From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 02:51:19 2011
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 02:51:19 -0000
Subject: Halloween Toasts
In-Reply-To: <j8kogm+p74l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j8nmr7+n801@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191379



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> Halloween is approaching. .<SNIP> So, Who would you like to toast on the anniversary of Voldemort's first defeat?
> 
> Happy Halloween
> Potioncat
>


To Sirius Black, who gave Harry a little bit of father's love in whatever time he was allowed to.

Lovely post Potioncat and Happy Halloween!




From natti_shafer at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 06:10:42 2011
From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 06:10:42 -0000
Subject: Halloween Toasts
In-Reply-To: <j8kogm+p74l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j8o2h2+5e6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191380








--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
> So, Who would you like to toast on the anniversary of Voldemort's first defeat?
> 
> Happy Halloween
> Potioncat
>

To Hermione Granger who was loyal to Harry until the very end, and to Ron Weasley who always wanted to come back.

Nathaniel




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov  1 23:42:26 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:42:26 -0000
Subject: Halloween Toasts
In-Reply-To: <j8o2h2+5e6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j8q052+uk1f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191381


To JK Rowling, and all the members of HPFGU, past, present and future!

Thanks, Potioncat, for a lovely topic and post.

Pippin






From liz.treky at ntlworld.com  Wed Nov  2 01:44:42 2011
From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark)
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 01:44:42 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Halloween
In-Reply-To: <j8q052+uk1f@eGroups.com>
References: <j8q052+uk1f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <266ECF9B0891417189F317277CC7A2D8@TrekyPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 191382

As the subject was kindly recently brought up, I got thinking... and a 
couple of nice discussion questions popped into my head (sorry if it's been 
discussed before).

Why is Hallowe'en celebrated in the wizarding world? And what type of 
celebrations do you think go on besides Hogwarts Hallowe'en Feast?

Liz 




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Nov  2 02:23:26 2011
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:23:26 -0000
Subject: Halloween
In-Reply-To: <266ECF9B0891417189F317277CC7A2D8@TrekyPC>
Message-ID: <j8q9iu+85og@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191383



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz Clark" <liz.treky at ...> wrote:
>
> As the subject was kindly recently brought up, I got thinking... and a 
> couple of nice discussion questions popped into my head (sorry if it's been 
> discussed before).
> 
> Why is Hallowe'en celebrated in the wizarding world? And what type of 
> celebrations do you think go on besides Hogwarts Hallowe'en Feast?
> 
> Liz
>
Nikkalmati

Interesting question.  First, the WW in the books reflects the wider world of several centuries ago.  Whatever the Muggles did,  the witches and wizards did.  They probably also celebrate Guy Fawkes day, although it is never mentioned.  Second, witchcraft in the popular mind is associated with the pre-Christian Celtic religion for which Samhan, celebrated at the same time as Halloween is now, was a great feastday.  However, our witches and wizards never do anything particularly religious, so probably everyone just celebrates with a big meal with decorations.  

Nikkalmati 




From lkotur at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  1 23:27:28 2011
From: lkotur at yahoo.com (lkotur)
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 23:27:28 -0000
Subject: Halloween Toasts
In-Reply-To: <j8o2h2+5e6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j8pv90+uhdr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191384

To JKR, for writing one heck of a story!

lkotur



From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Wed Nov  2 20:58:10 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:58:10 -0000
Subject: Hallowe'en
In-Reply-To: <j8q9iu+85og@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j8sat2+smh4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191385



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote: 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz Clark" <liz.treky@> wrote:

Liz:
> > As the subject was kindly recently brought up, I got thinking... and a 
> > couple of nice discussion questions popped into my head (sorry if it's been 
> > discussed before).
> > 
> > Why is Hallowe'en celebrated in the wizarding world? And what type of 
> > celebrations do you think go on besides Hogwarts Hallowe'en Feast?

Nikkalmati:
> Interesting question.  First, the WW in the books reflects the wider world of several centuries ago.  Whatever the Muggles did,  the witches and wizards did.

Geoff:  
Bearing in mind that nowadays Hallowe'en is frequently linked with the 
idea of Dark magic with ghosts and evil spirits being abroad for one night.

Nikkalmati:
They probably also celebrate Guy Fawkes day, although it is never mentioned.  Second, witchcraft in the popular mind is associated with the pre-Christian Celtic religion for which Samhan, celebrated at the same time as Halloween is now, was a great feastday. 

Geoff:
It depends on which popular mind you are considering. If you were to ask 
the great majority of British people what Samhain was, they would not know. 
I didn't until fairly recently when I was following something up on Hallowe'en
in connection with HP and came across the name. I don't think it was in canon; 
it might have been in an HP-related article or one of my occasional browses 
in fanfic.

It may mean something more to the Irish who seem to be more into Gaelic 
things than their Welsh or Scottish cousins.




From Walabio at MacOSX.COM  Thu Nov  3 02:23:55 2011
From: Walabio at MacOSX.COM (alabio)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 02:23:55 +0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <1320250808.2162.59366.m7@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1320250808.2162.59366.m7@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <CB2ECA84-0991-405F-AD35-4CC6BAF9A8D5@MacOSX.Com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191386

	Nikkalmati:

> 	Interesting question.  First, the WW in the books reflects the wider world of several centuries ago.  Whatever the Muggles did,  the witches and wizards did.  They probably also celebrate Guy Fawkes day, although it is never mentioned.  Second, witchcraft in the popular mind is associated with the pre-Christian Celtic religion for which Samhan, celebrated at the same time as Halloween is now, was a great feastday.  However, our witches and wizards never do anything particularly religious, so probably everyone just celebrates with a big meal with decorations.

projectrosemary:
	I thought about religion in the Wizarding World.  It seems to me that most witches and wizards do not have religion at all.  They are mostly agnostic atheists.  Wizards and witches do not have to believe because they have evidence.  We need to define terms here:

	Belief is an idea held firmly with no evidence.  A science is knowledge accepted because of supporting evidence.  I shall give an example:

	I accept the mountains of evidence that the Universe took on its present form about 13.7 billion years ago.  I accept the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old.  I accept the evidence from genetics, the fossil-record, observations, et cetera that biological evolution occurs.

	The flat/young-earth geocentric creationist believes in geocentric young/flat-earth creationism with no evidence.

	Wizards and witches can directly perceive ghosts.  They know that souls exist because dementors eat them (souls are mortal) and murders tear them, allowing the creation of horcruxes.  Witches and wizards do not have religion because they do not need to believe anything, just accept the evidence.




From sherlock2040 at gmail.com  Thu Nov  3 16:41:09 2011
From: sherlock2040 at gmail.com (Sherlock)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:41:09 -0000
Subject: Hallowe'en
In-Reply-To: <j8sat2+smh4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j8ug75+9dru@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191387

I grew up near Pendle Hill in Pendle, Lancashire. Halloween was always quite important because of the Pendle Witch Trials. 

Trick or Treating wasn't very common (I'm 25) as I think a lot of people in my village viewed it as going round begging. We did dress up and have parties. 

More importantly to us was Mischief Night (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8339617.stm) which is more in-line with the American idea of Trick or Treat. 

I think the UK it does seem more of a "lets dress up and have fun" night and I would imagine Hogwarts celebrates it because it's become the night of ghosts, goblins, witches and other ghoulies rather than any connection to the old Pagan festivals. 

-- Steph




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Fri Nov  4 01:33:28 2011
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 01:33:28 -0000
Subject: Hallowe'en
In-Reply-To: <j8sat2+smh4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j8vfd8+khnr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191388



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
>> 
> Geoff:  
> Bearing in mind that nowadays Hallowe'en is frequently linked with the 
> idea of Dark magic with ghosts and evil spirits being abroad for one night.
> 
> Nikkalmati:
 Second, witchcraft in the popular mind is associated with the pre-Christian Celtic religion for which Samhan, celebrated at the same time as Halloween is now, was a great feastday. 
> 
> Geoff:
> It depends on which popular mind you are considering. If you were to ask 
> the great majority of British people what Samhain was, they would not know. 
> I didn't until fairly recently when I was following something up on Hallowe'en
> in connection with HP and came across the name. I don't think it was in canon; 
> it might have been in an HP-related article or one of my occasional browses 
> in fanfic.
> 
> It may mean something more to the Irish who seem to be more into Gaelic 
> things than their Welsh or Scottish cousins.
>
Nikkalmati

I checked with Wikipedia and it is very confusing.  Apparently it is clear the Celts did something on this date but whether it was just an assembly or a religious feast is not clear.  It also is not clear what Samhain means - either "summer" or possibly "assembly".  Everything has been overlaid with the Celtic revival and romanticism and finally New Age beliefs.  Currently most people just want to dress up and party.

Nikkalmati




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov  4 21:23:52 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:23:52 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <CB2ECA84-0991-405F-AD35-4CC6BAF9A8D5@MacOSX.Com>
Message-ID: <j91l58+iqjo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191389


> 
> projectrosemary:
> 	I thought about religion in the Wizarding World.  It seems to me that most witches and wizards do not have religion at all.  They are mostly agnostic atheists.  Wizards and witches do not have to believe because they have evidence.  We need to define terms here:

Pippin:
I don't think we know enough to say anything about the beliefs of "most witches and wizards."  We do know that  many wizards and witches celebrate Christmas and Easter though we don't know whether they attach any spiritual significance to them. 

 I would say that Harry, along with most witches and wizards, believes loads of things for which he has only hearsay evidence, though Luna Lovegood and her father are the extreme examples. 

Godric's Hollow supports a church, and in its graveyard witches and wizards are buried, some with quotations from Christian scripture on their headstones. There was a Christmas eve service going on in the church, though we don't know whether there were any magical beings in attendance. But we do know on the evidence of ghosts and portraits that there were in the past wizarding monks, nuns and friars. 

Whether the "tufty little man" who speaks at Dumbledore's funeral and performs the marriage between Bill and Fleur has some kind of religious title is unknown, but he performs the religious function of presiding at rites. 

Harry celebrates a holiday for each season: his birthday, Hallowe'en, Christmas and Easter. Interestingly, he receives each of the Hallows  on or near one of these days. He gets the cloak at Christmas, the Resurrection Stone on his birthday, and control of the Elder Wand passes to him over the Easter holidays.  

He marks the resting place of Moody's eye with a cross, but doesn't put a cross on Dobby's grave, which seems to indicate that the cross is something other than  a generic symbol to mark a grave. 

Pippin




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sat Nov  5 01:42:22 2011
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 01:42:22 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j91l58+iqjo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j9249u+1dgh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191390



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > projectrosemary:
> > 	I thought about religion in the Wizarding World.  It seems to me that most witches and wizards do not have religion at all.  They are mostly agnostic atheists.  Wizards and witches do not have to believe because they have evidence.  We need to define terms here:
> 
> Pippin:
> I don't think we know enough to say anything about the beliefs of "most witches and wizards."  We do know that  many wizards and witches celebrate Christmas and Easter though we don't know whether they attach any spiritual significance to them. 
> 
>  I would say that Harry, along with most witches and wizards, believes loads of things for which he has only hearsay evidence, though Luna Lovegood and her father are the extreme examples. 
> 
> Godric's Hollow supports a church, and in its graveyard witches and wizards are buried, some with quotations from Christian scripture on their headstones. There was a Christmas eve service going on in the church, though we don't know whether there were any magical beings in attendance. But we do know on the evidence of ghosts and portraits that there were in the past wizarding monks, nuns and friars. 
> 
> Whether the "tufty little man" who speaks at Dumbledore's funeral and performs the marriage between Bill and Fleur has some kind of religious title is unknown, but he performs the religious function of presiding at rites. 
> 
> Harry celebrates a holiday for each season: his birthday, Hallowe'en, Christmas and Easter. Interestingly, he receives each of the Hallows  on or near one of these days. He gets the cloak at Christmas, the Resurrection Stone on his birthday, and control of the Elder Wand passes to him over the Easter holidays.  
> 
> He marks the resting place of Moody's eye with a cross, but doesn't put a cross on Dobby's grave, which seems to indicate that the cross is something other than  a generic symbol to mark a grave. 
> 
> Pippin
>
Nikkalmati

Also, there seems to be some kind of afterlife, because Harry sees and talks to his mom and dad twice and Sirius once.  However, Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry that he has no idea what happens to those who go on after they die.  Order of the Phoenix US Hardback p. 861.
Note also that Harry was baptized and Sirius was his godfather.

Nikkalmati




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  5 08:11:29 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 08:11:29 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j9249u+1dgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j92r3h+87ff@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191391



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote:
>...
> Note also that Harry was baptized and Sirius was his godfather.
> 
> Nikkalmati
>

bboyminn:

Do you assume Harry was baptized BECAUSE he has a Godfather? Those things are not necessarily tied together. People may or may not baptise their kids, and as a separate issue, and anytime, my choose God Parents for their kids.

In this context, 'God Parents' is simply a generic name for those who will be guardians if something happens to the parents, and is further an issue not at all tied to religion or baptism. 

Further, keep in mind that the UK and EU are both more secular than the USA. The extent of many people's religion is confined to baptism, weddings, and funerals. It is entirely possible that much of the wizard world follows this same secular model. 

Being a witch or wizard doesn't demand that you accept or practice religion, nor does it deny you the right. Further, let's remember that religion is not an organization that hold witches and wizards in high regard, so they are not especially welcome in most Churches. 

Lastly, there is a lot of superstition and misinformation in the muggle world religion, that is pure bunk to the more knowledgeable wizards. They KNOW with certainty that there is an afterlife because they see remnants of it all around them in the form of things like Moaning Myrtle and Nearly Headless Nick. They know of natural powers and abilities far beyond the superstition of muggle religions. 

I'm sure to a wizard, modern religion seems quaint and child-like. But, that does not mean that wizards are incapable of believing in a higher power on their own terms and in their own way. 

