I'll leave it to our esteemed members to pose them? :o) > Thanks for the great questions!! From jean_cuffe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 12:43:35 2011 From: jean_cuffe at yahoo.com (Jean) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:43:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191244 > Liz: Going off on a little tangent now, but all this talk of Snape's death has got me curious! > > Why didn't LV use AK on Snape? I haven't got to reading DH yet, only about half way through OotP, or seen the film but I know Nagini was used. This, to me, seems to indicate LV didn't want to kill Snape, he showed 'feelings' for him, even a bit of remorse? This is SO out of character for LV! > > Of course, it was vital to the story that Snape wasn't killed outright, > because of the memories, but what are everyone's feelings about the method of death? > Jean: Of course the Memories are the reason he wasn't AKed - however you're right in the Voldemort seemed to like Snape. He didn't just kill him, and he tried to spare Lily for him "Stand aside you silly girl stand aside now." So, when we see Snape's memories, and he asked Voldemort to spare Lily, he did actually try to do that for him. I do wonder how Snape got this kind of loyalty from Voldemort, considering we know he doesn't care who he kills, nor needs/wants friends. Jean. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 17:14:33 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:14:33 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191245 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Crudele" wrote: >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > POA Chapdisc 22: Owl Post Again > > Summary > > > Questions: > > Everyone pull out your time-turners and give them about five thousand turns. Now that you are back where you were when you just finished reading this book for the first time Alla: Done and done :) > > 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? Alla: I would assume that this was not the first time turner ever given to a student, so I would speculate Snape is somewhat familiar with it, but before Dumbledore says it? Not sure, but after I would think definitely yes. > 3. Dumbledore tells Harry that the life debt is "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". Knowing now how Pettigrew's debt plays out, are you satisfied with Dumbledore's proclamation? Do you think JKR did this supposedly grave issue justice? Alla: Yes, and no, I will say more in one of your next questions. I did not notice much consistency with how life debts are handled in a sense that some people whose life was saved do not have those according to JKR, but I was more or less happy with how Pettigrew/Harry final connection played out at the end if I do not call it a life debt, but just a debt of the sorts. > 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? Alla: My goodness NO, I have not seen any magic, I have not seen any evidence that Snape has life debt to James, I had seen an evidence that some *people* in Potterverse may think that saving one's life may suggest that as decent person you do something good for them as well, but I have not seen any magic to that effect. Sorry, do not mean to sound agitated Mike :), it is just the thought of Snape and James and supposed magical debt makes me laugh and not in a good way. > > 5. Dumbledore also tells Harry that "the time may come when he will be glad he saved Pettigrew's life." For those Lord of the Rings fans amongst the group, how would you compare and contrast this James/Harry-Wormtail connection with the Bilbo/Frodo-Gollum connection? Well, I AM a huge LOTR fan and actually while I think that Frodo-Gollum connection paid out much more beatifully and significantly, Harry-Wormtail connection may not have been as significant and helpful for his general task, but to me was wonderful in a sense that the worm like Pettigrew may not have enough humanity left in him to do a *decent* thing, but he at least tried to do a *half-decent* thing. James/Jarry and Bilbo/Frodo connection to me is just the connection of relatives, I find James/Harry connection more poignant, but thats probably because Harry's longing was after his dead father and Bilbo was alive. > > 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? Alla: No clue. > > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? Alla: Well, you know Dumbledore, he is very smart ;) and his guesses are always correct ;) > > 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? Alla: Actually, you know how I think that a lot of things in Potterverse could have been dispersed with very short conversation, this one actually made sense to me. If time turners are not supposed to be wide spread knowledge, kind of makes sense to me teacher would want her to keep it a secret. Thanks for awesome questions Mike. From ddankanyin at cox.net Tue Aug 16 15:49:13 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:49:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191246 From: "Mike Crudele" Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 7:00 AM (snip) Everyone pull out your time-turners and give them about five thousand turns. Now that you are back where you were when you just finished reading this book for the first time. 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? Dorothy: No, I think he just suspects Harry having a hand in anything that went wrong, and especially anything that would irk Snape. 2. "Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible." Was he ashamed of himself in front of Dumbledore? Was this more evidence of his cowardice? Dorothy: I don't think it was evidence of cowardice per se, but I do think he wanted to leave before any more damage was done, both to Dumbledore and to the school. I know he was sorry about what had happened for sure. 3. Dumbledore tells Harry that the life debt is "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". Knowing now how Pettigrew's debt plays out, are you satisfied with Dumbledore's proclamation? Do you think JKR did this supposedly grave issue justice? Dorothy: I think it she gave this bit of magic just the right attention. We knew this life debt would come in handy sooner or later. And, of course when someone saves your life you're going to owe them big time, magic or not. 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? Dorothy: While I don't see the life debt as keeping someone alive from Avada Kadavra (as love magic), I do see it as important in other ways. After all, Snape had to protect Harry no matter his misplaced personal feelings, both about Harry and about the time James saved him. 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? Dorothy: At the time all we knew of Trelawney's first prediction was that it made Dumbledore decide to hire her for the position, and that the prediction probably had something to do with Voldie. 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? Dorothy: While I don't think Dumbledore knew of the Marauder's Map, I do think he must have heard the other boys calling James Prongs. After all, they were calling attention to themselves fairly often. Of course, he might have been suspicious. 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? Dorothy: I don't think Hermione told Harry and Ron about the time turner because she not only was not supposed to, but she probably felt that they would only get on her case about it. Besides, it really was none of their business. No, I wouldn't have told them either. Cool questions for sure. From jean_cuffe at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 13:04:22 2011 From: jean_cuffe at yahoo.com (Jean) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:04:22 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191247 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? Jean: Snape would have known about the Time Turners, all the teachers would, otherwise how would they explain Hermione's presencea at Multiple Lessons? I think this comes from the usual suspicions of Harry that Snape has all through the book. 2. "Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible." Was he ashamed of himself in front of Dumbledore? Was this more evidence of his cowardice? Jean: I think it was more his own shame in allowing himself to forget the Wolfsbane and put the student's in danger. 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? Jean: Well you could perhaps argue that Harry owes a Life Debt to his mother, I suspect this life debt thing is perhaps more to make it more believable that Snape would be protecting Harry all this time, rather than you think it the love of Lily being his primary motive. I think Life Debt magic exists, we've seen it evidenced at least twice in the books, perhaps three times if we consider the whole Malfoy situation where Harry had saved Draco's life in the Room of Requirement. 5. Dumbledore also tells Harry that "the time may come when he will be glad he saved Pettigrew's life." For those Lord of the Rings fans amongst the group, how would you compare and contrast this James/Harry-Wormtail connection with the Bilbo/Frodo-Gollum connection? Jean: I think that there are similarities indeed between these characters, Gandalf told Frodo that perhaps not killing Gollum was a good thing that Bilbo did, and Gollum helped Frodo hugely becuase he trusted him to do the right thing. And then we have Dumbldore saying the same thing with Wormtail. Maybe the life debt passed on in a similar way to that of James/Snape. Bilbo 'saved' Gollum, and in turn Gollum helped protect Frodo, and James 'saved' Snape, who helped protect Harry. 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? Jean: No, not at all, but I did wonder why Dumbldore kept her as a teacher and suspected there was more to her that met the eye! 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? Jean: Dumbldore knows EVERYTHING :) 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner Jean: She was sworn to secrecy, however the story is a little farfetched, but the time-turners served their purpose and were quite conveniently destroyed in the MoM! It does make you wonder why they weren't used elsewhere, and they were (conveniently!) under 'strict ministry control' it just all seems a bit conveneint that Dumbledore would be able to get one for a 13 year old girl!! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Aug 16 22:57:58 2011 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (ZaraG) Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:57:58 -0000 Subject: Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191248 > Jean: > Of course the Memories are the reason he wasn't AKed - however you're right in the Voldemort seemed to like Snape. He didn't just kill him, and he tried to spare Lily for him "Stand aside you silly girl stand aside now." Zara: I see it rather differently. I think Voldemort did not kill Snape himself, because he would have needed to use the wand in his hand to do it. This was the Elder Wand, a wand which had belonged to Dumbledore, and, Voldemort believed, now served Snape. It would have seemed a poor choice of weapon against Snape for that reason. I think his half-hearted attempt to spare Lily was in the same spirit as his gift of the silver hand to Peter. Not a sign of any affection or esteem, but a means of control. Supposing that Voldemort had indeed spared Lily - what would Snape have been willing to do to ensure her continued existence? Why..."Anything"! From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 17 00:13:06 2011 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:13:06 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191249 > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? > Niru: I don't think Dumbledore knew about the Marauder's map. When Dumbledore says to Harry that "Prongs rode again", he is talking to Harry on the morning following the events of the time turner and Sirius escaping on Buckbeak. By this time, Dumbledore has already spoken to Sirius on the previous night when Snape brought him into the castle. And Sirius told Dumbledore everything. I'm assuming this includes the story of James, himself and Peter being Animagi. Dumbledore has also spoken to Lupin by the time he mentions Prongs to Harry because Lupin resigns first thing in the morning. Presumably Lupin has also made a full confession. I always assumed that this was how Dumbledore knew about James being called Prongs. Also Dumbledore saw Harry's Patronus at the Quidditch match against Ravenclaw. He wouldn't have known that the stag actually represented James's animagus form though until Sirius/Lupin told him. From thedossetts at gmail.com Wed Aug 17 02:40:11 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:40:11 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191250 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Crudele" wrote: > 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? > Pat: Having been a teacher, I always just assumed that something like a student having a time-turner due to his/her heavy load would be mentioned at a staff meeting before the year started. So I feel like this *is* a hint to Snape - and that this is why he was so certain that Harry was involved: Hermione, in addition to being one of his closest friends, was right there in the room with them. In his view, *of course* they were involved. With the time turner that Hermione had. > 2. "Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible." Was he ashamed of himself in front of Dumbledore? Was this more evidence of his cowardice? > Pat: Like other posters, I too feel that Lupin had been there, seen the reactions before and didn't want get lynched. I also think it's fair, given some of his remarks later on, that he did feel shame and didn't want his cowardice to attach to Dumbledore any more than it already had. > > 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? > Pat: No! In fact, the first several times, the "second" prophecy thing just went right over my head! I guess I'm too used to Dumbledore knowing everything, too! > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? > To me, it makes sense that the nicknames were well known, even if the map was not. Everyone seems to have no trouble knowing who Wormtail is, for example. I can totally see James yelling something to Padfoot, and Sirius responding to something Prongs had said. > 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? > I think Hermione was still young enough to accept the word of an authority figure without question here. Besides, Harry and Ron did enough under the invisibility cloak - I also can imagine the things they would have wanted to do with a time-turner! > ~Mike~ > Thanks, Mike, for some thought-provoking questions. Enjoyed them! Pat From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 17 02:52:41 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:52:41 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191251 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nirupama76" wrote: > I don't think Dumbledore knew about the Marauder's map. zanooda: I'm also inclined to believe that DD didn't know about the map. When he was questioning Barty Crouch Jr. in GoF (Veritaserum chapter), Barty mentioned Harry's map and DD asked what map was this. He seemed to know nothing at all about it. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 17 04:51:03 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 04:51:03 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191252 Mike: PoA was and remains my favorite book in the whole series. The Knight Bus was cool, and I loved the glimpse of everyday witches and wizards going about their lives. I loved seeing Harry get all that time in Diagon Alley and the interactions in the Leaky Cauldron. Being a sports nut, I was elated to see Quidditch become so important to the story. Then came the bonus of learning so much backstory in the Shrieking Shack. And I was actually reduced to tears by one word from TT!Harry at the lake: Prongs! I must have read this book cover-to-cover at least 20 times. And still some answers remained elusive. > > 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's > > escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? > Pat: > Having been a teacher, I always just assumed that something like a student having a time-turner due to his/her heavy load would be mentioned at a staff meeting before the year started. So I feel like this *is* a hint to Snape - and that this is why he was so certain that Harry was involved: Hermione, in addition to being one of his closest friends, was right there in the room with them. In his view, *of course* they were involved. With the time turner that Hermione had. Mike: This was one time where Snape seemed to know intuitively what had happened, a quality usually associated with Dumbledore. Here he was as out of control as we ever see him, before or since, and yet he still is spot on as to what happened. Or at least WHO caused it to happen. > > 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been > > Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you > > have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? > Pat: > No! In fact, the first several times, the "second" prophecy thing > just went right over my head! I guess I'm too used to Dumbledore knowing everything, too! Mike: Having read the book so many times, I naturally started to wonder what Dumbledore could have meant by "second". I'll tell the truth, I had no inkling it was going to be *the Prophesy*, but I did believe it must have been something important. > > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he > > know about the Marauder's Map? > Pat: > To me, it makes sense that the nicknames were well known, even if > the map was not. Everyone seems to have no trouble knowing who Wormtail is, for example. I can totally see James yelling something to Padfoot, and Sirius responding to something Prongs had said. Mike: I really did mean this to be 2 associated but separate questions. I always wondered how Dumbledore knew Prongs was James nickname. Yes, they were probably well known back in their day, but would Dumbledore have known them? If he had, would he really remember a nickname some years on? Can you imagine how many nicknames float around that school? And in either of their serious discussions with Dumbledore, do you think Lupin or Black spent the time to explain their nicknames? I always wondered whether the guy that seems to know everything that goes on at his school, knew about the Map. I also think the Map was one of the cool things in this book, and that it eventually got passed down from father to son was karmic indeed. Zanooda's answer seals the deal for me, Dumbledore didn't know about either the Marauders anamagi abilities or the Map. > > 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, > > should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the > > time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? > Pat: > I think Hermione was still young enough to accept the word of an authority figure without question here. Besides, Harry and Ron did enough under the invisibility cloak - I also can imagine the things they would have wanted to do with a time-turner! Mike: I wondered when someone was going to get around to this. Good job, Pat! Still, remember all the things Hermione got up to in CoS? I thought she was thoroughly shot of worrying about what the "authorities" would think of her getting up to more shenanigans. She stole from a professor and brewed an illegal potion in a bathroom for crying out loud. What's a little leaking of a *secret* after all that? OK, now a little time-turning again and speculating. Anyone remember Steve's calculations for Hermione's time dilation a couple of month's back? A refresher: Steve: 9 mo X 4wks/mo X 5 days/wk X 4 hrs/day = 720 HOURS Bart: 720 hours = 30 days Steve: If you turn back a full year, then you relive that year, your physical self has to endure it twice, making you one year older than every one else who lived in non-TT linear time. Mike: Now comes the speculation. What if Hermione had told the boys sooner and they did convince Hermione to let them use it for nefarious reasons, as Pat suggested they might. :o) And what if Harry was actually a couple of days older because of his time-turning. Dumbledore's Dursley-sponsored protection expires when Harry turns 17-years-old. Magic isn't fooled by time-turning, but I would wager that neither Harry nor anybody else would think to add those couple days to get Harry's actual age. And when did the seven Harry's make their escape from Privet Drive, thinking that they still were protected there? Hoo boy, wouldn't that have been a surprise! > Pat > Thanks, Mike, for some thought-provoking questions. Enjoyed them! Mike: Glad you all liked them. :o) From natti_shafer at yahoo.com Wed Aug 17 05:36:22 2011 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Ute in DC) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 05:36:22 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Crudele" wrote: > 3. Dumbledore tells Harry that the life debt is "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". Knowing now how Pettigrew's debt plays out, are you satisfied with Dumbledore's proclamation? Do you think JKR did this supposedly grave issue justice? > > 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? Nathaniel: I'm glad you asked these questions. It has been years since I've posted here, but I wanted to chime in on this subject. I just recently started rereading the series and this particular subject caught my fancy then. No, I don't believe in this deep magic as presented in the Harry Potter world. Dumbledore starts waxing poetic here, and it's a bit much for my taste. This scene takes up more text than the eventual payoff in Deathly Hallows. For my taste, the scene would be stronger if Dumbledore had said the bit about Pettigrew being in Harry's debt, but left off the bit about magic at its deepest. I find it a tad too sappy there. Also, in Snape's words, he doesn't feel indebted to James. Although Snape isn't necessarily the most reliable for information, I don't get the impression he is lying when in the Chapter "Snape's Grudge" he tells Harry that James was saving his own skin. From Snape's point of view, he doesn't owe James or Harry anything. Of course Dumbledore couldn't fully explain why, but the reason Snape saved Harry's life in the Philosopher's Stone has nothing to do with James. He did it because he promised Dumbledore he would protect Harry, and Snape took that promise seriously. > 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? Nathaniel: I certainly knew the prophesy had to be *big* because Dumbledore never explains what the first prophesy was in PoA. Hence, because it was left a mystery, I knew the answer had to be deeply connected to overall arc of the story. Of course, I had no idea where the story was going, so know I didn't know its fundamental nature. > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? Nathaniel: I suspect he did know of the map, but rather of James' Patronus, which is how members of the Order of the Phoenix communicate. > 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? Nathaniel: Yes. It really makes no sense for the boys not to know. If, by chance, they had seen two Hermiones at one time, then the boys may have suspected the worst. I don't see how now knowing could possible benefit Harry and Ron, but there are many ways it could go wrong. From kersberg at chello.nl Wed Aug 17 08:34:41 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:34:41 -0000 Subject: Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191254 Voldemort just had a discussion with Snape why the Elder Wand does not respond to him as he expected and realising he isn't the true master of the Elder Wand he thinks Snape is it. the Elder Wand would probably not AK the one Voldemort thinks his true master is, so Voldy plays it save and uses Nagini. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz Clark" wrote: >> > Why didn't LV use AK on Snape? From jean_cuffe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 17 07:50:37 2011 From: jean_cuffe at yahoo.com (Jean) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 07:50:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191255 > Zara: > I think his half-hearted attempt to spare Lily was in the same spirit as his gift of the silver hand to Peter. Not a sign of any affection or esteem, but a means of control. Supposing that Voldemort had indeed spared Lily - what would Snape have been willing to do to ensure her continued existence? Why..."Anything"! > Jean: Perhaps, but he has shown that he will kill without hesitation before - no matter who is in the room, yet he did what Snape asked and then didn't kill him directly with AK. Just seems a little strange... :) From bart at moosewise.com Wed Aug 17 17:23:27 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:23:27 -0400 Subject: Lupin's Resignation Message-ID: <4E4BF90F.9090602@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191256 One other question for everybody, even with 20/20 hindsight, about Lupin's behavior in POA: Consider: Yes, Lupin hid the fact that James, Peter, and Sirius were unregistered animagi from Dumbledore. But, by the time of POA, from Lupin's point of view, Peter and James were dead, and SIrius was one of Morty's followers. Why the hell didn't Lupin give the full details of Sirius' dog form as soon as Sirius escaped? Bart From jean_cuffe at yahoo.com Wed Aug 17 14:26:03 2011 From: jean_cuffe at yahoo.com (Jean) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:26:03 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191257 > > 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? > > Nathaniel: > Yes. It really makes no sense for the boys not to know. If, by chance, they had seen two Hermiones at one time, then the boys may have suspected the worst. I don't see how now knowing could possible > benefit Harry and Ron, but there are many ways it could go wrong. Jean: - I quite agree, however, telling them would have served no purpose in the plot, and I don't think we're supposed to think too deeply about this issue, it was seemingly just a convenient plot device for that book, which Rowling then had to gloss over a bit as to why they'd never been used before/after, and mention that all the TimeTurners were destroyed. From huntergreen3 at aol.com Wed Aug 17 19:05:34 2011 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen3 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:05:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin's Resignation Message-ID: <4c98.264e082b.3b7d6afe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191258 Bart Wrote: >>Consider: Yes, Lupin hid the fact that James, Peter, and Sirius were unregistered animagi from Dumbledore. But, by the time of POA, from Lupin's point of view, Peter and James were dead, and SIrius was one of Morty's followers. Why the hell didn't Lupin give the full details of Sirius' dog form as soon as Sirius escaped?<< Rebecca: I have wondered that as well. The extent of Lupin's cowardice appears to be very large in light of him not telling Dumbledore (or the Ministry or *someone*) that Sirius can turn into a dog. He didn't have to tell them about their little jaunts into Hogsmeade, or about James and Peter, just a little confession that his former friend can turn into a dog and that might be how he's sneaking around and not getting caught. Was he really so embarrassed about taking Dumbledore's kindness for granted as a teenager? Or did he think that if he confessed it then he would lose his job before it even began? I think the explanation we are given in the book is that he thought (like the passageways) that Sirius was using some sort of "dark magic" that had nothing to do with being able to turn into a dog, and therefore there was nothing to be gained by admitting his (and his friends') deception as teenagers. It doesn't hold a lot of water IMO, I think that was all justification, talking himself into not confessing, just as he doesn't tell anyone about the Marauder's Map (perhaps someone else could have been monitoring it? Lupin can't have been able to watch for Sirius all the time). Lupin's actions baffle me. He's insecure to the point of it handicapping him. He's forever trapped as the boy he was in the pensieve memory, staring at James and Sirius, disapproving, but not saying anything. -Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 17 21:07:11 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1313615231.17857.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191259 ? > Zara: > I think his half-hearted attempt to spare Lily was in the same spirit as his gift of the silver hand to Peter. Not a sign of any affection or esteem, but a means of control. Supposing that Voldemort had indeed spared Lily - what would Snape have been willing to do to ensure her continued existence? Why..."Anything"! > Jean: Perhaps, but he has shown that he will kill without hesitation before - no matter who is in the room, yet he did what Snape asked and then didn't kill him directly with AK. Just seems a little strange... :) June I think Zara is right on this subject. Dumbledore has said that Voldemort had no need or want for friends. He used Nagini because (as we saw when he was battling Harry) he didn't think the wand would work against Snape because he thought it was loyal to Snape. Personally I think the AK curse would have been nicer than putting the snake on him. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Aug 17 21:11:29 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lupin's Resignation In-Reply-To: <4E4BF90F.9090602@moosewise.com> References: <4E4BF90F.9090602@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <1313615489.84703.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191260 Bart One other question for everybody, even with 20/20 hindsight, about Lupin's behavior in POA: Consider: Yes, Lupin hid the fact that James, Peter, and Sirius were unregistered animagi from Dumbledore. But, by the time of POA, from Lupin's point of view, Peter and James were dead, and SIrius was one of Morty's followers. Why the hell didn't Lupin give the full details of Sirius' dog form as soon as Sirius escaped? June He was afraid to admit that they had decieved Dumbledore while at the school. He say's so in the book although I do not have it with me right now to tell you where that is. From thedossetts at gmail.com Thu Aug 18 00:56:07 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:56:07 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Crudele" wrote: > > > > > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he > > > know about the Marauder's Map? > > > Pat: > > To me, it makes sense that the nicknames were well known, even if > > the map was not. Everyone seems to have no trouble knowing who Wormtail is, for example. I can totally see James yelling something to Padfoot, and Sirius responding to something Prongs had said. > > Mike: > I really did mean this to be 2 associated but separate questions. I always wondered how Dumbledore knew Prongs was James nickname. Yes, they were probably well known back in their day, but would Dumbledore have known them? If he had, would he really remember a nickname some years on? Can you imagine how many nicknames float around that school? And in either of their serious discussions with Dumbledore, do you think Lupin or Black spent the time to explain their nicknames? > > I always wondered whether the guy that seems to know everything that goes on at his school, knew about the Map. I also think the Map was one of the cool things in this book, and that it eventually got passed down from father to son was karmic indeed. Zanooda's answer seals the deal for me, Dumbledore didn't know about either the Marauders anamagi abilities or the Map. > > Pat: Ah, but Dumbledore knew both Sirius and James very well after they were done with school - through the Order of the Phoenix. And nicknames, especially nicknames with an extra meaning to them, don't tend to go away just because you're done with school. James and Lily were killed, what, maybe 4 years after they were done with school? So the idea that they never called one another Prongs or Padfoot after they left Hogwarts doesn't sit too well with me. Particularly when Sirius still calls Lupin Moony from time to time. And Wormtail is pretty much only Wormtail from the time he rejoins Voldemort till the end, and Dumbledore definitely knows who Wormtail is. So I don't think it's too much to believe that Dumbledore heard the nicknames many times before the tragedy of James and Lily's deaths. But I am in total agreement about the map and their anamagi abilities - I think there is definite canon on that one. Pat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Aug 18 06:31:45 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 06:31:45 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Resignation - Self-Delusion In-Reply-To: <1313615489.84703.