From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jul 1 01:16:15 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:16:15 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iuh2ok+nov7@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuj74v+rqg9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kathy" <kat7555 at ...> wrote: > > > > Bart: > > > > So, while Snape was bound to protect Harry, he still resented that > > Harry, too, had become the golden boy, and mistook his behavior for > > attention-getting, considering himself to be above the rules, and > > possibly even saw Harry as the bully in the Harry/Draco relationship. > > > Kathy: > Harry never was the Golden Boy. His aunt and uncle resented him and > his cousin was a huge bully. His fellow students were quick to judge > him especially in the Chamber of Secrets when Harry was speaking > Parseltongue. Snape's biggest mistake was not getting to know Harry > as a separate person. Can you imagine how Sirius would have reacted > if Snape had actually bonded with Harry? Potioncat: But Harry seemed like the Golden Boy when he first arrived. There's a long description just before the first potions class, about students whispering about Harry Potter and going out of their way to see Harry Potter. So by the time Snape has contact with Harry, he seems a Golden Boy. Snape, of course, saw what he expected to see, and most of what followed was made to fit with his beliefs. By the same token, so did the other teachers. So it's hard to tell which ones really saw Harry Potter and which ones saw what they expected to. > > Kathy > From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jul 1 01:19:35 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 01:19:35 -0000 Subject: Apparition help please In-Reply-To: <4569E596F2034161867A1D55B9BFAEDB@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <iuj7b7+6htb@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190716 "Liz Clark" wrote: > > Can someone please tell me where the descriptions of Apparition are > in the books. I'm only up to OotP ch15 so haven't reached these > descriptions yet! I'm thinking about the first time Harry apparated > (side-along with Dumbledore) in HBP, as I need the description of > what it feels like. > Potioncat: Geoff found a good description. I'd forgotten about that. Another source is the Lexicon. It usually has this sort of information. Here's the link to the main page. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 1 03:09:18 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 03:09:18 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iuf3ur+ftcf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iujdou+ulae@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nerona" <nerona12 at ...> wrote: > > > > Nikkalmati: > > > > And my brother Billy Tim = William Timothy to you. :>) > > > Nerona: > Oh ok sorry I didn't know that. > Nikkalmati Just a little joke. :>). Has any one considered that the Weasleys all have ordinary English names while most other characters are somewhat strange. All right Generva is unusual, but she gores by Ginny. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 1 03:16:42 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 03:16:42 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <4E0BF61C.8030403@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <iuje6q+8is1@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart at ...> wrote: > > Alla: > > > > But he joined the gang of terrorists who considered Muggleborns lower species of life and to me that shows that yes indeed this was his mindset starting from the time poor Lily asked him that question. > > Bart: > <snip> > > Similarly, I suspect that Snape, like many bigots, depersonalized the > targets of his bigotry, and didn't associate them with people he knew > and liked, personally. It is only when Lily becomes the target of Morty > that he realizes, "Hey, that's MY friend!" Even then, DD has to push to > get Snape to see the extra step that every victim is somebody's friend, > and what the Morty and the Deatheaters (whom, good name for a music > group) are doing is just plain wrong. > > <snip> > > Nikkalmati Remember DD himself espoused these ideas as a young man and he played around with the idea of putting Muggles in their place and ruling the world as wizards. I imagine the ideas LV espoused were promulgated originally by Grindenwald and had been partly DD's own ideas. DD was expiating his own crimes by trying to fight bigotry in his old age. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 1 04:19:10 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 04:19:10 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iudu5o+fq63@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iujhru+gfm0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190719 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote: > > > Nerona: > > > > Why did Snape search Grimmauld Place??? Now I remember something > > about Lily photo with Harry on a broom stick but what was he looking > > for?? > > > > Potioncat: > It's been a while since I read DH and I'm not sure if I ever knew what Snape was looking for. He may have gone just for the letter, particularly if he thought he would be on the lam for a while. If that's what it was, then I think he first saw Lily's letter when he went to Grimald Place to tell Harry about Occlumency lessons. Remember, Sirius was in the kitchen and he had a letter that neither the reader nor Harry ever sees, but Black and Snape are about to attack each other? > Nikkalmati that's an interesting thought, but he searched all the bedrooms or maybe that was Mundungas. What was Snape looking for? I don't think we are ever told. He could have been looking for that letter; he tore off Lily's signature and part of the picture. The scene in the kitchen does not give Snape much opportunity to see the letter and no picture was mentioned. BTW how could the letter have gotten to the house? Sirius was not living there at that time (or any time after he was about 16) and we don't know where he lived after Hogwarts. He was arrested immediately after James and Lily were killed so what happened to his things? Were they taken back to his mother's house? Was she proud of him after he was accused of being LV's follower? Nikkalmati From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Fri Jul 1 06:39:42 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 06:39:42 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iujdou+ulae@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iujq3e+27ni@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190720 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nerona" <nerona12@> wrote: Nikkalmati: > > > And my brother Billy Tim = William Timothy to you. :>) Nerona: > > Oh ok sorry I didn't know that. Nikkalmati: > > Just a little joke. :>). Has any one considered that the Weasleys all have ordinary English names while most other characters are somewhat strange. All right Generva is unusual, but she gores by Ginny. Geoff: What's strange about Harry, Vernon, Dudley, Petunia, Minerva, Dean, Hermione, Cedric, Ernie, Neville just to mention a few off the top of my head? From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 11:51:32 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:51:32 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <4E0A0F83.1090100@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <iukcc4+h3eh@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190721 > Joey: > > > > You are right about Snape's viewpoint. I can understand Snape's refusal to trust Sirius - Sirius never showed any good side of his to Snape. But then Snape also fails to consider another point: just the way DD trusts him for a major reason known only to the two of them, DD may have strong reasons to trust Lupin as well - DD did silence Snape when he tried to suggest that Lupin must have let Black in the castle. We see that only James, Sirius, Peter enjoy what they do to Snape. While Lupin did not try to stop them [not a great quality, I admit], he at least never encouraged or enjoyed what they did. So, Snape could have at least heard Lupin's account of the story? > > Bart: > But note that DD, in this case, was wrong. In spite of the fact that > Lupin knew that Sirius was an unregistered animagus, and believed Sirius > to be guilty, he still didn't tell DD about his canine tendencies. And > DD clearly believed Sirius to be guilty (largely because Sirius believed > himself to be guilty, just not of what he was charged). Joey: Oh yes, he was wrong. :-) Snape didn't know that yet though. I was only saying that Snape could have considered the possibility that if DD can trust him for a specific reason then he could be doing the same to Lupin too i.e. have a private reason between him and Lupin that is not known to anyone else. :-) From librasmile at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 04:39:48 2011 From: librasmile at yahoo.com (Librasmile) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 04:39:48 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iufpp4+8ohs@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iujj2k+bi6u@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190722 >> Alla: > > Canon based speculations had always been allowed here, as long as they are clearly marked as such. As to the same topics being rehashed, the same going back and forth, absolutely over the years same topics came up again and again and again. If it is not your idea of the discussion, well, it is not your idea of the discussion. > > There are other interesting topics that come up and also again and again and again. You are either interested in it, or you are not. > > We also usually discuss the book characters, not pro Snape folks or anti Snape folks here. > Librasmile: Missed the point I see. It's not a question of pro or con but a question of...impenetrability. I would expect to see some new insights in a discussion. I expect exchange, even in a discussion of fiction - ESPECIALLY in a discussion of fiction - to generate responses that don't seem to be equivalent to political parties holding firm to their positions regardless of what logic or genuinely valid alternate views are expressed. Forget my own Snape bias which I freely admit. If Snape were substituted with some other person in the Shrieking Shack incident, I fully believe that the anti-Snape arguments would change. The non-Snape victim would receive some modicum of sympathy. There would be some acknowledgement of Sirius culpability. I certainly don't expect cheerleaders for Snape but I do expect to see some acknowledgement that there equally valid counter arguments against seeing Snape as purely evil. However, that's not what I see. I simply see the equivalent of partisan radio or talk shows. So thank you. I've at last taken the time to get a good look at what's going on here and I shall value it accordingly. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 14:47:47 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:47:47 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iujj2k+bi6u@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iukmmj+cqdf@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190723 > Librasmile: > Missed the point I see. > It's not a question of pro or con but a question of...impenetrability. I would expect to see some new insights in a discussion. I expect exchange, even in a discussion of fiction - ESPECIALLY in a discussion of fiction - to generate responses that don't seem to be equivalent to political parties holding firm to their positions regardless of what logic or genuinely valid alternate views are expressed. Alla: No, you are the one who missed the point. Discussing the list members, their discussions styles,the way they write or do not write is pretty much off topic, thats all there is to it. Lobrasmile: Forget my own Snape bias which I freely admit. If Snape were substituted with some other person in the Shrieking Shack incident, I fully believe that the anti-Snape arguments would change. The non-Snape victim would receive some modicum of sympathy. There would be some acknowledgement of Sirius culpability. Alla: While I cannot speak for any other antiSnape cheerleaders, I can totally say for myself - your assumption is wrong. Thats the whole point, when we discuss facts, we may make inferences as Snape fans or Sirius fans, but facts are facts. Any other idiot who would have behaved like Snape in this situation would have received no sympathy from me, NONE. By the way, it is quite possible to genuinely see Snape as very evil man, I do not need to twist facts, or anything like that, thats how I see him. I acknowledge him learning at the end of his life, that Voldemort's side was wrong, that to me does not make him an admirable human being, just somebody who fought on the right side. Librasmile: I certainly don't expect cheerleaders for Snape but I do expect to see some acknowledgement that there equally valid counter arguments against seeing Snape as purely evil. However, that's not what I see. I simply see the equivalent of partisan radio or talk shows. Alla: You can only *expect* such acknowledgment if the person with whom you are discussing things genuinely sees such possibility. I don't. As I said above I acknowledge that Snape learned what is the right side in the fight and that all lives are worth saving. Said fact notwithstanding, this only makes him not as evil as Voldemort for me. Voldemort is evil on the grandscale, but any person who tormented little boy for years and years, little boy whom he helped make an orphan is an every day evil in my eyes. No flipping of the facts is needed. You may not see that as evil, thats your right, I do, kindly award me the courtesy of acknowledging that my views are as genuine as yours. I have no desire arguing what I do not believe in, never did. For almost ten years I had been here, Snape always was one of the most polarizing figures in discussion, so of course those discussions are more often like debates. There are plenty of much less polarizing topics which were and are being discussed. Librasmile: > So thank you. I've at last taken the time to get a good look at what's going on here and I shall value it accordingly. Alla: Thats your right. Potioncat: Ah the good old days...we used to be very particular about canon based debates. Even then, interpretions of canon could vary a lot. And some of us who argue from different sides of the topic are really friends. Alla: Nooooo, how can I be a friend with you? You like HIM LOLOLOLOL. One day I will do another Ode to Potioncat, one of the funniest Snape fans I have had a privilege to get to know here at HPFGU :) and OMG I did this discussion with Zara, who is another Snape fan and the dearest friend. And we like different characters heheh. Nikkalmati: Remember DD himself espoused these ideas as a young man and he played around with the idea of putting Muggles in their place and ruling the world as wizards. I imagine the ideas LV espoused were promulgated originally by Grindenwald and had been partly DD's own ideas. DD was expiating his own crimes by trying to fight bigotry in his old age. Alla: Absolutely agreed, but what does this have to do with Snape's ideas? Sorry I am just confused. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 1 16:53:17 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:53:17 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iukcc4+h3eh@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuku1t+m6q7@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190724 > Joey: > > Oh yes, he was wrong. :-) Snape didn't know that yet though. I was only saying that Snape could have considered the possibility that if DD can trust him for a specific reason then he could be doing the same to Lupin too i.e. have a private reason between him and Lupin that is not known to anyone else. :-) > Pippin: But Snape also knows that Dumbledore can put his trust in the wrong person. Lupin was a prefect, trusted by Dumbledore to keep his fellow students in line, a job at which, by Lupin's own admission, he failed miserably. Snape, as Lupin says, has his reasons for not trusting him. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 1 18:12:44 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:12:44 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iukmmj+cqdf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iul2ms+tj8e@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190725 > Alla: > > You can only *expect* such acknowledgment if the person with whom you are discussing things genuinely sees such possibility. I don't. As I said above I acknowledge that Snape learned what is the right side in the fight and that all lives are worth saving. Said fact notwithstanding, this only makes him not as evil as Voldemort for me. Voldemort is evil on the grandscale, but any person who tormented little boy for years and years, little boy whom he helped make an orphan is an every day evil in my eyes. No flipping of the facts is needed. Pippin: Is Harry's judgement so poor that he named his son after a very evil person? Do you think young Al will want to change his name? I'm not saying the way Snape behaved to Harry in the classroom is okay, or should be excused because Snape did other things that were good. But equally, the way he behaves in the classroom is not worse because he did other things that were bad. Remember who Hermione's boggart is? McGonagall bullies her students just as much as Snape. Does that make McGonagall an every day evil person too? BTW, I think it is a vast exaggeration, at least, to say that Snape bullied a little boy for years and years. Just try treating an eleven year old as if he were a little boy, and see where it gets you <g>. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 19:00:03 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:00:03 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iul2ms+tj8e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iul5fj+r8ph@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190726 > Pippin: > Is Harry's judgement so poor that he named his son after a very evil person? Do you think young Al will want to change his name? Alla: Absolutely! I love Harry's character, but this was one of my very strong disagreements with him. I mean, it is all in the degree. I would have thought that it would have been very much appropriate for Harry to acknowledge Snape's contributions to the cause, but to name his son after son was quite creepy for me. I can see how JKR wanted it to be seen as noble act of forgiveness though. Pippin: > I'm not saying the way Snape behaved to Harry in the classroom is okay, or should be excused because Snape did other things that were good. But equally, the way he behaves in the classroom is not worse because he did other things that were bad. Alla: No, to me the way he behaved to Harry is more horrible because he had personal tie to Harry. Pippin: > Remember who Hermione's boggart is? McGonagall bullies her students just as much as Snape. Does that make McGonagall an every day evil person too? Alla: If I were to agree with you then yes, it would have been, only I do not think she does. I thought she bullied Neville couple of times, but I also thought that she learned and not did that anymore. And see above, she did not have a personal tie to Neville the way Snape did to Harry. It does not make the act any better, but it makes IMO her motivations to be less abominable. I do not think McGonagall wanted a revenge on Neville and I am convinced Snape did. Pippin: > BTW, I think it is a vast exaggeration, at least, to say that Snape bullied a little boy for years and years. Just try treating an eleven year old as if he were a little boy, and see where it gets you <g>. Alla: Yeah, I know, I phrased it awkwardly. He bullied little boy and then teenager for years and years in my opinion. You will never convince me though that regardless what said eleven year old sees himself as, 36 year old should see him as a little boy. Three year old in my family is starting to see himself as adult already lol. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 19:07:41 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:07:41 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iul5fj+r8ph@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iul5tt+6chj@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190727 > > Pippin: > > Is Harry's judgement so poor that he named his son after a very evil person? Do you think young Al will want to change his name? > > Alla: > > Absolutely! I love Harry's character, but this was one of my very strong disagreements with him. I mean, it is all in the degree. I would have thought that it would have been very much appropriate for Harry to acknowledge Snape's contributions to the cause, but to name his son after son was quite creepy for me. I can see how JKR wanted it to be seen as noble act of forgiveness though. Alla: It was meant to say to name his son after Snape of course. I also want to add that Harry also named his son after a man who planned for years to sacrifice him on the altar of the cause. I feel VERY sorry for Harry, who in my view was quite brainwashed and abused by Dumbledore as much as other people in his life, but again I can never be convinced of this as something great. I want to stress though, I totally understand that this is the reading against JKR's intent and she wants me to see Dumbledore as great man whose actions Harry learned to understood and appreciate, but she failed miserably to convince me of that. Actually, I think him naming his son after Dumbledore is GASP more creepy than after Snape. At least Snape tried to protect him from death, even if he tormented him on regular basis. JMO, Alla From fenneyml at gmail.com Fri Jul 1 20:11:53 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:11:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iufg37+refc@eGroups.com> References: <BANLkTiktb1NGOMBAT1_1P_jxABXxsRwDJw@mail.gmail.com> <iufg37+refc@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <BANLkTik1_+Y31A6Rv1QJAkrzgejNK6J9Uw@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190728 > Librasmile: > The smile is simply an attempt to be diplomatic. But one would think that logic or common sense would also have some role to play. Instead, what I'm seeing is folks continually proposing an argument > that's being bent out of all kinds of realistic shape to support a conclusion that's been made without evidence. I keep seeing anti-Snape folks do backflips to preclude ANY possibility of him having any kind > of positive trait at all. Which certainly isn't my idea of a discussion. I've been quite open in my bias but I'm not seeing the same thing. Not with everyone and no one's been insulting per se (including > myself). But I can now see why I lurked for so long. There's very little that's new being created here. There are no new insights rather just constantly unproductive batting back and forth. Bookcrazzzy (new comment): I find your posts quite ironic because they are a perfect example of what you are complaining about. You made the following statement: <snip> Librasmile: I don't want to get into a long back and forth because clearly folks are just taking their position and sticking to it. But I'm a complete absolute Snape fan. I don't see him as flawless. But it still puzzles me that people can see him being harassed for years and then NOT see that incident in the Shack as an attempt to kill him. If there wasn't a werewolf involved AND if Sirius and crew hadn't been harassing him for YEARS with NO restraint from school authority, then yes I would say it was just an impulsive act. But from where I'm sitting hostile intent had been established for years before this latest incident and that hostility naturally leads to an attempt to kill Severus. As far as I'm concerned Sirius intended to kill, didn't give a rat's ass what would have happened to Lupin ( until after the fact when he realized that LUPIN could have been killed ), and James was only saving the Marauders' a**'s when he saved Snape. But people are going to believe what they want to believe. I just know if I were the victim I wouldn't want them on the jury because they'd let my accuser go and then where do I go for help? Who's going to keep me safe? Who's got enough power to stop 2 rich and powerful boys who damn near got away with my murder once before from trying it again. Oh wait, there's this new group forming and Malfoy is in it. Surely a Malfoy can counter a Black... But no, no, let's all just go with the thought of Severus being thoughtlessly evil. Cause he'll be so much safer once he's out of school...of course he will be... <snip> Bookcrazzzy (new comment): I then replied with the following post which brought several things from canon into the discussion: <snip> Bookcrazzzy: I don't think of Snape as being thoughtlessly evil by any means, nor do I think him the purely innocent victim that you seem to consider him to be. Consider that while a student, he developed the Levicorpus spell that was used by James against him. How, may I ask, did it become known among the students unless Snape used it against someone at some point and would you think his intent when developing it was "innocent"? He also developed Sectumsempra specifically, as he noted in his potions book, "for enemies." Sectumsempra is without question a lethal curse and I don't think there is much question that the Marauders were included in Snape's "enemies". By comparison, the Marauders developed the Map which was clearly for mischief making, became animagi to support a friend, and did not do anything at any point that supports a theory of lethal intent except for the Shrieking Shack incident. I don't see the Marauders as innocent either but I believe them to be immature boys, not evil incarnate and I believe Sirius to be the most impulsive, thoughtless and least mature of the group but not a murderer. I believe JKR gave her prominent characters strengths and weaknesses which is part of what makes them believable. We all have our failings. I will also note that Snape harassed Harry (and per my previous post, I believe he did not hate Harry but thought he was acting in "the boy's best interest" when he did so), for years and from a position of considerable authority over Harry but Harry never attempted to murder him. <snip> Bookcrazzzy (new comment): You did not bother to address any of the items from canon but posted the following two replies: <snip> Librasmile: Yes, but those are the conclusions you come to when you see Snape as a human being which is not a position that any amount of logic, rational argument, common sense or anything else that an anti-Snape person can accept. =^) Librasmile: Missed the point I see. It's not a question of pro or con but a question of...impenetrability. I would expect to see some new insights in a discussion. I expect exchange, even in a discussion of fiction - ESPECIALLY in a discussion of fiction - to generate responses that don't seem to be equivalent to political parties holding firm to their positions regardless of what logic or genuinely valid alternate views are expressed. Forget my own Snape bias which I freely admit. If Snape were substituted with some other person in the Shrieking Shack incident, I fully believe that the anti-Snape arguments would change. The non-Snape victim would receive some modicum of sympathy. There would be some acknowledgement of Sirius culpability. I certainly don't expect cheerleaders for Snape but I do expect to see some acknowledgement that there equally valid counter arguments against seeing Snape as purely evil. However, that's not what I see. I simply see the equivalent of partisan radio or talk shows. So thank you. I've at last taken the time to get a good look at what's going on here and I shall value it accordingly. <snip> Bookcrazzzy (new comment): My point is this: all of your posts have been about how other people are biased and are not creating anything new, not bringing forth new insights, not adding to the discussion, not supporting conclusions with evidence from canon. I fail to see where you have done any of these things or otherwise contributed something of value. My post about Snape was not from a Snape-hater but from a person with moderate views on Snape and Sirius and was a true attempt at discussion with multiple aspects of canon brought in to support my ideas. You chose to ignore all of that and make more noise about how people hate Snape and won't budge from their point of view. It is true that many ideas come up repeatedly on this list but there is plenty of good discussion and people do change or moderate their views as a result of those discussions. If you want to discuss then do so - put forth some ideas instead of doing nothing but criticizing other people for doing exactly the same thing that you are doing. If you want value then give some! Provide an example, just one, of what you would like to see in terms of discussion and you might be surprised by what you find. In the meantime, I will value your posts accordingly. Bookcrazzzy with apologies to those who read through this whole thing but I had to put it all in to make the point. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 1 20:20:16 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iujdou+ulae@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309551616.65765.YahooMailClassic@web113918.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190729 > Nikkalmati: > Has any one considered that the Weasleys all have ordinary > English names while most other characters are somewhat > strange. All right Generva is unusual, but she goes by Ginny. June: Actually I have not noticed that. What names are you talking about? From nerona12 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 1 19:23:27 2011 From: nerona12 at yahoo.com (nerona) Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:23:27 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iu0mcn+86gl@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iul6rf+8up9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190730 > Pippin: > Remember who Hermione's boggart is? McGonagall bullies her students just as much as Snape. Does that make McGonagall an > every day evil person too? Nerona: I agree Pippin, but McGonagall never favors a student, she gave points to the Slytherins when they deserved it, she never removed homework as if it didn't exist. (When Harry in book 5 when Snape dropped his potion and told him, "Another zero, Potter.") Although she bullied Neville couple of times but she was fair at the same time. Snape on the other hand did his best to humiliate Harry and his friends, ex: when Malfoy jinxed Harry but it hit Hermione and her front teeth got really big, Snape looked at her and said he sees no difference at all (book 4) and then sent Harry to detention and probably gave Malfoy point for it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jul 2 00:22:10 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:22:10 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape Message-ID: <iulobi+668m@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190731 Not too long ago--May, June--someone said in a post that they wished Snape and Harry had experienced resolution or an understanding. I can't find the post, don't have the exact words. I'm sorry, ever since then I've pictured Snape treating Harry to an ice cream cone. Not a pretty picture. (Although a line in one the books about something being as likely as Snape adopting Harry lead to a ton of Snape Adopts Harry fanfics.I'm sure there was ice cream.) I would have liked to see some sort of understanding between Harry and Snape if only because it would have required Snape to live a while longer. We don't get a hand shake at the end of the battle, or a nod at the train station. We know of course that Harry came to some sort of appreciation of Snape or understanding of an aspect of Snape's character. I'm not sure what Snape thought of Harry at the end. We know he wasn't pleased at DD's plan to protect Harry until it was time for Harry to be sacrificed. Yet JKR says Snape never came to like Harry. We do get Snape's last request of Harry, to "look at me." Harry's last moment with Snape ends just like his first contact with the professor-- looking eye to eye. It's a sort of resolution, a closure. This time, instead of a sharp pain, Harry would have a collection of memories. And that's better than an ice cream cone! Potioncat From huntergreen3 at aol.com Sat Jul 2 01:04:52 2011 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen3 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 01:04:52 -0000 Subject: Wormtail (was: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19) In-Reply-To: <iu7isp+k2ni@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iulqrk+mg49@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190732 Potioncat: >>I think a true Gryffindor or Hufflepuff would have died before betraying a friend. I've never understood how Peter got into Gryffindor. Has anyone figured that out?<< Rebecca: I don't think Peter every really was a friend of Lupin/James/Sirius, he was just a follower. I remember seeing people like that when I was in high school, they want to be part of an "in crowd" and go leech off of them and follow them around, not necessarily even having anything in common, just wanting to be a member of the group. Since Peter was in their (presumably) room and wouldn't leave them alone, they had no choice but to include him, but he appears to me to be more of a fan club than an actual friend. (I don't think that means James/Sirius treated him badly either, Peter could have found other friends, Neville doesn't force himself on Harry/Ron nor do Dean or Seamus.) Peter strikes me as being cut from the same cloth as Umbridge, sort of towing the line of whomever is in power and easily stepping aside and switching to a new person without a look back. I wonder how quickly she started distancing herself from Fudge when his favor became to plumment (notice how he is ousted, but not her), or how the death eaters were imperiousing people to get close to Scrimgeor and eventually killed him and she appears to have no problem with that (despite him defending her to Harry), she just shifts her loyalties. Peter is the same way, Sirius and James were the popular ones, so he follows them, even out of Hogwarts and into the order, but when order members start dying and it looks like they're going to lose, he shifts over to Voldemort. As for whether or not this fits in with the philosophy of Gryffindor, I don't know. Certainly bravery is very important, and I don't think of Peter as a coward. I think that he *chose* to switch to Voldemort, and only said otherwise to try and save his life. If he was passing information for a *year* he had plenty of opportunities to fess up and ask for protection. And he willingly became the secret-keeper, he could have refused Voldemort would have never expected him to be the secret-keeper (yes, its not easy to lie to Voldemort, but that could have been one of those "time to run away and go into hiding" moments, or admit to James and Lily what is going on). It takes a certain kind of courage to lie to people for a year, especially when news of the spy started leaking out, and yet no one suspected him, he must be good at lying. Also, when Voldemort was blasted into vapor, he could have just disappeared as a rat, but rather took the time to set up Sirius (by cutting off his own finger no less) which wasn't necessary. Yes, they would have been searching for him otherwise, but he can hide as a *rat*, he'd be impossible to find. I think confronting Sirius and setting him up for murder was very brave, an evil sort of bravery, but bravery nonetheless. The person in the marauders who I think least belongs in Gryffindor is Lupin, actually. He's so desparately insecure, and when pressed, he backs away. First in Snape's worst memory, we see him *not* intervening even though he clearly disagrees with what James and Sirius are doing AND he's a prefect, even first-year Neville was braver than that (and what Harry/Ron/Hermione were doing was less bad, in my opinion). In PoA, he is the ONLY person that could tell Dumbledore (or the aurors or ANYONE) that Sirius can turn into a dog, but he's too afraid to admit that he was deceptive to Dumbledore as a teenager. If Sirius actually was trying to kill Harry he would have suceeded because of this. Lupin would have let Harry die since he was too scared to admit wrong-doing from fifteen years before. In the rest of the series, he's constantly whining about how no one likes "his kind", rather than try and do anything about it. Then when his wife is pregnant, he's so terrified that the baby will be a werewolf that he tries to run away rather than deal with it. I don't think that he chooses to be cowardly, its just his nature, he's clearly trying to fight it, he is working with the order and does manage to march into dangerous situations, its just that he's only brave sometimes, other times, when its not about life or death, he turns into a coward. He seems like a better fit for Ravenclaw. -Rebecca (who has been lurking, but hasn't posted since before DH) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 2 02:12:32 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 02:12:32 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iukmmj+cqdf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuluqg+9c9k@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190733 > > > > Librasmile: > > Missed the point I see. > > It's not a question of pro or con but a question of...impenetrability. I would expect to see some new insights in a discussion. I expect exchange, even in a discussion of fiction - ESPECIALLY in a discussion of fiction - to generate responses that don't seem to be equivalent to political parties holding firm to their positions regardless of what logic or genuinely valid alternate views are expressed. > Nikkalmati I find lots of enlightment here. Nikkalmati > > > Librasmile: > I certainly don't expect cheerleaders for Snape but I do expect to see some acknowledgement that there equally valid counter arguments against seeing Snape as purely evil. However, that's not what I see. I simply see the equivalent of partisan radio or talk shows. > > Nikkalmati Actually Alla has softened up quite a bit on Snape since DH!:>) > Nikkalmati: > > Remember DD himself espoused these ideas as a young man and he played around > with the idea of putting Muggles in their place and ruling the world as wizards. > I imagine the ideas LV espoused were promulgated originally by Grindenwald and > had been partly DD's own ideas. DD was expiating his own crimes by trying to > fight bigotry in his old age. > > > Alla: > > Absolutely agreed, but what does this have to do with Snape's ideas? Sorry I am just confused. Nikkalmati The ideas Snape embraces on the superiority of wizards over Muggles, which are promoted by LV, came from DD and Grindenwald. DD is atleast partly responsible for LV and his Death Eaters and he probably knows it. Nikkalmati > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 02:44:55 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 02:44:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Snape and bigotry WAS:Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban In-Reply-To: <iuluqg+9c9k@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ium0n7+moag@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190734 > > Librasmile: > > I certainly don't expect cheerleaders for Snape but I do expect to see some acknowledgement that there equally valid counter arguments against seeing Snape as purely evil. However, that's not what I see. I simply see the equivalent of partisan radio or talk shows. > > > > > Nikkalmati > > Actually Alla has softened up quite a bit on Snape since DH!:>) Alla: My goodness, do you remember post HBP debates Nikkalmati? Did he do it? Did he not? Did he do it? Did he? And if he did it, why? So much passion and fun. Yeah, good old times :) > > Alla: > > > > Absolutely agreed, but what does this have to do with Snape's ideas? Sorry I am just confused. > > Nikkalmati > > The ideas Snape embraces on the superiority of wizards over Muggles, which are promoted by LV, came from DD and Grindenwald. DD is atleast partly responsible for LV and his Death Eaters and he probably knows it. Alla: Oh my god. Talk about getting new insights and enlightment lol. I mean, of course I did not forget that Dumbledore shared those ideas with Grindelwald and wanted to see it in life, the wizards superiority and muggles. Its just believe it or not, I do not think I ever made a direct link of responsibility that Dumbledore must have for Voldemort and death eaters. But wait, are we sure that Dumbledore and Gridenwald were the first ones to bring these ideas in wizard society or it was already spread and they just picked upon it and run with it?I wonder if Voldemort studied Dumbledore's and Grindelwald's works and decided to adopt them heh. Well, regardless I think now I just got a legit reason to hate Dumbledore even more than I do :). Thanks Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 2 03:05:19 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:05:19 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iul6rf+8up9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ium1tf+th29@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nerona" <nerona12 at ...> wrote: > > > Pippin: > > Remember who Hermione's boggart is? McGonagall bullies her > students just as much as Snape. Does that make McGonagall an > > every day evil person too? > > Nerona: > I agree Pippin, but McGonagall never favors a student, she gave > points to the Slytherins when they deserved it, she never removed > homework as if it didn't exist. (When Harry in book 5 when Snape > dropped his potion and told him, "Another zero, Potter.") Although > she bullied Neville couple of times but she was fair at the same > time. > > Snape on the other hand did his best to humiliate Harry and his > friends, ex: when Malfoy jinxed Harry but it hit Hermione and her > front teeth got really big, Snape looked at her and said he sees > no difference at all (book 4) and then sent Harry to detention > and probably gave Malfoy point for it. > Nikkalmati I certainly would never suggest that Snape and McGonagall are equivalent, but I think she falls on the stricter side of the teachers. The first year she does not punish Harry for flying his broom without a teacher there and instead gives him a position on the Quiddich team (favortism?). I see no evidence that she changed toward Neville; I also am not sure it was "fair" to critisize Neville so harshly for losing his list of passwords. And, when did she give points to the Slytherines (maybe she did, I just don't recall). We have discussed the potions incident before. If you read carefully, there is nothing to indicate Snape is responsible. Jo wants us to think that, of course, because she wants us to dislike and be suspicious of Snape. For me the significant point is that Harry and Hermnione both believe that if she had not vanished the remainder of his potion, he could have turned it in with no problem. Lots of people think Harry got poor grades in Potions under Snape, but there is no proof of that either. Snape of course did not grade the OWLS, so Harry's grade there was not up to Snape. Yes, he was nasty to Harry and his friends. The teeth incident was absolutely painful. It has been pointed out that in a fight of Slytherines vs. Gryffindors it was more than Snape's life was worth to show any favor to Gryffindors. (That remark about giving Draco a point is just imagination). Nikkalmati From wildirishrose at fiber.net Sat Jul 2 03:15:51 2011 From: wildirishrose at fiber.net (Marianne Hall) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:15:51 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <82EF75BA3E7E4F3DA2B07457D8E04D08@DG22FG61> Message-ID: <ium2h7+g26m@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorothy dankanyin" <ddankanyin at ...> wrote: > > >> > Nerona: > >> > I have several questions about the Deathly Hallows: First of them > >> > on Bill's and Fleur's wedding during the ceremony Bill was called > >> > William Arthur--why??? > >> > >> Margaret: > >> I would assume that's his full name, just as Ron is actually Ronald, > >> Ginny is Ginevra, and so forth. Or am I misunderstanding your > >> question? > > > > Nerona: > > No no, you're right, no misunderstanding, but my question is Bill is > > not a shortcut to William... > > Dorothy: > Yes, it is! Marianne: Bill is a shortcut to William. My son is named William, but he has never been called Bill. It's always been William, Will or Wills. Bill was never an option for his name From nerona12 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 02:21:16 2011 From: nerona12 at yahoo.com (nerona) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 02:21:16 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iul5tt+6chj@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iulvas+dfvm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190737 > Alla: > I would have thought that it would have been very much appropriate for Harry to acknowledge Snape's contributions to the cause, but to name his son after [Snape] was quite creepy for me. I can see how JKR wanted it to be seen as noble act of forgiveness though. > > I also want to add that Harry also named his son after a man who planned for years to sacrifice him on the altar of the cause. I feel VERY sorry for Harry, who in my view was quite brainwashed and abused by Dumbledore as much as other people in his life, but again I can never be convinced of this as something great. > <snip> Nerona: I still can't see why Harry named his son after Snape, the guy treated him like scum all these years; ok, he tried to protect him in the name of Lily and everything, the memory that Snape gave to Harry in the DH shows really clearly that he never liked the boy. When Snape find out that Harry has to die in the right moment, he is devastated and ask Dumbledore "I thought we are protecting him, Lily's son" (or something like that) so Dumbledore asks him did you grow to like him after all ("like him?") the he shoots a patronus (the silver doe) "all this time?" "forever" This conversation shows that Snape never got to the point of liking Harry, and that he was only protecting him for Lily's sake, nothing more. I got to the conclusion why did Harry name his son after Snape, I hope it's a good one: the memory that Harry saw in the pensieve in the DH, made him realise that he and Snape almost shared the same childhood, and he considered that what Snape did all these years was bravery, but I don't think so, JKR said it in 1 interview, if it wasn't for Lily Snape would never had thought twice before killing the boy. Although LV chose Harry instead of Neville, let's say it Neville, not Harry, Snape would never have considered give a warning to Dumbledore. He would have even help LV to kill the boy and his parents Snape hated James, and we can't say that James was innocent because as per his behaviour, now also Snape says in the memory that Harry is exactly like James but Harry never cast jinxes on other students just for fun. Or just for existing. Now let's suppose that Snape didn't die in the shrieking shack by Nagini, let's say that he gave the memory to Harry somehow and Harry saw it. What I think Snape would have done while in battle in the great hall I think that he would have jumped in front of Harry taking the killing curse instead (if that happened I would not blame Harry for naming his son after Snape). From fenneyml at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 03:32:52 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 23:32:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iuluqg+9c9k@eGroups.com> References: <iukmmj+cqdf@eGroups.com> <iuluqg+9c9k@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2sPBvuYy0CHvxeV0XO2zvscPmcymM+R5B3G2WFjWDkSfw@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190738 > > Nikkalmati > > > The ideas Snape embraces on the superiority of wizards over Muggles, > which are promoted by LV, came from DD and Grindenwald. DD is atleast partly > responsible for LV and his Death Eaters and > > he probably knows it. > Bookcrazzzy While DD and Grindelwald adopted the Wizard superiority stance, I think there is plenty in canon to support the idea that it existed long before they came along. You have a number of pure-blood families who have clearly cherished that bloodline and "protected it from contamination" over centuries. The wars with the goblins and bad feelings over wand rights come to mind as do problems between wizards and other "higher" magical creatures like merpeople and centaurs. Both merpeople and centaurs rejected the classification of human beings because of long-held resentments over the way they had been treated by wizards. I think DD was deeply ashamed of his past and tried to make reparations later in life but I don't think he felt responsible for LV and the Death Eaters in the way that you mean. He might feel that he could have handled things differently with the young Tom Riddle or insisted on being secret keeper for James and Lily or done other things differently, but not that he "created" the whole idea of wizard superiority. JMO, Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Jul 2 03:30:13 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 20:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <ium2h7+g26m@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309577413.88673.YahooMailClassic@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ? >Marianne: Bill is a shortcut to William. My son is named William, but he has never been called Bill. It's always been William, Will or Wills. Bill was never an option for his name June as someone who has a brother named William whom we have always called Bill I can tell you that Bill is in fact short for William. So is Will and Liam and it depends on the person what name they choose to use. For more information on this you can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_(name) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 2 03:38:40 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:38:40 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iujq3e+27ni@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ium3s0+9ggf@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190740 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote: > >> Nikkalmati: > > > > Just a little joke. :>). Has any one considered that the Weasleys all have ordinary English names while most other characters are somewhat strange. All right Generva is unusual, but she gores by Ginny. > > Geoff: > What's strange about Harry, Vernon, Dudley, Petunia, Minerva, Dean, Hermione, > Cedric, Ernie, Neville just to mention a few off the top of my head? > Nikkalmati I don't want to get into any trouble here. It wan't meant as a profound observation. I don't mean they are the only ones with average everyday names, but they form a group that stands out because their names are all unexceptional. In your list surely you would agree that Minerva and Hermione are unusual. A range of names are not commonly seen nowadays Cornelius, Dudley (I at least have never seen it before), Narcissa, Bellatrix, Lavender, Luna, Zacharius, Phineas. Others are rather strange: Severus. Ludo, Lucius, Sirius, Rubeus, Olympe, Draco, Regulus, Remus, Xenophilius. There are many others that fall into the unusual or strange categories, don't you think? Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 2 03:52:52 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:52:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Snape and bigotry WAS:Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban In-Reply-To: <ium0n7+moag@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ium4mk+uh94@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote: > > Alla: > > My goodness, do you remember post HBP debates Nikkalmati? Did he do it? Did he not? Did he do it? Did he? And if he did it, why? So much passion and fun. Yeah, good old times :) > > > > Alla: > > > Nikkalmati Yes, it's sad to think that no one will go through that suspense again. The end has been revealed. Sigh Nikkalmati From fenneyml at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 03:45:30 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 23:45:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <ium1tf+th29@eGroups.com> References: <iul6rf+8up9@eGroups.com> <ium1tf+th29@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2tYkbEpDWo=2hZiP6upDCC2=DVKstL=hSvX4jyaU=XDaw@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190742 > > > Pippin: > > > Remember who Hermione's boggart is? McGonagall bullies her > > students just as much as Snape. Does that make McGonagall an > > > every day evil person too? > > Nikkalmati: > > I certainly would never suggest that Snape and McGonagall are equivalent, but I think she falls on the stricter side of the teachers. The first year she does not punish Harry for flying his broom > > without a teacher there and instead gives him a position on the Quiddich team (favortism?). I see no evidence that she changed toward Neville; I also am not sure it was "fair" to critisize Neville so > > harshly for losing his list of passwords. And, when did she give points to the Slytherines (maybe she did, I just don't recall). Bookcrazzzy: I think that Hermione's boggart reflects her irrational fear of failure, not a real bullying of Hermione by McG. McG is strict and believes in enforcing the rules but she does ease up once in a while when circumstances are special. She does favor her own house, as all of the heads seem to do, and does positive things for her Quidditch team but I don't think she is ever abusive to any student of any house. When it comes to Neville, she tells him about his grandmother not doing well in Charms and that "his grandmother needs to be proud of the grandson she has got", and both comments mean a lot to Neville (this was when she was discussing Neville's choices in N.E.W.T.S.) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 2 13:30:06 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:30:06 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2tYkbEpDWo=2hZiP6upDCC2=DVKstL=hSvX4jyaU=XDaw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <iun6gu+8oot@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190743 > Bookcrazzzy: > > I think that Hermione's boggart reflects her irrational fear of failure, not > a real bullying of Hermione by McG. Pippin: I agree that Hermione's fear is failure. But there has to be a reason that this fear is personified by McGonagall. Bookcrazzy: McG is strict and believes in enforcing > the rules but she does ease up once in a while when circumstances are > special. She does favor her own house, as all of the heads seem to do, and > does positive things for her Quidditch team but I don't think she is ever > abusive to any student of any house. Pippin: Oh, she has her "mudblood" moment. It's right at the end, when she tells Slughorn she's going to kill his students if she suspects them of hindering the defense. And wands are indeed aimed with her approval, not just at Pansy Parkinson, but at the whole of Slytherin House, ickle firsties and all. Bookcrazzy: When it comes to Neville, she tells > him about his grandmother not doing well in Charms and that "his grandmother > needs to be proud of the grandson she has got", and both comments mean a lot > to Neville (this was when she was discussing Neville's choices in > N.E.W.T.S.) Pippin: In the same conversation,McGonagall tells Neville that his problems are due to lack of confidence. But she never connects that with her teaching style. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 2 15:16:02 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:16:02 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iul5fj+r8ph@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuncni+5a0e@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190744 > > Pippin: > > Is Harry's judgement so poor that he named his son after a very evil person? Do you think young Al will want to change his name? > > Alla: > > Absolutely! I love Harry's character, but this was one of my very strong disagreements with him. I mean, it is all in the degree. I would have thought that it would have been very much appropriate for Harry to acknowledge Snape's contributions to the cause, but to name his son after son was quite creepy for me. I can see how JKR wanted it to be seen as noble act of forgiveness though. > Pippin: Now that is astonishing. For me, if Harry did not forgive Snape that would be understandable. It would also be, well, Snape-ish. So Snape-ish that I can hardly believe-- wait a minute, who are you and what did you do with the real Alla? <veg> Siriusly, if Harry did not forgive Snape, It would be impossible for me to see it as anything but JKR either approving of Snape's action in not forgiving James, or else sending Harry down the same tragic path. I don't see the naming of Harry's son as an act of forgiveness, though forgiveness was a necessary precursor to it. I see it as Harry acknowledging his personal debt to Dumbeldore and Snape. If he had not done that, if he had only acknowledged their service to the Order, I would see it as doing exactly what Snape did. Snape never said that James was cowardly or self-serving as an Order member. It was all about the way that James tormented him at school. Because of that, he was never going to acknowledge that James had saved his life for any but the most selfish reasons. I never thought of this before (see, we do get new ideas around here) but perhaps what Snape would have preferred was not to have died in the tunnel, or conquered the werewolf, but to have been rescued by someone who actually gave a $#@! for him as a person -- and who wouldn't embarrass him, of course. Picky, picky, I know. And that's the point. We can't be afford to be choosy about our saviors, and Harry was wise enough to see it. Dumbledore and Snape could have left Harry to his fate -- which they saw as certain death without their intervention--but they didn't. They didn't have to risk their lives, but they did. So what if they didn't do it for him? They did it for the things that Harry loved, for Lily and for Hogwarts, for a world where innocence and trust still have some value. That was enough for Harry. It's enough for me. I can't see them as evil for doing that, even though Snape could not perceive Harry's innocence and Dumbledore took advantage of it. As always with JKR, there's a common sense reason to do the right thing along with the noble one. Harry can hardly ask the leaders of the wizarding world to turn their backs on old grudges if he's not willing to do it himself. If Snape ever taught Harry anything, it's that carrying a grudge against the dead can only harm the living. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 2 15:29:15 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:29:15 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <ium3s0+9ggf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iundgb+aslv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190745 > Nikkalmati > > I don't want to get into any trouble here. It wan't meant as a profound observation. I don't mean they are the only ones with average everyday names, but they form a group that stands out because their names are all unexceptional. > > In your list surely you would agree that Minerva and Hermione are unusual. A range of names are not commonly seen nowadays Cornelius, Dudley (I at least have never seen it before), Narcissa, Bellatrix, Lavender, Luna, Zacharius, Phineas. Others are rather strange: Severus. Ludo, Lucius, Sirius, Rubeus, Olympe, Draco, Regulus, Remus, Xenophilius. There are many others that fall into the unusual or strange categories, don't you think? > Pippin: JKR said that she gave Hermione an unusual name because she thought people were going to find the character hard to take (not JKR's exact words, but something like that) and didn't want anyone with the character's name to be the target of teasing. I think JKR wanted the Weasleys to come across as likable, popular and "normal" for a family of wizards, so she gave them familiar names. Other characters, whom she wishes to suggest are strange, unusual or eccentric, are named accordingly. Pippin From margdean56 at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 15:50:38 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 09:50:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iuncni+5a0e@eGroups.com> References: <iul5fj+r8ph@eGroups.com> <iuncni+5a0e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAD2gbLgvWttZcPy+GPb=Qwb4UDxXNLMJ9u4BZciQkuOfwmPeNA@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190746 On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:16 AM, pippin_999 <foxmoth at qnet.com> wrote: > I never thought of this before (see, we do get new ideas around here) but perhaps what Snape would have preferred was not to have died in the tunnel, or conquered the werewolf, but to have been rescued by someone who actually gave a $#@! for him as a person -- and who wouldn't embarrass him, of course. Such as, perhaps, Lily? --Margaret Dean <margdean56 at gmail.com> From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 15:59:54 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:59:54 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iujdou+ulae@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iunf9q+il7u@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190747 > Nikkalmati > > Just a little joke. :>). Has any one considered that the Weasleys > all have ordinary English names while most other characters are > somewhat strange. All right Generva is unusual, but she gores by > Ginny. Mike: Someone once pointed out that all of the Weasley men are named for English kings, starting with the most famous though maybe mythical Arthur. And Ginny *could* have been a form of Arthur's bride, Guinevere, though Nikkalmati is correct on her real first name. Only Molly doesn't fit in this category, but she's a Weasley by marriage, not by birth. Mike From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 2 16:33:09 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:33:09 -0400 Subject: We had to destroy this boy in order to save him... In-Reply-To: <iul5tt+6chj@eGroups.com> References: <iul5tt+6chj@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E0F4845.6050007@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190748 On 7/1/2011 3:07 PM, dumbledore11214 wrote: > It was meant to say to name his son after Snape of course. I also want to add that Harry also named his son after a man who planned for years to sacrifice him on the altar of the cause. I feel VERY sorry for Harry, who in my view was quite brainwashed and abused by Dumbledore as much as other people in his life, but again I can never be convinced of this as something great. Bart: My take (and it took a couple of readings of DH to get to it). Morty was going to marshal all his forces to kill Harry. So, the alternative to Harry sacrificing himself was not living; it was dying anyway. DD figured out something, however. To give a background, very often in the news, you'll read about a major accident involving a drunk driver, where the only person who was uninjured, or the person with the fewest injuries, was the drunk. There's a reason other than natural injustice for this. When most people get into an accident, their muscles tighten up. A drunk, having slower reactions, stays relaxed. The relaxed muscles allow the drunk to move with the accident, and sustain fewer injuries, much like a storm will knock down trees, but not the grass. Now, getting back to Harry & Morty, Harry had two special protections; the first was the blood protection. When Morty used some of Harry's blood in his new body, while he became able to touch Harry, his own body would rebel against attacking Harry. Harry's wand appearing to act on its own accord to protect him from Morty was, in effect, Morty unconsciously activating it himself. The second protection was that Harry had not one soul, but also a piece of the Mortysoul. Harry could not kill Morty without losing his piece of the Mortysoul, and Harry would be in danger as long as Morty lived. But getting the soul out of a Horcrux without destroying or severely damaging the container is a tricky thing, indeed (otherwise, Harry could have gotten rid of the Mortysoul simply by being run through by the Sword of Gryffindor). What DD realized is that if Harry was willing to sacrifice himself, and, like the drunk, allowed Morty to AK him without any resistance, the Mortysoul would be destroyed, and between that and the blood protection, Harry would survive. However, if Harry knew this was the case in advance, he would not be able to have the right frame of mind, since he would know he wasn't really sacrificing himself. In other words, the only way to save Harry's life was for Harry to willingly sacrifice himself (well, that or create a prison that you can't apparate out of, put on a Fidelius charm and make Harry the secret keeper, and put Harry into it, which one suspects would not be a preferred solution from Harry's point of view). Bart From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 2 17:17:22 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:17:22 -0400 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <iul6rf+8up9@eGroups.com> References: <iul6rf+8up9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E0F52A2.6010200@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190749 Nerona: > I agree Pippin, but McGonagall never favors a student, she gave > points to the Slytherins when they deserved it, she never removed > homework as if it didn't exist. (When Harry in book 5 when Snape > dropped his potion and told him, "Another zero, Potter.") Although > she bullied Neville couple of times but she was fair at the same > time. > > Snape on the other hand did his best to humiliate Harry and his > friends, ex: when Malfoy jinxed Harry but it hit Hermione and her > front teeth got really big, Snape looked at her and said he sees > no difference at all (book 4) and then sent Harry to detention > and probably gave Malfoy point for it. Bart: Prof. McGonagall used a technique of having high expectations of her students, and expecting them to live up to them. She used her judgment as to whether or not failures were based on lack of talent or lack of effort. She would be very stern with students who she felt were not trying hard enough, but she had the flexibility for dealing with students who failed in spite of their best efforts. Snape also had high expectations, but he also appeared to believe that all failure was due to a lack of effort. From what we have seen, he believed that if failure itself was not sufficient punishment to motivate the students to do better, so he used humiliation as a motivator. Unfortunately, with many students it probably made them do worse by making nervous mistakes, although it probably made a lot of students work harder to avoid being the target of Snape's barbs. Note that, when on his own, Harry achieved an "E" in his Potions OWL. Both methods were effective, but Snape's had the probable side effect of making students who, if more gently treated, might have succeeded into failing. Bart From margdean56 at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 18:47:40 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:47:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iunf9q+il7u@eGroups.com> References: <iujdou+ulae@eGroups.com> <iunf9q+il7u@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAD2gbLjV=Rz=B-72PAJOmdoMaT+OCSMQJn_8-B0OmsFWaoDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190750 On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Mike Crudele <mcrudele78 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Nikkalmati > > > > Just a little joke. :>). Has any one considered that the Weasleys > > all have ordinary English names while most other characters are > > somewhat strange. All right Generva is unusual, but she gores by > > Ginny. > > Mike: > > Someone once pointed out that all of the Weasley men are named for English kings, starting with the most famous though maybe mythical Arthur. And Ginny *could* have been a form of Arthur's bride, Guinevere, though Nikkalmati is correct on her real first name. Only Molly doesn't fit in this category, but she's a Weasley by marriage, not by birth. Molly is actually a nickname for Mary, and there have been plenty of Queen Marys! I don't recall any English kings named Fred (erick) or Ronald, though -- at least, not as a reigning name. They might have been included in the string of given names usually bestowed on a royal scion, however! --Margaret Dean <margdean56 at gmail.com> From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 18:55:32 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:55:32 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iunf9q+il7u@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iunpj4+bgeh@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190751 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Crudele" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote: > ... > > Mike: > > ... Only Molly doesn't fit in this category, but she's a Weasley by marriage, not by birth. > > Mike > Steve: "Molly" can't be her formal first name, I find myself wondering what it might be. What is "Molly" typically short for? Let's also note that some of the unusualy first names have significance to aspects of the story. Sirius - the Dog Star Sirius - the Dog Animagus Remus - of the Roman twins Romulus and Remus who were raised by wolves Remus Lupin - werewolf I believe "Lupin' is even a reference so something related to a wolf. Actually according to the HP Lexicon "lupin" is Latin for 'wolf'. Draco is a dwarf galaxy orbiting the Milkyway, and is also Latin for, more or less, Dragon. Malfoy, is French for 'bad faith'. How that specifically ties to Draco's character, I'm not sure. I believe 'Rubeus', as in Rubeus Hagrid, is related to the color Red, which Hagrid's face would be since he is half-tanked quite a lot. Hagrid, could be related to 'Hag Ridden', which is a reference to having bad dreams. If you were having a nightmare, it was because people believed that Hags were coming in the middle of the night and riding you. And it might be tied to the term "Haggard" meaning looking tired and worn out. Alternately, having a 'wild, distraught, or intractable' appearance. I'm sure there are many others. Steve/bboyminn From fenneyml at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 14:24:58 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 10:24:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iun6gu+8oot@eGroups.com> References: <CAGRJC2tYkbEpDWo=2hZiP6upDCC2=DVKstL=hSvX4jyaU=XDaw@mail.gmail.com> <iun6gu+8oot@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2sj7GYwOtX=XenE3AXTBP-ro_0_qcLa9Ai2=mOOpsRxRQ@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190752 > > Pippin: > > I agree that Hermione's fear is failure. But there has to be a reason > that this fear is personified by McGonagall. Bookcrazzy: It could very well be because she has a lot of respect for McG. It could also be because McG is her head of house. If Hermione felt bullied by McG or disliked her, I think she would have mentioned it in the books, heaven knows there is no doubt how Harry, Ron and Hermione felt about Snape! > > Bookcrazzy: > > I don't think she is ever abusive to any student of any house. > > > Pippin: > > Oh, she has her "mudblood" moment. It's right at the end, when she tells > Slughorn she's going to kill his students if she suspects them of hindering > the defense. And wands are indeed aimed > > > >with her approval, not just at Pansy Parkinson, but at the whole of > Slytherin House, ickle firsties and all. > Bookcrazzy: I don't think her action compares at all. She isn't acting purely out of personal feelings but is making sure that there won't be trouble to the defense from the Slytherins. Once it is clear, that's the end of it. Sure, McG doesn't like the Slytherins but she doesn't personally abuse any of them. > Pippin: > > In the same conversation,McGonagall tells Neville that his problems are > due to lack of confidence. But she never connects that with her teaching > style. Bookcrazzy: Neville's problems are due to a lack of confidence and it comes from hearing his grandmother tell him he doesn't measure up to his parents, not from McG's teaching style. McG is telling Neville to help him and tells him about his grandmother and Charms specifically to do that. Again, if Neville disliked McG, I think he would say so at some point but while all the kids respect her, they don't dislike her. No teacher has a teaching style that is optimal to all students and McG is undoubtedly strict but she is *about* as fair as they come. Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fenneyml at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 16:44:22 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:44:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] We had to destroy this boy in order to save him... In-Reply-To: <4E0F4845.6050007@moosewise.com> References: <iul5tt+6chj@eGroups.com> <4E0F4845.6050007@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2vcMWbus1jxCJRerzoMVOCi2+9N5xsA8mUeQCQBBe727g@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190753 > >Bart: > >My take (and it took a couple of readings of DH to get to it). Morty was > >going to marshal all his forces to kill Harry. So, the alternative to > >Harry sacrificing himself was not living; it was dying anyway. DD > >figured out something, however. > > >What DD realized is that if Harry was willing to sacrifice himself, and, > >like the drunk, allowed Morty to AK him without any resistance, the > >Mortysoul would be destroyed, and between that and the blood protection, > >Harry would survive. However, if Harry knew this was the case in > >advance, he would not be able to have the right frame of mind, since he > >would know he wasn't really sacrificing himself. In other words, the > >only way to save Harry's life was for Harry to willingly sacrifice > >himself. Bookcrazzzy: That was my take as well, although I don't think I could have expressed it so well! Bookcrazzzy From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Jul 2 21:00:32 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:00:32 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <ium2h7+g26m@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuo0tg+uc95@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190754 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marianne Hall" <wildirishrose at ...> wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorothy dankanyin" <ddankanyin@> wrote: Nerona: > > >> > I have several questions about the Deathly Hallows: First of them > > >> > on Bill's and Fleur's wedding during the ceremony Bill was called > > >> > William Arthur--why??? Margaret: > > >> I would assume that's his full name, just as Ron is actually Ronald, > > >> Ginny is Ginevra, and so forth. Or am I misunderstanding your > > >> question? > > > Nerona: > > > No no, you're right, no misunderstanding, but my question is Bill is > > > not a shortcut to William... Dorothy: > > Yes, it is! Marianne: > Bill is a shortcut to William. My son is named William, but he has never been called Bill. It's always been William, Will or Wills. Bill was never an option for his name Geoff: I don't quite see the meaning of "shortcut" in this context. What we are looking at are familiar abbreviated forms of the names used by family and friends. It does not follow that every person WANTS to use the familiar form. One of our church members is called Pamela and considers it a great insult to be called Pam. On the other hand, my full name is Geoffrey but I dislike the full name as, to me, it seems rather old-fashioned so I insist on being called Geoff. As I pointed out previously, there are instances where the familiar form is the child's correct given name. Harry Potter seems to have the full given names Harry James whereas Harry is often the familiar form of Henry (as in the case of Prince Harry) or Harold. So, we're not really considering options for names, rather the familiar forms which may or may not be used. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 21:10:07 2011 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (krules) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:10:07 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iulobi+668m@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuo1ff+dc3d@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190755 > Potioncat: > ... I'm not sure what Snape thought of Harry at the end. We know he wasn't pleased at DD's plan to protect Harry until it was time for Harry to be sacrificed. Yet JKR says Snape never came to like Harry. Kemper: JKR also said that Slytherins stormed the castle to fight against the Dark Lord. But it's not in the books. So... If an author says something about her work, I'm inclined to believe it only if there's canon to suggest it. That said, canon shows loads of dislike for Harry. Yet, it seemed he loved him as he shows Dumbledore that for Harry: Expecto Patronum! Dumbledore questions how long this feeling has been with Snape. He replies, 'Always.' > Potioncat: > We do get Snape's last request of Harry, to "look at me." Harry's last moment with Snape ends just like his first contact with the professor-- looking eye to eye. It's a sort of resolution, a closure. This time, instead of a sharp pain, Harry would have a collection of memories. Kemper: The sharp pain originated from the less than ghost in Quirrell's turban (from what I remember anyway; it's been years since I read the first book.) Snape's request/demand 'Look at me' seems more like Snape being interested in seeing Lily as he drifts behind the veil. You know that thing about Harry: he has his mother's eyes. I don't think that's necessarily selfish of Snape; he's dying! It's not an attempt on his part to make amends/atone/redeem/resolve anything. Snape displays serious issues with respect to Lily (running in to the Headquarters of the Order to snatch a pic of Lily and James; well Lily, he tears away James' image discarding it without a thought; he also tears off the 'Love Lily' or whatever her sig line is from a letter she wrote.) It's been nearly 20 years Snape! Let go. Kemper From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Jul 2 21:32:30 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:32:30 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iujj2k+bi6u@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuo2pe+967m@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190756 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Librasmile" <librasmile at ...> wrote: Librasmile: > Missed the point I see. > It's not a question of pro or con but a question of...impenetrability. I would expect to see some new insights in a discussion. I expect exchange, even in a discussion of fiction - ESPECIALLY in a discussion of fiction - to generate responses that don't seem to be equivalent to political parties holding firm to their positions regardless of what logic or genuinely valid alternate views are expressed. Forget my own Snape bias which I freely admit. If Snape were substituted with some other person in the Shrieking Shack incident, I fully believe that the anti-Snape arguments would change. The non-Snape victim would receive some modicum of sympathy. There would be some acknowledgement of Sirius culpability. I certainly don't expect cheerleaders for Snape but I do expect to see some acknowledgement that there equally valid counter arguments against seeing Snape as purely evil. However, that's not what I see. I simply see the equivalent of partisan radio or talk shows. > So thank you. I've at last taken the time to get a good look at what's going on here and I shall value it accordingly. Geoff: I get the impression from your remarks that you are possibly fairly new to the group. Having been a member of this group for just on eight years, I can assure you that Snape has got supporters and detractors. I know of group members who are pro-Snape and others (like myself as it happens) who find it difficult to like him, despite the truth which has emerged about his activities. It might be of interest to you to pick a message number from some years past, say 100,000 of 150,000 and have a look at what discussions were going on there at that time - nor only Snape but other ambivalent members of the Wizarding World. It has become less easy to speculate about many characters as the story has drawn to a conclusion and many story arcs have been closed. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 21:44:51 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:44:51 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuo1ff+dc3d@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuo3gj+l6ts@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190758 .> > Potioncat: > > ... I'm not sure what Snape thought of Harry at the end. We know he wasn't pleased at DD's plan to protect Harry until it was time for Harry to be sacrificed. Yet JKR says Snape never came to like Harry. > > Kemper: > JKR also said that Slytherins stormed the castle to fight against the Dark Lord. But it's not in the books. So... If an author says something about her work, I'm inclined to believe it only if there's canon to suggest it. That said, canon shows loads of dislike for Harry. Yet, it seemed he loved him as he shows Dumbledore that for Harry: Expecto Patronum! Dumbledore questions how long this feeling has been with Snape. He replies, 'Always.' Alla: I remember this was your reading of this scene Kemper, but I admit this is one of most hard to understand for me interpetations and not because I take JKR's word for Snape hating Hary till the end since to me canon supports it. I mean, to me it is so clear that he is talking about his feelings for Lily and it has nothing to do with Harry, but I of course respect your reading even if I strongly disagree with it. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 22:17:04 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:17:04 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iuncni+5a0e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuo5d0+bo6o@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190759 REPOSTED FOR CLARITY AND BECAUSE OF MANY TYPOS. > Pippin: > Now that is astonishing. For me, if Harry did not forgive Snape that would be understandable. It would also be, well, Snape-ish. So Snape-ish that I can hardly believe-- wait a minute, who are you and what did you do with the real Alla? <veg> > > Siriusly, if Harry did not forgive Snape, It would be impossible for me to see it as anything but JKR either approving of Snape's action in not forgiving James, or else sending Harry down the same tragic path. Alla: Yes I am okay with forgiving Snape, but again I phrased it badly. As you say below, to me naming his son after Snape is indeed above and beyond act of forgiveness. It is something that no human being will do in my opinion (obviously your mileage may vary). As we discussed earlier that in Jewish tradition the naming of the child after dead is an ultimate act of love and respect. Nothing will convince me that if Harry was well adjusted man he would have wanted to show Snape and Dumbledore an ultimate act of love. Respect could be shown by other means. However Crist like figures will do that and I believe that she meant Harry's sacrifice to make him Christ like figure. No, guys please do not start, I am not saying that she meant for Harry to be Christ, but I am saying that she meant to invoke very obvious parallels. That is why I kind of able to understand and swallow Harry forgiving those two, but for him being shown as Christ like figure, that would have been even tougher sell for me. Pippin: > I don't see the naming of Harry's son as an act of forgiveness, though forgiveness was a necessary precursor to it. I see it as Harry acknowledging his personal debt to Dumbeldore and Snape. If he had not done that, if he had only acknowledged their service to the Order, I would see it as doing exactly what Snape did. Alla: Sorry, I cannot even argue against the idea of Harry having a personal debt to a man who planned to kill him for years and a man who tormented him for years so preposterous this idea seems to me. I will just say I disagree with that. Having said that, I would have had no problem with Harry not only acknowledging Snape's contribution to the order (ummm, and even that is going above and beyond of what Snape did), but also Snape trying to save Harry's life (for Lily of course). How is it not enough for decent person to do I wonder? Pippin: > Snape never said that James was cowardly or self-serving as an Order member. It was all about the way that James tormented him at school. Because of that, he was never going to acknowledge that James had saved his life for any but the most selfish reasons. Alla: Snape however never acknowledged what James did for the order, again if Harry only did all that it would have been him showing much more acknowledgement than Snape did. Pippin: > And that's the point. We can't be afford to be choosy about our saviors, and Harry was wise enough to see it. Dumbledore and Snape could have left Harry to his fate -- which they saw as certain death without their intervention--but they didn't. Alla: And Dumbledore did exactly that, prepared Harry to die as pig for slaughter. Pippin: > They didn't have to risk their lives, but they did. > > So what if they didn't do it for him? They did it for the things that Harry loved, for Lily and for Hogwarts, for a world where innocence and trust still have some value. That was enough for Harry. It's enough for me. I can't see them as evil for doing that, even though Snape could not perceive Harry's innocence and Dumbledore took advantage of it. Alla: I can and I will see Dumbledore as being evil for doing that, as putting the gamble on one boy and coldly and calmly preparing him for his fate of sacrifice on the altar of Wizarding world. Pippin: > As always with JKR, there's a common sense reason to do the right thing along with the noble one. Harry can hardly ask the leaders of the wizarding world to turn their backs on old grudges if he's not willing to do it himself. If Snape ever taught Harry anything, it's that carrying a grudge against the dead can only harm the living. Alla: There is such a long road to travel from turning his back from old grudges to naming his son in honor of the man who wanted to sacrifice him as if his life means nothing for the future of WW, which he partially brought upon WW and for the man who tormented and hated him for years (per JKR). But this is what Christ like figures usually do. So yes, since I still want to view Harry as a human being and not as a Saintly man, I choose to view this act as creepy. Please, acknowledge that Snape tried to save his life, by all means, show the world that he fought for right cause, but naming the child after those two? Shakes head. At least I hope that for All and James there would be no Dumbledore and Snape to deal with. I keep remembering that once in the interview way before the books were done she said something along the lines that religious figures do not want her to be with them, but they cannot grasp how much she is with them, and I think the ending showed how true her words were indeed,. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 2 23:01:18 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 23:01:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iuo5d0+bo6o@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuo7vu+oqec@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190760 Pippin: <SNIP> > I don't see the naming of Harry's son as an act of forgiveness, though forgiveness was a necessary precursor to it. I see it as Harry acknowledging his personal debt to Dumbeldore and Snape. <Snip of pretty much the whole post> Alla: I have to admit that the idea that Harry owes personal debt to *Dumbledore* of all people and Snape too shocked me so that I want to make a separate post out of it. Below is the list of possible reasons Why Harry may owe personal debt to Dumbledore and of course it is a bit sarcastic, but it is at the same time not really, it is just so very unbelievable to me because I can only list the wrongs Dumbledore did to Harry and nothing that Dumbledore did FOR Harry at all. So, what does Harry owe Dumbledore a personal debt for? For subjecting him to a life time of abuse with Dursleys? For denying him the possibility of being raised by his Godfather whom his parents wanted to raise Harry? In other words for interfering and playing God with Harry's fate when nobody asked him to? Maybe Harry owes Dumbledore a personal debt for failing to stop what Snape did to Harry even though we know that Dumbledore did not agree with Snape that Harry needed extra discipline? There is also another possibility - Harry owes Dumbledore a personal debt for failing to stop his agony over Dumbledore deciding to not talk to him in OOP, because Voldemort may see Dumbledore through Harry's eyes? Or was it backwards? I confess I am running out of reasons. Of course we know that Dumbledore during years and years failed to stop Voldemort, and did not even try to tell all the WW that Tommy Riddle and that mysterious Lord are one and the same and maybe that thing alone would have helped to start his downfall, but he found convenient sacrifice in poor Harry. Surely this is not the reason to feel indebted to him and surely Dumbledore did not contribute to mystery of Harry's surviving? Now strangely as it sounds and disagree with it as I may, I at least see an argument for Harry owing personal debt to Snape, after all Snape did want him to live. Now, to me the fact that Snape wanted him to live in the name of his mother does not transform into Harry owing Snape a debt. In fact I think Snape owed Harry a huge debt which was born when Snape gave prophecy to Voldemort, and of course what Snape did to Harry on regular basis to me cancels any life saving debt Harry may have had, especially considering how vague and uncertain such debts are in WW. However, however, having said that as I said, I can see good faith argument that Harry owes Snape a life saving debt, sure. Disagree with it but see the argument. But Harry owing anything to *Dumbledore*? I think if Dumbledore would have stood in front of Harry on his knees for eternity he would have never paid the debt for life of pain and abuse he subjected Harry to and for death he wanted him to die. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jul 3 00:09:00 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:09:00 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss Message-ID: <iuobus+3o2f@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190761 This message is a Special Notice for all members of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this post is also being delivered off-list (to email inboxes) to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PoA Chapter 20: The Dementor's Kiss > Black and Harry discuss the future. Sirius will be free once Pettigrew is revealed and he offers Harry a home. Shortly after everyone is out of the tunnel, the moon comes out and Lupin transforms into a werewolf. Black transfigures himself into his Animagus form to deal with Lupin. Pettigrew hexes Ron and also transfigures, escaping. Snape remains unconscious. Harry hears Sirius yelping. Harry determines that Ron will be safe, and rushes to Black. Hermione follows Harry. They find themselves and Sirius, surrounded by Dementors. Harry and Hermione try the Expecto Patronum spell. Hermione faints. Harry is grasped by a Dementor who is going to kiss him. A bright shape chases the Dementors away and as it gallops across the lake, Harry sees a familiar person greeting the Patronus. Harry faints. Questions: > 1. I wrote this over a month ago, so why did my computer crash with my original and brilliant chapter discussion blown to cyberbits? > 2.If things had worked out--if they could have delivered Pettigrew to DD, do you think it would have been a good idea for Harry to live with Sirius? > 3.Harry quickly decided he couldn't do anything for Ron and that Sirius was in trouble, so he went to Sirius. Why did Hermione leave Ron? > 4. Harry sees the silvery light as a galloping animal, as bright as a unicorn yet not clearly enough to make it out. Why did JKR keep the stag Patronus from us and Harry? What harm would there have been in telling or what advantage was there in JKR's keeping it secret? > 5. Who did you think the person across the lake was? > 6. We follow Harry out of the tunnel, over to the lake, watch him be attacked by Dementors and rescued by himself. What does this tell us about Time Travel in the Potterverse? > 7.While it's fresh, can you reconstruct what Snape saw when he came to? How does it compare to what he may have overheard earlier in the Shrieking Shack? > 8. What questions do you have? 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 Discussion, Chapter 21 of Prisoner of Azkaban, coming soon. If you would like to volunteer to lead a Goblet of Fire chapter discussion, please drop a note to HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com (without the space). From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 3 05:37:39 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <ium3s0+9ggf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309671459.78586.YahooMailClassic@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190762 > Nikkalmati: <snip> > In your list surely you would agree that Minerva and Hermione are unusual. A range of names are not commonly seen nowadays Cornelius, Dudley (I at least have never seen it before), Narcissa, Bellatrix, Lavender, Luna, Zacharius, Phineas. Others are rather strange: Severus. Ludo, Lucius, Sirius, Rubeus, Olympe, Draco, Regulus, Remus, Xenophilius. There are many others that fall into the unusual or > strange categories, don't you think? June: Actually some of the names that you have mentioned aren't usual (Draco for instance) But Hermione for instance is a British name (Old English) and I personally know a Dudley and a Lavender. But yes some of them are not very common but you have to remember we are dealing with the wizarding world here. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 3 05:42:29 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iunf9q+il7u@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309671749.59867.YahooMailClassic@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190763 > Mike: > Someone once pointed out that all of the Weasley men are named > for English kings, starting with the most famous though maybe mythical Arthur. And Ginny *could* have been a form of Arthur's bride, Guinevere, though Nikkalmati is correct on her real first name. Only Molly doesn't fit in this category, but she's a Weasley > by marriage, not by birth. June: if all the Weasley MEN as you say were named for kings then Ginny and Molly wouldn't count there because they are women. From nerona12 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 3 03:45:51 2011 From: nerona12 at yahoo.com (nerona) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:45:51 -0000 Subject: Harry potter general Message-ID: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190764 OK, in book three at the end when Harry, Ron and Hermione find out the truth about Sirius, I noticed something, Sirius said that while in Azkaban to avoid the dementors he used to transform himself into a dog. Since he is Animagus, then when Lupin was transforming to a werewolf, Wormtail grabs Ron's wand I think, and then transform himself too into a rat. How come Sirius was able to change at Azkaban without a WAND??? My other question is in the Deathly Hallows: when a member from the Order of the Phoenix to transport the Dursleys, he says that he will take them somewhere then Apparate all together to a safe place, although later. I don't actually remember the exact scene but it says that he was worried that maybe you cant apparate without a wand. Although also later it is proved after Harry's wand was broken he was still able to apparate with Hermione. What do you think happened to Umbridge after the Deathly Hallows?? Nerona From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 3 08:00:11 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:00:11 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iuobus+3o2f@eGroups.com> References: <iuobus+3o2f@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1CECD3E3A59046B1922F586006C1DCFC@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190765 Taya responds: 2.If things had worked out--if they could have delivered Pettigrew to DD, do you think it would have been a good idea for Harry to live with Sirius? Taya: I'm undecided on this. Yes, it would have been nice for Harry to live with a wizard, but Sirius wasn't the most trustworthy or stable person at that time, so I'd be worried for Harry's safety. 3.Harry quickly decided he couldn't do anything for Ron and that Sirius was in trouble, so he went to Sirius. Why did Hermione leave Ron? Taya: Probably to protect Harry IMO. Ron was safe and she knew that, Harry, on the other hand, was heading towards a Werewolf. 4. Harry sees the silvery light as a galloping animal, as bright as a unicorn yet not clearly enough to make it out. Why did JKR keep the stag Patronus from us and Harry? What harm would there have been in telling or what advantage was there in JKR's keeping it secret? Taya: She'd already established James' nickname was Prongs, it wouldn't take a genius to work out a Stag could be his Animagus form. It would also mean a discussion was bound to break out between Harry and Hermione about it and perhaps Hermione wouldn't stay in Hagrid's cabin as long as she did, she may have even stopped Harry producing the Patronus and saying themselves. Can't see any advantage in telling Harry or us what it was, only disadvantages. 5. Who did you think the person across the lake was? Taya: Didn't have a clue on first reading, but I knew it couldn't be his Dad, no spell can awaken the dead. 6. We follow Harry out of the tunnel, over to the lake, watch him be attacked by Dementors and rescued by himself. What does this tell us about Time Travel in the Potterverse? Taya: It's Linear and confusing! 7.While it's fresh, can you reconstruct what Snape saw when he came to? How does it compare to what he may have overheard earlier in the Shrieking Shack? Taya: He would have seen Ron unconscious and no one else about. He may have hard Lupin howling. He probably felt the Dementors presence also. So, from Snape's prospective, he saw an injured Ron, a transformed Lupin and an escaping Sirius. I would say it would confirm his ideas about Lupin and Sirius. I like these chapter discussions :) From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 3 08:06:06 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:06:06 +0100 Subject: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> References: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <32CEE972FFF74C2A9B541EFC52115A1F@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190766 > Nerona: > OK, in book three at the end when Harry, Ron and Hermione find out > the truth about Sirius, I noticed something, Sirius said that while > in Azkaban to avoid the dementors he used to transform himself into > a dog. Since he is Animagus, then when Lupin was transforming to a > werewolf, Wormtail grabs Ron's wand I think, and then transform > himself too into a rat. How come Sirius was able to change at > Azkaban without a WAND??? > Taya Responds: I can't answer the DH questions as not read that far yet! But PoA I can do. Here is the booke quote to what you are referring: Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang, a burst of light - and Ron lay motionless on the ground. Another bang - Crookshanks flew into the air and back to the earth in a heap. 'Expelliarmus!' Harry yelled, pointing his own wand at Pettigrew; Lupin's wand flew high into the air and out of sight. 'Stay where you are!' Harry shouted, running forwards. Too late, Pettigrew had transformed. Harry saw his bald tail whip through the manacle on Ron's outstretched arm, and heard a scurrying through the grass. So he didn't have a wand to transform, Harry had just disarmed him. Which means a wand isn't needed to transform into an Animagus form and would leave Sirius free to transform at will in Azkaban. From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Sun Jul 3 09:47:58 2011 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 11:47:58 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> References: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <C2982DB2D67340D8881EA76769F3FBA1@MilesPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190767 nerona wrote: :OK, in book three at the end when Harry, Ron and Hermione find out :the truth about Sirius, I noticed something, Sirius said that while :in Azkaban to avoid the dementors he used to transform himself into :a dog. Since he is Animagus, then when Lupin was transforming to a :werewolf, Wormtail grabs Ron's wand I think, and then transform :himself too into a rat. How come Sirius was able to change at :Azkaban without a WAND??? Miles: I think this is "movie contamination". You are right, Wormtail grabs the wand before he escapes. But it is not said that he uses it for his transformation: "Pettigrew had dived for Lupin's dropped wand. Ron, unsteady on his bandaged leg, fell. There was a bang, a burst of light - and Ron lay motionless on the ground. Another bang - Crookshanks flew into the air and back to the earth in a heap. "Expelliarmus!" Harry yelled, pointing his own wand at Pettigrew; Lupin's wand flew high into the air and out of sight. "Stay where you are!" Harry shouted, running forwards. Too late. Pettigrew had transformed." (PoA, p279 Paperback) Wormtail did two things with the wand: He stunned Ron to whom he was bound, and Crookshanks who would have been able to chase him as a rat. AFTER Harry disarmed him, he transformed and escaped. In the movie, Pettigrew points the wand to his head to transform, but not in the book. Miles From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 3 15:32:50 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 15:32:50 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iuobus+3o2f@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuq232+b8js@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190768 > > 2.If things had worked out--if they could have delivered Pettigrew to DD, do > you think it would have been a good idea for Harry to live with Sirius? Pippin: It would be nice to imagine Harry and Sirius having some more time together like they had in GoF, but I'm not sure Sirius was up to it. On the evidence of OOP, he found the responsibility for a household and a needy dependent day to day as burdensome as young Dumbledore did. Assuming, for the sake of JKR's timeline, that some other DE would have returned to Voldemort if Peter hadn't, the only extra time Harry and Sirius could have spent together is the first part of the summer following PoA, when Harry was, for once, reasonably contented with his life at Privet Drive. The second part of that summer Harry spent at the Weasleys. Sirius wouldn't have wanted him to pass that up. And of course he believed that Harry should be at Hogwarts. After GoF, it was horrible for Harry to be left without emotional support so soon after The Graveyard and I'm sure reading Harry's desperate letters was as painful an experience as Sirius ever had. But Voldemort would be watching to determine who had emotional ties to Harry, so it wasn't safe to let anyone Harry really cared about be near him until Grimmauld Place was fully secured. > > 3.Harry quickly decided he couldn't do anything for Ron and that Sirius was in > trouble, so he went to Sirius. Why did Hermione leave Ron? Pippin: She couldn't do anything for Ron either, except try to get him to the castle. But Ron wouldn't have wanted her to let Harry face danger alone. > > 4. Harry sees the silvery light as a galloping animal, as bright as a unicorn > yet not clearly enough to make it out. Why did JKR keep the stag Patronus from > us and Harry? What harm would there have been in telling or what advantage was > there in JKR's keeping it secret? Pippin: The moment of recognition comes when Harry is alone, and at a moment when the dramatic tension has dropped. Then he's immediately able to explain what happened to Hermione, before the reader has much time to think things out and spoil the surprise. > > 5. Who did you think the person across the lake was? Pippin: Not a clue. I didn't really think it could be Harry's dad. > > 6. We follow Harry out of the tunnel, over to the lake, watch him be attacked > by Dementors and rescued by himself. What does this tell us about Time Travel in > the Potterverse? Pippin: It does whatever JKR needs it to do. <g> > > 7.While it's fresh, can you reconstruct what Snape saw when he came to? How > does it compare to what he may have overheard earlier in the Shrieking Shack? Snape says that when he came to, the dementors were moving back to their positions by the entrance and he didn't see what had driven them away. There are several possibilities, among them that what Snape saw was a different timeline. But let us assume that it is not meant to be and any discrepancies in the text are Flints. Snape comes around on the path to the castle and would know from the moon's position that Lupin must have transformed already. Wandless, Snape must reverse the spell which was keeping him in midair. He finds Ron stunned by something much more serious than the usual spell, a dark wizard's work for certain. Lupin's wand is lying somewhere nearby, hidden in the darkness. Ron still has his wand, though. Possibly Snape is able to use it to locate Lupin's wand and discover, with priori incantatem, that it was used on Ron. But there's no time to investigate. Snape has to find the others, and what has become of Snape's own wand? There's a glow of light by the lake. Snape conjures a stretcher for Ron and heads to the lake, but by the time he gets there, the glow is gone and the dementors are scattered, retreating towards the entrances. Harry, Hermione and Sirius are lying unconscious and clearly suffering from a dementor attack. Presumably Snape recovers his wand, binds and gags Sirius, then conjures more stretchers. There wouldn't be anything to convince Snape that either Sirius or Lupin had friendly intentions towards the Trio. Ron was on the path to the castle, but he's been attacked, and despite Sirius's stated willingness to be taken to the castle, clearly Hermione, Harry and Sirius were moving away from it when the dementors found them. Nor would it be like Harry and Hermione to abandon their friend unless they'd been compelled. > > 8. What questions do you have? Harry has the impression Sirius is doing nothing to keep Snape's head from bumping against the roof of the tunnel. Hermione is right there. How do you think she felt about this? What did she think of Sirius's invitation for Harry to live with him? Pippin with sympathies to Potioncat on her computer problems. Accio data! From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 3 16:55:28 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 3 Jul 2011 16:55:28 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/3/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1309712128.679.50967.m11@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190769 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 3, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20110703/56942f7c/attachment.html> From bart at moosewise.com Sun Jul 3 16:56:54 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 12:56:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <32CEE972FFF74C2A9B541EFC52115A1F@TrekyPC> References: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> <32CEE972FFF74C2A9B541EFC52115A1F@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <4E109F56.1050600@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190770 Taya Responds: > So he didn't have a wand to transform, Harry had just disarmed him. Which > means a wand isn't needed to transform into an Animagus form and would leave > Sirius free to transform at will in Azkaban. Bart: I believe that what differentiates an animagus is that,. while wizards can transfigure themselves into animal form (such as Krum's attempt on the 2nd task of the Triwizard), an animagus can transform back and forth at will. Consider; how does an animagus change back? What happens to the wand when one assumes animal form? Bart From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 3 19:59:57 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:59:57 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuo1ff+dc3d@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuqhnt+81ri@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "krules" <iam.kemper at ...> wrote: > That said, canon shows loads of dislike for Harry. > Yet, it seemed he loved him as he shows Dumbledore that for > Harry: Expecto Patronum! Dumbledore questions how long this > feeling has been with Snape. He replies, 'Always.' But certainly, Snape was saying that he cared for Lily, not for Harry? Wasn't he? That he was doing all that only for *her*? zanooda, all confused... :-). From daveh47 at gmail.com Sun Jul 3 20:02:16 2011 From: daveh47 at gmail.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 13:02:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <1309671459.78586.YahooMailClassic@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo .com> References: <ium3s0+9ggf@eGroups.com> <1309671459.78586.YahooMailClassic@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4e10cb16.c31c440a.149b.0614@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190772 June: Actually some of the names that you have mentioned aren't usual (Draco for instance) But Hermione for instance is a British name (Old English)... Dave: There is, for example, the 20th century British actress Hermione Gingold, who, as it happens, once played a (good) witch. Dave From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 3 20:22:06 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:22:06 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <4e10cb16.c31c440a.149b.0614@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <iuqj1e+7sgg@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook <daveh47 at ...