Finally, I think JKR intentionally wrote a secular book. She did not want to inject religious bias into the story. She wanted a more spiritual story that did not re-enforce any specific religion, nor does the book deny any specific religion. A Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist can equally read the books, and see the underlying spiritual message. This is not, nor was it intended to be, nor should it be, a book promoting Christian ideology. I think that was a very good and very wise choice. 

Steve/bboyminn





From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Sat Nov  5 20:59:13 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:59:13 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.
In-Reply-To: <j92r3h+87ff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j94831+qest@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191392



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

bboyminn: 
> Do you assume Harry was baptized BECAUSE he has a Godfather? Those things are not necessarily tied together. People may or may not baptise their kids, and as a separate issue, and anytime, my choose God Parents for their kids.
> 
> In this context, 'God Parents' is simply a generic name for those who will be guardians if something happens to the parents, and is further an issue not at all tied to religion or baptism. 

Geoff:
In this, I would disagree.  Infant baptism in the UK is mainly carried out 
by the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans. I think that it is part of the 
Methodist church's structure but it is not part of most Non-conformist 
churches such as the Baptist church, of which I am a member. Godparents 
are named at such a service, especially if the parents are genuine Christians 
? more of that later.
Hence I would agree with Nikkalmati that the assumption can be made 
that Harry was baptised. There is other evidence that James and Lily
followed Anglican traditions. They are buried in the graveyard at Godric's 
Hollow and on their headstone there is the inscription: "The last enemy 
that shall be destroyed is death". This quote, in the Bible New Testament, 
is from Paul's letter to the church at Corinth:1 Corinthians 15 :26. 

Whatever may be the spiritual standpoint of anyone reading the book, JKR 
here indicates a Christian viewpoint writ large. Since the publication of DH 
in 2007, she has intimated on a number of occasions that she intended 
there to be a largely unwritten Christian underpinning to the story, 
similarly to JRR Tolkien in LOTR and, more overtly, CS Lewis in the Narnia
Chronicles.

bboyminn: 
> Further, keep in mind that the UK and EU are both more secular than the USA. The extent of many people's religion is confined to baptism, weddings, and funerals. It is entirely possible that much of the wizard world follows this same secular model. 

<snip>

> Finally, I think JKR intentionally wrote a secular book. She did not want to inject religious bias into the story. She wanted a more spiritual story that did not re-enforce any specific religion, nor does the book deny any specific religion. 

Geoff:
I think that you have made an unfortunate connection which I frequently 
try to undo in my discussions about Christianity in that you are considering 
"religion" to be the same as "faith". Your comment above about the extent of 
people's religion is quite true. There are many folk - certainly in the UK ? 
who claim to be Christians by making a nod in the direction of religion. They 
have grown up in a nominally Christian family, have gone to Sunday school, 
go to services etc. but do this as a matter of upbringing and routine and have 
never made a personal commitment to God by way of Jesus Christ which is the 
lynchpin of faith. "Faith" is knowing that you have committed your life to God 
and that his Spirit lives in you and that, like more knowledgeable wizards, we 
know with certainty that there is an afterlife. I reached this point in my life at 
the age of 21 in my last year at teacher training college when I experienced a 
meeting with Christ.  

The problem was neatly highlighted by the erstwhile Archbishop of Canterbury,  
George Carey some year ago when being interviewed on BBC TV. After the 
news presenter made a comment, the Archbishop remarked: "Ah, John, you 
are confusing Christianity with Churchianity."

bboyminn: 
A Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist can equally read the books, and see the underlying spiritual message. This is not, nor was it intended to be, nor should it be, a book promoting Christian ideology. I think that was a very good and very wise choice. 

Geoff:
As I said earlier, it does not overtly promote Christianity but for those who care 
to look -  and to see - there are themes which are certainly basically Christian. 




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov  6 02:50:04 2011
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 02:50:04 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j92r3h+87ff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j94sks+1afi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191393



> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Do you assume Harry was baptized BECAUSE he has a Godfather? Those things are not necessarily tied together. People may or may not baptise their kids, and as a separate issue, and anytime, my choose God Parents for their kids.
> 
> In this context, 'God Parents' is simply a generic name for those who will be guardians if something happens to the parents, and is further an issue not at all tied to religion or baptism.

Nikkalmati

Yes, I think having a godfather is a religious concept and means you were baptized in the Christian religion.  It has no legal meaning and picking a godfather does not give that person any standing as a legal guardian in the RW.  

Nikkalmati
 
>  bboyminn:
> 

> Further, keep in mind that the UK and EU are both more secular than the USA. The extent of many people's religion is confined to baptism, weddings, and funerals. It is entirely possible that much of the wizard world follows this same secular model. 

Nikkalmati

Yes Jo seems to portray most witches and wizards as following the Muggle customs. 

Nikkalmati
> 

 bboyminn:
> 

> Being a witch or wizard doesn't demand that you accept or practice religion, nor does it deny you the right. Further, let's remember that religion is not an organization that hold witches and wizards in high regard, so they are not especially welcome in most Churches. 
> 
> Lastly, there is a lot of superstition and misinformation in the muggle world religion, that is pure bunk to the more knowledgeable wizards. They KNOW with certainty that there is an afterlife because they see remnants of it all around them in the form of things like Moaning Myrtle and Nearly Headless Nick. They know of natural powers and abilities far beyond the superstition of muggle religions. 
> 
> I'm sure to a wizard, modern religion seems quaint and child-like. But, that does not mean that wizards are incapable of believing in a higher power on their own terms and in their own way. 

Nikkalmati

I suspect you are projecting your own opinions here.  First, there is almost complete separation between the Muggle and WW.  Most wizards have no concept of how Muggles run their lives.  They don'e seem to worry about whether they would be accepted or excluded and they don't show any resentment about the past.  Nothing about science or philosophy is taught at Hogwarts and I imagine most Muggles would consider most wizards pretty ignorant.  (Do you think they know about evolution, for example, or nuclear energy or read any foreign languages, other than maybe Latin.)  They pretty much haven't changed since the 17th century.  Do you suppose Muggles would consider belief in Giants and unicorns and werewolves to be superstitions and maybe even quaint and childlike?  Even Nick tells Harry he has no idea what comes after death, so having a few ghosts around is hardly direct observation of the afterlife. If wizaards believe in a higher power, other than the Church of England, we are not told about it. 

Nikkalmati

>  bboyminn:
> 

> Finally, I think JKR intentionally wrote a secular book. She did not want to inject religious bias into the story. She wanted a more spiritual story that did not re-enforce any specific religion, nor does the book deny any specific religion. A Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist can equally read the books, and see the underlying spiritual message. This is not, nor was it intended to be, nor should it be, a book promoting Christian ideology. I think that was a very good and very wise choice. 
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>
Nikkalmati

I agree that Jo did not want to engender controversy over what are minor details in her story and that the themes she presents are universal.  She is not promoting any religion nor is she denying any religious belief.  The context is a certain place and time, however.  The WW reflects the majority culture of the UK about 1700.

Nikkalmati




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 13:40:56 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 13:40:56 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.
In-Reply-To: <j94831+qest@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j962p8+9bn9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191394



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> 
> bboyminn: 
> > Do you assume Harry was baptized BECAUSE he has a Godfather? Those things are not necessarily tied together....
> 
> Geoff:
> In this, I would disagree.  Infant baptism in the UK is mainly carried out ....? more of that later.
>
> Hence I would agree with Nikkalmati that the assumption can be made 
> that Harry was baptised. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Keep in mind that I'm not saying Baptism/Godparent don't go together or that Harry was not baptized. I'm saying the two don't necessarily go together. I'm further saying that the applying of the term "god parent" can be somewhat generic and in some case simply means guardian. Further, in some cases is not done at the time of Baptism. 

Take Harry as an example, he is god father to Lupin's son. Which really just makes him the guardian of last resort. If no one is around to take care of Lupin's son, then the duty falls on Harry. But, no mention of religion or baptism in the process. 

Again, I'm not saying Harry wasn't baptized nor that Sirius was not appointed 'guardian of last resort' at that time. I'm simply saying that the two events are not necessarily tied together; usually - yes, but not necessarily. 

>Geof continues -
>
> Whatever may be the spiritual standpoint of anyone reading the 
> book, JKR  here indicates a Christian viewpoint writ large. ..
> 

bboyminn:

But that is because JKR is a Christian who lives in a largely Christian world (meaning the UK). But, I still say the underlying spiritual and moral messages are universal. The concepts are not limited to Christianity, but share by Hindu, Buddhists, and others. 

Note that while she mentions the values of Christ, she does not mention Christ. Further, I agree she does show some Christian iconography in the stories, but then what else would you expect from a culture that has been dominated by Christianity for centuries? 

I'm not denying the spiritual and moral underpinning, I'm just saying that they are not specifically promoted as Christian. 


> bboyminn: 
> > Further, keep in mind that the UK and EU are both more secular than the USA. The extent of many people's religion is confined to baptism, weddings, and funerals. It is entirely possible that much of the wizard world follows this same secular model. 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Finally, I think JKR intentionally wrote a secular book. She did not want to inject religious bias into the story. ....
> 
> Geoff:
> I think that you have made an unfortunate connection which I 
> frequently try to undo in my discussions about Christianity in 
> that you are considering "religion" to be the same as "faith". 


bboyminn:

On your views on "religion" vs "faith" and on "Christianity" vs "Churchianity", on general principle I agree. But while JKR may be promoting Christian values, she is not specifically promoting Christianity. 

Certainly, if you are Christian, and you see these values, you logically connect them together. But I also think a Buddhist can equally connect the values seen to their own faith. The values reflected are universal, but they take place in a culture dominated by a long Christian history. 

While the two should not be too tightly bound, neither should the obvious connection be ignored. 

.... 
> 
> Geoff:
> As I said earlier, it does not overtly promote Christianity but 
> for those who care to look -  and to see - there are themes which
> are certainly basically Christian.
>

bboyminn:

We don't have to agree on this matter, but I think the underlying themes are universal, but set in a framework in which the Christian underpinnings can't be ignored. We do see Nuns and Friars, but we don't see Buddhist or Hindu priests, even though we may well see Buddhists and Hindus. The story, and the framework of the history of the world can not be separated from the world in which they take place. 

So, that what religion we do see, obviously reflects Christianity based on the history of the UK alone. That can't be escaped, but the values espoused in the story, I contend are universal. 

Feel free not to agree. 

Steve/bluewizard





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  6 14:02:49 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:02:49 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j94sks+1afi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j96429+t341@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191395



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98 at ...> wrote:
...
> >
> Nikkalmati
> 
> I agree that Jo did not want to engender controversy over what are minor details in her story and that the themes she presents are universal.  She is not promoting any religion nor is she denying any religious belief.  The context is a certain place and time, however.  The WW reflects the majority culture of the UK about 1700.
> 
> Nikkalmati
>


Keep in mind I'm not saying things didn't happen they way you laid them out, I'm simply saying that they didn't **necessarily** happen as you laid them out.

While Baptism/Godparents are usually tied together, they are not necessarily tied together.

While Godparent usually means someone appointed as a baptismal sponsor, it is sometime just a generic term for guardian of last resort. Not always, not usually, just sometimes. 

Steve/bboyminn




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov  6 16:35:15 2011
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:35:15 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j96429+t341@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j96d03+seau@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191396



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" <puduhepa98@> wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > Nikkalmati
> > 
> > I agree that Jo did not want to engender controversy over what are minor details in her story and that the themes she presents are universal.  She is not promoting any religion nor is she denying any religious belief.  The context is a certain place and time, however.  The WW reflects the majority culture of the UK about 1700.
> > 
> > Nikkalmati
> >
> 
> 
> Keep in mind I'm not saying things didn't happen they way you laid them out, I'm simply saying that they didn't **necessarily** happen as you laid them out.
> 
> While Baptism/Godparents are usually tied together, they are not necessarily tied together.
> 
> While Godparent usually means someone appointed as a baptismal sponsor, it is sometime just a generic term for guardian of last resort. Not always, not usually, just sometimes. 
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>
Nikkalmati

I wonder what leads you to the conclusion that godparent and guardian are ever the same.  Please give an example.  

I would also assume Teddy Lupin was baptized if Harry is his godfather. Even though Teddy is an orphan, Harry is not his guardian. Epilogue p 757 US Hardback "He already comes round for dinner about four times a week, said Harry.  Why don't we just invite him to live with us . . . "  Teddy presumably was raised by his nearest relative, his grandmother (as is Neville).  

Nikkalmati






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov  6 17:55:59 2011
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 6 Nov 2011 17:55:59 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/6/2011, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1320602159.336.11986.m11@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191397

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 6, 2011
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK



All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2011 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20111106/e106d72f/attachment.html>

From elfundeb at gmail.com  Mon Nov  7 01:38:11 2011
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb2)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:38:11 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow
Message-ID: <j97cq3+i868@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191398

This message is a Special Notice for all members of
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups
In addition to being published onlist (available in webview), this post is also being delivered off-list (to email inboxes) to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices." If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact the List Elves at HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space)

GOBLET OF FIRE CH. 4: BACK TO THE BURROW

Harry's trunk is packed and he is waiting for the Weasleys to pick him up to take him to the Burrow. Vernon and Petunia, meanwhile, tensely await the Weasleys' arrival, for fear their wizarding ways will attract the neighbors' attention. Dudley is terrified that the Weasleys might give him another pig tail. The tension increases  when the Weasleys fail to arrive at the appointed hour.  As Vernon and Petunia verbally abuse the Weasleys for their lack of punctuality, there is a commotion behind the Dursleys' boarded-up hearth. Arthur has temporarily connected the Dursleys' fireplace to the Floo network. He, Fred, George and Ron struggle to break the barrier, as the Dursleys round on Harry in anger.