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > > > Bart > > ... > Why the hell didn't Lupin give the full details of Sirius' dog form > as soon as Sirius escaped? > > > June > He was afraid to admit that they had decieved Dumbledore while at the school. He say's so in the book although I do not have it with me right now to tell you where that is. > Steve: I think it is more complicated than that. First as a undercurrent running through all of Lupin's actions is an element of insecurity. Paraphrased, he doesn't feel worthy to be around 'decent' people, and when it is, he desperately does not want to do anything to jeopardize that. Next, I assume at first, he didn't think it mattered. If Sirius escaped, he was probably on the run, intending to get as far away as possible. Lupin probably thought Sirius was half way to Moscow or China. Then when it became apparent that that bit of knowledge might matter, it probably seemed to late. How would he explain how and why he failed to divulge that bit of information? That only make confessing that more difficult. Then I think he deluded himself into thinking he could handle it. That he would keep an eye on Harry and keep him safe. Though he thoroughly misjudged Harry's willingness to go looking for trouble. I think the self-deluded thought process happens to people all the time, a combination of insecurity, neediness, rationalization, and self-delusion. I can't really say I can justify what he did, but I think I can understand how it could happen. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From teebee86627 at yahoo.ca Thu Aug 18 17:55:50 2011 From: teebee86627 at yahoo.ca (~*~ teebeenee ~*~) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1313282204.48905.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1313282204.48905.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191263 ? Geoff: Following June's question, I did a little digging and discovered the following information given by JKR at a Bloomsbury Live Chat in 2007: "Whose murders did Voldemort use to create each of the Horcruxes? JKR: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. Nagini - Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued). The diadem - an Albanian peasant. The ring - Tom Riddle Senior. Can Harry speak Parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux? JKR: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so." Hope that sheds a little more light into some of the darker corners. Teebee: So that means when Voldy went to Slughorn to ask about horcruxes he already knew how to make them? and was only curious about making 7 of them? according to the interview he would have already had 2 horcruxes and wearing one of them. and also if Nagini became a horcrux after killing Bertha that would mean it happened in the 7th book but Dumbledore already suspected the snake to be a horcrux after Frank was killed in the Riddle house. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From teebee86627 at yahoo.ca Thu Aug 18 19:37:29 2011 From: teebee86627 at yahoo.ca (~*~ teebeenee ~*~) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1313282204.48905.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1313696249.15715.YahooMailNeo@web113904.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191264 >> Geoff: >> >> JKR: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the >> previous owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. Nagini - Bertha >> Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a >> rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued). The diadem >> - an Albanian peasant. The ring - Tom Riddle Senior. > Teebee: > And also if Nagini became a horcrux after killing Bertha > that would mean it happened in the 7th book but Dumbledore already > suspected the snake to be a horcrux after Frank was killed in the > Riddle house. Teebee: Oh, ignore the part about Bertha...confused her with Batilda Bagshot, lol. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Thu Aug 18 19:42:32 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:42:32 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1313282204.48905.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4041CF77CF0A47AEB143DB45B0101C9F@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191265 > Teebee: So that means when Voldy went to Slughorn to ask about horcruxes he > already knew how to make them? and was only curious about making 7 of them? according to the interview he would have already had 2 > horcruxes and wearing one of them. > And also if Nagini became a horcrux after killing Bertha that would mean it happened in the 7th book but Dumbledore already > suspected the snake to be a horcrux after Frank was killed in the Riddle house. Liz responds: I haven't yet read HBP (I'm getting there slowly!) but did it mention how old Riddle was? But as a thought, he may have been wearing the ring, but it may have just been that, a ring, at that time. The Diary, as we know, was a horcrux created from Myrtle, when Riddle was a prefect, which means he was in 5th, 6th or possibly 7th year. I say possibly as I would think it would be mentioned if he was Head Boy at the time, but it only said prefect. Also, Bertha was killed in or just before the 4th book. Bertha Jorkins was murdered in Albania before the Quidditch World Cup. This happened before Frank was killed. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Aug 18 20:20:03 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:20:03 -0000 Subject: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, ~*~ teebeenee ~*~ wrote: Geoff: > Following June's question, I did a little digging and discovered the following > information given by JKR at a Bloomsbury Live Chat in 2007: > > "Whose murders did Voldemort use to create each of the Horcruxes? > > JKR: The diary - Moaning Myrtle. The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous > owner. The locket - a Muggle tramp. Nagini - Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort > could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the > victim was subdued). The diadem - an Albanian peasant. The ring - > Tom Riddle Senior. > > Can Harry speak Parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux? > JKR: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so." > > Hope that sheds a little more light into some of the darker corners. Teebee: > So that means when Voldy went to Slughorn to ask about horcruxes he already knew how to make them? and was only curious about making 7 of them? according to the interview he would have already had 2 horcruxes and wearing one of them. Geoff: Possibly not. Myrtle was killed when Tom Riddle was about sixteen and a senior student. The discussion with Slughorn must have occurred somewhere about the same time; Harry noted that the group Slughorn was teaching at the time were in their mid-teens so it is feasible that the death of Myrtle was his first foray into the world of making Horcruxes. Teebee: > and also if Nagini became a horcrux after killing Bertha that would mean it happened in the 7th book but Dumbledore already suspected the snake to be a horcrux after Frank was killed in the Riddle house. Geoff: Bertha Jorkins was killed round about the beginning of Harry's Fourth Year. Voldemort boasts about killing her when he tells his followers about his return to a body in the graveyard scene at Little Hangleton in "The Death Eaters", chapter 33 of GOF. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Aug 18 23:39:22 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry, Horcruxes and Parseltongue In-Reply-To: <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1313282204.48905.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1313690150.37768.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1313710762.16557.YahooMailNeo@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191267 > Teebee: > And also if Nagini became a horcrux after killing Bertha > that would mean it happened in the 7th book but Dumbledore already > suspected the snake to be a horcrux after Frank was killed in the > Riddle house. June: He killed Bertha in the 4th book before he killed Frank. From jean_cuffe at yahoo.com Fri Aug 19 08:32:40 2011 From: jean_cuffe at yahoo.com (Jean) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:32:40 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Resignation In-Reply-To: <4E4BF90F.9090602@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191268 > Bart: > One other question for everybody, even with 20/20 hindsight, about > Lupin's behavior in POA: > > Consider: Yes, Lupin hid the fact that James, Peter, and Sirius were > unregistered animagi from Dumbledore. But, by the time of POA, from > Lupin's point of view, Peter and James were dead, and SIrius was one > of Morty's followers. > > Why the hell didn't Lupin give the full details of Sirius' dog form > as soon as Sirius escaped? Jean: He didn't say anything, perhaps for the same reason that Hermione didn't say about the Time Turners... plot development ;) Perhaps we could turn this on its head a little, and ask, what would have happened if Lupin had told Dumbledore about Sirius' Animagus and the Maruader's Map? Dumbledore would have known about the passages and how Sirius was getting in, and the story would have been completely different and not lasted a whole year! :) From bart at moosewise.com Fri Aug 19 21:39:11 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:39:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Resignation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E4ED7FF.3040009@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191269 >> Bart: >> One other question for everybody, even with 20/20 hindsight, about >> Lupin's behavior in POA: >> >> Consider: Yes, Lupin hid the fact that James, Peter, and Sirius were >> unregistered animagi from Dumbledore. But, by the time of POA, from >> Lupin's point of view, Peter and James were dead, and SIrius was one >> of Morty's followers. >> >> Why the hell didn't Lupin give the full details of Sirius' dog form >> as soon as Sirius escaped? > > Jean: > He didn't say anything, perhaps for the same reason that Hermione > didn't say about the Time Turners... plot development ;) Perhaps we > could turn this on its head a little, and ask, what would have > happened if Lupin had told Dumbledore about Sirius' Animagus and the > Maruader's Map? Dumbledore would have known about the passages and > how Sirius was getting in, and the story would have been completely > different and not lasted a whole year! :) Bart: Well, you can justify ANYTHING in the books with "otherwise, there would be no story." I can see Lupin not telling Dumbledore out of embarrassment or shame, but in the story, he apparently considers that more important than Harry's life. I can even understand why Lupin didn't recognize Scabbers; most of the time he saw Peterat, he was in his Lupinwolf form, and his memory of those times wasn't all that good. But Lupin seemed like a decent enough sort. I really wish that JKR had come up with a reason for his endangering the lives of Harry and the other students other than simple embarrassment. Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 20 04:07:31 2011 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 04:07:31 -0000 Subject: Snape's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191270 Don't forget, Voldemort also tried to play matchmaker for Snape! He consoled Snape about Lily & tried to encourage Snape to get over her & find some nice pure-blood woman. Which shows some level of personal concern that seems totally at odds w/an evil overlord. lizzyben --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jean" wrote: > > > > Liz: Going off on a little tangent now, but all this talk of Snape's death has got me curious! > > > > Why didn't LV use AK on Snape? I haven't got to reading DH yet, only about half way through OotP, or seen the film but I know Nagini was used. This, to me, seems to indicate LV didn't want to kill Snape, he showed 'feelings' for him, even a bit of remorse? This is SO out of character for LV! > > > > Of course, it was vital to the story that Snape wasn't killed outright, > > because of the memories, but what are everyone's feelings about the method of death? > > > > Jean: > Of course the Memories are the reason he wasn't AKed - however you're right in the Voldemort seemed to like Snape. He didn't just kill him, and he tried to spare Lily for him "Stand aside you silly girl stand aside now." > > So, when we see Snape's memories, and he asked Voldemort to spare Lily, he did actually try to do that for him. I do wonder how Snape got this kind of loyalty from Voldemort, considering we know he doesn't care who he kills, nor needs/wants friends. > > Jean. > From jeanico2000 at yahoo.com Sat Aug 20 18:23:29 2011 From: jeanico2000 at yahoo.com (jeanico2000) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:23:29 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191271 > Potioncat: > Snape didn't need a proper burial. The very moment Harry, Ron and Hermione left the room, two House Elves appeared and went to Severus-- who was as near death as you can come without crossing over--They Magicked him to St. Mungo's where he was more or less restored to health. He assumed a new identity and is living in Hoboken, NJ. > >*snip* Hoboken? What... he works for the Cake Boss? :o) And Snape wasn't found by elves but by Fawkes! As soon as the trio departed, Dumbledore's faithful phoenix swept in and cried on Snape's wound and magically healed him. Struggling and exhausted, he was later found by the fleeing Malfoys on the castle grounds (OK, I might be confusing the book with the movie at this point), who took him with them to their secret chateau in the Bavarian Alps. Narcissa nursed him back to health (she must have had a hidden crush on Snape), and he then left the wizarding world, assumed a new identity, and found a job as an assistant chemist at a Boots pharmacy in London. So Potioncat I agree: Snape didn't die so there was no burial, and I actually have a kick-ass continuation to this story simmering in my beady little head! :o) From lkotur at yahoo.com Sat Aug 20 13:53:55 2011 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:53:55 -0000 Subject: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191272 Saw DH2 again just to see if my first impression was influenced by it being the final chapter. Nope! Again the movie was great to the point of Harry falling out of Hagrid's arms to reveal he was still alive. The writers and director really misses the suspense and awe that JKR put into the finish. When Harry goes "invisible" there is a wave of "oh crap" that goes through the Death Eater ranks and Voldemort begins to get a bit agitated. His spells no longer have any "staying power", the defenders of Hogwarts appear to be receiving help from an unknown source (Harry under the invisibility cloak) and the Death Eater ranks begin to lose numbers. Voldemort continues to fight even after all the horcruxes are destroyed and in the great room, Harry reveals himself. In the book I got the impression that Voldemort initially crapped his pants at seeing that d***** boy who just won't die! What's up with that. Now Harry is facing the wizard that has tried to kill him - how may times? Now Harry knew he was not going to be the one to die and armed with that knowledge, he tried to help the wizard who wanted him dead. That dialogue between Harry and Tom Riddle would have been electric in the movie. I believe that the director made a massive mistake by thinking that those scenes would not work. Too bad. I also would have loved to see the headmaster portraits applauding Harry. Do you think Warner Brothers could do a do-over re-shoot? Too Bad. Larry From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Aug 20 20:19:28 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:19:28 -0000 Subject: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lkotur" wrote: Larry: > Saw DH2 again just to see if my first impression was influenced by it being the final chapter. Nope! Again the movie was great to the point of Harry falling out of Hagrid's arms to reveal he was still alive. The writers and director really misses the suspense and awe that JKR put into the finish. When Harry goes "invisible" there is a wave of "oh crap" that goes through the Death Eater ranks and Voldemort begins to get a bit agitated. His spells no longer have any "staying power", the defenders of Hogwarts appear to be receiving help from an unknown source (Harry under the invisibility cloak) and the Death Eater ranks begin to lose numbers. Voldemort continues to fight even after all the horcruxes are destroyed and in the great room, Harry reveals himself. In the book I got the impression that Voldemort initially crapped his pants at seeing that d***** boy who just won't die! What's up with that. Now Harry is facing the wizard that has tried to kill him - how may times? Now Harry knew he was not going to be the one to die and armed with that knowledge, he tried to help the wizard who wanted him dead. That dialogue between Harry and Tom Riddle would have been electric in the movie. I believe that the director made a massive mistake by thinking that those scenes would not work. Too bad. I also would have loved to see the headmaster portraits applauding Harry. Geoff: As something of a sophisticated "me too", this was the view I took in my post 191019 when I started the thread "MOVIE: A comparison". One of the remarks I made there was: "Before I went, I had read a dozen or so reviews, seen about every trailer I could get my hands on, plus a British ITV1 programme "Behind the Scenes of Deathly Hallows Part 2". Having looked at all this, I went with a sense of foreboding and trepidation that what I called in a recent post the "David Yates Syndrome" might appear ? in that the story would be altered and spurious scenes inserted. " And that Is what I felt happened. the final scene made me think of the sort of apocalyptic ending which so often happens in modern films, shoot outs, big special effects scenes, noise, death and destruction. Well, we had that leading up to the finale. But in the book, the emphasis is on the sudden transition from the battle to the dead quiet as our two protagonists circle round. The watchers are quiet; Harry ramming home the point with a few well-chosen words and then the sudden and short- lived flare of spells. I can only agree with you Larry; that would have been electric. Well, we can always turn off the DVD at this point and read the last bit from the book, can't we.? :-)) ." > Do you think Warner Brothers could do a do-over re-shoot? Too Bad. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sat Aug 20 21:14:53 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:14:53 +0100 Subject: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <537EAB419A0D4F998CA232C5CE5D318E@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191274 > Larry: > Saw DH2 again just to see if my first impression was influenced > by it being the final chapter. Liz: Can I remind people to put MOVIE in the title to any posts regarding HP7 pt2 please. I haven't seen this movie yet, and don't intend to until it comes out on DVD. Thanks From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Aug 20 23:43:58 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:43:58 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lkotur" wrote: > > Larry: > > Saw DH2 again just to see if my first impression was influenced by it being the final chapter. Nope! Again the movie was great to the point of Harry falling out of Hagrid's arms to reveal he was still alive. .... > > Geoff: > As something of a sophisticated "me too", .... > > I can only agree with you Larry; that would have been electric. > Well, we can always turn off the DVD at this point and read the > last bit from the book, can't we.? > :-)) > > Steve: We must ask ourselves, how do we see the movies and books? That is, what genre do they fit into. Action/Adventure? Thriller? Suspense? Drama? Comedy? Rom/Com? ...??? I think the books are Thriller/Suspense, but I think the directors saw the movie they were making as a Action Movie. So, they made the movie they saw in their mind; action packed, adventure, blockbuster war movie. And they made their choice accordingly. I'm not saying that was the right choice, simply saying that I think that was the choice they made. The burst of action, followed by confusion, followed by the slow suspense of Harry and Voldemort facing off, that worked in the books. But it simply doesn't work in the Producer/Directors vision of the heart of the movie. I've often liked converting a book into a movie as trimming the tops off of mountains (metaphorically, the mountains are the book). The mountain, and the story in the book are both wide and deep (or are, as you please). The Producer/Director/Writer have to find a way to navigate through those mountains. Trimming off and using the tip that represent their vision of the central story line. Some mountain tops (plot points/subplots) simply don't reach high enough to be included. But as the mountain peaks have varying height, the mountain range is also wide. You find what you believe is the central story line, and you bypass all the other mountain peaks. In doing so, far more is lost than is saved. If we assume the average movie is 2.5 hours long, and for Stephen Fry or Jim Dale take about 25 hours to read the book, in the movie, we get about 1/10th of the story. There are plenty of things to criticize, but it is what it is. I'm sure the Producer/Director/Writer consider many possible methods to tell the story, but at some point, you have to stop discussing and make the best decision you can. You can't agonize over every little detail, not when delays are costing MANY thousands of Dollars/Pounds an hour. So, the framework was determined - Action/War movie, and that drove the decisions from that point onward. While I too can find things to complain about, this is the movie we have, whether it lives in Fame or Infamy, it is done. Again, I can see things to complain about, but at the same time, I have sympathy, and am glad I wasn't the one having to make those hard decisions. And yes, I really can find things to complain about. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Aug 21 06:44:04 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 06:44:04 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve: > We must ask ourselves, how do we see the movies and books? That is, what genre do they fit into. > I think the books are Thriller/Suspense, but I think the directors saw the movie they were making as a Action Movie. So, they made the movie they saw in their mind; action packed, adventure, blockbuster war movie. And they made their choice accordingly. > > I'm not saying that was the right choice, simply saying that I think that was the choice they made. Geoff: Which is precisely why I think that David Yates was not the right director. Steve: > The burst of action, followed by confusion, followed by the slow suspense of Harry and Voldemort facing off, that worked in the books. But it simply doesn't work in the Producer/Directors vision of the heart of the movie. Geoff: But it could have done.... Steve: >You find what you believe is the central story line, and you bypass all the other mountain peaks. > > In doing so, far more is lost than is saved. If we assume the average movie is 2.5 hours long, and for Stephen Fry or Jim Dale take about 25 hours to read the book, in the movie, we get about 1/10th of the story. Geoff: Yes, but I'm not talking about what is lost; I quite agree with that - it's bound to happen. It's not what has been lost that irritates me but what has been CHANGED and to what end? Steve: > And yes, I really can find things to complain about. Geoff: So can I. I can see things in earlier films with which I was dissatisfied, but those scenes and changes were not foundational alterations to the story. I think if you look through the posts on this topic, the breakdown of those who liked the last scene against those who didn't was probably 50:50. This was not just any old scene; using your mountain analogy, this was the last, the ultimate peak to be reached. Six books and seven films were leading to this and it was not, in its conception meant to be a "Die Hard" finish. I am somewhat surprised that JKR, who has reportedly retained some authorial control over the films was in agreement to this ending. But, to pinch one of your taglines, that's one man's view. ;-| From kersberg at chello.nl Sun Aug 21 15:01:24 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:01:24 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191277 Sorry , you all got it wrong. he is a shopkeeper in the Dutch Wizardquarter in Amsterdan under the name Truwain Thrush, he reveiled that himself to me when he introduced me to my own wizardship. but he also cast a spell upon me that nobody would believe me. you don't believe this? See, the spell is working and can only work when the wizard is alive. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jeanico2000" wrote: > > > Potioncat: > > Snape didn't need a proper burial. The very moment Harry, Ron and Hermione left the room, two House Elves appeared and went to Severus-- who was as near death as you can come without crossing over--They Magicked him to St. Mungo's where he was more or less restored to health. He assumed a new identity and is living in Hoboken, NJ. > > > >*snip* > > > Hoboken? What... he works for the Cake Boss? :o) And Snape wasn't found by elves but by Fawkes! As soon as the trio departed, Dumbledore's faithful phoenix swept in and cried on Snape's wound and magically healed him. Struggling and exhausted, he was later found by the fleeing Malfoys on the castle grounds (OK, I might be confusing the book with the movie at this point), who took him with them to their secret chateau in the Bavarian Alps. Narcissa nursed him back to health (she must have had a hidden crush on Snape), and he then left the wizarding world, assumed a new identity, and found a job as an assistant chemist at a Boots pharmacy in London. > > So Potioncat I agree: Snape didn't die so there was no burial, and I actually have a kick-ass continuation to this story simmering in my beady little head! :o) > From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Aug 21 16:17:15 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 16:17:15 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191278 > > Steve: > > The burst of action, followed by confusion, followed by the slow suspense of Harry and Voldemort facing off, that worked in the books. But it simply doesn't work in the Producer/Directors vision of the heart of the movie. > > Geoff: > But it could have done.... > > > > It's not what has been lost that irritates me but what has been > CHANGED and to what end? > > > > This was not just any old scene; using your mountain analogy, > this was the last, the ultimate peak to be reached. Six books > and seven films were leading to this and it was not, in its > conception meant to be a "Die Hard" finish. I am somewhat > surprised that JKR, who has reportedly retained some authorial > control over the films was in agreement to this ending. Mike: Unlike Geoff, I do have a decidedly strong preference for the books over the movies. So I am not an unbiased critic, FWIW. But I am in total agreement with Geoff on this point. Not only do the movies turn Apparating into some kind of miny-jet zooming around kind of exercise, they turn the last scene into the same kind of visual, and include crashing into the castle peaks to knock off tiles. So are they supposed to be "movie apparating" or a different thing that just looks like "movie apparating"? I also think the final showdown as written in the books would have worked in the movie. The showdown at the OK corral type of dance, with all the witnesses, and the brilliant burst of sunshine just as the final curses were flung... yeah, that could have worked just fine on the big screen. Instead, they were alone in the courtyard. Umm, how does the rest of the WW know Harry eliminated Voldy? He disintegrated after all, there was no body left. And didn't that same thing happen to him after their first encounter? I know, too cerebral for the "action movie" WB was making! :>( I know this has already been discussed, but I wish to add my tuppence-worth to the 'did-they-show-how-Voldemort-died' confusion. I went to the movie with my wife, who has not read the books. In her view, she thought that Neville killing Nagini, Voldemort's last remaining Horcrux, caused Voldemort's wand to fizzle out as if LV had lost his power to cast spells. For myself, I was just confused, I decidedly did not see Voldemort's AK rebound on himself. And after reading this board's discussion on this point, I was definitely looking for it. > Geoff: > I think if you look through the posts on this topic, > the breakdown of those who liked the last scene > against those who didn't was probably 50:50. Mike: Add me to the side that did not like the final scene. Does that change the ratio? Oh, and let me also throw this in. My wife was thoroughly disgusted with Dumbledore in the end. She thought he turned out to be quite the bastard, with all of his conniving and maneuvering regarding Harry. Mind, this is someone who really liked Dumbledore after the earlier movies, and was not influenced by the books. I felt a tinge of satisfaction for mine, Alla's, Sherry's, and others opinions on the character of Albus Dumbledore. Just another man's opinion, Mike From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 21 16:55:32 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 21 Aug 2011 16:55:32 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/21/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1313945732.580.71896.m17@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191279 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 21, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 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 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Aug 21 19:48:00 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 19:48:00 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > >.... > > Geoff: > ... > > This (the climax) was not just any old scene; using your mountain > analogy, this was the last, the ultimate peak to be reached. Six > books and seven films were leading to this and it was not, in its > conception meant to be a "Die Hard" finish. I am somewhat surprised > that JKR, who has reportedly retained some authorial control over > the films was in agreement to this ending. > > But, to pinch one of your taglines, that's one man's view. > ;-| > Steve: For me it is not so much the climactic ending, but how they arrived at it. When only DH1 was out, I pointed out to people that there was a scene at Malfoy Manor upon which the entire series would hinge. One scene only a few seconds long upon which everything turned. Boy, was I wrong. Harry taking Draco's wand at Malfoy Manor should have been the great reveal and turning point, but in the movies, it was something of an after thought. And as a result, it is still not clear what actually killed Voldemort (which I have discussed before). The scene could have played out the same way but with more of a visual sense that Voldemort's curse rebounded on him. And why it rebounded would have made more sense with the context of the passage of ownership of the Elder Wand. Doe it really matter where they dueled? Or how the got to that location? I don't think so. But why they were there, and what it meant to the story line, all that seems to have been lost in he name of action/adventure. So, I certainly do see and feel your point. Other criticisms would be that the jump-cut from scene to scene, rushing the story along. There is never a pause to explain anything, or to allow sympathy for characters to build, or to build suspense. Another criticism is that due to directing, people frequently act in unnatural ways. Here are a couple examples, but the movies are riddled with them - - In the scene where Dobby dies, Dan/Harry is doing a good job of acting, but when the camera cuts to Ron and Hermione, they are just at a distance doing nothing. Harry is calling to them, begging them to help, but they don't move forward, they don't gather around Harry, which I think would have been the natural response. To me, it cuts the dramatic impact of that scene substantially because it is jarringly unnatural. I think a degree of this is Yates TV background. - I saw Goblet of Fire last week, and in the scene where Harry and Cedric return to the Maze from the graveyard, and Cedric's father rushes down to see his son's body, the actor playing Amos Diggory is acting his brains out, but the scene is unnatural because anyone with that much anguish over the death of their son would have embraced the body. He would have held Cedric in his arms, refusing to let him go. That happens in real life. But in the movie, it seems to be all about the right camera angle, because Amos never touches the body. And I mean NEVER touches the body. The power of that scene was diminished because it was unnatural. It went counter to the instinctive responses of any reasonably person. Again, I think this is partly do to Yates being mainly a TV director. He is used to the small scene. Again, just two small examples, but the movies are filled with unnatural director choices. I think Yates has great potential as a movie director, and I think within a certain context, he did a good job. But in another context, he has a long way to go before he has the skill to make a movie that plays beginning to end in a real and natural way. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From daveh47 at gmail.com Mon Aug 22 07:11:16 2011 From: daveh47 at gmail.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:11:16 -0700 Subject: MOVIE: Director vs. Screenwriter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4e520189.1969650a.72a4.ffffe62d@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191281 I'm hearing a lot of people blaming Yates for certain shortcomings in the latter films, particularly the final Harry / LV confrontation. But doesn't the lack of expose by Harry in that scene, or murkiness in exactly how LV dies, or a lot of other things many of us don't like about the films ultimately stem from what Steve Kloves wrote in the screenplay, rather than what Yates did or didn't direct? Dave From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Aug 22 10:05:11 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:05:11 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Director vs. Screenwriter In-Reply-To: <4e520189.1969650a.72a4.ffffe62d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > I'm hearing a lot of people blaming Yates for certain shortcomings > in the latter films, particularly the final Harry / LV > confrontation. But doesn't the lack of expose by Harry in that > scene, or murkiness in exactly how LV dies, or a lot of other > things many of us don't like about the films ultimately stem from > what Steve Kloves wrote in the screenplay, rather than what Yates > did or didn't direct? > > Dave > Steve: No, I don't think so, the screen play is not etched in stone and does not dictate the flow of the movie. The Director and Producer (David Heyman) have a lot of say in the flow of the story, and the script. I have to assume it is a collaborative effort. In a sense, I think Steve Kloves wrote the screen play to spec. That is, He, Heyman, and Yates collaborated on the flow and direction of the story, and Kloves wrote the script to fit their mutual decision. But, the things I complained about, and there are more, are purely director choices. The exact same scene could have played in the same way but with a more natural effect, if the Director had been on top of things. Even outside the actual filming of a specific scene, in post-production, a well timed well placed flash of light could have indicated that Voldemort own Spell rebounded on him. That said, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Yet, complain as we might, the movie we have is the only movie we will ever get. And that said, I still think the criticism is fair. Steve/bluewizard From lkotur at yahoo.com Mon Aug 22 14:51:23 2011 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:51:23 -0000 Subject: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191283 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lkotur" wrote: > > Saw DH2 again just to see if my first impression was influenced by it being the final chapter. Nope! .....> > Do you think Warner Brothers could do a do-over re-shoot? Too Bad. Just wanted to add that I did buy all seven Harry Potter books and have purchased the 7 Harry potter DVD's, However; with the last movie DH2, I have decided that I will not purchase the final DVD, I will not purchase any of the extended versions, I will not be purchasing any Harry Potter Complete DVD collections with all the bells and whistles and wands etc etc etc. In other words WARNER BROTHERS - your Harry Potter gravy train has pulled out of Kings Cross Station for the final time - for me. You other Harry Potter fans can continue to lavish Warner Brothers with your hard earned dollars, but I'm done. That is how P O ed I am. I am amazed at how many people I've talked to that have not read the books, have no idea of what the heck happened in the movie. Larry From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Aug 22 19:38:48 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:38:48 -0000 Subject: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191284 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lkotur" wrote: Larry > I am amazed at how many people I've talked to that have not read the books, have no idea of what the heck happened in the movie. Geoff: I share your annoyance, Larry, certainly with the way in which the ending was handled but I would like to make an observation about your last sentence. Supposing you had not read any of the books and I gave you a copy of DH with the early section taken out so that you began reading from, say, Chapter 25 "Shell Cottage" onwards, I think that you would find it difficult to have any idea of what the heck happened in the book anyway. What I am trying to say is that, if anyone tries to come into any big story, be it film or book, halfway or further into it, they will have problems in following it. Personally, I think that the people who have come off worst are those of us who know the story intimately and are finding ourselves seriously underwhelmed with what has been presented to us as the climax of the saga. I shall get the DVD because, as I have said previously, there is much in the film which has satisfied me - up to the last twenty minutes or so. From dbroughton1 at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 23 07:30:44 2011 From: dbroughton1 at yahoo.com.au (Duane Broughton) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:30:44 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191285 This may have been spoken of before, but I have just started reading the books again from the start. Now in the Philosopher's Stone when Harry is looking in the mirror of Erised and realizes that Dumbledore is there he asks Dumbledore, "What do you see when you look in the mirror"? To which Dumbledore replies "I? I see my self holding a pair of thick woolen socks". It goes on to say that it struck Harry that Dumbledore may not have been quite truthful. My question is, now that we know a bit more about Dumbledore and his flaws, what do people think he saw? It is easy to say that he sees himself with his sister, but maybe he sees himself with all the hallows. Maybe he sees himself with Grindelwald in a world dominated by wizards and muggles as slaves etc. Remember it shows your desire not your wishes, what do people think?? Duane From ocegree at yahoo.com Tue Aug 23 07:39:29 2011 From: ocegree at yahoo.com (Allan) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:39:29 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191286 > Stephanie: > I know JKR said that Harry made sure Snape had a picture in the > headmaster office but did he make sure Snape got a proper burial? Allan: It died in the Shrieking Shack and that is where it is.... From bart at moosewise.com Tue Aug 23 13:24:21 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:24:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E53AA05.7070606@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191287 On 8/23/2011 3:30 AM, Duane Broughton wrote: > It is easy to say that he sees himself with his sister, but maybe he > sees himself with all the hallows. Maybe he sees himself with > Grindelwald in a world dominated by wizards and muggles as slaves etc. > Remember it shows your desire not your wishes, what do people think?? > Bart: My belief: He sees himself, looking at the mirror, looking at himself holding a pair of thick woolen socks. Bart From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 23 19:37:35 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:37:35 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <4E53AA05.7070606@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > On 8/23/2011 3:30 AM, Duane Broughton wrote: > > It is easy to say that he sees himself with his sister, but maybe he > > sees himself with all the hallows. Maybe he sees himself with > > Grindelwald in a world dominated by wizards and muggles as slaves etc. > > Remember it shows your desire not your wishes, what do people think?? Bart: > My belief: He sees himself, looking at the mirror, looking at > himself holding a pair of thick woolen socks. Geoff: Dumbledore says: "It shows us nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts." (PS "The Mirror of Erised" p.157 UK edition) Hm. Well, sorry, but I just don't believe his greatest and most desperate desire is a pair of thick woollen socks. HIs excuse: "One can never have enough socks... Another Christmas has come and gone and I didn't get a single pair. People will insist on giving me books." (Ibid.) So what's to stop him nipping into Hogsmeade and buying himself half a dozen pairs? From margdean56 at gmail.com Tue Aug 23 19:40:52 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:40:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: <4E53AA05.7070606@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191289 On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Geoff wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > On 8/23/2011 3:30 AM, Duane Broughton wrote: > > > It is easy to say that he sees himself with his sister, but maybe he > > > sees himself with all the hallows. Maybe he sees himself with > > > Grindelwald in a world dominated by wizards and muggles as slaves etc. > > > Remember it shows your desire not your wishes, what do people think?? > > Bart: > > My belief: He sees himself, looking at the mirror, looking at > > himself holding a pair of thick woolen socks. > > Geoff: > Dumbledore says: > "It shows us nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate > desire of our hearts." > (PS "The Mirror of Erised" p.157 UK edition) > > Hm. Well, sorry, but I just don't believe his greatest and most > desperate desire is a pair of thick woollen socks. > > HIs excuse: > "One can never have enough socks... Another Christmas has come > and gone and I didn't get a single pair. People will insist on giving > me books." > (Ibid.) > > So what's to stop him nipping into Hogsmeade and buying himself half > a dozen pairs? Maybe a pair of hand-knitted woollen socks was his perennial Christmas present from his mother and/or sister. --Margaret Dean From bart at moosewise.com Tue Aug 23 19:59:00 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:59:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E540684.30208@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191290 Geoff wrote: > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > >> Duane Broughton wrote: >>> It is easy to say that he sees himself with his sister, but maybe he >>> sees himself with all the hallows. Maybe he sees himself with >>> Grindelwald in a world dominated by wizards and muggles as slaves etc. >>> Remember it shows your desire not your wishes, what do people think?? > Bart: >> My belief: He sees himself, looking at the mirror, looking at >> himself holding a pair of thick woolen socks. > Geoff: > Dumbledore says: > "It shows us nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate > desire of our hearts." > (PS "The Mirror of Erised" p.157 UK edition) > > Hm. Well, sorry, but I just don't believe his greatest and most > desperate desire is a pair of thick woollen socks. > > Bart: You didn't read it carefully. His deepest, most desperate desire was to want nothing more than a pair of thick woolen socks; in other words, to be content with what he had. Bart From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Tue Aug 23 14:10:14 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:10:14 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <4E53AA05.7070606@moosewise.com> References: <4E53AA05.7070606@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <27E33C53CD9F46539A2D97F55B78F543@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191291 > On 8/23/2011 3:30 AM, Duane Broughton wrote: >> It is easy to say that he sees himself with his sister, but maybe >> he sees himself with all the hallows. Maybe he sees himself with >> Grindelwald in a world dominated by wizards and muggles as slaves >> etc. Remember it shows your desire not your wishes, what do people >> think?? > Bart: > My belief: He sees himself, looking at the mirror, looking at > himself holding a pair of thick woolen socks. Liz: Now that's just being smart, Bart! I think he'd see himself with great power or just powerful. Perhaps being Minister for Magic AND having the Deathly Hallows. After all, he did desire this, but had to control himself knowing how power corrupted him before. From lkotur at yahoo.com Tue Aug 23 15:52:05 2011 From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:52:05 -0000 Subject: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > > Geoff: > I share your annoyance, Larry, certainly with the way in which the ending > was handled but I would like to make an observation about your last > sentence. > > I shall get the DVD because, as I have said previously, there is much in the > film which has satisfied me - up to the last twenty minutes or so. > Geoff, You're right. I will buy the DVD but it will be used and bought at a flea market. Warner Brother will not get another dollar from me. Larry From kimonik at gmail.com Tue Aug 23 21:09:09 2011 From: kimonik at gmail.com (Monik) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:09:09 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror of Erised Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191293 > Bart wrote: >You didn't read it carefully. His deepest, most desperate desire was to >want nothing more than a pair of thick woolen socks; in other words, to >be content with what he had. Monika (newbie): I quite agree with that - not to want anything anymore and be content with what he had must have been something he pondered a lot. Otherwise maybe.. he saw Harry alive and well and Voldemort gone? (though at this stage he didn't know yet Harry's a horcrux as well..) Is it suggested that this desire we see in the Mirror of Erised should be self-centered or not necessarily? -- "Silence is Real Dance. My dance is all motion without. All silence within. As much as I love to make music, it's the unheard music that never dies. And silence is my real dance, though it never moves." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Tue Aug 23 21:53:28 2011 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:53:28 +0200 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <122AA6D578B34D4982C99EEC21B4D723@MilesPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191294 > Bart wrote: >You didn't read it carefully. His deepest, most desperate desire was to >want nothing more than a pair of thick woolen socks; in other words, to >be content with what he had. Miles: I don't think this is a question of reading carefully. You present an interpretation, not a fact. Your interpretation at this point is that Dumbledore told Harry the truth. Harry himself is in doubt about this, because he considers his question to be too private. But I think that the last book shows us the real deepest desire of Albus Dumbledore: that his young sister Ariana wouldn't have been killed, or that he at least could apologize to her about the accident that lead to her death. We know it because he couldn't resist to use the Ressurection Stone to recall Ariana, not considering that Voldemort had more than one reason to curse it. So, if you ask me, one should have read the entire series carefully to know the answer to this - and many other questions ;). Miles From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Aug 23 22:03:20 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:03:20 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <122AA6D578B34D4982C99EEC21B4D723@MilesPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > Bart wrote: > > >You didn't read it carefully. His deepest, most desperate desire was to > >want nothing more than a pair of thick woolen socks; in other words, to > >be content with what he had. > > Miles: > I don't think this is a question of reading carefully. > You present an interpretation, not a fact. > > Your interpretation at this point is that Dumbledore told Harry the truth. > Harry himself is in doubt about this, because he considers his question to > be too private. Geoff: My interpretation right from the start was that Dumbledore was not telling Harry the real truth - whatever that was. Miles: > So, if you ask me, one should have read the entire series carefully to know > the answer to this - and many other questions ;). Geoff: So we should have waited from 1997 to 2011 before deciding how to determine what Dumbledore meant by that vague and cryptic comment? :-( As Dumbledore himself remarks: "The truth... it is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p,21 UK edition) From ddankanyin at cox.net Wed Aug 24 00:35:55 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 20:35:55 -0400 Subject: Mirror of Erised References: <4E540684.30208@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <016EE452CE364B2EA78F69B5C6D07482@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191296 > Bart: > You didn't read it carefully. His deepest, most desperate desire > was to want nothing more than a pair of thick woolen socks; in > other words, to be content with what he had. Dorothy: Thank you, Bart. I feel that this must have been what he meant besides Harry getting too personal, thus ending that conversation. From bart at moosewise.com Wed Aug 24 03:26:37 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:26:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <122AA6D578B34D4982C99EEC21B4D723@MilesPC> References: <122AA6D578B34D4982C99EEC21B4D723@MilesPC> Message-ID: <4E546F6D.30700@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191297 On 8/23/2011 5:53 PM, Miles wrote: >> Bart wrote: >> You didn't read it carefully. His deepest, most desperate desire was to >> want nothing more than a pair of thick woolen socks; in other words, to >> be content with what he had. > Miles: > I don't think this is a question of reading carefully. > You present an interpretation, not a fact. > > Your interpretation at this point is that Dumbledore told Harry the truth. Bart: No, it wasn't. REREAD WHAT I WROTE. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Aug 25 12:17:00 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:17:00 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191298 > > Stephanie: > > I know JKR said that Harry made sure Snape had a picture in the > > headmaster office but did he make sure Snape got a proper burial? > > Allan: > It died in the Shrieking Shack and that is where it is.... > Pippin: The Shrieking Shack was opened by Voldemort and so no longer sealed off. I presume there were DE's whose job it was to tidy up after their master, so Snape's body was probably transformed into something else and disposed of. I think, much as I would like to believe otherwise, that he *is* dead -- unless of course, like Sherlock Holmes, his author has to resurrect him out of desperation. May she be spared such a fate! People don't always get the honors in death that they deserve. Mad-eye didn't, and neither did Dobby, although Harry did the best that he could for them. I think he would have wanted Snape's body buried honorably, and if he didn't get to it in time, he would have buried the phial of memories, the way he buried Moody's eye. An interesting sidelight on this: JKR investigated her ancestry for an episode of the British series "Who Do You Think You Are?" . She discovered that her grandfather, who won the Croix de Guerre fighting for the French in WWI, now lies in a communal grave. JKR was deeply distressed to think that her family had lost touch and allowed this to happen. Pippin From bart at moosewise.com Thu Aug 25 17:22:01 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:22:01 -0400 Subject: Resurrections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E5684B9.6020603@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191299 On 8/25/2011 8:17 AM, pippin_999 wrote: > Pippin: > The Shrieking Shack was opened by Voldemort and so no longer sealed off. I presume there were DE's whose job it was to tidy up after their master, so Snape's body was probably transformed into something else and disposed of. I think, much as I would like to believe otherwise, that he *is* dead -- unless of course, like Sherlock Holmes, his author has to resurrect him outof desperation. May she be spared such a fate! Bart: Note that Sirius Black went through the Veil alive, and we don't know what's on the other side. Not being a reader of fanfic, I don't know if anybody came up with an idea based on that, but a few come to mind, the most obvious one is that the other side of the Veil is our world. Bart From kimonik at gmail.com Thu Aug 25 12:32:33 2011 From: kimonik at gmail.com (limonalii) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:32:33 -0000 Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: <1312388124.30250.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191300 > > Lanna: > > Hey all.??? I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this > > weekend and I have a question.??? If the school was being run by > > Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then > > why were they sending their kids there at all? > > > June: > I would presume that the parents were not aware of it or I am sure > that they would not be sending their children to school. Monika: In DH in the chapter (can't remember the number or title) when Harry, Hermione and Ron are hiding in 12 Grimauld Place after escaping from the wedding to London, Lupin comes over and informs them that the Ministry changed the law. According to the new one every little witch and wizard are now OBLIGED to be sent to Hogwarts and they parents have to comply. Not the whole wizarding world knows it has to do with Voldemort. I don't know how many of them know that DE are running Hogwarts or that Snape - one of old teachers anyway and new Headmaster - is (appears to be) a DE. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Aug 25 18:32:27 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:32:27 -0000 Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "limonalii" wrote: Lanna: > > > Hey all.??? I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this > > > weekend and I have a question.??? If the school was being run by > > > Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then > > > why were they sending their kids there at all? June: > > I would presume that the parents were not aware of it or I am sure > > that they would not be sending their children to school. Monika: > In DH in the chapter (can't remember the number or title) when Harry, Hermione and Ron are hiding in 12 Grimauld Place after escaping from the wedding to London, Lupin comes over and informs them that the Ministry changed the law. According to the new one every little witch and wizard are now OBLIGED to be sent to Hogwarts and they parents have to comply. Not the whole wizarding world knows it has to do with Voldemort. I don't know how many of them know that DE are running Hogwarts or that Snape - one of old teachers anyway and new Headmaster - is (appears to be) a DE. Geoff: The quote you want is: '"...What's Voldemort planning for Hogwarts?" she (Hermione) asked Lupin. "Attendance is now compulsory for every young witch and wizard," he replied. "That was announced yesterday. It's a change, because it was never obligatory before. Of course, nearly every witch and wizard in Britain has been educated at Hogwarts but their parents had the right to teach them at home or send them if they preferred. This way, Voldemort will have the whole wizarding population under his eye from a young age..."' (DH "The Bribe" p.173 UK edition) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Aug 25 20:16:19 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:16:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E56AD93.7000308@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 191302 > Pippin: > The Shrieking Shack was opened by Voldemort and so no longer sealed off. I presume there were DE's whose job it was to tidy up after their master, so Snape's body was probably transformed into something else and disposed of. I think, much as I would like to believe otherwise, that he*is* dead -- unless of course, like Sherlock Holmes, his author has to resurrect him out of desperation. May she be spared such a fate! Shelley: I'm not sure sure either of these first statements are correct. I will take them one at a time: The Shrieking Shack was never "sealed off"- rather, it was protected by a rumor that it was haunted or a bad place to be, and had an entrance tunnel on the Hogwarts grounds that was guarded by the Womping Willow. Guarded by the tree and a rumor or minor spells that would scare the ordinary person away from the borders is not the same as sealed off- to me it's the same as the House Doors, the entrance to the kitchen, and the entrance to the Ministry of Magic- if you know he password or the thing that you were supposed to do (tickle the pear, go to a phone booth and dial these numbers), then you gained access. It was only meant as a mild, general deterant to entry. Those who "should know" had the information, but that information could be easily discovered by someone else through word of mouth. Voldemort's access to the Shrieking Shack meant that Snape (or someone else from Hogwart's history, possibly Wormtail) had given him the information to know where to touch on the tree to gain entrance. This, Voldey's use of the Shrieking Shack came as no real surprise to me- we already had evidence from the Room of Requirement that this kid (Riddle) was nosey enough to know that Hogwarts had such secret places that could be discovered to those who were looking, and as a grown up, it wouldn't have taken much imagination to inquire what other such hidden places could be used for his purposes. The second part, of Snape's body: I don't think we have any evidence that any DE cared what happened to people after they were dead, and certainly not their own, unless that body and or body part was useful as a spell component. Voldemort knew where he had killed Snape, but Snape's lifeless corpse was of no use to him, nor the Shrieking Shack, the he even needed to tell the DEs to go clean up after his mess. I doubt he even mentioned it to them. They were of course, in battle, and had things to do that were more important. No one had any reason to return to it later, or even care. I think only Harry might have cared, but Rowling didn't provide us with any clues (in hindsight it would have shown Harry cared about Snape to provide those details) that he did anything to insure Snape had a burial or any ceremony to celebrate his life. It strikes me that Harry, maybe by exposure to the Muggle upbringing, seems to care more about the burial process than does the Wizarding community, but that's just an impression on my part. We can make an assumption that he would have retrieved the body for a proper burial, but we can't know for sure how or when that occurred. He may have just had the tunnel sealed off as a final resting place for Snape, but we aren't told either way. It just seems really unlikely that any DE saw to Snape's burial, and given that the rest of them thought Snape was still in league with Voldemort until the very end, I doubt anyone else would care where Snape's dead body rested. Shelley [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Aug 25 20:25:51 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:25:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: <4E53AA05.7070606@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <4E56AFCF.5050403@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 191303 >> Bart: >>> My belief: He sees himself, looking at the mirror, looking at >>> himself holding a pair of thick woolen socks. >> Geoff: >> Dumbledore says: >> "It shows us nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate >> desire of our hearts." >> (PS "The Mirror of Erised" p.157 UK edition) >> >> Hm. Well, sorry, but I just don't believe his greatest and most >> desperate desire is a pair of thick woollen socks. >> >> HIs excuse: >> "One can never have enough socks... Another Christmas has come >> and gone and I didn't get a single pair. People will insist on giving >> me books." >> (Ibid.) >> >> So what's to stop him nipping into Hogsmeade and buying himself half >> a dozen pairs? > Maybe a pair of hand-knitted woollen socks was his perennial Christmas > present from his mother and/or sister. > > > --Margaret Dean > This is my thought exactly. An item can have an emotional or sentimental value of it, a meaning much greater than the object itself. Books, DD's usually Christmas gift, represents that people think Dumbledore values knowledge most of all. Socks would carry an entirely different value- maybe memories of him being a boy, sitting in front of the fire, opening a gift from his mother- a very practical gift of woolen socks. It may convey to him warmth, family time, a time of peace and happiness, a life that was simple and uncomplicated, of having all your basic needs met, and of being loved very much. He may be seeing that scene again and simple wishes for socks to take him back to that memory, that place in time. Yes, you can buy socks, but they wouldn't have the same value as ones given by someone close to you who cares, someone whom you share your life and daily struggles with. Shelley From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Aug 25 20:28:04 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:28:04 -0000 Subject: Resurrections In-Reply-To: <4E5684B9.6020603@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Bart: > Note that Sirius Black went through the Veil alive, and we don't know > what's on the other side. Not being a reader of fanfic, I don't know if > anybody came up with an idea based on that, but a few come to mind, the > most obvious one is that the other side of the Veil is our world. Geoff: That seems a curious idea. There are permanent interfaces between the Wizarding World and the Muggle world - King's Cross, The Leaky Cauldron for example but it seems that any magical person can go through to our world at will - if they want to. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 25 21:20:30 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:20:30 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191305 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Duane Broughton" wrote: > My question is, now that we know a bit more about Dumbledore and his > flaws, what do people think he saw? zanooda: Well, the author herself seems to think that DD saw in the mirror his family reunited. She said it during that web chat in July 2007: Question: What did Dumbledore truly see in the Mirror of Erised? Answer: He saw his family alive, whole and happy - Ariana, Percival and Kendra all returned to him, and Aberforth reconciled to him. From bart at moosewise.com Fri Aug 26 00:06:35 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:06:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Resurrections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E56E38B.9010701@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191306 Bart: >> Note that Sirius Black went through the Veil alive, and we don't know >> what's on the other side. Not being a reader of fanfic, I don't know if >> anybody came up with an idea based on that, but a few come to mind, the >> most obvious one is that the other side of the Veil is our world. > Geoff: > That seems a curious idea. There are permanent interfaces between the > Wizarding World and the Muggle world - King's Cross, The Leaky Cauldron > for example but it seems that any magical person can go through to our > world at will - if they want to. Bart: Not the Muggle World. OUR world. Bart From teebee86627 at yahoo.ca Fri Aug 26 05:56:02 2011 From: teebee86627 at yahoo.ca (~*~ teebeenee ~*~) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MOVIE: Director vs. Screenwriter In-Reply-To: References: <4e520189.1969650a.72a4.ffffe62d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1314338162.98893.YahooMailNeo@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191307 > Steve: > Yet, complain as we might, the movie we have is the only movie we > will ever get. And that said, I still think the criticism is fair. teebee: Do you think there will ever be a remake? Even in the far future. What I would love to see is a Harry Potter anime. Everything JKR wrote would be included in the script and the creators can make the anime longer by adding other stories like Neville's life at home or Draco's....