> wrote: > > June: > Actually some of the names that you have mentioned aren't usual > (Draco for instance) But Hermione for instance is a British name > (Old English)... > > Dave: > There is, for example, the 20th century British actress Hermione > Gingold, who, as it happens, once played a (good) witch. Geoff: I did mention her name several posts ago along with Hermione Gingold, another well-known actress. The point I made which really sparked off this thread was the suggestion that only the Weasleys had what could be called "normal" names. I listed several names which were not unusual just to show that the split was more balanced that Nikkalmati's original thoughts My list was not exhaustive. Others which have come to mind since include: Hannah, Terry, Seamus, Sally-Ann, Susan, Millikcent and Mandy. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 3 20:21:16 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iuo7vu+oqec@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309724476.24846.YahooMailClassic@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190774 Alla: I have to admit that the idea that Harry owes personal debt to *Dumbledore* of all people and Snape too shocked me so that I want to make a separate post out of it. Below is the list of possible reasons Why Harry may owe personal debt to Dumbledore and of course it is a bit sarcastic, but it is at the same time not really, it is just so very unbelievable to me because I can only list the wrongs Dumbledore did to Harry and nothing that Dumbledore did FOR Harry at all. So, what does Harry owe Dumbledore a personal debt for? For subjecting him to a life time of abuse with Dursleys? For denying him the possibility of being raised by his Godfather whom his parents wanted to raise Harry? In other words for interfering and playing God with Harry's fate when nobody asked him to? June: None of this was Dumbledore's fault. Harry had to live with the Dursley's because of his mother's protection. He would be safe as long as he could call her sister's home, his home. I am sure that had Lily placed the spell on Harry the normal way she would have placed a spell that would keep him safe with someone she respected (ie Sirius or Dumbledore) but it was her love for Harry that made it so that he had to live with the Dursleys. As for Sirius, the whole wizarding world thought that he was a murder and that he had set up Harry's parents. Why would Dumbledore leave him with someone like that? Alla: I confess I am running out of reasons. Of course we know that Dumbledore during years and years failed to stop Voldemort, and did not even try to tell all the WW that Tommy Riddle and that mysterious Lord are one and the same and maybe that thing alone would have helped to start his downfall, but he found convenient sacrifice in poor Harry. June: On this point I agree with you. I have always wondered why Dumbledore never told anyone who Voldemort really was. I think if he had told everyone, there may have been someone who knew him well enough in school to know his weaknesses. However I do beleive some people did know, Slughorn for instance, but obviously some didn't. Hagrid I am sure would have said something if he knew who Voldemort really was. After all as teanagers Riddle framed Hagrid and got him expelled. Alla: Surely this is not the reason to feel indebted to him and surely Dumbledore did not contribute to mystery of Harry's surviving? Now strangely as it sounds and disagree with it as I may, I at least see an argument for Harry owing personal debt to Snape, after all Snape did want him to live. Now, to me the fact that Snape wanted him to live in the name of his mother does not transform into Harry owing Snape a debt. In fact I think Snape owed Harry a huge debt which was born when Snape gave prophecy to Voldemort, and of course what Snape did to Harry on regular basis to me cancels any life saving debt Harry may have had, especially considering how vague and uncertain such debts are in WW. However, however, having said that as I said, I can see good faith argument that Harry owes Snape a life saving debt, sure. Disagree with it but see the argument. But Harry owing anything to *Dumbledore*? I think if Dumbledore would have stood in front of Harry on his knees for eternity he would have never paid the debt for life of pain and abuse he subjected Harry to and for death he wanted him to die. June: Personally I do not believe that Harry owes either of them a debt. Harry was "The Chosen One" These adults knew for years that Harry was the one who have to defeat Voldemort. I do believe that Dumbledore did love Harry but Harry was as much as a weapon against Voldemort as a cherished person in Dumbledore's life. I do not believe that Dumbledore was happy about this, but for the good of the many he had to prepare Harry for the time that he would have to kill Voldemort. As for Snape, I do not beleive he totally hated Harry. I think that Harry may have given Snape mixed emotions. I think one part of Snape liked Harry because he was Lily's son and one part of him disliked Harry because he was James' son. But both Dumbledore and Snape did their jobs (and personally I think in HBP what made Snape mad at Dumbledore was not that he had to help Harry but that Dumbledore had told him, if it came down to it he had to kill him (Dumbledore)). I think that Harry named his children after Dumbledore and Snape because he respected them (knowing now what Snape had sacrificed for him). I don't think it had anything to do with owing them a debt. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 3 19:58:09 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iuo0tg+uc95@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309723089.91288.YahooMailClassic@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Geoff: I don't quite see the meaning of "shortcut" in this context. What we are looking at are familiar abbreviated forms of the names used by family and friends. It does not follow that every person WANTS to use the familiar form. One of our church members is called Pamela and considers it a great insult to be called Pam. On the other hand, my full name is Geoffrey but I dislike the full name as, to me, it seems rather old-fashioned so I insist on being called Geoff. As I pointed out previously, there are instances where the familiar form is the child's correct given name. Harry Potter seems to have the full given names Harry James whereas Harry is often the familiar form of Henry (as in the case of Prince Harry) or Harold. So, we're not really considering options for names, rather the familiar forms which may or may not be used. June: Short form names are some time confusing (hence the reason the person who started this was confused by Bill be short for William) Like you Geoff my brother Bill (he is actually my step brother) and I don't like to be called by our full first names. While Bill prefers not to be called William my first name is Roberta and I prefer Bobbi, Robbi, Robin?or my middle name, June. But as I said short forms can be misleading. As I had posted earlier, as well as Bill and Will being short forms for William, so is Liam a short form for William. My uncle Jack's name was actually John but Jack is another version of John (I don't like to call it a short form because it is not shorter). Then as I noted earlier some people call me Robin which is a nick name for Robert or Roberta. I had found a description on line for William and if you google it I am sure there are more explanations for short forms and how they came about. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 3 20:36:29 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iuobus+3o2f@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309725389.10615.YahooMailClassic@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190776 > Questions: > 1. I wrote this over a month ago, so why did my computer crash > with my original and brilliant chapter discussion blown to > cyberbits? June: Because that is what computers do :P > 2.If things had worked out--if they could have delivered Pettigrew > to DD, do you think it would have been a good idea for Harry to > live with Sirius? June: No, I do not and for one reason only. Turning in Pettigrew would not have stopped Voldemort from returning but just delay it again. I believe (and I am sure Dumbledore would have agreed) that horrible as it was for Harry the best thing for him, would have been to go back to his aunt and uncle because that is where his protection was. As long as he called their home, his home he was safe. Howver that being said, there is no reason he could not spend a few weeks at his aunt and uncles, then gone to Sirius' to? finish the summer as he did with the Weasleys. > 3.Harry quickly decided he couldn't do anything for Ron and that > Sirius was in trouble, so he went to Sirius. Why did Hermione > leave Ron? June: I think she was of the same mind as Harry at that point and was concerned about Sirius and Harry. > 4. Harry sees the silvery light as a galloping animal, as bright > as a unicorn yet not clearly enough to make it out. Why did JKR > keep the stag Patronus from us and Harry? What harm would there > have been in telling or what advantage was there in JKR's keeping > it secret? June: There was more drama at that point in none of us knowing and made us think and wonder ourselves what it could be. > 5. Who did you think the person across the lake was? June: Honestly, I did not know what to think at first. I did not think it was James but when I set down my book and thought it over I started to think that maybe it was Snape. > 6. We follow Harry out of the tunnel, over to the lake, watch him > be attacked by Dementors and rescued by himself. What does this > tell us about Time Travel in the Potterverse? June: That is is just as confusing as any other time travel lol. Time travel in my opinion is some thing that, the more you think about it and try to work out how some thing happened, the more confusing it becomes. > 7.While it's fresh, can you reconstruct what Snape saw when he > came to? How does it compare to what he may have overheard > earlier in the Shrieking Shack? June: Well the first thing he probably saw was Ron laying on the ground with his leg broken and everyone else gone. I really don't think that Snape would have had time to think much on what had happened. He probably thought he needed to get Ron on a stretcher and find the rest to make sure Hermione and Harry were safe and to get Sirius to the dementors. He was also probably concerned because he knew there was a dangerous werewolf loose and it could be anywhere. I think getting the kids and getting the heck out of there was his main focus (and incidently at this point I started to think, it probably was Snape who sent the patronus). From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 3 20:55:16 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iuqj1e+7sgg@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309726516.56722.YahooMailClassic@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190777 > Dave: > There is, for example, the 20th century British actress Hermione > Gingold, who, as it happens, once played a (good) witch. June: Actually Dave she is one of my favorite actresses and I had decided a long time ago that if I ever had a daughter, her name would be Hermione Kathleen. There too is a recent (young) actress named Hermione Norris. > Geoff: > I did mention her name several posts ago along with Hermione > Gingold, another well-known actress. > The point I made which really sparked off this thread was the > suggestion that only the Weasleys had what could be called > "normal" names. I listed several names which were not unusual > just to show that the split was more balanced that Nikkalmati's > original thoughts > My list was not exhaustive. Others which have come to mind since > include: Hannah, Terry, Seamus, Sally-Ann, Susan, Millikcent > and Mandy. June: I think we have a good mix of common and uncommon names in the books which is true to real life. I think everyone has known at least one person with an uncommon name. I myself have what is an uncommon name. My first name being Roberta (June is my middle) I have only met two others with my name in my life. Then there was grade school when I went to school with an Indian boy named Herish (pronounced her reesh). Also as someone has pointed out a lot of the unusual names mean some thing that describes the character ie Lupin being from the Latin word Lupus meaning wolf. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jul 3 22:18:08 2011 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (krules) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 22:18:08 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuqhnt+81ri@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuqpr0+hq96@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190778 > > Kemper earlier > > That said, canon shows loads of dislike for Harry. > > Yet, it seemed he loved him as he shows Dumbledore that for > > Harry: Expecto Patronum! Dumbledore questions how long this > > feeling has been with Snape. He replies, 'Always.' > Alla > I mean, to me it is so clear that he is talking about his feelings for Lily and it has nothing to do with Harry, > Zanooda > But certainly, Snape was saying that he cared for Lily, not for Harry? Wasn't he? That he was doing all that only for *her*? Kemper now Okay you two. You got me questioning my interpretation, so I went back to the text. Starting from Snape: "...Everything was supposed to keep [Harry] safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter--" "But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for [Harry], after all?" "For /[Harry]/?" shouted Snape. "/Expecto Patronum!/" ... Dumbledore watched [Snape's doe Patrounus] fly away... and his eyes were full of tears. "After all this time?" "Always," said Snape. The /emphasis/ is JKR's. I think the reading is clear; Snape cared for Harry. :D Kemper From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 3 22:31:35 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 22:31:35 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuqpr0+hq96@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuqqk7+mjnb@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190779 > Kemper now > Okay you two. You got me questioning my interpretation, so I went back to the text. > > Starting from Snape: > "...Everything was supposed to keep [Harry] safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter--" > "But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for [Harry], after all?" > "For /[Harry]/?" shouted Snape. "/Expecto Patronum!/" > ... Dumbledore watched [Snape's doe Patrounus] fly away... and his eyes were full of tears. > "After all this time?" > "Always," said Snape. > > The /emphasis/ is JKR's. I think the reading is clear; Snape cared for Harry. :D Alla: I thought the emphasis was Snape's incredulity as in "How dare you suggest Dumbledore that I am doing it for him?" It is not "For him", it is "For him"?, right? So, look Dumbledore, for whom I am doing it, here is my Patronus, I mean, what does Silver Doe has to do with Harry at all? But I understand your reading Kemper, just strongly disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying. From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Sun Jul 3 22:34:15 2011 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 00:34:15 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuqpr0+hq96@eGroups.com> References: <iuqpr0+hq96@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <84B665AA28E24A7AAAF4BAAAFFC7AAAB@MilesPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190780 Kemper wrote :"For /[Harry]/?" shouted Snape. "/Expecto Patronum!/" :... Dumbledore watched [Snape's doe Patrounus] fly away... and his eyes were full of tears. :"After all this time?" :"Always," said Snape. Miles: Well, I'd read it otherwise: "For HARRY? (Are you mad? For this dumb and arrogant James Potter double? See this, I still use Lily's Patronus! I care for him as Lily's son, not for Harry Potter!)" The text in brackets is not JKR's, but my interpretation ;). Miles From fenneyml at gmail.com Sun Jul 3 22:42:24 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 18:42:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <84B665AA28E24A7AAAF4BAAAFFC7AAAB@MilesPC> References: <iuqpr0+hq96@eGroups.com> <84B665AA28E24A7AAAF4BAAAFFC7AAAB@MilesPC> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2tw-a0NF-yLmh9TgoXR2EDEBeG7iO+GZRnfVs89UhwK2Q@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190781 On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Miles <d2dmiles at yahoo.de> wrote: > ** > > > Kemper wrote > > :"For /[Harry]/?" shouted Snape. "/Expecto Patronum!/" > :... Dumbledore watched [Snape's doe Patrounus] fly away... and his eyes > were full of tears. > :"After all this time?" > :"Always," said Snape. > > Miles: > Well, I'd read it otherwise: > "For HARRY? (Are you mad? For this dumb and arrogant James Potter double? > See this, I still use Lily's Patronus! I care for him as Lily's son, not > for > Harry Potter!)" > > The text in brackets is not JKR's, but my interpretation ;). > > Miles > Bookcrazzzy: I agree, Miles, and would add this: :"After all this time?" (You still love Lily so deeply that your patronus is the same as hers?) :"Always," said Snape. (I do and I will until the day I die.) I don't see how Snape's patronus being the same as Lily's would indicate that Snape cares for Harry. I would love for someone who sees it that way to explain it to me. Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 4 02:52:38 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 02:52:38 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iuobus+3o2f@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iur9tm+4f4c@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190782 > Questions: > > 1. I wrote this over a month ago, so why did my computer crash with my > original and brilliant chapter discussion blown to cyberbits? Nikkalmati Because this is the kind of thing that happens to people who do things ahead of time.<EG> :>). That's why I always wait til the last minute. > > 2.If things had worked out--if they could have delivered Pettigrew to DD, do > you think it would have been a good idea for Harry to live with Sirius? Nikkalmati I am not sure. As pointed out already, it would not have been for a very long time, but I am sure it would have made Harry feel better - more like he had a real home. I am also sure DD would have opposed it because it would undermine his own influence. It might have helped Sirius too. He and Harry could have been in much closer contact during that year. Nikkalmati > > 3.Harry quickly decided he couldn't do anything for Ron and that Sirius was in > trouble, so he went to Sirius. Why did Hermione leave Ron? Nikkalmati Ron was stunned and Harry was running into danger. I don't think she could have let Harry go alone. Nikkalmati > > 4. Harry sees the silvery light as a galloping animal, as bright as a unicorn > yet not clearly enough to make it out. Why did JKR keep the stag Patronus from > us and Harry? What harm would there have been in telling or what advantage was > there in JKR's keeping it secret? Nikkalmati I'm not sure because we find out very shortly from Lupin and DD that Harry and his dad have the same Patronus. I just think it is a little more realistic that Harry in his state of confusion did not see the Patronus all that well. Nikkalmati > > 5. Who did you think the person across the lake was? Nikkalmati I really thought it was James in some way and JKR would explain how later. Nikkalmati > > 6. We follow Harry out of the tunnel, over to the lake, watch him be attacked > by Dementors and rescued by himself. What does this tell us about Time Travel in > the Potterverse? Nikkalmati Um. We don't know that Time Travel is involved yet. Nikkalmati > > 7.While it's fresh, can you reconstruct what Snape saw when he came to? How > does it compare to what he may have overheard earlier in the Shrieking Shack? Nikkalmati Snape came to with everyone but Ron missing. It is possible he could tell there were people down by the lake. He could not have known about Pettigrew's escape, but he must have surmised Luupin had transformed. He went down to the lake and retreaved everyone. He actually did not learn much in the Shreaking Shack and he could not have learned very much afterwards either. Nikkalmati > > 8. What questions do you have? Why does everyone think JKR made a mistake having Lupin transform at that time? Is it because the full moon had been up for several hours and it is not necessary to stand in the moon's light to be transformed? Nikkalmati > From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 4 02:58:53 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 02:58:53 -0000 Subject: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iura9d+rsa3@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190783 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nerona" <nerona12 at ...> wrote: > > <snip>> > My other question is in the Deathly Hallows: when a member from the > Order of the Phoenix to transport the Dursleys, he says that he will > take them somewhere then Apparate all together to a safe place, > although later. > > I don't actually remember the exact scene but it says that he was > worried that maybe you cant apparate without a wand. Although also > later it is proved after Harry's wand was broken he was still able > to apparate with Hermione. > Nikkalmati A witch or wizard can take someone else along with them using side-along apparition. The other person does not need to use their own power or even to be a witch or wizard. Nikkalmati > What do you think happened to Umbridge after the Deathly Hallows?? > Nikkalmati She went to Azkaban, I hope > From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 4 03:14:22 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 03:14:22 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iuqj1e+7sgg@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iurb6e+nasr@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190784 > snip> > Geoff: > I did mention her name several posts ago along with Hermione Gingold, > another well-known actress. > > The point I made which really sparked off this thread was the suggestion > that only the Weasleys had what could be called "normal" names. I listed > several names which were not unusual just to show that the split was > more balanced that Nikkalmati's original thoughts > > My list was not exhaustive. Others which have come to mind since include: > Hannah, Terry, Seamus, Sally-Ann, Susan, Millikcent and Mandy. > Nikkalmati Hey, I never said the Weasleys were the only ones with normal names. I tried to say that as a group they all had typical or regular or normal names (note I even included Percy in the normal group, which ever since The White Cliffs of Dover I have understood to be a common GB name). The others I grouped into unusual names and strange names. Hermione must not be unusual because the group can name at least one other person with that name? I don't think so. (However, I suspect it will become more popular in the future. Witness: I have met a young woman named Arwen). JKR said she put a lot of research and effort into picking names for her characters. I agree that many of the strange names have a historical or literary significance. I was just feeling that she wanted the Weasleys to be a family that we could identify with. BTW. Draco names his son Scorpio. If he had lived, would Severus have named his son Scipio? Nikkalmati (happy I generated a discussion) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 4 05:10:40 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 05:10:40 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2tw-a0NF-yLmh9TgoXR2EDEBeG7iO+GZRnfVs89UhwK2Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <iuri0g+st45@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190785 > > Kemper wrote > > > > :"For /[Harry]/?" shouted Snape. "/Expecto Patronum!/" > > :... Dumbledore watched [Snape's doe Patrounus] fly away... and > > his eyes were full of tears. > > :"After all this time?" > > :"Always," said Snape. > > Bookcrazzzy: > > I agree, Miles, and would add this: > > :"After all this time?" (You still love Lily so deeply that your > patronus is the same as hers?) > :"Always," said Snape. (I do and I will until the day I die.) > > > I don't see how Snape's patronus being the same as Lily's would > indicate that Snape cares for Harry. I would love for someone who > sees it that way to explain it to me. Mike: I still don't agree with Kemper's reading, though I understand now how he came about it. But I have another question: How do we know that the silver doe was Lily's patronus? Was this speculation on our part, on Harry's part, or is there some canon proof that this was Lily's patronus? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 4 05:24:31 2011 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 05:24:31 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <CAD2gbLjV=Rz=B-72PAJOmdoMaT+OCSMQJn_8-B0OmsFWaoDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <iuriqf+hd8h@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190786 > --Margaret Dean > > Molly is actually a nickname for Mary, and there have been plenty of > Queen Marys! > > I don't recall any English kings named Fred(erick) or Ronald, though > at least, not as a reigning name. They might have been included in > the string of given names usually bestowed on a royal scion, however! Mike: I never knew Molly could be a nickname for Mary. Interesting! For Fred, I think the reference was to the several 8th through 10th century kings named Alfred. I should have singled out Ron, I'm pretty sure there were no English kings named Ronald. And right now I can't recall any kings named Percival (Percy) either; can someone shed light on that one? From ddankanyin at cox.net Sun Jul 3 22:06:19 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 18:06:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry potter general References: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> <32CEE972FFF74C2A9B541EFC52115A1F@TrekyPC> <4E109F56.1050600@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <8DF4BE2354F948BE8B467AF00C3516E4@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 190787 From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bart at moosewise.com> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:56 PM > Taya Responds: >> So he didn't have a wand to transform, Harry had just disarmed him. Which >> means a wand isn't needed to transform into an Animagus form and would >> leave >> Sirius free to transform at will in Azkaban. > > Bart: > I believe that what differentiates an animagus is that,. while > wizards can transfigure themselves into animal form (such as Krum's > attempt on the 2nd task of the Triwizard), an animagus can transform > back and forth at will. Consider; how does an animagus change back? What > happens to the wand when one assumes animal form? Dorothy: Or their clothes and lack thereof. Just a thought here, but never mentioned in any of the books that I can remember. Think peace, Dorothy From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 4 05:38:03 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 05:38:03 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <1309723089.91288.YahooMailClassic@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <iurjjr+u4g0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: June: > Short form names are some time confusing (hence the reason the person who started this was confused by Bill be short for William) Like you Geoff my brother Bill (he is actually my step brother) and I don't like to be called by our full first names. While Bill prefers not to be called William my first name is Roberta and I prefer Bobbi, Robbi, Robin?or my middle name, June. But as I said short forms can be misleading. As I had posted earlier, as well as Bill and Will being short forms for William, so is Liam a short form for William. My uncle Jack's name was actually John but Jack is another version of John (I don't like to call it a short form because it is not shorter). Then as I noted earlier some people call me Robin which is a nick name for Robert or Roberta. I had found a description on line for William and if you google it I am sure there are more explanations for short forms and how they came about. Geoff: A bit OT but I didn't include Jack/John because it is more of a nickname than a shortening. Returning to William, Liam is not used n the UK as an abbreviation; it is a "complete" name with an Irish Gaelic origin. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 4 05:42:14 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 05:42:14 -0000 Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <1309726516.56722.YahooMailClassic@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <iurjrm+b393@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190789 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: June: > Also as someone has pointed out a lot of the unusual names > mean some thing that describes the character ie Lupin being from the > Latin word Lupus meaning wolf. Geoff: This one completely threw me when I first read POA. My reaction was "Why is this guy's family name the name of a a flower?" It was only when his werewolf background was revealed that I realised that JKR wasn't getting his name from "lupin" but from "lupine", meaning "wolfish or wolf-like" From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Mon Jul 4 10:36:33 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:36:33 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuqhnt+81ri@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ius53h+rm37@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190790 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "krules" <iam.kemper@> wrote: > > > That said, canon shows loads of dislike for Harry. > > Yet, it seemed he loved him as he shows Dumbledore that for > > Harry: Expecto Patronum! Dumbledore questions how long this > > feeling has been with Snape. He replies, 'Always.' > > > But certainly, Snape was saying that he cared for Lily, not for Harry? Wasn't he? That he was doing all that only for *her*? > > > zanooda, all confused... :-). Joey: Yes; in fact, he *shouted* when he said "For him?" and IIRC, the word "him" was italicized in the book I read. :-) Cheers, ~Joey, who always enjoys the smileys in Zanooda's posts! :-) From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Mon Jul 4 10:50:20 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 10:50:20 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 19: The Servant of Lord Voldemort In-Reply-To: <iuku1t+m6q7@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ius5tc+4oau@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190791 > > Joey: > > Oh yes, he was wrong. :-) Snape didn't know that yet though. I was only saying that Snape could have considered the possibility that if DD can trust him for a specific reason then he could be doing the same to Lupin too i.e. have a private reason between him and Lupin that is not known to anyone else. :-) > Pippin: > But Snape also knows that Dumbledore can put his trust in the wrong person. Lupin was a prefect, trusted by Dumbledore to keep his fellow students in line, a job at which, by Lupin's own admission, he failed miserably. Snape, as Lupin says, has his reasons for not trusting him. Joey: Hmmm, thought-provoking point indeed. Mmmm... but then.. is the nature and enormity of trust similar? I mean the type of trust required for choosing prefects is different from the type required to select teachers, is it not? And, in the case of Snape and Lupin, they are huge decisions to make - selecting them as teachers - a person who was a DE once upon a time and a person who was very much a friend of a convicted mass murderer. Snape knows this too. Whereas, when it somes to choosing prefects, DD has made even Lucius, Draco and Pansy prefects. Wonder what he saw in them though. It couldn't have been just excellence in academics - otherwise Pansy and Ron shouldn't have been prefects. Cheers, ~Joey :-) From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Mon Jul 4 12:05:43 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:05:43 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuri0g+st45@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iusaan+7qrc@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190792 Mike wrote: > How do we know that the silver doe was Lily's patronus? Was this speculation on our part, on Harry's part, or is there some canon proof that this was Lily's patronus? Joey: I think DD and Snape knew hers was a doe while Harry *deduced* that it was hers as he was into a series of connected memories of Snape that were heavily indicating Snape's love for Lily and Lily *alone* - no James, no Harry. Cheers, ~Joey :-) From fenneyml at gmail.com Mon Jul 4 13:15:26 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:15:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iuriqf+hd8h@eGroups.com> References: <CAD2gbLjV=Rz=B-72PAJOmdoMaT+OCSMQJn_8-B0OmsFWaoDP-Q@mail.gmail.com> <iuriqf+hd8h@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2vY-tHG6y=KukAfQSVCG_sS=He8phjtY7dKeUnxve5gqA@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190793 > Mike: > > And right now I can't recall any kings named Percival (Percy) either; can > someone shed light on that one? > > _ > Bookcrazzzy: The only Percival that I know of was a knight of King Arthur's. Bookcrazzzy > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jul 4 16:48:23 2011 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (krules) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 16:48:23 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuqqk7+mjnb@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iusqsn+u8ns@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190794 > Kemper quotes from canon: > Starting from Snape: > "...Everything was supposed to keep [Harry] safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter--" > "But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for [Harry], after all?" > "For /[Harry]/?" shouted Snape. "/Expecto Patronum!/" > ... Dumbledore watched [Snape's doe Patrounus] fly away... and his eyes were full of tears. > "After all this time?" > "Always," said Snape. > > The /emphasis/ is JKR's. I think the reading is clear; Snape cared for Harry. :D Alla (and Miles essentially agrees with Alla and Bookcrazzzy agrees with Miles, and Mike and Joey agree in disagreeing with my interpretation): I thought the emphasis was Snape's incredulity as in "How dare you suggest Dumbledore that I am doing it for him?" It is not "For him", it is "For him"?, right? So, look Dumbledore, for whom I am doing it, here is my Patronus, I mean, what does Silver Doe has to do with Harry at all? But I understand your reading Kemper, just strongly disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying. Kemper now: I can totally see where you all are coming from; Snape can be a sarcastic d!<k. And I would be with you (mostly, see below) on this if Snape said 'For him?!' with the exclamation mark, but it was only the lone question mark. Grammar aside, the scene ends with Dumbledore questioning Snape: "After all this time?" It doesn't make sense to me that he is referring to Lily because Snape has already displayed to Dumbledore some sort of undying pining love for Lily by making a terrible sound (like a wounded animal) when he learned of her death. It would be like DD was astonished that Snape still feels anything for her 'after all this time'. What an offensive question that would be! What DD seems astonished about and so questions, is Snape's feelings for Harry 'after all this time' being such an unrelenting d!<k to Harry. :D Kemper From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 4 17:23:39 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:23:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iuo7vu+oqec@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iussur+hha4@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190795 > Alla: > > I have to admit that the idea that Harry owes personal debt to *Dumbledore* of all people and Snape too shocked me so that I want to make a separate post out of it. Below is the list of possible reasons Why Harry may owe personal debt to Dumbledore and of course it is a bit sarcastic, but it is at the same time not really, it is just so very unbelievable to me because I can only list the wrongs Dumbledore did to Harry and nothing that Dumbledore did FOR Harry at all. <snip> > But Harry owing anything to *Dumbledore*? I think if Dumbledore would have stood in front of Harry on his knees for eternity he would have never paid the debt for life of pain and abuse he subjected Harry to and for death he wanted him to die. Pippin: I've snipped most of your points since I've discussed them in the past. I think you're already aware of my views <g> If not I'll happily elaborate ::groans from remaining listies:: Regardless of your opinion, which of course I respect even though I disagree with it, Harry in canon does not think that Dumbledore wanted him to die. King's Cross leaves no doubt that Harry believes Dumbledore is (or would be, if you think it is all in Harry's head) radiant with satisfaction that Harry is alive. Dumbledore wanted Harry to *think* he had to die, that he had been raised like a pig for slaughter, so that Harry could use the magic of willing sacrifice to protect his friends. That is what Dumbledore did FOR Harry, nothing much if you think Harry getting his heart's desire is not important. It entailed a lot of pain for Harry, and Dumbledore acknowledged that. But Dumbledore had never told him that it wouldn't. Harry's heart's desire was not to be a mighty wizard and see all his enemies groveling at his feet. Nor was it to live a life on the run or under guard while other people waged the battle to protect him. Harry's desire was to be just as he was and surrounded by people who loved him. And it was Dumbledore who saw that, and was willing to teach Harry what he needed to know to achieve it. Maybe debt is not the right word -- it is not that Harry was doing something to make himself quits with Dumbledore and Snape. I think he felt that, as horribly flawed as they were, they were respectively the best and the bravest men he ever knew, so it was not just a public duty but a personal privilege to honor them. Noblesse oblige. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 4 17:57:42 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:57:42 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iusqsn+u8ns@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iusuum+lkt6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190796 Kemper: > Grammar aside, the scene ends with Dumbledore questioning Snape: > "After all this time?" > It doesn't make sense to me that he is referring to Lily because Snape has already displayed to Dumbledore some sort of undying pining love for Lily by making a terrible sound (like a wounded animal) when he learned of her death. It would be like DD was astonished that Snape still feels anything for her 'after all this time'. What an offensive question that would be! What DD seems astonished about and so questions, is Snape's feelings for Harry 'after all this time' being such an unrelenting d!<k to Harry. > Pippin: As far as I know, there is no way for anyone to tell from the intensity of the display whether grief is going to persist or not. IMO, Dumbledore supposed that Snape could get over it, just like Aberforth assumed that Albus had gotten over Arianna. Meanwhile, for sixteen years, Snape had to bottle his feelings and play the part of someone who was always indifferent to Lily except as an object of lust. Dumbledore knows that is a sham, but he tends to leave people to deal with their emotions as best they can -- Snape's actual feelings are not something he would have discussed with Snape unless Snape broke down in front of him. Now, though, Dumbledore asks if Snape has after all come to care for Harry, after treating him badly for so long, and, IMO, Snape is so outraged by the idea that he breaks character and shows his real feelings -- for Lily. There is still no one that matters more to him than her. Then Dumbledore realizes that Snape has been grieving for her all this time, and Dumbledore, who knows the burden of never-ending grief himself, is moved to tears. I was hoping that maybe Snape would come to care for Harry in his own right. But I think tearing the photo of Lily away from her husband and child shows that he never did. Snape's ideal world would have been one where Lily was his and Harry and James never existed. Pippin From fenneyml at gmail.com Mon Jul 4 18:52:51 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:52:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iussur+hha4@eGroups.com> References: <iuo7vu+oqec@eGroups.com> <iussur+hha4@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2sxQxnaRO-pU8PGSK=Ddr+8CDNsOe-R+Hr1Y9AZVAUjcg@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190797 > > Alla: > > > > I have to admit that the idea that Harry owes personal debt to > *Dumbledore* of all people and Snape too shocked me so that I want to make a > separate post out of it. Below is the list of possible reasons Why Harry may > owe personal debt to Dumbledore and of course it is a bit sarcastic, but it > is at the same time not really, it is just so very unbelievable to me > because I can only list the wrongs Dumbledore did to Harry and nothing that > Dumbledore did FOR Harry at all. > > <snip> > > > But Harry owing anything to *Dumbledore*? I think if Dumbledore would > have stood in front of Harry on his knees for eternity he would have never > paid the debt for life of pain and abuse he subjected Harry to and for death > he wanted him to die. > > > Pippin: > > > I've snipped most of your points since I've discussed them in the past. I > think you're already aware of my views <g> If not I'll happily elaborate > ::groans from remaining listies:: > > > Regardless of your opinion, which of course I respect even though I > disagree with it, Harry in canon does not think that Dumbledore wanted him > to die. King's Cross leaves no doubt that Harry believes > Dumbledore is (or > would be, if you think it is all in Harry's head) radiant with satisfaction > that Harry is alive. > > > Dumbledore wanted Harry to *think* he had to die, that he had been raised > like a pig for slaughter, so that Harry could use the magic of willing > sacrifice to protect his friends. That is what Dumbledore > did FOR Harry, > nothing much if you think Harry getting his heart's desire is not important. > It entailed a lot of pain for Harry, and Dumbledore acknowledged that. But > Dumbledore had never told him that > it wouldn't. > > > Harry's heart's desire was not to be a mighty wizard and see all his > enemies groveling at his feet. Nor was it to live a life on the run or under > guard while other people waged the battle to protect him. > > > Harry's desire was to be just as he was and surrounded by people who > loved him. And it was Dumbledore who saw that, and was willing to teach > Harry what he needed to know to achieve it. > > > Maybe debt is not the right word -- it is not that Harry was doing > something to make himself quits with Dumbledore and Snape. I think he felt > that, as horribly flawed as they were, they were > > > > respectively the best and the bravest men he ever knew, so it was not > just a public duty but a personal privilege to honor them. Noblesse oblige. > > > Pippin > > Bookcrazzzy: I think this was very well put and it was my thought also that naming a child after someone is most often done to honor them rather than to acknowledge a debt. I don't think that DD was raising Harry for slaughter nor that DD thought so. He wasn't going to tell Snape the whole story though, so he didn't disabuse Snape of the idea when he spoke of it. Another thing I would like to ask those who believe that DD was abusive to Harry: what do you think he should have done and how would it have "saved" Harry or the WW? I would also like to add some of the things that JKR has had to say about DD (from Accio Quote!): Dumbledore is the "epitome of goodness." [Read the exact quote from CBC Hot Type, 2000<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm> ] "Dumbledore often speaks for me." [Read the exact quote from the Chamber of Secrets DVD, 2003<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm> ] If JKR needs to tell the readers something, she lets Hermione or Dumbledore say it. [Read the exact quote from the Chamber of Secrets DVD, 2003<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm> ] Albus means white and wisdom. [Read the exact quote from Royal Albert Hall, 2003 <http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry.htm>] "I don't want to give too much away, but Dumbledore is a very wise man who firstly knows Harry is going to have to learn a few hard lessons to prepare him for what maybe coming in his life, so he allows Harry to do a lot of things he wouldn't normally allow another pupil to do and he also unwillingly permits Harry to confront a lot of things he'd rather protect him from but as people who have finished Order of the Phoenix will know, Dumbledore has had to step back a little bit from Harry in an effort to teach him some of life's harder lessons." [Read the exact quote from Royal Albert Hall, 2003<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry.htm> ] Dumbledore's "wisdom has isolated him ... where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner?" [Read the whole quote from the Leaky Cauldron, 2005<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm> ] Dumbledore regretted that it was he "who had the burden of knowing." He would "rather not know." [Read the whole quote from BBC-Radio4, 2005<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/1205-bbc-fry.html> ] Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 4 20:28:48 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:28:48 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iuq232+b8js@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iut7q0+r6ce@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190798 > Potioncat, earlier > > > 7.While it's fresh, can you reconstruct what Snape saw when he came to? How does it compare to what he may have overheard earlier in the Shrieking Shack? Pippin: snip > There wouldn't be anything to convince Snape that either Sirius or Lupin had friendly intentions towards the Trio. Ron was on the path to the castle, but he's been attacked, and despite Sirius's stated willingness to be taken to the castle, clearly Hermione, Harry and Sirius were moving away from it when the dementors found them. Nor would it be like Harry and Hermione to abandon their friend unless they'd been compelled. Potioncat now: Several listies have aswered this question in similar ways. I wonder if anyone sees the events differently? Here's my view of what Snape would have heard in the Shrieking Shack. In chapter 18, just as Lupin start to tell the story about the Marauders, there is a loud creek and the door opens. Many of us think that is the point that Snape appeared. What he wouldn't have heard is the reunion between Black and Lupin; that Black and Lupin each thought the other was the traitor; that Peter was actually alive and is Ron's rat; and that Black wants to kill Peter, not Harry. Snape came because he saw Lupin on the map, and wouldn't have known Harry was involved until he found the Invisibility Cloak at the Whomping Willow. He wouldn't have known about Ron and Hermione until he reached the doorway. He does hear that Lupin's friends knew he was a werewolf and starting in year 5 had joined him each month as Animagi. Lupin doesn't say what forms they took--while the Trio now know Black is a dog, and Pettigrew is a rat, Snape doesn't. Lupin says that Snape had been trying to convince DD that Lupin isn't trustworthy and he was right about him all along, because he hasn't told DD that Black was an Animagus. Then the story turns to Snape and he steps in. >From his point of view, he is facing a killer and a werewolf and has to protect three students. Two of the students are defending the very men who are threatening them. While he's trying to keep the situation under control, all three students attack him. I'm piecing these two scenes together in preparation for the scenes in the next chapter--Snape's discussion with Fudge and his award winning hissy fit in the hospital wing. It looks to me that while Harry and the readers learn quite a bit about Black--Snape doesn't--nor does he have any reason to change his opinions about Black and Lupin. Thoughts? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 4 20:44:05 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:44:05 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iusqsn+u8ns@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iut8ml+rjlp@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190799 > Kemper now: > I can totally see where you all are coming from; Snape can be a sarcastic d!<k. And I would be with you (mostly, see below) on this if Snape said 'For him?!' with the exclamation mark, but it was only the lone question mark. > > Grammar aside, the scene ends with Dumbledore questioning Snape: > "After all this time?" > It doesn't make sense to me that he is referring to Lily because Snape has already displayed to Dumbledore some sort of undying pining love for Lily by making a terrible sound (like a wounded animal) when he learned of her death. It would be like DD was astonished that Snape still feels anything for her 'after all this time'. What an offensive question that would be! What DD seems astonished about and so questions, is Snape's feelings for Harry 'after all this time' being such an unrelenting d!<k to Harry. Alla: Well,it makes total sense to me precisely because Snape showed his feelings for Lily so many years ago. And Dumbledore thinking that Snape would still remember her after all those years as a surprise makes total sense to me as well - offensive? Sure. But totally in character for me for Dumbledore and of course in character for Snape as I see him. But again, let me stress, the reason that I do not see your interpetation is not because I accept JKR's statement that Snape hated Harry till he died as fully supported by canon, it is just the way they say things, Snape asking a question to me is a surprise, a shock, not an agreement with Dumbledore. OMG, wait Kemper I think NOW I get it. You are reading it as if Snape self doubting himself here? Like he is thinking - For him? And he is answering himself - oh yes, I do care for him. Okay, I think only now I finaly got it in the grammatical context of this scene. It is still something that I do not agree with, but as Mike said at least now I can see how this can be read your way, for the longest time it made no sense whatsoever to me. Sorry and thank you. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 4 21:00:30 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:00:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iut7q0+r6ce@eGroups.com> References: <iut7q0+r6ce@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9BEAD4F38240BC84BD542529B7AA68@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190800 > Potioncat now: <snip> Snape came because he saw Lupin on the map, and wouldn't have known Harry was involved until he found the Invisibility Cloak at the Whomping Willow. He wouldn't have known about Ron and Hermione until he reached the doorway. Taya: I got distracted by something Potioncat said, sorry! How did Snape know the Invisibility Cloak belonged to Harry? He does clearly know this by time he gets to the shack, but before then, when did he suspect or realise Harry had one? From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 4 22:52:23 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:52:23 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <8C9BEAD4F38240BC84BD542529B7AA68@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <iutg77+d2rl@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190801 > > Taya: > I got distracted by something Potioncat said, sorry! > How did Snape know the Invisibility Cloak belonged to Harry? He does clearly > know this by time he gets to the shack, but before then, when did he suspect > or realise Harry had one? > Potioncat: I'm not sure how he knew, but he says he know it was Harry's and thanks him for the use of it. Maybe he too saw James using it years ago and recognised it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jul 5 01:12:40 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:12:40 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iur9tm+4f4c@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iutoe8+kc51@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190802 Here's my response to several posts: In Message #190765 Taya wrote: > I'm undecided on this. Yes, it would have been nice for Harry to live with a wizard, but Sirius wasn't the most trustworthy or stable person at that time, so I'd be worried for Harry's safety. Potioncat: I've been arguing pro-Severus/anti-Sirius for years, so I was a little surprised at my reaction to this chapter. There 's been something of a break in the discussions (until recently) and much of the HPfGU contamination has eased---so I found myself as thrilled and happy as Harry was at the news--Sirius is his godfather and wants Harry to move in with him. I experienced the hope that a strong influence would be there to protect Harry. Not to be. You are right, we'll soon see that Sirius is scarred from his experience in Azkaban and not much support to Harry. >From Post Message #190768 What does this tell us about Time Travel in the Potterverse? > Pippin: > It does whatever JKR needs it to do. <g> Potionat: That's the best description of Time travel that I've seen! Probably the most accurate. I can't swear that what we see in this incidence is consistent with other scenes, but I think it means there is one time line. Whoever travels back does so as part of the original time line--how is a mystery, but I'm sure of it. For what it's worth, I think Harry and Hermione coming back in time was always part of the loop--Buckbeak never died, Harry was never kissed. Harry and Hermione were always there. Pippin's question: Harry has the impression Sirius is doing nothing to keep Snape's head from bumping against the roof of the tunnel. Hermione is right there. How do you think she felt about this? What did she think of Sirius's invitation for Harry to live with him? Potioncat: Hermione never says anything negative about Snape--except when she didn't trust the HBP, but she didn't know that was Snape, so it doesn't count--but she doesn't have any reason to like him. He just yelled at her a few moments ago, so perhaps she isn't too concerned. I'm really not sure. She doesn't say anything about it. As far as Sirius goes, I doubt she thinks it's a good idea---Sirius hasn't shown a very good sense of judgment so far. She doesn't say anything about that either. As I think about it, she does usually keep her own council for a while before speaking up. >From Message #190776 > 5. Who did you think the person across the lake was? June: Honestly, I did not know what to think at first. I did not think it was James but when I set down my book and thought it over I started to think that maybe it was Snape. Potioncat: Snape? How intriguing! I don't remember if I thought that, did anyone else? I do remember knowing it was Snape who sent the Doe Patronus a few years later. message #190782 A question from Nikkalmati Why does everyone think JKR made a mistake having Lupin transform at that time? Is it because the full moon had been up for several hours and it is not necessary to stand in the moon's light to be transformed? Potioncat: I think it's because Lupin used to transform in the Shrieking Shack, seeing the moon wasn't necessary. I think she did it for dramatic effect--we purest just don't accept it. <g> I've waited awhile, and this hasn't posted, so I'm sending it again. My apologies if it shows up twice. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon Jul 4 13:24:01 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 06:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <iura9d+rsa3@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309785841.26017.YahooMailClassic@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190803 > Nerona: > What do you think happened to Umbridge after the Deathly Hallows?? June: Well for starters, she was probably fired, but it would be interesting to know what happened to her. I thought (and I could be totally wrong about this) that it said something in the book about her being fired or something. I really haven't read this book as many times as the others. I would like to know if anyone else has an answer to this. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 4 21:08:26 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 22:08:26 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iut7q0+r6ce@eGroups.com> References: <iut7q0+r6ce@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <F68F285617534D72BCE9CBED56328005@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190804 > Potioncat now: > Several listies have aswered this question in similar ways. I > wonder if anyone sees the events differently? > > Here's my view of what Snape would have heard in the Shrieking > Shack. > > In chapter 18, just as Lupin start to tell the story about the > Marauders, there is a loud creek and the door opens. Many of us > think that is the point that Snape appeared. <snip> Taya: The first thought that came to me was, why did Snape use the Invisibility Cloak? He didn't need to considering he could have just earwigged from outside the door, as he's done before. From nerona12 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 5 04:44:46 2011 From: nerona12 at yahoo.com (nerona) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 04:44:46 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter Message-ID: <iuu4ru+6ia9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190805 1- In your opinion why did Petunia accept taking Harry in the first place? When DD sent the howler in Book 5 (remember my last) it was said at the end of the book that she sealed the magic or something when she took Harry. Why do you think she took him in the first place if she didn't show any love or care towards him??? 2- Even as we know that DD knew how terrible they were (the Dursleys) and he knew that Harry will be forced to their family why did he choose them and not some other wizarding family? 3- What do you think was Draco's boggart??? 4- After LV's final death scene in book 7, do you think that the Dark Mark tattoo (I don't know what it's called, sorry) disappeared from the arm of the remaining Death Eaters?? Thank you. Nerona From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 4 20:55:42 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 20:55:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2sxQxnaRO-pU8PGSK=Ddr+8CDNsOe-R+Hr1Y9AZVAUjcg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <iut9ce+veev@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190806 .> > Bookcrazzzy: > <SNIP> > Another thing I would like to ask those who believe that DD was abusive to > Harry: what do you think he should have done and how would it have "saved" > Harry or the WW? Alla: I am just not up to a long version now :), but the short version is - not to leave him with Dursleys if the protection was not shown OR to actually check upon him wih Dursleys. Because it makes no sense to me when one LETTER from Dumbledore stops Dursleys from throwing them out, but for ten years he could not be bothered to show up because for plot purposes JKR needed Harry to suffer. Thats abuse to me, abuse and neglect, no matter how much plot needed it. Bookcrazzzy: > I would also like to add some of the things that JKR has had to say about DD > (from Accio Quote!): <SNIP of most of the quotes> > > Dumbledore is the "epitome of goodness." [Read the exact quote from CBC Hot > Type, 2000<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm> > ] > > "Dumbledore often speaks for me." [Read the exact quote from the Chamber of > Secrets DVD, 2003<http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm> Alla: Yes, I am familiar with all these quotes, but that only makes me strongly disagree with JKR, thats all. If Dumbledore speaks for her and Dumbledore is an epitome of goodness, well to me epitome of goodness does not behave the way Dumbledore behaved about Harry, about Sirius, actually about Snape too (yes, I hate Snape, but I hate the way Dumbledore made him serve him a whole lot too). I used to like Dumbledore a lot (points to her email :)), but starting with book five and especially after book seven it all went downhill. And no, it is not because I was that dissapointed that he played with the darkness in his youth. It is because I consider him a hypocritical manipulator, who would IMO sacrifice anybody's life and happiness to achieve his goals. Even if the goal is noble, as in to fight against Voldemort, but the way he did it, makes him really not that much better than Voldemort in my eyes. JMO, Allaa From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 5 17:29:39 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:29:39 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuri0g+st45@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuvhm3+8g53@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Crudele" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote: > How do we know that the silver doe was Lily's patronus? > Was this speculation on our part, on Harry's part, or > is there some canon proof that this was Lily's patronus? zanooda: If you count Harry's words as canon proof, then yes :-). He said it during the last confrontation with LV. I don't know why he thought that, but aren't we supposed to believe *everything* Harry said after returning from the limbo :-)? People do acquire some kind of mystical knowledge on the other side, I guess... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 5 17:32:57 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:32:57 -0000 Subject: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <1309785841.26017.YahooMailClassic@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <iuvhs9+emjq@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: > Well for starters, she was probably fired, but it would be interesting > to know what happened to her. zanooda: There is nothing in the book, but JKR said in an online chat that Umbridge was sent to Azkaban :-). From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 5 17:43:22 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:43:22 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iutg77+d2rl@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuvifq+mppg@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote: > > Taya: > > How did Snape know the Invisibility Cloak belonged to Harry? > > He does clearly know this by time he gets to the shack, but > > before then, when did he suspect or realise Harry had one? > Potioncat: > I'm not sure how he knew, but he says he know it was Harry's > and thanks him for the use of it. Maybe he too saw James > using it years ago and recognised it. zanooda: Even if Snape didn't know about the cloak earlier, he certainly could guess when Draco reported to him seeing Harry's head floating in midair in Hogsmeade :-). From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 5 17:31:32 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <8C9BEAD4F38240BC84BD542529B7AA68@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <1309887092.17035.YahooMailClassic@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190810 Taya: I got distracted by something Potioncat said, sorry! How did Snape know the Invisibility Cloak belonged to Harry? He does clearly know this by time he gets to the shack, but before then, when did he suspect or realise Harry had one? June You know what Taya? That is a very good question and I have often wondered that myself. I don't expect that Snape knew about it when James was using it. I would recon though that having found it he would have ruled out Lupin because being a teacher he could wonder around at night all he wanted. For all he knew, it could have been Sirius' because obviously Sirius was getting around some how and Snape didn't know yet that Sirius was an animagi. But then he just loved to blame things on Harry lol. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 5 18:54:05 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 19:54:05 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iuvifq+mppg@eGroups.com> References: <iuvifq+mppg@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <F54B43FF29CD443D80CF5E4622F1B74A@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190811 > zanooda: > > Even if Snape didn't know about the cloak earlier, he certainly could > guess when Draco reported to him seeing Harry's head floating in midair in > Hogsmeade :-). > Taya: Of course, completely forgot about that. There would be very few things that would enable your head to apparently float in midair. And Snape certainly was convinced that Harry's full body was in Hogsmeade, not just his head. Wonder why Snape didn't keep it? From nerona12 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 5 18:27:05 2011 From: nerona12 at yahoo.com (nerona) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:27:05 -0000 Subject: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <iuvhs9+emjq@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iuvl1p+cibf@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190812 > > June: > > Well for starters, she was probably fired, but it would be > > interesting to know what happened to her. > > zanooda: > There is nothing in the book, but JKR said in an online chat > that Umbridge was sent to Azkaban :-). nerona: That will be nice, I also wish I read it in the book, like who was captured and who was released, like we know that the Malfoys got away although I don't know why. Although Harry knew that Narcissa didn't care any more if the Dark Lord won or died but still, her husband and son were not. And would have wished that Draco at some point fell in love with a Muggleborn, that will be a hit to his so called pure bloods, don't you think??? At the beginning I thought about him falling for Hermione but she will not like him back of course. From bart at moosewise.com Tue Jul 5 20:11:28 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:11:28 -0400 Subject: Animagi In-Reply-To: <8DF4BE2354F948BE8B467AF00C3516E4@DG22FG61> References: <iuoolf+7mcm@eGroups.com> <32CEE972FFF74C2A9B541EFC52115A1F@TrekyPC> <4E109F56.1050600@moosewise.com> <8DF4BE2354F948BE8B467AF00C3516E4@DG22FG61> Message-ID: <4E136FF0.4030205@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190813 >> Bart: >> I believe that what differentiates an animagus is that,. while >> wizards can transfigure themselves into animal form (such as Krum's >> attempt on the 2nd task of the Triwizard), an animagus can transform >> back and forth at will. Consider; how does an animagus change back? What >> happens to the wand when one assumes animal form? > Dorothy: > Or their clothes and lack thereof. Just a thought here, but never > mentioned in any of the books that I can remember. Bart: One assumes that it might have been noted if Prof. McG's in classroom demo included seeing her naked. Also note that eyewear seems to be included in the facial patterns of the animal form. Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon Jul 4 13:35:04 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 06:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Discussion HPDH In-Reply-To: <iurjrm+b393@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309786504.20454.YahooMailClassic@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190814 > > June: > > Also as someone has pointed out a lot of the unusual names > > mean something that describes the character ie Lupin being > > from the Latin word Lupus meaning wolf. > Geoff: > This one completely threw me when I first read POA. My reaction > was "Why is this guy's family name the name of a a flower?" > > It was only when his werewolf background was revealed that I > realised that JKR wasn't getting his name from "lupin" but from > "lupine", meaning "wolfish or wolf-like" June: Oh, I didn't know that lupin was a flower. But not a surprise, the only thing I really know about plants is, if I touch them, they die lol. > > June: > > <snip> My uncle Jack's name was actually John but Jack is > > another version of John (I don't like to call it a short form > > because it is not shorter). <snip> > Geoff: > A bit OT but I didn't include Jack/John because it is more of a > nickname than a shortening. > > Returning to William, Liam is not used n the UK as an > abbreviation; it is a "complete" name with an Irish Gaelic origin. June: That is what I would have thought too but the site I had posted earlier said that in Ireland it is short for William. Two things to consider though, one is that it does actually make sense because Liam is the last 4 letters in William and not all of Ireland is considered to be British. A quarter of my family is from Ireland, unfortunatly that is my mother's father and he passed away days after I was born so I didn't get to learn much about my Irish roots and I actually keep forgetting whether it is the north or south that is not British (I do know that my grandfather's family were from the British side). If anyone wants to tell me which is which you are more than welcome but this time tomorrow I will probably forget again lol. ELF NOTE: To the participants of this thread, please make sure to bring the topic back to Harry Potter, as it's wandering a little off topic. Thank you! From margdean56 at gmail.com Tue Jul 5 20:33:17 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 14:33:17 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <iuvl1p+cibf@eGroups.com> References: <iuvhs9+emjq@eGroups.com> <iuvl1p+cibf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAD2gbLhRjQU6kXO_PtoMV8D3KsxaLbJ9e1DJeuV37ghFFLu3Mw@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190815 On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM, nerona <nerona12 at yahoo.com> wrote: > And would have wished that Draco at some point fell in love with > a Muggleborn, that will be a hit to his so called pure bloods, > don't you think??? At the beginning I thought about him falling > for Hermione but she will not like him back of course. That's what fanfic is for. ;) --Margaret Dean <margdean56 at gmail.com> From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 5 23:42:55 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Animagi In-Reply-To: <4E136FF0.4030205@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <1309909375.73430.YahooMailClassic@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190816 >>> Bart: >>> <snip> What happens to the wand when one assumes animal form? >> Dorothy: >> Or their clothes and lack thereof. <snip> > Bart: > One assumes that it might have been noted if Prof. McG's in > classroom demo included seeing her naked. Also note that > eyewear seems to be included in the facial patterns of the > animal form. June: Considering in TPS McGonagall changed from a cat to a human in front of Dumbledore and did the same in class to demonstrate to her students in POA and Peter Pettigrew did it front of Harry, Ron, Hermione, Lupin and Sirius and there was never any mention of these people being naked, I would have to presume that their clothes change with them. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jul 6 00:27:05 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 00:27:05 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <F68F285617534D72BCE9CBED56328005@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <iv0a4p+67qm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190817 > > > Taya: > The first thought that came to me was, why did Snape use the > Invisibility Cloak? He didn't need to considering he could have > just earwigged from outside the door, as he's done before. > Potioncat: Once Snape knew Harry was in the Shrieking Shack, this went from a spy mission to a rescue mission. He needed to be able to move freely in the tunnel and shack---not the same as lurking along a hall at the Hogshead or in the castle. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 5 17:39:40 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <8C9BEAD4F38240BC84BD542529B7AA68@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <1309887580.75445.YahooMailClassic@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190818 Taya: I got distracted by something Potioncat said, sorry! How did Snape know the Invisibility Cloak belonged to Harry? He does clearly know this by time he gets to the shack, but before then, when did he suspect or realise Harry had one? June: I just thought of something and it is so obvious that is why it went over all of our heads. Snape knew the invisibility cloak was Harry's because of the incident in Hogsmead. When Harry was throwing mud at Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyal and the invisibility cloak slipped and they saw his head. No doubt Snape thought at that point that Harry must have one. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jul 6 03:36:45 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:36:45 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iutg77+d2rl@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv0l8d+gtl4@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190819 > > > > Taya: > > I got distracted by something Potioncat said, sorry! > > How did Snape know the Invisibility Cloak belonged to Harry? He does clearly > > know this by time he gets to the shack, but before then, when did he suspect > > or realise Harry had one? > > > Potioncat: > I'm not sure how he knew, but he says he know it was Harry's and thanks him for the use of it. Maybe he too saw James using it years ago and recognised it. > Nikkalmati Earlier in POA (p 283 of US paperback) Snape catches Harry after his trip to Hogsmeade. "What would your head haave been doing in Hogsmeade, Potter? . . . No part of your body has permission to be in Hogsmeade." Don't you think Snape knew then? Maybe it was generally known James had an Invisibility Cloak or maybe DD told Snape about it. Nikkalmati From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 6 03:35:41 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 03:35:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iut9ce+veev@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv0l6d+sfrd@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190820 > Alla: > > I am just not up to a long version now :), but the short version is - not to leave him with Dursleys if the protection was not shown OR to actually check upon him wih Dursleys. Because it makes no sense to me when one LETTER from Dumbledore stops Dursleys from throwing them out, but for ten years he could not be bothered to show up because for plot purposes JKR needed Harry to suffer. Thats abuse to me, abuse and neglect, no matter how much plot needed it. Pippin: I thought we had agreed on the evidence for the protection? Canon says that powerful magic does not reveal itself by bangs and flashes -- even Dumbledore cannot always detect its presence. Voldemort says it is there, and neither he nor his agents ever penetrate Privet Drive while the magic lasts, though they manage to get everywhere else that there is something Voldemort wants. Canon explains why Dumbledore did not want to make it too obvious that he, or any other wizard, cared about Harry. Harry agreed with that reasoning -- and showed it by breaking up with Ginny before Voldemort could use her against him. As for wizards who didn't care about Harry...we know that unsuspected DE's were everywhere. Sirius broke out of Azkaban to stop one of them from harming Harry, but what could he have done about the ones that he didn't know about? He admits there were many of them. There was only one person who could stand between Harry and the unsuspected DE's -- and that person, unfortunately, was Petunia. The only thing Petunia wanted from the magical world was to be left alone -- what else could Dumbledore offer her to induce her to take Harry except a promise that, except in case of emergencies, no witch or wizard would enter her home without permission from her? It's not speculation that in every case but one, permission had to be given before a fully-qualified wizard could enter the house. The exception is OOP, where I think we can agree Harry's deterioration is reaching an alarming state, ie, an emergency exists. Harry supposes the Dursleys would be tempted by wizard gold, but as we see Petunia won't accept so much as a glass of mead from Dumbledore. She's had far too much experience with pockets full of frogspawn and teacups turning into rats to accept anything from a wizard no matter how appealing it might appear. Alla: <snip> It is because I consider him a hypocritical manipulator, who would IMO sacrifice anybody's life and happiness to achieve his goals. Even if the goal is noble, as in to fight against Voldemort, but the way he did it, makes him really not that much better than Voldemort in my eyes. Pippin: I don't know about JKR's ethics, but IMO, you are harder on Dumbledore than Jewish ethics would be. In Jewish law, any commandment may be broken except those against murder, idolatry, and sexual crimes, in order to save a life. And if it is done to stop someone who is pursuing another to take their life, the sacrifice of life is not only permitted but required. Harry and Dumbledore agree that Dumbledore never killed unless he had to, which would mean he did not commit murder. Dumbledore never idolized anyone after Grindelwald, and fanfic aside, I think it is safe to assume he didn't commit any sexual crimes either. Dumbledore admits to selfishness, but he only admires himself when his plans work, and when his plans work they save lives. Pippin From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 05:01:19 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 05:01:19 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iuvhm3+8g53@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv0q6v+10ia5@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190821 Mike Crudele wrote: > > How do we know that the silver doe was Lily's patronus? > > Was this speculation on our part, on Harry's part, or > > is there some canon proof that this was Lily's patronus? Zanooda responded: > If you count Harry's words as canon proof, then yes :-). He said it during the last confrontation with LV. I don't know why he thought that, but aren't we supposed to believe *everything* Harry said after returning from the limbo :-)? People do acquire some kind of mystical knowledge on the other side, I guess... Joey: Ah, you're right! He said that to Voldy, I remember now. Um, but I thought he *deduced* that even while he was going through Snape's memories in the TPT chapter of DH? :-) I don't know but I always read it that way. :-) From ddankanyin at cox.net Wed Jul 6 04:47:44 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 00:47:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter References: <iuu4ru+6ia9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <6B65C24C28074DB89C3A567FAC5CC791@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 190822 From: "nerona" <nerona12 at yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 12:44 AM > 1- In your opinion why did Petunia accept taking Harry in the first > place? > When DD sent the howler in Book 5 (remember my last) it was said at > the end of the book that she sealed the magic or something when she > took Harry. > Why do you think she took him in the first place if she didn't show > any love or care towards him??? Dorothy's answer: Petunia evidently took him thinking they (she and Vernon) could take the "strangeness" out of him. I don't think she had any idea of what constituted a magical contract, but I do think the Dumbledore frightened and intrigued her. > > 2- Even as we know that DD knew how terrible they were (the Dursleys) > and he knew that Harry will be forced to their family why did he > choose them and not some other wizarding family? Dorothy's answer: I think Dumbledore thought that Harry would be safer there than in anywhere in the wizarding world since there were still those loyal to Voldie. And since Petunia was a blood relative, the magical contract was ironclad. > > 3- What do you think was Draco's boggart??? Dorothy's answer: Draco seemed to be a bit of a coward, but I think he was most afraid of angering his father, therefore his boggart might have been an angry father. Just a guess on this one since I never gave much thought to this before. > > 4- After LV's final death scene in book 7, do you think that the Dark > Mark tattoo (I don't know what it's called, sorry) disappeared from > the arm of the remaining Death Eaters?? Dorothy's answer: I think, but I'm not sure, that the dark mark disappeared once Voldie died. Otherwise, if I'm wrong here, it certainly would have faded. Think peace, Dorothy From ddankanyin at cox.net Wed Jul 6 04:51:02 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 00:51:02 -0400 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion References: <iut9ce+veev@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <F6AE8D9DB9F545D9B1093ACAE49CEE6D@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 190823 > Alla: > > Yes, I am familiar with all these quotes, but that only makes me > strongly disagree with JKR, that's all. Dorothy: I understand your feelings, but if you disagree with JKR, and she wrote the books, then there is obvious bias against the whole thing. Yes? Think peace, Dorothy From bart at moosewise.com Wed Jul 6 13:29:25 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:29:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <1309887092.17035.YahooMailClassic@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1309887092.17035.YahooMailClassic@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E146335.6090607@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190824 Taya: > I got distracted by something Potioncat said, sorry! > How did Snape know the Invisibility Cloak belonged to Harry? He does clearly > know this by time he gets to the shack, but before then, when did he suspect > or realise Harry had one? June: > You know what Taya? That is a very good question and I have often wondered that myself. I don't expect that Snape knew about it when James was using it. I would recon though that having found it he would have ruled out Lupin because being a teacher he could wonder around at night all he wanted. For all he knew, it could have been Sirius' because obviously Sirius was getting around some how and Snape didn't know yet that Sirius was an animagi. But then he just loved to blame things on Harry lol. Bart: How about the obvious? Dumbledore told him. Snape is charged with protecting Harry, Dumbledore knows that Harry wanders around the castle wearing an invisibility cloak, Sirius is at large. Bart From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jul 6 15:28:09 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:28:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv0l6d+sfrd@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv1uu9+5ng0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190825 > > > >> > Alla: > <snip> > It is because I consider him a hypocritical manipulator, who would IMO sacrifice anybody's life and happiness to achieve his goals. Even if the goal is noble, as in to fight against Voldemort, but the way he did it, makes him really not that much better than Voldemort in my eyes. > > Pippin: > I don't know about JKR's ethics, but IMO, you are harder on Dumbledore than Jewish ethics would be. In Jewish law, any commandment may be broken except those against murder, idolatry, and sexual crimes, in order to save a life. And if it is done to stop someone who is pursuing another to take their life, the sacrifice of life is not only permitted but required. > > Harry and Dumbledore agree that Dumbledore never killed unless he had to, which would mean he did not commit murder. > > Dumbledore never idolized anyone after Grindelwald, and fanfic aside, I think it is safe to assume he didn't commit any sexual crimes either. > > Dumbledore admits to selfishness, but he only admires himself when his plans work, and when his plans work they save lives. > > Nikkalmati I am not sure I follow you. Do you mean any action DD took to save lives (in his own opinion) was justified? I am not sure ethics allows you to sacrifice a third party to stop a killer from pursuing someone you think is more important. DD's problem was an enormous ego and a lack of trust in other people. Ironically, he apparently trusted SS more than he did anyone else, but never told even him about the Horcruxes. He concealed information in order to manipulate people because he did not trust them to make the right decisions. He did not trust any wizarding family to raise Harry properly; he did not trust Harry with knowledge about the Hallows because he feared he would forget about the Horcruxes; he did not tell Snape about the wand even though he intended Snape to end up with the wand (did he intend for LV to kill Snape too as a "necessary sacrifice"?); he did not tell Minerva about his plans, I guess because he did not think she would be able to keep it quiet or she would not go along with it. He could have told Harry that he had to sacrifice himself in that last year and I think Harry could have accepted it. By not confiding in other people, he took terrible risks and caused others to take risks they were not aware of. He was very lucky that Harry was able to find the Horcruxes and that SS was able to deliver his message to Harry before he died. He was lucky that Lupin never bit anyone while a student (or a teacher). It has been pointed out that he took risks with the students that last year by not expelling Draco. (example, Katy and Ron). I cannot see DD as ny kind of a moral model. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jul 6 15:36:42 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:36:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <F6AE8D9DB9F545D9B1093ACAE49CEE6D@DG22FG61> Message-ID: <iv1vea+j6i8@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dorothy dankanyin" <ddankanyin at ...> wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > Yes, I am familiar with all these quotes, but that only makes me > > strongly disagree with JKR, that's all. > > Dorothy: > I understand your feelings, but if you disagree with JKR, and she wrote the books, then there is obvious bias against the whole thing. Yes? > Think peace, > Dorothy > Nikkalmati JKR wrote the books and sent them out into the world, yes. That does not insulate them from fair literary criticism. (I would not consider it fair to criticise them because they deal with witchcraft, or because they contain characters derived from mythology and are therefore not "original", for example). They also have to stand on their own. She cannot revise them now. What she did may not be what she intended. We know she was surprised and appalled that people actually liked Draco and even Snape, but the readers' reactions are valid even if she did not expect them. Nikkalmati From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 5 18:17:31 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <iuu4ru+6ia9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1309889851.80054.YahooMailClassic@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190827 > Nerona: > 1- In your opinion why did Petunia accept taking Harry in the > first place? > When DD sent the howler in Book 5 (remember my last) it was said > at the end of the book that she sealed the magic or something > when she took Harry. > Why do you think she took him in the first place if she didn't > show any love or care towards him??? June: That is something that I always wondered about myself. What that letter meant was not really revealed and that was something that I had longed to know (either that or it went right over my head) But I expect that the magic that protected Harry had something in it that meant the Dursleys had to take him for their own safety. > Nerona: > 2- Even as we know that DD knew how terrible they were (the > Dursleys) and he knew that Harry will be forced to their family > why did he choose them and not some other wizarding family? June: That was because of the magic involved. Lily's sacrifice meant that to be safe Harry had to be able to call a family member's home his home and her family were the only family he had left. > Nerona: > 3- What do you think was Draco's boggart??? June: I think it is his father. > Nerona: > 4- After LV's final death scene in book 7, do you think that the > Dark Mark tattoo (I don't know what it's called, sorry) > disappeared from the arm of the remaining Death Eaters?? June: No, I think it remained and is a reminder to them for the rest of their lives. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jul 6 15:00:27 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:00:27 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <iuu4ru+6ia9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv1tab+8jbo@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nerona" <nerona12 at ...> wrote: > > 1- In your opinion why did Petunia accept taking Harry in the first > place? > When DD sent the howler in Book 5 (remember my last) it was said at > the end of the book that she sealed the magic or something when she > took Harry. > Why do you think she took him in the first place if she didn't show > any love or care towards him??? > Nikkalmati Petunia did not want to have anything to do with wizards after she was rejected by Hogwarts. I think the only thing DD could have offered her was protection for her own family. In other words he must have threatened her with DEs coming to her house unless she accepted Harry and he must have assured her they couldnot get in if Harry were there under her protection. The howler he sent reminded her she had accepted the protection and benefited from it, so she could not go back on her promise. I agree that she thought she could "change" Harry and wipe out the magic. Nikkalmati <snip> > > 4- After LV's final death scene in book 7, do you think that the Dark > Mark tattoo (I don't know what it's called, sorry) disappeared from > the arm of the remaining Death Eaters?? > Nikkalmati Based on the fact that DD's spell on Harry disappeared when he died on the Tower, I think the Dark Mark disappeared. I suspect also that when LV was reduced to a spirit that the DM became so faint that it could not be detected; otherwise it would have been easy to find which wizards were marked members of his band. No trials necessary - just roll up your sleeve. Also it would not have been of any significance that Snape showed Fudge his DM in OTP to prove LV was back, if the DM had not disappeared when LV left. > Nikkalmati (I don't know what Draco's Boggert would be as a student, but after he took the DM it would have been LV killing his family). From fenneyml at gmail.com Wed Jul 6 18:06:55 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:06:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv1vea+j6i8@eGroups.com> References: <F6AE8D9DB9F545D9B1093ACAE49CEE6D@DG22FG61> <iv1vea+j6i8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2sd6PVnPnNpFWbxt=TmhW0_zxh-8eUaat3chQNXtjD=iQ@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190829 > > Nikkalmati > > > JKR wrote the books and sent them out into the world, yes. That does not > insulate them from fair literary criticism. > > What she did may not be what she intended. We know she was surprised and > appalled that people actually liked Draco and even Snape, > > but the readers' reactions are valid even if she did not expect them. > > > Nikkalmati > > Bookcrazzzy: People can certainly like or dislike characters and respond to the books in ways that JKR did not intend, but I think it is taking things a bit far to say that readers' reactions are all valid. JKR knows the back story, essential character and motivations of the people in her books far more deeply than any of the readers and those things are facts rather than opinions. Readers can and do have personal biases, assumptions, misunderstandings, etc. that lead them to invalid conclusions. There are also differences in culture and values that result in different readings. For example, DD makes the observation late in the story that the Dursley's did much more damage to Dudley than they did to Harry and I agree with that. When my sons were growing up, I saw lots of kids who, like Dudley, were given anything they wanted, bailed out of situations instead of being justly punished for their role in them and protected from the world instead of being taught how to deal with it. I called it "over-love" and felt very sorry for those kids. The Dursley's weren't evil, they were just stupid, selfish, prejudiced, misguided and inconsiderate in the extreme. DD explained that he didn't tell Harry about the Hallows because he was worried that Harry would be seduced by them as DD had been himself. He wanted Harry to concentrate on the Horcruxes but he left clues to the Hallows expecting that Harry would mature through the process and be able to acquire and use the Hallows for unselfish reasons only. As a parent, I know that it is difficult to stand back and watch your kids make poor choices or deal with unfairness - far more difficult than it would be to jump in and solve everything for them. But kids have to learn for themselves in many cases and if they aren't allowed to struggle then they are not allowed to grow and to learn. Also, the information that DD had regarding the Horcruxes was extremely dangerous knowledge. To tell others was to put them at considerable risk as well as risk that Voldemort would find out too soon. He didn't like knowing those things himself and considered it to be a great burden and thus did not want to burden others with it unnecessarily. JMO, Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ddankanyin at cox.net Wed Jul 6 18:03:15 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:03:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion References: <iv1vea+j6i8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <F5EA17124D67453F898F92D7B76E7537@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 190830 >> > Alla: >> > Yes, I am familiar with all these quotes, but that only makes >> > me strongly disagree with JKR, that's all. >> >> Dorothy: >> I understand your feelings, but if you disagree with JKR, and >> she wrote the books, then there is obvious bias against the whole >> thing. Yes? >> > Nikkalmati > JKR wrote the books and sent them out into the world, yes. That > does not insulate them from fair literary criticism. (I would > not consider it fair to criticise them because they deal with > witchcraft, or because they contain characters derived from > mythology and are therefore not "original", for example). They > also have to stand on their own. She cannot revise them now. > What she did may not be what she intended. We know she was > surprised and appalled that people actually liked Draco and even > Snape, but the readers' reactions are valid even if she did not > expect them. Dorothy: I thought that Alla's disagreement was with what JKR said about what she wrote, not specifically what she wrote in the first place. Of course everyone's free to read into anything and interpret it in their own way, surprising the author or not. I think that's what's made this series so interesting for so many of us. Think peace, Dorothy From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 22:36:10 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:36:10 -0000 Subject: Harry potter general In-Reply-To: <iuvl1p+cibf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv2o0q+q560@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nerona" <nerona12 at ...> wrote: > Although Harry knew that Narcissa didn't care any more if the > Dark Lord won or died but still, her husband and son were not. zanooda: The Malfoy family was much abused by LV during that last year, and Lucius could use this to his advantage after the war. He managed to avoid imprisonment after the first war as well, remember :-)? As for Draco, I don't think he wanted that much for LV to win in DH. > nerona wrote: > And would have wished that Draco at some point fell in love with > a Muggleborn, that will be a hit to his so called pure bloods, > don't you think??? zanooda: According to the author, Draco married a pureblood :-). Maybe Scorpius will grant your wish... :-). From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 22:45:49 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:45:49 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <F54B43FF29CD443D80CF5E4622F1B74A@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <iv2oit+3sub@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz Clark" <liz.treky at ...> wrote: > There would be very few things that would enable your head to > apparently float in midair. And Snape certainly was convinced > that Harry's full body was in Hogsmeade, not just his head. > Wonder why Snape didn't keep it? zanooda: You mean why Snape didn't keep the cloak after the Shrieking Shack? If yes, he left the Shack unconscious, that's why he couldn't take it with him :-). From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 6 23:53:19 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:53:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv1uu9+5ng0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv2shf+r14g@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190833 > > > Alla: > > <snip> > > It is because I consider him a hypocritical manipulator, who would IMO sacrifice anybody's life and happiness to achieve his goals. Even if the goal is noble, as in to fight against Voldemort, but the way he did it, makes him really not that much better than Voldemort in my eyes. > > > > Pippin: > > I don't know about JKR's ethics, but IMO, you are harder on Dumbledore than Jewish ethics would be. In Jewish law, any commandment may be broken except those against murder, idolatry, and sexual crimes, in order to save a life. And if it is done to stop someone who is pursuing another to take their life, the sacrifice of life is not only permitted but required. > > > > Harry and Dumbledore agree that Dumbledore never killed unless he had to, which would mean he did not commit murder. > > > > Dumbledore never idolized anyone after Grindelwald, and fanfic aside, I think it is safe to assume he didn't commit any sexual crimes either. > > > > Dumbledore admits to selfishness, but he only admires himself when his plans work, and when his plans work they save lives. > > > > Nikkalmati > > I am not sure I follow you. Do you mean any action DD took to save lives (in his own opinion) was justified? I am not sure ethics allows you to sacrifice a third party to stop a killer from pursuing someone you think is more important. Pippin: I agree that you can't sacrifice one innocent life to save another. You can't save the person you think is more important, though in RL nobody would blame you if you tried -- I was just reading about an Israeli mother and politician, who said that she would fight tooth and nail to get her son a deferment from the army -- but she would want the government to turn her down flat. You can, if you have the rightful authority, order soldiers to die to defend their country from an invader. Or you can ask that the strong choose to die to protect the weak, which is the essence of chivalry, not a Jewish concept but not incompatible, IMO. Most people don't choose Gryffindor, the house of chivalry (in the books -- I'm not talking about fans playing let's pretend.) But some do. Was Dumbledore supposed to brainwash them out of their choice, like he should have (according to some fans) brainwashed the Slytherins out of being bloodists, or brainwashed the House Elves into wanting their freedom, or the Dursleys into being better parents, on the grounds that some people are just too ignorant and childlike to know what is good for them? Dumbledore didn't brainwash Harry into wanting to save people. Harry wanted that for himself. All Dumbledore did was show Harry how it was possible for him to do it and still become the person he wanted to be, instead of the K**a** wizard some of the readers thought he should be. Nikkalmati: > DD's problem was an enormous ego and a lack of trust in other people. Pippin: Interesting... I wouldn't consider those ethical issues, per se, though certainly they might be a serious obstacle to ethical behavior. Generally, when somebody tells me I have a moral duty to trust other people (frail as we all are), I decline the Kool-aid, check to see that I've still got my wallet and head for the nearest door. <g> Nikkalmati: Ironically, he apparently trusted SS more than he did anyone else, but never told even him about the Horcruxes. He concealed information in order to manipulate people because he did not trust them to make the right decisions. Pippin: The knowledge was Dumbledore's, right? I mean, he wasn't researching Voldemort's history or horcruxes or the Hallows on the Ministry's sickle, or Snape's for that matter. He had every right, IMO, to decide what he was going to do with the information once he'd discovered it. He was taking a lot on himself by telling Harry about the horcruxes, since that subject was forbidden to teach. He held off, in fact, until he was sure that Harry would be able to save lives if he knew. Nikkalmati: He did not trust any wizarding family to raise Harry properly; Pippin: On the contrary, he admits that there were many wizarding families who would have taken Harry in. He did not think they could keep Harry safe from Voldemort and his agents as well as the Dursleys could. In a way, that could be Lily's fault. If she had thought to cast her spell of protection over everybody, the way Harry did, instead of only over her child, then perhaps Dumbledore wouldn't have needed a blood affinity to set up the protection. Don't you think Peter Pettigrew would have been at Privet Drive if he could? Nikkalmati: He did not trust Harry with knowledge about the Hallows because he feared he would forget about the Horcruxes Pippin: That is true, and Dumbledore admits his error and begs Harry to forgive him for it. But that did not cost any lives, though Harry did have to go through a lot of angst trying to figure things out and wondering why Dumbledore did not trust him enough to tell him the truth straight out. Nikkalmati: he did not tell Snape about the wand even though he intended Snape to end up with the wand (did he intend for LV to kill Snape too as a "necessary sacrifice"?); Pippin: Dumbledore and Snape both knew that Voldemort, murderous and irrational, might kill Snape at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Facing that danger was Snape's choice, not an order. "If you are ready? If you are prepared?" We don't know what Snape was supposed to do with the Elder Wand -- but that doesn't mean that Snape didn't know, only that it wasn't necessary for the story JKR wanted to tell. I imagine Snape was to check that it had indeed lost its powers, as Dumbledore hoped it would if its master died undefeated. Snape would abandon it once he was sure it could not be used, and it would have been broken and entombed with Dumbledore. If Voldemort wanted to claim the pieces as a trophy he'd be welcome to it. But Draco became master of the wand because Dumbledore froze Harry to keep him out of the fight rather than defend himself. So there is an instance where Dumbledore sacrificed his plan in order to save Harry, who was in the most immediate peril. Nikkalmati: He could have told Harry that he had to sacrifice himself in that last year and I think Harry could have accepted it. Pippin: You've missed something. The reason Harry couldn't know he had to sacrifice himself was not that he couldn't have accepted it, though that's the reason Dumbledore gave Snape. The reason Harry couldn't know was so that he could, in setting out to die, use the magic of willing sacrifice to save those whom he loved, that is, everyone who was willing to oppose LV. Once Harry had done that, Voldemort had no more power to hurt anyone who opposed him. Dumbledore gave Harry a clue: "If I know [Harry], he will have arranged matters so that when he does set out to meet his death, it will truly mean the end of Voldemort." I confess, may JKR forgive me, that for a long time that didn't make any sense to me at all. I remember my confusion as I read it the first time. Harry only gets the message if Voldemort has started to protect Nagini, right? So how can Harry setting out mean the end of Voldemort ? Harry can't kill him and all the horcruxes haven't been destroyed. But JKR wasn't being incoherent, as I thought. There actually was a way, and Harry found it, as Dumbledore expected he would. That's why King's Cross Dumbledore hasn't got anything to say about arranging for Harry to think he would die, except that he knew all along that Harry wouldn't. Harry has already figured out the rest, though the reader doesn't know that yet. Nikkalmati: > By not confiding in other people, he took terrible risks and caused others to take risks they were not aware of. He was very lucky that Harry was able to find the Horcruxes and that SS was able to deliver his message to Harry before he died. He was lucky that Lupin never bit anyone while a student (or a teacher). It has been pointed out that he took risks with the students that last year by not expelling Draco. (example, Katy and Ron). I cannot see DD as any kind of a moral model. Pippin: Yes, the plan was terribly risky for Harry and Snape, and for all the members of the Order, but they volunteered to risk themselves on others' behalf. They all knew there was stuff they weren't being told. They could trust Dumbledore, or they could leave the Order and fight on their own. That was their choice. The literal meaning of Knight is not soldier -- it is servant. The knight goes into harm's way, just as in the chess game in PS/SS, so that other people do not have to. Lupin was in no danger of biting anybody if Lupin had done as he agreed to do. So that was a case of DD trusting Lupin. It is true that the WW has been brainwashed into thinking you can't trust werewolves, and if Lupin failed in his trust because he was a werewolf then DD was wrong. But Lupin did not fail in his trust because he was a werewolf, IMO. He failed because he was a coward, and there is nothing, as far as I know, that forbids cowards from attending Hogwarts, and even from becoming Gryffindors if they desire, though the Hat probably told Lupin he should consider another House. Dumbledore judged that Draco would be in immediate peril if he were expelled, and not an immediate peril to anyone else if he was watched closely. So DD's moral duty, according to this system of ethics, was to protect the person in more immediate peril. He might have been wrong and he nearly was, about how well he could protect others from Draco, but he was the Headmaster, so he was responsible for the safety of the students and it was his choice to make. Since it does not say anywhere that Hogwarts is a democracy, I don't see why that decision should have been subject to a vote. Dumbledore did warn everyone that they were in more peril than usual that year. Some families chose to heed his warning and kept their children home. Some didn't. Some trusted they were still safer at Hogwarts than anywhere else. That was their choice. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 7 01:04:56 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 01:04:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv2shf+r14g@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv30no+2eac@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190834 Pippin: <SNIP> Dumbledore didn't brainwash Harry into wanting to save people. Harry wanted that for himself. All Dumbledore did was show Harry how it was possible for him to do it and still become the person he wanted to be, instead of the K**a** wizard some of the readers thought he should be. <SNIP> Alla: Except only after watching Dumbledore's show Harry decided that the only way to save people is for him to die. He always had saving people thing, I do agree, because that is part of why I like his character so much and had he seen no other choice, I am sure he would have chosen the life of other over his own. Only he always had hope and Dumbledore IMO robbed him of one. Harry decided that plan made so much sense, all on his own, only Dumbledore IMO brought him to this moment through all his life, starting when he was testing him in the deadly ways in PS/SS. Instead of teaching him to rely on everybody around him, he barely allowed him to rely on Ron and Hermione, because of course the law of the genre needs for kids to be the saviors. Maybe other people would have helped him to find Horcruxes faster? And do not start me on Dumbledore sending him on the false trail, because he thinks Harry could have been seduced same as Dumbledore. That made so little sense to me as well. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 7 00:56:46 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:56:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv0l6d+sfrd@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv308e+qeqe@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190835 > Alla: > > > > Yes, I am familiar with all these quotes, but that only makes me > > strongly disagree with JKR, that's all. > > Dorothy: > I understand your feelings, but if you disagree with JKR, and she wrote the books, then there is obvious bias against the whole thing. Yes? Alla: Well, no there is myself reading the character of Dumbledore not as writer intending me to read it. :) That means that writer failed to make me follow her intent, despite the fact that I see what she attempted clearly. There are a lot of other things and characters for me to like in these books besides Albus Dumbledore even if JKR admitted that he is her mouth piece. Bookcrrazzzzy: People can certainly like or dislike characters and respond to the books in ways that JKR did not intend, but I think it is taking things a bit far to say that readers' reactions are all valid. JKR knows the back story, essential character and motivations of the people in her books far more deeply than any of the readers and those things are facts rather than opinions. Readers can and do have personal biases, assumptions, misunderstandings, etc. that lead them to invalid conclusions. Alla: As long as readers' conclusions have canon support they are valid IMO, even if those are not what JKR intended. For example, there is canon support for Dumbledore being able to force Dursleys to do what he wanted VERY fast and very effectively, there is also canon support that the whole Order could have easily came out and told Dursleys to stop abusing Harry OR ELSE. Because that is indeed what happened in HBP, there was no more abuse, wasn't it? Now, some readers (myself) question why the heck Dumbledore and his Order did not stop the abuse earlier. JKR may have wanted to portray a picture that Dumbledore could not have done anything to stop the abuse, because he wanted to protect Harry's life (or protect him till he needs to die), but she in my view failed, because she was inconsistent and when plot needs dictated showed that abuse could have easily been stopped. So, no, I do not feel that she convinced me that Harry's sufferings for eleven years could not have been avoided to save his life. Why did not Dumbledore threaten them before? And the list can go on and on. I did not misunderstand JKR, I can see what picture she tried to portray with Dumbledore and Harry, but for me she failed in that aspect. If the reader is not convinced, the intent exists only in writer's mind. For other reader who was convinced, such intent exists on page. Bookcrazzy: Also, the information that DD had regarding the Horcruxes was extremely dangerous knowledge. To tell others was to put them at considerable risk as well as risk that Voldemort would find out too soon. He didn't like knowing those things himself and considered it to be a great burden and thus did not want to burden others with it unnecessarily. Alla: Except that it looks absurd to me when he does not consider it extremely dangerous knowledge for three kids/teenagers and sends them on the merry Quest when members of the Order could have helped and Dumbedore himself admits that his mistakes are graver than others. Nikkalmati JKR wrote the books and sent them out into the world, yes. That does not insulate them from fair literary criticism. (I would not consider it fair to criticise them because they deal with witchcraft, or because they contain characters derived from mythology and are therefore not "original", for example). They also have to stand on their own. She cannot revise them now. What she did may not be what she intended. We know she was surprised and appalled that people actually liked Draco and even Snape, but the readers' reactions are valid even if she did not expect them Alla: I agree as long as there is some support in the books for interpretation, writer may be as surprised as she wants to be, but whatever is on the page has to stand on its own, I mean I LOVE speculating, and will take her words if I think it has support in canon, but yeah, some of the stuff readers interpret may be as far from what she intended as possible. Several writers seemed to be surprised that way, that readers saw in their books what they did not intend to be there, well, all I can tell them is to write more convincingly for those readers next time. Pippin: The only thing Petunia wanted from the magical world was to be left alone -- what else could Dumbledore offer her to induce her to take Harry except a promise that, except in case of emergencies, no witch or wizard would enter her home without permission from her? It's not speculation that in every case but one, permission had to be given before a fully-qualified wizard could enter the house. The exception is OOP, where I think we can agree Harry's deterioration is reaching an alarming state, ie, an emergency exists. Harry supposes the Dursleys would be tempted by wizard gold, but as we see Petunia won't accept so much as a glass of mead from Dumbledore. She's had far too much experience with pockets full of frogspawn and teacups turning into rats to accept anything from a wizard no matter how appealing it might appear. Alla: My point always was that she *listened* to Dumbledore, Pippin. She listened and nothing can convince me that she would not have listened the very same way if say in Chamber of Secrets Dumbledore did not show up and told her not to starve Harry in that room. If JKR wanted me to believe that nobody could come too help Harry, nobody should have showed up IMO when plot needs so demanded and make Dursleys stop the abuse. Alla: <snip> It is because I consider him a hypocritical manipulator, who would IMO sacrifice anybody's life and happiness to achieve his goals. Even if the goal is noble, as in to fight against Voldemort, but the way he did it, makes him really not that much better than Voldemort in my eyes. Pippin: I don't know about JKR's ethics, but IMO, you are harder on Dumbledore than Jewish ethics would be. In Jewish law, any commandment may be broken except those against murder, idolatry, and sexual crimes, in order to save a life. And if it is done to stop someone who is pursuing another to take their life, the sacrifice of life is not only permitted but required. Harry and Dumbledore agree that Dumbledore never killed unless he had to, which would mean he did not commit murder. Dumbledore never idolized anyone after Grindelwald, and fanfic aside, I think it is safe to assume he didn't commit any sexual crimes either. Dumbledore admits to selfishness, but he only admires himself when his plans work, and when his plans work they save lives. Alla: I am not a religious Jew, Pippin. So yes, maybe I am harder on him than what Jewish law requires. I brought up the child naming custom because this is what I grew up with and had been taught and this was the canon occurrence we discussed, but if Jewish Law would justify what Dumbledore planned to do to Harry, I most definitely do not agree with it. Oh also Yahoo!Mort ate my post to you, so let me just say that I do not think it is clear at all that Dumbledore did not want Harry to die. I mean he seems happy that Harry is alive, but I do not see much evidence that it occurred through his help. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 7 15:22:12 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:22:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv308e+qeqe@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv4iv4+u8pl@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190836 > Alla: > > As long as readers' conclusions have canon support they are valid IMO, even if those are not what JKR intended. For example, there is canon support for Dumbledore being able to force Dursleys to do what he wanted VERY fast and very effectively, there is also canon support that the whole Order could have easily came out and told Dursleys to stop abusing Harry OR ELSE. Because that is indeed what happened in HBP, there was no more abuse, wasn't it? Now, some readers (myself) question why the heck Dumbledore and his Order did not stop the abuse earlier. Pippin: Because they never stopped it. It was in HPB that Dumbledore told the Dursleys that Harry had known nothing but neglect, and often cruelty, in their hands. We find that Harry was not looking as neglected as he had the previous year because he, Harry, had determined that he couldn't "shut myself away or -- or crack up." He was taking better care of himself, that's all. I don't think JKR is inconsistent on this -- she shows the Order trying to stop the abuse and having no effect, and she shows Dumbledore not trying to stop it, only pointing out that it exists, and also having no effect. Petunia is a little ashamed of herself, maybe. But that wouldn't stop her. If Petunia is brave enough to defy Voldemort, and she is, she's brave enough to defy Dumbledore. She knows the blood protection is the most powerful spell Dumbledore can use to protect her and her family from Voldemort. But if she starts thinking there's nothing to choose between them? All she has to do is tell Harry he's got no home at Privet Drive, and Dumbledore can OR ELSE all he wants. I wouldn't bet Harry's life that Lily Evans's sister hasn't got it in her to shut out her nephew -- not when Lily shut out her best friend. > Alla: > > Except that it looks absurd to me when he does not consider it extremely dangerous knowledge for three kids/teenagers and sends them on the merry Quest when members of the Order could have helped and Dumbedore himself admits that his mistakes are graver than others. > Pippin: The knowledge is less dangerous for them because they haven't got the skill, experience or desire to make horcruxes of their own. > Alla: > > Oh also Yahoo!Mort ate my post to you, so let me just say that I do not think it is clear at all that Dumbledore did not want Harry to die. I mean he seems happy that Harry is alive, but I do not see much evidence that it occurred through his help. Pippin: The gleam, Alla, the famous gleam of triumph. I can see an interpretation of Dumbledore as evil because the reader has different ideas about evil than JKR. But saying that the text depicts *Harry* as interpreting Dumbledore's actions as evil would mean Harry is depicted as having different ideas about evil than Dumbledore, and where the heck is the canon for that? Harry's moral *character* is superior -- he's less tempted to do things that he and Dumbledore agree are wrong and it's easier for him to do the things that they both agree are right -- but their values are just the same, IMO. Pippin From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 7 16:25:25 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:25:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chap Disc: PoA Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss - Snape, Invisibility Cloak In-Reply-To: <4E146335.6090607@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <1310055925.35137.YahooMailClassic@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190837 > June: > You know what Taya? That is a very good question and I have often wondered that myself. I don't expect that Snape knew about it when > James was using it. I would recon though that having found it he would have ruled out Lupin because being a teacher he could wonder around at night all he wanted. For all he knew, it could have been > Sirius' because obviously Sirius was getting around some how and Snape didn't know yet that Sirius was an animagi. But then he just > loved to blame things on Harry lol. > Bart: > How about the obvious? Dumbledore told him. Snape is charged > with protecting Harry, Dumbledore knows that Harry wanders > around the castle wearing an invisibility cloak, Sirius is at > large. June: I don't think Dumbledore told him. For one thing, Dumbledore seemed to keep everyone (including Snape) on a need to know basis and for another, Snape didn't seem to know when Harry was wandering around the corridors in TPS and when he was questioning Harry in POA. Of course he would have been suspicious so you might have a point after all. Maybe he went to Dumbledore about Harry's head appearing in Hogsmead and Dumbledore told him how it happened. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 7 16:33:43 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry potter general - Malfoys, Voldemort's downfall In-Reply-To: <iv2o0q+q560@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310056423.55632.YahooMailClassic@web113904.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190838 > zanooda: > The Malfoy family was much abused by LV during that last year, > and Lucius could use this to his advantage after the war. He > managed to avoid imprisonment after the first war as well, > remember :-)? As for Draco, I don't think he wanted that much > for LV to win in DH. June: I am sure that whether they would admit it or not, the Malfoys were as happy as anyone else to see Voldemort's downfall. I would be willing to wager that, had Voldemort, won the Malfoys (especially Lucius) would have been in danger. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 7 16:15:32 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 09:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry In-Reply-To: <1309889851.80054.YahooMailClassic@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1310055332.87467.YahooMailClassic@web113902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190839 > Nerona: > 1- In your opinion why did Petunia accept taking Harry in the > first place? > When DD sent the howler in Book 5 (remember my last) it was said > at the end of the book that she sealed the magic or something > when she took Harry. > Why do you think she took him in the first place if she didn't > show any love or care towards him??? > June: > That is something that I always wondered about myself. What that > letter meant was not really revealed and that was something that > I had longed to know (either that or it went right over my head) > But I expect that the magic that protected Harry had something > in it that meant the Dursleys had to take him for their own safety. ? June: I have had another thought to the answer of this question. It is mentioned that the Dursleys had never even seen Harry so when Petunia opened the door and screamed, it wasn't because her nephew was on the doorstep but because a baby had been dumped on her doorstep. The natural reaction after that would be to pick up the baby and take it into the house. Maybe Dumbledore had placed a spell that once taken inside the house, the Dursleys would have to keep Harry. If they didn't maybe their lives would have been in danger. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 8 00:15:16 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:15:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv4iv4+u8pl@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv5i6k+20om@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190840 > > Alla: > > > > Oh also Yahoo!Mort ate my post to you, so let me just say that I do not think it is clear at all that Dumbledore did not want Harry to die. I mean he seems happy that Harry is alive, but I do not see much evidence that it occurred through his help. > > > Pippin: > The gleam, Alla, the famous gleam of triumph. Alla: Yes,and? Even events that lead to that famous gleam occurred with no help of Dumbledore, to say that this unequivocally means that Dumbledore wanted Harry to live, I do not know about that. Pippin: > I can see an interpretation of Dumbledore as evil because the reader has different ideas about evil than JKR. But saying that the text depicts *Harry* as interpreting Dumbledore's actions as evil would mean Harry is depicted as having different ideas about evil than Dumbledore, and where the heck is the canon for that? Alla: I think there is plenty of canon when Harry before Kings Cross disagrees and dislikes Dumbledore's actions, but I most certainly agree with you, Harry after Kings cross as IMO Saintly figure does not think that Dumbledore's actions are evil and forgives him for everything. No argument from me here at all. Pippin: > Harry's moral *character* is superior -- he's less tempted to do things that he and Dumbledore agree are wrong and it's easier for him to do the things that they both agree are right -- but their values are just the same, IMO. Alla: I certainly hope that there are values that Harry has that are different from Dumbledore, like I doubt it is in Harry to become a God of WW and wanting to decide people's fate the way Dumbledore did, I hope Harry will be content to be left alone and let people exercise their free will and not manipulate them so mercilessly. But again I definitely agree that there are a lot of values they have in common. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 8 00:39:09 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:39:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv5i6k+20om@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv5jjd+bj7v@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190841 .> Pippin: > > I can see an interpretation of Dumbledore as evil because the reader has different ideas about evil than JKR. But saying that the text depicts *Harry* as interpreting Dumbledore's actions as evil would mean Harry is depicted as having different ideas about evil than Dumbledore, and where the heck is the canon for that? > > > Alla: > > I think there is plenty of canon when Harry before Kings Cross disagrees and dislikes Dumbledore's actions, but I most certainly agree with you, Harry after Kings cross as IMO Saintly figure does not think that Dumbledore's actions are evil and forgives him for everything. No argument from me here at all. Alla: To clarify further, before you say it Pippin :). I agree that there is no canon that Harry even before Kings Cross thought that Dumbledore was *evil*, but I stand by my view that before Kings cross Harry disagreed a plenty with Dumbledore's actions that concerned Harry. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 8 05:43:30 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 05:43:30 -0000 Subject: An Understanding between Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <iv0q6v+10ia5@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv65e2+3tmm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" <happyjoeysmiley at ...> wrote: > He said that to Voldy, I remember now. Um, but I thought he > *deduced* that even while he was going through Snape's memories > in the TPT chapter of DH? :-) I don't know but I always read > it that way. :-) zanooda: Harry deduced from the memories that Snape loved Lily, that's for sure, but there is nothing at all in the memories about Lily's patronus. Snape's silver doe could easily symbolize Lily herself, just like Harry's stag patronus represents James. That would have been a more logical assumption, IMO :-). However, Harry told LV that Lily's patronus was also a doe, and I believe that he knew it somehow due to his visit to the limbo :-) :-). From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Fri Jul 8 08:10:54 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:10:54 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iv2oit+3sub@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv6e2e+9mjf@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190843 Liz Clark wrote: > > There would be very few things that would enable your head to > > apparently float in midair. And Snape certainly was convinced > > that Harry's full body was in Hogsmeade, not just his head. > > Wonder why Snape didn't keep it? > zanooda: > You mean why Snape didn't keep the cloak after the Shrieking Shack? If yes, he left the Shack unconscious, that's why he couldn't take it with him :-). Joey: I think Liz Clark meant why snape didn't keep it with him even before he revealed himself in front of Harry and all others inside the shack. In fact, he could have worn it all along, stunned them all (even no-verbally) and handed them over to DD? Harry never had to remove his cloak to use a spell, I think. :-) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 8 15:13:58 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:13:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv5i6k+20om@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv76rm+5q69@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190844 > Alla: > > Yes,and? Even events that lead to that famous gleam occurred with no help of Dumbledore, to say that this unequivocally means that Dumbledore wanted Harry to live, I do not know about that. > Pippin: Yes, and. :) The gleam shows that Dumbledore considered it a triumph that Harry would be able to live after he'd "died" at the right moment. Does it mean that unequivocally? Well, AFAIK, you are the only person who's asked, so I'd say, yeah, it does. DD's contribution was everything he did to keep Harry alive up till then, including allowing him to face dangers so that when Harry finally did meet a Voldemort who had recovered his full strength, he was able to defend himself and not freeze like he did when he faced Quirrell. > > Pippin: > > I can see an interpretation of Dumbledore as evil because the reader has different ideas about evil than JKR. But saying that the text depicts *Harry* as interpreting Dumbledore's actions as evil would mean Harry is depicted as having different ideas about evil than Dumbledore, and where the heck is the canon for that? > > > Alla: > > I think there is plenty of canon when Harry before Kings Cross disagrees and dislikes Dumbledore's actions, but I most certainly agree with you, Harry after Kings cross as IMO Saintly figure does not think that Dumbledore's actions are evil and forgives him for everything. No argument from me here at all. Pippin: ::has read Alla's post amending this:: Um, I'm confused. King's Cross DD is an evil person who didn't repent, but got forgiven anyway because Harry was too saintly to see the evil in him, or DD is a saintly person whose evil has been forgiven because he repented of it and sinned no more? > Alla: > > I certainly hope that there are values that Harry has that are different from Dumbledore, like I doubt it is in Harry to become a God of WW and wanting to decide people's fate the way Dumbledore did, I hope Harry will be content to be left alone and let people exercise their free will and not manipulate them so mercilessly. But again I definitely agree that there are a lot of values they have in common. Pippin: So, um, ....if DD intervenes, he's playing god, and if he doesn't intervene, he's letting evil go on when he could have stopped it. Just what is it that you think he should have done and how should he have known that it was okay to do it? It seems to me Harry will intervene when it is an emergency and he thinks he can influence events for good, and that is just what Dumbledore did. Harry has grown to be a more honest person than Dumbledore ever was-- for one thing he's discovered that he's not that good a liar. But he still trusts the earthly Dumbledore, or what's left of him, because he asks the portrait if he did the right thing about the Resurrection Stone. It's not that he's still Dumbledore's man, IMO. But now he's Dumbledore's friend. I agree that it would have been a fine thing if the WW had united behind DD or Harry and fought Voldemort together from the start. But we're shown that they couldn't. Despite the Hat (or maybe because of it) they didn't have a culture of putting their differences aside for the common interest. They couldn't even agree that they *had* a common interest, so every time they tried to unite they were betrayed, or else they shut out the very people who could have helped them. What's worse, Grindelwald (and DD, alas!) had poisoned the whole concept with that hypocritical slogan about the greater good. Even within the Trio, it's much easier for Harry and Hermione to see that they have to stick together than it is for Ron, who was brought up in the WW. The WW knows how to unite behind its *leaders* -- it idolizes them as Harry once idolized Dumbledore, and so every leader in the WW, not just Dumbledore, is forced to pretend to be what he is not. But, the story suggests, only children are meant to idolize their parents and teachers. If adults follow a leader it should be because they share his priorities and have observed him closely enough to know what they are. Dumbledore pretended about a lot of things, but he never pretended there should be anything more important to him than saving innocent lives. The things he confesses to Harry as wrongs were all times when he let something else take precedence. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 8 15:20:36 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:20:36 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 20: The Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: <iv6e2e+9mjf@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv7784+4dro@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190845 > Joey: > > I think Liz Clark meant why snape didn't keep it with him even before he revealed himself in front of Harry and all others inside the shack. > > In fact, he could have worn it all along, stunned them all (even no-verbally) and handed them over to DD? Harry never had to remove his cloak to use a spell, I think. :-) Pippin: Snape couldn't resist the perfect opportunity to gloat. But then, Sirius and Lupin made the same mistake. They could have stunned Peter, but they couldn't resist making him do a perp walk to the castle instead. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 8 18:03:11 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:03:11 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell? In-Reply-To: <1310055332.87467.YahooMailClassic@web113902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <iv7gov+vuui@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190846 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: > > > Nerona: > > 1- In your opinion why did Petunia accept taking Harry in the > > first place? > >... > > > June: > > ... > > But I expect that the magic that protected Harry had something > > in it that meant the Dursleys had to take him for their own > > safety. > ? > June: > ... Maybe Dumbledore had placed a spell that once taken inside > the house, the Dursleys would have to keep Harry. If they didn't > maybe their lives would have been in danger. > Steve: I'm curious about precisely what you mean by "...HAVE to keep Harry"? Are you implying that some spell FORCED them to keep Harry. Because That doesn't seem right, either morally or logically. If the spell compels them, then they have no choice. And if they have no choice then they didn't really choose to allow Harry to stay. That seems counter to what I believe JRK's moral codes are. I think the Dursley's has to make a choice of their own free will in order to activate Dumbledore ENHANCED Blood Protection. And the protection at the Dursley is not the protection Lily gave Harry, but instead, it is an enhancement of that protection provided by Dumbledore, that hinges on the condition that the Dursleys freely, even if begrudgingly, take Harry in. It seems counter to all that is good and right for some spell to compel or force the Dursleys to act in a certain way. I believe, as should be clear, that it must be an act of free will. Or perhaps I misinterpreted what you intended to say? Steve/bboyminn From fenneyml at gmail.com Fri Jul 8 21:40:01 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:40:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv76rm+5q69@eGroups.com> References: <iv5i6k+20om@eGroups.com> <iv76rm+5q69@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2txw5JMFNJMCEZbP9S9Ku7+e+pEOdGwi7y8_n5G+OAxQg@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190847 > > > Pippin: > > > DD's contribution was everything he did to keep Harry alive up till then, > including allowing him to face dangers so that when Harry finally did meet a > Voldemort who had recovered his full strength, he > > was able to defend himself and not freeze like he did when he faced > Quirrell. > Bookcrazzzy: I would add that DD went to great lengths to research Voldemort from his Tom Riddle days forward, horcruxes and hallows, and figured out what Voldemort was doing and why. He also deduced the nature and means of the ancient magic that protected Harry and tied Harry and Voldemort together. Harry was a "marked man" from the day his parents died because he became the "boy who lived" and because of the prophecy - there is no doubt that Voldemort would hunt him down. I don't believe that DD wanted Harry to die, in fact, he figured out the ancient magic and what would be necessary for Harry to best Voldemort and survive which is why he is so very happy at Kings Cross. I don't thing DD was perfect by any means but he had great responsibility for many people and made lots of extremely difficult decisions, some to act and some to refrain from acting. I doubt that many would have been right as often as he was. > > > > Alla: > > > > I certainly hope that there are values that Harry has that are different > from Dumbledore, like I doubt it is in Harry to become a God of WW and > wanting to decide people's fate the way Dumbledore did, I hope Harry will be > content to be left alone and let people exercise their free will and not > manipulate them so mercilessly. But again I definitely agree that there are > a lot of values they have in common. > > > Pippin: > > So, um, ....if DD intervenes, he's playing god, and if he doesn't > intervene, he's letting evil go on when he could have stopped it. Just what > is it that you think he should have done and how should he > > have known that it was okay to do it? It seems to me Harry will intervene > when it is an emergency and he thinks he can influence events for good, and > that is just what Dumbledore did. > Bookcrazzzy: I agree with Pippin that you can't have it both ways. He should have forced the Dursleys to behave better or forced the Order to do more sooner, etc. while at the same time he should not have interfered with others lives. He refrained from forcing Draco to do anything when he knew Draco was working to kill him which is seen as risking the students, but anything else that he did would have been signing Draco's death warrant. He is criticized for not trusting people while, in the books, he clearly trusts many far further than anyone else in the WW would - giants, werewolves, etc. Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 9 00:23:24 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 00:23:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv76rm+5q69@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <iv871s+8bdp@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190848 .> > Alla: > > > > Yes,and? Even events that lead to that famous gleam occurred with no help of Dumbledore, to say that this unequivocally means that Dumbledore wanted Harry to live, I do not know about that. > > > > Pippin: > Yes, and. :) > The gleam shows that Dumbledore considered it a triumph that Harry would be able to live after he'd "died" at the right moment. Does it mean that unequivocally? Well, AFAIK, you are the only person who's asked, so I'd say, yeah, it does. > > DD's contribution was everything he did to keep Harry alive up till then, including allowing him to face dangers so that when Harry finally did meet a Voldemort who had recovered his full strength, he was able to defend himself and not freeze like he did when he faced Quirrell. Alla: Okay, confused even more right now. Dumbledore's gleam in GoF means for you that Harry would be able to live after he'd "died" at the right moment? If so, I most certainly have to disagree, to me this gleam was and always will be the most frustrating, vague and open to so many interpretations moment. I suppose if you believe that Dumbledore really wanted Harry to live and not die, this is one of the interpretations, but I do not remember any definite pointers to that. Or are you talking about different gleam? Are you talking about Dumbledore's happiness at the end? .> > Alla: > > > > I think there is plenty of canon when Harry before Kings Cross disagrees and dislikes Dumbledore's actions, but I most certainly agree with you, Harry after Kings cross as IMO Saintly figure does not think that Dumbledore's actions are evil and forgives him for everything. No argument from me here at all. > > Pippin: > ::has read Alla's post amending this:: > Um, I'm confused. King's Cross DD is an evil person who didn't repent, but got forgiven anyway because Harry was too saintly to see the evil in him, or DD is a saintly person whose evil has been forgiven because he repented of it and sinned no more? Alla: I did not realize that I explained myself so badly, so let me try again. Yes, IMO King's Cross DD is an evil person who certainly got completely forgiven by Saintly Harry, who was too saintly to see evil in him. Did DD repent? I would say somewhat he did, but not in all of his crimes, and actually in the least significant one. I mean he repented of course in the crimes of his youth, but no, I do not consider his apology to Harry to be true apology at all. I actually remember well being so happy initially when I read that apology for the first time and then thinking oh wait, he is still not understanding what he did wrong or does not want to say it. > > > > Alla: > > > > I certainly hope that there are values that Harry has that are different from Dumbledore, like I doubt it is in Harry to become a God of WW and wanting to decide people's fate the way Dumbledore did, I hope Harry will be content to be left alone and let people exercise their free will and not manipulate them so mercilessly. But again I definitely agree that there are a lot of values they have in common. > > Pippin: > So, um, ....if DD intervenes, he's playing god, and if he doesn't intervene, he's letting evil go on when he could have stopped it. Just what is it that you think he should have done and how should he have known that it was okay to do it? It seems to me Harry will intervene when it is an emergency and he thinks he can influence events for good, and that is just what Dumbledore did. Alla: I do not see what the confusion is actually. I do not want him to MANIPULATE people's lives, no matter what the reason is. However when he already started doing wrong (IMO) to Harry by placing him with Dursleys, he IMO owed Harry a duty of interfering and keep Dursleys from abusing him. In other words (and as always a disclaimer, I do not want a different story, just speculating what I would have wanted to happen if I think of characters as "real people"), I would have been quite happy if he kept his hands OFF Harry as a kid, but once he put his hands on him and took him under his erm patronage, you better believe I want him to stop abuse from going on. And I wanted him to fight Voldemort of course, but fight and manipulate people really could be two separate things sometimes. I thought he had no right to treat the fight as his personal agenda, and actually had to involve other people. Does this clarify what I think? Pippin: > Harry has grown to be a more honest person than Dumbledore ever was-- for one thing he's discovered that he's not that good a liar. But he still trusts the earthly Dumbledore, or what's left of him, because he asks the portrait if he did the right thing about the Resurrection Stone. It's not that he's still Dumbledore's man, IMO. But now he's Dumbledore's friend. Alla: I almost cried when I remember of this moment, I was DYING to hear Harry that he is his own man, but no, he just as poor pathetic Snape has to consult Dumbledore's opinion and hear his approval. I only hope taking care of his family helped him to become his own man. Pippin: > I agree that it would have been a fine thing if the WW had united behind DD or Harry and fought Voldemort together from the start. But we're shown that they couldn't. Despite the Hat (or maybe because of it) they didn't have a culture of putting their differences aside for the common interest. They couldn't even agree that they *had* a common interest, so every time they tried to unite they were betrayed, or else they shut out the very people who could have helped them. Alla: No, I do not think we are showed that, I mean, we had been shown that it is not easy, but Battle of Hoggwarts IMO showed that they are perfectly capable of uniting if only given a chance. Pippin: > What's worse, Grindelwald (and DD, alas!) had poisoned the whole concept with that hypocritical slogan about the greater good. <SNIP> Alla: Yes. From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 9 01:08:29 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:08:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv871s+8bdp@eGroups.com> References: <iv871s+8bdp@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E17AA0D.7050905@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190849 Alla: > Okay, confused even more right now. Dumbledore's gleam in GoF means > for you that Harry would be able to live after he'd "died" at the > right moment? If so, I most certainly have to disagree, to me this > gleam was and always will be the most frustrating, vague and open to > so many interpretations moment. I suppose if you believe that > Dumbledore really wanted Harry to live and not die, this is one of the > interpretations, but I do not remember any definite pointers to that. > Or are you talking about different gleam? Are you talking about > Dumbledore's happiness at the end? . Bart: Just to get things straight before we go forward, according to your reading, how did Harry survive Morty's Elder Wand AK? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 9 04:12:29 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 04:12:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <4E17AA0D.7050905@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <iv8kfd+p6d9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190850 > Bart: > Just to get things straight before we go forward, according to your > reading, how did Harry survive Morty's Elder Wand AK? Alla: Which one? PreKing's cross or their last duel? But I am only half joking when I say do we have to? I find Elder wand's stuff, what it can and cannot do, who has to overpower whom, etc, to be incredibly convoluted stuff and can't help but quietly wish that it would have never entered the books. Or do you mean how Harry being a Horcrux ( sort of a Horcrux anyway) played into it and his connection with Voldemort? From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 8 19:43:21 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 12:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell? In-Reply-To: <iv7gov+vuui@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310154201.23864.YahooMailClassic@web113902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ? > June: > ... Maybe Dumbledore had placed a spell that once taken inside > the house, the Dursleys would have to keep Harry. If they didn't > maybe their lives would have been in danger. > Steve: > I'm curious about precisely what you mean by "...HAVE to keep > Harry"? > > Are you implying that some spell FORCED them to keep Harry. > Because That doesn't seem right, either morally or logically. > If the spell compels them, then they have no choice. And if > they have no choice then they didn't really choose to allow > Harry to stay. > > That seems counter to what I believe JRK's moral codes are. I > think the Dursley's has to make a choice of their own free will > in order to activate Dumbledore ENHANCED Blood Protection. And > the protection at the Dursley is not the protection Lily gave > Harry, but instead, it is an enhancement of that protection > provided by Dumbledore, that hinges on the condition that the > Dursleys freely, even if begrudgingly, take Harry in. > > It seems counter to all that is good and right for some spell > to compel or force the Dursleys to act in a certain way. I > believe, as should be clear, that it must be an act of free will. > > Or perhaps I misinterpreted what you intended to say? June: I really don't know. I cannot see the Dursleys taking him in of their own free will because they obviously didn't want him there, they have said that themselves and look at the way they (especially Vernon) treated him. And it is very obvious that whatever that letter meant that only Petunia knew about it. What, Steve, is your outlook on the situation? I have racked my brain for a long time over it and I so want to know what it was all about, so what do you think the letter meant? From teebee86627 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 10 06:47:41 2011 From: teebee86627 at yahoo.ca (~*~ teebeenee ~*~) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 23:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Potter general In-Reply-To: <1309785841.26017.YahooMailClassic@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1309785841.26017.YahooMailClassic@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1310280461.16863.YahooMailRC@web113904.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190852 > Nerona: > What do you think happened to Umbridge after the Deathly Hallows?? Teebee: I read somewhere that she was sent to Azkaban for crimes against muggle borns (kinda like genocide or crimes against humanity). From bart at moosewise.com Sun Jul 10 14:11:08 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:11:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv8kfd+p6d9@eGroups.com> References: <iv8kfd+p6d9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E19B2FC.8000009@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190853 >> Bart: >> Just to get things straight before we go forward, according to your >> reading, how did Harry survive Morty's Elder Wand AK? > Alla: > > Which one? PreKing's cross or their last duel? But I am only half joking when I say do we have to? I find Elder wand's stuff, what it can and cannot do, who has to overpower whom, etc, to be incredibly convoluted stuff and can't help but quietly wish that it would have never entered the books. > > Or do you mean how Harry being a Horcrux ( sort of a Horcrux anyway) played into it and his connection with Voldemort? Bart: I am referring to AK before King's Cross. Yes, it was confusing, but to a number of us here, it is absolutely key to the color of Dumbledore's actions. Bart From fenneyml at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 14:48:32 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:48:32 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore Message-ID: <CAGRJC2syAcJhYSo2awxUtK-CAoiPb_sqtEDLBW1PKjYHLVa6WA@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190854 I would just like to mention a couple of things about Dumbledore: 1. Although he knew he didn't have much longer to live, DD clearly did not expect to die as soon as he did. He was teaching Harry about LV, horcruxes, etc. and there is no way to know what else he intended to tell Harry. It is highly probable, though, that he did not get to tell Harry all that he intended to tell him. 2. DD was not a god and was not omniscient. He learned things over time, especially when it came to the magic bonding Harry and LV. I don't think that DD ever wanted Harry to die or planned for his death. I believe that only quite late in the game, after he understood all of the implications of the horcruxes and hallows, and Harry being a horcrux himself, that it became clear to DD that Harry had to "die" in order to survive. It wasn't a matter of Harry dying for the benefit of the WW (although that was certainly important) but Harry could not survive himself unless he overcame LV through "death". JMO, Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 10 16:55:25 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 10 Jul 2011 16:55:25 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/10/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1310316925.538.74769.m15@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190855 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 10, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20110710/d6e39326/attachment.html> From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 11 14:23:24 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 14:23:24 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <iv8kfd+p6d9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivf10s+m3kq@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190856 > > Bart: > > Just to get things straight before we go forward, according to your > > reading, how did Harry survive Morty's Elder Wand AK? > > Alla: > > Which one? PreKing's cross or their last duel? But I am only half joking when I say do we have to? I find Elder wand's stuff, what it can and cannot do, who has to overpower whom, etc, to be incredibly convoluted stuff and can't help but quietly wish that it would have never entered the books. > > Or do you mean how Harry being a Horcrux ( sort of a Horcrux anyway) played into it and his connection with Voldemort? > Pippin: Sure, get rid of the Elder Wand, get rid of the horcruxes, give Harry his father's all too legendary dueling skills, and Harry could survive without allies who are shrewder and more powerful than he is (in some ways) and can't resist taking advantage of it sometimes. Give the WW a tradition of shared sacrifice, and maybe they could have banded together effectively -- we were all expecting that, right, because that's what stories like this are supposed to teach? But what if our stories didn't teach that? JKR is writing about a culture that didn't develop in that direction, whose traditions are, or have become, separatist, exclusionary and individualistic to an extreme. Dumbledore pleads for unity and loses his job, the Hat asks for unity and Harry scoffs. With Voldie at the gates the Slytherins are ousted, and a number of Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors do not choose to fight. Of Harry's defenders in the Battle of Hogwarts, how many are there only because Dumbledore protected them or their families when no one else would have tried? Hagrid, Lupin, Firenze, Grawp, Kreacher, even Narcissa Malfoy...would Harry be alive if it wasn't for them? Pippin apologizing if this posts twice -- Yahoomort is acting up From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 11 16:17:06 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:17:06 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell? In-Reply-To: <1310154201.23864.YahooMailClassic@web113902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivf7m2+ghgj@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190857 > > June: > I really don't know. I cannot see the Dursleys taking him in of > their own free will because they obviously didn't want him there, > they have said that themselves and look at the way they (especially > Vernon) treated him. And it is very obvious that whatever that > letter meant that only Petunia knew about it. What, Steve, is your > outlook on the situation? I have racked my brain for a long time > over it and I so want to know what it was all about, so what do you > think the letter meant? > Pippin: I'm not Steve, but I think the letter did not have to impose magical consequences on Petunia because natural consequences already existed. The blood protection Dumbledore can provide if she consents is not only the strongest protection for Harry but also for Petunia and her family. If she refuses to provide it, it will still be in Voldemort's interest to see that she *cannot* provide it -- and neither he nor his servants are in the habit of negotiating with Muggles to get what they want. Dumbledore would delicately point that out. He wouldn't have to bounce wine glasses off their heads or send a Howler to make them pay attention: he has the double murder of Lily and James to announce. Of course, if the Dursleys will not keep Harry, Dumbledore will have to retrieve him -- and discuss with Petunia and Vernon both alternate arrangements for Harry's future and regrettably less effective measures for the protection of their family, something I'm sure Vernon and Petunia would do anything to avoid. And DD would sign as "I remain your faithful correspondent", or some such, which would sound like polite nothingness to Vernon, but would suggest to Petunia that Dumbledore has not forgotten her earlier letter, in which she begged to come to Hogwarts and learn to be a witch. Petunia would die of shame if Vernon ever found that out. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 23:32:08 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 23:32:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <ivf10s+m3kq@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivg15o+1ds4@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190858 > Pippin: > Sure, get rid of the Elder Wand, get rid of the horcruxes, give Harry his father's all too legendary dueling skills, and Harry could survive without allies who are shrewder and more powerful than he is (in some ways) and can't resist taking advantage of it sometimes. Alla: I said I found Elder's wand stuff to be convoluted and I do, I do not remember wanting to get rid of Horcruxes or give Harry legendary dueling skills. In fact, let me say it again and again I am overall happy with the narrative as it happened. Reader being unhappy with one or several elements in the story does not necessarily equal wanting to rewrite the story and I would never say to the author that the book should have been different. What I *am* saying however that some elements including the Elder wand did not work for me. There is a difference IMO. Lets take Horcruxes for example. One of the fascinations of Harry Potter for me before OOP came out was trying to guess the ending of the saga. I am an avid reader, but I will not be lying when I say that in NO book series that I have read had it been so hard for me to guess the ending... before OOP came out that is. When Prophecy was revealed I groaned, hey it did not take a genuis to figure out the general idea of the ending IMO, Harry is destined to fight Voldemort because he is a Chosen one and he will either win or he will loose (likely to win but I was never completely sure that he will survive). I am not saying that Prophecy was bad per se, just that it is such a cliche of the genre and it was up to her to give it fresh twist or not. So, I can understand how JKR wanted to bring some excitement to it and came up with what is the word? MucGuffins? To me she succeeded with Horcruxes because it played very well with the theme of sacrifice and Harry's connection to Voldemort and made me shake my head at Elder wand. No, scratch that, not even at Elder wand per se, because it was a nice fairy tale, at who the heck is the master of the stick and why. But no, overall I liked Horcruxes and Harry not having legendary dueling skills. Pippin: > Give the WW a tradition of shared sacrifice, and maybe they could have banded together effectively -- we were all expecting that, right, because that's what stories like this are supposed to teach? But what if our stories didn't teach that? Alla: What if the stories do not teach that? Absolutely nothing. My point was that Dumbledore did not even TRY to start developing such culture and that we see that it is possible, that people who were Dumbledore's comrades ARE able to do that, but Dumbledore effectively tied their hands AND crippled Harry's and his friends, when he forbade Harry to share information with them IMO. Pippin: > JKR is writing about a culture that didn't develop in that direction, whose traditions are, or have become, separatist, exclusionary and individualistic to an extreme. Dumbledore pleads for unity and loses his job, the Hat asks for unity and Harry scoffs. With Voldie at the gates the Slytherins are ousted, and a number of Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs and Gryffindors do not choose to fight. Alla: Yes, but those who KNEW Harry were all fighting together at the end and instead of giving them common goal of helping Harry Dumbledore crushed it. Pippin: > Of Harry's defenders in the Battle of Hogwarts, how many are there only because Dumbledore protected them or their families when no one else would have tried? Hagrid, Lupin, Firenze, Grawp, Kreacher, even Narcissa Malfoy...would Harry be alive if it wasn't for them? Alla: I think that all of them are there for something bigger than that and no, I do not see that any of them is of any help for Harry's survival. That's my point. They could have helped MUCH more if only given a chance. And yes, Narcissa helped, of course she did. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 12 00:01:38 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:01:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <4E19B2FC.8000009@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <ivg2t2+vb0h@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190859 > Bart: > I am referring to AK before King's Cross. Yes, it was confusing, > but to a number of us here, it is absolutely key to the color of > Dumbledore's actions. Alla: Actually this one I find the least confusing. I went to reread Kings cross and yeah the part I always found confusing is still confusing, but not this one. Or maybe this one is my simplistic understanding and this is not what JKR intended either. So, in my opinion when he half died and his soul went for a walk to this place where he met with Dumbledore the horcrux part of it died and the rest of him survived and now their souls are not connected. The only connection are their wands. What I always found confusing is what taking Harry's blood in did to Voldemort. Dumbledore gives the shpill about Voldemort's body keeping her sacrifice alive and I always found it wierd, wasn't the whole point of her blood allegedly protecting Harry at Dursleys is that it is alive where her blood dwells?. So we can go forward now? :) From fenneyml at gmail.com Tue Jul 12 00:21:27 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:21:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <ivg15o+1ds4@eGroups.com> References: <ivf10s+m3kq@eGroups.com> <ivg15o+1ds4@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2vXS-MGfNRwUZrG_wRJE3rn0XWmH702jKwSftZM+Tw5=w@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190860 > > > Alla: > > > When Prophecy was revealed I groaned, hey it did not take a genuis to > figure out the general idea of the ending IMO, Harry is destined to fight > Voldemort because he is a Chosen one and he will either > win or he will > loose (likely to win but I was never completely sure that he will survive). > I am not saying that Prophecy was bad per se, just that it is such a cliche > of the genre and it was up to her to give > it fresh twist or not. > > No, scratch that, not even at Elder wand per se, because it was a nice > fairy tale, at who the heck is the master of the stick and why. > Bookcrazzzy: The Elder Wand and the question of who is the master of the stick is an great example of JKR's ability to misdirect the reader. The mysteries of the "ancient magic" were worked out over the whole of the books and I think that it was amazing the way that the fairy tale and the hallows integrated into so many areas of the story. > > Alla: > > My point was that Dumbledore did not even TRY to start developing such > culture (unity and shared sacrifice) and that we see that it is possible, > that people who were Dumbledore's comrades ARE able > to do that, but > Dumbledore effectively tied their hands AND crippled Harry's and his > friends, when he forbade Harry to share information with them IMO. > Bookcrazzzy: DD was the main proponent of unity in the WW. He reached out to all creatures without prejudice in ways that no one else did - learning mermish, hiring Firenze, sending Hagrid to the giants, treating the house elves differently and more. As to forbidding Harry to share information, the reason was that Harry was going after the horcruxes and it was vital that LV not realize what he was up to. Do you think that LV could have been kept in the dark if lots of people were asking questions and searching for horcruxes? The risks would have gone up drastically with each person who knew. > > >Alla: > >Yes, but those who KNEW Harry were all fighting together at the end and > instead of giving them common goal of helping Harry Dumbledore crushed it. > Bookcrazzzy: Let's see. DD reached out to the various creatures of the WW as I mentioned earlier. He founded the Order of the Phoenix and developed the use of patronuses for secure communications and helped to secure the Black residence as a headquarters. In *all* of his doings, DD promoted unity far more than any other person in the WW. The *only* exception is that he did not want the trio having help in searching out and destroying the horcruxes. As I mentioned earlier, minimizing the risk of LV finding out that his secrets were known and his horcruxes were being destroyed was critical, but also, what help could others really have provided in the specific task of the horcruxes? No one knew more than the trio about Tom Riddle and his past and very few knew anything at all about horcruxes. How could they have really helped Harry except by doing what they did - fighting LV and the DEs in whatever ways that they could, keeping the heat off of the trio? Also, note that they were all fighting together in the end which was *after* LV knew that Harry was finding and destroying the horcruxes. > > Pippin: > > Of Harry's defenders in the Battle of Hogwarts, how many are there only > because Dumbledore protected them or their families when no one else would > have tried? Hagrid, Lupin, Firenze, Grawp, Kreacher, even Narcissa > Malfoy...would Harry be alive if it wasn't for them? > > Alla: > > I think that all of them are there for something bigger than that and no, > I do not see that any of them is of any help for Harry's survival. That's my > point. They could have helped MUCH more if only given > > a chance. And yes, Narcissa helped, of course she did. > Bookcrazzzy: Hagrid would not have been at Hogwarts if DD hadn't gotten him hired as grounds keeper and Grawp would not have been there if Hagrid had not been and if Hagrid had not been confident that DD would support his need to have his half-brother close by. Who knows where Lupin would have been if it hadn't been for DD's support of him in encouraging him to have as normal a life as possible? DD helped to teach Harry about house elves and to see them as beings with feelings or Kreacher would not have been there. The centaurs were strongly against being involved in any way except for Firenze who fought against his herd to work with DD. Would the centaurs have joined the last battle if it weren't for Firenze? Hate DD if you wish but he treated all of those creatures far better than anyone else in the WW. > __._,_. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bart at moosewise.com Tue Jul 12 00:41:30 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:41:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <ivg2t2+vb0h@eGroups.com> References: <ivg2t2+vb0h@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E1B983A.10304@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190861 >> Bart: >> I am referring to AK before King's Cross. Yes, it was confusing, >> but to a number of us here, it is absolutely key to the color of >> Dumbledore's actions. > Alla: > > What I always found confusing is what taking Harry's blood in did to Voldemort. Dumbledore gives the shpill about Voldemort's body keeping her sacrifice alive and I always found it wierd, wasn't the whole point of her blood allegedly protecting Harry at Dursleys is that it is alive where her blood dwells?. > > So we can go forward now? :) Bart: Here's what I (and many others) have gathered: Morty thought that using Harry's blood to revive his body will remove the protection keeping him from touching Harry. It did. However, what it also did was put him inside the umbrella of protection, so it prevented him from HARMING Harry. That is why, when Morty zapped Harry in the Flight of the Harry's, Harry's wand appeared to defend him on its own accord; it was actually the blood link that caused it. Morty could still kill Harry by allowing someone other than himself to deal the fatal blow, and certainly he was going to finally allow that, or someone would get overeager. Unless Morty was defeated, Harry was a dead man. The only way for Harry to defeat Morty was to get rid of his piece of the Mortysoul. Now, what kind of spell would destroy the Mortysoul without destroying Harry in the process? The blood protection was the key: by having Harry open himself up to the AK attack, he would expose the Mortysoul while the blood would protect him. Afterwards, he knew that he could kill Morty, but Morty could not kill him; this is why he could afford to give Morty one last chance to repent. That is why most of us think that Dumbledore saved Harry; he only made Harry THINK he was sacrificing himself, in order to ensure Harry's victory. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 12 01:21:25 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:21:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2vXS-MGfNRwUZrG_wRJE3rn0XWmH702jKwSftZM+Tw5=w@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ivg7il+a5nj@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190862 > Bookcrazzzy: > The Elder Wand and the question of who is the master of the stick is an > great example of JKR's ability to misdirect the reader. The mysteries of > the "ancient magic" were worked out over the whole of the books and I think > that it was amazing the way that the fairy tale and the hallows integrated > into so many areas of the story. Alla: If by misdirecting the reader you mean complicating the theme of friendship, loyalty and sacrifice by figuring out who is the master of the stick, then I will agree with you, otherwise to me it is just introducing a new toy to complicate thing and the least thematic one of all three Hallows IMO actually, for Harry I mean. Harry never was really tempted by Elder wand, he was tempted by resurrection stone, Dumbledore was tempted by it. > > > > Alla: > > > My point was that Dumbledore did not even TRY to start developing such > > culture (unity and shared sacrifice) and that we see that it is possible, > > that people who were Dumbledore's comrades ARE able > to do that, but > > Dumbledore effectively tied their hands AND crippled Harry's and his > > friends, when he forbade Harry to share information with them IMO. > > > Bookcrazzzy: > DD was the main proponent of unity in the WW. He reached out to all > creatures without prejudice in ways that no one else did - learning mermish, > hiring Firenze, sending Hagrid to the giants, treating the house elves > differently and more. Alla: Yes he did. Only the thing is, those beings play minor roles in the story, except Dobby of course, who is as we are told repeatedly is an odd elf out who wants to be free and when it came to people who are more major characters, I do not see the promotion of that unity at all. So yes, of course I did not mean to deny that he tried to reach out to other races. Bookcrrazzzy: > As to forbidding Harry to share information, the reason was that Harry was > going after the horcruxes and it was vital that LV not realize what he was > up to. Do you think that LV could have been kept in the dark if lots of > people were asking questions and searching for horcruxes? The risks would > have gone up drastically with each person who knew. Alla: In Dumbledore's twisted mind I am sure it was that way. The thing is, those whom he IMO should have shared information with were his trusted soldiers supposedly picked by him, and yes, I think they could have kept Voldemort's in the dark as much and for that long as Harry did, which was not that long either. > Bookcrazzzy: > Let's see. DD reached out to the various creatures of the WW as I mentioned > earlier. He founded the Order of the Phoenix and developed the use of > patronuses for secure communications and helped to secure the Black > residence as a headquarters. In *all* of his doings, DD promoted unity far > more than any other person in the WW. The *only* exception is that he did > not want the trio having help in searching out and destroying the > horcruxes. As I mentioned earlier, minimizing the risk of LV finding out > that his secrets were known and his horcruxes were being destroyed was > critical, but also, what help could others really have provided in the > specific task of the horcruxes? No one knew more than the trio about Tom > Riddle and his past and very few knew anything at all about horcruxes. How > could they have really helped Harry except by doing what they did - fighting > LV and the DEs in whatever ways that they could, keeping the heat off of the > trio? Also, note that they were all fighting together in the end which was > *after* LV knew that Harry was finding and destroying the horcruxes. Alla: Yes nobody knew about Tom Riddle being Voldemort, didn't they? And why is that? Because Dumbledore who have had an excellent chance to start putting down the legend of all powerful Lord Voldemort and shout from the roof to the world that he was a nobody scared teenager Tom Riddle chose to keep this information to himself. He had a chance to start making evil look MUCH less in the eyes of scared public before Harry ever entered the picture. Why didn't he do it? This is to me one of the most unforgivable inactions of Dumbledore. I mean, I know why he did not do it, because his ego was too big and he thought that only he needs to know this information, no matter how logical the opposite of this sounds. I also do not know about Dumbledore *promoting* unity. As I said, I agree that he tried to reach out to different races, I do not think he did enough, but certainly he did more than people who did nothing, but the threshold is so low that to me what Dumbledore did is really not much, only in comparison with those who did nothing. Note that when Dumbledore had a chance to influence unity at the bigger scale, of course he denied and did not want to be a minister. Of course it is much easier to create his web on the smaller scale and use kids as his pawns, when you are a Headmaster, rather than do a dirty and often ungrateful job of politics when people could actually SEE what you are doing with more clarity sometimes. And most importantly he did nothing where it really mattered IMO. Because he was grooming Harry to be a lamb of WW, didn't he? He did not really thought that elves or centaurs would help him win the war, and he did not even attempt to get allies for Harry who could have helped him in the search. As to how they could have helped? Lets see, Lupin suggested his help in the search, which Harry mightily rejected, here is one possibility. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 12 01:33:23 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:33:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <4E1B983A.10304@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <ivg893+o3as@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190863 .> Bart: > Here's what I (and many others) have gathered: Morty thought that using > Harry's blood to revive his body will remove the protection keeping him > from touching Harry. It did. However, what it also did was put him > inside the umbrella of protection, so it prevented him from HARMING > Harry. That is why, when Morty zapped Harry in the Flight of the > Harry's, Harry's wand appeared to defend him on its own accord; it was > actually the blood link that caused it. Alla: Ok, yes, makes sense, so what you are saying is that after blood transfusion in GoF Voldemort himself could not touch Harry at all, not just while he is in Dursleys? Bart: > Morty could still kill Harry by allowing someone other than himself to > deal the fatal blow, and certainly he was going to finally allow that, > or someone would get overeager. Unless Morty was defeated, Harry was a > dead man. The only way for Harry to defeat Morty was to get rid of his > piece of the Mortysoul. Now, what kind of spell would destroy the > Mortysoul without destroying Harry in the process? The blood protection > was the key: by having Harry open himself up to the AK attack, he would > expose the Mortysoul while the blood would protect him. Afterwards, he > knew that he could kill Morty, but Morty could not kill him; this is why > he could afford to give Morty one last chance to repent. Alla: Right, but how does blood will protect the rest of Harry? You are saying that since piece of Voldy is the alien piece of his soul, it is immune from blood protection? But see confusion starts already for me, that is why it always gave me a headache, if Voldy cannot kill Harry, should he not been able to cast that AK at all? Pre Kings Cross I mean, should he had been standing and smiling, if Harry's blood in his body prevents him from harming Harry? I would say sending his whole soul in limbo or wherever counts like harm to me? Or harm is defined as it is convenient for JKR and knocking Harry unconscious and sending him to limbo, where Dumbledore says he does not need to come back at all if he does not want to is not harm? That is why it is so unclear to me, always was, but read on please. Bart: > That is why most of us think that Dumbledore saved Harry; he only made > Harry THINK he was sacrificing himself, in order to ensure Harry's victory. Alla: I actually partially agree with you, I may ignore the confusing part about blood of Harry in Voldemort, I mean not ignore, but not pounder too much about it, since it gives me a headache. HOWEVER, I definitely think that after Harry travelling to Kings Cross he is not a horcrux anymore. And now for the main question: Say you are hundred percent correct in describing what happened. How does it translate in *Dumbledore* saving Harry? In other words, are you saying that Dumbledore knew that Triwizard Tournament would result in blood transfusion? If so, that makes Dumbledore even more evil in my eyes. More importantly, where is the proof that Dumbledore actually knew that Harry taking Avada and going to Kings Cross will result in Unhorcruxing him? Alla From bart at moosewise.com Tue Jul 12 01:40:26 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:40:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <ivg7il+a5nj@eGroups.com> References: <ivg7il+a5nj@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E1BA60A.2060704@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190864 Alla: > Yes nobody knew about Tom Riddle being Voldemort, didn't they? Bart: Did they? Where in canon does it say or imply that? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 12 01:47:53 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 01:47:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <4E1BA60A.2060704@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <ivg949+sis4@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190865 > Alla: > > Yes nobody knew about Tom Riddle being Voldemort, didn't they? > > Bart: > Did they? Where in canon does it say or imply that? Alla: I do not remember any teacher of Hogwarts besides Slugghorn connecting the name of Tom Riddle with Voldemort. I also do not remember any member of the general public making a connection and instead of calling him 'He who must not be named" calling him Tom Riddle. And it is not like the lesson of "not to be afraid of the name" is absent from the book, quite the contrary, only instead of insisting that he should be called Tom Riddle, wierdly Dumbledore insists on calling him Lord Voldemort. If you have information to the contrary, please share, trust me I will be delighted to stand corrected on this one. From bart at moosewise.com Tue Jul 12 02:08:49 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:08:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <ivg893+o3as@eGroups.com> References: <ivg893+o3as@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E1BACB1.4000000@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190866 AllaL > Alla: Ok, yes, makes sense, so what you are saying is that after blood > transfusion in GoF Voldemort himself could not touch Harry at all, not > just while he is in Dursleys? Bart: Before the blood transfusion, Morty couldn't touch Harry at all. After it, he could touch Harry, but he could not personally harm Harry (not that he couldn't just say, "Hey, Bella! I'm giving you the honor of casting the fatal AK!" once he figured it out). Alla: > Say you are hundred percent correct in describing what happened. How > does it translate in *Dumbledore* saving Harry? In other words, are > you saying that Dumbledore knew that Triwizard Tournament would result > in blood transfusion? If so, that makes Dumbledore even more evil in > my eyes. More importantly, where is the proof that Dumbledore actually > knew that Harry taking Avada and going to Kings Cross will result in > Unhorcruxing him? Bart: Nope. But note that DD didn't suspect the existence of a horcrux until the events of COS, when he realized that not only had Morty made a horcrux, but that he had made multiple horcruxes. This was when he also suspected that Harry was an inadvertent horcrux. So, DD had to figure out how to save Harry while destroying Morty. When the events at the end of GOF took place, DD realized a method by which Morty could be destroyed and Harry could be saved at the same time; hence the gleam of triumph. During OOP, he was trying to set up the resistance to Morty, but he realized that the Mortysoul was a two-way street; hence his desire for Harry to learn Occlumancy. It was only luck that Morty found the love within Harry so painful that he couldn't use the Mortysoul as a weapon against Harry which meant that Harry didn't have to learn Occlumancy, after all. Bart From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jul 13 03:22:29 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:22:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2syAcJhYSo2awxUtK-CAoiPb_sqtEDLBW1PKjYHLVa6WA@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ivj31l+c68v@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney <fenneyml at ...> wrote: > > I would just like to mention a couple of things about Dumbledore: > > 1. Although he knew he didn't have much longer to live, DD clearly did not > expect to die as soon as he did. He was teaching Harry about LV, horcruxes, > etc. and there is no way to know what else he intended to tell Harry. It is > highly probable, though, that he did not get to tell Harry all that he > intended to tell him. > Nikkalmati DD knew he was dying for almost a year. He probably did not withhold anything he intended to tell Harry. Anything he kept to himself, he would never have told Harry. Harry himself says that DD wanted him to learn slowly so that he would not be tempted to run off after the Hallows. I'm sure that is what DD thought, but that was DD's own peculiar way of looking at things. He really didn't think anyone else could handle the truth, and then look at who it was who couldnot resist the Resurrection Stone. Nikkalmati > 2. DD was not a god and was not omniscient. He learned things over time, > especially when it came to the magic bonding Harry and LV. I don't think > that DD ever wanted Harry to die or planned for his death. I believe that > only quite late in the game, after he understood all of the implications of > the horcruxes and hallows, and Harry being a horcrux himself, that it became > clear to DD that Harry had to "die" in order to survive. It wasn't a matter > of Harry dying for the benefit of the WW (although that was certainly > important) but Harry could not survive himself unless he overcame LV through > "death". > > JMO, > >Nikkalmati DD was a man with some very distictive weaknesses. He believed in himself, but not anyone else. Did he really think Harry or McGonagall or Snape would run off and make a Horcrux if he told them what LV had done? I do believe he intended for Harry to die from the beginning. He knew some scars could be useful as he said in PS. He had already started looking for the Horcruxes when he questioned Morphin and Hepzibah's elf before they each died, which was pretty early on - maybe before LV asked for a job at Hogwarts. So, I conclude, he knewsomthing about Harry being a Horcrux from the start and he thought Harry must die "f or the greater good." He was happy when things turned out so Harry could come back, but he did not plan it that way. The way the story was devised, Harry has to be a sacrificial hero. He has to extend Lily's protection to the WW by dying for the whole WW. By the time he was 17, I don't think he had to be tricked into it. I think he would have chosen to die, if he thought he could save the WW that way. DD could just have told him. The Prophecy says "neither can live while the other survives" (OTP p 841 US hardback), but it should say "neither can die while the other lives". It was LV's attachment to Harry and to the Horcruxes that were left that saved Harry. Nikkalmati > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 04:59:41 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:59:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivj31l+c68v@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivj8nt+98bm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190868 Nikkalmati wrote: > DD was a man with some very distictive weaknesses. He believed in himself, but not anyone else. Did he really think Harry or McGonagall or Snape would run off and make a Horcrux if he told them what LV had done? Joey: LOL. Yeah, he could have certainly shared it with McGonagall, Snape and even Moody. I think trusting none was a huge flaw in him. Like Snape said, he used their services without telling them what would happen in the end. Outrageous, I know. I guess he thought they might find it difficult to handle or he feared that secrets might leak. Yet I think he couldn't bring himself to tell Harry and, it was better for Harry that way, I think. Harry was not 17 yet when DD was dying. Telling him earlier would have made his existence miserable. This way, he had to endure only a few hours of agony. Nikkalmati wrote: > He was happy when things turned out so Harry could come back, but he did not plan it that way. Joey: Agreed. Though his plan did change course since GoF climax. Nikkalmati wrote: > I think he would have chosen to die, if he thought he could save the WW that way. DD could just have told him. Joey: I think what DD should have told him was about the Hallows instead of leaving Hermione to break her head over the kids story book. I don't understand how it will stop being a quest just because he told Harry that the story of Deathly Hallows is true, that such objects do exist and that Harry already has one. And why in the world didn't he *tell* Harry that the sword of Gryffindor will help him out? Cheers, ~Joey :-) From gretchen.bakies at prodigy.net Wed Jul 13 06:03:24 2011 From: gretchen.bakies at prodigy.net (gretchen.bakies at prodigy.net) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 23:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fw: About Genealogy: JK Rowling's French Roots, Spelling Doesn't Count! Message-ID: <1310537004.94076.YahooMailClassic@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190869 YIppee!? I only wished they showed the same episodes in both countries. --- On Tue, 7/12/11, Kimberly Powell - About.com Genealogy Guide <genealogy.guide at about.com> wrote: From: Kimberly Powell - About.com Genealogy Guide <genealogy.guide at about.com> Subject: About Genealogy: JK Rowling's French Roots, Spelling Doesn't Count! To: gretchen.bakies at PRODIGY.NET Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 11:25 AM #yiv598955165 a:link, #yiv598955165 a:visited, #yiv598955165 area{color:#36C;} If you can't see this email, click here Genealogy Genealogy Learn How Search Online Share & Preserve >From Kimberly Powell, your Guide to Genealogy One very important rule of genealogy - spelling doesn't count. Expect your ancestor's name, place of birth, and many other important details to be spelled in various ways and search accordingly, or you are going to miss out on some good stuff. The French Ancestry of J. K. Rowling With the final installment of the Harry Potter franchise, "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows - Part 2" opening in London this past week, and in the U.S. on July 15th, it seems only fitting to once again delve into the interesting ancestry of Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling. Especially since she will also be appearing as the first celebrity on the upcoming season of BBC's "Who Do You Think You Are?" ? #yiv598955165 a:link, #yiv598955165 a:visited{color:#36C;} Genealogy Ads Mormon Genealogy Web Mormon Records Genealogy Ancestry Search New LDS Genealogy Featured Articles Do You Really Know Everything That is Available? Searching for SMITHS: Strategies for Common Names ? More from About.com Career Quizzes Not sure what you want to do when you grow up? Take a career quiz to see if your dream job is a good fit for your interests and skills. More> Self Assessments No quiz can magically tell you what to do with the rest of your life, but a combination of self assessment tools can help you decide. More> This newsletter is written by: Kimberly Powell Genealogy Guide Email Me | My Blog | My Forum ? Sign up for more free newsletters on your favorite topics You are receiving this newsletter because you subscribed to the About Genealogy newsletter. If you wish to change your email address or unsubscribe, please click here. About respects your privacy: Our Privacy Policy Contact Information: 249 West 17th Street New York, NY, 10011 ? 2011 About.com ? Popular This Week 10 Fun Family History Activities for Family Reunions Am I Related to Someone Famous? What to Do BEFORE You Go to the Courthouse Advertisement [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 12 21:50:03 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell? In-Reply-To: <ivf7m2+ghgj@eGroups.com> References: <1310154201.23864.YahooMailClassic@web113902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <ivf7m2+ghgj@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310507403.78980.YahooMailNeo@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190870 > Pippin: > I'm not Steve, but I think the letter did not have to impose magical consequences on Petunia because natural consequences > already existed. > The blood protection Dumbledore can provide if she consents is not only the strongest protection for Harry but also for Petunia and her family. If she refuses to provide it, it will still be in Voldemort's interest to see that she *cannot* provide it -- and neither he nor his servants are in the habit of negotiating with Muggles to get what they want. Dumbledore would delicately point that out. He wouldn't have to bounce wine glasses off their heads or send a Howler to make them pay attention: he has the double > murder of Lily and James to announce. > Of course, if the Dursleys will not keep Harry, Dumbledore will have to retrieve him -- and discuss with Petunia and Vernon both alternate arrangements for Harry's future and regrettably less effective measures for the protection of their family, something > I'm sure Vernon and Petunia would do anything to avoid. > And DD would sign as "I remain your faithful correspondent", or some such, which would sound like polite nothingness to Vernon, but would suggest to Petunia that Dumbledore has not forgotten her earlier letter, in which she begged to come to Hogwarts and learn to be a witch. Petunia would die of shame if Vernon ever > found that out. June: Good points, you may be on to something. Surely it makes sense. I just want to point out that I was not challenging Steve but as he was the person who said my last idea wouldn't stand I figured he must have an idea himself and wanted to know from (anyone and everyone) what their thoughts on the subject was. I in no way was trying to be rude, but was trying to get a conversation going to get ideas because what I had written earlier was merely me thinking and trying to come up with ideas and not sure if I even agreed myself with what I had written. This is a subject I had wondered about for a long time and I do really like what you had to say about it. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jul 13 15:59:46 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:59:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivj8nt+98bm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivkfdi+uv6m@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" <happyjoeysmiley at ...> wrote: > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > DD was a man with some very distictive weaknesses. He believed in himself, but not anyone else. Did he really think Harry or McGonagall or Snape would run off and make a Horcrux if he told them what LV had done? > > Joey: > > LOL. Yeah, he could have certainly shared it with McGonagall, Snape and even Moody. I think trusting none was a huge flaw in him. Like Snape said, he used their services without telling them what would happen in the end. Outrageous, I know. I guess he thought they might find it difficult to handle or he feared that secrets might leak. > Nikkalmati DD knew himself. He knew he could not be trusted to become the Minister of Magic because he would not be able to resist the exercise of power over others. At least he knew that much. He also was unable to resist the Resurection Stone. Recall that he had the Elder Wand (which he used in the MOM against LV), he knew where the Invisibility Cloak was, and with the Stone, he would have all 3 Hallows in his grasp. Was that the temptation, not just to see Arianna, but to have the power to live forever? Was that why he could not trust others - because he could not trust himself? I wonder why DD drank the potion in the cave. He seemed to know the potion would kill him. Didn't he see it in Kreacher's mind when he performed Legimancy on him in OTP? If so, why didn't he know Regulus had taken the necklace? Was that s missed opportunity or did DD not see anything about the cave at that time? Nikkalmati > Yet I think he couldn't bring himself to tell Harry and, it was better for Harry that way, I think. Harry was not 17 yet when DD was dying. Telling him earlier would have made his existence miserable. This way, he had to endure only a few hours of agony. Nikkalmati But he took terrible chances that way. Things could have turned out very differently without him around. What if Harry and the Trio had rushed into the Shreaking Shack and attacked LV and Nagini, as they planned? Even if they killed them both (not a sure thing), there was still Harry the Horcrux and LV could have returned. Also, as Snape suggested to LV, Harry could have been accidentally killed in the battle or by FiendFire or any number of ways. He could have left a message or told someone else to tell him. Harry and his friends certainly went through a lot of suffering to find the truth. Maybe JKR wanted the resder to understand that suffering is part of doing the right thing? Nikkalmati > snip> > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > I think he would have chosen to die, if he thought he could save the WW that way. DD could just have told him. > > Joey: > > I think what DD should have told him was about the Hallows instead of leaving Hermione to break her head over the kids story book. I don't understand how it will stop being a quest just because he told Harry that the story of Deathly Hallows is true, that such objects do exist and that Harry already has one. > > And why in the world didn't he *tell* Harry that the sword of Gryffindor will help him out? > > Cheers, > ~Joey :-) > Nikkalmati I think Harry already knew about the Sword and the plan was to tell Snape to get it to him, so that part was covered. I do wonder why or how Neville and Ginny knew they should steal the Sword and what they planned to do with it. He was unfairly afraid that Harry would be tempted to get the Hallows instead of the Horcruxes. Nikkalmati From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 16:37:52 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:37:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivj8nt+98bm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivkhl0+kpf6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" <happyjoeysmiley at ...> wrote: > Yeah, he could have certainly shared it with McGonagall, > Snape and even Moody. zanooda: He couldn't trust them with this secret because in this case secrecy was the key to success. If LV found out that DD knew about the horcruxes and was looking for them, he could have taken them from their hiding places and re-hidden them in some random places where it would be impossible to find them. This is especially true in Snape's case - what if LV managed to break through his mental defenses after all? > Joey wrote: > And why in the world didn't he *tell* Harry that the sword > of Gryffindor will help him out? zanooda: I think he wanted to *show* Harry how to use the sword on the locket, after their return form the cave :-). It just didn't work out the way he thought it would... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 16:59:25 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:59:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivkfdi+uv6m@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivkitd+jaog@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote: > I wonder why DD drank the potion in the cave. He seemed > to know the potion would kill him. Didn't he see it in > Kreacher's mind when he performed Legimancy on him in OTP? > If so, why didn't he know Regulus had taken the necklace? > Was that a missed opportunity or did DD not see anything > about the cave at that time? zanooda: I think that if some thought or memory is *not* right here on the surface of the mind, a legilimens must go deeper into the mind looking for it, like LV did with Gregorovitch. So, I suppose, Kreacher wasn't thinking about the cave, and DD wasn't looking specifically for this memory. > Nikkalmati wrote; > I do wonder why or how Neville and Ginny knew they should > steal the Sword and what they planned to do with it. zanooda: I think Ginny told Neville and Luna that DD left the sword to Harry in his will, and they decided there must be a good reason for it. I have no idea how they intended to deliver the sword to Harry though :-). Maybe it was more of a symbolic act of resistance than anything else? Take the sword, hide it somewhere in the castle (RoR, for instance) and watch Snape and the Carrows run around looking for it, LOL. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 13 17:12:52 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:12:52 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell? In-Reply-To: <1310507403.78980.YahooMailNeo@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivkjmk+a59i@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190874 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: ... > > > June: > Good points, you may be on to something. Surely it makes sense. I > just want to point out that I was not challenging Steve but as he > was the person who said my last idea wouldn't stand I figured he > must have an idea himself and wanted to know from (anyone and > everyone) what their thoughts on the subject was. ... > Steve replies: My problem is with the idea of some external force compelling the Dursleys to comply. For this to be right, in my mind, the Dursley's act has to be willing act in order to seal the protective charm, even if it is willing but begrudging. However, if it is forced on them against their will, or they comply because of coercion, that's not really consent, it is simply yielding under threat - coercion, extortion, blackmail, etc.... In JRK's moral universe that just doesn't seem to be the way things are done. You don't create an act of good, but committing an act of evil. Steve/bluewizard From fenneyml at gmail.com Wed Jul 13 17:16:04 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:16:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivkhl0+kpf6@eGroups.com> References: <ivj8nt+98bm@eGroups.com> <ivkhl0+kpf6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2unv-zA20WjE=-GhR9q7yDXLw5LBD9LVAi6X-Lmy_2Lcg@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190875 On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:37 PM, zanooda2 <zanooda2 at yahoo.com> wrote: > ** > > In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" <happyjoeysmiley at ...> > wrote: > > > Yeah, he could have certainly shared it with McGonagall, > Snape and even > Moody. > > > zanooda: > > > He couldn't trust them with this secret because in this case secrecy was > the key to success. If LV found out that DD knew about the horcruxes and was > looking for them, he could have taken them > > from their hiding places and re-hidden them in some random places where it > would be impossible to find them. This is especially true in Snape's case - > what if LV managed to break through his mental > defenses after all? > > Bookcrazzzy: Yes, secrecy was the key to success and in such cases, every person who knows adds to the risk not only for themselves but for whomever they trust enough to tell. It is why DD wouldn't even look at Harry and avoided him like the plague while Snape taught him Occlumency - DD was afraid that LV, through the link to Harry, would glimpse that DD knew about the horcruxes. > > > Joey wrote: > > > And why in the world didn't he *tell* Harry that the sword > of > Gryffindor will help him out? > > zanooda: > > I think he wanted to *show* Harry how to use the sword on the locket, after > their return form the cave :-). It just didn't work out the way he thought > it would... > > __._,_. > Bookcrazzzy: Two answers: Like zanooda said, he died before he finished telling Harry all that he wanted to tell him. Second, he did leave Harry the sward in his will and HRH knew that all of his bequests for them had some use in their quest. I would also like to comment on the earlier statement that DD should have let the WW know that LV was Tom Riddle. When Riddle is asking for a job, he wants DD to call him by his new name and DD says "You'll always be Tom Riddle to me." At that time, he still had the form of Tom Riddle but was calling himself LV. So DD could not, by any means, have been the only person in the WW or even the only person of the non-DEs in the WW, to know that LV was Tom Riddle. Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 13 22:40:16 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:40:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2unv-zA20WjE=-GhR9q7yDXLw5LBD9LVAi6X-Lmy_2Lcg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ivl6sg+h1hu@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190876 > > > zanooda: > > > > > He couldn't trust them with this secret because in this case secrecy was > > the key to success. If LV found out that DD knew about the horcruxes and was > > looking for them, he could have taken them > > > > from their hiding places and re-hidden them in some random places where it > > would be impossible to find them. This is especially true in Snape's case - > > what if LV managed to break through his mental > defenses after all? Pippin: DE's and ministry officials questioned the Weasleys and everyone who might know where Harry was. While Harry believed that no Order member would voluntarily betray him, there's still legilimency, veritaserum, the Imperius curse, torture and emotional blackmail. Dumbledore didn't use a tongue tying curse on Harry or put the information about the horcruxes under the Secret Keeper spell. Harry always had the option of passing as much information to others as he thought was safe. But Harry had learned by this time that he was a poor judge of whom to trust: Quirrell, Riddle, Scabbers, Fake!Moody, Marietta and the Half-blood Prince all caught him completely off guard. It's only when he found that Dumbledore betrayed him too (as he thought) that Harry realized the mistake he'd been making: unlike Dumbledore, he'd trusted people he didn't really know. All the portraits were in on DD's plan, and some of them have images elsewhere, so there was a backup even if Hogwarts was destroyed or Snape died before he could get his information to Harry. > Bookcrazzzy: > > I would also like to comment on the earlier statement that DD should have > let the WW know that LV was Tom Riddle. When Riddle is asking for a job, he > wants DD to call him by his new name and DD says "You'll always be Tom > Riddle to me." At that time, he still had the form of Tom Riddle but was > calling himself LV. So DD could not, by any means, have been the only > person in the WW or even the only person of the non-DEs in the WW, to know > that LV was Tom Riddle. Pippin: Good point. Tom seems to have changed his name in stages. At first, people were supposed to call him Lord Voldemort and not Tom Riddle. Then they were supposed to call him the Dark Lord and not Voldemort. Sinister rumors were already spreading about "Lord Voldemort" when he returned, rumors which Voldemort was denouncing as lies. He wasn't yet openly identifying himself as a dark wizard. That didn't come until much later. By that time, perhaps, there really were few people who remembered Tom Riddle, and it wouldn't have meant anything for Dumbledore to use that name -- except to Tom himself. Moreover, pointing out that Lord Voldemort had once been Tom Riddle wouldn't have convinced anybody that the rumors about Lord Voldemort were true, since Riddle had had a sterling reputation when he disappeared. Pippin From kat7555 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 01:57:34 2011 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kathy) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:57:34 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell? In-Reply-To: <ivkjmk+a59i@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivliee+vvua@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190877 > Steve replies: > My problem is with the idea of some external force compelling the Dursleys to comply. For this to be right, in my mind, the Dursley's act has to be willing act in order to seal the protective charm, even if it is willing but begrudging. > > However, if it is forced on them against their will, or they comply because of coercion, that's not really consent, it is simply yielding under threat - coercion, extortion, blackmail, etc.... > > In JRK's moral universe that just doesn't seem to be the way things are done. You don't create an act of good, but committing an act of > evil. Kathy: My theory is that Petunia took baby Harry in before the neighbors could ask questions. Once inside Dumbledore explained what was expected of them. I also think that it was Lily's blood that kept Harry from becoming as evil as Voldemort. It would have been easy for Harry to become a bully and uncaring as Tom Riddle but his parents unconditional love protected him. Kathy From thedossetts at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 03:29:01 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:29:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivkfdi+uv6m@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivlnpt+ta4j@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190878 > > And why in the world didn't he *tell* Harry that the sword of Gryffindor will help him out? > > > > Cheers, > > ~Joey :-) > > > Nikkalmati > > I think Harry already knew about the Sword and the plan was to tell Snape to get it to him, so that part was covered. I do wonder why or how Neville and Ginny knew they should steal the Sword and what they planned to do with it. He was unfairly afraid that Harry would be tempted to get the Hallows instead of the Horcruxes. > > Nikkalmati > Pat: I always thought that Neville and Ginny were just doing everything they could to make things harder for Snape, embarrass him, etc., and their attempt to steal the sword was another attempt in this vein. I never thought they were trying to steal it **for Harry** at all. Pat From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 07:56:28 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:56:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivkfdi+uv6m@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivm7fc+ck70@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190879 Nikkalmati: [snip] > He also was unable to resist the Resurection Stone. Recall that he had the Elder Wand (which he used in the MOM against LV), he knew where the Invisibility Cloak was, and with the Stone, he would have all 3 Hallows in his grasp. Was that the temptation, not just to see Arianna, but to have the power to live forever? Was that why he could not trust others - because he could not trust himself? Joey: I do think he was tempted by the stone only to see Ariana and his parents because he did carry a huge guilt with him. As for trusting others, he did seem to give second chances to people. The way he spoke to Draco in HBP climax. I think he feared the power of temptations more than the peoples' reactions to it. Nikkalmati: > I wonder why DD drank the potion in the cave. He seemed to know the potion would kill him. Didn't he see it in Kreacher's mind when he performed Legimancy on him in OTP? If so, why didn't he know Regulus had taken the necklace? Was that s missed opportunity or did DD not see anything about the cave at that time? Joey: When he performed Legilimency on Kreacher in OoTP, he meant to find about Sirius's whereabouts, didn't he? Had he known about the cave even then, that would have been one of the memories he would have shared first with Harry. He found the cave himself - not with Kreacher's help. > Nikkalmati > But he took terrible chances that way. Things could have turned out very differently without him around. What if Harry and the Trio had rushed into the Shreaking Shack and attacked LV and Nagini, as they planned? Even if they killed them both (not a sure thing), there was still Harry the Horcrux and LV could have returned. Also, as Snape suggested to LV, Harry could have been accidentally killed in the battle or by FiendFire or any number of ways. He could have left a message or told someone else to tell him. Harry and his friends certainly went through a lot of suffering to find the truth. Maybe JKR wanted the resder to understand that suffering is part of doing the right thing? Joey: True. In fact, Hermione and Ron could have been killed too! It was really annoyingly crazy of him to have trusted his "grand plan" so much. I agree with the points shared by some of our group members - secrecy was the key to success and yes, it was important not to take a risk in Snape's case given his interaction with Voldy. However, the extent of his secrecy seems to be as risky and dangerous. He could have updated a chosen few who are not emotionally attached to Harry? Cheers, ~Joey :-) From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 08:16:32 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivl6sg+h1hu@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivm8l0+iv0j@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190880 > Pippin: > DE's and ministry officials questioned the Weasleys and everyone who might know where Harry was. While Harry believed that no Order member would voluntarily betray him, there's still legilimency, veritaserum, the Imperius curse, torture and emotional blackmail. Joey: Agreed. Now you mention it, I'm wondering how none of the new Order members were affected by any of these. Yet the DEs & ministry officials wouldn't be able to ask the right questions - they didn't know about the Horcruxes themselves (Only DD and Voldy knew. And due to DD, the trio knew). All they can ask is about Harry's whereabouts and they were doing it anyway. > Pippin: > Dumbledore didn't use a tongue tying curse on Harry or put the information about the horcruxes under the Secret Keeper spell. Harry always had the option of passing as much information to others as he thought was safe. But Harry had learned by this time that he was a poor judge of whom to trust: Quirrell, Riddle, Scabbers, Fake!Moody, Marietta and the Half-blood Prince all caught him completely off guard. It's only when he found that Dumbledore betrayed him too (as he thought) that Harry realized the mistake he'd been making: unlike Dumbledore, he'd trusted people he didn't really know. Joey: But he did ask Harry not to confide in anybody other than Ron and Hermione. > Pippin: > All the portraits were in on DD's plan, and some of them have images elsewhere, so there was a backup even if Hogwarts was destroyed or Snape died before he could get his information to Harry. Joey: But how powerful and effective is this backup? It was sheer luck that Phineas Nigellus's portrait was in the beaded bag and that was the only portrait that had a connection with GP. DD must have known that Harry would not do his 7th year in Hogwarts with such a daunting, life-impacting task ahead of him; he planned to die but he never told Harry to maintain contacts with his portrait (or the rest) in case of his death. Cheers, ~Joey :-) From zh_mh95 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 05:25:40 2011 From: zh_mh95 at yahoo.com (zh mh) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivlnpt+ta4j@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310621140.2756.YahooMailClassic@web36303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190881 > Nikkalmati > I think Harry already knew about the Sword and the plan was to tell Snape to get it to him, so that part was covered. I do wonder why or how Neville and Ginny knew they should steal the Sword and what they planned to do with it.<SNIP> Pat: I always thought that Neville and Ginny were just doing everything they could to make things harder for Snape, embarrass him, etc., and their attempt to steal the sword was another attempt in this vein. I never thought they were trying to steal it **for Harry** at all. Pat From fenneyml at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 11:29:12 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:29:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivm8l0+iv0j@eGroups.com> References: <ivl6sg+h1hu@eGroups.com> <ivm8l0+iv0j@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAGRJC2ufuB60O5hsJo6xPk=sRAyo4AYXd4Y6BKo4535iK9N56A@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190882 >Joey: >True. In fact, Hermione and Ron could have been killed too! It was really annoyingly crazy of him to have trusted his "grand plan" so much. However, the extent of his secrecy seems to be as risky and dangerous. He could have updated a chosen few who are not emotionally attached to Harry? Bookcrazzzy: DD?s ?grand plan? was an understanding of the ancient magic, horcruxes and hallows, coupled with his understanding of the character, strengths and weaknesses of LV, HRH and other key players like Snape. It was *NOT* a grand plan anywhere near down to the level of these details. And he didn?t *expect* everything to happen in a certain way and in a certain sequence, he only *hoped* that it would end with LV?s death. He did what he could to ?stack the deck? toward that end. He was not a *god* with the power to see into the future nor was he all-knowing. > Pippin: > DE's and ministry officials questioned the Weasleys and everyone who might know where Harry was. While Harry believed that no Order member would voluntarily betray him, there's still legilimency, veritaserum, the Imperius curse, torture and emotional blackmail. >Joey: >Agreed. Now you mention it, I'm wondering how none of the new Order members were affected by any of these. Yet the DEs & ministry officials wouldn't be able to ask the right questions - they didn't know about the Horcruxes themselves All they can ask is about Harry's whereabouts and they were doing it anyway. Bookcrazzzy: They can ask what Harry is doing can?t they? No one was immune to the actions that Pippin listed. I am shocked that people suggest Snape should have been told everything! Both he and DD knew that LV might break through his defenses at any point. Regardless of Snape?s loyalty, skill and determination, he was in an extremely dangerous and extremely risky situation. As to other members of the order, DD could not know what any of them would do if they knew but he could surmise that there would be a strong tendency (the strongest with Molly) for any of the adult, once they knew about the horcruxes, to take control of the task from Harry, not just help him. None of the, with the possible exception of Sirius, saw HRH as capable of leading such an effort. Harry needed to be the one calling the shots. > Pippin: > Dumbledore didn't use a tongue tying curse on Harry or put the information about the horcruxes under the Secret Keeper spell. Harry always had the option of passing as much information to others as he thought was safe. But Harry had learned by this time that he was a poor judge of whom to trust: Quirrell, Riddle, Scabbers, Fake!Moody, Marietta and the Half-blood Prince all caught him completely off guard. It's only when he found that Dumbledore betrayed him too (as he thought) that Harry realized the mistake he'd been making: unlike Dumbledore, he'd trusted people he didn't really know. >Joey: >But he did ask Harry not to confide in anybody other than Ron and Hermione. Bookcrazzzy: Yes, that is exactly what Pippin said, he *asked* Harry, he did not force Harry nor restrict him. The bottom line was that Harry could have told others and could have asked for help. Indeed he finally did so at Hogwarts. By asking Harry not to do so, DD made sure that Harry wouldn't without giving it the most careful thought and only if absolutely necessary. > Pippin: > All the portraits were in on DD's plan, and some of them have images elsewhere, so there was a backup even if Hogwarts was destroyed or Snape died before he could get his information to Harry. >Joey: >But how powerful and effective is this backup? It was sheer luck that Phineas Nigellus's portrait was in the beaded bag and that was the only portrait that had a connection with GP. DD must have known that Harry would not do his 7th year in Hogwarts with such a daunting, life-impacting task ahead of him; he planned to die but he never told Harry to maintain contacts with his portrait (or the rest) in case of his death. Bookcrazzzy: DD died before telling Harry all that he planned to tell him. How often have you said or read ?DD must have known?? when the subject was future events? HOW could DD have known? Did he know what the Ministry was going to do in the future or what any individual was going to do? Did he know how any one event would impact subsequent events? Did he know who would die and when? NO. He could have told Harry to confide in a particular member of the order and that person could have been killed the same night that DD died. He knew about the bond between LV and Harry, he knew the gaps in LV?s knowledge and weaknesses in his character and he knew Harry, respected his strengths, believed in his values and abilities, and recognized his weaknesses. Could he have done things differently or better? Of course. He wasn?t perfect by any means. But he didn?t have the power to see into the future and to map the acts and interactions of all of the players. He didn?t even know what all of the horcruxes were or their locations. Of course HRH could have died at any number of points along the way, Snape could have been compromised, people of the Order could have been captured or killed, the list goes on forever! DD was responsible for his own actions, not for everything that happened. He was only one human being with faults of his own. Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 14 15:48:28 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:48:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2ufuB60O5hsJo6xPk=sRAyo4AYXd4Y6BKo4535iK9N56A@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ivn34c+3vj7@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190883 > > > Pippin: > > > All the portraits were in on DD's plan, and some of them have images > elsewhere, so there was a backup even if Hogwarts was destroyed or Snape > died before he could get his information to Harry. > > >Joey: > >But how powerful and effective is this backup? It was sheer luck that > Phineas Nigellus's portrait was in the beaded bag and that was the only > portrait that had a connection with GP. DD must have known that Harry would > not do his 7th year in Hogwarts with such a daunting, life-impacting task > ahead of him; he planned to die but he never told Harry to maintain contacts > with his portrait (or the rest) in case of his death. Pippin: That's what Hermione is for :) The beauty of it is that if Snape dies, she'll no longer need to be concerned that the portraits are under his control, and if Harry is stumped on what to do next, they'll be an obvious source of advice. On the night he died, Dumbledore probably intended to have Harry to destroy the lake horcrux with the sword of Gryffindor and then give Harry the true sword and replace it with the fake. If that's the case, the portraits did serve as a backup, and quite a powerful one. Though Dumbledore made Harry swear to obey any commands he might give, he never commanded Harry not to give the information about Voldemort to anyone else. He *asked* Harry not to share it with anyone except Ron and Hermione, who had proved themselves trustworthy. Harry exaggerated his instructions, just as he did when he decided the rules of the Tri-Wizard Tournament forbade him to ask for help from anyone, not just teachers. Harry was even told that Lupin and Moody had been commanded to give him any help that he might ask, but he still thought he ought to do it all himself. That was Harry's "thirst to prove himself" talking, not Albus Dumbledore. But Harry had obvious reasons not to trust, say, Scrimgeour. Scrimgeour was willing to imprison Stan Shunpike for political purposes; why should Harry be any different? Pippin From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 14 10:55:48 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell? In-Reply-To: <ivkjmk+a59i@eGroups.com> References: <1310507403.78980.YahooMailNeo@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <ivkjmk+a59i@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310640948.79837.YahooMailNeo@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190884 > Steve replies: > My problem is with the idea of some external force compelling the Dursleys to comply. For this to be right, in my mind, the Dursley's act has to be willing act in order to seal the protective charm, even > if it is willing but begrudging. > However, if it is forced on them against their will, or they comply because of coercion, that's not really consent, it is simply yielding > under threat - coercion, extortion, blackmail, etc.... > In JRK's moral universe that just doesn't seem to be the way things are done. You don't create an act of good, but committing an act of > evil. June: That may be so, however what Pippin says makes sense to me. It isn't Dumbledore or Lily Potter who caused the effect, it is Voldemort and I really don't see where JRK gave Voldemort morals. If you think I am wrong there, please explain. From fenneyml at gmail.com Thu Jul 14 18:07:06 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:07:06 -0400 Subject: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair Message-ID: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190885 I joined this group because I love the Harry Potter series and enjoy discussion of it. I am all for discussion, argument, observation, insight and disagreement. However, the primary theme of the books is that Love conquers Evil. Much, if not most, of the discussion on this list recently, is an effort to redefine the books as a story of Evil, Hatred and Despair where the villain is not Lord Voldemort but rather Dumbledore (who could have simply handed Harry over to LV and been done with it had he wanted it that way). I want to spend my time with people who celebrate the books, the love, the joy, the humor, and the amazing creativity of JKR rather than doing all they can to twist and distort the fundamental themes and characters that she wrote about. I especially don't want my enjoyment of the new movie lessened by more of this warping of the story. Plus I am just too tired to keep throwing out patronuses against all the dementors here. I just don't like being here in Azkaban so I'm breaking out and going to find Dumbledore's Army! Long live JKR and Harry Potter! Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 14 21:08:40 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1310677720.20687.YahooMailNeo@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Bookcrazzzy:? > I joined this group because I love the Harry Potter series and > enjoy discussion of it. I am all for discussion, argument, observation, insight and disagreement. However, the primary theme of the books is that Love conquers Evil. Much, if not most, of the > discussion on this list recently, is an effort to redefine the books as a story of Evil, Hatred and Despair where the villain is not Lord Voldemort but rather Dumbledore (who could have simply > handed Harry over to LV and been done with it had he wanted it that way). I want to spend my time with people who celebrate the books, the love, the joy, the humor, and the amazing creativity of > JKR rather than doing all they can to twist and distort the fundamental themes and characters that she wrote about. I especially > don't want my enjoyment of the new movie lessened by more of this warping of the story. Plus I am just too tired to keep throwing out patronuses against all the dementors here. I just don't like being here in Azkaban so I'm breaking out and going to find Dumbledore's > Army! > > Long live JKR and Harry Potter! June: Here, here. I could not have said it better myself. We have really gotten so far off topic here, it isn't funny. I never read anything where Dumbledore wanted Harry dead. I read plenty of times that Voldemort wanted him dead but not Dumbledore. You all seem to be looking for a new villain here and have zoned in on Dumbledore. I cannot count the number of times I have read posts here and thought "Did these people actually read the books?" I have gotten to the point now where I just ignore the rantings in this group because to me it makes no sense at all and the one now about Dumbledore just takes the cake. It might be that you don't get to see this, to be honest I am shocked that the "house elves" allowed the post I am replying to, to go through, but please stop, think, and realize what this is all about. We had one villian in this and his name was Voldemort and he had several followers and Dumbledore was one of the good guys. With the final movie upon us let's not try to change the story, ok? June From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 11:46:34 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:46:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivn34c+3vj7@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivp9aq+2i4p@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190887 .> Pippin: <SNIP> .> Though Dumbledore made Harry swear to obey any commands he might give, he never commanded Harry not to give the information about Voldemort to anyone else. He *asked* Harry not to share it with anyone except Ron and Hermione, who had proved themselves trustworthy. > > Harry exaggerated his instructions, just as he did when he decided the rules of the Tri-Wizard Tournament forbade him to ask for help from anyone, not just teachers. Harry was even told that Lupin and Moody had been commanded to give him any help that he might ask, but he still thought he ought to do it all himself. That was Harry's "thirst to prove himself" talking, not Albus Dumbledore. Alla: When did Dumbledore ever distinguish between "asking" and "commanding"? He never gave Harry commands saying "I command you". He mostly asks in a nice voice, etc, but did anybody ever doubt that it was a command? I do not think Harry exaggerated anything here, but did exactly as Dumbledore asked. Or are you saying that when Dumbledore asks, it actually means implied permission to do the opposite? Dumbledore never *commanded* Harry to get the real memory from Slugghorn either, and when Harry dared to be occupied by more mundane matters, dear Albus kindly asked Harry "may I hope then, than you will give this matter higher priority from now on"? Would you argue that Harry *exaggerated* Dumbledore's instructions here? No, to me Dumbledore's "asking" Harry not to share information with anybody else was very clear command and poor Harry of course as always obeyed to the letter. And of course Dumbledore never even "asked" Harry to sacrifice himself, he just made sure Harry saw their conversation and let him work it all out in his head how it all makes sense. And yes, Lupin and Moody were given instructions to help him except of course Dumbledore directed Harry not to share the most important part of where he might need that help. Pippin: > But Harry had obvious reasons not to trust, say, Scrimgeour. Scrimgeour was willing to imprison Stan Shunpike for political purposes; why should Harry be any different? Alla: Of course, what does Scrimgeour has to do with it, who claims that Harry needed to trust him?! I am saying that Dumbledore cut out from Harry his most important support network - Order of Phoenix on his questt, that I find unforgivable. Thank goodness he did not cut out Ron and Hermione, because we all understand that for the needs of the plot kids needed to be heroes, I get all that, but from "within" the story, I am disgusted with Dumbledore anyway. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 11:52:17 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:52:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ivp9lh+g2im@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney <fenneyml at ...> wrote:<SNIP> >. Much, if not most, of the discussion on this list recently, > is an effort to redefine the books as a story of Evil, Hatred and Despair > where the villain is not Lord Voldemort but rather Dumbledore (who could > have simply handed Harry over to LV and been done with it had he wanted it > that way). <SNIP> Alla: You know, one can argue that he did handed Harry to Voldemort when it suited his plans ;). Remember triwizard Tournament? Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? So here we go, while even as a joke I will not claim that Dumbledore predicted Cedric's death and went along with him (although I personally would not put it past him), Dumbledore could have avoided Harry's ordeal and did not do so. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 12:36:06 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:36:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivp9aq+2i4p@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivpc7m+6rhc@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190889 .> .> Pippin: > <SNIP> > .> Though Dumbledore made Harry swear to obey any commands he might give, he never commanded Harry not to give the information about Voldemort to anyone else. He *asked* Harry not to share it with anyone except Ron and Hermione, who had proved themselves trustworthy. > > > > Harry exaggerated his instructions, just as he did when he decided the rules of the Tri-Wizard Tournament forbade him to ask for help from anyone, not just teachers. Harry was even told that Lupin and Moody had been commanded to give him any help that he might ask, but he still thought he ought to do it all himself. That was Harry's "thirst to prove himself" talking, not Albus Dumbledore. Alla: I thought of something else, so if as you claim what Dumbledore *really* meant was that Harry is allowed to ask for help of anybody he deems trustworthy, why exactly did he even say that? Why not to say : Harry, please you can ask for help of anybody you think you can trust. No, I think Dumbledore made his directions perfectly clear. He "asked" (very nicely as he usually does) that Harry shared it only with Ron and Hermione and Harry as dutiful soldier obeyed. Of course, it is IMO also in light with Dumbledore thinking that he, the mighty one, can not trust nobody or only few people who are deemed worthy to share his vision. I think Dumbledore wanted Harry to be exactly like him, despite that he claims at the end that he wanted to slow Harry down first in his asinine wisdom to see that he is not tempted by Hallows. JMO, Alla From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 15 14:44:17 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivp9lh+g2im@eGroups.com> References: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> <ivp9lh+g2im@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310741057.31120.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190890 Alla: You know, one can argue that he did handed Harry to Voldemort when it suited his plans ;). Remember triwizard Tournament? Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? So here we go, while even as a joke I will not claim that Dumbledore predicted Cedric's death and went along with him (although I personally would not put it past him), Dumbledore could have avoided Harry's ordeal and did not do so. June: I think some people need to re read and understand the books. Dumbledore was not evil, he was one of the good guys. The villian in these books is Voldemort. If you want to create a headmaster who is the villain, you should write your own book. Personally I am getting tired of this crap too. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 14:59:37 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:59:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310741057.31120.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivpkkp+4ef6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190891 > June: > I think some people need to re read and understand the books. Dumbledore was not evil, he was one of the good guys. The villian in these books is Voldemort. If you want to create a headmaster who is the villain, you should write your own book. Personally I am getting tired of this crap too. Alla: June, the advice that always works if somebody finds somebody else's posts annoying, crap or whatever is not to read them. My interpretation of Dumbledore annoys you? Thats fine, start the thread saying how great Dumbledore is, or do not read my posts. It always worked for me. There are plenty of topics which were discussed here which I never cared for, so I stayed away from them. I however never called them "crap". From sherriola at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 15:36:43 2011 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:36:43 -0600 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <1310741057.31120.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> <ivp9lh+g2im@eGroups.com> <1310741057.31120.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <011301cc4305$00d97310$028c5930$@com> No: HPFGUIDX 190892 Alla: You know, one can argue that he did handed Harry to Voldemort when it suited his plans ;). Remember triwizard Tournament? Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? So here we go, while even as a joke I will not claim that Dumbledore predicted Cedric's death and went along with him (although I personally would not put it past him), Dumbledore could have avoided Harry's ordeal and did not do so. June: I think some people need to re read and understand the books. Dumbledore was not evil, he was one of the good guys. The villain in these books is Voldemort. If you want to create a headmaster who is the villain, you should write your own book. Personally I am getting tired of this crap too. Sherry: One of the wondrous things about the Harry Potter books is how differently we can all see the characters. Sure, Voldemort was the villain, but some of us do not see the other "good guys" as so great, just because they were opposed to Voldemort. During the series, we spent probably hundreds of hours speculating on Snape for instance. Was he evil, was he good, or was he somewhere in between? The opinions expressed on that subject alone were fierce. Now, the series is over, and we know Snape was trying to protect Harry all along. Did those of us who didn't like Snape suddenly think of him as a good guy? Not necessarily. Personally, I came away thinking he only did it for lily's sake, but that he still did, and that's good. But I still felt he was a miserable mean person who was abusive to children he was supposed to be teaching. Is that what JKR wanted me to think, I don't know. It was the same with Sirius, the Dursleys and several other characters. We on this list debated constantly over their motives, and still didn't always have the straight of it by the end. As for Dumbledore, in the beginning of the series, about through book three, I liked him so much. I thought he was the ultimate good guy of the series, next to Harry, the epitome of goodness, as JKR said. But as the series progressed, and particularly by the end of Deathly Hallows, I lost a lot of respect for Dumbledore. Was he a villain? No, he's not the villain. But is he the epitome of goodness in my view? No way. He did what he had to do for the so-called greatest good, but as someone who loved Harry above all other characters, that didn't make Dumbledore into a hero. I got the impression through the series that Dumbledore was what I called, the King of second chances and of believing the best in many characters. Yet, he stood back and let Sirius go to Azkaban without a trial, without doing anything to discover the truth. He let Harry live with abusive unloving people all his life. I didn't really care about the blood protection either way, because I could only think of Harry's miserable unloved childhood. I probably feel a lot like Molly Weasley might about that. He didn't tell Harry the truth about the prophecy till it was too late, till it got Sirius killed. He let Snape be a mean bully to his students. And yes, he did good things too, and he fought till he died to get rid of Voldemort. I know it's a hero's journey type of story, so Harry had to be the one, had to be left alone with no adult parental figure of his own, had to be willing to die. But that doesn't mean I have to approve of all the things that got him there or the people in his life who got him there. Dumbledore had one purpose throughout the series, to prepare Harry to destroy Voldemort. He was willing to sacrifice anything and anyone else, and Harry, to achieve that goal. That makes him probably a very strong leader, but it doesn't mean I have to like him or think of him as a great and noble man either. He just is what he is. I think one of the great things about *all* the characters in the story, is that none of them, except for Voldemort, were truly all good or all bad. Most of the bad guys were not always terrible--look at the Malfoys in the last book--and none of the good guys was always good. I guess that's why I like them so much and why the books are so special to me. sherry From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Jul 15 16:43:32 2011 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:43:32 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <011301cc4305$00d97310$028c5930$@com> Message-ID: <ivpqnk+5ua9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190893 > Alla: > > You know, one can argue that he did handed Harry to Voldemort when it suited his plans ;). Remember triwizard Tournament? Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? So here we go, while even as a joke I will not claim that Dumbledore predicted Cedric's death and went along with him (although I personally would not put it past him), Dumbledore could have avoided Harry's ordeal and did not do so. > > June: > I think some people need to re read and understand the books. Dumbledore was not evil, he was one of the good guys. The villain in these books is Voldemort. If you want to create a headmaster who is the villain, you should write your own book. Personally I am getting tired of this crap too. > > > > Sherry: > > One of the wondrous things about the Harry Potter books is how differently we can all see the characters. Sure, Voldemort was the villain, but some of us do not see the other "good guys" as so great, just because they were opposed to Voldemort. Magpie: Also, I think as a list for grown-ups we should all be able to deal with times when meta issues with the books bleed into the characters. Dumbledore's plan in DH is obviously the way the author wanted the story to work, and that naturally relies on the author pulling strings to make sure victory happens as a result of Dumbledore's elaborate secrecy and hints. Since Dumbledore often winds up having to direct things to the plot JKR wants (rather than the most efficient handling of Voldemort ever), it's only natural people are going to sometimes see Dumbledore as a darker character. It's not a case of not understanding that Dumbledore is the good guy, it's more like saying "Dumbledore's the good guy but..." On the other side, people are also going to look Voldemort's plots sometimes and wonder how someone who's supposed to be so smart comes up with plans that seem to undermine themselves in order to drag things out until the last month of school. Sometimes those kinds of readings don't really hold up, but sometimes they do. That's the chance you take with fiction. Sometimes people really *are* reading "different books" without either book being wrong. -m From bart at moosewise.com Fri Jul 15 18:29:04 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:29:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivp9aq+2i4p@eGroups.com> References: <ivp9aq+2i4p@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2086F0.10603@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190894 Alla: > When did Dumbledore ever distinguish between "asking" and "commanding"? He never gave Harry commands saying "I command you". He mostly asks in a nice voice, etc, but did anybody ever doubt that it was a command? I do not think Harry exaggerated anything here, but did exactly as Dumbledore asked. Or are you saying that when Dumbledore asks, it actually means implied permission to do the opposite? > > Dumbledore never*commanded* Harry to get the real memory from Slugghorn either, and when Harry dared to be occupied by more mundane matters, dear Albus kindly asked Harry "may I hope then, than you will give this matter higher priority from now on"? Would you argue that Harry*exaggerated* Dumbledore's instructions here? > > No, to me Dumbledore's "asking" Harry not to share information with anybody else was very clear command and poor Harry of course as always obeyed to the letter. Bart: How does this fit in with your opinion that there was no coercion whatsoever on Snape during "The Prank"? Bart [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 18:49:07 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:49:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <4E2086F0.10603@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <ivq233+mgb3@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190895 > Alla: > > When did Dumbledore ever distinguish between "asking" and "commanding"? He never gave Harry commands saying "I command you". He mostly asks in a nice voice, etc, but did anybody ever doubt that it was a command? I do not think Harry exaggerated anything here, but did exactly as Dumbledore asked. Or are you saying that when Dumbledore asks, it actually means implied permission to do the opposite? > > > > Dumbledore never*commanded* Harry to get the real memory from Slugghorn either, and when Harry dared to be occupied by more mundane matters, dear Albus kindly asked Harry "may I hope then, than you will give this matter higher priority from now on"? Would you argue that Harry*exaggerated* Dumbledore's instructions here? > > > > No, to me Dumbledore's "asking" Harry not to share information with anybody else was very clear command and poor Harry of course as always obeyed to the letter. > > Bart: > How does this fit in with your opinion that there was no coercion > whatsoever on Snape during "The Prank"? > Alla: I am confused here. If you could clarify please, I will be much obliged. Whom are you casting as Dumbledore and Harry in the Prank? I mean whom are you comparing to Dumbledore and Harry? Snape and Sirius? If so Sirius was never in the position to *command* Snape and Snape was in the position where he was *obligated* to listen to him. Or are you analogising Dumbledore and Harry to Dumbledore and Snape in the Prank, where he made Snape to keep his mouth shut about Lupin? If so, then of course Dumbledore made Snape to keep his mouth shut about Lupin. The idea that Snape who I think wanted Lupin dead or at the very least his secret exposed would have done it on his own does not hold water with me. If I ever gave you impression that I hold an opinion to the contrary, I did not mean to, sorry about that. Or are you talking about something completely different here? Because right now I am not sure what are you talking about, and this is the first time I am learning that I held such opinion, sorry. My initial point was that to say that I flat out disagree with the idea that Dumbledore needs to say his command in the form of order on order for it to be a command. Even when Snape came to him on the night of Lily's death, in pain and broken, he still does not *command* him, doesn't he? Dumbledore bargains, convinces, appeals to him, etc. But does it mean that he is not effectively binding Snape into doing Dumbledore's bidding? I think he is doing exactly that. So, to me to say that Harry *exaggerated* anything when Dumbledore *asked* him not to share information with anybody means to completely ignore Dumbledore's modus operandi. Does that answer your question? Let me know if it is not. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 15 18:22:39 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:22:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310741057.31120.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivq0hf+v1ps@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190896 > Alla: > > You know, one can argue that he did handed Harry to Voldemort when it suited his plans ;). Remember triwizard Tournament? Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? So here we go, while even as a joke I will not claim that Dumbledore predicted Cedric's death and went along with him (although I personally would not put it past him), Dumbledore could have avoided Harry's ordeal and did not do so. Pippin: That's movie contamination...in the book it is clear that both Madame Maxime and Karkaroff wanted Harry withdrawn and would have insisted on it if it was possible. Since they are judges of the tournament, they are familiar with the rules. More broadly, the only canon we have for what Dumbledore can and cannot do is what Dumbledore says. If he's lying about that (though I do not remember any instance where he says he cannot do something and it's later shown that he could) then there's simply no basis for a canon-based discussion. The reason we have that rule, after all, is to keep the discussion from degenerating into "did so" "did not" . > > June: > I think some people need to re read and understand the books. Dumbledore was not evil, he was one of the good guys. Pippin: I think one of the ideas JKR is exploring is that in fiction we expect to find "good guys" while in real life there are no people who are always going to do the right thing except when some external force prevents them. But I do think we are supposed to see Dumbledore as acting for the common good, except for those occasions when he admits that he behaved selfishly. And I do think there were also occasions when external forces kept Dumbledore from doing as he would have liked. Pippin From thedossetts at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 19:31:57 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:31:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivp9lh+g2im@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivq4jd+p6a3@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190897 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney <fenneyml@> wrote:<SNIP> > >. Much, if not most, of the discussion on this list recently, > > is an effort to redefine the books as a story of Evil, Hatred and Despair > > where the villain is not Lord Voldemort but rather Dumbledore (who could > > have simply handed Harry over to LV and been done with it had he wanted it > > that way). <SNIP> > > > Alla: > > You know, one can argue that he did handed Harry to Voldemort when it suited his plans ;). Remember triwizard Tournament? Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? So here we go, while even as a joke I will not claim that Dumbledore predicted Cedric's death and went along with him (although I personally would not put it past him), Dumbledore could have avoided Harry's ordeal and did not do so. > Pat: Alla, I know that you have strong anti-DD feelings :o) but I am really confused here. Can you show me canon that says that DD could have gotten Harry out? I was under the impression that since Harry's name came out of the Goblet, it was presumed to be a magical contract. The contract part I get - the other kids put their names in, which indicates their willingness to participate, no matter what the events were. Yes, I understand that Harry did not put his name in, that was Fake!Moody, but nobody knew that at this point in the story. DD specifically says - GOF, Am. ed, p. 256 "Finally, I wish to impress upon any of you wishing to compete that this tournament is not to be entered into lightly. Once a champion has been selected by the Goblet of Fire, he or she is obliged to see the tournament through to the end. The placing of your name in the goblet constitutes a binding, magical contract. There can be no change of heart once you have become a champion. Please be very sure, therefore, that you are wholeheartedly prepared to play before you drop your name into the goblet." Barty Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman, the two *in charge,* are sitting behind DD at the staff table when DD makes this pronouncement. Neither one disputes anything that DD says. My conclusion from this is that there is no way for Harry to back out. Both Crouch Sr. and Bagman are there in the room afterward when DD questions Harry and McGonagall is anxious for DD to find a way to let Harry out of it. But again, no way is mentioned. I have to think that JKR means it when she says there is no way out for Harry - nothing DD or anyone else can do. He must participate. Canon seems very firm here. You are free to dislike DD as a character. :o) But let's be careful to make sure that canon backs us up when we're throwing stones at his character. Pat, not trying to throw stones myself, just trying to inject a little canon into the discussion From kamilaa at gmail.com Fri Jul 15 20:12:40 2011 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:12:40 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair Message-ID: <CAE-Q+CGNb-Pj-Bc+vCJzmkLNxEOcB7DCJoPp3gmkMjL2Nw_vsw@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190898 <alla> Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? <Kamil> *raises hand* Yeah, I absolutely took Dumbledore at his word. My hand to <deity>, it never once entered my mind, until I read this post, that a "binding magical contract" was not just that. A *binding*, magical contract. It's not like this was a phrase Dumbledore came up with once he'd found out Harry was entered. He mentioned it to all of the students beforehand, cautioning them not to put their names into the goblet unless they were very sure they wanted to compete because once their name came back out again, they had no choice, they had to see it through to the end. I think he mentions it to the student body again, that next night at the Welcome Feast for the Durmstrang and Beauxbatons students. And then there is his reaction when he first sees Harry, after his name has come out. It seemed quite clear to me Dumbledore was almost frantic with worry and fear, and seemed to me as well that he performed legilimency on Harry, to see if he was lying to him about somehow fooling the age line or having an older student put his name in (speaking of, I will never understand why that option didn't occur to Fred, George and Lee). Plus, if it was at all possible for a contestant to be removed once spat out by the Goblet, why didn't Madame Maxime or Karkaroff insist that Dumbledore do so at once? They certainly weren't pleased with Harry being a contestant, and as headmaster/mistress of their own Schools, one would think they were, if not as competent as Dumbledore, certainly of a caliber to know when they were being fed a load of dragon dung by him. So, yeah, I can say with no doubts whatsoever that it never once occurred to me that Harry had any choice at all but to go forward with the TWT. Kamil You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat. --Albert Einstein From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 20:33:00 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:33:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivq4jd+p6a3@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivq85s+77di@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190899 > Pat: Alla, I know that you have strong anti-DD feelings :o) but I am really confused here. Can you show me canon that says that DD could have gotten Harry out? I was under the impression that since Harry's name came out of the Goblet, it was presumed to be a magical contract. The contract part I get - the other kids put their names in, which indicates their willingness to participate, no matter what the events were. Yes, I understand that Harry did not put his name in, that was Fake!Moody, but nobody knew that at this point in the story. DD specifically says - > > GOF, Am. ed, p. 256 > > > <SNIPS quote, please read UPTHREAD> > Barty Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman, the two *in charge,* are sitting behind DD at the staff table when DD makes this pronouncement. Neither one disputes anything that DD says. My conclusion from this is that there is no way for Harry to back out. Both Crouch Sr. and Bagman are there in the room afterward when DD questions Harry and McGonagall is anxious for DD to find a way to let Harry out of it. But again, no way is mentioned. I have to think that JKR means it when she says there is no way out for Harry - nothing DD or anyone else can do. He must participate. Canon seems very firm here. Alla: Ah, but thats the whole point though, isn't it? Yes, nobody knows that Fake Moody put Harry's name in there, but doesn't it make the "magical contract" invalid by definition since one party did not *enter* into it? No, of course there is no canon that Dumbledore could have gotten Harry out, of course not. My point is that Dumbledore should have tried IMO. He at the very least suspects false play, or should suspect it, since Goblet spit out four champions instead of three and he just lets it be? Dumbledore breaks rules left and right when it suits him and here he does not even attempt to do so? However, having said all that no, I do not think that Dumbledore deliberately gave Harry to Voldemort, if you look at my post, I said that not even as a joke I would speculate that he went along with Cedric's death, I do not think he knew that this is what would have happened . The rest of the post *was* meant as a joke, or at least a part where Dumbledore wanted to deliver Harry to Voldemort was, I do think that he should have tried to get Harry out. Just look at how uncertain supposedly strong "magical debt" rules, who owes whom a life debt and who does not and Harry *never* entered into such a contract. If Dumbledore tried and failed, that would be a different story, but per Harry, Dumbledore let eleven year old take a stab at Voldemort, so I would not put it past him at all that he saw it as just another test and was secretly pleased that Harry will try it, even if he was worried. But let me stress, because I really do not want to explain myself again on this point, I do not think Dumbledore predicted the outcome of the Tournament, that *was* a joke. Pat: You are free to dislike DD as a character. :o) But let's be careful to make sure that canon backs us up when we're throwing stones at his character. Alla: For me canon shows us plenty of DD's actions that show him as darker character, however of course canon's intent is never going to back me up lol. It is my interpretation of canon actions, not that JKR would ever agree with any of those interpretations, but that's how it is coming out to me. JKR pegged the man as "epithome of goodness" after all, of course her intent was to portray radically different character from what I see. I realize that. Pippin: That's movie contamination...in the book it is clear that both Madame Maxime and Karkaroff wanted Harry withdrawn and would have insisted on it if it was possible. Since they are judges of the tournament, they are familiar with the rules. Alla: Confused again. Granted I have not reread GoF for quite some time, but are you saying that in the book nobody is suggesting that Harry should be withdrawn? In other words, I am just not sure which part is movie contamination. Pippin: More broadly, the only canon we have for what Dumbledore can and cannot do is what Dumbledore says. If he's lying about that (though I do not remember any instance where he says he cannot do something and it's later shown that he could) then there's simply no basis for a canon-based discussion. The reason we have that rule, after all, is to keep the discussion from degenerating into "did so" "did not" . Alla: Technically this is true and I have held this position for a very long time that facts that characters are giving us should be taken as truth unless they are shown to be a liars in canon, otherwise how could we debate facts?. However I do not see why Dumbledore should be granted such exception and that his words should not be held to some extra support, if we at one point or another doubted the facts from the mouths of many characters who were never ever shown to be liars in canon. Dumbledore is actually shown to be a liar by omission and more than once, like not telling Harry why Voldemort is after him, who sold his parents to Voldemort, etc, etc. I do not see why after lies by omission the statements of what he can and cannot do should be held as true automatically. From bart at moosewise.com Fri Jul 15 20:35:15 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 16:35:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivq233+mgb3@eGroups.com> References: <ivq233+mgb3@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E20A483.70709@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190900 Alla: >> > Alla: >>> > > When did Dumbledore ever distinguish between "asking" and "commanding"? He never gave Harry commands saying "I command you". He mostly asks in a nice voice, etc, but did anybody ever doubt that it was a command? I do not think Harry exaggerated anything here, but did exactly as Dumbledore asked. Or are you saying that when Dumbledore asks, it actually means implied permission to do the opposite? >>> > > >>> > > Dumbledore never*commanded* Harry to get the real memory from Slugghorn either, and when Harry dared to be occupied by more mundane matters, dear Albus kindly asked Harry "may I hope then, than you will give this matter higher priority from now on"? Would you argue that Harry*exaggerated* Dumbledore's instructions here? >>> > > >>> > > No, to me Dumbledore's "asking" Harry not to share information with anybody else was very clear command and poor Harry of course as always obeyed to the letter. >> > >> > Bart: >> > How does this fit in with your opinion that there was no coercion >> > whatsoever on Snape during "The Prank"? >> > > Alla: > > I am confused here. If you could clarify please, I will be much obliged. Whom are you casting as Dumbledore and Harry in the Prank? I mean whom are you comparing to Dumbledore and Harry? Snape and Sirius? If so Sirius was never in the position to*command* Snape and Snape was in the position where he was*obligated* to listen to him. Bart: I am referring to your contention that the tactics used by Sirius to get him to go into the Whomping Willow did not constitute coercion in any way, shape or form. Bart [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 15 20:42:02 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:42:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <4E20A483.70709@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <ivq8mq+fo74@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190901 > > Alla: > > > > I am confused here. If you could clarify please, I will be much obliged. Whom are you casting as Dumbledore and Harry in the Prank? I mean whom are you comparing to Dumbledore and Harry? Snape and Sirius? If so Sirius was never in the position to*command* Snape and Snape was in the position where he was*obligated* to listen to him. > Bart: > I am referring to your contention that the tactics used by Sirius > to get him to go into the Whomping Willow did not constitute coercion in > any way, shape or form. Alla: Yes, and I stand by that opinion. And of course what I wrote above meant to say that Snape was not obligated to listen to him. They were both schoolboys, and Dumbledore and Harry are in the position of somebody who has the power over Harry, tremendous power of trusted mentor. Dumbledore does not need to use commanding language to coerce him. I do not see any similarities here, to be honest. Now if we would have had Draco Malfoy and Harry instead of Dumbledore and Harry, I would have said the same thing, Harry has no obligation to listen to Draco and *should not* listen to Draco when he would suggest some questionable deed, but to say that Harry should not listen to Dumbledore unless he commands him as an order? I disagree with that. Dumbledore trained Harry to make sure that every word from his mouth is accepted as command at the end IMO. Alla, who apologises for overposting and dissappears. From thedossetts at gmail.com Sat Jul 16 03:25:13 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:25:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivq85s+77di@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivr0ap+jrkb@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190902 > > Alla: > > Confused again. Granted I have not reread GoF for quite some time, but are you saying that in the book nobody is suggesting that Harry should be withdrawn? In other words, I am just not sure which part is movie contamination. > Pat: You are correct, in the book neither Karkaroff or Madame Maxime suggest that Harry's name should be withdrawn. (They both instead demand that their schools should be allowed another contestant also.) McGonagall wants DD to do something, she is obviously quite anxious with the thought that Harry should be forced to be a part of things. But DD reminds her that it is a binding contract. As for your comment that because it was Crouch!Moody that put Harry's name into the GOF, he shouldn't have been held to it - well, all I can say is that it wasn't the Goblet's job to determine if the person putting the name in was actually the person whose name was written on the paper. The Goblet's job was to choose one entrant from each school (Crouch!Moody admits at the end that he confunded the Goblet into believing there was a fourth school). Obviously JKR puts these restrictions on the Goblet and on DD so that the story can continue and things will work out the way they do. She has a plan for her story and we just have to sit tight and let things unfold. Sorry that you can't enjoy the ride! > Pippin: > More broadly, the only canon we have for what Dumbledore can and cannot do is > what Dumbledore says. If he's lying about that (though I do not remember any > instance where he says he cannot do something and it's later shown that he > could) then there's simply no basis for a canon-based discussion. The reason we > have that rule, after all, is to keep the discussion from degenerating into > "did so" "did not" . > > Alla: > > Technically this is true and I have held this position for a very long time that facts that characters are giving us should be taken as truth unless they are shown to be a liars in canon, otherwise how could we debate facts?. However I do not see why Dumbledore should be granted such exception and that his words should not be held to some extra support, if we at one point or another doubted the facts from the mouths of many characters who were never ever shown to be liars in canon. Dumbledore is actually shown to be a liar by omission and more than once, like not telling Harry why Voldemort is after him, who sold his parents to Voldemort, etc, etc. I do not see why after lies by omission the statements of what he can and cannot do should be held as true automatically. > I still think that DD was operating from the position he took at the end of PS/SS. SS - American Edition, p. 298 "The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution. However, I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie." I don't see how you can consider Dumbledore to have lied by omission. He never changed what he said here - never negated it in any way. This was DD's standard operating procedure. Today we might say that everyone he interacted with was on a "need-to-know" basis. If you didn't need to know, he wouldn't tell you, but he would not lie to you. Pat From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 16 05:08:25 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 01:08:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivq85s+77di@eGroups.com> References: <ivq85s+77di@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E211CC9.7070203@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190903 > Alla: > > Ah, but thats the whole point though, isn't it? Yes, nobody knows that Fake Moody put Harry's name in there, but doesn't it make the "magical contract" invalid by definition since one party did not*enter* into it? Bart: All too often, rules are not made because nobody imagines the rule being broken. Many "strange laws" originated because a situation never even considered ended up happening. For example, a library near me has a sign, "Cleats may not be worn in the library." I suspect that very few libraries have rules against wearing cleats, but if you have a library next to an athletic field, it can become a problem. Among the protections preventing underage wizards from being entered, nobody thought to make a rule preventing PROFESSORS from entering students' names; note that the only reason why it did happen was because one of the professors was an impostor. Note that it was so unthinkable that nobody suspected it, even after it was done. Bart [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 16 06:08:08 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 06:08:08 -0000 Subject: Varying Views of Characters In-Reply-To: <011301cc4305$00d97310$028c5930$@com> Message-ID: <ivr9s8+2ba9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190904 Steve Replies: This is more of a general comment, than a response to anyone specific. Characters are not one dimensional, or very two dimensional for that matter. All characters are very complex. A person can be a good guy, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss his/her darker aspect. Dumbledore was a good guy who had to make hard, terrible, and dark choices. In war, people die, and frequently those people are sent to their death by some who has or at least thinks they have a master plan. War is not a neat tidy fairytale. Just because we can see this darkness in Dumbledore, doesn't change the fact that he fought vigorously for the side of good. Just because he knew Harry would have to make an ultimate great sacrifice, is no different than all the other people who are sent to their death trying to stop evil. There have been some who have been outraged by Harry's rule breaking behavior, and yet, I think or hope that they see Harry as the ultimate good guy. I think his heroics far outweigh his rule breaking. And while we are at it, let's look at the rule breaking. Harry had no business wandering the corridors, and going into the Chamber of Secrets. He should have just left it to the adults, kept his nose clean, and stayed nice and safe in his room. Yet, if he had done that Tom Riddle would be fully alive in the world and Ginny Weasly would be dead. As a result for his flagrant disregard for the rules, Ginny is alive, that Diary-Riddle is dead. So, which is more important, Ginny alive and Riddle dead, and a few rules being broken? Or, Riddle alive, Ginny dead, and the rules safely in tack? Every character is multi-faceted, every character has benevolent, and not so benevolent motivations, and we should not judge them on a single event, or a single aspect of their character, rather on the whole, rather for the greater good that comes from their actions. Harry was a soldier, Harry had a duty, part of the duty was to die at the right time; he did his duty like countless other soldiers that have been marched to their own death. As for Dumbledore sending him, that is the duty of a General, to send good men to their death, if it advances the cause of victory. Just because Dumbledore had this dark side does not mean we can't or shouldn't discuss it, but we should also remember that he was a good guy on the grander scale who was seeking liberty and freedom from tyranny for all. Steve/bboyminn Who is curious to see if this post goes through. I've sent three in the last few days and Yahoomort seems to have hit them all with an Avada Kadavra curse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jul 16 14:22:22 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:22:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivq85s+77di@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivs6qu+h5u6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190905 > > Alla: > > Ah, but thats the whole point though, isn't it? Yes, nobody knows that Fake Moody put Harry's name in there, but doesn't it make the "magical contract" invalid by definition since one party did not *enter* into it? > > No, of course there is no canon that Dumbledore could have gotten Harry out, of course not. My point is that Dumbledore should have tried IMO. He at the very least suspects false play, or should suspect it, since Goblet spit out four champions instead of three and he just lets it be? Dumbledore breaks rules left and right when it suits him and here he does not even attempt to do so? Potioncat: Excuse me for being blunt, but you are thinking like a Muggle. Magical Contracts are not the same as Muggle contracts. We know for example, that House Elves must work for their Wizard families unless freed(sacked) by the gift of clothing. It doesn't matter that the "gift" was unintended or even that the wizard didn't know clothing was involved. Lucius Malfoy accidentally freed Dobby when Harry put his own sock in the diary. Very similar to what happened with the Goblet of Fire. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jul 16 14:35:05 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:35:05 -0000 Subject: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ivs7ip+5chd@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190906 Bookcrazzzy wrote: snip Plus I am just > too tired to keep throwing out patronuses against all the dementors here. I > just don't like being here in Azkaban so I'm breaking out and going to find > Dumbledore's Army! > > Long live JKR and Harry Potter! > > Bookcrazzzy Potioncat: So, you're taking your toys and going home? Come back if your ever change your mind. You're always welcomed. There are two aspects of HPfGU that appeal to me. ---The well enforced guidelines/rules ---All views are allowed as long as canon is involved As long as members are posting to a thread, they must be enjoying it and no one has to read a thread they aren't interested in. In our heyday we had more threads going at at time that a person could keep up with and still live a normal life. So, please, start a new thread, any time, any subject, as long as it has a canon base. And, yes, Long Live JKR and Harry Potter! From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 16 14:57:13 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:57:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Varying Views of Characters In-Reply-To: <ivr9s8+2ba9@eGroups.com> References: <ivr9s8+2ba9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E21A6C9.9000404@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190907 Steve: > Harry was a soldier, Harry had a duty, part of the duty was to die at the right time; he did his duty like countless other soldiers that have been marched to their own death. > > As for Dumbledore sending him, that is the duty of a General, to send good men to their death, if it advances the cause of victory. Bart: Except for one little detail: Harry lived. And, at KC, we see that Dumbledore was as sure as he could get of such things that Harry WOULD live. That's a point I've been making continually in this conversation: paradoxically, the only way for Harry to survive was for him to believe he was sacrificing himself. Bart From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jul 16 15:00:12 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:00:12 -0000 Subject: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love Message-ID: <ivs91s+pnd0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190908 Not to be confused with, but inspired by a thread of a similar name--- There is love, hate and despair in this series, though I'm not sure we see much joy. All of them inspire or drive characters to do what they do--with good and bad outcomes. There is the history of hatred between Muggles and Wizards, hatred between Marauders and Snape, between Draco and Harry. There is Snape's despair at Lily's death, Lovegood's despair at Luna's kidnapping, the whole Wizarding World's despair at LV's reign. We see Harry's joy at discovering the WW, Remus's joy at having friends. Love, actually, is all around. Love is a major theme of the series. It is, after all, Harry's love that saves the WW. JKR shows many types of love throughout her story--and warns about obsessive love. What do you, kind readers, think of the different ways JKR depicts love? Is she right, in your opinion? How many examples of love do you see in the book? How does love and joy contrast with hate and despair? Love, Potioncat From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 16 15:02:52 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:02:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivq8mq+fo74@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivs96s+36h5@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190909 > > > Alla: > > > > > > I am confused here. If you could clarify please, I will be much obliged. Whom are you casting as Dumbledore and Harry in the Prank? I mean whom are you comparing to Dumbledore and Harry? Snape and Sirius? If so Sirius was never in the position to*command* Snape and Snape was in the position where he was*obligated* to listen to him. > > Bart: > > I am referring to your contention that the tactics used by Sirius > > to get him to go into the Whomping Willow did not constitute coercion in > > any way, shape or form. > > > Alla: > > Yes, and I stand by that opinion. And of course what I wrote above meant to say that Snape was not obligated to listen to him. They were both schoolboys, and Dumbledore and Harry are in the position of somebody who has the power over Harry, tremendous power of trusted mentor. Dumbledore does not need to use commanding language to coerce him. I do not see any similarities here, to be honest. Pippin: If Dumbledore does not need to use commanding language, why does he? If Harry is already obligated do everything Dumbledore says (and when was that ever the case), why does Dumbledore tell Harry, "I take you with me on one condition: that you obey any command I might give you at once, and without question." Harry never thought his loyalty to Dumbledore demanded absolute obedience, and when he does swear to obey, it isn't out of loyalty, it's because he wants so badly to be part of the horcrux quest. In fact Harry questions Dumbledore's judgement from beginning (in PS/SS where his first reaction is to wonder whether Dumbledore is mad) to end (at King's Cross, where he thinks Dumbledore is being much too hard on himself.) In any case, I don't see why Sirius can't be as good at manipulating sixteen year old Snape as Dumbledore is at manipulating sixteen year old Harry. All it takes is a knowledge of the target's emotional weaknesses and a bit of ruthless cunning. Sirius had both of those. And we shouldn't underestimate the power imbalance between Snape and Sirius. The social distance between a headmaster and his star pupil is actually less, IMO, than between Sirius, coolest kid in school and a social outcast like Snape. You will notice that sixteen year old Tom Riddle can manipulate people who have much more power than he has, even people like his headmaster and his head of house to whom he is supposed to owe loyalty rather than vice versa. Pippin From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Jul 16 16:52:53 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivpkkp+4ef6@eGroups.com> References: <1310741057.31120.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <ivpkkp+4ef6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310835173.16101.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Alla: > June, the advice that always works if somebody finds somebody else's posts annoying, crap or whatever is not to read them. My interpretation of Dumbledore annoys you? That's fine, start the thread saying how great Dumbledore is, or do not read my posts. It always worked for me. There are plenty of topics which were discussed here which I never cared for, so I stayed away from > them. I however never called them "crap". ? June: No, my problem is (and the problem that just made someone leave the group) is that people are steering away from the subject and creating a new version of the books. The books have already been written. This is why I got sarcastic and said you should go back and read the book and pay attention. I don't know, maybe some people aren't understanding the books but Dumbledore was not trying to kill Harry. It is true that he told Snape that Harry was being brought up to die but what you do not understand and what Dumbledore did understand once he knew what they were up against is that Harry himself was a horcrux and the only way to destroy? the piece of Voldemort's soul in a?horcrux, is to destroy the horcrux. That too is why Harry had to have ownership in the elder wand, the cloak of invisibility and the resurrection stone. The one who owned all three controlled death. Dumbledore also knew that and I believe so did Albeforth who (though Harry didn't know it till close to the end) was helping Harry. Dumbledore knew by having all these Harry could survive but he had to be willing to sacrifice himself as his mother had sacrificed herself so he could live. Dumbledore was not the villain and I do not understand how you and others have confused this but you seem to be trying to rewrite the books and I personally like them the way they are. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Jul 16 17:19:46 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:19:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivq0hf+v1ps@eGroups.com> References: <1310741057.31120.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <ivq0hf+v1ps@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310836786.43650.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190911 >> June: >> I think some people need to re read and understand the books. >> Dumbledore was not evil, he was one of the good guys. > Pippin: > I think one of the ideas JKR is exploring is that in fiction we expect to find "good guys" while in real life there are no people who are always going to do the right thing except when some > external force prevents them. > But I do think we are supposed to see Dumbledore as acting for the common good, except for those occasions when he admits that he behaved selfishly. And I do think there were also occasions when > external forces kept Dumbledore from doing as he would have liked. June: Exactly, Pippin. I think she wanted us to realize that Dumbledore, like all of us, was human and humans aren't perfect. Dumbledore I believe knew from the beginning that Harry may have to be sacrificed (after all he did have knowledge of the prophecy) and he wanted to prepare Harry for whatever was to come. People need to realize that Dumbledore and Harry were put into the situation they were in because of Voldemort. When Dumbledore found out about the horcruxes and realized he didn't have much time left because of the injury caused by the ring he destroyed, he had to hurry to help Harry to learn what he needed to know. There were things that happened I am sure that Dumbledore didn't count on, like the curse in the ring that burned his hand and gave him a short time to live. He knew before his passing, I am sure, that Harry himself was a horcrux and he realized that that meant Harry would have to die as well, however he made sure that Harry had a chance by giving the book, The Tales of Beedle The Bard to Hermione, whom he knew would figure it out. The one who possesses all three deathly hollows controls death (or something to that effect). Dumbledore knew that if Harry could take possession of all of them, he would be able to let Voldemort kill him to rid himself of the horcrux within him and would survive. The stone was in the snitch, the cloak he already owned because it was passed down from his father (he was related to the third brother) and the wand he took possession of when he disarmed Malfoy, who was the proper owner at that point of the wand. Dumbledore made sure he did everything possible to keep Harry alive and it worked. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 16 19:51:35 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:51:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivs96s+36h5@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivsq47+no88@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190912 Posting from Blackberry, am going to delete the whole post I am responding to for that reason, it is either that or top post. Why Dumbledore use commanding language in that situation? Frankly besides JKR wanting to impress upon us how much more serious the situation is than usual I have no idea. It is not like Harry disobeys him when he uses gentler turn of phrase. By the way I totally agree that Harry questions Dumbledore'sjudgment all the time and does not obey him all the time when he is younger. I said that Dumbledore trained him that eventually Harry obeys him in everything no matter which words he used. As to Snape and Sirius vs Dumbledore and Harry - sorry, no just no, to me there is absolutely no comparison between any power imbalance between Headmaster and student and two students. That is if I for the sake of argument agree about power imblalance between Sirius and Snape which I most definitely do not agree with. Sirius may have been popular with girls and Snape was feared because of all curses he knew. And of course I see no vulnerability in Snape in this situation, since he was the one who was dying to see marauders punished and suffered something entirely different instead. Somebody earlier brought the situation between Harry and Draco, the duel between them and while I do not think that situation is exactly the same, since I do not remember Harry entertaining malicious thoughts about punishing Draco there before Draco taunted him, I think in a sense it is close. Harry got *exactly* what he deserved imo, yes he is young and stupid eleven year old, but he should have exercised his brains before going there. JMO Alla From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Jul 16 21:36:51 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 21:36:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310835173.16101.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivt09j+e3hk@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: Alla: > > June, the advice that always works if somebody finds somebody > else's posts annoying, crap or whatever is not to read them. My > interpretation of Dumbledore annoys you? That's fine, start the > thread saying how great Dumbledore is, or do not read my posts. > It always worked for me. There are plenty of topics which were > discussed here which I never cared for, so I stayed away from > > them. I however never called them "crap". > > > June: > No, my problem is (and the problem that just made someone leave > the group) is that people are steering away from the subject and > creating a new version of the books. The books have already been > written. This is why I got sarcastic and said you should go back > and read the book and pay attention. I don't know, maybe some > people aren't understanding the books but Dumbledore was not > trying to kill Harry. Geoff: I have probably missed a lot of this thread because I have just returned from a holiday where I have had very limited access to the Net and only glanced in in Main two or three times in ten days. However, having been a member of this group for nearly eight years. I am fully aware, as many other long-term members are, that there are going to be threads and opinions which disagree; this really doesn't need us to get hot under the collar or start throwing bad language around, because that achieves nothing but further ill-feeling and a loss of the camaraderie which has existed among us for so long. I think we are perhaps missing a very important point which has been evident in the books from the beginning: JKR has generally given us the version of events as seen by Harry and interpreted by him at the age he is at. Sometimes he has not got all of the facts or he sees something which he misunderstands; he perhaps takes someone's opinion as final without seeing a possible variation. For example, in PS, he is catapulted almost violently into the Wizarding World. He meets Hagrid, who introduces him to his new home, Hagrid whose devotion to Dumbledore makes him paint him as an omnipotent and all-knowing wizard - which as we find out gradually in the books - is not always true. Ron, who immediately instils into him a suspicion of Slytherins which leads to what I feel was the disastrous meeting between him and Draco. There are many instances where Harry's conclusions do not fit the facts because he hasn't got them all and he sometimes is a little too quick on the trigger as when he is very quick to threaten Sirius at their first meeting because he believes he is facing his parents' murderer and isn't very willing to give him a chance to explain. Looking at the current matter of Dumbledore, Harry is now seventeen. The naivety with which he faced the Wizarding World in PS where everything is black or white has been replaced by a healthy suspicion that there are a lot of greys around the place. Already it is obvious that Dumbledore has his own skeletons in the cupboard. What we are seeing about Dumbledore wanting Harry dead is Harry's interpretation of the conversation he heard between Snape and Dumbledore in the Pensieve. 'Finally, the truth. Lying with his face pressed into the dusty carpet of the office where he had once thought he was learning the secrets of victory, Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive. His job was to walk calmly into Death's welcoming arms' (DH "The Forest Again" p.554 UK edition) Harry's misunderstanding arose from what he had heard said to Snape. I believe that Dumbledore said this to Snape because he might otherwise have given something away to Voldemort which would have alerted him and did not expect that Harry would become privy to this but would perhaps see for himself what had to be done. Dumbledore makes it clearer later to Harry in King's Cross: '(Harry)"Why did you have to make it so difficult?" Dumbledore's smile was tremulous. "I am afraid that I counted on Miss Granger to slow you up, Harry. I was afraid that your hot head would dominate your good heart. I was scared that, if presented outright with the facts about those tempting objects, you might seize the Hallows as I did, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. If you laid hands on them I wanted you to possess them safely. You are the true master of death, because the true master does not seek to run away from Death." (DH "King's Cross" p. 577, UK edition) Harry could not have been told these things earlier because he would have been too young to understand and accept them. One of JKR's great skills is to show us that there is not one character who is infallible or who can be diverted from their path by circumstances or the influence of others; not even Voldemort. They are like us; I see myself in many ways like Harry when I look back at events in my life and my actions about them: sometimes biased, misunderstood, rash.... I am afraid that I do not subscribe to the view you express "that people are steering away from the subject and creating a new version of the books". With more and more story emerging, each character is being fleshed out in greater depth and we see that many of them do not have a simple agenda but are influenced more subtly. On that subject and digressing for a moment, I haven't yet seen film 8 - only several trailers, but I already have suspicions that, like films 6 and 7, something I personally term the "David Yates Syndrome" seems to be emerging where there is an element of diverting and altering the story which is affecting the main plotline and with which I haven't always concurred. But that is not what has happened in the past and is happening now where members of this group are using the greater depth of characterisation provided by JKR for analysis and discussion. As has been said, we don't have to read a thread if we don't like it. I, for one, have studiously avoided threads about Snape because I don't like him as a character - and still don't! From lynde at post.com Sat Jul 16 23:28:57 2011 From: lynde at post.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 23:28:57 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore Message-ID: <20110716232901.232370@gmx.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190914 I have long been astounded and appalled at the many readers who actually choose to believe that Dumbledore basically raised Harry to be a lamb for the slaughter. No. He did not. He did allow Harry, Snape and probably Aberforth to believe that, though. So that the game would not be given up to Lord Thingy. It's obvious from the context that that's what was going on. Blatantly obvious. Yes, DD was a master manipulater. Raised in a house of secrets and lies. And yes he continued to operate that way. It worked. Lynda ---------------------------------------------------- I would just like to mention a couple of things about Dumbledore: 1. Although he knew he didn't have much longer to live, DD clearly did not expect to die as soon as he did. He was teaching Harry about LV, horcruxes, etc. and there is no way to know what else he intended to tell Harry. It is highly probable, though, that he did not get to tell Harry all that he intended to tell him. 2. DD was not a god and was not omniscient. He learned things over time, especially when it came to the magic bonding Harry and LV. I don't think that DD ever wanted Harry to die or planned for his death. I believe that only quite late in the game, after he understood all of the implications of the horcruxes and hallows, and Harry being a horcrux himself, that it became clear to DD that Harry had to "die" in order to survive. It wasn't a matter of Harry dying for the benefit of the WW (although that was certainly important) but Harry could not survive himself unless he overcame LV through "death". JMO, Bookcrazzzy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 00:53:15 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:53:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivt09j+e3hk@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivtbpr+f9n5@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190915 Geoff: > I am afraid that I do not subscribe to the view you express "that people > are steering away from the subject and creating a new version of the > books". With more and more story emerging, each character is being > fleshed out in greater depth and we see that many of them do not have a > simple agenda but are influenced more subtly. Alla: Very true. It would be very nice if we all realize that nobody's interpetation is a final infallible version. Even if you (of course not you Geoff) think that you know the ultimate truth of what the books are about. Other reader thinks the same about their interpetation. Nobody has to agree with it of course, but as far as I am concerned nobody has a right to be appalled at somebody having interpreting books so drastically different from you that you cannot see how such interpretation could be possible. Ha! I suddenly thought of Evil!Lupin here, which our Pippin defended for years and years. Did I for a second think that Lupin is so evil? No most definitely not (although couple of times I came dangerously close lol), but it was brilliantly argued and it was ALL based on canon. You think Pippin was rewriting the books? She was interpeting it and even if I was thinking that it is not possible, I respected it as brilliant theory. The problem is of course that now canon is closed and our interpetations will pretty much stay the same IMO. When we debated ad nauseaum whether Snape killed Dumbledore because Dumbledore ordered him so, or because Snape was evil and Voldemort's servant, of course I thought Snape did it because he is evil. Of course I wanted him to do so because he served Voldemort for real. The thing is we KNOW he did not do it because he served Voldemort for real, period. Canon is closed on this issue. I cannot say that it happened my way, because it did not happened my way and I will sound quite crazy if I do so. But with Dumbledore? Totally different story. As far as I am concerned, even if for other readers (some or many) canon provided justification of Dumbledore's actions, for me for the most part it did not. He is not Lord Voldemort of course, but as far as I am concerned he has plenty to answer for in his afterlife. That I am afraid is going to stand in my mind. Geoff: As has been said, we don't > have to read a thread if we don't like it. I, for one, have studiously avoided > threads about Snape because I don't like him as a character - and still don't! > Alla: YES! I remember those geographic threads you guys did (with Shawn?). I found it very educational for myself to read them often enough, but I was never (or almost never) tempted to join in. It was not my cup of tea type of discussion. I stayed out of it. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 17 02:26:00 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:26:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivq0hf+v1ps@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivth7o+g40c@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190916 > Pippin: > I think one of the ideas JKR is exploring is that in fiction we expect to find "good guys" while in real life there are no people who are always going to do the right thing except when some external force prevents them. > > But I do think we are supposed to see Dumbledore as acting for the common good, except for those occasions when he admits that he behaved selfishly. And I do think there were also occasions when external forces kept Dumbledore from doing as he would have liked. > > > Pippin > Nikkalmati Yes, I think one of the things that makes the series brillant is that all of the characters have a dark side or weaknesses that direct their behavior. Harry is the best person because he has true empathy for others, but even he is not perfect. I think we are meant to see that anyone who believes he percieves the greater good and that it is his mission to direct other people toward achieving it is dangerous. Who is to say that this person has it right all the time? If knowledge is power and he does not share his knowledge, how can he avoid abusing his power? JKR goes to some trouble to show us that DD has a past that has been covered up. His own brother, who knows him well, does not approve of his methods. Even with his good intentions, I believe, we have to conclude that DD is a flawed character. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 17 02:38:57 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 02:38:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310836786.43650.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivti01+eg9k@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190917 <snip> > June: > Exactly, Pippin. I think she wanted us to realize that Dumbledore, > like all of us, was human and humans aren't perfect. Dumbledore I > believe knew from the beginning that Harry may have to be sacrificed > (after all he did have knowledge of the prophecy) and he wanted to > prepare Harry for whatever was to come. People need to realize that > Dumbledore and Harry were put into the situation they were in because > of Voldemort. When Dumbledore found out about the horcruxes and > realized he didn't have much time left because of the injury caused > by the ring he destroyed, Nikkalmati And whose fault was that? Nikkalmati June . . he had to hurry to help Harry to learn what > he needed to know. There were things that happened I am sure that > Dumbledore didn't count on, like the curse in the ring that burned > his hand and gave him a short time to live. He knew before his > passing, I am sure, that Harry himself was a horcrux and he realized > that that meant Harry would have to die as well, Nikkalmati He could have sat Harry down and told him all he needed to know in a couple of sessions. I guess DD thought they would actually get the necklace Horcrux when he took Harry with him to the cave. Yes, he wanted Harry to see how it was done, but he didn't tell him why they were doing it. So strange. Nikkalmati June however he made sure > that Harry had a chance by giving the book, The Tales of Beedle The > Bard to Hermione, whom he knew would figure it out. The one who > possesses all three deathly hollows controls death (or something to > that effect). Dumbledore knew that if Harry could take possession of > all of them, he would be able to let Voldemort kill him to rid > himself of the horcrux within him and would survive. The stone was in > the snitch, the cloak he already owned because it was passed down > from his father (he was related to the third brother) and the wand he > took possession of when he disarmed Malfoy, who was the proper owner > at that point of the wand. Dumbledore made sure he did everything > possible to keep Harry alive and it worked. > Nikkalmati This is an interesting theory, but I am not sure how it would work. The one thing Harry concludes in DH is that DD did not intend for him to go after the Hallows. At the time Harry entered the Forent neither he, nor LV, nor the Wand knew he was the Master. DD explained to Harry in King's Cross that he intended for Snape to end up with the Wand, which would be given to him freely. Therefore, I con't see that DD intended for Harry to get the Hallows or that Harry was protected from death in that way. Too bad, that would have been a good ending. Nikkalmati From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 17 02:37:12 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivth7o+g40c@eGroups.com> References: <ivq0hf+v1ps@eGroups.com> <ivth7o+g40c@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310870232.95891.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190918 > Pippin: > <snip> But I do think we are supposed to see Dumbledore as acting for the common good, except for those occasions when he admits that he behaved selfishly. And I do think there were also occasions when > external forces kept Dumbledore from doing as he would have liked. > Nikkalmati: > <snip> I think we are meant to see that anyone who believes he > percieves the greater good and that it is his mission to direct other people toward achieving it is dangerous. Who is to say that this person has it right all the time? If knowledge is power and he does not share his knowledge, how can he avoid abusing his power? > JKR goes to some trouble to show us that DD has a past that has > been covered up. His own brother, who knows him well, does not approve of his methods. Even with his good intentions, I believe, > we have to conclude that DD is a flawed character. June: Dumbledore is a flawed character, that is true. Aren't we all? That does not make someone good or evil. Dumbledore is still one of the good guys, flaws and all. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 17 03:18:14 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 20:18:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivti01+eg9k@eGroups.com> References: <1310836786.43650.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <ivti01+eg9k@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310872694.51364.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190919 >> June: >> <snip> People need to realize that Dumbledore and Harry were put >> into the situation they were in because of Voldemort. When >> Dumbledore found out about the horcruxes and realized he didn't >> have much time left because of the injury caused by the ring he >> destroyed, > Nikkalmati: > And whose fault was that? June: Well, it was Voldemort's fault. He created horcruxes to live forever and the only way to destroy him, was to distroy the horcruxes. >> June: >> . . he had to hurry to help Harry to learn what he needed to >> know. There were things that happened I am sure that Dumbledore >> didn't count on, like the curse in the ring that burned his hand >> and gave him a short time to live. He knew before his passing, I >> am sure, that Harry himself was a horcrux and he realized that >> that meant Harry would have to die as well, > Nikkalmati: > He could have sat Harry down and told him all he needed to know > in a couple of sessions. I guess DD thought they would actually > get the necklace Horcrux when he took Harry with him to the cave. > Yes, he wanted Harry to see how it was done, but he didn't tell > him why they were doing it. So strange. June: Actually he did tell him why they were doing it. He told him that he was suspicious about the horcruxes when Harry destroyed the diary and had been looking for them and finally found one (the ring). And he told him there were 5 more out there and they had to find them and destroy them in order to destroy Voldemort. >> June: >> however he made sure that Harry had a chance by giving the book, >> The Tales of Beedle The Bard to Hermione, whom he knew would >> figure it out. The one who possesses all three deathly hollows >> controls death (or something to that effect). Dumbledore knew >> that if Harry could take possession of all of them, he would be >> able to let Voldemort kill him to rid himself of the horcrux >> within him and would survive. The stone was in the snitch, the >> cloak he already owned because it was passed down from his father >> (he was related to the third brother) and the wand he took >> possession of when he disarmed Malfoy, who was the proper owner >> at that point of the wand. Dumbledore made sure he did everything >> possible to keep Harry alive and it worked. > Nikkalmati: > This is an interesting theory, but I am not sure how it would work. > The one thing Harry concludes in DH is that DD did not intend for > him to go after the Hallows. At the time Harry entered the Forent > neither he, nor LV, nor the Wand knew he was the Master. DD > explained to Harry in King's Cross that he intended for Snape to > end up with the Wand, which would be given to him freely. > Therefore, I con't see that DD intended for Harry to get the > Hallows or that Harry was protected from death in that way. Too > bad, that would have been a good ending. June: That is the way it ended. I believe now that you mentioned it that Dumbledore did not mean for him to look for the DH (I will have to look it up because that is actually the book I remember the least) but he did (and Dumbledore would be a fool to not think that he would because Harry is curious that way). It may have been a bonus that Harry found them, however, you cannot argue that Harry already had the cloak and Dumbledore gave him the stone. The stone is what was in the snitch. Perhaps having two items would be enough to save him (especially if the wand was in the hands of someone on his side). Personally I don't know how Dumbledore could expect that Snape had possession of the wand when Malfoy had taken it from Dumbledore. Truth is that it was luck that Harry got the wand in his possession. If he wasn't at the Malfoy mannor, he would have had no reason to disarm Malfoy. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 05:18:03 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 05:18:03 -0000 Subject: Varying Views of Characters - The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly In-Reply-To: <4E21A6C9.9000404@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <ivtrab+j1ar@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190920 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart at ...> wrote: > > Steve: > > Harry was a soldier, Harry had a duty, part of the duty was to die at the right time; he did his duty like countless other soldiers that have been marched to their own death. > > > > As for Dumbledore sending him, that is the duty of a General, to send good men to their death, if it advances the cause of victory. > > Bart: > Except for one little detail: Harry lived. And, at KC, we see > that Dumbledore was as sure as he could get of such things that > Harry WOULD live. That's a point I've been making continually in > this conversation: paradoxically, the only way for Harry to > survive was for him to believe he was sacrificing himself. > > Bart > Steve replies: I don't disagree with you, but I fear I may have gotten so long winded that I obscured my own point. Some people were complaining that discussions were painting Dumbledore as a least a bad person, if not an evil person. But, I don't think those discussions are attempts by anyone to define Dumbledore in his totality. They are discussing one aspect of Dumbledore, and just because someone is discussing aspect they feel reflect badly on Dumbledore, does not mean they regard Dumbledore as bad in his totality. Yes, Dumbledore did terrible things, he was forced to make decisions that we would dearly hope that we never have to make in our lifetime. But, for better or worse, those were decisions Dumbledore had to make. These dark decision are part of the responsibility of leadership. Old men send young men to die; that's why the call it War. Keep in mind, we have discussed very minute aspect of these stories in unbelievable detail. Go back a few years and read some of the post, and you will see that detail. After you've cover the obvious aspect in deep detail, you start looking at and discussing some of the less obvious aspect, like dark and terrible things Dumbledore was forced to do, such as sending Harry to his death, or seeming death. But, because that was pointed out and discussed, does not mean that discussion completely defined Dumbledore. We are sufficiently versed in Potterlore to see that all characters are multi-faceted people, each faced with no easy choices. I fear I may have again rambled on too long, but the point is, just because we fall into a discussion of one aspect of a character, doesn't mean we see that character as that one single aspect. Steve/bboyminn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 13:50:57 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:50:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310836786.43650.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivupc1+8sau@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: > The one who possesses all three deathly hollows controls death > (or something to that effect). Dumbledore knew that if Harry > could take possession of all of them, he would be able to let > Voldemort kill him to rid himself of the horcrux within him > and would survive. zanooda: Harry survived because he shared the blood with LV, didn't he? The blood with Lily's protection allowed him to return... That was the reason for his survival, not the Hallows. I thought all this "being the master of death" stuff was just a legend. DD told Harry in the limbo that the Hallows were just powerful magic objects, nothing more... :-). From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 17 16:55:25 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 17 Jul 2011 16:55:25 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/17/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1310921725.529.51617.m16@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190922 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 17, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20110717/88fca21d/attachment.html> From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 17 17:03:01 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:03:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivsq47+no88@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivv4k5+hk9f@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190923 Alla: > Posting from Blackberry, am going to delete the whole post I am responding to for that reason, it is either that or top post. > > Why Dumbledore use commanding language in that situation? Frankly besides JKR wanting to impress upon us how much more serious the situation is than usual I have no idea. It is not like Harry disobeys him when he uses gentler turn of phrase. By the way I totally agree that Harry questions Dumbledore'sjudgment all the time and does not obey him all the time when he is younger. I said that Dumbledore trained him that eventually Harry obeys him in everything no matter which words he used. Pippin: There's a name for theories that have to be supported by saying that JKR should have written the books differently. It's AU. What gets frustrating for me is if a theory repeatedly veers into AU territory without the poster realizing it. As you say, every bit of ESE!Lupin theory had canon support, and believe me, my books were dotted with post-its for every bit and it was a sad moment for me when I pulled them all out. ::Sigh:: Canon fact is, the books do distinguish, plainly and unmistakably, between Dumbledore giving Harry information and Dumbledore giving Harry orders. In fact, HBP begins with Dumbledore telling Harry that he has come to the limits of his knowledge and everything he tells Harry henceforward is open to doubt and question. It isn't only younger Harry who often disobeys or ignores Dumbledore's instructions, for example forgetting about getting Slughorn's memories, or all the Hogwarts rules which Harry breaks, sometimes just for the fun of it. I don't remember Dumbledore instructing Harry that it was okay to use a toenail growing hex or pass off the Half-blood Prince's work as his own. The oath at the end of HBP marks a change in their relationship, from teacher and pupil to captain and soldier. I agree that it's necessary because what Harry and Dumbledore are about to attempt is more dangerous than anything Harry has tried to do with Dumbledore's knowledge. This is not a training exercise or a sporting event on the Hogwarts grounds: they are setting out to steal a treasure protected by the most murderous dark wizard who ever existed. Dumbledore is not going to have time to argue or explain, and he can't explain in advance because he has no idea what sort of magic they are going to encounter. But it was Harry's choice to maintain that relationship after Dumbledore had died. Harry's reasons for doing that are complicated, IMO. Just as with his father and Sirius, Harry doesn't want to have to believe that Dumbledore ever did anything seriously wrong or made any really bad mistakes -- except for trusting Snape, of course -- and that prevents him from seeing that he is repeating some of Dumbledore's mistakes himself. But Harry didn't think Dumbledore was incapable of making mistakes when Dumbledore was alive. It's partly Harry's own fear of death that is at work, I think. He wants to divide those who have died into innocent victims and villains -- there's no room in there for people whose mistakes contributed to a death which, nonetheless, they did not deserve. Because if that could happen to the people that Harry admires most, then it could happen to Harry, and Harry isn't ready to face that. IIRC, JKR does something with Dumbledore and Harry that she doesn't do with Harry and the other characters -- they don't have any summarized conversations or interactions off the page. She's concerned, in other words, that we know exactly, word for word, everything that Dumbledore said to him. That makes every word significant. Certainly I agree that Dumbledore was attempting to form Harry's character as well as impart information and skills. But that's not a bad thing, IMO. That is what education is supposed to do, not only give us knowledge but a moral and philosophical framework for using it. Dumbledore does want Harry to believe that one person can make a difference. And I think JKR wants to show us that, not just because the genre demands it, but because it's what she believes. She could have chosen a different genre, after all. The books show not only that one person can make a difference but why, sometimes, one person has to. The WW is a society that has forgotten how to trust, so much that what sounds like the blandest platitudes to us --"we are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided"-- is treated as radical nonsense by most of the WW. What Harry did by walking into the forest was help to restore that trust, by showing that one person could treat every life as if it was worth the same and every life was worth dying for. It is interesting that we all have different theories about exactly what it was that enabled Harry to survive the Forest AK. According to JKR's website, that is intentional. She did not want it to be 'scientific' -- which means it couldn't be scientific for Dumbledore either. He only had theoretical knowledge of how a living horcrux might be destroyed without killing its container, and could not tell whether possessing two of the Hallows, sharing blood with Voldemort, or something unquantifiable about Harry himself might enable Harry to survive. But he had to hope it would be so. He did not want Harry to make a hot-headed, rash decision about the hallows, or about destroying the horcrux in himself, before Harry fully understood what his choices were. But he was hampered because Harry did not want choices, he wanted certainties, even if the certainty was death. We could ask whether Dumbledore would have wanted Harry to destroy himself to get rid of the horcrux if that was the only way. Dumbledore's triumph, IMO, was in refusing to believe it could be the only way, even in that interval between the destruction of the philosopher's stone and Voldemort's re-embodiment with Harry's blood, when it must have seemed that keeping Harry alive was going to be a losing battle. Pippin who has just realized that 'horcrux' is 'chi rho' backwards, partially latinized and transposed From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 17:47:13 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:47:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore - Better Late than Never In-Reply-To: <ivj8nt+98bm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivv772+106hm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" <happyjoeysmiley at ...> wrote: > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > DD was a man with some very distictive weaknesses. He believed in himself, but not anyone else. Did he really think Harry or McGonagall or Snape would run off and make a Horcrux if he told them what LV had done? > > Joey: > > LOL. Yeah, he could have certainly shared it with McGonagall, Snape and even Moody. I think trusting none was a huge flaw in him. ... > > Yet I think he couldn't bring himself to tell Harry and, it was better for Harry that way, I think. Harry was not 17 yet when DD was dying. Telling him earlier would have made his existence miserable. This way, he had to endure only a few hours of agony. > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > He was happy when things turned out so Harry could come back, but he did not plan it that way. > > Joey: > > Agreed. Though his plan did change course since GoF climax. > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > I think he would have chosen to die, if he thought he could save the WW that way. DD could just have told him. > > Joey: > > I think what DD should have told him was about the Hallows instead of leaving Hermione to break her head over the kids story book. I don't understand how it will stop being a quest just because he told Harry that the story of Deathly Hallows is true, that such objects do exist and that Harry already has one. > > And why in the world didn't he *tell* Harry that the sword of Gryffindor will help him out? > > Cheers, > ~Joey :-) > Steve re-replies: This message was posted, or I tried to post, a couple of days ago, but Yahoomort couldn't or wouldn't sent it through. So, I'm re-posting, though a bit late - Steve replies: I have to wonder how many people in the group have any direct Military experience? Do you really think every, or for that matter any, soldier has any idea what is going on? No, they don't; the best they get is 'go here', 'do this', 'take that hill', no explanation, nor sense of the greater plan or objectives, just do what you are told and don't ask questions. The theory is, the less you know, the less you can reveal. I concede as much as I understand that attitude, I think it is detrimental to the final objective, but it is none the less military reality. Generals are moving toys around on the map, and real soldiers are dying in the fields no knowing why. Dumbledore knew his death would come soon, but he didn't necessarily know it would come that night. Also, how many sessions did he and Harry actually have during the school year? Most of the time Dumbledore was gone seeking new information and confirmation of his theories. He and Harry actually had very few sessions together, and most of them involved Dumbledore trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. It seems reasonably that there was a lot more he intended to tell Harry, but never got the chance. Though I have always said, that the lessons you learn best are the ones you teach yourself, and the revelations is a much better teacher than explanation. I believe, within limits, this was also Dumbledore's philosophy. But, not his exclusive philosophy, he had things he wanted to simply tell Harry,and he told him some of those things in a way that allowed Harry to realize them for himself, rather than simply being told by Dumbledore. The mark of a good teacher in my book. But as time grew short, I expect there would not be time for such a luxury, at some point, I assume Dumbledore would have started to lay things out in detail. During those sessions information would have come in volumes. But he never got the chance. Dumbledore knew he was dying, he also knew that Draco had been charged with the task of killing him, but he didn't necessarily know that Draco had the will or the skill to accomplish the task. Certainly in his lifetime, far greater wizards than Draco had tried to kill Dumbledore but failed. So, while Draco was a risk, and a risk that was going to come to the forefront very very soon, I don't think he saw Draco as much of a threat. He didn't see Draco's attempts as his own imminent death, at least, not at the hand of Draco. So, Dumbledore's death on that particular night was pre-mature; inevitable, but none the less pre-mature. If Dumbledore quit beating around the bush with Harry, and knowing at best they had two or three sessions more together, I suspect, as I said, the information would have come in volumes. Specifically what those volumes of information would have included is unclear, and whether Dumbledore would have come across with Full Disclosure is unclear, thought I doubt Dumbledore would have truly told Harry everything, nearly everything - Yes, but literally everything - no, I don't think so. He would have left bits of it for Harry to discover on his own. Again, it is the power of Revelation over explanation again. So, at the start of that night, Dumbledore did NOT see that as their last night together. He saw more, though few, night and opportunities ahead. Sadly fate had other ideas. Lastly, while we can analyze actions and motivations within this world, occasionally we have to step outside the world and realize that it is a story, things are not suppose to go smoothly. Harry is suppose to struggle, the needed knowledge is suppose to be a mystery. Dumbledore, from the perspective of the writer and the read, was not suppose to tell Harry everything because that kills dramatic tension. The hero is the hero because he wins against all odds, meaning, for the story to be exciting, the author has to stack the odds against the hero. Further that means that critical information and knowledge can't be conveyed in advance; the Hero has to discover it on his own. So, within the world, fate dealt a cruel twist in Dumbledore's premature death. He had knowledge he was unable to convey, though likely would have if he had gotten the chance. Inside the world, things did not go as planned; outside the world, things went exactly as planned and needed for a captivating story. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From ki4tia at comcast.net Sun Jul 17 17:22:18 2011 From: ki4tia at comcast.net (Stephanie) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:22:18 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? Message-ID: <ivv5oa+ss96@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190926 Just wondering, if Dumbledore's plan worked. Snaped disarmed him and killed him becoming the owner(?) of the Elder wand. Did Dumbledore tell Snape about the elder wand which he wanted him to have once he was dead? Stephanie From paganpages at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 15:25:52 2011 From: paganpages at gmail.com (Pagan Pages) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:25:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310870232.95891.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <ivq0hf+v1ps@eGroups.com> <ivth7o+g40c@eGroups.com> <1310870232.95891.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <CAJF7hmfFOPho_UVEe90t3tiy0D3p4rpPSZ9KMxHg3MnwD=Phdw@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190927 <snip>June: Dumbledore is a flawed character, that is true. Aren't we all? That does not make someone good or evil. Dumbledore is still one of the good guys, flaws and all. Jenn says: I think he did what he had to do for the greater good, so it seems bad to one person, but to the multitude of others it was good. Much Love, Jenn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ingridbirgitta at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 09:29:27 2011 From: ingridbirgitta at gmail.com (Birgitta Karlsson) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 11:29:27 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivt09j+e3hk@eGroups.com> References: <ivt09j+e3hk@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E22AB77.2000509@googlemail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190928 Geoff wrote: > Ron, who immediately instils into him a suspicion > of Slytherins which leads to what I feel was the disastrous meeting > between him and Draco. > > What disastrous meeting are you refering to? Harry and Draco first met at Madame Malkin, before Harry had met Ron, and it was Draco's own behaviour that made Harry not like him. Then Hagrid says the line about all bad wizards have been in Slytherin. The only thing Ron says about Slytherin in the train before Draco shows up is something about not wanting to be in Slytherin. Birgitta From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 20:05:55 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:05:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <ivvbcg+ktbu@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivvfb3+8tle@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190929 DELETED AND REPOSTED TO TAKE OUT EXTRA QUOTES AND ADD FEW SENTENCES .> Pippin: > There's a name for theories that have to be supported by saying that JKR should have written the books differently. It's AU. What gets frustrating for me is if a theory repeatedly veers into AU territory without the poster realizing it. As you say, every bit of ESE!Lupin theory had canon support, and believe me, my books were dotted with post-its for every bit and it was a sad moment for me when I pulled them all out. ::Sigh:: Alla: Yes of course, that is what AU is, but no, I do not feel that my views of Dumbledore are AU. And neither am I saying that JKR SHOULD have written the books differently, it is more like I am saying that JKR's off page characterization of Dumbledore is not something I see in canon. I am not saying that JKR should have written different books, I am saying that sometimes her intent does not come through for me in the book she wrote. There is a big difference IMO, even if I will say that different Dumbledore would have worked better for me. I am quite happy with Dumbledore I see, somebody who feels like not just Grey character, but VERY grey character. I disagree about Dumbledore being mostly good character, that is very true, but I am not upset or anything with Dumbledore that I DO see in canon. It does not stop me from wishing for Lighter!Dumbledore of course, but not because I am unhappy with what she wrote, call it a reminder from the times, when I was actually sad knowing that I am reading Dumbledore against writer's intent. Actually I do not even have a theory about Dumbledore. I just see his canon actions in different light than what JKR seems to want to show. I would not even call him ESE!Dumbledore, just somebody who is ready and willing to manipulate everybody to achieve his goals. I am not making up what he did, I just do not see "epithome of goodness" as JKR and you do, thats all. Fact: Dumbledore wanted wizards dominate over muggles and muggleborns, which is exactly what Voldemort wanted to do. Even if those views were in WW way before Dumbledore came along surely it is not a great stretch of imagination to think that Voldemort took at least SOME example in Dumbledore and Grindelwald "early years"? Fact: Dumbledore decided he does not want to implement those ideas, that he is remorseful over it. Fact - or at least we have not seen anything to the contrary in canon, Dumbledore KNOWS that Tom Riddle is Lord Voldemort but does not tell anybody. I do not care that Tom Riddle had a perfect reputation before he dissappeared. Fact is voldemort is a magical mystery to everybody, somebody who is supposedly so unknown to WW that he cannot be defeated. Known evil is a lesser evil, thats just common sense to me and Dumbledore does not tell anybody that Tom Riddle is a pitiful human who has sociopathic tendencies, but not the mysterious creature, who undergone those transformations? Thats not what epithome of goodness does as far as I am concerned. So, my interpetation of it is not AU, because what I am interpreting happened in canon. Fact: Dumbledore disregarded the wishes of Lily and James that in case of their death Harry would be brought up with Sirius and took him to Dursleys. Actually he "commanded" Hagrid to do so, did he use the nice language there by the way? I do not remember, but I doubt it. Dumbledore claims that he wanted Harry to be proteced by blood protection because Petunia is Lily's sister. Could it be so? I had been saying for years that I wished JKR would have actually shown it to us in order for me to feel better about it. But even if protection is there, maybe JKR feels it is okay to have a life full of abuse and neglect on the off topic chance that when deatheaters come Harry will survive it. I don't. I interpret Dumbledore giving Harry to Dursleys and never once interfering to stop the abuse as the actions of VERY dark and quite disgusting character. Thats not AU Pippin, thats different look on what happened in canon. Once Dumbledore took a baby from somebody who was supposed to care for him, I think Dumbledore owed him a duty of care. Thats fine, if JKR sees it differently, but what she put on paper formed quite dark and sinister view of Dumbledore in my mind. But of course the best comes in book seven. JKR spells it out for us that Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry has to die. Could he want for Harry to live? Sure I see that it is possible, even if I disagree with it. It would be great though if she spelled it out at least in Dumbledore's last speech. Something like, I don't know - I NEVER WANTED you to die, I was hoping that my plan of you surviving will work. I can see how it could have been her intent, what I do not see is how it made clear in the book. Magic of sacrifice worked, I just doubt that Dumbledore had much to do with it. Pippin: > Canon fact is, the books do distinguish, plainly and unmistakably, between Dumbledore giving Harry information and Dumbledore giving Harry orders. Alla: Indeed. But where I did say that it did not?.Of course there are times when Dumbledore gives Harry's information and not orders. Dumbledore gave Harry plenty of information through the books which were not orders. What I am saying, what I was saying originally is disagreeing with your argument that when Dumbledore was "asking" Harry not to share the information about Horcruxes with *anybody* but Ron and Hermione, that it was anything but the command. To me, it was extremely clear command, no matter what language Dumbledore used. . Pippin: <Snip> > But it was Harry's choice to maintain that relationship after Dumbledore had died. Harry's reasons for doing that are complicated, IMO. Just as with his father and Sirius, Harry doesn't want to have to believe that Dumbledore ever did anything seriously wrong or made any really bad mistakes -- except for trusting Snape, of course -- and that prevents him from seeing that he is repeating some of Dumbledore's mistakes himself. Alla: But of course it was Harry's "choice". After all Dumbledore is a brainless and soulless portrait now. Dumbledore's brainwashing Harry paid off really well. Have I mentioned how much more I loved the scene with Elder wand in the Movie? To me movie makers were kind enough to "clean up" this part of the ending which I cannot stand and had I not wanted to avoid some movie contamination, I would have happily agreed to remember this scene rather than the book one. To me Movie!Harry becomes his own man and Canon!Harry I have to imagine so. .Pippin: > Certainly I agree that Dumbledore was attempting to form Harry's character as well as impart information and skills. But that's not a bad thing, IMO. That is what education is supposed to do, not only give us knowledge but a moral and philosophical framework for using it. Alla: Only IMO the education that stops you from questioning with critical eye what you had been told could be extremely dangerous education and character's forming is all good to a degree IMO. Pippin: > Dumbledore does want Harry to believe that one person can make a difference. And I think JKR wants to show us that, not just because the genre demands it, but because it's what she believes. She could have chosen a different genre, after all. The books show not only that one person can make a difference but why, sometimes, one person has to. Alla: Certainly one person can make a difference in many ways, good or bad, but one person saving the world? Well, I personally am aware of *one* religious figure doing that (I mean we have other religious figures too). It is all in the degree for me. But again, since I have a very clear picture in my mind of what JKR wanted to accomplish with that ending, I really do not mind it. It is how she made Harry to get there and the damage which I think was inflicted upon him by Dumbledore is what makes me sad. Let me say it very strongly, I am not opposed to the ending of the story as Harry reminding us of Christ. Only again, before Harry saw the memories, he was fighting to survive, he had no plans of doing that. And as soon as he sees Dumbledore saying it, his brain snaps in obedience and voula, now it all makes sense for him. Pippin: > The WW is a society that has forgotten how to trust, so much that what sounds like the blandest platitudes to us --"we are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided"-- is treated as radical nonsense by most of the WW. What Harry did by walking into the forest was help to restore that trust, by showing that one person could treat every life as if it was worth the same and every life was worth dying for. Alla: Well, again, the ending has for me very strong religious parallels, but thats fine by me. Pippin; > He did not want Harry to make a hot-headed, rash decision about the hallows, or about destroying the horcrux in himself, before Harry fully understood what his choices were. But he was hampered because Harry did not want choices, he wanted certainties, even if the certainty was death. Alla: He made Harry's choices for him though IMO. Didn't he say I wanted to slow you down?! I find that horrifying and indefensible personally. As you said, it is not a training exercise no more, it is war. Instead of allowing him to proceed more efficiently, he sends kids on Hallows chase. Again, JKR may have seen it as a teaching exercise or something, which is perfectly acceptable, I dont. I see a man, who again is so enarmored with his own ego and cleverness, that he deemed it okay to teach Harry more lessons from the grave, no matter how inaccetable timing was IMO. Pippin: > We could ask whether Dumbledore would have wanted Harry to destroy himself to get rid of the horcrux if that was the only way. Dumbledore's triumph, IMO, was in refusing to believe it could be the only way, even in that interval between the destruction of the philosopher's stone and Voldemort's re-embodiment with Harry's blood, when it must have seemed that keeping Harry alive was going to be a losing battle. Alla: All I wanted is a little more clarity that he really tried to keep Harry survive. The fact that Harry survived just does not cut it, because ancient magic does not need Dumbledore's help to work, doesn't it? JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 20:22:03 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:22:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and triwizard tournament WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivr0ap+jrkb@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivvg9b+jvkl@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190930 .