Mr Weasley blasts through the hearth as the Dursleys stand back aghast. While Fred and George retrieve Harry's trunk from upstairs, Arthur attempts to make conversation, explaining that he will fix the fireplace and babbling excitedly about electricity. Getting no response from Vernon and Petunia, and only whimpering from Dudley, Arthur sends Fred, George and Ron, in turn, back to the Burrow via Floo. As Fred prepares to depart, he spills some toffee sweets onto the floor, and makes a show of picking them up.

It is Harry's turn to depart. He says goodbye to the Dursleys, who make no response, prompting a scolding from Arthur. As Harry steps into the fireplace, Dudley begins gagging on a large purple thing that turns out to be his enlarged tongue. Harry spies a toffee wrapper on the floor beneath Dudley. Petunia tries in vain to pull Dudley's tongue out of his mouth, as Dudley tries unsuccessfully to fight her off. Arthur tries to reassure the Dursleys that it's only an Engorgement Charm, but Vernon begins throwing china figurines at him and Harry, which crash into the fireplace and shatter. Arthur breaks out his wand in self-defence. Harry is enjoying the spectacle, but Arthur urges him to leave, and the chapter ends as the emerald Floo flames engulf him.

QUESTIONS

1. The Dursleys are horrified by the Weasleys' unorthodox arrival via the Floo network. Shouldn't they be relieved that the neighbors won't notice any wizards in robes arriving or leaving?

2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly speaking" be connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed it for him. What does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his disregard for the rules is justified in this instance?

3. Harry claims not to care when the Dursleys fail to bid him goodbye. Do you believe this? Do you think Arthur believes him?

4. This chapter showcases JKR's sense of comedic timing and knack for slapstick, with Dudley choking, Petunia getting hysterical, Vernon using the china figurines for target practice, and Arthur attempting to provide reassurance -- with an outstretched wand. How does this compare to other comedic scenes in the series?

5. Dudley appears to be in danger of suffocation from the ton-tongue toffee. How do you feel about this -- does Dudley engage your sympathies? Why or why not? Was it fair for Fred to use sweets to bait a starving boy who's terrified of wizards?

6. What do you think happened after Harry left?

7. Any other questions?





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov  7 01:56:39 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 01:56:39 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.
In-Reply-To: <j94831+qest@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j97dsn+s6mp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191399


> bboyminn: 
> > Further, keep in mind that the UK and EU are both more secular than the USA. The extent of many people's religion is confined to baptism, weddings, and funerals. It is entirely possible that much of the wizard world follows this same secular model. 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Finally, I think JKR intentionally wrote a secular book. She did not want to inject religious bias into the story. She wanted a more spiritual story that did not re-enforce any specific religion, nor does the book deny any specific religion. 
> 
> Geoff:
> I think that you have made an unfortunate connection which I frequently 
> try to undo in my discussions about Christianity in that you are considering 
> "religion" to be the same as "faith". Your comment above about the extent of 
> people's religion is quite true. There are many folk - certainly in the UK ? 
> who claim to be Christians by making a nod in the direction of religion. 

Pippin:
I can certainly believe that the Dursleys are too conformist to be anything but the sort of nominal Christians that Geoff describes.  That is the milieu from which we can assume Harry comes. Yet nothing about the wizarding celebrations seems foreign to him. 

And that's really strange.

 Consider -- mostly what wizards consider normal  is to the reader (and Harry when he first encounters it) a mind-bending mix of traditional, obsolete and totally divergent forms. But that's not true of Christmas and Easter. There's nothing about the celebrations at Hogwarts or the Weasley household that Harry finds unfamiliar or archaic. It's *all*  British traditional: Christmas trees, mistletoe, crackers, Easter eggs, feasts, presents, family gatherings etc. Much of it is magical, but none of it is obsolete or weird. In other words, if a British reader who already celebrates Christmas and Easter in the largely secular way wanted to celebrate wizard fashion, she'd have to change -- nothing. Even the pretense that the gifts and ornaments are supposedly magical is already built-in. 

Another thing, JKR's quill lacks its usual satiric edge when she deals with the Christian holidays: overdecorating, ill-chosen gifts, Christmas carols and family tension get a bit of mild parody, but no worse. She reserves her scorn not for those who observe the holidays and rituals but for Scrimgeour who cynically exploits them to get access to Harry. 

BTW, it isn't strange that the wizards didn't reject Christianity even though the church sponsored the persecution of witches, since historically the people charged with witchcraft were rarely anything other than Christians themselves. The Devil, you see, would have no need to bargain for souls which were lost already. 

Pippin




From technomad at intergate.com  Mon Nov  7 03:28:38 2011
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:28:38 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Religion in the Wizarding World.
In-Reply-To: <j97dsn+s6mp@eGroups.com>
References: <j97dsn+s6mp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20111106212838.m8v70f4i888gk0ko@webmail.intergate.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191400

Quoting pippin_999 <foxmoth at qnet.com>:

>
:
> I can certainly believe that the Dursleys are too conformist to be   
> anything but the sort of nominal Christians that Geoff describes.    
> That is the milieu from which we can assume Harry comes. Yet nothing  
>  about the wizarding celebrations seems foreign to him.
>
> And that's really strange.
>
>  Consider -- mostly what wizards consider normal  is to the reader   
> (and Harry when he first encounters it) a mind-bending mix of   
> traditional, obsolete and totally divergent forms. But that's not   
> true of Christmas and Easter. There's nothing about the celebrations  
>  at Hogwarts or the Weasley household that Harry finds unfamiliar or  
>  archaic. It's *all*  British traditional: Christmas trees,   
> mistletoe, crackers, Easter eggs, feasts, presents, family   
> gatherings etc. Much of it is magical, but none of it is obsolete or  
>  weird. In other words, if a British reader who already celebrates   
> Christmas and Easter in the largely secular way wanted to celebrate   
> wizard fashion, she'd have to change -- nothing. Even the pretense   
> that the gifts and ornaments are supposedly magical is already   
> built-in.

Christmas-as-she-is-celebrated, in the English-speaking world, is  
largely of Victorian invention.  Prior to the early 19th century,  
Christmas was in eclipse; it had once had extensive traditional  
celebrations but those were suppressed under the Commonwealth, and by  
about Regency times it was mainly an excuse for drinking and eating to  
excess.

If you postulate a wave of Muggle-born wizards and witches in  
early-to-mid-Victorian times who were nostalgic for the Christmasses  
they'd known in the outside world, the wizards' world could easily  
have latched onto these observances with the same converts' zeal that  
the Muggles showed.

And many things about the WW have the air of a slightly-archaic  
Britain; calling their radio network "wireless," for example.  The WW  
may well go through phases of openness to Muggle cultural influence,  
and hostility to it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





From natti_shafer at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 08:16:26 2011
From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:16:26 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow
In-Reply-To: <j97cq3+i868@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j9844q+j0gn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191402



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "elfundeb2" <elfundeb at ...> wrote:
> QUESTIONS
> 
> 1. The Dursleys are horrified by the Weasleys' unorthodox arrival via the Floo network. Shouldn't they be relieved that the neighbors won't notice any wizards in robes arriving or leaving?

The Dursleys initial terror seams to be because they don't know what is happening with the sudden noises coming from behind the fireplace. Then Arthur blasts apart the fireplace. Not a good first impression... If the episode had gone as Arthur thought it would go, then yes, the Dursleys may have been mildly appreciative.

> 2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly speaking" be connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed it for him. What does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his disregard for the rules is justified in this instance?

It tells us where Fred and George inherited a certain disregard for the rules. But, in this instance, Arthur would have been better served to obey the rule. The fact thatmuggles might not use a fireplace for its intended function didn't even occur to him. We saw the consequences.

> 3. Harry claims not to care when the Dursleys fail to bid him goodbye. Do you believe this? Do you think Arthur believes him?
 
Yes, I do believe Harry. In DH, he echos his indifference for the Dursleys when he says goodbye to them forever. Pretty consistently through the books, Harry shows acceptance and even bemusement for their mutual indifference to one another. Harry longs for a loving family, but before PS even starts, he seems to accepted that the Dursleys will never be that loving family. Arthur, however, must not have believed Harry or he wouldn't have insisted the Dursleys say goodbye.

> 4. This chapter showcases JKR's sense of comedic timing and knack for slapstick, with Dudley choking, Petunia getting hysterical, Vernon using the china figurines for target practice, and Arthur attempting to provide reassurance -- with an outstretched wand. How does this compare to other comedic scenes in the series?

Nothing to say, but that yes, I found this scene funny.
 
> 5. Dudley appears to be in danger of suffocation from the ton-tongue toffee. How do you feel about this -- does Dudley engage your sympathies? Why or why not? Was it fair for Fred to use sweets to bait a starving boy who's terrified of wizards?

Bullying a bully...not really a fan of Fred and George's actions here. Using magic on a muggle is not fair. Is it hypocritical that I enjoy the "poetic justice" of the scene, while at the same time thinking what they did was absolutely wrong?
 
> 6. What do you think happened after Harry left?

More shouting and confusion until Arthur is finally allowed to use magic to put everything right.





From wendydhudson at gmail.com  Mon Nov  7 13:41:36 2011
From: wendydhudson at gmail.com (Dorothy)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:41:36 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow
In-Reply-To: <j97cq3+i868@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j98n6g+kv7l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191403

QUESTIONS

1. The Dursleys are horrified by the Weasleys' unorthodox arrival via the Floo network. Shouldn't they be relieved that the neighbors won't notice any wizards in robes arriving or leaving?

Dorothy:
I think the Dursleys are ready to complain about anything.  One toe out of line will give them reason to express their displeasure of the wizarding world.  However, arriving in the fireplace, while common in the wizarding world, is not common for anyone but Santa in the Muggle world.  I too would have been in shock and not on my best manners.

2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly speaking" be connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed it for him. What does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his disregard for the rules is justified in this instance?

Dorothy:
I think Arthur does his best to be a grown up and father since he has kids and Molly watching him.  At heart, Arthur is just like Fred and George.

5. Dudley appears to be in danger of suffocation from the ton-tongue toffee. How do you feel about this -- does Dudley engage your sympathies? Why or why not? Was it fair for Fred to use sweets to bait a starving boy who's terrified of wizards?

Dorothy:
When I read it, I thought it was funny.  Fred and George would not have left behind candy that would actually kill Dudley.  They have a mischevious streak, not a killer streak.

I didn't have much sympathy for Dudley.  Dudley had taken every opportunity he could to torment Harry.  While I do not condone eye-for-eye behavior, I think boys need to stand up for themselves in bullying situations, and this was Fred and George's way of helping Harry stand up for himself and for all wizards.

It wasn't fair to use sweets to bait Dudley, but it was brilliant.  They knew it would work, thus their point, "don't mess with wizards" was received loud and clear.


6. What do you think happened after Harry left?

Dorothy:
After Harry left, the Petunia fretted over Dudley.  Vernon cursed the wizards and his resolve was strengthened that wizards are no good.  Dudley gasped for air, the charm wore off and the Dursleys pretended like nothing happened.

7. Any other questions?

Dorothy:
This question doesn't have grounding in the chapter, but I have often wondered about Vernon and how he works Wizards into his mental schema.  Petunia knows, and I think she accepts that there is a magical world in her heart, even though she pretends to brush it aside.

She must have told Vernon about Lily.  Vernon seems to want to beat the magic out of Harry, or pretend it doesn't exist, yet he knows that Harry is different and Vernon seems to be afraid of Wizards and everything they represent.

He wants to ignore magic, but it is all around him when Harry is home.  How does Vernon make sense of magic and work it into his mental schema?




From pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Nov  7 15:48:07 2011
From: pflynn928 at sbcglobal.net (Pat Flynn)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:48:07 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j96d03+seau@eGroups.com>
References: <j96429+t341@eGroups.com> <j96d03+seau@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001c01cc9d64$a5dc2420$f1946c60$@net>

No: HPFGUIDX 191404

> Nikkalmati:
> I wonder what leads you to the conclusion that godparent and guardian
> are ever the same.  Please give an example.

Apparently Hogwarts gives the position of godfather some kind of guardian
status, since at the end of PofA Sirius, as Harry's godfather, gives Harry
permission to go to Hogsmead on weekends.  Hogwarts honors this permission,
even though the Dursleys are his legal guardians.