*dare to dream* From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Aug 26 12:56:49 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:56:49 -0000 Subject: Resurrections In-Reply-To: <4E56E38B.9010701@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Bart: > >> Note that Sirius Black went through the Veil alive, and we don't know > >> what's on the other side. Not being a reader of fanfic, I don't know if > >> anybody came up with an idea based on that, but a few come to mind, the > >> most obvious one is that the other side of the Veil is our world. Geoff: > > That seems a curious idea. There are permanent interfaces between the > > Wizarding World and the Muggle world - King's Cross, The Leaky Cauldron > > for example but it seems that any magical person can go through to our > > world at will - if they want to. Bart: > Not the Muggle World. OUR world. Geoff: But you didn't make that clear. In terms of the story, we are the Muggles, the non-magical people. So our world is the Muggle world. Our world is the world of Charing Cross Road, The Forest of Dean, Kings Cross railway station et al. whereas Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic are the mysterious and often hidden places. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Aug 26 13:08:04 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:08:04 -0000 Subject: What happened to Snape's body after the war was won? In-Reply-To: <4E56AD93.7000308@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191309 > > Pippin: > > The Shrieking Shack was opened by Voldemort and so no longer sealed off. I presume there were DE's whose job it was to tidy up after their master, so Snape's body was probably transformed into something else and disposed of. I think, much as I would like to believe otherwise, that he*is* dead -- unless of course, like Sherlock Holmes, his author has to resurrect him out of desperation. May she be spared such a fate! > Shelley: > I'm not sure sure either of these first statements are correct. I will > take them one at a time: > > The Shrieking Shack was never "sealed off"- rather, it was protected by > a rumor that it was haunted or a bad place to be, and had an entrance > tunnel on the Hogwarts grounds that was guarded by the Womping Willow. Pippin: Quoting Ron:"No one can get in. Fred and George tried, obviously, but all the entrances are sealed shut." -POA ch 14 The Shrieking Shack was meant as a prison for a werewolf -- there would need to be more than minor spells to keep the werewolf in the building and everyone else outside. But Voldemort, Lucius and Snape obviously didn't enter via the tunnel. Voldemort certainly didn't leave by it-- he'd have run smack into the Trio. Harry's initial vision of Voldemort in the Shrieking Shack shows him that one of the windows has been unboarded. Shelley: > The second part, of Snape's body: I don't think we have any evidence > that any DE cared what happened to people after they were dead, and > certainly not their own, unless that body and or body part was useful as > a spell component. Pippin: Harry speculates that they were unable to find Mad-eye's body because the Death Eaters had hidden it, just as Crouch Jr. hid the body of his father by turning it into a bone and burying it in Hagrid's garden. I suppose it was their custom to dispose of the bodies unless their master told them not to. And Voldemort, as you say, had other things to think about. There was, come to think of it, one DE who knew that Snape had gone to the Shrieking Shack -- Lucius Malfoy. I think he would want to know what had become of Snape, since Snape was, AFAIK, still bound by his oath to protect Draco to the best of his ability. I think the Malfoys might have claimed the body -- they must know, whatever they think of Snape's divided loyalties, that they wouldn't still have a son if it weren't for him. Perhaps Snape now lies as an honored retainer in the Malfoy crypt? Pippin From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 27 00:00:16 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1314403216.81971.YahooMailNeo@web113918.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191310 > Duane: > My question is, now that we know a bit more about Dumbledore > and his flaws, what do people think he saw? June: I think he sees his family whole and together. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Aug 27 00:07:54 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: <122AA6D578B34D4982C99EEC21B4D723@MilesPC> References: <122AA6D578B34D4982C99EEC21B4D723@MilesPC> Message-ID: <1314403674.79699.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191311 > Miles: > But I think that the last book shows us the real deepest desire of Albus Dumbledore: that his young sister Ariana wouldn't have been killed, or that he at least could apologize to her about > the accident that lead to her death. June: I feel that Dumbledore's own story is a very sad one. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Aug 28 16:55:33 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 28 Aug 2011 16:55:33 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/28/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1314550533.23.9135.m8@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191312 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday August 28, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 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 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sdlively at comcast.net Sun Aug 28 19:00:29 2011 From: sdlively at comcast.net (Stephanie) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:00:29 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191313 Just got wondering so if this has been talked about just direct where, I'll go look. You don't have to put this into years date, although that would be fun to do, at least for me. We know that Snape, James Potter, Lily, Lupin, Peter and Sirius were all in the same year at Hogwarts. Riddle and Hagrid were at Hogwarts at the time time if not in the same year and DD was a teacher of some subject at the time and was well as Slug. Wonder if any other teachers of Harry's years were already teachers or students still around this time. Well anyway, I was wondering was Riddle in school with Snape, Lily, Lupin, Peter and Sirius and maybe in the same year? I know that in their four years, Snape, Lily, James, Lupin, Peter, Sirius, after Snape calls Lily "Mudblood." Later he tries to make up with Lily but she won't have anything to do with him anymore and she doesn't like his death eater friends either. I just wonder if maybe Snape and Riddle were in the same year because Snape is about the only Death Earter, that I see, that isn't afraid when he is around Riddle. Or at least he doesn't show it. Well it isn't fear but you can see a difference between Snape and other death eaters. Maybe there will be one when Pottermore opens up. Stephanie From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Aug 28 20:08:03 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 20:08:03 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191314 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" wrote: Stephanie: > Just got wondering so if this has been talked about just direct > where, I'll go look. You don't have to put this into years date, > although that would be fun to do, at least for me. > > We know that Snape, James Potter, Lily, Lupin, Peter and Sirius > were all in the same year at Hogwarts. > > Riddle and Hagrid were at Hogwarts at the time time if not in the > same year and DD was a teacher of some subject at the time and > was well as Slug. Wonder if any other teachers of Harry's years > were already teachers or students still around this time. > > Well anyway, I was wondering was Riddle in school with Snape, Lily, > Lupin, Peter and Sirius and maybe in the same year? > > I know that in their four years, Snape, Lily, James, Lupin, Peter, > Sirius, after Snape calls Lily "Mudblood." Later he tries to make up > with Lily but she won't have anything to do with him anymore and > she doesn't like his death eater friends either. > > I just wonder if maybe Snape and Riddle were in the same year > because Snape is about the only Death Earter, that I see, that > isn't afraid when he is around Riddle. Or at least he doesn't show > it. Well it isn't fear but you can see a difference between Snape > and other death eaters. GEoff: The short answer is "no". We know from the gravestones at Godric's Hollow that James and Lily both lived from 1960-1981. (DH "Godric's Hollow" p.268 UK edition) Hence they would have been at Hogwarts from 1971-1977. We know from COS that the opening of the Chamber of Secrets occurred in the autumn of 1992, evidenced by Nearly Headless Nick's 500th Deathday Party on Hallowe'en.Tom Riddle's diary which contained what later transpired to be one of the Horcruxes was fifty years old when it came into the hands of Ginny and Harry and was destroyed. So Tom Riddle was a senior student at Hogwarts in 1942, thirty years or so before the Marauders. From ddankanyin at cox.net Sun Aug 28 19:36:43 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:36:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Earlier time frame before HP was born References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191315 From: "Stephanie" Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 3:00 PM > Well anyway, I was wondering was Riddle in school with Snape, Lily, > Lupin, Peter and Sirius and maybe in the same year? > Dorothy: Stephanie, Snape was in the same year as the bunch above. Remember when Harry was in the pensieve during one of their examinations? They all sat it at the same time, thus the same year. Riddle was gone from school by then, making his way from shop worker to evil monster. He was in school when Hagrid was there, probably one year older since Hagrid was, if I remember correctly, only in his 2nd or 3rd year. Riddle had to be older since he was a prefect already. Hope I'm right with the times here. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm not. :) From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sun Aug 28 21:51:56 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 22:51:56 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Earlier time frame before HP was born In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191316 > Stephanie: >> Wonder if any other teachers of Harry's years were already teachers or >> students still around this time. Liz: Would just like to add that Flitwick was also a professor at the time of Marauders, Snape and Lily. In Snape's Worst Memory, they were sitting an OWL exam, where Flitwick was the supervising teacher. Also, Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher when Riddle was at school, wasn't he? From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Aug 29 19:03:18 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:03:18 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 22: Owl Post Again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191317 Mike: > Questions: > > Everyone pull out your time-turners and give them about five thousand turns. Now that you are back where you were when you just finished reading this book for the first time > > 1. Snape is raving mad and thinks Potter had a hand in Sirius's escape *before* Dumbledore drops the hints about "being in two places at once". Does Snape suspect time-turning was involved? Pippin: I think Snape blamed Harry reflexively. If he had actually thought about it, he would have realized, as he immediately did when Dumbledore dropped his hint, that the Trio would not have dared to use the time-turner for an "off-label" mission without Dumbledore's consent. > > 2. "Harry had the impression that Lupin wanted to leave as quickly as possible." Was he ashamed of himself in front of Dumbledore? Was this more evidence of his cowardice? Pippin: I think Lupin felt very much that he had left Dumbledore down. That Dumbledore continued to treat him with kindness and respect only made him feel worse about it. I think Lupin was cowardly not to tough out the storm of controversy the way Hagrid did. > > 3. Dumbledore tells Harry that the life debt is "magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable". Knowing now how Pettigrew's debt plays out, are you satisfied with Dumbledore's proclamation? Do you think JKR did this supposedly grave issue justice? Pippin: First, let's look at Harry's view of how the debt played out: And he thought of Wormtail, dead because of one, small, unconscious impulse of mercy... Dumbledore had foreseen that...how much more had he known? [massive snip] And you understood Wormtail too...you knew there was a bit of regret there, somewhere. DH - ch 25 Harry's understanding of what happened is psychological, not magical. It seems unrelated to what Dumbledore said, but that's because we non-magical types distinguish between psychological forces and magic, between the power of "normal" human feelings and magical ones. But that distinction isn't important to wizards. If Dumbledore had said "This is human nature at its deepest, its most impenetrable" it would make more sense in terms of Harry's subsequent understanding and Rowling's themes. However, it wouldn't have made any sense at all to thirteen year old Harry, who regarded Dumbledore as an expert on magic but wasn't at all sure that Dumbledore really understood people, especially bad ones. And of course JKR isn't ready for us to understand that about Dumbledore, either. Harry also wasn't yet aware of his own unconscious impulses. Surely some unconscious impulse towards mercy went into his own decision to spare Peter, though Harry would have argued fiercely if Dumbledore had tried to suggest it was there. By definition, subconscious feelings are denied. Keep in mind that Dumbledore is talking to a child. It is much more important for Harry to understand and believe that Peter's life is of vital importance and that he did the right thing by saving it than for him to know what the "adult" reasons are, especially if to a child they would not be credible. > > 4. Remember in the first book, how we learn of Snape's "life debt" to James, and how that comes to the fore in this book. Do you think this life debt "deep magic" is as powerful as the ancient love magic that Lily invoked when saving Harry? Do you see enough evidence of the "life debt" magic to be convinced that it exists? Pippin: This sort of magic seems very important in the first three books -- Snape owes his life to James, Aragog to Hagrid, and Peter to Harry -- and then, without explanation, it is never mentioned again. It is, as I see it, a primitive concept, useful for explaining things to a child, or a Beast, but replaced in later books by a deeper understanding. It keeps on working -- only the narrative depicts it in a different way, less as tit for tat and more as a sense of obligation and not only to those who have saved us but to everyone with whom we have shared experience. Much as Draco and Peter would like to give their undivided loyalty to Voldemort, they find they cannot do so, for no reason they can name. Snape will not admit he owes anything to James, but the very ferocity with which he denies it argues that he is at war with something inside him. Compare that to the bitter disdain with which he denies feeling any compassion for Harry. Of course to Voldemort all such feelings are sheer weakness; he doesn't choose to see them as caused by a powerful magical/emotional force. JKR gives her readers the same choice. > 5. Dumbledore also tells Harry that "the time may come when he will be glad he saved Pettigrew's life." For those Lord of the Rings fans amongst the group, how would you compare and contrast this James/Harry-Wormtail connection with the Bilbo/Frodo-Gollum connection? Pippin: Gandalf and Dumbledore are both concerned that their young friends think that it would have been better to kill a helpless person than risk his escaping to do more evil. And eventually, all our heroes have reason to think that the old guy with the beard was right. Like Frodo, Harry has no liking for the person that was spared, and so he finds it much easier to see the potential evil than the potential good. But there is potential good, both intentional and otherwise, and it is this with which Dumbledore and Gandalf are chiefly concerned. But their arguments are quite different and in the end, the hero's reasons for