From lynde at post.com Sun May 1 06:18:57 2011 From: lynde at post.com (lynde at post.com) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 02:18:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CDD5DECA188F33-2344-F9FA@web-mmc-d03.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190348 I am curious at different posters views of Hermione's dental issues--buck teeth, crooked teeth, crowded mouth...I only remember her teeth being mentioned twice (there are probably more times) One is when Harry first meets her and one is when she is hit by Draco's curse in Snape's class. I always thought her teeth were large, not protruding or crooked. I can't get to my SS/PS (part of the storage boxes while we paint)Could someone look in SS/PS and tell us just how her teeth are described? Does anyone know of other cannon about her teeth? ---------------------------------------------- I reread SS recently and I think all it says is that she has buck teeth. That's been part of my contention (in the background not on the forum) and has been mentioned by my friends and family as well that nothing is said about crowded or crooked teeth, just that they are buck teeth. That's why we don't really think she was wearing braces yet, along with the lack of braces mentioned other than in the section where she has Madam Pomfrey shrink them. It just makes sense in the overall flow of the books. Lynda > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lynde at post.com Sun May 1 06:30:45 2011 From: lynde at post.com (lynde at post.com) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 02:30:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: teachers' personal lives / ''Madam'' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CDD5E070137C32-2344-FA14@web-mmc-d03.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190349 happy housewives like Molly Weasley are addressed as "Mrs." (with no indication that the term is derogatory) -------------------------------- Of course, many women do not view the term Mrs. as derogatory at all. . . Most of my female married friends in fact expect to be called Mrs. or Ms. choosing to use the terms interchangeably. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun May 1 06:36:19 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 06:36:19 -0000 Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <8CDD5DECA188F33-2344-F9FA@web-mmc-d03.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, lynde at ... wrote: Lynde: > I am curious at different posters views of Hermione's dental issues--buck teeth, crooked teeth, crowded mouth...I only remember her teeth being mentioned twice (there are probably more times) One is when Harry first meets her .... Geoff: The PS reference is as follows: 'She had a bossy sort of voice, lots of bushy brown hair and rather large front teeth.' (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-quarters" p.79UK edition) From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun May 1 06:46:10 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 06:46:10 -0000 Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: Geoff: Whoops, sorry. I just realised that I got the attributions wrong in my last email. The piece I quoted was from Potioncat's post but the opening attribution had been deleted and Lynde's name was only at the end instead of at the beginning of her response. Apologies again. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 1 06:50:33 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 06:50:33 -0000 Subject: Time Travel, the Stall, and the All Knowing Mind? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney wrote: > > Shelley > > > > > > My husband also pointed out that Dumbledore, in order to stall > > > at Hagrid's "intentionally" to allow Harry and Hermione > > > time to rescue Buckbeak, must have been aware of the Time > > > travel. > > > > > > Margie: > > ... the text can be taken to mean that Dumbledore stalled > and then that he knew Buckbeak would be gone, but it doesn't > actually say that. It could be interpreted in multiple ways: > > (...Series of Quotes...) > > > Margie > Steve: On Time Travel, we have had many discussion, some lasting weeks, and the always break into the same two camps - - Time happens once - Time happens twice Personally, the "Time Happens Twice" never made a lick of sense to me, so I'm firmly in the other camp. However, it always gets down to these two camps being firmly entrenched and unyielding. Which is exactly where I stand - entrenched and unyielding. I've been thinking about this for years, as well as discussing it equally long, and no matter how you slice it and dice it, to me, only "Time Happens Once" makes any sense at all. And, yes, people have explained the alternate theory in great detail many many many many times, and it still doesn't make sense to me. So, that is where it always ends, each camp makes its case in detail, and the opposite camp in not convinced. So, now we are down to how many time we are going to explain and re-explain it, before we become too tired to carry on. No winner here. Still, fascinating discussion though. As to Dumbledore intentionally delaying, much like time travel, that is open to interpretation. I doubt that Dumbledore has any way of seeing into the future. He doesn't seem to hold Divination in very high regard. But we do know from example, that Dumbledore has a very strong intuitive sense. He picks up on details that fly right over the heads of others. I think, to a small extent, that come with age and experience, but at the same time, some people just have a talent for it. For example, when they take Hagrid away to Azkaban, Harry and Ron are in the hut hiding under the invisibility cloak. The Minister and Mr. Malfoy are there and take no notice of Harry and Ron's presence, but Dumbledore seems to clearly know that they are there. How? Smell? Sound? Body Heat? Slope of the floorboards? Sense? Intuition? We also know that Dumbledore has a degree of ability in Legilimens. He can intuitively grasp what people are thinking. Perhaps when he enters a room, he simply reaches out and probes the minds in the room. In Hagrid's hut, while he didn't read the minds, he sensed their presences, and assumed it was two of the trio, though he may not have know which two. Though, once sensing two additional minds, he may have probed deeper to find out who they were. Again, this example is not directly relevant to time travel, but it does indicate that Dumbledore has a very strong intuitive sense. Far more developed than the average or above average wizard. Now, pressing this farther, we could assume the Dumbledore is always reaching out searching for the presence of new minds. He would know when people were coming before they got there. And if he was mentally reaching out, he may have sensed Harry and Hermione near by. As time goes on, he may have been putting the pieces of the puzzle, as he knew it, together. By the time, the time came to send Harry and Hermoine back, it may have seemed like the natural and logical thing to do. I think we have far more evidence for this view, than for Dumbledore having some magical sense of the unforetold future. From Harry's perspective, Dumbledore's action certainly seem like he was creating a distraction and delay, but the fact is, the executioner DOES have to sign the documents. And if Dumbledore is delaying, why does he have to be delaying for Harry's sake? Why can't he be delaying for Hagrid's sake? The execution is going to be very traumatic for Hagrid, and the longer they can put it off the better. So, is Dumbledore's distraction convenient coincidence, or is it a calculated effort, and if calculated, on whose behave is it calculated? I don't think we really know. But I really see no evidence that Dumbledore has some magical way to know the future. Far more likely, what gifts he has are from being deeply observant, intuitively sensitive in the moment, highly intelligent, and being a deep thinker. Or at least, that's one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 1 15:03:54 2011 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 15:03:54 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: Professor Trelawney's prediction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > Steve: Steve wrote: > If we start with the assumption that time happened twice, meaning that Harry and Hermione's interference spawned a second time line, then we must assume the first time line continues on as if there had been no interference, and the second new time line creates the outcome that we ultimately see in the book; Sirius escapes. However, the multiple time theory implies that the first time line carried on and Sirius was subjected to the Dementor's kiss and ultimately died. > > As complicated as time travel is, it is massively more complicated if we assume multiple times or multiple time lines. The simplest solution is a single time line with multiple characters. Though a mistake in time travel could potentially alter the one existing time line, which is why Hermione insists that the be so careful. > > Although, as I read the story, I do not see Harry/Hermione creating a paradox. As I said, JKR drops subtle hints in the book that the second TT!Harry and TT!Hermione are already there the first time we read through the story. And the second time we travel through the story, those subtle hints are, more or less, confirmed. Carol responds: I agree that there's only one timeline as we can see from Hermione's use of the Time Turner to go to her classes. Even though during all that time, Hermione is in two places at once, no one but Hermione and McGonagall knows it, and for everyone who sees Hermione, time is perfectly normal. (*Those* people can't be in two places at once, so they only see one Hermione.) Hermione herself experiences time as extra hours in a day that allow her to take extra classes and extra tests and possibly do extra homework. No wonder the poor child is exhausted! (I won't get into the question of whether she ages ever so slightly during this extra time, but it seems clear that the time turner couldn't be used for extended periods because the only way to get back to the normal time is to live through those hours a second time.) At any rate, just as Hermione was in two classes at once all year long, she was in two places at once during the Buckbeak/Sirius episode. Buckbeak never died and neither did Sirius or Harry. Dumbledore must have seen Buckbeak escape and perhaps figured out that it was the Time Turner that saved him. Yes, it's very confusing, but there were always two Harrys and two Hermiones during those three hours. It's the only explanation that makes any sense. Time didn't change; it happened only once exactly as it turned out. Carol, who found her original reading of PoA mindboggling--werewolves, Animagi, Secret Keepers, and then Time Travel! From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 1 17:01:13 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 1 May 2011 17:01:13 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/1/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1304269273.844.89253.m10@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190354 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 1, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun May 1 17:02:36 2011 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 17:02:36 -0000 Subject: teachers' personal lives / ''Madam'' In-Reply-To: <178490.30955.qm@web87014.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, KEN ADAMS wrote: > > > > Carol responds: > > And yet Madame Maxime, the French witch who's headmistress of Beauxbatons, isn't > married. It seems that both "Madam" and "Madame" function as titles of respect > that a professional woman (or even a glorified seamstress like Madam Malkin or a > pub owner like Madam Rosmerta, who combines "Madam" with her first name) can > choose to use. It seems to function something like "Ms.", allowing a woman to > hide her marital status, except that it adds a hint of increased social status > as well. OTOH, happy housewives like Molly Weasley are addressed as "Mrs." (with > no indication that the term is derogatory) and young, unmarried girls are > addressed as "Miss" by their teachers, just as the boys are addressed as "Mr." > (I think it would have been "Master" in Victorian England and maybe even into > the 1950s, at least for Muggles, but the Wizards seem to have a slightly > different terminology. > > Most likely, JKR didn't think it out. She may have started with the nicely > alliterative "Madam Malkin" and gone from there. In any case, the use of "Madam" > extends beyond Hogwarts into the British WW in general. > > Carol, just thinking on her keyboard and arriving at no real conclusions. > > Ken: > The prefix Madam is commonly used in British English as a term of respect > towards a lady, so that a schoolchild would be expected to refer to a teacher as > madam. This applies whether the lady is married or not hence Madam Maxine. In > the case of Madam Malkin it would no doubt indicate respect for an accomplished > robe maker who also had the acumen to hold a business together, the same would > apply to Madam Rosmerta. A shop assistant especially in a more quality shop would be expected to refer to a female customer as madam, as in those shoes fit you very well Madam do you know they are on a special offer this week. It is thus perfectly possible for a Mrs Bloggs to also be referred to as Madam Bloggs, especially in a school setting. This term almost certainly has French origins, probably from the days of the Norman conquest when the villains would be expected to refer to their newly acquired Norman mistresses as Madam. This may be more familiar to American readers in its commonly shortened form of Maam. It really is very common in Britain. Carol responds: Well, yes. Even here in America, if you speak to a mature woman you don't know, you'll address her as "ma'am" (never "madam"): "Excuse me, ma'am, you dropped this." If the woman is young, you'll address her as "miss." It actually has more to do with age than presumed marital status, IMO. ("Ms.," on the other hand, does deliberately conceal marital status. Whether it's used in Britain, I don't know, but it's certainly not used in the WW.) Carol, not quite sure how your point differs from mine regarding the characters From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 1 18:44:36 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 18:44:36 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: -Cost of Time Travel- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > .... > > Carol responds: > > ... > > Hermione herself experiences time as extra hours in a day that allow her to take extra classes and extra tests and possibly do extra homework. No wonder the poor child is exhausted! ... > > ... > > Carol, who found her original reading of PoA mindboggling--werewolves, Animagi, Secret Keepers, and then Time Travel! > Steve comments: This brings up another interesting aspect of Time Turning. From Hermione's frame of reference, she experiences linear time. For her, what would be perceived by others as parallel classes, is instead, from her frame of reference, a series of serial classes. She experiences them one after another. So, how much time are we talking about? Purely to illustrate the principle, let's assume she is Time Turning FOUR classes per day, and not using the Time Turner for any other purpose. Next let's assume this goes on for 9 months - 9 mo X 4wks/mo X 5 days/wk X 4 hrs/day = 720 HOURS That means by the end of the year, Hermione is actually TWO YEARS OLDER than everyone else based on her experience of linear time while time turning. That's pretty significant, and yes indeed, no wonder the poor girl is exhausted. In the course of a year, she has experienced two years and nine months of linear time. So, time travel does not come without a personal price. Just a random thought. Steve/bboyminn From fenneyml at gmail.com Sun May 1 19:55:19 2011 From: fenneyml at gmail.com (Margaret Fenney) Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 15:55:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: -Cost of Time Travel- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190357 > > > Steve comments: > > This brings up another interesting aspect of Time Turning. From Hermione's > frame of reference, she experiences linear time. For her, what would be > perceived by others as parallel classes, is instead, from her frame of > reference, a series of serial classes. She experiences them one after > another. > > So, how much time are we talking about? Purely to illustrate the principle, > let's assume she is Time Turning FOUR classes per day, and not using the > Time Turner for any other purpose. Next let's assume this goes on for 9 > months - > > 9 mo X 4wks/mo X 5 days/wk X 4 hrs/day = 720 HOURS > > That means by the end of the year, Hermione is actually TWO YEARS OLDER > than everyone else based on her experience of linear time while time > turning. > > That's pretty significant, and yes indeed, no wonder the poor girl is > exhausted. In the course of a year, she has experienced two years and nine > months of linear time. > > So, time travel does not come without a personal price. > > Just a random thought. > > Steve/bboyminn > > Margie: Just thought I'd throw out some info re: how many hours per day Hermione might be time-turning: First, Hermione says, near the end of POA, that she is dropping Muggle Studies because along with Divination that she already dropped, she will be able to have a normal schedule. Second, it is clear that they don't have the same classes every day of the week. According to the Lexicon here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/hogwarts/classes/hogwarts_academics.html#third First Years have 7 classes - Astronomy, Charms, Defense Against the Dark Arts, Herbology, History of Magic, Potions and Transfiguration. Third Years add two or more classes to that same seven classes, choosing from Ancient Runes, Arithmancy, Care of Magical Creatures, Divination and Muggle Studies and possibly others. There are numerous examples that support this, one that jumps to my mind is when Hermione's book bag is splitting and Ron asks her why she is carrying a certain book since they don't have that class that day. With nine classes as the norm, there is no way that Hermione would be time-turning four classes a day. However, if she was also using the time-turner to have adequate time for homework, four hours a day might be reasonable. The problem with this is that time-turning for the purposes of homework would be much more risky than doing so for classes since the possibility of Hermione running into herself would be much higher. Margie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun May 1 23:14:22 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 23:14:22 -0000 Subject: Teeth was Re: teachers' personal lives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > "...they wanted me to carry on with my brace. " > > I wonder if we aren't stumbling into a variation of common usage of UK English here. > > It is possible that Hermione is NOT saying that her parents want her to continue on with braces, but more so that her parents would like he to follow a more traditional approach to dentistry (ie: braces). > > What I'm getting at is that even though Hermione is using language that implies the past and present, she could be talking about proposed future events. > > Steve/bboyminn > Nikkalmati I am not from the UK either, but I see in this phrase a typical British phrase "to carry on" and I wonder if Hermione could be saying her parent wanted her to "carry on" by getting braces, i.e. a future event. Why would they delay? Well, I understand some children have large teeth that will look fine when their faces grow into adult size. Then the teeth and face will match. Maybe Hermione just had large teeth that were noticable because she was still not fully grown. I think Hermione was overly sensitive about her teeth. As for Madam Pomphry, she would not know or care exactly what the spell did. I imagine she just fixed the teeth. She made whatever adjustments were necessary to make them look normal or right and asked Hermione if everything was ok. Nikkalmati From bart at moosewise.com Mon May 2 00:08:34 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 20:08:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: References: <8CDD2AC6D7F6C93-2750-6117@web-mmc-m03.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4DBDF602.8060207@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190359 On 4/28/2011 7:26 PM, Margaret Fenney wrote: > Geoff: > > Going back to the original quote in GoF which June supplied, it was: > >>> '(Hermione speaking) "Mum and Dad won't be too pleased. I've been trying >>> to persuade them to let me shrink them for ages, but they wanted me to >>> carry on with my brace."' > (GOF "The Yule Ball" p.353 UK edition) Has anybody pointed out that in the U.S. edition, the term "braces" is used? Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 2 00:19:00 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 00:19:00 -0000 Subject: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: -Cost of Time Travel- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney wrote: > > > > > > > Steve comments: > > > > ... Purely to illustrate ...let's assume this goes on for 9 > > months - > > > > 9 mo X 4wks/mo X 5 days/wk X 4 hrs/day = 720 HOURS > > > > Hermione is actually TWO YEARS OLDER than everyone else ... > > > > Just a random thought. > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > > > > > > Margie: > > Just thought I'd throw out some info re: how many hours per day > Hermione might be time-turning: > > First, Hermione says, near the end of POA, that she is dropping > Muggle Studies because along with Divination ..., she will be > able to have a normal schedule. ... > > With nine classes as the norm, there is no way that Hermione > would be time-turning four classes a day. > > However, if she was also using the time-turner to have adequate > time for homework, four hours a day might be reasonable. ... > this ... would be much more risky ... for ...the possibility > of Hermione running into herself ... > > Margie > Steve replies: That's why I presented it as an illustration rather than an example, couldn't be bothered to work out her schedule in the last detail. But my purpose was to illustrate that excessive time turning can take a toll. Even if I soften the illustration substantially, Hermione live two years in the course of one. There are 12 subjects at Hogwarts - 1.) Astronomy 2.) Charms 3.) Defense Against the Dark Arts 4.) Herbology 5.) History of Magic 6.) Potions 7.) Transfiguration 8.) Ancient Runes 9.) Arithmancy 10.) Care of Magical Creatures 11.) Divination 12.) Muggle Studies We do know it is possible to get 12 OWLs, I believe Percy and perhaps Tom Riddle did it, or was that Barty Crouch Jr? Which in turn makes me suspect that you can take OWL Tests for classes you did not take. For example, Hermoine, being from a muggle family, could have taken the Muggle Studies OWL even though she dropped the class. We see how incredibly difficult it is for Hermione to take every single class, virtually impossible without the Time Turner, and extremely difficult with. I doubt they are handing out Time Turners like confetti, so it would seem this was a one time exception for Hermione. By extension, I assume other "12 Owl" students gained knowledge in subjects they were not taking through a combination of very high intelligence, ambition, and independent study. We do know it is very possible to get 12 OWLs, several people have done it, but we also see it is next to impossible to actually take all 12 subjects at once. What other conclusion can I reach? In fact, USA Universities allow the same thing. These are called CLEP test (College Level Entrance Placement tests). Though I can't imagine how, I "CLEPed out" of Biology. Through some mysterious circumstance my knowledge of Biology was high enough that I got credit for College level Biology 101, and never had to take the class. So, you can get course credits for classes you didn't take, and I see that as the only way for anyone to get 12 OWLs. In the end, Hermione (if I remember correctly) got 10 OWLs, but I feel she could have easily gotten 11. Though the Divinations OWL seems very much out of reach. Can't imagine how Percy manage an OWL in Divinations. Maybe he was just better at bluffing that Harry and Ron were. As to Hermione running into herself, I'm not sure that is a problem. There is a fanciful time travel theory that says if you go way back in time, and run into a kid and shake that kids hand, and by chance the kid turns out to be you, the physical contact between the two of you will cause a Temporal Explosion. But, that is not how I see it in the wizard world. I personally think Hermione could meet her other self and kiss herself full on the lip with absolutely no consequences other than embarrassment. Hermione knows she is Time Turning, if she sees herself in the hall or the bathroom, it is awkward, but of no real consequence. Both Hermiones understand what is going on, both know the other is Time Turning. However, as Hermione explains to Harry, if Harry goes running into Hagrid's with his wand out, ranting, raving, yelling, and screaming, one of those Harrys is going to think he has gone insane because one of those Harry's doesn't understand what is going on. He could do anything in the panic of the moment. That is a dangerous scenario, however, Hermione bumping into herself during the school day is not. Now that doesn't mean Hermione can see Hermione in any and all circumstances. During class time seeing herself makes sense. But if she wakes in the middle of the night to find herself standing over herself with wand drawn, that would be time for panic. So, the danger of Time Travel, in my view, is situational. It can create situations that are dangerous to the normal person, and to the Time Traveling person. Too many unknowns. But, now and as always, just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon May 2 02:54:53 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 02:54:53 -0000 Subject: Time travel/ was:Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16 In-Reply-To: <4DBC4C9E.6040201@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shelley Gardner wrote: > Zanooda is using Novikov self-consistency zanooda: Wow, very interesting, I had no idea, thanks for the info, Shelley :-). > Shelley: > My husband also pointed out that Dumbledore, in order to stall at > Hagrid's "intentionally" to allow Harry and Hermione time to rescue > Buckbeak, must have been aware of the Time travel, and that is also > consistent with the Novikovian theory. zanooda: Still not sure about that :-). I do believe that DD was stalling, but it's easier for me to assume that he didn't know at that time that Harry attempting to save Buckbeak was back-in-time Harry. I think DD thought it was a present-time Harry, and only later he guessed (or found out somehow) that it was back-in-time Harry. I doubt that DD could see into the future. > Shelley: > Anyway, sorry if the discussion about time makes people's > brains hurt. zanooda: LOL! Mind-bending, isn't it :-)? > Shelley: > If Buckbeak had not been executed, (because he was saved by H&H), > and the execution of Sirius was still 10 or 15 minutes off, is not > that then "no executions"? zanooda: Oh, I see now what you mean. The word "after" confused me, I guess :-). Anyway, yeah, DD sent the kids back *before* Sirius's execution, because it was the only way to stop it. With Fudge unyielding and the execution just minutes away DD found himself out of options. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon May 2 03:16:15 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 03:16:15 -0000 Subject: Time Travel, the Stall, and the All Knowing Mind? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190362 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney wrote: > > > > Shelley > > > > > > > > > My husband also pointed out that Dumbledore, in order to stall > > > > at Hagrid's "intentionally" to allow Harry and Hermione > > > > time to rescue Buckbeak, must have been aware of the Time > > > > travel. > > > > > Steve: > > On Time Travel, we have had many discussion, some lasting weeks, and the always break into the same two camps - > > - Time happens once > - Time happens twice > > Personally, the "Time Happens Twice" never made a lick of sense to me, so I'm firmly in the other camp. However, it always gets down to these two camps being firmly entrenched and unyielding. Which is exactly where I stand - entrenched and unyielding. > > I've been thinking about this for years, as well as discussing it equally long, and no matter how you slice it and dice it, to me, only "Time Happens Once" makes any sense at all. And, yes, people have explained the alternate theory in great detail many many many many times, and it still doesn't make sense to me. > .snip. > > As to Dumbledore intentionally delaying, much like time travel, that is open to interpretation. > > I doubt that Dumbledore has any way of seeing into the future. He doesn't seem to hold Divination in very high regard. But we do know from example, that Dumbledore has a very strong intuitive sense. He picks up on details that fly right over the heads of others. I think, to a small extent, that come with age and experience, but at the same time, some people just have a talent for it. > >snip> > > I think we have far more evidence for this view, than for Dumbledore having some magical sense of the unforetold future. > > . > > Steve/bboyminn > Nikkalmati I think we would all agree that time travel does not exist. That means it can be written in different ways in different contexts with different rules as long as it fits together. What we want to know is what did JKR intend? Even since Wells' The Time Machine, authors have been struggling to make it work. The simplest, the least complicated answer is that there is only one time-line. What happened happened and it included someone who was time traveling. I think that was the choice JKR made, partly because of the hints that H & H as well as the Trio were present at Hagrid's hut the first time; also, because there is no explanation for Harry's rescue at the lake if we assume two timelines. DD may have stalled the execution intentionally, if he caught a glimpse of H&H out the window leading Buckbeak away and did not want them to be caught by Fudge (and wanted Buckbeak to live). Later, upon reflection, and talking to Sirius, he may have realized that the H&H he saw take Buckbeak could not be the same H&H who chased Ron and Sirius across the grounds into the Whomping Willow. He then would know Hermione must have used her Time-turner and encouraged her to do just that. He knew what would happen because it had already happened. What then was it Hermione feared if they were seen? I doubt she would have been upset by seeing herself, but it could have gotten her and Harry into trouble for misuse of the device. She seems much more concerned than that, however. Maybe if they are seen, the time-line could change and the outcome be in doubt. Maybe if they are seen, it could create two time lines with two Harrys and Hermionies living on indefinitely. Remember it also was very important for them to get back to the infirmary in time to meet themselves as they left. As another little bit of evidence, do you recall when Hermione fell asleep and missed Charmes class? She was very upset and went to Flitwick to apologize. She knew she could not go back and attend class because it had already happened and she was not there and everyone, including Harry and Ron, knew she was not there. Nikkalmati From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon May 2 05:38:39 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 05:38:39 -0000 Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <4DBDF602.8060207@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Bart: > Has anybody pointed out that in the U.S. edition, the term "braces" > is used? Geoff: Possibly not, but I pointed out in message 190323 that it is used in both singular and plural forms in UK English depending on how extensive the dental work is. Nikkalmati: I am not from the UK either, but I see in this phrase a typical British phrase "to carry on" and I wonder if Hermione could be saying her parent wanted her to "carry on" by getting braces, i.e. a future event. Geoff: To me, as a UK English speaker, the context can only be that of Hermione already having a brace or braces - 'to carry on' implying the continuation of a situation that already exists. From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Mon May 2 08:09:12 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 08:09:12 -0000 Subject: Portraits & Photographs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190364 Hello, Was just reading a bit of OoTP during the weekend and thought of these things: Portraits: Fat Lady, Sir Cadogan, Sirius's mom, Phineas Nigellus and all other Hogwarts headmasters are quite aware of what's happening around and live just via portraits. So, why didn't Harry ever consider getting a portrait of his parents or even Sirius? Nick said Sirius would have gone on and will not be back as a ghost. Is this applicable to portraits too? If yes, does that mean that DD has not gone on? Photographs: CoS: Harry is trying to move out of the frame in Lockhart's photograph OoTP: Percy walks out of Mr Weasley's family photograph at his office DH: DD looks dolefully at Harry and Hemione from his photograph in the Life and Lies of DD book Flitting in and out of a photograph is one but reflecting current emotions of the real-life counter part is another. Does this mean that photographs capture more than the picture and are "connected" to the real-life counterparts? Are there any canon evidences that can answer my queries? Share them, please! :-) Cheers, ~Joey :-) From bart at moosewise.com Mon May 2 12:32:46 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 08:32:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: -Cost of Time Travel- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DBEA46E.6000809@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190365 On 5/1/2011 8:19 PM, Steve wrote: > >>> ... Purely to illustrate ...let's assume this goes on for 9 >>> months - >>> >>> 9 mo X 4wks/mo X 5 days/wk X 4 hrs/day = 720 HOURS >>> >>> Hermione is actually TWO YEARS OLDER than everyone else ... >>> >>> Just a random thought. Bart: I had to catch up with a few days worth of email, so I didn't answer this the first time because I was sure that someone else would have pointed this out. 24 hours = one day 72 hours = 3 days. 720 hours = 30 days. Where did you get 2 years? Bart From ingridbirgitta at gmail.com Mon May 2 07:52:24 2011 From: ingridbirgitta at gmail.com (Birgitta Karlsson) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 09:52:24 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: -Cost of Time Travel- In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DBE62B8.4020904@googlemail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190366 > Steve comments: > This brings up another interesting aspect of Time Turning. From Hermione's frame of reference, she experiences linear time. For her, what would be perceived by others as parallel classes, is instead, from her frame of reference, a series of serial classes. She experiences them one after another. > > So, how much time are we talking about? Purely to illustrate the principle, let's assume she is Time Turning FOUR classes per day, and not using the Time Turner for any other purpose. Next let's assume this goes on for 9 months - > > 9 mo X 4wks/mo X 5 days/wk X 4 hrs/day = 720 HOURS > > That means by the end of the year, Hermione is actually TWO YEARS OLDER than everyone else based on her experience of linear time while time turning. > > That's pretty significant, and yes indeed, no wonder the poor girl is exhausted. In the course of a year, she has experienced two years and nine months of linear time. > No, Hermione is not 2 years older than the others, she is 30 days older. 720 hours is 30 days. 720 days is 2 years though. Angelfish From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 3 00:39:00 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 00:39:00 -0000 Subject: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: -Cost of Time Travel- In-Reply-To: <4DBEA46E.6000809@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190367 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > On 5/1/2011 8:19 PM, Steve wrote: > > > >>> ... Purely to illustrate ... > >>> > >>> 9 mo X 4wks/mo X 5 days/wk X 4 hrs/day = 720 HOURS > >>> > >>> Hermione is actually TWO YEARS OLDER than everyone else ... > >>> > >>> Just a random thought. > > Bart: > ... > > 24 hours = one day > 72 hours = 3 days. > 720 hours = 30 days. > > Where did you get 2 years? > > Bart > Sorry, mistyped, it should be 720 days. And, it something of an estimate since there are more than 4 weeks (28 days) in a month. Wait a minute, let me review that calculation again... ...tick...tick...tick...tick... Damn, it is 720 hours, so only 30 days. Well that doen't shoot the theory down, but it certainly softens it massively. Rats! Thanks for the correction. But the underlying point is that there is a degree of time dilation. Everyone in their own framework experiences linear time, however, from her own internal perspective, Hermione's days are 28 hours instead of 24. From the external perspective, from everyone else's view, the days are simply 24 hours long. How much time dialation occurs depends on how much Hermione used the Time Turner. If we assume it was for classes only, then she only extended her day by a few hours. If she used it for homework, and other non-specific things, then the total could be much higher. Though in the end, the Time Dilation is still days per year, not years per year as in my original assumption. Though that does depend on how and when the Time Turner is used. If you turn back a full year, then you relive that year, your physical self has to endure it twice, making you one year older than every one else who live in non-TT linear time. It gets very confusing. And sorry for the confusion that I personally added to it. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 3 00:55:43 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 00:55:43 -0000 Subject: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: - More Time Travel Justification In-Reply-To: <295153.28061.qm@web113911.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190368 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > > ... > > June: > If it never happened in any timeline, what was the point of sending > them back? ... > Steve: You are missing the preventative aspect of it. Something doesn't have to happen, only so you can go back and undo it. If you know an action is imminent, then you can act to circumvent it, and thereby prevent it from happening. It is a preventative measure. You assume Buckbeak has to be kill to logically have a reason to go back and change the event. But that is not true. If Buckbeaks death in impending, and you can prevent it from happening that is a perfectly legitimate reason to act. And, from Dumbledore's perspective, if he knows Buckbeak escaped, he now has more of an incentive to facilitate that escape. Especially when that escape can be twisted so as to help Sirius also escape. What if Buckbeak wandered off? What if some other mischievous students helped him? What if the Centaurs intervened? What if the House Elves intervened? Regardless of why Buckbeak escaped the first time, sending Harry and Hermione back in time can use that escape to their advantage. If some one facilitated Buckbeak's escape, the Harry and Herione can find them and get Buckbeak back. If no one helped Buckbeak escape, then Harry and Hermione themselves can facilitate the escape. There are many scenarios in which Buckbeak does not have to die to justify sending Harry and Hermione back in time. There are very real reasons and justifications for sending them back under circumstances in which Buckbeak does not need to die first. So, while I do understand the counter argument to the "time happened once" view, I don't buy this particular justification. But, as always, just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 3 01:08:06 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 01:08:06 -0000 Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190369 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: >... > > ... > > Geoff: > To me, as a UK English speaker, the context can only be that > of Hermione already having a brace or braces - 'to carry on' > implying the continuation of a situation that already exists. > Steve: I think we have to rely on you as the resident expert on this. But I can see a context in which "to carry on" or "carry on" can imply from the past into the future, or from the present into the future, OR for the future into the future. For example - "When my holiday ends, I will carry on with my schooling." The 'carry on' point is in the future. Of course, my example statement is a statement with a qualifier. Something we don't see in Hermione's statement. Still, I think in the case of the book, JKR simply chose an odd turn of the phase that lead to a degree of ambiguity. This is such a minor point that I can see how many authors and editors and copywriters could have over looked it. It is such a minor and insignificant point, that only members, and would be members, of LOON could possibly care about. LOON = L.O.O.N. = Loyal Order Of Nitpickers. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue May 3 03:47:13 2011 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 03:47:13 -0000 Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190370 Steve: > For example - > > "When my holiday ends, I will carry on with my schooling." > > The 'carry on' point is in the future. Of course, my example statement is a statement with a qualifier. Something we don't see in Hermione's statement. Ceridwen: Your statement, "When my holiday ends, I will carry on with my schooling," also implies that you are currently in school and so, will carry on with schooling once the holiday is over. If you were not already in school, then after the holiday you might consider beginning school or enrolling. To carry on implies an action that is currently on-going and expected to go on into the future. Ceridwen. From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Wed May 4 10:26:06 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Happy Smiley) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 03:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Portraits & Photographs Message-ID: <921717.93450.qm@web46201.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190371 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/190364 Looks like Yahoo! missed to mail the message to the group! Hello, Was just reading a bit of OoTP during the weekend and thought of these things: Portraits: Fat Lady, Sir Cadogan, Sirius's mom, Phineas Nigellus and all other Hogwarts headmasters are quite aware of what's happening around and live just via portraits. So, why didn't Harry ever consider getting a portrait of his parents or even Sirius? Nick said Sirius would have gone on and will not be back as a ghost. Is this applicable to portraits too? If yes, does that mean that DD has not gone on? Photographs: CoS: Harry is trying to move out of the frame in Lockhart's photograph OoTP: Percy walks out of Mr Weasley's family photograph at his office DH: DD looks dolefully at Harry and Hemione from his photograph in the Life and Lies of DD book Flitting in and out of a photograph is one but reflecting current emotions of the real-life counter part is another. Does this mean that photographs capture more than the picture and are "connected" to the real-life counterparts? Are there any canon evidences that can answer my queries? Share them, please! :-) Cheers, ~Joey :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 4 18:40:56 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 11:40:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: Professor Trelawney's prediction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <465789.6385.qm@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190372 > June: > So for Dumbledore to send Harry and Hermione into the past > to stop Buckbeak from being beheaded and to save Sirius from the > dementor's kiss, there would have to be a reason. You don't just > fix some thing that hasn't been broken. > Margaret: > You do if you know there's a strong possibility that the bad thing > *will* happen--as Dumbledore certainly might, knowing the people > involved. June: Dumbledore would have known what really happened (in their time line) as it was in the past so he likely knew that it was unlikely that Hagrid would have let Buckbeak go or to have been careless with tying him up (remember Hagrid was afraid of the consequences if he let Buckbeak go) and it was obvious to everyone that knew Sirius was in the castle that he was going to get the Dememtor's kiss, so Dumbledore would have realized that at some point things had been changed and he would have known the only possible way that could have happened. That is why he sent Hermione and Harry because he knew for Buckbeak to be alive and Sirius to not be kissed that, they were the ones who had to have done it in the past (confusing lol). One thing though that really baffles me is, if they went in the past and Harry saved himself, it is logical that at some point he would have received the Dementor's kiss because there could not have been a first instance when he was there to save himself because he didn't go back in time yet, so how did he go back in time in the first place? From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 4 18:52:51 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 11:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: Professor Trelawney's prediction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <225361.32380.qm@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190373 > Taya: > I have just had a thought. Dumbledore always seems to know what is going on at Hogwarts, could he therefore know (or have seen) Harry and Hermione in 2 separate locations at the same time? Then he must surely know they had gone back in time, and this would probably lead him to thinking it was he who sent them back, owing > to how seriously Hermione took not breaking rules. > I will also mention (carefully, as it's not mentioned in the books but we can speculate!) that it may be possible that some of the gadgets in Dumbledore's office, keep track of all things at Hogwarts, students included, or indeed that he may have a Marauder's > Map himself. June: Good thought Taya, it makes so much sense and I bet you are correct. Dumbledore too being Dumbledore would have caught on right away too when he saw two Harrys and Hermiones and not been the least bit surprised lol. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 4 19:14:00 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <8CDD43B09619A12-1B40-BD45@web-mmc-d01.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <340410.7060.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190374 Geoff: > I worked for 32 years in a school in South-West London, dealing initially with boys in the 11-15 range and latterly in a mixed environment with students of 13-18 and that is how I would interpret your suggestion from my experience of being bi-lingual, speaking > both UK English and School Playground English. > > Going back to the original quote in GoF which June supplied, it > was: > >> '(Hermione speaking) "Mum and Dad won't be too pleased. I've been >> trying to persuade them to let me shrink them for ages, but they >> wanted me to carry on with my brace."' > Lynda: > Your point is well taken, Geoff and I would agree under most circumstances. I do have one niggling question, though. Wouldn't Hermione have mentioned that she wore a brace or the presence of a brace on her teeth have been mentioned during the books if she was wearing one? I don't think buck teeth like Hermione's would have used merely a retainer she wore at night. So the presence of a brace on her teeth would have been noticeable and should have been mentioned. Rowling is not that poor a writer that she would leave > out that detail! June: As someone who had the exact teeth that Hermione has been described as having I can tell you that to straighten them takes more than just throwing some steel on your teeth. I started the process of my brace when I was 14 and didn't actually have braces on my teeth until I was 15. First they have to take impressions of your teeth then there are dental and orthadontal visits galore. In my case as is in most cases they had to remove 4 teeth to make room. Also she is in her fourth year so she is the same age I was when it all started so it is likely that she is just going through the first stages in which there is no brace yet but that would be the final outcome. They don't like to put braces on too early either so it isn't likely that at 11 and 12 she would have them yet so it makes sense that at that age nothing was said in the books. It is also possible that someone had actually asked J.K. Rowling about Hermione's teeth and she decided she had better say some thing about them to show that her parents who are dentists aren't just letting her run around with buck teeth her whole life. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 4 19:24:49 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <8CDD4BEF0C31B80-2290-4AE7@web-mmc-d02.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <666343.86866.qm@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Geoff: > I had friends at school who wore braces or starting wearing glasses but you didn't make a point of talking extensively about this. These > are not unique occurrences. > Lynda: > Glasses and braces were always talked about in my schools when I was a kid. Both by those of us who wore them and others. That's why the lack of such conversation makes me think she hadn't started with them yet. It's not unique, but glasses and braces are so common but usually mentioned. We all know Harry wears glasses, for instance, although they're common among students, surely. And that Ron has red hair and is freckled. We know that Hermione has thick unmanageable hair, etc. It just seems that braces would be in the same category. > But that's just my friends and I. June: I agree that had Hermione had braces from the very beginning they probably would have been part of her description, however as she was only 11 in the first book it is not likely that she had braces yet.?In fact that scene when she tells Harry and Ron that her parents wanted her to continue with her brace was likely there to tell you that her parents were in fact doing something about her teeth so it is incorrect to say that they were kept from us. As for talking about them all the time,?sorry to tell you but I had braces all through high school and I had friends who had glasses but we had much better things to do than to talk about them. Anyone who has braces would rather pretend they don't exsist. They are painful and draw attention that you do not want so no, they are not something that comes up as a topic in conversation.? From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 4 19:30:31 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Time travel/ was:Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16 In-Reply-To: <4DBB2897.1050702@comcast.net> Message-ID: <668518.72007.qm@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190376 > Shelley wrote: >> Dumbledore suggests the TimeTurner only AFTER Buckbeak was executed. > zanooda: > I disagree :-). DD *knew* that Buckbeak managed to escape and he guessed how. > Shelley: > But how do you "know" that either? It's a conjecture, a presumption on your part. > > That facts are that both Buckbeak and Sirius were scheduled for execution. The logical path is to assume that all went as scheduled, and that they were executed as scheduled, thus prompting the NEED TO CHANGE IT, which is exactly what a Time Turner gives a person a 2nd > chance to do. > > I find it hard to believe, as you suggest, that Dumbledore guesses that he will have, in a future time, allowed Hermione the use of the Time-Turner, and thus he alone knew, as it was happening, that there were two Grangers, two Potters and two Weasleys present that he > needed to stall for with a cup of tea at Hagrids. June: I agree with Shelley. It is logical that with Buckbeak set for execution, Dumbledore did know at the time what he was going to do in the future and kept them from looking out the window. What confuses me though is was the American version so different that all three of them went back in time? In the version I have Ron is in the hospital wing, but this is the second time someone has said all three of them went back in time. I think we should all trade books, it will be like reading new books for all of then lol. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 4 19:49:53 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: teachers' personal lives / ''Madam'' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <395595.70882.qm@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Carol responds: > And yet Madame Maxime, the French witch who's headmistress of Beauxbatons, isn't married. It seems that both "Madam" and "Madame" function as titles of respect that a professional woman (or even a glorified seamstress like Madam Malkin or a pub owner like Madam Rosmerta, who combines "Madam" with her first name) can choose to use. It seems to function something like "Ms.", allowing a woman to hide her marital status, except that it adds a hint of increased social status as well. OTOH, happy housewives like Molly Weasley are addressed as "Mrs." (with no indication that the term is derogatory) and young, unmarried girls are addressed as "Miss" by their teachers, just as the boys are addressed as "Mr." (I think it would have been "Master" in Victorian England and maybe even into the 1950s, at least for Muggles, but the Wizards seem to have a slightly different > terminology. > > Most likely, JKR didn't think it out. She may have started with the nicely alliterative "Madam Malkin" and gone from there. In any case, the use of "Madam" extends beyond Hogwarts into the British WW in > general. June: I looked up the meaning for Madame: Madam, or madame, is a polite title used for women which, in English, is the equivalent of Mrs. or Ms., and is often found abbreviated as ma'am?, and less frequently as ???ma???m???. It is derived from the French madame, which means "my lady"?, the feminine form of lord; the plural of ma dame in this sense is mes dames. The French is in turn derived from the Latin mea domina, meaning "my mistress (of the house)".[1] "Madam" may also refer to a woman who owns or runs a brothel,[2][3] though the abbreviated form "ma'am" is not used in this respect. Of course we will presume that the latter holds no meanings in the WW lol. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 4 19:55:46 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Time travel/ was:Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16 In-Reply-To: <4DBC5013.5070906@comcast.net> Message-ID: <955372.40667.qm@web113918.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190378 > Shelley: >> how after the fact of no executions, Dumbledore commanded Hermione to use her TimeTurner to save those two lives. > zanooda: > What do you mean by "after the fact of no executions"? DD sent H&H back in time not *after*, but *before* - ten or fifteen minutes *before* Sirius was supposed to be executed. > Shelley: If Buckbeak had not been executed, (because he was saved by H&H), and the execution of Sirius was still 10 or 15 minutes off, is not that then "no executions"? At that point in time that Dumbledore is speaking to Hermione, by your theory, that statement is true- a > future execution hasn't happened yet. June: Absolutely, someone finally says what I've been trying (but unable to figure the best way) to say. Just for the record though, everyone has been saying that Sirius was scheduled to be executed, that is not so. In fact if I am correct I believe the executioner had left by the time they caught Sirius. Fudge had sent for the Dementors who were supposed to use the Dementors' kiss on Sirius. That is that they were going to suck out his soul and he would be soulless but still alive. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 4 23:06:36 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 23:06:36 -0000 Subject: Portraits & Photographs - A Theory. In-Reply-To: <921717.93450.qm@web46201.