Pat




From kersberg at chello.nl  Mon Nov  7 17:20:54 2011
From: kersberg at chello.nl (peter kersbergen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:20:54 +0100
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
Message-ID: <4AA80405F69A446BB0377D6977DCE932@eigenaarbae849>

No: HPFGUIDX 191405

I don't think "Godfather" means there has taken place a baptism at which the godfather promisses to take care the godchild will not wander from god's ways.
the term Godfather is more widely known as the guy takes care of things, as it is used in the movie the Godfather is more or less derived from the old Roman patron-client relation, the patron provided fysical care in the form of food, money and jobs, the client supported the patron in his political career. A patron with a lot of clients could generate a lot of political clout.
The HP godfather's sort of protect their godchild from spiritual or moral harm.

there is no baptism mentioned at any page of HP, so there isn't any.... just the vague relation of godfather-godchild

kamion

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




From liz.treky at ntlworld.com  Mon Nov  7 17:27:35 2011
From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:27:35 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <001c01cc9d64$a5dc2420$f1946c60$@net>
References: <j96429+t341@eGroups.com> <j96d03+seau@eGroups.com> <001c01cc9d64$a5dc2420$f1946c60$@net>
Message-ID: <E3CDA634245442C592294356A0D83242@TrekyPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 191406

> Apparently Hogwarts gives the position of godfather some kind of guardian
> status, since at the end of PofA Sirius, as Harry's godfather, gives Harry
> permission to go to Hogsmead on weekends.  Hogwarts honors this 
> permission,
> even though the Dursleys are his legal guardians.
>
> Pat
>
I think this circumstance is a little biased.
Dumbledore (or a previous headmaster/headmistress) created the rule that 
asked for a permission slip. As the Headmaster, Dumbledore had the authority 
to waver this rule, but he didn't and I believe that was because Sirius was 
at large and thought to be after Harry at the time. Dumbledore would do 
anything to keep Harry safe.
However, after he learned Sirius was not after Harry, he then had the 
freedom to allow Harry to go or not. Sirius's permission slip gave 
Dumbledore an excuse to allow Harry to go without seeing to waver the rule. 
However, Sirius was not caring for harry, not was he living with him at the 
time. In fact, Sirius only had written contact with Harry. There was no way 
Sirius could tell what frame of mind Harry was in, whether he was behaving 
or not. Therefore. the fact that Dumbledore accepted the permission slip was 
seemingly a pure indulgence in Dumbledore's authority as Headmaster and 
nothing to do with Sirius being Harry's Godfather.
Liz




From bart at moosewise.com  Mon Nov  7 18:11:03 2011
From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:11:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was: 
 Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <4AA80405F69A446BB0377D6977DCE932@eigenaarbae849>
References: <4AA80405F69A446BB0377D6977DCE932@eigenaarbae849>
Message-ID: <4EB81F37.3010709@moosewise.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191407

On 11/7/2011 12:20 PM, peter kersbergen wrote:
> I don't think "Godfather" means there has taken place a baptism at which the godfather promisses to take care the godchild will not wander from god's ways.
> the term Godfather is more widely known as the guy takes care of things, as it is used in the movie the Godfather is more or less derived from the old Roman patron-client relation, the patron provided fysical care in the form of food, money and jobs, the client supported the patron in his political career. A patron with a lot of clients could generate a lot of political clout.
> The HP godfather's sort of protect their godchild from spiritual or moral harm.
>

Bart:
     Traditionally, in the Roman Catholic Church and its offshoots, 
while the godparents were formally responsible for the child's 
education, it was understood that they were also assuming the 
responsibility of taking care of the child should he or she be orphaned. 
Godparents were kind of controversial in the Church of England, but they 
are still used, and they do assume responsibility for the child's 
spiritual upbringing. As such, even if they do not take charge of the 
orphaned child (usually because a family member takes on that 
responsibility), they have the implied responsibility to look out for 
the child's well-being (as part of being in charge of the child's 
spiritual upbringing).

     Note that Padfoot was not thinking of this responsibility in his 
guilt over the deaths of the Potters; he probably felt that he could not 
be trusted in the job, anyway (as has been pointed out here many times, 
it is extremely improbable that Sirius protested his innocence to anybody).

     Bart



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  7 22:57:45 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:57:45 -0000
Subject: Halloween
In-Reply-To: <266ECF9B0891417189F317277CC7A2D8@TrekyPC>
Message-ID: <j99np9+pin6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191408

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Liz Clark" <liz.treky at ...> wrote:
>
> As the subject was kindly recently brought up, I got thinking...
> and a couple of nice discussion questions popped into my head 
> (sorry if it's been discussed before).
> 
> Why is Hallowe'en celebrated in the wizarding world? And what 
> type of celebrations do you think go on besides Hogwarts 
> Hallowe'en Feast?
> 
> Liz
>

Steve:

I think to some extent JKR is just playing on stereo types by associating witches and Halloween. 

The history of Halloween is complex, but Hallow in general means Holy or to show respect or reverence, as in 'Hallowed Ground'. Halloween is also know as All Hallow's Eve followed by All Hallow's Day  or All Saints Day, Day of the Dead, Hallowtide, Hallowmas, and a few others. 

The underlying belief is that on this day of the year the veil between the living and the dead is thinnest. So it is best to appease the dead by honoring them, lest they come back to haunt you because of your disrespect. So, when the 'dead' come to our door, we appease them with candy. If we don't have candy, then the creatures of the night will avenge the lack of respect with ill fortune.

Hence "Trick or Treat", honor us with a treat, or we will play a trick on you. 

Extending this further, since the veil is thinnest between the living and the dead, it is also thinnest between the upper world and the under world, so if we aren't respectful to the dead, we open the door to demons and monsters.

The alternate view is that to hide from the dead, we dress in costume so they dead won't recognize us and take their revenge. 

All that aside, again, I think JKR is simply playing on the stereotype that associates witches and Halloween. It seems like a celebration that would be especially significant to witches and wizards. 

It just seems a very natural match. More so in the wizard world than the muggle world. 

Steve/bboyminn






From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Tue Nov  8 00:01:20 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:01:20 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <4AA80405F69A446BB0377D6977DCE932@eigenaarbae849>
Message-ID: <j99rgg+h0tc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191409

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "peter kersbergen" <kersberg at ...> wrote:

kamion:
> there is no baptism mentioned at any page of HP, so there isn't any.... just the vague relation of godfather-godchild

Geoff:
That is a logical non-sequitur.

You might just as well say that because we never hear of Harry or 
any of the others going to the toilet, they are all constipated or 
because they never apparently eat carrots, there aren't any.
:-(

Baptism isn't specific to the story line but, as a UK reader, I am 
inclined to believe by the mention of a godfather that there has 
been one and judging by the inscription on the Potter's gravestone, 
which is a very profound expression of Christian teaching, it 
intimates a deeper belief than the rather bland "In Loving Memory" 
or "Never Forgotten" type of epitaph that  you see in many UK 
graveyards.




From ddankanyin at cox.net  Tue Nov  8 03:02:56 2011
From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 22:02:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow
References: <j97cq3+i868@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8E2235C8795645348990CDE873036FF8@DG22FG61>

No: HPFGUIDX 191410


From: "elfundeb2" <elfundeb at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 8:38 PM
> QUESTIONS
>
> 1. The Dursleys are horrified by the Weasleys' unorthodox arrival via the 
> Floo network. Shouldn't they be relieved that the neighbors won't notice 
> any wizards in robes arriving or leaving?

Dorothy D. :
  I guess they really should be relieved, but in the chaos of having their 
fire crashed through, I doubt they'd even think of it.

>
> 2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly speaking" be 
> connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed it for him. What 
> does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his disregard for the rules 
> is justified in this instance?

Dorothy D.:
  It tells me that Arthur can get favors from his friends because he's a 
"good guy", and that disregarding rules in this case was to help Harry. 
Yes, he honestly felt this way would help him.

>
> 3. Harry claims not to care when the Dursleys fail to bid him goodbye. Do 
> you believe this? Do you think Arthur believes him?

Dorothy D.:
  Yes, harry really doesn't care at this point in his life.  He sees the 
Dursleys as not-his-real-family.  Hogwarts truly is his "home".  Arthur 
can't believe that family can behave like the Dursleys because he doesn't 
have that sort of family.

>
> 4. This chapter showcases JKR's sense of comedic timing and knack for 
> slapstick, with Dudley choking, Petunia getting hysterical, Vernon using 
> the china figurines for target practice, and Arthur attempting to provide 
> reassurance -- with an outstretched wand. How does this compare to other 
> comedic scenes in the series?

Dorothy D. :
  This is one of the many, all seemingly involving the twins, of real humor, 
and it's a nice way to lighten things up a bit.

>
> 5. Dudley appears to be in danger of suffocation from the ton-tongue 
> toffee. How do you feel about this -- does Dudley engage your sympathies? 
> Why or why not? Was it fair for Fred to use sweets to bait a starving boy 
> who's terrified of wizards?

Dorothy D.:
  Frankly, it never even occurred to me to feel sympathy for Dudley, but now 
that I think about it, it should - a bit anyway.  For Fred, or George for 
that matter, it certainly was fair.  They like Harry, and from what they've 
heard of Dudley and the way he treated him, it makes perfect sense.  After 
all, they're teenagers, too.

>
> 6. What do you think happened after Harry left?

Dorothy D.:
  Of course the Dursleys tended to Dudley, their pride and joy.  And no 
doubt railed at Harry and wizards in general.

  Thanks for these thoughtful questions. 




From technomad at intergate.com  Tue Nov  8 03:03:57 2011
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:03:57 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re: 
	Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j99rgg+h0tc@eGroups.com>
References: <j99rgg+h0tc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20111107210357.yehoaa764gog0ck4@webmail.intergate.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191411

Quoting Geoff <geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com>:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "peter kersbergen"   
> <kersberg at ...> wrote:
>
> kamion:
>> there is no baptism mentioned at any page of HP, so there isn't   
>> any.... just the vague relation of godfather-godchild
>
> Geoff:
> That is a logical non-sequitur.
>
> You might just as well say that because we never hear of Harry or
> any of the others going to the toilet, they are all constipated or
> because they never apparently eat carrots, there aren't any.

Hermione's mentioned as nipping into the ladies' a couple of times,  
and ISTR that Harry _Sectumsempra'd_ Draco after they ran into each  
other in a loo.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Tue Nov  8 23:27:07 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:27:07 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re: Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <20111107210357.yehoaa764gog0ck4@webmail.intergate.com>
Message-ID: <j9cdsb+b801@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191412



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Eric Oppen <technomad at ...> wrote:
>
> Quoting Geoff <geoffbannister123 at ...>:
> 
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "peter kersbergen"   
> > <kersberg@> wrote:
> >
> > kamion:
> >> there is no baptism mentioned at any page of HP, so there isn't   
> >> any.... just the vague relation of godfather-godchild
> >
> > Geoff:
> > That is a logical non-sequitur.
> >
> > You might just as well say that because we never hear of Harry or
> > any of the others going to the toilet, they are all constipated or
> > because they never apparently eat carrots, there aren't any.

Eric: 
> Hermione's mentioned as nipping into the ladies' a couple of times,  
> and ISTR that Harry _Sectumsempra'd_ Draco after they ran into each  
> other in a loo.

Geoff:
This is US English raising its head again.....

In HBP, Harry meets up with Draco in a "boys' bathroom". To a 
British person, a "bathroom" is a "bathroom" is a "bathroom". We 
never refer to toilets as bathrooms. The most common usage, 
which has crept into informal speak in the last few decades is "loo"; 
in more polite society "toilet". Lavatory has rather dropped out of 
regular usage. In my house, we have a ground floor loo and on the 
first floor we have a bathroom which also contains  a loo.




From philip at whiuk.com  Wed Nov  9 00:16:57 2011
From: philip at whiuk.com (Philip Whitehouse)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 00:16:57 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re: Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j9cdsb+b801@eGroups.com>
References: <j9cdsb+b801@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BCFF9D21-4C5E-4F35-8DEF-6962DEAC5C21@whiuk.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191413



> > > Geoff:
> > > That is a logical non-sequitur.
> > >
> > > You might just as well say that because we never hear of Harry or
> > > any of the others going to the toilet, they are all constipated or
> > > because they never apparently eat carrots, there aren't any.
> 
> Eric: 
> > Hermione's mentioned as nipping into the ladies' a couple of times, 
> > and ISTR that Harry _Sectumsempra'd_ Draco after they ran into each 
> > other in a loo.
> 
> Geoff:
> This is US English raising its head again.....
> 
> In HBP, Harry meets up with Draco in a "boys' bathroom". To a 
> British person, a "bathroom" is a "bathroom" is a "bathroom". We 
> never refer to toilets as bathrooms. The most common usage, 
> which has crept into informal speak in the last few decades is "loo"; 
> in more polite society "toilet". Lavatory has rather dropped out of 
> regular usage. In my house, we have a ground floor loo and on the 
> first floor we have a bathroom which also contains a loo.
> 
Being British, I would contend that given the movie depiction, Hermione was certainly crying in one in CoS, which makes far more sense than an actual bathroom when you compare the behaviour in real life. The only 'bathroom' mentioned is the prefect's one - I seem to remember showers being mentioned in reference to Quidditch practices. So that takes care of that.

Moving away from metaphors and avoiding search the entire series for mention of carrots, I don't think it is necessarily the case that Harry was baptised - there was certainly a church and carols [I think] in Godric's Hollow, which are much more religious than godparents - so it remains plausible. 

A counter example might be Teddy Lupin. There is less evidence of his being baptised.

Doubtless JKR had god parents. It also serves a way to both allow Dumbledore to justify leaving Harry with Aunt Marge, while giving Harry a meaningful 'non-relation' connection and father figure. (It's clear Molly is a 'replacement' mother).


> Switch to: Text-Only, Da


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




From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Wed Nov  9 07:50:06 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:50:06 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re: Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <BCFF9D21-4C5E-4F35-8DEF-6962DEAC5C21@whiuk.com>
Message-ID: <j9dbbe+tfd4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191415

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Philip Whitehouse <philip at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> > This is US English raising its head again.....
> > 
> > In HBP, Harry meets up with Draco in a "boys' bathroom". To a 
> > British person, a "bathroom" is a "bathroom" is a "bathroom". We 
> > never refer to toilets as bathrooms. The most common usage, 
> > which has crept into informal speak in the last few decades is "loo"; 
> > in more polite society "toilet". Lavatory has rather dropped out of 
> > regular usage. In my house, we have a ground floor loo and on the 
> > first floor we have a bathroom which also contains a loo.

Philip: (not originally attributed)
> Being British, I would contend that given the movie depiction, Hermione was certainly crying in one in CoS, which makes far more sense than an actual bathroom when you compare the behaviour in real life. The only 'bathroom' mentioned is the prefect's one - I seem to remember showers being mentioned in reference to Quidditch practices. So that takes care of that.
> 
> Moving away from metaphors and avoiding search the entire series for mention of carrots, 

Geoff:
Yes, but that is the **film** depiction.

For a school or college, there have to be communal showers and baths. 
You can't have everyone queueing up to use the Quidditch showers or 
sharing a single bathroom on each floor.... With the exception of the 
prefect's bathroom, the films always seem to interpret "bathroom" as 
a toilets, equipped only with sinks and WCs.

