From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 1 01:51:09 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 01:51:09 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191644 > Julie: > I've always imagined Umbridge as a Hufflepuff. She puts a > premium on her loyalty to Fudge and the Ministry. Granted > it is a twisted loyalty, but loyalty nonetheless. I also > see her as too stupid and single-minded to be a Slytherin. > She is a follower, IMO, not a leader, and she is cunning > only in her own mind. > > Julie, who thinks every house has the potential to have > its primary traits twisted toward evil. > Potioncat: Umbridge in Hufflepuff--oh I hope not. That's my House of choice. But I see how you get it. I do agree that every set of House Attributes has a set of vices. Gryffindor courage becomes recklessness; Ravenclaw wit becomes learning for its own sake, a detachment; Hufflepuff loyalty becomes blind obedience: Slytherin ambition becomes a drive to prove oneself. (Oops, the last one was a vice turned attribute.) It seems to me that JKR has ranked the attributes into Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and a trailing Slytherin. From kat7555 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 02:09:23 2012 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kathy) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 02:09:23 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191645 > James wrote: > Oh, please! Do you REALLY think mind raping Harry over and over was > actually a way to TEACH. > How about I yell at you ready and smash your head with a 2x4. Is this the > best way to learn to duck or hit back? > Have you read the books and actually considered if Harry was your child? > Caning Harry for a real infraction would be fine with me. > Taunting and insulting a student and their parents in the class room, to > me, is abuse. > Do we have evidence that any other teacher used the same teaching methods, > thus justifying them as typical of wizarding methods? Was any other > teacher, who was a DE, made head of house before their 30th birthday and > given carte blanche to teach, without reviewing his methods after each and > every complaint? > Just ask yourself if you were Harry or his parent, what would you think of > his teaching methods. > Again, don't whine about caning since caning is NOT part of the school > disciplinary method. > Compared to any other teacher, Snape is crap, Snape abuses his power, > Snape causes accidents by hovering over students and NOT correcting them > (this punishing Harry for NOT catching the error some other student made). > Any one who tries to justify Snape is someone I pray never has children... > Kathy: --I agree with you. Snape may be brilliant regarding potions but he expects his first year students to be as smart as he is. He also scared Neville so much that he becomes part of Neville's bogart. Snape also plays favorites which no good teacher does. Kathy Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From shaun.hately at bigpond.com Sun Jan 1 05:59:09 2012 From: shaun.hately at bigpond.com (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:59:09 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EFFF62D.20608@bigpond.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191646 One of my new years resolutions is to try and be more active in the internet communities I'm part of, and looking in on HPFGU, I find a thread that I feel is tailor made for my comments. On 1/01/2012 9:43 AM, James Lyon wrote: > Oh, please! Do you REALLY think mind raping Harry over and over was > actually a way to TEACH. James, I think you are overstating the case. You've obviously got strong views about this and that's fair enough but I hope you understand that this is a subject that has been discussed many, many times, over the years on HPFGU and a lot of people here have been involved in that discussion many many times. And some of us do have different opinions on this issue than others and some of us believe we have very good reasons for those opinions. Before I continue let me just outline where I'm coming from, personally, because it is important to my position. (1) I am a teacher - a qualified and active teacher. (2) I am an educational researcher and considered a minor expert in the field of educational theory. I've written part of a published book on education, a number of articles in educational journals, and I am a current educational researcher at a university. My specialties in terms of research are bullying, gifted education, and gender differentiation in education. (3) I was educated at an Australian school that was (and still is) a deliberate copy of the most traditional type of British school. It was a boarding school, it was very much based on the traditional British 'Public School' model which is also quite clearly the model that JKR used as part of her basis for Hogwarts. It is quite a different environment from the typical, modern, idea of education. It's generally regarded by those associated with it as an extremely good model, but that is quite controversial. (4) I now teach at such a school. (5) I had a very mixed experience in terms of my own education - besides the school I mention above, I attended another six schools including much more 'average' and 'typical' schools, and much more modern schools. Most of my schooling was pretty miserable - especially that in 'modern' environments. And having said that, let me answer the first question you've asked by saying that I do consider Snape's methods to 'actually (be) a way to TEACH'. It is *one* way to teach. Not the only way. Just one way. And I believe it's a valid way. There is no such thing in teaching as a single right way to teach. There are some approaches that are more valid than others, but whether or not a method is valid or not, often depends specifically on the child or children you are teaching. What we see with Snape is pretty similar to a method of teaching that used to be quite commonplace. The authoritarian, stentorian, strict teacher archetype. It's an approach that is often frowned upon in modern education but that doesn't make it a bad approach just an unfashionable one. Now, it's important for me to say here that I would not approve of 'mind rape' but I do not believe that is a reasonable or accurate description of the way Snape teaches. I think it's an unduly emotional exaggeration of his approach to teaching. Now that is just my opinion - albeit one I would consider to be an informed opinion - but I, and others who might agree with me, are just as entitled to our opinions as you are, and you should not expect us to automatically agree with the way you see things. Put simply - I don't. I had teachers who were similar to Snape in their approach and their methods. Two of them in particular. Did I like being in their classes? No, I did not, really. But that wasn't because they weren't effective teachers. Both of them were. Both of them were excellent teachers, in fact. Their students achieved extremely good results. They were challenged to achieve extremely good results. They were required to do so or things became very unpleasant. They were good teachers. They weren't enjoyable teachers, nor fun teachers, not particularly pleasant teachers. But they were effective teachers. > How about I yell at you ready and smash your head with a 2x4. Is this the > best way to learn to duck or hit back? There's nothing inherently wrong with raising your voice to a student, although again, it's unfashionable nowadays. But especially if you are dealing with a student who is misbehaving or not paying attention it can be effective, and it's not always the wrong approach. Smashing somebody's head in with a 2x4 on the other hand would always be inappropriate, but show me where Snape did anything like that. > Have you read the books and actually considered if Harry was your child? Actually, I've read the books and considered if Harry was *me*. I learned well from teachers like Snape. I didn't learn well from touchy feely modern methods based around ideas that teachers need to be big fluffy teddy bear types. That doesn't mean I reject those methods because they are methods that work for some kids and they are as entitled to get the education they need as kids like I was were. But we're entitled to. And, frankly, most of the kids at Hogwarts don't seem like kids who need gentle handling. Which is a good thing because virtually none of the teachers give them anything like it. You focus on Snape but I'd suggest you take a look at McGonnagall and her reaction to Neville when he is discovered to have written the passwords down that allowed Sirius Black to gain access to the Gryffindor tower. She verbally tears into Neville in a way that must cause him significant distress. This is what happens at Hogwarts if you misbehave, if you break the rules, if you don't measure up. It's something that the kids are expected to deal with. They are not treated gently. Should they be? If Neville had been treated with kid gloves and delicate handling, would have become the man he becomes - the hero he becomes? His nature emerges through the books and nobody would dare to call the Neville of Book 7 weak. Anything but. He seemed so when he was younger - but that either means that who he was was hidden from casual sight, and if that's the case then allowing surface appearances to guide how he's treated wouldn't have helped him much at all. Or he was actually that way - and he's strengthened and changed by the teaching he receives at Hogwarts and it makes into a better person. A person he deserves to be. > Caning Harry for a real infraction would be fine with me. > Taunting and insulting a student and their parents in the class room, to > me, is abuse. Well, speaking as somebody who was the victim of real abuse by teachers, I would say that I don't think what we see from Snape comes close. But, having said that, I don't actually think Snape is a good teacher - for Harry, specifically. Snape has a personal, totally unprofessional, grudge against Harry. That makes him far from an ideal teacher for Harry and I don't believe he teaches Harry appropriately in class. I think he comes a little closer in their one on one occlumency classes where there's a bit more understanding between them - until Harry blows it - but in the potions classes, I don't think Snape is a good teacher for Harry. But Harry is *one* child in a class of at least ten and the reason Snape doesn't teach him well is personal and specifically targeted at Harry. It doesn't apply with any other student and can't be viewed as a reason for considering him a bad teacher overall. I've had one student I couldn't teach effectively. That wasn't my fault - I can't go into too much detail because it would be unprofessional to discuss a real students personal issues, but she had issues in her past that meant she could not trust a male teacher. I'd have done everything I could to try and teach her, but it just wouldn't have worked. Fortunately, I was in a school that was large enough to have multiple teachers available so she didn't have to be in my class - but Hogwarts doesn't seem to be a school where that is possible. There is only one Potions Master. If he's teaching most of the class effectively, he's a good teacher in my view even if there's an occasional student, he's not effective with. Harry is such a case. Snape's issues with his parents means Snape can't teach him - but Snape doesn't have those issues with any other students we see. Even so, Harry does quite well in Snape's classes from all we can see. Even with these problems. > Do we have evidence that any other teacher used the same teaching methods, > thus justifying them as typical of wizarding methods? Was any other > teacher, who was a DE, made head of house before their 30th birthday and > given carte blanche to teach, without reviewing his methods after each and > every complaint? Well, as far as we know no other teachers were Death Easters. Nor do we seem to know how old the other Heads of Houses were before they took up their positions. But it does seem that it is normal for a teacher at Hogwarts to be given carte blanche to teach without inspection or review. The only cases we hear of where a teacher was reviewed were actually the results of Death Eater intervention - Hagrid was investigated only at the insistence of Lucius Malfoy. And Umbridge inspected everyone. And Snape was was not one of the teachers she targeted as flawed (not that I think Umbridge is a good judge, I'm just pointing out that a review process doesn't mean much). > Just ask yourself if you were Harry or his parent, what would you think of > his teaching methods. A lot of it would depend on the results he was achieving. > Again, don't whine about caning since caning is NOT part of the school > disciplinary method. > Compared to any other teacher, Snape is crap, Snape abuses his power, > Snape causes accidents by hovering over students and NOT correcting them > (this punishing Harry for NOT catching the error some other student made). Snape causes accidents by hovering over students and not correcting them? I think that particular charge is unsustainable. We see Snape correcting students mistakes - particularly Neville's - quite clearly in the text. "'Idiot boy!' snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. 'I suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?'" and "'Orange. Tell me, boy, does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed? Didn't I state plainly that a dash of leech juice would suffice? What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?'" He corrects their mistakes. Gives them clear and unambiguous information about what they did wrong. I see Snape as a decent teacher. Not a perfect teacher. But I'll defend him as a decent one. Shaun Hately Shaun From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 1 06:12:19 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 06:12:19 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > >> > . >> Alla: > > I cannot speak for Nikkalmati, but I am going to speculate that she is using different definition of evil than you (and myself as well) are using. He was fighting for a good side (no matter how much I wanted him to end up being evil in that regard as well) - why not give him the dues for that? But absolutely for what he did to Harry he will remain forever evil in my book, I am just giving him a credit for what he did. I of course also reject the idea that since he fought for a good side, he became less evil for how he treated Harry. >snip< > > Nikkalmati So, what is the nature of evil? I don't imagine we have a different idea of evil, really. Doing something wrong doesn't make you evil necessarily. By that I mean, of course, doing it with a bad intent, not accidentally or without knowing the consequences. It still does not make one evil. An evil person cannot do good, except perhaps unintentionally. As Hermione says to Harry in HBP, after they think Snape killed DD for his own personal selfish reasons, and Harry says the Half Blood Prince was evil : "'Evil' is a strong word" meaning she disagrees, and, we know, Hermione usually speaks for JKR. Nikkalmati From lwilliams15209 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 06:22:42 2012 From: lwilliams15209 at yahoo.com (Asphodellyn Wormwood) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:22:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1325398962.68594.YahooMailClassic@web112519.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191648 ? > James wrote: > Oh, please! Do you REALLY think mind raping Harry over and over was? actually a way to TEACH. How about I yell at you ready and smash your head with a 2x4. Is this the? best way to learn to duck or hit back? Have you read the books and actually considered if Harry was your child? Caning Harry for a real infraction would be fine with me. Taunting and insulting a student and their parents in the class room, to? > me, is abuse. Linda: When did Snape ever mind rape anyone? This post is offensive in the extreme. Such hate. Wow. Linda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 07:03:56 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 07:03:56 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191649 > >> Alla: > > > > I cannot speak for Nikkalmati, but I am going to speculate that she is using different definition of evil than you (and myself as well) are using. He was fighting for a good side (no matter how much I wanted him to end up being evil in that regard as well) - why not give him the dues for that? But absolutely for what he did to Harry he will remain forever evil in my book, I am just giving him a credit for what he did. I of course also reject the idea that since he fought for a good side, he became less evil for how he treated Harry. >snip< > > > > > > > Nikkalmati > > So, what is the nature of evil? > > I don't imagine we have a different idea of evil, really. Doing something wrong doesn't make you evil necessarily. By that I mean, of course, doing it with a bad intent, not accidentally or without knowing the consequences. It still does not make one evil. An evil person cannot do good, except perhaps unintentionally. > > As Hermione says to Harry in HBP, after they think Snape killed DD for his own personal selfish reasons, and Harry says the Half Blood Prince was evil : "'Evil' is a strong word" meaning she disagrees, and, we know, Hermione usually speaks for JKR. Alla: Depending on what kind of wrong the person does it surely can make him evil in my mind. And Snape surely makes the definition of every day evil as far as I am concerned. He makes that definition despite agreeing to spy for Dumbledore and yes, despite agreeing to protect Harry's life. I wish he would never agreed to protect Harry's life, because doing that while trying to make that life a constant misery, humiliation and yes, mind rape (because I did not stress in the previous post that on that aspect I completely agree with me - unsuspect Legilimencing is almost a perfect analogy to mind rape for me), is an every day evil IMO. He is no Lord Voldemort for sure, but he in my opinion needs to be fought every day and no less than Grand evil that Lord Voldemort is. His intent was to make Harry's life a misery IMO and the fact that Dumbledore forced him to take upon an additional task of protecting Harry's life does not make me despise him any less. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 07:05:43 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 07:05:43 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: <1325398962.68594.YahooMailClassic@web112519.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191650 > > James wrote: > > Oh, please! Do you REALLY think mind raping Harry over and over was? > actually a way to TEACH. > How about I yell at you ready and smash your head with a 2x4. Is this the? > best way to learn to duck or hit back? > Have you read the books and actually considered if Harry was your child? > Caning Harry for a real infraction would be fine with me. > Taunting and insulting a student and their parents in the class room, to? > > me, is abuse. > > Linda: > When did Snape ever mind rape anyone? This post is offensive in the extreme. Such hate. Wow. Alla: I disagree that hating fictional character is offensive to anybody. I also think that Snape mind raped Harry on a regular basis - that is what to me Legilimency is and to me there are plenty of hints in the book that Snape legilimenced Harry when he had no idea that Snape poked around in his mind. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 07:32:31 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 07:32:31 -0000 Subject: ADMIN GOF Chapter Discussions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191651 Hey guys, Happy New year to all :) This is basically a begging note. We have the following GOF chapters still unclaimed: Chapters 11-15, 17-26, 29-33, 35 and 37. If you want any of them please shoot a quick email to owner, here it is HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Pretty please :) Thanks, Alika elf. From ali_maher_diab at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 16:17:49 2012 From: ali_maher_diab at yahoo.com (mohamed ali) Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:17:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: So Exactly how many students ARE there at Hogwartz? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1325434669.65949.YahooMailNeo@web161806.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191652 Dear Steve Oh to be sure. That was my point. These structural details really don't matter though they're nice to tease out a little. It's not like they take away anything from the story that Rowling has'nt gotten her enrollment numbers right. But I didn't get the idea of a wizarding world in decline from the story, nor do I think we can infer that from mentions of unused rooms sections etc. Hogwarts is a building, and it doesn't matter how old wizards can get, a building (so long as it doesn't fall down) will outlast them all. Hogwarts could easily be explained as the accretion of centuries which endure a lot longer than the human beings who pass through it. The whole of Hogwarts is designed as a "theatrical set" to set a mood, both of ancient mysticism and present comfort with a nostalgic view of Britain back a hundred years or so ago (Everyone in Hogsmead and Diagon Alley, and on the train platform seems stuck in Edwardian England of 1892 to 1914.) The "set" of Hogwarts is not therefore "replicative" but "evocative." It is not meant to be a detail of reality but a tool to set the mood. As a device to create "sense of wonder" it works fairly well. Otto From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 1 17:56:14 2012 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 1 Jan 2012 17:56:14 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/1/2012, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1325440574.9.16577.m13@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191653 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 1, 2012 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 2012 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bart at moosewise.com Sun Jan 1 19:28:55 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 14:28:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F00B3F7.2040602@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191654 Alla: > I disagree that hating fictional character is offensive to anybody. I also think that Snape mind raped Harry on a regular basis - that is what to me Legilimency is and to me there are plenty of hints in the book that Snape legilimenced Harry when he had no idea that Snape poked around in his mind. > Bart: Rape implies a lack of consent. Harry consented, and, after the first time, was well aware of what he was consenting to. The basic idea was to teach Harry self defense against mental rape, and, in learning self-defense, you have to expect some injuries along the way. The problem was Snape's inability to separate his feelings about James with his knowledge of what he had to do, which got in the way of being able to effectively teach Harry. One of the things which, after HPB, convinced me that Snape was still working for DD's plan (and you can check archives here to verify that) was that, even as he was fleeing the castle, he tried to get one last group of study points over to Harry. Bart Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 21:22:16 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:22:16 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: <4F00B3F7.2040602@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191655 > Alla: > > I disagree that hating fictional character is offensive to anybody. I also think that Snape mind raped Harry on a regular basis - that is what to me Legilimency is and to me there are plenty of hints in the book that Snape legilimenced Harry when he had no idea that Snape poked around in his mind. > > > > Bart: > Rape implies a lack of consent. Alla: Certainly. Bart: Harry consented, and, after the > first time, was well aware of what he was consenting to. Alla: In the Dumbledore approved legilimency lessons Harry certainly consented. I would not call those lessons an analogy to what I consider a mind rape, just usual Snape's abuse. I had several other accidents in mind, when Harry *thought* that Snape was reading his mind. I do not remember him exhibiting anything remotely resembling consent in those accidents. You may of course argue that Harry was imagining things. I think he was not imagining anything and Snape was reading his thoughts without his consent. I think Dumbledore is guilty of that too by the way, on several occassions. JMO, Alla From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jan 1 22:34:59 2012 From: juli17 at aol.com (jules) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:34:59 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191656 > > > > > Alla: > > > I disagree that hating fictional character is offensive to anybody. I also think that Snape mind raped Harry on a regular basis - that is what to me Legilimency is and to me there are plenty of hints in the book that Snape legilimenced Harry when he had no idea that Snape poked around in his mind. > > > Julie: The problem is, Snape doesn't live in a vacuum. He lives at Hogwarts and within the Wizarding World, which has a very different set of standards than the real world. I have no doubt Dumbledore legilimized both teachers and students, perhaps on a regular basis. And god knows what he put in those lemon drops he offered to everyone who ever visited his office! Human rights have a very limited meaning in the Wizarding World, from what we've seen. Discerning students feelings and intentions--which seems to be the actual effect of Legilimency as we've been told it isn't reading someone's thoughts--seems to be just one of the many accepted (or at the very least tolerated) methods of addressing suspected misbehavior. As for calling it "mind-rape" that seems a bit extreme. That to me would be forcing yourself into someone else's mind while that person is resisting, causing actual pain and damage--which would be much more invasive than the quick surface reading involved in the Legilimency Snape and Dumbledore seem to practice. (And, no, I wouldn't call the Occlumency lessons mind-rape since they were sanctioned and both Snape and Harry participated freely, reluctant though both were to do so.) Julie From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 1 23:16:44 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 23:16:44 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191657 > Alla: > > In the Dumbledore approved legilimency lessons Harry certainly consented. I would not call those lessons an analogy to what I consider a mind rape, just usual Snape's abuse. I had several other accidents in mind, when Harry *thought* that Snape was reading his mind. I do not remember him exhibiting anything remotely resembling consent in those accidents. You may of course argue that Harry was imagining things. I think he was not imagining anything and Snape was reading his thoughts without his consent. I think Dumbledore is guilty of that too by the way, on several occassions. > Pippin: Snape's attempt to use legilimency on Draco is brushed off with contempt, not the shock and revulsion I would expect if it was considered the equivalent of a sex crime. Snape and Dumbledore may feel, as adults in a position of responsibility, that they have the right to examine any student's mind if necessary, just as Madam Pomfrey can examine their bodies. Don't let's forget there is a war going on and Harry's mind is a battleground, already invaded by the enemy. And just as Madam Pomfrey can give Harry skele-gro potion with its painful side effects, Dumbledore and Snape can decide that teaching occlumency, painful though it is, must be done to counteract Voldemort's incursions on Harry's mind. I agree that Snape takes personal pleasure in punishing Harry and this is inappropriate, but I don't see that happening in the occlumency lessons. Snape appears to regard them as a deeply wearisome and unrewarding chore that he undertakes only because Dumbledore insists it is necessary. Respecting the only request Harry made to keep some things private, Snape did not return to Harry's thoughts of Cho -- and this was probably too bad, because otherwise the love effect might have been discovered sooner Pippin From sigurd at eclipse.net Sun Jan 1 22:56:30 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:56:30 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191658 Dear James I assume what you mean by "mind raping" is the horrible treatment that Snape dishes out to Harry (and to all non-Slytherin on a slightly milder form on a day to day basis). I really don't consider this mind raping, though it is brutal. Snape however has a madness to his method. I can see that he must do this to preserve the illusion of his antipathy to the Potters to keep in good stead with Voldemort so he can be a more effective spy for Dumbledore, which, is his only saving grace in the whole series, otherwise he's pretty much an awful person who should be sent to the wall. But THAT is a mere pose and while necessary to "mentally rape" as you say, little Harry for seven years, while perhaps a "cruel and harsh necessity" does not make it any easier to bear for Harry or any others he inflicts himself upon. The pain is no less real to them on a day to day basis regardless of the arguably laudable necessity. One must also remember that such sort of brutalization is EXACTLY the sort of conduct that would appeal to the infantile and sociopathic mentality of Voldemort. Voldemort is in spite of his age and knowledge a Wizarding World counterpart of Dudley Dursley- a bully who becomes cringing and despicable when he himself is bullied and hence feels that is the only approach to inter-personal relationships. But that's really the problem which many seem to ignore isn't it? No one, NO ONE, in all of Slytherin or Voldemort's organization (be it the entirety of Slytherin or some part thereof) is a virgin. They ALL know exactly what type of world Voldemort will promulgate if he should ever get into power, and it is clearly foreshadowed by the Slytherin reign of terror under Umbrage et all. Therefore they are, in point of fact, Voldemort's willing executioners. That is, all of them spineless bullies to whom the "management skills of Voldemort" both appeal and have effect. That is they can only be kept "in line" (sort of) by terror and they themselves echo it in their relationship to others. To their masters they are fawning and cringing, and to others they are brutal and bestial. It is easy to observe such creatures- just check out any schoolyard and you will find the bullies, where- like Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle, they usually run around in three's. Usually this can be rectified by various means. In my case when I was a wee lad and a fat kid with glasses who wore funny clothes it was through the agency of a nice hickory baseball bat applied to the testicles of the "Goyle" the jaw of "Draco" and the knee of the crabbe "Crabbe." A cogent reminder that playing the bullying card can often lead to the bullied practicing "escalatio" against the bully. But the real problem becomes when the bullying becomes "school-sponsored." That is when the persons and institutions which have total power allow, abet, and even encourage the bullying. This has been found to be a factor in most of the recent horrific school shootings, the most notorious of which is Columbine, where the shooters were regularly bullied and harassed by the jocks in the school who contributed notoriety and fame because of their athletic achievements (great money raisers and promoters from the school and whose arrogant and bullying behaviour was ignored, made excuse for and at times encouarged by the school itself. That is when the bullied loses all hope of salvation or redress and often "goes postal." In Harry Potter an additional indictment against Snape and a condemnation of his methods is that he, in every sense of the word, at every turn of the screw, at ever instance, sponsors, encourages, and approves the brutality of Malfoy and his cadre, and gives the impression that anyone but Slytherin, and Harry and his friends are pariahs to which anything can be done, and nothing can be complained against. McGonagall on the other hand is scrupulously fair-handed by comparison and punishes Gryffindor and her own house almost as often as she upholds them. The lesson is learned by the kiddies. If you have power, all that you wish to do to your fellow student can be done without consideration of right, justice, humanity or any mitigating emotion or consideration, and that all is fair in love and war. It makes the muggle world far more preferable to the Wizarding World. The Muggle world has this quote.... "God created mankind in his own image. Mr. Colt made 'em all equal." I'm with you James. We don't need "new definitions" of humanity or terrorism or any of that. The old ones are good enough. Like pornography we know evil when we see it, and anyone trying to "get a new definition" is trying to redefine it and sell you a bill of goods. Otto From natti_shafer at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 23:33:18 2012 From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 23:33:18 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191659 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kamion53" wrote: >on the whole teaching at Hogwarts during the Potter years is substandard, Dumbledore is far more concerned battling Voldemort then keeping up high standards and willing so sacrifice anything for it. Nathaniel: He also is working with one hand tied behind his back. A good portion of the substandard teachers came from Voldemort's curse on DADA. Likely many qualified candidates left after one year during the 30 or so years that the curse was operating. Also, Professor Binns seemingly predates Dumbledore's regime. However, I agree. Several of the professors seem to be employed "for the greater good" instead of for the benefit of the students. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 23:40:13 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 23:40:13 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191660 > > > Alla: > > > > I disagree that hating fictional character is offensive to anybody. I also think that Snape mind raped Harry on a regular basis - that is what to me Legilimency is and to me there are plenty of hints in the book that Snape legilimenced Harry when he had no idea that Snape poked around in his mind. > > > > > > Julie: > The problem is, Snape doesn't live in a vacuum. He lives at > Hogwarts and within the Wizarding World, which has a very > different set of standards than the real world. I have no > doubt Dumbledore legilimized both teachers and students, > perhaps on a regular basis. And god knows what he put in > those lemon drops he offered to everyone who ever visited > his office! Alla: But of course as I said I consider Dumbledore guilty of that as well. You know how much I came to "love" him eventually ;) I have no problems agreeing that whatever Snape was doing was expressly sanctioned by Dumbledore. That does not mean I will be admiring that though, quite the contrary. Julie > Human rights have a very limited meaning in the Wizarding > World, from what we've seen. Discerning students feelings > and intentions--which seems to be the actual effect of > Legilimency as we've been told it isn't reading someone's > thoughts--seems to be just one of the many accepted (or at > the very least tolerated) methods of addressing suspected > misbehavior. Alla: Sorry, to me it is pretty much the same. We hear Harry thinking that Snape and/or Dumbledore may have read his mind, right (in PoA for example)? I am going to assume that this was put in the text for a reason, especially since later we know that this is exactly what both of them are capable of. Not the equivalent of empathy, but reading any exact thought in other person's mind. Human rights are in a sorry state in WW I do agree, however I think the strong argument can be made that such sorry state is acknowledged by the end of the book and the need for a change. Even in the interviews (which of course we do not need to take as canon of course) JKR was saying that grown up Trio changed the WW eventually. So, my point is that the fact that there are maybe other Severuses Snapes and Dumbledores and worse people there does not mean that I should call what they have a good thing. By the end of the books I was sorely convinced that they do not deserve Harry and his friends and that they did them a huge favor by sticking around and saving their sorry you know what ;). Julie: > As for calling it "mind-rape" that seems a bit extreme. Alla: Not to me. Julie: > That to me would be forcing yourself into someone else's > mind while that person is resisting, causing actual pain > and damage--which would be much more invasive than the > quick surface reading involved in the Legilimency Snape > and Dumbledore seem to practice. (And, no, I wouldn't > call the Occlumency lessons mind-rape since they were > sanctioned and both Snape and Harry participated freely, > reluctant though both were to do so.) >. Alla: To me any sexual contact without consent is rape, it really does not have to be violent, and the analogy I am making is that any mind reading without consent is rape, person does not have to feel damagged and resist, just not to give consent and silencce to me counts as no consent. I would not call legilimency lessons rape either. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 1 23:52:54 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 23:52:54 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191661 .> Pippin: > Snape's attempt to use legilimency on Draco is brushed off with contempt, not the shock and revulsion I would expect if it was considered the equivalent of a sex crime. Alla: As I said above I do not hold the legal, ethical, political norms of WW in high regard. They also thought it was okay to throw a person in prison, well, to say without proper investigation would be an understatement. They allowed Umbridge to "teach", whats a little mind invasion? I dislike Draco as you may know, but I most certainly consider invasion of his mind just as despicable as Harry's. Pippin: > Snape and Dumbledore may feel, as adults in a position of responsibility, that they have the right to examine any student's mind if necessary, just as Madam Pomfrey can examine their bodies. Don't let's forget there is a war going on and Harry's mind is a battleground, already invaded by the enemy. Alla: Yes, they may feel that and I may feel that they mind rape their students on a regular basis. I think JKR at least implied very strongly what she thinks of old Hogwarts teachers' tactics. I wish she said it in canon, but even Minerva eventually was not a Headmaster, hopefully Hogwarts (of course if it had been a real place) eventually got better teachers than Snape, Dumbledore, Quirrel and yes, Minerva, because like her overall as I am, I cant stand her initial treatment of Neville. Pippin: > Respecting the only request Harry made to keep some things private, Snape did not return to Harry's thoughts of Cho -- and this was probably too bad, because otherwise the love effect might have been discovered sooner Alla: Oh. Thanks for reminding me. But as I said, I did not think of lessons as a mind rape from the beginning. Harry consented, so brutal as it was, the fact that Snape respected his request was not here not there for me. > Pippin > From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 2 02:20:35 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 02:20:35 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191662 > .> Pippin: > > Snape's attempt to use legilimency on Draco is brushed off with contempt, not the shock and revulsion I would expect if it was considered the equivalent of a sex crime. > > Alla: > > As I said above I do not hold the legal, ethical, political norms of WW in high regard. Pippin: Okay, so we agree that no WW social norm was violated. We don't *have* any norms about mind-reading in the real world, obviously. I don't recall that any character felt they had been harmed by Snape or Dumbledore's use of legilimency in itself. Naturally Harry would have liked to keep Snape from finding out about the Prince's book and other questionable items. But he would have felt the same way if Snape had simply tricked the information out of him. So where exactly is the evil? If I understand where you're coming from, you think Dumbledore and Snape are using evil mind powers not because they are harming anyone but because it offends your non-magical assumption that thoughts should be inviolate. Calling it evil just for that seems worthy of Petunia, and I know what you think of her! Many people, secret service agents for example, are more skilled than average at telling through body language whether people are lying, and as far as I know, this is considered a useful skill, not an unethical invasion of privacy. I don't see how interpreting mind-language is any different. Pippin who started the New Year with the lovely thought that the Prince's book and Snape's healing spell for Sectum Sempra needn't be forever lost -- Harry can revisit them in the Pensieve From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 03:09:06 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 03:09:06 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191663 .> > .> Pippin: > > > Snape's attempt to use legilimency on Draco is brushed off with contempt, not the shock and revulsion I would expect if it was considered the equivalent of a sex crime. > > > > Alla: > > > > As I said above I do not hold the legal, ethical, political norms of WW in high regard. > > > Pippin: > Okay, so we agree that no WW social norm was violated. Alla: Nope, we dont. We only agree that there are probably other people in WW who will probably consider legilimency without consent to be totally okay, I hope that there are people who will object to it as well, I am hoping that there are more people who will object as the years pass especially. Pippin: > We don't *have* any norms about mind-reading in the real world, obviously. Alla: Of course. I said several times that I am making an analogy. Pippin: > I don't recall that any character felt they had been harmed by Snape or Dumbledore's use of legilimency in itself. Naturally Harry would have liked to keep Snape from finding out about the Prince's book and other questionable items. But he would have felt the same way if Snape had simply tricked the information out of him. > > > So where exactly is the evil? Alla: No consent is the evil to me. Pippin: > If I understand where you're coming from, you think Dumbledore and Snape are using evil mind powers not because they are harming anyone but because it offends your non-magical assumption that thoughts should be inviolate. Calling it evil just for that seems worthy of Petunia, and I know what you think of her! > > Many people, secret service agents for example, are more skilled than average at telling through body language whether people are lying, and as far as I know, this is considered a useful skill, not an unethical invasion of privacy. I don't see how interpreting mind-language is any different. > Alla: Basically your argument is that I am imposing my moral norms on WW? Kind of but not quite, I would say. I would say that there are several very strong indications in the books that morality of WW needs to be changed in many aspects. JKR may not have spelled out that what Snape was doing was not okay, but based on her general condemnation (as I perceive it) of him as a teacher, I feel that she did not want to portray the world which moral norms we meant to approve in many ways. I am sure I have said it before many times, but I always felt that in many way WW is the twisted reflection of our world especially because it happens in "our" world, just with addition of magic. For this reader JKR was portraying the world which needs to be radically changed, because there are some people that have some good in them. Hopefully I am making sense. But even if I was simply imposing my moral norms on WW, what is wrong with it? Say she was portraying a world where she explicitly shown rape (not mind rape, body rape) and nobody was saying it was horribloe. Yeah, you bet that as an outsider I would condemn it with gusto, but for me with Potterverse is a bit more than just that. JMO, Alla > Pippin > who started the New Year with the lovely thought that the Prince's book and Snape's healing spell for Sectum Sempra needn't be forever lost -- Harry can revisit them in the Pensieve > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 09:58:27 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:58:27 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jules" wrote: > > > > > Alla: > > > > ... I also think that Snape mind raped Harry on a regular basis ... > > > > > > Julie: > ... > > ... Discerning students feelings and intentions--which seems > to be the actual effect of Legilimency as we've been told it > isn't reading someone's thoughts--seems to be just one of the > many accepted (or at the very least tolerated) methods of > addressing suspected misbehavior. > > .... the quick surface reading involved in the Legilimency > Snape and Dumbledore seem to practice. (And, no, I wouldn't > call the Occlumency lessons mind-rape since they were > sanctioned and both Snape and Harry participated freely, > reluctant though both were to do so.) > > Julie > Steve: You bring up a very interesting point in making a distinction between what Snape and Dumbledore do on a regular basis and the Occlumency lessons. Notice that during the Occlumency lessons Harry is well aware of the thought and memories that are being read. However, in those times when Harry intuitively senses that Snape or Dumbledore are reading his thoughts, that self-awareness doesn't happen. Also bear in mind that most kids think their mothers can read their mind. Mother seem to know when you've done something wrong, even when there is no possible way they could know. It's is not magic, but merely mother's intuition and experience, and sometimes just a bluff. Back to Snape/Dumbledore/Harry, it is entirely possible that Snape and Dumbledore have a strong intuitive sense, similar to Trelawney. They can guess what is on Harry's mind. Now, reasonably, we could presume that they do dip into Harry's mind, but given that Harry is not aware of what they are reading, it must be a very gentle and shallow dip. This could be an act of respecting privacy to an extent. They delve just deep enough to get an intuitive sense of the truth of the matter. I really don't think what Harry thinks Snape and Dumbledore are doing comes even remotely close to Legilimency, at least not remotely at the level we are seeing in the Occlumency lessons. Again, more so Dumbledore, and to some extent Snape, have been teaching a long time, they have seen mischief makers come and go, and I suspect they have both developed a very strong sense of when someone is telling the truth or lying, or just being evasive. Kids really don't hide their emotions very well, so it is not that hard. Harry feels like they are reading his mind, but it is very possible, Dumbledore is just good at guessing (from experience) and good at reading the body language of people with very little life experience. And, if they are 'reading' a person, they seem to be doing it in a very limited and restrained way. Again, reaching no deeper than necessary to get an intuitive sense of that person. Even if it goes no deeper than an intuitive sense, that is still enough to enable a clear understanding of business, political, and social encounters. Which could serve a person very well. If I had it, I certainly would use it. Again, I think 'Rape' is hyperbole in the extreme, further it is a socially charged word, and should not be minimized by such frivolous use. However, this is how the person who used the word feels, and he is free to express himself as he chooses. However, much like bringing Hitler, or Nazis, or Fascist into a discussion, it tends to over inflate the statement to the point of diminishing its meaning. I, like a few others, think it is a gross overstatement, but, like all hyperbole, it does server to stress a point. I just don't personally think it was an appropriate choice of words, and I think it diminishes the point. But then, that's just me. As Shaun points out, you have to accept that just because you think you have made a convincing argument, does not mandate that we have to be convinced. That is part of Internet discussion, knowing when to say when. My point on caning and similar physical punishments, is that cruelty, by today's standards, was once very common in schools. In fact, I don't think Caning was completely outlawed in the UK until something like 2003, and they even discussed bringing it back a few years later. I don't see that whipping a kid will do anything to stop poor behavior. If fact, in many cases, the cruelty and unfairness of it, only stimulated more rebellion. What is what Snape does compared to whipping a kid with a stick for minor insignificant infractions. Whipping and beating seem pretty cruel, especially when it is left in the hands of other students like Prefects. That, to me, seems like a recipe for cruel and truly abusive disaster. Snape looked at Harry's private thoughts, what is that compared to beating him with a stick or 'raping' him? Steve/bboyminn From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Jan 2 12:11:43 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 12:11:43 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191665 Dear List Let's make one thing clear, Not to be boorish about it, but there is no such thing as the Wizzarding World. Neither any of you, nor I, nor J.K. Rowling, nor anone on the surface of this world has magical powers, no matter how much we may like to dream so, nor are we likely to attain them in any forseable possibility. We are all "Muggles" in Rowling's definition and will remain so. Therefore all of our preconceptions, thoughts, ideas, and world view, our culuture, our institutions and our beliefs are "muggle" beliefs, including those of J.K. Rowling. I am going to compress all the above, that is whatever thoughts we have, psychological predispositions, norms, tropes metaphors and the like as "culture" and specifically Western Liberal Euro-American Judeo Christian culture at that. We muggles "read" J.K. Rowling's works as Muggles and read them through the lens of our culture. We interpret the things we see happening in Harry Potter through our mind's eye, make judgements of them through our mind's eye, interpret the events through our minds eye, which is informed by our culture, make conclusions from these through our culture, make generalizations which then we can apply (or not) in our own lives, or use to reflect on our culture, and use them to guide and direct our personal actions within the culture which we exist, which is -- as muggles. One of the essentials of that "culture" (remember Judeo-Western,liberal etc, from above) is the sanctity of ones own mind. That is, we are free and sovereign within your own minds to think what we wish and dream what we wish, and we prize the idea of private thought, and individual sovereignty of the mind. It is the essential of the stoic ideal as framed by both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus and thus held identially by Emperor and Slave. It is Judeo Christian in that it holds there is an inner soul of the mind that is open only to ourselves and to God, and even not always to him till we invite him in. Also from that religious grounding springs the other philosophies of the Greeks and Romans, the Church Fathers and the whole of the thinkers of the worth of the individual. This means that the very idea of "freedom" and "liberty" (and they are NOT the same things) comes from the sanctity and inviolability of the mind. That is, that there alone at last resort we are our own, or as Locke said "Each man hath a property in his own person." Therefore ANY device, magical or muggle which invades that domain is viewed as the ultimate invasion and-- the ultimate violation. Therefore if to one of us it is mind rape-- then reading ones mind is mind rape, and the world that that exists in would be atruly hellish existence. The main issue is the privacy of the soul and the mind, where we are free to imagine what we wish. On he other hand, that brings up the other part of it. In "The WesT" we are free to think what we will, but we are NOT free to enact what we think in all cases, and-- in point of fact-- what we think is completely irrelevant in most cases to the culture we live in. One may in ones mind put a lot of time into a fanciful dream of simply taking your neighbor's new car, or killing Jews, but try it and you will be crushed by the culture which will proceed against you with all its vigor and power. Think what you will in your own mind, but remember that the state is ONLY interested in deeds-- in the fruits of your spirit-- and if they contravene the precepts of our Muggle world-- you will be destroyed. The law in The West is not concerned with your predispositions or motives and it could care less that "you were acting with good intentions." That latter is for humans to decide in a court of the law. That is what is meant by "the rule of law." In the east or that is, the rest of the world, the law is up for grabs and if you are motivated by Allah then it's just fine to bomb school children, lie, cheat steal and murder, so long s you love Allah and want to kill Jews or Chrustians, after all they, being infidels have no status. Nor, by the way, is the law concerned with expediency or efficiency, or what "must be done" in extreme events. For this we have other cases of law such as "the Laws of War" and the "law of nature" etc., and the corollary "The Law IN War" and the "law IN nature" which allows for certain expediences, but recall that the punishments for infringements of either are far more terrible and extreme than in the plain old "law." Therefore, against the "rape of the mind" the invasion of the private thoughts of the individual-- that is-- the very emptying and invasion of the soul, the taking from a person all that he is, and the obliteration of the private; caning and such is a trivial and innocuous penalty. This does not justify it or reccomend it, only sets up a comparative scale of punishment. I believe it is Julie who said that any unwanted sexual contact is in her definition "rape." So be it. We do not have to get into the specific deeds and zones of the body or the acts. If it is unwanted, it is unwanted, and we are standing in the doorway of the golden rule "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." And THAT is always going to get you into trouble if you wish to treat your fellow man simply as a thing, that is, someone whose mind you can rape-- and remember-- raping minds is what Voldemort-- Slytherin's heir-- is all about. Otto From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 19:52:10 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:52:10 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: ... > > Steve: > > You bring up a very interesting point in making a distinction between what Snape and Dumbledore do on a regular basis and the Occlumency lessons. > > Notice that during the Occlumency lessons Harry is well aware of the thought and memories that are being read. However, in those times when Harry intuitively senses that Snape or Dumbledore are reading his thoughts, that self-awareness doesn't happen. > >... > > Steve/bboyminn > Steve: Responding to my own post, I forgot to summarize by asking the question that is implied in my post - Can we assume that the level of Harry's awareness of the intrusion is a measure of the depth of the intrusion? In Occlumency, Harry is fully aware of the thoughts Snape is reading. However, in the more common and general times when Harry speculates that Snape or Dumbledore might be reading his mind, it is no more than an suspicion. He has no awareness that specific thoughts are being read. So, once again, does Harry level of awareness reflect the depth to which he is being probed? Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 20:18:29 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:18:29 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191667 Steve: Otto, There is no much I can find to argue with in your post as it deal more with modern muggle society, that, if you will, fictional reality. But, I will repeat that Snape is merely reading Harry's thought. Yes, that would certainly be unpleasant for anyone, especially when private and embarrassing memories are pulled up. Now, in here somewhat PG writing, JKR doesn't touch on it, but I suspect there are many late night or long hot shower activities that a teenage boy would prefer that people didn't know about. So, yes, the potential for embarrassment is very high. But notice that when those extremely private and embarrassing memories apear, Harry can cut them off, he can stop them. So, while functionally it doesn't appear very effective, we do see that Harry does have the potential to close his mind. I think part of the problem is that Snape is teaching him. Certainly Snape is an expert at Occulmency, but he is very much the wrong teacher for Harry. Shaun explains this nicely. Certain students don't response well to certain teaching styles. In some cases, a firm and strong hand is the answer. In other cases, a firm hand is exactly the opposite of what is needed. I think Shaun explained this very well. And Snape is as wrong for Harry as it can get. I suspect, if Dumbledore had taught Harry, Harry would have learned and learned much quicker and the result would have been much more effective. But, Dumbledore explained why he didn't teach Harry. Dumbledore felt that Voldemort could use Harry's eyes and mind as a way of spying on Dumbledore, and, among other things, Dumbledore did not want Voldemort to know of his fondness for Harry. If Voldemort knew their relationship was more than Headmaster/Student, he could exploit that relationship. Dumbledore felt it was best to keep his distance from Harry. Further and finally, Harry does realize the Occlumency, if he can master it, would be of tremendous benefit to him. So, he consents to the unpleasant time he spends with Snape learning something extremely valuable, though by an unpleasant process. It was a mistake for Dumbledore to think that Snape and Harry could work together effectively on such an intimate process. This, in my view, was certainly a process that required a delicate and sensitive hand, something that Snape is NOT, very much NOT, noted for. Still the choices were Dumbledore or Snape, and Dumbledore had already ruled himself out, so that left Snape, probably one of the most gifted Occlumens in the world. To be able to resist the most powerful Legilimens in the world, he would have to be. Finally, when we discuss any fictional world, and despite our muggle prejudices, we discuss it as if it were real, and as if it did have a sound internal logic. Whether it be Harry Potter, Eragon, or Artemis Fowl, we treat what is logical absurdity as if it were indeed real, and as if there were an internal and consistent logic to that world. Within the world of Harry Potter I suspect there is a protocol for the use and application of Legilemency, or any more slight variation of it. Further, if a person can tell, as Harry can, then in business, political, and social situations, the person performing the Legilemeny must tread very gently and carefully, maintaining only the most shallow depth of probing lest the person being probed become aware of it. With that gentle footprint, I think even a gifted Legilemens would have no more than an intuitive sense of the moment. But that goes back to the underlying question I forgot to directly ask in my previous post. Can we assume that Harry's awareness is in proportion to the depth at which he is being probed? Steve/bboyminn From bart at moosewise.com Mon Jan 2 20:18:14 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:18:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F021106.2020202@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191668 On 1/2/2012 2:52 PM, Steve wrote: > Responding to my own post, I forgot to summarize by asking the > question that is implied in my post - Can we assume that the level of > Harry's awareness of the intrusion is a measure of the depth of the > intrusion? In Occlumency, Harry is fully aware of the thoughts Snape > is reading. However, in the more common and general times when Harry > speculates that Snape or Dumbledore might be reading his mind, it is > no more than an suspicion. He has no awareness that specific thoughts > are being read. So, once again, does Harry level of awareness reflect > the depth to which he is being probed? Bart: I would suspect that it is equivalent to the difference between reading people's expressions, and doing an EEG. Meaning that the brain puts out enough information that a talented leglimens can get useful information without having to actually enter the mind (like Morty can tell when someone is lying, and Snape is a good enough occlumens as to not even make Morty suspicious). By casting the leglimens spell, however, one can enter the brain, and get far more information. The occlumancy lessons, however, fell through from both sides, although I would place the blame 80-90% with Snape. Snape's means of motivating students who won't do the work in learning is to get them so angry that they resolve to prove to him that they can do it. However, in some students, like Neville, his methods backfire and stop the student from trying altogether, and it is clear that Snape is sufficiently contemptuous of such students that he just lets them fail. Because of his James/Harry associations, he is extra hard on Harry, so, while his methods would normally work on Harry (who did, after all, get an "E"), because he goes to far, he jangles Harry sufficiently, that Harry makes errors in his presence, at least in potions. Because of the one-on-one nature of the Occlumancy lessons, Harry can't tell if he is being taught or tortured, and therefore actively resists the training. Snape, in spite of his supposed skill at leglimancy, sees it as laziness (incorrectly) and arrogance (only partially correct), and, instead of changing his methodology, doubles down. Also, note that, to a great extent, Harry is the invasive one, by looking into the Pensieve. For example, in email services, you understand that the provider has the ability to look at your email, although you trust them to be professional about it (only looking when necessary, as far as necessary, and keeping personal information gained private). It is a far different thing if you try to spy on the provider's emails. Snape had the professional responsibility to act as if he never learned the personal information about Harry gained through leglimancy, but Harry had no similar obligation towards Snape. Therefore, given the fact that Harry gave permission but Snape did not, in terms of "mind rape", Harry is more guilty than Snape. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 20:20:47 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:20:47 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191669 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: ... > > So, once again, does Harry level of awareness reflect the depth to which he is being probed? > > Steve/bboyminn > Steve: Sorry, my mind is not fully engaged yet, the Tea hasn't kick in. To the basic question - "once again, does Harry level of awareness reflect the depth to which he is being probed?" And in addition, does it matter? Steve/bboyminn From vsteck at gmail.com Mon Jan 2 18:40:09 2012 From: vsteck at gmail.com (vanessa steck) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:40:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 11447 In-Reply-To: <1325529076.741.54577.m7@yahoogroups.com> References: <1325529076.741.54577.m7@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191670 Can we please not use the term "mind rape?" Rape is a term that refers ONLY to the act of forcing someone to have sex, whether or not that forcing is physical or psychological (and, for the record, regardless of what the victim is wearing, doing, or whether she said yes earlier). Many survivors find using the term rape to mean otherwise tremendously offensive and hurtful. vsteck From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 20:54:48 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:54:48 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191671 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, vanessa steck wrote: > > Can we please not use the term "mind rape?" Rape is a term that refers ONLY > to the act of forcing someone to have sex, whether or not that forcing is > physical or psychological (and, for the record, regardless of what the > victim is wearing, doing, or whether she said yes earlier). > Many survivors find using the term rape to mean > otherwise tremendously offensive and hurtful. Alla: Could you please suggest another term then, I am really not stuck on the term only on action - what would you call "deliberate and not consensual violation of somebody's private thoughts"? I certainly do not want to offend anybody, but that is what I consider Snape's *actions* to be. The definition stands for me, the term could be anything, but I honestly think that the analogy was quite close and sure, I absolutely agree with you about the definition of real life rape. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 2 22:01:57 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:01:57 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: > Let's make one thing clear, > > Not to be boorish about it, but there is no such thing as the Wizarding World. Geoff: I subscribe to that and that is why there are times when I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when members set out on long threads involving the academic. moral and political dissection of JKR's world. This has happened before on numerous occasions and, for me at least, it removes something of the pleasure of going into literary worlds other than our own, imaginary worlds such as Middle Earth, the Wizarding World or the 24th century (imaginary at the present moment). Almost from the publication of the last LOTR volume when I was a teenager, I have immersed myself in the world of Middle Earth with a "willing suspension of disbelief" to enjoy the journey through the story without needing to analyse everyone's last thought. OK, Sauron was a vicious, power-hungry dark lord who was amoral and without love. There were questionable characters on the "good" side whose actions left them open to question, from Wormtongue to Denethor to Saruman for example. But the reader can be caught up and swept along in the great events of the Third Age without spending hours agonising over, for example, Boromir's failures I have for a long time been a Star Trek fan and many of my remarks in the last paragraph apply here also. There are alien races such as the Klingons and the Dominion who appear to belong to the baddie side with their desire for conquest and their view of the cheapness of life. On the good side, Roddenberry was accused of believing in a squeaky clean Earth where there was no poverty, everyone worked together in harmony. And yet I am prepared to out aside an analysis of the interactions of various individuals or cultures as it is that interaction which often drives the story. Interestingly, I can personally imagine the Klingons as the Slytherins writ large. As with Harry Potter. One of my great delights in losing myself in the books is that I can so often see small scale situations similar to ones I have experienced - For I well remember a disastrous college ball to which I went when my dancing skills were akin to Harry's at the Yule Ball with a similar result. I see my teenage self angsting over similar problems to some of Harry's - not facing a Dark lord admittedly. I want to be cross with Snape when he is unfair to Harry but would just like to shout at him without wading through a massive psychological and cultural analysis of his motives. As a Christian, I like it that JKR has indicated that she wrote from that side of the argument and there are clues that she is well aware that her world is not perfect. If her world was, would there be a Voldemort to rage at? Would there be such a range of characters who, like us in the real world, are complex, with differences of world view like the Gryffindors and Slytherins and sometimes with secrets which they keep well locked away such as Dumbledore? Would you want to read about a fantasy world likethat? Would it grab you? Nope, give me a world like Harry's with a cranky, screwed-up, uncertain, generally good, often bad and diverse bunch of people with whom I would feel at home. I agree that some of the matters raised in this thread are quite suspect in the real world but to start arguing about what constitutes rape or abuse is perhaps batter for when we close the book, return to our Muggle culture and switch on our disbelief again as we contemplate the books from outside the Wizarding World. Otto: > The main issue is the privacy of the soul and the mind, where we are free to imagine what we wish. Geoff: For once, I would say with you "how true". Die Gedanken sind frei. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jan 2 22:44:44 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:44:44 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, vanessa steck wrote: > > > > Can we please not use the term "mind rape?" Rape is a term that refers ONLY > > to the act of forcing someone to have sex, whether or not that forcing is > > physical or psychological (and, for the record, regardless of what the > > victim is wearing, doing, or whether she said yes earlier). > > Many survivors find using the term rape to mean > > otherwise tremendously offensive and hurtful. > > > Alla: > > Could you please suggest another term then, I am really not stuck on the term only on action - what would you call "deliberate and not consensual violation of somebody's private thoughts"? I certainly do not want to offend anybody, but that is what I consider Snape's *actions* to be. The definition stands for me, the term could be anything, but I honestly think that the analogy was quite close and sure, I absolutely agree with you about the definition of real life rape. > Nikkalmati I also find the use of this term deliberately inflammatory. Just like harsh treatment is referred to a "child abuse" (which other posts have objected to as trivializing the real thing). How about "mind invasion" ? Nikkalmati From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 2 23:08:19 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:08:19 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191674 > > Alla: > > Could you please suggest another term then, I am really not stuck on the term only on action - what would you call "deliberate and not consensual violation of somebody's private thoughts"? I certainly do not want to offend anybody, but that is what I consider Snape's *actions* to be. The definition stands for me, the term could be anything, but I honestly think that the analogy was quite close and sure, I absolutely agree with you about the definition of real life rape. > Pippin: There's a word for gathering private information that someone does not want you to have: espionage. We can call it mind-spying if you want to make it clear that it's the particular method that you object to. Harry, though, has been aware since the episode with the Mirror of Erised that Dumbledore was keeping an eye on him when he did not know it, and he did not see any evil in it. Harry also knows from the beginning that there are staff keeping watch on the students, and though he considers it the duty of every right-thinking student to hate them, especially Mrs. Norris and Filch, he also considers them a normal part of student life. As Dumbledore explained to Tom Riddle, "All new wizards must accept that, in entering our world, they abide by our laws." Harry knows that the rules are on Dumbledore's side (and Snape's) when it comes to catching rule-breakers, and that he has, in entering the WW, given his consent to this state of affairs. Harry himself never expected anyone to believe that Snape was evil because he was always sneering at Harry -- it made Snape unpopular, as Quirrell reported, but it didn't make anyone, even Harry's staunchest supporters on the staff, think that Snape was working for Voldemort. And Harry knew if he brought it up it would be dismissed out of hand as mere bias on his part. The reasons Harry * thought* he had for thinking Snape was still evil are far more powerful. Hating Lily and showing no remorse for his previous service to Voldemort Using the occlumency lessons to soften Harry up for Voldemort Not being sorry that Sirius was dead Offering help to Draco The murder of Albus Dumbledore. And those reasons were all disproved or given benign explanations in canon. Now, those of us who decided as we opened our brand new copies of CoS that JKR would never, never ever get us to fall for Harry's Snape crap again have a cognitive advantage -- we never believed that Snape was guilty of any of that stuff. Those who did believe it, OTOH, are most likely stuck with a cognitive bias which they can do nothing about: a part of their minds is always going to behave as if Harry's beliefs about Snape were true. (I can't feel superior, since I fell for Harry's Dumbledore crap. Note to self: epitome of goodness does not mean embodiment of goodness. ) The interesting thing is that Harry should have that cognitive bias too. But as we know, Harry overcame his sense that Snape deserved his hatred and that Dumbledore was a god that failed, so much so that he could give their names to his second son. That was, IMO, a gutsy move on JKR's part, leaving her readers with a boatload of cognitive dissonance and not telling them how Harry dealt with it. One way to deal with it is to simply disengage. Or of course, to decide that JKR resolved her story in an unrealistic way or didn't resolve it at all. But IMO she gave us a clue. "Albus" and "Severus" are not the names that Harry used for these men in life, so maybe to Harry the name "Snape" still brings up the thought "murdering traitor" but "Severus" is "the bravest man I ever knew." Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 23:16:42 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:16:42 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191675 .> Nikkalmati > > I also find the use of this term deliberately inflammatory. Just like harsh treatment is referred to a "child abuse" (which other posts have objected to as trivializing the real thing). How about "mind invasion" ? Alla: Well, term "child abuse" is the whole other issue, I will never agree to calling it anything other than child abuse, since I believer that it *was* the real thing, but sure, absolutely I will be calling it "non consensual mind invasion" from now on. I added the "nonconsensual" because the incidents I refer to were in my opinion nonconsensual. As I said, I certainly understand that terms could be triggering, and I do not want to offend anybody, as long as I do not have to give up my right to describe the action as I see fit, I am happy to oblige and in this instance use different term. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 23:26:10 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:26:10 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191676 . > > Alla: > > > > Could you please suggest another term then, I am really not stuck on the term only on action - what would you call "deliberate and not consensual violation of somebody's private thoughts"? I certainly do not want to offend anybody, but that is what I consider Snape's *actions* to be. The definition stands for me, the term could be anything, but I honestly think that the analogy was quite close and sure, I absolutely agree with you about the definition of real life rape. > > > > Pippin: > There's a word for gathering private information that someone does not want you to have: espionage. We can call it mind-spying if you want to make it clear that it's the particular method that you object to. Alla: As I just mentioned to Nikkalmati, I will be calling it "nonconsensual mind invasion from now on" Pippin: > Now, those of us who decided as we opened our brand new copies of CoS that JKR would never, never ever get us to fall for Harry's Snape crap again have a cognitive advantage -- we never believed that Snape was guilty of any of that stuff. > > Those who did believe it, OTOH, are most likely stuck with a cognitive bias which they can do nothing about: a part of their minds is always going to behave as if Harry's beliefs about Snape were true. Alla: Seriously Pippin? Okay since I am certainly one of those readers, now I am annoyed. Please award me the courtesy of refraining from calling my views any sort of bias. I have different views from you and I do not remember ever calling your views biased. I did not know that I have to spell it out after so many years we know each other and had been discussing this topic over and over. I do not need *Harry's reasons* to continue hating Snape. I am fully aware that Harry forgave both Dumbledore and Snape, since at the end of the books he became Christ like figure as far as I am concerned. I think Harry's ability to forgive these two pretty much qualifies him for sainthood. That does not mean that I have to do that. Canon tells me that Snape worked for Dumbledore, as far as I am concerned that is *all* canon tells me, canon does not show me any *other* good thing Snape did ever and no, I do not consider Snape's agreeing to protect Harry's life to be unequivocally good thing. I think that much better thing would have been to not agree and thus force Dumbledore to find another protector, because Snape's agreement was IMO hypocritical in the extreme. I hate Snape and Dumbledore because of how *I* see canon facts, thats all there is to it, really. JMO, Alla From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jan 2 23:36:42 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:36:42 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191677 > Alla: > > Depending on what kind of wrong the person does it surely can make him evil in my mind. And Snape surely makes the definition of every day evil as far as I am concerned. He makes that definition despite agreeing to spy for Dumbledore and yes, despite agreeing to protect Harry's life. > > I wish he would never agreed to protect Harry's life, because doing that while trying to make that life a constant misery, humiliation and yes, mind rape (because I did not stress in the previous post that on that aspect I completely agree with me - unsuspect Legilimencing is almost a perfect analogy to mind rape for me), is an every day evil IMO. He is no Lord Voldemort for sure, but he in my opinion needs to be fought every day and no less than Grand evil that Lord Voldemort is. His intent was to make Harry's life a misery IMO and the fact that Dumbledore forced him to take upon an additional task of protecting Harry's life does not make me despise him any less. > Nikkalmati I would not attempt to argue that any evil Snape does is offset by the good. I would argue that the good he does indicates that speculation about what bad things he may have done is misplaced.It is an antidote to the circular reasoning that -- Snape must have done these bad things, because we already know that is the kind of person he is. I appreciate that you understand the difference between canon and canon based speculation. I consider the use of the hints you have spoken of as the source of your canon based speculation to be completely unreliable. They fall into the same category as the incident at the Welcoming Feast when Harry (and the reader) were misled by JKR (or the unreliable narrator) to believe Harry's scar hurt because Snape was looking at him. In fact, it is canon that it was LV in Quirrel's turban. JKR repeatedly uses the same technique to conceal what is actually happening from us. Much like a Muggle magician, she focuses the audience's attention away from the action. Unlike others on the list, I don't believe Snape or DD ever used Legitimacy secretly. In fact, to answer Steve, the fact that Harry is not aware of being Legitimized is proof that it doeesn't happen. Consider the examples of Legitimacy we know about. In every case the victim was aware of what was happening and even what the other person was seeing. Harry knows what Snape sees in the lessons because he sees exactly the same visions. When Snape attempts to enter Draco's mind, in HBP, Draco knows exactly what Snape is doing and intentionally uses Occlumancy to stop him. When Snape enters Harry's mind after Draco is injured in the bathroom, Harry again knows exactly what Snape is seeing. BTW you could argue this invasion was not consented to, but Harry did not actually object, he had nearly killed Draco (and Snape too, of course), he had lied when questioned about it, and Snape looks only for the memory of the Potions book. I think DD used Legitimacy on Snape on the hilltop when Snape asked him to protect Lily, but we can't see into Snape's mind, so we don't know what Snape perceived or if it was consentual. We also do not ever see Snape acting on information he received from invading Harry's mind secretly, as far as I know. If you have any examples, let me know. Mostly, it seems it would be a waste of Snape's time and effort. The only person who clearly invades another person's mind without permission is Harry. He does it to Snape - twice. He saw into Snape's mind as a result of the backlash from the Occlumancy lessons (agreed that this was unintended). He also invades Snape's mind when he looks into the Pensieve without permission and views the memories stored there. Nikkalmati From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 2 23:48:30 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191678 .> Nikkalmati >.> Unlike others on the list, I don't believe Snape or DD ever used Legitimacy secretly. In fact, to answer Steve, the fact that Harry is not aware of being Legitimized is proof that it doeesn't happen. Consider the examples of Legitimacy we know about. In every case the victim was aware of what was happening and even what the other person was seeing. Harry knows what Snape sees in the lessons because he sees exactly the same visions. When Snape attempts to enter Draco's mind, in HBP, Draco knows exactly what Snape is doing and intentionally uses Occlumancy to stop him. When Snape enters Harry's mind after Draco is injured in the bathroom, Harry again knows exactly what Snape is seeing. BTW you could argue this invasion was not consented to, but Harry did not actually object, he had nearly killed Draco (and Snape too, of course), he had lied when questioned about it, and Snape looks only for the memory of the Potions book. Alla: Well, Harry does not know yet (in PoA) what Legilimency is, but as far as I remember he is aware that Snape is reading his mind, but of course if you hold the position that Harry was imagining things when he thought Snape and Dumbledore poked in his mind, we just have to agree to disagree. I could swear that there is at least one clear example when Voldemort uses Legilimency and victim is not aware of that, but we are, but it escapes me when and how it happened. Maybe somebody else will remember it if I wont. Oh and most certainly silence for me is not consent, but I just want to add that Harry certainly almost killed Draco, after Draco tried to hit him with Unforgivable first. No, I am not trying to defend Harry here, but I object when that scene becomes "Harry attacked Draco first" scene, so wanted to add that. Nikkalmati: > The only person who clearly invades another person's mind without permission is Harry. He does it to Snape - twice. He saw into Snape's mind as a result of the backlash from the Occlumancy lessons (agreed that this was unintended). He also invades Snape's mind when he looks into the Pensieve without permission and views the memories stored there. Alla: I hold a different opinion, I think Snape and Dumbledore did it several times to him before. I also agree that Snape did not agree to Harry looking in his memories, but to me looking into object is different from invading a mind of a person. Although before you say so, I certainly agree that effect is absolutely same, I guess I just do not see how object can say do not enter. From drpetra at hotmail.com Tue Jan 3 01:30:43 2012 From: drpetra at hotmail.com (potions_mistress_13) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:30:43 -0000 Subject: Slytherin house In-Reply-To: <1325125977.30216.YahooMailNeo@web121303.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191679 Eric: "Regulus, you may note, was able to glag down all of that horrible potion, which was more than Dumbledore could do unassisted, all by himself. He died a member of the Clean Plate Club!" Elena: The exact effects of the potion are not clearly spelled out. In HBP, Dumbledore's cried out "It's all my fault, all my fault," "Please make it stop, I know I did wrong, oh please make it stop and I'll never never again...", and leter, "Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, it's my fault, hurt me instead..." In DH, Harry tells Aberforth that the potion caused Albus to relive his sister Ariana's death. The potion may cause one to re-live one's worst memories, as do dementors. Recall that dementors affect Harry more than his classmates because he has comparatively worse experiences in his past. The same could be said for Dumbledore. At the time he drank the potion, he was an old man. Regulus, on the other hand, was at most only a few years out of school. Perhaps Regulus was able to drink all the potion because he had fewer horrifying experiences compared to Dumbledore. Elena From ddankanyin at cox.net Tue Jan 3 01:42:38 2012 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:42:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts References: Message-ID: <42403E9018C04798B987B984C1198F5B@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191680 From: Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 7:11 AM > The law in The West is not concerned with your predispositions or motives > and it could care less that "you were acting with good intentions." That > latter is for humans to decide in a court of the law. That is what is > meant by "the rule of law." In the east or that is, the rest of the world, > the law is up for grabs and if you are motivated by Allah then it's just > fine to bomb school children, lie, cheat steal and murder, so long s you > love Allah and want to kill Jews or Chrustians, after all they, being > infidels have no status. Dorothy: Although I'm not Muslim, I take offense to what you are saying about those who are "motivated by Allah" to murder. To a true Muslim loving Allah does not mean you are to kill anyone who is not. It means, as it should mean to devout Christians and Jews, not to kill another person. One who murders in the name of their religion is either too easily swayed by another and/or mentally unstable. Think peace, Dorothy From drpetra at hotmail.com Tue Jan 3 01:56:41 2012 From: drpetra at hotmail.com (potions_mistress_13) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:56:41 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191681 Potioncat: I do agree that every set of House Attributes has a set of vices. Gryffindor courage becomes recklessness; Ravenclaw wit becomes learning for its own sake, a detachment; Hufflepuff loyalty becomes blind obedience; Slytherin ambition becomes a drive to prove oneself. (Oops, the last one was a vice turned attribute.) Elena: Beyond the drive to prove oneself (a positive), I suggest that Slytherin's downside is as follows: ambition becomes a ruthless drive to do anything necessary to better oneself. Potioncat: It seems to me that JKR has ranked the attributes into Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and a trailing Slytherin. Elena: There can be little doubt that JKR ranked Gryffindor first, and Slytherin last. I am not so sure about the middle two houses. JKR does not clearly rank Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw in comparison to each other. Cedric is a Hufflepuff, while Luna belongs to Ravenclaw house. Both are central, positive figures. Members of the DA come from both houses, and only a moment separates the two houses rising in support of Harry just before the battle of Hogwarts. From shaun.hately at bigpond.com Tue Jan 3 03:29:46 2012 From: shaun.hately at bigpond.com (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:29:46 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F02762A.6070904@bigpond.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191682 On 3/01/2012 10:16 AM, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Alla: > > Well, term "child abuse" is the whole other issue, I will never agree to > calling it anything other than child abuse, since I believer that it > *was* the real thing, but sure, absolutely I will be calling it "non > consensual mind invasion" from now on. I added the "nonconsensual" > because the incidents I refer to were in my opinion nonconsensual. As I > said, I certainly understand that terms could be triggering, and I do > not want to offend anybody, as long as I do not have to give up my right > to describe the action as I see fit, I am happy to oblige and in this > instance use different term. Shaun: Again, I'm going to step in with a teachers perspective on this. Because I think it is a very relevant perspective in this case. Let's look at the issue of consent for a moment. Up until The Deathly Hallows, Harry Potter is a child - legally a child by both the Wizarding World's standards (age of majority is seventeen) and by our own worlds (age of majority in the UK is eighteen). He is, also, significantly, below the age at which a child is automatically considered able to consent to most things until the Half-Blood Prince (the 'age of consent' is somewhat complex and doesn't just relate to sex but to a wide variety of different issues - but generally under British law, you have to be sixteen to be considered legally competent to consent to most things - we don't know what the exact law is in the Wizarding World but I've certainly seen no reason to assume that the Wizarding World gives younger wizards the right to consent to things at any younger age. It is fairly clear, for example, that Harry still needs the permission of his guardian to go into Hogsmeade at the age of fourteen (otherwise he would not need Sirius' note at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban) for example, underage wizards are not considered competent to participate in the Triwizard Tournament, but I think the most important illustration of the situation may be found early in Order of the Phoenix at Grimmauld Place in the discussion of how much Harry should be told about what is going on. "'What's wrong, Harry, is that you are not your father, however much you might look like him!' said Mrs Weasley, her eyes still boring into Sirius. 'You are still at school and adults responsible for you should not forget it.'" At fifteen years of age (he has just had his birthday) - adults are still responsible for Harry. Later in the conversation, Mr Weasley points out: "'Molly, you can't stop Fred and George,' said Mr Weasley wearily. 'They are of age.'" 'They're still at school.' 'But they're legally adults now,' said Mr Weasley, in the same tired voice." It really does seem that being of age is what gives a Wizard the power to decide things for themselves. To *consent* in the legal sense - rather than those decisions being taken by the adults responsible for them. So if you want to talk about the idea of Harry being the victim of "non consensual mind invasion", I think you need to consider what consent means. As a legal matter, Harry can't consent to anything. Consent can only come from somebody else. Who is that somebody else? Here is where things get a bit interesting. Harry Potter is a child. More importantly, he is a school child - a student at a school. Now, in British law (and it has spread to other country's from Britain as well) there is an important legal principle that governs where a *teacher* gets their legal authority from. That principle is referred to, in law, as the teacher being 'in loco parentis'. In place of a parent. As a matter of British common law, in loco parentis as a concept dates back centuries - I don't think anybody knows exactly how far but when Blackstone first codified English common law in 1770, he included the concept as an ancient one. And very importantly he makes the explicit point that under the doctrine of in loco parentis, a teacher or schoolmaster has the same powers over a child as a parent does for the purposes of carrying out their duties as the child's teacher. Now, we do not *know* if Wizarding law in Britain is the same as British law - but I think we need to have good reasons to automatically assume it wouldn't be similar to historic British law and so my default assumption does tend to be that it is similar. And what this means, is if you are going to talk about consent when it comes to something like Legilemency, Snape probably doesn't *need* Harry's consent to use it. As one of Harry's teachers, he has every legal right to use it. It is not nonconsensual. I have to be familiar with in loco parentis, because by an odd quirk of Australian law, it still governs a large part of the authority of any teacher in a private school (teachers in government schools are assumed to derive their authority from the crown - the Government - teachers in private schools still derive their authority from in loco parentis). Legally, if I believe a student in my care is in danger or dangerous to another student I can restrain them against their will, I can search them against their will. I can give permission for somebody else to do so. It isn't nonconsensual. It's something I have a legal power to to and more significantly a legal duty to do. And I would view searching a student as the closest real world equivalent to looking into their mind. Now, could I do this just because I wanted to? No. I have a reason relating to my duty as a teacher - either to protect the child, or enforce school rules, or similar. In the UK, I believe, the doctrine has become more limited in recent years. In the US I know there's a competing legal doctrine called the parental liberty doctrine which sets limits on in loco parentis. But until quite recently in Britain, in loco parentis was very, very important, and the Wizarding World generally seems to be a bit old fashioned in terms of matters like these. Now, let's look at the cases where Snape *may have* tried to read Harry's mind. Personally I think he probably did try in at least some of these cases, but we can't know for certain. Now, I'm relying on the Lexicon here (specifically - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/legilimency.html) for examples of when Legilemency might have been used. I'm not going to consider cases where Voldemort may have used it, because Voldemort has no legal authority over Harry and nobody is likely to argue he isn't evil. I'll just look at Snape, and Dumbledore. Example 1 comes from Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter 10. Just after the incident where Harry, Ron, and Hermione have defeated the troll from the dungeons, when both Professor McGonnagall and Snape are questioning them as to why they were not where they were supposed to be, but had instead wound up in a dangerous situation, and where they are lying about what they did, Harry thinks Snape is trying to read his mind. We've got a situation where children have endangered themselves, broken school rules, and are lying. If I had the ability to read my students minds in that type of situation to try and determine what really happened, I would consider myself justified in doing so - just as I would consider myself justified in searching them if I believed they were concealing something dangerous from me. So would the law. Example 2 comes in Chapter 13 of the same book. Harry wonders if Snape can read his mind and knows that he knows about the Philosopher's Stone. Again, this can be seen as an issue of safety. Again, as a teacher, if I believed my students were possibly searching for a highly dangerous object (say a hand grenade, just for stamps) I would do what I had to do to try and find out if that was the case. Again, legally, I would be expected to. Example 3 - Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 5. Harry thinks Snape is trying to read his mind to find out what happened to the car he and Ron have, in defiance of both wizarding law and at considerable risk to their own personal safety - flown to Hogwarts. Again, there seems nothing wrong with a teacher trying to use whatever powers they have to work this situation out. Example 4 - Chapter 9 of Chamber of Secrets. Dumbledore may be trying to read Harry's mind when Harry, Ron and Hermione are all lying about an incident in which somebody has just petrified a cat and written a message on the wall about a legendary Chamber of Secrets being opened which Dumbledore knows is potentially extremely dangerous. Again trying to find out the truth in such a situation is something that I feel can be easily justified. Example 5 - Chapter 11 of Chamber of Secrets. Snape tries to read Harry's mind while Harry is actively involved in an attempt to steal supplies from the Stores Cupboard. Both dangerous, and definitely breaking school rules. Again, I would say this is justified by Snape's responsibilities as a teacher. Example 6 - later in the same chapter. Harry has just spoken Parseltongue - traditional mark of a dark wizard, not to mention Snape does know a fair bit about Harry possibly having some real connection to Voldemort. Again, this does not seem unreasonable to me. Example 7 - Chapter 14 of Prisoner of Azkaban. Snape is interrogating Harry after he has broken school rules by sneaking into Hogsmeade, and by the same action has put himself in danger. Justified. Examples 8 and 9 at the lexicon are further parts of the same conversation and discussion. By itself I would not consider 8 necessarily justified - where Snape seems to be trying to find out more about what Harry knows about the incident where James saved Snape's life - but within the context of the overall questioning, I would forgive it. Especially as with 9, Snape is back to what I consider a justifiable 'search' of Harry's mind for information - trying to find out if the Marauder's Map helped Harry sneak past the dementors thus endangering himself and breaking school rules. I would consider example 8 to be something that just came up in a justified search situation. Example 10 - Goblet of Fire, chapter 37. Again, Snape does have reason to suspect Harry of being involved in thefts from his stores and I would consider that a legitimate search. The examples only go up to here - maybe there are examples in later books where I wouldn't consider what Snape does justified. But I do think these examples can be justified. As a legal matter, Snape probably doesn't need Harry's consent - in fact, Harry's consent is legally meaningless (a teacher has the power to make these decisions precisely because the child is not judged capable of giving consent) and, if he's trying to determine whether or not Harry is breaking school rules or putting himself or others in danger, he actually probably has a legal duty to take action. Snape is in loco parentis. Harry's 'right to privacy' if it exists at all, is very limited. Especially when it comes to matters relating to his safety. When Harry wakes up in the hospital wing on a couple of occasions after various mishaps, it does appear he has been both undressed and redressed while unconscious. Who did that? Presumably Madame Pomfrey. That could be regarded as a violation of Harry's privacy as well, without his consent, if somebody wanted to do that, but most people would accept it's just part of what she would be expected to do in that situation. I think Snape's use of legilemency can be seen the same way. If somebody can point to an example (outside of the Occlumency classes which I would argue Harry is agreeing to by their nature) of Snape apparently legilemensing Harry without a reason relating to the safety of the students or the rules of the school, I'd reconsider my position, but if Snape *was* using legilemency in that way, I'd expect such an example to be found. The only examples that I've identified so far (with the Lexicon's help) are ones where safety and rules were genuine issues. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 03:59:42 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:59:42 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: <4F02762A.6070904@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shaun Hately wrote: .> I think Snape's use of legilemency can be seen the same way. If somebody > can point to an example (outside of the Occlumency classes which I would > argue Harry is agreeing to by their nature) of Snape apparently > legilemensing Harry without a reason relating to the safety of the > students or the rules of the school, I'd reconsider my position, but if > Snape *was* using legilemency in that way, I'd expect such an example to > be found. The only examples that I've identified so far (with the > Lexicon's help) are ones where safety and rules were genuine issues. > Alla: Hi Shawn, I understand your perspective. Please note however that I am coming from a different perspective. First and foremost, while I certainly agree that "coming of age" comes with a lot of additional freedoms in WW and rights to decide things, I disagree that young wizards just do not have that right. The most obvious example is of course Occlumency lessons where more or less expressly Harry agrees to participate. Do you think Snape would have done it anyway if Harry would have screamed no, no, no? I mean, I would not put it past him, but I am not absolutely sure. Now you claim that all the other occassions you quote were justified. I take an issue with some of them (especially number seven), but even if Snape honestly believed that ALL of them are justified due to the issue of safety, I would still be saying it does not really matter. Yeah, schools here allow teachers to search students and do some other stuff due to issue of safety. Some of it I consider completely justified and some crazy and over the top and applaud the parents who take it to court. But we are not talking about any of this stuff, right? We are talking about the stuff which to me is ten times more invasive than rights to search students, we are talking about reading *everything* that is in their mind. I repeat, everything that is in their minds, stuff that has no relation to the issue of their safety. While Snape protected himself from Harry's reading his most shameful memories, Harry could never do that - no pensive for him. Sure, there is some evidence that Snape does not have to read every thought in Harry's mind, but my point is that he can. If that would have happened in real life, well,as a teacher who may have read your student's mind you may have been justified in it, you may have not, but you bet I would have had a huge issue with that. Obviously we are constrained by the fact that "mind reading" is a fictional constraint, however I think there is a reason that in so many scifi books that I have read (the first that comes to mind is "The demolished man" by Alfred Bester) ordinary citizens are awarded humongous protections against the fact that the group of people can read their minds. I think it tells me that writers understood how invasive and violating it has the potential to be. In this book for example, police officers who can read minds cannot use that evidence in court, they have to obtain the evidence the hard way - do the work and all that. To me, mind reading is an invasion, a violation, and I honestly do not care that some of it may be justified by the issue of child's safety. Nor am I sure that it is spelled out that WW kids cannot consent to that (see above example about the lessons). I do not believe that Severus Snape would have stopped at that and *of course* I do not consider mind intrusion *after* the fact to try to find the evidence to *punish* the child justified. Go look for an evidence old fashioned way Snape, but of course Lupin smacks him in the face with taking the map away from him, so he cant really do that. Hopefully my position is clear too. Alla. From shaun.hately at bigpond.com Tue Jan 3 07:28:16 2012 From: shaun.hately at bigpond.com (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:28:16 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F02AE10.50203@bigpond.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191684 On 3/01/2012 2:59 PM, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Alla: > > Hi Shawn, I understand your perspective. Please note however that I am > coming from a different perspective. First and foremost, while I > certainly agree that "coming of age" comes with a lot of additional > freedoms in WW and rights to decide things, I disagree that young > wizards just do not have that right. Shaun: But *why* do you disagree? That to me, is an important question here. If you disagree simply because of your own personal moral code, then that is certainly your right. But do you have the right to impose your moral code on others - and particularly in this case, do you have the right to impose your personal moral code on Harry Potter and Severus Snape? I know they are fictional characters, but if they weren't, wouldn't they have as much right as you do to decide for themselves what they believed to be morally and ethically correct? And, if they do have that right, how do you judge Severus Snape if he was doing what he truly believed was in the best interest of his society, his school, and, yes, indeed, even of Harry Potter himself? Which I actually do believe he may well have done. Snape certainly does not like Harry, but he has reasons why he does not like Harry, and primary among these seems to be that he sees Harry as having very similar characteristics to James that Snape views as negative characteristics. And, to be honest, it seems that even James friends agree that James had these negative characteristics and that they were negatives. He is also, as we know, sworn to protect Harry, to keep him safe and it does seem that this an overriding concern of his. And it's not only important for Harry's own sake that he is kept safe - but for the entire society's sake. I believe it is reasonable to suppose that Snape was acting in Harry's best interests over the *serious* things even if he wasn't over less significant things. And if he was acting in Harry's best interests, and if what he did served to keep Harry safer than if he hadn't done it, then than to me is a morally defensible position. Being a good teacher sometimes means being mean - at least from the perspective of the student. Your duty is to teach your students, help them to become better people, and to keep them safe and protect them if you can. There's nothing wrong with being nice to them as well if it doesn't compromise the other things - but there's a lot wrong if being nice to them is ever more important than those other things. Gilderoy Lockhart comes to mind as an example of a teacher who concentrates more on trying to seem good than actually being good. Slughorn, to an extent as well, although he actually does seem to be competent unlike Lockhart. Alla: > The most obvious example is of > course Occlumency lessons where more or less expressly Harry agrees to > participate.Do you think Snape would have done it anyway if Harry would > have screamed no, no, no? I mean, I would not put it past him, but I am > not absolutely sure. Shaun: Again, from a teacher's perspective, I don't think it can really be said Harry agrees to participate in the Occlumency lessons. From 'Order of the Phoenix': "Snape's lip curled in triumph as he turned to Harry. 'The Headmaster has sent me to tell you, Potter, that it is his wish for you to study Occulmency this term.' 'Study what?' said Harry blankly. Snape's sneer became more pronounced. 'Occlumency, Potter. The magical defence of the mind against external penetration. An obscure branch of magic, but a highly useful one.' Harry's heart began to pump very fast indeed. Defence against external penetration? But he was not being possessed, they had all agreed on that... 'Why do I have to study Occlu- thing?' he blurted out. 'Because the Headmaster thinks it is a good idea,' said Snape smoothly. 'You will receive private lessons once a week, but you will not tell anybody what you are doing, least of all Dolores Umbridge. You understand?' 'Yes,' said Harry. 'Who's going to be teaching me?' Snape raised an eyebrow. 'I am,' he said. Harry had the horrible sensation that his insides were melting. Extra lessons with Snape - what on earth had he done to deserve this?" ***** I don't see any sign in that that Harry is really given any choice as to whether or not he has these lessons. He is told by one of his teachers that the Headmaster wants him to do these lessons. He's not asked. He's told. Now, sure, at fifteen, Harry is probably *capable* of refusing to participate in a lesson. But that doesn't really mean he has agreed to do it, simply because he doesn't throw a temper tantrum and refuse, or because he doesn't turn up, or because he does turn up and turns on the sullen insolence mode. He has been told by people who have a right to tell him what to do what they require him to do. He could refuse in the way that my students sometimes refuse to do homework, but that doesn't mean he was ever really given a choice. Would Snape have forced him if he had refused? I don't know. But then again, if a student refuses to do their homework, I don't always try and force them either. Sometimes it isn't worth that type of battle for various reasons, but that doesn't mean I ever regarded the instructions I gave them as optional. Alla: > Now you claim that all the other occassions you > quote were justified. I take an issue with some of them (especially > number seven), but even if Snape honestly believed that ALL of them are > justified due to the issue of safety, I would still be saying it does > not really matter. Shaun: First of all, I find it interesting that it's example seven that you think is hardest to justify as from my perspective that one is probably among the easiest to justify. Harry has snuck into Hogsmeade after being expressly forbidden to do so by his Head of House, because he doesn't have a permission letter. It's absolute rule breaking - even if there wasn't any good reason for it - and there is a good reason - they are trying to protect Harry from somebody they believe to be a highly dangerous mass murderer. Remember that later in the chapter, Remus Lupin really rips into Harry for what he's done. He scolds Harry severely for it, even invoking the memory of the sacrifice of Harry's parents - and he confiscates the Marauder's Map. To me, it really seems the clearest cut case. Both rule breaking and serious danger. Alla: > Yeah, schools here allow teachers to search students > and do some other stuff due to issue of safety. Some of it I consider > completely justified and some crazy and over the top and applaud the > parents who take it to court. But we are not talking about any of this > stuff, right? We are talking about the stuff which to me is ten times > more invasive than rights to search students, we are talking about > reading *everything* that is in their mind. Shaun: No, we're not. Legilemency is definitely not presented as the ability to read everything in somebody's mind. "'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex and many-layered thing, Potter - or at least most minds are.' He smirked. 