From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Dec 3 14:48:12 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 14:48:12 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191457 > > QUESTIONS > > 2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly speaking" be connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed it for him. What does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his disregard for the rules is justified in this instance? Potioncat: Could be just another example of "Gryffindors don't have to follow the rules." I'm not sure if it's JRK giving Arthur a flaw or two, or if she also thinks it's OK to fix things for friends. Doing favors for friends seems to be the general way of operating in the WW. But back to my first sentence---Gryffindors seem to feel only non-Gryffindors need to follow rules. > > 4. This chapter showcases JKR's sense of comedic timing and knack for slapstick, with Dudley choking, Petunia getting hysterical, Vernon using the china figurines for target practice, and Arthur attempting to provide reassurance -- with an outstretched wand. How does this compare to other comedic scenes in the series? Potioncat: Hmm, compares a little to SWM. Severus is dangling in the air, chocking on suds, while Lilly is trying to diffuse the situation. With just as much gratitude from Severus as Arthur gets from Vernon. But in that case we see don't see it as funny. Well, most of us anyway. > 5. Dudley appears to be in danger of suffocation from the ton-tongue toffee. How do you feel about this -- does Dudley engage your sympathies? Why or why not? Was it fair for Fred to use sweets to bait a starving boy who's terrified of wizards? Potioncat: No doubt JKR was playing this for the laughter, but she'll spend at least one chapter showing the twins being in disgrace for their actions. This is one of many things Fred shouldn't have done---but he is a kid, after all. There is a little bit of the same dynamic here as between Sirius and Severus. 7 Any other questions? Potioncat: Where is everyone? Thanks for the summary and questions. Good job as always! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 4 01:57:13 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 01:57:13 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191458 > > > > QUESTIONS > > > > 2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly speaking" be connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed it for him. What does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his disregard for the rules is justified in this instance? > > Potioncat: > Could be just another example of "Gryffindors don't have to follow the rules." I'm not sure if it's JRK giving Arthur a flaw or two, or if she also thinks it's OK to fix things for friends. Doing favors for friends seems to be the general way of operating in the WW. But back to my first sentence---Gryffindors seem to feel only non-Gryffindors need to follow rules. Pippin: It's not just Gryffindors, is it? IMO, everyone in canon has an unconscious tendency to minimize the transgressions of people they like and trust (including themselves), while construing those of outsiders and enemies as evidence of dangerous moral decay. I think it stands out when Gryffindors do this because we expect them to live up to their ideals and be fair -- but it may be that being truly fair is no more attainable an ideal than being truly pureblood. Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 4 17:56:17 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Dec 2011 17:56:17 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/4/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1323021377.78.51511.m10@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191459 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 4, 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 poohmeg20 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 05:00:42 2011 From: poohmeg20 at yahoo.com (poohmeg20) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:00:42 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 5: Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191460 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) GOBLET OF FIRE CH. 5: Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes Harry arrives at the Burrow with the Weasleys, where they all laugh about Dudley and Harry learns about Fred and George's business venture. There is discussion of Percy's job at the ministry and the Quidditch World Cup, and Harry tells Ron and Hermione that he has heard from Sirius over the summer. Questions: 1. What was your first impression of Charlie? Did you think he would be an important character? 2. What about Bill? What did you think of him? 3. How do you think things would have gone down if the situation were reversed, and Mrs. Weasley had gone to get Harry with Fred and George, and was now explaining to Mr. Weasley what happened? 4. What do you think Fred and George have been exploding in their room - any particular ingredients or recipes you think they might have started with? 5. Why do you think most people believed that Bertha Jorkins had gone to Albania on holiday and never come back? Do you think that is a popular wizarding vacation spot? 6. Your questions? Megan Real 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, Chapter 6 of Goblet of Fire coming up soon. 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 23:55:59 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:55:59 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 5: Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "poohmeg20" wrote: .> Questions: > > 1. What was your first impression of Charlie? Did you think he would be an > important character? > > 2. What about Bill? What did you think of him? Alla: I definitely remember that I liked them both very very much and wanted them to be important characters. I liked how independent and strong they seemed and how likeable from the first moment older Weasley boys appeared on page. > > 3. How do you think things would have gone down if the situation were reversed, > and Mrs. Weasley had gone to get Harry with Fred and George, and was now > explaining to Mr. Weasley what happened? Alla: For the longest time I would have thought that Arthur would have shrugged it off, and cheered Fred and George on, and I still think that such possibility exists, but after book six and seven I am not so sure. I think he was perfectly capable of reigning Fred and George in if he thought it was important and if he did think this was important, I think they may have gotten a lecture from Arthur as well. I just think that he chose his battles more carefully than Molly, but hey I always liked Arthur more than Molly, so I am biased. > > 4. What do you think Fred and George have been exploding in their room - any > particular ingredients or recipes you think they might have started with? Alla: No idea. > > 5. Why do you think most people believed that Bertha Jorkins had gone to Albania > on holiday and never come back? Do you think that is a popular wizarding > vacation spot? Alla: Good point, I just remember being irritated that they were being so lazy and not even look for a person who got missed. If it is a vacation spot, this is surely not the most appealing one imo. Thanks for the questions Megan :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 8 15:36:08 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:36:08 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 5: Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191462 > Questions: > > 1. What was your first impression of Charlie? Did you think he would be an > important character? > > 2. What about Bill? What did you think of him? Pippin: Like Harry, I was surprised to find out that Bill was *cool*. I was surprised to find that Charlie was stocky because I thought he had been a Seeker like Harry and they are supposed to be small and light. I had the idea that all Ron's brothers were going to die -- would that have made them more important characters? > > 3. How do you think things would have gone down if the situation were reversed, > and Mrs. Weasley had gone to get Harry with Fred and George, and was now > explaining to Mr. Weasley what happened? Pippin: I doubt very much that Molly would have taken Fred and George with her in the first place. IMO, Arthur only took them to get them out of Molly's hair for a bit. I think Arthur was secretly cheering on the Twins' ambition to open a joke shop, while Molly still expected them to settle down and get what she thinks of as proper Establishment jobs. I think that, more than carelessness with magic, is what made her object so violently to the Wizard Wheezes. But Arthur was genuinely furious about what the Twins did to Dudley. I know the Twins did not mean to be anti-Muggle. But they observe boundaries with their fellow wizards that didn't operate in Dudley's case. It will take a lot more provocation than they got from Dudley before the Twins go after Draco, as they do at the end of the book. And even Harry, when he's more detached, as in SWM, does not think it's funny to attack a person on the grounds of general gittiness just because it would cheer up a friend. > > 4. What do you think Fred and George have been exploding in their room - any > particular ingredients or recipes you think they might have started with? Pippin: I'd guess repeated explosions meant they were trying their hand with fireworks. Unlike Neville, they don't have a reputation for blowing things up accidentally. > > 5. Why do you think most people believed that Bertha Jorkins had gone to Albania > on holiday and never come back? Do you think that is a popular wizarding > vacation spot? Pippin: There's an attraction in touring remote, lawless places. The Twins are envious of Harry for having been to Knockturn Alley. I think it's an adventure destination, like the Wild West or the Scottish Highlands once were, or the Amazon is now. But Barty Sr had his own reasons for being concerned about Bertha, and for wanting Bagman to find her instead of, say, turning the matter over to the Aurors. So he was, as Percy says, taking a personal interest. I don't suppose he would have minded her disappearing if she would stay disappeared, but she had a habit of getting lost and turning up again. It must have been nerve-wracking. Thanks to Megan for the questions. Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 11 17:55:42 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 11 Dec 2011 17:55:42 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/11/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1323626142.9.6248.m11@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191463 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 11, 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 sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 12 19:47:02 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:47:02 -0000 Subject: New member In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191464 Dear List Just joined, read all the books, saw only 1 and 2 of the movies. Liked the books better. I read the books at the behest of my "ersatz Grandchildren" and now am re-reading applying a bit of lit-crit and analysis to them. Look forward to interesting discussions. What I am finding intersting is tracing the themes, tropes and similarities in characters, thoughts, and concepts with other fantasy and sci-fi fiction writers. Otto From ddankanyin at cox.net Mon Dec 12 21:09:10 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:09:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] New member References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191465 Hi Otto, Since you've only watched two of the films, in my opinion they're the only two that are close to the books. I've seen the other films, and all I can do is find stuff that doesn't agree with the books. I hope and know you'll have fun here learning about all the other members who all have differing, but interesting opinions. Dorothy From: Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 2:47 PM > Dear List > > Just joined, read all the books, saw only 1 and 2 of the movies. Liked the > books better. I read the books at the behest of my "ersatz Grandchildren" > and now am re-reading applying a bit of lit-crit and analysis to them. > > Look forward to interesting discussions. > > What I am finding intersting is tracing the themes, tropes and > similarities in characters, thoughts, and concepts with other fantasy and > sci-fi fiction writers. > > Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 12 20:09:29 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:09:29 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191466 Dear Pippin Saw this post and couldn't refrain from commenting. You say "It's not just Gryffindors, is it? IMO, everyone in canon has an unconscious tendency to minimize the transgressions of people they like and trust (including themselves), while construing those of outsiders and enemies as evidence of dangerous moral decay." I agree with you. This is part of the "house" system which is a model of the English Prep school system which divides people by "class and origin" assuming that people will "be happier with their own kind" but at the same time that leads to the attitude of "What can you expect, they're not our kind dear." That is-- you could make a broad generalization that Slytherin represent the old feudal aristocracy of blood, Gryffindor the aristocracy of wealth and Ravenclaw the "new intellectual"aristocracy o f the digital age. Hufflepuffs in the book seem to be made up of highly likeable and charming plumbers and tradesman who are useful but whom for all "are not our kind dear." Such clannishness is a part of our world in all lands and countries, some more stratified than others. However when it is part of the English ecumene it really means that it doesn't matter if you're an axe-murderer, so long as you have good manners, don't scare the horses, and make sure you don't do it to your own class- then -- well "we can attribute it to a youthful high-spirits or individual eccentricities. I remember being shocked at the end of movie 1 (this was before I read the books) when Dumbledore was awarding Gryffindor a huge amount of points to bring them out on top. I and another person were shocked. This is clearly subverting his own system and making a mockery of the rules. When "the rules" can be set aside or so easily circumvented then it makes a mockery of the system. Being American I cherish our illusions of equality before the law. That explained a lot to me how underneath all the school colors, the ties, the robes, the quaint feasts and common rooms, there was a murderous competition that was going to doom the whole system. The rules, the laws, I felt had become a sham-- which later on when Slytherin was in power with their Inquisitors squad, pretty much discredited the whole thing. This gets to the whole idea of collective guilt and collective reward. Granted, Harry may have saved the Philosophers stone, but it was balanced by his and Ron's shenanigans with the flying car and the whomping willow. But does his excellence transfer to the least worthy Gryffindor? Or-- in another way, If I am of German ancestry do I deserve any credit because of Mozart or Moltke? I also suspect that this whole "Quidditch" thing is a Gryffindor/Slytherin fetish. I really think Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw can barely work up the enthusiasm for it. I wondered if it might not be better just to line up Gryffindor and Slytherin, give them all bats, put the balls away and let them have at it and work it out of their system. That's what they REALLY want to do, send each others heads through the goals. Otto From ddankanyin at cox.net Mon Dec 12 22:10:21 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191467 Otto, Remember in the books that Dumbledoor wanted them all to work together regarless of house and/or status. And in the end most of them did. Dorothy From: Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:09 PM > Dear Pippin > > Saw this post and couldn't refrain from commenting. > > You say "It's not just Gryffindors, is it? IMO, everyone in canon has an > unconscious tendency to minimize the transgressions of people they like > and trust (including themselves), while construing those of outsiders and > enemies as evidence of dangerous moral decay." > > I agree with you. > > This is part of the "house" system which is a model of the English Prep > school system which divides people by "class and origin" assuming that > people will "be happier with their own kind" but at the same time that > leads to the attitude of "What can you expect, they're not our kind dear." > That is-- you could make a broad generalization that Slytherin represent > the old feudal aristocracy of blood, Gryffindor the aristocracy of wealth > and Ravenclaw the "new intellectual"aristocracy o f the digital age. > Hufflepuffs in the book seem to be made up of highly likeable and charming > plumbers and tradesman who are useful but whom for all "are not our kind > dear." Such clannishness is a part of our world in all lands and > countries, some more stratified than others. However when it is part of > the English ecumene it really means that it doesn't matter if you're an > axe-murderer, so long as you have good manners, don't scare the horses, > and make sure you don't do it to your own class- then -- well "we can > attribute it to a youthful high-spirits or individual eccentricities. I > remember being shocked at the end of movie 1 (this was before I read the > books) when Dumbledore was awarding Gryffindor a huge amount of points to > bring them out on top. I and another person were shocked. This is clearly > subverting his own system and making a mockery of the rules. When "the > rules" can be set aside or so easily circumvented then it makes a mockery > of the system. Being American I cherish our illusions of equality before > the law. > > That explained a lot to me how underneath all the school colors, the ties, > the robes, the quaint feasts and common rooms, there was a murderous > competition that was going to doom the whole system. The rules, the laws, > I felt had become a sham-- which later on when Slytherin was in power with > their Inquisitors squad, pretty much discredited the whole thing. > > This gets to the whole idea of collective guilt and collective reward. > Granted, Harry may have saved the Philosophers stone, but it was balanced > by his and Ron's shenanigans with the flying car and the whomping willow. > But does his excellence transfer to the least worthy Gryffindor? Or-- in > another way, If I am of German ancestry do I deserve any credit because of > Mozart or Moltke? > > I also suspect that this whole "Quidditch" thing is a Gryffindor/Slytherin > fetish. I really think Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw can barely work up the > enthusiasm for it. I wondered if it might not be better just to line up > Gryffindor and Slytherin, give them all bats, put the balls away and let > them have at it and work it out of their system. That's what they REALLY > want to do, send each others heads through the goals. > > > Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 12 22:53:58 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:53:58 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191468 Dear Dorothy > Remember in the books that Dumbledoor wanted them all to work together > regarless of house and/or status. And in the end most of them did. I hear what you say, but I'm doubtful. I think that the divisiveness was not worth any positive benefit they got. My opinion on what I read in the text, was that in the final battle there was pretty much a mass desertion of Slytherin to the other side, or, if they did not join the enemy, they pretty much stacked arms. Slughorn's running around trumpeting "We did our part!" sounds a bit too strained for me. One other thing. I recall everyone from Neville's "gran" to even Percy Weasley coming into to stand in the line for the crunch. The tunnel from Hogsmead to Hogwarts was like the NY subway at rush-hour- but I don't remember any Slytherins mentioned doing that. Nor did I hear any great debate from the Slitherins when Pansy Parkinson wanted to toss Harry on Voldemorts pikes. Unfortunately I also don't recall Rowlings giving us a body count. The guys who stand in the front of the line when the bullets fly are the ones who have the fewest that walk away from it. Otto From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Dec 13 11:36:27 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:36:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EE738BB.7070406@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 191469 On 12/12/2011 3:53 PM, sigurd at eclipse.net wrote: > Dear Dorothy > >> Remember in the books that Dumbledoor wanted them all to work together >> regarless of house and/or status. And in the end most of them did. > > I hear what you say, but I'm doubtful. I think that the divisiveness was not worth any positive benefit they got. My opinion on what I read in the text, was that in the final battle there was pretty much a mass desertion of Slytherin to the other side, or, if they did not join the enemy, they pretty much stacked arms. Slughorn's running around trumpeting "We did our part!" sounds a bit too strained for me. > > One other thing. I recall everyone from Neville's "gran" to even Percy Weasley coming into to stand in the line for the crunch. The tunnel from Hogsmead to Hogwarts was like the NY subway at rush-hour- but I don't remember any Slytherins mentioned doing that. Nor did I hear any great debate from the Slitherins when Pansy Parkinson wanted to toss Harry on Voldemorts pikes. > > Unfortunately I also don't recall Rowlings giving us a body count. The guys who stand in the front of the line when the bullets fly are the ones who have the fewest that walk away from it. > > Otto > > Not only don't we see a lot of Slytherin in that final battle, but the epilogue shows us pretty much nothing changed when it came to Houses: Harry's son is having to make a choice between being a Slytherin and a Gryffindor, between competing loyalities, the same as it was for Harry. Even if the house competitions were momentarily set aside for one battle against Voldemort, it's pretty clear that the House system was not abolished in any way. I guess for me the House system is like Alma Matters- I'm currently in Utah, and the local BYU versus UofU is a pretty hot loyalty issue. In other areas it might be hot between two other colleges. You are supposed to show loyalty to the school you went to. I just laugh; I'm a Utah transplant and came from Penn State, so I think both of them are nuts, but especially during football season every year we get asked to pick a side. Only for the kids of Hogwarts, they got asked, almost TOLD by the hat, which side they were on, and they get stuck there for the rest of their lives. No wonder why some kids were fearful of the hat and where it would place them. Shelley From technomad at intergate.com Tue Dec 13 18:13:29 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:13:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: <4EE738BB.7070406@comcast.net> References: <4EE738BB.7070406@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20111213121329.gzz715q3ccsgsoow@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191470 Quoting Shelley Gardner : > I guess for me the House system is like Alma Matters- I'm currently in > Utah, and the local BYU versus UofU is a pretty hot loyalty issue. In > other areas it might be hot between two other colleges. You are supposed > to show loyalty to the school you went to. I just laugh; I'm a Utah > transplant and came from Penn State, so I think both of them are nuts, > but especially during football season every year we get asked to pick a > side. Only for the kids of Hogwarts, they got asked, almost TOLD by the > hat, which side they were on, and they get stuck there for the rest of > their lives. No wonder why some kids were fearful of the hat and where > it would place them. At the Battle of Hogwarts, a lot of the Slytherins were in a dreadful position: What to do if your parents are with the DEs but your own sympathies are with the DA? Shoot at your family or your friends? Getting them the hell out of there strikes me as a real good idea; you wouldn't have to worry about treachery (on either side) and afterwards, they could plead innocence. And I've read a good few fics where one of the Weasleys was put into Slytherin, and in most cases, it produced a family crisis. Being in a House that most of your family grew up seriously not liking could be very bad for a kid's relationship with his or her family. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Dec 13 21:35:01 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:35:01 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: <20111213121329.gzz715q3ccsgsoow@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191471 I would like to comment on the following extracts from three recent posts and then to look at a section of canon in my response to these comments. Post 191466: Otto: > This is part of the "house" system which is a model of the English > Prep school system which divides people by "class and origin" > assuming that people will "be happier with their own kind" but at > the same time that leads to the attitude of "What can you expect, > they're not our kind dear."' and also: >Being American I cherish our illusions of equality before the law.' Geoff: I fear you have just given yourself away with the latter comment, because having come through the UK system both as a pupil and a teacher, I feel I must disagree with you. Although I did not attend a boarding school, I did go to a reasonably well-established and reputed grammar school in South London for my secondary education, being among other things a prefect. We had a house system, like apparently most schools, four apparently being the norm. There was indeed a great deal of competition between the houses in both academic and sporting skills and individual successes were also rated highly. but there was never any "they're not our kind, dear" attitudes between the houses of the school. There was considerable rivalry with other neighbouring schools at various levels and there was always an exchange of usually impolite remarks at inter-school activities! In my teaching, I worked again in a school with a four house system where there was rivalry but there was also a fierce school pride when it came to such things as district sports days. So, although there are grounds for your disparaging comment in terms of inter-school rivalry, I would defend the school house system for the way in which I saw it working over nearly 40 years. Post 191468: Otto: > I hear what you say, but I'm doubtful. I think that the divisiveness was > not worth any positive benefit they got. My opinion on what I read in > the text, was that in the final battle there was pretty much a mass > desertion of Slytherin to the other side, or, if they did not join the > enemy, they pretty much stacked arms. Slughorn's running around > trumpeting "We did our part!" sounds a bit too strained for me. > One other thing. I recall everyone from Neville's "gran" to even Percy > Weasley coming into to stand in the line for the crunch. The tunnel > from Hogsmeade to Hogwarts was like the NY subway at rush-hour- >but I don't remember any Slytherins mentioned doing that. Nor did I > hear any great debate from the Slytherins when Pansy Parkinson > wanted to toss Harry on Voldemort's pikes. Post 191470: Eric Oppen: > At the Battle of Hogwarts, a lot of the Slytherins were in a dreadful > position: What to do if your parents are with the DEs but your own > sympathies are with the DA? Shoot at your family or your friends? Geoff: Eric has a good point here. We know that, however Ron much may rant, not every Slytherin is a Death-Eater-in-training. After all, Harry might well have finished up in the house without a little manipulation from other contacts.; Let's look at a piece of canon: `The silence swallowed them all again. Every head turned, every eye in the place seemed to have found Harry, to hold him frozen in the glare of thousand if invisible beams Then a figure rose from the Slytherin table and he recognised Pansy Parkinson as she raised a shaking arm and screamed, "But he's there! Potter's there! Someone grab him!" Before Harry could speak, there was a massive movement. The Gryffindors in front of him had risen and stood facing, not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood and, almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking towards Pansy instead and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves. "Thank you, Miss Parkinson," said Professor McGonagall in a clipped voice. "You will leave the Hall first with Mr.Filch. If the rest of your house could follow."' (DH "The Battle of Hogwarts" pp.490/91 UK edition) When Pansy says her piece, while the other houses are ranging themselves in support of Harry, not even one other Slytherin rises to their feet in the space of time before McGonagall speaks. Now, there may be pupils, as Eric suggests, whose sympathies lie with the side of light. To publicly stand in company with the other houses may well be a daunting move and it is possible that some members, especially younger ones were still "screwing their courage to the sticking point" and were not afforded the option of making their minds up in time. And what about Minerva McGonagall? Was it not rather arrogant of her to assume that the outburst of one single Slytherin was the voicing of a unanimous decision? Instantly, she categorises every member of the house as an opponent and bulldozes all of them out of the Hall. Those who perhaps wanted to take a neutral stance or express support were denied the chanced, being swept along in the crowd and maybe too afraid to attempt an escape. I place this action on her part in the same pigeonhole as Dumbledore's tinkering with the House points at the end of PS, actions which have always left question marks in my own mind as to the impartiality which should have been practised by these two important Hogwarts figures but were not. From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 13 13:14:49 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:14:49 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: <4EE738BB.7070406@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191472 Dear Shelley You say " Not only don't we see a lot of Slytherin in that final battle, but the epilogue shows us pretty much nothing changed when it came to Houses: Harry's son is having to make a choice between being a Slytherin and a Gryffindor, between competing loyalities, the same as it was for Harry. Even if the house competitions were momentarily set aside for one battle against Voldemort, it's pretty clear that the House system was not abolished in any way." Yes you are correct. I had high hopes that at the end of the battle where Rowling paints a vivid picture of the smashed vessels which have spilled the glass (or whatever substance they are made of) beads all over the floor that it was a symbolic "smashing of the House" system and a metaphorical mixing of the blood shed by all the houses in a common battle, but I saw in the final chapter that was not to be. Far more eloquent is the simple nod of recognition that Potter gives to Malfoy down the train platform. I was astounded. That's it!? One would have thought that for all he had done, Draco and his whole clan would have been sent up for life to Azkaban in maximum security. It goes to prove what I was saying about the British school system- doesn't matter if you're an axe- murderer, so long as you have good manners, wear the right clothes and can tell a Claret from a Riesling you can do what you want and all is OK. You say "I guess for me the House system is like Alma Matters- I'm currently in Utah, and the local BYU versus UofU is a pretty hot loyalty issue. In > other areas it might be hot between two other colleges. You are supposed to show loyalty to the school you went to. I just laugh; I'm a Utah transplant and came from Penn State, so I think both of them are nuts, but especially during football season every year we get asked to pick a side." Personally I agree. These "rivalries just to have rivalries" seem illogical and stupid, but they are all over. Colleges are just the tip of the ice-berg. Coke or Pepsi, Ford or Chevy, Mustard or Ketsup on hot dogs people divide themselves over trivialities at the drop of a hat. I admit for me Ketsup on a hot dog seems an abomination but all my life I was a dyed-in-the-wool Ford man and now I have two Chevy's and a Kia in the driveway-- and I don't like either Coke or Pepsi. In sports I suppose it's the imagery and the "I cudda bin a kontendah!" plaint from Rocky. Men like to see themselves as the football hero making the 1000 yard dash or however long it is, and getting to choose one of the cheerleaders, dancing around and flipping up her skirt, but that seems equally ridiculous to me. I must point out at this point that I have not only no interest in sports, I don't even know the game. I don't know anything about football- I don't even know how many baskets make a home run, and as for soccer- what kind of sport is it where you hit the ball with your head! Try that with bowling! But to continue- I never understood why, when I went to Upsala College I was immediately supposed to feel a passionate loyalty to the school and a pathological hatred for its enemies. It gets worse with professional sports. The people who play on the teams in the vast majority of cases don't come from your town, you don't know them, and they will likely be bought out by the people you hate next year, or the owner might move them elsewhere. As David Seinfeld said is all you're doing is cheering for the uniform-- you're cheering for laundry. There's nothing wrong with loyalty. I have intense loyalty to my faith, my country, my way of life, and certain basic assumptions, but they are in the end-- meaningful. That goes to the issue of the four houses- I do not see the rivalry engendered as meaningful. Yet I understand that any school is divided by them and I accept that Rowling's Hogwarts can be no different. But that is my opinion and assumptions and not Rowling, and we can't rewrite her book, though we can perform critical analysis of it. You say "Only for the kids of Hogwarts, they got asked, almost TOLD by the hat, which side they were on, and they get stuck there for the rest of their lives. No wonder why some kids were fearful of the hat and where it would place them." Again this is a model of the British Prep School system, AND the very exclusive American Schools. Students are not allowed to determine where they go but are frequently assigned courses and courses of study by the staff or headmaster who himself has been "informed" by the predispositions of the parents, and always, informed or not, tend to direct the student into essentially the same path as their parents-- that is, reinforce the social system they came out of. In these schools children are assigned to the classes they will take, the subjects they will study, the sports they will play, even the extracurricular activities they will engage in, and -- yes-- they will be encouraged to socialize with certain members of the opposite sex with a view to forming attachments. Notice that in all of the cases we are told the "house" of the parents the "house" chosen for the student is identical, except for the "double Muggle" born, where I suspect they get put simply because of vacancies. In America we know little of this, and people are free to study what they wish (outside of the core requirements). One is free to fail or be unhappy. By the way there was an excellent example of all this in the Robin Williams film "Dead Poets Society" where the one student kills himself because his parents and the school will not allow him to pursue a career in drama and acting, which inspired his soul, rather than business or law, which was much more lucrative, which the parents wished. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 13 13:22:37 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:22:37 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191473 Dear List I must post this as required by my own discipline. I got a PhD., in History (for love not for money) and as a trained historian I have to obey the laws of my craft and state my own predispositons and assumptions so that the work that I do can be informed by that. That is, you can make allowance or make criticism those things which I print. My own sympathy in the book is with the Hufflepuff's. Honest, hardworking, loyal, patient, devoted to duty, self disciplined, self sacraficing, law abiding, and responsible. These are the "military virtues" but they are also the virtues that make civilizaton work. I found the most admirable person in the book Cedric Diggory, and worth more than dozen Harry Potters. Yes, I've taken all those stupid tests on the net to find out what houe I would be sorted to and yes-- it was Hufflepuff, but I held my opinon on the necessary virtues above long before that. I also liked the clones in Star Wars. Good soldiers, honest, loyal, obey their orders, take their paychecks and dont screw around like the Jedi-- or the Gryffendors or Slitherin. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 13 13:28:24 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:28:24 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Sauron and Others Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191474 Dear List As I believe I said, I am re-reading the whole series start to finish a second time and now doing critical analysis on it. I also notices some interesting tropes. One of them is the nature of the villain. Has anyone noticed that both Voldemort from HP and Sauron, the villain in Lord of the Rings, both secrete their power into various material artifacts. Sauron into the rings (and yes, most of him is in the one ring, but there's a little bit of them in the other rings as well) and Voldemort into the horcruxes. Similarly in the Elric of Melnibone series the anti-hero, Elric's sword Stormbringer secrets much of Elric's personality, and even in Conan, Thulsa Doom, the arch villain feels compelled to use these physical artifacts and often animals, which do none of them any good at all. In the first two cases it is the destruction of these material artifacts that destroy them. Also interesting is the constant recurrence of the snake as the symbol for evil. Otto From ddankanyin at cox.net Tue Dec 13 22:29:38 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:29:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort and Sauron and Others References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191475 From: Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 8:28 AM > > Also interesting is the constant recurrence of the snake as the symbol for > evil. > > Otto, Although I don't know any of the other characters you mention, I do know where the idea of the snake as a symbol of evil comes from: it's the Christian symbol for evil because it was often a symbol of paganism, and it was paganism that the church was set up against. Think peace, Dorothy From technomad at intergate.com Wed Dec 14 00:34:52 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:34:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111213183452.55547pj00ss408wk@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191476 Quoting sigurd at eclipse.net: > Dear Shelley > > > You say " Not only don't we see a lot of Slytherin in that final > battle, but the epilogue shows us pretty much nothing changed when > it came to Houses: Harry's son is having to make a choice between > being a Slytherin and a Gryffindor, between competing loyalities, > the same as it was for Harry. Even if the house competitions were > momentarily set aside for one battle against Voldemort, it's pretty > clear that the House system was not abolished in any way." > > Yes you are correct. I had high hopes that at the end of the battle > where Rowling paints a vivid picture of the smashed vessels which > have spilled the glass (or whatever substance they are made of) > beads all over the floor that it was a symbolic "smashing of the > House" system and a metaphorical mixing of the blood shed by all the > houses in a common battle, but I saw in the final chapter that was > not to be. Far more eloquent is the simple nod of recognition that > Potter gives to Malfoy down the train platform. I was astounded. > That's it!? One would have thought that for all he had done, Draco > and his whole clan would have been sent up for life to Azkaban in > maximum security. It goes to prove what I was saying about the > British school system- doesn't matter if you're an axe- murderer, so > long as you have good manners, wear the right clothes and can tell > a Claret from a Riesling you can do what you want and all is OK. I'd have to disagree with this last point. Harry owed his very life to Narcissa Malfoy's quick thinking, courage and willingness to stand there and tell Voldemort...a freakin' LEGILIMENS, for pity's sake...that Harry was dead when he wasn't. Voldie was perfectly well capable of deciding that just Harry's head, on the end of a spear, was all he needed, which would have put paid to the Boy-who-Lived, curses, prophecies and the like notwithstanding. And if he'd twigged that Narcissa was lying, he'd have probably Cruciatus'd her into a crispy crunch. _Lucius_ may well have had to go back to Azkaban (I rather imagine he had some...interesting...discussions with the Aurors after things were all over, on the subject "why aren't you in Azkaban where you're _supposed to be?_") but I could easily see Harry going to bat for Narcissa. And Draco could easily have pleaded coercion, just like Xenophilius almost certainly did. Xeno only betrayed the Trio because the bad guys had Luna, and he was so desperate that he'd do anything to try to get her back; Draco was doing what he did because Voldemort had threatened his parents' lives, and he knew full well that Voldie was quite well able to carry out his threats. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From technomad at intergate.com Wed Dec 14 00:38:19 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:38:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort and Sauron and Others In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111213183819.b7zg6j0k2sscgg0g@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191477 Quoting sigurd at eclipse.net: > Dear List > > As I believe I said, I am re-reading the whole series start to > finish a second time and now doing critical analysis on it. I also > notices some interesting tropes. One of them is the nature of the > villain. > > Has anyone noticed that both Voldemort from HP and Sauron, the > villain in Lord of the Rings, both secrete their power into various > material artifacts. Sauron into the rings (and yes, most of him is > in the one ring, but there's a little bit of them in the other rings > as well) and Voldemort into the horcruxes. Similarly in the Elric > of Melnibone series the anti-hero, Elric's sword Stormbringer > secrets much of Elric's personality, and even in Conan, Thulsa > Doom, the arch villain feels compelled to use these physical > artifacts and often animals, which do none of them any good at all. > In the first two cases it is the destruction of these material > artifacts that destroy them. > > Also interesting is the constant recurrence of the snake as the > symbol for evil. > In _Advanced Dungeons and Dragons,_ at least the early version with which I'm familiar (wrote articles for _Dragon_ back in the day) a lich, which is a very powerful undead sorcerer, keeps a "phylactery," which is a sort of artifact to which his soul can retreat if his body's destroyed (or so I remember; it's been decades since I last played, and I gave away my rulebooks, but that's more-or-less how it works). And they got the idea, I think, from the Russian legend of Koshchei the Deathless, who concealed his soul outside of his body, and thus, couldn't be killed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 13 23:55:11 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:55:11 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: <20111213121329.gzz715q3ccsgsoow@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191478 Dear Eric You say" At the Battle of Hogwarts, a lot of the Slytherins were in a dreadful position: What to do if your parents are with the DEs but your own sympathies are with the DA? Shoot at your family or your friends? Getting them the hell out of there strikes me as a real good idea; you wouldn't have to worry about treachery (on either side) and afterwards, they could plead innocence." An interesting position though ethically problematical. Does abdicating moral responsibility make one moral? Does not getting involved do what is good, right, and proper? It makes an easy life for the person unwilling to make moral decisions and choose between loyalties, but the ease does not last for long. The conflict you frame, loyalty to friends versus loyalty to family is a classic one and the chief pre-occupation of 18th century drama and literature -- that is, NOT the choosing between the lesser of two evils, but in fact the choosing between the greater of two goods. Which is stronger, loyalty to friends, loyalty family, or loyalty to overriding principles and higher truths? That's the great dilemma in the novels of Corneille and Racine, and even Montesque, Richardson, and Voltaire (though Voltaire pretty much burns himself out on it. But there is a greater question here. It is the abdicaton of self interest. That is, for any of those persons the overriding question is "What sort of world do you want to live in?" That is, what is the world going to be like AFTER the victory of one side or the other and simply to make no choice means to abandon any sort of physical or moral agency (as in being an agent, philosophically- that is a person who acts) and to leave the choice to others. Contingent on this and invoked by this is the question again posed by Corneille and others- "What if ones parents and family or friends or even the over-arching system commands one to do dishonorable things. To put it in real terms, does one exercise paternal obedience if Dad says "Come on son, we're going to put on our bedsheets and go out and whomp the "nigras!" The question faced, in the 18th century was does one owe a loyalty to every man or person and those not necessarily connected by bonds of friendship or family. That's an old one. Cain asks it of God when he asks "Am I my brother's keeper?" So the question of loyalty to parents and friends must even in this wierd case boil down to what do "I" want, what sort of world do "I" wish to live in. But your answer has a nother problem attendent upon it. In these grand guignols of real life, those who stay out of it and take no part risk being lumped in with the defeated and treated by the victors as no better than the vanquished enemy. Those Slytherins who did not join him would be the first victims of Voldemort after he had polished off the last of the defenders, and in any real sense (which Rowlings averts us from) with the triumph of Potter the fate of those who stood on the side would be barely less tolerable. I don't know what is worse-- Azkaban or the firing squad. I think I'd take the firing squad. Even the most kind and gentle of society is hard pressed to leash in vengence and violence when loved ones have been slaughtered and died. Even the more or less benign American Revolution brought terrible reprisals on the Tories and loyalists, and even though it did not end in an Auschwitz, it was not pleasant at all and we did not all go back to being good friends. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 13 23:36:09 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:36:09 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Sauron and Others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191479 Dear Dorothy You say "Although I don't know any of the other characters you mention, I do know where the idea of the snake as a symbol of evil comes from: it's the Christian symbol for evil because it was often a symbol of paganism, and it was paganism that the church was set up against. Unfortunately the Snake is the symbol of evil in the pagan world as well. Tiamat, the dragon of the Babylonian and Sumerian mythos is the symbol of chaos and evil. It is from her bones and from her defeat by marduk, that the world is made, and though defeated she is still alive under the earth which rides on the sea of the primordial chaos. The snake too is viewed as Evil in the Greek mythologies, the snake is the symbol, again, of chaos, darkness, and disorder as opposed to the order of logic, light, and region which is "cosmos." In Japan one of the legends surrounding Susanoo, a feature like Prometheus, driven out of heaven to earth. He comes to Izumo province and meets an old man who is weeping because for the past seven years an enormous snake with eight heads has come to devour one of his daugthers and this year he is coming for the eighth. Susanoo devises a trap and slays the snake, extracting from it a magical sword which he gave to Amaterasu, the chief Goddess. The links to the Greek Hydra guarding the golden fleece, are obvious but so are the links to the Old German dragon (a serpent) or "Wurm"-- worm. The Worm is one of the creatures of evil who gnaws at the root of the world supporting Ash tree, the Yggdrasil. In the day of Ragnorak, the worm, with the dwarves, nibelungen, giants, and dragons will come to do final battle with the warriors of Valhalla-- and the latter will lose. In the Nibelungenleid the Giant Fafnir (already an evil creature) kills his brother Fasolt over his sentimentality towards Freya, takes the treasure meant to be a bribe for her, the tarnhelm, and the ring of power and goes into a deep hole where he will be found and killed by the hero Siegfried. The most vicious and violent incarnation or avatar of Kali is as the snake, representing murderous evil. The Mezoamerican civilization had a more positive image of the snake in Quetzocoatl, the feathered serpent, but in many of his moods he was vicious and violent and human sacrifice demanded of him as did all others of that mythos. These things far predate the church. See Cambridge History of Mythology, Larousse Dictionary of mythology etc. In the Jewish Torah, the snake is there in the garden of eden as the temptor of man and the cause of his fall from grace and the cause of his first disobedience to God. But the view of the snake as evil far predates even paganism and one can derive a completely naturalistic reason for this view of snakes. "Snake in the grass" is a term we all know as one synonymous with not only evil, but treacherous evil. If you are predisposed to a scientific explanation it is easy. Man is a terribly weak and defenseless animal and has very little of the predator about him. He is neither swift, nor strong nor well defended nor well armed. The only thing which he shares with the predator is his eyes. If you notice most o the "prey" in the world has its eyes set in the side of its skull. This better to get a panoramic view. Our binocular vision helps us not only in being a predator but it is an excellent defense against predators as it allows us to spy them from afar off. This and our upright posture allows us an extended vision that can allow us to see the predator a long way off and either seek cover, run for the trees, or "circle up" to present a unified face to the enemy. This is an excellent defense and probably was the reason we were able to avoid remaining "lunch" for anything with a fag and claw that came our way. But there is one predator we fear, which is that which strikes from cover, at our very feet-- the snake hiding under the stone, the serpent lurking in the grass which we do not see. It inspires in us a terror and a dread and a wariness that we have never lost. We have, returning to the Torah that wonderful part where God pronounces his judgement on the serpent. "I shall put enmity between thee and the woman, Between her seed and thy seed, and it (the enmity) shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15 Thus has it ever been the sudden sight of the snake, the dash to crush its head with the foot, but the snakes reflexes, so much faster, strikes first "bruising" (wounding) our heel (and if venemous maiming us or killing us) and we crushing its head. The others are old evil guys. Thulsa Doom is the chief antagonist of Conan in the Conan the Barbarian Series, a powerful sorcerer and wizzard who transformed himself into a snake. Sauron, the chief meanie of J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings often manifestedhimself as the "unlidded eye, which was the eye of a snake." See "The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and science fiction for others. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 14 00:19:45 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 00:19:45 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191480 Dear Geoff I rather see some of your quotes supporting my position or do I read you wrong? It was obvious that there was about to be a civil war in Hogwarts at the instant of battle. Clearly from the description of Rowling herself, specifically. "Before Harry could speak, there was a massive movement. The Gryffindors in front of him had risen and stood facing, not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood and, almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking towards Pansy instead and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves. Clearly by Rollins own words, the Slytherins were judged INSTANTANEOUSLY by the other three houses, who living with them cheek by jowl, day by day, I submit, KNEW where their (Slytherin) hearts lay. They were clearly seen to be as much an enemy as the people outside the walls. McGonagall and Dumbledore's words I interpret being merely an expedient to avoid a massacre inside the walls when all persons were needed and while the extermination of an internal enemy might be a good thing, the losses to the other three houses would weaken the numbers of the remaining houses. I think that the Slytherins simply went back to their common room and sat it out-- under guard. Second, we must remember in all of this that we are NOT talking about a real event, a real historical movement. It is a novel and Rowling, as the author can move around her characters and have them do exactly what she wants. They are her puppets and it is she who animates their words and deeds, motives and morals. It is therefore entirely HER fault if no Slytherins were given the opportunity to do something dramatic like taking tearing off their robes at this moment, or even if the Slytherins were marched off to incarceration and declare that they were going to stand with the school rather than the house, and say something truly heroic like "Better to face the enemy naked than under a false house!" But Rowling does not do that and therefore I think that she herself has given us, admittedly in not so many words, that 100% of the Slytherins were with the other side. Second I fully admit I might be wrong, but I do not remember one instance where Rowling mentioned deeds of Slytherins "in the battle line" or working with the other houses. In that "march out" after McGonagall's speech, there would have been plenty of time for those who had "screwed their courage to the sticking point" to break line and join the other houses. Further- is it not interesting that Slughorn did not say anything? Why did he, who was the titular head of Slytherin not provide leadership, (I believe Snape is dead by that time) or was he already a "collaborateur." As to the point of the moral choice between loyalty to family or to friends or other transcendent entities I have already replied. Otto From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 07:24:54 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:24:54 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear List > > .... > > My own sympathy in the book is with the Hufflepuff's. Honest, hardworking, loyal, patient, devoted to duty, self disciplined, self sacraficing, law abiding, and responsible. ...I found the most admirable person in the book Cedric Diggory, and worth more than dozen Harry Potters. > > .... > > I also liked the clones in Star Wars. Good soldiers, honest, loyal, obey their orders, take their paychecks and dont screw around like the Jedi-- or the Gryffendors or Slitherin. > > Otto > Steve: Very admirable. I think JKR wrote each House with its faults and its virtues, and you are certainly not the only one who does not hold Gryffindor or Slytherin in the highest regard. And there are certainly those who see the highest virtues in the characteristics of Hufflepuff. I think most would agree there is a degree of arrogance in Gryffindor, but then leaders do need to have a degree of ego to given them the confidence to make the hard decisions. Flawed as he may be, Harry Potter still got the job done. As to the obedient Clones in Star Wars, yes, within limits obedience is a virtue, but not blind unquestioning obedience. By international law, a solider who witnesses 'crimes against humanity' is morally and legally obligated NOT to participate. There is a point where quiet unquestioning obedience must be set a side for a higher moral and ethical standard. Though in saying that, I feel that unassuming Hufflepuff stood their ground with the best of them when the circumstances called for it. THEY are not blind obedient clones. They do what is right, even if that means disobeying or nor following the path of least resistance. They don't run from trouble when it comes, but neither to they go out of their way to look for it. Not looking for trouble is mostly a virtue, but it can also be a vice if it is adhered to too rigidly and too blindly. But then, that is just my opinion. The failings of almighty Gryffindor have been discussed here before, so don't get the idea that we praise them without seeing their faults. Yes, the characteristics, both stated and real, are characteristics that are need in the world, but just as Hufflepuff might excessively avoid conflict, perhaps Gryffindor is a little to eager to jump into the fight. Both need to balance their personality traits against a fair and reasonable assessment of the greater moral good. Frequently Harry does what is wrong relative to the rules, but usually, rules or no rules, he does what is ultimately the morally right thing to do. Thomas Jefferson once commented that the true guiding principle for our actions is where our rights end and the right of the next person's begin. He based rule of law on rights, not on law itself, saying that the law is frequently but the tyrants will. And I think he had a very good point there. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 14 07:37:33 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:37:33 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Sauron and Others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear List > > ... > > Also interesting is the constant recurrence of the snake as the symbol for evil. > > Otto > Steve: I think there is a pretty reasonable explanation as to why Snake have been considered evil. There is no logical reason, especially to a primitive mind, that snakes should be able to move at all. I mean, they don't have legs. However, snakes do move and very quickly at that, yet with no logical mechanism for that movement. Snake are UNNATURAL, and that which is perceived as unnatural is also perceived as having some dark force of evil behind it. Now one could say similar about ...say... an earth worm, but the movement of an earth worm is a little more clear. One can observer and divine how they move. Not so with snakes, snakes seem to move under some unfathomable power, and that which we do not understand, we fear and condemn. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 14 15:32:47 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:32:47 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191483 Otto: > This is part of the "house" system which is a model of the English Prep school system which divides people by "class and origin" assuming that people will "be happier with their own kind" but at the same time that leads to the attitude of "What can you expect, they're not our kind dear." Pippin: It's possible to see the house system as a metaphor for all kinds of social divisions, but according to Professor Binns in CoS, the Four Founders were "the greatest witches and wizards of their age." Helga Hufflepuff may have had sympathy for "plumbers and tradesmen" but she wasn't one of them. JKR puts people from all classes and walks of life in each of the Houses, and shows us that, within their Houses at least, they all get along. That's the positive side of the House system. Though we could wish that this nice harmony would spread about at Hogwarts, it's the inter-House rivalry that makes it possible. Unfortunately, while people will intuitively submerge their differences in the face of a common enemy, it takes conscious effort to join together for the common good. That's what Dumbledore was asking for when he made his plea for unity. Hogwarts did not achieve as much House Unity as many of us hoped, but it was still enough to defeat Voldemort. If they hadn't experienced within their own Houses that such cooperation is possible, would they have succeeded at all? Otto: . My opinion on what I read in the text, was that in the final battle there was pretty much a mass desertion of Slytherin to the other side, or, if they did not join the enemy, they pretty much stacked arms. Slughorn's running around trumpeting "We did our part!" sounds a bit too strained for me. Pippin: First, it was Phineas Nigellus, not Slughorn, who said, "And let it be noted that Slytherin House played its part. Let our contribution not be forgotten!" A small point, but important because Phineas has no reason to call attention to Slytherin's part if it wasn't largely a noble one, and nothing personal at stake if Slytherin's reputation rises. And it does rise, enough that nineteen years later young James knows he will get in trouble if he uses "Slytherin" as a slur, and Harry is able to say that if Al becomes a Slytherin it will make no difference to the family. Harry and Draco aren't friends, but apparently they've realized they're better off not being enemies. Al of course is still worried that being Sorted to Slytherin means there is something dreadfully wrong with you -- but Harry understands that it's nothing that isn't wrong with everyone. Voldemort was able to subvert the entire Ministry, not just Slytherin House. As we can see from recent events, institutional corruption doesn't consist of everyone doing unspeakable acts. It consists of a few people doing unspeakable acts, while everyone else pretends, like Percy Weasley, that nothing really bad is happening. But back to the question of the final battle. Although *we* don't know what part was played by the rest of the Slytherins in the final battle, we can assume that the characters do. And whatever it was, it was enough to change Harry's opinion, not to mention McGonagall's. Does it make sense that Slughorn's entire House deserted en masse, but he himself was trusted to lead an army back to Hogwarts and fight side by side against Voldemort with Shacklebolt and Minerva herself? Isn't it more likely that Minerva realized that she'd given in to a moment of paranoid hysteria, and Slughorn, who had never been a Voldemort supporter, wasn't going to become one now? Was it reasonable concern or paranoid hysteria that made Harry's friends draw their wands on their classmates, including eleven year old kids, because of a one remark made by a frightened teenage girl? Rowling does not tell us, at least in the book itself. In an interview she said that the Slytherin students come back with Slughorn. That pleased no one, of course -- people who wanted to like the Slytherins felt cheated of their big scene, while those who didn't like them felt free not to believe her. It was maddening. But I believe I finally understand what she was getting at. What she did was leave the reader in Harry's position as it was when he tried to determine whether Dumbledore was making the right decisions about Snape. Harry's intuition told him Snape could not be trusted, though by OOP, Harry was wise enough to realize that this was mostly because he hated Snape. But Dumbledore claimed to know, for reasons that he was not willing to share with Harry, that Snape had genuinely come back to the Hogwarts side, and was now no more a Death Eater than Dumbledore himself. It's easy to override your intuition when it's contradicted by obvious facts. The tricky thing, the thing which is right rather than easy, is to doubt your intuition when the facts are obscure. Pippin From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Wed Dec 14 16:19:57 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:19:57 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191484 As I'm reading the books for the first time, I found something interesting that is relevent this this topic. Taken from DH ch23 'Slytherin,' said Harry automatically. 'Funny 'ow they all thinks we wants to 'ear that,' jeered Scabior out of the shadows. 'but none of 'em can tell us where the common room is.' 'It's in the dungeons,' said Harry clearly. 'You enter through the wall. It's full of skulls and stuff and it's under the lake, so the light's all green.' There was a short pause. 'Well, well, looks like we really 'ave caught a little Slytherin,' said Scabior. 'Good for you, Vernon, 'cause there ain't a lot of Mudblood Slytherins. Who's your father?' I didn't think ANY Mudbloods would be in Slytherin, but this suggests that there sometimes are, despite the founders pure-blood preference. Surely if there weren't any Scabior would proudly boast 'there are no Mudbloods in Slytherin.' Liz From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 14 14:46:44 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:46:44 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: <20111213183452.55547pj00ss408wk@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191485 Dear Eric Ah, but you're forgetting the over-arching theme of the book. WHAT is Narcissa asking of Harry. She is asking about the life of her son. At that moment she is no different than Lilly Potter. Her overriding concern is not Voldemort, not the battle of good and evil, but her son-- Draco. It's the tale of a mother's love, and if Voldemort had attempted to blast Draco for some reason, she would have stepped in front of him and the question would have been would Voldemort's body been blasted out again when, after "taking the bullet" for Draco, he attempted to kill Draco. Would Narcissa's self-sacrifice (even though she is evil) shrouded Draco as Lilly's did for Harry. Would Draco and Harry have achieved a sort of symbiotic brotherhood in BOTH being destroyers of Voldemort. To a mother, like Narcissa, her son-- her ONLY son-- her only child-- loyalty to even a Voldemort is as disposable as a well used kleenex. But remember, Harry owes Narcissa nothing. She cares nothing for him, she only wishes to know if her son is alive. Her gratitude to him is for that news. Further-- remember-- she already has sold out to Snape and asked him for the pledge that can't be broken to save her son. Voldemort is already betrayed. In fact, he's already surrounded by traitors (except for a few) who have sold him down the river once, and who obviously do it again. They all wish to be in power but they don't really want to be in power under him. Everyone around Voldemort is already a traitor to him. All of them abandoned him once and all of them were ready to do so again because they realized what they had on their hands. Only a few of them were actively working for his return and the others were largely keeping low. The weakness of Voldemort is first that he KNOWS he is surrounded by the disloyal, but he eventually forgets it through his own pride and his belief that terror is the ultimate motivator. As we see-- it's not. Indeed, nothing is so clear of this than an example from real life. When Stalin dies, he's killed off all of any who would oppose him, and all that is leaft are his own creatures. When the politburo meets during the time when Lavrenti Beria is the up and coming star, there is an episode where Beria says "So let's talk about the situation in Hungary." Kruschev interrupts him and says "No, let's talk about Lavrenti Beria." It's at this point that Beria notices that all the guards in the room have changed and they are not from the NKVD but from the Army. Beria is finished he dies in the dungeons of the Lubyanka and his name is erased from the great Soviet Encyclopedia. Then Kruschev, Molotov, all the rest of the people Stalin put in, who were his creations, and all mini-Stalins themselves decide "never again." Never again is there going to be rule by pure terror. No, sorry there's no virtue in Narcissa's action, only concern and lover for her own son, and Harry owes her nothing. "Nomen est Omen" her name betrays her soul. She is interested only in herself and her son. There's small virtue there. Harry owes her nothing. Without doubt she felt her son Draco was being held hostage for Harry for-- it is something she would have done. If her son is alive, all she wishes is to have him in her arms again, and she will do NOTHING to endanger that. Let us not forget that under Kruschev and Breshnev millions were trooped off to the Gulags to die of cold, starvation, and overwork, but the creatures of Stalin did not want Stalin. So there's small virtue there, just as there is small virtue in Narcissa's actions. Only Bellatrix (the childless) is devoted to Voldemort to the end. She was thinking only of her son. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 14 12:31:11 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:31:11 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191486 Dear Steve No one is asserting unquestioning obedience. In the specific case of Harry Potter the Hufflepuff "obedience" is tempered by their other virtues, loyalty, generosity, hard work, etc, which we all know and which leads us to believe they are highly moral and prize common decenty and charity. Certainly the actions of their exemplar Cedric show this when he wishes to share the glory of the goblet with Harry. But Hufflepuff is contrasted completely with the Slytherin idea which seems to be an unbridled egoism and an idea that the self above the other comes first. It's not that Rowlings seems to cast the Slytherin as "look out for number one first" its "look out for number one and screw everyone else just to screw them." Indeed, the "virtues" of Slytherin, according to Rowlings seems to be simply a cover for unbridled selfishness and cynicism. These are not my characters, or characterizations, but Rowling's. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 14 13:13:19 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:13:19 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Sauron and Others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191487 Dear list One of the things to remember in something like Harry Potter is that you don't get to have "the competing narrative." In History you can have the "competing narrative" because there is a factual basis from which all narratives are drawn. Others can work with the same facts and draw a different narrative. Thus the traditional "narrative" of American History, what has been called the "triumphalists" or sometimes "the melting pot" or a host of others have been essentially positive, a story of ascencion and triumphing over natural and social obstacles to attain a certain amount of exceptionalism to America. Lately (last 50 years or so) there have been "competing narratives" usually told from the standpoint of groups and subgroups in a society which do not share, often, the triumphalism. Native, American, Women, Afro-Americans, immigrants etc. These, and proponents and adherents and members of these groups have penned these "competing narratives." The critics of these "other narratives" refer to them as "victim history" and most of the time-- they're right. Much of these competing narratives are overblown and show evidence of poor scholarship and a presentism that pretty much invalidates the case (you guys screwed us then so you should pay now.). But to give them there due, there are many "competing narratives" that have their scholarship in line, and their desire is not to squeeze present political concessions but to honestly tell the story from the other side, and they do so impartially. This is what makes history-- well-- history! The competing narrative does not invalidate the narrative it competes against, it just is required to be heard. But in a novel there is no competing narrative. No competing narrative is possible, unless of course the author creates one. For example JRR Tolkien, behind "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" had a huge corpus of notes, data, maps, figures, even literature composed in "Elvish" and other of his mythical languages, such that it went a long way towards providing the "corpus" of historical data that might suffice as if it were real historical data. Tolkien's "heirs and assigns" boiled this down into another book, the Silmarillion, but even that does not encompass the huge body of data that Tolkien wrote. One MIGHT be able to write a competing narrative from this (for example the War of the Rings from the Orks point of view) but in the end it is still a creation out of the mind. Even Tolkien cannot suffer an alternate Middle Earth, as even the view of the Orks is from his own mind. Thus to speak of a "canon" of Harry Potter, one truly has an encyclopedic canon because that's what Rowling wrote. There is no room for a competing narrative, simply because Rowling is the only author, the only actor, the only agent in the book -- the puppeteer and the plots and puppets dance to her strings. Therefore, what she says IS, and we have to take the illustrations, examples, words and moods that she conveys in their obvious, and literal-- sense. Thus when she says "The Slytherin table was completely empty" there is no room for us to assert that someone was hiding under it, or that they were screwing their courage to the sticking point. Rowling means in every sense that every one of them was with the other side, otherwise she would not have created the enormously eloquent division between Slytherin and the other houses, and the metaphor of the "completely empty table." In a novel, the author is not only the writer of the facts, they are the interpretor of the facts, and the meaning thereof. In fact, the images are the facts. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 14 14:22:23 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:22:23 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Sauron and Others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191488 Dear List Continuing on a bit, I have been working on and off on a novel of my own, basically a novel about our own, real, 18th century, only with magic in it. The problem is that the magic cannot destroy the 18th century. That is, magic must be taken into and under the 18th century under the "rules" of the 18th century. Thatis, the persons in the century must see it as a normal part of the century not an aberration and it must be in some sense rationally explainable (even if the explanation is totally absurd. Thus there are no "dragons" or at least dragons anyone would recognize, and some of the magical races (elves, trolls, giants)are quite unlike those seen in other works. But the main intent is also to create a narrative that intertwines the "competing narrative" from the start. I'd go into the organization of the book but that would be too much OT. Suffice it to say it's difficult-- damn difficult to write and it explains why so few fiction has been done that way. But the problem underwrites the general problem with fiction is that you are not really allowed the liberty of disbelief. You can criticise a work as being unrealistic, but that's hardly the point in a fantasy novel like Harry Potter. You CAN criticise the book when the characters act out of character but you must make allowances for the fact that people can do extraordinary things, and extraordinaryness is a part of humans as well as irrationality. Thus, Rowlings has Harry and others define themselves- the "Magiks and Muggles" as "human" and even at the end the absolutely dreadful Dudley exercises some large degree of humanity. (By the way an interesting book would be Dudley in adult hood, married, and the father of two "Magik" children. Another interesting book would be the life story of the Graingers, two muggle parents dealing with a magical daughter. But to return. The problem that the author in no sense has to bother with a "real subject" means she can do what she wants. Therefore any quibbling with plot line or characterization is simply to insert our own prejudices into the story. That's not the same as making a "competing narrative" but it is in a real (and worst) sense, writing "victim history." We see the person as Rowling portrayed them as "the victim" and dealt with unjustly and we wish a competing narrative for them. But as I said that's simply writing, or rewriting the book. I might LIKE an account privaleged more toward the Hufflepuffs, and that s nice, but people in hell want ice-water and if we had ham, we could have ham with our eggs,-- if we had eggs. All you can do is make comparisons between the items the author puts in and find inconcsistanceis in action and plot line, and make comparisons of the book to other works in the same or even different genres to enumerate and explore the "tropes" or subjects dealt with. Thus the point I made about snakes, or one could compare the characters of Voldemort and Sauron, or the similarity between a character in this story to one in another by a very different author. For example, Ron Weasley, Sam Gamgee in Lord of the Rings, Sancho Panza in Don Quixote, or even Panco in the Sisco kid. Another subject is cooking or teasing out of the text things that are not dealt with. For example-- What is the political structure of "The Magik Kingdom?" There seems to be no political structure whatsoever to the whole tale? Are the Magics merely content to be part of the Muggle political system? We know there's a ministry of magic, but what does it do politically? We know it has certain judicial functions, we know it has certain legal legislative procedures, and we even know it has its own little prison, Absakan. But what else does it do? Who selects the minister of magic? Who operates Hogwarts? Do gnomes infest Muggle gardens as well? Some other questions for example- Within the "Magick" part of humanity, what is the critical population. While we can all accept the idea that constant inbreeding will produce less robust humans, how close inbreeding is possible? Genetic variation occurs enough in human society such that inbreeding between second and third cousins is not likely to produce degenerative traits? It seems that the numbers of pure-bloods should be large enough to allow endless genetic mutation to occur such that intensive inbreeding is not a problem. Further, since we know that Muggles and produce Magics, and Wizzards can produce squibs, the rules of genetic variation do not mandate character in either. Would not squibs be valuable because they carry the magic gene even though it is not dominant in them? Let's take the Weasleys. I'm fascinated by the problem of the Ford Anglia. Arthur Weasley is fascinated by Muggle Artifacts, but seems to view simple automotives as a mystery as great as transformation. I can undrstand not being concerned about science or technology if one has Magic, but that would imply a lack of knowledge about such things as medicine and machine guns. (A half dozen of the latter would have come in right handy at the battle of Hogwards wouldn't they.) Does not Harry and Hermione then have better knowledge simply because they have been raised in the Muggle World? Do Harry and Hermione have greater patience because, having been raised as muggles they have to figure things out and it's not a simple presto-changeo, or wiggling your nose and the house is clean? All of these are fun food for speculation. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 14 16:54:04 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:54:04 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191489 Dear Pippin I admit my mistake on Slughorn at the end. I re-read that chapter last night. As to your contention that "according to Professor Binns in CoS, the Four Founders were "the greatest witches and wizards of their age." may be true, but while things may have started out that way they did not end that way and that is really what counts. Slytherin himself was the first to break the common bond insisting only to teach purebloods. My use of "plumbers and tradesmen" was a metaphor for how the English upper classes see the rest. Don't feel slighted, it's the way the American upper class sees the rest of society also. Remember there is much talk in Philosophers stone of Hufflepuffs being "duffers" or low talent under-achievers. Second, while I am willing to grant a concession that English prep schools may divide people with the best of intentions, what actually comes down the pipe (as in the original bond between the four wizards) is pretty much the "not our kind dear" -- social segregation and stratification along socio-economic lines. Pippin: "JKR puts people from all classes and walks of life in each of the Houses, and shows us that, within their Houses at least, they all get along. That's the positive side of the House system. Though we could wish that this nice harmony would spread about at Hogwarts, it's the inter-House rivalry that makes it possible." Otto: Makes what possible? Quidditch? That's the only thing that it seems to make possible and that is itself a source of division. Pippin: "Hogwarts did not achieve as much House Unity as many of us hoped, but it was still enough to defeat Voldemort. If they hadn't experienced within their own Houses that such cooperation is possible, would they have succeeded at all?" Otto: Most definitely. I think that had they simply made one big class the unity would have been there. As such they were constantly mobilized against an INTERNAL enemy (the other houses) and completely left at sea when an EXTERNAL enemy arose. No army in the world that I know of purposely pits itself against itself. By the way, this whole "house folderol" was tried by American management in the 1980's or 1990's and divided whole plants and offices up into four teams to encourage inter-team rivalry to excel and be more productive. It included team luncheons, action committees, project groups where the team got together to try and increase profitability and productivity. They called it various things, action teams, quality circles, etc., and in every case bar none it was a complete and utter failure. People launched into it with zeal and enthusiasm only to find that any meaningful changes were frustrated by upper management who continued a policy of NIH (not invented here) and that eventually real objectives (like developing better clientele, selling more aggressively, making quality adjustments and efficiencies in the plants) were taken out of their ken and they were reduced to deciding what was the color highlighter of the week. It was eventually discovered that the only improvement upper management (the faculty) wanted was for everyone to work more hours without pay. Even that would have worked had people been given real projects to work on, but it was evident after a few years that any real change was not desired by the management/faculty because it would have meant that they too had to fall in line and their day would not be as easy. I found this quite ridiculous when I first became involved in it back in the 1980's for it was simply nothing more than an old resurrected idea that lad long before knocked on its head and thrown into a hurried grave by no less a people than the Soviets. It was in fact, a resurrected Stakhanovism. Named after a mine worker who pledged to mine three times his quota of coal, he went on to break record after record and become the darling of the Soviet system in the 1920's, but This "Storming" of the Labor front (to use Bolshevik terminology) while it made good press and made the Politburo pleased with itself, disguised massive destruction to the economic system as it created huge bottlenecks, and dissociations of labor (other miners had to be taken away from their drills to brace up the mine and haul away the ore which prevented them from working their own seams so that the gross output from Staknovich mine actually FELL. When other miners could not match Stakhanovich's effort (because they were hauling away ore or bracking up ceilings, they were shot. All through these management follies I had to bite my tongue because I found almost EXACTLY the same vocabulary in the modern management manual as was in the 1930 Agitprop brochures. "Storm brigades of workers" became "focused management teams," and people talked in both in pseudo military terms of "fronts" "offensives" and victories and defeats. No, sorry, any sort of system that breaks up an entity and sets parts of it against itself is doomed to failure. You have provided a divided and subordinate and immediate loyalty in front of an ultimate and higher one. We have the example in front of us and to deny what is demonstrated for a fairy tale is madness. Pippin: "First, it was Phineas Nigellus, not Slughorn, who said, "And let it be noted that Slytherin House played its part. Let our contribution not be forgotten!" A small point, but important because Phineas has no reason to call attention to Slytherin's part if it wasn't largely a noble one, and nothing personal at stake if Slytherin's reputation rises." Otto: You're arguing from the "fallacy of poverty", or "If you don't give me this premise- I've got nothing." The point is that people can trumpet their contribution to the skies on the most insubstantial claim- viz the French resistance in WWII, or the German conspiracies against Hitler to name the most cogent. You're assuming that Phineas was a person even capable of truth or objectivity- which, being a Slytherin, is debatable. You are assuming simply, that he would not lie, which when we're talking about Slytherin, seems to be a positive virtue for code of conduct among these people. It's like saying when all the other guys were at the front "I was keeping the files straight for the graves registration service back at HQ). Please note that in all of the dead that Rowling names at the end there is not one Slytherin. That's a fact and sympathy for Slytherin can't deny it. So exactly what was their contribution. No blood seems to have been shed. Pippin: "And it does rise, enough that nineteen years later young James knows he will get in trouble if he uses "Slytherin" as a slur, and Harry is able to say that if Al becomes a Slytherin it will make no difference to the family. But Harry also tells Albus that the hat takes a persons choice into account and assures him he will not be a Slytherin. Harry and Draco aren't friends, but apparently they've realized they're better off not being enemies." Otto: Really! I think they're still bitter enemies and if Harry doesn't think that the nod is anything but false bon-homme then Harry's a fool. Draco and Pansy will never forget the humiliation their families suffered, and they'd have his chitlins on a platter if they could. From EVERYTHING Rowling has said none of the Malfroy's knows anything about contrition or forgiveness. I doubt they can even spell it. Besides, there is one thing we do not know. We do not know what changes and how the houses were constituted nineteen years down the line. It is perhaps possible that Slytherin was entirely reformed after the debacle. Pippin: Al of course is still worried that being Sorted to Slytherin means there is something dreadfully wrong with you -- but Harry understands that it's nothing that isn't wrong with everyone. Voldemort was able to subvert the entire Ministry, not just Slytherin House. Otto: Really he was able to subvert the ENTIRE ministry? He subverted Arthur Weasley? He apparently was in the end not able to subvert Percy Weasley who joined the right side. There were certainly many others who Rowling did not name. Pippin: "As we can see from recent events, institutional corruption doesn't consist of everyone doing unspeakable acts. It consists of a few people doing unspeakable acts, while everyone else pretends, like Percy Weasley, that nothing really bad is happening." Otto: Ok, that's the point of Hannah Arendt's "The Banality of Evil" and Philliph Hallie's "Cruelty" and of course the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments. But so what? Eichman "protested he was only following orders" and that he only scheduled trains, but that didn't save him from the hangman- nor did it save the mason who built the crematoria at Auschwitz even though he killed not a single person. That's the problem with authority. Pippin: "Although *we* don't know what part was played by the rest of the Slytherins in the final battle, we can assume that the characters do. And whatever it was, it was enough to change Harry's opinion, not to mention McGonagall's. Does it make sense that Slughorn's entire House deserted en masse, but he himself was trusted to lead an army back to Hogwarts and fight side by side against Voldemort with Shacklebolt and Minerva herself? Otto: Of course it does. We allied with Stalin in World War Two, a person who outdid Hitler three times over in killing his own people, but we were up against a wall and were willing to take help from wherever it came. One can argue from your point of view on this that when it comes to saving ones skin turning ones coat is ridiculously easy. But more-- Army of who? Pippin: "Isn't it more likely that Minerva realized that she'd given in to a moment of paranoid hysteria, and Slughorn, who had never been a Voldemort supporter, wasn't going to become one now? Otto: I can't imagine after reading about Minerva through the whole book her name ever being connected with "paranoid hysteria." Pippin: "Was it reasonable concern or paranoid hysteria that made Harry's friends draw their wands on their classmates, including eleven year old kids, because of a one remark made by a frightened teenage girl?" Otto: No it was not. it was neither reasonable concern or paranoid hysteria but long and painful experience with the attitude, behaviour and pronouncement of Slytherin, their bullying, arrogance, chating, and treachery. When those three houses rose almost as one with nary a dissenter among them, they KNEW where the real enemy was. They were as paranoid hysterical as the Jews were in 1945 toward the Nazis. Pippin: "Rowling does not tell us, at least in the book itself. In an interview she said that the Slytherin students come back with Slughorn. That pleased no one, of course -- people who wanted to like the Slytherins felt cheated of their big scene, while those who didn't like them felt free not to believe her. It was maddening." Otto: I could be cynical here and say she is catering to sales of people who know they have Slytherin traits and want to be like them, but don't want to stand with them and take the blame. Pippin: "What she did was leave the reader in Harry's position as it was when he tried to determine whether Dumbledore was making the right decisions about Snape." Otto: Sorry don't buy this at all. It would completely fracture the entire book where she was destroying the veracity of her own words. Pippin: "Harry's intuition told him Snape could not be trusted, though by OOP, Harry was wise enough to realize that this was mostly because he hated Snape. But Dumbledore claimed to know, for reasons that he was not willing to share with Harry, that Snape had genuinely come back to the Hogwarts side, and was now no more a Death Eater than Dumbledore himself." Otto: I disagree. It's not Harry's intiution that tells him Snape cannot be trusted, it was Snape's obvious conduct and attitude toward Harry and his Deeds. Dumbledore had advised Harry to be less harsh on Snape and Harry Manfully attempted to do so but it is illogical to assume that (unless a person is a complete masochist) that he have love and trust the person who treats him horribly. This phenomenon is not unknown-- they call it battered wives syndrome) but it is a mental pathology, not a reasonable position. Besides let us remember that Snape does what he does NOT because he hates or repudiates Voldemort, but because Voldemort kills the object of his unrequited love. His reasons are therefore, entirely personal and entirely Slytherin, and not at all embracing anything beyond pure egoism. He turns his coat because his love is destroyed, not because a mother is cruelly murdered. Lilly's fate affects him only because it is something he wishes is taken away. Harry, and Ron, and many others are affected by the simple fact that a human's life is unjustly taken away. That is, the crime is a crime sui-generis, of itself, not because of how it affects the self. Sorry- Snape is a professional traitor. He was a traitor to Hogwarts when he turned to Voldemort. He was a traitor to Voldemort when the latter killed Lily, and after Voldemort was destroyed he would have turned again. Were I Dumbledore the man would be too dangerous to let live after the final victory. He would have become the new Voldemort. Pippin: "It's easy to override your intuition when it's contradicted by obvious facts. The tricky thing, the thing which is right rather than easy, is to doubt your intuition when the facts are obscure." Otto: Then you are saying that nothing can be known, and worse, what are facts? If we cannot believe our eyes and ears or logic, then what can we believe? We are neither telepathic or some linked mind. We cannot know each others thoughts. Harry could know Voldemort's and vice versa, but not Snape's. The only logic for Snape's actions was that Snape knew that if he had tipped his(Snape's) inner heart to Harry, certainly Voldemort would have known that Snape was a traitor, and therefore we can understand Snape's obvious antipathy and cruelty to Harry. It was part of the game of espionage. But at the same time that does not mean that Harry for no reason should doubt the evidence of his eyes and feelings. We cannot blame Harry for taking offense at treatment he does not know the reason or cause for. "Prick us-- do we not bleed? Insult us and will we not take revenge " Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice. Remember YOU as the reader know far more than Harry, Snape, Voldemort etc. YOU know the whole story therefore YOU may see the logic, but Harry doesn't therefore YOUR recommendations as to what Harry can or cannot, should or should not is immaterial. For YOU are in no way able to effect the action in the book. That's the tragedy of human existence, which it seems, is shared by the Magics as well. We are creatures limited by our senses and impressions. You can go on if you wish, but in the end I really do not see how Slytherin can be exonerated in the slightest way. They will have to bear the guilt of their actions until crack of doom. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 14 21:30:48 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:30:48 -0000 Subject: The Girls of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191490 Dear List Ok, that's enough intellectualism, which girl would you like to take out on a date if you were an 8th year at Hogwarts. 1. Hermione Granger 2. Parvati Patel 3. Nymphadora Tonks 4. Ginny Weasley 5. Luna Lovegood 6. Pansy Parkinson. Fleur is out of the running, unfair advantage. I'd like to take Parkinson simply to spite Draco but I think I'd be far more interested in Luna. Pansy might have a dad who's loaded but Luna's more fun. It's a Betty and Veronica thing. Otto From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Dec 14 23:35:51 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:35:51 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: > WHAT is Narcissa asking of Harry. She is asking about the life of her son. At that moment she is no different than Lilly Potter. Her overriding concern is not Voldemort, not the battle of good and evil, but her son-- Draco. It's the tale of a mother's love, and if Voldemort had attempted to blast Draco for some reason, she would have stepped in front of him and the question would have been would Voldemort's body been blasted out again when, after "taking the bullet" for Draco, he attempted to kill Draco. Would Narcissa's self-sacrifice (even though she is evil) shrouded Draco as Lilly's did for Harry. Would Draco and Harry have achieved a sort of symbiotic brotherhood in BOTH being destroyers of Voldemort. > But remember, Harry owes Narcissa nothing. She cares nothing for him, she only wishes to know if her son is alive. Her gratitude to him is for that news. > No, sorry there's no virtue in Narcissa's action, only concern and lover for her own son, and Harry owes her nothing. "Nomen est Omen" her name betrays her soul. She is interested only in herself and her son. There's small virtue there. Harry owes her nothing. > She was thinking only of her son. Geoff: You've rather made that point of view fairly clear.... Harry does owe her something. If she had not lied to Voldemort, he would have probably repeated Avada Kedavra on Harry. This raises an interesting side issue. If he had, would the Elder wand have rebounded the curse on him? We are told later that Harry was by this time its owner because he had disarmed Draco. We know that Voldemort's first use of the spell in the forest had affected him in some way. Interesting to speculate. Her lie certainly increased the false sense of security which Voldemort was exhibiting by totally misunderstanding the change in allegiance of the Elder Wand You've already said that, in asking about the life of Draco, she was no different to Lily (one l) Potter. And yet, you are now saying that she is. But, she is following a similar course to Lily in trying to protect her son because of her love for him. It seems that Slytherin parents do love their children like parents in the other houses. To me, one of the great strengths of JKR's writing is the gradual revelation to Harry that, despite the fact that in his First Year, people he met were either good or bad, by the end it was clear that almost everyone had grey areas, some darker grey than others. Maybe he did owe her nothing because my scenario above might have played out anyway but that was not obvious to him at that point in time. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Dec 14 23:54:41 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:54:41 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Pippin: > "And it does rise, enough that nineteen years later young James knows he will get in trouble if he uses "Slytherin" as a slur, and Harry is able to say that if Al becomes a Slytherin it will make no difference to the family. But Harry also tells Albus that the hat takes a persons choice into account and assures him he will not be a Slytherin. Harry and Draco aren't friends, but apparently they've realized they're better off not being enemies." Otto: > Really! I think they're still bitter enemies and if Harry doesn't think that the nod is anything but false bon-homme then Harry's a fool. Draco and Pansy will never forget the humiliation their families suffered, and they'd have his chitlins on a platter if they could. From EVERYTHING Rowling has said none of the Malfroy's knows anything about contrition or forgiveness. I doubt they can even spell it. > > Besides, there is one thing we do not know. We do not know what changes and how the houses were constituted nineteen years down the line. It is perhaps possible that Slytherin was entirely reformed after the debacle. Geoff: The fact that we know nothing - or very little - about changes by the time of the Epilogue means that sweeping statements about the Malfoys or anyone else cannot be justified. Why should the slight acknowledgement between Harry and Draco be a false bonhomie? They were enemies but along the way, inter alia, Draco saved Harry at the Manor and Harry saved Draco from the Fiendfyre. Dragging your long-term opponent from a fiery death on a whim could constitute grounds for a shift of attitude on both sides. I was one of those who, when Book 7 appeared, expressed a dislike of the Epilogue. It merely underlined a few events but left a lot of unresolved questions, including the glance between the two men. Why include it? How do we square the disillusioned and frightened Draco of the final battle with the apparently reinstated guy out in public with his family and able to acknowledge Harry. Why are the two not just ignoring one another? Fanfic has offered a number of suggestions over the years since the book appeared, often including action by Harry to rehabilitate his erstwhile rival. A few hints from the author might not go unwelcomed. From ddankanyin at cox.net Thu Dec 15 00:30:56 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:30:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort and Sauron and Others References: Message-ID: <6063E1DC45C44D20BA7D88AA93386E00@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191493 From: Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:36 PM > Unfortunately the Snake is the symbol of evil in the pagan world as well. > Tiamat, the dragon of the Babylonian and Sumerian mythos is the symbol of > chaos and evil. It is from her bones and from her defeat by marduk, that > the world is made, and though defeated she is still alive under the earth > which rides on the sea of the primordial chaos. The snake too is viewed as > Evil in the Greek mythologies, the snake is the symbol, again, of chaos, > darkness, and disorder as opposed to the order of logic, light, and region > which is "cosmos." In Japan one of the legends surrounding Susanoo, a > feature like Prometheus, driven out of heaven to earth. He comes to Izumo > province and meets an old man who is weeping because for the past seven > years an enormous snake with eight heads has come to devour one of his > daugthers and this year he is coming for the eighth. Susanoo devises a > trap and slays the snake, extracting from it a magical sword which he > gave to Amaterasu, the chief Goddess. The links to the Greek Hydra > guarding the golden fleece, are obvious but so are the links to the Old > German dragon (a serpent) or "Wurm"-- worm. The Worm is one of the > creatures of evil who gnaws at the root of the world supporting Ash tree, > the Yggdrasil. In the day of Ragnorak, the worm, with the dwarves, > nibelungen, giants, and dragons will come to do final battle with the > warriors of Valhalla-- and the latter will lose. In the Nibelungenleid the > Giant Fafnir (already an evil creature) kills his brother Fasolt over his > sentimentality towards Freya, takes the treasure meant to be a bribe for > her, the tarnhelm, and the ring of power and goes into a deep hole where > he will be found and killed by the hero Siegfried. The most vicious and > violent incarnation or avatar of Kali is as the snake, representing > murderous evil. The Mezoamerican civilization had a more positive image of > the snake in Quetzocoatl, the feathered serpent, but in many of his moods > he was vicious and violent and human sacrifice demanded of him as did all > others of that mythos. These things far predate the church. > See Cambridge History of Mythology, Larousse Dictionary of mythology etc. > > In the Jewish Torah, the snake is there in the garden of eden as the > temptor of man and the cause of his fall from grace and the cause of his > first disobedience to God. > > But the view of the snake as evil far predates even paganism and one can > derive a completely naturalistic reason for this view of snakes. "Snake in > the grass" is a term we all know as one synonymous with not only evil, but > treacherous evil. If you are predisposed to a scientific explanation it is > easy. Man is a terribly weak and defenseless animal and has very little of > the predator about him. He is neither swift, nor strong nor well defended > nor well armed. The only thing which he shares with the predator is his > eyes. If you notice most o the "prey" in the world has its eyes set in the > side of its skull. This better to get a panoramic view. Our binocular > vision helps us not only in being a predator but it is an excellent > defense against predators as it allows us to spy them from afar off. This > and our upright posture allows us an extended vision that can allow us to > see the predator a long way off and either seek cover, run for the trees, > or "circle up" to present a unified face to the enemy. This is an > excellent defense and probably was the reason we were able to avoid > remaining "lunch" for anything with a fag and claw that came our way. But > there is one predator we fear, which is that which strikes from cover, at > our very feet-- the snake hiding under the stone, the serpent lurking in > the grass which we do not see. It inspires in us a terror and a dread and > a wariness that we have never lost. We have, returning to the Torah that > wonderful part where God pronounces his judgement on the serpent. "I shall > put enmity between thee and the woman, Between her seed and thy seed, and > it (the enmity) shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." > Genesis 3:15 > > Thus has it ever been the sudden sight of the snake, the dash to crush its > head with the foot, but the snakes reflexes, so much faster, strikes first > "bruising" (wounding) our heel (and if venemous maiming us or killing us) > and we crushing its head. > > The others are old evil guys. Thulsa Doom is the chief antagonist of Conan > in the Conan the Barbarian Series, a powerful sorcerer and wizzard who > transformed himself into a snake. Sauron, the chief meanie of J.R.R. > Tolkein's Lord of the Rings often manifestedhimself as the "unlidded eye, > which was the eye of a snake." See "The Encyclopedia of Fantasy and > science fiction for others. > > Otto, Well Otto, you're way ahead of me in comparative religions, I never took that subject. I would guess that my information comes from other things I've read., and they appear to be incomplete. I do remember reading that St. Patrick supposedly drove the snakes from Ireland, and that there were never any snakes in Ireland. I figured it was symbolic. I guess the other explanation, and I forget who said it, maybe Steve(?), that since it had no legs and moved quickly, it scared folks. We really do fear what we don't understand, and hopefully a lot less these days. Think peace, Dorothy From technomad at intergate.com Thu Dec 15 06:20:28 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:20:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Girls of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111215002028.iko7kile2os0ogs8@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191494 Quoting sigurd at eclipse.net: > Dear List > > Ok, that's enough intellectualism, which girl would you like to take > out on a date if you were an 8th year at Hogwarts. > > 1. Hermione Granger > 2. Parvati Patel > 3. Nymphadora Tonks > 4. Ginny Weasley > 5. Luna Lovegood > 6. Pansy Parkinson. > > Fleur is out of the running, unfair advantage. > > I'd like to take Parkinson simply to spite Draco but I think I'd be > far more interested in Luna. Pansy might have a dad who's loaded but > Luna's more fun. It's a Betty and Veronica thing. For me? Hermione Granger and I would probably be very sympatico, but I have a big soft spot for Luna. Taking them both out at once would be interesting, if only to sit back and watch the conversation flow. Of course, being able to listen in to them talking about me when I go visit the little wizards' room might be enlightening, albeit rather deflating to my ego... ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 07:50:45 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:50:45 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Sauron and Others In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > .... > > In a novel, the author is not only the writer of the facts, they are the interpretor of the facts, and the meaning thereof. In fact, the images are the facts. > > Otto > Steve: Not necessarily, we have authorial intent, but that does not always coincide with reader interpretation. In fact, reader interpretation and debate of many many issues are what have kept this group and many others alive. Some think Harry is a near Saint, others think Harry is a misbehaved unruly irresponsible boy who causes more trouble than he solves. Some think the Twins are just mischievous boys being boys, others think they are horrible mean spirited bullies. JKR had here view and intent, but with millions of readers, there are a whole range of interpretations. Each of those interpretations could be considered an alternative view on history, and alternate narrative. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 08:05:05 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:05:05 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191496 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear Steve > > No one is asserting unquestioning obedience. In the specific case of Harry Potter the Hufflepuff "obedience" is tempered by their other virtues, loyalty, generosity, hard work, etc, ... > > But Hufflepuff is contrasted completely with the Slytherin idea which seems to be an unbridled egoism and an idea that the self above the other comes first. ... > > Indeed, the "virtues" of Slytherin, according to Rowlings seems to be simply a cover for unbridled selfishness and cynicism. > > These are not my characters, or characterizations, but Rowling's. > > Otto > Steve: Yes, but if you shift your mind beyond the page, then you must see that there is a danger of becoming trapped in your own mythology. To some extent, I think that is Slytherins problem. The have come to so thoroughly believe their own mythology that they continue to act out their interpretation of this. There is nothing inherently wrong with Slytherin basic values, the error comes in the contemporary interpretation and implementation of those values. Just as there are factions in modern society in politics, religion, law, philosophy, and many other aspects, who have taken their basic sound philosophy and so distorted and twisted it to their own ends, that the founders of the various philosophies would be rolling over in their graves. Sometimes, your mythology is the reason you do things, and sometimes it is the excuse to do things. This applies to any of the houses. The heroic Gryffindor could become corrupted by interpretation into something very bad. Misguided force fueled by a sense of self-superiority. The same could happen to Hufflepuff, they could become so trapped in being the good little boys and girls, that they will let atrocities pass unnoticed. And, again, the Mythology of Slytherin and Ravenclaw can be twisted to a bad end. By mentioning the obedience Clone Soldiers, you very much implied blind obedience. But, as I pointed out, blind obedience will not be a defense in a Crimes Against Humanity trial. There is a point where even the blindly obedience are compelled by law and morality to see and know when things have gone too far. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 15 19:33:49 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:33:49 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191497 Otto: > My use of "plumbers and tradesmen" was a metaphor for how the English upper classes see the rest. Don't feel slighted, it's the way the American upper class sees the rest of society also. Remember there is much talk in Philosophers stone of Hufflepuffs being "duffers" or low talent under-achievers. Second, while I am willing to grant a concession that English prep schools may divide people with the best of intentions, what actually comes down the pipe (as in the original bond between the four wizards) is pretty much the "not our kind dear" -- social segregation and stratification along socio-economic lines. > Pippin: No one is arguing that wizarding society isn't stratified -- but Hogwarts under Dumbledore was arguably less stratified than the rest of it. Nowhere else do we see half-Giants, House Elves or Centaurs treated as equals. What the inter-House rivalry makes possible is a leveling of boundaries inside the Houses that would otherwise exist because they are part of the WW as a whole. Now this, might not be any justification for the House System, but it is a tool that Dumbledore can use all the same. It's interesting -- Hogwarts as Harry first experiences it is far more egalitarian than the world as he knew it on Privet Drive. It's only slowly that Harry becomes aware that he is in fact living in a bubble of privilege, and that there are whole classes of Beings in the Wizarding World who have less freedom and fewer rights than Harry did in Little Whinging. The Dursleys at their worst would not have dared to treat Harry the way Sirius treated Kreacher. Otto: By the way, this whole "house folderol" was tried by American management in the 1980's or 1990's and divided whole plants and offices up into four teams to encourage inter-team rivalry to excel and be more productive. Pippin: Quite aside from the dubious benefits of applying the factory model to education, you are addressing the issue as if the students are the employees and the product is magic. But the students are not employed by the school. They are treated as raw material, and the product is trained wizards. So as long as there is a demand for more than one kind of wizard, more than one kind will be produced. And as long as the wizarding world insists on keeping others in their place against their will, it will need enforcers who are not too dainty in their methods, and other enforcers to keep those enforcers in line. If the bullies and their antagonists are not trained at Hogwarts, they'll be trained elsewhere, IOW, because the WW can't exist in its present form without them. Dumbledore, as I see it, inherited this system and tried to subvert it towards his goals of protecting of the innocent and extending more rights to the underclasses. He was arguably more successful in persuading the Griffyndors, who already saw themselves as protectors, but he succeeded with those of the Slytherins who realized that they too had innocents they needed to protect. > > Otto: Please note that in all of the dead that Rowling names at the end there is not one Slytherin. That's a fact and sympathy for Slytherin can't deny it. So exactly what was their contribution. No blood seems to have been shed. Pippin: Severus Snape. Regulus Black. Rowling names them more prominently than any others. Albus Severus, of course. And "Fight! Fight! Fight for my master, defender of House Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave Regulus!" You're free to see the Slytherins as little better than Orcs in human form, but I don't recall any Hobbits calling their children Shagrat or doing battle in his name. Pippin From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 15 12:31:32 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:32 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191498 Dear Geoff You Say "I was one of those who, when Book 7 appeared, expressed a dislike of the Epilogue. It merely underlined a few events but left a lot of unresolved questions, including the glance between the two men. Why include it? How do we square the disillusioned and frightened Draco of the final battle with the apparently reinstated guy out in public with his family and able to acknowledge Harry. Why are the two not just ignoring one another? Fanfic has offered a number of suggestions over the years since the book appeared, often including action by Harry to rehabilitate his erstwhile rival. A few hints from the author might not go unwelcomed." Here I must say I stand in violent agreement with you. Certainly all of the issues you say COULD have formed the basis for a crack in the adamantine rivalry between the houses. Certainly Harry's saving of Draco from the burning room and Draco's sometimes hesitant actions towards Harry when he has him in his grasp, and certainly Narcissa's behaviour towards Harry in the end could hint-- no-- I will definitely say that they DO hint or at least beg the question of some sort of humanity creeping into the relationship. After all she KNOWS she is betraying Voldemort- AGAIN and putting her own life in danger. A tantalizing possibility indeed. But we have none of that and all we have is supposition, and I like you was extremely dissatisfied with the epilogue. I must state that I am a purist (being a historian) and in this case fanfic be damned. It, to a historian is pretty much as anathema as "What-If" History-- what if Rome did not fall, what if Lincoln was not assassinated-- all of these are interesting truffles but unsatisfying. The fact remains that Rowling produced the canon and as I said her words her ideas can be the only source that is authoritative and, as insufficient and unsatisfying, or -- unappealing-- as they may be remain the only standard of "truth" that we can resort to. Now, to turn around and talk out of the other side of my mouth-- I could from history cite many, Many, MANY examples of great rapproachmonts through history and it would be entirely logical to assume that Harry, reflecting on Narcissa's actions (perhaps in later years in the early youth of his own children) might see some connection between her and Lilly, AND it would be essentially in line with Rowling thesis of the center point importance of motherly love. Indeed, one could imagine a whole Romeo-and Juliet story between the Potter and the Malfoys some thirty years later etc. (Complete with happy or tragic ending- your choice). However- that's all counter-factual and hence, extremely problematic when we are trying to get close to the book itself. I find the work as given has more than enough meat to chew on for quite a while. Indeed, one might through the actions of the archetypical heroes (Draco and Harry) see a rehabilitation or change in both houses, such that neither Slytherin NOR Gryffindor are the same after the events of the seven books. But again-- that's another book, and it looks like we're not going to get one-- and at this point, I rather hope we don't. I would be too afraid that the result would be a hodgepodge of fanfic wishes rather than a straight story as pronounced by Rowling herself, who as the author of the canon can be the only true "puppeteer". Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 15 12:38:11 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:38:11 -0000 Subject: The Girls of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <20111215002028.iko7kile2os0ogs8@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191499 Dear Eric BOTH AT ONCE! Oh my-- brave boy! I rather suspect that if you did that you would find yourself the main course at dinner. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 15 13:11:04 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:11:04 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191500 Dear Steve But at that you have reached a tautology. Let's flesh out this a little. What is the definition of "mythology." From what I hear you say it is very close, if not identical to what I call "basic assumptions." That is, things that you believe just "are." Basic assumptions are things that you believe in a-priori to all things such as "God exists" or "Human nature is basically evil" or "There is absolute truth" or any of a hundred, nay thousands of beliefs we have. One of the most generally known statements of basic assumptions (and mythology) is "We hold these truths to be self evident- that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." What this says is, if you parse it bit by bit is. There are truths. These truths can be known. These truths are obvious. All men are created All men are created equal. There is a creator. He has given all people rights. Among these rights (but not necessarily limited to these are... All of these are basic assumptions, articles of faith which you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of A-PRIORI TO THEM. That is you do not make a statement which makes them contingent. Such a statement would be "There are truths because the universe has ordained them. Then the Universe would be a basic assumption. All the proofs people elicit for these are a-poteriri- that is they are observed or believed EFFECTS of the action of the truths. Thus, attempts to prove the existence of God by miracles or "If there is no god then how do you account for...." are really failures for they violate causality? Are we talking about the same thing when you say "mythology?" If so the problem with your statement is that by saying that one has to get beyond ones mythology implies that ones mythology is flawed and hence why should you believe it. No one believes in his heart that which is false to him, regardless of the lip service he may give it. Thus to do what you would be saying is to say either that NOTHING can believed in, or worse, nothing can be known. Continuing on. There is nothing wrong with having a specific mythology except. 1. Where something contradicts and cannot be explained in "the mythology" or... 2.Where the mythology is inconsistent with itself. For example, if it says in one part that X is true and in another that it is false. (Note I did not say good or bad! That's an entirely different matter). The simple fact is that people MUST have a mythology to live because we all have to have our day-to-day actions informed by over-arching principles and beliefs. Thus each person determines, or receives from authority (that is accepts a statement of belief from someone else which they WILLINGLY accept) a view of the universe as to what is the truth, what is good, bad, the one, the beautiful, the ideal. For the most part these all work well and work well enough. But the problem what you are talking about is WITHIN the mythology of Tolerance of other mythologies. This too must be a part of the mythology (that tolerance of the beliefs of others is a good thing) but is balanced by the problem of a competing mythology which is INTOLERANT of others beliefs, or more commonly, when a competing mythology while tolerant of others beliefs contains moral precepts or states as elements of the "honorable" things that are abhorrent to us. Let us assume here a fifth house in Hogwarts called Sunuvabitches who were not only super-Slytherinic in beliefs but believed it was good, just, and honorable to hurt, harm, betray and cause pain and misery to the other houses. As non canonical as that hypothesis may seem to us, for the sake of argument assume it, and then ask the other houses to "transcend their mythology" to embrace the idea that the mythology of the Sunuvabitches is valid, or that it should not be resisted, or that it should be applauded as equally valid with ones own. At that point, ANY sort of mythology or set of virtues or vices collapses into mere phenomenalism. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 15 13:28:52 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:28:52 -0000 Subject: The Girls of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <20111215002028.iko7kile2os0ogs8@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191501 Dear List I already stated my preferences and of course it would be pure male ego to wish both the probably well connnected and rich (and not unattractive Parkinson) as well as the "Loony" Lovegood, but one MUST after all make a choice and while the dalliance with Pansy might be fun (and certainly provide a huge deep draft of schadenfreude at the expense of Draco) I'd really have to fall for Luna. The reason is quite simple. My wife (now of 39 years this year past) was not the best looking of all the girls I ever dated, nor she was the sexiest, smartest, richest, well connected, or most "hip." But it became quite obvious that she had a good heart, and I knew that good heart would make her kind, loving, caring, faithful, patient, hard working, and beautiful beyond measure, and most important, that good heart would be a person on whom I could affix love and tenderness, affection, care, and make as the center of my life and try and be the best husband in the world for. I knew she'd never play me false, or try and manipulate me, and that I had a heap of work to do to repay her in kind, but that it wouldn't be hard work and would be great fun. When our heroes are searching for Luna, and they stick heir heads up into Luna's room at her father's house, and they see the three paintings on the wall of Ron, Hermione, and Harry, named as "her friends" that shows without doubt that Luna has a "good heart" and had I been back there, I would have fallen immediately for her. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 15 15:29:04 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:29:04 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191502 Dear List My friend has been pestering me unmercifully ever since I told her about my post of the Girls of Hogwarts, "What about the guys!" So to keep peace I have posted her question. If you were a woman which of the following would you most want to go out with? 1. Harry Potter 2. Ron Weasley 3. Severus Snape 4. Krum (the Bulgarian Quidditch player) 5. Neville Longbottom 6. Draco Malfoy 7. Cedric Diggory 8. Sirius Black (when he was alive) Her list, not mine. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 15 21:36:30 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:36:30 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191503 Dear Pippin I am confused by your post. But OK. Pippin: > "No one is arguing that wizarding society isn't stratified -- but Hogwarts under Dumbledore was arguably less stratified than the rest of it. Nowhere else do we see half-Giants, House Elves or Centaurs treated as equals." Otto: Ok, but rest of what? I hardly think the single half giant- Hagrid is treated as an equal and I don't see any house elves in wizarding robes, teaching classes or taking them. Pippin: > "What the inter-House rivalry makes possible is a leveling of boundaries inside the Houses that would otherwise exist because they are part of the WW as a whole. Now this, might not be any justification for the House System, but it is a tool that Dumbledore can use all the same." Otto: I ask "How by any stretch of the imagination does division with the elite imply levelling? And a tool that Dumbledore can use for what? For what purpose? Remember that Dumbledore make dispensations for Elves only in a few cases, specifically Dobby and Rowling gives us through the Hermione a window into a class of people who in fact, pleasure and pride in their slavery? They consider and accept their subordination and subjugation as part of -- well-- their "mythology" as others term it. Pippin: > "It's interesting -- Hogwarts as Harry first experiences it is far more egalitarian than the world as he knew it on Privet Drive. It's only slowly that Harry becomes aware that he is in fact living in a bubble of privilege, and that there are whole classes of Beings in the Wizarding World who have less freedom and fewer rights than Harry did in Little Whinging. Otto: I respond. MoOre, there are huge discrepancies of wealth between he and even his close friends the Weasleys, and there are divisions of blood as well AND even apparently the question of nationalism is brought in through the example of Fleur and dealing with other wizarding schools. But then, is that not the normal way of humans? Do we not when very young assume that the world is as we see it everywhere? Pippin: > "The Dursleys at their worst would not have dared to treat Harry the way Sirius treated Kreacher." Otto: My response- This is a shocking statement on your part considering what you say later. I will pick it up later. Pippin: > "Quite aside from the dubious benefits of applying the factory model to education, you are addressing the issue as if the students are the employees and the product is magic. But the students are not employed by the school. They are treated as raw material, and the product is trained wizards. " Otto: I respond- You miss the point, and you apply the paradigm in a way that I did not. I was simply giving an example of the imbecility of the use of such competition within an organization which already has enough problems. It is as stupid in business as it was in Hogwarts. Human beings have enough centripital tendencies without adding to them. and the mission and product of the organization is quite immaterial in this case. Whatever the mission it can only be negatively impacted by employing division. Any large bureaucratic human organization will have enough factors leading to disharmony and disorganization sui generis without adding to them. Therefore your response really does not apply. Pippin: > "So as long as there is a demand for more than one kind of wizard, more than one kind will be produced. And as long as the wizarding world insists on keeping others in their place against their will, it will need enforcers who are not too dainty in their methods, and other enforcers to keep those enforcers in line. " Otto: My response. This is a particularly startling and troublesome statement. I was not aware that different kinds of wizards were produced? While certainly wizards may specialize in different vocational specialties. (I suppose Percy was very good at filling out things in triplicate-- magically of course-- and he had the best filing system, I was not aware there was a difference between them. But the statement you make "As long as the wizarding world insists on keeping others in their place against their will, it will need enforcers who are not too dainty in their methods, and other enforcers to keep those enforces in line." I do not see this in Rowling, and while I understand the basic assumptions of the voluntary subordination of the magical races (giants, goblins, elves etc) may not be as the Wizards see it, I was not aware of any great and heavy-handed oppression, except perhaps the Dementors in Azkaban-- but then one can't be too careful with maximum security prisoners. On the whole even when it came to these races the Wizarding world seemed rather benign - except for Slytherin of course, who seemed to have all the House elves. And who else is being kept in line? Muggles? I don't really see that. At least not to the degree you do. Pippin: > "If the bullies and their antagonists are not trained at Hogwarts, they'll be trained elsewhere, IOW, because the WW can't exist in its present form without them. " Otto: I respond. I do not understand the abbreviation IOW but I do not see why the Wizarding World cannot exist without them. More-- you are making a startling point here. You are alleging that Hogwarts exists to train bullies as well? Let us pause here for a moment! Is not the job of ANY educational establishment in the Western idea to transcend the mundane and to aim at a higher purpose than mere morally indifferent vocational training? Is this not true for any Muggle Institution as well as a Magical one? Does not ANY university or school exists to make better people and avail them of a higher vision and a superior attainment-- a higher idea and ideal than the mere mundane? In short is it not a basic assumption that a person will be better once he has come out of an institution than when he went in? This has been the ideal in the West and those universities throughout the world that have imported the Western idea of education. If it is as you said, then I wonder if it's all worth it. Pippin: > "Dumbledore, as I see it, inherited this system and tried to subvert it towards his goals of protecting of the innocent and extending more rights to the underclasses. He was arguably more successful in persuading the Griffyndors, who already saw themselves as protectors, but he succeeded with those of the Slytherins who realized that they too had innocents they needed to protect. " Otto: My response-- I will not debate this point simply because my reading has not been extensive enough to speak authoritatively on it. Pippin: > "(as honored dead from Slytherin) Severus Snape." Otto: Severus does not die in the battle, but is killed by Voldemort's snake. Admittedly he was Dumbledore's spy, but his loyalty is always questionable as to motive. Besides he has nothing to do with the question which is the source of this present discussion between you and I, which is-- the mass treachery of Slytherin at the moment of decision at the Battle of Hogwarts. Snape did not, indeed could not stand up and lead his house to side with the others because he had to seem to be Voldemort's man. His treachery to Voldemort would, therefore, be revealed. But at the same time, it is to be noted that NO house leader urged their charges to fight. However, we are not discussing the leaders we are discussing the spontaneous decision by the individual members of the houses- the students, and in that Rowling is clear. Not one, where there were many of the other three who did fight. Severus Snape deserves honor for his long years of espionage and betrayal of the enemy, but it is really immaterial to the point at hand. That is, Slytherins to a man were treasonous. Pippin: > Regulus Black. Otto: Regulus Black does not die at the Battle of Hogwarts does he? Does he not die in an earlier book when stealing one of the Horcruxes? So again, while an honorable person who fights against Voldemort, his death is immaterial to the immediate question-- that not one Slytherin was found at that table. Pippin: > Albus Severus, of course. And "Fight! Fight! Fight for my master, defender of House Elves! Fight the Dark Lord in the name of brave Regulus!" Otto: Wonderful for Kreacher, but-- he's dead long before is he not? And how can you compare this with your statement of before on how the house elves were treated? There is a condtradiction here. Pippin: > You're free to see the Slytherins as little better than Orcs in human form, but I don't recall any Hobbits calling their children Shagrat or doing battle in his name. Otto: Then you obviously have not read Lord of the Rings. Hobbits figure prominently in many of the final battles, AND in the scourging of the shire at the end of the book. Once again, while not the doughtiest fighters in the world of Middle Earth, their loyalty to the forces of Good and their antipathy to Sauron was never in doubt. That is why Gandalf chooses the ring bearer from among their number-- they are, he feels, of all the creatures in Middle Earth, the LEAST likely to be subverted by the allure of the ring. He is of course mistaken and at the last moment Frodo himself succumbs and the ring is destroyed only by an accident, but Frodo brought it all that way in what is perhaps the longest Via Dolorosa in literature-- while Boromir, the epitome of the best man alive, makes a play for it practically before they're out of the front yard. Sorry, from the very first we see the virtues of the houses as Gryffindor- Courage: Hufflepuff- Patience and hard work; Ravenclaw- Knowledge-- And Slytherin- "Me, me me." Otto From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 02:28:18 2011 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (ZaraG) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:28:18 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191504 > Otto: > Severus does not die in the battle, but is killed by Voldemort's snake. Admittedly he was Dumbledore's spy, but his loyalty is always questionable as to motive. Besides he has nothing to do with the question which is the source of this present discussion between you and I, which is-- the mass treachery of Slytherin at the moment of decision at the Battle of Hogwarts. Snape did not, indeed could not stand up and lead his house to side with the others because he had to seem to be Voldemort's man. His treachery to Voldemort would, therefore, be revealed. But at the same time, it is to be noted that NO house leader urged their charges to fight. However, we are not discussing the leaders we are discussing the spontaneous decision by the individual members of the houses- the students, and in that Rowling is clear. Not one, where there were many of the other three who did fight. Severus Snape deserves honor for his long years of espionage and betrayal of the enemy, but it is really immaterial to the point at hand. That is, Slytherins to a man were treasonous. Zara: You mean, I presume, "Slytherin students attending school during what should have been Harry's final year, were to a man treasonous." Snape, as you grant, and also Slughorn and Phineas, were not. Though I would dispute even that. The commander of the school's defenses (Professor McGonagall) requested that they leave while the rest of the school held them at wandpoint. Under those circumstances, the most effective way for them to join the fight would be to come back with reinforcements, establishing, as it were, the sincerity of their intentions to the commander and fighters who had already demonstrated their thorough distrust. As, indeed, Slughorn, with or without a selection of students from his House and others, did. (The text does not provide an exhaustive list of those who returned). I'd also consider the word "treasonous here exaggerated at best. They did not stay to fight, just as about half of Ravenclaw and a portion of Hufflepuff also did not. I would call none of them treasonous. From bart at moosewise.com Fri Dec 16 02:40:12 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:40:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EEAAF8C.8030208@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191505 On 12/15/2011 10:29 AM, sigurd at eclipse.net wrote: > 3. Severus Snape > 8. Sirius Black (when he was alive) > Bart: So, I may assume that the choice of Severus Snape includes after he died? Bart From ddankanyin at cox.net Fri Dec 16 06:44:21 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:44:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Hunks References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191506 Otto, I was going to pick one of the Hogwart's girls as if I were male, and like you I would have chosen Luna. And for pretty much the same reasons. Since I'm female, I think I would have chosen Neville. Not Neville in the early years, but the Neville at 16 and 17. He's just someone, not unlike Luna, who touched me, and I find that intriguing and yes, sexy. :) Think peace, Dorothy From: Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:29 AM > Dear List > > My friend has been pestering me unmercifully ever since I told her about > my post of the Girls of Hogwarts, "What about the guys!" > > So to keep peace I have posted her question. > > If you were a woman which of the following would you most want to go out > with? > > 1. Harry Potter > 2. Ron Weasley > 3. Severus Snape > 4. Krum (the Bulgarian Quidditch player) > 5. Neville Longbottom > 6. Draco Malfoy > 7. Cedric Diggory > 8. Sirius Black (when he was alive) > > > Her list, not mine. > > Otto From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 07:38:27 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:38:27 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear Steve > > But at that you have reached a tautology. Let's flesh out this a little. What is the definition of "mythology." From what I hear you say it is very close, if not identical to what I call "basic assumptions." ... > > Otto > Steve: I think you are looking at this a little too deeply. By Mythology, I mean that Gryffindor are told they are 'brave', their history is related over and over again, point out the stories of many brave people, but ignoring those like Peter Petegrew, who I will admit had a very cowardly kind of bravery. So, something of a legend builds up, and you see yourself in Gryffindor, and you hear all the story of how brave Gryffindors are, and you hear the selective history and the legends of Gryffindor bravery. And you start to think of yourself as brave, and in small ways perhaps even reflect bravery in your daily life. But, it is easy to be brave in small ways. It is easy to live out the mythology of Gryffindor bravery when life never puts you to the test. But, when real danger presents itself, then we find out whether you are living the myth, or whether you have taken bravery to heart. The Same would be true Hufflepuff, they are keep your head down, don't make waves, be fair, be hard working, and being in that house, you hear they your have those traits, and you hear about the many hard working uncomplaining Hufflepuffs through out history. You hear the legends, and you start to believe them, you start to live the mythology. But once again, it is easy to hold on to that myth when life never tests you. Hufflepuffs are likely to keep their head down and stay out of trouble. However, sometimes trouble comes knocking, perhaps not on your door, but on your neighbors door. Then you have to decide whether you are going to dream the myth, or live it. Are you going to keep your head down and not make waves or cause trouble, or are you going to lift your head up and create trouble by the boat load simply because it is the right an moral thing to do? In some sense, it is good that we try to live up to the mythology that informs us. In some sense that is the purpose of mythology, to show us the right way to live by parable example. But, when the chips are down, do we simply talk the talk, or do we take action and walk the walk. Any mythology can be perverted to selfish greedy ends. Hufflepuff could potentially be manipulated into a certain action by appealing to a twisted interpretation of their values. The same could be done with Gryffindor or Ravenclaw, and certainly has been done to Slytherin. There is nothing wrong with the basic characteristics of Slytherin. They are positive and productive archetypes in all societies. But, among some, the Slytherin characteristics have been twist to destructive ends. This same thing holds true of religion in the modern world, it can be twisted and used for selfish ends. The same it true of 'Honor Codes' in some schools. Those 'Honor Codes' can become so twisted by malicious interpretation that it justifies the most despicably dishonorable things. The characteristics of each House represent the mythology of that House. These are the legends, these are the stories that are told around the camp fire. These are the stories that shape the people who hear them. But these are also the stories that can be twist to bad ends. These are also the legends that are easy to idolize and emulate when life is easy, the question is can you see the larger overriding legend in each set of myths, and can you seemingly go against type when the greater moral good calls for it? In the final battle, I think all the Houses found the best in their mythology and acted on it. In the end, they all fought, though not to the last person, for the greater and truer moral good. By myths, I don't mean falsehoods of fiction, I simply mean the stories that shape us. Each house has its own traits and accompanying stories that shape it. I suspect, in the future, the Hufflepuff legend of Cedric Diggory will be one that guides them. But, that story and the interpretation of it could just as easily be twisted in very negative and very un-Hufflepuff like ways. That is one way in which the rich and powerful manipulate the masses, by twisting the interpretation of modern and ancient mythology to their own ends. And that was my central point, each House, through its characteristics, has the potential to foster both good and evil simply by re-interpreting its legends and myths. Steve/bluewizard From lui_rhys_01 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 07:19:13 2011 From: lui_rhys_01 at yahoo.com (lui) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:19:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1324019953.76445.YahooMailNeo@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> To answer the question- "If you were a woman which of the following would you most want to go out?with?" ? I am a little biased with the characters since I know how they grew throughout the whole series. They all have their advantages and disadvantages- 1. Harry Potter - Plus points for being "the chosen one", but really, I like a guy who has and can make time for me. And Harry, clearly can't. I don't want to be in the middle of a "me vs the world" spat. 2. Ron Weasley - Maybe Ron, post 7th year? Only because he had some major growth spurt (emotionally) then. Supposing he and Hermione broke up after a while, dated me, I dumped him, and they got back together and made babies. ? 3. Severus Snape- I like intellectuals to a fault, but I don't think I can look past the greasy hair, not to mention the emotional baggage. Movie!Snape is another story though. 4. Krum (the Bulgarian Quidditch player)- I would date him just because he is famous, if only for a day. I have the suspicion that he has the emotional AND intellectual range of a teaspoon. 5. Neville Longbottom- Definitely post 7th year Neville is interesting to me. But I don't really think I can date a "professor." 6. Draco Malfoy- If only for the good looks! Im a sucker for light haired guys. 7. Cedric Diggory- Twilight definitely ruined my memory of Cedric. ? 8. Sirius Black (when he was alive)- I've had the hots for Sirius ever since he was introduced in PoA. But looking back at the series now, I don't think he'd be a good boyfriend material. He just didn't grow up all those years he was in Azkaban- which isn't his fault though. How come Remus isn't here? Aside from his furry little problem, he is totally dateable. I don't mind paying. Luirhys From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 16 10:56:56 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:56:56 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <532A48AA19E04B9B9CB79239F6F6588A@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191509 Dear List My friend has been pestering me unmercifully ever since I told her about my post of the Girls of Hogwarts, "What about the guys!" So to keep peace I have posted her question. If you were a woman which of the following would you most want to go out with? 1. Harry Potter 2. Ron Weasley 3. Severus Snape 4. Krum (the Bulgarian Quidditch player) 5. Neville Longbottom 6. Draco Malfoy 7. Cedric Diggory 8. Sirius Black (when he was alive) Her list, not mine. Otto Hmm ... I'm not going by the film actors, which are not how I imagine the characters to be in the books, mostly. It's got to be either Snape or Malfoy. Tall, dark and mysterious for Snape, and there is something about a blond! Liz From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 12:29:05 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:29:05 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191510 Dear Zara G. Zara: "The commander of the school's defenses (Professor McGonagall) requested that they leave while the rest of the school held them at wandpoint. Under those circumstances, the most effective way for them to join the fight would be to come back with reinforcements, establishing, as it were, the sincerity of their intentions to the commander and fighters who had already demonstrated their thorough distrust." Otto: Once again you are basing your entire argument on your suppositions and not the facts. Further it would assume that any commander would base his last reserves on their most untrustworthy and rebellious element. I can assure you from a lifetime of studing the military arts that is a recipe for disaster. That's like the French staging a Victory parade after World War two and claiming equal status with the Allies when in fact they made virtually no appreciable military contribution towards winning the war. Zara: "I'd also consider the word "treasonous here exaggerated at best. They did not stay to fight, just as about half of Ravenclaw and a portion of Hufflepuff also did not. I would call none of them treasonous." Otto: Once again you are wrong. You forget that McGonnagal forbade any who were not of age to fight. Assuming equal membership in each class, and beginning at age 11, with 8 possible years that means 4 years so anyone 15 or younger was not allowed to stay. Even then McGonnagal had to toss out many from Gryffindor who stayed. They were not treasonous, they simply were too young to put in the front line. More likely only the last two years boys who would be 17 and up would be allowed to stay, which would account for the "few" at Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, but even those "few" are infinitely greater in numbers than the "nont one" who stayed at Slytherin. Note also that it says that about half of Gryffindor stayed, and that is the figure Rowlings give, and it is from this number that McGonnagal is tossing out children too young to fight. I'm sorry but the sources are against you. Rowling makes it very clear that the overwhelmingly fast majority of Slytherin are on the other side. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 12:37:53 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:37:53 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: <1324019953.76445.YahooMailNeo@web30701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191511 Dear Luirhys > How come Remus isn't here? Aside from his furry little problem, he is totally dateable. I don't mind paying. Wasn't my list. It was my friend's. She made the cut. I did write back that it is difficult for me, a guy to choose this, but I did tell her that if I was a girl anyone who wore dirty underwear (Snape) would be a definite non-starter). The long greasy hair too would be a definite turn off. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 12:33:09 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:33:09 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191512 Dear Dorothy Oh, understandable! Nevile is one of those "Audie Murphy / General Grant" types who doesn't seem to fit anywhere but whose moment comes in times of crisis. Basically a good soul who is made great by the opportunity of the moment. Rowling exercises a brilliant virtuosity of writing only occasionally, I find, but one time is certainly when, after the battle, she shows Nevile munching some food in the dining hall with the sword of gryffendor casually on the table. No hoopla, no posturing, just quiet strength-- and if the battle was continuing he would have simply put down his porride or whatever and picked up the sword and gone back to the fray. Otto From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 16 14:39:51 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:39:51 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191513 Otto: > I did write back that it is difficult for me, a guy to choose this, but I did tell her that if I was a girl anyone who wore dirty underwear (Snape) would be a definite non-starter). The long greasy hair too would be a definite turn off. > > Pippin: Yellowish fabric needn't be dirty -- cheap cotton discolors with age and exposure to sunlight on the clothesline. Fantasy!Snape is all grown up, isn't dead, and isn't hung up on Lily. But he's still got that hypnotic voice, unfathomable black eyes, a vicious sense of humor and a way with words. For all that, I can put up with the hair. And he's one really dangerous wizard -- which appeals to me in a fantasy, where I can enjoy stuff that would be incredibly damaging in real life. Besides, who can resist a man who actually can read your mind? Now, considering the girls question as if I were a male, what about a younger McGonagall? She's got a sense of humor under all that starch. And that turns-into-a-cat thing is cool! Pippin From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Dec 16 15:02:40 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:02:40 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: > You Say "I was one of those who, when Book 7 appeared, expressed a dislike of the Epilogue. It merely underlined a few events but left a lot of unresolved questions, including the glance between the two men. Why include it? How do we square the disillusioned and frightened Draco of the final battle with the apparently reinstated guy out in public with his family and able to acknowledge Harry. Why are the two not just ignoring one another? Fanfic has offered a number of suggestions over the years since the book appeared, often including action by Harry to rehabilitate his erstwhile rival. A few hints from the author might not go unwelcomed." > > Here I must say I stand in violent agreement with you. Certainly all of the issues you say COULD have formed the basis for a crack in the adamantine rivalry between the houses. Certainly Harry's saving of Draco from the burning room and Draco's sometimes hesitant actions towards Harry when he has him in his grasp, and certainly Narcissa's behaviour towards Harry in the end could hint-- no-- I will definitely say that they DO hint or at least beg the question of some sort of humanity creeping into the relationship. After all she KNOWS she is betraying Voldemort- AGAIN and putting her own life in danger. A tantalizing possibility indeed. But we have none of that and all we have is supposition, and I like you was extremely dissatisfied with the epilogue. > > I must state that I am a purist (being a historian) and in this case fanfic be damned. It, to a historian is pretty much as anathema as "What-If" History-- what if Rome did not fall, what if Lincoln was not assassinated-- all of these are interesting truffles but unsatisfying. The fact remains that Rowling produced the canon and as I said her words her ideas can be the only source that is authoritative and, as insufficient and unsatisfying, or -- unappealing-- as they may be remain the only standard of "truth" that we can resort to. > > Now, to turn around and talk out of the other side of my mouth-- I could from history cite many, Many, MANY examples of great rapproachmonts through history and it would be entirely logical to assume that Harry, reflecting on Narcissa's actions (perhaps in later years in the early youth of his own children) might see some connection between her and Lilly, AND it would be essentially in line with Rowling thesis of the center point importance of motherly love. Indeed, one could imagine a whole Romeo-and Juliet story between the Potter and the Malfoys some thirty years later etc. (Complete with happy or tragic ending- your choice). However- that's all counter-factual and hence, extremely problematic when we are trying to get close to the book itself. I find the work as given has more than enough meat to chew on for quite a while. > > Indeed, one might through the actions of the archetypical heroes (Draco and Harry) see a rehabilitation or change in both houses, such that neither Slytherin NOR Gryffindor are the same after the events of the seven books. > > But again-- that's another book, and it looks like we're not going to get one-- and at this point, I rather hope we don't. I would be too afraid that the result would be a hodgepodge of fanfic wishes rather than a straight story as pronounced by Rowling herself, who as the author of the canon can be the only true "puppeteer". Geoff: I'm not sure whether to feel privileged or concerned that you are in violent agreement with me. I have had people violently DISagree with me in the past but never the opposite .. However, I felt a need to reply to raise a number of issues ? some concerning the views we have of the books and some about the group itself. After your rather explosive entry into HPFGU, namely 24 posts in the 49 posts between 191464 and 191512 is going somewhat. I don't think even I posted to that extent in my early days eight and a half years ago!! It is just as well that you did not join about a year or so ago when there was a posting limit of five per day which was rescinded because of low numbers. I presume that you must prepare a lot offline unless you can type very quickly judging by the time and date on each one. I do also wonder whether you read the posting rules, as you were required to, particularly: Welcome to Harry Potter for Grownups, a friendly, thought-provoking place for adult discussions of the HP books and also: HPforGrownups (the "Main List") is for discussion of the HP books (i.e., the 'canon') In your long discussions on Main, several of your posts have been more suited to HPFGU-Off Topic chatter because they have drifted away from canon. One post I certainly recall (191479) was about snakes as symbols of evil and, interesting as it may be, contained no canon reference at all and several have drifted off-topic in your analyses of the books. But to return to the topic of "the gap" between 1998 and 2017 when we have little or no knowledge of what happened. I do not think that we are venturing into the world of "What if" but making sensible guesses. You write: "I must state that I am a purist (being a historian) and in this case fanfic be damned . The fact remains that Rowling produced the canon and as I said her words her ideas can be the only source that is authoritative and, as insufficient and unsatisfying, or -- unappealing?as they may be remain the only standard of "truth" that we can resort to." But there is no canon there to be authoritative. Apart from the basic relationships in the epilogue and I believe a sketchy outline of who married who by J.K.Rowling there is very little information available to cover this period. You, speaking as a historian, must know of situations where there is a lack of knowledge and speculative suggestions are made to fill in the gaps which can provoke further thought on the subject. I have to admit that I have always had a soft spot for Draco because I believe that he grew up in an environment which channeled and distorted his view of the world and have always wished for a rapprochement between him and Harry; I am allowed to imagine that because it does not disagree with anything that J.K.Rowling has said ? or not said. That is my view. Disagree if you wish but please do not dictate to me that I MUST accept your version. Like myself, I know from off-group conversations that many other members of the group began reading Harry Potter for pleasure. I have read LOTR and the Narnia books on many occasions purely for *enjoyment*. I do not indulge in literary criticism; to try to analyse these books sentence by sentence, and full stop by full stop would destroy that pleasure. I do not want to seek political statements or philosophical nuances in what the author has written. I just like to know that Harry lived in the end and that evil was defeated. I didn't like every outcome; I still don't think that Ginny was right for Harry but that is how J.K.Rowling wanted it. OK. But where a specific outcome was not indicated, there is no reason why you or I or anyone else can imagine a result without trying to impose our view on others with the implication that non-acceptance is indicative of a lack of understanding, either in a literary sense or otherwise. From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 13:01:04 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:01:04 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191515 Dear Steve But then how do you then affirm the legitimacy of the "sorting hat?" The hat asserts, and it is one of the cardinal principles of the book that it KNOWS the character of the person and does not lie or make mistakes. There is doubt only when a character has traits that could place him in either- like Harry. If what you are saying is true then it really is immaterial which house you are put in, you will adopt the myths of that house. If that's the case then why bother!? It makes it even more insane to do this. Put them all in one house and take the best of Gryffendor, Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw. Your hypothesis here simply implies that all this is merely made up bull*** and just a meaningless (and I might add considering the result) macabre pantomime. You are really arguing them for the vacuaty of all virtues- which just leaves you with the "me me me" narcissism of Slytherin. By the way there IS a positive benefit to the houses and I am surprised none of you have seen it yet. Of course-- it puts Slytherin in an even worst light. You say "Any mythology can be perverted to selfish greedy ends. Hufflepuff could potentially be manipulated into a certain action by appealing to a twisted interpretation of their values. The same could be done with Gryffindor or Ravenclaw, and certainly has been done to Slytherin. " OK, but so what! That's true of any institution, any class any idea or ideal. The problem is the individual action corresponding to the institutional "myth" as you call it. You say "There is nothing wrong with the basic characteristics of Slytherin. They are positive and productive archetypes in all societies." Please enumerate the positive basic characteristics. Please remember you will be speaking here of absolutes and therefore will have to fulfill the rule in absolutes. You can't use conditionals, that is "In the right circumstances the Slytherins could be considered virtuous." You say "This same thing holds true of religion in the modern world, it can be twisted and used for selfish ends. The same it true of 'Honor Codes' in some schools. Those 'Honor Codes' can become so twisted by malicious interpretation that it justifies the most despicably dishonorable things. " Again -- so what? This is the way of the world. The question is which insitutions, which traits, which beliefs and which myths will lead inevitably and inexorably in most cases (if you wish to take the Utilitarian view) or in every case where honest intent is present (for the Formalist) to a virtuous end. You say "The characteristics of each House represent the mythology of that House. These are the legends, these are the stories that are told around the camp fire. These are the stories that shape the people who hear them. But these are also the stories that can be twist to bad ends. These are also the legends that are easy to idolize and emulate when life is easy, the question is can you see the larger overriding legend in each set of myths, and can you seemingly go against type when the greater moral good calls for it?" Be careful here! You are undermining your own argument. I could easily argue that Slytherin when the times got tough simply bugged out which proves the lack of positive attributes. That is, they did the "tough thing" in selling out their friends for the world of Horror under Voldemort AND!!!! AND!!!! You all got a perfect demonstration of the world the Slytherins would make when Hogwarts was under the rule of Umbrage and the Student Inquisitorial board or whatever it was. A complete release of all restraints or higher ideas to the immediate gratification of Ego and the self, and the brutalizing and torturing of their fellow students. The Slytherins had their chance and showed that pretty much, to a man-- they are 100% all of them little Voldemorts. The days at Hogwarts under Slytherin when they had the power were as bad as the early days of the Nazi's in Germany and had they been allowed to continue, would have been worse. Just where did you think all this talk of "Mudbloods" was going to lead? It is pointless to deny that which is demonstrated. They had their chance, they showed their true colors, and even the little ones were as bestial to their peers in other houses as they could be. I recommend you read up on the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments. Sorry Steve- you can believe in a fairy tale if you wish, but you are arguing against a great mass of evidence. By the way, the good thing about the division into houses is that it recognizes the difference in motivation in human nature. Some have the strains of courage and derring do in them like Gryffindor, some have the fortitude and patience for the long haul like Hufflepuff, some have the desire and honor of knowledge like Ravenclaw. By putting these people together into houses these basic assumptions and traits are only reinforced by association and living with people of like mind. So therefore the placing of them together will see the strengthening and reinforcement of these positive virtues as each will see the benefits proved in real life by the Exercise of them. And Slytherin? They have no positive virtues. They are out for themselves and themselves alone, and like 70% of the people out there believe that what is "The Good" is what is good for themselves alone. And why do you keep them together and give them a house? So you can keep an eye on them and watch them, and when the time comes- lock them up. Slytherins are in every sense in a prison in the dungeons in Hogwarts while the others-- like guards in a maximum security prison, get the towers. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 13:19:41 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:19:41 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191516 Dear Steve My post on basic assumptions was more than attempted clarification. I was trying to get you to consider the problem of first principles. I really think that we must agree to disagree. You are obviously a moral relativist (one who believes there is no one overriding truth and all is merely a matter of situation and opinion) and I am a formalist (there is truth, it can be known, and it is universal) Those are two diametrically opposed basic assumptions that are irreconcilable. You are continuing to be an apologist for the actions of Slytherin and all I have to do is simply assert the facts as Rowling has stated them. In the canon of Harry Potter, unfortunately- Rowling writing is law. I fear we must agree to disagree. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 14:50:54 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:50:54 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191517 Dear List Now-- one of the interesting possibilities for a "What If" would be to consider the personality of Draco Malfoy Nineteen years later. We do not get that, and one cannot really write much on it without couching it in speculation. However such speculation must reserve itself totally to the unwritten and the future. You cannot go back and undo the past. Even God can't do that. We have a character here, Draco, who has gone through several "transformative events." Many of which we have enumerated and the greatest of which is of course the collapse of Voldemort and his circle. Even his father, a dyed in the wool adherent may be changed by this, but leave him out for now. We can therefore understand that such a person living through these events may make significant modifications to his outlook. We can be pretty sure that Draco is Human and will therefore possibly affected as other humans do. We have also copious examples of humans in real life who have gone through tremendous transformative events of the type and magnitude that the defeat of Voldemort entailed, and perhaps the most known to all is the collapse of the Third Reich, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Both of these political entities represented two of the greatest moral evils that ever infested the human race, and there are many examples of people who were intimately involved in it, and active and ardent supporters of it who were completely changed by it. This in no way excuses the events or their participation in it, but the revelation of what they once chose to think of as a God, to be a false God, entailed within their personalities significant changes. Albert Speer is one for the Third Reich, but there are many others. One for the Soviet Union would be Dimitri Volkoganov. Dimitri Volkogonav was a KGB General who became head of the Soviet Unions Historical section and the official historian of the regime. He was at at start a thoroughgoing hard liner and propagandist for the Revolution, but over the years, once he gained access to the archives, slowly began to change his opinion, and in the end became a vigorous anti Stalinist, debunker of even Lenin and a vigorous critic of the system. To go therefore from "true believer" to vehement critic is without doubt a "transformative event." One could argue that it is POSSIBLE that Draco could have such an epiphany of transformation. That the events of Harry saving his life to the mental anguish of the danger of threats to his parents, himself, and everything he knows- the revelation of the TRUE nature of Voldemortism beyond all this snake and silver fashion statement stuff (so attractive to the juvenile mind) might work in his psyche a transformation. So far I have argued that the leopard does not change his spots, but we are not animals. We can change. Therefore the speculation might be as to what this would entail in Draco's Mind. Perhaps the best way to frame this question would be-- "If you were to take the sorting Hat and pop it onto Draco's head lo these nineteen years later, where would it place him? My own disposition, which of course is merely my own opinion again informed by my prejudices is that Draco would have changed and might be a borderline Slytherin. That is still himself but gravely aware of how close to the precipice he came. One can hope one learns from ones mistakes. That's Otto the Hufflepuff talking in some ways, not Otto the Zampolit. However-- It could be argued that such a transformative event might indeed harden the individual into his former beliefs beyond all rationality. While the horrors of the Third Reich forced some former adherents, once the full truth was known, to reject, repudiate and be repelled by it, to turn into virulent anti-Nazi's it compelled some into the lunacy of Holocaust Denial and a perverse pride and lionization of the horrors. Transformative events do not always involve repentance, but sometimes a hardening of the position beyond all reason. It is a debatable point, and one we cannot ever answer and might never have answered for us (Unless at some future time Rowling chooses to). For my part, I'll be a little foolish and forgiving and credit Draco with the epiphany. My reason is entirely keeping with Rowling intent in the book. As we saw with Lucius and Narcissa, absolute intellectual purity is a luxury of the young. We forget often that on that platform at the moment when Rowling masterfully pulls back the curtains of the fog and steam between Harry and Draco in a moment of high drama, that there are others in that little tableau. There is Ginny and there is Pansy, and there are the Potter and the Malfoy children. Children are a transformative event of themselves and it is the rare, and cruel parent who is not transformed by them. Once you have a child, once you have another soul as part of you, things are not what they seem and we tend to pull our ideological punches with them around. It grants (in many cases but not all) a perspective the singleton does not have. There is now a loyalty that is more powerful than an ideology, more powerful than a cause, and it is an other of our own self. I think that Draco thus is the subject of TWO transformative events (just as Harry was) and that means that there is every reason to expect that not only is Draco now a shadow of his former self, but something else entirely-- now-- nineteen years later. There is a moment in the Shakespeare Play Henry VI Part 3 when the Yorkist princes, Edward, Clarence, and Richard stab to death on Tewksbury field Edward, Prince of Wales, son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou. Margaret in horror watching the death of her only child says "Monsters! You have no sons...." in reproach and proceeds to lament of her murdered child. Yet Margaret Herself in Part II before her child was born, taunts the Father of Edward, Clarence and Richard, with the bloody napkin which Lord Clifford wiped the blood off his sword after he slaughtered Richard Duke of York's youngest son Edmund, Earl of Rutland. In the play there is a moment when she, taunting the captive York says with a malevolent smile and completely cold hideous glee "Where are your sons York, Where's the Lusty Edward, George, and that crookback prodigy Dickie your boy... "Then drawing the bloodied napkin from out of her bodice she says with the malevolence of a she-wolf "Where's your darling Rutland...." and then to dry his tears he throws the bloodied rag in York's face to dry his tears with. I'm not exactly sure of the exact quotes but that's the gist. So I am prepared to accept a reformed Draco as a possibility. But it is not certain. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 14:56:18 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:56:18 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191518 Dear Pippin You say "Yellowish fabric needn't be dirty -- cheap cotton discolors with age and exposure to sunlight on the clothesline." OH STOP!!! Even Lily told him to wash his underwear sometimes! This was after Harry's father and Sirius had been tormenting him. It was in the memory that Harry Saw. How long are you going to deny what is fact. It wasn't yellowish, it was GRAY! And Snape still apparently had not discovered Shampoo by adulthood-- or for that matter a charm to clean hair. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 17:27:06 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:27:06 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: <532A48AA19E04B9B9CB79239F6F6588A@TrekyPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191519 Dear Liz Thanks for answering. You bring up an interesting point. We have the film actors (which are OK-- I can't really say there's any I'm very taken with) but you note your own mental images of them from the books. Might I inquire as to how you picture them? Could you give me a description of any of them like you'd say-- give the police-- or to a friend. Do you find that you "image" a base picture from someone you knew and then change a few details or does an image fly into your head from whole cloth? Otto From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 16 20:17:17 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:17:17 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Treachery ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191520 > Otto: > Severus does not die in the battle, but is killed by Voldemort's snake. Admittedly he was Dumbledore's spy, but his loyalty is always questionable as to motive. Besides he has nothing to do with the question which is the source of this present discussion between you and I, which is-- the mass treachery of Slytherin at the moment of decision at the Battle of Hogwarts. Snape did not, indeed could not stand up and lead his house to side with the others because he had to seem to be Voldemort's man. His treachery to Voldemort would, therefore, be revealed. But at the same time, it is to be noted that NO house leader urged their charges to fight. Pippin: Okay, since that's our main point of disagreement, I'll drop the other points for now and work on that. In chapter 30 of DH, McGonagall is with Slughorn and the other heads of house and tells them that Voldemort is coming. "I suggest we establish basic protection around the place, then gather our students and meet in the Great Hall. Most must be evacuated, though if any of those who are over-age wish to stay and fight, I think they ought to be given the chance." Slughorn says that Voldemort is bound to get in and anyone who has tried to delay him will be in most grievous peril and he wonders if this is wise. "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great Hall in twenty minutes, also," said Professor McGonagall. Then she says, " If you wish to leave with your students, we shall not stop you. But if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance, or take up arms against us within this castle, then, Horace, we duel to kill." Horace is aghast. "The time has come for Slytherin House to decide upon its loyalties," interrupted Professor McGonagall. "Go and wake your students, Horace." With me so far? Now, Minerva hasn't already decided that they're traitors. Their choices will show what they truly are. But it's not the same choice she stated before. Her words now exclude the possibility of Slytherins fighting for the school. There's no option stated of joining the defense. If Slughorn follows orders, he must tell the Slytherins that their choice is to leave or be prepared to duel the defenders to the death. So by the time Minerva tells the students that those who wish to fight for the school may do so, the Slytherins already know it doesn't apply to them. In the Great Hall, Minerva tells the prefects to escort the students who wish to leave to the evacuation point. So, besides the Slytherin students being excluded from the invitation to fight, six older students from their House have just been *ordered* to leave. Then Voldemort speaks, throwing everyone into a panic once again (the word panic is used to describe Minerva herself earlier) and Pansy screams and points out Harry. The Gryffindors and then the other students draw wands on the Slytherins. With all hell about to break loose, and the enemy at the gates, Minerva orders Pansy to leave with Filch, and says, in a clipped voice, "If the rest of your house could follow." The Slytherins get up and go, *as they've just been ordered to do* leaving their table empty. It looks bad, but what choice did they have? What possible justification could even the most loyal Slytherin have for not leaving? The evacuation and the organization of the defenses will most certainly be hindered if they try to protest. JKR is expert at making the Slytherins look bad, when on closer examination it would have been impossible for them to make what looks like the obvious good choice. Joining the DA, for example. No Slytherin banners in the Room of Requirement. But how could there be, when Hermione had made sure that those who attended the original meeting couldn't tell anyone else what they were doing? Neville can write "Join Dumbledore's Army" on the walls, but if he actually tells anyone how to do it, he'll have "SNEAK" written on his face. It looks as if the Slytherins excluded themselves, when actually others had chosen to exclude them first. Your argument is that if JKR makes them look bad, they must be bad, because hers is the only narrative we have, but the conflicting narrative is built into the story. Symbols and mythic references make them look like villains, but their choices show a much more nuanced view. Pippin From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 16:09:23 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:09:23 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191521 Dear Geoff Geoff: "I'm not sure whether to feel privileged or concerned that you are in violent agreement with me. I have had people violently DISagree with me in the past but never the opposite .." Otto: My Response" It's an illustrative flourish. Are you saying that you cannot conceive of an agreement on one issue and disagreement on others? That two people cannot find intermittent agreement? Geoff: "However, I felt a need to reply to raise a number of issues ? some concerning the views we have of the books and some about the group itself. After your rather explosive entry into HPFGU, namely 24 posts in the 49 posts between 191464 and 191512 is going somewhat. I don't think even I posted to that extent in my early days eight and a half years ago!! It is just as well that you did not join about a year or so ago when there was a posting limit of five per day which was rescinded because of low numbers. Otto: No doubt. Geoff: "I presume that you must prepare a lot offline unless you can type very quickly judging by the time and date on each one. Otto: Naaah-- I do this all extemporaneously- and I type about 54 words a minute. I'm a touch typist. Geoff: "I do also wonder whether you read the posting rules, as you were required to, particularly: Welcome to Harry Potter for Grownups, a friendly, thought-provoking place for adult discussions of the HP books and also: HPforGrownups (the "Main List") is for discussion of the HP books (i.e., the 'canon') Otto: I did, are you saying that I have violated these precepts? Please state how? Geoff: "In your long discussions on Main, several of your posts have been more suited to HPFGU-Off Topic chatter because they have drifted away from canon. One post I certainly recall (191479) was about snakes as symbols of evil and, interesting as it may be, contained no canon reference at all and several have drifted off-topic in your analyses of the books. Otto: My response: So are you saying that we can only discuss the internals of the books? That is what is written and are not able to place the books within the literary mainstream? Or discuss the tropes and configurations, organizations, and differences and similarities with other works and other situations, or for that matter the logic and overarching themes of the works at all within a literary context. My goodness, even Biblical Fundamentalists don't demand that! Are you saying that ONLY Harry Potter and specifically simple recapitulation is possible? Geoff: "But to return to the topic of "the gap" between 1998 and 2017 when we have little or no knowledge of what happened. I do not think that we are venturing into the world of "What if" but making sensible guesses. Otto: Agreed, provided you preface it with that it is only your opinion and in no way illustrative, representative or prognosticating the truth. I said as much in a recent post on the possibility of a transformative moment for Draco. Geoff: "Apart from the basic relationships in the epilogue and I believe a sketchy outline of who married who by J.K.Rowling there is very little information available to cover this period. You, speaking as a historian, must know of situations where there is a lack of knowledge and speculative suggestions are made to fill in the gaps which can provoke further thought on the subject. Otto: I respond: It is generally a career ending move for a historian or a Literature Phd to do this. Such things are couched in pages and pages of caveats and disclaimers and always must end in the interrogative- that is a question-- and even then they are usually buried in the parenthetical footnotes. To offer a "bridging hypothesis" which is kind of what you are talking about without these caveats is pretty much the same as slitting your wrists and jumping into the shark tank and splashing around a lot. Geoff: "I have to admit that I have always had a soft spot for Draco because I believe that he grew up in an environment which channeled and distorted his view of the world and have always wished for a rapprochement between him and Harry; I am allowed to imagine that because it does not disagree with anything that J.K. Rowling has said ? or not said. Otto: My response. Of course you do, you are entitled to your own opinions-- or fantasies, but that does not make them right. Geoff: "That is my view. Disagree if you wish but please do not dictate to me that I MUST accept your version. Otto: I do not, insist, but are you saying that your version must be accepted unquestioningly and without demur? That is you are allowed to state your opinion and there can be no other. More pertinently, if you are placing it here are you not inviting debate? It sounds to me like you simply wish to determine the debate, which is pretty much the same thing you are accusing me of no? I understand that you take pleasure in uncritical reading and accepting as wrote. So do I. The enjoyment of Harry Potter is very great for me as well. However there's more to any book than the mere contents. As I said then, there is the organization of the book, its place and relationship to other works, the internal consistency of the book, and the moral, ethical or philosophical prefigurings of it, as well as the very important paradigmatic and protoypical tropes within it relating to the real world. No book is divorced from reality and step by step you have been making moral judgements and real-life conclusions from the work. They have made certain thoughts in your mind which have influenced you, and therefore these are legitimate questions for discussion. A book is therefore not a simple thing. That this may not be what you want in a book is your choice, but endless recapitulation and repetition is boring. If Rowling did not write a book to make paradigms and models, questions and formats for debate, what did she do it for? Purely to make money? I think not. Nor can you deny that the enormous popularity of the book and the large amount of money it made has made manifest that it appeals to something more than mere momentary enjoyment- that people have found deeper and more lasting things in the book that are not so simple as "Fred is Cool" or "Snape is hot." Geoff: "There is no reason why you or I or anyone else can imagine a result without trying to impose our view on others with the implication that non-acceptance is indicative of a lack of understanding, either in a literary sense or otherwise." Otto: So you are saying that we must accept your opinion uncritically and without demur? That is, that list is here merely for your own pleasure? Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Fri Dec 16 20:03:52 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:03:52 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191522 Dear Geoff Look, I sympathize and empathize, but you've worked yourself into an indefensible position. You're like the guy who wants to celebrate the German Armed Forces in World War Two- to lionize them you have to lionize Hitler and the Nazi mission. All of their (German non-Nazi Armed forces members) virtues and glories were done for a morally evil cause that they knew was morally evil. To defend and praise Slytherin you have to praise and defend Voldemort. It's a package deal. All this talk about before or after doesn't cut it. The fact is that Slytherin supported them, and they KNEW what they were supporting, and they wanted it. The Death eaters are simply the SS in the mix. The reign of the Slytherin Inquisition simply demonstrated what was in their hearts. The only way out is to simply blame it all on Voldemort and emphasize the absolute terror that he held all of Slytherin in. That is,-- that they were the subject of absolute mind-numbing, bowel-evacuating terror, breakdown inducing terror, (which is going to be tough going because Rowling doesn't give you much to go on.) Slytherin in the text of Harry Potter IS Voldemort. You can go on about all these other possibilities and no matter what you hypothesize I can always nail you to the wall with Voldemort and his intimate connection to Slytherin. The only way out is to say "Yup we did it, it's all true, and that's just the stuff you KNEW about! There was lots more. Far Far worse he had us do. We were all deluded completely and could only see it after the fact. Once the spell of Hitlemort was broken we could see we wuz wrong and we won't do it again...honest... oh wait-- we tried this dodge once before didn't we. " Otto From margdean56 at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 21:02:25 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:02:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191523 On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:50 AM, wrote: >. You cannot go back and undo the past. Even God can't do that. Oh really? How would you know? --Margaret Dean From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 16 21:21:59 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:21:59 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2B29093782A34EC8A9FA155B5D05F4DB@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191524 Hi Otto I actually did things the wrong way around, I watched 6 of the films before I started reading the books, so at first I was influenced by the actors. However, the more I read the books, the more I got images of the people JKR invented. I've almost finished book 7 now (on chapter 36) but haven't yet seen HP7 part 2. I think Harry was the reason why I started to make a mental difference between films and books. I seem to remember Radcliff couldn't wear contacts, by why on earth didn't they dye his hair!! I'll list the difference between the films and what I imagine from the list before. Film Harry Meant to have black scruffy hair, like my nephew who has a double crown. Also meant to have startlingly green eyes, which would, IMO, make a big difference to his facial appearance. His build seems right though, as does his hight in the later films. To Police - White male. Medium hight and skinny build. Black scruffy hair with bright green eyes and wearing round glasses. Film Ron Hair colour's not bad, described as flame red, so perhaps a little brighter. Supposed to be freckly, which isn't obvious in the films. Height is the major difference here, he's just too short compared to Harry! To Police - White male. Tall with slight build. Bright red shortish hair, blue eyes and freckles. Film Snape - drools at Rickman's voice Needs to be a few inches taller and much thinner. Voice is spot on, soft and silky (drools) and oh so dangerous when needed! Hair is wrong, it doesn't seem to 'curtain' his face, although they alter it on almost every film! Still not got it right IMO! To Police - White male. Very tall, slight and pale. Black straight shoulder length hair and black eyes. Wearing all black clothes. Looks dangerous! Film Krum Not bad. As the character is only in 2 books there wasn't a lot of description to go on. Although he does look a bit too 'polished' to be a Quidditch player, and what about they eyebrows! To Police - White male, looks like he's had previous injuries, black busy eyebrows. Film Neville Hard to say, but to me he's quite well portrayed. Neville never really got that good a description, other than being forgetful and 'round faced' to begin with, and that seemed to fit the actor. To Police - White male. Forgetful, carries plants around. Film Draco Again quite good portrayal. Eyes wrong though. To me they are too warm and 'cute' looking. Length of hair never mentioned, but I can't see Draco with a ponytail or very short, somewhere in between. To Police - White male. Tall and slight build. Very light blond shortish hair. Pointed face and grey eyes. Wearing expensive clothing and a snobbish expression. Film Cedric Not really described in the books, just a few fleeting mentions and the film version isn't bad. I didnt' take much noticed TBH, he's only in 1 book and 1 film! To Police - White male. Film Sirius Needs to be taller and more skeletal looking. I don't see the hint of handsomeness that should be there, but that could just be my preference. To Police - White male. Tall and unnaturally thin with black hair. Has a weird barking laugh. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 16 21:23:28 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:23:28 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E9AE31EF09F41FA91A9A4E675AECF92@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191525 >. You cannot go back and undo the past. Even God can't do that. Erm ... timeturners! Sorry, couldn't resist! Liz From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Dec 16 22:04:18 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:04:18 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Geoff: > > "I'm not sure whether to feel privileged or concerned that you are in violent agreement > > with me. I have had people violently DISagree with me in the past but never the opposite .." > Otto: > My Response" It's an illustrative flourish. Are you saying that you cannot conceive of an agreement on > one issue and disagreement on others? That two people cannot find intermittent agreement? Geoff (later): You obviously don't recognise a little gentle irony. In standard UK English, you just don't "violently" agree. "Strongly" agree, yes, but "violently" is the wrong adjective in this context.. Geoff: > > "I presume that you must prepare a lot offline unless you can type very > > quickly judging by the time and date on each one. Otto: > Naaah-- I do this all extemporaneously- and I type about 54 words a minute. > I'm a touch typist. Geoff (later): Presumably you are also a touch thinker. To be able to turn out this post like this with your reply and then post your next reply in two minutes is quite some achievement. Geoff: > > "I do also wonder whether you read the posting rules, as you were required to, > > particularly: Welcome to Harry Potter for Grownups, a friendly, thought-provoking > > place for adult discussions of the HP books and also: HPforGrownups (the "Main > > List") is for discussion of the HP books (i.e., the 'canon') > Otto: > I did, are you saying that I have violated these precepts? Please state how? > > Geoff: > > "In your long discussions on Main, several of your posts have been more suited to HPFGU-Off Topic > > chatter because they have drifted away from canon. One post I certainly recall (191479) was about > > snakes as symbols of evil and, interesting as it may be, contained no canon reference at all and > > several have drifted off-topic in your analyses of the books. Otto: > My response: So are you saying that we can only discuss the internals of the books? That is what is > written and are not able to place the books within the literary mainstream? Or discuss the tropes and > configurations, organizations, and differences and similarities with other works and other situations, or > for that matter the logic and overarching themes of the works at all within a literary context. My > goodness, even Biblical Fundamentalists don't demand that! > Are you saying that ONLY Harry Potter and specifically simple recapitulation is possible? Geoff (later): Certainly not. But in discussion of canon, we need to link what we are talking about to HP. The post I quoted does not appear to have relevance to the story. there is not even a nod in the direction of either the book or the author. Geoff: > > "But to return to the topic of "the gap" between 1998 and 2017 when we have little or > > no knowledge of what happened. I do not think that we are venturing into the world of > > "What if" but making sensible guesses. > Otto: > Agreed, provided you preface it with that it is only your opinion and in no way illustrative, > representative or prognosticating the truth. > I said as much in a recent post on the possibility of a transformative moment for Draco. Geoff (later): I said as much. Geoff: > > "I have to admit that I have always had a soft spot for Draco because I believe that > > he grew up in an environment which channeled and distorted his view of the world > > and have always wished for a rapprochement between him and Harry; I am allowed > > to imagine that because it does not disagree with anything that J.K. Rowling > > has said ? or not said. Otto: > My response. Of course you do, you are entitled to your own opinions-- or fantasies, but that does not make them right. Geoff: > > "That is my view. Disagree if you wish but please > > do not dictate to me that I MUST accept your version. Otto: > I do not, insist, but are you saying that your version must be accepted unquestioningly and > without demur? That is you are allowed to state your opinion and there can be no other. More > pertinently, if you are placing it here are you not inviting debate? Geoff (later): No more than you by your persistent belittling of anything said by members of the group which is counter to your view and the patronising way in which you have addressed some answers to your post - and that doesn't include mine. Otto: > I understand that you take pleasure in uncritical reading and accepting as wrote. So do I. > The enjoyment of Harry Potter is very great for me as well. However there's more to any > book than the mere contents. As I said then, there is the organization of the book, its > place and relationship to other works, the internal consistency of the book, and the moral, > ethical or philosophical prefigurings of it, as well as the very important paradigmatic and > protoypical tropes within it relating to the real world. No book is divorced from reality and > step by step you have been making moral judgements and real-life conclusions from the > work. They have made certain thoughts in your mind which have influenced you, and > therefore these are legitimate questions for discussion. A book is therefore not a simple > thing. That this may not be what you want in a book is your choice, but endless recapitulation > and repetition is boring. If Rowling did not write a book to make paradigms and models, > questions and formats for debate, what did she do it for? Purely to make money? Geoff (later): You are introducing contradictory arguments here. On the one hand, you claim to enjoy reading for pleasure, for reading's sake. Yet, as a non-sequitur, you then lead off into your long discussion which suggests that you are doing anything but reading for enjoyment. To answer your last question, JKR has said that she did it initially for her own satisfaction, which I believe if you follow the history of the book's journey into publication. Do you really believe that the huge number of members of this group merely reiterate the same arguments? I have been a member of the group, as I said for many years, and I have been involved on many occasion in deep and lengthy exchanges of views. Before you criticise the group, spend a few hours away from your keyboard and trawl through the eleven years' worth of posts that are available via the archive. Some threads are obviously quite shallow and unimportant but there are many themes which have deepened the thoughts and understanding - and friendships - of contributors. Geoff: > > "There is no reason why you or I or anyone else can imagine a result without trying to > > impose our view on others with the implication that non-acceptance is indicative of a > > lack of understanding, either in a literary sense or otherwise." Otto: > So you are saying that we must accept your opinion uncritically and without demur? That > is, that list is here merely for your own pleasure? Geoff (later): Nope, but that is how some members of HPFGU see your attitude, swamping the list and batting away any counter-argument which they put forward. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Dec 16 22:06:36 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:06:36 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: > Look, I sympathize and empathize, but you've worked yourself into an indefensible position. Geoff: You've got me puzzled over this reply. Go which of my posts are you replying? From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 16 23:10:49 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:10:49 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191528 > Dear Pippin > > You say "Yellowish fabric needn't be dirty -- cheap cotton discolors with age and exposure to sunlight on the clothesline." > > OH STOP!!! Even Lily told him to wash his underwear sometimes! This was after Harry's father and Sirius had been tormenting him. It was in the memory that Harry Saw. How long are you going to deny what is fact. It wasn't yellowish, it was GRAY! And Snape still apparently had not discovered Shampoo by adulthood-- or for that matter a charm to clean hair. > Pippin: Argh! You are right and I apologize -- that's what happens when I decide I'm too busy to check the books before posting a theory. Serve me right. Dirty blood vs dirty underwear, nyah, nyah, nyah. Not one of the great moments in Hogwarts intellectual discourse. But Lily's sneer is no more a fact than Snape's was -- they're both expressing an opinion. Pippin Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 23:27:01 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:27:01 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191529 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear Steve > > But then how do you then affirm the legitimacy of the "sorting hat?" ... > Steve: Once again, you are taking it a step too far. Whether one follows a given mythology is independent of whether one has those mythological characteristics. Take Neville, sorted into Gryffindor, and yet he is convinced he is the least brave of anyone he knows. But, in time he grows to believe the Gryffindor myth, and adopts bravery in himself. Keep in mind, if Neville had never been tested, he would have spent his life assuming the Sorting Hat made a mistake. So, two things are happening. Yes, the Sorting Hat sees bravery in Neville, but remember the Hat also saw bravery in Peter Pettigrew. Did that bravery ever manifest itself, even though the opportunity was given? No, not in conventional ways. But in Neville the bravery seen by the Hat does manifest itself. So, the existance of a characteristic, is independent of whether that characteristic is re-enforced and fostered by the myths and legends, or whether it ever truly appears. By following the myths properly, and not so brave person can be made braver, and a unknowingly brave person can bring his bravery out. But whether you buy into the myth is very different than whether the characteristic portrayed in the myth is present in you or not. Neville was able to prove his bravery because circumstances presented themselves in a way that forced him. Peter Pettigrew was presented with the same circumstances and his bravery failed him. Without the test of circumstances, one Gryffindor might portray himself as brave in his own myth, yet, never have to prove it. It is possible, despite seeing himself as brave, when the cards are down, he would fold. My point is, buying into and living the myth is independent of whether you have the characteristic portrayed in the myth. That is, what the Sorting Hat does or does not see, is no guarantee that that characteristic will have a chance to present itself in a positive way. And again, I'm not using the term Myth and Mythology to mean fanciful stories you tell children at bed time. The myth I speak of, in the context I am speaking of them, may very well be historically true. There is nothing false about the way mythology shapes us, or fails to shape us. > ... > > OK, but so what! That's true of any institution, any class any idea or ideal. The problem is the individual action corresponding to the institutional "myth" as you call it. > Steve continues: I'm making a comment relative to your reference of Clone Soldier who are endlessly and unfailingly obedient relative to Hufflepuff. Endlessly and unfailingly obedient is not a good thing. Even among the most obedient soldier, he/she must be able to set aside obedience in the name of moral right. "I was just following orders" is no defense when it comes to war crimes. This is relevant because I see it happening in Slytherin, they have become caught up in their own twisted version of their mythology that they are willing to do unconscionable things. But, beyond a certain point, some Slytherins allow the concept of moral right to override their ingrained mythology, and in the end, make the right decision. > You say "There is nothing wrong with the basic characteristics of Slytherin. They are positive and productive archetypes in all societies." > > Please enumerate the positive basic characteristics. Please remember you will be speaking here of absolutes .... > Steve Continues: Slytherins are Cunning, Resourceful, and Ambitious, these are characteristics the world needs. Slytherin tend to be business men and entrepreneurs, and further tend to be successful, though certainly not down to the last man. Along with cunning, resourcefulness, and ambition, you need to be intelligent too. Crabbe and Goyle would not do well without help, no matter how cunning they are. > > ... > > > You say "The characteristics of each House represent the mythology of that House. ... These are the stories that shape the people who hear them. But these are also the stories that can be twist to bad ends. ... the question is can you see the larger overriding legend in each set of myths, ... when the greater moral good calls for it?" > > Be careful here! You are undermining your own argument. I could easily argue that Slytherin when the times got tough simply bugged out which proves the lack of positive attributes. ... > Steve continues: I don't think so. We see two examples in the books who did not see themselves as brave despite being sorted into Gryffindor. When the chips were down, Neville who saw himself as a coward, acquitted himself with distinction. He displayed morally courageous bravery. Peter Pettigrew, who also did not see himself as brave, when the chips were down, responded with cowardly bravery. He chose selfish bravery, but his actions did require a type of courage, just not a very morally sound type of courage. Neville believed the myths and was determined to live up to them. Peter did not believe the myths, and was determined that he could not live up to them. As to Slytherin, though JKR did not make it clear in the books, much to everyone's disappointment, she did say that Slytherins returned to fight against Voldemort. SOME of the Slytherins who left were simply playing their cards close to the chest. They were protecting themselves by choosing the most advantageous time and place to fight. Unlike Gryffindor who tends to go charging in, Slytherins are play a more subtle game, and as mentioned choosing the time and place in which to fight that gives them the strongest advantage on many diverse fronts. Yet, is seems that fight they did. Though again, not to the last man. Slytherin are playing a game of strategy, Gryffindor are playing a game of charge in and damn the consequences, which looks really cool when it works, but tends to get a lot of people killed. Are Slytherin playing the odds, and shifting the game to their best advantage, certainly they are, but none the less, they saw the writing on the wall, and fought against Voldemort. I've always said that there must have been some Slytherins who saw Voldemort as a total economic disaster. If you wanted to get rich in the wizard world, then unless you were among the elite, that was not going to be easy. So, I assume many were against Voldemort because with Voldemort in charge, it would have been an economic disaster, especially if Voldemort tried to expand his empire beyond the UK. Perpetual war and economic ruin; not the best circumstances for an ambitious Slytherin. Some Slytherins might make selfish choices, but that doesn't mean those choices can't also be morally right. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 16 23:35:54 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:35:54 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191530 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > .... > > You are continuing to be an apologist for the actions of Slytherin and all I have to do is simply assert the facts as Rowling has stated them. In the canon of Harry Potter, unfortunately- Rowling writing is law. > > I fear we must agree to disagree. > > > Otto > Steve: Actually I'm not defending the actions of Slytherins, I am defending the Characteristics of Slytherin House. Some Slytherins acted morally, some Slytherins acted immorally. Some may have had terribly selfish reasons for making morally sound decisions, and some Slytherins may have had seemingly good reasons for doing morally wrong things. Most people do not see their actions as morally wrong. Though I hate to invoke the name, Hitler assumed he was doing the right thing. He had some logic, twisted as it may be, to justify his actions. He felt he was right, but the world he tried to oppress and suppress didn't agree. It is easy to think you are right when you are the oppressor, but not so easy to believe that when you are the oppressed. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 00:30:14 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:30:14 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191531 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear List > > Now-- one of the interesting possibilities for a "What If" would be to consider the personality of Draco Malfoy Nineteen years later. We do not get that, and one cannot really write much on it without couching it in speculation. However such speculation must reserve itself totally to the unwritten and the future. You cannot go back and undo the past. Even God can't do that. > > We have a character here, Draco, who has gone through several "transformative events." Many of which we have enumerated and the greatest of which is of course the collapse of Voldemort and his circle. ... > > > Otto > Steve: Ah... Otto, we both know you are not going to like my answer because it touches back on a previous, though recent, discussion we've had. It has to do with twisted Mythology. Draco is living out the twisted mythology of Slytherin the man and Slytherin House. His version of it is twisted by his own sense of wealth, rank, privilege, and superiority. But, this is an easy mythology for Draco to try and live out because it is a school boy's version of that mythology. It is like when kids pick up stick on the ground and begin play cowboys and Indians, or cops and robbers. They are playing out a fantasy of a stock mythology. That is what Draco starts by doing, knowing he is insulated by his father's power and wealth, he has not problem being a snarky ass, and playing schoolboy bully, humiliating his classmates. In his mind, at the time, that's what it means to be Slytherin, to be superior to others. But the first and greatest transformation comes in Draco after the fight at the Ministry of Magic in which is all powerful father is arrested. Draco assumes he can step in and comfortably play the Slytherin, nor Voldemort, game. In that moment, his version of the myth comes crashing down on him, and he is engulf in the cold dank mist of reality. From that point on, it is no longer about schoolboy pranks and schoolyard bullying. As Draco gets pulled in deeper and deeper, he becomes more unwilling to play the game. Yet, he is in so deep he simply can't change sides or walk away. He is now trapped in a nightmarish version of his own twisted mythology. In the beginning, he eagerly played the Slytherin game, but when the game becomes reality, hard cold deadly cruel reality, he is no longer willing to play, but is none the less compelled to do so. I think the next transition came when Draco was given the opportunity to identify Harry, when Harry was brought to Malfoy Manor. He did his best to remain non-committal, to avoid doing the terrible thing he was being compelled to do. Still he is trapped. In the battle of Hogwarts, we see the Draco is still trying to redeem his mythology. He is willing to capture Harry and give him over to Voldemort. But only as an act of desperation, an act of self-preservation. In his friends Grabbe and Goyle, he sees that he and his family have lost their respect. They no longer bow to him. That had to be a blow, that had to send the message that is position of privilege was hanging by the most fragile of threads, and always had been. Then Harry does the unforgivable thing, he selflessly saves Draco's life, when he would have been completely justified in abandoning Draco to his death. How could Draco fight on after that? Who would he even fight against? Yes, Draco when through many transformations, each crushing the false version of his own mythology even harder. But the biggest was when the transformed from insignificant school yard bully to being a full fledged Death Eater. Then the harsh realities of his fantasy life fell on him like a ton of bricks. In that moment, he realized just what he had previously only pretended to stand for. I think in the end, we see Draco and his parents huddling in the corner clinging to each other, uncertain as to where they stood in the new world order. Given all that had gone down, they could no longer fall back on their sense of privilege and entitlement, and without that they were completely lost. I think that was the second transformation; Draco in defeat, with no swagger or power or wealth to fall back on. Completely stripped bare and vulnerable. I think in that moment Draco, and likely his parent took on a HUGE dose oh humility. I think once Draco became a Death Eater and reality crashed down on him, he because a reluctant Death Eater desperate for some way out. And the deeper he was pulled into this world, the more desperately he wanted out ... but HOW? And that was the dilemma, his family was so deeply entrenched that all exists were blocked. On the tower, Dumbledore had given Draco a way out, and probably the best option possible, yet, fate intervened and he was never able to accept it. Another trans-formative point, to know he was so close to being out, yet the opportunity slipped away. In all honesty, I think once Draco became a Death Eater and was tasked with killing Dumbledore, Draco became a broken man, all the cords that held him to his mythology snapped, and from that point on we was simply at the mercy of the tides of fate. But then, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Dec 17 01:06:13 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:06:13 -0000 Subject: The House System was Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191532 > Geoff: > "I do also wonder whether you read the posting rules, as you were required to, particularly: Welcome to Harry Potter for Grownups, a friendly, thought-provoking place for adult discussions of the HP books??? and also: HPforGrownups (the "Main List") is for discussion of the HP books (i.e., the 'canon')??? > > Otto: > I did, are you saying that I have violated these precepts? Please state how? Potioncat: First, I'd like to say "Welcome to our group. We take a little getting used to sometimes. We do have our guidelines and rules and a sort of nerdy culture of our own. We have scared folks off before---unintentionally. So please take time to learn our ways and join in the fun. We like to discuss, debate, argue--but with respect for each other. I've been merrily disagreeing with fellow members for years. Mainly, if an idea can be supported with canon it is fair game, and if it cannot it is canon fodder. But there is room for interpretation--sometimes two people do not read the same paragraph the same way. For many years we were discussing the books while we eagerly awaited the next in line--so speculation was wild--but always canon supported. There's no more speculation--but there is a drive to understand and ferret out details. Again, canon supported. And that's why you'll see that sort of post showing up. Please continue to write your future posts similar to this one, leaving enough of the post you are responding to so that all readers can better follow the conversation. > > Geoff: snip It is just as well that you did not > join about a year or so ago when there was a posting limit of five > per day which was rescinded because of low numbers. Potioncat: The rule was rescinded! When? No one told me! Why didn't anyone.... never mind,....I "know" why no one told me. From ddankanyin at cox.net Sat Dec 17 05:40:17 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:40:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nineteen years later References: Message-ID: <34DF3DE6550C4BE98B5F2F7D306BC120@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191533 From: Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:50 AM > > So I am prepared to accept a reformed Draco as a possibility. > > But it is not certain. > > > Otto, I don't know if Draco Malfoy totally reformed, but from the nod at the train station I'd say he's still a bit embarassed by his behavior and the destruction of all he once believed in. Maybe he still believes pure blood is superior, but I think he's grown past all that. Of course, it's only my opinion. Think peace, Dorothy From ddankanyin at cox.net Sat Dec 17 05:46:00 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:46:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Hunks References: <2B29093782A34EC8A9FA155B5D05F4DB@TrekyPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191534 From: "Liz Clark" Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 4:21 PM > Film Krum > Not bad. As the character is only in 2 books there wasn't a lot of > description to go on. Although he does look a bit too 'polished' to be a > Quidditch player, and what about they eyebrows! > To Police - White male, looks like he's had previous injuries, black busy > eyebrows. Liz, Krum in the book was supposed to be scowly (?), duck footed and hunched over. Krum in the movie was nice looking, walked proudly and looked a bit too sturdy to be who he was supposed to be. Again, it's just how I read the character against the actor. Think peace, Dorothy From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sat Dec 17 13:16:30 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:16:30 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: References: <2B29093782A34EC8A9FA155B5D05F4DB@TrekyPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191535 > Liz, > Krum in the book was supposed to be scowly (?), duck footed and hunched > over. Krum in the movie was nice looking, walked proudly and looked a bit > too sturdy to be who he was supposed to be. Again, it's just how I read > the > character against the actor. > Think peace, > Dorothy I knew I should have researched that one a bit better! Serves me right for answering without looking at either the film or the book! Liz From bart at moosewise.com Sat Dec 17 18:32:45 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:32:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EECE04D.8040601@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191536 On 12/16/2011 4:02 PM, Margaret Dean wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:50 AM, wrote: > >> . You cannot go back and undo the past. Even God can't do that. > Oh really? How would you know? Bart: God may be able to do that, but if an author puts God in a machine, that's cheating the reader, unless well foreshadowed or done with ironic intent. Which neatly outlines the problems inherent in the climax of POA. And the problems in writing about a magic based world; one pushes away the inherent self-contradiction with the explanation, "magic". The late Dr. Isaac Asimov invented a subgenre of science fiction called "science fiction mystery", by showing how the problem of "anything can happen" can be solved by clearly outlining the internal rules of what technology can and cannot do within the confines of the story, without detracting from the readability of the story. Rowling owes a lot to him in the Harry Potter novels, but still, Rowling had to watch out for the trap of using magic as a deux ex machina, although she may have stepped over the line with the Time Turner in POA. Bart From bart at moosewise.com Sat Dec 17 19:00:37 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:00:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: <34DF3DE6550C4BE98B5F2F7D306BC120@DG22FG61> References: <34DF3DE6550C4BE98B5F2F7D306BC120@DG22FG61> Message-ID: <4EECE6D5.4040508@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191537 On 12/17/2011 12:40 AM, dorothy dankanyin wrote: > I don't know if Draco Malfoy totally reformed, but from the nod at the > train station I'd say he's still a bit embarassed by his behavior and > the destruction of all he once believed in. Maybe he still believes > pure blood is superior, but I think he's grown past all that. Of > course, it's only my opinion. Bart: My take is that, after the smoke had cleared, there was enough chaos around, and Morty HAD been in charge, after all, to only punish the worst of his supporters, noting that if all guilty parties were sent to Azkaban, there wouldn't be enough people left in the WW to keep it together (previous discussions left a good estimate of the total number of wizards/witches in Britain to only a few thousand). As Draco, although in the inner circle, was acting partially under duress, and also was never more than an accessory, I think it's reasonable to assume that he got off with no prison time. On the one hand, he and Harry were at odds for most of their youth, but, on the other hand, Harry had saved his life, and turned out to be right in the long run. Therefore, while they would never be friends, they could at least be nodding acquaintances, with Draco somewhat humbled by his experiences, and it not be in Harry's personality to lord it over him. Bart From juli17 at aol.com Sat Dec 17 23:07:13 2011 From: juli17 at aol.com (jules) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:07:13 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191538 > > If you were a woman which of the following would you most want to go out with? I am a woman :) So... > > 1. Harry Potter I like Harry, but he isn't much of a thinker or conversationalist. And he's way too into Quidditch. > 2. Ron Weasley Ditto on Ron. Though he did grow up some in DH, he is still too much of a boy, even as a man. > 3. Severus Snape I love Snape as a character, he has heaps of wit and intelligence, but date him?! He's far too bitter, too unkind, too obsessed with the past. In a word, damaged. > 4. Krum (the Bulgarian Quidditch player) I don't do dour and uncommunicative. > 5. Neville Longbottom A steady, loyal guy, though a little too low key for me. > 6. Draco Malfoy Way too full of himself. And I never date guys who dress better than me ;) > 7. Cedric Diggory Another good guy, but a little too "perfect". How could a girl ever measure up? > 8. Sirius Black (when he was alive). Fun to be around no doubt, if you are not the butt of his nasty pranks. But too immature, and like Snape, far too damaged. > > Her list, not mine. > > Otto > Gotcha. But since I wouldn't date any of the above, I have to add the one I would most likely date. And the winner is... Bill Weasley. Smart, talented, kind, witty, AND he wears a cool earring! I know Fleur eventually got her hooks into him, but if I'd gotten there first... ;) Julie From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 18 17:55:52 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 18 Dec 2011 17:55:52 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/18/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1324230952.8.81345.m7@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191539 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 18, 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 natti_shafer at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 23:21:11 2011 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:21:11 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Treachery ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191540 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > JKR is expert at making the Slytherins look bad, when on closer examination it would have been impossible for them to make what looks like the obvious good choice. > > Joining the DA, for example. > > No Slytherin banners in the Room of Requirement. But how could there be, when Hermione had made sure that those who attended the original meeting couldn't tell anyone else what they were doing? Neville can write "Join Dumbledore's Army" on the walls, but if he actually tells anyone how to do it, he'll have "SNEAK" written on his face. > > It looks as if the Slytherins excluded themselves, when actually others had chosen to exclude them first. > Pippin Nathaniel: I'm going to disagree slightly here. Other members could have invited Slytherins to join Dumbledore's Army, but they chose not to because they didn't trust any of them enough. The last meeting of DA included Seamus attending for the first time, who was brought by Dean. Dean does not have "SNEAK" written on his face. It seems the Hermione's hex allows for discussion of DA; the SNEAK hex kicks in when someone's intent is to snitch on the group. It's possible that there are Slytherins who would have been trustworthy, but no one in DA was willing to vouch for anyone. That's not to say that I think all Slytherins are bad or evil. DA was a clandestine organization formed with the intent of undermining Umbridge's leadership. They also chose Harry, Slytherin hater #1, as their leader. A neutral observer could understandably be confused about what happened to Cedric Diggory. With all of that in mind, it's no wonder that no one trusted a Slytherin to join DA. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Dec 18 23:22:09 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:22:09 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191541 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) GOBLET OF FIRE CH. 6: The Portkey Potioncat is baking Christmas goodies in the kitchen while her family watches a movie in the living room. There is a loud "POP" and Alika Elf is standing in the middle of the kitchen. Alarmed Potioncat hisses, "Sh! What are you doing here? My family will hear you." "Alika Elf has Potioncat's GOF chapter assignment. "Oh, well. Give it to me and get out of here quick. My family thinks I've been cured of Pottermania." "Potioncat has "The Portkey." "But nothing happens in that chapter! The Weasleys squabble, Harry and some of the Weasleys climb a hill meet the Diggorys, grab an old boot and go to some silly Quidditch match." Alika Elf taps her foot, frowning., "Potioncat has The Portkey. Alika Elf is certain Potioncat will find something good in it." Then, to strengthen her argument, Alika Elf uses her magic to float a Christmas cake into the air toward the sounds of Potioncat's family. "Put it down. I'll do it! But the chapter doesn't have even a hint of Snape in it!" Alika Elf smiles, "See, Alika Elf knew Potioncat would find something good." The Portkey 1. Much of JKR's WW comes from folklore. What do you think inspired "Portkeys"? 2. We finally meet Cedric Diggory after hearing about him last year. What do you think of Cedric? What do you think of Mr. Diggory? How does your opinion change at the end of the book? 3. How would you compare Mr. Diggory and Mr. Weasley as fathers? 4. The Weasley family doesn't have a lot of extras--so how did they afford all these good tickets. Per canon, they didn't have cheap seats. 5. Is this chapter as simple as it looks? What is its purpose? 6. Your questions here ( Bonus points if you can think of a way to discuss Snape relative to this chapter.) Potioncat 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, Chapter 7 of Goblet of Fire coming up soon. 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 sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 19 13:14:17 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:14:17 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Treachery ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191542 Dear Pippin Your philibuster of quotations is irrelevant. Slughorns obvious defeatism coupled by the complete defection of Snape at the moment is only the cherry on the cake of a continuous record of Slytherin vileness, trachery, and brutality. The smack in the face to Slughorn to decide on the loyalty of his house is well deserved. He deserved it, he needed it. Note as it says on pg 602 (McGonnagal) "The time has come for Slytherin House to decide upon its loyalties. Go and wake your students Horace." And then I throw your own quote back at you. " If you wish to leave with your students, we shall not stop you. But if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance, or take up arms against us within this castle, then, Horace, we duel to kill." Note that Slughorn did not make any statement of defense, nor did he encourage his students to stay. The rest of your argument is mere prevarication. You cannot and will not EVER be able to get around the fact that that Slytherin table was EMPTY when they left. All the students were ordered to go, though the question was always open that students who were old enough (I assume only the 7th years students) could fight and beyond all had the choice, as almost half of Gryffindor did. You're blaming Slytherin's cravennees on others, which of course- is very Slytherin. Not one Slytherin broke ranks. Not one came over to the side of good. Not one of them fought. Not one is mentioned as standing with the other side. The division by school relies only partially on inherited or assumed beliefs and traits. As Harry and the rest have shown they all have choices. And Slytherin chose to take a powder. Pippin: Now, Minerva hasn't already decided that they're traitors. Their choices will show what they truly are. But it's not the same choice she stated before. Her words now exclude the possibility of Slytherins fighting for the school. There's no option stated of joining the defense. Otto: Her words exclude nothing. There was nothing to prevent Slughorn from tossing back at her the question of very that "And what, Professor if we choose to stay and fight for the school?" He did not. He did not ask. He meekly tucked his tail between his legs and slithered out. Sorry, Pippin, but "I vuss only followink ORDERS!" Hasn't worked since Nuremberg. Pippin: > The Slytherins get up and go, *as they've just been ordered to do* leaving their table empty. It looks bad, but what choice did they have? Otto: You can Ask H. Goring, H.Schacht, W.Keitel about this. They all had choices, many individual Hufflepuff Students, Ravenclaw Students, and Gryffindor students had choices and so did the Slytherin. Those who were brave and felt loyal could have sat down at another table, torn off the badges from their cloaks and sided with the right. But they didn't. Your argument is a tissue of excuses. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 19 13:48:45 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:48:45 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191543 Dear Steve Steve: Actually I'm not defending the actions of Slytherins, I am defending the Characteristics of Slytherin House. > > Some Slytherins acted morally, some Slytherins acted immorally. Some may have had terribly selfish reasons for making morally sound decisions, and some Slytherins may have had seemingly good reasons for doing morally wrong things. " Otto: Ah! Ok I can see a way out of the dilemma there. But your next statement is problematic. Steve: Most people do not see their actions as morally wrong. Though I hate to invoke the name, Hitler assumed he was doing the right thing. He had some logic, twisted as it may be, to justify his actions. He felt he was right, but the world he tried to oppress and suppress didn't agree. It is easy to think you are right when you are the oppressor, but not so easy to believe that when you are the oppressed. Otto: If you take the stated goals of Slytherin as " ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness." (from Wikipedia-- good enuf for now). Then yes, one can find positive values in these, just as you can find negative values in the dedication to duty, hard work, truthfullness of Hufflepuff, the nobility of Gryffindor and the worship of knowledge and learning in Ravenclaw. I could then completely agree with you that the goals of Slytherin "can be construed" in a positive manner. Thus there can be a value to ambition, cunning, leadership, and resourcefulness---- provided these traits are put to use in a good cause. That is, for some higher purpose beyond the ego of the self, which obviously lets out Voldemort, Hitler, and their followers. But again that goes to individual choices. That is the positing of the individual against the norm and the courage to be measured for ones self above ones "myth" to use your term. That's the essence of my present argument to Geoff and Pippin-- they can't excuse that not ONE Slytherin stayed and fought and decided to take their own destiny in their hands and disprove the bad opinion the other houses had of them. But that begs the question of what construction has been placed on the values (ambition, cunning, leadership and resourcefulness). If everyone around you defines them as entailing from these theoretical absolutes a certain code of action-- ambition as the positing of the self above all others, cunning as treachery -- leadership as tyrranical action to others-- resourcefulness as duplicity,ruthlessness, and cruelty) which in Harry Potter Slytherin seems to do, then you will interpret it one way. On the other hand the archetypes can be otherwise- ambition as desire to attain the unattainable goal or to do good, - cunning as placed in service to that goal but now embracing evil action-- leadership as in mobilizing other to the good-- and resourcefulness as in leacing no stone unturned." Then that is a different thing entirely. So yes I can agree with you on your idea of "myth" and I see (or hope I see) that what you are saying is that under bad leadership the goals of Slytherin went horribly wrong. I can grant that, but find it hard to see that there was not one who decided to break with the myth. That's still a problem. But on the other hand I can see your point, though I hope you see mine. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 19 14:02:08 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:02:08 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191544 Dear Steve Actually I hope that you are not dissappointed in that now that we have cleared out what you mean by mythology, I can agree in large part on your hypothesis. That is, that it is a plausable MIGHT BE. I don't need to go through most of your points because I can largely accept most of them as said, or with trifling caveats. I do wish to go to your last. Steve: In all honesty, I think once Draco became a Death Eater and was tasked with killing Dumbledore, Draco became a broken man, all the cords that held him to his mythology snapped, and from that point on we was simply at the mercy of the tides of fate. Otto: I find this point rather dramatic and shocking, but in a strange way compelling. The concept of "Draco as a Broken Man" at this point is intriguing and I will readily admit entirely plausible. Indeed, one MUST see Draco as always human, which his family are as well, and therefore in no way insulated to the mental and philosophical disorientations any human has. I also found the picture Rowling gives us of the Malfoys sitting alone huddled to each other in the "hall of their captors" as compelling and sympathetic as well. Certainly I would agree all scales (no pun intended) should have fallen from all their eyes when Voldemort threatens reprisals against their family (Death to any of them for failure). It is sad that Rowling clips off the story so soon after the Victory at Hogwards. But then there would not be tantalizing speculation. OK, I buy your point on Draco and to an extent all of Slytherin, simply because we have so many examples from real life of these sorts of transformative moments. Hmmm... Draco as a figure of pathos?! Odd, surprising, but it can work. There is one final caveat. No one can live without myth. Here we are speaking more of my "basic assumpitions" as opposed to your "myth." If a person has his "myth" or "basic assumptions" crushed. He will devise a new one. What this is and will be is anyone's guess and it can be anything. We all know people who have given up the life of a corporate raider to join a monastary or become a hermit etc. I do however think that one big transformative event in a persons life is having children and it would be interesting to see Draco after that. Of course-- you realize you have hypothesized into Draco that most un Voldemortian thing-- a conscience. Otto From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 20:02:26 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:02:26 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191545 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > ... > > I can grant that, but find it hard to see that there was not one (Slytherin) who decided to break with the myth. That's still a problem. But on the other hand I can see your point, though I hope you see mine. > > Otto > Steve: I think we too are caught up in some aspect of the Slytherin myth. Our view of Slytherin comes from Harry, and his view of Slytherin come primarily through Draco. Yes, Draco and his friends bully Harry, but how many other Slytherins do not. If we assume for purposes of illustration that there are about 100 Slytherins currently in school, then maybe 5 or a bit more are actually engage in harassing Harry. The rest are on-lookers. No they don't try to stop Draco and friends, but that is pretty common in school. Most kids are far far far more likely to stand-by rather than stand-up. Next, outside of school, how many Slytherins do we see. We see Slughorn, who seems to have a bit of an ego, but is otherwise benign. We see the Death Eaters but we would reasonably expect them to be bad. Yet of the total number of Slytherin in the wizard world, how many are full fledged Death Eaters. As to the great numbers that seem to come over to the DE side, how many are there because of coercion? How many are there because of intimidation? And more importantly, how many have simply fell for the 'party line'. Hitler, or even various political parties, have rhetoric. They rally the people to believe one thing with rationalized but logical sounding argument. Then of course, you need an enemy to rally against. Hitler rallied people against the Jew, and people enthusiastically believe his rhetoric. He presented ridiculous lies in a way that they could be believed. He won seemingly rational people over to a completely irrational and illogical side. I would suspect after the war, many Germans were baffled by how they were able to believe the most irrational and unbelievable things. The DE/Voldie do the same. They employ the standard propaganda tactics. First, you make people believe they are some how downtrodden and oppressed. Then you make them believe they are superior to everyone else, but outside forces are holding them down. Then you find an enemy, you demonized the outside forces, and rally the people against them. So, on this last point, once you convince people they are somehow oppressed, it is not that hard to convince them to blame that oppression on a perceived enemy. For Hitler it was the Jews. For the DE, it is the pureblood mania. Mixed mudbloods are ruining the world for the noble pure bloods. Conclusion; yes I'm sure there were some people who supported Voldemort because the fell for the propaganda. But, the 'party line' rarely plays out in real life. Far more than the reason for any given action, it becomes the excuse. The current USA Congress has all but abandon the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and justify it by claiming they are at war against terrorism. Now, I don't want to start a political side-discussion, simply illustrating that the current world governments are continuing to use the same tactics to rally the people to their side, the same tactics that Hitler and Voldemort used, and equally to an ultimately bad end. But, just as nearly every one fell for the party line, I'm sure there were a few who didn't. Many of us were very disappointed that JRK didn't make more of a point of mentioning Slytherins who returned for the final battle with Slughorn. We very much wanted some degree of redemption of Slytherin. She did say in a later interview that, yes, there were Slytherins among those who returned to fight against Voldemort. I just wish she had made that clearer in the books. As others have pointed out, Slytherins weren't really given the option to stay. But, apparently some did return to fight against Voldemort. Again, I wish that had been more clear in the books, but we work with what we have. Steve/bboyminn From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 19 14:14:22 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:14:22 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: <4EECE04D.8040601@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191546 Dear Bart Bart: God may be able to do that, but if an author puts God in a machine, that's cheating the reader, unless well foreshadowed or done with ironic intent. Which neatly outlines the problems inherent in the climax of POA. And the problems in writing about a magic based world; one pushes away the inherent self-contradiction with the explanation, "magic". Otto: Excellent point, but not really a path we might want to go down as it threatens the necessity of the "suspension of disbelief." There are huge logical problems involved if we assume everything is "magicked." Why does Mrs. Weasley have to have the garden de-gnomed? Why do they even have to bother growing food? Why can't they just magic into existence whatever they wish. Likewise, why can't they "magic" their looks to whatever they wish to be. I thought about this a lot and basically put a lot of these questions (like the economy of Magic-land with their Doubloons, Knuts etc). How is money made? How is it exchanged? Who supports the Ministry of Magic? Are they taxes? Why? Perhaps the most troubling is the mentioned exchange of Muggle to Magic Money for the parents of Hermione. It's one of those nasty little details you just leave alone otherwise it blows up the whole thing. I think Rowling starts to wander off the rails a bit when she begins to make the magic world as a replacement for the real one, that is a complete alternate reality. I think the whole thing works a little better when the Magics live in and amongst the Muggles, and use Muggle technology and ways just like them. Do Magics vote? How do they get away not sending their kids to Muggle Schools? Is this all cleared with the Muggle Ministry of Education? By the way, as a fan of Asimov I remember his writings with fondness, but remember Asimov was never an easy read. He kept it as close to "science" as he could. Otto From poohmeg20 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 19:57:47 2011 From: poohmeg20 at yahoo.com (poohmeg20) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:57:47 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191547 > > > The Portkey > > 1. Much of JKR's WW comes from folklore. What do you think inspired "Portkeys"? > > Megan: That's a good question - I know there are other stories involving people being transported by touching magical objects, but I can't think of a specific example. > > > 2. We finally meet Cedric Diggory after hearing about him last year. What do > you think of Cedric? What do you think of Mr. Diggory? How does your opinion > change at the end of the book? > > Megan: I think I projected Mr. Diggory's attitude onto Cedric at first and thought he was kind of arrogant - but my opinion of him definitely improved through the book. I think Mr. Diggory struck me kind of like some people I know who were older when they had their kids, so they had more time to get involved with them and therefore take their accomplishments (and failures) more personally. I don't think my opinion on him changed much. > > > 3. How would you compare Mr. Diggory and Mr. Weasley as fathers? > > > Megan: I think they both love their kids very much, but they are I'm very different situations with their families, finances, careers, etc. > > 4. The Weasley family doesn't have a lot of extras--so how did they afford all > these good tickets. Per canon, they didn't have cheap seats. > > Megan: You know, I had always assumed that Mr. Weasley got them through work, but I'm not sure where I picked that up. That would probably be the most likely source, though. > > > 5. Is this chapter as simple as it looks? What is its purpose? > > Megan: I think the chapter is simple but important - it introduces port keys, the Diggorys, and the World Cup atmosphere. > > > > 6. Your questions here ( Bonus points if you can think of a way to discuss Snape > relative to this chapter.) > Megan: Um...Do you think Snape was at the World Cup? :) From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 19 20:34:00 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:34:00 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191548 Dear Steve I dunno about that. Others saw the bullying and thought as Harry, and others WERE bullied (Ron Hermione) and therefore it was personal. There was not one instance of a Slytherin prefect saying "Draco that's enough" and non-actions speak as loud as actions. Again I think the fact that the entirety of the three houses standing up and drawing their wands on Slytherin, ready to gun them down testifies that it's not only Harry's view of Slytherin-- it's EVERYONE'S view of Slytherin. I rather think that every Slytherin saw it as his first duty to pick on someone else. Each had their goat. And again we'll have to disagree. No one chained the Syltherins, Each one was free to take his side with the other houses. I think they had the opportunity and they simply were rooting for the other side. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 19 12:42:36 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:42:36 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: <2B29093782A34EC8A9FA155B5D05F4DB@TrekyPC> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191549 Dear Liz Umm... I was sort of joking with the police description but OK. The interesting thing here is your comments on what you see in your mind versus what you see on the screen, versus what Rowling wrote. Authors have to use descriptions to contrast in a sort of "shorthand" form what we are expected to make of them and their character. If they did not they would saddle us with long, long long, pages of narrative into the character. Of course- they can frequently make a character's outer appearance belie his inner nature (either way), perhaps the most famous examples being Shakespeare's Richard III who the author makes a deformed monster to show in exterior appearance a black soul within and on the contrawise, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, for a character that is a physical monster, but a kind soul within. This is far more difficult to do with real live actors for we have had few since the Great Lon Chaney who can transform themselves to a role at will. The other problem with real live actors is that they hope to have a career before and after a film, no matter how successful that film might have been. But thanks for the views. Otto ELF NOTE: Please make sure to bring posts back around to the topic of HP. Thanks. From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Dec 19 20:25:48 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:25:48 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191550 Dear List Now there's an interesting question. If you go by the few fleeting glimpses in the movies, it seems there are thousands, at least hundreds. However whenever we are "taken into a classroom" by Rowling in one of her scenes, how big can the classes be? We hear many times of Gryffindor taking classes with Slytherin (oddly rarely with Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw) Now, how big are the classrooms and hence, how many people in a "form" or year? We only hear of a handful of members of any class with dialogue and rarely beyond the main protagonists. I suppose magic could have an extending effect, but it would seem to be hard for an instructor to deal with more than 30 students at a time (just like our real teachers, (and remember Hogwarts teachers don't have a union) So if we assume there are 30 students max in a class, that means for the double classes where Slytherins take X with Gryffindor, that's 15 of any single house in a class (assuming equal divisions) that means that for the 7 years that's 105 or so per house, or about 400 students for the four houses. On the other hand if we assume that the REST of the class is doing something there are other problems. For example, we basically follow Ron, Hermione, and Harry through the whole show, but what about the other "year students" Assume there's 400 students total, with 100 in each house. Assume they have class sizes of 15, that means 400/15 or 26 classes per day have to be taught to keep everyone busy. Admittedly you can drop off a class for lunch and Quidditch practice, but that's still say 24 classes a day which if you assume hourly classes and 6 hours that's means 4 teachers must teach 6 classes a day. So we've got Snape, McGonagall, Flitwick, Sprout, and the guy they get to teach Dark arts. There's the ghost Binns, and later Trelawney and Firenze for divination. I'm sure I missed one or two, but you get the point. I wonder if everyone has to take the same classes? Now for the fun part. If we assume that Hogwarts matriculates pretty much everyone they take in (disregarding those students petrified, killed, transformed, driven mad, folded, stapled, spindled and mutilated) then we have to assume the replacements year to year equal the graduates or 1/7 of the total or 400/7 = 60 new students each year. Note that we never hear of someone getting expelled, or deciding that he'd rather be a CPA than a wizard, or going off to study pottery making from the Uke-Uke-Fiduke people in Bongo Congo) and so we can assume the population is pretty stable. So, if there are 60 new students each year drawn in from the ecumene of the Old Empire, (India, Kenya, Hong Kong etc) then that means that the English ecumene has 60 new children each year moving into the education system, which assuming they all survive to school hood (I realize a big assumption, but work with it for a moment), we have another problem. Contrary to popular opinion for there to be 0 population growth it does not mean that each couple can have only 2 children. They must have 2.43 children. The reason is simple- infant mortality is still a factor, accidental death, infertility, illness, voluntary celibacy, and a host of other factors intervene to carry off a lot of kids or at least render unreproducable through various situations. Plus, for the Magics, there are squibs produced to wizarding families, so let's just deal with big numbers. (Though remember wizarding kids are also born to muggle families). But on the other hand while Muggles deal with gangs, guns, and school violence, they do not come up with things which on a day to day basis will eat you so.... But let's assume that Hogwarts gets its 60 students each year, that means that new children are produced at at LEAST 60 a year to keep the classes filled, for each year 60 graduate, 60 are inducted etc. Now assuming wizarding females are no less fecund than humans, that means that the prime reproduction period for a wizarding female is 20 years (18 to 38) So that means in that 20 years times 60 (for the number of kids inducted into Hogwarts) there will be produced 1200 little wizards which divided by 2.4 means about 500 reproducing couples (regardless if they are married or just sow a lot of wild oats) or 1,000 wizards throughout the British Ecumene. I notice that there is also a School in France, a School in Northern Europe, and Parvati hints at wizarding schools elsewhere. (But apparently no wizarding schools in the United States, nor any transfer students from the US to Britain) so.... that may be an indication of the alleged population of wizards world-wide. Now with a thousand wizards scattered throughout England--it seems they are all working for the Ministry of Magic. So everyone in the wizarding world has a "government job" except for those in the trades in Hogsmead, and Diagon Ally and the other wizarding communities. But Wait a minute-- just from the people we've seen there's not enough wizards in this world to go around! But if the "Houses in Hogwarts" are much larger to allow for a greater number of wizards, then there has to be a lot more teachers to teach them, maybe 30 or 40.... Interesting. It's why you don't want to go down certain paths when you're dealing with magic. Otto From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Dec 19 21:47:24 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:47:24 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191551 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: > GOBLET OF FIRE CH. 6: The Portkey > 1. Much of JKR's WW comes from folklore. What do you think inspired "Portkeys"? My reaction is that Portkey and also Apparition seem to be distant cousins of transporting or teleportation as it has appeared on various sci-fi stories in the past. As a side issue, I am always surprised that the latter is so easy; I thought in the early books that it involved invoking a spell but Wilkie Twycross' explanation in HBP almost suggests that an intelligent young wizard could work it out without a training course. > 2. We finally meet Cedric Diggory after hearing about him last year. What do > you think of Cedric? What do you think of Mr. Diggory? How does your opinion > change at the end of the book. Seems to be a little too good to be true. But, by the end,. he and Harry have befriended each other and be good brothers-in-arms in the final Task although Harry seems to be the leader here. > 3. How would you compare Mr. Diggory and Mr. Weasley as fathers? Arthur seems to be very easygoing in many ways. He interacts easily with his children who, when not being organised by Molly, gives an impression of secretly wanting to join in with their activities - legal and nefarious! I've already written comments about Amos in other answers = including those with higher numbers... I don't always answer things n the correct order. > 4. The Weasley family doesn't have a lot of extras--so how did they afford all > these good tickets. Per canon, they didn't have cheap seats. Molly's letter to the Dursleys says: '...my husband, Arthur, has just managed to get prime tickets through his connections at the Department of Magical Games and Sports...' (GOF "The Invitation" p.32 UK edition) Suggests that Arthur may have asked for them as a favour in return for something he did. > 5. Is this chapter as simple as it looks? What is its purpose? Seems so. We meet new people, learn about Portkeys and Apparition and I think the chapter shows that Amos Diggory is a trifle obsessive about Cedric. His rather patronising remark about Harry falling off his broom made me dislike him when he first appeared as did Cedric who appeared to be given a rather squeaky clean image by JKR. > 6. Your questions here ( Bonus points if you can think of a way to discuss Snape > relative to this chapter.) > Geoff: > OK. You asked for it... hee, hee. > > 6. With your knowledge of Professor Snape's experience gained from refereeing > Quidditch matches, discuss the reasons why you think he has not joined the > group for the Quidditch World Cup final. > From natti_shafer at yahoo.com Mon Dec 19 22:01:04 2011 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:01:04 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > 4. The Weasley family doesn't have a lot of extras--so how did they afford all > > these good tickets. Per canon, they didn't have cheap seats. > Geoff: > Molly's letter to the Dursleys says: > '...my husband, Arthur, has just managed to get prime tickets through his connections at the Department of Magical Games and Sports...' > (GOF "The Invitation" p.32 UK edition) > > Suggests that Arthur may have asked for them as a favour in return for > something he did. Nathaniel: We have stronger canon than that: "'I like Ludo,' said Mr Weasley mildly. 