In passing, the carrots reference did have a smiley.
:-<




From natti_shafer at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  9 23:02:27 2011
From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel)
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:02:27 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re: Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j9cdsb+b801@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j9f0q3+107f6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191417

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
> Geoff:
> This is US English raising its head again.....
> 
> In HBP, Harry meets up with Draco in a "boys' bathroom". To a 
> British person, a "bathroom" is a "bathroom" is a "bathroom". We 
> never refer to toilets as bathrooms. The most common usage, 
> which has crept into informal speak in the last few decades is "loo"; 
> in more polite society "toilet". Lavatory has rather dropped out of 
> regular usage. In my house, we have a ground floor loo and on the 
> first floor we have a bathroom which also contains  a loo.
>

Nathaniel:
Are you sure about that? I lent out my Bloomsbury edition of CoS,* but I don't remember Moaning Myrtle's bathroom being referred to as a "loo." The Lexicon does not mention the word "bathroom" among the Americanizations of CoS:

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/differences-cs.html

However, Myrtle is definitely in a room with toilets, but neither showers nor baths are ever mentioned. If there are baths or shower stalls in Myrtle's bathroom, I would think that's a better place to stew Polyjuice potion than in a toilet stall. With a proper curtain, you'd have just as much privacy, possibly more space, and it wouldn't have the unsavory aspect of being right next to a toilet.

*I do have my British Edition of GoF, and when Myrtle sees Harry in the prefects bathroom, Harry refers to it as "your [Myrtle's] bathroom."




From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Thu Nov 10 23:11:29 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:11:29 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re: Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j9f0q3+107f6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j9hln1+14co@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191418



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nathaniel" <natti_shafer at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123@> wrote:
> > Geoff:
> > This is US English raising its head again.....
> > 
> > In HBP, Harry meets up with Draco in a "boys' bathroom". To a 
> > British person, a "bathroom" is a "bathroom" is a "bathroom". We 
> > never refer to toilets as bathrooms. The most common usage, 
> > which has crept into informal speak in the last few decades is "loo"; 
> > in more polite society "toilet". Lavatory has rather dropped out of 
> > regular usage. In my house, we have a ground floor loo and on the 
> > first floor we have a bathroom which also contains  a loo.

Nathaniel:
> Are you sure about that? I lent out my Bloomsbury edition of CoS, but I don't remember Moaning Myrtle's bathroom being referred to as a "loo." 

Geoff:
No, it probably wasn't, which is exactly the point I made in my post - 
to a UK person, a bathroom is precisely that: a bathroom.

Nathaniel:
The Lexicon does not mention the word "bathroom" among the Americanizations of CoS:

Geoff:
No and the Lexicon doesn't always get things right. I decided just to 
check the Lexicon myself and immediately saw a UK/US coupling which 
just wasn't right as soon as I looked at the page.

Nathaniel:
> However, Myrtle is definitely in a room with toilets, but neither showers nor baths are ever mentioned. If there are baths or shower stalls in Myrtle's bathroom, I would think that's a better place to stew Polyjuice potion than in a toilet stall. 

Geoff:
We are told we are in a bathroom. It is not necessary to the story to 
describe the room in great detail. When I was at college, we had a big 
communal bathroom as well as ones in the student blocks which might be 
shared among two or three people. The big one had a number of baths 
available and also a shower plus several sinks for guys just wanting a shave 
and wash first thing in the morning plus urinals and several WCs. But 
basically it was a bathroom. As I said before we have a combined bathroom 
and loo on the first floor which is always known as the bathroom and a 
separate toilet on the ground floor. Many UK houses now have this set up 
although our last house in Porlock had a toilet and bathroom adjacent to 
each other on the first floor which we knocked into one for convenience 
and greater space.

I think that the film scene of the Polyjuice brewing in COS showed that it had 
been written by an American who had considered Myrtle's bathroom to be a 
large toilet whereas it probably fitted the parameters I outlined in the last 
paragraph.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 10 23:42:48 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:42:48 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re: Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j9cdsb+b801@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j9hnho+ej06@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191419


> > > Geoff:
> > > That is a logical non-sequitur.
> > >
> > > You might just as well say that because we never hear of Harry or
> > > any of the others going to the toilet, they are all constipated or
> > > because they never apparently eat carrots, there aren't any.
> 

Pippin:
Constipation, lest we forget, is mentioned in canon. Remember You No Poo?

Myrtle's home is  explicitly  a girl's toilet in both the British and American editions, but only Hermione's American version forthrightly declares that it's awful trying to "have a pee" with her wailing at you. The Brit-speaking original more delicately says "go to the loo." 

JKR is often allusive rather than explicit. But not writing about a subject explicitly is not the same as not writing about it at all. We can be sure that Ron regularly uses words stronger than "cow" or "git", that Merope forced Riddle Sr into sexual slavery, and that there's something dodgy about Aberforth's affection for his goats, though these things are referred to only vaguely. 

Likewise it's clear that Sirius and Harry regard being a godfather as a sacred obligation, however that was established, and the obligation is to do for their godchild as much as the natural parents would have done -- even dying for them.  

I agree with Geoff that the inscription on the Potters' grave identifies them as believing Christians. As Harry's bewildered reaction shows, it's not a quote that makes any sense without knowing the context, and the context happens to be the  Christian belief in the afterlife. To put it on their graves if they didn't believe in it would be either hypocritical or disrespectful  of the beliefs James and Lily actually held. 

It also shows us that whoever chose the inscription  expected that those who visited the grave would understand it without  needing  any further explanation. Harry's ignorance of Christianity, IOW, was not typical. 

Riddle thinks to himself, as he walks through Godric's Hollow  on Hallowe'en, that the Muggles with their tawdry trappings are celebrating something in which they do not believe. A cynic might make the same observation about Christmas, Easter, and the power of love. But there are people in canon who do believe unmistakably  in the power of love, so much so that they would die for it. 

And that, IMO, is the central religious issue in the books -- not what becomes of the soul after death.  I agree that JKR is not promoting Christianity per se. Other faiths besides Christianity promote the power of love in real life and there is nothing to stop us from thinking that they do so in the wizarding world as well.  But Christianity is the faith which promotes the power of love in canon. 

It is contrasted, not with agnosticism or any real world faith, but with the power-worshipping cults of the Hallows and the Death Eaters.


Pippin




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 11 07:09:17 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:09:17 -0000
Subject: Religion in the Wizarding World.  (Was:  Re:  Halloween Toasts)
In-Reply-To: <j99rgg+h0tc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <j9ihmt+78is@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191420



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "peter kersbergen" <kersberg@> wrote:
> 
> kamion:
> > there is no baptism mentioned at any page of HP, so there isn't any.... ...
> 
> Geoff:
> That is a logical non-sequitur.
> 
> ...
> 
> Baptism isn't specific to the story line but, as a UK reader, I am 
> inclined to believe by the mention of a godfather that there has 
> been one (a Baptism that is)...
>

Steve:

I've made my views clear, but let's review. I'm not specifically saying that Harry wasn't baptized, I'm merely saying that he wasn't /necessarily/ baptized. 

But in this case, I'm inclined to agree with you, the lack of mention of baptism is not the same as the absents of baptism. 

I think, as I previously said, that these are events that are written by an avowed Christian, and further take place in a predominantly Christian influenced society.

Harry and Teddy could very well have been baptized, but it may have been in a very wizardly way. That is, it may not have been in way we muggles traditionally assume. The it is not the mechanics of the event that define the event, but the intend is the key. 

Once again, I think JKR intended to write a somewhat secular book, that is, a book that does not specifically promote a particular religious view, but at the same time, it does take place in a society that is dominated by Christian influence. Yet, one can not deny a falling out between mainstream muggle religion and the world of witches and wizards.

Again, even while Christianity and all it trappings are not promoted, neither are they denied. 

I further contend that the Godparent aspect can and is sometimes a separate issue from Baptism. In that case, Godparent simply being synonymous with 'guardian of last resort'.  

I think it is just as wrong to absolutely deny the possibility of baptism, as it is to insist on the absolute certainly of it. We can and should only speculate on the likelihood, not the certainty, of either view.

I further contend, as I already have, that anyone of any religion can take spiritual inspiration for these books. They take place in a Christian world, but they reflect values common to most religions. 

And that ... is my opinion.

Steve/bboyminn
 





From lilandriss at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 12 03:01:45 2011
From: lilandriss at yahoo.com (Alanna)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:01:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Wolfsbane/Portkey questions
In-Reply-To: <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com>
References: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191422

Hello all! I have a couple of questions that I was hoping someone could help me with. 
?
1) Wolfsbane potion is supposed to let Lupin/whoever else keep his mind, right? So, would that make him more like an animagus rather than a dangerous, supernatural creature so long as he has taken it? If that's the case, then why does he shut himself away? He's got control of his mind, so he's not dangerous, right? Why isn't he off running around in the forest or, in case of third year, prowling the halls on patrol or something? And why, if he's taking the potion, is in control and isn't dangerous, would he be shunned? 
?
2) Portkeys.? If someone has a Portkey, say in his pocket, timed to go off at a certain time, do they need to be holding it when the time is up or will it still transport them regardless of whether or not they are holding it, just so long as it is on their person somewhere? 
?
Oh! One more question.? Are we allowed to make fic find requests here? If no, anyone know of any active lists that handle that? 
?
Thanks!
?
Alanna :)     

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




From technomad at intergate.com  Sun Nov 13 06:15:42 2011
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 00:15:42 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wolfsbane/Portkey questions
In-Reply-To: <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com>
	<1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20111113001542.jumvhraeecwsg404@webmail.intergate.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191423

Quoting Alanna <lilandriss at yahoo.com>:

> Hello all! I have a couple of questions that I was hoping someone   
> could help me with.
>
> 1) Wolfsbane potion is supposed to let Lupin/whoever else keep his   
> mind, right? So, would that make him more like an animagus rather   
> than a dangerous, supernatural creature so long as he has taken it?   
> If that's the case, then why does he shut himself away? He's got   
> control of his mind, so he's not dangerous, right? Why isn't he off   
> running around in the forest or, in case of third year, prowling the  
>  halls on patrol or something? And why, if he's taking the potion,  
> is  in control and isn't dangerous, would he be shunned?

Partly due to tradition.  The WW is very tradition-bound, and  
wolfsbane potion is a fairly new thing IIRC.  Until it's _proven_ to  
be effective in all cases, werewolves are, when transformed, still to  
be considered incredibly dangerous, what with their lust for human  
flesh and their contagious bites.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





From liz.treky at ntlworld.com  Sun Nov 13 10:07:23 2011
From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:07:23 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wolfsbane/Portkey questions
In-Reply-To: <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com> <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <59677C74AE8F4F7D9EE2B1D1453BF3DC@TrekyPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 191424

Interesting questions :)

1) Wolfsbane potion is supposed to let Lupin/whoever else keep his mind, 
right? So, would that make him more like an animagus rather than a 
dangerous, supernatural creature so long as he has taken it? If that's the 
case, then why does he shut himself away? He's got control of his mind, so 
he's not dangerous, right? Why isn't he off running around in the forest or, 
in case of third year, prowling the halls on patrol or something? And why, 
if he's taking the potion, is in control and isn't dangerous, would he be 
shunned?

I can think of 2 lines of thought with regard to Wolfsbane. Evidence of 
taking Wolfsbane and general fear.

Firstly, Wolfsbane is not a common or cheap potion. It is very difficult to 
make and only skilled Potioneers can accomplish it successfully. Therefore, 
not only will a very few Werewolves have access to it, but also 'he [Snape] 
could have wreaked much worse damage on me by tampering with the Potion.' 
(taken from HBP ch16) Which suggests that if prepared incorrectly the 
Werewolf would be just as dangerous, or more so. These 2 points mean that a 
werewolf is rarely safe and there is no visual sign that a werewolf has 
taken Wolfsbane Potion. If I met one, I wouldn't ask if they were safe, I'd 
just run!

Secondly, Wolfsbane is a fairly new invention. So for centuries werewolves 
were extremely dangerous and even glimpsing one would probably cause severe 
fear and probably a 'hunting party'. The same old story, fear of the 
creature would inevitably lead to killing it. Just like Muggles did with 
witches. I cannot see much difference in opinions and fear nowadays because 
a few werewolves take Wolfsbane Potion.

With regard to Lupin specifically in Harry's 3rd year. Given that the kids 
didn't know he was a werewolf, it would be foolish to roam freely around the 
corridors, as students didn't always abid by the curfew. I would suggest 
that he shut himself in his office on Dumbledore's orders, to keep Lupin 
safe and in his job. It is also possible that he was ashamed of being a 
werewolf and didn't want to show himself transformed.


2) Portkeys. If someone has a Portkey, say in his pocket, timed to go off at 
a certain time, do they need to be holding it when the time is up or will it 
still transport them regardless of whether or not they are holding it, just 
so long as it is on their person somewhere?

Everytime a Portkey is mentioned, it has to be touched with flesh. Therefore 
I'd suggest that it has to be in contact with flesh to work. The sensation 
'hooked by the navel' also suggests that contact with the actual body is 
required.

Liz 




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 13 17:56:05 2011
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 13 Nov 2011 17:56:05 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/13/2011, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1321206965.64.63985.m12@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191425

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 13, 2011
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK



All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2011 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20111113/34b30d47/attachment.html>

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Nov 13 22:11:33 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:11:33 -0000
Subject: Wolfsbane/Portkey questions
In-Reply-To: <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <j9pfal+qpe8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191426



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alanna <lilandriss at ...> wrote:
>
> Hello all! I have a couple of questions that I was hoping someone could help me with. 
> ?
> 1) Wolfsbane potion is supposed to let Lupin/whoever else keep his mind, right? So, would that make him more like an animagus rather than a dangerous, supernatural creature so long as he has taken it? If that's the case, then why does he shut himself away? He's got control of his mind, so he's not dangerous, right? Why isn't he off running around in the forest or, in case of third year, prowling the halls on patrol or something? And why, if he's taking the potion, is in control and isn't dangerous, would he be shunned? 