> > > > Alla: > > > > Confused again. Granted I have not reread GoF for quite some time, but are you saying that in the book nobody is suggesting that Harry should be withdrawn? In other words, I am just not sure which part is movie contamination. > > > > Pat: > > You are correct, in the book neither Karkaroff or Madame Maxime suggest that Harry's name should be withdrawn. (They both instead demand that their schools should be allowed another contestant also.) McGonagall wants DD to do something, she is obviously quite anxious with the thought that Harry should be forced to be a part of things. But DD reminds her that it is a binding contract. > > As for your comment that because it was Crouch!Moody that put Harry's name into the GOF, he shouldn't have been held to it - well, all I can say is that it wasn't the Goblet's job to determine if the person putting the name in was actually the person whose name was written on the paper. The Goblet's job was to choose one entrant from each school (Crouch!Moody admits at the end that he confunded the Goblet into believing there was a fourth school). > > Obviously JKR puts these restrictions on the Goblet and on DD so that the story can continue and things will work out the way they do. She has a plan for her story and we just have to sit tight and let things unfold. Sorry that you can't enjoy the ride! > Alla: Okay, yes I looked it up, it was movie contamination on my behalf that everybody asks him to, sorry about that. Of course McGonagall still wants him to do something and that was my point that he is being asked, but yeah that was movie contamination. My point was not though that since it was Crouch!Moody who put name in, Harry should not have been accountable. My point was that maybe (of course I do not know for sure) since there was false play and everybody suspected it, Dumbledore should have tried to dissolve it. Would it have worked? We do not know, my point is he did not try. Maybe if he tried, he would have discovered that the contract would not stand *because* of false play, but he did not, so we will never know. Potioncat: Excuse me for being blunt, but you are thinking like a Muggle. Magical Contracts are not the same as Muggle contracts. We know for example, that House Elves must work for their Wizard families unless freed(sacked) by the gift of clothing. It doesn't matter that the "gift" was unintended or even that the wizard didn't know clothing was involved. Lucius Malfoy accidentally freed Dobby when Harry put his own sock in the diary. Very similar to what happened with the Goblet of Fire. Alla: Right, of course I was comparing it to Muggle contracts, but again we do not know how magical contracts work, right? I mean the contracts which are not really contracts, whether magic will consider them invalid, etc. He did not try, so we do not know. And great example, Lucius Malfoy did not intent to free Dobby from the contract. So maybe by accident (false play) the contract could have been dissolved? Of course we do not know if it is true or not. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 17 20:44:27 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:44:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <4E22AB77.2000509@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <ivvhjb+nsr9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Birgitta Karlsson <ingridbirgitta at ...> wrote: Geoff: > > Ron, who immediately instils into him a suspicion > > of Slytherins which leads to what I feel was the disastrous meeting > > between him and Draco. Birgitta: > What disastrous meeting are you refering to? > Harry and Draco first met at Madame Malkin, before Harry had met Ron, > and it was Draco's own behaviour that made Harry not like him. Then > Hagrid says the line about all bad wizards have been in Slytherin. The > only thing Ron says about Slytherin in the train before Draco shows up > is something about not wanting to be in Slytherin. Geoff: Draco obviously wanted to show off at Madam Malkins and also on the train. But it is feasible that the two of them could possibly have got to know each other at least a little better if Harry's views had not already been coloured against Slytherin. Harry is eleven; he is a new member of a strange world; he is impressionable. Any child of eleven is. Most children of eleven will want to gravitate towards someone they can identify with when in a new situation. Hagrid is almost a father figure at that point in time. He has "rescued" Harry from Privet Drive, taken him around Diagon Alley, and talks about his parents. So he is someone whose information is to be valued. Ron is the same age and is willing to be friendly so Harry is also taking in all that Ron has to tell him and also subconsciously absorbing information which could be biased. Just remember Ron's reaction on first meeting Hermione. It was a long time before the founding of the Trio. So why disastrous? Because even at these initial meetings, the foundations are laid for what became a long running dislike and feud between the two which was to waste time, lead to attempts to harm each other, even cloud their judgements. I believe that Draco was lonely. He is an only child and Crabbe and Goyle were poor company for him; he is intelligent and resourceful and also brainwashed to an extent by his father. Who knows what might have happened if at least some sort of truce had existed between them? There was evidence later in the books that there it could have happened if Draco had had time to react to Dumbledore's offer. Narcissa probably saved Harry's life and Draco was in turn saved by Harry. OK, OK, I know it would have demolished the plot. Our characters have to do what they do because the author said so. But a little AU (Alternate Universe) speculation can be fun sometimes. It might have got rid of the epilogue <vbg>. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 17 21:42:04 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivupc1+8sau@eGroups.com> References: <1310836786.43650.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <ivupc1+8sau@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310938924.62545.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190932 zanooda: Harry survived because he shared the blood with LV, didn't he? The blood with Lily's protection allowed him to return... That was the reason for his survival, not the Hallows. I thought all this "being the master of death" stuff was just a legend. DD told Harry in the limbo that the Hallows were just powerful magic objects, nothing more... :-). June Thinking back, you may be right (I am re reading all the books and haven't gotten to this one yet), however, that just further proves my point that Dumbledore wasn't deliberately setting Harry up to die. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 17 22:42:40 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:42:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310836786.43650.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <ivvoh0+1f86@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: > > > >> June: > >> I think some people need to re read and understand the books. > >> Dumbledore was not evil, he was one of the good guys. > > > Pippin: > > I think one of the ideas JKR is exploring is that in fiction we > expect to find "good guys" while in real life there are no people > who are always going to do the right thing except when some > > external force prevents them. > > > But I do think we are supposed to see Dumbledore as acting for > the common good, except for those occasions when he admits that he > behaved selfishly. And I do think there were also occasions when > > external forces kept Dumbledore from doing as he would have liked. > > > June: > Exactly, Pippin. I think she wanted us to realize that Dumbledore, > like all of us, was human and humans aren't perfect. Dumbledore I > believe knew from the beginning that Harry may have to be sacrificed > (after all he did have knowledge of the prophecy) and he wanted to > prepare Harry for whatever was to come. People need to realize that > Dumbledore and Harry were put into the situation they were in > because of Voldemort. Steve responds: This is a very complex plot aspect, and one that is not static, it is every changed as the plots of many books go on. I think Dumbledore suspected that a part of Voldemort might be in Harry, but what that meant and where that would take them was unclear. At the early stage, I'm sure his thoughts we focused on, IF this is true, then how can I undo it? But I think there came a moment of high and grand revelation for Dumbledore, and that moment has come to be referred to as the "Gleam" or the "Gleam of Triumph" in Dumbledore's eye near the end of Goblet of Fire, when Dumbledore realizes that Voldemort has made the mistake of using Harry's blood in his rebirth. In that moment, Voldemort made himself a Horcrux for Harry. So, yes, in that moment, a Gleam of Triumph, followed by the terrible weight of realizing just what this means. I don't think that up until that moment did Dumbledore believe that Harry would have to sacrifice himself to Voldemort. Certainly, Harry was in danger of dying, and certainly the Harry-Horcrux was an aspect that would have to be dealt with. But in that one great and terrible moment, Dumbledore finally sees the path clearly; and it is a dark and terrible path indeed. Steve/bboyminn From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 18 01:59:30 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:59:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore - Better Late than Never In-Reply-To: <ivv772+106hm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j00422+tvav@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190934 > > > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > > > DD was a man with some very distictive weaknesses. He believed in himself, but not anyone else. Did he really think Harry or McGonagall or Snape would run off and make a Horcrux if he told them what LV had done? > > > > Joey: > > > > LOL. Yeah, he could have certainly shared it with McGonagall, Snape and even Moody. I think trusting none was a huge flaw in him. ... > > > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > > > I think he would have chosen to die, if he thought he could save the WW that way. DD could just have told him. > > > > > Steve replies: > > I have to wonder how many people in the group have any direct Military experience? Do you really think every, or for that matter any, soldier has any idea what is going on? No, they don't; the best they get is 'go here', 'do this', 'take that hill', no explanation, nor sense of the greater plan or objectives, just do what you are told and don't ask questions. > > The theory is, the less you know, the less you can reveal. I concede as much as I understand that attitude, I think it is detrimental to the final objective, but it is none the less military reality. > > Generals are moving toys around on the map, and real soldiers are dying in the fields no knowing why. Nikkalmati Yes, and even though Harry knew he had been "drafted" so to speak, a soldier does not expect that he is going out on manuvers but the General know the enemy is coming over the hill and all the soldiers will be massacred. I understand if you are headed out for Normandy beach, maybe the plan wasn't the best and some will be drowned before they reach the beach and some will be killed trying to achieve the impossible, but that if the army wins, their sacrifice was necessary and second guessing is irrelevant. That is different from the Biblical story where David orders Josiah to lead Uriah to the head of the army and then retreat leaving him there? (Of course, David wanted Uriah dead and DD did not want Harry dead, he just saaw it as necessary, but the situation is the same). Telling Harry he would not come back would have been better IMHO than letting him think he was preparing to fight LV. Nikkalmati (admittedly never been there) > Dumbledore knew his death would come soon, but he didn't necessarily know it would come that night. Also, how many sessions did he and Harry actually have during the school year? Most of the time Dumbledore was gone seeking new information and confirmation of his theories. He and Harry actually had very few sessions together, and most of them involved Dumbledore trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. It seems reasonably that there was a lot more he intended to tell Harry, but never got the chance. Nikkalmati DD had complete control over how many sessions he had with Harry. Snape told him he might have a year and by the time DD dies that year is almost up. He has very little time left whether he died that night or not. Why did he call for Snape when he got to Hogsmeade? DD know the potion would kill him otherwise. He could have died at any time. Much of the information DD collected must have been done years before Harry even came to school. He had been preparing all that time. I don't think he failed to tell Harry anything he planned to tell him. Remember the will and the gifts he left were designed to drag things out. Nikkalmati > > Though I have always said, that the lessons you learn best are the ones you teach yourself, and the revelations is a much better teacher than explanation. I believe, within limits, this was also Dumbledore's philosophy. But, not his exclusive philosophy, he had things he wanted to simply tell Harry,and he told him some of those things in a way that allowed Harry to realize them for himself, rather than simply being told by Dumbledore. The mark of a good teacher in my book. > > But as time grew short, I expect there would not be time for such a luxury, at some point, I assume Dumbledore would have started to lay things out in detail. During those sessions information would have come in volumes. But he never got the chance. Nikkalmati Why wait so long, if that was what he intended? Why not leave a message just in case? This is not an academic experiment, but life and death for thousands of people. Nikkalmati > > Dumbledore knew he was dying, he also knew that Draco had been charged with the task of killing him, but he didn't necessarily know that Draco had the will or the skill to accomplish the task. Certainly in his lifetime, far greater wizards than Draco had tried to kill Dumbledore but failed. So, while Draco was a risk, and a risk that was going to come to the forefront very very soon, I don't think he saw Draco as much of a threat. He didn't see Draco's attempts as his own imminent death, at least, not at the hand of Draco. Nikkalmati I agree, but it was the green potion that weakened DD so much he could not defend himself. I doubt he would have told Harry anything more. At King's Cross he as much as confesses he intentionally withheld the truth. JKR is at pains to introduce us to Aberforth who explains his brother's secretive nature. It is all there in the books. Nikkalmati > >snip> > Lastly, while we can analyze actions and motivations within this world, occasionally we have to step outside the world and realize that it is a story, things are not suppose to go smoothly. Harry is suppose to struggle, the needed knowledge is suppose to be a mystery. Dumbledore, from the perspective of the writer and the read, was not suppose to tell Harry everything because that kills dramatic tension. > Nikkalmati Yes, but the author has to make it believable and make everything fit. The only way the story works is if DD through his own weakness and errors does not behave the way a leader should behave and sets up the senario we see, which doesn't work very well and creates tension for the reader because things are going out of control. Nikkalmati <snip> From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 18 02:26:10 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:26:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310872694.51364.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j005k2+6c9r@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: > > >> June: > >> <snip> People need to realize that Dumbledore and Harry were put > >> into the situation they were in because of Voldemort. When > >> Dumbledore found out about the horcruxes and realized he didn't > >> have much time left because of the injury caused by the ring he > >> destroyed, > > > Nikkalmati: > > And whose fault was that? > > June: > Well, it was Voldemort's fault. He created horcruxes to live forever > and the only way to destroy him, was to distroy the horcruxes. > Nikkalmati I meant that DD didn't get injured trying to destroy the ring. He put it on in order to use it. "I lost my head , Harry. I quite forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry a curse. I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I imagined that I was about to see Ariana, . . ." DH at 719 US hardback. <snip> <snip> The stone was in the snitch, the > >> cloak he already owned because it was passed down from his father > >> (he was related to the third brother) and the wand he took > >> possession of when he disarmed Malfoy, who was the proper owner > >> at that point of the wand. Dumbledore made sure he did everything > >> possible to keep Harry alive and it worked. > Nikkalmati Harry did not get the Elder Wand from Malfoy. It was buried with DD and retrieved by LV. Harry got it by disarming LV in the Great Hall of Hogwarts. DH at 743. Nikkalmati > > June: > Personally I don't know how Dumbledore could expect that Snape had > possession of the wand when Malfoy had taken it from Dumbledore. > Truth is that it was luck that Harry got the wand in his possession. > If he wasn't at the Malfoy mannor, he would have had no reason to > disarm Malfoy. > Nikkalmati I don't understand this either, except that things did not work out the way DD originally planned. It was his idea that Snape would kill him and take his wand, which would lose its power because it had been given up voluntarily. I guess he did not know LV was trying to get a new wand and was tracing the Elder Wand right back to DD. nikkalmati From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 17 22:31:09 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore and triwizard tournament WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivvg9b+jvkl@eGroups.com> References: <ivr0ap+jrkb@eGroups.com> <ivvg9b+jvkl@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310941869.31669.YahooMailNeo@web113902.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190936 Alla: Right, of course I was comparing it to Muggle contracts, but again we do not know how magical contracts work, right? I mean the contracts which are not really contracts, whether magic will consider them invalid, etc. He did not try, so we do not know. And great example, Lucius Malfoy did not intent to free Dobby from the contract. So maybe by accident (false play) the contract could have been dissolved? Of course we do not know if it is true or not. June: Personally if I were in Dumbledore's place to be safe, I would have done what he did and told them it is a magical contract, he cannot get out of it however, later when I was on my own, I would have looked into finding a way to get him out of it and only said any thing to everyone if I was able to find a loop hole. It is better than getting everyone's hope up (including and especially Harry's) then having to let them down later. Have you ever considered what does go on behind the scenes? Maybe Dumbledore did try to get him out without success or maybe, just maybe Dumbledore having possession of the Goblet knows a bit more about it than anyone else. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 18 02:59:39 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 02:59:39 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <ivv5oa+ss96@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j007ir+69bc@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" <ki4tia at ...> wrote: > > Just wondering, if Dumbledore's plan worked. Snaped disarmed him and killed him becoming the owner(?) of the Elder wand. Did Dumbledore tell Snape about the elder wand which he wanted him to have once he was dead? > > Stephanie > Nikkalmati DD had a very narrow need to know view of things. It would have been unfair not to tell Snape, because on re reading Kings Cross chapter it is clear DD know LV was trying to get the Elder Wand and DD could easily have foreseen what happened to Snape was probably going to happen. I am not confident DD would have told him, however. I also am not sure the wand would have been forever rendered powerless just because DD passed it on voluntarily. After all, Grindenwald stole it so he did not take it by defeating the prior owner. Nikkalmati From bart at moosewise.com Mon Jul 18 04:20:27 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:20:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <ivvbcg+ktbu@eGroups.com> References: <ivvbcg+ktbu@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E23B48B.7050300@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190938 Alla: > Fact - or at least we have not seen anything to the contrary in canon, > Dumbledore KNOWS that Tom Riddle is Lord Voldemort but does not tell > anybody. I do not care that Tom Riddle had a perfect reputation before > he dissappeared. Fact is voldemort is a magical mystery to everybody, > somebody who is supposedly so unknown to WW that he cannot be > defeated. Known evil is a lesser evil, thats just common sense to me > and Dumbledore does not tell anybody that Tom Riddle is a pitiful > human who has sociopathic tendencies, but not the mysterious creature, > who undergone those transformations? Bart: We have nothing in canon that says that Draco Malfoy ever slept, either. What is there in canon that even hints that Dumbledore never told anybody that Tom Riddle was Lord Voldemort? Alla: > Fact: Dumbledore disregarded the wishes of Lily and James that in case > of their death Harry would be brought up with Sirius and took him to > Dursleys. Bart: For some reason I have this weird feeling that even the Dursleys were superior to having Harry brought up in Azkaban. But I guess others might think otherwise. Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 17 21:52:40 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <ivv5oa+ss96@eGroups.com> References: <ivv5oa+ss96@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310939560.50090.YahooMailNeo@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190939 > Stephanie: > Just wondering, if Dumbledore's plan worked. Snaped disarmed him > and killed him becoming the owner(?) of the Elder wand. Did > Dumbledore tell Snape about the elder wand which he wanted him to > have once he was dead? June: Snape didn't disarm Dumbledore, Draco did. That was the point in why the elder wand didn't work for Voldemort as it should have. Draco disarmed Dumbledore making him the owner of the elder wand, then Harry disarmed Draco of his own wand which made Harry the owner of the elder wand. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 17 23:04:29 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivvoh0+1f86@eGroups.com> References: <1310836786.43650.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <ivvoh0+1f86@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310943869.37319.YahooMailNeo@web113910.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190940 > Steve responds: > This is a very complex plot aspect, and one that is not static, it is every changed as the plots of many books go on. > I think Dumbledore suspected that a part of Voldemort might be in > Harry, but what that meant and where that would take them was unclear. At the early stage, I'm sure his thoughts we focused on, IF > this is true, then how can I undo it? > But I think there came a moment of high and grand revelation for Dumbledore, and that moment has come to be referred to as the "Gleam" > or the "Gleam of Triumph" in Dumbledore's eye near the end of Goblet of Fire, when Dumbledore realizes that Voldemort has made the > mistake of using Harry's blood in his rebirth. In that moment, > Voldemort made himself a Horcrux for Harry. > So, yes, in that moment, a Gleam of Triumph, followed by the terrible weight of realizing just what this means. I don't think that up until that moment did Dumbledore believe that Harry would have to > sacrifice himself to Voldemort. Certainly, Harry was in danger of dying, and certainly the Harry-Horcrux was an aspect that would have > to be dealt with. But in that one great and terrible moment, > Dumbledore finally sees the path clearly; and it is a dark and > terrible path indeed. June: Steve, you have just made lightbulbs go off in my head. Funny I had actually forgotten that Voldemort had used Harry's blood to come back. Yes Dumbledore must have had an idea that Harry was a horcrux already at that point and when he told Dumbledore that Voldemort had used his blood we knew that Dumbledore knew something that we didn't at that point. He most likely knew that Harry could sacrifice himself to Voldemort when the time was right and still survive. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon Jul 18 03:45:27 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:45:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j005k2+6c9r@eGroups.com> References: <1310872694.51364.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <j005k2+6c9r@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1310960727.62513.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190941 <snip> > Nikkalmati: > I meant that DD didn't get injured trying to destroy the ring. He > put it on in order to use it. "I lost my head, Harry. I quite > forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry > a curse. I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I > imagined that I was about to see Ariana, . . ." DH at 719 US > hardback. June: Please tell me what chapter that is as there is not 719 pages in the British/Canadian copies. > >> June: > >> <snip> The stone was in the snitch, the cloak he already owned > >> because it was passed down from his father (he was related to > >> the third brother) and the wand he took possession of when he > >> disarmed Malfoy, who was the proper owner at that point of the > >> wand. Dumbledore made sure he did everything possible to keep > >> Harry alive and it worked. > Nikkalmati: > Harry did not get the Elder Wand from Malfoy. It was buried with > DD and retrieved by LV. Harry got it by disarming LV in the Great > Hall of Hogwarts. DH at 743. June: I never said Harry took the elder wand from Malfoy. I said Harry disarmed Malfoy of his own wand and because Malfoy had disarmed Dumbledore of the elder wand, that made the elder wand Malfoy's and when Harry disarmed Malfoy of his own wand he also took possession of the elder wand (truthfully I don't quite understand that either but it says so in the book and in the movie). From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 13 23:47:33 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:47:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's alleged debt to Dumbledore and Snape WAS: Re: Chapter Discussion In-Reply-To: <ivg7il+a5nj@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivlaqm+ntet@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190942 \> > Alla: > > If by misdirecting the reader you mean complicating the theme of friendship, loyalty and sacrifice by figuring out who is the master of the stick, then I will agree with you, otherwise to me it is just introducing a new toy to complicate thing and the least thematic one of all three Hallows IMO actually, for Harry I mean. Harry never was really tempted by Elder wand, he was tempted by resurrection stone, Dumbledore was tempted by it. > Pippin: Obviously, JKR wanted Harry's mastery of the Elder Wand to be as big a surprise to the reader as it was to Voldemort. That entailed a certain amount of confusion. But it was necessary -- if it's too easy for the reader to figure out, then it makes Voldemort look stupid for not figuring it out also. But Harry *was* tempted by the Elder Wand, just not in the way that Dumbledore expected him to be. Harry was tempted to take it, not to use it himself but to keep it away from Voldemort. But it still would have been dangerous in his hands. Harry never planned to use the Cruciatus or Imperius curses, but under pressure he still did, and it seems that even Draco's wand made it easier for him. What he would have done with the Elder Wand in his hands might have been even worse. Harry seems to think so, since he is adamant that the Elder Wand be replaced in Dumbledore's tomb. > > Bookcrazzzy: > > DD was the main proponent of unity in the WW. He reached out to all > > creatures without prejudice in ways that no one else did - learning mermish, > > hiring Firenze, sending Hagrid to the giants, treating the house elves > > differently and more. > > Alla: > > Yes he did. Only the thing is, those beings play minor roles in the story, except Dobby of course, who is as we are told repeatedly is an odd elf out who wants to be free and when it came to people who are more major characters, I do not see the promotion of that unity at all. So yes, of course I did not mean to deny that he tried to reach out to other races. > Pippin: Once again I must observe that Dumbledore is not reading the book over JKR's shoulder. He has no idea who is a major character in the story and who is not, so I do not know what you mean here. But Lupin and Hagrid play at least as large a role in the story as Dobby. Dumbledore can only reach out to those who are willing, and unfortunately such people are, as in real life, often estranged from their own kind and don't have much influence themselves. But that's not Dumbledore's fault. Alla: . Note that when Dumbledore had a chance to influence unity at the bigger scale, of course he denied and did not want to be a minister. Pippin: Fudge was clear on what would happen if he sent envoys to the Giants or dismissed the dementors -- he wouldn't be minister for long. If Dumbledore had been in his place, he would still be dealing with the same prejudiced and ignorant constituency, and unfortunately he had no magic cure for that. He hoped the children of the WW would listen to him because they weren't so corrupted by the prejudices of their elders. But even if they were, they wouldn't be able to oppose him by force, so he did not have to fear that he would be tempted to use force against them. When Dumbledore asked openly for unity, at the end of GoF, he lost much of his authority to Umbridge and then was ousted as soon as Fudge could find an excuse. And most of the WW was okay with that. Alla: > As to how they could have helped? Lets see, Lupin suggested his help in the search, which Harry mightily rejected, here is one possibility. Pippin: Harry did not reject Lupin's help because he was afraid that Lupin would betray him. He specifically denied that possibility. He rejected Lupin's help because he felt Lupin belonged with his wife and unborn child. But Lupin already had helped save Harry by teaching him the Patronus Charm. Firenze rescued Harry from Quirrellmort in the forest, Hagrid helped Harry to get the memory from Slughorn and to solve the mystery of the Chamber of Secrets and so destroy the diary, Kreacher helped Harry get the locket horcrux and aided him in the battle of Hogwarts, and the centaurs did join in that battle eventually. The merpeople didn't do very much, aside from informing Dumbledore about Harry's moral fibre -- but then, as I said, Dumbledore has no way of knowing who is going to be able to help Harry and who is not. Pippin From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 18 11:51:41 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:51:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1310960727.62513.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j016od+i1jq@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190943 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: Nikkalmati: > > I meant that DD didn't get injured trying to destroy the ring. He > > put it on in order to use it. "I lost my head, Harry. I quite > > forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry > > a curse. I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I > > imagined that I was about to see Ariana, . . ." DH at 719 US > > hardback. June: > Please tell me what chapter that is as there is not 719 pages in the British/Canadian copies. Geoff: DH, "King's Cross" p.576 UK edition. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 18 14:20:40 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:20:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <4E23B48B.7050300@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j01ffo+grrb@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart at ...> wrote: > > Alla: > > Fact - or at least we have not seen anything to the contrary in canon, > > Dumbledore KNOWS that Tom Riddle is Lord Voldemort but does not tell > > anybody. I do not care that Tom Riddle had a perfect reputation before > > he dissappeared. Fact is voldemort is a magical mystery to everybody, > > somebody who is supposedly so unknown to WW that he cannot be > > defeated. Known evil is a lesser evil, thats just common sense to me > > and Dumbledore does not tell anybody that Tom Riddle is a pitiful > > human who has sociopathic tendencies, but not the mysterious creature, > > who undergone those transformations? > > Bart: > We have nothing in canon that says that Draco Malfoy ever slept, > either. What is there in canon that even hints that Dumbledore never > told anybody that Tom Riddle was Lord Voldemort? > > Alla: > > Fact: Dumbledore disregarded the wishes of Lily and James that in case > > of their death Harry would be brought up with Sirius and took him to > > Dursleys. > > Bart: > For some reason I have this weird feeling that even the Dursleys were > superior to having Harry brought up in Azkaban. But I guess others might > think otherwise. > > Bart > Nikkalmati What we have is a series of missteps by DD (Not evil, just wrong). He did not investigate Sirius' case. In the midst of mob rule he did not want to spend the political capital? Maybe he was so shocked that he was wrong about him that he did not try? Anyway, he should have but he didn't. No habeus corpus in the WW. Remember Barty Couch was railroading all the DEs and DD was trying to save SS at that time. He also should have kept tabs on Harry with the Dursleys, but again he did not. He watched from the outside, but trusted Petunia to do a decent job. Again a mistake by the wizard who thought he knew everything. Maybe it would have made a difference if DD had exposed LV as Tom, but I doubt it. The only thing that would have mattered is his half-blood status and Bella did not believe Harry when he told her. I think his other followers would have reacted the same way. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 18 14:23:22 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:23:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <CAJF7hmfFOPho_UVEe90t3tiy0D3p4rpPSZ9KMxHg3MnwD=Phdw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <j01fkq+3pr1@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pagan Pages <paganpages at ...> wrote: > > <snip>June: > Dumbledore is a flawed character, that is true. Aren't we all? That > does not make someone good or evil. Dumbledore is still one of the > good guys, flaws and all. > > Jenn says: > > I think he did what he had to do for the greater good, so it seems bad to > one person, but to the multitude of others it was good. > > Much Love, > Jenn Nikkalmati But having one guy decide what is best for everyone else is just wrong. Plus the ethical canon "the greater good" is subject to severe misuse and can excuse much bad behavior. Nikkalmati > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 18 14:41:44 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:41:44 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <ivv5oa+ss96@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j01gn8+env6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190946 Stephanie: > > Just wondering, if Dumbledore's plan worked. Snaped disarmed him and killed him becoming the owner(?) of the Elder wand. Did Dumbledore tell Snape about the elder wand which he wanted him to have once he was dead? > Pippin: There are two possibilities: either the wand was enchanted to present itself to Snape, an enchantment that was cancelled when Draco became the wand's new master, or Snape was instructed to get the wand. That may account for some of Snape's hesitation on the tower. My guess is Snape did not know at the time that it was the Elder Wand, just that he was supposed to get it. If Dumbledore's guess was correct, Snape would not have become the new master of the wand, because Dumbledore would have died undefeated. Anyone who used the wand would have only their ordinary powers. Or possibly the wand, without a new master, would have no powers at all. It is after all long past the age when ordinary wands lose their powers. Charlie's old wand was wearing out by the time Ron got it. Either way, Snape could simply present the wand to Voldemort as proof that he had accomplished his mission. Voldemort would accept it, not knowing that it is (or was) the Elder Wand which can only be transferred by combat. Once that happened, it would no longer be possible for Voldemort to take the wand from Snape against his will, and so even if Dumbledore was wrong in his guess and Snape had become master of the wand, it would not make Voldemort master of the wand to kill him. Possibly Dumbledore hoped Voldemort would conclude that the wand Snape had taken was a fake -- there is all that stuff about fake wands in GoF-- and Dumbledore must have hidden the real one. Voldemort would naturally think that Dumbledore had hidden it for Potter, and therefore Potter was looking for the Elder Wand. The logical thing for Voldie to do, then, is allow Potter to find it, and then strike before Harry can defeat Snape and make himself master of the wand. That provides extra cover for Harry on his search for horcruxes, and it protects Snape, since he is useful and there will be no profit in killing him unless the "real" wand can be found -- and it never will be. In the story as written, Voldemort concludes with crazy illogic that killing Snape will make him master of the wand. But he had no reason to think that was so, it was contrary to what was known about the wand, and there is no way Dumbledore could have predicted it. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 18 15:31:07 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:31:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j01fkq+3pr1@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j01jjr+ar79@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190947 > Nikkalmati > > But having one guy decide what is best for everyone else is just wrong. Plus the ethical canon "the greater good" is subject to severe misuse and can excuse much bad behavior. > Pippin: I'm confused. In your earlier post you mentioned mob rule, and now you say that having one guy decide for everyone else is just wrong. But if one person does not stand up to protect the innocent against the mob, who will? I wish there was an ethical canon that wasn't subject to severe misuse and had never been used to excuse bad behavior -- unfortunately clever people like Dumbledore can always find a way to rationalize their decisions no matter what ethics they subscribe to. BTW, there was certainly enough evidence to arrest Sirius, though I agree he should have been tried. But there is not the slightest chance that anyone would have believed his story, and even if Dumbledore had investigated it, what proof could he have found? Dumbledore would try not to abrogate or disbelieve the charges just because it's his friend who is being accused. That would be favoritism. He investigates when he believes that someone has been accused without evidence, or to get evidence when he knows that someone is guilty (such as when he administers veritaserum to Fake!Moody). Sirius must have protested his innocence many times while Dumbledore was looking for the spy -- so why would Dumbledore think that he needed to hear more of it? That was a mistake, but there were many people being sent to Azkaban on Crouch's say-so, or even being killed out of hand. Dumbledore would surely think they were more deserving of his limited time and protection than Sirius was. Dumbledore says he knew that Harry would have a bad time at the Dursleys. He wasn't trusting that Petunia wouldn't do too badly, in fact he expected to find Harry in much worse shape than he was. But Petunia was just barely willing to take Harry, in the belief that she and Vernon could "stamp out that dangerous nonsense." Tell her she can't do it, and who is going to protect Harry, who will let Dumbledore protect Harry, especially when most of the WW believes that Voldemort is gone for good and everyone is safe? That belief did not spare the Longbottoms and it wouldn't have saved Harry either. Pippin From ingridbirgitta at gmail.com Mon Jul 18 14:01:46 2011 From: ingridbirgitta at gmail.com (Birgitta Karlsson) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:01:46 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivvhjb+nsr9@eGroups.com> References: <ivvhjb+nsr9@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E243CCA.9060104@googlemail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190948 > Geoff: > Draco obviously wanted to show off at Madam Malkins and also on the > train. But it is feasible that the two of them could possibly have got to > know each other at least a little better if Harry's views had not already > been coloured against Slytherin. > > Harry is eleven; he is a new member of a strange world; he is > impressionable. Any child of eleven is. Most children of eleven will > want to gravitate towards someone they can identify with when in a new > situation. Hagrid is almost a father figure at that point in time. He has > "rescued" Harry from Privet Drive, taken him around Diagon Alley, and > talks about his parents. So he is someone whose information is to be > valued. Ron is the same age and is willing to be friendly so Harry is > also taking in all that Ron has to tell him and also subconsciously > absorbing information which could be biased. Just remember Ron's > reaction on first meeting Hermione. It was a long time before the > founding of the Trio. > > So why disastrous? Because even at these initial meetings, the > foundations are laid for what became a long running dislike and > feud between the two which was to waste time, lead to attempts > to harm each other, even cloud their judgements. > > I believe that Draco was lonely. He is an only child and Crabbe and > Goyle were poor company for him; he is intelligent and resourceful > and also brainwashed to an extent by his father. Who knows what > might have happened if at least some sort of truce had existed > between them? There was evidence later in the books that there > it could have happened if Draco had had time to react to > Dumbledore's offer. Narcissa probably saved Harry's life and Draco > was in turn saved by Harry. > > OK, OK, I know it would have demolished the plot. Our characters > have to do what they do because the author said so. But a little > AU (Alternate Universe) speculation can be fun sometimes. It might > have got rid of the epilogue <vbg>. Birgitta: Let's see. At that first meeting at Madame Malkin, Harry hasn't even heard the name Slytherin so he can't be coloured against Slytherin. After Draco has said a couple of sentences "Harry was strongly reminded of Dudley." And I don't think Harry meant any physical resemblance so it must be Draco's behavior/attitude that he found was similar to Dudleys. Then Draco goes on to insult Hagrid, and when he founds out that Harry's parents are dead he seems more interested in making sure that "they were our kind" than feeling sorry for Harry. And then Draco says all that about how they shouldn't let the other sort in to the school and that they should just keep it in the old wizarding families. Yes, I can see why Harry would want to be friends with Draco. /sarcasm. Yes, Hagrid then says that line about how every dark witch and wizard has been in Slytherin, and Ron says something on the train that he hopes he's not sorted into Slytherin. That's all that's beeing said about Slytherin before the next encounter with Draco. Yes, at that second meeting Draco sounds more interested in Harry than in that first meeting, but that's just because now he knows who Harry is. Harry and Draco not being friends has little or nothing to do with any biased views Harry may have had against Slytherin and more to do with Draco himself and his behaviour/attitude. And brainwashed? Really? Do you have any canon evidence that Draco was brainwashed by his father? And I liked the epilougue. Birgitta From bart at moosewise.com Mon Jul 18 20:07:10 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:07:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <j01ffo+grrb@eGroups.com> References: <j01ffo+grrb@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E24926E.9060005@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190949 nikkalmati wrote: > What we have is a series of missteps by DD (Not evil, just wrong). He > did not investigate Sirius' case. In the midst of mob rule he did not > want to spend the political capital? Maybe he was so shocked that he > was wrong about him that he did not try? Anyway, he should have but he > didn't. Bart: I think it may have had something to do with the fact that Sirius never claimed to be innocent. He clearly felt guilty over the idea of making Peter the secret-keeper, so he voluntarily went to Azkaban (note that he could escape any time he wanted). nikkalmati: > He also should have kept tabs on Harry with the Dursleys, but again he > did not. Bart: Mrs. Figg. Bart From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 18 20:20:06 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:20:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <j01ffo+grrb@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j024hm+g1nj@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190950 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote: Nikkalmati > Maybe it would have made a difference if DD had exposed LV as Tom, but I doubt it. > The only thing that would have mattered is his half-blood status and Bella did not > believe Harry when he told her. I think his other followers would have reacted the same > way. Geoff: Not necessarily. Not every Death Eater was as obsessed in the same way as Bellatrix. She was with him besotted and nothing which was said against him could be believed in her view. It is likely that some knew and were prepared to overlook this fact because it gave them entry to power, both physical and political. I seem to recall many years ago that someone pointed out that for the sake of power, many Nazis were prepared to accept the fact that Hitler was a "halfbood" in terms of his Aryan policies. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon Jul 18 21:41:33 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j016od+i1jq@eGroups.com> References: <1310960727.62513.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <j016od+i1jq@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311025293.76419.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190951 Nikkalmati: > > I meant that DD didn't get injured trying to destroy the ring. He > > put it on in order to use it. "I lost my head, Harry. I quite > > forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry > > a curse. I picked it up, and I put it on, and for a second I > > imagined that I was about to see Ariana, . . ." DH at 719 US > > hardback. June: >> Please tell me what chapter that is as there is not 719 pages in >> the British/Canadian copies. > Geoff: > DH, "King's Cross" p.576 UK edition. June Awe yes, I see it now, he did put it on (I remembered as I was reading it). Dumbledore is human, what do you know. It is sad really, he had to live with the loss of his parents and his sister for so many years and the feeling of guilt as well. It is understandable how he could have forgotten at that point. However it still all boils down to being Voldemort's fault. If Voldemort hadn't done the things he did, that would not have happened. The only one to blame is Voldemort and his followers (the ones that weren't under the imperious curse anyway). From lynde at post.com Mon Jul 18 23:31:50 2011 From: lynde at post.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:31:50 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair Message-ID: <20110718233153.232360@gmx.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190952 Alla: You know, one can argue that he did handed Harry to Voldemort when it suited his plans ;). Remember triwizard Tournament? Remember how everybody thought that Dumbledore should withdraw Harry and there were those mysterious rules that he supposedly cannot withdraw. Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? So here we go, while even as a joke I will not claim that Dumbledore predicted Cedric's death and went along with him (although I personally would not put it past him), Dumbledore could have avoided Harry's ordeal and did not do so. Lynda: One can of course argue that Alla. That does not mean however that the one arguing that is correct. I, for one, when I read the words BINDING MAGICAL CONTRACT interpreted those words to mean UNBREAKABLE MAGICAL CONTRACT. THE PERSON WHO ATTEMPTS TO BREAK THE CONTRACT WILL BE KILLED/CURSED. Perhaps I am the only one who interpreted it that way. I was made to think, when reading your answer of an acquaintance of mine. She has been married to the same man for over thirty years, since she was in her twenties. Her husband is several years older than her. He is an U.S. Citizen by birth. She immigrated after their marriage. She agreed to marry him only in her native country. The reason? He was several years older than her and had been married and divorced two times prior to asking her to marry him. She lived in one of the few countries that has no recourse for divorce for married couples. She wouldn't give him the opportunity to divorce her when times got tough. So that is how I envision the TriWizard tournament. You can't just quit because things get hard. When you sign up, knowing what's going to happen or NOT knowing what's going to happen (kind of like a marriage) you can't back out just because things go wrong, you change your mind, you don't like the rules, or "OH! I didn't put my name in. Someone else did it." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 19 00:21:12 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:21:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <4E23B48B.7050300@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j02ilo+4m8o@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190953 > Alla: > > Fact: Dumbledore disregarded the wishes of Lily and James that in case > > of their death Harry would be brought up with Sirius and took him to > > Dursleys. > > Bart: > For some reason I have this weird feeling that even the Dursleys were > superior to having Harry brought up in Azkaban. But I guess others might > think otherwise. Alla: So Dumbledore is able to know things before they happened after all? From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Tue Jul 19 00:35:21 2011 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:35:21 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: MOVIE Message-ID: <j02jg9+9kl5@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190954 Hello, everyone-- Please feel free to discuss the recent movie in your posts as long as it also discusses canon. ***Also, please add the word MOVIE to subject title of any posts, to let other members know the movie will be discussed.*** For purely movie discussion, please go to the Movie list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfGU-Movie With many thanks, The List Elves From lui_rhys_01 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 19 00:42:29 2011 From: lui_rhys_01 at yahoo.com (luirhys) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:42:29 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret Message-ID: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190955 This message is a Special Notice for all members of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this post is also being delivered off-list (to email inboxes) to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) PoA Chapter 21 : Hermione's Secret Harry wakes up to the sound of Snape and Fudge talking about what happened (in Snape's eyes) during the past few hours. Snape, of course, wastes no time in upholding Sirius' (lack of) innocence and the trio's meddling. He tries to lay blame on Harry's preferential treatment and the fact that Dumbledore (and some of the staff) lets him get away with his exploits. Harry, being groggy, just has enough time to make sense of what has and is about to happen, and tries to argue his side of events, only to fail. We are even led to believe that there is nothing left to be done. But Dumbledore has a little trick up his sleeve, not to mention Hermione also." Questions: 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see Snape trying hard to get Harry in trouble, with detention and expulsion as his punishment. We all know he does this constantly, but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, and knowing that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard to have him punished? 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably known who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? 3. It wasn't mentioned how the Dementors were called into Hogwarts. We assume they came on their own. Macnair came to fetch the Dementors. And Fudge (and other ministry officials) seems to have a degree of hold on them and can even give them orders. Fudge isn't even afraid of being in the same room as them. Dementors have shown they have free will but do you think they have brains? 4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the time turner, why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time turner, it should only be able to turn back time and not change your location. 5. On a similar note, do you think the time-turner can go forward in time? 6. Hermione said she was given the time turner so she could get to all her classes, and that Mcgonagall had to write to different people in order to get her permission. So do you think that schools or Hogwarts in particular have been giving out time turners to their outstanding students for ages? 7. Dumbledore is in his usual calm state even though Buckbeak is about to be executed. Do you think he has knowledge of past and future events? Do you think that he knew Buckbeak would be saved? 8. We know that past!Harry and Hermione heard the thudding of an axe and Hagrid's howling after they left his Hut. But could it be that what they heard was really the events of this chapter: Macnair throwing the ax at the fence and Hagrid crying with joy because of Buckbeaks apparent escape? 9. Harry and Hermione talk about what could've driven the dementors away. And Harry confesses that he thinks it might've been his Dad. What were your first thoughts in reading this chapter so long ago? 10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and windows can be opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate? luirhys 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 Discussion, Chapter 22 of Prisoner of Azkaban, coming soon. If you would like to volunteer to lead a Goblet of Fire chapter discussion, please drop a note to HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com (without the space). From ddankanyin at cox.net Mon Jul 18 23:52:43 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:52:43 -0400 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? References: <j007ir+69bc@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4326FCCDC18D4393A0262E945852F0D9@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 190956 > Nikkalmati: > > <snip> I also am not sure the wand would have been forever > rendered powerless just because DD passed it on voluntarily. > After all, Grindenwald stole it so he did not take it by > defeating the prior owner. Dorothy: Isn't stealing the wand comparable to defeating the prior owner in a way? Just a thought. Think peace, Dorothy From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Jul 19 01:08:51 2011 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie at earthlink.net) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:08:51 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <4E243CCA.9060104@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <j02lf3+gc5n@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190957 > Birgitta: > Yes, at that second meeting Draco sounds more interested in Harry than > in that first meeting, but that's just because now he knows who Harry is. > > Harry and Draco not being friends has little or nothing to do with any > biased views Harry may have had against Slytherin and more to do with > Draco himself and his behaviour/attitude. Magpie: And, as you point out, Harry's. Once Draco reminds him of Dudley by claiming he'll "bully" his parents into a broom, all of his lines take on a more repulsive tone for Harry. Especially stuff about Hagrid, which to Harry is going to come across a lot worse than, say, similar gossip about Snape would have. I admit, I always read Draco as very interested in Harry even before he knows who he is, but yeah, there was never any chance that Harry was going to like him in that scene, even without the creepy "they're not our kind" stuff. > > And brainwashed? Really? Do you have any canon evidence that Draco was > brainwashed by his father? Magpie: I think he's just using "brainwashed" in the colloquial sense. He doesn't mean Lucius literally confunded him or anything, but that he was raised being taught these values all his life by the father he adored and respected (unlike Sirius the born rebel) and probably didn't even have other influences. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 19 01:20:46 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 01:20:46 -0000 Subject: MOVIE; the book, the movie, Hermione and Lily - post from Kemper Message-ID: <j02m5e+1p1i@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190958 Hey guys, I am reposting this on Kemper's request, he previously posted it on Movie, but since it talks about canon and movie, I am reposting it here. Thanks. First, reader beware, spoilers follow. Second, I've donned my dementor's cloak and patronuses (patroni?) have no effect on me. I'm Superdementor and only kryptonite and nine inch nails can weaken me and hang me up but even then only for about three days when strength and life returns. Ok, let's role back our boulders and fly out of the cave and into the night of the truth! My disappointment in the last book left me hoping for a rewrite in its movie adaptation. Part I left me even more hopeful, what with my feelings of validation regarding my interpretations of Hermione's character and her willingness to inflict her will on others without a safeword or their consent (I've given canon evidence once or twice in this group) The movie shows Hermione sneaking up on her parents from behind and obliviating them, obliterating their life. Yes! That's exactly what my mind's eye saw. No convo about alternative actions like going to Australia with full awareness of what little danger they would be in. In my last listen of the books, I found canon support for this possibility when Aberforth suggests to Harry that he flee and go abroad. Aberforth seems to think Voldemort's influence is limited to Britain and maybe Slavic speaking countries. So anyways, Part I left me squeeing for Part II because what I was more interested in seeing was an abashment of Harry for his use of the Cruciatus, Slytherins represented in force against Voldemort, a redemption for Draco, and something else I'm sure I'm forgetting. So on to Part II Gringotts Much of the events at Gringotts was so well done. Better than the book even! I'm going to focus on the Goblins and their comeuppance from the dragon. When we first see the dragon, we see it has wounds. It reminded me of abused dogs or horses with their leashes and tethers so tight for so long that once removed you see the fir and skin have been essentially rubbed off. It's disgusting, and Hermione the moral compass (wai wha?) says as much. You feel for the creature and want the Goblins to be punished. And they are! But the first Goblin to go up in flames? Well that particular death is a bit wanky. The Goblin is still under the Imperious cast by Ron who upon seeing his cursed Goblin ablaze essentially remarks, 'that sucks'. And it kind of does. Is Ron resposible for the Goblin's death or is the dragon (as much as a wild creature can be blamed for acting in accordance to its biology)? Or is it the Goblin's for abusing or tacitly agreeing to abuse the dragon? Does it even matter? I don't know, but a shadow of doubt crept up on my hope. Hogsmead Thank goodness for Aberforth. It's a bit different than the books as is Gringotts but differenter :D The portrait of Ariana and her roll is the same from the book. She fetches Neville and he comes out of the portrait looking looking a bit beat up and all yummy if I'm reading the din of squee that went up from the horde of het fangirls in the audience. As HRH and Neville walk in the tunnel, he's telling them how the tunnel is new and how cruel are the Carrows: torturing first years (OMG) and Seamus looking way worse than Neville (oh noes). They get to the other end of the tunnel where we know the Room of Requirement is. Will this pass my Slytherin inclusion test? Hogwarts The portrait opens and there are no banners of any houses hanging anywhere. There's nothing to say which houses are in the room. A bunch of hammocks hang between pillars. A cluster of kids are huddled together. Neville walks out and talks to someone who says something kind of funny and you know its Seamus. He looks great! Are his injuries internal or something cuz I don't get what's wrong with him. Even though I was let down with the ambiguity (not really) of Slytherin, there's a little bit of funny (the only funny in the movie, really) so I don't give it a fail. Wait. I do fail that scene, but not for the lack of Slytherins. For some reason, Luna's in the room. And so is Ginny. And so is Cho. You would think that could get a pass because it's the movie and they need to move things along. I get that. Ginny tells Harry 'Hey Snape knows you're here'. The next scene shows the students of Hogwarts lined up military style in their dress robes. And, hey, there's Seamus. And Cho! Were they not in the Room of Requirement? Where the eff were they and why are there hammocks if they aren't hiding from Snape and the Carrows? Stay back shadow! Speaking of. The Carrows are behind Snape as he asks the students about Harry and threatens them. A student walks out of line. It's Harry! And in dress robes? Some exposition ensues to catch the viewer up on what happened two movies ago. Spoiler alert. Snape killed Dumbledore. Wands are raised and McGonagall steps in front of Harry. Ahh! She sends nonverbal abracadabras and hocuspocus at Snape who deflects them. And does he reflect them at the Carrows behind him? I don't know, but they end up on the floor. More props than characters, those two. I'm annoyed by this because I wanted Harry to use the Cruciatus. A flawed hero is an interesting hero. And I wanted to see McG abash him. So I guess it's a wash. Snape flees. Voldemort pulls a Prof X and telepathically mind whisper-screams at everyone: i can has harry in one meower... i belly empty. need eat cheezburger rite meow. Slytherin Slytherins are Slytherin and are thus told to gtfo. The teachers set up to defend the castle at this dire time. McG casts a transfiguring spell is all, like, 'I always wanted to do that. Teehee.' And smiles at the silliness of her utterance. Oh shadow, no! Deep breaths. Not all is lost. There is another Skywalker. And her name is Draco. Luna. Asexual? No. Out of the blue, she's been shipped. Draco. Room of Requirement. Crabe kindling. Draco rescued. Snape. Voldemort. Nagini. Pretty gruesome. I likey. Memory tears. And 'look at me.' Pensieve. Adorable Snape. No skeeziness. Young man Snape. With one chin! Lily's dead. Snape wept. Missing 24 hours! Well, sort of. Ok... Voldemort just became less than the meanest ghost. Snape enters the house. Walks past the body of James. Goes up the stairs and enters Harry's room. Sees Harry standing and crying in his crib. Sees Lily dead on the ground. Ignores the toddler and instead kneels down by Lily's side to hold her and sobs. The uncomforted Harry and Snape share a cry. Ah. There's the skeeziness. I laughed out loud a little bit at the absurdity. Older, chinnier Snape. He's Dumbledore's man through and through. And it looks like Alla, Zanooda, Miles, Bookcrazzzy, Mike, and Pippin's reading of 'For /him/?' is validated. Boo. I still prefer my version as I like my Snape less icky. Le sigh. Fred's dead, baby. Fred's dead. Harry. The forest again. AK. DD and King's Cross. Exposition. Is he dead? Narcissa. Is Draco alive? Nod. A march to Hogwarts. Voldemort. Draco. Redempt-meh. Ok Shadow, you win. Neville. Sword of Gryffindor. Tada! Harry's alive. A game of chase. Not it! Harry runs. Duels. Runs. Duels. Runs. Bellatrix. Molly. Bitch. Confetti!Bellatrix. Molly's weird smile. Voldemort. Harry. Murder/suicide attempt. Alone on the grounds. Neville. Sword of Gryffindor. Confetti!Nagini. Harry. Confetti!Voldemort. Aftermath. Molly smiles. Fred's dead, Molly. Fred's dead. Neville/Luna shippers have their day. Squees from the crowd. Did they even read the books? HRH walk the empty grounds. Exposition on wands. Elder wand snapped. HHR hold hands where the second H is Hermione. They say nothing, and I wonder if Ron and Harry have ever shown physical affection before. Have they in the movies or books? I've been up forever, so maybe they have. But a pat on the shoulder doesn't count. The only boy on boy affection I can think of is Seamus rushing to hug Dean in DH the book. 19 years later. Way better than the book. Ok, just better. Mostly because there's no talk about confunding a Muggle. Everyone squees for the next generation. Harry and Ron look dadly. Ginny and Hermione look like they're playing dress up. Roll credits. Stay for the end. The kids are talking on the train and the sweets cart rolls by. But instead of the candy lady, it's Nick Fury and he wants to talk to them about a thing. Kemper From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jul 19 02:33:16 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 02:33:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j01jjr+ar79@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j02qdc+aqn6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190959 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote: > > > > Nikkalmati > > > > But having one guy decide what is best for everyone else is just wrong. Plus the ethical canon "the greater good" is subject to severe misuse and can excuse much bad behavior. > > > > Pippin: > I'm confused. In your earlier post you mentioned mob rule, and now you say that having one guy decide for everyone else is just wrong. But if one person does not stand up to protect the innocent against the mob, who will? Nikkalmati There are more than two choices. Nikkalmati > > I wish there was an ethical canon that wasn't subject to severe misuse and had never been used to excuse bad behavior -- unfortunately clever people like Dumbledore can always find a way to rationalize their decisions no matter what ethics they subscribe to. > Nikkalmati Well,then you agree "the greater good" is not a reliable guide to behavior. Nikkalmati > BTW, there was certainly enough evidence to arrest Sirius, though I agree he should have been tried. But there is not the slightest chance that anyone would have believed his story, and even if Dumbledore had investigated it, what proof could he have found? Nikkalmati yes, there should have been a trial. I think Sirius was sent to Azkaban on his initial utterance. He probably would have retracted his guilty plea if given a chance. There was much information that could have come out. Did they try Priori Incantatum on Sirius' wand? What about the Animagi information? Maybe Pettigrew could have been caught. Nikkalmati > snip> > > Sirius must have protested his innocence many times while Dumbledore was looking for the spy -- so why would Dumbledore think that he needed to hear more of it? That was a mistake, but there were many people being sent to Azkaban on Crouch's say-so, or even being killed out of hand. Dumbledore would surely think they were more deserving of his limited time and protection than Sirius was. Nikkalmati Such as Snape? :>). I doubt DD was doing the investigating himself. He probably relied on SS and maybe others to find the spy. Nikkalmati <snip> From bart at moosewise.com Tue Jul 19 03:03:44 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 23:03:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <j02ilo+4m8o@eGroups.com> References: <j02ilo+4m8o@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E24F410.5040302@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190960 Alla: >>> Fact: Dumbledore disregarded the wishes of Lily and James that in case >>> of their death Harry would be brought up with Sirius and took him to >>> Dursleys. >> Bart: >> For some reason I have this weird feeling that even the Dursleys were >> superior to having Harry brought up in Azkaban. But I guess others might >> think otherwise. > > Alla: > > So Dumbledore is able to know things before they happened after all? Bart: Obviously not. Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 19 02:07:22 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:07:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> References: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311041242.83077.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190961 > luirhys: > 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see Snape > trying hard to get Harry in trouble, with detention and expulsion > as his punishment. We all know he does this constantly, but, why? > After knowing the ending of the series, and knowing that he is > Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard to have him > punished? June: I think Snape had to keep it secret that he was Harry's protector, especially because he was head of Slytherin House where children of a lot of Voldemort's followers would be and because if Voldemort came back, he would have to look like he didn't like Harry. > 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have > probably known who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that > Sirius is innocent? June: No, I believe like everyone else he believed Sirius was guilty. I am sure he knew that someone was a spy for Voldemort but I don't think he knew who. > 3. It wasn't mentioned how the Dementors were called into Hogwarts. > We assume they came on their own. Macnair came to fetch the > Dementors. And Fudge (and other ministry officials) seems to have > a degree of hold on them and can even give them orders. Fudge isn't > even afraid of being in the same room as them. Dementors have shown > they have free will but do you think they have brains? June: They must have because all living things have brains. I think the question you mean to ask is do they have intelligence? To which I would answer no. > 4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the > time turner, why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time > turner, it should only be able to turn back time and not change > your location. June: Maybe this is movie contamination but, I believe they were in the infirmary and ran out into the entrance hall. > 5. On a similar note, do you think the time-turner can go forward > in time? June: Interesting question. One could argue that the answer to that is no because the future hasn't happened yet, however Bob Gale may disagree lol. > 6. Hermione said she was given the time turner so she could get to > all her classes, and that Mcgonagall had to write to different > people in order to get her permission. So do you think that schools > or Hogwarts in particular have been giving out time turners to > their outstanding students for ages? June: No, I think Hermione was a special case and here is why. She was only warned about what could happen if she used the time turner unwisely. As far as we know, she was never told how difficult it could be on your system travelling back in time so much. I would think if it had been done before, Professor McGonagall would have had a better idea what Hermione was up against and given her warning about that as well. > 8. We know that past!Harry and Hermione heard the thudding of an > axe and Hagrid's howling after they left his Hut. But could it be > that what they heard was really the events of this chapter: Macnair > throwing the ax at the fence and Hagrid crying with joy because of > Buckbeaks apparent escape? June: I believe that is exactly what they heard. There would have to be a reality in which Buckbeak was executed but I do not believe this was it. > 9. Harry and Hermione talk about what could've driven the dementors > away. And Harry confesses that he thinks it might've been his Dad. > What were your first thoughts in reading this chapter so long ago? June: I thought it was Snape. I know he doesn't look like Harry's dad but the hair colour was right, it was dark and Harry was only semi conscious. Snape seemed at the time to be the only logical answer. > 10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and > windows can be opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate? June: Well Alohamora is the spell used to unlock locked doors and windows. We learned that in The Philosopher's Stone. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 19 03:58:05 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 03:58:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j005k2+6c9r@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j02vcd+10geg@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote: > I guess he did not know LV was trying to get a new wand and > was tracing the Elder Wand right back to DD. zanooda: LV only began to look for the Elder wand after his attempt to kill Harry with someone else's wand failed ("Seven Potters"). DD was dead by then, so he couldn't possibly have known that LV started his search. As for DD's portrait, we don't really know how portraits work and how much they know. DD's portrait seem much smarter then Sir Cadogan or Sirius's mother :-), but still, it's not DD himself. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 19 04:02:22 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 04:02:22 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j007ir+69bc@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j02vke+o8g1@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote: > I also am not sure the wand would have been forever > rendered powerless just because DD passed it on voluntarily. > After all, Grindenwald stole it so he did not take it by > defeating the prior owner. zanooda: But Grindelwald not only took the wand, he also stunned Gregorovitch. This can easily count as defeating the previous owner, IMO :-). From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 19 14:05:08 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:05:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j02qdc+aqn6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j042uk+149d@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190964 > > Pippin: > > I'm confused. In your earlier post you mentioned mob rule, and now you say that having one guy decide for everyone else is just wrong. But if one person does not stand up to protect the innocent against the mob, who will? > > Nikkalmati > > There are more than two choices. Pippin: Could you expand on that? IIRC, you mentioned David and Uriah earlier. It was wrong for David to send Uriah to the forefront of battle for his personal advantage. But David always had to send some soldiers and not others to the forefront of battle. He was supposed to pick them on the basis of who he thought was going to win, not for personal advantage, but also not, say, on the idea that it would be fairer if everyone had to face peril equally. Come to think of it, he himself was a child sent into battle against what looked to be hopeless odds. We might all be Philistines today if King Saul had refused on principle to let a boy fight Goliath. :) Pippin earlier: > > I wish there was an ethical canon that wasn't subject to severe misuse and had never been used to excuse bad behavior -- unfortunately clever people like Dumbledore can always find a way to rationalize their decisions no matter what ethics they subscribe to. > > > Nikkalmati > > Well,then you agree "the greater good" is not a reliable guide to behavior. > Pippin: Like any guide, it's only as reliable as the people using it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have guides, just that they have to be used intelligently. Dumbledore's mistake, in his Grindelwald days, was to think only of the greater good of wizards, when he should have been thinking of the greater good of Beings. He also gave up the idea of trying to impose his vision of the greater good by force, though that meant he sometimes could not protect innocent people, because he believed that more innocent people would be harmed if he intervened by force to stop it. > > Nikkalmati > yes, there should have been a trial. I think Sirius was sent to Azkaban on his initial utterance. He probably would have retracted his guilty plea if given a chance. There was much information that could have come out. Did they try Priori Incantatum on Sirius' wand? What about the Animagi information? Maybe Pettigrew could have been caught. Pippin: I don't know if Sirius even got a chance to plead. They thought he was insane, because of the senseless attack on the Muggles and because he had laughed when he was captured. Perhaps he was, temporarily. And I suspect that after being held in Azkaban for a while, most people thought they were horribly guilty of something. I doubt Sirius could have held on to his belief in his innocence if he hadn't been able to transform. It's probably a good thing he never got the chance to tell the court he was an animagus, because they'd have kept him from transforming if they knew. If Sirius's wand appeared innocent, they would only think he had used another wand, or that he'd used some dark magic that didn't leave a trace. Whatever killed a wizard and twelve Muggles all at once could not have been an ordinary AK, which kills only one person at a time even when Voldemort uses it. As for hunting Peter, they would have had to believe that Peter was an animagus. Only Sirius and Lupin could testify to that, and neither of them would have been a credible witness. McGonagall, expert witness for the prosecution, would have said that in her opinion such a spell was completely byond Peter's ability, and furthermore he was "hopeless at dueling." > Nikkalmati > > Such as Snape? :>). I doubt DD was doing the investigating himself. He probably relied on SS and maybe others to find the spy. Pippin: Snape could only investigate from the DE side of things --- he wasn't attending Order meetings or hanging out at their safe houses at this time. But since Lupin, James and Sirius were all aware that there was a spy in the Order and, according to Fudge, Dumbledore suspected Sirius, there must have been some investigating going on. Lupin guesses correctly that the reason Sirius did not tell him about the secret keeper switch was that Sirius thought he was the spy. And of course any training they'd been given to resist interrogation by DE's and Ministry turncoats would also allow them to resist interrogation by Dumbledore or anyone else. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 16 15:28:35 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 15:28:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivq85s+77di@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivsan3+d3id@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190965 > Alla: > > Ah, but thats the whole point though, isn't it? Yes, nobody knows that Fake Moody put Harry's name in there, but doesn't it make the "magical contract" invalid by definition since one party did not *enter* into it? Pippin: The goblet is the sole judge of what constitutes a valid entry, and it, unfortunately, has been confunded, so naturally it considered Harry's entry valid. The whole point of using the goblet in the first place is that its decisions can't be overturned by anyone else. The movie contamination I was thinking of is at the end of GoF, where, IIRC, Dumbledore tells Harry that he should have gotten him out of the contest and apologizes. But in the books there's no suggestion that that it was possible, and why should Dumbledore waste his time trying to do impossible things? He is not a young wizard testing his power -- at age 100+ he ought to know what he can and cannot do. The contract magic is powerful enough that Hermione can use it on the DA without fear that the Ministry will reverse it. And if the Ministry can't reverse it, no one can. Pippin From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 19 09:23:49 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:23:49 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> References: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4FB962F079F64BFEA7F9CFB9A4F63219@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190966 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see Snape trying hard to get Harry in trouble, with detention and expulsion as his punishment. We all know he does this constantly, but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, and knowing that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard to have him punished? Liz: I think that has to do with how much Harry looks like James and appears, to Snape, to be treated like James as well. I think Snape also knows that Fudge cannot or will not expell him, so he can sound off about expulsion ect while knowing Harry will still be there next term. 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably known who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? Liz: I doubt it, Karkaroff said that they rarely knew who each other were. Although, I do feel, given Snape's feelings to Lily, that he wouldn't care if Sirius was a DE or not. Sirius was the reason Lily was dead and Snape wanted him punished, probably killed for his actions. 3. It wasn't mentioned how the Dementors were called into Hogwarts. We assume they came on their own. Macnair came to fetch the Dementors. And Fudge (and other ministry officials) seems to have a degree of hold on them and can even give them orders. Fudge isn't even afraid of being in the same room as them. Dementors have shown they have free will but do you think they have brains? Liz: I think they have to have brains, as they do appear to follow instuctions. But on a basic level, such as being like a dog, commands can be followed but reasoning with them is pointless. 4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the time turner, why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time turner, it should only be able to turn back time and not change your location. Liz: I didn't get that, in the movie that seemed to have been 'fixed' as they stayed in the hospital wing. The only thing I can think of is that the time turner is linked to who is wearing it, so it draws that person to their previous location when used so to prevent risks of being in multiple locations. 5. On a similar note, do you think the time-turner can go forward in time? Liz: Now thats a can of worms! Probably, but going forward in time is far more complicated than going back. 6. Hermione said she was given the time turner so she could get to all her classes, and that Mcgonagall had to write to different people in order to get her permission. So do you think that schools or Hogwarts in particular have been giving out time turners to their outstanding students for ages? Liz: I think they have, yes. Any student that achieve 12 OWLs would need one. 7. Dumbledore is in his usual calm state even though Buckbeak is about to be executed. Do you think he has knowledge of past and future events? Do you think that he knew Buckbeak would be saved? Liz: I have always suspected that Dumbledore has something like the Marauders Map and was aware of Harry and Hermione's duplicates. However, he is the Headmaster and becoming emotional when there is no point would be detrimental to his position and standing. 8. We know that past!Harry and Hermione heard the thudding of an axe and Hagrid's howling after they left his Hut. But could it be that what they heard was really the events of this chapter: Macnair throwing the ax at the fence and Hagrid crying with joy because of Buckbeaks apparent escape? Liz: Yes. I believe this anyway, I think JKR wrote this book with liniar time, ie it only runs once. 9. Harry and Hermione talk about what could've driven the dementors away. And Harry confesses that he thinks it might've been his Dad. What were your first thoughts in reading this chapter so long ago? Liz: I was confused. It couldn't be his dad, so who or what was it. My mind snapped to Snape for a while or Dumbledore. 10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and windows can be opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate? Liz: I think the plot needed certain doors and windows to open easily. Although if you are referring to Hagrid's cabin, at that time, no student was supposed to be out in the grounds at that time and Hagrid was so trusting of people anyway, that I doubt he even locked it! And broom cupboards wouldn't be locked either! From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue Jul 19 15:04:43 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <4E243CCA.9060104@googlemail.com> References: <ivvhjb+nsr9@eGroups.com> <4E243CCA.9060104@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <1311087883.23553.YahooMailNeo@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190967 > Birgitta: > Let's see. At that first meeting at Madame Malkin, Harry hasn't > even heard the name Slytherin so he can't be coloured against Slytherin. After Draco has said a couple of sentences "Harry was > strongly reminded of Dudley." And I don't think Harry meant any physical resemblance so it must be Draco's behavior/attitude that > he found was similar to Dudleys. Then Draco goes on to insult Hagrid, and when he founds out that Harry's parents are dead he > seems more interested in making sure that "they were our kind" than feeling sorry for Harry. And then Draco says all that about > how they shouldn't let the other sort in to the school and that > they should just keep it in the old wizarding families. <snip> Harry and Draco not being friends has little or nothing to do with > any biased views Harry may have had against Slytherin and more to > do with Draco himself and his behaviour/attitude. <snip> June: I totally agree with Birgitta but there is also something else that hasn't crossed anyone's mind. Malfoy's father was a death eater (of course we do not know this for sure at this point but it is canon fact). If Malfoy had gone home after his first year of Hogwarts and said to his father "Hey dad, I am now best friends with Harry Potter" his father would have said "That's great Draco, have him come over to visit" and because Voldemort wanted Harry dead, the minute Lucius Malfoy got the chance he would have killd him (and of course made it look like an accident). Now wouldn't that have been a short story. From ddankanyin at cox.net Tue Jul 19 15:32:58 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:32:58 -0400 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret References: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> <1311041242.83077.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0ABEFD3213A74E14A5A921D42F3EA413@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 190968 >> luirhys: >> 10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and >> windows can be opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate? Dorothy: I wondered that as well because it means that locked doors can be easily opened by 11 year olds. What good are locks, and why have them? From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 19 20:46:55 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:46:55 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1311087883.23553.YahooMailNeo@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j04qfv+k90j@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: Birgitta: > > Let's see. At that first meeting at Madame Malkin, Harry hasn't > > even heard the name Slytherin so he can't be coloured against > Slytherin. After Draco has said a couple of sentences "Harry was > > strongly reminded of Dudley." And I don't think Harry meant any > physical resemblance so it must be Draco's behavior/attitude that > > he found was similar to Dudleys. Then Draco goes on to insult > Hagrid, and when he founds out that Harry's parents are dead he > > seems more interested in making sure that "they were our kind" > than feeling sorry for Harry. And then Draco says all that about > > how they shouldn't let the other sort in to the school and that > > they should just keep it in the old wizarding families. <snip> > Harry and Draco not being friends has little or nothing to do with > > any biased views Harry may have had against Slytherin and more to > > do with Draco himself and his behaviour/attitude. <snip> June: > I totally agree with Birgitta but there is also something else that > hasn't crossed anyone's mind. Geoff: Actually it had.... June: > Malfoy's father was a death eater (of > course we do not know this for sure at this point but it is canon > fact). If Malfoy had gone home after his first year of Hogwarts and > said to his father "Hey dad, I am now best friends with Harry Potter" > his father would have said "That's great Draco, have him come over to > visit" and because Voldemort wanted Harry dead, the minute Lucius > Malfoy got the chance he would have killd him (and of course made it > look like an accident). Now wouldn't that have been a short story. Geoff: As I remarked in my post, it would have demolished the plot. But might I reiterate that Harry was eleven in a completely alien environment and was tending to "hang on" to anyone who helped him -Hagrid and Ron - who, whether you like it or not, did introduce an element of anti- Slytherinism into the mix. I can empathise with Harry here because, when I was eleven I went to a grammar school where not another single pupil came form my old Junior school. Like Harry, I was not the most forceful of people and latched onto anyone in my class who was prepared to be friendly; I am still in touch with some of these, more years later than I like to admit. Referring back to my original text, I pointed out that the "Trio" was not formed from Day 1. Harry and Ron were frequently very peeved with Hermione's interference and bossiness and it wasn't until two months into the Autumn term and the troll incident that matters between them thawed. Just speaking hypothetically, if the two had become friends, I think that Malfoy would probably had his father ranting about Harry on occasions he was at home and, being a reasonably intelligent guy, would maybe have kept the information under his hat. I admit that I've always had a soft spot for Draco and was relieved that he and Harry did help each other in various ways towards the end and also that he was indirectly responsible for his mother keeping the truth about Harry's condition away from Voldemort in the forest confrontation. But, at the end, it's fiction. It's nice to indulge in a little "What if?" session from time to time (I do the same with LOTR sometimes). It also helps to remind me that people's backgrounds and, as a result, their actions do not fall into pure white or black categories; there is a lot of grey. We can pick out such occurrences for pretty well for everyone in the Wizarding World. And isn't that just like real life? From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 19 20:29:31 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:29:31 +0100 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <0ABEFD3213A74E14A5A921D42F3EA413@DG22FG61> References: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> <1311041242.83077.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <0ABEFD3213A74E14A5A921D42F3EA413@DG22FG61> Message-ID: <621A10C5F91744E5B2B25E8AE44C92FD@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190970 >>> luirhys: >>> 10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and >>> windows can be opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate? > > Dorothy: > I wondered that as well because it means that locked doors can be > easily opened by 11 year olds. What good are locks, and why have > them? Liz: I had a thought about this, most locked doors are in corridors, and magic is not permitted in corridors, so the kids would be breaking the rules and certainly risking detention and possibly explosion. It appears, in the WW, that kids are given much more responsibility and trust than we Muggles would give our secondary school kids. Having no set bedtime for example means the kids alone are responsible and trusted to make sure they get enough sleep and can get up for lessons the next morning. So, I believe they are trusted not to open doors that are locked, as these doors are usually locked for a reason. Fluffy behind one for example! From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Jul 19 20:53:51 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:53:51 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j04qsv+tes8@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "luirhys" <lui_rhys_01 at ...> wrote: > PoA Chapter 21 : Hermione's Secret <snip> > Questions: > 4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the time turner, > why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time turner, it should only > be able to turn back time and not change your location. Geoff: Just a quick answer on this point. I have always assumed that time turning would take you back to the point where you were and therefore, I was not surprised (in hindsight) that Harry and Hermione finished up in the Entrance Hall three hours back as they almost immediately heard themselves coming through under the Invisibility Cloak. From lynde at post.com Tue Jul 19 21:04:34 2011 From: lynde at post.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:04:34 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) Message-ID: <20110719210443.300940@gmx.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190972 Alla: > Fact - or at least we have not seen anything to the contrary in canon, > Dumbledore KNOWS that Tom Riddle is Lord Voldemort but does not tell > anybody. I do not care that Tom Riddle had a perfect reputation before > he dissappeared. Fact is voldemort is a magical mystery to everybody, > somebody who is supposedly so unknown to WW that he cannot be > defeated. Known evil is a lesser evil, thats just common sense to me > and Dumbledore does not tell anybody that Tom Riddle is a pitiful > human who has sociopathic tendencies, but not the mysterious creature, > who undergone those transformations? Lynda: Alla, I have read your posts for many years. I believe you are intelligent, knowledgable and under normal circumstances, logical. I also believe that when you read the HP books you read a completely different story than I did. It appears to me that when JK Rowling said that Dumbledore was the epitome of goodness, you took that to mean that he was something of a benevolent god figure. Rowling made that clear in every interview I have seen or read that addressed the issue that was not meant to be the case. Your fallacy, if there is one here is that you set up a story in your mind that you wanted to read, outcomes that you desired, and when Ms. Rowling wrote a different story, you became unhappy with it. Now that's okay. Certainly, I have read books, even entire series of books in which I disagree with the story that the author writes. One of them very, very popular. Still, not only will you never hear me yell "Vampires don't sparkle" when another person who doesn't like Meyers vampire story makes that argument I always say "Stephanie Meyers vampires do sparkle and that's okay. It's her story." Part of that is of course that I don't really care about whether vampires sparkle or not. That's up to the author. I have other problems with that set of books and I choose to simply not be involved with them other than in a very peripheral way. I believe that we as readers need to remember that someone else originally envisioned the story of the books we read. Sure, we can interpret and accept or not accept the story as written in the longterm, but the person who wrote the story had an idea of what she intended to say. Let the writer say that thing with as open a mind as possible. If the process makes you feel that your mind is more like a wide open hole than a sieve that can collect something valuable, then maybe it's not the story for you. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntergreen3 at aol.com Tue Jul 19 22:28:38 2011 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen3 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's... Message-ID: <a5078.383b6e49.3b575f16@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190973 Questions: >>1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see Snape trying hard to get Harry in trouble, with detention and expulsion as his punishment. We all know he does this constantly, but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, and knowing that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard to have him punished?<< It was suggested around here before that he suggests expulsion because he knows that Dumbledore will not allow it anyway (but Harry doesn't know that, so it could just be to scare Harry or to let off steam). He doesn't suggest expulsion in Order of the Phoenix, when it was an actual threat. The other punishments, well, he protects Harry from death, but that doesn't mean he likes him or wants his life to be pleasant. >>2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably known who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent?<< I remember thinking along those lines when I read the first four books, clearly its not the case though. If Snape had any idea who the spy was, he would have told Dumbledore, he didn't want Lily in danger any more than Sirius or anyone else in the order did. >>3. It wasn't mentioned how the Dementors were called into Hogwarts. We assume they came on their own. Macnair came to fetch the Dementors. And Fudge (and other ministry officials) seems to have a degree of hold on them and can even give them orders. Fudge isn't even afraid of being in the same room as them. Dementors have shown they have free will but do you think they have brains?<< The dementors don't think or reason the same way humans do, but they have some way of operating and making decisions. How anyone has any degree of control over them confuses me. I don't understand why they didn't run wild in the first place, and why they listened to Voldemort (or why they agreed to just stay around Azkaban, when it had such a limited amount of "food"). We don't see them always being controlled with patronuses like during the Ministry of Magic interrogation scene, so I wonder what makes them obey during other times? >>4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the time turner, why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time turner, it should only be able to turn back time and not change your location.<< Maybe it took them to where they were those hours ago? >>6. Hermione said she was given the time turner so she could get to all her classes, and that Mcgonagall had to write to different people in order to get her permission. So do you think that schools or Hogwarts in particular have been giving out time turners to their outstanding students for ages?<< I would hope not, though it seems likely. Why is such a powerful magical item being used for something as unimportant as helping a student take a ton of classes? I think a better solution would have been for Mcgonagall to counsel Hermione at the beginning of term and help her weed out a few courses (the ones she ended up dropping were quite obviously ones she didn't need, and I think that could have been figured out much sooner). >>7. Dumbledore is in his usual calm state even though Buckbeak is about to be executed. Do you think he has knowledge of past and future events? Do you think that he knew Buckbeak would be saved?<< Maybe he just didn't care that much about Buckbeak. >>8. We know that past!Harry and Hermione heard the thudding of an axe and Hagrid's howling after they left his Hut. But could it be that what they heard was really the events of this chapter: Macnair throwing the ax at the fence and Hagrid crying with joy because of Buckbeaks apparent escape?<< The only interpretation (IMO) of all this time turner stuff that makes sense is that everything always happened, they didn't change what happened, they were *always* there. So Buckbeak always got away. >>9. Harry and Hermione talk about what could've driven the dementors away. And Harry confesses that he thinks it might've been his Dad. What were your first thoughts in reading this chapter so long ago?<< I honestly do not remember at all. I read the first three books in about a week, there really wasn't a chance to stop and think about anything. It was more about turning the page and finding out. >>10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and windows can be opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate?<< >From the moment Hermione in her first year opens a door that way, I thought it was pointless locking any door in the magical world without using whatever spell it is to stop it from being opened with alohamora. If a first year (though a very smart first year) can open it so easily, its essentially not locked at all. Thanks for the questions. -Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 00:28:43 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:28:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <20110719210443.300940@gmx.com> Message-ID: <j057fr+p5dv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190974 > Lynda: > > Alla, I have read your posts for many years. I believe you are intelligent, knowledgable and under normal circumstances, logical. Alla: I am sorry Lynda, but do you realize that what you wrote is a little bit insulting to me? Under normal circumstances? Lynda: I also believe that when you read the HP books you read a completely different story than I did. Alla: Yes, as unbelievable as it may seem to you, sometimes readers interpret the story so differently that as Magpie pointed out it may feel that we are reading different books. Lynda: It appears to me that when JK Rowling said that Dumbledore was the epitome of goodness, you took that to mean that he was something of a benevolent god figure. Alla: No. I took it to mean that more often than not he would behave as somebody who would behave as a good person. It appears to me that in the character of Dumbledore myself and JKR have a difference of opinion as to how good person would behave, thats all. Lynda: Rowling made that clear in every interview I have seen or read that addressed the issue that was not meant to be the case. Alla: She made it clear that he is not a god? Sure. She did not make it clear that he is not an epithome of goodness as far as I know. Lynda: Your fallacy, if there is one here is that you set up a story in your mind that you wanted to read, outcomes that you desired, and when Ms. Rowling wrote a different story, you became unhappy with it. Alla: No, your reading of my mind is just plain wrong. Certain elements of the story did not work for me, that is very different from writing a different story in my mind and then critiquing a book based on what I wanted to happen. I wanted Harry to live, that is very true, but even if he died, I know I would not have judged the story based on what would have happened because it was different from what happened. Even when we were fighting about why Snape killed Dumbledore, while I was hoping he would be evil, of course I was keeping other possibility in my mind, it is not like signs were not there. I can go on and on and on. But the bottom line is I *did* go into seventh book with very open mind and trust me, the character of Dumbledore was the character whose fate I thought about the least out of all major characters before book seven started, I mean I thought about his fate mostly in regard to why Snape killed him. Lynda: Now that's okay. Alla: What is okay exactly? Something you presumed I thought? Lynda: Certainly, I have read books, even entire series of books in which I disagree with the story that the author writes. One of them very, very popular. Still, not only will you never hear me yell "Vampires don't sparkle" when another person who doesn't like Meyers vampire story makes that argument I always say "Stephanie Meyers vampires do sparkle and that's okay. It's her story." Part of that is of course that I don't really care about whether vampires sparkle or not. That's up to the author. I have other problems with that set of books and I choose to simply not be involved with them other than in a very peripheral way. I believe that we as readers need to remember that someone else originally envisioned the story of the books we read. Sure, we can interpret and accept or not accept the story as written in the longterm, but the person who wrote the story had an idea of what she intended to say. Alla: And I always say that this is somebody else's story, not mine. However there is *nothing* that would stop me from explaining what elements of the story did not work for me and why and which elements would have worked better for me, which does NOT equal wanting to rewrite the books. Lynda: Let the writer say that thing with as open a mind as possible. If the process makes you feel that your mind is more like a wide open hole than a sieve that can collect something valuable, then maybe it's not the story for you. Alla: I hear loud and clear what writer has to say, Lynda. I do not HAVE to accept what she has to say without thinking critically about it. I am thinking about a book, a *product* that JKR sent out in the world, which readers can discuss and critique as they deemed fit. Please be assured that this IS the story for me. I just think that character of Dumbledore is quite an unpleasant bastard. Thats all. I read the story because I wanted to see what fate awaits the characters I liked and was invested in. There were plenty of those without Dumbledore. Alla. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 01:09:07 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 01:09:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: <4E24F410.5040302@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j059rj+rk5e@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190975 .> > Alla: > > > > So Dumbledore is able to know things before they happened after all? > > Bart: > Obviously not. Alla: Well, then he would not have known that Sirius would have end up in Azkaban, wouldn't he since he was asking Hagrid to take Harry *before* Sirius went after Peter? I actually would like to change subject a bit if you do not mind and go back to Voldemort supposedly not being able to harm Harry after he took Harry's blood. Do you think that his torture of Harry *after* he took Harry's blood does not constitute harm either? See why I am still confused over this whole subject of "blood"? From ddankanyin at cox.net Wed Jul 20 01:31:10 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:31:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry References: <j059rj+rk5e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <054D486E50684DDF8EA9D4985E924E9C@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 190976 Alla: > I actually would like to change subject a bit if you do not mind and go > back to Voldemort supposedly not being able to harm Harry after he took > Harry's blood. Do you think that his torture of Harry *after* he took > Harry's blood does not constitute harm either? > > See why I am still confused over this whole subject of "blood"? Dorothy: I thought the only thing Harry's blood did for Vodemort was to enable him to touch Harry. I never figured it protected either of them after that. I see here that many others feel it did being that it was a protection for Harry when his mother died "for him". Did I miss something somewhere? From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 17 03:09:06 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 03:09:06 -0000 Subject: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love In-Reply-To: <ivs91s+pnd0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivtjoi+t5nk@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote: > > Not to be confused with, but inspired by a thread of a similar name--- > > There is love, hate and despair in this series, though I'm not sure we see much joy. All of them inspire or drive characters to do what they do--with good and bad outcomes. > > There is the history of hatred between Muggles and Wizards, hatred between Marauders and Snape, between Draco and Harry. There is Snape's despair at Lily's death, Lovegood's despair at Luna's kidnapping, the whole Wizarding World's despair at LV's reign. We see Harry's joy at discovering the WW, Remus's joy at having friends. Love, actually, is all around. > > Love is a major theme of the series. It is, after all, Harry's love that saves the WW. JKR shows many types of love throughout her story--and warns about obsessive love. > > What do you, kind readers, think of the different ways JKR depicts love? > > Is she right, in your opinion? > > How many examples of love do you see in the book? > > How does love and joy contrast with hate and despair? > > > >Nikkalmati I am not sure you will get many responses. lol. This is a very dark series. Love is emphasized by its absence. There is lots of mother love, of course. Lily, Molly, Narcissa, Merope, Petunia (?). Boy-girl (we don't see much of man-woman and that doesn't look too good. Arthur-Molly, Lupin-Tonks, Snape for Lily). Harry for his children. Friends - the Trio. Hagred for his brother, Ron for Ginny and his siblings. Hagred for his pets and LV for Nagini. Love knits the world together and this world is being torn apart by its absence. I am not sure it is Harry's love that saves the WW. Do you mean his love for that world in general, so he is willing to die? I see it more as his sense of duty. I was trying to list how many simple acts of kindness I could remember from the 7 books. Not too many - and most of them are by Harry. Hagred gives Harry a birthday cake and an owl. Harry frees Dobby. Harry saves Dudley. Hermione repairs Harry's glasses and makes hats for the elves. Harry and friends save Norbert. Harry goes to the Deathday party for NH Nick. Harry saves Neville's Rememberall. I can't think of any others offhand. I tried not to include acts of heroism but I did include Dudley. Nikkalmati From bart at moosewise.com Wed Jul 20 02:44:26 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:44:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: <j059rj+rk5e@eGroups.com> References: <j059rj+rk5e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E26410A.60104@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190978 Alla:.> > Alla: >>> So Dumbledore is able to know things before they happened after all? >> Bart: >> Obviously not. > > Alla: > > Well, then he would not have known that Sirius would have end up in Azkaban, wouldn't he since he was asking Hagrid to take Harry *before* Sirius went after Peter? Bart: The Potters were betrayed. Sirius was the secret keeper, as far as DD knew. Therefore, Sirius must have betrayed the Potters, and was heading for Azkaban. Alla: > I actually would like to change subject a bit if you do not mind and go back to Voldemort supposedly not being able to harm Harry after he took Harry's blood. Do you think that his torture of Harry *after* he took Harry's blood does not constitute harm either? > Bart: It's an interesting question. Possibly it prevented Morty from killing Harry; possible it prevented him from physically harming Harry. Bart From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 03:20:46 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (bearhugger48) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 03:20:46 -0000 Subject: Tri-Wizards question Message-ID: <j05hie+c387@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190979 I just signed on and may have missed the discussion on this, but in the movie Goblet of fire, Harry told everyone that Vordy killed Cedric. I saw different but it went on that is the way it went down. Did the book say something different? bearhugger48 From concollins at cox.net Wed Jul 20 04:06:57 2011 From: concollins at cox.net (concollins at cox.net) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:06:57 -0700 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret Message-ID: <20110720000657.NE9D9.257650.imail@fed1rmwml39> No: HPFGUIDX 190980 > 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see > Snape trying hard to get Harry in trouble, with detention and > expulsion as his punishment. We all know he does this constantly, > but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, and knowing > that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard > to have him punished? I think Snape, like Sirius, often confused Harry with James, and projected his own resentment toward James onto Harry. I just listened to, in OoTP, the part where Harry sees, in the pensieve, how his father treated Snape when they were 15. I think Harry then had some understanding of how Snape must have felt. Connie From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 20 05:26:08 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 05:26:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: <j059rj+rk5e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j05otg+udla@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190981 > Alla: > > Well, then he would not have known that Sirius would have end up in Azkaban, wouldn't he since he was asking Hagrid to take Harry *before* Sirius went after Peter? > > I actually would like to change subject a bit if you do not mind and go back to Voldemort supposedly not being able to harm Harry after he took Harry's blood. Do you think that his torture of Harry *after* he took Harry's blood does not constitute harm either? > > See why I am still confused over this whole subject of "blood"? > Pippin: You are correct, Dumbledore did not know that Sirius would end up in Azkaban. As far as he knew, Sirius (or whoever the traitor might be) was at large and likely to remain so, capable of striking at Harry at any time, or of helping his master to a new body. Notice something about the TWT. All of Harry's wizard protectors were present: Dumbledore, the Weasleys, the Ministry of Magic, and Sirius Black, the mighty walls and spells of Hogwarts itself. And Harry was snatched out of their midst and forced to watch as human beings were murdered and mutilated, before he he himself was tortured and scarcely escaped with his life. *That* is what you called the "off chance" that Death Eaters might attack him. It was bad enough that it happened when Harry was almost fifteen, had a wand that was a match for Voldemort's and had learned a bit about how to defend himself. Even so, it changed him forever. But what if it had happened when Harry was as young and defenseless as Arianna? Even if he had survived, would he ever have been capable of a normal life again? I don't think you have to be a cold bastard to feel that Harry had to be protected from that, even if it meant getting a ducking from Dudley and being chased up a tree by Ripper and having to sleep in a cupboard. As for the blood: "But if Voldemort used the Killing Curse, " Harry started again, "and nobody died for me this time -- how can I be alive?" "I think you know," said Dumbledore. "Think back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his cruelty." Harry thought <snip> Then the answer rose to his lips easily, without effort. "He took my blood," said Harry. "Precisely!" said Dumbledore."He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!" DH ch 35 Lily's protection kept Harry from dying when Voldemort attacked him the first time. It kept Harry from being touched by Voldemort, and, thanks to Dumbledore's enchantments, from being touched by Voldemort or any of his servants while Harry lived in the house where his mother's blood dwelt. From the moment Voldemort took it into his body, he could touch Harry, but it kept Harry from dying while Voldemort lived -- but it had never protected Harry from being hurt, as the scar on Harry's forehead shows. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 06:17:29 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:17:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <20110718233153.232360@gmx.com> Message-ID: <j05rtp+ovtb@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <lynde at ...> wrote: > > Alla: > > ... Did anybody doubt that Dumbledore could withdraw him if he actually wanted to? ... > > > Lynda: > > One can of course argue that Alla. That does not mean however that the one arguing that is correct. I, for one, when I read the words BINDING MAGICAL CONTRACT interpreted those words to mean UNBREAKABLE MAGICAL CONTRACT. THE PERSON WHO ATTEMPTS TO BREAK THE CONTRACT WILL BE KILLED/CURSED. ... Steve Replies: Let's ask ourselves precisely what and when is the Magical Binding Contract made. Is it made when the name is submitted? Or, far more likely, does the Contract become Magically Binding when your name is selected by the Goblet of Fire? The Goblet chose Harry to compete. Yes, it chose from the available names, but in making that choice, the person whose name comes out, automatically becomes a Triwizard's Champion, and is therefore bound to compete; bound by honor and by magic. I think they only way to end it, was to simply call off the tournament. However, the age restriction was something newly implemented. The age restriction was not part of the historical Tri-wizard's Tournament, nor was age part of the Goblet's programming. It simply picks worthy Champions from the available names. If yout name come out, in my view, regardless of how it got in the Goblet, being selected is what seals the Contract. Being picked as a Champion means you are bound to compete. Steve/bbboyminn From thedossetts at gmail.com Sun Jul 17 18:04:20 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:04:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivv4k5+hk9f@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivv874+iuqh@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote: > Pippin > who has just realized that 'horcrux' is 'chi rho' backwards, partially latinized and transposed > Pat: I'm not a student of languages, especially Latin, can you give more on this? Thanks, Pat From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 20 15:44:03 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:44:03 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j06t43+ab1r@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190984 > Questions: > > 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see Snape trying hard > to get Harry in trouble, with detention and expulsion as his punishment. We all > know he does this constantly, but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, > and knowing that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard to > have him punished? Pippin: I think it is like Harry threatening to use magic on the Dursleys at the beginning of CoS. He isn't actually intending to do it, and isn't allowed to anyway, but the Dursleys don't need to know that. While Snape really does think that Harry takes horrible risks and should be stopped from doing so, he also thinks he is under no obligation to make Harry's life any more pleasant or comfortable than it has to be. He sees no reason why he shouldn't insult and threaten Harry if there is the slightest possible chance that he deserves it, and being a clever man, he is always able to think of a reason that Harry might. > > 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably known > who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? Pippin: Snape's fury in the Shrieking Shack shows he believes Sirius is guilty. Now that we know any Death Eater can communicate directly with Voldemort and with others through the Dark Mark, it is easy to see how Voldemort could keep the cells of his organization separate and still pass information between them. Lucius Malfoy, with his dark mark becoming active again, might have used it to summon other Death Eaters at the QWC without having to know who they were. I think Snape may have discovered that some DE's knew the spy as "Wormtail" and Snape knew that "Wormtail" had been Pettigrew's nickname at school. But given Voldemort's talent for misdirection, the fact that the spy was using one of the Maruader's nicknames did not, of course, mean that the spy was that particular Marauder, or even one of the Marauders at all. It only meant that Voldemort had corrupted someone close to James, and was daring Dumbledore to find out who it was. > 3. It wasn't mentioned how the Dementors were called into Hogwarts. We assume > they came on their own. Macnair came to fetch the Dementors. And Fudge (and > other ministry officials) seems to have a degree of hold on them and can even > give them orders. Fudge isn't even afraid of being in the same room as them. > Dementors have shown they have free will but do you think they have brains? Pippin: Since dementors glide rather than walk, I think they are more akin to entities like poltergeists and ghosts rather than Beings who have a living body with a brain in it. They have some kind of magical intelligence. We know they are capable of assembling data and reaching conclusions from it. Sirius says that they knew his thoughts were simpler when he was a dog, but they thought that meant he was going insane like the other prisoners. What they don't seem to have is any intellectual creativity. AFAWK, their only goals are to get more food and make more dementors. > > 4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the time turner, > why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time turner, it should only > be able to turn back time and not change your location. Pippin: It has to take you back to a location near where you were at the time you are revisiting, but out of sight. It's Einsteinian, IMO -- time and space are one. > > 5. On a similar note, do you think the time-turner can go forward in time? Pippin; We've seen them do it. The cabinet time turners at the Ministry in OOP fall, break, and return to Harry's present, which is their future, over and over again. > > 6. Hermione said she was given the time turner so she could get to all her > classes, and that Mcgonagall had to write to different people in order to get > her permission. So do you think that schools or Hogwarts in particular have been > giving out time turners to their outstanding students for ages? Pippin: Yes, though Hermione may have been McGonagall's first ever opportunity. Barty Jr was a twelve OWL student and must have had one, but he probably wasn't in Gryffindor. Dumbledore may have been the last Gryffindor student to have one. McGonagall doesn't strike me as the 12 OWL type, though I could be wrong. It would be fun to think of her turning herself into a cat to catch up on her sleep and resting in her own lap while her human self did her homework. I suspect most students weren't as zealous as Hermione about using the Time Turner only to get to class. I'm sure Riddle had a time turner and used it to hunt for the Chamber of Secrets and to give himself alibis. > > 7. Dumbledore is in his usual calm state even though Buckbeak is about to be > executed. Do you think he has knowledge of past and future events? Do you think > that he knew Buckbeak would be saved? Pippin: Dumbledore knows that Hagrid needs him to be calm and strong, whatever happens. Also Dumbledore knows that his intelligence and ability to reason are his strengths, and they are not at their best when he permits himself to become angry or inflamed. > > 8. We know that past!Harry and Hermione heard the thudding of an axe and > Hagrid's howling after they left his Hut. But could it be that what they heard > was really the events of this chapter: Macnair throwing the ax at the fence and > Hagrid crying with joy because of Buckbeaks apparent escape? Pippin: I am pretty sure there is supposed to be only one time line, though wizards have experimented with creating multiples. Hermione, once she has been observed to be absent from charms, cannot go back and take the charms class. She is not supposed to try and change time and has been told that bad things will happen if she tries. > > 9. Harry and Hermione talk about what could've driven the dementors away. And > Harry confesses that he thinks it might've been his Dad. What were your first > thoughts in reading this chapter so long ago? > PIppin: Darned if I know. I might've thought it was Snape. I know I never thought it was Harry. > 10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and windows can be > opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate? Pippin: It's not so amazing if you think about it. Even in the Muggle world we tend to treat locks as a formality -- I have had padlocks you could smash with a hammer, cars you could unlock with a coat hanger, doorlocks you could open with a credit card, and how many of us are as careful with our PINS and computer and voicemail passwords as the experts say we ought to be? The lock functions more like a "private --keep out" sign than as an actual barrier. And like the sign, most people will respect it, though it can do nothing to stop a determined thief. Really, really important doors, like the one for the Love room in the Ministry of Magic, cannot be opened by any spell that the Trio knows even as fifth years. Fudge could probably have locked Sirius's window with something like that if he had thought of it. There are times when wizards will deliberately make the first in a series of barriers too easy to overcome -- as a sort of feint or an incentive to overconfidence. But I don't think that was the case here. Fudge was locking Sirius in, not locking rescuers out, and Sirius didn't have a wand. Though if it was Dumbledore who locked the window, he was probably already thinking of a plan to let Sirius escape. Thanks, luirhys, for the interesting questions. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 14 20:17:14 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:17:14 -0000 Subject: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <ivnisa+ifug@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190985 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney <fenneyml at ...> wrote: > > I joined this group because I love the Harry Potter series and > enjoy discussion of it. I am all for discussion, argument, > observation, insight and disagreement. However, the primary > theme of the books is that Love conquers Evil. Much, if not > most, of the discussion on this list recently, is an effort to > redefine the books as a story of Evil, Hatred and Despair > where the villain is not Lord Voldemort but rather Dumbledore > .... > > Long live JKR and Harry Potter! > > Bookcrazzzy > Steve replies: I think perhaps you misunderstand. First, keep in mind that many of us have been discussing these books for years. Under my current user-name, I've been in this group since April 2004, however, I was in the group prior to that under three other user-names that were shutdown becasue the email address had been hijacked. There is no aspect of the books that has not been discussed in deep deep detail. So, after so many discussions, we start to analyze things on a deeper level, looking at very subtle aspects of the story. Is Dumbledore evil, perhaps not, but he certainly made his share of mistakes. Is there some underlying, perhaps microscopically, redeeming aspect, or understandable aspect, to Voldemort? Perhaps, perhaps we do see enough of his past and underlying psychology to see how things could have been very very different with only the slightest intervention into his life path. There are some who see the Twins as the most evil and vile bulling, unconscionable characters. Yet, most obviously, they are in a minority, but that darkness in the Twins is an aspect worth exploring, simply to create a better personal understanding of the character, even if, at the end you don't agree with the premise. Some see Harry as a very bad character; he breaks the rules, even in some cases the law, he goes out seeking trouble, gets into mischief that no other student manages. And yes, this is a fair aspect of Harry. But, I think most would agree with Thomas Jefferson, when he said that 'the Law is but the tyrants will' and that 'right and rights' trump law every time. Even as he breaks rules and laws, Harry ultimately does what is right. There are also two ways of analyzing the books. One from within the books looking at the characters as if we were in that world living it along side the characters. The other is to look at the books from outside the world, from the point of view of the author and the reader. Things that make no sense within the Wizard World can be easily explained from outside the Wizard World. Inside the world we would have desperately wished for Dumbledore to have revealed more, at least, to Harry. But outside of that world, from the perspective of the author or the reader, the mistakes made by the characters were necessary to produce a story with dramatic tension and excitement. So, again, realize that there is not a single subject or aspect that has not been discussed to death. Consequently, it is not inconceivable that we now look for deeper nuance and meaning, and try to explore alternate views on characters. The fact that we are still here discussing after 5 or 10 years, should indicate to you our dedication to this series of books. Also, keep in mind that those who think Dumbledore, or the Twins, or even Harry are trouble making rule breakers, are in a minority. They simply present an alternate view on common characters. They simply present alternate aspects of well known and well liked characters. Those alternate opinions far more reflect the attitudes of the poster than the attitudes of the characters. In short, don't take it too seriously. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 16:34:20 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:34:20 -0000 Subject: Tri-Wizards question In-Reply-To: <j05hie+c387@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0702c+pe6n@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bearhugger48" <bearhugger48 at ...> wrote: > > I just signed on and may have missed the discussion on this, but in > the movie Goblet of fire, Harry told everyone that Vordy killed > Cedric. I saw different but it went on that is the way it went down. > Did the book say something different? > > bearhugger48 > Steve replies: In the book, Baby-Voldemort issues the command "kill the spare", and Wormtail/Peter kills Cedric. According to law and logic, if you issue the command for someone's death, you are as guilty of the death as the person who committed the actual act. So, while Voldemort didn't cast the curse, he holds the responsibility for the death and the crime. Does that help? Steve/bboyminn From ingridbirgitta at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 14:36:58 2011 From: ingridbirgitta at gmail.com (Birgitta Karlsson) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:36:58 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j02lf3+gc5n@eGroups.com> References: <j02lf3+gc5n@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E26E80A.7050501@googlemail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190987 > Magpie: > I think he's just using "brainwashed" in the colloquial sense. He doesn't mean Lucius literally confunded him or anything, but that he was raised being taught these values all his life by the father he adored and respected (unlike Sirius the born rebel) and probably didn't even have other influences. > Birgitta: Ok, sorry to misunderstand. But by going by that definition isn't for example Luna also "brainwashed" by her father? Birgitta From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 18 00:21:55 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:21:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <ivvfb3+8tle@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <ivvub3+6k49@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190988 Alla: > Dumbledore decided he does not want to implement those ideas, that he is > remorseful over it. Fact - or at least we have not seen anything to the contrary > in canon, Dumbledore KNOWS that Tom Riddle is Lord Voldemort but does not tell > anybody. I do not care that Tom Riddle had a perfect reputation before he > dissappeared. Pippin: Saying you don't care about canon facts does not make them go away:) This one shows that Tom Riddle was not remembered as a pitiful human who had sociopathic tendencies. Dumbledore could not get anyone to believe that when Riddle was at Hogwarts, so how was he to get anyone to believe it later? He has no proof. Known is better than unknown indeed, but not if what everybody "knows" is a lie. > > Fact: > > Dumbledore disregarded the wishes of Lily and James that in case of their death > Harry would be brought up with Sirius and took him to Dursleys. Pippin: So, your idea is that Dumbledore should have left Harry lying in the rubble, trusting to Lily and James's plan to keep Harry safe? Lily and James's plan had gone rather wrong at that point. Dumbledore had no way of knowing which of Lily and James's friends had betrayed them -- even if it wasn't Sirius it was likely to be someone trusted by him --but he could be sure that Petunia was not going to let any Death Eaters into the house at Privet Drive if he could give her the power to keep them out. What command should Dumbledore have given Hagrid? -- "Bring Harry to his aunt and uncle's unless someone shows up claiming to be Harry's godfather, then you should hand Harry over at once." LOL. Lupin tells Molly that if something happens, "we" will not let her children starve. So it was understood within the Order that there was a collective responsibility for the children of its members, and Lily and James would have expected that all the Order would do whatever was necessary to take care of Harry if they could not. Alla: <snip>. But even if protection is there, maybe JKR feels it is okay to > have a life full of abuse and neglect on the off topic chance that when > deatheaters come Harry will survive it. Pippin: I do not see any evidence that Dumbledore thought it was okay. He never says it was okay. He only says there are worse things. That is JKR's opinion, I am sure. You are welcome to disagree with her, but it doesn't follow that Dumbledore wanted Harry to die, not when he is going to such elaborate lengths to keep him alive. There's often a choice, when someone is in serious danger, between trying to keep them comfortable until the end comes, or trying to save them at the cost of considerable pain and probable damage. That, to me, is the choice that JKR put before Dumbledore. It's very possible that if it had known the truth, the WW would have given up on Harry the way it would have given up on Arianna. Do you think they would have trusted Harry with a wand at all, much less a wand that was brother to Voldemort's, if they knew that Harry had a bit of Voldemort's soul inside him? Alla: > > But of course the best comes in book seven. JKR spells it out for us that > Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry has to die. Could he want for Harry to live? PIppin: Of course, everything in the books up until then can be read as Dumbledore always planned for Harry to die because JKR wants Harry and the reader to think that's what the plan was. But then there's the gleam. That's another canon fact that won't go away. Sure it was ambiguous, right up until Dumbledore explained what it meant. "He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." Dumbledore smiled at Harry, and Harry stared at him. "And you knew this? You knew--all along?" "I guessed. But my guesses have usually been good" -- DH ch 35 > > > Pippin: > > Canon fact is, the books do distinguish, plainly and unmistakably, between > Dumbledore giving Harry information and Dumbledore giving Harry orders. > > Alla: > > Indeed. But where I did say that it did not?. Pippin: Post 190901: " Dumbledore trained Harry to make sure that every word from his mouth is accepted as command at the end IMO." To me that sounds as if you think Dumbledore brainwashed Harry so that he could no longer tell the difference between instruction and orders. My apologies if that is not what you meant. > Alla: > > But of course it was Harry's "choice". After all Dumbledore is a brainless and > soulless portrait now. Dumbledore's brainwashing Harry paid off really well. Pippin: I don't think the Headmaster portraits are supposed to be brainless or soulless. They are magical objects that can think for themselves and like the ghosts, they bear an imprint of the soul of the wizard they portray. Alla: > Have I mentioned how much more I loved the scene with Elder wand in the Movie? > To me movie makers were kind enough to "clean up" this part of the ending which > I cannot stand and had I not wanted to avoid some movie contamination, I would > have happily agreed to remember this scene rather than the book one. To me > Movie!Harry becomes his own man and Canon!Harry I have to imagine so. Pippin: I like that scene too. Obviously the filmmakers have to take some liberties with the story in order to tell it visually. They are not going to get into the nerdy discourse on wandlore that we have in The Tales of Beedle the Bard to explain why the wand could not have been broken a long time ago. But even in DH Harry points out that Hermione should not have been able to break his wand if it was so powerful. To me, Harry became his own man when he decided he did not need to know exactly how Arianna had died. It doesn't matter because he is no longer measuring himself against Dumbledore. Harry at last knows who he is, and he is who he wants to be, and I think that is the greatest gift Dumbledore gave him. Remember all the theories that Harry was going to have to turn into Dirty!Harry in order to defeat Voldemort? Well, Dumbledore recognized that there was a way for Harry to defeat Voldemort without having to turn him into something Harry never wanted to be. Which does not preclude Harry from asking Dumbledore's portrait for advice.-If you (not you, Alla) only discuss things with people who share your view of the world and think exactly the way you do, you are not likely to learn very much -- which is why I enjoy our discussions even though we see canon so differently. > .Pippin: > > Certainly I agree that Dumbledore was attempting to form Harry's character as > well as impart information and skills. But that's not a bad thing, IMO. That is > what education is supposed to do, not only give us knowledge but a moral and > philosophical framework for using it. > > Alla: > > Only IMO the education that stops you from questioning with critical eye what > you had been told could be extremely dangerous education and character's forming > is all good to a degree IMO. > > Pippin: > > Dumbledore does want Harry to believe that one person can make a difference. > And I think JKR wants to show us that, not just because the genre demands it, > but because it's what she believes. She could have chosen a different genre, > after all. The books show not only that one person can make a difference but > why, sometimes, one person has to. > > Alla: > > Certainly one person can make a difference in many ways, good or bad, but one > person saving the world? Well, I personally am aware of *one* religious figure > doing that (I mean we have other religious figures too). It is all in the degree > for me. Pippin: In Judaism, to save even one life is to save the whole world. So while I am sure that JKR means Harry 's sacrifice to be understood in a Christian context, it is not the only way to understand it. I agree that Harry was damaged, I just don't see Dumbledore as to blame for it. Harry's parents were murdered and the whole wizarding world was expecting Harry to grow up and be their savior -- even the DE's were hoping that Harry might be a replacement for the Dark Lord they had lost. What sort of a normal upbringing could Harry have possibly had in the WW? > Pippin; > > He did not want Harry to make a hot-headed, rash decision about the hallows, > or about destroying the horcrux in himself, before Harry fully understood what > his choices were. But he was hampered because Harry did not want choices, he > wanted certainties, even if the certainty was death. > > Alla: > > He made Harry's choices for him though IMO. Didn't he say I wanted to slow you > down? Pippin: He wanted to slow Harry down because he didn't want Harry to act rashly. That is what a good teacher and a good leader does -- they don't put you into a situation that they don't think you are ready to face. They have to make those decisions for their followers (because the followers don't have enough knowledge or experience to make them), and sometimes they make bad ones, not necessarily because they have bad intent. Dumbledore allows that he was too cautious, too scarred by his own experience to trust that Harry was ready. > Alla: > > All I wanted is a little more clarity that he really tried to keep Harry > survive. The fact that Harry survived just does not cut it, because ancient > magic does not need Dumbledore's help to work, doesn't it? Pippin: It needed Dumbledore's help for Harry to trust that there was ancient magic that would save him, which it did. It just required Harry to believe, for a very short time, that his trust had been misplaced. Pippin From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 20 09:47:30 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:47:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tri-Wizards question In-Reply-To: <j05hie+c387@eGroups.com> References: <j05hie+c387@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <3A863F90BF914643A91509292A8E7760@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 190989 bearhugger48: >I just signed on and may have missed the discussion on this, but in > the movie Goblet of fire, Harry told everyone that Vordy killed > Cedric. I saw different but it went on that is the way it went down. > Did the book say something different? > Liz responds: Hi and welcome :) The book, like the film, have Wormtail killing Cedric, but this was done on Voldemorts orders and must have been with Voldemort's wand because of the later Priori Incantatem. Here's an extract from the English version. >From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice say, 'Kill the spare.' A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the words to the night: 'Avada Kedavra!' A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar reached such a pitch that he retched, and then it diminished; terrified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. Cedric was lying spread-eagled on the ground beside him. He was dead. Harry firmly believed that it was Voldemort's fault Cedric was dead and so he blamed him. At that point, Wormtail was just following orders and would probably have been killed himself if he didn't obey. It also was nessecary for the plot as it wouldn't have sounded so impressive to say, 'Wormtail killed Cedric!' as everyone would be asking, 'who's Wormtail?' From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 20 18:03:57 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: <j059rj+rk5e@eGroups.com> References: <4E24F410.5040302@moosewise.com> <j059rj+rk5e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311185037.60146.YahooMailNeo@web113918.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190990 > Alla: > Well, then he would not have known that Sirius would have end up > in Azkaban, wouldn't he since he was asking Hagrid to take Harry > *before* Sirius went after Peter? June: I really think you need to re read TPS again. I am sure like me you have read it half a million times but also like me, you probably have books that you remember better than others. For instance I can recite parts of TPS but have to look things up when it comes to TDH. It is mentioned in TPS that Lily's sacrifice for Harry put a spell on him in which he as long as he could call a family member's home, his he was safe. Sirius was his god father, a god father isn't necessarily a family member and in this case Sirius is a family friend but not a blood family member. Also at one point Dumbledore says that it is his mother's blood that keeps him save. The only surviving members with his mother's blood are his Aunt Petunia and his cousin Dudley. Dumbledore was well away that he would not be treated right and his hands were tied, however he had a neighbor of theirs who was a squib named Mrs. Figg watch over Harry for him. > Alla: > I actually would like to change subject a bit if you do not mind > and go back to Voldemort supposedly not being able to harm Harry > after he took Harry's blood. Do you think that his torture of > Harry *after* he took Harry's blood does not constitute harm > either? > > See why I am still confused over this whole subject of "blood"? June: I don't think it protected Harry in that Voldemort couldn't inflict bodily injury on him. It had more to do with Harry being a horcrux. I think Dumbledore was already suspicious that Harry was a horcrux and knew that Voldemort couldn't properly kill Harry (that if he tried, it would be that piece of soul that he would kill) because he took Harry's blood. From billy.wild1 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 17 12:43:23 2011 From: billy.wild1 at btinternet.com (billy.wild1 at btinternet.com) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 12:43:23 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <011301cc4305$00d97310$028c5930$@com> Message-ID: <ivuldb+g16d@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190991 > Sherry: > <snip> I got the impression through the series that Dumbledore was what I called, the King of second chances and of believing the best in many characters. Yet, he stood back and let Sirius go to Azkaban without a trial, without doing anything to discover the truth. He let Harry live with abusive unloving people all his life. I didn't really care about the blood protection either way, because I could only think of Harry's miserable unloved childhood. I probably feel a lot like Molly Weasley might about that. He didn't tell Harry the truth about the prophecy till it was too late, till it got Sirius killed. He let Snape be a mean bully to his students. > > <snip> > Dumbledore had one purpose throughout the series, to prepare Harry to destroy Voldemort. He was willing to sacrifice anything and anyone else, and Harry, to achieve that goal. That makes him probably a very strong leader, but it doesn't mean I have to like him or think of him as a great and noble man either. He just is > what he is. Billy: I definitely agree with the fact that all of the characters have their merits & flaws, regardless of alignment and that it makes them more realistic and human, though as for Dumbledore I don't think he flat out just sat back and allowed Sirius to go to Azkaban - Harry could've still lived with the Dursleys and got his blood protection if Sirius was free - I just don't think there was enough evidence to say otherwise. JKR herself said on her official site that it was pretty much a done deal: "Sirius might have volunteered to take the potion had he been given the chance, but he was never offered it. Mr. Crouch senior, power mad and increasingly unjust in the way he was treating suspects, threw him into Azkaban on the (admittedly rather convincing) testimony of many eyewitnesses." - extract from http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=105 I also don't see how the prophecy got Sirius killed, it was completely accidental. Also-also, you say "He was willing to sacrifice anything and anyone else, and Harry, to achieve that goal." like it was a bad thing. Let us remember that "that goal" was the eradication of the ultimate evil (like, Holocaust level evil and up) from the world. I think that justifies some of his more unsavoury actions. Billy From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 20 18:47:20 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 11:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <ivv874+iuqh@eGroups.com> References: <ivv4k5+hk9f@eGroups.com> <ivv874+iuqh@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311187640.54581.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190992 > Pippin > who has just realized that 'horcrux' is 'chi rho' backwards, > partially latinized and transposed June: Actually, I don't get this at all. Backwards horcrux would be xurcroh. There is only one h in horcrux, there is no i and I really do not understand where you are seeing these. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 18:41:12 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:41:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: <j05otg+udla@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j077g8+nc9j@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190993 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote: <SNIP> >> As for the blood: > "But if Voldemort used the Killing Curse, " Harry started again, "and nobody died for me this time -- how can I be alive?" > "I think you know," said Dumbledore. "Think back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his cruelty." > Harry thought <snip> Then the answer rose to his lips easily, without effort. > "He took my blood," said Harry. > "Precisely!" said Dumbledore."He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!" > DH ch 35 > > Lily's protection kept Harry from dying when Voldemort attacked him the first time. It kept Harry from being touched by Voldemort, and, thanks to Dumbledore's enchantments, from being touched by Voldemort or any of his servants while Harry lived in the house where his mother's blood dwelt. From the moment Voldemort took it into his body, he could touch Harry, but it kept Harry from dying while Voldemort lived -- but it had never protected Harry from being hurt, as the scar on Harry's forehead shows. Alla: I am (after pretty much giving up initially) only trying to understand what happened after Voldemort took Harry's blood, or even more specifically, what does taking Harry's blood in means for Voldemort and Harry connection. I get that Lily's protection kept Harry from dying in Godric Hollow. Bart seemed to argue that Voldemort taking Harry's blood in means that Voldemort could not harm him, or did I misunderstand and he could harm him as much as he wanted as long as he was not killing Harry? How does scar on Harry's forehead show anything if Voldemort did not take Harry's blood in yet when he was a baby? If Voldemort having Harry's blood in meant for him that he can touch Harry, but cannot kill him, doesn't intent count? Shouldn't he not be able to torture Harry because surely he was torturing Harry with intent to kill? I think this is very murky issue personally, By the way, thank goodness for movie at least making the Elder wand issue very clear for me, I think JKR should have hired them to clarify blood issue too lol. Now thats my only confusion left, I am at least clear in my head how the stick was changing masters lol. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 20 19:42:46 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:42:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <ivnisa+ifug@eGroups.com> References: <CAGRJC2sc-T1ueaZSt600CW-S1=g2s=XMny5f9Sjgvgzt80MFCw@mail.gmail.com> <ivnisa+ifug@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311190966.30278.YahooMailNeo@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190994 Steve replies: <SNIP> So, again, realize that there is not a single subject or aspect that has not been discussed to death. Consequently, it is not inconceivable that we now look for deeper nuance and meaning, and try to explore alternate views on characters. The fact that we are still here discussing after 5 or 10 years, should indicate to you our dedication to this series of books. Also, keep in mind that those who think Dumbledore, or the Twins, or even Harry are trouble making rule breakers, are in a minority. They simply present an alternate view on common characters. They simply present alteernate aspects of well known and well liked characters. Those alternate opinions far more reflect the attitudes of the poster than the attitudes of the characters. In short, don't take it too seriously. June: To be perfectly honest with you Steve, I took the posts the same way Margaret did. People just seemed to be forgetting that Dumbledore at times had his hands tied. They seemed to me to want to forget that the problems were all caused by Voldemort and want to blame Dumbledore for every thing. For instance; the most complained about subject is Dumbledore leaving Harry with the Dursley's instead of with Sirius or another wizarding family. What people don't seem to realize is that Dumbledore had no choice and was doing what he felt was best for Harry. By putting herself between Voldemort and Harry when Voldemort try to kill Harry, she caused some magic that made it so that Harry was protected from Voldemort and his followers as long as Harry could call the home of his mother's blood his home. This meant that he had to live with someone with his mother's blood ie a family member and the only family she has was her sister, Petuna and her nephew, Dudley. Because of this Harry had to live with the Dursleys. I am sure that if Dumbledore was given the choice he would have given him to a wizarding family like the Weasleys who would have treated Harry like their own and cared for him (as at this point I am sure like everyone else he suspected Sirius of setting up the Potters since as far as he knew Sirius had been their secret keeper). The thing was that his hands were tied and he had to leave them with the Dursleys but he did not leave them alone with the Dursley's as people are saying. There was a squib neighbor by the name of Mrs. Figg whom Dumbledore put in charge of making sure Harry was ok. She had cats that (as we saw in OOTP) kept an eye on him as well. I have mentioned this loads of times on here but a couple of people are still on about Dumbledore being the bad guy and I think that although it is only really just a couple, that Margaret is seeing it as many, but it isn't. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 20:17:25 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:17:25 -0000 Subject: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1311190966.30278.YahooMailNeo@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j07d4l+9e57@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190995 > June: <SNIP> I have mentioned this loads of times on here but a couple of people are still on about Dumbledore being the bad guy and I think that although it is only really just a couple, that Margaret is seeing it as many, but it isn't. Alla: I do not even know what to say after Steve's excellent post, but I am going to try one more time. Please understand that even if people who disagree with you are seeing where you are coming from and find your explanation perfectly clear, they do not have to buy it. Again, canon closed, it is not like in the case of whether Snape is evil or Lupin is evil the new facts are going to come along. There are ambiguous issues like for me Dumbledore's actions that is why we can still argue them, but no matter how convincing your explanation is to you, it is not a requirement that people have to change their minds about it. Personal attacks on the list members are not allowed here, personal attacks on the characters which may arise in the course of the debates are allowed and always had been. I know I am stating the obvious here, but characters' feelings cannot be hurt. Of course it should have some basis in canon, but how much basis and whether there is a basis, well people can differ on that. The purpose of these conversations in my opinion had never been to *convince* anybody, even though people certainly changed their mind on some things throughout the years. But that happens naturally or it does not. The most I wanted out of this debates was to see where other person is coming from, to be entertained or educated here. I never ever ever write to convince anybody of anything. A lot of people still have the same stance on many topics that I remember since year 2002, 2003, 2004 and of course I am including myself in it, even if I changed my views on some topics too. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 20 19:12:44 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <4E26E80A.7050501@googlemail.com> References: <j02lf3+gc5n@eGroups.com> <4E26E80A.7050501@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <1311189164.15535.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190996 Birgitta: Ok, sorry to misunderstand. But by going by that definition isn't for example Luna also "brainwashed" by her father? June: In Luna's case I wouldn't say so. We all learn from our parents and usually what they teach us is correct but some times we find that what they teach us is incorrect. I believe that Luna's father believes what he is teaching her and passing on knowledge is what being a parent is all about. However Lucius is raising Draco to be hateful of anyone who is different. That is very different and in my opinion it is wrong. I read just yesterday an interview with JKR in which she went into what some of the characters went on to be and you will be happy to know that Luna has found that some of the creatures her dad believes in don't really exist and she has become the wizard equivalent of a naturalist and explores finding new creatures. She is also married to the grandson of Newt Scamander, the author who wrote Fantastic beasts and Where to Find Them. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 20 21:09:24 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:09:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: <j077g8+nc9j@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j07g64+iba6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190997 > > Alla: > > I am (after pretty much giving up initially) only trying to understand what happened after Voldemort took Harry's blood, or even more specifically, what does taking Harry's blood in means for Voldemort and Harry connection. I get that Lily's protection kept Harry from dying in Godric Hollow. Bart seemed to argue that Voldemort taking Harry's blood in means that Voldemort could not harm him, or did I misunderstand and he could harm him as much as he wanted as long as he was not killing Harry? How does scar on Harry's forehead show anything if Voldemort did not take Harry's blood in yet when he was a baby? > > If Voldemort having Harry's blood in meant for him that he can touch Harry, but cannot kill him, doesn't intent count? Shouldn't he not be able to torture Harry because surely he was torturing Harry with intent to kill? I think this is very murky issue personally, By the way, thank goodness for movie at least making the Elder wand issue very clear for me, I think JKR should have hired them to clarify blood issue too lol. Now thats my only confusion left, I am at least clear in my head how the stick was changing masters lol. Pippin: The way I understand it, initially Lily's protection in Harry's blood protected him from dying from Voldemort's AK as a baby. It did not stop Voldemort from hurting him with magic, thus the slash in Harry's forehead. It did stop Voldemort from touching Harry physically. When Quirrell, possessed by Voldemort tried to touch Harry, Quirrell was burned. But Peter, bearing the Dark Mark but not possessed, had no problem tying Harry up or cutting him with a knife. Once Voldemort had taken Harry's blood and rebuilt his body with it, he could touch Harry. He could also still torture Harry with spells. But he couldn't *kill* Harry, I am not sure anyone could, as long as Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins tethered Harry to earth and Voldemort was protected by his horcruxes. I am not sure what would have happened if Voldemort had destroyed Harry's body -- in that case Harry might have chosen to "go on" rather than try to exist in a vaporous form like Voldemort. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 20 21:22:04 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:22:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <1311187640.54581.YahooMailNeo@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j07gts+qht0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190998 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: > > > > Pippin > > who has just realized that 'horcrux' is 'chi rho' backwards, > > partially latinized and transposed > > June: > Actually, I don't get this at all. Backwards horcrux would be > xurcroh. There is only one h in horcrux, there is no i and I > really do not understand where you are seeing these. > Pippin: I shall explain...further. :) "Chi rho' is a symbol used by Christians since ancient times. It is the first two letters of Christ's name spelled in Greek. The letter "chi" which looks like an X makes the "ch" sound and the letter "rho" which looks like a P, makes the "r" sound. The chi rho symbol looks like an X with a P superimposed on it. Christians also traditionally associated the letter chi with the cross of Christ. The Latin word for cross is "crux" and 'hor' is an anagram of 'rho'. Get it? Reversing or inverting Christian holy names or symbols is supposedly a traditional component of black magic. Pippin From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 20 21:35:13 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (Bearhugger48) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Tri-Wizards question Message-ID: <1311197713.58666.YahooMailClassic@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190999 > bearhugger48: > I just signed on and may have missed the discussion on this, but > in the movie Goblet of fire, Harry told everyone that Vordy killed > Cedric. I saw different but it went on that is the way it went down. > Did the book say something different? > Steve replies: > In the book, Baby-Voldemort issues the command "kill the spare", > and Wormtail/Peter kills Cedric. > > According to law and logic, if you issue the command for someone's > death, you are as guilty of the death as the person who committed > the actual act. > > So, while Voldemort didn't cast the curse, he holds the > responsibility for the death and the crime. > > Does that help? bearhugger48: Thanks, Steve & Liz. Yes it helps. But in the beginning, Voldy told Wormtail to move so he himself could kill the caretaker.. I just find it odd.. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Jul 20 22:34:14 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:34:14 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <1311189164.15535.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j07l56+f8bv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote: Birgitta: > Ok, sorry to misunderstand. > But by going by that definition isn't for example Luna also > "brainwashed" by her father? June: > In Luna's case I wouldn't say so. We all learn from our parents and usually what they teach us is correct but some times we find that what they teach us is incorrect. I believe that Luna's father believes what he is teaching her and passing on knowledge is what being a parent is all about. However Lucius is raising Draco to be hateful of anyone who is different. That is very different and in my opinion it is wrong. Geoff: Perhaps my use of the word "brainwash" was too strong. However, I think that Luna would fit the category as well and your point bears this out. Both Lucius and Xenophilus are imparting their own view of the world to their children and both have a strong influence because, in Draco's case, he is a single child with very few friends and has only his parents as role models and they are poor examples because of their own views which they had received from Voldemort; Luna is also a single child and has lost a parent and she has picked up the eccentricities of her father to a large extent. In these situations, if children are taught incorrectly, they may not realise it until grpwing up and coming into contact with other views - or not at all. If you ever see some of the programmes about life behind the Iron Curtain which were made after 1989, many of those taking part realised that they had distorted ideas about morality and similar issues after the strict censoring of Western news stopped. I agree with you that the two results are different but the fact is that we are the product of our genes, our culture and our environment be it good or bad. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 21 00:38:14 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:38:14 -0000 Subject: Tri-Wizards question In-Reply-To: <1311197713.58666.YahooMailClassic@web110404.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j07sdm+tuoq@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191001 > bearhugger48: > Thanks, Steve & Liz. > > Yes it helps. But in the beginning, Voldy told Wormtail to move so > he himself could kill the caretaker.. I just find it odd.. Potioncat: I am working from memory (of books)--but two thoughts. Did the group ever determine if Frank's murder was the source for Horcrux!Nagini? If LV needed a murder to make a Horcrux, he would have had to wave the wand. In the graveyard, the murder was just to get rid of a complication. If that idea doesn't work, here's another: At the beginning of the book,LV was in a chair in a room, facing an old Muggle. Although he didn't appear strong, I think he was up to the task. In the graveyard however, he exposed, and vulnerable and may not have been able to face a wizard. Welcome to our group! From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Jul 21 01:11:15 2011 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie at earthlink.net) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:11:15 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <4E26E80A.7050501@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <j07ubj+7ggi@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191002 > > Magpie: > > I think he's just using "brainwashed" in the colloquial sense. He doesn't mean Lucius literally confunded him or anything, but that he was raised being taught these values all his life by the father he adored and respected (unlike Sirius the born rebel) and probably didn't even have other influences. Birgitta: > Ok, sorry to misunderstand. > But by going by that definition isn't for example Luna also > "brainwashed" by her father? Magpie: To an extent. But based on the little we know about her father I'd say there might be some important differences. I could believe that Luna in part embraced her father's crazy theories to feel close to him and maybe even to keep the memory of her mother alive. But I'm not so sure that if she didn't agree with him he would reject her. Lucius, otoh, is a bit of a bully who criticizes Draco with comments about how he might not be good for anything etc., and his mother's family blasts people off the family tree. So I would definitely say that with Draco there was probably more of a fear factor there. In Muggle terms I can see Luna more like the child of passionate vegans teaching some theories that might not actually be accurate. Draco's being raised as part of an angry gang. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 21 01:17:18 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:17:18 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j07umu+q7jv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191003 >luirhys wrote a very good discussion with these questions: > > Questions: > > 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see Snape trying hard > to get Harry in trouble, with detention and expulsion as his punishment. We all > know he does this constantly, but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, > and knowing that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard to > have him punished? Potioncat: I agree with an earlier post, Snape has confused Harry with James--or at the very least, is more convinced than ever that Harry is just like James. But look at the list of Harry's transgressions, "leading his friends into such danger...against all school rules---out-of-bounds, at night, consorting with a werewolf and a murderer--and I have reason to believe he has been visiting Hogsmeade illegally too" All of these are legit and let's face it, another student probably would be suspended. He isn't asking for Harry to be expelled, and the year is almost up. If you ask me, Snape just wants to get a few nights sleep. > > 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably known > who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? Potioncat: No, and for all the reasons all ready mentioned by others. While we've been lead to believe at this point that Snape is reacting to a childhood grudge, he is really dealing with Lily's murder--and he thinks Sirius is responsible. > > 4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the time turner, > why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time turner, it should only > be able to turn back time and not change your location. Potioncat: I'm so glad you asked, I wondered too when I read the chapter this time. Lots of good answers. > > 6. Hermione said she was given the time turner so she could get to all her > classes, and that Mcgonagall had to write to different people in order to get > her permission. So do you think that schools or Hogwarts in particular have been > giving out time turners to their outstanding students for ages? Potioncat: No, I don't. Still don't know why they did---boy these wizards really lack any sense of logic. > > 7. Dumbledore is in his usual calm state even though Buckbeak is about to be > executed. Do you think he has knowledge of past and future events? Do you think > that he knew Buckbeak would be saved? Potioncat: Excuse me, I seem to have twisted my Time Turner. Do you mean earlier at Hagrid's, or now in the infirmary? If you mean in this chapter, the "execution" is over. While Harry and Hermione think Buckbeak is dead, DD knows Buckbeak will be saved---was saved--will have been saved---and I think he knows his role is to suggest time travel to Harry and Hermione so they can go where they haven't been yet, but were. or maybe you mean the DD we see at Hagrid's hut from TT!Harry and TT!Hermione's view. He does seem to be making the time go longer, and he doesn't seem surprised. I think at that point, he must have seen Harry and Hermione and knew something was up--even if he didn't yet know exactly what it was. > > 8. We know that past!Harry and Hermione heard the thudding of an axe and > Hagrid's howling after they left his Hut. But could it be that what they heard > was really the events of this chapter: Macnair throwing the ax at the fence and > Hagrid crying with joy because of Buckbeaks apparent escape? Potioncat: Yes, that's my reading of it. One timeline, with two Harries and two Hermiones and one living Buckbeak. > > 9. Harry and Hermione talk about what could've driven the dementors away. And > Harry confesses that he thinks it might've been his Dad. What were your first > thoughts in reading this chapter so long ago? Potioncat: I don't know. I'm pretty sure I didn't think it was James. Not sure if I ever thought of Snape. But I like that so many others did. Sort of foreshadows Snape's similar use of a Patronus later on. > Two scenes really moved me at this reading (you all "are" reading the chapters, aren't you?) The first was when Harry realized "he hadn't seen his father, he had seen himself" followed quickly by understanding his own Patronus was Prongs. Later Sirius will say "you are your father's son. Seems a big part of this chapter is the father/son image of James and Harry with at least 3 characters playing into it. The second was when they watched Snape lifting the limp forms of Hermione, Harry and Black onto stretchers. Snape has no idea that his own headache was partly due to Black's treatment of him. Thanks for the great discussion. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jul 21 02:27:12 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:27:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <j07gts+qht0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j082q0+tinl@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191004 > Pippin: > > I shall explain...further. :) > > "Chi rho' is a symbol used by Christians since ancient times. It is the first two letters of Christ's name spelled in Greek. The letter "chi" which looks like an X makes the "ch" sound and the letter "rho" which looks like a P, makes the "r" sound. The chi rho symbol looks like an X with a P superimposed on it. > > Christians also traditionally associated the letter chi with the cross of Christ. The Latin word for cross is "crux" and 'hor' is an anagram of 'rho'. > > Get it? > > Reversing or inverting Christian holy names or symbols is supposedly a traditional component of black magic. > > Pippin > Nikkalmati This idea is absolutely so cool. Could it be what she was thinking or is it just chance? Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jul 21 02:50:35 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:50:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/ and Voldemort and Harry In-Reply-To: <1311185037.60146.YahooMailNeo@web113918.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j0845r+c6ot@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191005 > > Alla: > > I actually would like to change subject a bit if you do not mind > > and go back to Voldemort supposedly not being able to harm Harry > > after he took Harry's blood. Do you think that his torture of > > Harry *after* he took Harry's blood does not constitute harm > > either? > > > > See why I am still confused over this whole subject of "blood"? > Nikkalmati I am not sure I get it either, and I don't see why it was so important. I can see that Harry was a Horcrux so he had part of LV's soul in him. That means as long as LV lived, Harry also lived. Once LV had the blood protection he should have been able to come to tea with Petunia? <eg>. I think it means their lives are even more strongly linked and LV cannot kill Harry (but I am not sure how that works). He can hurt him, however. Nikkalmati > June: > I don't think it protected Harry in that Voldemort couldn't inflict > bodily injury on him. It had more to do with Harry being a horcrux. > I think Dumbledore was already suspicious that Harry was a horcrux > and knew that Voldemort couldn't properly kill Harry (that if he > tried, it would be that piece of soul that he would kill) because > he took Harry's blood. > Nikkalmati As you can see, DD knew Harry was likely a Horcrux at least by the time the Diary was destroyed. In order to destroy LV, Harry had to die, and DD was planning on making sure that happened. It was not until the Tri-Wizaard tournament that DD sees the possibility that Harry may live through this. I'm sure DD was happy about that, but it was not his doing, and he was willing to see Harry killed at the right time and place before there was any hope Harry would survive. I guess that when he tells Snape (in the Pensieve in DH)that LV must do the killing - that is so Harry will be able to come back. Nikkalmati From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 02:50:11 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:50:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <ivvub3+6k49@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j08453+ur7g@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191006 > Alla: > > Dumbledore decided he does not want to implement those ideas, that he is > > remorseful over it. Fact - or at least we have not seen anything to the contrary > > in canon, Dumbledore KNOWS that Tom Riddle is Lord Voldemort but does not tell > > anybody. I do not care that Tom Riddle had a perfect reputation before he > > dissappeared. > > Pippin: > Saying you don't care about canon facts does not make them go away:) This one shows that Tom Riddle was not remembered as a pitiful human who had sociopathic tendencies. Dumbledore could not get anyone to believe that when Riddle was at Hogwarts, so how was he to get anyone to believe it later? He has no proof. Known is better than unknown indeed, but not if what everybody "knows" is a lie. Alla: Right, however he was not remembered as a mystery creature who cannot be defeated either. IMO it is easier to fight against human wizard than against a mystery. > Pippin: > I do not see any evidence that Dumbledore thought it was okay. He never says it was okay. He only says there are worse things. That is JKR's opinion, I am sure. You are welcome to disagree with her, but it doesn't follow that Dumbledore wanted Harry to die, not when he is going to such elaborate lengths to keep him alive. > > There's often a choice, when someone is in serious danger, between trying to keep them comfortable until the end comes, or trying to save them at the cost of considerable pain and probable damage. That, to me, is the choice that JKR put before Dumbledore. Alla: As I mentioned before, to me the problem is not just that Dumbledore left Harry with Dursleys. I mean it is the problem for me, but only half of it. As I said, to me she did not show the protection clear enough, but I can certainly accept that it was there. JKR made it hard for me to do so, but she definitely said it. To me the bigger problem is that nowhere in the book as far as I can see it says that Dumbledore could not visit Dursleys and put considerable pressure on them to treat Harry better. And no, I do not care how much threat of blackmail and/or physical damage he would apply to make Dursleys obey him. He took a responsibility upon himself to rule the fate of the innocent baby, and if he can only protect him by threatening Dursleys, I say so be it. As I also mentioned before, we see that Petunia obeys the letter in OOP, period. I do not see why he could not do the same thing decade earlier. In other words the choice you are describing is a false dishotomy for me, because I interpret that Dumbledore COULD make Harry's life easier even with Dursleys and did not do so. The pain and damage in my view was not necessary to keep Harry safe. I mean, to take Dursleys in his life, maybe, but not to tolerate the way they treated Harry. Pippin: > It's very possible that if it had known the truth, the WW would have given up on Harry the way it would have given up on Arianna. Do you think they would have trusted Harry with a wand at all, much less a wand that was brother to Voldemort's, if they knew that Harry had a bit of Voldemort's soul inside him? Alla: LOL. Dumbledore had no problem not giving information to so many people, why would you think that if he gave Harry to wizarding family, like I don't know, Weasleys, he would have suddenly decided to share such information. > > Alla: > > > > But of course the best comes in book seven. JKR spells it out for us that > > Dumbledore tells Snape that Harry has to die. Could he want for Harry to live? > > PIppin: > Of course, everything in the books up until then can be read as Dumbledore always planned for Harry to die because JKR wants Harry and the reader to think that's what the plan was. But then there's the gleam. That's another canon fact that won't go away. Sure it was ambiguous, right up until Dumbledore explained what it meant. > > "He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." > Dumbledore smiled at Harry, and Harry stared at him. > "And you knew this? You knew--all along?" > "I guessed. But my guesses have usually been good" -- DH ch 35 Alla: Yes, but I thought I already explained that I am still confused and not sure how that actually works. > > > > > > Pippin: > > > Canon fact is, the books do distinguish, plainly and unmistakably, between > > Dumbledore giving Harry information and Dumbledore giving Harry orders. > > > > Alla: > > > > Indeed. But where I did say that it did not?. > > Pippin: > Post 190901: > " Dumbledore trained Harry to make sure that every > word from his mouth is accepted as command at the end IMO." > > To me that sounds as if you think Dumbledore brainwashed Harry so that he could no longer tell the difference between instruction and orders. My apologies if that is not what you meant. Alla: No, that is what I meant *between instruction and orders*, but I definitely did not mean that Harry could not distinguish between Dumbledore giving him information and orders, instruction and orders is the same thing for me. > > > > Alla: > > > > But of course it was Harry's "choice". After all Dumbledore is a brainless and > > soulless portrait now. Dumbledore's brainwashing Harry paid off really well. > > Pippin: > I don't think the Headmaster portraits are supposed to be brainless or soulless. They are magical objects that can think for themselves and like the ghosts, they bear an imprint of the soul of the wizard they portray. Alla: Yes, I know they are imprint, but not the soul itself, no? > Pippin: > I like that scene too. Obviously the filmmakers have to take some liberties with the story in order to tell it visually. They are not going to get into the nerdy discourse on wandlore that we have in The Tales of Beedle the Bard to explain why the wand could not have been broken a long time ago. But even in DH Harry points out that Hermione should not have been able to break his wand if it was so powerful. Alla: Yes, I was talking to somebody offlist and we agreed that Harry's breaking the wand reflects poorly on Dumbledore - if Harry could break it up, why not Dumbledore. What I liked however, is that Harry dealt with the wand without asking Dumbledore what to do with it. If he would have hidden it without asking Dumbledore first, I would have loved it just as much. Pippin: > To me, Harry became his own man when he decided he did not need to know exactly how Arianna had died. It doesn't matter because he is no longer measuring himself against Dumbledore. Harry at last knows who he is, and he is who he wants to be, and I think that is the greatest gift Dumbledore gave him. Alla: Unfortunately him asking Dumbledore's opinion about the wand and whether he did right thing to me contradicts what you are saying. I think it shows that he is still measuring himself against Dumbledore and wants his approval. Thus I would have to fight really hard not to be contaminated by this scene lol, I just sighed happily when I saw it. Pippin: > Which does not preclude Harry from asking Dumbledore's portrait for advice.-If you (not you, Alla) only discuss things with people who share your view of the world and think exactly the way you do, you are not likely to learn very much -- which is why I enjoy our discussions even though we see canon so differently. Alla: But he does do exactly what Dumbledore says, thats my problem. Heh, I always like talking to you too :). .> > Alla: > > > > All I wanted is a little more clarity that he really tried to keep Harry > > survive. The fact that Harry survived just does not cut it, because ancient > > magic does not need Dumbledore's help to work, doesn't it? > > Pippin: > It needed Dumbledore's help for Harry to trust that there was ancient magic that would save him, which it did. It just required Harry to believe, for a very short time, that his trust had been misplaced. Alla: I like it, I do, believe me in my mind Dumbledore committed enough sins without me thinking that he wanted Harry dead, I am more than happy to be convinced of the opposite. But him saying that to Snape is just so clear and the opposite IMO is so much less clear. But I certainly see how it could be true. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jul 21 03:16:53 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:16:53 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <j02jtl+7fik@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j085n5+g321@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191007 > Questions: > > 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see Snape trying hard > to get Harry in trouble, with detention and expulsion as his punishment. We all > know he does this constantly, but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, > and knowing that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard to > have him punished? Nikkalmatti I agree with others that he is just blowing off steam here. It is not within Fudge's powere to expell Harry and I don't think Snape ever tries to get him expelled. He does think Harry deserves detention. :) Just think of all those detentions James served. Besides, if Harry keeps running around, it makes Snape's job of protecting him that much harder. > Nikkalmati > 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably known > who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? > Nikkalmati Not at all. Snape was a junior DE at the time and although he may have tried to find out who was the spy, he did not have access either to the inner circle and LV or to James and friends. If he had known, he would have told DD in order to save Lily. Nikkalmati > 3. It wasn't mentioned how the Dementors were called into Hogwarts. We assume > they came on their own. Macnair came to fetch the Dementors. And Fudge (and > other ministry officials) seems to have a degree of hold on them and can even > give them orders. Fudge isn't even afraid of being in the same room as them. > Dementors have shown they have free will but do you think they have brains? > Nikkalmati They have some kind of instinct, but it is not clear how one would communicate with them or get them to agree to obey. Nikkalmati > 4. Hermione and Harry were in the infirmary but after flipping the time turner, > why did they end up at the entrance hall? Being a time turner, it should only > be able to turn back time and not change your location. > Nikkalmati As others have said, you end up whereever you were three hours ago. Nikkalmati > 5. On a similar note, do you think the time-turner can go forward in time? > Nikkalmati No I don't think they can because the future does not exist. Nikkalmati > 6. Hermione said she was given the time turner so she could get to all her > classes, and that Mcgonagall had to write to different people in order to get > her permission. So do you think that schools or Hogwarts in particular have been > giving out time turners to their outstanding students for ages? > Nikkalmati I doubt that Hermione was the first. I imagine a professor has to sponsor you and give the Ministry a good reason, but others must have been allowed them in the past. BTW do you think Hermione's TT was destroyed in the Battle at the Ministry or is it sitting in Menerva's desk drawer? Nikkalmati > 7. Dumbledore is in his usual calm state even though Buckbeak is about to be > executed. Do you think he has knowledge of past and future events? Do you think > that he knew Buckbeak would be saved? > Nikkalmati I don't think so. He seemed relieved that Buckbeak was gone. I just think he tries to approach everything calmly. Nikkalmati > 8. We know that past!Harry and Hermione heard the thudding of an axe and > Hagrid's howling after they left his Hut. But could it be that what they heard > was really the events of this chapter: Macnair throwing the ax at the fence and > Hagrid crying with joy because of Buckbeaks apparent escape? > Nikkalmati Yes, the whole thing only happened once and they were there at the same time. Nikkalmati > 9. Harry and Hermione talk about what could've driven the dementors away. And > Harry confesses that he thinks it might've been his Dad. What were your first > thoughts in reading this chapter so long ago? Nikkalmati Call me silly, but I believed it was James somehow. Nikkalmati > > 10. On a side note, it really amazes me how "important" doors and windows can be > opened by a simple alohamora. Was this deliberate? > > Nikkalmati I am not sure it is quite that easy. Certainly, few students could do it - just because they learn only what they are taught in class. Hermione is the exception. She learns on her own whatever might be useful. She also is above average in talent so things that are easy for her would not be easy for everyone. Nikkalmati From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 01:57:11 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (Bearhugger48) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <j07umu+q7jv@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311213431.6959.YahooMailClassic@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191008 >> luirhys: >> 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see >> Snape trying hard to get Harry in trouble, with detention and >> expulsion as his punishment. We all know he does this constantly, >> but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, and knowing >> that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard >> to have him punished? > Potioncat: > I agree with an earlier post, Snape has confused Harry with > James--or at the very least, is more convinced than ever that Harry > is just like James. But look at the list of Harry's transgressions, > "leading his friends into such danger...against all school rules--- > out-of-bounds, at night, consorting with a werewolf and a > murderer--and I have reason to believe he has been visiting > Hogsmeade illegally too" > > All of these are legit and let's face it, another student probably > would be suspended. He isn't asking for Harry to be expelled, and > the year is almost up. If you ask me, Snape just wants to get a few > nights sleep. Bearhugger48: I agree. But with Snape being a Death Eater, would it not make sense to expel Harry from Hogwarts. Then Harry would not learn the wizarding he needs to tackle LV and would then be of no threat? From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jul 21 03:23:22 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:23:22 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermione's secret In-Reply-To: <1311213431.6959.YahooMailClassic@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j0863a+hqjc@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bearhugger48 <bearhugger48 at ...> wrote: > > >> luirhys: > >> 1. At the beginning of Fudge and Snape's conversation, we see > >> Snape trying hard to get Harry in trouble, with detention and > >> expulsion as his punishment. We all know he does this constantly, > >> but, why? After knowing the ending of the series, and knowing > >> that he is Harry's protector, why do you think he tries so hard > >> to have him punished? > > > Potioncat: > > I agree with an earlier post, Snape has confused Harry with > > James--or at the very least, is more convinced than ever that Harry > > is just like James. But look at the list of Harry's transgressions, > > "leading his friends into such danger...against all school rules--- > > out-of-bounds, at night, consorting with a werewolf and a > > murderer--and I have reason to believe he has been visiting > > Hogsmeade illegally too" > > > > All of these are legit and let's face it, another student probably > > would be suspended. He isn't asking for Harry to be expelled, and > > the year is almost up. If you ask me, Snape just wants to get a few > > nights sleep. > > > Bearhugger48: > I agree. But with Snape being a Death Eater, would it not make sense > to expel Harry from Hogwarts. Then Harry would not learn the wizarding > he needs to tackle LV and would then be of no threat? > Nikkalmati Snape has not been a Death Eater since before Harry was born. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu Jul 21 01:54:12 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry and Draco WAS: Dumbledore WAS: Re: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j07l56+f8bv@eGroups.com> References: <1311189164.15535.YahooMailNeo@web113914.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <j07l56+f8bv@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311213252.19588.YahooMailNeo@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Geoff: > Perhaps my use of the word "brainwash" was too strong. However, I think that Luna would fit the category as well and your point bears this out. Both Lucius and Xenophilus are imparting their own view of the world to their children and both have a strong influence because, in Draco's case, he is a single child with very few friends and has only his parents as role models and they are poor examples because of their own views which they had received from Voldemort; Luna is also a single child and has lost a parent and she has picked > up the eccentricities of her father to a large extent. > In these situations, if children are taught incorrectly, they may not realise it until grpwing up and coming into contact with other views - or not at all. If you ever see some of the programmes about life behind the Iron Curtain which were made after 1989, many of those taking part realised that they had distorted ideas about morality and similar issues after the strict censoring of Western > news stopped. > I agree with you that the two results are different but the fact is that we are the product of our genes, our culture and our environment > be it good or bad. June: Thank you Geoff, you just said the same thing I said. We do learn from our parents and because someone believes something that is untrue that does not mean they are brainwashing their kids. We all teach what we believe to be true and if we are mistaken that doesn't mean that we are bad people, it just means that we only thought we knew the right answer. I am sure all of us at one point have been sure something was write only to later learn that it is wrong. The definition of brainwashing is as follows: brain??wash??ing??? ???/??bre??n??w????????, -??w????????/ [breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing]?? ???noun 1. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, especially through the?use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques. 2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. 3. an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences. Really neither parent is brainwashing their child, however they are teaching them and in the case of? Luna's dad, he is (with the best of intentions) teaching her to believe in creatures that don't exist. The thing is that he believes they exist so really he is only incorrect in what he is teaching her. In Malfoy's case, his father is teaching him to hate and be prejudiced. That in my opinion is wrong and that is why I believe that Malfoy was abused by his father. From thedossetts at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 16:16:00 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:16:00 -0000 Subject: Tri-Wizards question In-Reply-To: <j07sdm+tuoq@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j09jc0+3bo4@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote: > > > > bearhugger48: > > Thanks, Steve & Liz. > > > > Yes it helps. But in the beginning, Voldy told Wormtail to move so > > he himself could kill the caretaker.. I just find it odd.. > > > Potioncat: > I am working from memory (of books)--but two thoughts. > > Did the group ever determine if Frank's murder was the source for Horcrux!Nagini? If LV needed a murder to make a Horcrux, he would have had to wave the wand. In the graveyard, the murder was just to get rid of a complication. > > If that idea doesn't work, here's another: At the beginning of the book,LV was in a chair in a room, facing an old Muggle. Although he didn't appear strong, I think he was up to the task. In the graveyard however, he exposed, and vulnerable and may not have been able to face a wizard. > > Welcome to our group! Pat: Another option - he could have been saving his strength for what was coming, as well. Pat > From huntergreen3 at aol.com Thu Jul 21 16:19:46 2011 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen3 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:19:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermio... Message-ID: <156a8.5e0da3a4.3b59aba2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191012 > 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably known > who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? > Nikkalmati >>Not at all. Snape was a junior DE at the time and although he may have tried to find out who was the spy, he did not have access either to the inner circle and LV or to James and friends. If he had known, he would have told DD in order to save Lily.<< Was he just a junior DE? I definitely agree that he did not know who the spy was, but I don't think he was a lower-level DE at the time James and Lily died. He had the Dark Mark and there was a spot open for him in the circle in the graveyard during GoF. Also, he asked Voldemort to spare Lily, which he almost did, and I don't think he would have even listened to a lower-level servant. I think that Snape didn't know who the spy was because none of the DE's knew who the spy was. -Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From thedossetts at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 16:26:43 2011 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:26:43 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermio... In-Reply-To: <156a8.5e0da3a4.3b59aba2@aol.com> Message-ID: <j09k03+7p8k@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, huntergreen3 at ... wrote: > > > 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably > known > > who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? > > > Nikkalmati > > >>Not at all. Snape was a junior DE at the time and although he may have > tried to find out who was the spy, he did not have access either to the > inner circle and LV or to James and friends. If he had known, he would have > told DD in order to save Lily.<< > > Was he just a junior DE? I definitely agree that he did not know who the > spy was, but I don't think he was a lower-level DE at the time James and Lily > died. He had the Dark Mark and there was a spot open for him in the circle > in the graveyard during GoF. Also, he asked Voldemort to spare Lily, which > he almost did, and I don't think he would have even listened to a > lower-level servant. I think that Snape didn't know who the spy was because none of > the DE's knew who the spy was. > > -Rebecca > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Pat: Don't have my books with me right now, so I can't give the exact spot, but I believe that it's in GOF where Harry sees a trial in the pensieve and one of the DEs (Karkaroff, I think) says that they were organized in cells, didn't know who was in others. So it is very likely that Snape had no idea who the spy was. He probably didn't even know who all the DEs were. Sorry for being unable to locate the exact passage. Pat From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 21 20:14:15 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:14:15 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermio... In-Reply-To: <j09k03+7p8k@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0a1an+ku40@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtbthw_mom" <thedossetts at ...> wrote: Pat: > Don't have my books with me right now, so I can't give the exact spot, but I believe that it's in GOF where Harry sees a trial in the pensieve and one of the DEs (Karkaroff, I think) says that they were organized in cells, didn't know who was in others. So it is very likely that Snape had no idea who the spy was. He probably didn't even know who all the DEs were. > Sorry for being unable to locate the exact passage. Geoff: I think the bit you mean may be the following: '"You say that you have names for us Karkaroff," said Mr. Crouch. "Let us hear them please." "You must understand,: said Karkaroff hurriedly, "that He Who Must Not Be Named operated always in the greatest secrecy... he preferred that we - I mean to say, his supporters - and I regret now, very deeply, that I ever counted myself among them -" "Get on with it," sneered Moody. "- we never knew the name of every one of our fellows - he alone knew exactly who we all were - " "Which was a wise move, wasn't it, as it prevented someone like you, Karkaroff, turning all of them in," muttered Moody.' (GOF "The Pensieve" p.511 UK edition) From sharren17 at yahoo.in Thu Jul 21 14:51:50 2011 From: sharren17 at yahoo.in (sharren17) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:51:50 -0000 Subject: harry potter Message-ID: <j09ee6+329v@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191015 Hey everyone this is Sharren I want to ask why Voldemort wanted to kill James and Lily Potter??? Also why is Snape known as half blood prince? Sharren. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 20:37:37 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:37:37 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death Message-ID: <j0a2mh+rquu@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191016 I'm a little unsure just exactly how we are suppose to discuss the movies, and hopefully I sufficiently tie my points back to the actual books to justify commenting in the Main group. There is one tiny little point in the movies that irritates me more than any other, and to some extent, it is probably more of a continuity error than bad judgment on the part of the Producer/Director/Writer. MOVIE SPOILER: , , , , , , , In the scene where Harry appears before Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, Harry is holding his wand in his HAND. The books make it very clear that Harry stashes his wand so he is not tempted to defend himself. He understands, though the movie makers apparently do not, that he must meet his end willingly and without resistance. I think that is one of the keys to how and why this whole situation works. The Protection that Harry extends to everyone else is based on his own willing sacrifice for the others. But taking that one step further, on a more mundane basis, what happens to his wand if he is holding it in his hand, and is then hit with the killing curse. Would any of the Death Eaters be so foolish as to think he could be dead and still maintain his grip on his wand? Now, like so many aspects of the stories we have discussed, when something appears not to make sense, you have one of two choices, you can make up a backstory that confirms that this does not make sense, or you can make up a different backstory that reasonably explains how it does make sense. I can do that with this scene, but I don't really think I should have to. I don't know why I'm so fixated on this one point, as there are certainly many other points that bother me, but this one point, Harry not stashing his wand, does bother me more than the others. I think partly because it is so important to that scene in the books. In a sense, it is a dramatic moment lost to the movies. Part of what is going on here is Harry's willingness to go to his death, and Voldemort constant fear of death. If Harry had walked up, and when Voldemort first sees him, Harry had stashed his wand in his coat, I think that could have had a effect on Voldemort, it could have gotten a momentary reflexive reaction from him. Just a brief wave of fear and doubt before he composed himself. Trying to pull this back to canon, JKR makes a very solid and strong point of just what I am saying. Harry realizes he must go willingly, that he must offer no resistance, and I think it is equally important that he convey that to Voldemort. Once additional point that bothered me - How did Voldemort die? Was it because Neville killed Nagini, and that alone? Did Harry kill him? Did his own rebounding curse kill him? Did anything that can be seen in the movie kill him? We know what happens in the books. But in the movie, after spending millions on special effects, they couldn't have added one more flash of light to indicate that at least something happened. MOVIE SPOILER: , , , , , Yes, we see his body disintegrate, and by extension we assume that means he is dead. But what caused it? That part is so severely underplayed in the movie as to make it completely ambiguous. Now in the movies, that have the wand connect again, I'm OK with that, it does add some drama to the moment. And the movies doesn't have the long exposition that the books have, I'm OK with that to a limited extent. There were many changes to the storyline, but we expected that. There were a few areas where I thought they had absolutely painted themselves into a corner plot-wise, but they managed to pull those aspects off reasonably well. But the two points I've made here I just can't get around. They are small picky points that I should just forget about and enjoy the movie, but for some reason they really annoy me. And by the way, I did enjoy the movie, a very satisfying ending to the series. Bring it all back to the books, I think there is sufficient precedence in the books for both these scenes to have played out differently. I think Harry's willingness to go to his death without resistance, and the precise means and circumstances of Voldemort's death are sufficiently emphasized in the books, that they should also have been emphasized in the movies. Oh well, too late now. Steve/bluewizard From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 20:53:08 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 20:53:08 -0000 Subject: harry potter In-Reply-To: <j09ee6+329v@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0a3jk+hnr7@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sharren17" <sharren17 at ...> wrote: > > Hey everyone this is Sharren I want to ask why Voldemort wanted to kill James and Lily Potter??? Also why is Snape known as half blood prince? > > Sharren. > He wanted to kill them for a variety of reasons. First they were members of the Order of the Phoenix, and were his sworn enemies. Further, they were the parents of the child that was supposedly the only real threat against Voldemort. And lastly, they stood between him and Harry. If he wanted to get to Harry, those who stood between them would have to die. The Half Blood Prince - Well, he was a half-blood, witch mother, muggle father, and his mother's name was Prince (Eileen Prince). I think in his youth, he simply found the name a kind of interesting play on words. Steve/bboyminn From huntergreen3 at aol.com Thu Jul 21 20:59:42 2011 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen3 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermio... Message-ID: <ac984.7c420322.3b59ed3e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191018 Pat: >Don't have my books with me right now, so I can't give the exact spot, but I believe that it's in GOF where >Harry sees a trial in the pensieve and one of the DEs (Karkaroff, I think) says that they were organized in >cells, didn't know who was in others. So it is very likely that Snape had no idea who the spy was. He >probably didn't even know who all the DEs were. Rebecca: And there's the issue of them all appearing in masks, which further blocks their identities. What's interesting about all that is that there's no attempt made to hide them from another when Voldemort rose the second time. In that opening scene in Malfoy Manor, they're all just sitting openly around a table, no one hidden at all. I wonder if this is reflective of Voldemort's higher level of power (he certainly got power a lot faster the second time around), or if all the secrecy before was a narrative device to explain why so many DEs got away. -Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 21 21:07:58 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:07:58 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons Message-ID: <j0a4fe+fv0v@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191019 May I start in case it seems otherwise, by saying that I am not biased in favour either medium: book or film. I have said in previous posts that my route to meeting Harry was via a film ? COS, which I saw just after release at the end of 2002. This rapidly led me into the books and I shall celebrate eight years as a member of HPFGU next month. So, I have no axe to grind. "Deathly Hallows Part 2" was released in UK cinemas last Friday. Unfortunately, no one from Warners bothered to check with me for my approval because I was just coming to the end of a week's holiday on the Isles of Scilly, which are just off the far south-west English coast and have no cinema. :-( Because of family commitments, I wasn't able to see it until Wednesday evening and then had to drive 25 miles to the nearest town with a cinema. Before I went, I had read a dozen or so reviews, seen about every trailer I could get my hands on, plus a British ITV1 programme "Behind the Scenes of Deathly Hallows Part 2". Having looked at all this, I went with a sense of foreboding and trepidation that what I called in a recent post the "David Yates Syndrome" might appear ? in that the story would be altered and spurious scenes inserted. After the film, I drove home through sometimes rain-lashed Somerset roads mulling over the evening. My general reaction was that I had enjoyed the film and although there were some tweaks which had been made, it followed the story line well, except . for the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, which I think moved disastrously away from the canon story. But why? I have maintained on a number of occasions that, to me, chapters 33-36 of DH represent JKR's finest writing. I will often sit and read just those chapters. In the film, I though the first three were good- especially the forest scenes and King's Cross; the story then gets slightly altered up to Voldemort producing Harry's "body". But the crunch comes when Harry revealed himself to be still alive, there is this chase through the halls up to on of the higher levels of Hogwarts when they come face to face and Harry pulls Voldemort off the top with him. There appears to be some sort of Apparition; I'm not sure who is doing it and the smoke trails which represent this in the films seem to be going all over the place with a crash landing in the courtyard. We have this long wand battle, reminiscent of GOF with Voldemort finally being defeated and his body disintegrating. It almost seems to be just one more scene in the slam-bang battle we have watched for the previous hour. What a comparison to the book. Here, Harry reveals that he is alive whereupon, the crowd falls silent and forms a circle. My imagination sees something like a Roman gladiatorial contest. They circle, waiting to pounce, audience holding their collective breath as Harry prods Voldemort towards doubt and uncertainty with revelations about the Horcruxes and the Elder Wand and then, there is for me that stunning and ecstatic moment when the rising sun comes across the window sill, and the spells are fired which end the duel. I think, for me, the link of sunrise and the end of evil reminds me strongly my Christian faith which may be why that scene moves me so much. It is so much more a fitting closure than the rather hidden-away and downbeat closing crafted by the David Yates. Just as an aside, I was puzzled by the spells used by Voldemort, which rebounded on him and that used by Molly Weasley to literally demolish Bellatrix. they did not seem to be the normal sort. I was reminded of the death of Quirrell long ago in PS when he appeared to become dust, which had a curious familiarity with a scene at the beginning of Star Trek: Nemesis. I wonder how many of you share my thoughts that our canon was poorly served in that particular ending to what, in parallel to the books, has been for me a usually pleasurable experience. From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 22:19:49 2011 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:19:49 -0000 Subject: Finding Chapter Discussions Message-ID: <j0a8m5+8n2g@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191020 Is there a way to get the Chapter discussion posts easily in a text file or something? I went to the database section and found a folder, but that just lists the starting number of the posts. It would be interesting to go through them along with the books once again! From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 21 22:25:05 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:25:05 -0000 Subject: Finding Chapter Discussions In-Reply-To: <j0a8m5+8n2g@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0a901+a8f@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sridharj_ap" <sridharj_ap at ...> wrote: > > Is there a way to get the Chapter discussion posts easily in a text file or something? I went to the database section and found a folder, but that just lists the starting number of the posts. > > It would be interesting to go through them along with the books once again! Geoff: The database merely lists the post number where the original notes and questions were posted, so you go to that message, you can work forward in the list follow the relevant threads. From kelleyscorpio at gmail.com Thu Jul 21 22:33:17 2011 From: kelleyscorpio at gmail.com (kelleyelf) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:33:17 -0000 Subject: Finding Chapter Discussions In-Reply-To: <j0a8m5+8n2g@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0a9fd+qooa@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191022 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sridharj_ap" <sridharj_ap at ...