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Happy Smiley wrote: ... > > Hello, > > > ... > > > Portraits: > > > Fat Lady, ... and all other Hogwarts headmasters are quite > aware of what's happening around and live just via > portraits. > > > So, why didn't Harry ever consider getting a portrait of his > parents or even Sirius? ... > Steve: Obviously I can't answer with any authority, but I do have some theories. First, portraits don't just randomly happen. When Dumdledore's portrait, upon his death, appeared in the Headmaster's office, it is because the portrait was prepared in advance WHILE Dumbledore was still alive. So aspects of his living self has been transferred to the portrait. I believe there was some vague assertion in the past that part of the enchantment to give life to a portrait required some of the living tissue of the portrait subject. Say...a drop of blood, as an example. The central point being, that you can't make a living portrait for a person long dead, or for that matter, even relatively recently dead person. I speculate that a person immediately dead could potentially be cast into a living portrait, but I see that as an extremely slim possibility. > Happy Smile continues: > > Photographs: > > > CoS: Harry is trying to move out of the frame in Lockhart's photograph > > OoTP: Percy walks out of Mr Weasley's family photograph at > his office > > DH: DD looks dolefully at Harry and Hemione from his photograph > in the Life and Lies of DD book > > > Flitting in and out of a photograph is one but reflecting current > emotions of the real-life counter part is another. Does this mean > that photographs capture more than the picture and are "connected" > to the real-life counterparts? > > Steve: Here is my theory on this, stated long ago in a similar discussion. Photograph characters have all the depth of a person in a TV commercial; highly characterized but extremely shallow. We see characters express exaggerated emotions, the stupid husband, for example, is supremely stupid, the airhead housewife is an airhead in the extreme, the cool kids are cool in the extreme. Again, they do give a good impression and do get the meaning of the TV commercial across, but they really have no depth. They are all surface affectations. However, characters in the Living Portrait have roughly the depth of a character in a movie. If you see a movie about the life of, say, Mark Twain, the movie can portray an extremely convincing sense of the real person. But once again, that doesn't run very deep. The actor only knows history and the script, and perhaps the life's work of the character, but if you probe beyond the script, the actor really has nothing. So, while the portrayal in a movie can be very extremely convincing, it simply can't hold up to the test of true knowledge. It is not the character, but a portrayal of the character, at times running to a mere caricature of the person. The living portrait characters play their roll extremely well, but in the end, they are after all only playing a roll. Enchanted Photograph characters are like characters in the TV commercial, they start boarding on being almost cartoonish. Living Portrait characters are more sophisticated, they are like actors in a play or movie, they create the illusion of the character very well, but they are limited. They can only know and do what is in the "script". Beyond the superficial and obvious, JKR has said you can't probe a portrait at depth. You can't really get deep meaningful information or advice from them. If you go too deep, the illusion breaks down. But, as always, that is merely one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu May 5 05:19:18 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 23:19:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time travel/ was:Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16 In-Reply-To: <668518.72007.qm@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <668518.72007.qm@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4DC23356.8010608@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 190380 > June: > I agree with Shelley. It is logical that with Buckbeak set for > execution, Dumbledore did know at the time what he was going to do > in the future and kept them from looking out the window. What > confuses me though is was the American version so different that > all three of them went back in time? In the version I have Ron is > in the hospital wing, but this is the second time someone has said > all three of them went back in time. I think we should all trade > books, it will be like reading new books for all of then lol. Shelley: My mistake was pointed out and corrected in another post. Quoting it now, in case you missed it: >> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shelley Gardner wrote: >> >> Shelley: >>> I find it hard to believe, as you suggest, that Dumbledore guesses that >>> he will have, in a future time, allowed Hermione the use of the >>> Time-Turner, and thus he alone knew, as it was happening, that there >>> were two Grangers, two Potters and two Weasleys present that he needed >>> to stall for with a cup of tea at Hagrids. >> Geoff: >> I hope you will forgive my being pedantic - and a pain in the backside for >> being so - but the Dramatis Personae for this scene were two Grangers, >> two Potters and ONE Weasley. > Oh sorry, you are totally right! Ron was back at the hospital wing..... > > Shelley From lynde at post.com Thu May 5 07:11:13 2011 From: lynde at post.com (lynde at post.com) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 03:11:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <666343.86866.qm@web113915.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8CDD90AC0F01092-D6C-4C88@web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190381 June: I agree that had Hermione had braces from the very beginning they probably would have been part of her description, however as she was only 11 in the first book it is not likely that she had braces yet.In fact that scene when she tells Harry and Ron that her parents wanted her to continue with her brace was likely there to tell you that her parents were in fact doing something about her teeth so it is incorrect to say that they were kept from us. As for talking about them all the time,sorry to tell you but I had braces all through high school and I had friends who had glasses but we had much better things to do than to talk about them. Anyone who has braces would rather pretend they don't exsist. They are painful and draw attention that you do not want so no, they are not something that comes up as a topic in conversation. Lynda: I didn't talk about my glasses extensively when I was in school, and my friends who wore glasses or braces didn't talk about them either. I've worn glasses since I was 2 years old. They're pretty much a part of me. What I was referring to by saying they would be talked about is that we were teased about our glasses and/or braces by other kids. Even today I hear kids on the playground teasing other kids about their braces or glasses. I've even had to retrieve brace (leg) for one of the kids in a class I was in when I had yard duty once. He'd put it back in his backpack to keep us from putting it back on him when he got ready to go home and then taken the backpack out with him at lunch because his lunch was in the backpack too, Back on track, my thought was that had Hermione been wearing a brace, Malfoy would have more than likely remarked on it as a part of his goading of her. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Thu May 5 13:22:22 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 13:22:22 -0000 Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <8CDD90AC0F01092-D6C-4C88@web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, lynde at ... wrote: Lynda: > I didn't talk about my glasses extensively when I was in school, and my friends who wore glasses or braces didn't talk about them either. I've worn glasses since I was 2 years old. They're pretty much a part of me. What I was referring to by saying they would be talked about is that we were teased about our glasses and/or braces by other kids. Even today I hear kids on the playground teasing other kids about their braces or glasses. I've even had to retrieve brace (leg) for one of the kids in a class I was in when I had yard duty once. He'd put it back in his backpack to keep us from putting it back on him when he got ready to go home and then taken the backpack out with him at lunch because his lunch was in the backpack too, Back on track, my thought was that had Hermione been wearing a brace, Malfoy would have more than likely remarked on it as a part of his goading of her. Geoff: I tend to think that Draco made Harry his primary target for goading and Hermione usually got drawn into it from the periphery so that anything directed towards her was usually some sort of spinoff as a result so that braces were not the main concern. Geoff (writing from a sunny Toronto on his first visit to the west side of the pond. From craigdoakley at yahoo.com Fri May 6 01:43:41 2011 From: craigdoakley at yahoo.com (craigdoakley) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 01:43:41 -0000 Subject: deathday Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190383 I find it interesting that Voldemort now shares a deathday with another arch-villain: given that the raid on Abbottabad was (just after midnight) on the morning of Monday May 2nd (Pakistani time), the death of Osama bin Laden was exactly 13 years after the death of Voldemort. Irrelevant, but amusing. Craig From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri May 6 14:34:16 2011 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 14:34:16 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: Professor Trelawney's prediction In-Reply-To: <465789.6385.qm@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190384 > June: > Dumbledore would have known what really happened (in their time line) > as it was in the past so he likely knew that it was unlikely that > Hagrid would have let Buckbeak go or to have been careless with > tying him up (remember Hagrid was afraid of the consequences if he > let Buckbeak go) and it was obvious to everyone that knew Sirius was > in the castle that he was going to get the Dememtor's kiss, so > Dumbledore would have realized that at some point things had been > changed and he would have known the only possible way that could have > happened. That is why he sent Hermione and Harry because he knew for > Buckbeak to be alive and Sirius to not be kissed that, they were the > ones who had to have done it in the past (confusing lol). One thing > though that really baffles me is, if they went in the past and Harry > saved himself, it is logical that at some point he would have > received the Dementor's kiss because there could not have been a > first instance when he was there to save himself because he didn't go > back in time yet, so how did he go back in time in the first place? > Carol responds: If Harry had received the Dementor's kiss, he would have lost his soul and there would be no undoing it. He couldn't possibly go back in time *after* he had lost his soul any more than he could have done so if he had been killed. Harry was saved by his future self. If that future self had not returned in the one and only time line, Harry's story would have ended there. And, of course, Buckbeak would have been beheaded and Sirius would also have lost his soul. The only problem I have is what Dumbledore saw and knew. I haven't read the chapter recently and don't have time to go back now, so I don't recall whether any of the Harrys and Hermiones and the one Ron were under the Invisibility Cloak. However, we do know that DD, unlike everyone else, can see under Invisibility Cloaks. If DD saw HRH in one place and HH in another, both under Invisibility Cloaks, he would have figured out that they went back in time and suggested the idea to Hermione to initiate what had, in fact, already happened. Mind-boggling, yes, but logic does not demand that Buckbeak was killed and even less so that Harry was soul-sucked. Both types of Time Travel (one timeline or two) can be defended logically, but for this story, JKR almost certainly intends that Time-Traveling Harry and Hermione were there all along and came back to *prevent* "more than one innocent life" from being lost, exactly as DD says. Carol, noting that TMTMNBN shows TT/Hermione throwing rocks that Hermione sees and feels, showing that TT/Hermione was there all along From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat May 7 00:49:43 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 00:49:43 -0000 Subject: deathday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "craigdoakley" wrote: Craig: > I find it interesting that Voldemort now shares a deathday with > another arch-villain: given that the raid on Abbottabad was (just > after midnight) on the morning of Monday May 2nd (Pakistani time), > the death of Osama bin Laden was exactly 13 years after the death > of Voldemort. > > Irrelevant, but amusing. Geoff: Being away from home in Toronto and not having my books with me, where are we told that date for Voldemort's death? I don't reca ll seeing it. From lynde at post.com Sat May 7 05:42:39 2011 From: lynde at post.com (lynde at post.com) Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 01:42:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8CDDA90B5BFE347-12AC-8B75@web-mmc-m02.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190386 Geoff: I tend to think that Draco made Harry his primary target for goading and Hermione usually got drawn into it from the periphery so that anything directed towards her was usually some sort of spinoff as a result so that braces were not the main concern. Geoff (writing from a sunny Toronto on his first visit to the west side of the pond. ----------------------------------- Lynda: That's possible. Hope you're enjoying your first trip over all though Toronto is a ways from where I am. We're bright and sunny and in the 90's (fareneit) already. The cooler is on, the fan is blowing, and the allergens are still hanging in the air which means I get to sleep on the couch again tonight because the ones I'm most allergic to bloom under my bedroom window. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 8 16:56:59 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 8 May 2011 16:56:59 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/8/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1304873819.15.17046.m8@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190387 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 8, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun May 8 18:49:53 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 18:49:53 -0000 Subject: deathday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > Being away from home in Toronto and not having my books with me, > where are we told that date for Voldemort's death? zanooda: Geoff, it was not in the book, but in some JKR's interview :-). Or, iirc, in that documentary "A Year in the Life". She said that the Battle of Hogwarts happened on May 2 :-). From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 9 15:44:38 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <354268.98601.qm@web113908.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190389 Lynde: > I am curious at different posters views of Hermione's dental issues--buck teeth, crooked teeth, crowded mouth...I only remember her teeth being mentioned twice (there are probably more times) One > is when Harry first meets her .... > Geoff: > The PS reference is as follows: > 'She had a bossy sort of voice, lots of bushy brown hair and > rather large front teeth.' > (PS "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three-quarters" p.79UK > edition) June: The description Geoff gave is exact and people tend to think when they hear large front teeth, buck and crooked etc. That is because when your teeth are sticking out (buck or over bite) it is because they don't have the room to be in your mouth properly and they appear to be large. If you look at pictures of me when I was Hermione's age and younger, I look like a close relation of Bugs Bunny lol. Now that my teeth have been fixed they don't look big any more. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 9 15:55:18 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 08:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Time Travel, the Stall, and the All Knowing Mind? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <39802.85241.qm@web113913.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190390 Steve: I doubt that Dumbledore has any way of seeing into the future. He doesn't seem to hold Divination in very high regard. But we do know from example, that Dumbledore has a very strong intuitive sense. He picks up on details that fly right over the heads of others. ...he may have sensed Harry and Hermione near by. As time goes on, he may have been putting the pieces of the puzzle, as he knew it, together. By the time, the time came to send Harry and Hermione back, it may have seemed like the natural and logical thing to do. >From Harry's perspective, Dumbledore's action certainly seem like he was creating a distraction and delay, but the fact is, the executioner DOES have to sign the documents. June: I do agree that Dumbledore cannot see into the future and I don't think anyone said he did (although I may have missed that). I believed the first time I read the book that he was stalling and later when he sent Hermione and Harry back in time I thought to myself "Aw, this is why he was stalling". Dumbledore could not see into the future, true, but he could plan into the future. If I was in his place I would have done the same thing. He knew he had a student he could trust who was able to travel back in time so I believe he had planned the minute he knew they were going to execute Buckbeak, to send Hermione, Harry (and probably Ron too) back in time to save Buckbeak and when he knew they were bringing the Dementors to deliver the kiss to Sirius he added saving Sirius to the mix. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 9 16:07:31 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <4DBDF602.8060207@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <867322.77932.qm@web113919.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190391 > Geoff: > Going back to the original quote in GoF which June supplied, it > was: > >>> '(Hermione speaking) "Mum and Dad won't be too pleased. I've been trying to persuade them to let me shrink them for ages, but they wanted me to carry on with my brace."' > (GOF "The Yule Ball" p.353 UK edition) > Bart: > Has anybody pointed out that in the U.S. edition, the term > "braces" is used? June: I may have missed it but I do not think anyone did point that out. I myself am in Canada so I get the same version as England. I caught on right away that brace and braces is the same thing. In Canada we also say braces but if I remember right my English grandmother referred to my braces as a brace. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 9 16:25:14 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: - More Time Travel Justification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <830818.37604.qm@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190392 > June: > If it never happened in any timeline, what was the point of sending > them back? ... > Steve: > You are missing the preventative aspect of it. Something doesn't have to happen, only so you can go back and undo it. If you know an action is imminent, then you can act to circumvent it, and thereby prevent it from happening. It is a preventative measure. > And, from Dumbledore's perspective, if he knows Buckbeak escaped, he now has more of an incentive to facilitate that escape. Especially when that escape can be twisted so as to help Sirius also escape. > ?What if Buckbeak wandered off? Regardless of why Buckbeak escaped the first time, sending Harry and Hermione back in time can use that escape to their advantage. > If some one facilitated Buckbeak's escape, the Harry and Hermione can find them and get Buckbeak back. If no one helped Buckbeak escape, then Harry and Hermione themselves can facilitate the escape. June: Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are talking about is the conclusion by Dumbledore that there is?a reason that something has not gone wrong, ie Buckbeak has disappeared, everyone thinks he got away but Dumbledore is not convinced and thinks he may have sent Hermione back in time to fix it. That makes sense except for one thing. If Buckbeak did get away on his own Harry and Hermione would have seen him get away when they went back in time and wouldn't have to do anything. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 9 16:44:52 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <8CDD90AC0F01092-D6C-4C88@web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <14959.97874.qm@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Lynda: > I didn't talk about my glasses extensively when I was in school, > and my friends who wore glasses or braces didn't talk about them > much a part of me. What I was referring to by saying they would > be talked about is that we were teased about our glasses and/or > braces by other kids. Even today I hear kids on the playground > teasing other kids about their braces or glasses. Back on > track, my thought was that had Hermione been wearing a brace, > Malfoy would have more than likely remarked on it as a part of > his goading of her. June: Then you have a point except for one thing. The new braces blend in with the teeth and you can't see them, in face I had a friend who wears them and I didn't know she had them until she said some thing about them one day.? You can get the old braces still and they are cheaper than the white ones but I would guess that being dentists, Hermione's parents would have gotten her the white ones. And of course as I have said before, it also depends how far she was into getting the braces. If she was in the beginning stages then it is likely that she didn't even have them on yet. > Geoff: > I tend to think that Draco made Harry his primary target for > goading and Hermione usually got drawn into it from the periphery > so that anything directed towards her was usually some sort of > spinoff as a result so that braces were not the main concern. > > Geoff > (writing from a sunny Toronto on his first visit to the west > side of the pond. June You have a very good point there, Geoff. (Welcome to Toronto, how are you liking it here?) From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 9 16:14:22 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ''Madam'' / Re: Chapt Disc: PoA Ch 16: -Cost of Time Travel- In-Reply-To: <4DBEA46E.6000809@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <209777.46923.qm@web113901.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190394 > Ken: > This may be more familiar to American readers in its commonly > shortened form of Maam. It really is very common in Britain. > Geoff: > Interestingly, I believe that where people have to meet the > Queen, they are told that, for the first time they speak top > her, they call her "Your Majesty" but, after that, they use > "Ma'am". June: The funny thing is, if you want to call me Madame I have no problem with it, however call me Ma'am and I cringe. I swear Ma'am sounds like old bat, lol. > Bart: > I had to catch up with a few days worth of email, so I didn't > answer this the first time because I was sure that someone else > would have > > 24 hours = one day > 72 hours = 3 days. > 720 hours = 30 days. > > Where did you get 2 years? June: Hermione is really going to regret that year when she realizes she is getting grey hair and wrinkles 30 days early, lol. From margdean56 at gmail.com Tue May 10 03:18:56 2011 From: margdean56 at gmail.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 21:18:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <14959.97874.qm@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <8CDD90AC0F01092-D6C-4C88@web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com> <14959.97874.qm@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190395 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:44 AM, June Ewing wrote: > > > > > Lynda: > > I didn't talk about my glasses extensively when I was in school, > > and my friends who wore glasses or braces didn't talk about them > > much a part of me. What I was referring to by saying they would > > be talked about is that we were teased about our glasses and/or > > braces by other kids. Even today I hear kids on the playground > > teasing other kids about their braces or glasses. Back on > > track, my thought was that had Hermione been wearing a brace, > > Malfoy would have more than likely remarked on it as a part of > > his goading of her. > > June: > Then you have a point except for one thing. The new braces blend > in with the teeth and you can't see them, in face I had a friend > who wears them and I didn't know she had them until she said some > thing about them one day.? You can get the old braces still and > they are cheaper than the white ones but I would guess that being > dentists, Hermione's parents would have gotten her the white ones. > And of course as I have said before, it also depends how far she > was into getting the braces. If she was in the beginning stages > then it is likely that she didn't even have them on yet. Just as a matter of curiosity, when did the "invisible"/white braces come in? Given that the books are set in the 1990s. --Margaret Dean From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 10 06:15:13 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 06:15:13 -0000 Subject: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: - More Time Travel Justification In-Reply-To: <830818.37604.qm@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190396 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > ... > > > Steve: > > You are missing the preventative aspect of it. Something doesn't > have to happen, only so you can go back and undo it. If you know an > action is imminent, then you can act to circumvent it,... > > > > June: > Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are talking about is the > conclusion by Dumbledore that there is??a reason that something > has not gone wrong, ie Buckbeak has disappeared, everyone thinks > he got away but Dumbledore is not convinced and thinks he may have > sent Hermione back in time to fix it. That makes sense except for > one thing. If Buckbeak did get away on his own Harry and Hermione > would have seen him get away when they went back in time and > wouldn't have to do anything. > Steve: Not quite. Buckbeak getting away doesn't solve all the problems. Buckbeak is relatively tame as Hypogriphs go. He also seem somewhat bonded to Hagrid. So, Buckbeak could come wandering back, or be found grazing nearby, and be in danger again. However, Buckbeak being free and not dead, eventually gives Dumbledore the idea to use Buckbeak. Now, he doesn't necessarily know, that TT!Harry and TT!Hermione help Buckbeak escape, but the odds of Buckbeak escaping are much higher if TT!H/H are there. And the odds of Buckbeak escaping in a way that is helpful to the current situation are even higher. True if literally nothing happens, then nothing needs to be fixed. I'll agree with that. But in this situation, it is pretty hard to say nothing is happening. In the beginning Buckbeak's death is eminent, virtually guaranteed; by the end Sirius is in grave danger, and Peter has escaped. That is far from nothing. Things are about to happen, and these are all things that can be changed or aided with preventative action. So things are about to happen or are happening that can be changed to their advantage. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 10 06:24:41 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (bboyminn) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 06:24:41 -0000 Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190397 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Dean wrote: .. > > Just as a matter of curiosity, when did the "invisible"/white braces > come in? Given that the books are set in the 1990s. > > > --Margaret Dean > > Steve: Slightly off topic, but Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy) had these type of white braces for years. You don't see it in the movies, but if you look careful, you can see it in interviews. So, they are quite common, but I think they take much more time to make the correction than the typical old fashioned 'head gear' type braces. Steve/bboyminn From bart at moosewise.com Tue May 10 14:21:27 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:21:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: References: <8CDD90AC0F01092-D6C-4C88@web-mmc-m05.sysops.aol.com> <14959.97874.qm@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4DC949E7.7080309@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190398 Margaret Dean: > > Just as a matter of curiosity, when did the "invisible"/white braces > come in? Given that the books are set in the 1990s. Bart: I'm not sure when the invisible braces came in, but behind the teeth and overnight-only braces were certainly around back then; I recall seeing the overnight-only braces being used as a plot point in an early 1970's sitcom. Since it wasn't mentioned, I believe that Hermoine did not actually have the braces on when her teeth were fixed (the growth would have broken pretty much any braces), so I suspect she was wearing overnight-only braces. Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 11 19:46:01 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: - More Time Travel Justification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <939860.85247.qm@web113907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190399 > Steve: > Not quite. Buckbeak getting away doesn't solve all the problems. Buckbeak is relatively tame as Hypogriphs go. He also seem somewhat bonded to Hagrid. So, Buckbeak could come wandering back, or be found grazing nearby, and be in danger again. However, Buckbeak being free and not dead, eventually gives Dumbledore the idea to use Buckbeak. > Now, he doesn't necessarily know, that TT!Harry and TT!Hermione help Buckbeak escape, but the odds of Buckbeak escaping are much higher if TT!H/H are there. And the odds of Buckbeak escaping in a way that is helpful to the current situation are even higher. > True if literally nothing happens, then nothing needs to be fixed. I'll agree with that. But in this situation, it is pretty hard to say nothing is happening. In the beginning Buckbeak's death is eminent, virtually guaranteed; by the end Sirius is in grave danger, and Peter has escaped. That is > far from nothing. June: My point is that something did happen because they did end up having to save Buckbeak. You have a very good point that if Buckbeak had gotten free on his own (which he did not), he would most likely have come running back to Hagrid, but that obviously was not the case. Also as we saw in the original time line (or at least what we perceive as the original time line) Buckbeak was in fact tied up in the pumpkin patch waiting his execution and as we saw when Harry and Hermione went back in time, there was no time between past Harry, Hermione and Ron leaving and future Harry and Hermione going in to rescue Buckbeak for Buckbeak to have broken his rope and escape. However that being said, if for even an instance Dumbledore had thought that was what happened it is likely he would still send them back to free him to take him to Sirius. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed May 11 20:11:07 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 13:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Teeth, braces, and the English Language or variations thereof. In-Reply-To: <4DC949E7.7080309@moosewise.com> Message-ID: <190677.58353.qm@web113908.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190400 > Margaret Dean: > Just as a matter of curiosity, when did the "invisible"/white > braces come in? Given that the books are set in the 1990s. > Bart: > I'm not sure when the invisible braces came in, but behind the teeth and overnight-only braces were certainly around back then; I recall seeing the overnight-only braces being used as a plot point in an early 1970's sitcom. Since it wasn't mentioned, I believe that Hermione did not actually have the braces on when her teeth were fixed (the growth would have broken pretty much > any braces), so I suspect she was wearing overnight-only braces. June: I did some research and actually invisible braces and white braces are two different animals. The invisible braces (Invisalign) are a piece of plastic that you put in your mouth at night (much like the plastic that comes with some tooth whitening kits). They were first used in the year 2000 and are meant for people who need minor straightening and would not have worked for Hermione any way. You can actually see the white braces but not as well as those horrible silver braces. What we are actually thinking about when we say invisible braces is clear braces which you cannot see on the teeth and they came in to existence in the 1980's so it is possible that she had these or were preparing to have them. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 15 16:56:34 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 15 May 2011 16:56:34 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/15/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1305478594.21.31187.m4@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190401 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 15, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue May 17 01:15:56 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 01:15:56 -0000 Subject: Chapt Disc: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 16: - More Time Travel Justification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190402 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > > > ... > > > > > Steve: > > > You are missing the preventative aspect of it. Something doesn't > > have to happen, only so you can go back and undo it. If you know an > > action is imminent, then you can act to circumvent it,... > > > > > > > > June: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are talking about is the > > conclusion by Dumbledore that there is??a reason that something > > has not gone wrong, ie Buckbeak has disappeared, everyone thinks > > he got away but Dumbledore is not convinced and thinks he may have > > sent Hermione back in time to fix it. That makes sense except for > > one thing. If Buckbeak did get away on his own Harry and Hermione > > would have seen him get away when they went back in time and > > wouldn't have to do anything. > > > > Steve: > > Not quite. Buckbeak getting away doesn't solve all the problems. Buckbeak is relatively tame as Hypogriphs go. He also seem somewhat bonded to Hagrid. So, Buckbeak could come wandering back, or be found grazing nearby, and be in danger again. However, Buckbeak being free and not dead, eventually gives Dumbledore the idea to use Buckbeak. > > Now, he doesn't necessarily know, that TT!Harry and TT!Hermione help Buckbeak escape, but the odds of Buckbeak escaping are much higher if TT!H/H are there. And the odds of Buckbeak escaping in a way that is helpful to the current situation are even higher. > > True if literally nothing happens, then nothing needs to be fixed. I'll agree with that. > > But in this situation, it is pretty hard to say nothing is happening. In the beginning Buckbeak's death is eminent, virtually guaranteed; by the end Sirius is in grave danger, and Peter has escaped. That is far from nothing. > > Things are about to happen, and these are all things that can be changed or aided with preventative action. > > So things are about to happen or are happening that can be changed to their advantage. > > Steve/bboyminn Nikkalmati DD knows that Buckbeak was firmly tied when he and Fudge and McNair arrived and that Hagrid did not have the gumption to go against the Ministry and release him - besided Hagrid was in view all the time. He only had to work out what may have happened to Buckbeak to know what he had to do. After all he had plenty of time to question Hagrid over tea and maybe he checked on the trio's movements and found they went back to the castle. There was a lot of activity around that night. I wonder why DD didn't run into Lupin or Snape when he left Hagrid's. Do you think Fudge and McNair joined them for tea? Probably not, so where did they go? They seemed to be right at hand when Snape came back with Sirius and Harry. BTW why did Umbridge have a Patronus? I thought only Order members could perform that spell and that DD had taught it to them. Can you think of any other non-Order member who has one (other than the students in the DA). Nikkalmati > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 17 06:27:20 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:27:20 -0000 Subject: Chapt Disc: P of A Ch 16: - More Time Travel - Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: ,,, > > Nikkalmati > > ... > > BTW why did Umbridge have a Patronus? I thought only Order members could perform that spell and that DD had taught it to them. Can you think of any other non-Order member who has one (other than the students in the DA). > > Nikkalmati > > > Steve: Actually a Patronus is a common spell, many adult wizards can do it. What is unique to the Order of the Phoenix is the Messenger Patronus. The ability to use a Patronus to send messages to each other. That is a special enhancement of the spell that is unknown to most people. Steve/bboyminn From blackcatnocturne at yahoo.com Tue May 17 05:46:53 2011 From: blackcatnocturne at yahoo.com (likesblackcats) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 05:46:53 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190404 Nikkalmati: > BTW why did Umbridge have a Patronus? I thought only Order members could perform that spell and that DD had taught it to them. Can you think of any other non-Order member who has one (other than the students in the DA). > likesblackcats: The Patronus charm is NOT just an Order thing. It's a very difficult charm, but it is quite well-known. Reference Harry's DADA examiner who asked him to perform the Patronus Charm for a bonus point in the practical portion of his exam (OOTP). However, I think the Order may be the only ones who know how to make a Patronus SPEAK. likesblackcats (who cannot for the life of her remember if her last point in this message is based on canon or fanon). From cheri0427 at yahoo.com Tue May 17 16:19:50 2011 From: cheri0427 at yahoo.com (Cheryl) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 16:19:50 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190405 > Nikkalmati: > > BTW why did Umbridge have a Patronus? I thought only Order members could perform that spell and that DD had taught it to them. Can you think of any other non-Order member who has one (other than the students in the DA). > likesblackcats: > The Patronus charm is NOT just an Order thing. It's a very difficult charm, but it is quite well-known. Reference Harry's DADA examiner who asked him to perform the Patronus Charm for a bonus point in the practical portion of his exam (OOTP). > > However, I think the Order may be the only ones who know how to make a Patronus SPEAK. > Cheryl: According to Remus Lupin, in Prisoner of Azkaban, the Patronus charm is considered to be "well beyond OWL (Ordinary Wizarding Level) Defense Against the Dark Arts Training. So my guess it is only taught to students studying for their Newt in DADA. So I'd guess that all Aurors would have one and any one that was interested/studied the Dark Arts or the Defense Against the Dark Arts. Since Harry was able to learn it, he was able to teach it to the Dumbledore Army members. Here's a link to all things Patronus, plus it lists all the cannon patronuses for HP characters. http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Patronus_Charm And here are two great quiz on finding your patronus http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests/the-what-is-your-patronus-test-1 http://quizilla.teennick.com/quizzes/979765/what-is-your-patronus-versio\ n-1 From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Tue May 17 18:17:53 2011 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:17:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Patronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <244932.97852.qm@web161310.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190406 > Nikkalmati: > BTW why did Umbridge have a Patronus? I thought only Order members could perform that spell and that DD had taught it to them. Can you think of any other non-Order member who has one (other than the > students in the DA). dragonkeeper: It doesn't seem like the Order is the only ones who perform the Patronus, it seems like they are the ones who practice it more than others. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed May 18 15:45:31 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:45:31 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190407 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl" wrote: > > > Nikkalmati: > > > BTW why did Umbridge have a Patronus? I thought only Order members > could perform that spell and that DD had taught it to them. Can you > think of any other non-Order member who has one (other than the > students in the DA). > > > likesblackcats: > > The Patronus charm is NOT just an Order thing. It's a very difficult > charm, but it is quite well-known. Reference Harry's DADA examiner who > asked him to perform the Patronus Charm for a bonus point in the > practical portion of his exam (OOTP). > > > > However, I think the Order may be the only ones who know how to make a Patronus SPEAK. > > > > > Cheryl: > According to Remus Lupin, in Prisoner of Azkaban, the Patronus charm is > considered to be "well beyond OWL (Ordinary Wizarding Level) Defense > Against the Dark Arts Training. So my guess it is only taught to > students studying for their Newt in DADA. So I'd guess that all > Aurors would have one and any one that was interested/studied the Dark > Arts or the Defense Against the Dark Arts. Since Harry was able to learn > it, he was able to teach it to the Dumbledore Army members. > > > Here's a link to all things Patronus, plus it lists all the cannon > patronuses for HP characters. > >snip> Nikkalmati Interesting comments. I see that the speaking Patronus being DD's invention is not confirmed, but a reasonable assumption. Lupin does not teach Harry to make a speaking Patronus. Does that mean Harry cannot make one? My thought always was that Harry felt safe following the silent doe in the Forest of Dean, because he believed it must have been made by an Order member. I will have to revise that thinking. Of course, Harry had seen Umbridge's Patronus by that time. Could Umbridge have been in the original Order? She was never confirmed as a Death Eaather (just a fellow traveler). It is strange that both Umbridge and Prof. McGonagal have the same Patronus. Nikkalmati From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed May 18 17:16:56 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:16:56 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: ... > > Nikkalmati > > ... Lupin does not teach Harry to make a speaking Patronus. > Does that mean Harry cannot make one? > > ... Could Umbridge have been in the original Order? She was never confirmed as a Death Eaather .... It is strange that both Umbridge and Prof. McGonagal have the same Patronus. > > Nikkalmati > Steve: Once again, while the Patronus is a difficult spell, it is not an uncommon or little known spell. Quite the opposite, everyone knows about it, but few can do it. Dumbledore (presumably) took the basic spell and expanded on it so the Order could send untracable messages to each other. There is a difference between the Patronus Spell, and the Patronus Messenger Spell. Now if Umbridge could do the Messenger Spell, we might have a point of confusion and uncertainty. But, she can't, or at least we see no sign that she can. As to McGonagall and Umbrige's Patronus, I must ask, is there only one cat in the entire world? I don't think so. McGonagall's cat is very distinctive and has markings around the eye that match McGonagall's glasses. We don't have a lot of details about Umbridge's Patronus, but we have no more reason to think it looks like McGonagall's that we do to believe that every cat in the world look identical. So, the Patronus Spell is known and common. The Patronus MESSENGER Spell is know only to a very small few people in the Order of the Phoenix. As to Harry knowing the Messenger aspect, I believe in one part Harry (or Ron) asks Hermione if she has it figured out, and she says she thinks she has. That implies that once you know it exists, it can be worked out how to do it. Plus, every last member of the Order is not dead. It Harry or Hermione need more information, the can ask Molly or Arthur how it is done. But, during the last book, we don't see Harry use the Messenger spell, so it is fair to assume he hasn't personally worked out how to do it. So, it is important to make a distinction between the Patronus Spell and the Patronus Messenger Spell, one is built on the other, but they are not the same. Steve/bboyminn From pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net Wed May 18 15:59:03 2011 From: pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net (Pat Flynn) Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:59:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Patronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301cc1574$82e7f110$88b7d330$@net> No: HPFGUIDX 190409 > Nikkalmati: > Interesting comments. I see that the speaking Patronus being DD's > invention is not confirmed, but a reasonable assumption. Lupin does > not teach Harry to make a speaking Patronus. Does that mean Harry > cannot make one? As far as I know, Harry never tried to make one. Hermione, however, says at the beginning of DH that she has been practicing. Pat From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu May 19 16:10:14 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:10:14 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Patronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD540E6.8000807@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 190410 >>> likesblackcats: >>> The Patronus charm is NOT just an Order thing. It's a very difficult >> charm, but it is quite well-known. Reference Harry's DADA examiner who >> asked him to perform the Patronus Charm for a bonus point in the >> practical portion of his exam (OOTP). >> > Nikkalmati > > Interesting comments. I see that the speaking Patronus being DD's invention is not confirmed, but a reasonable assumption. Lupin does not teach Harry to make a speaking Patronus. Does that mean Harry cannot make one? > My thought always was that Harry felt safe following the silent doe in the Forest of Dean, because he believed it must have been made by an Order member. I will have to revise that thinking. Of course, Harry had seen Umbridge's Patronus by that time. Could Umbridge have been in the original Order? She was never confirmed as a Death Eaather (just a fellow traveler). It is strange that both Umbridge and Prof. McGonagal have the same Patronus. > > Nikkalmati I think it's a wrong assumption to link Patronus with the Order- as mentioned above, the examiner who asked Harry to perform one is an example of this common knowledge. Moreover, practically the whole world knew at that point that Harry could produce a Patronus, so common wizards weren't asking "what's a Patronus?" like it was some big secret. It's a common spell, even if most ordinary wizards haven't learned it for themselves how to do one. It's something recognized of "talented" wizards. I do agree the Order had the Messenger ones- their Patronuses could do tricks, but then again, I am not sure that's limited to ONLY the Order. Note that Aberforth sends his Goat Patronus out romping so that that the Death Eaters people could chase it- thinking it was Harry's Patronus, in order to let the kids escape from Hogsmeade. (I'll grant Aberforth was a member of the original Order, but we are not certain that tricks or messages sent are limited to the Order.) We are not sure the Death Eaters can produce their own Patronuses, but I think they would since they are a defense against the Dementors. (Protection from a Dementor would be reason enough to learn the spell, IMHO!!!) But we can be absolutely certain that they know what a Patronus is, and that they actively chased Aberforth's Patronus as it led them away from the kids, so I doubt very highly by their (Death Eater's) reactions that it was only limited to a select group of people. Shelley From bart at moosewise.com Thu May 19 16:43:46 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:43:46 -0400 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles Message-ID: <4DD548C2.3050906@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190411 Bart: Obviously, most of what happened during the 7 years of the Harry Potter stories occurs "offstage". Still, there are quite a few scenes which were relevant to the plot, but never appeared, often because revealing them would have prematurely revealed plot points. One is the upshot of the pre-time travel scene in POA. Snape leaves the Shrieking Shack with the belief that Sirius is guilty, Lupin is Sirus' accomplice, and the Trio are deluded. Now, by OOP, Snape is aware that Sirius is not guilty of the deaths of the Potters, although he clearly holds a grudge for Sirius' attempt at murdering him during their Hogwarts days (and make no mistake, had James not stopped it, the "Prank" would have likely resulted in Snape's death and Lupin's ousting from the WW, and probably DD's firing as well, so Snape's hatred of Sirius is quite justified, even if his hatred of James and Lupin is less so). However, one must wonder what the conversation between Snape and Dumbledore was like after Sirius' escape. Does anybody here have any ideas (in the past, a paragraph or two of "fanfic" style has been tolerated in this group, so I hope the List Elves will allow it for people more comfortable with that style). Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 19 22:44:58 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 22:44:58 -0000 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: <4DD548C2.3050906@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190412 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bart: . Now, by OOP, Snape is aware that > Sirius is not guilty of the deaths of the Potters, > > However, one must wonder what the conversation between Snape and > Dumbledore was like after Sirius' escape. Pippin: I think Snape remained convinced that Sirius was guilty and Dumbledore had made a horrible mistake, right up until the end of GoF. Any conversations prior to that would have been like the conversations in HBP where Harry pressed Dumbledore to do something about Draco and Dumbledore refused to discuss it. Dumbledore would know that nothing he could say would convince Snape and he wouldn't have tried. But Sirius transformed right in front of Snape at the end of GoF, and (in another missing scene) Snape returned to Voldemort that same night and would have encountered Pettigrew unmistakably alive and in league with Voldemort. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri May 20 03:12:16 2011 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 03:12:16 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <4DD540E6.8000807@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190413 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shelley Gardner wrote: > > > > I think it's a wrong assumption to link Patronus with the Order- as > mentioned above, the examiner who asked Harry to perform one is an > example of this common knowledge. Moreover, practically the whole world > knew at that point that Harry could produce a Patronus, so common > wizards weren't asking "what's a Patronus?" like it was some big secret. > It's a common spell, even if most ordinary wizards haven't learned it > for themselves how to do one. It's something recognized of "talented" > wizards. > > I do agree the Order had the Messenger ones- their Patronuses could do > tricks, but then again, I am not sure that's limited to ONLY the Order. > Note that Aberforth sends his Goat Patronus out romping so that that the > Death Eaters people could chase it- thinking it was Harry's Patronus, in > order to let the kids escape from Hogsmeade. (I'll grant Aberforth was a > member of the original Order, but we are not certain that tricks or > messages sent are limited to the Order.) We are not sure the Death > Eaters can produce their own Patronuses, but I think they would since > they are a defense against the Dementors. (Protection from a Dementor > would be reason enough to learn the spell, IMHO!!!) But we can be > absolutely certain that they know what a Patronus is, and that they > actively chased Aberforth's Patronus as it led them away from the kids, > so I doubt very highly by their (Death Eater's) reactions that it was > only limited to a select group of people. > > Shelley > Nikkalmati I checked the link given by likesblackcats. The only actual character (as opposed to legendary or fictional characters) who can make a Patronus are members of the DA and the Order or former Order. It quotes JKR as saying that no Death Eater other than SS could make a Patronus. I suppose that means only someone good can make one. But, wherre does that leave Doris? She is certainly without a good bone in her body. Maybe the Patronus spell was well-known, but I doubt it. Certainly Harry's Patronus became famous within a certain circle of knowledgable wizards, but commmon knowledge is a different thing. Making a Patronus requires not just skill and practice, but character. The form reflects something essential about the person. That is why I question why Umbridge could make one and why it has the same form as MacGonnagal's Patronus. Why was Snape's a doe and why was Lily's a doe and Harry's a stag, and why was Tonks' a werewolf, unless it reflects a deep seated quality in the caster. nikkalmati From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Fri May 20 05:13:12 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 05:13:12 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190414 Shelley wrote: > I think it's a wrong assumption to link Patronus with the Order- as mentioned above, the examiner who asked Harry to perform one is an example of this common knowledge. Moreover, practically the whole world knew at that point that Harry could produce a Patronus, so common wizards weren't asking "what's a Patronus?" like it was some big secret. It's a common spell, even if most ordinary wizards haven't learned it for themselves how to do one. It's something recognized of "talented" wizards. Nikkalmati wrote: > Maybe the Patronus spell was well-known, but I doubt it. Certainly Harry's Patronus became famous within a certain circle of knowledgable wizards, but commmon knowledge is a different thing. Joey: I think I would agree with Shelley. During Harry's disciplinary hearing no one around is enquiring what a patronus is. They only expressed either surprise or disapproval at Harry's ability to create a Patronus. Also, the reactions from his fellow schoolmates (at Hog's Head when they hold their first DA meeting) confirm this understanding. They all knew what it was and that only wizards of good talent can produce one. Nikkalmati wrote: > Making a Patronus requires not just skill and practice, but character. The form reflects something essential about the person. That is why I question why Umbridge could make one and why it has the same form as MacGonnagal's Patronus. Why was Snape's a doe and why was Lily's a doe and Harry's a stag, and why was Tonks' a werewolf, unless it reflects a deep seated quality in the caster. Joey: I certainly agree that a Patronus does indeed seem to be tied to the caster's personality / mindset. Yet I don't think it will stop a DE from making one just because they lack in moral values. Lupin's instructions to Harry only talks of thinking something that made him really happy and the challenges was that Harry has to do this while hopelessness was filling his heart due to the Dementors. This shows that it is grit which matters in Patronus creation and not moral values. I know there is no canon evidence for this but yet I can't imagine Voldy not being able to make a Patronus. Cheers, ~Joey :-) From mellaf88 at yahoo.com Thu May 19 23:06:20 2011 From: mellaf88 at yahoo.com (mellaf88) Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 23:06:20 -0000 Subject: Portraits & Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190415 > Joey: > Was just reading a bit of OoTP during the weekend and thought of these things: > > Portraits: > > Fat Lady, Sir Cadogan, Sirius's mom, Phineas Nigellus and all other Hogwarts headmasters are quite aware of what's happening around and live just via portraits. > > So, why didn't Harry ever consider getting a portrait of his parents or even Sirius? Nick said Sirius would have gone on and will not be back as a ghost. Is this applicable to portraits too? If yes, does that mean that DD has not gone on? > > Photographs: > > CoS: Harry is trying to move out of the frame in Lockhart's photograph > > OoTP: Percy walks out of Mr Weasley's family photograph at his office > > DH: DD looks dolefully at Harry and Hermione from his photograph in the Life and Lies of DD book > > Flitting in and out of a photograph is one but reflecting current emotions of the real-life counter part is another. Does this mean that photographs capture more than the picture and are "connected" to the real-life counterparts? > mellaf88: I agree with you and have wondered the extent of the paintings as well. At one stage, Harry walks into Dumbledore's office and interrupts a conversation (more than once I think...) between Dumbledore and the previous Heads. Does this imply that the portraits maintain a certain sentience? Would the same apply to busts, etc? The paintings have opinions, moods, habits but are they "shadows" of their lives or are they like a benign horcrux? From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri May 20 19:33:15 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 13:33:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD6C1FB.1030908@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 190416 >> Bart: >> Now, by OOP, Snape is aware that Sirius is not guilty of the