Pippin:
Unfortunately some werewolves are just as predatory and aggressive when human as they are when transformed. Wolfsbane wouldn't make Fenrir Greyback any safer to be around. 

 There was no trust   between the two communities, and people like Greyback and Umbridge were doing their best to make sure that it stayed that way. JKR shows us how the isolation of the werewolves made it easy for wizards to demonize them and be demonized in return. It's possible that most werewolves weren't any fonder of Greyback than Dumbledore's faction is of Umbridge, but their hostility to wizards and their  inability to muster the power to oppose him openly or remove him from power  might make  it look otherwise to outsiders. 

To be fair, it only took a month or so of exposure to Umbridge's tyranny before Hermione had arranged to permanently mutilate one of her own classmates, so the werewolves might be no worse than Hermione for wanting blood.


Pippin




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 15 11:00:18 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:00:18 -0000
Subject: Wolfsbane/Portkey questions
In-Reply-To: <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <j9tgo2+n5ed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191427



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alanna <lilandriss at ...> wrote:
>
> ... 
> ?
> 1) Wolfsbane potion is supposed to let Lupin/whoever else keep his mind, right? So, would that make him more like an animagus ...
> 


Steve:

Keep in mind that Wolfbane is not a cure, and is barely a treatment. I would speculate that even under the influence of Wolfbane, the  transformation is still a painful exhausting process. While the Wolfsbane does soften Lupin's mood, and make him safer, safer is not the same as safe. Plus, Lupin's status as a werewolf is something of a secret, so it is best to keep him separate during those 'delicate' times. 
?
> 2) Portkeys.? If someone has a Portkey, say in his pocket, timed to go off at a certain time, do they need to be holding it when the time is up or will it still transport them regardless ...
> ?
> ...
> ?
> Thanks!
> ?
> Alanna :)     
> 

Steve:

I think this gets down to a question of proximity, and what constitutes a touch. For example, if someone willfully touched a Portkey that was about to activate while wearing a silk glove, would that constitute 'contact'? 

How thin does the separation have to be? If your finger was dirty could that dirt constitute sufficient separation to cause it not to work? Are there variations on the spell to account for details like this? Does the intent of the holder or the spell caster come into play? If you intend for it to actively take you while it is in your pocket, will it then take you? I confess, though I'm usually very good at speculating at these things, I'm really not sure.

I suspect, it could be make to work as you describe, but in all the cases we see, there must be direct skin contact. So, knowing it was about to activate, you would have to reach into your pocket and literally touch it. 

But, then that is just a guess on my part. 

Steve/bboyminn




From lilandriss at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 03:05:56 2011
From: lilandriss at yahoo.com (Alanna)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com> <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191428

Hey all! Thanks?for the responses to my questions on wolfsbane?and portkeys.??They were very helpful.? I have another question now.? I'm having trouble understanding?Pureblood?vs Halfblood.? I get?the?Halfblood when?one parent is magical and the other isn't as in the case of Voldie and Snape, but why is Harry considered a?Halfblood??Both his parents are magical despite his mother being muggleborn.??If he's considered Halfblood because of that, then what would you call the child of two muggleborns?
?
Also,?I'm still looking for an answer on the question of?fic searches.?
?
Thanks again!
?
Alanna :) ??  ?









From liz.treky at ntlworld.com  Thu Nov 17 10:39:29 2011
From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:39:29 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com> <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <984D4D907C64418488D89CBF23B4B437@TrekyPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 191429

Ah, now, this can be explained by emphasising the word 'pure'. Pure-bloods 
have no Muggle desendents - none that they either know of or admit to. 
Therefore, they are pure and clean of 'dirty-blood'. A half-blood has Muggle 
descendants. They don't need to be immediate descendants (mother, father) 
but could be say, a great grandfather. This would mean they do not have 
'pure' magical blood.

Think of a glass of clear water as magical blood. and a glass of orange 
juice as Muggle blood. If you mix the two (wizard x Muggle), the water 
wouldn't be clear at all (half-blood). If that mixed water was again mixed 
with clear water (half-blood x pure-blood), it still wouldn't be clear, a 
little less orange, but still definitely not clear, it remains 'dirty' 
(half-blood). Do this a few more times, and the water still won't go clear, 
almost perhaps, but it still retains some of that orange colour. This is why 
half-bloods are still called half-bloods, because their blood is still not 
clear and pure even after several generations.

Hope this helps
Liz

ps. no idea on the fic question, sorry.



Hey all! Thanks for the responses to my questions on wolfsbane and portkeys. 
They were very helpful. I have another question now. I'm having trouble 
understanding Pureblood vs Halfblood. I get the Halfblood when one parent is 
magical and the other isn't as in the case of Voldie and Snape, but why is 
Harry considered a Halfblood? Both his parents are magical despite his 
mother being muggleborn. If he's considered Halfblood because of that, then 
what would you call the child of two muggleborns?

Also, I'm still looking for an answer on the question of fic searches.

Thanks again!

Alanna :)





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 17 11:31:59 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:31:59 -0000
Subject: Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ja2rbf+5drp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191430



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alanna <lilandriss at ...> wrote:
>
> Hey all! Thanks?for the responses to my questions on wolfsbane?and portkeys.??They were very helpful.? I have another question now.? I'm having trouble understanding?Pureblood?vs Halfblood.? I get?the?Halfblood when?one parent is magical and the other isn't as in the case of Voldie and Snape, but why is Harry considered a?Halfblood??Both his parents are magical despite his mother being muggleborn.??If he's considered Halfblood because of that, then what would you call the child of two muggleborns?
> ?
> ?
> Thanks again!
> ?
> Alanna :) ??  ?
>


Steve:

The problem with the terms "Pureblood" and "Halfblood" is that they are not absolute. That is, there is not one absolute definition for them. 

The term "Pureblood" is pretty obvious, you have an unbroken chain of ancestors (ancestors, not descendants) that are all magical persons. But, and this is a big but, there is a difference between calling yourself "pure" and actually being "pure". Many cling to the idea of being 'pure' but few live up to the ideal. Somehow somewhere there is a bit of direct or indirect muggle even in the purest of families. 

Now "Halfblood" is even more confusing. Harry is the descendant of a magical mother and a magical father. Magic+Magic=Pure, or so it would seem. But since Lily is a first generation magical being, she does not have an unbroken line of magical ancestry, which means that some, not all but some, will call her a muggle. Others will call her and Harry pure, in the sense that they are both magical persons. 

I think the proper term for Harry might be "fullblood" rather than "pureblood". He has two magical parents, making him a fully magical being. A true halfblood would have one muggle and one magical parent. 

But, what about Hermione who has two muggle parents, but is none the less a fully magical being herself? So, what do we call her? She is fully magical even if she doesn't have 'full' ancestry or parentage. 

Personally, I think you are either magical or you are not. Designations beyond that are pure prejudice, a means by which inferior people try to make themselves seem superior. Look at Marvolo Gaunt, his blood is as pure as they come, yet he is the most inferior person imaginable. Since he is basically scum, the best he can do is cling to the knowledge that his miserable ornery blood is pure. 

So, how these terms are applied very much hinges on the prejudices of the speaker. But, of course, even those claiming 'pure blood' are very unlikely to have it. Love, or lust, are more powerful than magic, and even the seeming purest blood is likely to have a muggle in the closet here or there. 

I think both in the world of Nazis vs Jew, and in the world of magical beings, if you were three generations removed from any muggle blood, you were accepted. So, if the last muggle in your family was in the generation of your great grandfather or before, your blood would be considered acceptably pure. 

Again, what words literally mean, in fiction or real life, is not necessarily how they are used. Many alleged, though not likely, purebloods, merely use "mudblood" or "halfblood" as in insult. 

Just a few rambling thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn




From kadede at skynet.be  Thu Nov 17 10:42:18 2011
From: kadede at skynet.be (Ka)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:42:18 -0000
Subject: Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ja2oea+3be0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191431

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alanna <lilandriss at ...> wrote:
>
> Hey all! Thanks?for the responses to my questions on wolfsbane?and portkeys.??They were very helpful.? I have another question now.? I'm having trouble understanding?Pureblood?vs Halfblood.? I get?the?Halfblood when?one parent is magical and the other isn't as in the case of Voldie and Snape, but why is Harry considered a?Halfblood??Both his parents are magical despite his mother being muggleborn.??If he's considered Halfblood because of that, then what would you call the child of two muggleborns?<snip>


Kadedetje:
Hello Alanna

For me Harry being called a halfblood too lies in the definition of pure-blood : A witch or wizard of 'pure' wizarding ancestry, without any Muggle ancestors whatsoever as far as can be determined.

If you then look at a program like "Who do you think you are ? - the UK version" a lot of people get to go back as far as the 1600s finding their ancestors. The Brits are/were really good in keeping records like that.

The "as far as can be determined" in the definition of pure-blood therefore suggests that you'd need quite a lot of pure-blood generations (which means they would inter-marry, especially with pure-blood families having so few children in order to keep their pureblood status.)

Hope this helps !

cheers
kadedetje




From liz.treky at ntlworld.com  Thu Nov 17 12:35:28 2011
From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:35:28 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <984D4D907C64418488D89CBF23B4B437@TrekyPC>
References: <j0ak69+ug3t@eGroups.com> <j0eocn+lp5d@eGroups.com> <1321066905.72460.YahooMailNeo@web161303.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <984D4D907C64418488D89CBF23B4B437@TrekyPC>
Message-ID: <CCF9F33F1C134174852624B251F7730B@TrekyPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 191432

Sorry, I meant ancestors not desendants... brain having a senior moment!

> Ah, now, this can be explained by emphasising the word 'pure'. Pure-bloods
> have no Muggle desendents - none that they either know of or admit to.
> Therefore, they are pure and clean of 'dirty-blood'. A half-blood has 
> Muggle
> descendants. They don't need to be immediate descendants (mother, father)
> but could be say, a great grandfather. This would mean they do not have
> 'pure' magical blood.
>
> Think of a glass of clear water as magical blood. and a glass of orange
> juice as Muggle blood. If you mix the two (wizard x Muggle), the water
> wouldn't be clear at all (half-blood). If that mixed water was again mixed
> with clear water (half-blood x pure-blood), it still wouldn't be clear, a
> little less orange, but still definitely not clear, it remains 'dirty'
> (half-blood). Do this a few more times, and the water still won't go 
> clear,
> almost perhaps, but it still retains some of that orange colour. This is 
> why
> half-bloods are still called half-bloods, because their blood is still not
> clear and pure even after several generations.
>
> Hope this helps
> Liz
>
> ps. no idea on the fic question, sorry.
>
>
>




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 17 18:25:01 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:25:01 -0000
Subject: Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ja3jhu+l8in@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191433



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alanna <lilandriss at ...> wrote:
>
> Hey all! Thanks?for the responses to my questions on wolfsbane?and portkeys.??They were very helpful.? I have another question now.? I'm having trouble understanding?Pureblood?vs Halfblood.? I get?the?Halfblood when?one parent is magical and the other isn't as in the case of Voldie and Snape, but why is Harry considered a?Halfblood??Both his parents are magical despite his mother being muggleborn.??If he's considered Halfblood because of that, then what would you call the child of two 
muggleborns?

Pippin:
Assuming that the child is not a Squib,  I'd use  witch or  wizard regardless. But  a pureblood fanatic must  suit his language to  his audience -- a difficult proposition as Snape found to his cost. 

The halfblood/pureblood/muggleborn/muggle/mudblood distinctions aren't entirely  genealogical or magicological, so trying to parse them strictly on the basis of ancestry or magical ability only leads to frustration. It seems bizarre to say that   powerful witches such as Lily  and Hermione are Muggle, but Voldemort and his followers do so all the time.

They, and others,  use Half-blood when they want to acknowledge the idea that witches and wizards with mixed ancestry have (or should have) more standing in the WW than those with Muggle ancestors alone, though not as much as those whose bloodline is (supposedly) unmingled. 

Consider all the real-world tribes which reserve the word which means "human" to themselves. Like the real world concepts  "humanity" and "race", "halfblood" and "pureblood" are ethnic and social groupings which are based partly, but only partly, on ideas about ancestry and heredity.

So to determine what someone would be called in the WW, you not only have to know something about the ancestry and magical ability of the subject, you need to know something about the social and ethnic identity of the speaker and his goals. 

Voldemort is a special case. He is  a liar,  besides being out of touch with reality, so what he says may  reflect neither his beliefs nor the facts already in evidence.  

 Alanna:
> Also,?I'm still looking for an answer on the question of?fic searches.?
> ?

Pippin:
The fic search at FictionAlley seems to be working, despite what it says on the main page.
Here's a link:
http://forums.fictionalley.org/fics/search.php

 
Pippin







From kersberg at chello.nl  Thu Nov 17 18:22:03 2011
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:22:03 -0000
Subject: Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321499156.79182.YahooMailNeo@web161302.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ja3jcb+s5oi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191434



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alanna <lilandriss at ...> wrote:
>
> Hey all! Thanks?for the responses to my questions on wolfsbane?and portkeys.??They were very helpful.? I have another question now.? I'm having trouble understanding?Pureblood?vs Halfblood.? I get?the?Halfblood when?one parent is magical and the other isn't as in the case of Voldie and Snape, but why is Harry considered a?Halfblood??Both his parents are magical despite his mother being muggleborn.??If he's considered Halfblood because of that, then what would you call the child of two muggleborns?
> ?
> Also,?I'm still looking for an answer on the question of?fic searches.?
> ?
> Thanks again!
> ?
> Alanna :) ??  ?
>
THink it's a bit like Old Money and Nouveau Riche.
"The fact you have maybe more money then us, doesn't mean you belong to us the eleite from generation to generation."