'It is true, however, that those who have mastered Legilimency are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their victims and to interpret their findings correctly. The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him.'" - Snape in Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 24. Even Lord Voldemort doesn't seem to be able to read everything in somebody's mind. The Dark Lord himself is able to work out if a person is lying. The reason that the Order of the Phoenix is worried about Harry is because they fear that "at times, when your mind is most relaxed and vulnerable - when you are asleep for instance - you are sharing the Dark Lord's thoughts and emotions," because "(T)he curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord." Legilimency is not mind-reading. It's far less precise than that and far less invasive than that. It is only a major concern in Harry's case because of the specific link between him and Voldemort which is feared to allow much greater access than normal. What does Snape get when Harry "let me get in too far. You lost control." Harry asks him if he saw everything I saw, and Snape says "Flashes of it." I think you may have developed an impression of legilemency that goes far beyond what it is actually described as being able to do. It is not even presented as being close to being able to read everything in a persons mind. You get flashes of what the other person is thinking. If they are lying, it seems somebody who is really good at it, can interpret those flashes to work out you are lying. That's all. If I believed Legilimency allowed you to see everything a person was thinking, I might view it differently, but even then I'm not sure I would in cases where I believed a student was actually in danger. Just breaking a minor rule - maybe. Putting himself at risk of murder by one of the most dangerous criminals in history? I think I'd still see it as something I had to do. Bear in mind that if Legilemency really did allow you to read somebody's mind, would the Wizarding World have so many cases where innocent people are locked up in Azkaban, and guilty people are able to lie their way out of it? Alla: > I repeat, everything that is > in their minds, stuff that has no relation to the issue of their safety. > While Snape protected himself from Harry's reading his most shameful > memories, Harry could never do that - no pensive for him. Sure, there is > some evidence that Snape does not have to read every thought in Harry's > mind, but my point is that he can. Shaun: As I say, I don't believe he can and I believe the evidence in canon is very much that he cannot. You seem to be able to get flashes of memories. That's it. As for Snape being able to protect himself while Harry can't - I'm allowed to search students. They are not allowed to search me. Personally, if it was possible, I would have liked Harry to have had use of a pensieve to shield any memories he really wanted to keep secret. But we don't know how common pensieves are (Snape seems to use the same one as Dumbledore meaning we really know of only one of them), and we also don't know if Harry would even have the skills to remove and replace his own memories - it may be well beyond his skills. Alla: > If that would have happened in real life, well,as a teacher who may have > read your student's mind you may have been justified in it, you may have > not, but you bet I would have had a huge issue with that. Shaun: The thing is, it's also not just a matter of being justified. It can be a matter of actually being *required* to do it. If I believe a student is carrying something dangerous, I am not just allowed to search him. I am actually required to do so in most cases (the only real exception is that I am not required to place myself in danger to do so). If you are in loco parentis, you are not *allowed* to let a student put themselves or others in serious danger if there is anything in your power you can do to protect them. You only have to act to the extent that is reasonable - if I think a kid has a laser pointer, for example, I might ask him to turn out his pockets. If I thought he had a gun, I'd physically search him. Would some people have an issue with that? Sure. Guess what. I'm not allowed to worry about that. I know of a case where a male teacher wasn't just sacked but was stripped of teacher registration so he can never teach again because he did not search a female student on the grounds that he did not feel it was appropriate. Sorry. It's irrelevant what you feel about it. It's the circumstances that tell you what you need to do. Snape is a teacher in an unusually dangerous school environment. With Harry, he is dealing with a student who is in unusual danger both in general, and sometimes in specific danger because of the things he decides to do. I think he'd be negligent if he didn't try to work out when Harry is lying to him - which, honestly, seems to me to be the thing he most often uses Legilemency for. I've seen no signs that he's ever got more information out of Harry than that except in the Occlumency lessons where Harry is very well aware of what he is doing. Is Snape even free not to use Legilemency? I know we don't know if he is or not, but I can say that if such a thing existed in the real world, I think I would be required to legally use it if I had the ability whether I wanted to or not, if that would enhance my students safety. Only then - not just because I wanted to. Alla: > Obviously we are constrained by the fact that "mind reading" is a > fictional constraint, however I think there is a reason that in so many > scifi books that I have read (the first that comes to mind is "The > demolished man" by Alfred Bester) ordinary citizens are awarded > humongous protections against the fact that the group of people can read > their minds. Shaun: Ah, somebody else who has read Bester (I have 'The Stars, My Destination' sitting ready for a reread this month). The thing is, legilemency is not presented as being anywhere near as common as the abilities of Peepers in 'The Demolished Man' nor is it specifically being used in a law enforcement context which is the reason why the constraints that exist in that novel are developed. But more significantly, we don't what rules exist in Wizarding society to govern Legilimency. For all we know there may actually be, generally speaking, very strict rules on its use. But, even if there are, do they apply when it comes to Snape and Harry? If Snape is in loco parentis, with the same rights, powers, and responsibility over Harry as a parent (and even if the Wizarding World doesn't have quite the same doctrine, I hope it has something like it, otherwise we have hundreds of children spending most of the year living in an environment where no adult has proper responsibility for making sure they are safe), any rules that normally apply may not apply in his case. A random person from the street can't make a child strip so they can examine their body for injuries. A parent or someone in the place of a parent can - and indeed, may be negligent if they *don't* sometimes. Alla: > I think it tells me that writers understood how invasive > and violating it has the potential to be. In this book for example, > police officers who can read minds cannot use that evidence in court, > they have to obtain the evidence the hard way - do the work and all that. Shaun: But they do use their telepathy to identify the suspect and then go looking for the evidence they need. And in fact, that seems quite relevant here: "'I suggest, Headmaster, that Potter is not being entirely truthful,' he said. 'It might be a good idea if he were deprived of certain privileges until he is ready to tell us the whole story. I personally feel he should be taken off the Gryffindor Quidditch team until he is ready to be honest.' 'Really, Severus,' said Professor McGonagall sharply, "I see no reason to stop the boy playing Quidditch. This cat wasn't hit over the head with a broomstick. There is no evidence at all that Potter has done anything wrong.' Dumbledore was giving Harry a searching look. His twinkling light-blue gaze made Harry feel as though he were being X-rayed. 'Innocent until proven guilty, Severus,' he said firmly." (Chamber of Secrets, Chapter Nine) It seems likely that both Dumbledore ha used Legilemency on Harry (who is lying and not telling the whole story as Snape says) here, and Snape may well have done so as well. And both of them may know very well that Harry is lying (but certainly don't seem to know Harry heard the basilisk), but knowing isn't enough. Evidence is needed. Snape *never* seems to punish Harry for the things he thinks Harry has done where he seems to have used Legilemency. Alla: > To me, mind reading is an invasion, a violation, and I honestly do not > care that some of it may be justified by the issue of child's safety. Shaun: "'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. It's not mind reading. Even if it was, I would disagree with you. Preserving a child's safety often trumps preserving a child's privacy. Alla: > Nor am I sure that it is spelled out that WW kids cannot consent to that > (see above example about the lessons). I do not believe that Severus > Snape would have stopped at that and *of course* I do not consider mind > intrusion *after* the fact to try to find the evidence to *punish* the > child justified. Go look for an evidence old fashioned way Snape, but of > course Lupin smacks him in the face with taking the map away from him, > so he cant really do that. Shaun: I would want to see some evidence that children in the Wizarding World can consent to things in a way children in the real world can't, and historically were even less limited in what they were able to do. I can only see evidence they don't have that right until they are 17. And I can also see no example where Snape punished Harry based on legilemency. Snape was examining the map looking for actual evidence when Lupin took possession of it, in fact. Alla: > Hopefully my position is clear too. Shaun: It is, and it's a reasonable position. It's just not my position. One interesting question I haven't yet asked so I'll stick it in here - does Harry feel he's been violated? The only time I can see any sign he might is with his memory of Cho - and he seems to block that. Harry doesn't seem to me to feel he's being violated or invaded in an unreasonable way. Despite the fact it's being done by a man he hates. In fact, in extremis, in Umbridge's office, he attempts to get Snape to do it so he can send him a message. I know he's desperate but there's no real sign he's found it traumatic. Shaun From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 09:02:29 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:02:29 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: <4F02762A.6070904@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191685 ... Steve: Excellent points Shaun, good to have you back in the discussions. I'll not address specific issue, just make a few side note. First, while Dumbledore is agreeable to the Occlumency lessons, and Snape is agreeable to the lessons, so is Harry. He doesn't like it, but he does see the underlying necessity of it, and he continues to go. So, we really do have consent all around. Next, in the Occlumency lessons, Snape is not seeking out specific information. He is not willfully seeking Harry's embarrassing memories. Rather, he is simply opening Harry mind and letting random thoughts flow, and it is Harry's job to close his mind and stop the flow of random thoughts. Snape is not specifically seeking out embarrassing thoughts or memories; he is simply taking the memories as they come. Though something of a side side note, we do see that when truly embarrassing memories appear, Harry does have the ability to cut them off. This tells me that under a different teacher, Harry could have gotten quite good at Occlumency, and I suspect later in life, when he had a better teacher, he did become very good at it. I see this as very different than the willful, malicious, and purpose directed invasion of a person's mind. That is what Voldemort does. He enters a person's mind seeking and pulling out very specific things that he wants to know, and he forces his way into their mind against their will. That is not what is happening to Harry in these lessons. I also think that part of the reason Harry can't stop the flow of thoughts is because, he is actually interested in seeing them. Only when a very private thought flows through does Harry become concerned. So, on the issue of permission, even being a child without the legal capacity for permission, Harry has none the less given it. And further, even as much as he doesn't like it, Harry does understand the need for the lessons, and continues to return. It is just unfortunate for all that it is Snape teaching him. In all honesty, I see nothing here that warrants the word 'Mind [the word that shall not be named]'. Does Harry feel violated by the continual intrusions into his thoughts and memories, certainly, who wouldn't? But that is the nature of the beast. You can't learn to block your mind against invasion unless someone invades so that you can block. All concerned have given permission. All concerned have agree to the necessity of the lessons. All concerned probably agree that it is an unpleasant experience. Yet, a very necessary experience. Lots of experiences in life are unpleasant, but we do them anyway; that's just life. Now there are always a group of people, who have a strong reaction to just about everything in the books. Some think the Twins are harmless mischief makers. Others see them a vile bullies who deserve to be in jail. Some see Harry as determined to do what is right, even if it means breaking the rules, and other see Harry as an unruly kid who flaunts the rule, causes trouble, and would do better to keep his mouth shut and stay in bed. Any one in the books can be seen has horrible if you have the right mind set. In the case of the Occlumency lessons, this random opening of Harry mind to the random pouring out of random thoughts and memories, would have been inevitable no matter who was teaching Harry. Though I'm sure there are some who Harry would have felt more comfortable having see his private memories. But, the flow of memories itself was inevitable. To teach the blocking of the mind, the mind has to be opened, so that you can learn to close it. Given that they are at Hogwarts, and that the rest of the Order are busy with their own assignments, there are very few choices in trusted people to teach Harry. Really, under the circumstances, Snape is the only person. It is just too bad that he and Harry do not get along, and equally unfortunate that Snape chooses to use such ham-fisted methods. But to be fair, Snape isn't teaching a random classroom Occlumency lesson, he is teaching Harry to resist the most brutal and gifted Legilimens in existance. When Voldemort invade Harry's mind, it will not be even remotely has gentle as Snape was. Compared to Voldemort, ham-fisted as Snape was, he was actually being gentle. We need to keep these things in perspective, and not let emotions or overblown rhetoric get the best of us. Steve/bboyminn From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Jan 3 12:56:20 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 12:56:20 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191686 Dear Geoff I can agree, but I think you miss my point. All the fantasy is fine, be it in Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, but the problem comes when you are going to extrapolate BACK from that world real-life lessions into this world. That's where people get into trouble and begin to think they are dealing with real life. They aren't. You are dealing with a fictional construct where the authors are the puppetteers and can push their characters, AND events around as they like and therefore drawing real-life conclusions from them is highly dangerous. That was my point. We are all muggles in a muggle world and there is no magical world and therefore drawing real-life conclusions from a mythical world is dangerous. Therefore your personal escapism is fine, but just don't expect that conclusions you draw in the escapist world are valid here in this one, and this one is the only one we have. That leads to terrible results like some kid coming to school in a black sheet worn as a poncho with a piece of dowel he got from a hardware store and declaiming "stupify" to the bullies advancing on him to do him bodily harm. Much the same all the justifications of this or that, or explaining of actions in the magical world have no meaning in the muggle. Thus attempting in any sense to define ANY actions of Slytherin as "moral" is merely a further leap of escapism. Perhaps to magicks in the magic world Slytherin's actions in the book can seem justified, but assuming that we can do slytherin like things here in this world and escape opprobium and expect honor, is like the kid above dancing with his dowel. That's my point. All of this is nice, but only as a stage against which the actions of moral actors are played out-- that is, in the struggle of good against evil, what acts are good, and what acts are evil, what predispositions or philosophies tend to good, and what predispositions and philosophies tend to evil. The existence of such alternative realites can be justified ONLY by that question when it is brought back into this world. Otto From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 13:12:32 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:12:32 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: <4F02AE10.50203@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191687 .> > Alla: > > > > Hi Shawn, I understand your perspective. Please note however that I am > > coming from a different perspective. First and foremost, while I > > certainly agree that "coming of age" comes with a lot of additional > > freedoms in WW and rights to decide things, I disagree that young > > wizards just do not have that right. > > Shaun: > > But *why* do you disagree? That to me, is an important question here. > > If you disagree simply because of your own personal moral code, then > that is certainly your right. But do you have the right to impose your > moral code on others - and particularly in this case, do you have the > right to impose your personal moral code on Harry Potter and Severus > Snape? Alla: Yes, I believe I do, and I do not see why this seems to be such strange argument. As I mentioned to Pippin, I am most certainly judging WW from the position of outsider but also because I believe the book hints that a lot of moral and legal norms in WW are changing and need to be changing. When you for example read "1984" surely you judged that society from the position of your moral/legal norm and found that society wanting? Surely as I gave example above when you are reading a book where people rape each other left and right and are very happy doing so and it is perfectly acceptable, you would at least question how good the societal order in that fictional society is? To go back to Potterverse, I take it you dont agree with the way Sirius Black's case was handled despite most of Wizarding Society was fine and dandy with it? Same way as I am not okay with the way Snape and Dumbledore use legilimency on Harry. Shawn: >I know they are fictional characters, but if they weren't, > wouldn't they have as much right as you do to decide for themselves what > they believed to be morally and ethically correct? Alla: Yes, but I do not have to agree with that. Harry had every right to decide for himself that he forgave Dumbledore and Snape. I think he is a Saint for doing so and dont agree with him. Shawn: > And, if they do have that right, how do you judge Severus Snape if he > was doing what he truly believed was in the best interest of his > society, his school, and, yes, indeed, even of Harry Potter himself? Alla: I will never believe that Severus Snape acted in the best interests of Harry, but even if he did, what I think in those instances would not have changed. >.> Shaun: > > Again, from a teacher's perspective, I don't think it can really be said > Harry agrees to participate in the Occlumency lessons. > > From 'Order of the Phoenix': > > "Snape's lip curled in triumph as he turned to Harry. > > 'The Headmaster has sent me to tell you, Potter, that it is his wish for > you to study Occulmency this term.' > > 'Study what?' said Harry blankly. > > Snape's sneer became more pronounced. > > 'Occlumency, Potter. The magical defence of the mind against external > penetration. An obscure branch of magic, but a highly useful one.' > > Harry's heart began to pump very fast indeed. Defence against external > penetration? But he was not being possessed, they had all agreed on that... > > 'Why do I have to study Occlu- thing?' he blurted out. > > 'Because the Headmaster thinks it is a good idea,' said Snape smoothly. > 'You will receive private lessons once a week, but you will not tell > anybody what you are doing, least of all Dolores Umbridge. You understand?' > > 'Yes,' said Harry. 'Who's going to be teaching me?' > > Snape raised an eyebrow. > > 'I am,' he said. > > Harry had the horrible sensation that his insides were melting. Extra > lessons with Snape - what on earth had he done to deserve this?" > > ***** > > I don't see any sign in that that Harry is really given any choice as to > whether or not he has these lessons. He is told by one of his teachers > that the Headmaster wants him to do these lessons. He's not asked. He's > told. > > Now, sure, at fifteen, Harry is probably *capable* of refusing to > participate in a lesson. But that doesn't really mean he has agreed to > do it, simply because he doesn't throw a temper tantrum and refuse, or > because he doesn't turn up, or because he does turn up and turns on the > sullen insolence mode. He has been told by people who have a right to > tell him what to do what they require him to do. He could refuse in the > way that my students sometimes refuse to do homework, but that doesn't > mean he was ever really given a choice. > > Would Snape have forced him if he had refused? I don't know. But then > again, if a student refuses to do their homework, I don't always try and > force them either. Sometimes it isn't worth that type of battle for > various reasons, but that doesn't mean I ever regarded the instructions > I gave them as optional. Alla: I am leaving this quote in, because I want to apologize. When somebody starts to quote extensively, I feel that I ought to as well, but I do not have time and/or desire to quote OOP, since most of the book makes me really really angry. Also I am typing it before leaving for work, so please forgive me. I trust you will take my word for it that when/if you will bring the quote I forgot and which will contradict something from my argument, I will tell you so and concede stuff. So,about this quote, yes Harry is told to participate, but you earlier argued that he consented by nature of him participating, no? Because I still think that he consented by staying, and my earlier question stands - do you think that if he would have run away screaming no, no, no Snape would have forced him? I think he gave at least implied consent here. > > Alla: > > > Now you claim that all the other occassions you > > quote were justified. I take an issue with some of them (especially > > number seven), but even if Snape honestly believed that ALL of them are > > justified due to the issue of safety, I would still be saying it does > > not really matter. > > Shaun: > > First of all, I find it interesting that it's example seven that you > think is hardest to justify as from my perspective that one is probably > among the easiest to justify. Harry has snuck into Hogsmeade after being > expressly forbidden to do so by his Head of House, because he doesn't > have a permission letter. It's absolute rule breaking - even if there > wasn't any good reason for it - and there is a good reason - they are > trying to protect Harry from somebody they believe to be a highly > dangerous mass murderer. Remember that later in the chapter, Remus Lupin > really rips into Harry for what he's done. He scolds Harry severely for > it, even invoking the memory of the sacrifice of Harry's parents - and > he confiscates the Marauder's Map. To me, it really seems the clearest > cut case. Both rule breaking and serious danger. Alla: I find it hardest to justify not because of rule breaking and of course I remember that Lupin ripped Harry a new one, but because I do not believe that Snape was looking for a signs of new danger, if he did then sure it was justified, but if he was only looking for signs of past transgression - not justified in my book. .> Shaun: > > No, we're not. Legilemency is definitely not presented as the ability to > read everything in somebody's mind. > > "'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be > opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the > inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex > and many-layered thing, Potter - or at least most minds are.' He > smirked. 'It is true, however, that those who have mastered Legilimency > are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their > victims and to interpret their findings correctly. The Dark Lord, for > instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him.'" > - Snape in Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 24. > > Even Lord Voldemort doesn't seem to be able to read everything in > somebody's mind. The Dark Lord himself is able to work out if a person > is lying. The reason that the Order of the Phoenix is worried about > Harry is because they fear that "at times, when your mind is most > relaxed and vulnerable - when you are asleep for instance - you are > sharing the Dark Lord's thoughts and emotions," because "(T)he curse > that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection > between you and the Dark Lord." > > Legilimency is not mind-reading. It's far less precise than that and far > less invasive than that. It is only a major concern in Harry's case > because of the specific link between him and Voldemort which is feared > to allow much greater access than normal. > > What does Snape get when Harry "let me get in too far. You lost > control." Harry asks him if he saw everything I saw, and Snape says > "Flashes of it." > > I think you may have developed an impression of legilemency that goes > far beyond what it is actually described as being able to do. It is not > even presented as being close to being able to read everything in a > persons mind. You get flashes of what the other person is thinking. If > they are lying, it seems somebody who is really good at it, can > interpret those flashes to work out you are lying. That's all. > > If I believed Legilimency allowed you to see everything a person was > thinking, I might view it differently, but even then I'm not sure I > would in cases where I believed a student was actually in danger. Just > breaking a minor rule - maybe. Putting himself at risk of murder by one > of the most dangerous criminals in history? I think I'd still see it as > something I had to do. Alla: Again, leaving this piece in, because I find this quote extremely unpersuasive and contradictory to other evidence we have. Yes, they say Legilimency is not mind reading, however Snape does not seem to have a problem to notice everything he needs to note, flashes or not, when Harry is unable to resist of course. Whose dog was it, remember? He sees the door, he sees anything he wants. In other words, yes, this quote notwithstanding I think he sees stuff in Harry's head, any stuff in Harry's head he wants, when other does not resist. Shawn: > Bear in mind that if Legilemency really did allow you to read somebody's > mind, would the Wizarding World have so many cases where innocent people > are locked up in Azkaban, and guilty people are able to lie their way > out of it? Alla: Good question. I believe Dumbledore did not use legillimency on Sirius because he wanted him in Azkaban, and when he talked to Sirius, dont you think he did use it? I think Pippin argued extensively at one time why they dont want to use Legilimency to determine innocence. Not that I like it mind you. .> > Alla: > > > To me, mind reading is an invasion, a violation, and I honestly do not > > care that some of it may be justified by the issue of child's safety. > > Shaun: > > "'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be > opened at will and examined at leisure. > > It's not mind reading. Even if it was, I would disagree with you. > Preserving a child's safety often trumps preserving a child's privacy. Alla: And still they see the things in child's mind, very specific things, flashes or not. I snipped your examples of real life teachers, but just wanted to say that you misunderstood me, sorry for being unclear. I know that teachers in some schools (or in many schools, I am not sure whether all private schools here allow it) are required to search students and in some instances I sure find it justified, but just as you brought the real life case, I thought I remembered the real life case where student's privacy was violated and parents brought it to court and won. I thought that there were more than one situations when parents brought it to court if not won, so people do not necessarily think that teacher's right to search trumps any right students have. If I find the link, I will send it to you. >.> Alla: > > > Hopefully my position is clear too. > > Shaun: > > It is, and it's a reasonable position. It's just not my position. > > One interesting question I haven't yet asked so I'll stick it in here - > does Harry feel he's been violated? The only time I can see any sign he > might is with his memory of Cho - and he seems to block that. > > Harry doesn't seem to me to feel he's being violated or invaded in an > unreasonable way. Despite the fact it's being done by a man he hates. > > In fact, in extremis, in Umbridge's office, he attempts to get Snape to > do it so he can send him a message. I know he's desperate but there's no > real sign he's found it traumatic. . Alla: Again, I dont care how Harry feels in this situation, honestly, I am describing how I feel. I feel that Dumbledore needs to be shot for what he made of Harry's life, Harry felt that he is one of the bravest men he knew. Such is life. I adore Harry's character, I just disagree with his position and feel sad for him. If I did not address any of your arguments, will do so later today. From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Jan 3 13:54:20 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 13:54:20 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191688 Dear List I think the difficulty of this topic, including ideas of "mind-rape" etc. is a problem given the fact that we have no such analogous thing in the the real world. Therefore we have no experience with it, and no measures against it, and -- more importantly-- precious little definition as to even what it is in the world of Harry Potter. Is reading thoughts reading ALL your thoughts, or just the top of the head fore-brain things. Is it able to go back into your memories? If the latter that's not always a good thing, after all we all know that memories can be constructed and certainly recollections are imbedded into the brain in a highly nuanced way through the eyes of our perception. Further we know that all events we perceive are "impressions" and to a degree "Phenomenal." That is, they strike us as detatched, stand-alone, phenomenon and only over time do we fir them into a coherent pattern of cause and effect, which may be highly subjective and not what REALLY happened at all. But then that begs the question of what REALLY happened. Here we get into the logical fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or " this then that." The fallacy comes in assuming that B follows A, therfore A is causal of B. A real example is helpful. If every day I come into my office at 7:30 ish, does that mean that because it is 7:30 I caome into my office? Obviously not. It is taking the phenominalism of what REALLY happened and then the human mind attempting to fit the event into a pattern of cause and effect, of which the phenominal effect itself becomes a series of cause and effect that we have this problem. The other factor in this Occlumency is can the mind be controlled as well as known. If a person can read thoughts can he impose upon them. The other factor to is discerning what is real. If a person can use transformation spells to alter their appearence, how do we know to whom we are speaking is in fact the person to whom we are speaking. Why, for example, would anyone look ugly? Why wouldn't Millicent Bullstrode chose to look like Katy Perry, or the like. If Malfroy, Goyle and Crabbe are bullying someone, why doesn't the someone just turn themselves into a giant and beat the crap out of them? Because they could turn themselves into other giants? See the problem? Otto From sigurd at eclipse.net Tue Jan 3 14:15:39 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:15:39 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191689 Dear Alla I want to take up one point you made. Alla says " Again, I dont care how Harry feels in this situation, honestly, I am describing how I feel. I feel that Dumbledore needs to be shot for what he made of Harry's life, Harry felt that he is one of the bravest men he knew." My question on this is a concern I have for the ENTIRE book. Does any one besides me feel a certain unease that that Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid-- the teachers- whoever are using these students as pawns in a grand game of combat against Voldemort-- and Voldemort is doing exactly the same? They are using, and pitting, with the four-house system) the children against each other in this struggle. That is they are pitting immature moral agents in a struggle they can neither understand nor deal with as adults-- that is, as fully knowing moral actors. My God, if we are to believe Rowling these children are concerned more about sweets and candies (magical though they may be) than the real issues of good and evil. (I often hope that the parents have good dental plans, and a spell against cholesterol and diabetes.) But one problem is that the teachers ARE pitting their students against each other, and against Voldemort, and he the same in a sort of mirror image of the "proxy wars" of the United States and the Soviet Union, and other stalking horses in society and politics as well. It's amazing that with all their powers, all their abilities, from Dumbledore to the Ministry of Magic, that they could not find out all about Voldemort and squelch him long before the start of the story. For all their power they aren't powerful enough to do that? Otto From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 16:40:19 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:40:19 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191690 > Alla: > > And still they see the things in child's mind, very specific things, flashes or not. I snipped your examples of real life teachers, but just wanted to say that you misunderstood me, sorry for being unclear. I know that teachers in some schools (or in many schools, I am not sure whether all private schools here allow it) are required to search students and in some instances I sure find it justified, but just as you brought the real life case, I thought I remembered the real life case where student's privacy was violated and parents brought it to court and won. I thought that there were more than one situations when parents brought it to court if not won, so people do not necessarily think that teacher's right to search trumps any right students have. If I find the link, I will send it to you. Alla: Sorry for replying to myself, but here is the link I was thinking about. I have no idea how Supreme Court ruled, and do not have time to search for that. They may as well lost, but my point is enough people do think that teachers should *not* have an absolute right to search students and Supreme court cared enough to take this case on and since this seems to be one of the analogies you are making with legilimency, I do not think it stands for proposition that since students cannot consent (or can in some situations) they should not be protected from some intrusive violations of their privacy. Obviously there are situations where it can be justified, search that is, however, my point is that legilimency seems to be ten times more intrusive than any search and b) it is not always justified. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme_court_to_hear_honor_student_strip_search_case/ In other words, it is all well and good if you think that Snape standing in loco parentis should give him unlimited ownership over Harry's body and mind, I dont, be it Potterverse or real life teachers. I mean, I am exaggerating of course, I understand that your argument is probably that Snape should have unlimited command over Harry the moment he suspects that Harry is in danger, but my argument stays the same - I still think that there are should be limits upon teacher's power. Of course no thanks to Severus Snape, Harry has no parents to check upon that power and protect him from that. No Lily Potter or James Potter can go into Hogwarts and demand I dont know some sort of hearing, but that does not mean that I as a reader should be happy with the unlimited power Snape wields with the complete approval from Dumbledore. I also want to touch upon the issue of consent, since I may have been in a rush and unclear. I am not arguing that wizarding kids have less rights than adults, obviously they do, but to me it is unclear that they do not have any rights at all (see Harry's hearing in OOP, ridiculous as it was), so if it is not spelled out, maybe it is still there by silence (right not to consent). However regardless whether they can consent to it or not, if teachers can do so, to me it is the practice that needs to be abolished, same as sending innocent people to prison. JMO, Alla From sigurd at eclipse.net Mon Jan 2 19:06:26 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:06:26 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191691 Dear Alla Alla: "Basically your argument {speaking of a third party) is that I am imposing my moral norms on WW? Kind of but not quite," Otto Says : Impose away. It shows you have strong morals beliefs as opposed to others who have entirely expedient or at least indifferent moral beliefs and even those -- but lightly held. All people hold beliefs. The degree to which we wish them universalized (that everyone believe them) is the degree of conviction we hold them buy. The degree to which we would wish them applied to ourselves is the degree to which they are correct. So impose away, there's far too much moral ambivalence and excuse making for people who want to do horrible things to their fellow men and be honored for it. Alla : You also point out that. "I always felt that in many way WW is the twisted reflection of our world especially because it happens in "our" world, just with addition of magic. For this reader JKR was portraying the world which needs to be radically changed, because there are some people that have some good in them. Hopefully I am making sense." Otto Says in response. Do not equivocate. You ARE making perfect sense, in fact too much sense for many because you are saying simply "My eyes see what they see, my ears hear what they hear" and no amount of linguistic legerdemain or subtle argument is going to convince me that I am a fool and reality must be "reinterpreted," "redefined," or "reconstructed" for my poor mentally challenged condition." Therefore for the many you are refuting "the party line" which tries to tell you your eyes do not see what they see or your ears hear what they hear. That is, that you are incapable of evaluating reality on your own. And THAT is perhaps the greatest mind-rape of all. The world makes perfect sense and people who are in pain know they are in pain and they KNOW where their best interest lies, and in the vast and overwhelming number of cases they know when they are doing wrong, but they will like many here, devote an ocean of words to try and make the most heinous crimes seem honorable simply because they wish to do them. Alla: But even if I was simply imposing my moral norms on WW, what is wrong with it? Say she was portraying a world where she explicitly shown rape (not mind rape, body rape) and nobody was saying it was horribloe. Yeah, you bet that as an outsider I would condemn it with gusto, but for me with Potterverse is a bit more than just that. Otto Responds: You are correct. But I don't think J.K. Rowling was trying to show that, though she did seem to indicate the dangers of it. J.K. Rowling's whole story is grounded one of the most common infantile fantasies. That within the shell of the dumpy, skinny, fat little kid with busted eyeglasses, and a strange way of talking who wears funny clothes, who stands before you is a very special individual with secret powers far "stronger than you can possibly imagine" and not a mere victim. It's what all kids male or female dearly wish for, to be the wizard in the wimp, the sword in the stone, the once and future king, the child of destiny- that they are simply not powerless, weak, and vulnerable. That they are in fact a fairy-princess, a great King-Hero, enchanted for now-- in a toads body. But there is a dilemma in that as well. The bullied or fearful child is simply reversing the event- that is, he wishes he had superior powers, magical powers, super-hero powers so he can bully the bullies. That is-- that turnabout is fair play. But it is NOT fair play is it???!!! Exposing the bully to bullying enacts retribution, but it does not change. It makes the bully see what it is like, but it merely CONFIRMS him or her in their "bullydom" and teaches only the lesson that in order to avoid being bullied one must bully themselves. Phillip Hallie one of the noted philosophers of the twentieth century wrote his magister opus "Cruelty" on the existence of cruelty in the world. Hallie's provocative, and disturbing theory is that cruelty arises from a power imbalance. That is,--- it is impossible to be cruel to people over whom we have no power, that seems obvious, but that he also asserts that if we have power over other persons WE CANNOT BUT BE CRUEL to them. That is, the more power we have over them, the more superior we become, and the more weak they become and there very quickly comes a point where we have so much power over them that they cease to be on such a plain as we, and since they are on such a lower plain than we they cannot be human, and hence it is impossible to be inhuman to something that is not human. Hallie asserts that it is at this point where we get brutalization, torture, murder -- Auschwitz. He says that we cannot help this, that it is inevitable so long as there is a power imbalance. This all sounds quite far out to most of us, but the sad fact is that it has all been proven perfectly true by experiments and science. In the famous Milgram experiment, performed by Yale Psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1961,it was designed to test persons obedience to authority, an "experiment" was set up in which there was a "proctor" sitting in a room with a very scientific looking panel with switches and gauges. There was a "subject" in an adjacent room, clearly visible to the proctor through glass windows. The purpose of the experiment was to "Test the effect of negative reinforcement on testing." The subject was restrained in a chair and had various electrodes wires and contacts hooked up to him. The subject was then asked a series of questions and if he gave a wrong answer, the proctor pushed a button which passed a mild electric current to the subject and giving him a small painful shock. The questions would then continue with increasingly stronger shocks given for subsequent wrong answers. There was a part of the dial which was turned to increase the shocks intensity that was coded in red, complete with the words danger and on one mark the legend "DO NOT INCREASE BEYOND THIS POINT." Ok. Now let me tell you what was REALLY going on. There was no electricity, no shock, no danger, and the man in the room was merely an actor who was cued by a light when the proctor had pushed the button. The "proctor" was in fact the subject and the whole experiment was testing him, to see how long he would continue with the experiment. At the first wrong answer the actor jumped and gasped with "pain" and as it went on his responses with each increase of voltage was more violent than the last. The man in the room screamed at one point and begged to stop, said he had a mild heart condition. The real subject, "the proctor" became agitated and begged to stop also, but most often went. It went on even after the actor had slumped in the chair and seemed dead with the proctor continuing to ask questions and increase the voltage past the "do not go past this line). In the whole experiment of all the subjects put in the proctors seat only 5% of the people stopped and refused to go on. 95% continued to where it was obvious the "shocks" were not mild or harmless" and 50% of them continued past the point of death. The proctors at one point were screaming themselves and begging to stop, but the "managers" of the experiment who stood there in labcoat with clipboard and scrubs blandly insisted they HAD to continue. Now-- if you think THAT was horrific, now I will tell you about the Zimbardo experiment. The Zimbardo Experiment was performed at Stamford University in August of 1971 by psychologist Phillip Zimbardo. It was to test prison behaviour of prisoners and guards. It was conducted over the summer from volunteers who had decided to stay there for the summer and was made up of people at random. Some were guards, some were assigned roles as prisoners. The "guards" only task was to "control" the prisoners, but the prisons were simply student rooms and basements in the normal college facilities. It was supposed to last 14 days. It lasted six and was abruptly ended when the guard had become so brutal, so monstrous, all on their own without any prompting that the safety and sanity of some of the prisoners was feared for. The prisoners were forced to wear hospital gowns and skull-caps as uniforms, and sing degrading songs about themselves. The guard fitted themselves out with black clothing and sunglasses to distance themselves from the prisoners. Some took to carrying truncheons, baseball bats and bill clubs and to brand his them. They refused to allow prisoners to use the lavoratories and forced them to defecate in buckets in their rooms and then would not allow them to empty the filled buckets. The prisoners were subject to surprise roll-calls, sleeping with lights on, disturbance of their sleep, endless bullying, and on the sixth day the guards were using physical violence against the prisoners. By the way, those are EXACTLY the things the guards did to prisoners at Auschwitz only in a far greater degree. When it was ended-- the guards were extremely dissappointed and wanted to continue it for the full two weeks. Many of he prisoners needed some psychological help and many blamed themselves for the excess' of the guards. In both Milgarm and Zimbardo the "proctors" in the former and the "guards" in the latter excused their behaviour with the same answers- a shrug and an "I was only following orders." or "Well they were all volunteers!""or "they got what they deserved." ALL of the participants, ALL OF THEM had been subjected to rigorous psychological testing to screen out any with pathological, sadistic, or criminal impulses and tendencies. Remember this took place at one of the most liberal college campus in America, and was from ordinary people No Nazi's, no skinheads, no George W. Bush's, no extremists, no Tea-Partyists or Occupiers, just ordinary people. These experiments are absolute proof of Hallies thesis of the inherent evil of power and how it must be hedged in. In the movie "Lion in Winter" with Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn there is a scene where Hepburn, as Eleanor of Aquitaine, rails out at her three adult sons who are at daggers drawn against each other. "Of course he has a knife! We all have knives-- it's the twelfth century and we're all Barbarians! Oh my little piglets make no mistake WE are the causes of War, WE!!! Not economics, or systems of government, or ideas, or societies, or customs or justice or the lack thereof- we carry it in our blood like syphilis- dead bodies rot in field and stream because the living are rotten. We breed war!" It's a movie, and the actors and screen writers are modern, but it's all true. "By their fruits ye shall know them" the handy-man from Nazareth said. So you go right on Alla, imposing your values. They're good ones. Otto ELF NOTE: Please note, replies to this post need to stick to HP, rather than solely comment on any of the OT content. Thank you. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 4 01:15:25 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:15:25 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191692 > Otto: > > Let's make one thing clear, > > > > Not to be boorish about it, but there is no such thing as the Wizarding World. > > Geoff: > I subscribe to that and that is why there are times when I am not > sure whether to laugh or cry when members set out on long threads > involving the academic. moral and political dissection of JKR's world. Potioncat: I disagree. The Wizarding World is as real as Neverland and Harry Potter is as real as Peter Pan. Whether or not it exists--and more so if it doesn't--we readers are not Muggles. How can we be Muggles if there is no Wizarding World? or how could we be if there was as we don't live there? I am not a Muggle or a witch. (Though, my kids might disagree with the last bit.) I admit the group gets into long involved discussions--and yep, sometimes they are over the top. But for many, that's the fun of the site. How those arguing a particular point want to look at a situation is up to them--but works best when both are using the same yardstick. Then again, the debates are more heated when they don't. Potioncat From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jan 4 15:28:35 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:28:35 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191693 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > .> Nikkalmati > > > > I also find the use of this term deliberately inflammatory. Just like harsh treatment is referred to a "child abuse" (which other posts have objected to as trivializing the real thing). How about "mind invasion" ? > > > Alla: > > Well, term "child abuse" is the whole other issue, I will never agree to calling it anything other than child abuse, since I believer that it *was* the real thing, but sure, absolutely I will be calling it "non consensual mind invasion" from now on. I added the "nonconsensual" because the incidents I refer to were in my opinion nonconsensual. As I said, I certainly understand that terms could be triggering, and I do not want to offend anybody, as long as I do not have to give up my right to describe the action as I see fit, I am happy to oblige and in this instance use different term. > Nikkalmati Thanks. the other term gives me a pain in the gut everytime I see it. No personal reason to give, but it hurts. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jan 4 15:58:12 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:58:12 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: <4F02762A.6070904@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191694 > Shaun: > > Blackstone first codified English common law in 1770, he included the > concept as an ancient one. And very importantly he makes the explicit > point that under the doctrine of in loco parentis, a teacher or > schoolmaster has the same powers over a child as a parent does for the > purposes of carrying out their duties as the child's teacher. > > snip> > Example 1 comes from Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter 10. > Just after the incident where Harry, Ron, and Hermione have defeated the > troll from the dungeons, when both Professor McGonnagall and Snape are > questioning them as to why they were not where they were supposed to be, > but had instead wound up in a dangerous situation, and where they are > lying about what they did, Harry thinks Snape is trying to read his mind. > snip> > Example 2 comes in Chapter 13 of the same book. Harry wonders if Snape > can read his mind and knows that he knows about the Philosopher's Stone. >snip> > > Example 3 - Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 5. Harry thinks Snape is trying > to read his mind to find out what happened to the car he and Ron have, > in defiance of both wizarding law and at considerable risk to their own > personal safety - flown to Hogwarts. snip> > > Example 4 - Chapter 9 of Chamber of Secrets. Dumbledore may be trying to > read Harry's mind when Harry, Ron and Hermione are all lying about an > incident in which somebody has just petrified a cat and written a > message on the wall about a legendary Chamber of Secrets being opened > which Dumbledore knows is potentially extremely dangerous. snip> > > Example 5 - Chapter 11 of Chamber of Secrets. Snape tries to read > Harry's mind while Harry is actively involved in an attempt to steal > supplies from the Stores Cupboard. Both dangerous, and definitely > breaking school rules. Again, I would say this is justified by Snape's > responsibilities as a teacher. > > Example 6 - later in the same chapter. Harry has just spoken > Parseltongue - traditional mark of a dark wizard, not to mention Snape > does know a fair bit about Harry possibly having some real connection to > Voldemort. Again, this does not seem unreasonable to me. > > Example 7 - Chapter 14 of Prisoner of Azkaban. Snape is interrogating > Harry after he has broken school rules by sneaking into Hogsmeade, and > by the same action has put himself in danger. Justified. > > Examples 8 and 9 at the lexicon are further parts of the same > conversation and discussion. By itself I would not consider 8 > necessarily justified - where Snape seems to be trying to find out more > about what Harry knows about the incident where James saved Snape's life > - but within the context of the overall questioning, I would forgive it. > Especially as with 9, Snape is back to what I consider a justifiable > 'search' of Harry's mind for information - trying to find out if the > Marauder's Map helped Harry sneak past the dementors thus endangering > himself and breaking school rules. I would consider example 8 to be > something that just came up in a justified search situation. > > Example 10 - Goblet of Fire, chapter 37. Again, Snape does have reason > to suspect Harry of being involved in thefts from his stores and I would > consider that a legitimate search. > >> > Snape is in loco parentis. Harry's 'right to privacy' if it exists at > all, is very limited. Especially when it comes to matters relating to > his safety. > > snip> > I think Snape's use of legilemency can be seen the same way. If somebody > can point to an example (outside of the Occlumency classes which I would > argue Harry is agreeing to by their nature) of Snape apparently > legilemensing Harry without a reason relating to the safety of the > students or the rules of the school, I'd reconsider my position, but if > Snape *was* using legilemency in that way, I'd expect such an example to > be found. The only examples that I've identified so far (with the > Lexicon's help) are ones where safety and rules were genuine issues. > Nikkalmati I am not getting much traction with my theory that Legilemency cannot be performed on an unknowing victim. Oh well, it doees not make for as interesting a discussion. I would agree with Alla that mind invasion is a serious and severe invasion of privacy. I would also agree with Shaun that the examples given are justified by the relationship of the parties and the situation Harry is in. The legal situation is probably pretty much as Shaun describes it. I would point out that recent changes in the US give even parents less authority over their children than at common law and the limits of privacy are still being debated. The WW is much more traditional, however. In support of my theory. I would point out that Snape never seems to gain any information (about the car, the Mauraders' Map, the cloak, thefts from his stores etc.) He never takes any action that could have been based on such knowledge. In fact, if he had gained any knowledge, the car might have been retreved from the FF, and he might have figured out that Harry was hearing voices, or how the Map was used or that Mad Eye was a fake. He knows none of these things even after supposedly reading Harry's mind. In each of these examples, Harry was suffering from a guilty conscience and overactive imagination. Note these incidets disappear after Harry learns what Legilemency really is like in OTP. Nikkalmati From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 18:01:13 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:01:13 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: > Nikkalmati > > I am not getting much traction with my theory that Legilemency cannot be performed on an unknowing victim. Oh well, it doees not make for as interesting a discussion. Alla: Right, I cant really debate this point with you since we disagree on the basic premise of the discussion, but I wanted to add something and actually want to ask a question about your last sentence. Nikkalmati: > I would agree with Alla that mind invasion is a serious and severe invasion of privacy. I would also agree with Shaun that the examples given are justified by the relationship of the parties and the situation Harry is in. The legal situation is probably pretty much as Shaun describes it. I would point out that recent changes in the US give even parents less authority over their children than at common law and the limits of privacy are still being debated. The WW is much more traditional, however. Alla: Not so much in the US though, it is definitely a conversation for Off topic chatter group, but I was so intrigued and wanted to know just how much teachers in the US actually *required* to search students, and how much protection if any students actually have that I have had a conversation with somebody who taught in NY public schools for almost twenty years till very recent time and whose close family members are still teaching in NY public schools. Shawn I will post it on OTC if you care to read it, since I do not think I can connect it to Potterverse in direct way right now. Nikkalmati: > In support of my theory. I would point out that Snape never seems to gain any information (about the car, the Mauraders' Map, the cloak, thefts from his stores etc.) He never takes any action that could have been based on such knowledge. In fact, if he had gained any knowledge, the car might have been retreved from the FF, and he might have figured out that Harry was hearing voices, or how the Map was used or that Mad Eye was a fake. He knows none of these things even after supposedly reading Harry's mind. In each of these examples, Harry was suffering from a guilty conscience and overactive imagination. Note these incidents disappear after Harry learns what Legilemency really is like in OTP. Alla: Out of curiosity how does the fact that these incidents dissappear after Harry learns what Legilimency is support your theory that Snape was not legilimencing Harry before? I would think that it works against you because all that it tells me that Harry learns to frame what is happening to him in more appropriate expressions when Snape invades his mind? Thanks. > Nikkalmati > From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 4 19:28:11 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:28:11 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191696 > Pippin: > > > Now, those of us who decided as we opened our brand new copies of CoS that JKR would never, never ever get us to fall for Harry's Snape crap again have a cognitive advantage -- we never believed that Snape was guilty of any of that stuff. > > > > Those who did believe it, OTOH, are most likely stuck with a cognitive bias which they can do nothing about: a part of their minds is always going to behave as if Harry's beliefs about Snape were true. > > Alla: > > Seriously Pippin? Okay since I am certainly one of those readers, now I am annoyed. Please award me the courtesy of refraining from calling my views any sort of bias. Pippin: Oh my. Please understand that the term "cognitive bias" is not derogatory. It is a term from psychology that refers to a systematic human tendency to make decisions based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. This is not my field, and I may be getting things horribly wrong, but I will try to explain. Since these cognitive factors often operate at the unconscious level, they cannot always be directly monitored or controlled by the conscious self. But they can be detected by statistical methods. Cognitive bias is not a bad thing--it would be impossible for us to make decisions swiftly or efficiently if we had to rely solely on our lumbering ability to reason. As Jamie said, you don't have to reason things out to know that hitting a kid with a two by four is a bad idea. And it works well as long as we are dealing with familiar situations. We all have approximately the same picture of a kid and a two by four. But we clearly don't all have the same picture of legilimency. And when we start reaching for conclusions in unfamilar situations our quick and dirty decision making ability may not serve us well. Suppose I ask, "John is intelligent and brave. Would he make a good leader?" You may already be thinking, "Yes!" But what if I add, "He is cruel and impulsive." Now you probably think that you needed more information before you decided on your answer. But that didn't stop your mind from suggesting one. Commonly, people who are given a list of personal characteristics and told to disregard the order will still show a tendency to rank the first items as more important. Thus, they will draw a very different picture of the individual if negative characteristics come first. And if the qualities are divided into separate lists of negative and positive, people will insist that they could not possibly both apply to the same person! You can see how this would apply to canon. We're told that Gryffindors are daring and chivalrous, while Slytherins are power-hungry and use any means to achieve their ends. And so we unconsciously assume (and Harry behaves as though) these characteristics could not be found in the same character. And we still tend to argue that they are not, even when we have the examples of Dumbledore and Snape! Not to mention Harry. Again, I cannot tell and do not claim that you, or anyone, was being influenced by a unconscious bias to believe things about Snape after they turned out to be erroneous. But it's a statistical probability that some people will continue to remain influenced by information they once believed to be true. For example, on the first day of my college course in elementary statistics, the instructor announced that there was an error in the printed course materials. The final exam had been moved to an earlier date. As I was duly writing this down, the instructor predicted that some of us would miss the exam. BTW, I got an A in that course -- after I'd taken the make-up exam ::blushes::. It was impossible for the instructor to know that *I* would be one of the people who missed the exam, and it was impossible for me to predict it, or even to know *why* I specifically made the mistake. Nonetheless it was entirely predictable that some people would make it. Possibly I was a victim of cognitive bias. It would be logical for the unconscious to treat worthless information the same as no information, but it doesn't. Possibly part of my mind continued to trust the course information, even though I had been told not to do so and made an effort, writing down the new date, to make myself remember. Harry knows that other people are not going to trust his conclusions about Snape because everyone knows that Harry hates him. But Harry himself does not doubt his conclusions. He doesn't think he is biased. He is not consciously allowing his hate to influence him. He is not saying to himself, "I hate Snape, so I am going to believe he is trying to steal the Stone even though I know I can't prove it. And I am going to feel good about it." But Harry is unaware that it's possible for a cognitive factor, his hatred, to keep him from even considering other interpretations of the evidence even though he's aware that other plausible explanations must exist (otherwise he *could* prove it.) Thus he is very surprised when the thief turns out to be Quirrell. Alla: . I hate Snape and Dumbledore because of how *I* see canon facts, thats all there is to it, really. Pippin: Of course. But if you are like most people, how you see facts may be subject to cognitive factors outside your awareness and beyond your control and these *may* lead you, or me, or any person, to unconsciously favor some conclusions despite the evidence. If you want to know more about this, I recommend the book "Thinking Fast And Slow" by Daniel Kahneman Pippin From bart at moosewise.com Wed Jan 4 20:11:04 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:11:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F04B258.8000506@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191697 nikkalmati: > I am not getting much traction with my theory that Legilemency cannot be performed on an unknowing victim. Oh well, it doees not make for as interesting a discussion. Bart: Even many muggles can often use "body language" cues as to what someone is thinking. And nobody seems to be invaded by Morty's ability to know if you're telling the truth or not. It is clear that a talented legilemens (one who use it without actively casting a spell) can pick up what someone is "broadcasting" without need to enter their brain. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 4 20:30:53 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:30:53 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191698 > Pippin: > Oh my. Please understand that the term "cognitive bias" is not derogatory. It is a term from psychology that refers to a systematic human tendency to make decisions based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. This is not my field, and I may be getting things horribly wrong, but I will try to explain. Alla: I will definitely read up on it, but yeah, if I understand it correctly, this term seems to imply that the arguments I made are based on what my subconscious tells me, rather than on factual evidence that I read in the books and interpret differently from you, correct? And I take exception to that in the situation of internet discussion. You are not in my head Pippin, you cant read my mind (rather ironic that we are debating Legilimency right now of course). How could you know what subconscious bias do I have and what I do not have? It seems to me that stating that I or anybody else has a cognitive bias (it is a synonym to subconscious bias, am I understanding it correctly?) against accepting that Snape is not evil trying to tell me that if I do not see facts your way, I am biased based on some unknown reasons/additional factors, as opposed to I have read all the facts and made a different conclusion which is just as valid as yours because I interpreted those facts differently. Because to me whether Snape is an evil person or not is not a canon fact, it is mostly an interpretation of facts. Now if after reading book seven I were still to claim that Snape worked for Voldemort and refuse to see the clear *fact* written on the page that he worked for Dumbledore to bring Voldemort's demise, then sure, I take your point, you would be free to speculate that there is something in my subconscious that refuses to let me see the *facts* written on page. As it stands right now? No way. I see Snape as evil because of what he did to Harry, and that's subject to interpretation. I do not make up additional stuff and say because I see what he did to Harry as evil, he just must be evil in many other unknown ways, I just interpret certain events differently from you. I am annoyed because you just *cant* know why I interpret facts the way I do. Let me twist it this way. What if in response to one of your defense of Dumbledore's arguments, instead of trying to poke holes in the defense itself and not being able to find one, I were to say that you have a cognitive bias against accepting after book seven that Dumbledore's manipulations hurt Harry and made his life hell? What if I were to say that you would not see the facts about Dumbledore if they danced in front of you wearing red because your subconscious stops you? Wouldn't you want to tell me to go jump in the lake to cool myself down and stop being so rude and please argue with your arguments instead of making up stuff about what is in your head? Because if I were to say that, *I* would want to say it to me! (NOTE: I am not saying that! I will never agree with your defense of Dumbledore, but I certainly think it is a valid argument.) > Alla: > . I hate Snape and Dumbledore because of how *I* see canon facts, thats all there is to it, really. > > Pippin: > Of course. But if you are like most people, how you see facts may be subject to cognitive factors outside your awareness and beyond your control and these *may* lead you, or me, or any person, to unconsciously favor some conclusions despite the evidence. > > If you want to know more about this, I recommend the book "Thinking Fast And Slow" by > Daniel Kahneman Alla: It may, for sure, but since we are in the internet discussion, it seems to me that this goes above and beyond the stuff we are arguing about. If you can read my mind that would be different story, otherwise you are just assuming stuff and I always think it is better not to assume. Otherwise you are putting me in the position having to defend my subconscious instead of defending what I wrote on page. I will look up the book though, thanks. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 4 21:35:53 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:35:53 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: <4F02AE10.50203@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191699 Shaun: > Bear in mind that if Legilemency really did allow you to read somebody's > mind, would the Wizarding World have so many cases where innocent people > are locked up in Azkaban, and guilty people are able to lie their way > out of it? Pippin: JKR answered this question with regard to veritaserum. She said there were so many ways to defeat it that it was considered too unreliable. She listed some of the ways, but I only remember for sure that it could be transfigured into something else before it was swallowed. . Barty Jr was caught off guard and dosed before he could invoke a defense. But Snape says there are many legal safeguards against the use of veritaserum. It seems that in a formal proceeding, Barty would have known it was going to be used and could have prepared himself. We know that even a relatively weak wizard such as Draco can defend himself from Legilimency. Harry's inability to do so by conventional means was, according to JKR, the result of damage caused by his treatment at the Dursleys. In any case, most of the wizards who got off claimed they had been under the Imperius Curse. It seems clear that legilimency cannot detect either the curse itself or the veracity of someone who claims to have been under it -- at least I can't recall any examples from canon. > > Shaun: > > I would want to see some evidence that children in the Wizarding World > can consent to things in a way children in the real world can't, and > historically were even less limited in what they were able to do. I can > only see evidence they don't have that right until they are 17. Pippin: The policy seems to have changed over time. The original rules of the Tri-wizard tournament allowed any student to compete. Limiting entry to those who were of age was an innovation agreed to "this year" by the heads of the schools and the Ministry of Magic. Thus the need for Dumbledore's age line. But once Harry's name comes out of the goblet, he is bound by the magical contract, which is apparently unable to invalidate itself even if there is evidence of outright fraud, never mind lack of consent. There's also Dumbledore's visit to Riddle's orphanage. Mrs. Cole is asked for her consent for Tom to attend the school, but it's hardly informed consent, and there's indication that getting her consent is a matter of convenience rather than necessity. She is not told that Tom is a wizard, or that the strange things he can do are magic. Her desire to ask inconveniently shrewd questions is magicked away. It's disturbing to think that all Muggle parents at this time might have been treated the same way. Dumbledore says gravely that Tom has a place at his school and nothing Mrs. Cole can say can change that. Presumably even if she said "no". Dumbledore doesn't use magic to get Mrs Cole to talk, he uses gin -- presumably it's real gin since we're told that wizards can't conjure food and this would be before Dumbledore had the Elder Wand. Tom on the other hand, is told that he can decide whether or not to attend Hogwarts, and if he does not, no one will force him. So in the case where Mrs. Cole wanted him to go but Tom didn't, Tom would prevail. But Tom is told that all new wizards consent, in entering the wizarding world, to abide by its laws. By Dumbledore's headship, Muggle parents are routinely told about their child's abilities but it's still, from what Hagrid says, likely that no Muggle would be allowed to forbid their child to attend. I'd guess that up until Dumbledore became headmaster, wizard children were treated as miniature adults and Muggles as chattels of the Ministry. Things have changed slightly by Harry's time. Muggle parents have gained some limited rights, and wizard children have fewer rights but more protection, which is not always appreciated by the children themselves. It doesn't occur to Hermione that the students she signs up for the DA can't or shouldn't give valid consent to a contract, nor does she feel any compunction about not informing them that they're also agreeing to be cursed if they violate it. Pippin From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Jan 4 13:56:38 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:56:38 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191700 Dear Potioncat. Ok, if it's real next time it's cold and rainy cast an "impervious" spell over yourself (or whatever Hermione used to water-proof Harry's glasses) and leave the umbrella home and go in flip-flops. All of these things you name, "Never-Never-Land", "Oz" etc, are fictional constructs and have no hard reality. Their authors can spin what fables and fairy-tales they wish. But the world we live in does have reality and in fact is the only reality that the hypothetical fantasy worlds can exist in. That is through enactment of principles from that hypothetical construct here. You may not like people like me analysing things and bringing up inconvenient and uncomfortable realities but if you don't bring these things up the real world will flatten you when you attempt to apply some things from fantasy world to here (like the pneumonia you will get from the example above) or worse. Worse, if you're not going to do this analysis then all fiction, J.K. Rowling included, becomes merely a little private cell we can retreat to and live with our fantasies, and as each interpretation of Rowling will be completely subjective, no one can say anything to anyone else, and it becomes merely a means for daydreaming. And in fact, as no one can talk to anyone else lest it jar ones tender sensibilities, this community is completely superfluous. Otto From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Wed Jan 4 23:24:12 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:24:12 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: I can agree, but I think you miss my point. Geoff: I think that you are also missing my point. In terms of this group, I wonder whether a majority of the members will actually want to extrapolate back into the real world. I think that many people gain enjoyment by just being in an escapist world and just forgetting all the problems of the real world. Dare I suggest that all authors just want to create a different world, not necessarily a fantasy world but one with differents place and ways of life. When I was quite small, I read Alice in Wonderland. I graduated to the Doctor Dolittle stories by Hugh Lofting and then to the Biggles books of W.E.Johns, beloved of most boys of my generation. And then, in 1950, Dan Dare, pilot of the future, debuted in the "Eagle"comic, still today an icon of the sci-fi fan. I know I and all my friends loved to let our imaginations run riot, but we knew that all these worlds were imaginary; they did not exist. The only one which approached reality was the world of Biggles, a pilot whose adventures before the War as a civil flyer and as an RAF pilot in the Second World War appealed to our sense of adventure. But we knew we were unlikely to follow him. It was an escape from the bleakness of the time. I believe that most members of this group have enjoyed the cross- fertilisation of ideas and theories as the books have emerged and the delight or loss when our thoughts on theories like "Who is Mark Evans?" or "Will Harry die in the final battle?" have either been proved right or shot down. I still like to let my imagination extrapolate what might happen beyond the epilogue in, perhaps, the next generation of the families or interpolate into the "missing" nineteen years. There are many surprising fans of the story; perhaps when your small boy brandishes his dowel and cries "Stupefy", the bullies might wave their hands and say "Protego" and leave him alone . I have seen rows of seats in the cinema filled with expectant guys in their late teens and twenties waiting for the lights to dim. :-) But I believe that we do not all want to deconstruct the books and analyse them paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence or full stop by full stop; I, for one, vote for that. Granted some contributors do like to practise their dissertations for their doctorates on us but, as one of the List Elves pointed out very recently, this frequently drifts away from canon and is better served being on OTC. There have been times during the eight and a half years I have read and contributed to HPFGU when there would be several threads running in parallel and the list was not dominated by a few people with their own philosophical take and some of whom arrogate to themselves the ability to claim that their view is right and treat any naysayers in a patronising or impolite manner. that is not the ethos of HPFGU. By all means have your own interpretation of the story; we all do. But if you are going to make a point which contains maybe 10% of canon- based, then perhaps, as suggested by the Elves, OTC is the better place. It has been very lonely out there lately From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 5 02:01:09 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:01:09 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191702 > > Pippin: > > Oh my. Please understand that the term "cognitive bias" is not derogatory. It is a term from psychology that refers to a systematic human tendency to make decisions based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. This is not my field, and I may be getting things horribly wrong, but I will try to explain. > > Alla: > > I will definitely read up on it, but yeah, if I understand it correctly, this term seems to imply that the arguments I made are based on what my subconscious tells me, rather than on factual evidence that I read in the books and interpret differently from you, correct? Pippin: Absolutely not. I am only talking about the probability of an event. That tells me *nothing* zip, zilch, nada about whether the event has occurred. Suppose I tell you that I am an American, and the CDC says that sixty something percent of adult Americans are overweight. Have I implied that I am overweight? No. You have no more information about my weight than you did before. All you have is the odds of winning a bet about it. Now it's possible that some readers will form a stereotype, that is, a belief that *all* Americans are fat. When they imagine an American they are going to think of a fat person. And then they'll be surprised if they meet an American who's skinny. But that's happening in their heads, and as you say, I can't do anything about it. I think if you examine my posts you will see that I never said that you in particular had any unconscious bias at all. I think there is a probability based on the theory that all the readers are human and humans can form cognitive biases easily. However let me say once again the existence of the probability does not imply anything about you and I don't claim to have any information. I do not say that all humans form cognitive biases. You are perfectly free to disagree with the theory, and avoid reading posts about it if the idea upsets you. Of course I will happily theorize on the subject of Harry's cognitive biases, and I think it would be fascinating to discuss the use of cognitive illusions in the books (ie, information presented in such a way that the reader is likely to misinterpret it because of cognitive bias.) I think JKRowling may be the DaVinci of cognitive illusions. But I agree that the biases of an individual reader cannot be discussed, not only because it would be rude but because there is no way to get information about them. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jan 5 02:17:59 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:17:59 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > > snip > Nikkalmati: > > In support of my theory. I would point out that Snape never seems to gain any information (about the car, the Mauraders' Map, the cloak, thefts from his stores etc.) He never takes any action that could have been based on such knowledge. In fact, if he had gained any knowledge, the car might have been retreved from the FF, and he might have figured out that Harry was hearing voices, or how the Map was used or that Mad Eye was a fake. He knows none of these things even after supposedly reading Harry's mind. In each of these examples, Harry was suffering from a guilty conscience and overactive imagination. Note these incidents disappear after Harry learns what Legilemency really is like in OTP. > > Alla: > > Out of curiosity how does the fact that these incidents dissappear after Harry learns what Legilimency is support your theory that Snape was not legilimencing Harry before? I would think that it works against you because all that it tells me that Harry learns to frame what is happening to him in more appropriate expressions when Snape invades his mind? Thanks. > > Nikkalmati > > > Ooh. Not exactly sure what you mean about Harry learns to frame what is happening to him - as he appears to drop all references to any suspicions he was being legilimized secretly. I was trying to say once he found out what it was really like (instead of relying on rumors from the Twins) he knew nothing was going on. Nikkalmati From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 5 04:47:29 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 04:47:29 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191704 > > Otto Says in response. > Do not equivocate. You ARE making perfect sense, in fact too much sense for many because you are saying simply "My eyes see what they see, my ears hear what they hear" and no amount of linguistic legerdemain or subtle argument is going to convince me that I am a fool and reality must be "reinterpreted," "redefined," or "reconstructed" for my poor mentally challenged condition." Therefore for the many you are refuting "the party line" which tries to tell you your eyes do not see what they see or your ears hear what they hear. That is, that you are incapable of evaluating reality on your own. Pippin: I agree with a lot of your post, but this bit just made me smile. I am a trained visual artist and a licensed private pilot. In both of those fields, one of the first things the new student is taught is that we don't "see what we see". Our eyes do fool us and artists since the dawn of time have taken advantage of this fact. There is a cave painting in which the flickering light of a torch makes the painted animal appear to move -- the distant ancestor of movies, television and animated cartoons. The Parthenon would appear curved and tilted were its members not deliberately curved and tilted in the opposite direction so that they would look straight. DaVinci pioneered what is called "aerial perspective" -- objects which are further away from us seem bluer and fainter than they really are. This same illusion can fool a pilot on a hazy day into thinking the runway is further away than it looks. And if you should fly into clouds and lose sight of the horizon, you had better know how to disregard what your senses are telling you and trust your instruments. Otherwise, you won't have long to regret it. You won't know which way is up, your inner ears will convince your brain that you are turning when you are going straight, your brain will produce the sensation that you are turning and rising and you will attempt to correct the turn and return to level flight. The effect of this is usually what is called with good reason a graveyard spiral. Survival time for an untrained pilot in instrument conditions is about two minutes. Are there moral illusions? Possibly. I imagine that a Victorian who took one look at our California beaches would be shocked silly at the sight of children exposed to the sight of nearly naked adults of both sexes and would think us lost to depravity. We in our turn find it hard to imagine that Victorians took and collected photos of nude little girls as an innocent hobby, but all the literature suggests they thought this was not only respectable but morally elevating. I would think that to discover whether either of these activities was actually immoral, we would have to disregard the instantaneous reaction of the shocked observer and try to find out whether anyone was actually suffering harm. In the Potter books, the Muggles decided witchcraft was immoral and had to be stamped out, while the witches and wizards thought immorality lay not in witchcraft itself but how it was used. Meanwhile in the real world King James I banned The Discoverie of Witchcraft, which was a text explaining how magic was performed by illusion without supernatural aid, because James believed witchcraft was real. We're all talking about mind invasion as if it's a complete fantasy. Meanwhile over fifty million prescriptions for ADHD medications were written in 2010. They weren't all for children, of course. Still, we seem to have decided as a society that if a child's mind isn't working the way it should, it's okay to go in and make it work differently. Western civilization has so far survived. I'm not against this, BTW, and don't mean to suggest it is being done lightly. I'm just making a point that when a child needs help many people think that concern about the sacred inviolability of the mind is hardly the issue. Die Gedanke ain't free in the wizarding world, and I agree this is one of the disturbing things about it. Souls are split, devoured and shared, memories can be altered, destroyed or totally fabricated, and at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes, you can purchase the hallucination, erm, I mean, the day-dream, of your choice. If all this seems as unnatural to Muggles as it does to us, it's no wonder they are horribly afraid of wizards. You say, if I understand you, that no words need to be invented or redefined, that we already know what crime is and everybody knows what child abuse is. Yet "child abuse" as a separate category of crime did not come into being until the 20th century. New words need to be invented or or old ones redefined when the words we have aren't doing the job we need. When the same children kept showing up at the emergency room with bruises and x-rays showed previously broken bones but there were no competent witnesses to say how they were being injured, that's when "the battered child syndrome" came to be recognized, so that the legal system could intervene without having to meet the legal standards for assault and battery. It was enough to be able to show that if conditions continued, the child would be permanently harmed. Emotional abuse wasn't recognized until the 1980's and 1990's. Yes, people know when they are in pain and when they are being hurt. But they often do not know who is responsible. If Snape blames himself for the emotional damage he suffered from verbal abuse by his father and James (as victims often do) how is he to know if he is causing damage to Harry? I think the likelihood of permanent harm is a good standard for judging when intervention is justified. By their fruits you shall know them, exactly. Pippin From shaun.hately at bigpond.com Thu Jan 5 10:11:24 2012 From: shaun.hately at bigpond.com (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:11:24 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F05774C.8090106@bigpond.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191705 On 4/01/2012 12:12 AM, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > .> > Alla: > > > > > > Hi Shawn, I understand your perspective. Please note however that I am > > > coming from a different perspective. First and foremost, while I > > > certainly agree that "coming of age" comes with a lot of additional > > > freedoms in WW and rights to decide things, I disagree that young > > > wizards just do not have that right. > > > > Shaun: > > > > But *why* do you disagree? That to me, is an important question here. > > > > If you disagree simply because of your own personal moral code, then > > that is certainly your right. But do you have the right to impose your > > moral code on others - and particularly in this case, do you have the > > right to impose your personal moral code on Harry Potter and Severus > > Snape? > > Alla: > > Yes, I believe I do, and I do not see why this seems to be such strange > argument. Shaun: Because it doesn't seem to value other people's opinions. I have the right to decide for myself whether or not I'm being oppressed, for example. If I am comfortable living within particular rules in my society (say a rule that says I can't cut my hair, which is a rule some cultures have for males), or that I must wear a particular item of clothing, or that I must work on one particular day a week, or that I must pay my Church a certain amount of my money each week, or any one of hundreds of other potential rules that may exist in a particular society, I believe I have the right to expect you to respect my choices and not try and force me to accept yours as being more important than my own. I do not believe you have the right to impose your personal moral codes on me or my society when I and my society are happy with those codes. That last point is important - sometimes a society's rules are unjust and unfair and the people living with that society (or at least some of them) believe them to be so. In that situation, helping the people in that society to change their society in a way that *they* want to change it because you agree with them is fine. But the decision to make the changes is one that should come from within the society itself. *If* there were signs that the Wizarding World had a major problem with the way Legilemency was being used, by all means I'd want to see changes and controls. But I can't see any evidence that this is considered an important issue in Wizarding society. *If* there were signs that Harry Potter felt he'd suffered some significant personal violation because he'd been subjected to Legilemency by Snape, then I'd certainly understand thinking this was an important issue that needed to be addressed as a matter of justice. But to me, it looks very much like the existence of Legilemency is treated as a 'non-issue' in Wizarding society. People do not seem to care that much that some people have these powers. Harry does not react to the idea that Snape has some ability to read his mind with horror or disgust or terror or fear. Alla: > As I mentioned to Pippin, I am most certainly judging WW from > the position of outsider but also because I believe the book hints that > a lot of moral and legal norms in WW are changing and need to be changing. Shaun: I agree that there are some moral and legal norms in the Wizarding World that are changing and some that need to change. *But* I also believe that the ones that *need* to be changed are the ones that are clearly presented to us as facing opposition by people within the society. For example, the status of centaurs (and others) as having less rights that human wizards. Being creatures of 'near Human intelligence'. It is very clear that the centaurs do have a problem with this. Would I support the centaurs in changing this? Absolutely. Because they have decided for themselves that they want the change. Self determination. With house-elves, it's clear that many, many house-elves think the current status quo where they are virtually slaves in something they want to continue. Do I believe slavery is wrong? Absolutely - but if the house-elves themselves do not agree, then I don't believe it's my right to impose my views on them. Now there are exceptions to this rule like Dobby who is happy to be a free-elf, and again, I would support the right of any elf to be free, if they choose to. But they also must have the right to make the other choice - the choice I do not agree with - otherwise it isn't a choice, just a new form of slavery. You must do what I say and not what you want to do because I know better than you. Back to legilemency - show me signs that the Wizarding World has a problem with this, and I'd support changes. But all I can see is a sign that it is generally accepted that some people have these powers. Alla: > When you for example read "1984" surely you judged that society from the > position of your moral/legal norm and found that society wanting? Shaun: Yes, I did. But there's a couple of differences there. The first is that Orwell *specifically* wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four as a critique of society - JKR does criticise some aspects of the Wizarding World in her books, but that isn't their primary purpose in my view. But more significantly, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the whole point of the story is that we see the world through the eyes of Winston Smith as he personally comes to identify the problems in his society. We know there are people in the society who disagree with the way it is functioning. And we are also shown at the end that the people in that society do *not* have free will. That they can be broken. That they can be brainwashed. But I don't see that as being true of the Wizarding World at all. We see that Wizards *are* capable of resistance when they face a foe that they believe needs to be resisted - Lord Voldemort and his puppet ministry. We know that these people will fight and die to change their society when they believe that is necessary. Alla: > Surely > as I gave example above when you are reading a book where people rape > each other left and right and are very happy doing so and it is > perfectly acceptable, you would at least question how good the societal > order in that fictional society is? Shaun: If I believed that the people weren't free to make that choice, I would. But if they were free to make that choice, I'd have to conclude that the book was either very badly written and nonsense (assuming the author couldn't convince me that he or she had come up with a consistent world) or that the author is some sort of genius (if they could). Alla: > To go back to Potterverse, I take it you dont agree with the way Sirius > Black's case was handled despite most of Wizarding Society was fine and > dandy with it? Same way as I am not okay with the way Snape and > Dumbledore use legilimency on Harry. Shaun: No, I'm not. Primarily because Sirius himself makes it clear that he didn't get a trial and when he does so, Harry, Ron, and Hermione all make it clear that they believe this was wrong. Sirius also describes in quite a lot of detail, the terror and fear that existed at that time and how it lead to the Wizarding World doing things in a way it didn't normally do them. He also makes it clear that while Barty Crouch had some supporters, there wasn't universal support for his methods. People within the society itself objected to what was going on. You say 'most of Wizarding Society was fine and dandy with it.' Were they? Even Sirius doesn't say it was most - just plenty and a lot. > Alla: > > Yes, but I do not have to agree with that. Harry had every right to > decide for himself that he forgave Dumbledore and Snape. I think he is a > Saint for doing so and dont agree with him. Shaun: See, this is where I think we have a disconnect. I don't believe Harry ever forgave Dumbledore or Snape about anything major. I don't see any sign that he believes that either of them did anything dramatically wrong that needs forgiving. Harry *believed* Snape to have done some wrong things but he turns out to have been mistaken in most of those beliefs once he knows the truth. He believes Dumbledore made some mistakes (particularly in how much he told him at times) but overall Harry believes Dumbledore to have acted correctly. Harry *isn't* a saint (not for that, anyway - I view his final confontation with Voldemort where he tries to get Voldemort to show some remorse as the only thing that will give him any chance of recovering anything of value as an act of great humanity), he just doesn't see them as having done much wrong in the first place. You seem to me to be in a bit of a circular situation. You believe Snape to be 'evil' (for want of a better word) and that predisposes you to seeing everything he does in the worst possible light, and because of that, it becomes further evidence that Snape is evil... I'm not saying I'm not doing a similar thing. I am, to an extent, deliberately trying to look at Snape's actions in the best possible light. I look at what he does and try to see if I can come up with what I consider to be a reasonable explanation for what he's doing. Am I saying my interpretations are always correct? No. I'm deliberately trying not to say that. I am not saying Snape is a man who does everything for the best of reasons and that he's an ideal teacher when I point out that from a teacher's perspective I think a particular thing he does can be justified. I am just saying that this is a *possible* interpretation. But I believe in two important concepts here - the benefit of the doubt, and that a person is innocent until *proven* guilty. So if there is a possible 'good' interpretation, that's the one that I think should be considered the explanation unless somebody can present some real evidence to disprove it, or to doubt it. We shouldn't assume guilt or ill intent when an alternative explanation exists. > Alla: > > I am leaving this quote in, because I want to apologize. When somebody > starts to quote extensively, I feel that I ought to as well, but I do > not have time and/or desire to quote OOP, since most of the book makes > me really really angry. Also I am typing it before leaving for work, so > please forgive me. I trust you will take my word for it that when/if you > will bring the quote I forgot and which will contradict something from > my argument, I will tell you so and concede stuff. Shaun: Of course, I will take your word for it. And I can certainly understand both a lack of time to type (I'm using less quotes myself today for that reason) or desire to do so. I do this when I can, because *for me*, putting down the quote is an important part of my thinking process. Not everyone finds that necessary or desirable. Alla: > So,about this quote, yes Harry is told to participate, but you earlier > argued that he consented by nature of him participating, no? Shaun: Yes, to an extent, I did, but on further consideration, I think it's more accurate to say Harry cooperated with the Occlumency classes rather than actually consenting to them. He wasn't really offered a choice, he was told what to do. He just decided not to make it difficult by cooperating. Alla: > Because I still think that he consented by staying, and my earlier > question stands - do you think that if he would have run away screaming > no, no, no Snape would have forced him? I think he gave at least implied > consent here. Shaun: Letting a student disobey you because there are practical reasons why forcing them to do something might not be desirable isn't really the same thing as saying that they weren't expected to do it in the first place. The fact you are able to disobey does not mean that obedience is consent. > Alla: > > I find it hardest to justify not because of rule breaking and of course > I remember that Lupin ripped Harry a new one, but because I do not > believe that Snape was looking for a signs of new danger, if he did then > sure it was justified, but if he was only looking for signs of past > transgression - not justified in my book. Shaun: As I say, I find that interpretation interesting, and honestly rather confusing. I'm finding it difficult to get my head around how you could think that. The incident in Hogsmeade has *just* happened a few minutes earlier. Draco saw Harry in Hogsmeade and immediately ran up to the school to tell Snape. Snape locates Harry within seconds of Harry re-entering the school. This is not a 'past transgression'. This is an act of breaking school rules that is being dealt with as rapidly as it is humanly possible for a teacher *to* deal with it. Unless you think teachers should either detect pre-crime and deal with misbehaviour in advance (ala Minority Report) or should let students get away with everything unless they catch them in the act, it couldn't possibly have been handled any more quickly without a Time Turner. Secondly, I think it is very clear that Snape is concerned about Harry's safety as the reason why this particular rule is important. "Everyone from the Minister for Magic downwards has been trying to keep famous Harry Potter safe from Sirius Black. But famous Harry Potter is a law unto himself. Let the ordinary people worry about his safety! Famous Harry Potter goes where he wants to, with no thought for the consequences.'" I think the main concern is Harry's safety - but even if it was just dealing with breaking the rules, it's just happened. He's been caught as he comes back into the school. > Alla: > > Again, leaving this piece in, because I find this quote extremely > unpersuasive and contradictory to other evidence we have. Yes, they say > Legilimency is not mind reading, however Snape does not seem to have a > problem to notice everything he needs to note, flashes or not, when > Harry is unable to resist of course. Whose dog was it, remember? Shaun: OK, this is where I have a real issue with your argument. You are assuming that Snape is lying when he gives us the ONLY detailed description of what Legilemency is. The only time the author takes the opportunity to give us the details of a matter that is of major importance to the story she is telling us (she devotes large sections of a number of chapters to it) she has the character giving us the explanation *lie* to us. From a literary perspective that doesn't make much sense at all. Nor does it make sense to me from Snape's perspective. He is teaching Harry something of critical importance to preserving the safety of the entire Wizarding World - a world that Snape is risking his life to protect (for whatever reason) and he's going to lie to the boy. Never mind the Wizarding World - Snape is personally at risk of death if Voldemort ever decides that he isn't on his side. But secondly, the example you give here, to me, is an illustration that Snape can't read everything Harry is thinking. If he could why would he have to ask whose dog it was? He should have already known. Alla: > He sees the door, he sees anything he wants. Shaun: Please show us some evidence for this, because I really can't see it. In particular, I can't see any evidence at all that he sees the door (I'm assuming you mean the door in the Department of Mysteries) but even if he did, Harry thinks of that door constantly during their lessons - if Snape did see it, why not in a flash. If Snape could read Harry's mind, I'd expect to see some sort of clear evidence of him knowing so many things throughout the series that there's no sign at all that he knows. Personally, the explanation that makes most sense to me is that Snape can do what he describes Voldemort as being able to do - know if somebody is lying to him. But not necessarily knowing what the truth is. But I'm open to evidence that shows him using knowledge that must have come from Legilemency or similar. Again, I go back to the examples I gave previously of the times we might suspect Snape used legilemency on Harry. Example 1 - when Harry, Ron, and Hermione have fought the troll. If Snape was able to read Harry's mind like a book on that occasion, why does he have no idea that Harry and the others know about Fluffy? Example 2 - after that incident, if Snape was able to read Harry's mind, he should definitely know that Harry and the others are aware of the existence of the Philosopher's stone. Example 3 - not really relevant. Snape pretty much already knows all about what has happened there, as it is all over the Daily Prophet. Example 4 - if Dumbledore and Snape were able to know what Harry and the others were thinking they'd have known that Harry was hearing strange voices that others couldn't. Again, no sign that they work this out. Example 5 - at this point when Snape has found out Harry is a Parseltongue, if he had gained knowledge at four, I think he probably could have worked out Harry was hearing a snake of some sort. No evidence at all that he does. Example 6 - if Snape could read Harry's mind, he'd know they were making Polyjuice potion and why. Again, no sign that he knows. Example 7 is the clearest of all though in my view. The incident with the Marauder's Map. In Snape could read Harry's thoughts, he'd have known it *was* a map. He'd also have known how to use it. He wouldn't have had to try and cast spells to make it reveal its secret. Examples 8 and 9, are part of the same incident, but once we get to 10, we have another important example. Snape *wrongly* thinks Harry and his friends have been stealing ingredients from his stores again. They haven't been (it's Crouch/Moody and Dobby). If Snape could read Harry's mind, he'd know Harry and his friends weren't the ones stealing the ingredients for polyjuice potion. Alla: > In other words, yes, this > quote notwithstanding I think he sees stuff in Harry's head, any stuff > in Harry's head he wants, when other does not resist. Shaun: Looking at every example we have, I can't see any sign that Snape can do more than tell whether Harry is lying or telling the truth. And certainly no indication that there is mind reading involved. If you can show us an example which shows otherwise I would like to see it. > Shawn: > > Bear in mind that if Legilemency really did allow you to read somebody's > > mind, would the Wizarding World have so many cases where innocent people > > are locked up in Azkaban, and guilty people are able to lie their way > > out of it? > > Alla: > > Good question. I believe Dumbledore did not use legillimency on Sirius > because he wanted him in Azkaban, and when he talked to Sirius, dont you > think he did use it? I think Pippin argued extensively at one time why > they dont want to use Legilimency to determine innocence. Not that I > like it mind you. Shaun: Why would Dumbledore *want* Sirius in Azkaban? I know Dumbledore can be positively Machiavellian at times more concerned with ends than means, but he would have to have a *reason* for wanting Sirius locked up if he did. Some plan involved. More significantly, why would he want the guilty party to escape? I don't know if Dumbledore ever tried to use Legiliemency on Sirius. But Sirius was mad with grief and that may well have made him hard to read as one possible explanation > Alla: > > And still they see the things in child's mind, very specific things, > flashes or not. Shaun: 'Flashes or not' is at the core of things to me. If all they see is flashes, they are not reading the mind in a way that I consider at all invasive. The degree to which this is done is important. Alla: I snipped your examples of real life teachers, but just > wanted to say that you misunderstood me, sorry for being unclear. I know > that teachers in some schools (or in many schools, I am not sure whether > all private schools here allow it) are required to search students and > in some instances I sure find it justified, but just as you brought the > real life case, I thought I remembered the real life case where > student's privacy was violated and parents brought it to court and won. > I thought that there were more than one situations when parents brought > it to court if not won, so people do not necessarily think that > teacher's right to search trumps any right students have. If I find the > link, I will send it to you. Shaun: But I believe you are talking about American cases (I have noticed your later message (and I have noticed your post to OT-Chatter on this as well) and I am actually familiar with the case you posted about. The US Supreme Court did rule that that that *particular* search was unjustified, basically because there was no evidence any other students were in danger - basically strip searching a child would be legal in a case where a real danger existed to others, but in this particular case, there was no such danger) and they really aren't relevant to the point I am trying to make. As I said in an earlier message, the doctrine of in loco parentis is not as important and significant in American education as it is in British and Commonwealth education. That's because America has a competing doctrine, also in place, called the parental liberty doctrine (also called parens patriae, but for some reason this one is more often given in English) which often overrules in loco parentis (in loco parentis says a teacher can function as a parent, parental liberty says an actual parent can deny them that power). In America, teachers generally do not have the same powers and duties in law as they have in the UK. That's a fact, but it means examples from the US aren't that helpful here. America does not have the right to impose its cultural values on other countries, in my view. just because they are different. And by the same token, Muggle society shouldn't try and impose its cultural values on the Wizarding World just because they are different. And we should be very careful about doing the same. We do not *know* what doctrine applies in the Wizarding World - but I think it is reasonable to assume that practice at Hogwarts is more likely to be closer to British practice than American practice, and especially to historical British practice. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 16:32:08 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:32:08 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: <4F05774C.8090106@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191706 > Shaun: > > Because it doesn't seem to value other people's opinions. I have the > right to decide for myself whether or not I'm being oppressed, for > example. If I am comfortable living within particular rules in my > society (say a rule that says I can't cut my hair, which is a rule some > cultures have for males), or that I must wear a particular item of > clothing, or that I must work on one particular day a week, or that I > must pay my Church a certain amount of my money each week, or any one of > hundreds of other potential rules that may exist in a particular > society, I believe I have the right to expect you to respect my choices > and not try and force me to accept yours as being more important than my > own. I do not believe you have the right to impose your personal moral > codes on me or my society when I and my society are happy with those codes. Alla: I know I am stating the obvious, but I am not obligated to respect the opinions of fictional characters, only real people. I mean, I often do respect the opinions of fictional characters as much as it is possible anyway, but I do not think I am obligated to do so. And even in the real world, while I would certainly respect somebody's right to not consider themselves oppressed, I still have a right to think of them as otherwise in my mind. But believe me, in the real world, I would advocate vigorously that nobody has a right to "free" people who do not think they want to be freed from tyranny or any other things. However, I will reserve the right to think of their situation as I please, but think not to act upon it of course. I am snipping everything else, because hopefully it explains how I feel. Shawn: > *If* there were signs that the Wizarding World had a major problem with > the way Legilemency was being used, by all means I'd want to see changes > and controls. But I can't see any evidence that this is considered an > important issue in Wizarding society. *If* there were signs that Harry > Potter felt he'd suffered some significant personal violation because > he'd been subjected to Legilemency by Snape, then I'd certainly > understand thinking this was an important issue that needed to be > addressed as a matter of justice. But to me, it looks very much like the > existence of Legilemency is treated as a 'non-issue' in Wizarding > society. People do not seem to care that much that some people have > these powers. Harry does not react to the idea that Snape has some > ability to read his mind with horror or disgust or terror or fear. Alla: People in the Wizarding Society do not seem to care much how they treat muggle born students and muggles (except selected few of course and even they imo often act condescending and arrogant), Headmaster of Hogwarts (supposedly one of the most progressive ones) thinks it is all right to put all his hopes for defeat of Lord Voldemort into whether eleven year old boy will be raised in the mindset which will make him agree to sacrifice himself on the altar of WW, Headmaster of said Hogwarts thinks it is totally all right to allow Severus Snape who hates the sight of Harry Potter to teach him and protect his life. Forgive me if I will not put too much stake into what people of WW think needs to be changed in their world. Besides, I do not think anybody said that Legilimency does not need to be regulated either. Silence to me allows for even more vigorous speculation. > > Alla: > > > As I mentioned to Pippin, I am most certainly judging WW from > > the position of outsider but also because I believe the book hints that > > a lot of moral and legal norms in WW are changing and need to be changing. > > Shaun: > > I agree that there are some moral and legal norms in the Wizarding World > that are changing and some that need to change. *But* I also believe > that the ones that *need* to be changed are the ones that are clearly > presented to us as facing opposition by people within the society. Alla: And I disagree with that, so maybe we do disagree on more basical premises of this discussion that I thought. I think there is plenty of symbolism to show us that WW needs drastic change and not every single need for change is spelled out. For example, IMO there is a reason that so many more people from older generation are killed at the end than the younger generation, IMO this is one of the symbolic signs that JKR wanted to eradicate a lot of what older generation was about and allow young people to shake the WW to the core. Of course we have Fawkes, who dissappears at the end of HBP, for me it was always a symbolic sign that WW would need to be reborn from ashes and him dissappearing and not showing up in the last book for me was a sign that such change is already happening in the real and no symbol is needed. Shawn: > For example, the status of centaurs (and others) as having less rights > that human wizards. Being creatures of 'near Human intelligence'. It is > very clear that the centaurs do have a problem with this. Would I > support the centaurs in changing this? Absolutely. Because they have > decided for themselves that they want the change. Self determination. > > With house-elves, it's clear that many, many house-elves think the > current status quo where they are virtually slaves in something they > want to continue. Do I believe slavery is wrong? Absolutely - but if the > house-elves themselves do not agree, then I don't believe it's my right > to impose my views on them. Now there are exceptions to this rule like > Dobby who is happy to be a free-elf, and again, I would support the > right of any elf to be free, if they choose to. But they also must have > the right to make the other choice - the choice I do not agree with - > otherwise it isn't a choice, just a new form of slavery. You must do > what I say and not what you want to do because I know better than you. Alla: Ah see, I will absolutely support the rights of elves to be slaves, but I will not think of them as anything else BUT slaves and will not think of it any less distasteful in my head. I also thought that the end actually did not preclude the possibility for a change and Dobby the free elf may have been an example for future elves, but I wont argue that the end clearly shown that rest of the elves wanted to be slaves (I was going back and forth on this issue before). Shawn: > Back to legilemency - show me signs that the Wizarding World has a > problem with this, and I'd support changes. But all I can see is a sign > that it is generally accepted that some people have these powers. Alla: I do not see acceptance or not acceptance actually, I do not see people reacting with outrage, but I do not see Harry being happy about it (including the lessons) either. > > Alla: > > > When you for example read "1984" surely you judged that society from the > > position of your moral/legal norm and found that society wanting? > > Shaun: > > Yes, I did. But there's a couple of differences there. The first is that > Orwell *specifically* wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four as a critique of > society - JKR does criticise some aspects of the Wizarding World in her > books, but that isn't their primary purpose in my view. Alla: And I disagree with it. I mean I think she did not write political tractat, she wrote a journey of the boy to save the world from evil but IMO a lot of this world needs to be destroyed too before it can be saved. Shawn: >But more > significantly, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the whole point of the story is > that we see the world through the eyes of Winston Smith as he personally > comes to identify the problems in his society. We know there are people > in the society who disagree with the way it is functioning. > > And we are also shown at the end that the people in that society do > *not* have free will. That they can be broken. That they can be > brainwashed. But I don't see that as being true of the Wizarding World > at all. We see that Wizards *are* capable of resistance when they face a > foe that they believe needs to be resisted - Lord Voldemort and his > puppet ministry. We know that these people will fight and die to change > their society when they believe that is necessary. Alla: People in the WW can not be broken and brainwashed? What about Imperio? What about Crucio? What are those if not the tools for brainwashing and torture? And I can tell you from very extensive personal experience, people in the totalitarian society can be very happy if they dont know things could be any better or just because they ARE happy with the way things are. I am sure you have seen on TV people crying when korean dictator died, and I can tell you while not from personal experiense but from my grandparents' experience, people crying when Stalin died happened in reality. So what if POV character in 1984 is indeed broken at the end and left as a shell of himself? Shouldnt we be happy for people who could be happy with the way things are? I mean I am being a little sarcastic here of course, but you get my point, I do not see any difference in you (and me) judging the society of 1984 and me judging and finding WW wanting on many things. > > Alla: > > > Surely > > as I gave example above when you are reading a book where people rape > > each other left and right and are very happy doing so and it is > > perfectly acceptable, you would at least question how good the societal > > order in that fictional society is? > > Shaun: > > If I believed that the people weren't free to make that choice, I would. > But if they were free to make that choice, I'd have to conclude that the > book was either very badly written and nonsense (assuming the author > couldn't convince me that he or she had come up with a consistent world) > or that the author is some sort of genius (if they could). Alla: Then we will just have to agree to disagree. I really cant come up with any other response. > > Alla: > > > To go back to Potterverse, I take it you dont agree with the way Sirius > > Black's case was handled despite most of Wizarding Society was fine and > > dandy with it? Same way as I am not okay with the way Snape and > > Dumbledore use legilimency on Harry. > > Shaun: > > No, I'm not. Primarily because Sirius himself makes it clear that he > didn't get a trial and when he does so, Harry, Ron, and Hermione all > make it clear that they believe this was wrong. Sirius also describes in > quite a lot of detail, the terror and fear that existed at that time and > how it lead to the Wizarding World doing things in a way it didn't > normally do them. He also makes it clear that while Barty Crouch had > some supporters, there wasn't universal support for his methods. > > People within the society itself objected to what was going on. You say > 'most of Wizarding Society was fine and dandy with it.' Were they? Even > Sirius doesn't say it was most - just plenty and a lot. Alla: See, I think they were fine and dandy with it. Simply because nobody said anything about it, nobody questioned it, not even Sirius' guilt (even though as I said many times that I thought Dumbledore should have at least tried to check more), but how his case was handled. Of course the victim of injustice thinks (correctly IMO) that it was wrong and of course Harry and Ron and Hermione think it was wrong. After all these three are agents of change, after all high and mighty Dumbledore even deemed that Harry can share his mission with them, so yes I do not find it surprising that they think in more progressive terms than most of WW (maybe couple other people). > > > Alla: > > > > Yes, but I do not have to agree with that. Harry had every right to > > decide for himself that he forgave Dumbledore and Snape. I think he is a > > Saint for doing so and dont agree with him. > > Shaun: > > See, this is where I think we have a disconnect. I don't believe Harry > ever forgave Dumbledore or Snape about anything major. I don't see any > sign that he believes that either of them did anything dramatically > wrong that needs forgiving. Alla: We have a disagreement here, not a disconnect. >> Alla: > > > So,about this quote, yes Harry is told to participate, but you earlier > > argued that he consented by nature of him participating, no? > > Shaun: > > Yes, to an extent, I did, but on further consideration, I think it's > more accurate to say Harry cooperated with the Occlumency classes rather > than actually consenting to them. He wasn't really offered a choice, he > was told what to do. He just decided not to make it difficult by > cooperating. Alla: So just to be clear, you think that if he refused, Snape would have forced him? Quite possible, but we would never know. > > Alla: > >> > > Alla: > > > > I find it hardest to justify not because of rule breaking and of course > > I remember that Lupin ripped Harry a new one, but because I do not > > believe that Snape was looking for a signs of new danger, if he did then > > sure it was justified, but if he was only looking for signs of past > > transgression - not justified in my book. > > Shaun: > > As I say, I find that interpretation interesting, and honestly rather > confusing. I'm finding it difficult to get my head around how you could > think that. > > The incident in Hogsmeade has *just* happened a few minutes earlier. > Draco saw Harry in Hogsmeade and immediately ran up to the school to > tell Snape. Snape locates Harry within seconds of Harry re-entering the > school. This is not a 'past transgression'. This is an act of breaking > school rules that is being dealt with as rapidly as it is humanly > possible for a teacher *to* deal with it. Unless you think teachers > should either detect pre-crime and deal with misbehaviour in advance > (ala Minority Report) or should let students get away with everything > unless they catch them in the act, it couldn't possibly have been > handled any more quickly without a Time Turner. Alla: I was not talking about the speed, I most definitely was not talking about letting Harry getting away with anything, I support and applaud Remus' lecture later on and think that Harry fully deserved that lecture and more. I was trying to say that unless Snape was trying to prevent further rule breaking or further danger, to me mind invasion is not an appropriate way of dealing with it. I am not asking you to agree and I dont particularly have anything to debate on this particular point, just want to make myself clear, while I am happy to agree that I can see where you are coming from calling this justified to prevent further danger, I can never agree that such method is appropriate to punish for something that already happened. Shawn: > Secondly, I think it is very clear that Snape is concerned about Harry's > safety as the reason why this particular rule is important. > > "Everyone from the Minister for Magic downwards has been trying to keep > famous Harry Potter safe from Sirius Black. But famous Harry Potter is a > law unto himself. Let the ordinary people worry about his safety! Famous > Harry Potter goes where he wants to, with no thought for the consequences.'" > > I think the main concern is Harry's safety - but even if it was just > dealing with breaking the rules, it's just happened. He's been caught as > he comes back into the school. Alla: Aha, but what could be concern for his safety here? To make sure he does not sneak out again right now? See I think I am missing something here. > > > Alla: > > > > Again, leaving this piece in, because I find this quote extremely > > unpersuasive and contradictory to other evidence we have. Yes, they say > > Legilimency is not mind reading, however Snape does not seem to have a > > problem to notice everything he needs to note, flashes or not, when > > Harry is unable to resist of course. Whose dog was it, remember? > > Shaun: > > OK, this is where I have a real issue with your argument. You are > assuming that Snape is lying when he gives us the ONLY detailed > description of what Legilemency is. The only time the author takes the > opportunity to give us the details of a matter that is of major > importance to the story she is telling us (she devotes large sections of > a number of chapters to it) she has the character giving us the > explanation *lie* to us. From a literary perspective that doesn't make > much sense at all. Nor does it make sense to me from Snape's > perspective. He is teaching Harry something of critical importance to > preserving the safety of the entire Wizarding World - a world that Snape > is risking his life to protect (for whatever reason) and he's going to > lie to the boy. Never mind the Wizarding World - Snape is personally at > risk of death if Voldemort ever decides that he isn't on his side. > > But secondly, the example you give here, to me, is an illustration that > Snape can't read everything Harry is thinking. If he could why would he > have to ask whose dog it was? He should have already known. Alla: Maybe here we have the disconnect indeed, because I do not think Snape is lying, I just think that this IS the description of mind reading. Does it make sense? Snape says it is flashes, but he sees stuff what is happening in Harry's mind, flashes or not, and I do not see the sign that there is stuff Snape just cannot see, period, if subject is not resisting. When Harry is resisting, Snape is sometimes having trouble, sure, but I do not see that there is stuff that he just cannot see because of what Legilimency is. > > Alla: > > > He sees the door, he sees anything he wants. > > Shaun: > > Please show us some evidence for this, because I really can't see it. > > In particular, I can't see any evidence at all that he sees the door > (I'm assuming you mean the door in the Department of Mysteries) but even > if he did, Harry thinks of that door constantly during their lessons - > if Snape did see it, why not in a flash. > > If Snape could read Harry's mind, I'd expect to see some sort of clear > evidence of him knowing so many things throughout the series that > there's no sign at all that he knows. Personally, the explanation that > makes most sense to me is that Snape can do what he describes Voldemort > as being able to do - know if somebody is lying to him. But not > necessarily knowing what the truth is. But I'm open to evidence that > shows him using knowledge that must have come from Legilemency or similar. Alla: To me the best example that one can theoretically see anything in Legilimency is Snape removing his memories in the pensieve. If those are just flashes, why would Snape be concerned? Unless you subscribe to evil school of thought that Snape was deliberately setting Harry up, but I suspect not ;) Shawn: > Again, I go back to the examples I gave previously of the times we might > suspect Snape used legilemency on Harry. > > Example 1 - when Harry, Ron, and Hermione have fought the troll. If > Snape was able to read Harry's mind like a book on that occasion, why > does he have no idea that Harry and the others know about Fluffy? > > Example 2 - after that incident, if Snape was able to read Harry's mind, > he should definitely know that Harry and the others are aware of the > existence of the Philosopher's stone. Alla: But do we know that he did not know? I mean yes, he should have acted a certain way if he did, but really, I think that the argument that Dumbledore deliberately set it up as training lesson for Harry (leaving for the ministry, really) has a very strong merit, because Harry telling his friends that Dumbledore let him face Voldemort does not sound to me as eleven year old, but as JKR breaking the silence and talking directly to the readers. SHawn: Example 4 - if Dumbledore and Snape were able to know what Harry and the > others were thinking they'd have known that Harry was hearing strange > voices that others couldn't. Again, no sign that they work this out. Alla: Unless they did and Dumbledore again wanted Harry to be trained and do it on his own. I am snipping 4-6 since to me they could be part of the same pattern. Snape: > Example 7 is the clearest of all though in my view. The incident with > the Marauder's Map. In Snape could read Harry's thoughts, he'd have > known it *was* a map. He'd also have known how to use it. He wouldn't > have had to try and cast spells to make it reveal its secret. Alla: I dont know. Maybe he did not have time to dive too deep, but more likely to me is that he was toying with Lupin, because whether he knew that this was a map, he certainly seemed to be very familiar with the nicknames. > Alla: > > > In other words, yes, this > > quote notwithstanding I think he sees stuff in Harry's head, any stuff > > in Harry's head he wants, when other does not resist. > > Shaun: > > Looking at every example we have, I can't see any sign that Snape can do > more than tell whether Harry is lying or telling the truth. And > certainly no indication that there is mind reading involved. If you can > show us an example which shows otherwise I would like to see it. Alla: I definitely think I am missing something, or maybe it is a language disconnect (I thought I outgrew those lol), to me seeing stuff what Harry did or was thinking about is mind reading. What do you think Snape sees? >> Shaun: > > Why would Dumbledore *want* Sirius in Azkaban? I know Dumbledore can be > positively Machiavellian at times more concerned with ends than means, > but he would have to have a *reason* for wanting Sirius locked up if he > did. Some plan involved. More significantly, why would he want the > guilty party to escape? Alla: Oh I can talk about for a long time, but I do not think it is unreasonable to speculate that Dumbledore did not want Sirius to influence Harry's upbringing at all, Harry may have become too independent, god forbid and may have refused to go along with Dumbledore's plans, note that when Sirius escapes he has no choice but to go far away, again almost no contact with Harry. >> Shaun: > > 'Flashes or not' is at the core of things to me. If all they see is > flashes, they are not reading the mind in a way that I consider at all > invasive. The degree to which this is done is important. Alla: OOOOOO, Okay, I see, finally, so we agree that he sees things, you just disagree on the degree of intrusiveness. >> Shaun: > > But I believe you are talking about American cases (I have noticed your > later message (and I have noticed your post to OT-Chatter on this as > well) and I am actually familiar with the case you posted about. America does not have the right to impose its cultural values on other > countries, in my view. just because they are different. > > And by the same token, Muggle society shouldn't try and impose its > cultural values on the Wizarding World just because they are different. > > And we should be very careful about doing the same. > > We do not *know* what doctrine applies in the Wizarding World - but I > think it is reasonable to assume that practice at Hogwarts is more > likely to be closer to British practice than American practice, and > especially to historical British practice. > Alla: Okay, hopefully I left in the quotes relevant to my reply. Um,actually I spoke about american cases (of course since this is where I am living now), because I felt that you may have unadvertendly been doing the similar thing (not about imposition of values, but something close, please see below) and I felt the need to post that no, it is not the same everywhere as in Australia and UK. Basically what I am trying to say is that I agree with your last sentence - we dont know what doctrine applies in WW and before you say it, yes, I know that JKR is British :) and that a lot of things in Hogwarts are done based on how British private schools are run or were run. However, having said it, I maintain that we cannot be sure what inspired the artist to write any specific thing in her stories. Yes, Hogwarts could mostly be done based on British private schools, but it is not a documentary about how British school was run, right? So I think that for example on any given day JKR may have been reading a newspaper about schools in New York or Sweeden or China, and that specific thing may have found its place in Hogwarts world. You may have decide for yourself that teachers in Hogwarts are modeled based on teachers in Britain and by extension in Australia and I may decide for myself that for example when Molly talks in GoF about Dumbledore abandoning beating (caning? or was it just chaning students in the dungeon that Filtch liked to do?) JKR was not thinking about British practices, she was thinking about New York that expressly forbids the teachers to hit the child, period and maybe that was her inspiration to write that Dumbledore abandoned physical punishments. Please note that even though I keep talking about New York, the last thing I have in mind is the imposition of american values lol, it is just where I live now and what my colleague was telling me, so rather than speculating, I want to use the information right now. I could have used any country, any school practices just as well. Oy, thanks for listening if anybody is still reading it. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 17:33:33 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:33:33 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191707 > > > Nikkalmati > > > > > > Ooh. Not exactly sure what you mean about Harry learns to frame what is happening to him - as he appears to drop all references to any suspicions he was being legilimized secretly. I was trying to say once he found out what it was really like (instead of relying on rumors from the Twins) he knew nothing was going on. > Alla: Ah I see, thanks. In my view, Snape simply stopped doing it. But anyway I was looking at the Lexicon, and I think I found Voldemort using Legilimency on unsuspecting Harry, but I thought I knew of another example, maybe not, anyway, tell me do you think when Voldemort asks Harry to give him a stone from his pocket, has he not using Legilimency here in your opinion? From andy.mills at btinternet.com Thu Jan 5 19:36:21 2012 From: andy.mills at btinternet.com (Andy Mills) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:36:21 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F05FBB5.9020707@btinternet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191708 >>>> Nikkalmati >>>> >> Ooh. Not exactly sure what you mean about Harry learns to frame what is happening to him - as he appears to drop all references to any suspicions he was being legilimized secretly. I was trying to say once he found out what it was really like (instead of relying on rumors from the Twins) he knew nothing was going on. >> > Alla: > > Ah I see, thanks. In my view, Snape simply stopped doing it. But anyway I was looking at the Lexicon, and I think I found Voldemort using Legilimency on unsuspecting Harry, but I thought I knew of another example, maybe not, anyway, tell me do you think when Voldemort asks Harry to give him a stone from his pocket, has he not using Legilimency here in your opinion? > I think LV was using legilimency on Gregoravich in DH. It was when Harry was observing what LV was doing and he saw the young thief, who turned out to be Grindelwald, stealing the wand from Gregoravich. Can't think of any other instances at the moment but there could well have been more similar situations, am reading the series again at the moment so may come across them again over the next few weeks. AJM From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 5 22:23:56 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:23:56 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191709 > > Aha, but what could be concern for his safety here? To make sure he does not sneak out again right now? See I think I am missing something here. Pippin: Harry has just secretly gotten out of school. More to the point, he has just secretly gotten *in*. That's not supposed to be possible. The school is surrounded with dementors and every precaution has been taken against unauthorized entry. If Harry can get in undetected, so can Sirius, whom everyone including Harry believes to be a murderer. For all Snape knows, Sirius himself is in the school at that very moment just waiting for another chance. Snape is trying to find out if Harry could have got the map from Sirius -- if so it could have some kind of curse on it -- thus his questions about "directly from the manufacturers" and "full of dark magic". If he recognizes the nicknames, Snape must know that Lupin's "looks to me like a Zonko's product" is a bare-faced lie. The two men are speaking in a kind of code, since neither wants Harry to know about Sirius's relationship to his family. Pippin > > Alla: > > Maybe here we have the disconnect indeed, because I do not think Snape is lying, I just think that this IS the description of mind reading. Does it make sense? Snape says it is flashes, but he sees stuff what is happening in Harry's mind, flashes or not, and I do not see the sign that there is stuff Snape just cannot see, period, if subject is not resisting. When Harry is resisting, Snape is sometimes having trouble, sure, but I do not see that there is stuff that he just cannot see because of what Legilimency is. Pippin: We have a description from Harry's point of view when he reverses Snape's spell with Protego: "and suddenly Harry's mind was teeming with memories that were not his: a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner...a greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his wand at the ceiling, shooting down flies...a girl was laughing as a scrawny boy tried to mount a bucking broomstick--" This is not the kind of mind invasion you were describing. Harry has no access to Snape's thoughts and feelings and knows no detail about what he is seeing. He is seeing Snape's experiences from the outside, as if they were in a pensieve. "Teeming with memories" sounds as if other memories flashed by too quickly for Harry to see what they were about. Snape is a skilled occlumens and is probably doing some blocking so that Harry doesn't see secret conferences with Voldemort or memories of Lily. But he doesn't want Voldemort to know he can do that, so what Harry sees is probably typical of Snape's level of legilimency. Snape does have the ability to home in on a specific memory, as in HBP when he forces Harry to reveal the source of the Sectum Sempra spell. But Harry is very aware of what is happening, and there is certainly reason for a student in that situation to be searched. Snape does not take the opportunity to look around for other memories that would make Harry unhappy. As to why Snape hides some of his memories in the Pensieve, he's got to make Voldemort think he's a less accomplished occlumens than he really is, so Snape and Dumbledore are pretending that Snape can't be really sure of protecting his memories without help. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 23:27:13 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:27:13 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191710 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear Potioncat. > > Ok, if it's real next time it's cold and rainy cast an "impervious" spell over yourself (or whatever Hermione used to water-proof Harry's glasses) and leave the umbrella home and go in flip-flops. > > All of these things you name, "Never-Never-Land", "Oz" etc, are fictional constructs and have no hard reality. Their authors can spin what fables and fairy-tales they wish. But the world we live in does have reality and in fact is the only reality that the hypothetical fantasy worlds can exist in. That is through enactment of principles from that hypothetical construct here. > > ... > > Otto > Steve: No fictional worlds are not real, but we must treat them as if they are. Within that fantasy world, they are real, and to have a sense of realism to the reader, they must also have a reasonable internal logic. We analyse within the world of Harry Potter, which in the world of Harry Potter exists within the real world, if you can follow that. Vermon and Petunia are muggles, Vernon works for a company that make drills, not magical drills but muggle drills. That world has Prime Minister in charge of the muggle government. There policemen, firemen, doctors, lawyers, plumbers, dentists, and most icons of the muggle world. So, it is fair to fame that fictional world as if it were in the real world, just with the added bonus of magic among a select few. That is the only way to analyze this world, as if it were real. Now we still have the option of perspective to analyze with world from different angles. We can speculate and pontificate as if we were some one residing in that world, We can few it as the reader looking in form the outside. And we can straddle the middle ground. But unless we are specifically contrasting the real world vs the magical world, we do apply both the real world rules, and the magical world rules. Take Quidditch; what country in the world would let such a brutal game exist? Muggles, even if they could fly on brooms, would be slaughtered in that game. However, we also see that magical people have a very high resilience. That can tolerate battering and bruising that muggles simply can not. Hagrid was outrage by the idea that something as mundane as an alleged car crash could kill James and Lily, as an example. The world of Harry Potter does exist ... within the confines of the books. There it IS real, and there it has to have some degree of internal logic or we would have never believed it. Yes, there are several perspectives from which to approach our analysis of Harry Potter, but whether internal to the world or external, we must act and speak as if that world did exist. On the issue of abuse, certainly there are many who adamantly feel that there is 'abuse' everywhere, and within a certain context, they are right. But only within a certain context. Some feel that Harry was horrible and criminally abused by the Dursley's. But, Harry is a live, well, and unharmed, not his life isn't exactly pleasant. But there are kids who are abused in the most horrible and egregious manner in the world, and it seem unfair to those who are abused in the extreme to overuse that term when referring to Harry Potter. Harry is not dying, his spirit is not being crushed, he is not being physically damaged. Yes, with in a certain expanse of the definition of abuse, Harry was being abused; though I would be more inclined toward neglected, but not criminally so. There are always those who react in the extreme to everything in the wizarding world. As I have said before, to some Harry in an annoying little brad who puts himself and everyone else in danger by a total disregard for the rules. Some see the Twins as horrible bullies who need to be in jail, or at minimum placed under an ASBO. I strongly disagree with those people and we have had long discussions about degrees of behavior. Those holding that opinion seem entrenched, and so beyond a certain point, there is no point in arguing with them. As to the Occlumency lessons and similar subjects being discussed, I somewhat side with Shaun, we have to let the world itself show us the right and wrong of any one thing. If the fictional world, or some segment of it, is outraged by something, or if the story, as in the case of the Elves, points out an injustice to us, then we should be appropriately outraged. Let's take the case of Sirius Black, which has been discussed in depth before. Some are outraged by the lack of a fair trial, but let's remember that Sirius offered no defense or explanation. In fact, stricken with grief over the events, he essentially admitted to being responsible for James and Lily's death. How much of a trial do you need when the suspect confesses? Now that we know the whole story, we see the context of that seeming confession, yet within the wizard world, they haven't read the books yet, and they do not see the context we see. In their minds and eyes, he admitted to being responsible, and that seems reasonably to be a case closed, especially when Sirius never explains the context or offers any defense. The very fact that we can discuss these various things in so much detail and with so many dissenting opinions, demonstrated the complexity of that world and of JKR's writing. I worlds that are simplistic, they are far less intriguing, and far less discussion worthy, simply because the underlying world is drawn in such easy to understand black and white. Harry Potter, to some extent is morally ambiguous on many points JKR does not lay it out for us an a tidy cut and dried manner. Harry is not a heroic saint; he is flawed and broken, yet resilient and honest. The same is true of Snape, or Dumbledore, or the Twins, or Sirius, or any of the other characters or events. They are not tied up in pretty easy to understand moralistic bows, and that is what makes this world so realistic and interesting, far more interesting the much of the teen pap fodder that is foisted on young readers. With JKR, she doesn't paint the perfect picture for us, she doesn't give us all the tidy answer. If she did, we would have simply read the books and moved on. The fact that we are still discussing these events establishes that this if a morally and socially complex world with no easy answers. At least, in my not so humble but rambling opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 23:42:41 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:42:41 -0000 Subject: Occlumency - REDUX Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191711 I asked this question before in the other OCCLUMENCY discussion, and it got no response, though I think it is a fairly significant question. We see to series of events which are clearly stated as Legilimeny or are implied as possibly some type of Legilimency. 