deaths of the Potters, > Pippin: > I think Snape remained convinced that Sirius was guilty and Dumbledore had made a horrible mistake, right up until the end of GoF. Any conversations prior to that would have been like the conversations in HBP where Harry pressed Dumbledore to do something about Draco and Dumbledore refused to discuss it. Dumbledore would know that nothing he could say would convince Snape and he wouldn't have tried. > > But Sirius transformed right in front of Snape at the end of GoF, and (in another missing scene) Snape returned to Voldemort that same night and would have encountered Pettigrew unmistakably alive and in league with Voldemort. > > Pippin I don't think it was a matter of Snape knowing that Sirius was innocent or not. It's a matter of forgiveness. The bad blood that was between Sirius and Snape happened while James was yet alive, and Snape is just continuing to hold a grudge over it. The death of James was irrelevant- it just meant the Snape had to continue his bad attitude towards those still living- Harry and Sirius. Snape never separates James from Sirius, nor does he separate James from Harry. I think he would have been bitter to his dying breath, even if he had lived long enough to see Harry end Voldemort for good. I don't think there would have ever been an event that would have changed his mind from that negativity. Shelley From juli17 at aol.com Sat May 21 18:03:56 2011 From: juli17 at aol.com (jules) Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 18:03:56 -0000 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: <4DD6C1FB.1030908@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190417 > > > > But Sirius transformed right in front of Snape at the end of GoF, and (in another missing scene) Snape returned to Voldemort that same night and would have encountered Pettigrew unmistakably alive and in league with Voldemort. > > > > Pippin > I don't think it was a matter of Snape knowing that Sirius was innocent > or not. It's a matter of forgiveness. The bad blood that was between > Sirius and Snape happened while James was yet alive, and Snape is just > continuing to hold a grudge over it. The death of James was irrelevant- > it just meant the Snape had to continue his bad attitude towards those > still living- Harry and Sirius. Snape never separates James from Sirius, > nor does he separate James from Harry. I think he would have been bitter > to his dying breath, even if he had lived long enough to see Harry end > Voldemort for good. I don't think there would have ever been an event > that would have changed his mind from that negativity. > > Shelley > Julie: An apology from Sirius, perhaps? Seriously (no pun intended), it was far from a one-way street. I doubt anything would have changed Sirius's mind about Snape either, even if Sirius had remained alive to learn all that Snape sacrificed (including his life) to help Dumbledore and Harry defeat Voldemort. They both saw the other through their adolescent-colored glasses, and neither ever considered taking those glasses off to see if anything had changed in the intervening years. I also have to say that I think Snape hated Sirius very much for himself and based on Sirius's own actions, not because he couldn't separate Sirius from James. (Harry is obviously another matter altogether.) Julie From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun May 22 06:03:45 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 00:03:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD8A741.9090102@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 190418 >> I don't think it was a matter of Snape knowing that Sirius was innocent >> or not. It's a matter of forgiveness. The bad blood that was between >> Sirius and Snape happened while James was yet alive, and Snape is just >> continuing to hold a grudge over it. The death of James was irrelevant- >> it just meant the Snape had to continue his bad attitude towards those >> still living- Harry and Sirius. Snape never separates James from Sirius, >> nor does he separate James from Harry. I think he would have been bitter >> to his dying breath, even if he had lived long enough to see Harry end >> Voldemort for good. I don't think there would have ever been an event >> that would have changed his mind from that negativity. >> >> Shelley > > Julie: > An apology from Sirius, perhaps? Seriously (no pun intended), > it was far from a one-way street. I doubt anything would have > changed Sirius's mind about Snape either, even if Sirius had > remained alive to learn all that Snape sacrificed (including > his life) to help Dumbledore and Harry defeat Voldemort. They > both saw the other through their adolescent-colored glasses, > and neither ever considered taking those glasses off to see > if anything had changed in the intervening years. Well, let's look at Snape in those interviening years- he became a Death Eater. Death Eaters did nasty things- torture and kill innocent people. Snape reported to Voldemort a Prophesy that lead to the death of Sirius's two best friends, and almost their child whom he was Godfather to. Seems to me that Sirius had every right not to trust the ADULT Snape, and that it wasn't adolescent glasses he was looking through. Even in Azkaban, we know he got the paper (that's where he saw Wormtail in a photo of the Weasley's on vacation) and no doubt he read of Snape on trial after Voldy disappeared, and subsequent news that he had been given a free pass on being guilty of the crimes he committed. > I also have to say that I think Snape hated Sirius very > much for himself and based on Sirius's own actions, not > because he couldn't separate Sirius from James. (Harry is > obviously another matter altogether.) > > Julie Sirius's bullying actions were only during his adolescent years. By my 5th year class reunion of high school, most of the really immature kids had, shall we say, grown out of their childish stupidity. By 10 years, it was clear how much maturing everyone had done. Here's Sirius- after he graduates school, he is trusted enough that the Potters made him best man at their wedding, Godfather to Harry, and Secret Keeper to protect three lives. Snape had no reason to keep hating Sirius, especially after Sirius was unjustly accused and spend many years in Azkaban. He have no evidence that beyond school, that he did anything to further provoke Snape, and yet still Snape doesn't give up his childish grudge, still 15 years later. That's a long time to hate someone without fresh incidents to renew it. Sirius had very good reason to not like or trust the adult Snape, but I don't see any reason for Snape's adult behavior toward Sirius. The point at which I was getting at is that I think Snape is just a bitter person, that he doesn't choose to move on and live his own life, but we see that Sirius did, right up until he was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit. There might be an explanation for it Snape's bitterness in canon- and that is he needed to have a mental front to hide the truth from Voldemort. Forever keeping in the front of his mind hatred toward James and Sirius might be what Voldemort would read, shielding the truth from him about being a double spy. It would be memories that had strong emotions with it, and that is what he wanted to project about himself. He didn't want to project to Voldy his regret about Lily, any remorse about becoming a Death Eater to begin with, or anything that would have made him seem disloyal, especially not making friends or making peace with someone who was a known Order of the Phoenix member. Shelley From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 22 16:56:46 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 22 May 2011 16:56:46 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/22/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1306083406.517.18054.m15@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190419 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 22, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun May 22 19:25:45 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:25:45 -0000 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: <4DD8A741.9090102@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190420 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shelley Gardner wrote: > Well, let's look at Snape in those interviening years- he > became a Death Eater. Death Eaters did nasty things- torture > and kill innocent people. Snape reported to Voldemort a > Prophesy that lead to the death of Sirius's two best friends, > and almost their child whom he was Godfather to. zanooda: It's true, but Sirius didn't know any of that. In GoF Ch.27 he said: "As far as I know, Snape was never even accused of being a Death Eater...". And also: "... I just can't see him (Dumbledore) letting Snape teach at Hogwarts if he'd ever worked for Voldemort". Sirius found out Snape used to be a DE only at the end of GoF, I think, but he also found out that Snape was Dumbledore's spy and worked for the Order. As for the Prophecy, I don't think Sirius ever knew it was Snape who reported it to LV. > Shelley wrote: > Even in Azkaban, we know he got the paper (that's where he > saw Wormtail in a photo of the Weasley's on vacation) zanooda: Yeah, but it's not like he was subscribed or something :-). He only got the newspaper once - Fudge left it to him while visiting Azkaban. From juli17 at aol.com Mon May 23 01:04:30 2011 From: juli17 at aol.com (jules) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 01:04:30 -0000 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: <4DD8A741.9090102@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190421 Here's Sirius- after > he graduates school, he is trusted enough that the Potters made him best > man at their wedding, Godfather to Harry, and Secret Keeper to protect > three lives. Snape had no reason to keep hating Sirius, especially after > Sirius was unjustly accused and spend many years in Azkaban. He have no > evidence that beyond school, that he did anything to further provoke > Snape, and yet still Snape doesn't give up his childish grudge, still 15 > years later. That's a long time to hate someone without fresh incidents > to renew it. Julie: Well, one of the first things Sirius did when he and Snape met up again was to bang Snape's head into the ceiling, deliberately and repeatedly, while guiding his unconscious body out of the Shrieking Shack. That counts as a fairly fresh incident, I should think. And yes, I know Snape had just refused to listen to the truth and had gloated over the idea of Sirius being fed to the Dementors. But if Sirius had grown out of his animosity toward Snape from their adolescent feuds, I'd think he'd just feel pity for Snape or ignore him, not then take the opportunity to deliberately and rather gleefully injure him, the injury being serious or not (presumably the latter). And as previously pointed out, Sirius knows nothing at all of Snape's activities over the preceding years since they left school. Shelley: Sirius had very good reason to not like or trust the adult > Snape, but I don't see any reason for Snape's adult behavior toward > Sirius. The point at which I was getting at is that I think Snape is > just a bitter person, that he doesn't choose to move on and live his own > life, but we see that Sirius did, right up until he was imprisoned for a > crime he didn't commit. Julie: I agree that Snape is a bitter person who has never gotten over the past and moved on with his life. We certainly know the latter part is true from Snape's memories in DH. I also think Sirius was in the same situation, almost certainly exacerbated by his time in Azkaban. However, I don't see any real evidence of Sirius maturing greatly either, at least in regards to his feelings about Snape. Those feelings hadn't abated at all when Sirius escaped Azkaban and didn't change even when he learned of Snape's spy role for the Order. Neither missed an opportunity to berate and bait the other, even some 20 years after their school days. As for getting on with his life, sadly Sirius never really got the chance. Snape and Sirius were both still in their very early twenties when Voldemort killed the Potters, an age when life experience is still relatively limited and maturity is in a developing stage for most of us. So we don't know where Sirius's life might have gone, and whether he would have eventually set aside his childhood animosities, but hopefully he would have done so. We can't even be sure about Snape, if the Potters had survived and he hadn't lived with his lifelong remorse over Lily's death, and in all but indentured servitude to Dumbledore. I doubt he would have become a truly kind man, but perhaps he would have moved on too, away from the Death Eaters and to an occupation or life that gave him some sense of satisfaction and accomplishment. At which point he might have been able to set aside his animosity and bitterness too. Julie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 23 02:14:08 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 02:14:08 -0000 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190422 > Julie: > Well, one of the first things Sirius did when he and Snape > met up again was to bang Snape's head into the ceiling, > deliberately and repeatedly, while guiding his unconscious > body out of the Shrieking Shack. That counts as a fairly > fresh incident, I should think. And yes, I know Snape had > just refused to listen to the truth and had gloated over > the idea of Sirius being fed to the Dementors. But if Sirius > had grown out of his animosity toward Snape from their > adolescent feuds, I'd think he'd just feel pity for Snape > or ignore him, not then take the opportunity to deliberately > and rather gleefully injure him, the injury being serious > or not (presumably the latter). And as previously pointed > out, Sirius knows nothing at all of Snape's activities over > the preceding years since they left school. > > Alla: Oh I cannot keep quiet lol. Yep Sirius did that, that would be minutes after Snape so nicely suggested that he would give the man who just escaped after thirteen years of Dementors to those dementors again. I personally would have wanted to do much more damage to Snape than Sirius did in that situation frankly. In any even, Sirius half crazy after Azkaban, Snape does not have the very same excuse as far as I am concerned. But sure, I would agree that they both never grew up of their animosity. The only thing different for me is that Sirius was never given a chance and Snape IMO chose not to. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon May 23 02:33:33 2011 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 02:33:33 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190423 Note: Hi guys, just a warning that couple of one sided argumentative questions in this one was done deliberately and there will be more of Snape sided questions in next chapter, since we are doing next chapter too, because one of the points of doing it was to interject some questions which are sided towards Sirius and towards Snape :) Enjoy and please feel free to add your ownn questions. Alla and Zara. 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 18: Moony,Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs This chapter starts with a bang. Lupin thinks that the kids need to know the story and then to see for themselves that Peter is Scabbers, Black just wants to commit the murder that he was imprisoned for. Eventually he agrees to let Lupin talk, but wants him to be quick. Lupin talks about him receiving a bite when he was young, his parents trying everything, Dumbledore wanting him to come to school as long as the precautions were taken. We learn that the Whomping willow was put there for Remus, to keep other students safe when he transforned. Lupin tells the Trio that Dumbledore never learned about the three unregistered animagi and that is how his friends kept him company when he transformed , they got out of the Shack and ran to the villages. Hermione thinks it was dangerous. Lupin agrees with her and says that the near misses still haunt him. Lupin thinks that he betrayed Dumbledore's trust because he never told him that Sirius was an animagus. Lupin tells the Trio that Professor Snape was in school with them and that he fought very hard about his appointment as DADA professor. Lupin tells the kids that Sirius played trick upon Snape that nearly killed him, AKA "The prank". According to Lupin, Snape did not like them and they did not like Snape, because Snape was supposedly jealous of James' talent on Quidditch field. Sirius told Snape how to get into the Shack and Snape in fact did so, and James pulled him out. Harry wonders whether this is why Snape did not like Lupin, because he thought Remus was in on the joke and we see Snape snarling "That's right" taking off Invisibility cloak and pointing the wand at Remus. Questions 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a support for the argument that the map does not have dark magic in it? Do you agree or disagree with it? 2. Did you believed Lupin and Black (if you remember of course) when you were reading the book for the first time that Peter was in the room? 3. As some of you may know as a Sirius' fan, but first and foremost as a reader, I absolutely refuse to place all the blame for the prank on Sirius. I happen to feel that just as Sirius had no business telling Snape about Remus' secret, Snape had no business whatsoever of going to the Shack and nobody actually forced him to go there. However as the very same reader, I am still racking my brain what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to Remus if he were to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover his secret. So what was he thinking? Was he thinking anything? 4. When Lupin was telling his interpretation of the Prank, were you curious whether " " after him saying that Snape was jealous of James' Quidditch talent meant that there was more to the story? 5. Were you shocked to see Snape appear in the room? 6. To what extent Snape's belief Lupin was involved in the Prank was rational? 7. Feel free to add your question please. 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 19 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 @yahoogroups.com (without the space). From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Mon May 23 05:49:31 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 05:49:31 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190424 > Questions > 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a support for the > argument that the map does not have dark magic in it? Do you agree or disagree > with it? Joey: I disagree. I think he only meant to compliment the robustness of the magic that went into the map. > 2. Did you believed Lupin and Black (if you remember of course) when you were > reading the book for the first time that Peter was in the room? Joey: I think I did. I was frowning but Lupin sounded so very confident that I had started trusting him. 3. As some of you may know as a Sirius' fan, but first and foremost as a reader, > I absolutely refuse to place all the blame for the prank on Sirius. I happen to > feel that just as Sirius had no business telling Snape about Remus' secret, > Snape had no business whatsoever of going to the Shack and nobody actually > forced him to go there. However as the very same reader, I am still racking my > brain what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to Remus if he were > to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover his secret. So what was he > thinking? Was he thinking anything? Joey: Er, did he ever *bother* to *think* at all? :-) It was indeed a huge risk that he seems to have taken (both from Lupin's and Snape's perspective). Going by Harry's observations in OoTP SWM chapter, looks like Sirius never took *anything* seriously and was way too reckless along with a yeah-so-what attitude to care about the consequences of his actions. Only James's death, a friend's betrayal, stay in Azkaban where he seems to have seen the fate of many and godfather's responsibilities seem to have contributed to his personality changes. Not a startling change but a noticeable change all the same. > 4. When Lupin was telling his interpretation of the Prank, were you curious > whether " " after him saying that Snape was jealous of James' Quidditch talent > meant that there was more to the story? Joey: No, really. :-) I was too busy absorbing the revelations of these chapters. > 5. Were you shocked to see Snape appear in the room? Joey: Oh, yes. :-) > 6. To what extent Snape's belief Lupin was involved in the Prank was rational? Joey: Here again, going by Harry's observations in OoTP SWM chapter, a light frown in your face when your friends are busy humiliating an individual may not be noticed by the one being humiliated. What might have disappointed Snape is that Lupin did not even try to prevent his friends' bullying while he did have the Prefect badge. He might have thought that Lupin meekly agreed to the planned joke. Yet Snape cannot pretend that he didn't notice that Lupin never hurt him directly and never enjoyed what his friends did to Snape (unlike Pettigrew). But I do think Snape's hatred for Lupin is much toned down when compared to his hatred for James / Sirius / Pettigrew. As an aside, I wonder what kind of a Prefect Lucius Malfoy was to Snape. Thanks a lot for the nice summary and questions! Cheers, ~Joey :-) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 23 14:54:13 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:54:13 -0000 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190425 > > > Alla: > > Oh I cannot keep quiet lol. Yep Sirius did that, that would be minutes after Snape so nicely suggested that he would give the man who just escaped after thirteen years of Dementors to those dementors again. Pippin: Even Harry thinks that the person who betrayed his parents deserved to be handed over to the dementors, and that is what Snape thought Sirius had done. We've been talking about this as if it was all about Snape being bullied at school. But of course it isn't. It's about Lily, first, last and "always". Snape passed up his chance to get vengeance on James in order to protect her, and then dedicated his life to keeping Harry alive in her memory. I agree that Snape is driven by his desire for revenge, but the person he wants revenge on most is Voldemort. Compared to that, getting even with the ex-Marauders and Harry for James's sake is just a hobby. Snape doesn't get all pale and glittery when he contemplates doing something nasty to Harry, he just smirks. He's got the same smirky tone when he's confronting Sirius in OOP. He's no longer crazy with anger the way he was in the Shrieking Shack, when he thought he was confronting one of Lily's murderers. But we can contrast Sirius's treatment of the helpless Snape, banging his head into the roof of the tunnel, with Snape's treatment of the helpless Sirius, whom he placed on a stretcher and brought to Dumbledore. Of course he fully expected Sirius to be passed to the dementors in due course. Nonetheless Snape recognized, however grudgingly, that it was not his decision to make. Sirius and Lupin, prompted by Harry, made a similar choice when they agreed to bring Peter to the castle for judgement instead of executing him on the spot. I don't think Snape could grow out of his animosity -- he was emotionally stunted by years of mistreatment, in which the Marauders played their part. The books ask us to recognize that people vary in their resilience. Harry, as Dumbledore says, is unusual. He suffered far less emotional damage than Dumbledore had expected, not because he chose to, but because he was lucky. He rolled for emotional damage, you might say, and was fortunate enough to escape with a minor hit. Snape was not. His wounds, to quote Dumbledore again, were too deep for the healing. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 23 15:55:23 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 15:55:23 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190426 > Questions > 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a support for the > argument that the map does not have dark magic in it? Do you agree or disagree > with it? > Pippin: I think Lupin is just bragging about the map. It does lie, at least by omission. It doesn't know about the Room of Requirement, or, apparently, the interior of Hagrid's Hut. As for dark magic, I doubt the map was ritually dark. I don't think it required unicorn's blood, or murder, or desecrating a grave, etc. James would've been repelled. But if its making required lots of tricky and dangerous spellwork that could've injured its makers and innocent bystanders if it went wrong -- well, that is just the sort of thing that James and Sirius would have found irresistible. Another point -- as we've heard lately, collecting information about people's whereabouts without their permission is not really nice. The Marauders certainly objected to Snape collecting information about them! Most important, the map did try to lure Harry out of school, and into danger, and it did not care that the danger was much worse than normal. As Lupin said, the map makers would have thought that was amusing. Lupin himself thought the map was too dangerous for Harry to have as long as there was real danger around. So I think that Harry is right to regard the map with a certain dubious appreciation. > 2. Did you believed Lupin and Black (if you remember of course) when you were > reading the book for the first time that Peter was in the room? Pippin: IIRC, I wondered how it could be possible. I certainly didn't think of his being the rat! > 3. As some of you may know as a Sirius' fan, but first and foremost as a reader, > I absolutely refuse to place all the blame for the prank on Sirius. I happen to > feel that just as Sirius had no business telling Snape about Remus' secret, > Snape had no business whatsoever of going to the Shack and nobody actually > forced him to go there. However as the very same reader, I am still racking my > brain what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to Remus if he were > to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover his secret. So what was he > thinking? Was he thinking anything? Pippin: I think Sirius's superior skills spoiled him -- he seldom got into a situation he couldn't charm or magic his way out of, and so he never thought much about how to avoid them. I agree that all the blame does not belong to Sirius. But if Snape had discovered and stopped the Marauders from turning a werewolf loose among the villagers of Hogsmeade, they would have justly considered him a hero, IMO. I don't think Snape had any idea that the Marauders were actually leaving Hogwarts with the transformed Lupin, though. I believe he thought they were just daring themselves to get close to the werewolf while it was transformed, but still confined. > > 4. When Lupin was telling his interpretation of the Prank, were you curious > whether " " after him saying that Snape was jealous of James' Quidditch talent > meant that there was more to the story? Pippin: I think I was pretty sure by that time that it was suspicious we had heard so much about Snape's feelings about James and nothing at all about his feelings towards Lily. Also, Snape didn't seem to be that passionate about Quidditch, so I wondered. > > 5. Were you shocked to see Snape appear in the room? Sure! > > 6. To what extent Snape's belief Lupin was involved in the Prank was rational? Pippin: Even some of Sirius's fans have had a hard time believing that he would have involved Lupin in a prank that could, even if it went as planned, have resulted in Lupin's expulsion or death. Or that if Sirius had done so, that Lupin would still be on speaking terms with him afterwards. So certainly it was reasonable for Snape to be suspicious. He didn't know how dependent Lupin was on the Marauders for relief during his transformations, so he must have wondered what hold they had on him. Complicity in a plot to murder him would explain it nicely. Of course he jumped to the wrong conclusion -- and then stuck to it despite what anyone could say. It must have validated something for him. Of course Snape didn't want to think about the *real* reason that he hated everyone who had something to do with James. Thanks, Alla. I enjoyed the questions, especially the one about the Map. Pippin From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon May 23 17:15:53 2011 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (Shelley Gardner) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:15:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DDA9649.1060005@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 190428 >> Questions >> 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a support for the >> argument that the map does not have dark magic in