thinking they were right are different too. Gandalf says that one day, the pity of Bilbo [for Gollum] may rule the fate of many. But Harry does not acknowledge any pity for Wormtail, so Dumbledore has to take a different tack. And Dumbledore does not have Gandalf's belief in the power of fate. Dumbledore believes in the power of human feelings. If Harry is glad that he saved Peter, and I think he is, it probably has less to do with Peter repaying a life debt than with the reason Harry gave initially in the Shack: that it wasn't worth Lupin and Sirius becoming killers just for Peter. But Harry was acting on instincts he himself didn't understand and Dumbledore couldn't have explained them to him. Harry didn't at the time have the knowledge or the experience to understand what it would have done to Sirius and Lupin if they had killed their childhood friend, or how it would have stained his own memories of them to see them do it. In contrast, for Frodo everything plays out exactly as Gandalf said it would -- even Gollum had something yet to do. In contrast to Frodo and Gollum, Harry and Peter are never really conscious of the emotional bond between them-- but their actions do not make sense unless we realize that it is there. And while Peter's flicker of pity towards Harry kills him before he can act on it, we also have to reckon, as with Gollum, with the good that Peter did not intend. Taking Harry's blood turned out to be a great big deal. > 6. Did you have any idea what could possibly have been Trelawney's "first" real prediction? Tell the truth now, did you have any inkling that it would turn out to be *the Prophesy* of all prophesies? Pippin: I did figure it had something to do with the reasons that Voldemort wanted to kill Harry as a baby, though I had no idea how it could be so. I seem to remember that when the idea was discussed, no one wanted to believe that the first mention of something so momentous would be so casual. > > 7. How did Dumbledore know James's nickname was Prongs? Did he know about the Marauder's Map? I don't think the nicknames themselves were ever secret, just the reasons for them. No one seems to have told Dumbledore about the Marauders Map until the end of OOP -- he isn't the only one who hands out information on a need to know basis. > > 8. Disregarding the needs of the author for plot development, should Hermione have told Harry and Ron much earlier about the time-turner? If you were Hermione, would you have told the boys sooner? Pippin: I think she was wise to keep it to herself -- if Harry and Ron had known she had it, they'd have been relentless in their determination to use it for themselves. Me, I'm terrible at keeping secrets, so if I were Hermione, McGonagall would never have trusted me in the first place. Thanks Mike for the intriguing questions, especially about Peter and Gollum. Pippin always happy to talk about LOTR From CatMcNulty at comcast.net Mon Aug 29 16:48:05 2011 From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (catmcnulty) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:48:05 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born (also Pottermore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191318 > > Stephanie: > >> Wonder if any other teachers of Harry's years were already teachers or > >> students still around this time. > > Liz: > Also, Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher when > Riddle was at school, wasn't he? Cat says: Yes, Dumbledore was Transfiguration professor. When he became Headmaster he brought in Minerva McGonagall for Transfiguration. I seem to remember that when YoungSnape was sorted into Slytherin, Lucius Malfoy was a Prefect and greeted him. Getting to read JKR's notes and musings on Pottermore should be great fun and lend a lot of new information to fuel our continued discussions about new "stuff"! One of the things that I be interested to find out is How many and Who were the DADA teachers between the time Riddle/Voldemort was refused the position and Quirrell? And how many years did Quirrell teach DADA ... because he had just recently returned from a sabbatical in Albania when he met Harry for the first time. Cat From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Aug 29 23:09:26 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 23:09:26 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born (also Pottermore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catmcnulty" wrote: Cat: > One of the things that I be interested to find out is How many and Who were the DADA teachers between the time Riddle/Voldemort was refused the position and Quirrell? Geoff: It would seem only part of this question can be answered. I do not believe that there is a definitive list of the DADA teachers through this period. He was refused the post by Armando Dippett when he was eighteen. When Myrtle was killed and the Chamber of Secrets opened, this was in 1942 when Riddle would be somewhere between 16 and 18, putting his request at, say, 1944. He had been told to reapply in a few years. In the Pensieve record of Riddle's meeting with Dumbledore, he said: "I have returned later perhaps than Professor Dippett expected." (HBP "Lord Voldemort's Request" p.414 UK edition) Perhaps 5 years? Making this about 1949. Quirrell took up the post in 1991. Hence, the answer to how many teachers would seem to be something around 40. Cat: And how many years did Quirrell teach DADA ... because he had just recently returned from a sabbatical in Albania when he met Harry for the first time. Geoff: Only one. Two pieces of evidence. Dumbledore, talking to Harry after the scene I have just mentioned, says: "Oh, he definitely wanted the Defence Against the Dark Arts job. The aftermath of our little meeting proved that. You see, we have never been able to keep a Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher for longer than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort." (ibid. p.418) Hagrid mentions the year of absence when they first meet: "Is he always that nervous?" "Oh, yeah. Poor bloke. Brilliant mind. He was fine while studyin' outta books but then he took a year off ter get some first-hand experience." (PS "Diagon Alley" p.55 UK edition) In a Bloomsbury online Chat on 20/07/2007, Jo Rowling was asked about Quirrell's time at Hogwarts and her answer was: " He was teaching at Hogwarts for more than a year, but NOT in the post of DADA teacher. He was previously Muggle Studies professor.' From pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 29 22:44:04 2011 From: pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net (Pat Flynn) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:44:04 -0700 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born (also Pottermore) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008f01cc669d$28f475f0$7add61d0$@net> No: HPFGUIDX 191320 > Cat: > One of the things that I be interested to find out is How many and Who > were the DADA teachers between the time Riddle/Voldemort was refused > the position and Quirrell? And how many years did Quirrell teach DADA > ... because he had just recently returned from a sabbatical in Albania > when he met Harry for the first time. Pat: I believe I read in a JKR interview that Quirrell only spent a single year as DADA instructor - before that he taught Muggle Studies. Pat From CatMcNulty at comcast.net Tue Aug 30 14:11:59 2011 From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (catmcnulty) Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:11:59 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born (also Pottermore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191321 Hi Geoff: Thank You so much for your answers! And especially the bit of information from the Bloomsbury online Chat (2007) ... I never knew Quirrell had been a Muggle Studies Teacher. Also, in that JKR has boxes and boxes of notes about the Wizarding World and freely admits that there is a great deal of information that never made it into the books, I wouldn't put it past her to have the complete list of previous DADA teachers. We'll just have to wait to find out! Thanks Again! Cat From kersberg at chello.nl Wed Aug 31 13:43:21 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:43:21 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born (also Pottermore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catmcnulty" wrote: > > Hi Geoff: > Thank You so much for your answers! And especially the bit of information from the Bloomsbury online Chat (2007) ... I never knew Quirrell had been a Muggle Studies Teacher. > > Also, in that JKR has boxes and boxes of notes about the Wizarding World and freely admits that there is a great deal of information that never made it into the books, I wouldn't put it past her to have the complete list of previous DADA teachers. We'll just have to wait to find out! > > Thanks Again! > Cat > and a lot of fans are very eager to get glimpses on that material. I think that like the writing, scribbles and notes of JRR Tolkien she could spend the rest of her life sorting, editing and publishing those notes. but maybe her daughter Jessica when grown up could better do it, like Tolkiens son ( and grandson ) did. From kersberg at chello.nl Wed Aug 31 13:48:34 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:48:34 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191323 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Monik wrote: > > > Bart wrote: > > >You didn't read it carefully. His deepest, most desperate desire was to > >want nothing more than a pair of thick woolen socks; in other words, to > >be content with what he had. > > one can read that Dumbledore said he saw himself with a pair of socks but also that Harry had a little bit of doubt about the honesty of that statement. much much later in HP6 and HP7 it becomes clear that Dumbledore was lying through his teeth. his greatest trauma was the death of his sister Ariana, possible by his own hand, and her to see alive was his desire, conform Harry;s desire to see his parents alive. From kersberg at chello.nl Wed Aug 31 13:55:26 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:55:26 -0000 Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "limonalii" wrote: > > Lanna: > > > > Hey all.??? I finally managed to see Deathly Hallows part 2 this > > > > weekend and I have a question.??? If the school was being run by > > > > Death Eaters, and parents were aware of this (were they?) then > > > > why were they sending their kids there at all? > > June: > > > I would presume that the parents were not aware of it or I am sure > > > that they would not be sending their children to school. > > Monika: > > In DH in the chapter (can't remember the number or title) when Harry, Hermione and Ron are hiding in 12 Grimauld Place after escaping from the wedding to London, Lupin comes over and informs them that the Ministry changed the law. According to the new one every little witch and wizard are now OBLIGED to be sent to Hogwarts and they parents have to comply. Not the whole wizarding world knows it has to do with Voldemort. I don't know how many of them know that DE are running Hogwarts or that Snape - one of old teachers anyway and new Headmaster - is (appears to be) a DE. > > Geoff: > The quote you want is: > > '"...What's Voldemort planning for Hogwarts?" she (Hermione) asked Lupin. > > "Attendance is now compulsory for every young witch and wizard," he replied. > "That was announced yesterday. It's a change, because it was never obligatory > before. Of course, nearly every witch and wizard in Britain has been educated > at Hogwarts but their parents had the right to teach them at home or send > them if they preferred. This way, Voldemort will have the whole wizarding > population under his eye from a young age..."' > (DH "The Bribe" p.173 UK edition) > I wonder if that was also made clear in the movie DH 1, cannot remember it only that DE's search the Hogwarts Express. What I liked in the movie DH 2 was the way they showed the depressing atmosphere of a morbid kind of militairy school by the marched of the students through the courtyard when the were summoned to the Great Hall. nice clear and impressive image.... only where the heck did they came marching FROM.... the dorms are all inside Hogwarts. From kersberg at chello.nl Wed Aug 31 15:23:53 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:23:53 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Sorry for the Rant - PU to DH2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191325 > > Steve: > - I saw Goblet of Fire last week, and in the scene where Harry and Cedric return to the Maze from the graveyard, and Cedric's father rushes down to see his son's body, the actor playing Amos Diggory is acting his brains out, but the scene is unnatural because anyone with that much anguish over the death of their son would have embraced the body. He would have held Cedric in his arms, refusing to let him go. That happens in real life. But in the movie, it seems to be all about the right camera angle, because Amos never touches the body. And I mean NEVER touches the body. ===> > Steve/bboyminn > strange, but I remember that scene as Amos intensely hugging his sons body.... wether it happened or not. even used it as inspiration for a fanfic picture with Lucius and Draco in place. I sort of imagined that Lucius would willenly backstap his master when Voldemort killed his son for his eyes. Kind of avoided the problem of killing Voldy without Harry's soul damaged. well JKR had a better solution, although I missed the rebounched AK in the movie too. my friend, who don't read the books, did not miss it at all, so I think it is more an educated fan problem, then a cinematic problem. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 31 16:35:17 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:35:17 -0000 Subject: Last movie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" wrote: Geoff: > > The quote you want is: > > '"...What's Voldemort planning for Hogwarts?" she (Hermione) asked Lupin. > > "Attendance is now compulsory for every young witch and wizard," he replied. > > "That was announced yesterday. It's a change, because it was never obligatory > > before. Of course, nearly every witch and wizard in Britain has been educated > > at Hogwarts but their parents had the right to teach them at home or send > > them if they preferred. This way, Voldemort will have the whole wizarding > > population under his eye from a young age..."' > > (DH "The Bribe" p.173 UK edition) Kamion 53? (attribution missing) > I wonder if that was also made clear in the movie DH 1, cannot remember it only that DE's search the Hogwarts Express. > What I liked in the movie DH 2 was the way they showed the depressing atmosphere of a morbid kind of militairy school by the marched of the students through the courtyard when the were summoned to the Great Hall. > nice clear and impressive image.... only where the heck did they came marching FROM.... the dorms are all inside Hogwarts. Geoff: Organised PE on the Quidditch court of course. :-) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 31 22:10:01 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:10:01 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born (also Pottermore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > Perhaps 5 years? Making this about 1949. zanooda: According to DD, it was ten years :-). He said ("Lord Voldemort's Request") that ten years passed between LV's visit to Hepzibah Smith (as remembered by Hokey) and his visit to DD at Hogwarts. I don't remember for how long LV worked at Borgin and Burkes, so I can't say what year that was when LV found out about Hepzibah's collection and killed her. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Aug 31 23:08:47 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:08:47 -0000 Subject: Earlier time frame before HP was born (also Pottermore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191328 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: Geoff: > > Perhaps 5 years? Making this about 1949. zanooda: > According to DD, it was ten years :-). He said ("Lord Voldemort's Request") that ten years passed between LV's visit to Hepzibah Smith (as remembered by Hokey) and his visit to DD at Hogwarts. I don't remember for how long LV worked at Borgin and Burkes, so I can't say what year that was when LV found out about Hepzibah's collection and killed her. Geoff: Ah, thanks. I'd missed that. So that revises my figures to probably the mid- or late-1950s.