> wrote: > > Is there a way to get the Chapter discussion posts easily in a text file or something? I went to the database section and found a folder, but that just lists the starting number of the posts. > > It would be interesting to go through them along with the books once again! > Kelley: Actually, I've been sorting the Chap Disc posts (the initial ones that kick off the discussions, not all the replies) into a folder in my email program. I can put them into folders as text files; might take a little while, but really, it's a better idea to have them available here, instead of just sitting in my email folder. ;-) --Kelley From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 21 23:17:42 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:17:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <j08453+ur7g@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0ac2m+pnq0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191023 > > Pippin: > > Saying you don't care about canon facts does not make them go away:) This one shows that Tom Riddle was not remembered as a pitiful human who had sociopathic tendencies. Dumbledore could not get anyone to believe that when Riddle was at Hogwarts, so how was he to get anyone to believe it later? He has no proof. Known is better than unknown indeed, but not if what everybody "knows" is a lie. > > Alla: > > Right, however he was not remembered as a mystery creature who cannot be defeated either. IMO it is easier to fight against human wizard than against a mystery. Pippin: So where is the canon that anyone thought Voldemort was a mystery creature and that's why they couldn't fight him? They couldn't fight him because everybody who tried got killed. Harry concludes that giving yourself a fancy title and trying to hide your past just shows how pathetic you are. Even Frank Bryce wasn't impressed by this "Lord" business. But that didn't save him. > Alla: > . To me the bigger problem is that nowhere in the book as far as I can see it says that Dumbledore could not visit Dursleys and put considerable pressure on them to treat Harry better. And no, I do not care how much threat of blackmail and/or physical damage he would apply to make Dursleys obey him. He took a responsibility upon himself to rule the fate of the innocent baby, and if he can only protect him by threatening Dursleys, I say so be it. As I also mentioned before, we see that Petunia obeys the letter in OOP, period. I do not see why he could not do the same thing decade earlier. > In other words the choice you are describing is a false dishotomy for me, because I interpret that Dumbledore COULD make Harry's life easier even with Dursleys and did not do so. The pain and damage in my view was not necessary to keep Harry safe. I mean, to take Dursleys in his life, maybe, but not to tolerate the way they treated Harry. Pippin: LOL! This was precisely Dumbledore's reasoning when he and Grindelwald were going to force the Muggles into submission along with any wizards who didn't agree with what they were doing -- it was all going to make life easier for Arianna and she wouldn't have to be locked away any more. Only it didn't work. Dumbledore learned he could not predict when people will decide they have had enough and strike back against a tyrant and there is no predicting who is going to get hurt once a battle begins. Dumbledore never thought his own brother would oppose him, he never thought Grindelwald would lose control of himself, he didn't think *he* would lose control of himself, and he never thought Arianna would get involved in the fight. So maybe you can predict that the Dursleys would never find a way to fight back and never decide that Harry wasn't worth the trouble of keeping him, and maybe you trust that Dumbledore or someone he trusted would never lose control of themselves and hurt Harry by accident -- but Dumbledore knows he's not so skilled. Divination is not his strong suit. And you said yourself that the worst of it was that other wizards were influenced by what Dumbledore planned to do. That would be a nice example for Lucius -- Albus Dumbledore demonstrating exactly how you can torture Muggles and get the Ministry to approve. > Pippin: > > It's very possible that if it had known the truth, the WW would have given up on Harry the way it would have given up on Arianna. Do you think they would have trusted Harry with a wand at all, much less a wand that was brother to Voldemort's, if they knew that Harry had a bit of Voldemort's soul inside him? > > Alla: > > LOL. Dumbledore had no problem not giving information to so many people, why would you think that if he gave Harry to wizarding family, like I don't know, Weasleys, he would have suddenly decided to share such information. Pippin: LOL. Harry is the most famous person in the WW and inquiring minds want to know how he survived the killing curse. Give them half a chance and they'll try to examine Harry whether Dumbledore lets them or not. I always wondered why Dumbledore didn't have Harry checked out by a healer when he started complaining about his scar. > Alla: > > Yes, but I thought I already explained that I am still confused and not sure how that [Harry's blood in Voldemort's body] actually works. Pippin: We don't know how any of the magic actually works. Time Turners, Hallows and Wands, oh my! But when has Dumbledore been wrong about what it does? He says explicitly that Voldemort kept Harry from dying by taking Harry's blood, and that he guessed it would happen. Further, when he told Snape Harry had to die, he had his hands over his eyes. Not that you'd know that from Harry Potter and the Incredible Box Office. Make it visually explicit, and even a baby would guess Dumbledore was playing peekaboo with the truth. > Alla: > > Unfortunately him asking Dumbledore's opinion about the wand and whether he did right thing to me contradicts what you are saying. I think it shows that he is still measuring himself against Dumbledore and wants his approval. Thus I would have to fight really hard not to be contaminated by this scene lol, I just sighed happily when I saw it. > <snip> > > But he does do exactly what Dumbledore says, thats my problem. Heh, I always like talking to you too :). Pippin: Thank you:) But if Harry changes his mind because Dumbledore agrees with him, then he's still measuring himself against Dumbledore, just in a contrary way. Pippin From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 23:24:30 2011 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:24:30 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j01gn8+env6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0acfe+dbr4@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191024 > In the story as written, Voldemort concludes with crazy illogic that killing Snape will make him master of the wand. But he had no reason to think that was so, it was contrary to what was known about the wand, and there is no way Dumbledore could have predicted it. > > Pippin > Annemehr: I don't understand - why is it illogical for LV to think he could become master of the Elder wand by killing Snape, believing as he did that Snape had become its master by killing Dumbledore? Actually, come to think of it, why didn't he kill Snape for it much earlier? From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 21 23:39:52 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:39:52 -0000 Subject: Tri-Wizards question In-Reply-To: <j07sdm+tuoq@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0adc8+og16@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote: > > bearhugger48: > > Yes it helps. But in the beginning, Voldy told Wormtail to move so > > he himself could kill the caretaker.. I just find it odd..> > Potioncat: > Did the group ever determine if Frank's murder was the > source for Horcrux!Nagini? If LV needed a murder to make > a Horcrux, he would have had to wave the wand. In the > graveyard, the murder was just to get rid of a complication. zanooda; I think JKR said somewhere that LV made Horcrux!Nagini with Bertha Jorkins's death. I also think that LV wanted his rebirth ritual to be done by his own yew-and-phoenix feather wand, so he gave it to Wormtail. When he appeared before Harry and Cedric at the graveyard, Wormtail was holding Baby!Mort in one hand and his wand in another. Baby!Mort himself was wandless. Wormtail probably had Bertha's wand at that point, but, as I said, LV wanted him to use his (LV's) own wand for the rebirth magic. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 22 01:36:09 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:36:09 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0acfe+dbr4@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191026 > Annemehr: > > I don't understand - why is it illogical for LV to think he could become master of the Elder wand by killing Snape, believing as he did that Snape had become its master by killing Dumbledore? Actually, come to think of it, why didn't he kill Snape for it much earlier? > Pippin: Ollivander would have told Voldie the same thing he told Harry: that whether the wand *needs* to pass by murder was unknown. Its history was bloody, but that might have been simply because it was so greatly desired. The laws of wand ownership are complex, much depends upon the manner of taking, much upon the wand itself, but in general, Ollivander says, if a wand has been won, its allegiance will change. Grindelwald did not kill Gregorovitch and Dumbledore did not kill Grindelwald, yet they both became masters of the Elder Wand. Voldemort ought to have known that better than anyone, since he killed Gregorovitch and Grindelwald himself. I suppose Voldemort considered that he himself had won the wand from Dumbledore, since he had engineered the plot to kill him, and taken the wand from his tomb. But when he had had the wand for a while and it had failed to grant him any special powers (you can read about those in Beedle, if you are interested), he began to be troubled by the thought that it was not truly his. So he decided to rearrange matters by killing Snape. But it was crazy to think that would make him master of the wand if he wasn't master already. He should have realized that Snape must have killed Dumbledore too late, after the wand had already passed to another. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 22 01:50:25 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 01:50:25 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 21: Hermio... In-Reply-To: <156a8.5e0da3a4.3b59aba2@aol.com> Message-ID: <j0al11+cr1n@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191027 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, huntergreen3 at ... wrote: > > > 2. Snape was a Death Eater from the beginning and would have probably > known > > who's who in the clique. Do you think he knows that Sirius is innocent? > > > Nikkalmati > > >>Not at all. Snape was a junior DE at the time and although he may have > tried to find out who was the spy, he did not have access either to the > inner circle and LV or to James and friends. If he had known, he would have > told DD in order to save Lily.<< > > Was he just a junior DE? I definitely agree that he did not know who the > spy was, but I don't think he was a lower-level DE at the time James and Lily > died. He had the Dark Mark and there was a spot open for him in the circle > in the graveyard during GoF. Also, he asked Voldemort to spare Lily, which > he almost did, and I don't think he would have even listened to a > lower-level servant. I think that Snape didn't know who the spy was because none of > the DE's knew who the spy was. > > -Rebecca > > > ] > Nikkalmati LV had been active for several years already and was terrorizing the WW. Snape did have the Dark Mark, but he was just out of school and at that time could not have been very high up. I think things changed when he brought the Prophecy to LV and I think he was up and coming but still junior. LV promised to spare Lily as a direct payback for the Prophecy - but by the time Snape realized Lily was in danger he was no longer a DE and he had gone to DD. He spent the last year (from after Harry's birth to the October deaths) at Hogwarts teaching, so he could not have been very active. After LV disappeared many of the DEs were hunted down and killed or sent to Azkaban, so Snape was one of the few original members left to return to LV in the OTP. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 22 02:10:52 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:10:52 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0am7c+a3mg@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191028 : > > > > Annemehr: > > > > I don't understand - why is it illogical for LV to think he could become master of the Elder wand by killing Snape, believing as he did that Snape had become its master by killing Dumbledore? Actually, come to think of it, why didn't he kill Snape for it much earlier? > > > > Pippin: > > I suppose Voldemort considered that he himself had won the wand from Dumbledore, since he had engineered the plot to kill him, and taken the wand from his tomb. But when he had had the wand for a while and it had failed to grant him any special powers (you can read about those in Beedle, if you are interested), he began to be troubled by the thought that it was not truly his. > > So he decided to rearrange matters by killing Snape. But it was crazy to think that would make him master of the wand if he wasn't master already. He should have realized that Snape must have killed Dumbledore too late, after the wand had already passed to another. > > Nikkalmati I suppose that's why JKR never wrote that scene where LV is told that DD is dead. She couldn't figure out a way that LV would not find out Draco had disarmed DD, and she didn't want that! I am not so good at timelines, but LV had not had the wand very long. Those last chapters only cover a couple of days, I think. LV returns from Switzerland(?) to Malfoy Manor, then sets out to get the wand from DD's tomb while Harry is at Shell Cottage. The next day the Trio go to Gringotts and LV discovers his Horcruxes are missing. The Trio goes to Hogsmead right away and arrive at night. Snape is killed the next night. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 22 03:00:25 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:00:25 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: <j0a2mh+rquu@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0ap49+3t42@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191029 > , > , > , > > In the scene where Harry appears before Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, Harry is holding his wand in his HAND. The books make it very clear that Harry stashes his wand so he is not tempted to defend himself. He understands, though the movie makers apparently do not, that he must meet his end willingly and without resistance. I think that is one of the keys to how and why this whole situation works. > > The Protection that Harry extends to everyone else is based on his own willing sacrifice for the others. But taking that one step further, on a more mundane basis, what happens to his wand if he is holding it in his hand, and is then hit with the killing curse. Would any of the Death Eaters be so foolish as to think he could be dead and still maintain his grip on his wand? > > <snip> Nikkalmati I'm sorry this scene was a problem for you. It does not appear Harry was carrying a wand when Hagrid was carrying him out. I agree that something important was lost there in the movie, but I can't entirely blame them with the director having to choose from a smorgasbord of causes and factors. I see Harry must go willingly in order to make himself a sacrifice but then how does his sacrifice affect anything? Ok, the Horcrux is destroyed and the spells cast by LV after he returns are weaker but is that all Harry's sacrifice achieves? In the end he has to come back to life and let LV kill himself all over again. And what about the blood protection? Is that what brings Harry back? What about the mastery of the Elder Wand? Did that just mean the wand comes to Harry when called? I think the book itself confused the issue of sacrifice and we are just reading it as what should be there, if it had been properly worked out. <snip>> > Once additional point that bothered me - How did Voldemort die? > > Was it because Neville killed Nagini, and that alone? > > Did Harry kill him? > > Did his own rebounding curse kill him? > > Did anything that can be seen in the movie kill him? > > Nikkalmati If one just sees the movie (as millions of people will), it appears that when Nagini is killed, LV goes too. I think this is where the movie wants to go, because LV gets weaker (or stomach pains or something) when each Horcrux is destroyed. Maybe a fragment of soul left to him is not enough to sustain him. (Note Harry did not offer him a chance at redemption either). Also, the killing of Nagini was postponed until the very last moment, when if the books He kills her as soon as LV offers to take back anyone who wants to join him. So it looks like it was planned to make that the crucial moment. Does that mean Neville killed LV? I was sorry to see that Snape's preoccupation with getting to Harry was glossed over. He must say "let me get the boy" about 10 times in the book, but that line was given to Lucius. Also, the chance to undermine LV by pointing out Snape's true loyaty was skipped. Nikkalmati <snip> > Bring it all back to the books, I think there is sufficient precedence in the books for both these scenes to have played out differently. I think Harry's willingness to go to his death without resistance, and the precise means and circumstances of Voldemort's death are sufficiently emphasized in the books, that they should also have been emphasized in the movies. Oh well, too late now. Nikkalmati Unfortunately, the movies will become canon for many. :( > From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 22 02:50:03 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (Bearhugger48) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311303003.89416.YahooMailClassic@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191030 >> Annemehr: >> I don't understand - why is it illogical for LV to think he could become master of the Elder wand by killing Snape, believing as he did that Snape had become its master by killing Dumbledore? Actually, >> come to think of it, why didn't he kill Snape for it much earlier? > Pippin: > <snip> So he decided to rearrange matters by killing Snape. But it was crazy to think that would make him master of the wand if he wasn't master already. He should have realized that Snape must have killed > Dumbledore too late, after the wand had already passed to another. Bearhugger48: Are we sure that Snape ever had possesion of the elder wand? Draco took it away from DD and then it ended up back in DD's office after his death. Harry picked it up and held it there. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 22 14:06:09 2011 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:06:09 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: <j0ap49+3t42@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0c04h+ss6v@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191031 <snip> > > The Protection that Harry extends to everyone else is based on his own willing sacrifice for the others. But taking that one step further, on a more mundane basis, what happens to his wand if he is holding it in his hand, and is then hit with the killing curse. Would any of the Death Eaters be so foolish as to think he could be dead and still maintain his grip on his wand? > > > > > <snip> > > Nikkalmati > > I'm sorry this scene was a problem for you. It does not appear Harry was carrying a wand when Hagrid was carrying him out. I agree that something important was lost there in the movie, but I can't entirely blame them with the director having to choose from a smorgasbord of causes and factors. > > I see Harry must go willingly in order to make himself a sacrifice but then how does his sacrifice affect anything? Ok, the Horcrux is destroyed and the spells cast by LV after he returns are weaker but is that all Harry's sacrifice achieves? In the end he has to come back to life and let LV kill himself all over again. And what about the blood protection? Is that what brings Harry back? What about the mastery of the Elder Wand? Did that just mean the wand comes to Harry when called? I think the book itself confused the issue of sacrifice and we are just reading it as what should be there, if it had been properly worked out. > Niru: Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think the book confused the sacrifice issue. There Harry willingly offers his life both as a way to destroy the Horcrux in him (and as he sees it, himself) and to protect the others. He does not want anyone else to die knowing that it is in his power to stop it. Even though he doesn't actually die, it is the intent that matters. And it is THAT intent which extends protection to all the other people fighting. The book did not gloss over this but the movie definitely did. I think some of the finest points of the climax were sacrificed (no pun intended) for "cinematic" effect i.e., lots of light shows, explosions and noise, people running around casting spells etc. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 22 14:52:43 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:52:43 -0000 Subject: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: <j0c04h+ss6v@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0c2rr+ir73@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191032 > Niru: > > Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think the book confused the sacrifice issue. There Harry willingly offers his life both as a way to destroy the Horcrux in him (and as he sees it, himself) and to protect the others. He does not want anyone else to die knowing that it is in his power to stop it. Even though he doesn't actually die, it is the intent that matters. And it is THAT intent which extends protection to all the other people fighting. The book did not gloss over this but the movie definitely did. I think some of the finest points of the climax were sacrificed (no pun intended) for "cinematic" effect i.e., lots of light shows, explosions and noise, people running around casting spells etc. > Alla: Right, that is how I picture sacrifice too. I mean, I DO think that book put a lot of distractions over it - as I mentioned in another thread, how blood connection worked downright confused me all the time, but to me this is the gist of sacrifice - Harry willingly offers his life and when he comes back, this is why he can cast protection spell over everybody else. I wish they would shown that protection shield at least, to me it is one of the core themes in the book, instead we have prolonged duel of special effects. I loved the movie overall and as I said, I think it simplified some issues in a good way, but this part kind of annoyed me. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 22 15:04:21 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:04:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <j0ac2m+pnq0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0c3hl+vb06@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191033 I am cutting out points which I feel I have said everything I wanted for this round, but I am sure it will come again soon :) > Pippin: > So where is the canon that anyone thought Voldemort was a mystery creature and that's why they couldn't fight him? They couldn't fight him because everybody who tried got killed. > > Harry concludes that giving yourself a fancy title and trying to hide your past just shows how pathetic you are. Even Frank Bryce wasn't impressed by this "Lord" business. But that didn't save him. Alla: Canon is that Dumbledore gives the lesson about fear of the name only increases fear of the person. But he does not teach to call him his proper name. Yes, they are afraid of his killing skills, but first and foremost they are afraid of his name, no? I think that this fear at least could have been easily diminished by Dumbledore. > > > Alla: > > . To me the bigger problem is that nowhere in the book as far as I can see it says that Dumbledore could not visit Dursleys and put considerable pressure on them to treat Harry better. And no, I do not care how much threat of blackmail and/or physical damage he would apply to make Dursleys obey him. He took a responsibility upon himself to rule the fate of the innocent baby, and if he can only protect him by threatening Dursleys, I say so be it. As I also mentioned before, we see that Petunia obeys the letter in OOP, period. I do not see why he could not do the same thing decade earlier. > > In other words the choice you are describing is a false dishotomy for me, because I interpret that Dumbledore COULD make Harry's life easier even with Dursleys and did not do so. The pain and damage in my view was not necessary to keep Harry safe. I mean, to take Dursleys in his life, maybe, but not to tolerate the way they treated Harry. > > Pippin: > LOL! This was precisely Dumbledore's reasoning when he and Grindelwald were going to force the Muggles into submission along with any wizards who didn't agree with what they were doing -- it was all going to make life easier for Arianna and she wouldn't have to be locked away any more. > > Only it didn't work. Dumbledore learned he could not predict when people will decide they have had enough and strike back against a tyrant and there is no predicting who is going to get hurt once a battle begins. Dumbledore never thought his own brother would oppose him, he never thought Grindelwald would lose control of himself, he didn't think *he* would lose control of himself, and he never thought Arianna would get involved in the fight. > > So maybe you can predict that the Dursleys would never find a way to fight back and never decide that Harry wasn't worth the trouble of keeping him, and maybe you trust that Dumbledore or someone he trusted would never lose control of themselves and hurt Harry by accident -- but Dumbledore knows he's not so skilled. Divination is not his strong suit. > > And you said yourself that the worst of it was that other wizards were influenced by what Dumbledore planned to do. That would be a nice example for Lucius -- Albus Dumbledore demonstrating exactly how you can torture Muggles and get the Ministry to approve. Alla: No. I would never say that he should go near Dursleys and do anything to them, if he did not place Harry with them. Actually I have not even said that he should torture him. But threatening with anything he thinks will make them obey - ABSOLUTELY. Lesson or not, Harry is the only one truly innocent here, and protecting a baby in my mind trumps anything else. As you know my other problem with protection always had been that I have not seen that other methods did not work, at least show me Dumbledore trying something else and reconsidering. But if he decides that yeah, only Lily's protection may work, have a decency to actually protect him from abuse, at least try to IMO. In other words, to me Dumbledore's self appointed duty to Harry should trump every other consideration. > Pippin: > LOL. Harry is the most famous person in the WW and inquiring minds want to know how he survived the killing curse. Give them half a chance and they'll try to examine Harry whether Dumbledore lets them or not. I always wondered why Dumbledore didn't have Harry checked out by a healer when he started complaining about his scar. Alla: I am sure those inquiring minds you are talking about still wanted to know that when Harry arrived in WW, I do not remember them succeeding. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 22 15:57:39 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:57:39 -0000 Subject: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love In-Reply-To: <ivs91s+pnd0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0c6lj+rijn@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191034 Potioncat: > Love is a major theme of the series. It is, after all, Harry's love that saves the WW. JKR shows many types of love throughout her story--and warns about obsessive love. > > What do you, kind readers, think of the different ways JKR depicts love? > > Is she right, in your opinion? > > How many examples of love do you see in the book? > > How does love and joy contrast with hate and despair? Pippin: I've had to take some time to think about this. I hope others are too, because this is a fascinating question. I think JKR depicts love as the source of courage and hope and the force that turns people's hearts towards one another. The first four books especially show us the good love can do. Besides the kinds of love others mentioned, there is also the love of the wizards for their craft. Think of Snape rhapsodizing over potions, or of Ollivander speaking of wands, or Dumbledore talking about ancient magic. There's Hagrid with his love for creatures, the weirder the better. Harry loves Quidditch and DADA. But all along there are also hints of something darker: the Slytherins can be ruthless in their love of power, and Hermione shows us that Gryffindors can be ruthless in their love of doing good. We see all this and we want desperately for our hero, Harry, to fix it. He has the power of love, and love can do anything, right? In the last three books, I think JKR has something difficult to say about love: that it doesn't do everything we wish it could do. Like the Mirror of Erised, it will give us neither knowledge nor truth -- and ignorance and false ideals can make the power of love incredibly destructive. Selfish characters who love go right on being selfish -- unless something happens to make them see that their selfishness offends or hurts their beloved. It is remorse and not love that is the catalyst for change. But that is a choice -- it is always possible to avoid remorse by blaming the damage on others or refusing to admit that damage is being done. Selfish love cannot distinguish the needs of the beloved. Dumbledore needed his family to be happy, in both senses of that phrase. He never wanted to hurt them. But he treated them as an extension of himself: he wanted his brother to continue in school and his sister to have her freedom and it was incomprehensible to him that they neither needed nor wanted those things. The Marauders care about Lupin but they don't take his anguish over breaking his promises to Dumbledore or his misgivings over the way they treat Snape seriously. Snape loves Lily, always, but again in a very selfish way. And we readers, if we love the Slytherins, (and we do! we *do*!) will be terribly disappointed unless we can learn to love them unselfishly, as they are, and not as we wished they would be. In the barrage of infantile imagery that surrounds the selfish characters we begin to see that they can only love as a baby loves, seeing the mother as an extension of itself and unable to imagine that she has an existence outside the baby's orbit. Voldemort was born without the ability to love, or lost it early in life. Harry's blood restored it to him. But it was still a violent and destructive love -- which brings only ruin to his beloved Hogwarts. But there is unselfish love, most clearly the love for the dead, who can give nothing in return except what remains of the comfort and wisdom they gave in life (although, in the case of wizards, what remains is quite a bit.) Harry's love is remarkably unselfish -- to the point where, when he understands his death is necessary to save what he loves, he does not even look for a way to save himself. But Harry always loved life more than death, though death has its seductions as the Mirror showed, and he did not give his life away cheaply. It wasn't simply a matter of destroying the horcrux -- and certainly Harry didn't believe Voldemort's promise that if Harry gave himself up, the others would be spared. Voldemort gave Harry a *choice* -- something he rarely allows his victims. And that made all the difference. It meant that Harry had one chance, a chance that might not ever come again, to do what his mother did, and use his death to cast a spell of protection. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 22 16:40:16 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:40:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/LONG and bad, SKIP if you do not feel like reading it :-) In-Reply-To: <j0c3hl+vb06@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0c95g+86ab@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191035 > Alla: > > Canon is that Dumbledore gives the lesson about fear of the name only increases fear of the person. But he does not teach to call him his proper name. Yes, they are afraid of his killing skills, but first and foremost they are afraid of his name, no? I think that this fear at least could have been easily diminished by Dumbledore. Pippin: They're afraid to say "Voldemort" -- so that's the name Dumbledore uses, to show that no one need be afraid to say it. If he said 'Tom' instead, he'd still be avoiding "Voldemort". He might as well say "Lord Thingy". As Dobby says, before the Dark Lord changed his name, he could be named freely. > Alla: > > No. I would never say that he should go near Dursleys and do anything to them, if he did not place Harry with them. Actually I have not even said that he should torture him. But threatening with anything he thinks will make them obey - ABSOLUTELY. Lesson or not, Harry is the only one truly innocent here, and protecting a baby in my mind trumps anything else. Pippin: I'm afraid I don't share your belief in threats. Threats in canon work for a while and then are shown to be worse than useless. Reliance on threats is a sign of weakness -- it means you are afraid to do the thing you are threatening to do -- and sooner or later the other person is going to figure that out. And Petunia is Lily's sister, she knows cowardice when she sees it. And we did see Dumbledore trying other means of protection and they did not work. As I said, Harry was snatched away from Hogwarts, right in front of Dumbledore, the Weasleys, Sirius and the Ministry and the heads of two other wizarding schools. And yes, protecting the baby trumps everything else. Except what the baby really needs to be protected from is Voldemort, because what he can do is much worse than anything Petunia is likely to attempt. She's willing to sacrifice Harry to her obsession, but her obsession is looking respectable, not seeing how much cruelty and murder she can get away with. I wonder why she let Harry get away with threatening to use magic even though she knew it was forbidden. I guess she was afraid to admit just how much she knew about the WW. > > Pippin: > > LOL. Harry is the most famous person in the WW and inquiring minds want to know how he survived the killing curse. Give them half a chance and they'll try to examine Harry whether Dumbledore lets them or not. I always wondered why Dumbledore didn't have Harry checked out by a healer when he started complaining about his scar. > > Alla: > > I am sure those inquiring minds you are talking about still wanted to know that when Harry arrived in WW, I do not remember them succeeding. Pippin: That's because by the time Harry returned to the WW he knew enough not to tell people when freaky things happened, like his scar hurting or being able to hear voices that no one else could hear, or having dreams where Quirrell's turban was squeezing his head and telling him he ought to be in Slytherin. Then when the news finally did get out, it was more in Fudge's interest to treat Harry as a deluded child being encouraged by Dumbledore rather than to find out what was actually wrong with him. Pippin From bart at moosewise.com Fri Jul 22 17:19:52 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:19:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] harry potter In-Reply-To: <j09ee6+329v@eGroups.com> References: <j09ee6+329v@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E29B138.10500@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191036 sharren17 wrote: > Hey everyone this is Sharren I want to ask why Voldemort wanted to kill James and Lily Potter??? Also why is Snape known as half blood prince? > Morty wanted to kill Harry; he was pretty indifferent to killing James and Lily. On the other hand, he was completely lacking in empathy, and had no problem getting rid of anything or anybody in his way in the easiest effective way possible. Note that he was willing to let Lily live, because she was useful to him alive (as a gift to ensure the loyalty of a useful tool), but had no problem killing her the moment she became extra work for him. "Half-Blood Prince" was a fanciful nickname Snape made up for himself, a pun on the fact that he was a "half blood" (his father was Muggle), and his mother's maiden name was "Prince". Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 22 17:43:26 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:43:26 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <1311303003.89416.YahooMailClassic@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <j0ccru+r0g4@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191037 > Bearhugger48: > Are we sure that Snape ever had possesion of the elder wand? Draco > took it away from DD and then it ended up back in DD's office after > his death. Harry picked it up and held it there. > Pippin: In the books, Snape never had it. Draco took it away from DD, it goes flying over the battlements and we don't see it again until Voldemort finds it in Dumbledore's tomb. Presumably Hagrid found it on the grounds and placed it with Dumbledore's body. Harry seeing it in the office and picking it up is from the movie. Pippin From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 22 18:01:59 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (Bearhugger48) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0ccru+r0g4@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311357719.13234.YahooMailClassic@web110401.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191038 > Pippin: > In the books, Snape never had it. Draco took it away from DD, it goes flying over the battlements and we don't see it again until Voldemort finds it in Dumbledore's tomb. Presumably Hagrid found it on the grounds and placed it with Dumbledore's body. Harry seeing it > in the office and picking it up is from the movie. Bearhugger48: I have not read or seen the DH2 as of yet but I am wondering something. Back when the story was read of the 3 brothers, it was discussed that it took the wand, the stone and the invisibility cloak to be the master of death. Is any of that going into the last chapter? From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Fri Jul 22 20:54:14 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 13:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <j09ee6+329v@eGroups.com> References: <j09ee6+329v@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311368054.53184.YahooMailNeo@web113917.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Sharren:? > Hey everyone this is Sharren I want to ask why Voldemort wanted to > kill James and Lily Potter??? Also why is Snape known as half blood > prince? June: I am presuming you only watched the movies. I get questions like this all the time from friends who have only watched the movies as well. The first question you are asking is a long story but what it boils down to is that there was a prophecy that said there would be a child born at the end of July that could defeat Voldemort and although there were two boys born at the end of July, Voldemort believed the one the prophecy was referring to was Harry. He had set out to kill Harry while he was still an infant and in order to do that killed his parents. He was (as you know) unable to kill Harry though. In answer to your second question, Snape was known as the half blood prince because his father was a muggle (making him half blood) and his mother's maiden name was Prince. I would like to suggest that you read the books because they are a very good read and have much more information than the movies. I also envy you a little because having not read the books, you still have a great adventure to go on. From daveh47 at gmail.com Fri Jul 22 23:34:28 2011 From: daveh47 at gmail.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:34:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death In-Reply-To: <j0ap49+3t42@eGroups.com> References: <j0a2mh+rquu@eGroups.com> <j0ap49+3t42@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4e2a092f.09c9960a.4786.7cb7@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191040 Nikkalmati: > >I see Harry must go willingly in order to make himself a sacrifice >but then how does his sacrifice affect anything? Ok, the Horcrux is >destroyed and the spells cast by LV after he returns are weaker but >is that all Harry's sacrifice achieves? Dave: I really wanted the movie to have a scene after his sacrifice showing the DE's trying to attack people and it's all just rebounding on them -- Something analogous to _Yellow Submarine_ , when the Fab Four's music is just rendering all the Blue Meanies totally impotent. :) Obviously the Potterverse wouldn't be that blatant, but still, something of that same idea that, ultimately, "Love is all you need". (Harry's love, specifically.) And then of course Harry's explanation: "I've done what my mother did -- Haven't you noticed ... you can't touch them, you can't torture them!" Nikkalmati: >If one just sees the movie (as millions of people will), it appears >that when Nagini is killed, LV goes too. I think this is where the >movie wants to go, because LV gets weaker (or stomach pains or >something) when each Horcrux is destroyed. Maybe a fragment of soul >left to him is not enough to sustain him ... Does that mean Neville killed LV? Maybe the Prophecy *was* about Neville after all!! :) Nikkalmati: >Unfortunately, the movies will become canon for many. :( MGM!Wizard of Oz anyone? Dave [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ddankanyin at cox.net Fri Jul 22 23:41:45 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:41:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Movie: Harry's Wand in the Forbidden Forest and Big-V's Death References: <j0a2mh+rquu@eGroups.com> <j0ap49+3t42@eGroups.com> <4e2a092f.09c9960a.4786.7cb7@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1E01ECF5A47942EA81EA4B4E52B1AE96@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191041 From: "Dave Hardenbrook" <daveh47 at gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 7:34 PM > > Maybe the Prophecy *was* about Neville after all!! :) Dorothy: Maybe the prophecy didn't make a bit of difference until Voldie took it and ran. Of course then he'd have one less horcrux. :) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 02:23:53 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:23:53 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0am7c+a3mg@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0dbbp+7qf6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote: > I am not so good at timelines, but LV had not had the wand > very long. Those last chapters only cover a couple of days, > I think. LV returns from Switzerland(?) to Malfoy Manor, > then sets out to get the wand from DD's tomb while Harry is > at Shell Cottage. The next day the Trio go to Gringotts > and LV discovers his Horcruxes are missing. The Trio goes > to Hogsmead right away and arrive at night. Snape is killed > the next night. zanooda: I think the Trio spent a few weeks at Shell Cottage, preparing to break into Gringotts :-). LV had the Elder wand all this time. From kat7555 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 04:56:05 2011 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kathy) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 04:56:05 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <011301cc4305$00d97310$028c5930$@com> Message-ID: <j0dk95+dcne@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191043 > Sherry: > <snip> > I got the impression through the series that Dumbledore was what I called, the King of second chances and of believing the best in many > characters. Yet, he stood back and let Sirius go to Azkaban without a trial, without doing anything to discover the truth. He let Harry live with abusive unloving people all his life. I didn't really care > about the blood protection either way, because I could only think of Harry's miserable unloved childhood. I probably feel a lot like Molly > Weasley might about that. He didn't tell Harry the truth about the prophecy till it was too late, till it got Sirius killed. He let > Snape be a mean bully to his students. Kathy: Sherry I agree with you. My attitude towards Dumbledore changed after POA when he did nothing to help exonerate Sirius while he was alive. Dumbledore was the most influential person in the wizarding world he could have helped Sirius clear his name if he chose. Sirius was a threat to his ultimate plans for Harry. Snape was horrified to learn Harry's fate and he loathed him; I shudder to think what Sirius would have said and done. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 23 13:53:07 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:53:07 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0dk95+dcne@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0ejo3+6tf6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191044 > Kathy: > Sherry I agree with you. My attitude towards Dumbledore changed after > POA when he did nothing to help exonerate Sirius while he was alive. > Dumbledore was the most influential person in the wizarding world he > could have helped Sirius clear his name if he chose. Sirius was a > threat to his ultimate plans for Harry. Snape was horrified to learn > Harry's fate and he loathed him; I shudder to think what Sirius would > have said and done. Pippin: Sirius wanted Harry in the fight. In fact, he wanted Harry to know about the prophecy at a time when Dumbledore had decided that he couldn't go through with his plan and was trying to keep Harry out of it. There's this idea that Sirius would not have thought it was worth it for Harry to die to save his friends. You do realize that makes him a hypocrite for expecting that Peter should have done so? There's this idea too that Dumbledore could do anything. But the other side are influential wizards too. Pippin From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 23 14:51:33 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:51:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0dk95+dcne@eGroups.com> References: <j0dk95+dcne@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2ADFF5.1060600@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191045 kathy wrote: > Sherry I agree with you. My attitude towards Dumbledore changed after > POA when he did nothing to help exonerate Sirius while he was alive. > Dumbledore was the most influential person in the wizarding world he > could have helped Sirius clear his name if he chose. Sirius was a > threat to his ultimate plans for Harry. Snape was horrified to learn > Harry's fate and he loathed him; I shudder to think what Sirius would > have said and done. Bart: What indication did Dumbledore had that Sirius was innocent? Bart From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 15:12:23 2011 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:12:23 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191046 > Pippin: > Ollivander would have told Voldie the same thing he told Harry: that whether the wand *needs* to pass by murder was unknown. Its history was bloody, but that might have been simply because it was so greatly desired. The laws of wand ownership are complex, much depends upon the manner of taking, much upon the wand itself, but in general, Ollivander says, if a wand has been won, its allegiance will change. > > Grindelwald did not kill Gregorovitch and Dumbledore did not kill Grindelwald, yet they both became masters of the Elder Wand. Voldemort ought to have known that better than anyone, since he killed Gregorovitch and Grindelwald himself. > > I suppose Voldemort considered that he himself had won the wand from Dumbledore, since he had engineered the plot to kill him, and taken the wand from his tomb. But when he had had the wand for a while and it had failed to grant him any special powers (you can read about those in Beedle, if you are interested), he began to be troubled by the thought that it was not truly his. > > So he decided to rearrange matters by killing Snape. But it was crazy to think that would make him master of the wand if he wasn't master already. He should have realized that Snape must have killed Dumbledore too late, after the wand had already passed to another. > > Pippin > Annemehr: I looked at HBP again. When Amycus, Alecto, Grayback, and the other DE burst in on Draco and DD on the Astronomy tower, Amycus said "Dumbledore wandless!" I suppose none of them thought to mention that to LV afterward, or he would have killed Draco instead of Snape. So I'll ignore this as I consider LV's point of view. So, two big questions: 1. Does LV know that the wand would change masters even if the wand was miles away when its current master is defeated? The only instance of this we as readers know of is when Harry won Draco's own wand from him, thus gaining mastery of the Elder wand as well. I don't know if Ollivander knew this could happen or told LV. Your point of view assumes LV would know that the wand is omniscient. If the answer to 1. is "no," then LV ought to have killed (or somehow defeated) Snape right away to gain mastery. As he didn't, then I assume you are right and LV somehow believed that the wand was omniscient. (There might be canon for this, but I don't remember and wouldn't know where to look.) 2. Would Snape's killing of DD constitute a part of LV's plan, in the view of a supposedly omniscient wand? Because the plan was for Draco to attempt it. For this question, we of course assume Snape was a loyal DE as LV would have at the time. If the wand is not working for LV, it seems reasonable for him to believe that the answer to question 2 is "no", that even though the events were triggered by the plan, Snape was too independent an agent. You are of course right that LV might have realised that the wand may have already changed allegiance before Snape killed DD. If he had thought of that, he'd have done better to question everyone who was on the tower more closely as to what had happened that night. But people don't always think of things, especially when what seems to be a more likely possibility exists. I still don't think it was "crazy" of him to think that Snape was the master. And it was entirely in LV's character to kill Snape rather than try and defeat him some other way, especially as he didn't think he even needed him anymore. I would like to be convinced I'm wrong about this, because of what it does to Dumbledore's plan. It seems to me DD planned to leave Snape *appearing to be* the master of the Elder wand, even though it was meant to be masterless at DD's death. But DD also gave Snape the crucial task of informing Harry that LV needed to kill him, but only after LV started protecting Nagini. And that created the great risk of what almost happened - that Snape would die before he could communicate with Harry. Annemehr From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 15:15:49 2011 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:15:49 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <4E2ADFF5.1060600@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j0eoj5+8g17@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart at ...> wrote: > > kathy wrote: > > Sherry I agree with you. My attitude towards Dumbledore changed after > > POA when he did nothing to help exonerate Sirius while he was alive. > > Dumbledore was the most influential person in the wizarding world he > > could have helped Sirius clear his name if he chose. Sirius was a > > threat to his ultimate plans for Harry. Snape was horrified to learn > > Harry's fate and he loathed him; I shudder to think what Sirius would > > have said and done. > > Bart: > What indication did Dumbledore had that Sirius was innocent? > > Bart > Annemehr: I'm sure she meant, after the events of PoA when DD had testimony that Peter Pettigrew was alive and had been the real spy. From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 23 18:14:28 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:14:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0eoj5+8g17@eGroups.com> References: <j0eoj5+8g17@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2B0F84.2030006@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191048 annemehr wrote: > I'm sure she meant, after the events of PoA when DD had testimony that Peter Pettigrew was alive and had been the real spy. Bart: Given that, unfortunately, given the attitude of the Ministry, there probably was not much Dumbledore COULD do. He didn't have first-hand knowledge that Peter was still alive. As he, himself, pointed out, although he believed the Trio and Lupin, he knew that it wasn't sufficient to get the rest of the WW to believe it. We do not know from canon what, if anything, DD was doing to prove Sirius' innocence; he certainly was going through a lot of effort (through his agents among the Aurors) in keeping Sirius from being recaptured. With evidence that DD was trying to protect Sirius, there would have to be some sort of positive evidence that DD was doing nothing to help exonerate him. Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sat Jul 23 18:45:01 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0eoj5+8g17@eGroups.com> References: <4E2ADFF5.1060600@moosewise.com> <j0eoj5+8g17@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311446701.14074.YahooMailNeo@web113911.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191049 >> kathy wrote: >> My attitude towards Dumbledore changed after POA when he did >> nothing to help exonerate Sirius while he was alive. Dumbledore >> was the most influential person in the wizarding world, he could >> have helped Sirius clear his name if he chose. <snip> > > Bart: > > What indication did Dumbledore had that Sirius was innocent? > Annemehr: > I'm sure she meant, after the events of PoA when DD had testimony > that Peter Pettigrew was alive and had been the real spy June: What proof did Dumbledore have? Peter had changed to a rat and disappeared and Dumbledore had already said that the ministry would not take the word of three 13 year olds or a werewolf and Snape never saw Peter. So who else do you think witnessed it? And why did they not come forward because Dumbledore didn't know about them. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 21:50:46 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 21:50:46 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <4E2ADFF5.1060600@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j0ffnm+1kbc@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191050 Once again posting from my Blackberry, so have to delete the quote, but to answer Bart, I always felt that Dumbledore had some sort of moral obligation to actually go and check a little bit deeper into Sirius' guilt or innocence. He had no indication, but as far as I am concerned he should have done "something", since Sirius was one of his trusted, hand picked soldiers. Let's not forget that all it took him to believe in Sirius' innocence was "one" conversation with Sirius. One. It makes me very angry at Dumbledore (haha - I know another reason why I can't stand him) that he could not be bothered to get up and have this conversation with Sirius years earlier even when he was already in Azkaban. And this is a very good example of how and why I see Dumbledore's actions in more sinister light. Yes there is a clear explanation in canon that Dumbledore thought Sirius' was guilty, but I also see other reasoning just as clearly based on the very visible author's hand to suit the needs of the plot. No, I seriously doubt that Dumbledore wanted to keep Sirius in prizon to make sure that Sirius does not free Harry from his manipulations. But we saw that Dumbledore wanted a certain mindset in Harry, we know that Sirius was the only one who wanted to tell Harry in OOP the truth and dared to go against great Albus Dumbledore's orders. We had seen that both Sirius and Lupin wanted to visit Harry after GoF. Shocking idea I know that traumatised teenager may need help and support and not further isolations. After knowing all that I think the idea that Dumbledore indeed wanted Sirius in prison since he was the only one who could at least stand up to him for Harry has merit even if I doubt that it is what JKR really wanted to portray. But this is how I feel about it in good faith even if I know that for JKR Sirius needed to be in prizon for plot purposes to grow up who he is with no loving person around it. But when one sees that things could have been done differently, note not that I want to write them differently, but characters acting differently would have made more sense as people, well then one wonders about other reasons. Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 23:30:23 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:30:23 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters - The Seen and the Unseen In-Reply-To: <j0eoj5+8g17@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0flif+28au@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at ...> wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart@> wrote: > > > > kathy wrote: > > > Sherry I agree with you. My attitude towards Dumbledore > > > changed after POA when he did nothing to help exonerate > > > Sirius while he was alive. > > > ... > > > > Bart: > > What indication did Dumbledore had that Sirius was innocent? > > > > Bart > > > > Annemehr: > > I'm sure she meant, after the events of PoA when DD had testimony that Peter Pettigrew was alive and had been the real spy. > Steve replies: First you are assuming Dumbledore did nothing. I'm sure he made his case to the Ministry, but they were not holding the best attitude with regard to Dumbledore at the time, and I'm sure completely discounted his statements. Next, consider that government does not admit its mistakes readily, there are people sitting in prison, even though new evidence exonerates them, because the prosecutor is absolutely unwilling to admit he made a mistake. Next, eventually the Ministry did admit that Sirius was innocent, that that Peter was alive, though far too late for Sirius. In short, they finally excepted Dumbledore's explanation of the real events that occurred. You can show people the truth, but you can't make them believe it until the evidence is so crushingly overwhelming that to not believe would not be politically expedient. At to Sirius's conviction, remember, HE CONFESSED! There really is no need for much investigation when you have a suspect who confesses to a crime. Rather than continue to investigate, that is crime solved, game over. Just because something doesn't happen on the page, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. One must ask if the real problem is that Dumbledore didn't make his case, or if instead, it is that he didn't inform Harry that he made a case for Sirius. The POV of the narrator is Harry's point of view. If Harry doesn't know something, then we don't know that thing. And even more so, if Harry's beliefs are in error, then until the matter is rectified, our beliefs are in error paralleling Harry's. He is the Point of View character. We don't see Dumbledore make a case for Sirius because Harry doesn't see it, but just because Harry doesn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Steve/bboyminn From bart at moosewise.com Sat Jul 23 23:47:48 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:47:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0ffnm+1kbc@eGroups.com> References: <j0ffnm+1kbc@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2B5DA4.4000404@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191052 alla wrote: > I always felt that Dumbledore had some sort of moral obligation to actually go and check a little bit deeper into Sirius' guilt or innocence. Bart: The problem, of course, is that we do not know what happened after Peter blew up the muggles and escaped. We have good reason to believe, but don't know, that Sirius never protested his innocence, but took full responsibility. We also don't know whether or not Dumbledore tried to speak to Sirius afterwards, or even if he succeeded. Therefore, our assumptions about what happened need to be based on what we have seen of the characters. My own supposition is that Dumbledore may have tried to speak to Sirius, but Sirius refused to speak to Dumbledore, out of shame and guilt. Morty was gone, the remaining Death Easters were still at large, and there was a lot to do. Note that Lupin suspected Sirius of being the spy, as well; Sirius was NOT a very nice person (see "The Prank", Sirius' treatment of Kreacher, etc.). Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 23 23:59:39 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 23:59:39 -0000 Subject: Love and Joy vs. Hate and Despair In-Reply-To: <j07d4l+9e57@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0fn9b+bmiu@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191053 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote: > > > > > > > > June: > <SNIP> > I have mentioned this loads of times on here but a couple of people are still on about Dumbledore being the bad guy and I think that although it is only really just a couple, that Margaret is seeing it as many, but it isn't. > > Alla: > > I do not even know what to say after Steve's excellent post, but I am going to try one more time. Please understand that even if people who disagree with you are seeing where you are coming from and find your explanation perfectly clear, they do not have to buy it. .... > > The purpose of these conversations in my opinion had never been to *convince* anybody, ... A lot of people still have the same stance on many topics that I remember since year 2002, 2003, 2004 and of course I am including myself in it, even if I changed my views on some topics too. > Steve: A case can be made for anything. There are those who see Harry Potter as a vile nasty ill-behaved little boy who should be chained to his bed at night to keep him out of trouble. He breaks rules, he gets into mischief, he doesn't obey his elders, he uses UNFORGIVABLE CURSES!!!. There is plenty of evident to be made that Harry is an ill-behaved juvenile delinquent more in need of a good strapping, than kind forgiveness. THERE IS EVIDENCE to support that position, and there are many people who hold that position. Many people who believe that rules and laws are absolute and should never be disobeyed. Fortunately, I'm not one of those people. I'm with Thomas Jefferson when he said, paraphrased, that laws are by they tyrants will, and that rights and what is morally right carry more weight than law. Obviously, others disagree. But these are opinions, these are perspectives, they don't dictate anyone's reality. Some think Dumbledore was a bad person who did terrible things, others believe he borders on sainthood. Who is right? Well, everyone is right! Everyone has a right to a particular opinion, especially if it is supported by an interpretation of the books. Everyone can have their own perspective. You can make your case, others can make their counter arguments, then you can clarify your position, then they can refine their position, and on and on. BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, there comes a point when you need to know when to say when. There comes a point called "ping-pong" posts where people are making the same arguments over and over again, and no one is budging. The thing you need to remember, and the thing that Alla is alluding to is that the goal in NOT to convince people, but merely to make your case in a clear coherent convincing way, and if others don't get it, that's their problem. So, in a discussion, especially one in which you don't agree, the key to benevolent outcome is simple knowing when it is time to move on. But then, that's just my highly entrenched and unyielding opinion. Steve/bboyminn From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 24 03:19:30 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 03:19:30 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0dbbp+7qf6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0g302+rgoo@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191054 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote: > > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98@> wrote: > > > I am not so good at timelines, but LV had not had the wand > > very long. Those last chapters only cover a couple of days, > > I think. LV returns from Switzerland(?) to Malfoy Manor, > > then sets out to get the wand from DD's tomb while Harry is > > at Shell Cottage. The next day the Trio go to Gringotts > > and LV discovers his Horcruxes are missing. The Trio goes > > to Hogsmead right away and arrive at night. Snape is killed > > the next night. > > zanooda: > > I think the Trio spent a few weeks at Shell Cottage, preparing to break into Gringotts :-). LV had the Elder wand all this time. > Nikkalmati ok, I am not sure how long they spent at Shell Cottage, but they made their deal with the goblin three days after they arrived. LV had then just recently gotten the wand. I still don't think it had been a long enough time for him to decide it didn't work well and that he should kill Snape. He really only decides to take that step when he is on the verge of meeting Harry face to face and he figures he does not need Snape anymore (because the battle is won). Maybe LV had it for a month? Nikkalmati From nerona12 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 24 01:05:48 2011 From: nerona12 at yahoo.com (nerona) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 01:05:48 -0000 Subject: Hagrid Message-ID: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191055 Why Hagrid was not allowed to use magic after the chamber of secret? He was proven innocent, then why not let him get a new wand? Nerona From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 24 03:56:21 2011 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (Miner) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 03:56:21 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history Message-ID: <j0g555+ubvc@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191056 I'm not sure if I have the subject line right but there was something I thinking about. I was thinking about Tom Riddle and his ideas about muggles and although we get a good history of Tom in the Half Blood Prince, still I wonder if Tom Riddle went to Hogwarts around the time of World War II? Miner From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 24 06:07:03 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:07:03 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history - 1937 to 1944 - The Hogwarts Years In-Reply-To: <j0g555+ubvc@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0gcq7+slfu@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miner" <dragonkeeper012003 at ...> wrote: > > I'm not sure if I have the subject line right but there was something > I thinking about. I was thinking about Tom Riddle and his ideas about > muggles and although we get a good history of Tom in the Half Blood > Prince, still I wonder if Tom Riddle went to Hogwarts around the time > of World War II? > > Miner > Here is probably the most authoritative resource on all things Harry Potter - The HP Lexicon - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html And specifically on Tom Riddle - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/riddle.html According to this - " Tom Marvolo Riddle, Jr./Lord Voldemort: Born of a witch mother (Merope Gaunt) and a Muggle father (Tom Riddle, Sr.) on December 31, 1926 [year is approximate]. ..." Kids typically start school at age 11, to 1926 + 11 = 1937, and they go to school for 7 years, so 1937 + 7 = 1944. That very much covers Hitler's rise to power and fall from grace. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 24 06:39:26 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 06:39:26 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history - 1937 to 1944 - The Hogwarts Years In-Reply-To: <j0gcq7+slfu@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0gemu+t75h@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote: Steve: > Here is probably the most authoritative resource on all things Harry Potter - > > The HP Lexicon - > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html > > And specifically on Tom Riddle - > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/riddle.html > > According to this - > > " Tom Marvolo Riddle, Jr./Lord Voldemort: Born of a witch mother (Merope Gaunt) and a Muggle father (Tom Riddle, Sr.) on December 31, 1926 [year is approximate]. ..." > > Kids typically start school at age 11, to 1926 + 11 = 1937, and they go to school for 7 years, so 1937 + 7 = 1944. > > That very much covers Hitler's rise to power and fall from grace. Geoff: Hmm. I shall have to contact the Lexicon on that one. At that point in time, all children in the UK went to ***senior*** school at 11 and many stayed only 4-5 years. There was a selection system at 11+ and the Sixth Form years were solely in grammar schools. Mandatory schooling still stops at 16 today. At that time, children began at school when they were 5, which was the norm until things like reception classes appeared; my granddaughter is just about to start in one in September at the age of 4. Transfer to High School/Community College/Secondary School can now be between 11 and 13 depending on which LEA (Local Education Authority) the school is in. From sridharj_ap at yahoo.com Sun Jul 24 07:39:39 2011 From: sridharj_ap at yahoo.com (sridharj_ap) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 07:39:39 -0000 Subject: Finding Chapter Discussions In-Reply-To: <j0a9fd+qooa@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0gi7r+gde0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kelleyelf" <kelleyscorpio at ...> wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sridharj_ap" <sridharj_ap@> wrote: > > > > Is there a way to get the Chapter discussion posts easily in a text file or something? I went to the database section and found a folder, but that just lists the starting number of the posts. > > > > It would be interesting to go through them along with the books once again! > > > > > Kelley: > Actually, I've been sorting the Chap Disc posts (the initial ones > that kick off the discussions, not all the replies) into a folder > in my email program. I can put them into folders as text files; > might take a little while, but really, it's a better idea to have > them available here, instead of just sitting in my email folder. ;-) > > --Kelley > Kelley That is amazing. Thanks for compiling them into a database. I can now go through them again - it is really wonderful to look back and read our understanding and predictions :) Regards Sridhar From daveh47 at gmail.com Sun Jul 24 08:03:21 2011 From: daveh47 at gmail.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 01:03:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid In-Reply-To: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> References: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4e2bd1fa.09c1ec0a.2ba4.4e11@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191060 Nerona: >Why Hagrid was not allowed to use magic after the chamber of secret? >He was proven innocent, then why not let him get a new wand? Dave: I've often wondered about this too, and the timing of Hagrid's getting the Care of Magical Creatures post has always made me suspect that Dumbledore wanted very much to make amends to him for his unjust expulsion, but the MoM bureaucrats refused to reinstate him as a student, so the best D could do was offer him a teaching post that did not require full magical education. So why wouldn't the Ministry exonerate Hagrid and reinstate him as a student? My own theory is that they were so bloody-minded that they simply refused to admit they made a mistake. After all, in OoP, Umbridge denies the events of PS/SS ever took place, so I imagine the Ministry's official line was that CoS never happened either. But perhaps things change after LV's fall and Kingsley becomes Minister of Magic. In my unwritten fanfic in which I would have the Trio return to Hogwarts to do their Seventh Year, I also imagine that Hagrid would be finally reinstated, where he left off as a Third Year, and Hermione would help him with his homework... :) Dave From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jul 24 14:01:12 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:01:12 -0000 Subject: Finding Chapter Discussions In-Reply-To: <j0gi7r+gde0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0h8j8+c53d@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191061 > > That is amazing. Thanks for compiling them into a database. I can now go through them again - it is really wonderful to look back and read our understanding and predictions :) > > Regards > Sridhar > Potioncat: How about being an invetigative reporter? When a Chapter discussion is posted, could you take a look at the corresponding first discussion---and perhaps show us any interesting differences? From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jul 24 14:36:30 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:36:30 -0000 Subject: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love In-Reply-To: <ivtjoi+t5nk@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0hale+a2vt@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191062 > >Nikkalmati > > I am not sure you will get many responses. lol. This is a very dark series. Love is emphasized by its absence. There is lots of mother love, of course. Lily, Molly, Narcissa, Merope, Petunia (?). Potioncat: That was my first thought too, there had been a complaint about how dark our discussions are---well, this is a dark story! I don't have the book and page, but isn't Love the mysterious power in the MOM--that is so powerful and dangerous? JKR certainly shows how dangerous love can be. Just looking at mother love--Lily's willing sacrifice for her son created a both a defense from and a weapon against LV. Merope's love for her unborn baby couldn't keep her alive, but she made an effort to provide life for Tom. (Very much like Oliver Twist---locket and all) Molly has a fierce love for her children, one that some readers feel is too intrusive. Narcissa betrays LV twice for her son. Petunia---poor Petunia--she really does love Dudley but she hasn't a clue how to be a parent. We are shown obsessive love with Merope for Tom, and to make sure we "get" it, Slughorn discusses the danger of it. Who doesn't understand the desire to make someone love you?---that one perfect person to love you? Most teens and some adults go through that stage--in the RW we see stalkers on one level and day-to-day people on the other. Merope's efforts went so far and caused damage that went through several generations. Snape's love for Lily became obessive at the end--a sort of honorable obessive love. It drove him to great lengths of courage and sacrifice---but his love stayed very narrow and focused. There is early stage romantic love (Harry for Cho and Ron for Lavendar) and a mature romantic love (Harry for Ginny and Ron for Hermione) I'm not sure it was well written, but the intent is there. I know that many readers do not like the Ron-Hermione dynamic and consider it a younger version of Arthur-Molly. But I think Arthur and Molly have a weathered, loving relationship that fits their personalities and works toward their strengths and weaknesses. Nikkalmati > I am not sure it is Harry's love that saves the WW. Do you mean his love for that world in general, so he is willing to die? I see it more as his sense of duty. Potioncat: Duty plays into the battle--by many of the characters. A call to arms is a reaction to our sense of duty. But Harry makes his decisions based on love (imho) And we see his love for others--an agape love--many times. One that comes to mind is when Cho sees him on the train and he wishes he was sitting with a cooler crowd---but he never puts Neville or Luna down or makes them feel uncomfortable. I think Harry saw his battle with LV as his destiny and yes a sort of duty---but how he played it out, I think, was due to his love. At the end he was rescuing DEs (Draco and friends) and even tried to save Tom Riddle from his eternal fate by urging him to feel remorse. Yep, love isn't exactly a rosey topic in the WW, is it? From bart at moosewise.com Sun Jul 24 15:34:31 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:34:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid In-Reply-To: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> References: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2C3B87.7080103@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191063 nerona: > Why Hagrid was not allowed to use magic after the chamber of secret? > He was proven innocent, then why not let him get a new wand? Bart: Excellent question. There is nothing in canon about it. Yet, he isn't complaining, so my guess is that he probably COULD get a new wand, but his old one still fits all his purposes. Bart From bart at moosewise.com Sun Jul 24 15:44:20 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:44:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tom Riddle and history In-Reply-To: <j0g555+ubvc@eGroups.com> References: <j0g555+ubvc@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2C3DD4.6060104@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191064 Miner: > I'm not sure if I have the subject line right but there was something > I thinking about. I was thinking about Tom Riddle and his ideas about > muggles and although we get a good history of Tom in the Half Blood > Prince, still I wonder if Tom Riddle went to Hogwarts around the time > of World War II? Bart: Time to pull out one of my favorite things to say in this group: "There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those who can count, and those who can't." - J. K. Rowling Although there have been a number of very good attempts to reason this out, matching timelines in the Potterverse to Ourverse timelines is kind of like figuring out how Dr. Watson received his war wound in the Sherlock Holmes novels. They tend not to match up. Given that, the math shows that yes, Tom Riddle was in Hogwarts 50 years previously to the 1990's, so Muggletime (assuming that WWII did take place in the Muggle version of the Rowlingverse, as we have no indication that it did) does show that it was during WWII. Bart From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 24 16:25:56 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:25:56 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history In-Reply-To: <4E2C3DD4.6060104@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j0hh2k+m225@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191065 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart at ...> wrote: Miner: > > I'm not sure if I have the subject line right but there was something > > I thinking about. I was thinking about Tom Riddle and his ideas about > > muggles and although we get a good history of Tom in the Half Blood > > Prince, still I wonder if Tom Riddle went to Hogwarts around the time > > of World War II? Bart: > Time to pull out one of my favorite things to say in this group: > "There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those who can count, and > those who can't." - J. K. Rowling > Although there have been a number of very good attempts to reason this > out, matching timelines in the Potterverse to Ourverse timelines is kind > of like figuring out how Dr. Watson received his war wound in the > Sherlock Holmes novels. They tend not to match up. > Given that, the math shows that yes, Tom Riddle was in Hogwarts 50 years > previously to the 1990's, so Muggletime (assuming that WWII did take > place in the Muggle version of the Rowlingverse, as we have no > indication that it did) does show that it was during WWII. Geoff: I see no reason why JKR should change real world events because there is really no need to, since the real world impacts so little on the Wizarding World. The opening of the Chamber of Secrets took place in Harry's Second Year which places it in the 1992/93 academic year; if this was exactly 50 years after the previous opening - which it might have been symbolically, then that was in 1942/43, certainly during World War II. Tom Riddle was a prefect so was either a Fifth Year or more likely in the Sixth Form which puts him in one of three school years(!) which makes him anything between 16 and 19 at that time. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 24 16:55:33 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 24 Jul 2011 16:55:33 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/24/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1311526533.15.92936.m2@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191066 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 24, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20110724/22d71416/attachment.html> From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 24 18:03:30 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:03:30 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history - 1937 to 1944 - The Hogwarts Years In-Reply-To: <j0gemu+t75h@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0hmpi+a883@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote: > > Steve: > > Here is probably the most authoritative resource on all things Harry Potter - > > > > The HP Lexicon - > > > > ... > > According to this - > > > > " Tom Marvolo Riddle, Jr./Lord Voldemort: Born of a witch mother (Merope Gaunt) and a Muggle father (Tom Riddle, Sr.) on December 31, 1926 [year is approximate]. ..." > > > > Kids typically start school at age 11, to 1926 + 11 = 1937, and they go to school for 7 years, so 1937 + 7 = 1944. > > > > ... > > Geoff: > Hmm. I shall have to contact the Lexicon on that one. > > At that point in time, all children in the UK went to ***senior*** > school at 11 and many stayed only 4-5 years. ... > Steve: With all due respect Geoff, we are not talking about 'any' school, we are specifically talking about Hogwarts, and we know specifically how Hogwarts works. Still, I suspect the actual date of 1926 is a best guess calculated from clues in the books, but we can't be certain unless JKR says it specifically. Steve/bboyminn From andy.mills at btinternet.com Sun Jul 24 09:53:33 2011 From: andy.mills at btinternet.com (Andy Mills) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:53:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid In-Reply-To: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> References: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2BEB9D.3000007@btinternet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191068 On 24/07/2011 02:05, nerona wrote: > Why Hagrid was not allowed to use magic after the chamber of secret? > He was proven innocent, then why not let him get a new wand? > > Nerona Hagrid and his wand has always been something I've been a bit confused about. We're led to believe that, when he was expelled, his wand was broken in half, presumably by a Ministry official. However, we're also led to believe that either his wand, or the pieces of his wand,d, are hidden in his umbrella. We see in several instances Hagrid's umbrella acting very much as a wand would act, i.e. able to perform magic. What I'd like to know is: 1. Was Hagrid's wand actually snapped in half or was this prevented in some way (possibly by Dumbledore). 2. If it was in fact snapped, how is it able to work, even if held together inside the umbrella handle. We're told that a broken wand which has been snapped is normally beyond repair and therefore would be unable to work. Dumbledore would have had the elder wand at this time, so possibly would have been able to repair Hagrid's wand for him. So, was the wand snapped, repaired by Dumbledore and then either hidden inside the umbrella or possibly transfigured in some way to resemble an umbrella, but still able to act as a wand? From what we see of Hagrid performing magic in the books, it would seem that the umbrella/wand is totally capable of performing spells, it's Hagrid's lack of full teaching that sometimes results in the magic not working properly rather than the umbrella/wand being unable to perform it properly. I'd be very interested to hear what others think about this. AJM From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 24 16:59:43 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <4E2B5DA4.4000404@moosewise.com> References: <j0ffnm+1kbc@eGroups.com> <4E2B5DA4.4000404@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <1311526783.56316.YahooMailNeo@web113911.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191069 >> Alla wrote: >> I always felt that Dumbledore had some sort of moral obligation >> to actually go and check a little bit deeper into Sirius' guilt >> or innocence. > Bart: The problem, of course, is that we do not know what happened after > Peter blew up the muggles and escaped. We have good reason to believe, but don't know, that Sirius never protested his innocence, > but took full responsibility. We also don't know whether or not Dumbledore tried to speak to Sirius afterwards, or even if he > succeeded. Therefore, our assumptions about what happened need to be based on > what we have seen of the characters. My own supposition is that Dumbledore may have tried to speak to Sirius, but Sirius refused to > speak to Dumbledore, out of shame and guilt. Morty was gone, the remaining Death Easters were still at large, and there was a lot to > do. Note that Lupin suspected Sirius of being the spy, as well; Sirius was NOT a very nice person (see "The Prank", Sirius' treatment > of Kreacher, :etc.). June: I like Sirius, but Bart is right, Sirius has a dark side and he uses it often. The way he treated Snape when they were kids. He could have gotten Snape killed when he sent him after Lupin. Then when he excaped and came back to Hogwarts, he didn't act like an innocent man. He attacked the fat lady and tore up Ron's curtains looking for Scabbers and let's not forget that as far as Dumbledore knew, he was the Potter's secret keeper. The only one who could have been able to lead Voldemort to the Potters was their secret keeper. The first mistake made, in my opinion was changing the secret keeper without letting someone they trusted (most likely Dumbledore) know. Every thing was against Sirius, his attitude, the fact that no one knew he had decided not to be the secret keeper. Anyone would have believed him to be guilty and like Bart said, Sirius probably felt guilty for what happened and didn't argue when they took him to prison. Granted, he should have had a proper trial but I doubt that Dumbledore had any thing to do with how the trial was run. If you remember right, he showed up at Harry's trial sort of like his solicitor and brought a witness with him, but he was unable to tell them to let Harry go, he had to listen to the proceedings like everyone else. He doesn't work for the ministry and therefore cannot control what the ministry does. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Sun Jul 24 17:26:59 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: <4e2bd1fa.09c1ec0a.2ba4.4e11@mx.google.com> References: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> <4e2bd1fa.09c1ec0a.2ba4.4e11@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1311528419.67243.YahooMailNeo@web113909.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> ? >> Nerona: >> Why Hagrid was not allowed to use magic after the chamber of >> secret? He was proven innocent, then why not let him get a new >> wand? June: You know what? I have often wondered that myself. I think that after what Hagrid had been through (because of Voldemort), I think he should have been given an honorary school diploma and the ministry should have bought him a new wand (after all they ordered his wand distroyed so they should have paid for a new one for him). > Dave: > <snip> But perhaps things change after LV's fall and Kingsley becomes Minister of Magic. In my unwritten fanfic in which I would > have the Trio return to Hogwarts to do their Seventh Year, I also imagine that Hagrid would be finally reinstated, where he left off > as a Third Year, and Hermione would help him with his homework... June: Actually J.K. Rowling has said that only Hermione went back to finish school. From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 24 19:53:30 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:53:30 +0100 Subject: Hagrid In-Reply-To: <4E2BEB9D.3000007@btinternet.com> References: <j0fr5c+jdf6@eGroups.com> <4E2BEB9D.3000007@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <9F58441D21AE48A5877F9F111041719B@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191071 AJM: > 1. Was Hagrid's wand actually snapped in half or was this > prevented in some way (possibly by Dumbledore). Liz: Mr Olivander believes it was snapped when Harry went to get his first wand, so I believe it was indeed snapped in two. AJM: > 2. If it was in fact snapped, how is it able to work, even if held together inside the umbrella handle. We're told that a broken wand which has been snapped is normally beyond repair and therefore would be unable to work. Dumbledore would have had the elder wand at this time, so possibly would have been able to repair Hagrid's wand for him. So, was the wand snapped, repaired by Dumbledore and then either hidden inside the umbrella or possibly transfigured in some way to resemble an umbrella, but still able to act as a wand? From what we see of Hagrid performing magic in the books, it would seem that the umbrella/wand is totally capable of performing spells, it's Hagrid's lack of full teaching that sometimes results in the magic not working properly rather than the umbrella/wand being unable to perform it properly. I'd be very interested to hear what others think about > this. Liz: I'm sure I read somewhere that Dumbledore fixed Hagrid's wand with his wand (the elder wand). And I think it is concealed in the umbrella, not transfigured. It makes more sense as a transfigured wand may not work properly and I would think it would transfigure back to a wand in order to be used. But that's just a guess! From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 24 21:05:55 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:05:55 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history - 1937 to 1944 - The Hogwarts Years In-Reply-To: <j0hmpi+a883@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0i1fj+5gla@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote: Steve: > > > Here is probably the most authoritative resource on all things Harry Potter - > > > The HP Lexicon - > > > According to this - > > > " Tom Marvolo Riddle, Jr./Lord Voldemort: Born of a witch mother (Merope Gaunt) and a Muggle father (Tom Riddle, Sr.) on December 31, 1926 [year is approximate]. ..." > > > Kids typically start school at age 11, to 1926 + 11 = 1937, and they go to school for 7 years, so 1937 + 7 = 1944. Geoff: > > Hmm. I shall have to contact the Lexicon on that one. > > > > At that point in time, all children in the UK went to ***senior*** > > school at 11 and many stayed only 4-5 years. ... Steve: > With all due respect Geoff, we are not talking about 'any' school, we are specifically talking about Hogwarts, and we know specifically how Hogwarts works. Geoff: With all due respect, Steve, the quote was "kids typically start school at age 11..." Perhaps it should say "senior school" because even if the Lexicon is referring to Hogwarts alone - and the quote doesn't imply that, then the pupils have to have been at school somewhere else. The Lexicon figure is still wrong because to enter the First Year, a child has to have reached the age of 11 in the preceding year. Tom Riddle was born on 31st December so, using the date of 1926, he would be 11 on 31/12/37 and so would not enter Hogwarts until September 1938 so, assuming that he stayed right through to Second Year Sixth and NEWTS (if they were the relevant exam at the time) he would have left in 1945 which is, of course, the year in which Grindelwald was defeated and I wonder whether JKR, tongue in cheek, tied the two together deliberately? We can work on probabilities. In 191065, I stated: The opening of the Chamber of Secrets took place in Harry's Second Year which places it in the 1992/93 academic year; if this was exactly 50 years after the previous opening - which it might have been symbolically, then that was in 1942/43, certainly during World War II. Tom Riddle was a prefect so was either a Fifth Year or in the Sixth Form which puts him in one of three school years(!). However, if we work on the data above, it looks as if he was a Fifth Year prefect and this thread should be re-titled "1938-1945 - The Hogwarts Years". From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 24 22:13:45 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:13:45 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history - 1937 to 1944 - Corrected 1938 - 1945 In-Reply-To: <j0i1fj+5gla@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0i5ep+jh4n@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191073 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote: > > Steve: > > > > Here is probably the most authoritative resource on all things Harry Potter - > > > > > The HP Lexicon - > > > > > According to this - > > > > > " Tom Marvolo Riddle, Jr./Lord Voldemort: Born of a witch mother (Merope Gaunt) and a Muggle father (Tom Riddle, Sr.) on December 31, 1926 [year is approximate]. ..." > > > > > Kids typically start school at age 11, to 1926 + 11 = 1937, and they go to school for 7 years, so 1937 + 7 = 1944. > > Geoff: > > > Hmm. I shall have to contact the Lexicon on that one. > > > > > >... > > Steve: > > With all due respect Geoff, we are not talking about 'any' school, we are specifically talking about Hogwarts, and we know specifically how Hogwarts works. > > Geoff: > With all due respect, Steve, the quote was "kids typically start school at age > 11..." ... > > The Lexicon figure is still wrong because to enter the First Year, a child > has to have reached the age of 11 in the preceding year. Tom Riddle was > born on 31st December so, using the date of 1926, he would be 11 on > 31/12/37 and so would not enter Hogwarts until September 1938 so, > ... Steve: Perhaps I should have said, kids typically start THIS SCHOOL at age 11. But, let's look back at the original question - "I wonder if Tom Riddle went to Hogwarts around the time of World War II?" And the answer is YES, Tom's Howarts Year correspond to World War 2. The plus or minus one year has little relevance to answering the question. The answer is still YES either way. Though you are right, being born after September 1, Riddle would not have entered school until the following year. So, 1938 to 1945 would be more correct, but again, either way, the answer to the question is YES. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jul 24 22:19:05 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:19:05 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle and history - 1937 to 1944 - Corrected 1938 - 1945 In-Reply-To: <j0i5ep+jh4n@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0i5op+ncoc@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote: Steve: > > Perhaps I should have said, kids typically start THIS SCHOOL at age 11. Geoff: But I reiterate that THIS SCHOOL conforms to the UK pattern of school dates and terms etc. I'm a little unhappy that the Lexicon gets some of its facts wrong - having a US compiler I suppose. But generally, we appear to be in agreement - as we have usually been in the past. :-) From lynde at post.com Mon Jul 25 02:55:47 2011 From: lynde at post.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 02:55:47 +0000 Subject: Was Dumbledore Long and Bad Is now An Apology Message-ID: <20110725025605.143960@gmx.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191076 This is Lynda, under whose email some very insulting remarks were made to Alla. They were not from the holder of the email address. I have been very sick and another person in the household took it upon themselves to read and reply to my email. I am very sorry. I have changed my computer access and passwords to keep it from happening again. I apologize most humbly to Alla and everyone else on the list. What was said was very downputting and should not have happened. Lynda (the real Lynda) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 25 15:43:02 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:43:02 -0000 Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand? In-Reply-To: <j0g302+rgoo@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0k2u6+3hnv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191077 > > > Nikkalmati > ok, I am not sure how long they spent at Shell Cottage, but they made their deal with the goblin three days after they arrived. LV had then just recently gotten the wand. I still don't think it had been a long enough time for him to decide it didn't work well and that he should kill Snape. He really only decides to take that step when he is on the verge of meeting Harry face to face and he figures he does not need Snape anymore (because the battle is won). Maybe LV had it for a month? > Pippin: The escape from Malfoy Manor happened during March at the Easter holidays; that's why Draco is home from school. The trio spent the balance of March and all of April at Shell Cottage, planning the robbery and waiting for Griphook to recover his health. The Gringotts robbery took place on May 1st according to the HP lexicon timeline. Voldemort had the wand about 6 weeks I would guess -- but if a wand has chosen you, you ought to feel the rapport. Also, the Elder Wand had not revealed any of its legendary powers -- IIRC, according to Dumbledore's notes in Beedle the Bard, it was supposed to be able to perform magic beyond the powers of ordinary wands, and even to whisper instruction to its owner. I don't think Voldemort decided he didn't need Snape anymore. He wouldn't want to run Hogwarts himself, and he considered Snape a reliable and useful servant. But he needed the wand. There was always the danger that Voldemort would kill Snape for some crazy reason. But of those few Dumbledore trusted, Snape was the least likely to be killed out of hand and the least likely to try to buy his life with what he knew. annemehr: 1. Does LV know that the wand would change masters even if the wand was miles away when its current master is defeated? The only instance of this we as readers know of is when Harry won Draco's own wand from him, thus gaining mastery of the Elder wand as well. I don't know if Ollivander knew this could happen or told LV. Your point of view assumes LV would know that the wand is omniscient. If the answer to 1. is "no," then LV ought to have killed (or somehow defeated) Snape right away to gain mastery. As he didn't, then I assume you are right and LV somehow believed that the wand was omniscient. (There might be canon for this, but I don't remember and wouldn't know where to look.) Pippin: We don't know how wands know anything-- but they are able to choose and recognize their wizard. We know that Harry and Voldemort can perceive each other from considerable distances, so such feats of perception are magically possible though not usual, and of course the Elder Wand is unusual too. Certainly Voldemort expected the Elder Wand to recognize him as the wizard who had defeated Dumbledore, and it was only when the wand failed to work as expected that he began to wonder if it had given its allegiance elsewhere. Annemehr: 2. Would Snape's killing of DD constitute a part of LV's plan, in the view of a supposedly omniscient wand? Because the plan was for Draco to attempt it. For this question, we of course assume Snape was a loyal DE as LV would have at the time. Pippin: At the time of DD's death, Voldemort had evinced no interest in Dumbledore's wand. Dumbledore believed that eventually Voldemort would decide that he must have the Elder Wand in order to defeat Harry. But DD was hoping the Elder Wand would lose its powers if he, Dumbledore, died undefeated. Then Voldemort could only seek it in vain. Ollivander says there are certain characteristics unique to the Elder Wand which the knowledgeable can use to identify it. IMO, once the wand had been made powerless, it could be broken and/or altered so that it could not be recognized and there would be no way to tell that it had ever been the Elder Wand at all. Ollivander told Voldemort about the twin cores, and explained that he could defeat Harry if he used a different wand. But it turned out that Harry's holly wand, having absorbed some of Voldemort's powers, had become uniquely powerful against Voldemort. Dumbledore says at King's Cross that he wasn't expecting that. So he probably wasn't expecting Voldemort to go after the Elder Wand so soon. I am wondering now if telling Snape wasn't itself a back up plan, and Dumbledore actually expected or hoped that Harry would figure it all out for himself. After all, it was reasonably likely that one or more of the remaining horcruxes would be as lethally trapped as the ring or the locket, and Harry would get himself killed, only to find that, because Voldemort carried Harry's blood in his veins, Harry was going to get the mother of all second chances. That would dispose of the Harry horcrux and Snape's message would then be superfluous, except for its hint that there was a way to end Voldemort's power even if not all the horcruxes were destroyed. Or course it would be difficult for Harry to offer his life as protection if he knew Voldemort could not kill him -- but I suppose he could always have Hermione memory charm him :) I wonder, if Dumbledore had not given Snape a message for Harry, would Snape still have wanted to share his memories so that someone would know why he had done it all? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 25 18:17:46 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:17:46 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <4E2B5DA4.4000404@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j0kc0a+4han@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191078 > alla wrote: > > I always felt that Dumbledore had some sort of moral obligation to actually go and check a little bit deeper into Sirius' guilt or innocence. > > Bart: > The problem, of course, is that we do not know what happened after > Peter blew up the muggles and escaped. We have good reason to believe, > but don't know, that Sirius never protested his innocence, but took full > responsibility. We also don't know whether or not Dumbledore tried to > speak to Sirius afterwards, or even if he succeeded. Alla: Don't you think that Dumbledore's trying to talk to Sirius and Sirius refusing to do so would have been too important not to mention anywhere in the book? And of course we know that Dumbledore actually testified at the whatever semblance of the hearing Ministry conducted and gave "evidence" that Sirius was Potters' Secret keeper. For me it is a pretty clear indication that no, Dumbledore did not do anything of the sort like trying to talk to Sirius. Steve replies: First you are assuming Dumbledore did nothing. I'm sure he made his case to the Ministry, but they were not holding the best attitude with regard to Dumbledore at the time, and I'm sure completely discounted his statements. <BIG SNIP> Alla: Of course I am. See my reply to Bart. I think if it happened, it would have been mentioned. IMO of course. And we have canon that Dumbledore did the exact opposite. Steve: <SNIP> Just because something doesn't happen on the page, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Alla: I LOVE LOVE speculating based on canon, but IMO if we decide that just because something is not shown it did not happen, it is stretching things a bit too much. I do not see the slightest canon suport to make an inference that Dumbledore tried to help Sirius and pretty huge fact (his testimony) that he did not try that. Just my opinion of course. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 25 18:18:32 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:18:32 -0000 Subject: Was Dumbledore Long and Bad Is now An Apology In-Reply-To: <20110725025605.143960@gmx.com> Message-ID: <j0kc1o+imqn@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" <lynde at ...> wrote: > > This is Lynda, under whose email some very insulting remarks were made to Alla. They were not from the holder of the email address. > > I have been very sick and another person in the household took it upon themselves to read and reply to my email. I am very sorry. I have changed my computer access and passwords to keep it from happening again. I apologize most humbly to Alla and everyone else on the list. What was said was very downputting and should not have happened. > > Lynda (the real Lynda) > Alla: No worries. Apology accepted. From janacooney at yahoo.com Mon Jul 25 15:42:36 2011 From: janacooney at yahoo.com (jana c) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:42:36 -0000 Subject: MOVIE and Question for a quote from POA Message-ID: <j0k2tc+tqc8@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191080 In the book when Fred and George give Harry the map, to open it they tell him to say "I solemnly swear THAT I am up to no good".......BUT in the movie does he say the same thing or does he just say "I solemnly swear I'M up no good"? JanaC. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jul 25 18:56:45 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:56:45 -0000 Subject: MOVIE and Question for a quote from POA In-Reply-To: <j0k2tc+tqc8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0ke9d+i316@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191081 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jana c" <janacooney at ...> wrote: JanaC. > In the book when Fred and George give Harry the map, to open it they tell him to say > > "I solemnly swear THAT I am up to no good".......BUT in the movie does he say the same thing or does he just say "I solemnly swear I'M up no good"? Geoff: Just checked my DVD. George definitely says the same wording as the book. I don't quite see why you are looking at this very small difference? If your use of capital letters indicates stress, then in the film, he stresses the word "I" very slightly. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 25 19:50:24 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:50:24 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0kc0a+4han@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0khe0+d4ui@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191082 > > alla wrote: > > > I always felt that Dumbledore had some sort of moral obligation to actually go and check a little bit deeper into Sirius' guilt or innocence. Potioncat: I think it shows just how strongly everyone believed Sirius was guilty. We have the benefit of hind sight now, but think how we Harry, Snape, McGonagall you name em, felt about Sirius in the earlier parts of PoA. DD knew someone in the Order, close to the Potters, was a spy. And once LV got to the house, it was evident Sirius must have told him how. If DD had any doubts, Sirius' behavior when he 'killed' Peter would have vanished them. So I think a broken-hearted DD testified to the truth that he knew--Sirius Black was the Potters' Secret Keeper. > From sherriola at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 19:57:44 2011 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:57:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0khe0+d4ui@eGroups.com> References: <j0kc0a+4han@eGroups.com> <j0khe0+d4ui@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <017301cc4b05$1fd51640$5f7f42c0$@com> No: HPFGUIDX 191083 > > Alla wrote: > > > I always felt that Dumbledore had some sort of moral obligation to actually go and check a little bit deeper into Sirius' guilt or innocence. Potioncat: I think it shows just how strongly everyone believed Sirius was guilty. We have the benefit of hind sight now, but think how we Harry, Snape, McGonagall you name em, felt about Sirius in the earlier parts of PoA. Sherry: Actually, I didn't believe, from the very beginning that Sirius was guilty or that he had killed James and Lily. It didn't feel right. It felt almost contrived. In my defense, much as I despised Snape through all the books, I did not believe he was trying to kill Harry in SS/PS. It was just too convenient for him to be the one, too set up to look that way to be true. I felt the same when we started hearing about Sirius in POA. And then, once we learned the whole animagi thing, I knew he couldn't have done it, because a dog wouldn't betray his pack that way. But yeah, from the beginning, I didn't believe he was guilty. So, I wasn't surprised by his innocence and was surprised and upset, that DD had seemed never to question it. But it would have messed with his plans to have Sirius free and clear before the world. Sirius being Harry's guardian, DD could not have overruled his custody and sent Harry back to the Dursleys. Sherry From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 25 20:21:17 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:21:17 -0000 Subject: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love In-Reply-To: <j0c6lj+rijn@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0kj7t+nsm9@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191084 > Pippin: > I've had to take some time to think about this. I hope others are too, because this is a fascinating question. Potioncat: Thank you! > > In the last three books, I think JKR has something difficult to say about love: that it doesn't do everything we wish it could do. Like the Mirror of Erised, it will give us neither knowledge nor truth -- and ignorance and false ideals can make the power of love incredibly destructive. Potioncat: Wonderful post, Pippin. I'd love to add something that would keep the conversation going--but I think you covered it. I thought JKR was showing us different types of love, but you're view is that in this series we see love the way different flawed persons experience or show love. Let me mull that over. From margdean56 at gmail.com Mon Jul 25 21:03:07 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:03:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <017301cc4b05$1fd51640$5f7f42c0$@com> References: <j0kc0a+4han@eGroups.com> <j0khe0+d4ui@eGroups.com> <017301cc4b05$1fd51640$5f7f42c0$@com> Message-ID: <CAD2gbLgeP-Avm_QBLUv8q0L_EttpeC_JVoF5G+_g=dxUa2y1Xg@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191085 On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Sherry Gomes <sherriola at gmail.com> wrote: > Sherry: > > Actually, I didn't believe, from the very beginning that Sirius was guilty > or that he had killed James and Lily. It didn't feel right. It felt almost > contrived. > > In my defense, much as I despised Snape through all the books, I did not > believe he was trying to kill Harry in SS/PS. It was just too convenient > for him to be the one, too set up to look that way to be true. I felt the > same when we started hearing about Sirius in POA. And then, once we > learned the whole animagi thing, I knew he couldn't have done it, because a > dog wouldn't betray his pack that way. But yeah, from the beginning, I > didn't believe he was guilty. So, I wasn't surprised by his innocence and > was surprised and upset, that DD had seemed never to question it. But it > would have messed with his plans to have Sirius free and clear before the > world. Sirius being Harry's guardian, DD could not have overruled his > custody and sent Harry back to the Dursleys. Margaret: The thing is, we readers have the advantage of knowing that we're reading a book, and that Snape or Sirius (the obvious suspect) actually being the culprits would be inartistic. The characters, OTOH, *don't* know they are in a book. As far as they're concerned, they're dealing with real life, where the obvious often turns out to be true, even if it doesn't make good drama. --Margaret Dean, who was unsurprised by Dumbledore's death in Book 6 because she knows the usual fate of Kindly Old Mentors in stories. (I'd been expecting him to pop off any time after Book 4, in fact.) <margdean56 at gmail.com> From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 25 21:06:18 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:06:18 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0kc0a+4han@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0klsa+ml8g@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191086 > > Alla: > > Don't you think that Dumbledore's trying to talk to Sirius and Sirius refusing to do so would have been too important not to mention anywhere in the book? Pippin: Dumbledore trying to talk to Sirius and not being allowed to, however, would not be so important. Dumbledore might have tried to talk to Sirius, if only to see if he could get information on other Death Eaters. While Dumbledore was allowed to talk to Morfin and Hokey, they were not maximum security prisoners. As far as we know, Fudge is the only person who ever got to visit Sirius in Azkaban. Alla: > And of course we know that Dumbledore actually testified at the whatever semblance of the hearing Ministry conducted and gave "evidence" that Sirius was Potters' Secret keeper. For me it is a pretty clear indication that no, Dumbledore did not do anything of the sort like trying to talk to Sirius. Pippin: Very likely, the source of Dumbledore's evidence was Sirius himself. He had a long history of deceiving Dumbledore successfully and for the secret-keeper switch to work it was vital that no one, especially Dumbledore, should suspect that the secret-keeper was anyone other than Sirius Black. So why wouldn't Black tell Dumbledore that he was the secret-keeper? Of course for Dumbledore to actually learn the secret the information had to come from Pettigrew, but I can think of all kinds of ways to arrange it so it looked like it came from Sirius instead. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jul 25 21:23:26 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:23:26 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0kc0a+4han@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0kmse+o72i@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote: > > ... > > Steve: > <SNIP> > Just because something doesn't happen on the page, doesn't mean it doesn't > happen. > > > Alla: > > ... I do not see the slightest canon suport to make an inference that Dumbledore tried to help Sirius and pretty huge fact (his testimony) that he did not try that. > > Just my opinion of course. > > Alla > Steve replies: I think it depends on WHEN you mean Dumbledore should have tried to help Sirius. When the Potters died, Sirius confessed. Seems pretty cut and dried. But, when they find the truth about Peter, I think Dumbledore did make his case, but was rebuffed by the Ministry. We see after Order of the Phoenix, the Ministry has come around to Dumbledore's point of view. In "The Two Ministers" Fudge admits that Sirius was not guilty, as well as a couple of other things Dumbledore was trying to tell him. Though I think Dumbledore saw a lost cause, and knew it when he saw it. He made his case to the Ministry, then accepted that they could not and would not be convince, but he make the information available to them, and after Order of the Phoenix, it became impossible for them to deny what Dumbledore had told them. How else, to you explain Fudge's revelation about Sirius in "The Two Ministers". The only logical source of that conclusion is Dumbledore's information. I think I see evidence that Dumbledore DID make his case, but at the same time, saw that doing so was a lost cause with the Ministry. Steve/bbboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 25 21:29:24 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:29:24 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0klsa+ml8g@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0kn7k+6oio@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191088 > > Alla: > > > > Don't you think that Dumbledore's trying to talk to Sirius and Sirius refusing to do so would have been too important not to mention anywhere in the book? > > Pippin: > Dumbledore trying to talk to Sirius and not being allowed to, however, would not be so important. Dumbledore might have tried to talk to Sirius, if only to see if he could get information on other Death Eaters. While Dumbledore was allowed to talk to Morfin and Hokey, they were not maximum security prisoners. As far as we know, Fudge is the only person who ever got to visit Sirius in Azkaban. Alla: I disagree. I think it would have been mentioned at least in PoA. > > Alla: > > And of course we know that Dumbledore actually testified at the whatever semblance of the hearing Ministry conducted and gave "evidence" that Sirius was Potters' Secret keeper. For me it is a pretty clear indication that no, Dumbledore did not do anything of the sort like trying to talk to Sirius. > > Pippin: > Very likely, the source of Dumbledore's evidence was Sirius himself. He had a long history of deceiving Dumbledore successfully and for the secret-keeper switch to work it was vital that no one, especially Dumbledore, should suspect that the secret-keeper was anyone other than Sirius Black. So why wouldn't Black tell Dumbledore that he was the secret-keeper? <SNIP> Alla: In the conversation that we are not shown ever happened? As I said before, one conversation, ONE and Dumbledore was all agreeable that Sirius was innocent. I have not seen any evidence in the books that Dumbledore did that, before Sirius was brought to him in PoA. Personally I think that no one was the source of Dumbledore's evidence. This is of course just speculation, but to me perfectly in line with how I see Dumbledore's character. I think he just made one of his famous guesses, only this time it was totally wrong, and he was under delussion that it was correct as usual. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jul 25 21:37:18 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:37:18 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0kmse+o72i@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0knme+vq5a@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote: > > > ... > > How else, to you explain Fudge's revelation about Sirius in "The Two Ministers". The only logical source of that conclusion is Dumbledore's information. > > I think I see evidence that Dumbledore DID make his case, but at the same time, saw that doing so was a lost cause with the Ministry. > > Steve/bbboyminn > Steve - CORRECTION The Half Blood Prince chapter is called "The OTHER Minister". But it can be seen that the Ministries attitude changes dramatically between Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince. Where did the information come from to cause that change of attitude if not from Dumbledore. Steve/bboyminn From mxahid9 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 25 22:20:32 2011 From: mxahid9 at yahoo.com (Maria Zhaid) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:20:32 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! Message-ID: <j0kq7g+3p3i@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191090 Hi I just need to interview some members regarding some questions about Harry Potter. Your information will stay only between me and my teacher, possibly the class as well Please,it will not take much time If you are interested, please add me at mxahid9 at gmail.com ASAP. please.thanks!!!! From lynde at post.com Mon Jul 25 23:18:17 2011 From: lynde at post.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:18:17 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Dumbledore Long and Bad Is now An Apology Message-ID: <20110725231925.144000@gmx.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191091 Alla: No worries. Apology accepted. Lynda: Thanks, Alla. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 26 00:11:09 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:11:09 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0kn7k+6oio@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0l0mt+53gh@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191092 > Alla: > > In the conversation that we are not shown ever happened? As I said before, one conversation, ONE and Dumbledore was all agreeable that Sirius was innocent. I have not seen any evidence in the books that Dumbledore did that, before Sirius was brought to him in PoA. > > Personally I think that no one was the source of Dumbledore's evidence. This is of course just speculation, but to me perfectly in line with how I see Dumbledore's character. I think he just made one of his famous guesses, only this time it was totally wrong, and he was under delussion that it was correct as usual. > Pippin: It was known within the Order that Sirius was going to be the secret-keeper. That is why Lupin was so surprised to find out that it was Peter, and Peter insists that if there had been a switch Lupin would have been told about it. Dumbledore had to be given the secret by somebody, since James gave him the cloak only a few days before the end, and that had to have been done at the house in Godric's Hollow, since it wouldn't have been safe for James to go back to the house without it. Dumbledore would have thought that the betrayal of the secret was the reason that Peter had gone after Sirius -- Peter was sobbing, "Lily and James, Sirius! How could you?" for everyone to hear, and this was information the Ministry should have. It is their job, not his, to decide whether what Dumbledore knows can be verified. They seem to have done a reasonable job of investigating for once -- and doubtless Sirius would refuse to speak to the Ministry if he was questioned, just as Podmore did. Even if the Order thinks he's a traitor, he still owes them his loyalty -- and his silence. As Lily said in her letter, the Order comes first. And there's Lupin to think of -- Sirius can establish his innocence only by explaining how it was that the three of them became animagi in the first place. Considering what Lupin and Sirius were going to do to Pettigrew, Sirius might have considered himself lucky to be in Azkaban. I'm pretty sure that any number of Order members, including Lupin, would have murdered him if they'd got the chance. Pippin From bart at moosewise.com Tue Jul 26 01:01:09 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:01:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0kn7k+6oio@eGroups.com> References: <j0kn7k+6oio@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E2E11D5.4080102@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191093 Alla: > Personally I think that no one was the source of Dumbledore's evidence. This is of course just speculation, but to me perfectly in line with how I see Dumbledore's character. I think he just made one of his famous guesses, only this time it was totally wrong, and he was under delussion that it was correct as usual. > Bart: Now that make sense. Especially considering that the entire WW Came to the same conclusion, including, based on what we saw with Snape, many if not most of the Death Eaters. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 26 01:00:51 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:00:51 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0l0mt+53gh@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0l3k3+glhv@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191094 Pippin, would have loved to respond point by point but had to delete all the text again, so if I miss something will respond later. Yes, it had been "known" in the order that Sirius was going to be a secret keeper, but again nobody really *knew* what happened, didn't they except the parties who participated and Dumbledore himself was worried so much that offered himself, maybe that alone should have pushed him to investigate further? The fact that plan was so prone to change in the last minute. I so do not follow your point about the information ministry should have? Ministry should have the information that Peter fed them?! A lie?! I completely do not follow what this has to do with Sirius' loyalty to the order? And speaking about loyalty, does Dumbledore owe any loyalty to his soldiers? Like maybe again going to my original point - investigate further? Are you implying that JKR actually thought about the detail of James not being safe to go back to the house without the cloak? Do I need to start counting how many logical inconsistencies we found throughout the years, the small ones I mean? Somehow I doubt that she thought about this one imo of course. This meeting happened in the first place because dumbledore completely disregarded the fact that James may need cloak for something much more important than his intellectual curiosity and because of his extreme selfishnes. Yes I know Harry forgives him for that as well - I don't. It all comes down to this for me. As somebody (I think Magpie) said once that her characters are interesting chess pieces but she makes them do things to move plot forward which makes them look much more sinister than they really are. As I said I doubt Dumbledore was concerned with keeping Sirius away from Harry, I think magical hand of JKR was comcerned with that, but if I forget about the author for a second, all actions of Dumbledore lead me to that conclusion. It is funny how when Sirius is dead Ministry believes his innocence despite what Dumbledore proclaimed, how hard it would be. Hmmmm I guess dead Sirius was no longer a threat to him as the only order member who dared to stand up to him at all. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 26 02:42:36 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:42:36 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <4E2E11D5.4080102@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <j0l9is+ob5o@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191095 > Alla: > > Personally I think that no one was the source of Dumbledore's evidence. This is of course just speculation, but to me perfectly in line with how I see Dumbledore's character. I think he just made one of his famous guesses, only this time it was totally wrong, and he was under delussion that it was correct as usual. > > > > Bart: > Now that make sense. Especially considering that the entire WW Came > to the same conclusion, including, based on what we saw with Snape, many > if not most of the Death Eaters. Alla: Why exactly is this strange? I mean it is not like what happened to Potters and subsequent indictment of Sirius by public opinion and ministry and Dumbledore was a secret affair. Yes of course the whole WW came to that conclusion after the fact. I thought we were discussing who knew before the fact and the only people who really KNEW were Potters, Sirius and Peter. Of course we also have members of the OOP (also not that many people really) who thought they knew. JMO, Alla, who is so happy that power is back in her appartment. From editor at texas.net Tue Jul 26 03:47:40 2011 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:47:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love In-Reply-To: <j0c6lj+rijn@eGroups.com> References: <ivs91s+pnd0@eGroups.com> <j0c6lj+rijn@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <9A82469E95D247008E5ECE18A3041C49@AmandaPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191096 Hey! I can't read as much as I used to, but I've been scanning the posts lately and there's just not enough Snape. We can't have that. So here's some thoughts in response to Pippin's lovely post (still so eloquent!). Forgive me, Pippin, I rearranged some of your paragraphs, but only to use your phrasing in the proper place in the argument. > Pippin: > Snape loves Lily, always, but again in a very selfish way. AG: Okay, I'll grant you that this was true at first--descriptions in The Prince's Tale such as "he watched her greedily" pretty much make that clear. He wants her, this lovely beautiful girl so unlike anything in his world, and his feeling is undeniably possessive. This is selfish love. And it still is, when they are teenagers: "Snape's whole face contorted and he spluttered, "Saved? Saved? You think he was playing the hero? He was saving his neck and his friends' too! You're not going to--I won't let you--" "Let me? Let me? Lily's bright green eyes were slits. Snape backtracked at once. (DH American, p. 674) The possessiveness is clear, still. But...but Snape grew up. His love matured. You can see part of the transition in his conversation with Dumbledore: "If she means so much to you," said Dumbledore, "surely Lord Voldemort will spare her? Could you not ask for mercy for the mother, in exchange for the son?" "I have--I have asked him--" "You disgust me," said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little. "You do not care, then, about the deaths of her husband and child? They can die, as long as you have what you want?" Snape said nothing, but merely looked up at Dumbledore. "Hide them all, then," he croaked. "Keep her--them--safe. Please." "And what will you give me in return, Severus?" "In--return?" Snape gaped at Dumbledore, and Harry expected him to protest, but after a long moment he said, "Anything." (DH American, pp. 677-678). Okay, here's where I rearrange your paragraphs, because I think it's relevant that you said: > Pippin: > Selfish characters who love go right on being selfish -- unless something > happens to make them see that their selfishness offends or hurts their > beloved. It is remorse and not love that is the catalyst for change. But > that is a choice -- it is always possible to avoid remorse by blaming the > damage on others or refusing to admit that damage is being done. and > > Selfish love cannot distinguish the needs of the beloved. AG: So I fully agree that Snape was exhibiting selfish love in his childhood and teens, but in his maturity, it is far from that. Something happened to make him see how his selfishness offends and could hurt his beloved; he learned to distinguish the needs of the beloved. We see a key transition point captured in the memory--he is putting Lily's safety before his own desires, even if it means letting her live to continue loving and being with a man Snape hates (with reason, but that's another thread). Remember--Snape had already appealed for Lily to the strongest power in the world he gave his allegiance to--the most powerful Dark wizard. And there is every evidence in canon that Voldemort told Snape that he would spare her--he did try to get Lily to stand aside, more than once, before he killed her. Snape had already gotten the answer he wanted from Voldemort. And still he went to Dumbledore, endangering himself and putting his own desires at risk, because he thought there still could be a chance that she would be harmed. Further recognize that in this moment, when Snape says "Hide them all, then," he has just had to accept, forever, that Lily will never be his. Voldemort had told him he could have her. He could have stopped there--and a selfish love would have been happy with that, would have wanted the woman no matter what and taken the chance of loss to get what it wanted. But Voldemort's word was not enough for Snape, and he appealed to Dumbledore as well, because any chance of harm to her was too much. And one thing more. He did not simply make the noble sacrifice--let Lily go, respect her choice without anger, and consider his job was done by passing on the warning. No, Snape *paid* for it, his choice caused him pain and then he offered Dumbledore anything he wanted to take to pay it, for not only Lily's safety but her future happiness. Even if it did not contain him. Even if she never knew. Simply because she would be safe. And then after she died--even further beyond him--he is still true to his love, and acts to protect her son. He does not do it gently--but he does it well. Because Lily would have wanted her son safe. He is devoted enough to his memory and love of Lily that he is outraged with Dumbledore when he finds that Harry must die. And then he successfully transposes his love even further--from his love for this one woman, manifested as guarding her son--to give his life for what she had believed in and fought for. This is depth, this is growth. These are not the acts of selfish love. ~Amandageist Premier Snapologist :D From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 27 13:56:30 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:56:30 -0000 Subject: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love In-Reply-To: <9A82469E95D247008E5ECE18A3041C49@AmandaPC> Message-ID: <j0p5ee+8hfh@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191097 Amandageist: > Hey! I can't read as much as I used to, but I've been scanning the posts > lately and there's just not enough Snape. We can't have that. So here's some > thoughts in response to Pippin's lovely post (still so eloquent!). Pippin: :;blushes:: Amanda! And I thought you had left us forever :) > > AG: > So I fully agree that Snape was exhibiting selfish love in his childhood and > teens, but in his maturity, it is far from that. Something happened to make > him see how his selfishness offends and could hurt his beloved; he learned > to distinguish the needs of the beloved. Pippin: Here's the thing, I'm not sure he did, entirely. He loved her without expecting anything in return, that is true, and it was unselfish. But when he shrinks, in Dumbledore's office, it's Dumbledore's contempt he shrinks from, not Lily's -- he doesn't see that *she* needs Harry and James to be happy; that their happiness is necessary to hers. And tearing the photograph shows, IMO, that he always felt that way. He could put Harry's life before his own desires, for her sake, and then recognize, also for her sake, that the Order was more important still. He couldn't have done that as a teenager, and in that way he grew. But he was still stunted, IMO. Tearing the photo was brutal -- maybe I read it as stronger than JKR meant it to be, because I know how it feels to have a child torn from your life. But I don't think so. I think it is a rebuke to the fantasy of the "good Slytherin" in more ways than one. It puts Snape in a bad light just when we've seen him at his best. But it also tells us something about ourselves. We can see that it was hopelessly unrealistic for Snape to imagine a Lily who would not only come to share his opinion of her family and friends but turn into someone who would be happy palling around with the Malfoys and Avery. And yet some of us were extremely disappointed that Snape or Draco or another Slytherin who had expressed contempt for Harry did not undergo a similar transformation in the opposite direction and become a pal. Pippin who likes her Snape the way she likes her chocolate -- dark, bitter and complex From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 27 15:24:53 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:24:53 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0l3k3+glhv@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0pak5+arl5@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191098 Alla: > I so do not follow your point about the information ministry should have? Ministry should have the information that Peter fed them?! A lie?! Pippin: The point is, only James, Sirius and Peter knew that Peter was a liar. Dumbledore did not. Not only was Peter lying about who the secret keeper was, James and Sirius helped him to do it. Lupin was deceived too. Maybe even Lily. Peter accused Sirius of betraying Lily and James in front of a crowd of witnesses -- naturally the Ministry would have asked Dumbledore and others what he was talking about, since everyone knew that Lily and James had been murdered by Voldemort. Dumbledore could have refused to answer the question, but why should he? Everyone who believed that Sirius was the secret keeper would have wanted him hunted down and caught, and the Ministry's resources for doing that were far greater than Dumbledore's. Alla: I completely do not follow what this has to do with Sirius' loyalty to the order? And speaking about loyalty, does Dumbledore owe any loyalty to his soldiers? Like maybe again going to my original point - investigate further? Pippin: Here's an example from real life. I was just reading the obituary of a Navajo Code Talker, part of a secret operation that used the Navajo language as a code during WWII. The Germans never cracked it -- in fact it stayed classified for years after the war was over. This man was stationed overseas during the war, and he was told that if he was captured, he should die for his country. That's what it means to be part of a secret war -- the secrets are more important than you are, period. The general's job is not to see that his soldiers do not die to keep their secrets -- just the opposite. It is only his job to see that they do not die in vain. Sirius knows that the war against Voldemort is not over. He knows that the Ministry is full of unidentified DE's. So he has to behave exactly as if he'd been captured by Death Eaters, ie, he'll die before he tells them anything. Dumbledore can't go to Azkaban to interrogate him, nor would Sirius expect it, because the Ministry will be listening to everything they say. Alla: This meeting happened in the first place because dumbledore completely disregarded the fact that James may need cloak for something much more important than his intellectual curiosity and because of his extreme selfishnes. Yes I know Harry forgives him for that as well - I don't. Pippin: I agree that JKR needed a way for Dumbledore to have the cloak so he could give it to Harry. She couldn't leave it in the ruins for Sirius or Peter to find. She could have given Dumbledore a noble reason for taking it, and she didn't. But she also made it clear that James wasn't using it to protect his family either -- he was using it to sneak out of the house when being cooped up with his young family got to be too much for him. As an empty-nester I sympathize completely, BTW. But you can't have it both ways. If the cloak could have been used as a protection against Voldemort, then it wasn't an idle or selfish pursuit to try to discover its secrets. OTOH, if it was useless against him, then Lily and James were not endangered by its absence. Alla: > It all comes down to this for me. As somebody (I think Magpie) said once that her characters are interesting chess pieces but she makes them do things to move plot forward which makes them look much more sinister than they really are. Pippin: Since Harry and Voldemort are the only characters whose motives we know first-hand it is possible to invent sinister motives for all the characters. We've done that with Lupin and McGonagall and even Ron. But if you make Dumbledore the chess-player instead of JKR, it gives DD more power over the other characters than he ever had in canon and makes them much more puppet-like than they actually are, which I think is an injustice to JKR's craft. Sirius is hardly the only Order member who is depicted as contesting with or disobeying Dumbledore. Peter betrayed him, Lily and James refused to make him the secret keeper, Lupin kept the secrets of the animagi and the Marauders map for years, Arthur fell asleep on duty, Snape stopped the Occlumency lessons, Molly tried to keep Ron, Harry and Hermione from their mission, McGonagall tried to get Harry to tell her secrets, Mundungus used an Order safe house as a hiding place for stolen goods etc. It's really only the trained Aurors: Shacklebolt, Moody and Tonks, who display anything like military discipline. Alla: It is funny how when Sirius is dead Ministry believes his innocence despite what Dumbledore proclaimed, how hard it would be. Pippin: It got a lot easier when Sirius got himself killed fighting for the Order in front of a room full of witnesses and Fudge saw Voldemort with his own eyes. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 27 17:34:54 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:34:54 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0kq7g+3p3i@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0pi7u+errj@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Maria Zhaid" <mxahid9 at ...> wrote: > > Hi > I just need to interview some members regarding some questions about Harry Potter. Your information will stay only between me and my teacher, possibly the class as well > > Please,it will not take much time > > If you are interested, please add me at mxahid9 at ... ASAP. please.thanks!!!! > Steve: I'm not sure of the nature of your questions, but I doubt they are so personal that they have to be asked in private. You could post the questions here in the forum, and get responses here for all to read. At the very least, I think you would get more responses if you explained the nature of your questions, and the thrust of your thesis. Steve/bboyminn From editor at texas.net Wed Jul 27 18:16:46 2011 From: editor at texas.net (mandolabar) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:16:46 -0000 Subject: Love, Hate, Joy, Despair---the Greatest is Love In-Reply-To: <j0p5ee+8hfh@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0pkme+2a1d@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191100 > Pippin: > :;blushes:: > Amanda! And I thought you had left us forever :) AG: All spells wear off sometime...LOL > Pippin: > But when he shrinks, in Dumbledore's office, it's Dumbledore's contempt he shrinks from, not Lily's -- he doesn't see that *she* needs Harry and James to be happy; that their happiness is necessary to hers. And tearing the photograph shows, IMO, that he always felt that way. He could put Harry's life before his own desires, for her sake, and then recognize, also for her sake, that the Order was more important still. He couldn't have done that as a teenager, and in that way he grew. But he was still stunted, IMO. AG: Well said, and I agree. I was just responding to the blanket categorization as "selfish love." How about we agree it's a continuum--and I think Snape moved along that continuum during his life, from being pretty much grounded in the "selfish" end, towards the unselfish. Maybe he didn't get all the way--but most of us don't; and the distance he did get let him do some heroic things in the service of the good. Pippin: > Tearing the photo was brutal -- maybe I read it as stronger than JKR meant it to be, because I know how it feels to have a child torn from your life. But I don't think so. AG: Oh, that's right, I'd forgotten that. My selective memory may be biased. You know, I found the "tears dripping" bit in that scene a bit over the top, as well as tearing the photo. Maybe both things were there to illustrate the abiding strength of his feelings(besides JKR *needing* him to have been there to do that, for plot furtherance). Maybe seeing Lily in the photo was a shock, that provoked the reaction? Snape doesn't strike me as the type of person to have a photo of Lily as a memento--so this may have been the first time he saw her moving and smiling in 16 years. Maybe that provoked the strength of his reaction. But that's pure speculation on my part, and your point is well taken. Snape is not entirely unselfish, ever. Pippin: > I think it is a rebuke to the fantasy of the "good Slytherin" in more ways than one. It puts Snape in a bad light just when we've seen him at his best. But it also tells us something about ourselves. AG: Ever the philosopher--but I agree. As JKR has said, "All of my characters are flawed." It's unrealistic to expect a good Slytherin to be perfect; but it's unrealistic to expect anyone to be. But I think Snape comes the closest. I just had this thought--so canon support is invited--but it seems to me that when we see Slytherins doing good, it usually is n spite of themselves, or under duress (Phineas), or in return for gain (Narcissa). But Snape does good for none of those reasons; he does it because of the value of his word, and because he cares about those on the side of good--which I don't think is true of any other Slytherin we see. > Pippin > who likes her Snape the way she likes her chocolate -- dark, bitter and complex ~Amandageist LOVING that tagline From kelleyscorpio at gmail.com Wed Jul 27 18:29:33 2011 From: kelleyscorpio at gmail.com (kelleyelf) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:29:33 -0000 Subject: Finding Chapter Discussions In-Reply-To: <j0gi7r+gde0@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0pled+s7fp@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191101 > Sridhar: > That is amazing. Thanks for compiling them into a database. I > can now go through them again - it is really wonderful to look > back and read our understanding and predictions :) Kelley: Oh, my pleasure. Now those are just the most recent round, rather than all the chapter discussion posts that have ever been posted here. As I recall, the first real, organized chapter discussions began shortly after GoF came out, about that book, and then later about books 1 - 3. And of course about each book after that. So there are lots in the archives; the searching can take a while, but if anyone's feeling intrepid, there's some good stuff there. ;-) --Kelley From editor at texas.net Wed Jul 27 18:36:46 2011 From: editor at texas.net (mandolabar) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:36:46 -0000 Subject: Internal Snape parallel; showing my age; and a tiny Movie spoiler Message-ID: <j0plru+156l@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191102 I suppose there's a brief movie mention in here that could be a spoiler, although I'm not sure why you're on this list if you haven't seen the movie already. Likely several times. So some space just in case. Just for my edification, I went back in the archives to see exactly how long I've been publicly advocating the theory that Snape loved Lily. A long time. In an interesting numerical coincidence, 10 years, 10 months, and 10 days--from September 18, 2000, through today. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/1642 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/1642> And this week, going back and rereading the books with that powerful scene from the last movie of Snape holding Lily in the back of my mind, is a striking experience. I have noticed a parallel, having gotten through Sorcerer's Stone so far: Snape's time in the series is bracketed with scenes where he is looking into Harry's eyes. The first time Harry sees Snape, the "hook-nosed teacher" glanced up from speaking to Quirrel "and looked directly into Harry's eyes." (forgive a likely misquote, I'm at work and doing this from memory.) And Snape dies looking directly into Harry's eyes. I don't know if you could call it foreshadowing, but the parallel delights me. There are other things; I'm trying to take notes, maybe it'll develop into something coherent. But I find it just amazing, coming back to the series from page 1 of book 1, how much is right there in those first pages that is important and will matter through the series. Okay, lunch break is over... ~Amandageist [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 27 19:06:56 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:06:56 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0pak5+arl5@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0pnkg+d2nq@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191103 > Alla: > > I so do not follow your point about the information ministry should have? Ministry should have the information that Peter fed them?! A lie?! > > Pippin: > The point is, only James, Sirius and Peter knew that Peter was a liar. Dumbledore did not. Not only was Peter lying about who the secret keeper was, James and Sirius helped him to do it. Lupin was deceived too. Maybe even Lily. Alla: I would not go as far as to say that James and Sirius helped him to do it, because to me that means they helped him to betray them, but sure yes only they knew. Neither would I agree that Lily was deceived too, but of course both of us could be right on that point. I still do not follow your point though, read on. Pippin: > Peter accused Sirius of betraying Lily and James in front of a crowd of witnesses -- naturally the Ministry would have asked Dumbledore and others what he was talking about, since everyone knew that Lily and James had been murdered by Voldemort. Alla: Yes and what is the problem with Ministry knowing it? Poppon: > Dumbledore could have refused to answer the question, but why should he? Everyone who believed that Sirius was the secret keeper would have wanted him hunted down and caught, and the Ministry's resources for doing that were far greater than Dumbledore's. Alla: Please clarify more, if you do not mind? What is the problem with Ministry knowing that there was a Secret keeper spell used? Am confused. I mean, I do not understand what the problem is, but regardless the whole world ended up "knowing" a lie anyway. Are you saying that Order members are the only people who knew Secret keeper spell? > > Alla: > I completely do not follow what this has to do with Sirius' loyalty to the order? And speaking about loyalty, does Dumbledore owe any loyalty to his soldiers? Like maybe again going to my original point - investigate further? > > Pippin: > Here's an example from real life. I was just reading the obituary of a Navajo Code Talker, part of a secret operation that used the Navajo language as a code during WWII. The Germans never cracked it -- in fact it stayed classified for years after the war was over. > > This man was stationed overseas during the war, and he was told that if he was captured, he should die for his country. Alla: Okay, so thats what you seems to be saying? That only Order knew Secret keeper spell? Or you are saying something different? I do not see your analogy at all, because I do not see how Secret keeper spell is that mystery known only to the Members of the order, I do not see how this particular spell would have been so important to the war against Voldemort that innocent life should have been so easily sacrificed for it. Did I forget some canon about it? That Secret keeper was a discovery of the order? Pippin: > That's what it means to be part of a secret war -- the secrets are more important than you are, period. The general's job is not to see that his soldiers do not die to keep their secrets -- just the opposite. It is only his job to see that they do not die in vain. Alla: I am afraid I do not see that this is the secret to die for in the first place. Pippin: > Sirius knows that the war against Voldemort is not over. He knows that the Ministry is full of unidentified DE's. So he has to behave exactly as if he'd been captured by Death Eaters, ie, he'll die before he tells them anything. Dumbledore can't go to Azkaban to interrogate him, nor would Sirius expect it, because the Ministry will be listening to everything they say. > Pippin: > I agree that JKR needed a way for Dumbledore to have the cloak so he could give it to Harry. She couldn't leave it in the ruins for Sirius or Peter to find. > > She could have given Dumbledore a noble reason for taking it, and she didn't. But she also made it clear that James wasn't using it to protect his family either -- he was using it to sneak out of the house when being cooped up with his young family got to be too much for him. > > As an empty-nester I sympathize completely, BTW. > > But you can't have it both ways. > > If the cloak could have been used as a protection against Voldemort, then it wasn't an idle or selfish pursuit to try to discover its secrets. OTOH, if it was useless against him, then Lily and James were not endangered by its absence. Alla: Sorry, but she did not make clear anything of the kind to me. James did not NEED to use the cloak to protect his family YET. He was under Secret keeper spell, why would he use the cloak in the house? When he NEEDED to use the cloak to protect his family he did not have it thanks to Dumbledore. Yeah, I know forgiving Harry convinced himself that it would not have helped. We never know though, wouldn't we? It may have not helped, or it may have helped, they did not have a chance to try thanks to Dumbledore IMO. > Pippin: > Since Harry and Voldemort are the only characters whose motives we know first-hand it is possible to invent sinister motives for all the characters. We've done that with Lupin and McGonagall and even Ron. But if you make Dumbledore the chess-player instead of JKR, it gives DD more power over the other characters than he ever had in canon and makes them much more puppet-like than they actually are, which I think is an injustice to JKR's craft. Alla: But thats my point. I have to constantly remind myself that this is the magical hand of the author doing the things like Dumbledore letting Sirius rot in prison because Harry needs to grow up alone and unloved, or not letting Dumbledore check on Harry *once* for that very reason, because laws of genre demand so. It is a bit tiresome. It is MUCH easier to see Dumbledore as chessmaster, because then I do not need to think of the author and her pulling strings, if that makes sense. Pippin: > Sirius is hardly the only Order member who is depicted as contesting with or disobeying Dumbledore. Peter betrayed him, Lily and James refused to make him the secret keeper, Lupin kept the secrets of the animagi and the Marauders map for years, Arthur fell asleep on duty, Snape stopped the Occlumency lessons, Molly tried to keep Ron, Harry and Hermione from their mission, McGonagall tried to get Harry to tell her secrets, Mundungus used an Order safe house as a hiding place for stolen goods etc. Alla: I meant open to his face disobedience. I doubt Peter would have ever dared to have the face to face conversation with Dumbledore. I think Arthur would have been very ashamed. Molly did it after Dumbledore died, same with McGonagall. I doubt Mundungus wanted a confrontation. But you are right I should have added Lily and James to the list. > Alla: > It is funny how when Sirius is dead Ministry believes his innocence despite what Dumbledore proclaimed, how hard it would be. > > Pippin: > It got a lot easier when Sirius got himself killed fighting for the Order in front of a room full of witnesses and Fudge saw Voldemort with his own eyes. Alla: Sorry I have to disagree. Dumbledore did not even try to testify on Sirius' behalf after PoA and something tells me that his testimony especially when he was still in favor with Fudge would have been more than enough. Hmmm, he had no problem doing so when Sirius was arrested. But now when he could tell totally different story, for some reason he stopped. Maybe he did not want Sirius close to Harry even now? And when he is dead, of course it does not matter. And if Ministry was so disinclined to believe him according to him, why exactly would it believe few more witnesses? There were order members there, right? Who else? Really not that many people. Note, Peter is STILL not there, I mean either dead or alive. His departure mattered so much according to Dumbledore when he run away to weigh on the credibility, but when Sirius is dead it does not matter? Now everybody will believe Dumbledore? JMO, Alla From mxahid9 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 27 19:40:11 2011 From: mxahid9 at yahoo.com (Maria Zhaid) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:40:11 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0pi7u+errj@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191104 > Steve: > I'm not sure of the nature of your questions, but I doubt they > are so personal that they have to be asked in private. > > You could post the questions here in the forum, and get > responses here for all to read. > > At the very least, I think you would get more responses if you > explained the nature of your questions, and the thrust of your > thesis. Maria: Oh, alright. I did explain my purpose before though. Okay so this is for my anthropology class and I am writing an ethnography. Basically what I am doing is observing this group and my focus is determining the collective personality seen in all Harry Potter fans via this group. For the project, I observed previous posts, chats, polls (I even made some as well). And I wanted to interview people directly but that did not work very well. So I guess I'll just post some questions. Some are yes or no questions while others do ask for 1-2 line answers. Questions are as follows: 1. What do you like the best about Harry Potter series? 2. Your favorite character?? Explain? 3. What character can you relate with the most? Explain 4. Any Harry Potter real life application in your life? Do you have any secret handshakes regarding HP or secret names? For example, I myself refer to people as Malfoy if they are being jerks. 5. Do you or others consider you brave? Have you ever done something so daring for others (self-sacrificing)? Yes or No? 6. Are you willing to fight for your country/or for whatever group/religion you identify with? 7. How important are looks to you? Thank you. Really appreciate it!!! Maria From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 27 21:46:50 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:46:50 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0pnkg+d2nq@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0q10a+v1mm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191105 > Alla: > > I would not go as far as to say that James and Sirius helped him to do it, because to me that means they helped him to betray them, but sure yes only they knew. Neither would I agree that Lily was deceived too, but of course both of us could be right on that point. I still do not follow your point though, read on. > Pippin: Yes, exactly, they helped Peter to betray them. Sad but true. What part of "they trusted the wrong person" do you not understand? > Pippin: > > Dumbledore could have refused to answer the question, but why should he? Everyone who believed that Sirius was the secret keeper would have wanted him hunted down and caught, and the Ministry's resources for doing that were far greater than Dumbledore's. > > Alla: > > Please clarify more, if you do not mind? What is the problem with Ministry knowing that there was a Secret keeper spell used? Am confused. I mean, I do not understand what the problem is, but regardless the whole world ended up "knowing" a lie anyway. Are you saying that Order members are the only people who knew Secret keeper spell? Pippin: No. But canon is that very few people knew that Sirius had betrayed the Potters. As far as most people knew, he'd been sent to Azkaban for the daylight murder of twelve Muggles and a wizard. But the way I read Fudge's account, the Ministry was already after Sirius because Dumbledore and/or others, such as Lupin, had given evidence that Sirius was the Secret Keeper and must have betrayed the Potters. That theory would have been confirmed by Pettigrew's "last words." Alla: > > Okay, so thats what you seems to be saying? That only Order knew Secret keeper spell? Or you are saying something different? I do not see your analogy at all, because I do not see how Secret keeper spell is that mystery known only to the Members of the order, I do not see how this particular spell would have been so important to the war against Voldemort that innocent life should have been so easily sacrificed for it. Did I forget some canon about it? That Secret keeper was a discovery of the order? Pippin: I am not talking about the Secret Keeper spell, I am talking about everything that Sirius knows. There is no way for Sirius to tell what information might be useful to the enemy, so he can't say anything at all. Too bad he didn't remember that when he was trying to make sure Kreacher kept his silence. > Alla: > > Sorry, but she did not make clear anything of the kind to me. James did not NEED to use the cloak to protect his family YET. He was under Secret keeper spell, why would he use the cloak in the house? Pippin: And if Voldemort found a way to break the spell while James was out of the house? No, sorry, doesn't work for me. > Alla: > > But thats my point. I have to constantly remind myself that this is the magical hand of the author doing the things like Dumbledore letting Sirius rot in prison because Harry needs to grow up alone and unloved, or not letting Dumbledore check on Harry *once* for that very reason, because laws of genre demand so. It is a bit tiresome. It is MUCH easier to see Dumbledore as chessmaster, because then I do not need to think of the author and her pulling strings, if that makes sense. Pippin: That doesn't work either. If Harry is so important to Dumbledore's evil plans, he still should have checked on him personally. The only reason that works is the one JKR gave us-- Dumbledore could not afford to let anyone know that Harry was so important to his plans. I don't see why that should be harder to believe than that there is a secret platform at King's Cross Station, or a whole hidden community of magical beings and beasts, or that broomsticks fly. But that's just me :) > > > Alla: > > It is funny how when Sirius is dead Ministry believes his innocence despite what Dumbledore proclaimed, how hard it would be. > > > > Pippin: > > It got a lot easier when Sirius got himself killed fighting for the Order in front of a room full of witnesses and Fudge saw Voldemort with his own eyes. > > Alla: > > Sorry I have to disagree. Dumbledore did not even try to testify on Sirius' behalf after PoA and something tells me that his testimony especially when he was still in favor with Fudge would have been more than enough. Pippin: When was Dumbledore going to get a chance to testify? The dementor's kiss had already been approved, and Dumbledore had no power to set that ruling aside. Sirius was going to be kissed within minutes, do you really want to bet his soul that Fudge was going to see reason? You heard him: Harry and Hermione were obviously disturbed in their minds. And what could Dumbledore testify to? All he knows is hearsay. The only people who can testify directly are Harry, Hermione and Lupin and Sirius himself, none of whom would be a credible witness. To Fudge, that is. Dumbledore was convinced by the evidence of Harry's patronus. But establishing that James and Sirius had been illegal animagi was not going to make Sirius look like an innocent man. Nonetheless we know DD did try to tell Fudge the truth before he was out of favor. Fudge refers to this in ch 35 of GoF: "For heaven's sake, Dumbledore--the boy was full of some crackpot story at the end of last year, too -- his tales are getting taller, and you're still swallowing them -- the boy can talk to snakes, Dumbledore, and you still think he's trustworthy?" Fudge was not going to believe anything that would "destabilize" everything he had worked for for thirteen years. Pippin From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 27 21:18:44 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:18:44 +0100 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> References: <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <677507EF1651452EBB40B2C6F3E78526@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191106 Liz: ooo questions on HP :) Questions are as follows: 1. What do you like the best about Harry Potter series? Liz: Erm... the storyline and the character interactions. 2. Your favorite character?? Explain? Liz: Snape. Tall, dark, mysterious, gives impression of being bad but isn't. Has presence! 3. What character can you relate with the most? Explain Liz: Snape again. I share many things with him in common. I have nearly always dressed in black or dark colours. I didn't have a great upbringing (yes, I was bullied too) and tend to hide my emotions. 4. Any Harry Potter real life application in your life? Do you have any secret handshakes regarding HP or secret names? For example, I myself refer to people as Malfoy if they are being jerks. Liz: Not really, haven't got a friend that is as obsessed about HP as I am! Although I have been called Professor on occasion! 5. Do you or others consider you brave? Have you ever done something so daring for others (self-sacrificing)? Yes or No? Liz: No, don't consider myself brave. And No, at least I don't think so! 6. Are you willing to fight for your country/or for whatever group/religion you identify with? Liz: Depends. If whatever opposing force was causing suffering, then probably, I'd want to protect others. Otherwise, no, I'll just roll over! 7. How important are looks to you? They're not! Maria: Thank you. Really appreciate it!!! Liz: Np :) From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 27 22:26:14 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (bearhugger48) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:26:14 -0000 Subject: The chosen one Message-ID: <j0q3a6+bfl1@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191107 bearhugger48: Can anyone please give me a exact definition of Harry's idea of what "the chosen one" is? Or anyone else's idea of what it means? From liz.treky at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 27 22:29:28 2011 From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:29:28 +0100 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <677507EF1651452EBB40B2C6F3E78526@TrekyPC> References: <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> <677507EF1651452EBB40B2C6F3E78526@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <D9362097B7B943B48799BB09B85D873A@TrekyPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191108 Liz: my mum also wanted to answer :) Note she has only read the first 3 books. Questions are as follows: 1. What do you like the best about Harry Potter series? Janet: the characters 2. Your favorite character?? Explain? Janet: Ronald Weasley. He's fun, witty, sensible and a friend to all. 3. What character can you relate with the most? Explain Janet: Snape, because he's misunderstood. 4. Any Harry Potter real life application in your life? Do you have any secret handshakes regarding HP or secret names? For example, I myself refer to people as Malfoy if they are being jerks. Janet: Not really 5. Do you or others consider you brave? Have you ever done something so daring for others (self-sacrificing)? Yes or No? Janet: No. No. 6. Are you willing to fight for your country/or for whatever group/religion you identify with? Janet: Yes. 7. How important are looks to you? Janet: Not at all. Maria: Thank you. Really appreciate it!!! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 27 23:52:08 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:52:08 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0q8b8+ko1p@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191109 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Maria Zhaid" <mxahid9 at ...> wrote: > > > Steve: > > I'm not sure of the nature of your questions, but I doubt they > > are so personal that they have to be asked in private. > > > > ... > > > > .. > > Maria: > Oh, alright. I did explain my purpose before though. > > Okay so this is for my anthropology class and I am writing an > ethnography. ... > > And I wanted to interview people directly but that did not work > very well. So I guess I'll just post some questions. > Steve Replies: I wasn't trying to be critical or anything, but I guessed that you would not get many direct responses. I'm not sure I would want to send my email address to a stranger. You could very well be a SPAMMER collecting email addresses. Though, I think few actually believed that. I think you will get more responses by asking your questions on-line, and I see a few people have already responded. > Maria continues: > Some are yes or no questions while others do ask for 1-2 line > answers. > > Questions are as follows: > > 1. What do you like the best about Harry Potter series? > Steve: The vividness of the world and the characters. When I find characters who are so real they are like friends in a world so real I feel that I've been there, then returning to read the books over and over is like visiting old friends. It is very comforting. I feel the same friendship with Ender of "Ender's Game", Bean of "Ender's Shadow", and Eragon of the "Inheritance Series". > 2. Your favorite character?? Explain? > Steve: That is actually a very tough question for anyone who have given some thought to the series. Naturally I have an affinity for Harry, but equally I like Ron and Neville. The characters that appeal to me are the 'every man' characters. Just ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstance, and who because of their personal character also respond in extraordinary ways. So, at the top of my list would be - 1.) Harry 2.) Ron 3.) Neville 4.) Hermione Though I confess it is very hard to choose between them. > 3. What character can you relate with the most? Explain > Steve: An equally hard question, naturally, Harry tops the list, but I really find aspect of both Ron and Neville that I can relate to. For me, though Harry does top the list, it is hard to pick one character that I relate to most. > 4. Any Harry Potter real life application in your life? Do you > have any secret handshakes regarding HP or secret names? For > example, I myself refer to people as Malfoy if they are being > jerks. > Steve: Nothing external, though there are times when I see the current crop of Republicans as variations of Death Eaters. Internally, I think the Harry Potter series has instilled and strengthened values within me. I am a better and more moral person for having read the books. Though I must say that moral strength comes from other books as well. > 5. Do you or others consider you brave? Have you ever done > something so daring for others (self-sacrificing)? Yes or No? > Steve: Sadly I have always taken the cautions road in life, much to my, now, regret. I've done plenty of stupid and dangerous things, but nothing truly brave. > 6. Are you willing to fight for your country/or for whatever > group/religion you identify with? > Steve: You either stand for Liberty or you bow to Tyranny. I've served in the Army, though thankfully not in combat. So, in that sense, I said you've got me, do with me what you will. In the modern world I feel that citizens have abdicated their role in government, and because of it corruption and self-interests are rampant in government. The people can and will only have a voice in how the country is run, if they speak up and make their voices heard. > 7. How important are looks to you? > Steve: I'm curious about the context of "looks"? Are you trying to find out if we are a bunch of geeky nerds? Attraction is more important than looks. I see people who are devastatingly beautiful, who I find absolutely repulsive. At the same time, I see some somewhat, more-or-less, kind of 'plain-Jane' people who are incredibly attractive. I've always been fascinated by the science of 'Attractiveness'. You walk into a dim crowded room, and certain people just stand out. Though the people who stand out from the crowd are different for everyone, which is what makes it fascinating. > Thank you. Really appreciate it!!! > Maria > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 27 23:59:52 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:59:52 -0000 Subject: The chosen one In-Reply-To: <j0q3a6+bfl1@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0q8po+4qfi@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bearhugger48" <bearhugger48 at ...> wrote: > > bearhugger48: > Can anyone please give me a exact definition of Harry's idea of > what "the chosen one" is? Or anyone else's idea of what it means? > Steve: I'm not sure there is a definition beyond the obvious. To Harry, being the Chosen One is an embarrassing annoyance. To other, it means that Harry was chosen by Voldemort as the one who was the greatest threat to him, which is why he tried to kill him. >From another aspect, Harry is Chosen because he is the only person to ever survive the Killing Curse. To have done such an amazing thing, it to have been chosen by destiny for ...something.... There is also the Prophecy that Voldemort used to choose Harry as his greatest threat. Few know about this, but the Prophecy predicts that a child born at the end of July will have the power to defeat the Dark Lord. Voldemort assumes that mean Harry, and in trying to kill Harry, he chose him and made him, his own greatest threat. So, "The Chosen One" has many contexts in which it can be considered, I don't think there is a 'definition', only an explanation. Steve/bluewizard From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 01:14:23 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:14:23 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0q10a+v1mm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0qd5f+lq1g@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191111 .> > Alla: > > > > I would not go as far as to say that James and Sirius helped him to do it, because to me that means they helped him to betray them, but sure yes only they knew. Neither would I agree that Lily was deceived too, but of course both of us could be right on that point. I still do not follow your point though, read on. > > > > Pippin: > Yes, exactly, they helped Peter to betray them. Sad but true. What part of "they trusted the wrong person" do you not understand? Alla: Yes, "trusted the wrong person" I understand perfectly. That to me does not equal "helped him to betray them". Oh, I see, we are arguing semantics here. Yes, ok, I can agree with "unwillingly helped him to betray them". Surely you will not argue that they wanted to be betrayed? > Pippin: > No. But canon is that very few people knew that Sirius had betrayed the Potters. As far as most people knew, he'd been sent to Azkaban for the daylight murder of twelve Muggles and a wizard. But the way I read Fudge's account, the Ministry was already after Sirius because Dumbledore and/or others, such as Lupin, had given evidence that Sirius was the Secret Keeper and must have betrayed the Potters. That theory would have been confirmed by Pettigrew's "last words." Alla: Yes, sure they were after all of this happened, how does this contradicts my point that Dumbledore did not help Sirius and did everything he could to harm him? > Pippin: > > I am not talking about the Secret Keeper spell, I am talking about everything that Sirius knows. There is no way for Sirius to tell what information might be useful to the enemy, so he can't say anything at all. Alla: Ah, I see. Basically you are saying that Sirius confessed because he did not want to give some information to the Ministry because it can be infiltrated by enemy? But again what does this has to do with anything I said? The only information Sirius could have given to the Ministry to try to make his case if he was allowed, was the information about Secret keeper and the switch. How was this information a secret that was worth protecting because of loyalty to the Order? The idea that spell itself was worth protecting was the only one I could see, but since this was not it, I am at loss here. Pippin: > Too bad he didn't remember that when he was trying to make sure Kreacher kept his silence. Alla: The way I see it there was nothing of the sort to remember when he was arrested. The way I see it he confessed out of guilt for not being able to recognise that Peter would be a traitor (as good as killed them). But again to me for whatever reason he confessed it has nothing to do with what Dumbledore did not do to help him and with what Dumbledore did to harm him. > > Alla: > > > > Sorry, but she did not make clear anything of the kind to me. James did not NEED to use the cloak to protect his family YET. He was under Secret keeper spell, why would he use the cloak in the house? > > Pippin: > And if Voldemort found a way to break the spell while James was out of the house? > No, sorry, doesn't work for me. Alla: Huh? So whose fault would that have been? Maybe Dumbledore's who demanded such a meeting? > > > Alla: > > > > But thats my point. I have to constantly remind myself that this is the magical hand of the author doing the things like Dumbledore letting Sirius rot in prison because Harry needs to grow up alone and unloved, or not letting Dumbledore check on Harry *once* for that very reason, because laws of genre demand so. It is a bit tiresome. It is MUCH easier to see Dumbledore as chessmaster, because then I do not need to think of the author and her pulling strings, if that makes sense. > > Pippin: > That doesn't work either. If Harry is so important to Dumbledore's evil plans, he still should have checked on him personally. The only reason that works is the one JKR gave us-- Dumbledore could not afford to let anyone know that Harry was so important to his plans. > > I don't see why that should be harder to believe than that there is a secret platform at King's Cross Station, or a whole hidden community of magical beings and beasts, or that broomsticks fly. But that's just me :) Alla: But we had been told over and over and over that Harry IS important to his plans, you consider them good, I consider them sinister, but Harry is important to him, this is a fact. If Dumbledore could not afford to let anybody know, maybe he should have been more careful about bringing McGonagall and Hagrid there in the first place. If Dumbledore could not afford to let anybody know, maybe he should not have placed that mockery of the helper who did not do anything to help Harry at all near by? But regardless, the reason that he could not afford to let anybody know is not enough for me to let Harry be abused. The damn protection is already in place and not going to break if Dumbledore is going to check on him and I know I said it gazillion times, but they did threaten Dursleys when author felt that it was convenient and it worked. That to me points to magical hands of the author again - Harry had to suffer when he was little but when he is fifteen or sixteen and cares less and less and can stand his own against his disgusting "family", then it is ok for people to show up at the door? > > > > Pippin: > When was Dumbledore going to get a chance to testify? The dementor's kiss had already been approved, and Dumbledore had no power to set that ruling aside. Sirius was going to be kissed within minutes, do you really want to bet his soul that Fudge was going to see reason? You heard him: Harry and Hermione were obviously disturbed in their minds. Alla: How about whispering in Fudge' ear at least trying to? Pippin: > And what could Dumbledore testify to? > All he knows is hearsay. The only people who can testify directly are Harry, Hermione and Lupin and Sirius himself, none of whom would be a credible witness. To Fudge, that is. Alla: I would speculate that the first thing he did when he talked to Sirius was legilimensing him big time and this and not Harry's Patronus (how does that could convince him of Siriu' innocence?) that convinced him. When he testified about Sirius supposedly being a Secret keeper he definitely only had a hearsay and a wrong one at that, I did not see it stopping him. Maybe he should have tried harder to actually save a life without making him into exile. Pippin: <SNIP> > Nonetheless we know DD did try to tell Fudge the truth before he was out of favor. Fudge refers to this in ch 35 of GoF: "For heaven's sake, Dumbledore--the boy was full of some crackpot story at the end of last year, too -- his tales are getting taller, and you're still swallowing them -- the boy can talk to snakes, Dumbledore, and you still think he's trustworthy?" Alla: I only know that he told Fudge that he believes Harry, not that Harry managed to say much. > > Fudge was not going to believe anything that would "destabilize" everything he had worked for for thirteen years. > > Pippin > From minne1957 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 00:49:09 2011 From: minne1957 at yahoo.com (Andrea Degner) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> References: <j0pi7u+errj@eGroups.com> <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311814149.82714.YahooMailNeo@web36604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Maria, Here are my answers: Questions are as follows: 1. What do you like the best about Harry Potter series? Answer: Three things: The imaginative story line, the absolutely believable fantasy of teh wizarding world and lastly - thecharacters. 2. Your favorite character?? Explain? Answer: Snape - He's so complex. As you read the story, you wonder if he's good or evil. Of course, Alan Rickman's portrayal adds a whole new level of perfection. 3. What character can you relate with the most? Explain Answer: That's tough. I am a single, professional woman, and we don't have too many of those in the HP world. Probably it would be one of the teachers, and I do see myself as a Hufflepuff - so I'll go for Pomona Sprout. 4. Any Harry Potter real life application in your life? Answer: Well, it probably could be that the lessons you learn from the stories can be applied to everyday life - like the idea that there's a good and a bad part in all of us and it's the choices we make that affects our future. Do you have any secret handshakes regarding HP or secret names? Answer: HA! Well, no secret handshakes or anything, but its fun to say 'Hey, can you Accio me a soda?' For example, I myself refer to people as Malfoy if they are being jerks. 5. Do you or others consider you brave? Answer: No. Loyal and true. I'm a Hufflepuff. :) Have you ever done something so daring for others (self-sacrificing)? Answer" No. I never had the opportunity. Yes or No? 6. Are you willing to fight for your country/or for whatever group/religion you identify with? Answer: Yes, if I believed there were lives at stake, I would certainly fight to protect the ones I loved. 7. How important are looks to you? Answer: I guess I'm 'middle-of-the-road' on this one. I'm a Snape lover, and his character is not physically attractive - however, Alan Rickman - on-the-other-hand - is yummy (I'm 54 -so he's not old at all to me) .? I guess what I'm trying to say is, it depends on the situation and the fact that in real life (like in the books) you judge people initially by their looks and surface personality - only later - once you've gotten to know them, you change your opinions. I suppose the HP books have opened my eyes to that fact.? Thank you. Really appreciate it!!! Maria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bearhugger48 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 01:55:55 2011 From: bearhugger48 at yahoo.com (Bearhugger48) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The chosen one In-Reply-To: <j0q8po+4qfi@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <1311818155.53145.YahooMailClassic@web110406.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191113 >> bearhugger48: >> Can anyone please give me a exact definition of Harry's idea of >> what "the chosen one" is? Or anyone else's idea of what it means? > Steve: > I'm not sure there is a definition beyond the obvious. To Harry, > being the Chosen One is an embarrassing annoyance. To other, it > means that Harry was chosen by Voldemort as the one who was the > greatest threat to him, which is why he tried to kill him. > From another aspect, Harry is Chosen because he is the only > person to ever survive the Killing Curse. To have done such an > amazing thing, it to have been chosen by destiny for > ...something.... > There is also the Prophecy that Voldemort used to choose Harry > as his greatest threat. Few know about this, but the Prophecy > predicts that a child born at the end of July will have the power > to defeat the Dark Lord. Voldemort assumes that mean Harry, and > in trying to kill Harry, he chose him and made him, his own > greatest threat. > So, "The Chosen One" has many contexts in which it can be > considered, I don't think there is a 'definition', only an > explanation. bearhugger48: Thanks Steve, This sheds the light I needed, in a few different ways. From mxahid9 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 02:11:57 2011 From: mxahid9 at yahoo.com (Maria Zhaid) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:11:57 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0q8b8+ko1p@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0qghd+mtgp@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191114 Hi Steve! you are absolutely right and I did not misunderstand you. What I originally wanted was to chat directly so I can build on to the questions.. anyway :) And I think you should really consider your self brave. C'mon you have served in the army. And about the looks part. I meant artificiality. So far I have noticed that HP fans are more about substance than artificiality. :) Thank you Steve and everyone!!!! I really do appreciate it! Maria From mxahid9 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 02:25:18 2011 From: mxahid9 at yahoo.com (Maria Zhaid) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:25:18 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <D9362097B7B943B48799BB09B85D873A@TrekyPC> Message-ID: <j0qhae+gpup@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191115 And special thanks to Janet-Liz's mother!!:) I wish my mom was as cool as yours!! Maria From bart at moosewise.com Thu Jul 28 03:26:54 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:26:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The chosen one In-Reply-To: <j0q3a6+bfl1@eGroups.com> References: <j0q3a6+bfl1@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4E30D6FE.5000107@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191116 bearhugger48: > Can anyone please give me a exact definition of Harry's idea of > what "the chosen one" is? Or anyone else's idea of what it means? "Chosen" to defeat Voldemort. Bart From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 03:56:08 2011 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 03:56:08 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j0a4fe+fv0v@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0qmko+8ns6@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191117 Geoff wrote: > May I start in case it seems otherwise, by saying that I am not biased in > favour either medium: book or film. <big snip> > My general reaction was that I had enjoyed the film and although there > were some tweaks which had been made, it followed the story line well, > except . for the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, > which I think moved disastrously away from the canon story. But why? Annemehr: I'll just interject that I only watched the movie versions of HBP and DH1 for the first time this summer, along with DH2 in the theater. I enjoyed all three very much as well. But in this post I'll be following Geoff's lead and pretty much stick to discussing what bothered both of us. Geoff: > I have maintained on a number of occasions that, to me, chapters 33-36 > of DH represent JKR's finest writing. I will often sit and read just those > chapters. In the film, I though the first three were good- especially the > forest scenes and King's Cross; the story then gets slightly altered up > to Voldemort producing Harry's "body". But the crunch comes when > Harry revealed himself to be still alive, there is this chase through the > halls up to on of the higher levels of Hogwarts when they come face to > face and Harry pulls Voldemort off the top with him. There appears to be > some sort of Apparition; I'm not sure who is doing it and the smoke trails > which represent this in the films seem to be going all over the place with > a crash landing in the courtyard. We have this long wand battle, > reminiscent of GOF with Voldemort finally being defeated and his body > disintegrating. It almost seems to be just one more scene in the slam-bang > battle we have watched for the previous hour. > Annemehr: Actually, I believe the smoke trails represent when Voldemort (and the DEs sometimes too) are flying without brooms. There seemed to have been some of that as early as the battle in the Ministry in the OoP movie. But no matter, either one is weird in this scene. What I recall when watching that part was them clawing at each other's faces, and me wondering "what are they doing to each other?" But the really disappointing thing is that it was all played for "action." It reminded me of the First Task in GoF: in the book, it was a lovely snapshot of Harry's character. In the movie, it was purely a silly chase scene and then the dragon apparently died. Geoff: > What a comparison to the book. Here, Harry reveals that he is alive > whereupon, the crowd falls silent and forms a circle. My imagination > sees something like a Roman gladiatorial contest. They circle, waiting to > pounce, audience holding their collective breath as Harry prods Voldemort > towards doubt and uncertainty with revelations about the Horcruxes and > the Elder Wand and then, there is for me that stunning and ecstatic moment > when the rising sun comes across the window sill, and the spells are fired > which end the duel. I think, for me, the link of sunrise and the end of evil > reminds me strongly my Christian faith which may be why that scene moves > me so much. It is so much more a fitting closure than the rather > hidden-away and downbeat closing crafted by the David Yates. Annemehr: I agree with you (except for me not being Christian). What happened in the Forest and in the Great Hall replayed Godric's Hollow and the two AKs that Voldemort cast there. DH is the culmination of Voldemort's studies into death and how to cheat it. In his early days he learned to make Horcruxes. In this book he learned some wandlore and obtained the Elder Wand. But his talk with Harry in the Great Hall shows that, not only did he never appreciate the power of love, he never really made the attempt. It never dawned on Voldemort that when Harry came to him in the Forest, it was to sacrifice himself for the sake of everyone else -- so it never dawned on him that when he fired his AK, that he was repeating history..."this is old magic, [he] should have remembered it, [he] was foolish to overlook it"...*again*. In the book, I got a real sense of Voldemort coming to the end of things -- to the end of his Horcruxes, to the end of his power, to the limits of his understanding. It didn't even occur to him it might be unwise to fire that last Avada Kedavra. In the movie, you get special effects. Geoff: > Just as an aside, I was puzzled by the spells used by Voldemort, which > rebounded on him and that used by Molly Weasley to literally demolish > Bellatrix. they did not seem to be the normal sort. Annemehr: I just accept that they're the normal sort of spell for the movies, i.e. whatever they thought would look cool, without reference to what the spells are actually supposed to do. Geoff: > I wonder how many of you share my thoughts that our canon was poorly > served in that particular ending to what, in parallel to the books, has been > for me a usually pleasurable experience. > Annemehr: Well, I have some mixed feelings about the movies as a whole (particularly PoA and GoF), but had been enjoying the last three very much. So I do share your feelings about those crucial scenes. There is something else I missed as well. In the books, Harry has a strong connection to his wand, and it really hurts him when it's broken. And even though it's supposed to be impossible to repair, he never discarded the pieces. So even though none of this was ever really depicted in the movies, I was still very disappointed when he snapped the Elder wand without using it to repair his Holly and Phoenix-feather wand first. Why did they skip that? Was it supposed to be more dramatic or noble if he never used the Elder wand at all? Did they just forget? Actually, I don't even like that he snapped it in the movie. I don't feel that the wand itself was evil, even though much evil was done in pursuit of it. I much preferred the book version, where he replaced it in Dumbledore's tomb. *Even* at the risk of Harry not dying a natural death. Annemehr who didn't hate the movie-epilogue From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 06:18:53 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:18:53 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0qghd+mtgp@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0qv0d+d3ti@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Maria Zhaid" <mxahid9 at ...> wrote: > > Hi Steve! > ... > > ... > > Thank you Steve and everyone!!!! > I really do appreciate it! > > Maria > Steve replies: Keep in mind simply little discussions like this can sometime expand in to long detailed discussions. If you have any comments of your own, or if you would like clarification from everyone or from one specific person, or if you have new questions, feel free to ask. Steve/bboyminn From daveh47 at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 07:04:21 2011 From: daveh47 at gmail.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 00:04:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j0qmko+8ns6@eGroups.com> References: <j0a4fe+fv0v@eGroups.com> <j0qmko+8ns6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <4e310b4e.04bfec0a.5428.28eb@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191119 Annemehr: >In the movie, you get special effects. Dave: This, IMO, is the fundamental flaw in all the films. Take Patroni for example: In PoA (and after) it's never made clear that Harry's Patronus is a stag (or why), nor in DH2 that Aberforth's is a goat. All because the movie-makers insist on making Patroni these stupendous light shows that will inspire oooh's and ahhh's from the audience -- They think. Annemehr: >Well, I have some mixed feelings about the movies as a whole >(particularly PoA and GoF), but had been enjoying the last three very much. Dave: I think David Yates has overall done a much better job than any of his predecessors, but I agree he let us a bit down in the final Harry-LV confrontation. BTW, how is Harry supposed to prove LV is truly dead if his body disintegrates? And while I did enjoy watching him turn to "confetti", and imagine him in great pain as he did, I did have trouble resisting the urge to whisper under my breath: "'I'm melting, melting! Oh, what a world, what a world!'" :) Annemehr: >Actually, I don't even like that he snapped it in the movie. I don't >feel that the wand itself was evil, even though much evil was done >in pursuit of it. I much preferred the book version, where he >replaced it in Dumbledore's tomb. *Even* at the risk of Harry not >dying a natural death. Dave: I always liked the book version as well, especially in the way it (consciously?) parallels how Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes does essentially the same thing, and for the same reasons, with the Blue Carbuncle. Dave From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 28 15:01:04 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:01:04 -0000 Subject: varying views of characters In-Reply-To: <j0qd5f+lq1g@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0rtjg+dk4r@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191120 > Alla: > > Yes, "trusted the wrong person" I understand perfectly. That to me does not equal "helped him to betray them". Oh, I see, we are arguing semantics here. Yes, ok, I can agree with "unwillingly helped him to betray them". Surely you will not argue that they wanted to be betrayed? Pippin: I am arguing that they wanted Dumbledore and others to believe that Sirius was the secret-keeper, and they took steps to see that this happened. Do we agree? The game was not "We won't tell anyone who the secret-keeper is and people will assume it's Sirius." The game was "We'll make Voldemort and his spies think the secret-keeper is Sirius." We don't know everything they did to further the illusion, but Sirius himself was planning to go into hiding,as he said in PoA, and would have had to tell Dumbledore that. > Alla: > > Yes, sure they were after all of this happened, how does this contradicts my point that Dumbledore did not help Sirius and did everything he could to harm him? Pippin: I still am not sure why you think Dumbledore should have wanted to protect the person whom he believed had betrayed the Order. Are you saying he should have been like James and refused to believe that anyone he trusted could betray him? Would that have been wise, considering his experience with Grindelwald? > Alla: > > Ah, I see. Basically you are saying that Sirius confessed because he did not want to give some information to the Ministry because it can be infiltrated by enemy? Pippin: Almost. I don't think Sirius confessed, ever. I think he refused to say anything. Fudge visited him in Azkaban, and Sirius only asked for his newspaper so he could do the crossword, IIRC. Alla: But again what does this has to do with anything I said? The only information Sirius could have given to the Ministry to try to make his case if he was allowed, was the information about Secret keeper and the switch. How was this information a secret that was worth protecting because of loyalty to the Order? The idea that spell itself was worth protecting was the only one I could see, but since this was not it, I am at loss here. Pippin: The Order of the Phoenix is a secret organization, and Order business is not supposed to be discussed with others. Not at all. Not even with your own children, let along Ministry representatives who might be Death Eaters. It is not Sirius's job to decide what Order business can be safely discussed. Dumbledore can decide to do it, as head of the Order. Sirius does not have that right, not only out of loyalty to Dumbledore but to all the other members of the Order. > Alla: > > Huh? So whose fault would that have been? Maybe Dumbledore's who demanded such a meeting? Pippin: Are you saying James only used the cloak to meet with Dumbledore? It doesn't sound like it. From Lily's letter : "James is getting a bit frustrated shut up here, he tries not to show it but I can tell--also, Dumbledore's still got his Invisibility Cloak, so no chance of little excursions. If you could visit, it would cheer him up so much." - DHch 10 James and Lily were so off their guard that James left his wand behind when he ran to defend his family -- I hate to think what Mad-eye would have said. And you think James would have thought of the cloak? > > > Alla: > > > > > > But thats my point. I have to constantly remind myself that this is the magical hand of the author doing the things like Dumbledore letting Sirius rot in prison because Harry needs to grow up alone and unloved, or not letting Dumbledore check on Harry *once* for that very reason, because laws of genre demand so. It is a bit tiresome. It is MUCH easier to see Dumbledore as chessmaster, because then I do not need to think of the author and her pulling strings, if that makes sense. > > > Alla: > > But we had been told over and over and over that Harry IS important to his plans, you consider them good, I consider them sinister, but Harry is important to him, this is a fact. If Dumbledore could not afford to let anybody know, maybe he should have been more careful about bringing McGonagall and Hagrid there in the first place. If Dumbledore could not afford to let anybody know, maybe he should not have placed that mockery of the helper who did not do anything to help Harry at all near by? Pippin: Dumbledore trusted Hagrid with his life, and McGonagall showed up uninvited, looking for Dumbledore to see if the rumors about Lily and James were true. But she's not very impressed with the arrangements Dumbledore has made for the baby -- to her it looks highly irresponsible to trust Hagrid, much less a clueless Muggle family, with a baby. Exactly as Dumbledore wants it to look. Mrs. Figg is a Squib and the Ministry was completely unaware of her until the trial in OOP, where she helped Harry quite a bit. The trouble with your theory is that it isn't even internally consistent, much less consistent with canon. It gets rid of the long hand of the author, only to replace it with the long hand of Alla. :) Alla: > But regardless, the reason that he could not afford to let anybody know is not enough for me to let Harry be abused. The damn protection is already in place and not going to break if Dumbledore is going to check on him <snip> Pippin: You've made it plain there is *no* reason that is enough to let Harry be abused, even if it's a choice between that and death, or rather, you refuse to believe it was a choice between that and death. Trouble is, JKR has set the story in a "cold equations" kind of universe, and so people have to make those kinds of choices. Even Harry does. He thinks to himself, as he's preparing for the raid on Gringotts, that he is proving as reckless a godfather to Teddy as Sirius was to him. But his alternative (to getting himself killed and leaving Teddy to the indifferent hands of strangers) is to let Teddy grow up in a world where Voldemort is master. And that is unthinkable. I sympathize with not wanting the story to be that way. While I still read the stories with enjoyment, and find myself picking up a book to check something only to find I can't put it down, I don't turn to the books for solace anymore, and I think that's why. But as for Dumbledore, I see him as trying not to repeat the mistake he made with Arianna. The thought of her in an institution, lonely and unloved, was so painful that he refused to see how much danger she was in at home, much less along with him on his adventures. To deprive Harry of his best chance of life itself because it will break Dumbledore's heart to think of him suffering -- do you not see how self-indulgent that would be? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 28 17:15:12 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:15:12 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j0a4fe+fv0v@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0s5f0+lj6c@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191121 Geoff: > My general reaction was that I had enjoyed the film and although there > were some tweaks which had been made, it followed the story line well, > except . for the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, > which I think moved disastrously away from the canon story. But why? Pippin: Movies are a visual medium. As important as Harry's blood in Voldemort's body is thematically to the books, it's still a complicated idea to convey even in words and plenty of readers were puzzled by it. It would be harder still to get across in images. I really can't blame the filmmakers for sidestepping that and concentrating on Harry's courage and the powers of the Elder Wand. They did an admirable job with that. OTOH, some images which are powerful on paper might come across differently on film. Sunrises imagined or in real life are amazing -- pictures of sunrises tend to be trite. Then again, sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. I will have to see it again to make sure, but I think there was subtle similarity between Dumbledore's very light gray silk robes and Voldemort's charcoal black ones. That would be a clever way of suggesting the similarity and the difference between these characters, which Harry and Dumbledore discuss in the book. It's amusing that filmmakers always think they need to change elements of a best-seller to make it more commercial, but there it is: Rowling only has to answer to her muse, and said once she didn't care if she had only seven readers at the end of the series. Warner Brothers, OTOH, has to answer to its stockholders. Pippin From tonyaminton at gmail.com Thu Jul 28 13:38:05 2011 From: tonyaminton at gmail.com (Tonya Minton) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:38:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <j0qv0d+d3ti@eGroups.com> References: <j0qghd+mtgp@eGroups.com> <j0qv0d+d3ti@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <CAFo+NeTaNFYdz_ty_GRvuYj=-R=0S3XHOMbLSAiZ7102_fKCCA@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191122 I wanted to answer the questions too!! I hope that it is OK that I just jump in!! My answers are below. Thank you, Tonya Questions are as follows: 1. What do you like the best about Harry Potter series? I like that Harry never has to lower himself to murder to be a hero and save the wizarding world. He never has to turn his back on his friends. I also think that the series shows how important it is to hold your friends close to you. Just because you have a disagreement doesn't mean you hold a grudge against them. 2. Your favorite character?? Explain? Harry is my number one favorite character, mostly because he is down to earth. Even though he knows the Dersleys are horrible he still works hard and does the things they are and is respectful to them. He is a wholesome person. 3. What character can you relate with the most? Explain. I really relate to Hermione the most. I enjoy her love of knowledge and if I don't know something I will go find out the answer. I try my best not to spew information like she does, and I catch myself every now and again sounds like an irritating talking dictionary. 4. Any Harry Potter real life application in your life? Do you have any secret handshakes regarding HP or secret names? For example, I myself refer to people as Malfoy if they are being jerks. When I am sounding like a library book vomiting information, I refer to myself and Hermione. 5. Do you or others consider you brave? Have you ever done something so daring for others (self-sacrificing)? Yes or No? I consider myself brave and I think others do also. I am in my 40's and I have decided to go back to school. Lots of my friends have said that that has taken some guts to do and they wouldn't do it even though they would want to go back to school. 6. Are you willing to fight for your country/or for whatever group/religion you identify with? Absolutely!! 7. How important are looks to you? Not important at all. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ddankanyin at cox.net Thu Jul 28 16:04:03 2011 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:04:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! References: <j0ppir+un3d@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <7366F2FC473B4E358D9DF5EE1CB38F8F@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191123 > Maria: > Questions are as follows: > > 1. What do you like the best about Harry Potter series? Dorothy: I like the characters, the stories, the world itself. It's easy to get lost in these books, to imagine the world and it's best parts. When the first movie came out, and I bought the DVD, my grandson watched it with me. He was so into it that it only added to my own enjoyment. > > 2. Your favorite character?? Explain? Dorothy: My favorite character is Harry because we're seeing things through his eyes and his view of the world. As a second favorite I'd have to say Hagrid. He's the gentlest, most open minded of all of them, and he's firm in his convictions. > > 3. What character can you relate with the most? Explain Dorothy: I think I probably relate to Herminony, most because at her age I was also the "brain", and probably smug for a while. > > 4. Any Harry Potter real life application in your life? Do you > have any secret handshakes regarding HP or secret names? For > example, I myself refer to people as Malfoy if they are being > jerks. Dorothy: No secret handshakes, but I do find that the characters and factions in the wizarding world and the here and now are similar. My oldest daughter and I, along with another close friend, are all huge fans, and we discuss Potter and the books/movies endlessly. Pretty much like here in this group. > > 5. Do you or others consider you brave? Have you ever done > something so daring for others (self-sacrificing)? Yes or No? Dorothy: I think the most daring thing I've ever done is face my kids teachers. :) > > 6. Are you willing to fight for your country/or for whatever > group/religion you identify with? Dorothy: I'd be willing to fight to the death for my family for sure. > > 7. How important are looks to you? Dorothy: I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but looks were once extremely important to me, but now a lot less so. Never judge a book by it's cover is something to live by these days since there is so much bigotry and hatred without knowing the person or persons behind the label. > > Thank you. Really appreciate it!!! > Maria Dorothy: You're quite welcome. I hope you enjoyed this project. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu Jul 28 20:42:51 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:42:51 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j0s5f0+lj6c@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0shkb+te91@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote: Pippin: Movies are a visual medium. As important as Harry's blood in Voldemort's body is thematically to the books, it's still a complicated idea to convey even in words and plenty of readers were puzzled by it. It would be harder still to get across in images. I really can't blame the filmmakers for sidestepping that and concentrating on Harry's courage and the powers of the Elder Wand. They did an admirable job with that. Geoff: Actually, I didn't raise the point of Harry's blood. My point was that the importance of the last scene was undermined by the way in which it was handled, and sticking to a similar format to the book would have emphasised why these things were happening. As I said originally, Harry reveals himself to be alive and we have this chase through the castle. We have had most of the latter part of the film consisting of wizards of one persuasion of another running around hurling curses at each other and this scene does not seem different. We have this added peculiarity of Voldemort and Harry coming almost nose to nose on the tower. Why didn't Voldemort just have another go at blasting Harry out of existence at this point ?though I have a theory it wouldn`t have worked anyway, as I shall comment later? Harry pulls him off the tower. They seem to Apparate ? but do we have any other examples of people Apparating while in free fall? Some one answered my comments about the `smoke' trails being Death Eaters flying without brooms. OK, so where does Harry fit into that? The trails are going all around the castle before ending up in the courtyard. Now, how do things go in the book; what is perhaps the core of the scene which would have dealt with a lot of matters in a short, and not too wordy, scene? Harry throws off his cloak when Voldemort goes to attack Molly. Everyone realises that Harry is alive and as Voldemort turns, everyone falls silent to watch events. The two protagonists face off and the onlookers get out of the way and, as I said, there is a feel of a gladiatorial arena or a Greek amphitheatre. They circle and perhaps the main thrust is that Harry progressively knocks out the rungs of Voldemort's confidence ladder, finally by his revelations about the Elder Wand. Pippin: OTOH, some images which are powerful on paper might come across differently on film. Sunrises imagined or in real life are amazing -- pictures of sunrises tend to be trite. Geoff: The great point about the sunrise is that like sunrises or sunsets which I sometimes see when I am out with my dog is that they seem to happen almost instantly. Harry throws his last challenge at Voldemort: "Does the wand in your hand know its last master was Disarmed? Because if it does I am the true master of the Elder Wand." Probably with overweening arrogance leading him to disregard these last words, it is this sudden blaze of light which jogs Voldemort into rashly throwing his spell which brings about his downfall. It would have been a great scene, worthy of Greek tragedy. The theory to which I referred is one I have been mulling over about the role of the Elder Wand in the last two duels; I have almost started to write a post but have hung fire for the moment. But one thought I would throw out for readers to consider, agree, disagree, fillet and general mangle is this: I believe that, even if Harry had not countered the AK with his Expelliarmus, Voldemort would still have not succeeded because since I think the Elder Wand is sentient, it would have refused to cast such a spell against its master. Possibly Harry's famous protective love would have also come into play and some sort of rebound or backfire would have still removed Voldemort. Over to you! From mxahid9 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 22:06:28 2011 From: mxahid9 at yahoo.com (Maria Zhaid) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:06:28 -0000 Subject: IMPORTANT- It's for a project!:) I just need to interview (read below)!! In-Reply-To: <7366F2FC473B4E358D9DF5EE1CB38F8F@DG22FG61> Message-ID: <j0smh4+im66@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191125 Thank you so much guys!!! I have enough answers now! No need of more!!! Really appreciate it!! Thanks to all:) Maria From editor at texas.net Fri Jul 29 01:51:39 2011 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:51:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j0qmko+8ns6@eGroups.com> References: <j0a4fe+fv0v@eGroups.com> <j0qmko+8ns6@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <E6B5E278D70149E08A65DBB402C01A09@AmandaPC> No: HPFGUIDX 191126 My comments are related to the theme of movies vs. books, but not in response to a particular post, so I'll just throw them in the mix here. There are two things that the movies did, that were not in the books, that I thought were brilliant: 1. In OP, when Harry, Hermione, and Umbridge are in the Forbidden Forest, and the centaurs are carrying her away, and she pleads for Harry to tell them she means no harm (or whatever), and he answers, "I'm sorry, Professor, but I must not tell lies." I LOVED that. 2. In DH part 2, when Snape is dying, after he says, "Look at me," he says "You have your mother's eyes." I thought this was perfect--because in the seven years leading up to this, Snape has only ever admitted to seeing James in Harry; and in this last moment, he finally acknowledges Harry as Lily's son. This was blunted a bit by the actress playing young Lily having BROWN EYES-but win some, lose some. ~Amandageist From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 29 06:22:56 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:22:56 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <E6B5E278D70149E08A65DBB402C01A09@AmandaPC> Message-ID: <j0tjk0+sd1h@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" <editor at ...> wrote: > ... > > This was blunted a bit by the actress playing young Lily having BROWN > EYES-but win some, lose some. > > ~Amandageist > Steve: I do agree with your key points. I did like Snape's dying scene. And yes, Harry's reply to Umbridge in the forest was nice. I do think they tried to sneak that into the movie, when Harry says to Umbridge in the Dungeon Court Room, "YOU must not tell lies" or words to that effect. But on your last point, I disagree. The movie make the point that Harry has his mother's eyes, but the ignore the point that those eyes should be green. However, in the Movies, Harry (Dan) and his mother (Geraldine) have very similar eyes, sort of grayish blue, as can be seen in these photos - Dan Radcliffe - IMDB http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3153182464/nm0705356 Geraldine Somerville - IMDB http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4140285696/nm0813893 IMDB seems to be off-line at the moment, but I'm sure by the time you read this things should be fine. Steve/bboyminn From editor at texas.net Fri Jul 29 23:17:57 2011 From: editor at texas.net (mandolabar) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:17:57 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j0tjk0+sd1h@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j0vf35+g7ek@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191128 > Steve: > > But on your last point, I disagree. The movie make the point that Harry has his mother's eyes, but the ignore the point that those eyes should be green. > > However, in the Movies, Harry (Dan) and his mother (Geraldine) have very similar eyes, sort of grayish blue, as can be seen in these photos - > > Dan Radcliffe - IMDB > http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3153182464/nm0705356 > > Geraldine Somerville - IMDB > http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4140285696/nm0813893 Agreed, the adult Lily's eyes fill the bill. I was referring to young Lily's eyes. I would have thought they'd get the girl playing young Lily to have the same color eyes as Dan, because regardless of whether or not they are green, "your mother's eyes" implies they are at least the *same* color. So it was a bit jarring when young Lily (Ellie Darcey-Alden) had notably dark brown eyes. http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/08/22/new-casting-information-for-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows/ I was thinking about it--these additions that I approved of. Could they have been done to the same effect in the books? Or is it a true movie touch, that is effective because it is delivered in the medium of film? ~Amandageist From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jul 30 14:44:00 2011 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (ZaraG) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:44:00 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <E6B5E278D70149E08A65DBB402C01A09@AmandaPC> Message-ID: <j115bg+epif@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191129 > Amandageist: > 1. In OP, when Harry, Hermione, and Umbridge are in the Forbidden > Forest, and the centaurs are carrying her away, and she pleads for > Harry to tell them she means no harm (or whatever), and he > answers, "I'm sorry, Professor, but I must not tell lies." I LOVED > that. Zara: That was a very nice movie moment, yes! The question is would we like it better than what the book did instead. In the books, Hermione offends the centaurs by admitting she was trying to use them to get rid of Umbridge. Did they have that element in the movie? I don't recall that they did. The movies do a lot less with the Magical Beings threads of the series plot, I thought moment was an excellent adaptation in line with that overall choice. It was simpler, but also very true to Harry's character. > 2. In DH part 2, when Snape is dying, after he says, "Look at me," > he says. "You have your mother's eyes." > I thought this was perfect--because in the seven years leading up > to this, Snape has only ever admitted to seeing James in Harry; and > in this last moment, he finally acknowledges Harry as Lily's son. Zara: I did not mind this, but think this would have been completely the wrong choice in the book. Too heavyhanded. And also, I liked in the book that Snape's injury was so severe he was barely able to speak at all. He said quite a bit more in the movie! Which I think the poor audience probably needed, so I do not begrudge it. Anyway, Snape does acknowlegde Harry as Lily's son in the books without this addition, in his memories, in what is my favorite scene of the book series, that only made it onto screen in truncated, mashed up form. (Don't get me wrong, it was a lovely, artfully done truncated mashed up form that miraculously preserved so much of what was in the book, but I would not trade it for the original). DH, "The Prince's Tale": "I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter?" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 30 22:04:48 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:04:48 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j115bg+epif@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j11v60+7fcm@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191131 > Zara: > I did not mind this, but think this would have been completely the wrong choice in the book. Too heavyhanded. And also, I liked in the book that Snape's injury was so severe he was barely able to speak at all. He said quite a bit more in the movie! Which I think the poor audience probably needed, so I do not begrudge it. > > Anyway, Snape does acknowlegde Harry as Lily's son in the books without this addition, in his memories, in what is my favorite scene of the book series, that only made it onto screen in truncated, mashed up form. (Don't get me wrong, it was a lovely, artfully done truncated mashed up form that miraculously preserved so much of what was in the book, but I would not trade it for the original). > > DH, "The Prince's Tale": > "I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger > for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's > son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for > slaughter?" > Alla: See, I preferred what movie did so much to what was in the book during Snape's death, you know? I did not care that it was heavy handed, that one line would have made all the difference for me to feel something positive and pity like when Snape died. Yes, he acknowledged Harry as Lily's son to Dumbledore, but he never acknowledged that to Harry and I really needed to hear that. I would love to movie- contaminate Snape's death in my head :) JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jul 31 14:31:39 2011 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (ZaraG) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:31:39 -0000 Subject: MOVIE: Comparisons In-Reply-To: <j11v60+7fcm@eGroups.com> Message-ID: <j13p0b+dvp0@eGroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191132 > Alla: > > See, I preferred what movie did so much to what was in the book during Snape's death, you know? I did not care that it was heavy handed, that one line would have made all the difference for me to feel something positive and pity like when Snape died. Yes, he acknowledged Harry as Lily's son to Dumbledore, but he never acknowledged that to Harry and I really needed to hear that. I would love to movie- contaminate Snape's death in my head :) Zara: In my opinion, one difference between a movie and a book which matters in decisions about how to tell s story, is that a book is designed so that you can flip backwards and forwards between scenes, if you so desire. Was the book death scene more bare-bones than the movie? Yes, because I think one goal of the author was that some onetime non-obsessive reader of her series would still have only the vaguest suspicions that something shocking was coming up, when Harry dove into the Pensieve in the next chapter. And also perhaps because of the way the author was writing about death. Did Snape plan to give Harry all those memories and/or tell him the whole story? In my opinion, yes, I think he has made his plan by Christmas of that year, and set it into motion when he sent his Patronus to Harry. Since I don't think this plan explicitly included his own death, his plan definitely included acknowledging Harry as Lily's son to Harry (and also admitting to him the big ways in which he had wronged him, e.g. contributing to the death sof his parents and misjudging his character) while he still lived. It didn't work out that way, because "death waits for no man". Did I flip back to the death scene? Yes, immediately after reading (and recovering from) the scene I posted an excerpt from. And that same death scene was now a heartbreaker, where on my first read it was just sad in a manageable and expected way. It's a thing the book can do, that a movie really can't. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 31 16:55:16 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 31 Jul 2011 16:55:16 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/31/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1312131316.595.46323.m17@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191133 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 31, 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: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20110731/65bef9d3/attachment.html>