it? Do you agree or disagree >> with it? > Pippin: > I think Lupin is just bragging about the map. It does lie, at least by omission. It doesn't know about the Room of Requirement, or, apparently, the interior of Hagrid's Hut. > > As for dark magic, I doubt the map was ritually dark. I don't think it required unicorn's blood, or murder, or desecrating a grave, etc. James would've been repelled. But if its making required lots of tricky and dangerous spellwork that could've injured its makers and innocent bystanders if it went wrong -- well, that is just the sort of thing that James and Sirius would have found irresistible. > > Another point -- as we've heard lately, collecting information about people's whereabouts without their permission is not really nice. The Marauders certainly objected to Snape collecting information about them! > > Most important, the map did try to lure Harry out of school, and into danger, and it did not care that the danger was much worse than normal. As Lupin said, the map makers would have thought that was amusing. Lupin himself thought the map was too dangerous for Harry to have as long as there was real danger around. So I think that Harry is right to regard the map with a certain dubious appreciation. Shelley now: Dark magic, hmmm... should be shunned by anyone trying to keep appearances up, but what about the object itself? The map itself isn't inherently evil, although it certainly could be used for less than honerable purposes. I can image that a headmaster might justify using this map to protect his students, for it would tell of any person on the castle premises that ought not to be there, or of kids sneaking out when they shouldn't, but the real danger of any dark device would be to suck you into staring at it all the time, instead of using your other senses. It would want to make you use it more, rather than get out for a stroll and actually meet the kids you were protecting. I think if this map were truly dark, then Harry would have heard it calling to him to use it, and I don't see evidence of that in the book (comparing Riddle's Diary, for example). So, I think it's just magical, rather than Dark Magic. >> 2. Did you believed Lupin and Black (if you remember of course) when you were >> reading the book for the first time that Peter was in the room? When I first read the book, I knew that I was learning something totally new here, and to hang on for the ride of discovery. I wasn't thinking of "believing" what the characters were saying, but rather thinking they were telling the story from their prospective, and that I was about to learn something new if I paid attention to the details. This also answers the later question about being surprised about Snape being in the room- I was, but then my first thought was "it figures that Snape would show up to spoil things" and wondered just what role he had to play. Whatever it was, it had to be an important one, or important to what I needed to know as a reader. >> 3. As some of you may know as a Sirius' fan, but first and foremost as a reader, >> I absolutely refuse to place all the blame for the prank on Sirius. I happen to >> feel that just as Sirius had no business telling Snape about Remus' secret, >> Snape had no business whatsoever of going to the Shack and nobody actually >> forced him to go there. However as the very same reader, I am still racking my >> brain what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to Remus if he were >> to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover his secret. So what was he >> thinking? Was he thinking anything? I am still convinced, even after several rereadings, that we don't know everything about the Prank. We know that it happened, but we don't know if Sirius let it slip just to be funny, knowing that Snape wouldn't let it go, or whether he knew directly that Snape was going to die, which I think isn't the case either. I think he was saying to Snape that since he was such a smarty-pants and knew everything, that he should go see for himself this "werewolf", and let it be on Snape's own head if he got himself killed while doing it. I don't think he purposely set the werewolf on Snape, but rather Snape's noseyness would not let it go and he badgered Sirius until Sirius finally tells him and lets him suffer the consequences. I think he told Snape "you don't want to go there", but knew that Snape would anyway. I think the young Snape was arrogant enough to think he could handle it. Only then Sirius thinks it through and really doesn't want Snape to die for his arrogance, nor Lupin be blamed for Snape forcing his way into where he didn't belong, and so he intervenes to save stupid Snape from himself. Of course later, Snape can't admit that he was being a nosey busy-body, and so he spins the story to say Sirius tried to have him executed. I think it was convienant for him to say that he didn't know there was a werewolf there, but I am sure he had figured it out, or thought he had, before he badgered Sirius into telling him how to see for himself of the truth. Shelley From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 23 19:14:23 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:14:23 -0000 Subject: WARNING !!! In-Reply-To: <8CDE76A405F676B-E64-97E8D@webmail-d033.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Melissa wrote: > > http://dexeqivy.reco.ws/gypebu.html > Can we assume one of the Moderators will contact this person to inform her that her email account has been hijacked? And, in case anyone is tempted, it would be very unwise to click on a web link that is posted without context or explanation. This happens every so often. A Spammer or Hacker gets hold of an email address and sends out emails using that address. I'm not sure what people do about it, other than close the account, but for the rest of us, ...extremely unwise to click on such a link. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon May 23 20:16:44 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:16:44 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190430 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > ... > > > ... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > PoA Chapter 18: Moony,Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs > > > > ... > > Questions > 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a > support for the argument that the map does not have dark magic > in it? Do you agree or disagree with it? > Steve: 1.) To me that is like asking if Caller ID or you GPS is capable of willful lying? It just doesn't make sense, and it goes against the purpose of the device. The Map exists to show people in Hogwart's Castle and on Grounds to the extent that the locations were known by the creators of the Map. How and why would it do anything else? It is not like the Map is or is capable of plotting and scheming, and conceiving of the concept of deception. It simply reports the facts, though under the right circumstances, it does so with a degree of sarcasm and humor, though those are special circumstances and unrelated to reporting the location of people within Hogwarts. Here is a slightly unrelated but still interesting aspect to consider. For the Map to know the presence and location of people within Hogwarts, the spell or enchantment can't just be on the Map, it must also be on Hogwarts itself. In a sense, there must be a recording or detecting enchantment and a receiving or displaying enchantment. The enchanted Maps is pretty impressive, but if you consider the possibility that they also cast a spell on the entire castle and grounds, that makes that bit of magic even more powerful and impressive. Hogwarts has many defenses and protections of its own, and as such, does not allow spells to be cast upon it easily. > 2. Did you believed Lupin and Black (if you remember of course) > when you were reading the book for the first time that Peter was > in the room? > Steve: 2.) I'm not the kind of person who reads a book and comes to a puzzling part and says, 'That can't be!' Now I certainly might ask 'how that can be', but the only thing you can do is keep reading and find out how the situation resolves itself. And author does not make such a bold and surprising pronouncement without good reason, and the only way to know what the reason is, is to keep reading. So, if you keep reading, you will either find out how and why they are wrong, or how and why they are right, but in my mind there is nothing to question or doubt. > 3a. ... > I absolutely refuse to place all the blame for the prank on > Sirius. I happen to feel that just as Sirius had no business > telling Snape about Remus' secret, Snape had no business ... > going to the Shack .... Steve: I've taken this same position many times. Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. But the list of rules and the degree of common sense that Snape broke when he pursued Sirius's information was astounding. Snape suspected that Lupin was a werewolf, why would any sane person risk trapping themselves in a confined space with an enraged werewolf? Perhaps he thought he would just have a peak for proof then he would report Lupin's secret and get him kicked out of school. But, that was shear fantasy in the extreme. Again to risk trapping yourself in such a confined space as the Shack or the Tunnel with an enraged werewolf, is madness in the extreme. And I have no doubt that the minute Lupin laid eyes on Snape, he would have indeed been an ENRAGED werewolf. Snape or Lupin or BOTH could have very easily have been killed. >3.b)However as the very same reader, I am still racking my brain > what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to Remus > if he were to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover his > secret. So what was he thinking? Was he thinking anything? > Steve: 3b.) Like most impetuous short sighted self-involved teens, Sirius simply was not thinking, at least not thinking beyond goading Snape into action. Snape being bitten by Lupin is probably the least that could have happened. I have not doubt that Snape was capable of killing Lupin if force, and equally that Lupin was capable of killing Snape if provoked. Like so many teenage pranks, this one had true life and death consequences, and I think that is what James saw when he found out. His goal wasn't to stop the 'Prank', but to keep Snape and Lupin from killing each other. > 4. When Lupin was telling his interpretation of the Prank, were > you curious whether " " after him saying that Snape was jealous > of James' Quidditch talent meant that there was more to the story? > Steve: 4.) I think what we have is the Popular Jock vs the Emo/Goth kid, a story which plays out in high schools across the country every day. James is full of his own ego and glory, and Snape probably has more academic achievements, which, oddly, are not held is very high regard among students. Then we know that even before James and Lily got together, Snape was well aware that James had 'a thing' for Lily. I think that pushed every button Snape had. He simply could not stand the thought of egoistical James with his sweet Lily. Yet we also see, eventually, that this is also the time when Snape is making choices of his own, choices that are pushing Lily farther and farther away for him. I think Snape is seething with resentment that Lily could see anything in a self-important falsely glorified ego maniacal person like James over himself. And I think that resentment is clouding his judgment, as it often does with kids this age. And, I do think we need to keep in mind "kids this age". These are young impetuous short sighted impulsive ego driven hormone enrage teenagers, who, from my experience, are acting like teenagers do. > 5. Were you shocked to see Snape appear in the room? > Steve: 5.) Again, this has to do with how I read stories. I'm just along for the ride. So, I don't question as I go. Yes, I was surprised, but also not surprised. JKR constantly puts Harry in situation that compoundingly get worse. Just when you think the scene could not get more complicated, Snape appears, then just when you think it could not get worse, the Kids attack Snape. And on and on it goes until you can't imagine how Harry can possible get out of the situation, which, of course, he always manages to do. So, shocked ...ummm... probably not, but as a reader, certainly thrilled by the twisting plot and changing complicating events. I mean, consider everything that is revealed in this scene? Lupin shows up, Sirius shows up, Snape shows up, Lupin is a werewolf, Peter is a rat, Sirus is innocent, etc...; it is like shock overload. It is one stunning startling revelation after another. In hindsight, it is hard to imagine that a story plot could get this complicated. > 6. To what extent Snape's belief Lupin was involved in the > Prank was rational? > Steve: 6.)Only slightly so, I think Snape is filled with a cascade of emotions that never resolve themselves, envy, jealousy, rage, anger, resentment, humiliation, disgrace, shame, and on and on. I think such intense emotions can only be controlled, and oddly continued, but rationalization. Place the blame anywhere where it feels good, where it vindicates you, eases your conscience, and places the blame on others. I think many of us still carry resentment such as this left over from our high school years, though most of us have filed it away in it rightful place. But Snape carries resentment, anger, fear, and most significantly shame from the past that he simply can never let go of, and I think that continually clouds his judgment, both in the past and in the present. Steve: Lastly, I will point out my comment above about the likelihood that for the Map to work, a companion enchantment must have also been cast onto Howarts itself. That implies magical power in the extreme. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon May 23 22:45:39 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 22:45:39 -0000 Subject: Filling in the blanks: Snape, DD and Snuffles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190431 > Pippin: > > Even Harry thinks that the person who betrayed his parents deserved to be handed over to the dementors, and that is what Snape thought Sirius had done. We've been talking about this as if it was all about Snape being bullied at school. But of course it isn't. It's about Lily, first, last and "always". > Potioncat: Oh the pain! A Sirius vrs Severus thread comes along just as my computer crashes, and I couldn't join in. I was limited to using a computer that I could read only and not send. I agree with Pippin and Zanooda and someone else (Joey?). But I'd like to add that Snape entered the Shrieking Shack in attack mode, thinking the Trio were in mortal danger from Black and Lupin. As Pippin pointed out, he thinks Black was the traitor. Black already knew (by moments) that Snape is a teacher at Hogwarts--so what does he do? Black starts right in with the taunts. I will give Black one point---he did the same thing to Harry. So, if I remember the real reason we got onto this thread, I don't think Snape was reliving a grudge, he had good reason to suspect both Lupin and Black at this point. And as time goes by, neither Snape nor Black relented on their intense animosity toward each other. Which, by the way, Black started in year one on the way to Hogwarts on the train. > From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon May 23 23:02:30 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 23:02:30 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190432 . > > Questions > 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a support for the > argument that the map does not have dark magic in it? Do you agree or disagree > with it? Potioncat: Whoa, what a good question! As a group, we've had such a difficult time deciding what is Dark Magic and what isn't that my final answer is---darned if I know. But I'd say you have a really good point there. > > 2. Did you believed Lupin and Black (if you remember of course) when you were > reading the book for the first time that Peter was in the room? Potioncat: Heck, I even believed them this time. I'm reading the books just ahead of our discussion questions--and it's really changed my perceptions. The ingrained Sirius/Severus rivalry isn't as much of a filter now that I'm not discussing it daily. (Current thread of such description not withstanding) > > 3. snip > ...Snape had no business whatsoever of going to the Shack and nobody actually > forced him to go there. However as the very same reader, I am still racking my brain what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to Remus if he were to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover his secret. So what was he thinking? Was he thinking anything? Potioncat: With my new-found neutrality I can say about both boys--as boys they were--What the hell were you thinking!!! It's just fortunate that James had a moment of maturity and actually realized that both boys were in danger. I could also add that I think Black has ADHD and my son thinks Snape has Aspergers--so take that with a grain of salt too. Either one can affect judgment where relationships are concerned. > > 4. When Lupin was telling his interpretation of the Prank, were you curious > whether "???" after him saying that Snape was jealous of James' Quidditch talent > meant that there was more to the story? Potioncat: I still don't know where that came from, unless Lupin just didn't want to go into more accurate detail. > > 5. Were you shocked to see Snape appear in the room? Potioncat: I must have been. This group of chapters (is there a name for a collection of chapters?) is just full of surprises. > > 6. To what extent Snape's belief Lupin was involved in the Prank was rational? Potioncat: >From everything I recall in canon, it seems Lupin never participates in bullying, but never interferes. So it might seem reasonable to Snape that Lupin knew about the plan to send Snape there. I don't think Snape or Black ever fully understood that the consequences to Lupin would have been devastating. Thanks for a great discussion! I haven't read other responses and I have to borrow time on the computer, so I'm hoping I can really participate in this one. > > 7. From lealess at yahoo.com Tue May 24 16:01:13 2011 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:01:13 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190433 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > 3. As some of you may know as a Sirius' fan, but first and foremost > as a reader, I absolutely refuse to place all the blame for the > prank on Sirius. I happen to feel that just as Sirius had no > business telling Snape about Remus' secret, Snape had no business > whatsoever of going to the Shack and nobody actually forced him to > go there. However as the very same reader, I am still racking my > brain what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to > Remus if he were to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover > his secret. So what was he thinking? Was he thinking anything? > > 4. When Lupin was telling his interpretation of the Prank, were you > curious whether " " after him saying that Snape was jealous of > James' Quidditch talent meant that there was more to the story? > These two questions got me thinking. From the first book, Harry goes places he shouldn't and puts himself in tremendous danger without really knowing what he's facing. He does this because he perceives danger that he thinks others don't know about or won't believe in or won't act upon if they do believe it. In many books, he is frustrated when others, especially someone he respects like Dumbledore, brush him off, or characterize his motivation as fame-seeking or obsession with certain Slytherins. His true motivation, beyond solving the mystery, varies from trying to prove certain Slytherins are involved to getting revenge on the person who killed his parents to protecting others. It occurs to me, student Harry in sleuth and save mode is actually a lot like student Snape going into the Shrieking Shack. lealess From kckriger at yahoo.com Tue May 24 09:05:16 2011 From: kckriger at yahoo.com (ken krieger) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 02:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <441313.18789.qm@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190434 > Nikkalmati wrote: > Making a Patronus requires not just skill and practice, but character.?? The form reflects something essential about the person.?? That is why I question why Umbridge could make one and why it has > the same form as MacGonnagal's Patronus.?? Hi I don't recall Umbrige ever making a Patrounus, In one of her Q&A's J.K.Rowling said that only good persons could make a Patrounus, that the Dark Lord or his followers couldn't make one. Yours Ken From Walabio at MacOSX.COM Tue May 24 09:51:37 2011 From: Walabio at MacOSX.COM (?alabio?) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:51:37 +0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, In-Reply-To: <1306227265.1445.97394.m7@yahoogroups.com> References: <1306227265.1445.97394.m7@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190435 > ?Willsonteam? : > (is there a name for a collection of chapters?) We do not have 1 official way of doing so, but 1 way is thus: Omnibus: A volume of books in a series as opposed to anthologies which are random books in a volume Book Section: A major subdivision of a book Unit: A collection of Chapters in a section Chapter Subchapter Paragraphbloock Paragraph Sentence Some divide things up differently, so take the above with a grain of salt. Walabio From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue May 24 19:21:17 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Portraits & Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <189174.97434.qm@web113916.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190436 > mellaf88: > I agree with you and have wondered the extent of the paintings as well. At one stage, Harry walks into Dumbledore's office and interrupts a conversation (more than once I think...) between Dumbledore and the previous Heads. Does this imply that the portraits maintain a certain sentience? Would the same apply to busts, etc? The paintings have opinions, moods, habits but are > they "shadows" of their lives or are they like a benign horcrux? June: I do not believe they are a horcrux. A horcrux is dark magic and is to keep a person alive in flesh not pictures. The photographs which you see (for instance) in the album Hagrid made for Harry move due to a spell. Colin Creevy mentions it in The Chamber of Secrets. The paintings are a little different than the pictures in the Headmaster's office I think because although they have thought and are able to do a job we don't know if they are paintings of actual people or someone's imagination. The photos in the Headmaster's office however I believe are a part of the person who has passed on left behind to help the Headmaster or Headmistress who is presently in the position and they may contain the memories and knowledge of the previous head but the actual head has passed over. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue May 24 19:35:24 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <453416.81404.qm@web113911.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190437 > Nikkalmati: > Maybe the Patronus spell was well-known, but I doubt it. Certainly Harry's Patronus became famous within a certain circle of knowledgable wizards, but commmon knowledge is a different thing. Making a Patronus requires not just skill and practice, but character. The form reflects something essential about the person. That is why I question why Umbridge could make one and why it has the same form as MacGonnagal's Patronus. Why was Snape's a doe and why was Lily's a doe and Harry's a stag, and why was Tonks' a werewolf, unless it reflects a deep seated > quality in the caster. June: It could be that Umbridge at one time was a good person (though hard to picture lol) She did work for the ministry and worked directly for Fudge whom she admired but as we know Fudge who wasn't really a bad person himself but was so determinded that Voldemort was not returning (or more wishing he wasn't) put Umbridge in place to try to keep things calm at the school. I think the horrible things she did at the school were to impress Fudge (if you ask me I think she had a thing for him). Then she did go bad afterwards but that could have been the beginning of that and it all changed her for the worse. The patronis are in the form of something close to you. She is a cat lover (the only good thing about her) it was stated almost from the time that we met her (she had cat plates all over her office wall); McGonagall is also a cat lover, we know this because her animagas form is a cat. Why would she choose to appear as a cat if she didn't like them? Therefore it makes sense that her patronus is also a cat. Harry's is a stag because his father's was a stag. Tonk's is a werewolf because she is in love with Lupin who is a werewolf and that caused her patronus to change to a werewolf (not sure what it was before). Snape's is a doe because he was in love with Harry's mum who's patronus was a doe. It all seems to go back to the theme of the books which is love. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue May 24 20:12:27 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <856383.2970.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Questions 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a support for the argument that the map does not have dark magic in it? Do you agree or disagree with it? June: I do not and never did believe the marauder's map was done with dark magic. 2. Did you believed Lupin and Black (if you remember of course) when you were reading the book for the first time that Peter was in the room? June: I was not sure what to? believe at this point. Of course I did not trust Black and I almost fell off my seat when Lupin came in and hugged him and thought that Lupin and Black were both after Harry at that point, but when they were saying Peter was there I wasn't sure if there was a twist about to happen or if they were trying to fool the kids. 3. As some of you may know as a Sirius' fan, but first and foremost as a reader, I absolutely refuse to place all the blame for the prank on Sirius. I happen to feel that just as Sirius had no business telling Snape about Remus' secret, Snape had no business whatsoever of going to the Shack and nobody actually forced him to go there. However as the very same reader, I am still racking my brain what the hell was Sirius thinking would have happened to Remus if he were to bite Snape, or if Snape would simply uncover his secret. So what was he thinking? Was he thinking anything? June: He was only concerned with getting Peter to the castle. 5. Were you shocked to see Snape appear in the room? June: yes 6. To what extent Snape's belief Lupin was involved in the Prank was rational? June: At this point it was irrational, however I knew more than Snape did and had he come in a little earlier I would have totally agreed with him. From andy.mills at btinternet.com Tue May 24 20:33:24 2011 From: andy.mills at btinternet.com (Andy Mills) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:33:24 +0100 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <441313.18789.qm@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <441313.18789.qm@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4DDC1614.7030805@btinternet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190439 > Hi > > I don't recall Umbrige ever making a Patrounus, In one of her > Q&A's J.K.Rowling said that only good persons could make a > Patrounus, that the Dark Lord or his followers couldn't make one. > Yours Ken I think the time we saw Umbridge's patronus was during the scene in DH when she was questioning muggle borns. Her patronus was patrolling the area directly in front her and the others who were doing the questioning, but its position ensured that the dementors could still affect those being questioned. When Umbridge was stunned, her patronus disappeared, meaning the others then had to try and repel the dementors. The fact that Harry had to produce a patronus was one of the reasons he was recognised. I don't think there were any incidents in the books of actual proven death eaters being able to produce a patronus, but Umbridge wasn't actually a death eater (although in my opinion she should have been, she was equally as evil as any death eater). AJM From andy.mills at btinternet.com Tue May 24 20:42:18 2011 From: andy.mills at btinternet.com (Andy Mills) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:42:18 +0100 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <453416.81404.qm@web113911.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <453416.81404.qm@web113911.