'He was the one who got us such good tickets for the Cup. I did him a bit of a favour: his brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble ? a lawnmower with unnatural powers ? I smoothed the whole thing over.'" (GoF 5) From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Dec 19 22:06:19 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:06:19 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: > Now there's an interesting question. > > If you go by the few fleeting glimpses in the movies, it seems there are thousands, at least hundreds. However whenever we are "taken into a classroom" by Rowling in one of her scenes, how big can the classes be? We hear many times of Gryffindor taking classes with Slytherin (oddly rarely with Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw) Now, how big are the classrooms and hence, how many people in a "form" or year? We only hear of a handful of members of any class with dialogue and rarely beyond the main protagonists. > But if the "Houses in Hogwarts" are much larger to allow for a greater number of wizards, then there has to be a lot more teachers to teach them, maybe 30 or 40.... > > Interesting. > > It's why you don't want to go down certain paths when you're dealing with magic. Geoff: Steven van der Ark has an interesting essay in the Lexicon in which he produces evidence to support a Hogwarts of 300 but also points to some canon which could imply a much larger figure. So we probably can't reach a consensus on this. We can waste time and write reams about our theories with canon evidence which is only contradictory. The evidence is too vague. To be quite frank, I am prepared for my "willing suspension of disbelief" to let me drift over this point as I feel that there are many other things to discuss of more import than JKR's famed reputation of being numerically challenged when it comes to Maths. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Dec 19 22:15:08 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:15:08 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nathaniel" wrote: > > > 4. The Weasley family doesn't have a lot of extras--so how did they afford all > > > these good tickets. Per canon, they didn't have cheap seats. > > > > Geoff: > > Molly's letter to the Dursleys says: > > '...my husband, Arthur, has just managed to get prime tickets through his connections at the Department of Magical Games and Sports...' > > (GOF "The Invitation" p.32 UK edition) > > > > Suggests that Arthur may have asked for them as a favour in return for > > something he did. Nathaniel: > We have stronger canon than that: > "'I like Ludo,' said Mr Weasley mildly. 'He was the one who got us such good tickets for the Cup. I did him a bit of a favour: his brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble ? a lawnmower with unnatural powers ? I smoothed the whole thing over.'" (GoF 5) Geoff: Ah, I thought there was a stronger comment but I couldn't run it to ground. It's p.58 UK edition. I shall be losing my reputation as a quote finder if I'm not careful.... :-( Thanks for that. From bart at moosewise.com Mon Dec 19 22:23:37 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 17:23:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EEFB969.2010804@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191555 On 12/19/2011 3:25 PM, sigurd at eclipse.net wrote: > Now for the fun part. If we assume that Hogwarts matriculates pretty much everyone they take in (disregarding those students petrified, killed, transformed, driven mad, folded, stapled, spindled and mutilated) then we have to assume the replacements year to year equal the graduates or 1/7 of the total or 400/7 = 60 new students each year. Note that we never hear of someone getting expelled, or deciding that he'd rather be a CPA than a wizard, or going off to study pottery making from the Uke-Uke-Fiduke people in Bongo Congo) and so we can assume the population is pretty stable. Bart: It appears like it's more like 40 or so students each year attend Hogwarts (4-6 of each gender in each house).. Now, we don't know how many parents home-school their kids, how many squibs there are (although it's supposed to be rare), or how many Muggleborn attend Hogwarts. However, given the somewhat longer lifespan and greater general health of wizards, and the mention that the population has been shrinking, a population of 3-4,000 makes more sense in the WW. It also appears that the WW health system is superior in pretty much every way except dentistry to the Muggle world, which would tend to make wizard couples fertile longer. Bart > > So, if there are 60 new students each year drawn in from the ecumene of the Old Empire, (India, Kenya, Hong Kong etc) then that means that the English ecumene has 60 new children each year moving into the education system, which assuming they all survive to school hood (I realize a big assumption, but work with it for a moment), we have another problem. > > Contrary to popular opinion for there to be 0 population growth it does not mean that each couple can have only 2 children. They must have 2.43 children. The reason is simple- infant mortality is still a factor, accidental death, infertility, illness, voluntary celibacy, and a host of other factors intervene to carry off a lot of kids or at least render unreproducable through various situations. Plus, for the Magics, there are squibs produced to wizarding families, so let's just deal with big numbers. (Though remember wizarding kids are also born to muggle families). But on the other hand while Muggles deal with gangs, guns, and school violence, they do not come up with things which on a day to day basis will eat you so.... > > > But let's assume that Hogwarts gets its 60 students each year, that means that new children are produced at at LEAST 60 a year to keep the classes filled, for each year 60 graduate, 60 are inducted etc. Now assuming wizarding females are no less fecund than humans, that means that the prime reproduction period for a wizarding female is 20 years (18 to 38) So that means in that 20 years times 60 (for the number of kids inducted into Hogwarts) there will be produced 1200 little wizards which divided by 2.4 means about 500 reproducing couples (regardless if they are married or just sow a lot of wild oats) or 1,000 wizards throughout the British Ecumene. > > I notice that there is also a School in France, a School in Northern Europe, and Parvati hints at wizarding schools elsewhere. (But apparently no wizarding schools in the United States, nor any transfer students from the US to Britain) so.... that may be an indication of the alleged population of wizards world-wide. > > Now with a thousand wizards scattered throughout England--it seems they are all working for the Ministry of Magic. > > So everyone in the wizarding world has a "government job" except for those in the trades in Hogsmead, and Diagon Ally and the other wizarding communities. > > But Wait a minute-- just from the people we've seen there's not enough wizards in this world to go around! > > But if the "Houses in Hogwarts" are much larger to allow for a greater number of wizards, then there has to be a lot more teachers to teach them, maybe 30 or 40.... > > Interesting. > > It's why you don't want to go down certain paths when you're dealing with magic. > > Otto > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 19 23:19:02 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:19:02 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: <4EEFB969.2010804@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > On 12/19/2011 3:25 PM, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Now for the fun part. If we assume that Hogwarts matriculates pretty much everyone they take in (disregarding those students petrified, killed, transformed, driven mad, folded, stapled, spindled and mutilated) then we have to assume the replacements year to year equal the graduates or 1/7 of the total or 400/7 = 60 new students each year. Note that we never hear of someone getting expelled, or deciding that he'd rather be a CPA than a wizard, or going off to study pottery making from the Uke-Uke-Fiduke people in Bongo Congo) and so we can assume the population is pretty stable. > > Bart: > It appears like it's more like 40 or so students each year attend > Hogwarts (4-6 of each gender in each house).. Pippin: This is one of those issues where JKR has simply thrown her hands in the air and admitted that there's no way to get the numbers to reconcile. She decided she'd need forty named students in Harry's year to tell the story, and so at some point long before the first book was published she sat down and made a list of them. They weren't supposed to be *only* forty first years. She thought the school itself had about a thousand students and that's the number she gave in interviews. But she never worked out the discrepancies. There's no telling where all the "extra" students are supposed to sleep and so on -- her mind, she says, doesn't work like that. We debated it all merrily in the days before JKR basically told us to give it up -- I even wrote a Filk about it. http://www.harrypotterfilks.com/students/hogwarts.htm#How_Many_Students Pippin From bart at moosewise.com Tue Dec 20 00:07:36 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:07:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EEFD1C8.6070208@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191557 On 12/19/2011 6:19 PM, pippin_999 wrote: > Bart: > It appears like it's more like 40 or so students each year attend > Hogwarts (4-6 of each gender in each house).. > Pippin: > This is one of those issues where JKR has simply thrown her hands in the air and admitted that there's no way to get the numbers to reconcile. > > She decided she'd need forty named students in Harry's year to tell the story, and so at some point long before the first book was published she sat down and made a list of them. They weren't supposed to be *only* forty first years. She thought the school itself had about a thousand students and that's the number she gave in interviews. But she never worked out the discrepancies. There's no telling where all the "extra" students are supposed to sleep and so on -- her mind, she says, doesn't work like that. Bart: And if JKR didn't base her plot lines on the readers following tiny details in the story, that would be OK. However, it's been a while since I said this, so, once again: "There are three kinds of people in the world; those who can count, and those who can't." - J. K. Rowling Bart > From ddankanyin at cox.net Tue Dec 20 01:00:45 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:00:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? References: Message-ID: <6CF9700A4C2B4707AC620B552DCA1DFC@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191558 From: Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 3:25 PM > I notice that there is also a School in France, a School in Northern > Europe, and Parvati hints at wizarding schools elsewhere. (But apparently > no wizarding schools in the United States, nor any transfer students from > the US to Britain) so.... that may be an indication of the alleged > population of wizards world-wide. Dorothy: Only one comment here for now. At the World Cup, our group passes one tent from the United States, they're from a school in Massachusetts, The Salem Witches Institute. Think peace, Dorothy From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 20 02:58:30 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:58:30 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191559 > > 6. With your knowledge of Professor Snape's experience gained from refereeing > > Quidditch matches, discuss the reasons why you think he has not joined the > > group for the Quidditch World Cup final. > > > Potioncat: IIRC, Snape had a pretty difficult time with the referee session. But being able to play a game isn't a requirement to be a fan of a game---still I don't really get the idea that Snape is any sort of Quidditch fan. I'm not sure we ever see him at a game that he doesn't have a reason to attend. Though I'm sure he enjoys Slytherin beating Gryffindor. That said---how do we know he isn't at the World Cup? We really only know who is there if Harry knows the person is there. And I'd bet any thing McGonagall is there--but he doesn't see her. A bigger concern might be, if Snape is at the World Cup, does he participate in the hazing of the Muggles and the DE emblem in the sky (that I can't recall the name of.) I know what I think--with canon support--but what does anyone else think? From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 20 03:01:56 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:01:56 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191560 > > Nathaniel: > > We have stronger canon than that: > > "'I like Ludo,' said Mr Weasley mildly. 'He was the one who got us such good tickets for the Cup. I did him a bit of a favour: his brother, Otto, got into a spot of trouble ? a lawnmower with unnatural powers ? I smoothed the whole thing over.'" (GoF 5) Potioncat: Oh dear, the closer I look, the worse Arthur seems.Of course, it sets us up to be nervous when Ludo comes under suspicion. > > Geoff: > Ah, I thought there was a stronger comment but I couldn't run it to ground. > It's p.58 UK edition. I shall be losing my reputation as a quote finder if I'm > not careful.... > :-( > snip Potioncat: Gone are the days I when I could spout page and quote from memory. I'm doing good now to recall which event goes with which book. > From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 20 03:05:40 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:05:40 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: <6CF9700A4C2B4707AC620B552DCA1DFC@DG22FG61> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191561 > Dorothy: > Only one comment here for now. At the World Cup, our group passes one > tent from the United States, they're from a school in Massachusetts, The > Salem Witches Institute. > Think peace, > Dorothy > Potioncat: I think, rather than a school---which is what I thought too---it refers to a women's civic group in Britain---with an American name. So it's intended to be a group of adult witches. The only comparable US name I can think of is the UMW---United Methodist Women. Any Brits out there with an opinion on this? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 07:08:28 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 07:08:28 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear List > > Now there's an interesting question. > > If you go by the few fleeting glimpses in the movies, it seems there are thousands, at least hundreds. However whenever we are "taken into a classroom" by Rowling in one of her scenes, how big can the classes be? We hear many times of Gryffindor taking classes with Slytherin (oddly rarely with Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw) Now, how big are the classrooms and hence, how many people in a "form" or year? We only hear of a handful of members of any class with dialogue and rarely beyond the main protagonists. > > ... > > > But Wait a minute-- just from the people we've seen there's not enough wizards in this world to go around! > > But if the "Houses in Hogwarts" are much larger to allow for a greater number of wizards, then there has to be a lot more teachers to teach them, maybe 30 or 40.... > > Interesting. > > It's why you don't want to go down certain paths when you're dealing with magic. > > Otto > Steve: Responding to the idea in general, I have to say we have worked the number of Student at Hogwarts from every conceivable angle, and it simply can't be made to work. Even if we make wild speculation, that amount to little more than excuses. Neither do the number of teacher add up relative to the number of students. There simply aren't enough hours for that many teachers to teach that many student. Further, there is an additional issue, not in the number of students, but in the general capacity of the school. The School is certainly not a full capacity because there are unused rooms all over the place, perhaps even full unused wings for the School. So it would seem that the wizard world has seen better days. There must have been time when the general population must have been much higher, by extension, the student population must have been substantially higher. If general, if we assume 60 per year, and 6 years, that 360 current student. But I would guess the capacity of the school is probably closer to 1,000 given the number of unused classrooms. But then that leaves dorm rooms. We see them pretty full at current levels, how would those small room manage to accommodate 1000 students? Again, we have spend countless hours adding this up from every conceivable perspective, and even perspective is flawed at some point. So, it simply doesn't add up, and neither does the general wizarding population. It would see, to have that huge bureaucracy of the Ministry, we would need many thousands of wizards. And then, as has been mentioned, how is the Ministry funded? Import/Export Tax? Sales tax? Income tax? Funded by a covert muggle tax fund? Lots of things don't add up when you analyze them, but then ask yourself what other books has been analyzed at the depth that the Harry Potter books have? Very very very few I would guess. Personally, I'm able to separate analyzing from reading. When I read, I just go with the flow. As long as a continuity misstep is not enough to pull me out of the story, it doesn't bother me at all. And I can analyze it in discussion, and still go back are read without being pulled from the story, even though I'm now aware of certain continuity errors. Again, try as you might, the numbers will never add up. Steve/bboyminn From technomad at intergate.com Tue Dec 20 08:15:34 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:15:34 -0600 Subject: Harry's Scar---Runic Significance? Message-ID: <20111220021534.yhszcla68w4w404s@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191563 I was reading a fic where Lucius Malfoy met Young!Harry about a few months before he got on the Hogwarts Express ("The Best Revenge" by Arsinoe de Blassenville; it's one where Snape delivers Harry's Hogwarts letter and is...displeased...at what he finds out about Harry's home life) and is very startled by Harry's scar. He points out that the scar is exactly in the shape of the "Sig" rune---which signifies "victory." In other words, Harry's marked as an inevitable winner. Has anybody else ever commented about that? Was it deliberate on JKR's part? (Does she even know about runes as such, other than that they exist?) ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From kersberg at chello.nl Tue Dec 20 19:07:18 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:07:18 -0000 Subject: Notification of prejudices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191564 > > Next, outside of school, how many Slytherins do we see. We see Slughorn, who seems to have a bit of an ego, but is otherwise benign. > Steve/bboyminn > Good you mention Slughorn. I think he is the perfect exemple of what being Slytherin means: Network, network, network and networking. Knowing the right people in the right places at the right time. just like Sir Humphrey Appleby ( played by Sir Nigel Hawthorne ) in Yes Minister, where the civil servants get appointed by whom-they-know and not by what-they-can. And as the Etonian Network hasn't changed much since Eton was founded by Henry VI in 1440, the PureBlood Network hasn't changed much since the days of Salazar Slytherin. Although the Houses are hardly mentioned when servants of the Ministry for Magic are mentioned it's clear that the PureBlood Network still is very important. But what does a Old-Boys-Network say to the average 11 year old student? Next to Nada. Only the rivalry and the bullying by a few Gold Spoons are registrated in those minds and that was the option JKR choose to emphasize. After 5 books of black and white picturing she however made an attemp to introduce a grey area by putting on stage Slughorn and Cormac McLaggen, the Gryffindor whose bravery showed as arrogance. But not enough worked out to seriously countering the already established setting. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 20:00:10 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:00:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar---Runic Significance? In-Reply-To: <20111220021534.yhszcla68w4w404s@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Eric Oppen wrote: > > .... > > He points out that the scar is exactly in the shape of the "Sig" > rune---which signifies "victory." In other words, Harry's marked > as an inevitable winner. > > Has anybody else ever commented about that? Was it deliberate on > JKR's part? (Does she even know about runes as such, other than that > they exist?) > Steve: We have discussed Runes several times before, but I don't recall if that particular fact was ever discovered. However, thanks to our good friend Wikipedia, we can find out just about anything. Here is the Wikipedia entry for the "Sig" rune, and sure enough it looks like Harry's scar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sowil%C5%8D http://whisperingworlds.com/runic/sowilo.php "Magickal Uses = Energy, strength, success, healing, fertility" The "Sig" rune also has several other names as you will see - Sowilo (So-We-Low), Sol, sigel, sugil, ..... Though many of the vowels have accents that I can't reproduce here. The symbol stands for the SUN, and attracts Victory and Success. I wonder it that was intentional on JKR's part, or just a happy accident? JRK must have an amazing depth of knowledge to have come up with so many obscure references. Steve/bboyminn From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 20 14:00:16 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:00:16 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191566 Dear Steve Oh to be sure. That was my point. These structural details really don't matter though they're nice to tease out a little. It's not like they take away anything from the story that Rowling has'nt gotten her enrollment numbers right. But I didn't get the idea of a wizzarding world in decline from the story, nor do I think we can infer that from mentions of unused rooms sections etc. Hogwarts is a building and it doesn't matter how old wizzards can get, a building (so long as it doesn't fall down) will outlast them all. Hogwarts could easily be explained as the accretion of centuries which endure a lot longer than the human beings who pass through it. The whole of Hogwarts is designed as a "theatrical set" to set a mood, both of ancient mistyness and presentist comfort with a nostalgic view of Britain back a hundred years or so ago (Everyone in Hogsmead and Diagon Alley, and on the train platform seems stuck in Edwardian England of 1892 to 1914. The "set" of hogwartz is not therefore "replicative" but "evocative." It is not meant to be a detail of reality, but a tool to set the mood. As a device to create "sense of wonder" it works fairly well. Otto From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 20:32:18 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:32:18 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191567 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear Steve > > Oh to be sure. That was my point. These structural details really don't matter though they're nice to tease out a little. It's not like they take away anything from the story that Rowling has'nt gotten her enrollment numbers right. > > But I didn't get the idea of a wizzarding world in decline from the story, ... > > The whole of Hogwarts is designed as a "theatrical set" to set a mood,... > > As a device to create "sense of wonder" it works fairly well. > > Otto > Steve: On this issue we are in complete agreement. I will only add a couple of points. First we know exactly when Hogwarts castle was built; it was built around they year 990, about 'a thousand years ago'. Though what period in the intevening years left the greatest historical mark on Hogwarts and the Wizard World is debatable, but "Edwardian" is probably pretty close. When discussing 'mudbloods' and 'purebloods', Ron point out that without inter-breeding with muggle and muggle-born, the wizard world would have died out long ago. And in a sense, aspects of the (more or less) ancient world, we a lot more magical than they are now, so I suspect the heyday of magic was several centuries ago. In short, while on one level the wizard world might be florishing, they are not at the numbers they once were. At least, not as a percentage of the general population, though of course, I speculate. The is a lot in the Wizard World that is in a sense a "theatrical set", clothes, villages, goods in wizard shops, etc...., all intended to set a mood for the story. One must also remember that technology very much shapes the world. Muggle are who they are and do what they do very much based on available technology. Where would we be, and how different would our world be, in the absents of the Internet, computer, Television, modern transportation, etc.... Yet, the Wizard World has its alternatives that shape its world. For example, think how easy life would be if the modern world had the Star Trek Teleporter/Transporter. You could go from Chicago to London in a few second with little expenditure of energy or general cost. Think about having flying brooms, how easy it would be to commute to work. Think how easy it is to heat your home when you can conjure up fire at not cost? Fireplaces are general horribly inefficient, even modern fireplaces fall short. But why care about efficiency when the fuel is free, and I mean completely free? I suspect a Freeze Charm and a Cooling Charm are just as easy as a Flame Charm. A simple uninsulated cupboard could serve as both a refrigerator and freezer, and keep food fresh at virtually zero cost. Of course, the little matter of flying dragons and Dementors might create some problems in the modern world. My point is, the wizard world stalled at the stage of the large fireplace because, how do you improve on free heat? Even the cook stove we see Mrs. Weasley use, I suspect is no more than a stove shaped object. It is not connected to any fuel source. Simply a device to contain the flames that Mrs Weasley herself conjures up. So, again, why advance technology that is, to a muggle's eyes, perfect? Just a few thoughts. Steve/bluewizard From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 21 03:35:01 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 03:35:01 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Treachery ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191568 Otto: > > Dear Pippin > > Your philibuster of quotations is irrelevant. Slughorns obvious defeatism coupled by the complete defection of Snape at the moment is only the cherry on the cake of a continuous record of Slytherin vileness, trachery, and brutality. The smack in the face to Slughorn to decide on the loyalty of his house is well deserved. He deserved it, he needed it. Pippin: On the contrary, Slughorn's character is irrelevant to the issue, which, in case you've forgotten, is the charge that the Slytherin students committed treason en masse. They didn't choose Slughorn to be their Head of House, McGonagall did. If he is unworthy, the responsibility is hers, not theirs. Otto: You cannot and will not EVER be able to get around the fact that that Slytherin table was EMPTY when they left. Pippin: So what? Are you saying the Slytherins left the table because they were traitors and we know they were traitors because the table was empty when they left? If that's your argument, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Otto: > Not one Slytherin broke ranks. Not one came over to the side of good. Not one of them fought. Not one is mentioned as standing with the other side. > Pippin: I would think that you come over to the side of good by doing what the side of good wants you to do. Dumbledore made that very clear to Harry before they went after the Slytherin horcrux in HBP. Harry had to promise to obey any order that Dumbledore gave him, even an order to run away or leave Dumbledore behind in danger. Since that situation didn't arise at the time, it would be a wasted bit of exposition if it can't be applied to something else in the story. It would be nonsense to say that the Slytherins had implied permission to stay if they wished. I've never been in the military but I have been in command and you don't give "implied" orders. You give them in as straightforward and clear a manner as you can. McGonagall said "If the rest of your house could follow," If that meant, "except for those who wish to stay and fight," it was her duty to say so explicitly. Your speculations on how the Slytherins could have established their loyalty are also irrelevant. Why should any declaration of loyalty be believed if the Slytherins weren't trusted already? Or do you mean they should have demonstrated their loyalty in such a dramatic way that no one could possibly doubt it any more? In that case, all you've proved is failure to act like a Hollywood hero. I'll concede they may be guilty of that. But to establish that as treason, you must show that this mass failure of imagination knowingly gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Otto: > Sorry, Pippin, but "I vuss only followink ORDERS!" Hasn't worked since Nuremberg. Pippin: ::boggles:: My understanding is that this concerns orders such that any reasonable person would recognize them as orders to commit a crime. Are you now claiming that Minerva McGonagall gave such an order to the Slytherins? I'm shocked! Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 04:31:12 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 04:31:12 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: > I think, rather than a school---which is what I thought too---it > refers to a women's civic group in Britain---with an American name. zanooda: But the book says those women were American, not British - "a group of middle-aged American witches". Although I agree that they were definitely not schoolgirls... :-). From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 20 13:50:25 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:50:25 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: <6CF9700A4C2B4707AC620B552DCA1DFC@DG22FG61> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191570 Dear Dorothy Yup, you are correct. I forgot about the Salem School. Thanks Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 20 14:35:05 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:35:05 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message In-Reply-To: <20111220021534.yhszcla68w4w404s@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191571 Dear List OK, then from the mundane to the transcendent. What is the over-arching message Rowling is giving us in Harry Potter? And do your agree with it, can see it but have doubts, reject it? I will advance the proposition it's a metaphorical disquisition on humanity, that is, what it is to be human, and the essence of what it is to be human is love. Not just "a mothers love" which in its sacrificial form protects Harry Potter time and again, but love in many ways and levels which matures and broadens the individual and reaches adulthood through its engaging in "love" in various forms and styles between people. Humans, she says- love. There is a mothers love, but there is also the "Beatrice and Benedict" tack between Ron and Hermione, the romance of other students, including Draco and Pansy, and love of friends and institutions outside of the personal. Voldemort is the ultimate love-less creature and loves no one but himself (and we're not even too sure about that). He is the eternal immature, always positing an ego of wants of the moment, and thus Rowling has case him in barely human form, such to suggest a book appropriately bound. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 20 20:29:12 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:29:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar---Runic Significance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191572 Dear Steve Or it's just happenstance. It might be just a mark from having been struck by Voldemort's "lightning." Oh yes-- that same rune is the runic "S" which in its lightning bolt form, and doubled, is the symbol for the SS of evil memory. You'd have to see Rowling's CV to attribute any great meaning to this. And-- if she was acquainted with runes, then why aren't there more? Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Dec 20 22:03:56 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:03:56 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191573 Dear Steve Steve sez: "Edwardian" is probably pretty close. Otto: You know that may be a misconception on my part. I did not get the sense that Rowling had made them look Edwardian in the books (though obviously at times color-coordinationally challenged) but the movies certainly did. Steve Sez:> When discussing 'mudbloods' and 'purebloods', Ron point out that without inter-breeding with muggle and muggle-born, the wizard world would have died out long ago. Otto: I remember that too. I suppose that could very well be true. Somehow there seems something wrong with the statement but I can't get my head around whatever is that is wrong. If it IS true then "magic" is a genetic variation that can be passed along, or arise spontaneously, or skip a generation or any of the variations genetics can do. This begs the question of how many wizards do you have to intermarry with before you turn into a drooling idiot-- or -- on the other hand, produce enough genetic variation just in the wizarding community so that the deleterious effects of close inbreeding can be avoided. An interesting technical question but not really worth the candle to pursue it. Steve: And in a sense, aspects of the (more or less) ancient world, we a lot more magical than they are now, so I suspect the heyday of magic was several centuries ago. In short, while on one level the wizard world might be flourishing, they are not at the numbers they once were. At least, not as a percentage of the general population, though of course, I speculate. Otto: This is I believe Heinlein's thesis that as technology becomes more and more incomprehensible to the average person, it assumes more and more the aura and mystery of magic. Or, contrawise, we have the case of Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." where advanced technology of the 19th century is magic to those in the 5th century AD. Steve: One must also remember that technology very much shapes the world. Muggle are who they are and do what they do very much based on available technology. Where would we be, and how different would our world be, in the absents of the Internet, computer, Television, modern transportation, etc.... Otto: True- we are creatures of our technology. Steve: Yet, the Wizard World has its alternatives that shape its world. For example, think how easy life would be if the modern world had the Star Trek Teleporter/Transporter. You could go from Chicago to London in a few second with little expenditure of energy or general cost. Think about having flying brooms, how easy it would be to commute to work. Think how easy it is to heat your home when you can conjure up fire at not cost? Fireplaces are general horribly inefficient, even modern fireplaces fall short. But why care about efficiency when the fuel is free, and I mean completely free? Otto: Again agreed. There's no need to progress beyond the magic-- if one has magic. It would be like inventing a light spell twice, or inventing the electric light twice. But there are limitations to each world. As I said a few Muggle machine guns would have helped wonderfully at the battle of Hogwarts. Otto: But I think we miss something here if we assume the Muggle and Magic world is too separate. Again, this is complete speculation and not available to be found "in the canon" without teasing out facts from inference (always dicey). In our real world-- right now-- as we see it-- I am going to submit that magic DOES have a presence, and DOES have an effect on it, and if we only let our mind free a bit, to wander and speculate we can think of and SEE all sorts of things that suggest that the calm, quiet, obedient, logical Newtonian-Einsteinian universe around us may not be all we see. That there may be more to it than that which is apprehendable by the five senses. This goes from the realm of superstition and taboo (step on a crack, break your mothers back, don't walk under a ladder) to ideas of cosmic balance (the rubber band theory of causation- any good thing that happens to you should not be rejoiced in because it is sure to bring a reaction like a stretched rubber band, that will balance out the joy with hurt and restore the cosmic balance) etc., and on and on, but even to the really eerie and emotional. Now I am NOT saying there is a Hogwarts or there are magical people running around posing as people just like us, but even if one is rigorously scientific, believing that there is nothing but "atoms and the void" we as human creatures are sensitive to the IDEA or even the myth of magic. Indeed, it would be hard to see how we could not be for our whole mental construction seems to be one which is built to take facts and make connections between them to produce useful generalizations. Sometimes we may get over energetic in making connections and think there is some other force at work, but that tendency is a force I think just as strong as magic. Otto From ddankanyin at cox.net Wed Dec 21 06:28:12 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:28:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Overarching message References: Message-ID: <425BD927773A430DA2ACEA777DFB7621@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191574 From: Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:35 AM > > OK, then from the mundane to the transcendent. What is the over-arching > message Rowling is giving us in Harry Potter? > > And do your agree with it, can see it but have doubts, reject it? > > I will advance the proposition it's a metaphorical disquisition on > humanity, that is, what it is to be human, and the essence of what it is > to be human is love. Not just "a mothers love" which in its sacrificial > form protects Harry Potter time and again, but love in many ways and > levels which matures and broadens the individual and reaches adulthood > through its engaging in "love" in various forms and styles between people. > Humans, she says- love. There is a mothers love, but there is also the > "Beatrice and Benedict" tack between Ron and Hermione, the romance of > other students, including Draco and Pansy, and love of friends and > institutions outside of the personal. > Voldemort is the ultimate love-less creature and loves no one but himself > (and we're not even too sure about that). He is the eternal immature, > always positing an ego of wants of the moment, and thus Rowling has case > him in barely human form, such to suggest a book appropriately bound. > > Otto, I think the main message of the Harry Potter series is something Dumbledore once said to Harry; "It's not our talents that make us, it's our choices". I'm not sure if that's the exact quote, but you all remember that. As for the other types of love and friendship, I think all the kids, then as adults, had them, and obviously Voldemort had only himself, no matter how many parts of him he spread around. Think peace, Dorothy From ddankanyin at cox.net Wed Dec 21 06:35:06 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:35:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191575 From: Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:03 PM > Steve Sez:> > When discussing 'mudbloods' and 'purebloods', Ron point out that without > inter-breeding with muggle and muggle-born, the wizard world would have > died out long ago. > > Otto: > I remember that too. I suppose that could very well be true. Somehow there > seems something wrong with the statement but I can't get my head around > whatever is that is wrong. If it IS true then "magic" is a genetic > variation that can be passed along, or arise spontaneously, or skip a > generation or any of the variations genetics can do. This begs the > question of how many wizards do you have to intermarry with before you > turn into a drooling idiot-- or -- on the other hand, produce enough > genetic variation just in the wizarding community so that the deleterious > effects of close inbreeding can be avoided. An interesting technical > question but not really worth the candle to pursue it. Steve & Otto, I think when Ron said that wizards as a group were dying out and needed to marry non wizards he probably was thinking of Voldemort destroying so many of them in the past. As for how many would it take to get the inbred effect, well, just look at the Gaunt family. I know we weren't told how many generations were before them, but maybe we were. Think peace, Dorothy From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Wed Dec 21 18:43:20 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:43:20 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191576 As for how many would it take to get the inbred effect, well, just look at the Gaunt family. I know we weren't told how many generations were before them, but maybe we were. Think peace, Dorothy Just remembered something that may affect your opinions of the Gaunts mental states, certainly Marvolo anyway. Marvolo Gaunt was wearing his ring, which we know was the Resurrection Stone. Is it not possible that part or all of his madness was caused by the ring, as was told in the story of The Three Brothers? Liz From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 21 19:38:15 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:38:15 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191577 Dear Liz and Dorothy One point. As we all know from examples here in the US,if inbreeding is adopted as a preferred CHOICE then it doesn't take too long. Just a few generations is necessary to produce critical birth defects, hereditary disease, hemophilia, downs syndrome not to mention general physical malaise. That's entirely a different thing from a given community running out of options for exogamy. Witness the Amih in America, after two hundred years in small inward drawing communities how have a problem with birth defects, dwarves, and some very serious hereditary disease. Put in more basic terms, it's one thing to go to family reunions looking to pick up women for girlfriends, its another when a few dozedn families become so intermixed its impossible to avoid close intermarriage. Now... OBVIOUSLY the human race has been a closed system for oh-- 60,000 years or so, but from the standpoint of the whole race intermarriages have taken place but the human race has not run out of persons to inject other genetic patterns into a given community. But it does not seem that you even need a community that large to guard against excessive inbreeding. Genetic variation seem to occurr naturally with a population of just over 10,000 such that it will never be too intermarried. That is, new genetic variation is produced spontaneously even in generally linked communities. The question is how large does a community have to be to avoid this or practice forced exogamy. This is admittedly one of those droll technical points that can suck the life out the magic of Potter et all, but I suspect that the figure is around that 10,000 mark. Just a grim little thought. Otto From margdean56 at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 20:38:33 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:38:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Overarching message In-Reply-To: References: <20111220021534.yhszcla68w4w404s@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191578 On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:35 AM, wrote: > > > > Dear List > > OK, then from the mundane to the transcendent. What is the over-arching message Rowling is giving us in Harry Potter? > > And do your agree with it, can see it but have doubts, reject it? I remember thinking, after finishing Book 7, "Why, all these books are about Death, aren't they? Starting with the first one, even." Or possibly more specifically, as another famous fantasy author said of his work, they are about death and the desire for deathlessness. Mind you, that is not *all* they are about, but it is certainly a consistent theme throughout. --Margaret Dean From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Dec 21 20:47:49 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:47:49 -0000 Subject: Slytherin Treachery ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191579 Geoff: Having been a member of the HPFGU group since the summer of 2003, I have got to know a lot of members and have also come to the conclusions that discussions on the group remain in the main amicable and in general we accept the fact that we all have our own take on the story, especially when we extrapolate an idea beyond canon into the realm of "could this be what happened?" where there is no written confirmation or denial of an event. To use long posts and grandiloquent language to try to force an opinion down the group's throat in an "I say so, so this is right and you are all failing to understand JKR's meaning" attitude can appear to be demeaning and patronising. Otto: > Your philibuster of quotations is irrelevant.... > The rest of your argument is mere prevarication. > Sorry, Pippin, but "I vuss only followink ORDERS!" Hasn't worked since Nuremberg. > Your argument is a tissue of excuses. Geoff: I do not believe that Pippin is guilty of filibustering (even in its correct spelling!) because she is not attempting to obstruct a debate by talking it out of time. Again, the charge of prevarication is unfounded. I do not see that Pippin is attempting to be evasive. As I said earlier, we all have the right to express our views. Obviously, you do not agree. But that does not allow you to dismiss them out of hand in a scarcely polite and definitely partial manner. Turning to your Nuremberg remark, I am of the opinion that you are barking up the wrong tree. If you consider the people of Germany - the people and not the leaders - many of them had not been followers of the Nazis. Hitler never actually got a full majority in democratic elections and once in power, his organisations such as the SS or the Gestapo set out to silence opposition either by exterminating them or frightening them into keeping their heads below the battlements. It was only a very few leaders, for example Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Klaus von Stauffenberg, to name but two, who were prepared to speak out and put their lives on the line. The same is true today. Huge numbers of people silently endured Stalin's Russia and still are frightened to speak out in North Korea and it is becoming clear that many in Syria, Algeria and other countries in that area are only just finding a voice because they believe that they will not be denounced to the authorities by spying neighbours and executed, imprisoned or denied justice. Agreed, Slytherin is not a country but the families who are largely represented in it tend to be in the same cultural group - purebloods who see, or originally saw, Voldemort as a suitable leader for their culture and cause, rather as the German Army first saw Hitler as someone who would restore the pride that they had lost in the 1918 defeat. Many of these latter came to regret that choice and some worked behind the scenes to try to counter the worst policies of the Third Reich. I have already hinted in earlier posts that I do not see Slytherins as a group acting as a single unit. There must be pupils in the school who do not want to be Death Eaters and parents who think the same. We have seen that even Draco, who has been something of a poster boy for supporting Voldemort becoming disillusioned: terrified by Voldemort's threats to his family; frantic because of his failing attempts to work out a way of killing Dumbledore; trying to skulk in the shadows of the assembled faithful at Malfoy Manor at the start of DH and his very surprising reluctance to identify Harry later at the Manor. But for the, perhaps small, group who really want to get out of the way, their fear of they and their families being punished has also been compounded with the unyielding lack of support for their house from Professor McGonagall, now the de facto Head, and the rather ambivalent attitude of Dumbledore towards the house in the past, and I have already expressed about the dismissal of the house en bloc from the Great Hall. Like real life, the Potterverse is not filled with wearers of white or black hats; most of them are varying shades of grey and many of the pupils of Hogwarts merely young people trying to keep out of trouble and danger whose first reaction would be to follow the Head's instructions and only have second thoughts when time allowed. From margdean56 at gmail.com Wed Dec 21 21:10:01 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:10:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191580 On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, wrote: > Steve: > And in a sense, aspects of the (more or less) ancient world, we a lot more magical than they are now, so I suspect the heyday of magic was several centuries ago. In short, while on one level the wizard world might be flourishing, they are not at the numbers they once were. At least, not as a percentage of the general population, though of course, I speculate. > > Otto: > This is I believe Heinlein's thesis that as technology becomes more and more incomprehensible to the average person, it assumes more and more the aura and mystery of magic. Or, contrawise, we have the case of Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." where advanced technology of the 19th century is magic to those in the 5th century AD. [Arthur C.] Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But I don't think that's quite what Steve is implying. What he's saying sounds more to me like another SF writer, Larry Niven, with "The Magic Goes Away." Steve, yes or no? --Margaret Dean From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 21 22:26:52 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:26:52 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 6: The Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191581 > The Portkey > > 1. Much of JKR's WW comes from folklore. What do you think inspired "Portkeys"? > Pippin: Seven league boots are an element in European folklore. That might have influenced JKR to make this particular portkey a manky old boot. I can't remember any folktales of people traveling instantly from place to place. It's more about having the ability to travel as swiftly as wind or a galloping horse. Perhaps it wasn't till the telegraph was invented that people imagined vanishing in one place and instantly reappearing somewhere else far away. And until you had a way of sending messages instantly, how would you even know that such a thing had happened? > 2. We finally meet Cedric Diggory after hearing about him last year. What do > you think of Cedric? What do you think of Mr. Diggory? How does your opinion > change at the end of the book? Pippin: He seemed like a nice kid, modest enough to be embarrassed by his father's boasting. > 3. How would you compare Mr. Diggory and Mr. Weasley as fathers? Pippin: I don't know, except that Amos seems a bit pushier. > 4. The Weasley family doesn't have a lot of extras--so how did they afford all > these good tickets. Per canon, they didn't have cheap seats. Pippin: I remembered someone was returning a favor for Arthur. It shows you that cronyism is so widespread in the WW that even someone as generally principled as Arthur doesn't question it. I would speculate that the name "Harry Potter" had something to do with it, even so. But I bet Arthur wouldn't have been so pleased with his acquisition if he'd known the Malfoy family was going to be sharing the Top Box with him. > 5. Is this chapter as simple as it looks? What is its purpose? Pippin: It gives us a thorough introduction to magical transportation. We need to know what a portkey is and Harry has to have a basic understanding of how they work. We find out here for the first time that maintaining wizarding secrecy isn't all fun and games. It's difficult for large numbers of wizards to move about the country. Many wizards can't apparate and there's a concern about overloading the Muggle transportation system. Those who have cheap seats for the world cup had to get there two weeks in advance. Of course that means that those who could least afford it had to take the most time off -- and that there was plenty of time for people like Lucius and his pals to spread anti-Muggle venom in the crowd. > 6. Your questions here ( Bonus points if you can think of a way to discuss Snape > relative to this chapter.) Pippin Joining the speculation about what Snape was up to, we don't see any of the Hogwarts teachers at the QWC, do we? Maybe they were off at a conference somewhere. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 21 22:36:34 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:36:34 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: > > > I think, rather than a school---which is what I thought too---it > > refers to a women's civic group in Britain---with an American name. > > zanooda: > > But the book says those women were American, not British - "a group of middle-aged American witches". Although I agree that they were definitely not schoolgirls... :-). > Potioncat: I know they were Americans, but I think JKR was assuming or pretending there would be chapters of the organization in the US. It's a better fit than a school from the US, given the description of the women. I think this is the organization seen in "Calendar Girls"---if you haven't seen the movie, you should. Very funny. (But you may need English subtitles.) Here's a description of the WI, from its home page: Welcome to the National Federation of Women's Institutes (NFWI), the largest voluntary organisation for women in the UK, with 210,000 members in England, Wales and the Islands. The WI plays a unique role in providing women with educational opportunities and the chance to build new skills, to take part in a wide variety of activities and to campaign on issues that matter to them and their communities. From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Dec 21 13:02:27 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:02:27 -0000 Subject: Satires of Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191583 Dear List There are supposed to be several satires of the Harry Potter books out. I have managed to come across only one of them, "Harry Potter and the Completely Unnecessary Sequel." It's OK, good in spots but nowhere near as good or expert as the Harvard Lampoon's send up of Lord of the Rings ("Bored of the Rings" or the Lampoons masterpiece on Frank Herbert's "Dune" entitled "Doon" Anybody heard of others? Unlike "Doon" which not only is hilarious but is written in exact parody of Herbert's style and syntax, "Harry Potter and the Completely Unnecessary Sequel" does not mimic Rowling's style. Otto From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Dec 21 23:44:26 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:44:26 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message In-Reply-To: <425BD927773A430DA2ACEA777DFB7621@DG22FG61> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorothy dankanyin" wrote: Otto: > > OK, then from the mundane to the transcendent. What is the over-arching > > message Rowling is giving us in Harry Potter? > > > > And do your agree with it, can see it but have doubts, reject it? > > > > I will advance the proposition it's a metaphorical disquisition on > > humanity, that is, what it is to be human, and the essence of what it is > > to be human is love. Not just "a mothers love" which in its sacrificial > > form protects Harry Potter time and again, but love in many ways and > > levels which matures and broadens the individual and reaches adulthood > > through its engaging in "love" in various forms and styles between people. > > Humans, she says- love. There is a mothers love, but there is also the > > "Beatrice and Benedict" tack between Ron and Hermione, the romance of > > other students, including Draco and Pansy, and love of friends and > > institutions outside of the personal. > > Voldemort is the ultimate love-less creature and loves no one but himself > > (and we're not even too sure about that). He is the eternal immature, > > always positing an ego of wants of the moment, and thus Rowling has case > > him in barely human form, such to suggest a book appropriately bound. Dorothy: > I think the main message of the Harry Potter series is something > Dumbledore once said to Harry; "It's not our talents that make us, it's our > choices". I'm not sure if that's the exact quote, but you all remember > that. > As for the other types of love and friendship, I think all the kids, then > as adults, had them, and obviously Voldemort had only himself, no matter how > many parts of him he spread around. Geoff: I have to admit that when someone starts a sentence with something like "I will advance the proposition it's a metaphorical disquisition on humanity", I become suspicious that this is going to be dancing around rather obscure words while trying to avoid saying anything too radical or likely to be life-changing. Years ago, my teaching college principal excelled in this; it sounded as if he were making great educational statements while in reality, there was little meat in the sandwich. Like J.R.R.Tolkien and C.S.Lewis before her, J.K.Rowling is a Christian, worshipping originally as an Anglican but now attending the Church of Scotland since she moved north of the border. She has said in interviews since the publication of DH that her faith has provided much of the foundation of her thinking in producing these books. C.S.Lewis was very overt in the Narnia books - especially in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", where much of the story points very openly to the life of Jesus. on the other hand, both JRRT and JKR have not made their foundation too obvious. Tolkien, in "The Silmarillion", draws strong comparisons between the creation of Middle Earth in section "Ainulindale" and the account of creation in the Old Testament. I think that Dorothy has put her finger on a very pertinent comment. The actual comment is: '"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) Speaking as an evangelical Christian, I could not concur more with these words. There is a second quote which I think is equally valid: '"But why couldn't Quirrell touch me?" "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realise that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection for ever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good."' (PS "the Man with Two Faces" p.216 UK edition) This obviously can make sense to anybody, but particularly to a Christian, this comes close to describing the experience as we invite Christ into our lives and enter a relationship similar to the one JKR has pictured here. From philip at whiuk.com Thu Dec 22 02:15:14 2011 From: philip at whiuk.com (Philip Whitehouse) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:15:14 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Satires of Harry Potter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191585 > Dear List > > There are supposed to be several satires of the Harry Potter books out. I have managed to come across only one of them, "Harry Potter and the Completely Unnecessary Sequel." It's OK, good in spots but nowhere near as good or expert as the Harvard Lampoon's send up of Lord of the Rings ("Bored of the Rings" or the Lampoons masterpiece on Frank Herbert's "Dune" entitled "Doon" > > Anybody heard of others? > Barry Trotter is a UK one I've seen - it's not a great read though - they rarely are - just an attempt at a quick buck. Wikipedia has a full list - most people can't extend the gags for more than a few books tho. Philip [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Dec 22 04:08:39 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:08:39 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: <34DF3DE6550C4BE98B5F2F7D306BC120@DG22FG61> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorothy dankanyin" wrote: > > > From: > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:50 AM > > > > So I am prepared to accept a reformed Draco as a possibility. > > > > But it is not certain. > > > > > > Otto, > I don't know if Draco Malfoy totally reformed, but from the nod at the > train station I'd say he's still a bit embarassed by his behavior and the > destruction of all he once believed in. Maybe he still believes pure blood > is superior, but I think he's grown past all that. Of course, it's only my > opinion. > Think peace, > Dorothy > Nikkalmati I think we can reach a couple of conclusions from just the fact that Draco is standing at the train station with his son about to head off to Hogwarts. Draco and his family are an accepted part of the WW. He wasn't given life in Azkaban and he wants to be part of the new world order. He didn't decide to move to France or to Bulgaria or whereever. He has adapted. The nod to Harry & company displays some sense of obligation, a recognition of their joint past, but it falls short of friendship. They are acquaintences only. All the talk aabout Slytherins and houses indicates that little has changed. (Maybe just a little, if you listen to Harry and Hermione.) Not so different from when James and Sirius were extolling the virtues of Gryffindor on the train to Hogwarts more than 40 years before. Nikkalmati From jnoyl at aim.com Thu Dec 22 04:07:57 2011 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:07:57 -0800 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191587 I learned from the seven books that if you are evil and do one almost decent thing (to save your own ass), that all is forgiven and nobody cares about your body art. I learned that the appearance of wisdom and caring is more important than any actual wisdom or caring. I learned that hook-nosed, greasy-haired gits who abuse children will be seen as the sexual fantasy of many women. I learned that wizards are superior to normals and genocide is quickly forgiven if you have money. James Lyon -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Dec 22 04:20:36 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:20:36 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Hunks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Dear Pippin > > > > You say "Yellowish fabric needn't be dirty -- cheap cotton discolors with age and exposure to sunlight on the clothesline." > > > > OH STOP!!! Even Lily told him to wash his underwear sometimes! This was after Harry's father and Sirius had been tormenting him. It was in the memory that Harry Saw. How long are you going to deny what is fact. It wasn't yellowish, it was GRAY! And Snape still apparently had not discovered Shampoo by adulthood-- or for that matter a charm to clean hair. > > > > Pippin: > Argh! You are right and I apologize -- that's what happens when I decide I'm too busy to check the books before posting a theory. Serve me right. > > Dirty blood vs dirty underwear, nyah, nyah, nyah. Not one of the great moments in Hogwarts intellectual discourse. But Lily's sneer is no more a fact than Snape's was -- they're both expressing an opinion. > > Pippin > > Pippin > Nikkalmati I'm puzzled. I thought the House Elves did everybody's washing, so no one would need to wash their own underwear. Grey underwear is typical of old underwear that has been washed many times (probably without being sorted into whites and colors). I think it showed that Snape was too poor to buy new stuff. Lily? I hate to say it, but I think she was just being nasty in a way she knew would hurt Snape. Nikkalmati From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 22 18:21:12 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:21:12 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191589 > Nikkalmati > > I think we can reach a couple of conclusions from just the fact that Draco is standing at the train station with his son about to head off to Hogwarts. Draco and his family are an accepted part of the WW. He wasn't given life in Azkaban and he wants to be part of the new world order. He didn't decide to move to France or to Bulgaria or whereever. He has adapted. The nod to Harry & company displays some sense of obligation, a recognition of their joint past, but it falls short of friendship. They are acquaintences only. All the talk aabout Slytherins and houses indicates that little has changed. (Maybe just a little, if you listen to Harry and Hermione.) Not so different from when James and Sirius were extolling the virtues of Gryffindor on the train to Hogwarts more than 40 years before. Pippin: JKR characterized her books as a plea for tolerance. And that puzzled a lot of people. It's not that Harry doesn't learn tolerance. He certainly behaves as if Dudley, Draco, Snape, Kreacher and Slytherins in general aren't as bad as he thought they were, and deserved more understanding from him than they got. It's that the rewards of tolerance seem so meagre, at least for the WW at large. Dudley no longer thinks Harry is a waste of space, but Muggles in general seem barely better than a waste of space themselves. Draco has learned that dark magic and evil overlords are more trouble than they're worth, but he's probably still a bigot and might be a violent bigot if he got the chance. Kreacher is still a slave. Snape's dead. Harry won't let anyone say that Slytherin isn't a legitimate choice, but he thoroughly sympathizes with Al's fervent desire not to be one. But, and this is important, the adults are not trying to use the kids as a proxy for their own conflicts, the way the adults in their time used them. For the adults, the war is over. James has done a good job scaring his little brother about Slytherins, but at least Harry isn't helping him do it. It's a little scary that we don't know whether Draco was thinking of a constellation or a cold-blooded deadly creature when he named his son, but then, Albus and Severus had their cold-blooded deadly aspect too. And Scorpius appears with his mom and dad, not a pair of hulking bodyguards. So neither set of parents act like they are sending the kids into a war zone. I'd like it better if we could meet a Gryffindor and a Slytherin who stayed friends. Some would like it better if the houses were abolished. But that's not actually what tolerance is about, IMO. Tolerance isn't about getting everybody to like you, or to be like you. It would be a very Muggle world if we all had to be the same. It's about learning to treat people you don't like as Dumbledore said they should be treated, with kindness and respect. And the reward is that your children's school may not be full of people who want to kill them. Which, if you think about it in real world terms, is huge. Pippin From technomad at intergate.com Thu Dec 22 18:55:16 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:55:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111222125516.2i6h1g739k44cwsw@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191590 Quoting pippin_999 : > > Dudley no longer thinks Harry is a waste of space, but Muggles in > general seem barely better than a waste of space themselves. Draco > has learned that dark magic and evil overlords are more trouble than > they're worth, but he's probably still a bigot and might be a > violent bigot if he got the chance. Kreacher is still a slave. I've had a theory for a long time that house-elves' bond to their masters/mistresses is more like a familial bond than anything else. The reaction of Winky to being given clothes tends to support this...she reacted as though she'd been disowned by a family she still loved. The gods know, I had my differences with my parents, but if I'd cut all ties with them and told them that they weren't, as far as I was concerned, my parents or part of my family any more, they'd have been utterly heartbroken. (And when my brother saw the results, and caught up to me, I'd soon be utterly _headbroken,_ but that's another story.) > Snape's dead. > > Harry won't let anyone say that Slytherin isn't a legitimate > choice, but he thoroughly sympathizes with Al's fervent desire not > to be one. *mega-sigh* Think about it for a few minutes. Slytherin's going to have a lot of kids in it whose parents were on the wrong side of the war, whether out of loyalty, fear of change in the WW, or fear of the consequences if they didn't side with their kin. Now imagine being the son of the guy who won eternal renown by defeating their Great Hope. Not a pleasant existence, I don't think. > > It's a little scary that we don't know whether Draco was thinking of > a constellation or a cold-blooded deadly creature when he named his > son, but then, Albus and Severus had their cold-blooded deadly > aspect too. And Scorpius appears with his mom and dad, not a pair of > hulking bodyguards. I'd say he's following his family's apparent tradition of using star names. Now, if he'd named the kid "Scorpio" after the zodiacal sign, I'd wonder if he was thinking about a crazy sniper played by Andy Robinson in _Dirty Harry,_ but that's just me. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 22 21:13:32 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:13:32 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: <20111222125516.2i6h1g739k44cwsw@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191591 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Eric Oppen wrote: > > I've had a theory for a long time that house-elves' bond to their > masters/mistresses is more like a familial bond than anything else. Pippin: Trouble is, slavery-as-we-know-it is sometimes more like that than we like to think. Rescuing people from slavery is the easy part, seeing them fail to thrive in freedom is heartbreaking. There's no easy answer if people are that damaged. > > > Snape's dead. > > > > Harry won't let anyone say that Slytherin isn't a legitimate > > choice, but he thoroughly sympathizes with Al's fervent desire not > > to be one. > > *mega-sigh* > > Think about it for a few minutes. Slytherin's going to have a lot of > kids in it whose parents were on the wrong side of the war, whether > out of loyalty, fear of change in the WW, or fear of the consequences > if they didn't side with their kin. Now imagine being the son of the > guy who won eternal renown by defeating their Great Hope. Not a > pleasant existence, I don't think. Pippin: And all those kids are in Slytherin? *mega-sigh* Think about this: Harry had a lot of enemies at the Ministry of Magic too, you know, not to mention the Daily Prophet. There's probably a lot of kids who've heard dinner table conversations that start out, "I'm not saying You Know Who was right, but--" And I'd imagine there's Slytherins who believe that their families were on Harry's side in the war, whether they really were or not. I don't suppose it was any easier to sort out who was genuinely under the Imperius curse, who was a sympathizer who was never caught, who was really changed sides, and who's been convicted in error, than it was last time. It's going to be a complicated existence, whatever. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 07:08:01 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:08:01 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz Clark" wrote: > > > Just remembered something that may affect your opinions of the Gaunts mental > states, certainly Marvolo anyway. Marvolo Gaunt was wearing his ring, which > we know was the Resurrection Stone. Is it not possible that part or all of > his madness was caused by the ring, as was told in the story of The Three > Brothers? > Liz > Steve: Excellent theory, but let's remember that each of the three Gaunts we met was a little looney each in their own way. It seems unlikely that the Ring would have affected them all, and remember it didn't become a Horcrux until the night that Tom Riddle Jr framed Gaunt and killed his father. It was his father's death that presumabley created the Horcrux. However, it was one of the Three Hallows, though I doubt that Gaunt or anyone knew of its power to recall the dead. And, it was the dead that the original Perverel recalled that drove him to suicide, not the Ring itself. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 23 07:50:38 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 07:50:38 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191593 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Dean wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, wrote: > > > Steve: > > And in a sense, aspects of the (more or less) ancient world, we a lot more magical than they are now, so I suspect the heyday of magic was several centuries ago. ... > > Otto: > > .... > > But I don't think that's quite what Steve is implying. What he's > saying sounds more to me like another SF writer, Larry Niven, with > "The Magic Goes Away." Steve, yes or no? > > > --Margaret Dean > > Steve: No, I'm not a scholarly are you are, but with a general knowledge of history, we know that in medieval times Witchcraft and magic had a very high profile, what with witch burnings and such. Now the number of witches and wizards might have been generally small, but it a somewhat fiction interpretation of history, they were a higher percentage of the overall population, which accounts for their high profile. However, in modern times with 65 million people in the UK, the wizard population as a percentage must be much smaller. I think that is true. However, what the actual absolute numbers are is difficult to determine. 100's? 1,000's? 10,000's? Again, it is difficult to determine. However, the populations must be similar to that of a modest town or small city at least, in order to have the size of bureaucracy of the Ministry. They have a shopping district, assorted industries to support the shopping district. Mrs Weasley has a stove, furniture, clocks, clothes, and other assorted goods that could not and would not be found in a normal muggle shop. Further, they have produce (fruit & veg, etc...), meat, ice cream, potion ingredients, which implies wizard farmers and international trading. I've used this example in previous discussions, but consider JUST Fortescue's Ice Cream shop. He need ingredients - milk, sugar, fruit, flavoring. Then he needs displays and refrigeration fixture, tables, chairs, assorted containers for eating ice cream out of, glass for the window, paint for the wall, pots and pans, ladles and spoons, assorted cutlery, drinking glasses. Tables to work on, and on, and on, and on. Where does all that stuff come from if not from a substantial wizard industry, international trade, and trade between wizards and muggles? This does relate to the size of the wizard world as each shop is merely the tip of an iceberg, there has to be many many many more wizard behind the scenes in order to keep any one shop running. Further, they have sufficient population to support a pretty good size school. The town I grew up in, had a population of 300, and the school enrollment was over 300. Figure that one out. But, we DO SEE large segments of the school currently unused, many empty classroom, even unused wings, which implies that at one time those classroom were used, which implies that at sometime the wizarding population was higher than it is now. But this only illustrates my original point, no matter how you slice it and dice it, the numbers don't add up. To have the various pubs and High Street shops, and the necessary industry to support those businesses, implies a very substantial population. Steve/bboyminn From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Fri Dec 23 11:13:38 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:13:38 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts, & the Magic World (was:... students ARE there at Hogwartz?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191594 >> Just remembered something that may affect your opinions of the Gaunts >> mental >> states, certainly Marvolo anyway. Marvolo Gaunt was wearing his ring, >> which >> we know was the Resurrection Stone. Is it not possible that part or all >> of >> his madness was caused by the ring, as was told in the story of The Three >> Brothers? >> Liz >> > > Steve: > > Excellent theory, but let's remember that each of the three Gaunts we met > was a little looney each in their own way. > > It seems unlikely that the Ring would have affected them all, and remember > it didn't become a Horcrux until the night that Tom Riddle Jr framed Gaunt > and killed his father. It was his father's death that presumabley created > the Horcrux. > > However, it was one of the Three Hallows, though I doubt that Gaunt or > anyone knew of its power to recall the dead. And, it was the dead that the > original Perverel recalled that drove him to suicide, not the Ring itself. > > Steve/bboyminn > Liz now: I wasn't thinking of it being a Horcrux, that was after any of them were alive I believe. It was just the fact that calling back the dead made the original brother mad, which gives a similar state of mind to Marvolo and Morfin. We could speculate that one of them accidentally activated the hallow for instance. Very easily done, if you've ever twiddled a ring around your finger when thinking! Further, and as another thoughts, could parseltongue cause madness? Those we know of as 'man/insane' were parselmouths. Unless I've forgotten someone. From kersberg at chello.nl Fri Dec 23 18:46:20 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:46:20 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: <20111222125516.2i6h1g739k44cwsw@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Eric Oppen wrote: > ======> > I'd say he's following his family's apparent tradition of using star > names. Now, if he'd named the kid "Scorpio" after the zodiacal sign, I seriously wonder if using star and constellation names is a Malfoy tradition. It is ( or was, cuz all the males are dead) for sure a Black tradition and I thought the Malfoy's leaned more to names of power. Draco is throught 99,5% of the canon the only name that could have been linked to a constellation, but also to the Athenian lawmaker Draco from the 7th century BC, the one of the draconian punishments. if Scorpius is a Black-tradition name, it probably is only given to please Narcissa, now from het whole family only a sister is left. From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 22 13:15:17 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:15:17 -0000 Subject: Satires of Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191596 Dear Phillip Yeah-- the problem with the Barry Trotter stuff is that it just goes on for TOO long. The thing about satire is light, brief, make your point in 80 to 90 pages and that's it. Nothing fails as bad as a sequel to a satire. Thanks for the Wikipedia hint. Few of them look like I'm going to rush out and buy them, especially as I think most are out of print. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 22 13:21:47 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:21:47 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191597 Dear Nikkalmati Good points. I think that one thing that must be kept in mind is the virtually to a man everyone in Hogwarts besides the teachers is a child. All of remembers (or should) that we were perfect a**-h**** when were kids. I look at my own misspent life and wonder A) How I survived, and B) How I avoided landing up in prison. Why I am not still in prison. Besides, being a student of history and seeing the warp and woof of marriage alliances it's entirely in the realm of possibility that some day little Delco Malfoy is going to write home about this really dreamy boy she met called Potter. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Thu Dec 22 13:31:16 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:31:16 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191598 Dear James James: I learned from the seven books that if you are evil and do one almost decent thing (to save your own ass), that all is forgiven and nobody cares about your body art. I learned that the appearance of wisdom and caring is more important than any actual wisdom or caring. I learned that hook-nosed, greasy-haired gits who abuse children will be seen as the sexual fantasy of many women. I learned that wizards are superior to normals and genocide is quickly forgiven if you have money. Otto: Don't hold back James, tell us how you really feel. That's a bit extreme. I can't go that far, though I think my opinion on certain things with regard to accepting and doing evil is well documented. I think there are a lot of positive images. The Weasley parents, McGonagall and some of the teachers. But this leads us back to some of my original posts on the disadvantageous effects of "The House System". But I see a lot more positive in the book than you do. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Sat Dec 24 11:52:33 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 11:52:33 -0000 Subject: The point of it all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191599 Dear List I have a hard time seeing "a plea for toleration" as the mainspring in Harry Potter. I think that might have been an idea slapped on after the fact by Rowling to sound good; kind of like Miss America candidates always wanting "World Piece." The assertion of "plea for tolerance" creates all sorts of other problems, not the least of which is the definition for tolerance. The classic definition of tolerance is "living with something you hate." This would mean in physical terms, forgoing a root canal for a very painful toothache and living with the pain. This type of toleration assumes (in non physical terms) living with and not destroying people who you absolutely despise, who cause you mental pain and suffering and who you hate with a passion equal to the pain of that tooth, and which you see NO reason for them to exist any more than your forgoing the root canal-- that is, your forgoing the root canal JUST for the benefit of the pain and suffering. On the other hand our modern view of "tolerance" is not really tolerance at all. It is a casual indifference a sort of I don't care- can't be bothered attitude which comes from the fact that the person holding this is usually a third party. That is, he doesn't care about either side therefore because it is not important to him he can't see why it's important to those who hold it so. Thus the mystery for example of the deadly hate between Sunni and Shiite in the Middle East or a host of other intolerances around the world. This is a particular affection of "The West" now but it was not always so. One can see these intolerances write large in blood in such conflicts as The Thirty Years War, the Civil War, and various other conflicts which have stacked up mountains of cadavers. This type of benign indifference (and ignorance to what people believe) is not seen as a virtue to those we cluck at, and it very well could be that what we make a virtue of simply testifies that we have no morals and no feelings for anything. But to return to Potter, I can't see much of a plea for tolerance. Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Sat Dec 24 17:12:30 2011 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 17:12:30 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191600 Dear Pippin It's going to be a complicated existence only for people with something to hide, or be ashamed of. Epochs of time will be expended attempting to shift blame from Slytherin to the other houses, to Hogwarts, to Muggles to God, to any else but unfortunately what they did will stick to them like napalm. The carpenter from Nazareth once told his disciples. "Many will come after me saying they are from me, but I tell you they are not from me. Therefore children test every spirit to see if it is from me. By their fruits ye shall know them, for a good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces only bad fruit and is fit only to be cut down and thrown into the fire." "By your fruits ye shall know them." It's quite simple- ignore completely what people say and the excuses and rationales they give- look at their deeds. If their words are belied by their deeds then you know they are simply not to be trusted. Otto From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 24 22:06:43 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:06:43 -0000 Subject: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: > I know they were Americans, but I think JKR was assuming > or pretending there would be chapters of the organization > in the US. It's a better fit than a school from the US, > given the description of the women. zanooda: Oh, I see :-). Well, I never thought it was a school, when I was reading - I assumed it was some kind of organization, although I didn't know *what* kind. > Welcome to the National Federation of Women's Institutes (NFWI), > the largest voluntary organisation for women in the UK zanooda: Oh, so you think JKR just changed the name from "Women's Institute" to "Witches' Institute", LOL? That's quite possible, I would say. From bart at moosewise.com Sun Dec 25 00:34:33 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:34:33 -0500 Subject: To all at this time of year Message-ID: <4EF66F99.7030008@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191602 As they are saying in the United States, have a very merry Holiday That Must Not Be Named! Bart From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Sun Dec 25 01:02:27 2011 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 02:02:27 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] To all at this time of year In-Reply-To: <4EF66F99.7030008@moosewise.com> References: <4EF66F99.7030008@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <1D6A8779BDEC402FB3012E41D4D5ADE8@MilesPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191603 Hello,, "As they are saying in the United States, have a very merry Holiday That Must Not Be Named!" since I live in Germany, where nobody takes offence by an innocent "Frohe Weihnachten", and since this is an international list: Merry Christmas to all of you, and whether you believe in Christ and thus in Christmas or not, I wish you a peaceful end of the year 2011. Miles From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 04:47:00 2011 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (jenn) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 04:47:00 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191604 There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). The worst was Tom Riddle and we know who he became. Snape changed only to try to save Lily. McNair lied to stay out of Azkaban. Many of the deatheaters were in Slytherin. Lucius was a prefect in Slytherin. Slytherin himself valued purebloods above all others and this supposedly caused a riff between Gryffindor and himself. I appreciate a response or your opinions, thank you. Jenn fuzz876i From philip at whiuk.com Sun Dec 25 12:47:42 2011 From: philip at whiuk.com (Philip Whitehouse) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 12:47:42 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin house In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8D08940B-8579-4284-8C59-845C54F2ECB1@whiuk.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191605 > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). The worst was Tom Riddle and we know who he became. Snape changed only to try to save Lily. McNair lied to stay out of Azkaban. Many of the deatheaters were in Slytherin. Lucius was a prefect in Slytherin. Slytherin himself valued purebloods above all others and this supposedly caused a riff between Gryffindor and himself. I appreciate a response or your opinions, thank you. Jenn fuzz876i > Hmm, I don't think there's much to disagree on. However I do think that it's worth saying that just as Snape changed for Lily, so did James. My main complaint with the houses is that by and large they are very one dimensional - the sorting hat is always correct. Also isn't the phrase "There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that didn't come out of Slytherin" - i.e. all bad wizards came from Slytherin - not that all were bad - though the one-dimensionality of houses doesn't help the reader get this impression. Philip Whitehouse > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Dec 25 13:43:59 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:43:59 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <8D08940B-8579-4284-8C59-845C54F2ECB1@whiuk.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191606 Jen wrote > > > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). snip I appreciate a response or your opinions, thank you. Jenn fuzz876i > > > And Philip added > Hmm, I don't think there's much to disagree on. However I do think that it's worth saying that just as Snape changed for Lily, so did James. My main complaint with the houses is that by and large they are very one dimensional - the sorting hat is always correct. > snip - i.e. all bad wizards came from Slytherin - not that all were bad - though the one-dimensionality of houses doesn't help the reader get this impression. > Potioncat: At the time Hargrid made that statement, the 2nd worst wizard in the WW was a Gryffindor---Sirius Black. And even later when we find out he was innocent, the real culprit was another Gryffindor--Pettigrew. So we know his statement wasn't true and it appears his own prejudice against Slytherin had an affect on his view. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 25 17:56:08 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 25 Dec 2011 17:56:08 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/25/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1324835768.12.22953.m10@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191607 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 25, 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 s_ings at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 18:33:07 2011 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (S_Ings) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:33:07 -0000 Subject: Merry Christmas! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191608 Vexxy Elf looks in on the list, "Pretty quiet around here, where is everyone?" Marvin Elf sticks his head in, "They be off opening gifts and eating lots of goodies!" "Do you think they even notice we're here?", ponders Exmoor Elf. Amandageist sets off firecrackers, filling Main with lights and smoke. "Well, I guess they know now", says Corbie Elf, shaking her head. "Okay, let's get everyone in here", says Crikey Elf. "But they don't all want to come", points out Kelley Elf. "And some of us is on holidays", notes Alika Elf from a distance. "It doesn't matter, it's Christmas!", says Shorty Elf. "Okay, someone round up the missing List Elves", says Speedy Elf. *a line of List Elves files in, prodded from behind by Rylly Elf* "They says we have to do it now!", she insists. "Alright, stop poking us, we is here!", says Zaney Elf. "They will not be liking our surprise", states Twisp Elf. "Yes, they will! Everyone likes this kind of thing during the holidays", insists Phlytie Elf. "I think you're wrong", says Penapart Elf. "Well, there's only one way to find out", notes Blinky Elf. "You mean we're really going through with this?", asks Kroppy Elf. "If we're going to do it, let's get started", says Zippy Elf. *the List Elves form a long line, fidgeting and mumbling all the while* "On the count of three!", says Kelley Elf, "1... 2... 3!" "We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas, We wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year", sing the Elves in unison, if slightly offkey. "There, can we eat now?", asks Rylly Elf, pointing to the tables laden with cookies and drinks. Help yourselves to goodies and join us in wishing everyone at HPFGU a very Merry Christmas and all the best in the coming year! Your HPFGU List Elves From technomad at intergate.com Sun Dec 25 18:50:21 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 12:50:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin house In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111225125021.8vkzgt54v4k4gg08@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191609 Quoting jenn : > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of > Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). Hagrid is not, to put it mildly, an unbiassed or generally-reliable source of information. He's got a heart the size of a five-gallon pail, but his brain, not so much. The worst was Tom Riddle > and we know who he became. I'll give you Tom Riddle, but I think he'd have gone bad no matter which House he was in. When we see him getting notified by Dumbledore that he's a wizard and is going to be let into Hogwarts, he's already got some vibes coming off him that would scream "Danger Will Robinson Danger Danger!" to someone better-acquainted with child psychology than D'dore. > Snape changed only to try to save Lily. But he _did_ change. And so did Regulus Black, who martyred himself to try to take out one of the Horcruces. REgulus, you may note, was able to glag down all of that horrible potion, which was more than Dumbledore could do unassisted, all by himself. He died a member of the Clean Plate Club! > McNair lied to stay out of Azkaban. Many of the deatheaters were > in Slytherin. Welcome to Great Britain. Among the segment of the population that goes to boarding schools, particularly the real old sort that Hogwarts is parodying/modeled after, the friendships and connections made in school days are often kept up throughout one's life. That's part of the rationale for sending one's kid to, say, Eton...in later life, he'll be able to call on old school friends and at least have a better chance of getting things done than some random stranger. Lucius was a prefect in Slytherin. Slytherin himself > valued purebloods above all others and this supposedly caused a riff > between Gryffindor and himself. Given when Slytherin and Gryffindor operated, being wary of Muggleborns made good sense. How do you know that a given Muggleborn isn't going to have a fit of repentance over his or her "evil ways" and betray the lot of you? I appreciate a response or your > opinions, thank you. And here you are. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Dec 25 18:51:47 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:51:47 -0000 Subject: Merry Christmas! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191610 > Help yourselves to goodies and join us in wishing everyone at HPFGU a very Merry Christmas and all the best in the coming year! > > Your HPFGU List Elves > There's a knock--more a kick at the door--at it opens to reveal Potioncat, struggling with the weight of a magical gramophone that obviously came from the discount corner of the MTNBN store. "I brought music!--a FILK player." she beams," and seeing the thinly veiled attempt to hide their dismay" faces she adds, "Don't worry. I won't sing." She tapped the horn of the contraption and said the magic words http://www.harrypotterfilks.com/misc/Christmas.htm and "Silver Doe" began to play "It's so good to see you all! Merry Christmas!" she said and went around the room hugging everyone. And no one even winced when she started humming along to "The Holly and the Yew." Merry Christmas Everyone--Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Dec 25 19:07:14 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 19:07:14 -0000 Subject: Merry Christmas! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191611 > Potioncat before > "It's so good to see you all! Merry Christmas!" she said and went around the room hugging everyone. And no one even winced when she started humming along to "The Holly and the Yew." > > Merry Christmas Everyone--Potioncat Potioncat now: And no one even hinted that given her slurred speech (typos, omitted words) perhaps she should go a bit easier on the eggnog the rest of the day. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas everyone! Potioncat From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 20:41:22 2011 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:41:22 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <20111225125021.8vkzgt54v4k4gg08@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191612 > Eric: > Hagrid is not, to put it mildly, an unbiassed or generally-reliable > source of information. He's got a heart the size of a five-gallon > pail, but his brain, not so much. coriandra2002: That's very true. Hagrid, if I remember correctly told Harry and Ron that Aragog was harmless and told Quirrel how to get past the three headed guard dog. He obviously wasn't a very good judge of character. > Eric: > And so did Regulus Black, who martyred himself to try to take out > one of the Horcruces. REgulus, you may note, was able to glag down > all of that horrible potion, which was more than Dumbledore could > do unassisted, all by himself. He died a member of the Clean Plate > Club! coriandra2002: Andromeda Black was another Slytherin who didn't "go bad" and Peter Pettigrew, a Gryffindor most definitely did. Even Draco Malfoy desires some credit I believe. He'd been taught from birth to think of "blood traitors" and Muggles born as garbage and it probably never occurred to him to question that until he went to Hogwarts. I think the fact that he rose above that, however slightly, says something about his character. From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Sun Dec 25 22:00:48 2011 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (jenn) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:00:48 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191613 > > Eric: > > And so did Regulus Black, who martyred himself to try to take out > > one of the Horcruces. REgulus, you may note, was able to glag down > > all of that horrible potion, which was more than Dumbledore could > > do unassisted, all by himself. He died a member of the Clean Plate > > Club! > > coriandra2002: > Andromeda Black was another Slytherin who didn't "go bad" and Peter > Pettigrew, a Gryffindor most definitely did. Jenn: I forgot about Pettigrew and did not think about Regulus. From all of the books you see discord between Slytherin and Gryffindor. The feud between the 2 house is what lead to the creation of the sorting hat. Jenn From ddankanyin at cox.net Sun Dec 25 23:53:40 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 18:53:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] To all at this time of year References: <4EF66F99.7030008@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <8D49632CFB494AAD8E813118805E44B5@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191614 From: "Bart Lidofsky" Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 7:34 PM > As they are saying in the United States, have a very merry Holiday > That Must Not Be Named! > > Bart, Well, I'm in the United States, and we can pretty much wish happy any holiday this time of the year. I assume you mean that we can't mix religion and politics. Like that'll ever happen. :) Happy Christmas, Hanakah (sp?), Kwanza, Solstice, Saturnalia, etc., and any other holiday this time of year that I can't think of at the moment. Think peace, Dorothy From technomad at intergate.com Mon Dec 26 03:25:22 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:25:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111225212522.md2h76xr4koo448w@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191615 Quoting jenn : > >> > Eric: >> > And so did Regulus Black, who martyred himself to try to take out >> > one of the Horcruces. REgulus, you may note, was able to glag down >> > all of that horrible potion, which was more than Dumbledore could >> > do unassisted, all by himself. He died a member of the Clean Plate >> > Club! >> >> coriandra2002: >> Andromeda Black was another Slytherin who didn't "go bad" and Peter >> Pettigrew, a Gryffindor most definitely did. > > > Jenn: > I forgot about Pettigrew and did not think about Regulus. From all of > the books you see discord between Slytherin and Gryffindor. The feud > between the 2 house is what lead to the creation of the sorting hat. > Jenn As I remember it, it was more a matter of the Founders Four realizing "Hey, we're not going to be around forever!" and coming up with the device to Sort students into Houses most suited for them. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Dec 26 15:03:05 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:03:05 -0000 Subject: To all at this time of year In-Reply-To: <8D49632CFB494AAD8E813118805E44B5@DG22FG61> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorothy dankanyin" wrote: > > > From: "Bart Lidofsky" > Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 7:34 PM > > As they are saying in the United States, have a very merry Holiday > > That Must Not Be Named! > > > > Bart, Dorothy: > Well, I'm in the United States, and we can pretty much wish happy any > holiday this time of the year. I assume you mean that we can't mix religion > and politics. Like that'll ever happen. :) > Happy Christmas, Hanakah (sp?), Kwanza, Solstice, Saturnalia, etc., and > any other holiday this time of year that I can't think of at the moment. > Think peace, Geoff: Well, I'll stop at Happy Christmas since it is the birthday of Christ that we are remembering. BTW It's Hanukkah. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Tue Dec 27 01:14:03 2011 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:14:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: To all at this time of year Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191617 Or Chanukah. Or Chanukkah. And feel free to say "Happy Christmas" to me - even though I'm a Pagan. We all celebrate the same thing at this time of year - the birth of Light. Blessed Be, Sherrie In a message dated 12/26/2011 8:11:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com writes: BTW It's Hanukkah. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 28 17:27:04 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:27:04 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jenn" wrote: > > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). The worst was Tom Riddle and we know who he became. Snape changed only to try to save Lily. McNair lied to stay out of Azkaban. Many of the deatheaters were in Slytherin. Lucius was a prefect in Slytherin. Slytherin himself valued purebloods above all others and this supposedly caused a riff between Gryffindor and himself. I appreciate a response or your opinions, thank you. Jenn fuzz876i > Pippin: I haven't got my books with me, but I believe it's in GoF that Harry watches the Sorting and wonders if a new Slytherin knows that Slytherin House has produced more dark wizards than any other. Harry still has a negative opinion of the House, but he's no longer willing to believe that it's the sole source of Dark wizardry. (We will also learn of foreign wizards like Grindelwald.) Now, as far as we know, Harry's observation about Slytherin, unlike Hagrid's, is accurate. But it need not mean what he thinks it means. Correlation is not causation. Possibly more dark wizards come out of Slytherin House because the factors which help one excel as a Slytherin help make one excel as a dark wizard also: determination, resourcefulness, and a certain disregard for rules. And, I might add, the tendency to be disagreeable, ie, to hold out for one's own point of view despite what the rest of the group thinks is good. Or it could be that Harry is right, and being in Slytherin encourages people to make bad choices. But-- There is a simple question which no one ever asks. Slytherin may produce a disproportionate share of dark wizards, but does anyone consider this true of Hogwarts itself? Certainly no character expresses this opinion, and I don't think I've ever heard it from the fandom either. We don't imagine that Britain produces more dark wizards than other areas with the same population, right? But if Hogwarts is *not* producing a disproportionate share of dark wizards, then Sorting itself must be neutral -- it either has no effect on the number of dark wizards over all, or the negative effects are being offset by the positive. Of course we could take the chauvinist view that Hogwarts wizards ought to be *more* moral than wizards elsewhere and this natural superiority is being undermined by the Sorting process. But we don't believe that, do we? Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Dec 29 03:10:38 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:10:38 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191619 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Lyon" wrote: > > I learned from the seven books that if you are evil and do one almost > decent thing (to save your own ass), that all is forgiven and nobody cares > about your body art. > I learned that the appearance of wisdom and caring is more important than > any actual wisdom or caring. > I learned that hook-nosed, greasy-haired gits who abuse children will be > seen as the sexual fantasy of many women. > I learned that wizards are superior to normals and genocide is quickly > forgiven if you have money. > > James Lyon > > -- > Nikkalmati SIGH. Some people will never get over the fact that JKR tricked them. You apparently swallowed the red herring of "evil Snape" hook, line, and sinker, and you just can't give it up. Nikkalmati > From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Dec 29 03:34:19 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 03:34:19 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years later In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear Nikkalmati > > Good points. I think that one thing that must be kept in mind is the virtually to a man everyone in Hogwarts besides the teachers is a child. All of remembers (or should) that we were perfect a**-h**** when were kids. I look at my own misspent life and wonder A) How I survived, and B) How I avoided landing up in prison. > > Why I am not still in prison. > > Besides, being a student of history and seeing the warp and woof of marriage alliances it's entirely in the realm of possibility that some day little Delco Malfoy is going to write home about this really dreamy boy she met called Potter. > > Otto > Nikkalmati Ahem, Ahem. Speak for yourself. :>) I don't have a problem imagining that the WW is much bigger than we see in Harry Potter. After all, if the magical world is hidden, it could be almost any size we want. Aside from Ron's comment about most purebloods having intermarried, we see lots of signs that the families have Muggle branches, and sons and daughters who married the wrong sort. We are told that almost all the purebloods are related, so it would be a good thing to bring in some new blood here and there. We also see that many of the old families are dying out (except for the Weasleys of course). Look at the Blacks and the Malfoys, the Dumbledores, and the Princes, for example. BTW I wonder how many magical Muggles are wandering around the UK, who never got a letter or whose parents tore it up. It could be a fair number over the years and, of course, they could have magical children too. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Dec 29 04:00:50 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:00:50 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jenn" wrote: > > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). The worst was Tom Riddle and we know who he became. Snape changed only to try to save Lily. McNair lied to stay out of Azkaban. Many of the deatheaters were in Slytherin. Lucius was a prefect in Slytherin. Slytherin himself valued purebloods above all others and this supposedly caused a riff between Gryffindor and himself. I appreciate a response or your opinions, thank you. Jenn fuzz876i > Nikkalmati JKR is leading us astray again. You really can't take at face value what any one says in her books, but "by their fruit you shall know them" is the way to analyze the works. Then you see she puts good characters in all the Houses and bad ones too. Plus, there are no truly black and white characters (Umbridge excepted IMHO). Even LV had a small chance of redemption at the end, at least Harry thought it was worth a try. It's always much more complicated than we see on the surface, which is why we find so much to talk about. It is also why I think the scene in the Great Hall when Slytherine walked out is intended to make us jump to the conclusion that they all support LV, but I agree a careful look at the scene reveals that they had good reason to beleive they had no other choice at the time. Nikkalmati From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Dec 29 02:14:22 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin house In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1325124862.48422.YahooMailNeo@web121306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191622 > Jenn: > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). The worst was Tom Riddle and we know who he became. Snape changed only to try to save Lily. McNair lied to stay out of Azkaban. Many of the deatheaters were in Slytherin. Lucius was a prefect in Slytherin. Slytherin himself valued purebloods above all others and this supposedly caused a riff between Gryffindor and himself. I appreciate a response or your > opinions, thank you. Jenn fuzz876i June: Actually what Hagrid said was that there wasn't a witch or wizard that went bad that wasn't from Slytherin. In other words not all Slytherins go bad but if a witch or wizard does go bad he/she will be from Slytherin. This too did not turn out to be correct (and Hagrid himself should have known this). The wizarding world believed for years that Sirius Black (a Gryffindor although from a Slytherin family) gave the Potters to Voldemort. This too turned out to be incorrect as Sirius was innocent and Peter Pettigrew (another Gryffindor whose parents we really don't know anything about) turned out to be the one who gave the Potters to Voldemort. Therefore it is not true that Slytherin = evil. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Dec 29 02:32:57 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:32:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <20111225125021.8vkzgt54v4k4gg08@webmail.intergate.com> References: <20111225125021.8vkzgt54v4k4gg08@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: <1325125977.30216.YahooMailNeo@web121303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191623 > Eric: But he _did_ change. And so did Regulus Black, who martyred himself to try to take out one of the Horcruces. REgulus, you may note, was able to glag down all of that horrible potion, which was more than Dumbledore could do unassisted, all by himself. He died a member of > the Clean Plate Club! June: One correction here. Regulus did not drink the potion himself. He brought Kreacher (his family's house elf) with him and he made Kreacher drink the potion. It was brought up in the Deathly Hallows (book British edition). That is why Kreacher is the way he is. From thedossetts at gmail.com Thu Dec 29 17:43:47 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:43:47 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <1325125977.30216.YahooMailNeo@web121303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > > > > > June: > One correction here. Regulus did not drink the potion himself. He > brought Kreacher (his family's house elf) with him and he made > Kreacher drink the potion. It was brought up in the Deathly Hallows > (book British edition). That is why Kreacher is the way he is. > Pat: Actually, it was LV that made Kreacher drink the potion (to see if it would work). Regulus had Kreacher take him back to show him what had happened to him, and it was what LV did to Kreacher that finally pushed Regulus over the edge. Regulus sacrificed himself, not knowing that there were 5 other horcruxes (6, if you include Harry). Kreacher watched as Regulus drank the potion and that's why Kreacher loves Regulus so much. Pat From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 29 18:08:19 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:08:19 -0000 Subject: The point of it all. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear List > > I have a hard time seeing "a plea for toleration" as the mainspring in Harry Potter. I think that might have been an idea slapped on after the fact by Rowling to sound good; kind of like Miss America candidates always wanting "World Piece." > > The assertion of "plea for tolerance" creates all sorts of other problems, not the least of which is the definition for tolerance. The classic definition of tolerance is "living with something you hate." This would mean in physical terms, forgoing a root canal for a very painful toothache and living with the pain. Pippin: You might undergo an intensely painful root canal procedure, not because you love suffering, but in hopes of avoiding a future toothache and saving the tooth. As for the definition of tolerance, I prefer this: " it is crucial for all of us to give new meaning to the word `tolerance' and understand that our ability to value each and every person is the ethical basis for peace, security and intercultural dialogue. A peaceful future depends on our everyday acts and gestures. Let us educate for tolerance in our schools and communities, in our homes and workplaces and, most of all, in our hearts and minds." - Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO from his address at the dedication of the Museum of Tolerance, Feb. 8, 1993. I think Harry learns a lot about trying to see value in others, even if they don't see value, or the same kind of value, in him. One complication he deals with is that we humans value things differently depending on whether we see them as precious in themselves or as items for exchange. Normal people resist putting an exchange value on those that they love; this is what Voldemort cannot understand. To him it is folly that Lily wouldn't stand aside, and he honestly cannot imagine that Snape, who is no fool, would go on loving a woman who is dead and can't give him anything. The reader, who presumably cares enough about Harry to have read through seven books about him, finds that Narcissa puts only an exchange value on Harry. She saves him, but only because of what she expects to get in return: the life of her son. We don't like that -- it offends our sense of proportion because Harry saved her son for the sake of their common humanity, which Narcissa (still!) does not recognize. Nevertheless an exchange value is still a value, and preferable to indifference. Pippin From kersberg at chello.nl Thu Dec 29 18:44:45 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:44:45 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <1325125977.30216.YahooMailNeo@web121303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191626 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing > > June: > One correction here. Regulus did not drink the potion himself. He > brought Kreacher (his family's house elf) with him and he made > Kreacher drink the potion. It was brought up in the Deathly Hallows > (book British edition). That is why Kreacher is the way he is. > Read your canon once again. Voldemort borrowed Kreacher from Regulus and made him drink to poison ----'Kreacher drank, and as he drank, he saw terrible things....---- a page later ----'And he drank-all the potion-and Kreacher swapped the lockets- and watched...as Master Regulus... was dragged beneath the water...and..--- Regulus drank the potion himself as he was disgusted how Voldemort treated a House Elf. This has nothing to do with Kreacher's disposition, he just reflects how he is treated ( bad by Sirius, good by Regulus) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 29 23:35:17 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:35:17 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191627 > Nikkalmati > > JKR is leading us astray again. You really can't take at face value what any one says in her books, but "by their fruit you shall know them" is the way to analyze the works. Then you see she puts good characters in all the Houses and bad ones too. Potioncat: What if, instead of naming all the bad guys from Slytherin, we named the good guys from each house? I was thinking that I can name several Slytherins, but I'm not sure how many Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws I can name. I'm not sure how this will play out, but here goes. Of course, in some cases we may debate whether the person was a good guy or not--and some good guys or bad guys had no real role in the final battle. So, for right now, I'm naming Slytherins who opposed LV in some way. Regulus Black Severus Snape Horace Slughorn Andromeda Black Tonks (Unless it isn't canon she was Slytherin) Narcissa Malfoy undermined or sabotaged LV twice I can think of. Draco Malfoy attempted to resist several times and undermined a couple of times. Portrait Phineas Nigellus Black Someone I think was Slytherin but don't think it's canon--the senior Crouch. Anyone up for one of the other Houses? Potioncat From technomad at intergate.com Fri Dec 30 00:13:31 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:13:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <1325125977.30216.YahooMailNeo@web121303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20111225125021.8vkzgt54v4k4gg08@webmail.intergate.com> <1325125977.30216.YahooMailNeo@web121303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20111229181331.mc3e1h6m9wgwgskc@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191628 Quoting June Ewing : > >> Eric: > But he _did_ change. And so did Regulus Black, who martyred himself > to try to take out one of the Horcruces. REgulus, you may note, was > able to glag down all of that horrible potion, which was more than > Dumbledore could do unassisted, all by himself. He died a member of >> the Clean Plate Club! > > June: > One correction here. Regulus did not drink the potion himself. He > brought Kreacher (his family's house elf) with him and he made > Kreacher drink the potion. It was brought up in the Deathly Hallows > (book British edition). That is why Kreacher is the way he is. IIRC, the one who made Kreacher drink the potion was Voldemort. Regulus and Kreacher went out there later. "Con-FOUND that Dark Lord Voldemort! He drives me to---DRINK!" *slurpslurpslurpslurpslurp* ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From jnoyl at aim.com Fri Dec 30 00:30:15 2011 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:30:15 -0800 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191629 > James Lyon: > I learned that hook-nosed, greasy-haired gits who abuse children > will be seen as the sexual fantasy of many women. > I learned that wizards are superior to normals and genocide is > quickly forgiven if you have money. > Nikkalmati: > SIGH. Some people will never get over the fact that JKR tricked > them. You apparently swallowed the red herring of "evil Snape" > hook, line, and sinker, and you just can't give it up. James: Note: I stand by what I said and Nikkalmati proves my point. He abuses children--daily--in the books. He mind rapes Harry repeatedly. He puts the sword in a frozen pond. He gives Harry the "gift" of learning that Harry must let himself be killed. He is a Death Eater and has almost certainly killed and, I am sure, raped. His idea of love is to save Lily, kill those she loves, and then keep her as a pet. This is all canon. If he isn't evil, then I don't understand the word and must consider Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Castro, Che, and others has being misunderstood...Nope, don't think I'll be changing my mind any time soon. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 03:09:31 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:09:31 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191630 .> > James Lyon: > > I learned that hook-nosed, greasy-haired gits who abuse children > > will be seen as the sexual fantasy of many women. > > I learned that wizards are superior to normals and genocide is > > quickly forgiven if you have money. > > > Nikkalmati: > > SIGH. Some people will never get over the fact that JKR tricked > > them. You apparently swallowed the red herring of "evil Snape" > > hook, line, and sinker, and you just can't give it up. > > > James: > Note: I stand by what I said and Nikkalmati proves my point. > He abuses children--daily--in the books. He mind rapes Harry repeatedly. He puts the sword in a frozen pond. He gives > Harry the "gift" of learning that Harry must let himself be > killed. He is a Death Eater and has almost certainly killed > and, I am sure, raped. His idea of love is to save Lily, kill > those she loves, and then keep her as a pet. This is all canon. > If he isn't evil, then I don't understand the word and must > consider Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, Castro, Che, and > others has being misunderstood...Nope, don't think I'll be > changing my mind any time soon. . Alla: I cannot speak for Nikkalmati, but I am going to speculate that she is using different definition of evil than you (and myself as well) are using. He was fighting for a good side (no matter how much I wanted him to end up being evil in that regard as well) - why not give him the dues for that? But absolutely for what he did to Harry he will remain forever evil in my book, I am just giving him a credit for what he did. I of course also reject the idea that since he fought for a good side, he became less evil for how he treated Harry. Every time I think of grown man who kept a grudge for decades against innocent kid, I am happy that he wont be terrorizing anybody in the imaginary Potterverse anymore. Him raping anybody is not canon though, his idea to keep Lily is a pet is not canon either, although certainly saw enough canon clues to speculate the same way, but it is not spelled out canon at all. JMO, Alla From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Fri Dec 30 18:43:36 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:43:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: References: <1325125977.30216.YahooMailNeo@web121303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1325270616.949.YahooMailNeo@web121302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191631 .> June: > One correction here. Regulus did not drink the potion himself. He > brought Kreacher (his family's house elf) with him and he made > Kreacher drink the potion. It was brought up in the Deathly Hallows > (book British edition). That is why Kreacher is the way he is. > Pat: Actually, it was LV that made Kreacher drink the potion (to see if it would work). Regulus had Kreacher take him back to show him what had happened to him, and it was what LV did to Kreacher that finally pushed Regulus over the edge. Regulus sacrificed himself, not knowing that there were 5 other horcruxes (6, if you include Harry). Kreacher watched as Regulus drank the potion and that's why Kreacher loves Regulus so much. June: Oh, yes you are correct Pat. I remember that now. Thank You. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kersberg at chello.nl Fri Dec 30 21:08:32 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:08:32 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: ***** > Of course, in some cases we may debate whether the person was a good guy or not--and some good guys or bad guys had no real role in the final battle. So, for right now, I'm naming Slytherins who opposed LV in some way. > > Regulus Black > Severus Snape > Horace Slughorn > Andromeda Black Tonks (Unless it isn't canon she was Slytherin) > > Narcissa Malfoy undermined or sabotaged LV twice I can think of. > Draco Malfoy attempted to resist several times and undermined a couple of times. > Portrait Phineas Nigellus Black > > Someone I think was Slytherin but don't think it's canon--the senior Crouch. > > Anyone up for one of the other Houses? > > Potioncat > Bartemius Crouch a Slytherin? most likely match, he certainly is Old money Old boys network, a family member Caspar Crouch married into the Black family and he is rather self rightous autorithorian, his son met the Slytherins laStrange at early age probably in Slytherin. so enough indication old Barty was a Slytherin himself. From kersberg at chello.nl Fri Dec 30 21:22:06 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:22:06 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <1325124862.48422.YahooMailNeo@web121306.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191633 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > > > Jenn: > > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of > Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). The worst was Tom Riddle and I think Hagrid is not only quite limited in the brain department, but also extremely biased against Slytherin, because a reveiled in CoS, he was directly targetted by the manipulations of a Slytherin in such way that he was connected to the death of Moaning Myrtle and unjustly expelled. What Hagrid tells Harry is the opionion of a simpleton who managed to keep a grudge for 50 years. JKR was rather fond of Hagrid, but I think Draco was quite right abot him from the start. and he is in close competition with Threlawney for been nominated the worst teacher of Hogwarts. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 21:54:04 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 21:54:04 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Lyon" wrote: > > > James Lyon: > > I learned that hook-nosed, greasy-haired gits who abuse children > > ... > > > Nikkalmati: > > SIGH. Some people will never get over the fact that JKR tricked > > them. You apparently swallowed the red herring of "evil Snape" > > ... > > > James: > Note: I stand by what I said and Nikkalmati proves my point. > He abuses children--daily--in the books. ... > > -- Steve: Let's be careful about appling modern standards to behavior that mirrors that of a Century or more ago. In Britian, Caning, the practice of repeatedly striking boy's back sides with a Ratan cane, didn't, more or less, stop until 1987. And it was also common practice in USA schools, though they favored hickory or willow. Catholic schools were positively brutal. Compared to many common school practices, Snape looks positively tame. Next, while Snape might be a totally unpleasant person, that's not the same as abuse; and I mean true abuse. In previous discussion we find that a great many people have a very soft idea of what constitutes abuse. Teacher are not your friends, nor should the be. This idea that everyone should always love you is a thoroughly and very modern concept. As Shaun, our resident teacher from Australia has pointed out in previous discussion, the strictest teacher he had, the teacher he hated most in the moment, is the teacher he most admired in the long run. Is Snape pretty rough on Harry? Yes. But rough and abuse are not the same thing. As to those times when he was somewhat rough, it was to an end; it was for a purpose. For example, the lessons to teach Harry to close his mind. I think Snape could have used more productive methods, but this was a critical and vital matter. One that had the potential to save Harry's life if he was prematurely confronted by Voldemort or any of his more advanced DE's. These were not normal lessons and these were not normal circumstances, and yes, with absolute certainty it annoyed the hell out of Harry, even made him angry. But annoyance and anger do not constitute abuse by any real standard. One could say that Quidditch, or Rugby, or European or American Football should not be allowed because they are 'abusive', they are physical 'brutal' to play. Yet, millions of kids eagerly participate and enjoy those sports. And while we are at it, let's add boxing, wrestling, judo, and karate to the mix. (All Olympic sports.) Yes, Snape was a miserable and wholly unpleasant person, but you are operating under a delusion if you think every single person you meet in your life is somehow obligated to be pleasant to you. Just a few thoughts on a highly polarizing subject that has been discussed many times before and never with a clear consensus. Steve/bbboyminn From jnoyl at aim.com Fri Dec 30 22:14:07 2011 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:14:07 -0800 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191635 Alla wrote: Him raping anybody is not canon though, his idea to keep Lily is a pet is not canon either, although certainly saw enough canon clues to speculate the same way, but it is not spelled out canon at all. James: What, in real life, would the DEs do with women before killing them? What would a loyal DE, and Snape was loyal to Voldie at the time, do with a mudblood once he "owns" her? Tell all his DE friends how much he loves his mudblood or treat her as a pet/slave/toy? How would a man, who thinks love means to kill those that the "love" interest most loves and force her to be with him, treat a woman? Anything like his father? Worse, since his personal "belief" is that she doesn't even deserve to live? It takes very little to see where canon would take someone and saying that a specific act was not mentioned in a kiddies book does not mean it isn't quite logical that it happened. At least the Brothers Grimm told you what was happening. -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 22:31:31 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:31:31 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191636 > Alla wrote: > Him raping anybody is not canon though, his idea to keep Lily is a pet is > not canon either, although certainly saw enough canon clues to speculate > the same way, but it is not spelled out canon at all. > > James: > What, in real life, would the DEs do with women before killing them? What > would a loyal DE, and Snape was loyal to Voldie at the time, do with a > mudblood once he "owns" her? Tell all his DE friends how much he loves his > mudblood or treat her as a pet/slave/toy? > How would a man, who thinks love means to kill those that the "love" > interest most loves and force her to be with him, treat a woman? Anything > like his father? Worse, since his personal "belief" is that she doesn't > even deserve to live? > It takes very little to see where canon would take someone and saying that > a specific act was not mentioned in a kiddies book does not mean it isn't > quite logical that it happened. At least the Brothers Grimm told you what > was happening. Alla: Please note that nowhere in my post I said that it is not a logical assumption. I agree that it is a very logical one, but assumption, canon based speculation, just not canon. I personally see nothing wrong with those assumptions and made plenty of them myself, but canon based speculation and canonical support are not quite the same things. As to what real life DE would do with the women they capture, well, there are no real life DE. I know I am stating the obvious, but bear with me please. Yes, of course I realize that JKR based Death Eaters on the real life terrorists, torturers,and all the people, whom I would probably have a problem calling human beings in real life. But we can only discuss how *Death Eaters* would behave based on what canon shows us. Do I think it is logical to speculate that Snape killed? Sure, of course. Because we are at least shown that other Death Eaters killed people and for me it is not a leap at all to say that Snape is not a special snowflake and did everything that his comrades did. Is it logical to speculate that Snape raped women? I mean, I obviously have no right to tell you or any other reader what you can and cannot speculate about of course, but no, for me it does not cut it at all, sorry. It had been a while since I reread the books, so I am happy to stand corrected, but I do not remember DE shown raping women, so I cannot make a leap that Snape did it. I mean, there is plenty of other things to put at his feet for me and castigate him for, I see no reason to make up additional ones. Canon shows us indeed that he was happy for Lily's husband and her young child to die from Voldemort's hand. He was happy to see two people whom Lily (the woman he supposedly loved!) loved the most in the world dead. For this alone he would forever be a scum of the earth character for me and if you add what he did to Harry all those years, and I do not think any fate but death would have been a satisfactory conclusion for him in my eyes. But I see no need to come up with the things he allegedly did. JMO, Alla From technomad at intergate.com Fri Dec 30 23:17:57 2011 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:17:57 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20111230171757.1hdrwqsxcs4ggkkg@webmail.intergate.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191637 Quoting kamion53 : > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: >> >> > Jenn: >> > There's not a witch nor wizard that didn't go bad that came out of >> Slytherin (Hagrid SORCERER'S STONE, US). The worst was Tom Riddle and > > > I think Hagrid is not only quite limited in the brain department, > but also extremely biased against Slytherin, because a reveiled in > CoS, he was directly targetted by the manipulations of a Slytherin > in such way that he was connected to the death of Moaning Myrtle and > unjustly expelled. At the same time, I've got to say that keeping bloody ARAGOG in the school was just begging for something bad to happen. I'm not saying he should have been expelled for that, but he should have been punished fairly severely. And didn't anybody _examine_ the corpse? Hell's bells, that was SOP in ancient times! > > What Hagrid tells Harry is the opionion of a simpleton who managed > to keep a grudge for 50 years. Victims of injustice tend to do that. I don't blame Hagrid for hating Tom Riddle, and his extending his dislike to all of Slytherin strikes me as a case of his simplemindedness. > > JKR was rather fond of Hagrid, but I think Draco was quite right > abot him from the start. > and he is in close competition with Threlawney for been nominated > the worst teacher of Hogwarts. What??? You left Dolores Umbridge out of the competition? How could you? Or the Carrows, or Quirrel...frankly, the quality of the faculty at that school does not impress me in general. And Hagrid might do just fine if _someone would take the time to teach him HOW to teach!_ Instead, he's thrown in at the deep end and left to his own devices, with a known troublemaker and all around jacka$$ in his class...this is a recipe for disaster; Malfoy would probably have found a way to injure himself with flobberworms if he could blame it on Hagrid. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 31 04:55:10 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:55:10 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191638 > > > Alla wrote: > > Him raping anybody is not canon though, his idea to keep Lily is a pet is > > not canon either, although certainly saw enough canon clues to speculate > > the same way, but it is not spelled out canon at all. > > > > James: > > What, in real life, would the DEs do with women before killing them? What > > would a loyal DE, and Snape was loyal to Voldie at the time, do with a > > mudblood once he "owns" her? Tell all his DE friends how much he loves his > > mudblood or treat her as a pet/slave/toy? > > How would a man, who thinks love means to kill those that the "love" > > interest most loves and force her to be with him, treat a woman? Anything > > like his father? Worse, since his personal "belief" is that she doesn't > > even deserve to live? > > It takes very little to see where canon would take someone and saying that > > a specific act was not mentioned in a kiddies book does not mean it isn't > > quite logical that it happened. At least the Brothers Grimm told you what > > was happening. > > > Alla: > > Please note that nowhere in my post I said that it is not a logical assumption. I agree that it is a very logical one, but assumption, canon based speculation, just not canon. I personally see nothing wrong with those assumptions and made plenty of them myself, but canon based speculation and canonical support are not quite the same things. Pippin: What's illogical, IMO, is jumping to conclusions in situations where we are likely to make mistakes -- that is, where the circumstances are unfamiliar or unusual and there is no attempt to correct for bias. What I see here is a halo effect: disliking Snape for the things we know he did makes it easier to imagine Snape doing other things that we dislike and what is easier to imagine seems more probable. But this is an illusion. For example: We all have lists of characters whom we would bet were in Slytherin -it's certainly hard for me to imagine Umbridge in another house - but the odds that any randomly selected Hogwartian is a Slytherin are, were, and always will be no better than one in four. The fact that I can more easily imagine Umbridge as a Slytherin than, say, Madame Malkin, has no effect on the odds. Likewise, I dislike terrorists, so it's easy to imagine terrorists doing things I dislike. And I know that some terrorists have engaged in systematic campaigns of rape. But so have regular armies, and gangs of civilians. I really have no idea whether terrorists are more likely to be rapists than those other groups. So in a Potterverse where rape is a possibility, we have to accept that Aurors and Order members are possible rapists also, and don't let's get started on the centaurs. In actuality we have no more evidence that Snape went around raping people than, say, Remus Lupin or Sirius Black. Sexual violence, or the attempt at it, does occur in the books and is not limited to Death Eaters. There's MacClaggan's unwanted attentions to Hermione, the Marauders pantsing Snape, and Romilda's tainted candy. it appears most kids at Hogwarts think that anyone who is careless enough to ingest a love potion deserves whatever happens to him. And those are the good guys. For the bad guys, we have Mrs Roberts flipped upside down to show her bloomers, and Merope's sexual enslavement of Tom Riddle. Voldemort himself, though, seems to be stuck in an oral phase of development. Consider his emblem and the name of his group. His servants have to kiss his robes. Charity Burbage is publicly eaten. He also thinks purebloods mating with Muggles and other non-purebloods is repulsive. So a rape campaign just does not seem to me like his style. Harry does think about the possibility of someone forcing Lily, but it's not Snape or even Voldemort that comes to his mind. It's James. As for Snape, as far as my undoubtedly biased memory recalls, the only time he ever got physical with a female was when he dropped that branch on Petunia. Am I forgetting anything? Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Dec 31 15:03:22 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:03:22 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191639 James wrote: > snip > It takes very little to see where canon would take someone and saying that a specific act was not mentioned in a kiddies book does not mean it isn't quite logical that it happened. At least the Brothers Grimm told you what was happening. Potioncat: Nothing in canon implies that Snape wanted Lily as a toy--except maybe LV's statement--and we all know how unreliable LV is. Here's a summary of canon. When Snape learned that LV was planning to kill the Potters, he asked for Lily to be spared. LV agreed. If it stopped there, I'd say your speculation was credible, but then taking a big risk, Snape went to DD to ask for Lily's protection. His first words were, "Don't kill me!" Obviously he was afraid. DD suggested that Lily's family be protected as well and Snape agreed. DD asked for payment and Snape agreed to "anything." He began spying for DD at "great risk"( per DD). When Lily died, Snape was distraught. However he agreed to protect her son from LV and again put himself at great risk to do so. In a conversation with DD 15 or so years after Lily's death, Snape conjured a Patronus that reflected his continued love for Lily-- a silver doe. We know Lily and Severus were friends though 5th year and per a JKR interview, a romantic relationship would have been possible. Snape's Worst Memory (a fine piece of misdirection) was calling Lily a Mudblood and losing her friendship. My interpretation is that Severus loved Lily and wanted to save her life. I know some readers think he hoped to save her, then win her love again. (love, mind you.) I don't. I think there was a rapid span of time between learning she was in danger and in begging for her protection--that his only thought was of saving her. That he agreed to protection for her family meant there was to be no mutual rekindling of past feelings. Nor, do I think there ever could have been. Pippin, Alla and Potioncat, arm in arm defending Severus Snape--2011 is going out with a bang! From kersberg at chello.nl Sat Dec 31 18:32:56 2011 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:32:56 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <20111230171757.1hdrwqsxcs4ggkkg@webmail.intergate.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Eric Oppen wrote: >(**) What??? You left Dolores Umbridge out of the competition? How could > you? Or the Carrows, or Quirrel...frankly, the quality of the faculty > at that school does not impress me in general. > (**) in his class...this is a recipe for disaster; Malfoy would probably > have found a way to injure himself with flobberworms if he could blame > it on Hagrid. I left Umbridge and the Carrows out, because those were forched on Hogwarts, they also deliberately undermined the teaching. Quirrel is a grey area, there is no indication he teached in a bad way, Umbridge and the Carrows were no choice of Dumbledore ( or Snape I think) one could on the other hand include Snape himself, who although rather brilliant himself has no skills to handle lesser gifted pupils. on the whole teaching at Hogwarts during the Potter years is substandard, Dumbledore is far more concerned battling Voldemort then keeping up high standards and willing so sacrifice anything for it. From juli17 at aol.com Sat Dec 31 20:26:07 2011 From: juli17 at aol.com (jules) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:26:07 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191641 > > Pippin: > > For example: > > We all have lists of characters whom we would bet were in Slytherin -it's certainly hard for me to imagine Umbridge in another house - but the odds that any randomly selected Hogwartian is a Slytherin are, were, and always will be no better than one in four. The fact that I can more easily imagine Umbridge as a Slytherin than, say, Madame Malkin, has no effect on the odds. > > Julie: I've always imagined Umbridge as a Hufflepuff. She puts a premium on her loyalty to Fudge and the Ministry. Granted it is a twisted loyalty, but loyalty nonetheless. I also see her as too stupid and single-minded to be a Slytherin. She is a follower, IMO, not a leader, and she is cunning only in her own mind. Julie, who thinks every house has the potential to have its primary traits twisted toward evil. From juli17 at aol.com Sat Dec 31 20:42:11 2011 From: juli17 at aol.com (jules) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:42:11 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191642 > > Potioncat: > Nothing in canon implies that Snape wanted Lily as a toy--except maybe LV's statement--and we all know how unreliable LV is. > Julie: The biggest argument against Snape wanting Lily as a toy/ slave/sexual plaything is the very fact that it never happened. Snape was certainly smart enough and inventive enough to put Lily under his power. Yet we have no canon that he ever challenged James (or more in Slytherin style simple took him out when he wasn't looking), nor did he use a love potion, Imperius, or any other method to get Lily under his control. Instead, after she rejected him outside her dorm, he simply let her go on with the life she had chosen, and as far as we know he never darkened her door again. Snape wasn't your typical stalker, which makes him something of an enigma. He may have loved Lily in an obsessive manner, but his love was also unselfish in many ways. He hurt himself far more than he hurt her (with his love, not his actions--and even that was unintentional, and it was his love which mitigated his action, up until Peter Pettigrew stepped in). Julie From jnoyl at aim.com Sat Dec 31 22:43:26 2011 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:43:26 -0800 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191643 Oh, please! Do you REALLY think mind raping Harry over and over was actually a way to TEACH. How about I yell at you ready and smash your head with a 2x4. Is this the best way to learn to duck or hit back? Have you read the books and actually considered if Harry was your child? Caning Harry for a real infraction would be fine with me. Taunting and insulting a student and their parents in the class room, to me, is abuse. Do we have evidence that any other teacher used the same teaching methods, thus justifying them as typical of wizarding methods? Was any other teacher, who was a DE, made head of house before their 30th birthday and given carte blanche to teach, without reviewing his methods after each and every complaint? Just ask yourself if you were Harry or his parent, what would you think of his teaching methods. Again, don't whine about caning since caning is NOT part of the school disciplinary method. Compared to any other teacher, Snape is crap, Snape abuses his power, Snape causes accidents by hovering over students and NOT correcting them (this punishing Harry for NOT catching the error some other student made). Any one who tries to justify Snape is someone I pray never has children... James -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/