PureBloods pretend to be Wizards for generations and generations, being for instance very proud to decent from Salazar Slytherin ignore that they are a bunge of retarded trash.... the Gaunts for instance.
So every Wizard that obvious has some Muggle among his ancesters "isn't really a Wizard" but a sort of Half Wizard ergo HalfBlood.
Someone whose parents both are Muggle cannot be a Wizard at all, in the most someone who stole some powers or tricks from the "real" Wizards and their existence is mudding the pool ergo Mudblood
It's a mix of old English elitism with the house of Slyterin compaired with Eton and the post colonial vieuw about blacks and whites in America.
Think we may be glad JKR is an English writer and not a South African writer, because then she might have introduced as many grades od pureness for Wizard as the apartheid regime once did to segregate... think there were about 16 stages of being coloured.




From kersberg at chello.nl  Thu Nov 17 18:33:53 2011
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:33:53 -0000
Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand?
In-Reply-To: <ivv5oa+ss96@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ja3k2h+3f0a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191435



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" <ki4tia at ...> wrote:
>
> Just wondering, if Dumbledore's plan worked. Snaped disarmed him and killed him becoming the owner(?) of the Elder wand. Did Dumbledore tell Snape about the elder wand which he wanted him to have once he was dead?
> 
> Stephanie
>

I think the plot between Dumbledore and Snape was that Snape would not become the next master of the Elder Wand, because he did disarm of beat Dumbledore, but he "euthanesed" Dumbledore at his request.
With Dumbledore dead the mastering of the Elder Wand should stay in limbo because the old master was incapicetated and the new master did not exist.
Draco spoiled their plan as they did not count on the fact that a desperate boy could be quick with his wand. Draco had not beaten Dumbledore by an inch, but that stupid Elder Wand counted a simple disarment as change of masterhood.... even more stupid it counter it when it wasn't even the actual wand from which the master was disarmed.

Harry says in the book canon that he will put the Elder Wand back in the grave, in the movie he simple breaks it in two, which I thought a far stronger move




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 17 19:16:37 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:16:37 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow
In-Reply-To: <j97cq3+i868@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ja3mil+ikrj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191436


> QUESTIONS
> 
> 1. The Dursleys are horrified by the Weasleys' unorthodox arrival via the Floo network. Shouldn't they be relieved that the neighbors won't notice any wizards in robes arriving or leaving?

Pippin:
We know that it's easier for Arthur to clean up the mess he made of the Dursley's living room  than put together a Muggle outfit that wouldn't raise an eyebrow on Privet Drive. But the Dursleys don't know that.

> 
> 2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly speaking" be connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed it for him. What does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his disregard for the rules is justified in this instance?
> 
Pippin:
It tells us that Arthur's willingness to bend the rules for purposes he considers harmless (such as enchanting a car so it will fly) is not confined to his private life. Obviously it wasn't as harmless as he thought, so he was misguided. 

> 3. Harry claims not to care when the Dursleys fail to bid him goodbye. Do you believe this? Do you think Arthur believes him?

Pippin:
I don't think Harry cares -- he wasn't expecting the Dursleys to say good-bye to him. I think he said 'bye to them partly out of habit and partly to mark the fact that he was leaving. It's a bit of  cheek , since they'd have kept him from going if they could have. Arthur doesn't get that, and thinks Harry's politeness should have been returned. 

> 
> 4. This chapter showcases JKR's sense of comedic timing and knack for slapstick, with Dudley choking, Petunia getting hysterical, Vernon using the china figurines for target practice, and Arthur attempting to provide reassurance -- with an outstretched wand. How does this compare to other comedic scenes in the series?
> 
Pippin:
I don't think I ever laughed harder at anything in the books -- or felt more ashamed of myself for laughing later on. 


> 5. Dudley appears to be in danger of suffocation from the ton-tongue toffee. How do you feel about this -- does Dudley engage your sympathies? Why or why not? Was it fair for Fred to use sweets to bait a starving boy who's terrified of wizards?

Pippin:
Dudley has my sympathy now. As long as we could see him only as a bullying git, he didn't symbolize a real person. He was a symbol of  a way that real people shouldn't act. But as later books depict him with more depth and sympathy, and shift some of the responsibility for his behavior to his parents, my attitude towards him changed. 

There are plenty of things Fred and George could have done to amuse Harry without hexing a Muggle boy who hadn't ever done anything to them -- so no, I don't think it was fair. 

> 
> 6. What do you think happened after Harry left?

Pippin:
I suppose Mr. Weasley managed to sort it out, as he said he would.  Eventually Vernon would run out of things to throw at him. I don't think Vernon has quite the nerve to rush someone with a wand in his hand. 

> 
> 7. Any other questions?
>
Dorothy:
This question doesn't have grounding in the chapter, but I have often wondered
about Vernon and how he works Wizards into his mental schema. Petunia knows,
and I think she accepts that there is a magical world in her heart, even though
she pretends to brush it aside.

She must have told Vernon about Lily. Vernon seems to want to beat the magic
out of Harry, or pretend it doesn't exist, yet he knows that Harry is different
and Vernon seems to be afraid of Wizards and everything they represent.

He wants to ignore magic, but it is all around him when Harry is home. How does
Vernon make sense of magic and work it into his mental schema?

Pippin:
I think Vernon's default opinion is that magic is all tricks and lies. Therefore if it seems to have worked, it's only that the wizards have succeeded in  their trickery. He's a bit like Fudge denying that Voldemort has returned. There's no room in his mental schema for something which not only defies common sense, but  threatens what he considers to be his rightful place in the world. 

Of course Vernon is occasionally forced to accommodate other views, but since he's not an accommodating person, he doesn't stay accommodated for long. It's like trying to convince a two year old that it's bedtime. Just because you finally got her down yesterday doesn't mean you aren't going to have to fight the whole battle all over again tonight. 

IMO, from  Vernon's point of view wizards convinced Lily that she was one of them, and then they killed her for it. He's not going to let that nonsense infect his Diddycums. 

Thanks to Elfundeb and Dorothy for the questions. 

Pippin









From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 17 22:03:18 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:03:18 -0000
Subject: How would things be different if Snape had gotten the Elder Wand?
In-Reply-To: <ja3k2h+3f0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ja40b6+ck1u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191437



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote:
 
<snip>
> Harry says in the book canon that he will put the Elder Wand back in the grave, in the movie he simple breaks it in two, which I thought a far stronger move
>

Pippin:
While I agree that the scene is effective in the movie, it doesn't make sense given the long history of the wand in the world of the books. 

I think JKR's original concept was that the Elder Wand could no more be destroyed  in that way than Ginny could destroy the Diary by throwing it into Myrtle's toilet. It would, IMO, be impossible to destroy the wand by non-magical means, while given that some magical objects can absorb the powers of others, attempting to destroy it by magic might only make the wand even stronger than it was before. 

Pippin




From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca  Fri Nov 18 03:39:34 2011
From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:39:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow
In-Reply-To: <ja3mil+ikrj@eGroups.com>
References: <j97cq3+i868@eGroups.com> <ja3mil+ikrj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1321587574.63972.YahooMailNeo@web121309.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191438

> QUESTIONS
>
> 1. The Dursleys are horrified by the Weasleys' unorthodox arrival
via the Floo network. Shouldn't they be relieved that the neighbors
won't notice any wizards in robes arriving or leaving?

June:
Where it is true that the neighbors did not see them, it is possible
that the Dursleys, being muggles, just saw their fireplace blown to
bits and did not think about the possibility of Mr. Weasley fixing
it with magic and were distraught by the damage they had caused. I
am sure their hope would have been for the Weasleys to show up at
the door dressed "normal".

> 2. Arthur admits that Muggle fireplaces should not "strictly
speaking" be connected to the Floo network, but that a friend fixed
it for him. What does this tell us about Arthur? Do you think his
disregard for the rules is justified in this instance?

June:
I think that it was a one off because he was picking up a wizard
from a muggle house. It may have been the easiest way to pick up
Harry, as his car is still roaming around the forbidden forest lol.

> 3. Harry claims not to care when the Dursleys fail to bid him
goodbye. Do you believe this? Do you think Arthur believes him?

June:
I do not believe that Harry did not care and I doubt Arthur did
either. It is natural to want your family to accept you, no matter
how awful the family is.

> 4. This chapter showcases JKR's sense of comedic timing and knack
for slapstick, with Dudley choking, Petunia getting hysterical,
Vernon using the china figurines for target practice, and Arthur
attempting to provide reassurance -- with an outstretched wand. How
does this compare to other comedic scenes in the series?

June:
I am not sure I understand fully your question.

> 5. Dudley appears to be in danger of suffocation from the
ton-tongue toffee. How do you feel about this -- does Dudley engage
your sympathies? Why or why not? Was it fair for Fred to use sweets
to bait a starving boy who's terrified of wizards?

June:
I do think Fred went too far on that one. It was funny of course
for the storyline and I understand Fred's way of thinking because
Dudley was a bully, but that was going too far.

> 6. What do you think happened after Harry left?

June:
The Dursleys probably spent a little time cursing the wizarding
world, lol.



From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Nov 18 22:18:21 2011
From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 22:18:21 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321632340.881.77806.m7@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1321632340.881.77806.m7@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <1321654701.61972.YahooMailNeo@web24707.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191439

?Re: Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
??? Date: Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:25 am ((PST))

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alanna <lilandriss at ...> wrote:
>
> Hey all! Thanks?for the responses to my questions on wolfsbane?and portkeys.??They were very helpful.? I have another question now.? I'm having trouble understanding?Pureblood?vs Halfblood.? I get?the?Halfblood when?one parent is magical and the other isn't as in the case of Voldie and Snape, but why is Harry considered a?Halfblood??Both his parents are magical despite his mother being muggleborn.??If he's considered Halfblood because of that, then what would you call the child of two 
muggleborns?

Pippin:
>Assuming that the child is not a Squib,? I'd use? witch or? wizard regardless. But? a pureblood fanatic must? suit his language to? his audience -- a difficult >proposition as Snape found to his cost. 

Do you have a tapestry?

Does it go back 9 generations?

If you want to argue that you're proper Pureblood, you might have to be able to give a positive response to both questions?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 20 00:15:31 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:15:31 -0000
Subject: Thank you and another question - Pureblood vs. Halfblood
In-Reply-To: <1321654701.61972.YahooMailNeo@web24707.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ja9gr3+953i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191440



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Ffred Clegg <ffred_clegg at ...> wrote:
>
> ...
> 
> Pippin:
> >Assuming that the child is not a Squib,? I'd use? witch or? wizard regardless. But? a pureblood fanatic must? suit his language to? his audience -- a difficult >proposition as Snape found to his cost. 
> 
> Do you have a tapestry?
> 
> Does it go back 9 generations?
> 
> If you want to argue that you're proper Pureblood, you might have to be able to give a positive response to both questions?
> 
> gwyn eich byd
> 
> Ffred
>


Steve:

You mean pureblood like Snape? You mean pureblood like Voldemort? 

Yes, we know of one family that can trace its ancestry back 9 generation, with the exception of the many burn spots and erased members of the clan. 

But I suspect very many who are shouting about their pureblood status, are hiding a muggle or two in the woodshed. 

Steve/bboyminn




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Nov 20 00:43:36 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 00:43:36 -0000
Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 4: Back to the Burrow
In-Reply-To: <1321587574.63972.YahooMailNeo@web121309.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ja9ifo+a8a3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191441



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote:
>
> > QUESTIONS
> >
> > 1. The Dursleys are horrified by the Weasleys' unorthodox arrival
> via the Floo network. Shouldn't they be relieved that the neighbors
> won't notice any wizards in robes arriving or leaving?
> 
.
> 
> > 3. Harry claims not to care when the Dursleys fail to bid him
> goodbye. Do you believe this? Do you think Arthur believes him?
> 
> June:
> I do not believe that Harry did not care and I doubt Arthur did
> either. It is natural to want your family to accept you, no matter
> how awful the family is.
> 

Pippin:

When Harry looks into the Mirror, he doesn't see a family of Dursleys who love him. He sees a family with no Dursleys at all. IMO, he's rejected them just as thoroughly as they rejected him.

In DH, Harry notes the awkwardness of trying to say farewell after 16 years of solid dislike. They do all manage to say goodbye to each other then.I wouldn't call it a thaw in their relationship since GoF except for Dudley, but it bespeaks a tacit acknowledgement that despite their loathing, they are on the same side.

Pippin






From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 20 17:55:59 2011
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 20 Nov 2011 17:55:59 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/20/2011, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1321811759.8.92364.m2@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191442

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 20, 2011
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK



All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2011 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20111120/139b20e5/attachment.html>

From wendydhudson at gmail.com  Tue Nov 22 18:16:44 2011
From: wendydhudson at gmail.com (Dorothy)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:16:44 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
Message-ID: <jagouc+micn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191443

Please forgive me if this question has been answered before, but with regard to Quidditch, I think Rowling created a great game; however, in the books, why does a captain only choose 6 players.  What about substitutes?

Teams always have more players on the team than actually play on the field. Subs are there if someone gets hurts, gets tired, has detention, or are used to scrimmage against.

How can a player, Dean or McCormick, just jump onto the field and play with the team without ever practicing with the team.  All players need to know how others play and team strategy.

I love the series, but this drives me crazy!