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4DDC182A.3050908@btinternet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190440 > June: > The patronis are in the form of something close to you. > She is a cat lover (the only good thing about her) it was stated > almost from the time that we met her (she had cat plates all over > her office wall); McGonagall is also a cat lover, we know this > because her animagas form is a cat. Why would she choose to appear > as a cat if she didn't like them? Therefore it makes sense that her > patronus is also a cat. Harry's is a stag because his father's was > a stag. Tonk's is a werewolf because she is in love with Lupin who > is a werewolf and that caused her patronus to change to a werewolf > (not sure what it was before). Snape's is a doe because he was in > love with Harry's mum who's patronus was a doe. It all seems to go > back to the theme of the books which is love. AJM: I'm not sure that a person's patronus and animagus form would actually always be the same thing. As I see it, a person's patronus is either something close to them or something they love, whilst their animagus form is more what they actually are. James' animagus was a stag, stags are always thought of big, bold and brave. Wormtail was a rat, he was sneaky and cowardly (not that I fully agree with that, I actually like rats, they're very intelligent and make excellent pets!) Sirius was a dog, in some ways Sirius was rather dog-like as a person. I think, although in some cases a person's patronus and animagus form may be the same, it may not always be the case. If, for instance, Sirius was close to someone and in love with them, his patronus may not necessarily take the form of a dog, but may take the form of something the person he was in love with was close to. It was also mentioned that a person's patronus can change (tonks's patronus changed). AJM From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 24 22:51:29 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 22:51:29 -0000 Subject: The Map and Dark Magic was Re: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190441 > > Questions > > 1. Lupin says the Marauders' map never lies, could this be a support for the > > argument that the map does not have dark magic in it? Do you agree or disagree > > with it? > > Potioncat: > Whoa, what a good question! As a group, we've had such a difficult time deciding what is Dark Magic and what isn't that my final answer is---darned if I know. But I'd say you have a really good point there. Pippin: Any harmful spell may be characterized as Dark Magic. In DADA class, the children are taught to defend themselves from magic users who may attempt to hurt, control or terrify them. The trouble is, only moral cowards like Slinkhard (the author of Umbridge's DADA text) would call it dark to take aggressive action in order to defend the innocent, while only one as lost to good as Voldemort would pretend that power needs no justification other than the strength to use it. The pat answer is that there is no pat answer. The Dark Arts, as Snape says, are unfixed and mutating. What was innocent may become sinister, what was designed purely for selfish and sinister ends may be, with care, used to do good. The victims of a magical attack seldom feel at the time that aggression against them was justified. Meanwhile the aggressors nearly always intend their actions for the greater good, although in hindsight they may come to see that it was the greater good of a select and highly unsavory group to which they no longer wish to belong. Steve: It is not like the Map is or is capable of plotting and scheming, and conceiving of the concept of deception. It simply reports the facts, though under the right circumstances, it does so with a degree of sarcasm and humor, though those are special circumstances and unrelated to reporting the location of people within Hogwarts. Pippin: I'm afraid the Map is not quite as innocent or powerless as that. Harry senses at once, even before he's seen it deceive Snape as to its true nature, that it is one of those magical devices that can think for itself. Certainly it doesn't pack the seductive punch of a Horcrux or the Hallows, but he knows it was made not only to facilitate mischief making, but to encourage it. As the Twins point out, once you know your way around Hogwarts, you don't really need the Map. The Map, like the Diary, was intended as a record of its makers' achievements and to engage others to follow in their footsteps, and it can make its user act as if he were under orders (see chapter 10.) True, they are only orders to break school rules about going out of bounds, not to kill people or drive them out of the school as the Diary sought to do. The Marauders were only playing at being wicked, but I believe they were trifling with some very powerful and dangerous magic in order to do it. Pippin From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed May 25 06:56:02 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 06:56:02 -0000 Subject: Portraits & Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mellaf88" wrote: mellaf88: > I agree with you and have wondered the extent of the paintings as well. At one stage, Harry walks into Dumbledore's office and interrupts a conversation (more than once I think...) between Dumbledore and the previous Heads. Does this imply that the portraits maintain a certain sentience? Would the same apply to busts, etc? The paintings have opinions, moods, habits but are they "shadows" of their lives or are they like a benign horcrux? Geoff: Surely this is a contradiction in terms. By definition, a Horcrux is created when a murder is committed and the soul splits as a result. You cannot have a "benign" murder so I would argue that a comparison of this sort is not accurate. I have seen a suggestion that a portrait has a memory of facts up to the time when the subject died but it is obvious that a portrait can interact with current action, for example when Dumbledore sends messages after Arthur Weasley is attacked in OOTP. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 25 14:01:43 2011 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:01:43 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Prisoner of Azkaban Ch 18: Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Pron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190443 Potioncat wrote: >(is there a name for a collection of chapters?) Carol responds: As far as I know, there's no official name for a group of chapters in this sense (I'd call it a section, personally). But long books (like LOTR) that group large numbers of chapters together call those groups "books." Carol, who thinks that several "books" in one book is rather silly and perhaps we ought to find another name From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed May 25 14:14:28 2011 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 14:14:28 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <4DDC182A.3050908@btinternet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190444 AJM wrote: > I'm not sure that a person's patronus and animagus form would actually always be the same thing. As I see it, a person's patronus is either something close to them or something they love, whilst their animagus form is more what they actually are. James' animagus was a stag, stags are always thought of big, bold and brave. Wormtail was a rat, he was sneaky and cowardly (not that I fully agree with that, I actually like rats, they're very intelligent and make excellent pets!) Sirius was a dog, in some ways Sirius was rather dog-like as a person. I think, although in some cases a person's patronus and animagus form may be the same, it may not always be the case. If, for instance, Sirius was close> to someone and in love with them, his patronus may not necessarily take the form of a dog, but may take the form of something the person he was in love with was close to. It was also mentioned that a person's patronus can change (tonks's patronus changed). Carol responds: I agree with you. Unfortunately, the only Animagus whose Patronus we see is McGonagall, and hers happen to be the same, but I don't think we can conclude from that one example that they're always the same. Surely, for example, if Tonks had an Animagus form, it wouldn't be a werewolf (though it might or might not be whatever her Patronus was before), and, surely, if Snape had an Animagus form, it wouldn't be a doe! Aberforth, on the other hand, probably would be a goat like his Patronus, and I wouldn't be surprised if Sirius's Patronus was a dog. DD's is a Phoenix like Fawkes; Harry's is a stag like his father's Animagus. Hermione's and Ron's Patronuses seem to represent each other. In short, based on limited evidence, I would say that your Animagus form represents your true self and your Patronus (or protective spirit) represents something close to you that you love or honor or revere. In the case of people with no lover or beloved, that Patronus will be their favorite animal. If Voldemort could cast a Patronus (and he probably can't if it requires a truly happy memory), his would probably be a snake, most likely his "dear Nagini." Carol, not sure that JKR herself distinguishes clearly in her mind between Patronuses and Animagi From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue May 24 20:22:49 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <441313.18789.qm@web121406.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <102707.89852.qm@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190445 > Ken: > I don't recall Umbrige ever making a Patrounus, In one of her Q&A's J.K.Rowling said that only good persons could make a > Patrounus, that the Dark Lord or his followers couldn't make one. June: At the trial for that ministry employee's wife (the one Ron was impersonating) because the dementors were there she had her patronus and it was a cat. There was (I am sure) another time that she had her patronus too I believe but I can't think of when offhand. I do not believe though that she was a death eater. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu May 26 03:25:24 2011 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 03:25:24 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190446 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: > It quotes JKR as saying that no Death Eater other than SS > could make a Patronus. I suppose that means only someone > good can make one. But, where does that leave Doris? > She is certainly without a good bone in her body. zanooda: I don't remember JKR ever saying that the DEs were unable to conjure Patronuses because they were bad people :-). What she actually said was that they couldn't produce Patronuses because there was no need for them to learn this spell, Dementors being their allies and all :-). Here is the relevant quote (JKR's Web Chat, July 30, 2007): Question: Was Snape the only Death Eater who could produce a full Patronus? JKR: Yes, because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Thu May 26 18:54:55 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <721810.20513.qm@web113913.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190447 > AJM wrote: > I'm not sure that a person's patronus and animagus form would actually always be the same thing. As I see it, a person's patronus is either something close to them or something they love, whilst their animagus form is more what they actually are. I think, although in some cases a person's patronus and animagus form may be the same, it may not always be the case. > Carol responds: I agree with you. Unfortunately, the only Animagus whose Patronus we see is McGonagall, and hers happen to be the same, but I don't think we can conclude from that one example that they're always the same. Surely, for example, if Tonks had an Animagus form, it wouldn't be a werewolf (though it might or might not be whatever her Patronus was before), and, surely, if Snape had an Animagus form, it wouldn't be a doe! Aberforth, on the other hand, probably would be a goat like his Patronus, and I wouldn't be surprised if Sirius's Patronus was a dog. DD's is a Phoenix like Fawkes; Harry's is a stag like his father's > Animagus. Hermione's and Ron's Patronuses seem to represent each other. June: This is just my opinion as no one actually knows but I agree with Carol. As I said in an earlier post, where the animagus seems to be your personality the patronus seems to be the one you love or someone who is in some way a part of you. But this makes me ask one question (concerning the animagus). If you and your friends decided to become animagus and one of your friends animagus forms turned out to be a rat, wouldn't you wonder about them? LOL From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Fri May 27 05:36:45 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 05:36:45 -0000 Subject: Portraits & Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190448 > mellaf88: > > I agree with you and have wondered the extent of the paintings as well. At one stage, Harry walks into Dumbledore's office and interrupts a conversation (more than once I think...) between Dumbledore and the previous Heads. Does this imply that the portraits maintain a certain sentience? Would the same apply to busts, etc? The paintings have opinions, moods, habits but are they "shadows" of their lives or are they like a benign horcrux? > Geoff: > Surely this is a contradiction in terms. By definition, a Horcrux is created when a > murder is committed and the soul splits as a result. > > You cannot have a "benign" murder so I would argue that a comparison of this sort > is not accurate. Joey: I think what mellaf88 meant was that portraits *behave* like Horcruxes i.e. all traits of the "original base" are retained but they have their own independence. Since portraits are not made by means of a sinister act, I guess she qualified saying "benign" Horcrux. :-) And, I agree with her. That's how it indeed looks like. In fact, it seems odd that people of WW don't get their portraits in place before they die. It's hard to consider Phineas or Fat Lady dead, isn't it? Cheers, ~Joey :-) From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Fri May 27 10:53:30 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 10:53:30 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190449 zanooda wrote: > > I don't remember JKR ever saying that the DEs were unable to conjure Patronuses because they were bad people :-). What she actually said was that they couldn't produce Patronuses because there was no need for them to learn this spell, Dementors being their allies and all :-). Here is the relevant quote (JKR's Web Chat, July 30, 2007): > > Question: Was Snape the only Death Eater who could produce a full Patronus? > > JKR: Yes, because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses. Joey: Does that mean that Dementors can differentiate between their victims and generate different experiences as per their will? If yes, that doesn't explain why Umbridge had to cast a Patronus to safegaurd herself and the DE named Yaxley. Dementors were already on Voldy's (and MoM's) side by then. Cheers, ~Joey :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri May 27 18:46:55 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 18:46:55 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" wrote: > > zanooda wrote: > > > > .... What she actually said was that they couldn't produce Patronuses because there was no need for them to learn this spell, Dementors being their allies and all :-). ... > > Joey: > > Does that mean that Dementors can differentiate between their victims and generate different experiences as per their will? If yes, that doesn't explain why Umbridge had to cast a Patronus to safegaurd herself and the DE named Yaxley. Dementors were already on Voldy's (and MoM's) side by then. > > Cheers, > ~Joey :-) > Steve: Consider this, we know that many wizards has interactions with Dementors. Minister Fudge had occasion to go to Azkaban. Mr. Weasley even went once, and he was affected by them, but at the same time, we was able to reasonably resist their influence. So, it is not impossible to be around Dementors, just unpleasant. I suspect the same is true of Death Eaters, though I suspect there is a Sociopathic element to it. I suspect, though having done many bad things, Death Eaters don't feel those things as bad because, in their own minds, they have justified it as good and right. So, I do think the presents of Dementors does affect the Death Eaters, but they generally endure it while it is there, but for the most part, avoid it much like wizards do. So, given the prolonged exposure while in the court room, Umbridge cast here Partonus to insulate her from the affects of the Dementors presences. It was a matter of comfort more than anything. To some extent, you can control your Patronus. You can order it to drive off the Dementors, or to simply hold them at bay. Buy either way, the Patronus is used to protect the caster from the effects of the Dementors. I think being allies, a Dementor is less likely to attack a Death Eater, but I don't think it implies that they are completely immune from the effects of the presence of Dementors. They still feel the dispare, but they manage it in the short term, and avoid it in the long term; just as other wizards do. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri May 27 19:01:23 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 19:01:23 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" wrote: > > ... > > Joey: > > Does that mean that Dementors can differentiate between their victims and generate different experiences as per their will? ... > > Cheers, > ~Joey :-) > Steve: Sorry, I forget to specifically address this one question. Yes, I think Dementors can moderate their influence on people. With most people it is their intention to subjugate them. To hold them as prisoners of their own despair so the Dementors can feed off them for as long as possible. But, I don't think the effect has to be completely debilitating. I think for those the Dementor have agreed not to capture in their web of despair, they can dial it back a bit. But I also think it is impossible to be around Dementors and not feel despair. Though if the Dementors hold back a bit, that despair is still there, but does not have to become debilitating. Also, it seems that various people react differently to the presence of Dementors. Some people can endure the despair better then others, as we see with Harry. Harry is more intensely affected than other people. Steve/bboyminn From pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net Fri May 27 14:32:00 2011 From: pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net (Pat Flynn) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 07:32:00 -0700 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001201cc1c7a$d7c10200$87430600$@net> No: HPFGUIDX 190452 > Joey: > > Does that mean that Dementors can differentiate between their victims > and generate different experiences as per their will? If yes, that > doesn't explain why Umbridge had to cast a Patronus to safegaurd > herself and the DE named Yaxley. Dementors were already on Voldy's > (and MoM's) side by then. Perhaps Umbridge just used her Patronuses to ensure her own personal comfort. She was spending several hours in an enclosed space with dementors; while it was cold and depressing where the accused sat, she remained warm and comfortable. Pat From prenfield at yahoo.com Fri May 27 19:33:19 2011 From: prenfield at yahoo.com (prenfield) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 19:33:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter for Marxists Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190453 Found an interesting albeit rudimentary Marxist critique of Harry Potter: http://www.thinqon.com/reader#p=--monetizing_magic--&q= Definitely worth reading. prenfield From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Fri May 27 21:53:34 2011 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (SteveE) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 21:53:34 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <721810.20513.qm@web113913.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190454 Steve E. replies: For some reason, I never thought of the animagus form really being connected thematically to the patronus. I always thought of the patronus as some kind of manifestation of the wizard or witch's personality or as a representation of something they felt strongly towards, like the doe representing Snape's love for Lily. I'm not sure why Harry's patronus is the same as his dad's, however, unless somehow it was a genetic similarity or a sort of Jungian collective unconscious kind of thing. I always figured the animagus form was one of conscious choice, either for some practical reason, or because the wizard simply wanted to be that kind of animal for whatever reason. Why Wormtail ever picked a rat is way beyond me. Is it possible that you don't really have a conscious choice as to what animal you turn into when you become an animagus? If that's true, then maybe it is like on to a patronus, w/ some connection to the personality or psyche. > > AJM wrote: > > I'm not sure that a person's patronus and animagus form would actually always be the same thing. As I see it, a person's patronus is either something close to them or something they love, whilst their animagus form is more what they actually are. I think, although in some cases a person's patronus and animagus form may be the same, it may not always be the case. > > > Animagus. Hermione's and Ron's Patronuses seem to represent each other. > > June: > This is just my opinion as no one actually knows but I agree with > Carol. As I said in an earlier post, where the animagus seems to be > your personality the patronus seems to be the one you love or someone > who is in some way a part of you. > From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri May 27 22:16:09 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 22:16:09 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190455 > > Steve E. replies: > > For some reason, I never thought of the animagus form really being connected thematically to the patronus. I always thought of the patronus as some kind of manifestation of the wizard or witch's personality or as a representation of something they felt strongly towards, like the doe representing Snape's love for Lily. I'm not sure why Harry's patronus is the same as his dad's, however, unless somehow it was a genetic similarity or a sort of Jungian collective unconscious kind of thing. Potioncat: A couple of points--as I see it. The Patronus is like a Patron and I believe it takes an animal shape that represents a protector or someone important. So Severus's Patronus is a doe, representing Lily. Harry's is a stag representing his Dad. Lily's Patronus was also a doe (per canon) but we do not know what form James' Patronus took. I don't think the Patronus reflects the wizard's personality so much as it reflects someone who is important to them. > Steve: > I always figured the animagus form was one of conscious choice, either for some practical reason, or because the wizard simply wanted to be that kind of animal for whatever reason. Why Wormtail ever picked a rat is way beyond me. Is it possible that you don't really have a conscious choice as to what animal you turn into when you become an animagus? If that's true, then maybe it is like on to a patronus, w/ some connection to the personality or psyche. Potioncat: Per an JKR interview, the wizard does not get to choose their Animagus form. So it seems to reflect the personality of the wizard. Peter was rat, you dirty rat and Rita Skeeter was a bug. > > From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat May 28 13:54:19 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 13:54:19 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190456 > Carol responds: > > As far as I know, there's no official name for a group of chapters in this sense (I'd call it a section, personally). But long books (like LOTR) that group large numbers of chapters together call those groups "books." Potioncat: I knew that question would bring you out of hiding! > > > Carol responds: > > I agree with you. Unfortunately, the only Animagus whose Patronus we see is McGonagall, and hers happen to be the same, but I don't think we can conclude from that one example that they're always the same. Surely, for example, if Tonks had an Animagus form, it wouldn't be a werewolf (though it might or might not be whatever her Patronus was before), and, surely, if Snape had an Animagus form, it wouldn't be a doe! Aberforth, on the other hand, probably would be a goat like his Patronus, and I wouldn't be surprised if Sirius's Patronus was a dog. DD's is a Phoenix like Fawkes; Harry's is a stag like his father's Animagus. Hermione's and Ron's Patronuses seem to represent each other. > > Carol, not sure that JKR herself distinguishes clearly in her mind between Patronuses and Animagi Potioncat: I snipped a portion of your post--and realized I said almost the same thing in a post I wrote after this one. Sorry about that. Not too surprising, though. I've often wondered if McGonagall has the same form for Animagus and Patronus because she is so self-reliant and doesn't depend on someone else for strength. However, your comment about JKR may be an even better explanation. I wouldn't be surprised if Sirius' Patronus was a stag--but a dog works as well. And I think if Severus had an Animagus form it would be a dragon, a bat, or a spider. Take a look at the Hebridean Black dragon--sounds just like him. > From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat May 28 14:09:13 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 14:09:13 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190457 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: Steve E. replies: > > For some reason, I never thought of the animagus form really being connected thematically to the patronus. I always thought of the patronus as some kind of manifestation of the wizard or witch's personality or as a representation of something they felt strongly towards, like the doe representing Snape's love for Lily. I'm not sure why Harry's patronus is the same as his dad's, however, unless somehow it was a genetic similarity or a sort of Jungian collective unconscious kind of thing. Geoff: I think I would question whether the Animagus form is connected to the Patronus because there is no evidence to support this in canon. There is no character in the books for whom we know the Animagus form and also the form of their Patronus. We know of five people who have Animagus forms: Professor MacGonagall, James Potter, Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew and Rita Skeeter, but we know nothing about their Patronus. Your suggestion that Harry has the same Patronus as James is not borne out in canon; James' Animagus is a stag but in the case of Harry, it is his Patronus that takes this form. In POA, Harry sees the Patronus on the first occasion and THINKS that it is James. On the second occasion, he realises that it is he himself who has this form. '"Come on!" he muttered, staring about. "Where are you? Dad, come on-" But no one came. Harry raised his head to look at the circle of Dementors acros the lake. One of them was lowering its hood. It was time for the rescuer to appear - but no one was coming to help this time - And then it hit him - he understood. He hadn't seen his father - he had seen *himself* -' (POA "Hermione's Secret" p.300 UK edition) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 28 15:18:07 2011 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:18:07 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190458 > Geoff: > I think I would question whether the Animagus form is connected to the Patronus > because there is no evidence to support this in canon. > > There is no character in the books for whom we know the Animagus form and also > the form of their Patronus. Pippin: You are probably banging yourself on the forehead right now, because in fact we do know McGonagall's patronus, as you probably remembered right after you hit "send." It is a cat with spectacle markings, similar to her animagus. She conjured it, or rather them, to serve as messengers just after Harry revealed himself in DH. Which leads to the theory that the animagus form and the patronus form must be related. However there's no automatic connection between them, because we are told that no one can know what their animagus form will be until they've mastered the spell, and that wouldn't be true if you could find out by learning to conjure your patronus. The patronus charm, although challenging, is certainly easier by far than the animagus transformation, which, we are told, takes years to accomplish. On the question of who can use a patronus: the FAQ section of JKR's website says that the patronus is "anti-dark magic" which makes it difficult for dark wizards to interfere with it. She doesn't say that they can't use it. I suppose that a wizard who normally uses dark magic can use anti-dark spells if he chooses. But the general Death Eater attitude is probably the one expressed by Draco in HBP, that he doesn't need to practice Defense Against the Dark Arts spells, being a dark wizard himself. He has a sense, foolishly, that the dark forces are on his side. Then, too, the Dementors are Voldemort's allies, and arming yourself against them could be considered to show either a lack of faith in Voldemort's ability to control them or even worse, treasonous intent. Umbridge, OTOH, probably didn't ever think of herself as a Dark witch, nor would she think that the dementors can be trusted as allies, having been betrayed by them when they deserted the ministry in OOP. And I don't know if she ever admitted to herself that the Ministry was under Voldemort's sway. Pippin From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat May 28 21:31:20 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 21:31:20 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Pippin: > You are probably banging yourself on the forehead right now, because in fact we do know McGonagall's patronus, as you probably remembered right after you hit "send." It is a cat with spectacle markings, similar to her animagus. She conjured it, or rather them, to serve as messengers just after Harry revealed himself in DH. Which leads to the theory that the animagus form and the patronus form must be related. > However there's no automatic connection between them, because we are told that no one can know what their animagus form will be until they've mastered the spell, and that wouldn't be true if you could find out by learning to conjure your patronus. Geoff: One example doesn't necessarily prove a general relationship. One swallow doesn't make a summer. My main point was actually that some people jumped to the wrong conclusion that Harry and James shared a similar Patronus and there definitely isn't any canon evidence for that. However, it would be interesting to know how much control a wizard has over their Animagus form. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat May 28 21:41:09 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 21:41:09 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190460 > > Geoff: > > > However, it would be interesting to know how much control a wizard > has over their Animagus form. > Potioncat: A wizard has no control over his Animagus form, according to an interview with JKR. That, and other JKR comments about Animagi can be found at Accio Quote--here's a link. http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/patronuses.htm From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Sat May 28 21:54:30 2011 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (SteveE) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 21:54:30 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190461 > Steve E. I'm not sure why Harry's patronus is the same as his dad's, however, unless somehow it was a genetic similarity or a sort of Jungian collective unconscious kind of thing. > > Geoff: > Your suggestion that Harry has the same Patronus as James is not borne out in > canon; James' Animagus is a stag but in the case of Harry, it is his Patronus > that takes this form. In POA, Harry sees the Patronus on the first occasion and > THINKS that it is James. On the second occasion, he realises that it is he himself > who has this form. > Steve E. replies: You're right Geoff, I was thinking of James's Animagus form, not the form that his patronus manifested itself as. It is interesting, however, that Harry's patronus animal was the very same animal that his father turned into as an animagus. I can't remember if Harry knew of James's animagus form being a stag when he first cast his Patronus spell or not. At least Sirius's animagus form was one that could go out at times in civilized society. Not too many stags wandering the streets of towns or cities. And I wonder of course if Harry ever went on to become an animagus what animal form his would be. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat May 28 22:57:07 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 22:57:07 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "SteveE" wrote: Steve E: > You're right Geoff, I was thinking of James's Animagus form, not the form that his patronus manifested itself as. It is interesting, however, that Harry's patronus animal was the very same animal that his father turned into as an animagus. I can't remember if Harry knew of James's animagus form being a stag when he first cast his Patronus spell or not. Geoff: I think, looking at the following quote from canon, that the answer is "No". '(Lupin speaking) "I doubt whether any Hogwarts students ever found out more about the Hogwarts grounds and Hogsmeade than we did... And that's how we came to write the Marauder's Map and sign it with our nicknames. Sirius is Padfoot. Peter is Wormtail. James was Prongs." "What sort of animal-?" Harry began but Hermione cut across him. (POA "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs" p.260 UK edition) I'm prepared to put money on Harry's question being about his father's form. It is unfinished and I don't think there was another opportunity for Harry to ask again before the confrontation with the Dementors when he realised what his form probably was. The matter was confirmed in his final conversation with Lupin: '"Yes, your father was always a stag when he transformed," he (Lupin) said. "You guessed right.. that's why we called him Prongs."' (POA "Owl Post Again" p.309 UK edition) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun May 29 16:56:46 2011 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 29 May 2011 16:56:46 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 5/29/2011, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1306688206.504.64823.m10@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190464 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday May 29, 2011 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2011 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun May 29 18:37:33 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 18:37:33 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <721810.20513.qm@web113913.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > > ... > > June: > This is just my opinion as no one actually knows but I agree with > Carol. As I said in an earlier post, where the animagus seems to be > your personality the patronus seems to be the one you love or someone > who is in some way a part of you. But this makes me ask one question > (concerning the animagus). If you and your friends decided to become > animagus and one of your friends animagus forms turned out to be a > rat, wouldn't you wonder about them? LOL > Steve: Just a reminder that a Patronus can change, but your Animagus form can not. I think each does represent a part of yourself, but a very different part. To some extent, the Patronus is a Protector, or someone or something that you have an emotional connection to. For Harry, though he really doesn't realize it at the time, his Patronus is a connection to his father. It does represent your personality, but more so it represents the mood you are in (to a certain extent). So, again, there is some outward projection of your emotional self and your state of mind reflected in the Patronus. However, the Animagus probably represent a much deeper immutable sense of yourself. I'm not so sure we can interpret a persons Animagus for too literally though. If someone turned into a Rat, that would not necessarily mean they are a 'rat' in the sense that Peter is. It could have something to do with stealth, or being a survivor in harsh conditions, or perhaps simply being something of a scavenger. It doesn't necessarily have to represent sneakiness or betrayal or untrustworthiness. Though I suspect for kids, your Animagus would be up for derision if it was something less than a majestic animal. For me personally, I would like to be some type of bird of prey, though wishing certainly wouldn't make it so. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From santababy2009 at sbcglobal.net Sun May 29 17:13:44 2011 From: santababy2009 at sbcglobal.net (santababy2009 at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 17:13:44 -0000 Subject: Can some one clear this up for me? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190466 Does Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom share the same birthdays? I was told that Kreacher, the "Blacks" elf, realized his ways was wrong and becomes friends with the trio...I for one find this hard to believe and am wondering when and why does this?? Guess I have to reread Deathly Hallows! LOL santababy2009 From bart at moosewise.com Sun May 29 20:11:42 2011 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 16:11:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can some one clear this up for me? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DE2A87E.1070609@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190467 On 5/29/2011 1:13 PM, santababy2009 at sbcglobal.net wrote: > Does Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom share the same birthdays? > > I was told that Kreacher, the "Blacks" elf, realized his ways was > wrong and becomes friends with the trio...I for one find this hard > to believe and am wondering when and why does this?? Guess I have > to reread Deathly Hallows! LOL Bart: A) I'll have to re-read it, but I believe Harry & Neville were born one day apart. B) Kreacher didn't realize his ways were wrong. One thing that JKR tried to do was to make it that just because a being has human level intelligence does not mean that they have human psychology. House elf psychology includes a necessity to serve an alpha. Even Dobby, certainly neurotic and possibly insane, had a powerful need to serve; he just wanted to be paid and to choose who he served. One other thing they appear to require, however, is appreciation for their work, even if it was just pleasure or satisfaction on the part of their alpha. The most twisted elves we saw were Dobby, who was treated as if he could do nothing right, decided he wanted freedom to choose his own alpha, and, seeing how his previous alpha used money to get his way, decided he wanted to be paid. Winky, who was fired for trying to deal with conflicting commands the best she could, pretty much stopped trying to do anything. Kreacher's previous alphas loved him, appreciated him, and they hated Sirius. And, when becoming Sirius' house elf, Sirius did something almost as bad as showing lack of appreciation: he abandoned Kreacher (at least from Kreacher's point of view). All Kreacher had were the portraits, which were empty reminders of his lost beloved Reggie and Wallie. Sirius made the mistake of treating Kreacher as a human servant, rather than as a house elf. He let his resentment of his brother and mother. He saw Kreacher's continuing loyalty to be an attack on him, and treated Kreacher with resentment as well, rather than trying to win Kreacher over. The trio, in recognizing Kreacher's affection for Reggie and, more importantly, that it was a two-way street, managed to win Kreacher over. Bart From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun May 29 21:03:41 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 21:03:41 -0000 Subject: Can some one clear this up for me? In-Reply-To: <4DE2A87E.1070609@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190468 -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > On 5/29/2011 1:13 PM, santababy2009 at ... wrote: > > Does Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom share the same birthdays? Bart: > A) I'll have to re-read it, but I believe Harry & Neville were born one > day apart. Geoff: It is well-documented that Harry was born on 31/07/80. Jo Rowling revealed in an ITV1 programme transmitted in 2007 "A Day in the LIfe of J K Rowling" that Neville was born just a few hours prior to Harry on 30/07/80. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon May 30 06:15:15 2011 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 06:15:15 -0000 Subject: Can some one clear this up for me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: Geoff: > It is well-documented that Harry was born on 31/07/80. Jo Rowling > revealed in an ITV1 programme transmitted in 2007 "A Day in the LIfe > of J K Rowling" that Neville was born just a few hours prior to Harry on > 30/07/80. Geoff (later): Just correcting myself... The TV programme was, of course, "A Year in the life..." :-( From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 30 21:51:02 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 14:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <533252.10448.qm@web113918.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190470 > Joey: > Does that mean that Dementors can differentiate between their victims and generate different experiences as per their will? If yes, that doesn't explain why Umbridge had to cast a Patronus to safegaurd herself and the DE named Yaxley. Dementors were already > on Voldy's (and MoM's) side by then. June: I think that the Dementors have the same effect on everyone good or bad and that is why Umbridge needed the patronus. From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Mon May 30 22:18:43 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <791390.41437.qm@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190471 > Steve: > > To some extent, the Patronus is a Protector, or someone or something that you have an emotional connection to. For Harry, though he really doesn't realize it at the time, his Patronus is a connection to his father. It does represent your personality, but more so it represents the mood you are in (to a certain extent). So, again, there is some outward projection of your > emotional self and your state of mind reflected in the Patronus. > However, the Animagus probably represent a much deeper immutable sense of yourself. I'm not so sure we can interpret a persons Animagus for too literally though. If someone turned into a Rat, that would not necessarily mean they are a 'rat' in the sense that Peter is. It could have something to do with stealth, or being a survivor in harsh conditions, or perhaps simply being something of a scavenger. It doesn't necessarily have to represent sneakiness > or betrayal or untrustworthiness. June: With all due respect, Steve you are saying the same thing that Carol and I said to make a point to what argument? From greatraven at hotmail.com Tue May 31 02:33:41 2011 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 02:33:41 -0000 Subject: Portraits & Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190472 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" wrote: > > > mellaf88: > > > I agree with you and have wondered the extent of the paintings as well. At one stage, Harry walks into Dumbledore's office and interrupts a conversation (more than once I think...) between Dumbledore and the previous Heads. Does this imply that the portraits maintain a certain sentience? Would the same apply to busts, etc? The paintings have opinions, moods, habits but are they "shadows" of their lives or are they like a benign horcrux? > > > Geoff: > > Surely this is a contradiction in terms. By definition, a Horcrux is created when a > > murder is committed and the soul splits as a result. > > > > You cannot have a "benign" murder so I would argue that a comparison of this sort > > is not accurate. > > Joey: > > I think what mellaf88 meant was that portraits *behave* like Horcruxes i.e. all traits of the "original base" are retained but they have their own independence. Since portraits are not made by means of a sinister act, I guess she qualified saying "benign" Horcrux. :-) > > And, I agree with her. That's how it indeed looks like. > > In fact, it seems odd that people of WW don't get their portraits in place before they die. It's hard to consider Phineas or Fat Lady dead, isn't it? > > Cheers, > ~Joey :-) Sue: Or Dumbledore, for that matter. His portrait is issuing orders to Snape all through Deathly Hallows. > From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Tue May 31 05:36:53 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 05:36:53 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190473 > Joey: > > Does that mean that Dementors can differentiate between their victims and generate different experiences as per their will? If yes, that doesn't explain why Umbridge had to cast a Patronus to safegaurd herself and the DE named Yaxley. Dementors were already on Voldy's (and MoM's) side by then. Steve explained: > Consider this, we know that many wizards has interactions with Dementors. Minister Fudge had occasion to go to Azkaban. Mr. Weasley even went once, and he was affected by them, but at the same time, we was able to reasonably resist their influence. So, it is not impossible to be around Dementors, just unpleasant. [snip] > So, I do think the presents of Dementors does affect the Death Eaters, but they generally endure it while it is there, but for the most part, avoid it much like wizards do. [snip] Joey now: Wow! Really well articulated! Thanks, Steve! :-) Steve continued: > Sorry, I forget to specifically address this one question. Yes, I think Dementors can moderate their influence on people. [snip] >I think for those the Dementor have agreed not to capture in their web of despair, they can dial it back a bit. [snip] Joey now: I appreciate what you are saying about how the effect of Dementors on wizards / witches also depends on the wizard's / witch's personailty, mindset, etc.. Canon makes sense to me now! :-) But when it comes to Dementor's ability to distinguish between victims, I'm not sure if I got the hang of it yet. Didn't Sirius say (in PoA) that they couldn't differentiate whether he was a human or a dog? That it only mattered to them that some form of life with hope / joy is around so that they can feed off that emotion? If that is the case, how can they ever make out that the victim is their ally or not? Didn't they simply rush into Hogwarts grounds when they heard the Quidditch match uproar? They were supposed to be DD's allies then. In fact, I even wonder how anyone in the WW *communicate* feelings of friendship or enimity to them. Do they understand English? :-) Cheers, ~Joey :-) From happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com Tue May 31 05:44:30 2011 From: happyjoeysmiley at yahoo.com (Joey Smiley) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 05:44:30 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <533252.10448.qm@web113918.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190474 > > Joey: > > Does that mean that Dementors can differentiate between their > victims and generate different experiences as per their will? If > yes, that doesn't explain why Umbridge had to cast a Patronus to > safegaurd herself and the DE named Yaxley. Dementors were already > > on Voldy's (and MoM's) side by then. > > > June: > I think that the Dementors have the same effect on everyone good > or bad and that is why Umbridge needed the patronus. Joey: Well, I think so too. Yet Steve's explanation as to how the effect can vary *for the victim* based on the victim's personailty, mindset does make sense to me. I suppose it's like no two individuals suffering from the same disease can have *exactly the same* experience even though the disease, its intensity & symptoms could be just the same. Cheers, ~Joey :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 31 06:13:45 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 06:13:45 -0000 Subject: Portraits & Photographs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sbursztynski" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joey Smiley" wrote: > > ... > > > > > ... > > > > Joey: > > > > ... > > > > In fact, it seems odd that people of WW don't get their portraits in place before they die. It's hard to consider Phineas or Fat Lady dead, isn't it? > > > > Cheers, > > ~Joey :-) > > Sue: > > Or Dumbledore, for that matter. His portrait is issuing orders to Snape all through Deathly Hallows. > Steve: Well, we do know that people get their portraits made before they die. And per my previous explanation, portraits are like actor in a play, they play their role well, but, as JKR has said, you can't probe them at depth or the illusion breaks down. However, here is an interesting possibility. If we assume Dumbledore's portrait was already in existance before his death, then that portrait was available to Dumbledore. Dumbledore knew he was dying, it is possible the spoke to his portrait and kept the portrait filled in on his plans, so the portrait could give appropriate advice after Dumbledore was gone. Portraits do have a limited degree of sentience, in that they can remember, act autonomously, and they can engage in dynamic dialog; they don't simple keep reciting the same script. So, Dumbledore, sensing his eminent death, could have told the portrait the grand master plan, so the portrait could carry on after he was gone. Hey ... it could happen. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 31 06:19:17 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 06:19:17 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <791390.41437.qm@web113906.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: .... > > > June: > With all due respect, Steve you are saying the same thing that > Carol and I said to make a point to what argument? > Steve: Yes, but simply saying 'I agree' would be to short a post, and I do think I added some perspective to the discussion. Yes, I agree with you, but I agreed with you from my own unique angle. I would have thought you would welcome someone agreeing with you in the discussion. Steve/bboyminn From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue May 31 17:51:13 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <945580.20330.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190477 > June: > I think that the Dementors have the same effect on everyone good > or bad and that is why Umbridge needed the patronus. > Joey: > Well, I think so too. Yet Steve's explanation as to how the > effect can vary *for the victim* based on the victim's > personailty, mindset does make sense to me. > > I suppose it's like no two individuals suffering from the same > disease can have *exactly the same* experience even though the > disease, its intensity & symptoms could be just the same. June: That is exactly the way I see it. It makes sense that no two people will react the same way. True, everyone fears the Dementors but look at what happened on the train in POA, Harry was the only one who passed out and the others stated that they felt cold and like all happiness had been removed from the world, while meantime Draco was trying to hide in the Weasley twins` compartment and Lupin later said that they affected Harry worse than everyone else because he had true horrors in his past (I am actually reading it right now and on that chapter). So the Dementors do affect people differently and the death eaters, although they too must have bad things in their past, are probably not affected by them because they are the ones doing the bad things to everyone else. I actually got a kick out of the idea of the Dementors when I first read the book. I tell people now if they say they are feeling down that there must be a dementor around, lol. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue May 31 22:01:54 2011 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 22:01:54 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <945580.20330.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190478 > > > June: > snip . So the Dementors do affect people > differently and the death eaters, although they too must have bad > things in their past, are probably not affected by them because they > are the ones doing the bad things to everyone else. I actually got > a kick out of the idea of the Dementors when I first read the book. > I tell people now if they say they are feeling down that there must > be a dementor around, lol. > Potioncat: But, if Dementors didn't affect Death Eaters, then why have Azkaban? It seemed to have taken a toll on all those who went there,if you ask me. We know that Snape offered a difference defense against Dementors. I imagine DEs would use that spell (whatever it is) rather than Expecto Patronum. From d2dmiles at yahoo.de Tue May 31 22:22:34 2011 From: d2dmiles at yahoo.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 00:22:34 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Patronus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190479 Hello, >Potioncat: >But, if Dementors didn't affect Death Eaters, then why have Azkaban? >It seemed to have taken a toll on all those who went there,if you ask me. >We know that Snape offered a difference defense against Dementors. >I imagine DEs would use that spell (whatever it is) rather than Expecto >Patronum. I always had the idea that Occlumency is Snape's answer to the effects of Dementors. Closing your mind against them, would make it impossible for them to extract any feelings from you. Miles From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue May 31 23:28:04 2011 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:28:04 -0000 Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: <945580.20330.qm@web113912.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 190480 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing wrote: > > > June: > > I think that the Dementors have the same effect on everyone good > > or bad and that is why Umbridge needed the patronus. > > > Joey: > > Well, I think so too. Yet Steve's explanation as to how the > > effect can vary *for the victim* based on the victim's > > personailty, mindset does make sense to me. > > > > ... > > > June: > That is exactly the way I see it. It makes sense that no two people > will react the same way. True, everyone fears the Dementors but > look at what happened on the train in POA, .... So the Dementors > do affect people differently and the death eaters, although they > too must have bad things in their past, are probably not affected > by them because they are the ones doing the bad things to everyone > else. ... > Steve: Consider this, you've probably all been somewhere at sometime an come across a 'creepy guy'. The guy doesn't have to do anything or say anything, but he still creeps everyone one out ... some more than others. We know Harry is more effected because he has more substantial horrors in his past, and while the Death Eaters have surely done horrible things, they don't see them, or feel them, as horrible, and therefore aren't effected by them to the degree that a decent rational person is. But, I think the Dementors effect everyone ... everyone. So, Death Eaters in Azkaban are effected, and as time goes on, they wallow in misery, they start to think that maybe some of the things they've done really were horrible, and that compounds the effect of the Dementors, which I suspect is the Dementor's plan. Set up a cascade of dispare and have unlimited misery to feed on. We know that the Dementors do not automatically Kiss everyone they meet, that implies they are capable of a degree of restrain. And I also suspect that they can apply that to the general effect they have. If they meet someone they are allied with, whether the Ministry or the Death Eaters, they can restrain their feeding frenzy, and as a result the effect is not so strong. But, I do think that anyone in the presence of even the most self-restraining Dementor is going to feel the cloud of darkness and misery come over them. However, if the Dementors are restrained, they can tolerate the misery long enough to do the job at hand, and then get the he|| out of there. The absolute best encounter with a Dementor is still a miserable experience. But by the same token we know that every encounter does not have to be a deadly or soulless experience. Steve/bboyminn From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Tue May 31 21:48:49 2011 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <653834.49542.qm@web113917.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 190482 > June: > With all due respect, Steve you are saying the same thing that > Carol and I said to make a point to what argument? > Steve: > Yes, but simply saying 'I agree' would be to short a post, and > I do think I added some perspective to the discussion. Yes, I > agree with you, but I agreed with you from my own unique angle. > I would have thought you would welcome someone agreeing with you > in the discussion. June: It's just that I didn't get what you were on about, lol. I thought I was missing something there, but you are right, they don't allow our posts if they aren't almost a novel, lol.