Dorothy



From liz.treky at ntlworld.com  Wed Nov 23 22:12:59 2011
From: liz.treky at ntlworld.com (Liz Clark)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:12:59 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jagouc+micn@eGroups.com>
References: <jagouc+micn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1D1C7CFD105544F6B78237CA4276D09D@TrekyPC>

No: HPFGUIDX 191444

> Please forgive me if this question has been answered before, but with 
> regard to Quidditch, I think Rowling created a great game; however, in the 
> books, why does a captain only choose 6 players.  What about substitutes?
>
> Teams always have more players on the team than actually play on the 
> field. Subs are there if someone gets hurts, gets tired, has detention, or 
> are used to scrimmage against.
>
> How can a player, Dean or McCormick, just jump onto the field and play 
> with the team without ever practicing with the team.  All players need to 
> know how others play and team strategy.
>
> I love the series, but this drives me crazy!
>
> Dorothy

Liz responds:
Taken from PS ch10 - Wood is talking to Harry.
A game of Quidditch only ends when the Snitch is caught, so it can go on for 
ages - I think the record is three months, they had to keep bringing on 
substitutes so the players could get some sleep.

Therefore there are subs in Quidditch, probably more imporant in official 
league teams than in school matches as the players for the school matches 
are usually at the stadium already, not halfway around the country!

But... following another thought, if someone is injured, it is likely that 
they are quickly resorted to health (by a mediwizard as at the Quidditch 
world cup) and you would presume in a school match, that serious injuries 
would be few and far between. Therefore the need for subs would be 
deminished or even unneeded. In the case of a player having detention... 
well, being on a Quidditch team is a great honour and privilege, so you 
would expect those players NOT to get detention and if they do, to normally 
get kicked off the team! Being sick, again is a rare occurance in the 
wizarding world, so unlikely.

I also remember reading each new member had at least 1 practise session, 
usually more. And would presume that if a player is unable to play on a 
certain day, then the team may be forced to forfeit the match. It makes me 
think that not having subs is a bad idea... yet how often have they been 
needed, other than to cover things that happen around Harry!

A final thought occurs... having more players having to practise would mean 
more characters are needed, and more vital decisions having to be made by 
the captains (and possible arguements, etc). I personally think that JRK 
didn't want to open such a can of worms and the subs may have been left out 
intentially.




From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca  Wed Nov 23 21:26:43 2011
From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing)
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jagouc+micn@eGroups.com>
References: <jagouc+micn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1322083603.39427.YahooMailNeo@web121302.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191445



> Dorothy:
> Please forgive me if this question has been answered before, but
with regard to Quidditch, I think Rowling created a great game;
however, in the books, why does a captain only choose 6 players.
What about substitutes?

> Teams always have more players on the team than actually play on
the field. Subs are there if someone gets hurts, gets tired, has
detention, or are used to scrimmage against.

> How can a player, Dean or McCormick, just jump onto the field
and play with the team without ever practicing with the team.  All
players need to know how others play and team strategy.

> I love the series, but this drives me crazy!


June:
Haha, good question Dorothy. I have often wondered myself why there
aren't extra players. I grew up playing baseball and as we all know
there are only 9 positions in baseball but we had extra players. At
least 2 pitchers (the pitchers were only allowed to pitch one game
a week or 3 innings a game so they would not injure their arm) and
there were extra players in case of injury, absence and to not
overplay anyone.








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 24 16:30:00 2011
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:30:00 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jagouc+micn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jalre8+nadl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191446



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dorothy" <wendydhudson at ...> wrote:
>
> Please forgive me if this question has been answered before, but with regard to Quidditch, I think Rowling created a great game; however, in the books, why does a captain only choose 6 players.  What about substitutes?

Pippin:
JKR makes it plain to us that substitutes are allowed and Wood knows it. So the question is, why do the Gryffindor captains not use them. I think it's the Gryffindor tendency to consider themselves both indestructible and indispensable. Nobody wants to think they are going to get hurt, or that anyone else could play their position well enough to win.

It's only common sense to appoint substitutes, but wizard kids aren't known for common sense.

Pippin








From kersberg at chello.nl  Thu Nov 24 19:20:12 2011
From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53)
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:20:12 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jagouc+micn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jam5dc+ifj2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191447



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dorothy" <wendydhudson at ...> wrote:
>
> Please forgive me if this question has been answered before, but with regard to Quidditch, I think Rowling created a great game; however, in the books, why does a captain only choose 6 players.  What about substitutes?
> 
> Teams always have more players on the team than actually play on the field. Subs are there if someone gets hurts, gets tired, has detention, or are used to scrimmage against.
> 
> How can a player, Dean or McCormick, just jump onto the field and play with the team without ever practicing with the team.  All players need to know how others play and team strategy.
> 
> I love the series, but this drives me crazy!
> 
> Dorothy
>

rule nr 5
from Quidditch through the ages p.28:
In case of injury no substitution wil take place.
The team will play on without the injured player.

one can deduce from that rule, that only the playerd who are on the broom at the start of the game play the game and changes are not allowed,.
nasty rule incase the Snitch is not catched for days which has happened, think that info is somewhere in de Golblet of Fire. 





From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Sat Nov 26 21:13:45 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 21:13:45 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jam5dc+ifj2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jarkq9+6als@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191448

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" <kersberg at ...> wrote:

Dorothy:
> > Please forgive me if this question has been answered before, but with regard to Quidditch, I think Rowling created a great game; however, in the books, why does a captain only choose 6 players.  What about substitutes?

Kamion53: (not attributed in original post)
> rule nr 5
> from Quidditch through the ages p.28:
> In case of injury no substitution wil take place.
> The team will play on without the injured player.
 
> one can deduce from that rule, that only the playerd who are on the broom at the start of the game play the game and changes are not allowed,.
> nasty rule incase the Snitch is not catched for days which has happened, think that info is somewhere in de Golblet of Fire.

Geoff:
Two pieces of related information which might shed a little more light.

Quidditch Rule 2:
"The Captain of a team may call for "time out" by signalling to the referee. 
This is the only time players' feet are allowed to touch the ground during a 
match. Time out may be extended to a two-hour period if a game has lasted 
more than twelve hours. Failure to return to the pitch after two hours  leads 
to a team's disqualification.
(QTTA p.27)

Presumably time out can be called more than once.

However, there is an interesting quote in the first book. It is something said 
to Harry by Oliver Wood.

"A game of Quidditch only ends when the Snitch is caught, so it can go on 
for ages - I think the record is three months, they had to keep bringing on 
substitutes so the players could get some sleep."
(PS "Hallowe'en" p. 125 UK edition)







From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 27 17:56:01 2011
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 27 Nov 2011 17:56:01 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/27/2011, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1322416561.39.79385.m4@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191449

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

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 27, 2011
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK



All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2011 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20111127/69973197/attachment.html>

From natti_shafer at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 20:04:53 2011
From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:04:53 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jalre8+nadl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jau555+lhf6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191450



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
> Pippin:
> JKR makes it plain to us that substitutes are allowed and Wood knows it. So the question is, why do the Gryffindor captains not use them. I think it's the Gryffindor tendency to consider themselves both indestructible and indispensable. Nobody wants to think they are going to get hurt, or that anyone else could play their position well enough to win.

Nathaniel:
It's particularly curious because Alicia Spinnet was a reserve the year before Harry arrived. In PS11, Lee Jordan says during his commentary that last year she was "only a reserve." Why did Wood discontinue using a reserve? As Pippin suggests, maybe Gryffindor are too over-confident to use them, but after Harry misses the last match in year 1, Wood really should have re-thought this policy during the remaining years of his captaincy. 





From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Sun Nov 27 21:41:42 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:41:42 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jau555+lhf6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jauaqm+eep0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191451



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

Pippin:
> > JKR makes it plain to us that substitutes are allowed and Wood knows it. So the question is, why do the Gryffindor captains not use them. I think it's the Gryffindor tendency to consider themselves both indestructible and indispensable. Nobody wants to think they are going to get hurt, or that anyone else could play their position well enough to win.
 
Nathaniel:
> It's particularly curious because Alicia Spinnet was a reserve the year before Harry arrived. In PS11, Lee Jordan says during his commentary that last year she was "only a reserve." Why did Wood discontinue using a reserve? As Pippin suggests, maybe Gryffindor are too over-confident to use them, but after Harry misses the last match in year 1, Wood really should have re-thought this policy during the remaining years of his captaincy.

Geoff:
I think there is an element of confusion here. It has been pointed out that Rule 
5 states that "in the case of injury, no substitution.... will take place. The team 
will play on without the injured player."

This is applicable during the progress of a match. There is nothing to stop a team 
selecting a replacement - temporary for a player injured during a match, or being 
permanently replaced for poor play - in succeeding matches. It is not necessary 
for a formal reserve to be named. Any captain worth his or her salt would probably 
have a name up their sleeve for such an occasion. The interesting question comes 
to my mind, whom did Harry replace as the Seeker when he first played?

Finally, am I suffering from memory failure or not reading my PS properly, but surely 
Harry did not miss a match in First Year?




From natti_shafer at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 27 22:25:35 2011
From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 22:25:35 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jauaqm+eep0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jaudcv+10opd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191452



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123 at ...> wrote:
> Finally, am I suffering from memory failure or not reading my PS properly, but surely 
> Harry did not miss a match in First Year?

Nathaniel:
Yes, he definitely did. After his encounter with Quirrel/Voldemort at the Mirror of Erised, he spends three days unconscious in the hospital wing. Gryffindor was "steamrollered by Ravenclaw" without him. (PS 17). 

It's unclear whether Wood tried to play the game as 6 players agsinst 7, or he hastily grabbed a replacement who just wasn't a good enough seeker. In either case, having a reserve who had practiced with the team would have come in handy. 





From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Sun Nov 27 23:24:25 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:24:25 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jaudcv+10opd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jaugr9+rkq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191453



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

Geoff:> > Finally, am I suffering from memory failure or not reading my PS properly, but surely 
> > Harry did not miss a match in First Year?
 
Nathaniel:
> Yes, he definitely did. After his encounter with Quirrel/Voldemort at the Mirror of Erised, he spends three days unconscious in the hospital wing. Gryffindor was "steamrollered by Ravenclaw" without him. (PS 17). 
 
> It's unclear whether Wood tried to play the game as 6 players agsinst 7, or he hastily grabbed a replacement who just wasn't a good enough seeker. In either case, having a reserve who had practiced with the team would have come in handy.

Geoff:
Ah, I missed that one; it only got about two lines of text in the book! Mark 
you, that was only Ron's estimation. I doubt very much that Wood, being 
as fanatical as he was, would even contemplate fielding only six - that's 
a recipe for disaster from the outset.




From jnoyl at aim.com  Sun Nov 27 23:56:57 2011
From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon)
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:56:57 -0700
Subject: Quidditch
Message-ID: <FCA22CA1-AC76-42FC-B786-A626C1482B55@aim.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191454

However, there is an interesting quote in the first book. It is 
something said to Harry by Oliver Wood.

"A game of Quidditch only ends when the Snitch is caught, so it 
can go on for ages - I think the record is three months, they 
had to keep bringing on substitutes so the players could get 
some sleep."
(PS "Hallowe'en" p. 125 UK edition)

Amazing how JKR, thanks to all her notes, managed to keep everything 
logical and unified.

James




From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com  Mon Nov 28 06:50:36 2011
From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:50:36 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <FCA22CA1-AC76-42FC-B786-A626C1482B55@aim.com>
Message-ID: <javavs+o5lf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191455

Geoff:
Sorry to be pedantic again, but the attribution for this is largely
missing. The first part is actually a quote from my post 191448, 
so I've sorted that out before adding my reply...

Geoff:
> > However, there is an interesting quote in the first book. It is 
> > something said to Harry by Oliver Wood.
 
> > "A game of Quidditch only ends when the Snitch is caught, so 
> > it can go on for ages - I think the record is three months, they 
> > had to keep bringing on substitutes so the players could get 
> > some sleep."
> > (PS "Hallowe'en" p. 125 UK edition)

James:
> Amazing how JKR, thanks to all her notes, managed to keep everything 
> logical and unified.

Geoff:
Indeed. There is also a further consideration which actually isn't 
mentioned in main canon:

"Rule 7. A game of Quidditch ends only when the Golden Snitch has
been caught, or by mutual consent of the two team Captains."

I wonder how often that has been applied or whether pride and 
stubbornness has driven teams into the ground?




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 29 19:28:50 2011
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:28:50 -0000
Subject: Quidditch
In-Reply-To: <jaudcv+10opd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <jb3bpi+2t77@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 191456



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nathaniel" <natti_shafer at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" <geoffbannister123@> wrote:
...
> 
> Nathaniel:
> ... 
> 
> It's unclear whether Wood tried to play the game as 6 players against 7, or he hastily grabbed a replacement who just wasn't a good enough seeker. In either case, having a reserve who had practiced with the team would have come in handy.
>

Steve:

Let's make sure we are seeing and understanding the core question. 

The question isn't 'why don't they have backup players', but rather 'why don't they have backup players who regularly practice with the team'?

It seems replacement players can be pulled in between games, but once the game commences, if a player is injured, they must continue to play without the player unless he can be healed within a standard time out. Or perhaps healed during the course of the game. 

Not for extended games (days, weeks, months)it seems that substitute player can be brought on the field, but only for currently uninjured players.

I suspect wise coaches to take on a couple of reserve players to hold in reserve in case of injury. Harry does this. He hold tryouts and note the value of each player, and keeps that in mind. When player are injured he pulls in second best player. But this only occurs between games. 

As to why Wood doesn't continue this practice, I suspect is due to over confidence. Now that he has a first rate Seeker, he feels they can't be beat. And while he may have players in mind for substitutes, he has probably not told them or made sure they at least had enough practice to keep them in form. A tactical error on his part. 

As Harry does, Wood probably assumes the few practices between matches will be enough to get substitute players in shape. In that sense, Harry and Wood are not play a totally bad strategy, though I wouldn't go so far as to say they are playing a good strategy either. 

I think it would be wise to have a couple (or three) extra players on the team for practice. That way they could divide into more workable practice teams and play as some what truncated but still more realistic game.

Still, being kids, I don't imagine they have the best long term strategy. 

Steve/bboymimnn