1.) The high degree and very specific ability of Voldemort to extract information and memories from people, and to know with certainty whether they are lying. When Harry shares these 'mind reading' events, it clearly see the memories that are being extracted. That is, because Harry see it, we assume that is also what Voldemort is seeing. 2.) The Legilimency/Occlumency lessons in which Harry is very aware of the memories that are being see by Snape. 3.) Those time when Harry merely feels that his mind is being read. That Snape or Dumbledore or who ever, and see his thoughts. Yet, this is no more than in intuitive feeling. So the question is - Can we assume that the degree to which Harry is aware of the information that is being read is in turn proportional to the depth of intrusion into his thoughts? In other words, because Harry only has an intuitive sense that his thoughts are being read, that in turn, the 'Reader' is probing no deeper than to get an intuitive sense of whether Harry is lying? We see in the Occlumency lessons that Harry is very aware of the thoughts that are being read. He shares those memories along with Snape. And is this one of the reasons why Legilimency is not a seeming big concern to the wizarding world. That people are aware when their minds are being probed, are equally aware of the degree to which they are being probed, and upon deep intrusion are aware of the thoughts and memories that are being read. Further, unless the "Reader", as in the case of Voldemort, is making a forced and brutal intrusion, the person being read, has the ability to stop the thoughts or memories, or close their mind? I do suspect that a casual intrusion as in a business deal, is more easy to stop than the brutal methods of intrusion used by Voldemort. So, again, for anyone who is interested - Can we assume that Harry's awareness of the intrusion and the thoughts being read is in proportion to the depth and intensity of the intrusion coming from the "Reader"? Just curious. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 6 00:22:26 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:22:26 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191712 Otto wrote: > Dear Potioncat. > > Ok, if it's real next time it's cold and rainy cast an "impervious" spell over yourself (or whatever Hermione used to water-proof Harry's glasses) and leave the umbrella home and go in flip-flops. Potioncat: Don't be ridiculous, I never wear flip-flops. >Otto > All of these things you name, "Never-Never-Land", "Oz" etc, are fictional constructs and have no hard reality. Their authors can spin what fables and fairy-tales they wish. But the world we live in does have reality and in fact is the only reality that the hypothetical fantasy worlds can exist in. That is through enactment of principles from that hypothetical construct here. Potioncat: I didn't mention Oz, but since you brought it up, Oz, Neverland and Hogwarts all have a different reality. Magic doesn't behave in exactly the same way in each story. JKR's new way of looking at our old stories was part of the pleasure of reading the books. We can compare and contrast---if we are so inclined. >Otto: > You may not like people like me analysing things and bringing up inconvenient and uncomfortable realities but if you don't bring these things up the real world will flatten you when you attempt to apply some things from fantasy world to here (like the pneumonia you will get from the example above) or worse. Potioncat: Well, I don't know why you believe that's what I think. Here's what I said: > I admit the group gets into long involved discussions--and yep, sometimes they are over the top. But for many, that's the fun of the site. How those arguing a particular point want to look at a situation is up to them--but works best when both are using the same yardstick. Then again, the debates are more heated when they don't. Again--we discuss all sorts of issues in different ways. Lots of fun. Not every reader likes the same sorts of discussions and everyone is free to pick and choose threads to follow. It seemed to me that you were saying there is only one way to look at the Potter stories and one way to discuss them. Otto continued: > Worse, if you're not going to do this analysis then all fiction, J.K. Rowling included, becomes merely a little private cell we can retreat to and live with our fantasies, and as each interpretation of Rowling will be completely subjective, no one can say anything to anyone else, and it becomes merely a means for daydreaming. > And in fact, as no one can talk to anyone else lest it jar ones tender sensibilities, this community is completely superfluous. Potioncat: Again, I don't understand why you wrote that. Who said we couldn't analyze? I've been a member of this group a long time---done my share of discussing, speculating, arguing, analyzing. I am as supportive of the members I disagree with as I am with the ones who are the same camp as me. As long there is canon support for the topic, it's fair game here. (The group's rules) I will end with a bit of canon, to explain perhaps what I mean by real. Deathly Hallows ch 35. King's Cross "Tell me one last thing," said Harry, "Is this real? Or has it been happening inside my head?" ... (DD) "Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean it is not real?" From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 6 00:39:35 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:39:35 -0000 Subject: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191713 > > Geoff: > I subscribe to that and that is why there are times when I am not > sure whether to laugh or cry when members set out on long threads > involving the academic. moral and political dissection of JKR's world. > > This has happened before on numerous occasions and, for me at > least, it removes something of the pleasure of going into literary worlds > other than our own, imaginary worlds such as Middle Earth, the > Wizarding World or the 24th century (imaginary at the present moment). > Potioncat: As one of the members who has set out on several long threads involving any of those avenues...I have to agree. Now long removed from chronic, continuous discussion, portions of the book have become fresh and enjoyable. When we take a small plot detail out of context and subject it to all sorts of tests and opinions, it becomes something different, takes on a life of its own. I used to refer to HP4GU-contamination for those situations where essays had become more familiar than the original text. Don't get me wrong--I've nothing against the long threads and uber-analysis and I'll jump into them again, I know--but it is nice sometimes to just sit down and enjoy the books for the adventure they are. From ddankanyin at cox.net Fri Jan 6 00:42:46 2012 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:42:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Overarching message - Caning + Mind Reading, of sorts References: Message-ID: <8721A87AF9CA42D8A476735BEC5C84F7@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191714 From: "willsonteam" Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 7:22 PM > Deathly Hallows ch 35. King's Cross > "Tell me one last thing," said Harry, "Is this real? Or has it been > happening inside my head?" > ... > (DD) "Of course it's happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth > should that mean it is not real?" > Dorothy: My sentiments exactly. :) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jan 7 03:15:20 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:15:20 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > >> > Alla: > > Ah I see, thanks. In my view, Snape simply stopped doing it. But anyway I was looking at the Lexicon, and I think I found Voldemort using Legilimency on unsuspecting Harry, but I thought I knew of another example, maybe not, anyway, tell me do you think when Voldemort asks Harry to give him a stone from his pocket, has he not using Legilimency here in your opinion? > Nikkalmati I looked at that passage again. I am reminded that I never understood how the Stone ended up in Harry's pocket even after DD's explanation. Nevertheless, to your suggestion - I guess it is possible because we are not given any other way he could know about the Stone, but I would point out that LV suggests Quirrel use the boy to get the Stone and when Harry says he has won the Quiddich cup, LV says "he lies, he lies". All that was before Quirrel unwraps his turbin, so I think LV had an idea about Harry and the Stone before he had a chance to look at him. I just can't make it all work in my head, but yes this is one possible secret use of Legilemancy. I agree with Andy that LV performed Legilemancy on Gregorivich, but probably GG knew what LV was doing and what he was seeing. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jan 7 03:34:10 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 03:34:10 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > >Otto > >snip. > > The other factor to is discerning what is real. If a person can use transformation spells to alter their appearence, how do we know to whom we are speaking is in fact the person to whom we are speaking. Why, for example, would anyone look ugly? Why wouldn't Millicent Bullstrode chose to look like Katy Perry, or the like. If Malfroy, Goyle and Crabbe are bullying someone, why doesn't the someone just turn themselves into a giant and beat the crap out of them? Because they could turn themselves into other giants? > > > Nikkalmati As I see it, in the WW magic is hard work. In order to perform a spell - for example turn oneself into a giant - someone has to do the research to find the spell. Obviously not everyone is going to take the chance that things won't work out i.e. remember the wizard who turned himself into a buffalo by mistake? I suppose they do this sort of work in the Dept. of Mysteries but the average wizard has about as much chance of learning an experimental spell as I do of producing stem cells in my basement. Even if the spell is known, it may be restricted. Not every child is going to be able to find the information about how to turn himself into a giant (and honestly isn't that best?). That is one reason you need a pass to get into the Restricted Section in the library and why DD removed all the books about Horcruxes. Lastly, to do a spell you have to have instruction, practice it and have enough magical energy or strength to produce the result and maintain it. This ability appears to be the result of inate ability combined with the power that comes with age and practice. I imagine glamours take a lot of energy to maintain and are just impractical. Maybe the WW would look on that sort of use of magic like we think of giving botox or a nose job to a 10-year old. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jan 7 04:04:51 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 04:04:51 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > >snip> > > > My question on this is a concern I have for the ENTIRE book. Does any one besides me feel a certain unease that that Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid-- the teachers- whoever are using these students as pawns in a grand game of combat against Voldemort-- and Voldemort is doing exactly the same? snip.> > It's amazing that with all their powers, all their abilities, from Dumbledore to the Ministry of Magic, that they could not find out all about Voldemort and squelch him long before the start of the story. > For all their power they aren't powerful enough to do that? > > > Nikkalmati Something about this topic has come up and we decided it was just Dumbledore, all Dumbledore. In the beginning we are told LV collected his followers and no one knew who was with him or not. The society was riddled with supporters of Tom (pun intended). He attacked and killed at will spreading fear and mistrust. (Have you heard this before?) When he was defeated by a toddler, everyone rejoiced and no one wanted to consider what had happened to him, except for a wise few. (I'm sure you have heard this?) Years pass and most people forget. Meanwhile Quirrell and Petigrew appear to be able to find LV when they want (I guess Peter could use the Dark Mark to help him). DD waited because he knew it would do no good to hunt down LV because you could not kill him. When did DD suspect about the Horcruxes? When did he know Harry had to die? When did he decide Harry was a Horcrux? DD declares he does not believe in prophecies, but LV does and DD can use the prophecy to set up a situation where he hunts for the Horcruxes and stalls any confrontation. He makes a major mistake and gets cursed. He now has limited time. He knows that Harry will have to be the one to find the Horcruxes before LV kills him, because DD doesn't trust anyone (including Harry). He gives Snape the job of telling Harry the truth at the last possible moment (when Nagini and Harry are the last Horcruxes). Maybe he hopes Harry will live, but he plans for Snape to kill LV with the Elder Wand, if Harry dies, but that goes wrong too because Snape has to kill DD unexpectedly and he apparently does not know about the wand. But it all works out. LV dies and Harry lives as you know. Maybe it was fate. Nikkalmati From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 04:14:25 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 04:14:25 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191718 Alla: > > Aha, but what could be concern for his safety here? To make sure he does not sneak out again right now? See I think I am missing something here. > > Pippin: > Harry has just secretly gotten out of school. More to the point, he has just secretly gotten *in*. That's not supposed to be possible. The school is surrounded with dementors and every precaution has been taken against unauthorized entry. > > If Harry can get in undetected, so can Sirius, whom everyone including Harry believes to be a murderer. For all Snape knows, Sirius himself is in the school at that very moment just waiting for another chance. Alla: Oooo, ok thank you, sure I can see how it could be justified if this was what Snape was thinking. I still would have wanted Snape to use another method, but I understand now how he could have looking to prevent future danger. Pippin: > As to why Snape hides some of his memories in the Pensieve, he's got to make Voldemort think he's a less accomplished occlumens than he really is, so Snape and Dumbledore are pretending that Snape can't be really sure of protecting his memories without help. Alla: Could you please remind me the canon for this? Thank you. From shaun.hately at bigpond.com Sat Jan 7 08:12:21 2012 From: shaun.hately at bigpond.com (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 19:12:21 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F07FE65.2060105@bigpond.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191719 On 6/01/2012 3:32 AM, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Alla: > > I know I am stating the obvious, but I am not obligated to respect the > opinions of fictional characters, only real people. Shaun: See, to me, that *isn't* obvious. Because, if fictional characters are written with any type of insight and accuracy, their opinions will be opinions shared by at least some real people. I think I've made it pretty clear over the years that there are occasions where I think I have the same opinions about certain aspects of the Wizarding World as I think certain of the characters have. Now, I now understand you see things differently on this issue and that's fine, but to me, the distinction you seem to making here is one that would lead me to not bother discussing the books at all if I shared it - because none of it would matter at all. Alla: > I mean, I often do > respect the opinions of fictional characters as much as it is possible > anyway, but I do not think I am obligated to do so. And even in the real > world, while I would certainly respect somebody's right to not consider > themselves oppressed, I still have a right to think of them as otherwise > in my mind. But believe me, in the real world, I would advocate > vigorously that nobody has a right to "free" people who do not think > they want to be freed from tyranny or any other things. However, I will > reserve the right to think of their situation as I please, but think not > to act upon it of course. I am snipping everything else, because > hopefully it explains how I feel. Shaun: I agree you have the right to think anything you like, even if you wouldn't act on it in certain cases out of respect for the rights of others to decide things for themselves, but, where I find that difficult is when it seems that people assume that if others disagree with them, it must be because they are 'bad' or 'evil' or 'wicked' or whatever word people choose to use and based on the assumption extrapolate all sorts of other ideas from it. Let me try and explain what I mean by that (and please note, I am not intending to accurately describe your position here - I can't because I can't know the exact details of it as I can't read minds, I'm just trying to illustrate a point). "Snape uses legilemency on Harry. I think that's an invasion of privacy. That means he treats Harry with disrespect by invading his privacy. I will therefore assume from now on that Snape disrespects Harry in all areas." and from then on every time Snape does something involving Harry disrespect is assumed. And so every time an incident happens between Snape and Harry happens, a person looks for a way it could be viewed through this lens and not surprisingly they find it because they are looking for it, and it becomes further 'proof' of their position. Contrast with "Snape uses legilemency on Harry. I think that's an invasion of privacy - but is that the reason Snape does it? Maybe he does this because part of his duty as a teacher in loco parentis requires him to maintain a reasonable level of supervision and Harry is a student we know has a tendency to do dangerous things and to break rules, and perhaps in Wizarding society, legilemency of a student by a teacher wouldn't be seen as a significant invasion of privacy. Snape could just be trying to protect Harry. That latter case doesn't mean the opinion of legilemency changes. The personal opinion of it remains the same ("I think that's an invasion of privacy") . But the second case allows for the fact that other people may see it differently and that therefore their motivations in using it may be quite different. People are fully entitled to believe legilemency is a violation of privacy. But *unless* Snape sees it that way as well, there's no reason to assume his use of legilemency is intended to do something 'bad' to Harry. His intentions may be good. "'If you loved Lily Evans, if you truly loved her, your way forward is clear.' Snape seemed to peer through a haze of pain and Dumbledore's words appeared to take a long time to reach him. 'What - what do you mean?' 'You know how and why she died. Make sure it was not in vain. Help me protect Lily's son.' 'He does not need protection. The Dark Lord is gone -' 'The Dark Lord will return, and Harry Potter will be in terrible danger when he does.' There was a long pause, and slowly Snape regained control of himself, mastered his own breathing. At last he said 'Very well. Very well. But never - never tell, Dumbledore! This must be between us! Swear it! I cannot bear... especially Potter's son... I want your word!' 'My word, Severus, that I shall never reveal the best of you?' Dumbledore sighed, looking down into Snape's ferocious, anguished face. If you insist...'" (The Deathly Hallows) "Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. 'You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?' 'Don't be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?' 'Lately, only those whom I could not save,' said Snape. He stood up. 'You have used me.' 'Meaning?' 'I have spied for you, and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter -' 'But this is touching, Severus,' said Dumbledore seriously. 'Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?' 'For him?' shouted Snape. 'Expecto patronum!' From the tip of his wand burst the silver doe: she landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears. 'After all this time?' 'Always,' said Snape." (Deathly Hallows) ***** To me, it does seem that it makes most sense that what Snape does is intended to 'keep Lily Potter's son safe.' That's what Snape has dedicated his life to doing. He has spied and lied and put himself in mortal danger. Not because he's a nice man. He's not. He's a nasty piece of work, and he's done evil in his past - but he has spent his life and risked his life, and gives his life to protect Harry Potter, since failing to protect his mother. And so I do tend to look at Snape's actions in the light of 'how do they protect Harry'? > Alla: > > People in the Wizarding Society do not seem to care much how they treat > muggle born students and muggles (except selected few of course and even > they imo often act condescending and arrogant), Headmaster of Hogwarts > (supposedly one of the most progressive ones) thinks it is all right to > put all his hopes for defeat of Lord Voldemort into whether eleven year > old boy will be raised in the mindset which will make him agree to > sacrifice himself on the altar of WW, Headmaster of said Hogwarts thinks > it is totally all right to allow Severus Snape who hates the sight of > Harry Potter to teach him and protect his life. Forgive me if I will not > put too much stake into what people of WW think needs to be changed in > their world. Besides, I do not think anybody said that Legilimency does > not need to be regulated either. Silence to me allows for even more > vigorous speculation. Shaun: Harry Potter *is* the chosen one. Dumbledore didn't make him so. He *has* to put all his hopes in the fact that Harry will be willing to die to get rid of Voldemort because that is what the prophecy requires. And what he actually does in the long term is equip Harry to fulfil the prophecy in a way that does allow him to live. Severus Snape is a teacher who, even if he does hate the sight of Harry Potter, is also committed to protecting the boy. A teacher doesn't have to like their students to teach them. A student doesn't have to like their teacher to learn from them. We know that the wizarding world does regard certain spells as off limits. Forbidden. Use of them leads to a life sentence in Azkaban. It does regulate spells it considers beyond the pale. Three of them - Imperio, Crucio, and Avada Kedavra. It doesn't place Legilemency in that league. > Alla: > > And I disagree with that, so maybe we do disagree on more basical > premises of this discussion that I thought. I think there is plenty of > symbolism to show us that WW needs drastic change and not every single > need for change is spelled out. For example, IMO there is a reason that > so many more people from older generation are killed at the end than the > younger generation, IMO this is one of the symbolic signs that JKR > wanted to eradicate a lot of what older generation was about and allow > young people to shake the WW to the core. Of course we have Fawkes, who > dissappears at the end of HBP, for me it was always a symbolic sign that > WW would need to be reborn from ashes and him dissappearing and not > showing up in the last book for me was a sign that such change is > already happening in the real and no symbol is needed. Shaun: And yet, we are then presented with a epilogue that shows no sign that in two decades *anything* at all has changed. To me, the epilogue shows that everything has continued more or less as it was. > Alla: > > I do not see acceptance or not acceptance actually, I do not see people > reacting with outrage, but I do not see Harry being happy about it > (including the lessons) either. Shaun: I don't see him being unhappy about it, except for being forced to work with Snape. > Alla: > > People in the WW can not be broken and brainwashed? What about Imperio? > What about Crucio? What are those if not the tools for brainwashing and > torture? I was interrupted writing that and missed out the chance to finish the thought I was writing when I came back to it. My point was actually to mention Imperio, Crucio, and Avada Kedavra, as specifically forbidden spells because Wizarding society has decided brainwashing like that is unacceptable. But Legilemency isn't forbidden. Nor are the memory charms that Gilderoy Lockhart uses - Obliviate is routinely used by the Ministry of Magic. Hermione modifies her own parents memories (something I have much more of a problem with than Snape's possible legilemency). Wizarding society accepts these things quite readily despite clearly having standards they regard as ones that shouldn't be normally breached. > > Shaun: > > > > If I believed that the people weren't free to make that choice, I would. > > But if they were free to make that choice, I'd have to conclude that the > > book was either very badly written and nonsense (assuming the author > > couldn't convince me that he or she had come up with a consistent world) > > or that the author is some sort of genius (if they could). > > Alla: > > Then we will just have to agree to disagree. I really cant come up with > any other response. Shaun: That's fine - sometimes people do just see things differently. > Alla: > > See, I think they were fine and dandy with it. Simply because nobody > said anything about it, nobody questioned it, not even Sirius' guilt > (even though as I said many times that I thought Dumbledore should have > at least tried to check more), but how his case was handled. Of course > the victim of injustice thinks (correctly IMO) that it was wrong and of > course Harry and Ron and Hermione think it was wrong. After all these > three are agents of change, after all high and mighty Dumbledore even > deemed that Harry can share his mission with them, so yes I do not find > it surprising that they think in more progressive terms than most of WW > (maybe couple other people). Shaun: And one of your agents of change modifies her own parents memories. > > Shaun: > > > > Yes, to an extent, I did, but on further consideration, I think it's > > more accurate to say Harry cooperated with the Occlumency classes rather > > than actually consenting to them. He wasn't really offered a choice, he > > was told what to do. He just decided not to make it difficult by > > cooperating. > > Alla: > > So just to be clear, you think that if he refused, Snape would have > forced him? Quite possible, but we would never know. Shaun: No, that's not what I said. Whether Snape would have forced him or not, is, in my view irrelevant. Just because a teacher doesn't *force* a student to obey when they are disobedient, doesn't mean the student wasn't disobedient. There are numerous reasons why it may not be worth forcing the issue. The situation in this case is serious enough that I suspect further efforts would have been made to make Harry attend the lessons. Personally, if I was Dumbledore, in that case I would get McGonnagall to carpet Harry and make it very clear he's expected to do this, and I would have expected that to work. > Alla: > > I was not talking about the speed, I most definitely was not talking > about letting Harry getting away with anything, I support and applaud > Remus' lecture later on and think that Harry fully deserved that lecture > and more. I was trying to say that unless Snape was trying to prevent > further rule breaking or further danger, to me mind invasion is not an > appropriate way of dealing with it. I am not asking you to agree and I > dont particularly have anything to debate on this particular point, just > want to make myself clear, while I am happy to agree that I can see > where you are coming from calling this justified to prevent further > danger, I can never agree that such method is appropriate to punish for > something that already happened. Shaun: But the point is, I *don't* think legilemency is being used to punish in this case. As a punishment it would be utterly pointless as while Harry wonders if Snape can read his mind on occasion, he doesn't actually know if it's happening and a punishment you don't even know about is useless. In my view, if it's being used, it's being used in an effort to find out *if* Harry did leave the school, and nothing more. All Snape has at that point is a report by Draco Malfoy that Harry was in Hogsmeade. Snape is trying to confirm if that's true. I think he is probably convinced it is, and at that point, he moves on to trying to work out how Harry did it, so he can prevent Harry from doing it again. He *is* trying to prevent further rule breaking, and further danger. And, as has been pointed out, it's not just danger to Harry (serious though that is), but the possibility than any method Harry used might also be used by the murderer Sirius Black to get into the school. > Alla: > > Aha, but what could be concern for his safety here? To make sure he does > not sneak out again right now? See I think I am missing something here. Shaun: No, to make sure he doesn't sneak out again *in the future*. Not right now. When I get a boy to turn out his pockets so I can check if he has cigarettes, I'm rarely worried about him smoking in the next two minutes. I'm worried about something more long term than that. As has been pointed out (and I've also mentioned above) there is the additional risk that Sirius Black might use this method to get into the school, but that one hadn't occurred to me and wasn't part of my thinking until I read it. What I was thinking was working out how to stop Harry sneaking out of the school again in future. > Alla: > > Maybe here we have the disconnect indeed, because I do not think Snape > is lying, I just think that this IS the description of mind reading. > Does it make sense? Snape says it is flashes, but he sees stuff what is > happening in Harry's mind, flashes or not, and I do not see the sign > that there is stuff Snape just cannot see, period, if subject is not > resisting. When Harry is resisting, Snape is sometimes having trouble, > sure, but I do not see that there is stuff that he just cannot see > because of what Legilimency is. Shaun: OK, I get what you are saying here, and I agree it's *possible* Snape can see everything Harry is thinking and Harry is just thinking in flashes, so all he sees are flashes, but I don't really think so. "'Did you see everything I saw?' Harry asked, unsure whether he wanted to hear the answer. 'Flashes of it,' said Snape, his lip curling. 'To whom did the dog belong?'" (Order of the Phoenix). Harry explicitly asks Snape if he saw *everything* and it's then that Snape says he saw only flashes of it. Now, Snape could lie - and JKR could mislead us as to the nature of legilemency and never bother to correct that misapprehension in the future - but I think it makes more sense to assume we're being told the truth so I think that you only see flashes of whatever the person is thinking and if they are just thinking in snippets for some reason, you'll only see flashes of the snippets. > Alla: > > To me the best example that one can theoretically see anything in > Legilimency is Snape removing his memories in the pensieve. If those are > just flashes, why would Snape be concerned? Unless you subscribe to evil > school of thought that Snape was deliberately setting Harry up, but I > suspect not ;) Shaun: I think Snape removes that one memory because it's the memory that would make him most vulnerable to Harry. "'Get up! You are not trying, you are making no effort. You are allowing me access to memories you fear, handing me weapons... Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord! Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked so easily - weak peoples, in other words - they stand no chance against his powers! He will penetrate your mind with absurd ease, Potter!'" In legilemency, it's the sad memories, the bad memories that allow somebody to break through your occlumency shields. That memory is the biggest reason Snape hated James and thus hates Harry. > Alla: > > But do we know that he did not know? I mean yes, he should have acted a > certain way if he did, but really, I think that the argument that > Dumbledore deliberately set it up as training lesson for Harry (leaving > for the ministry, really) has a very strong merit, because Harry telling > his friends that Dumbledore let him face Voldemort does not sound to me > as eleven year old, but as JKR breaking the silence and talking directly > to the readers. Shaun: I can just about believe Dumbledore letting Harry face these dangers as some sort of training exercise. I'm not saying he did, but I could believe it. The problem I have is that I don't think Snape would have cooperated with it without objecting in the way he did when he discovered Dumbledore's master plan involved Harry dying: "'I have spied for you, and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe.'" Snape is *not* risking his life to protect Harry Potter so Dumbledore can put him in danger. Not without an explanation and there clearly hasn't been one up until that conversation quite a bit later. > Alla: > > I dont know. Maybe he did not have time to dive too deep, but more > likely to me is that he was toying with Lupin, because whether he knew > that this was a map, he certainly seemed to be very familiar with the > nicknames. Shaun: Except he doesn't find out the nicknames until after he's already started his investigation. > Alla: > > I definitely think I am missing something, or maybe it is a language > disconnect (I thought I outgrew those lol), to me seeing stuff what > Harry did or was thinking about is mind reading. What do you think Snape > sees? Shaun: Flashes of what the person is thinking, at most. In many cases, probably not even that - generally I think he can probably just do what Voldemort can do: "'The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency are able to shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie, and to utter falsehoods in his presence without detection.'" This does seem to match every case that I can see outside of the lessons. Snape can tell Harry is lying. No sign of anything else. > Alla: > > Oh I can talk about for a long time, but I do not think it is > unreasonable to speculate that Dumbledore did not want Sirius to > influence Harry's upbringing at all, Harry may have become too > independent, god forbid and may have refused to go along with > Dumbledore's plans, note that when Sirius escapes he has no choice but > to go far away, again almost no contact with Harry. Shaun: Sirius was about 21 when James and Lily died (as were they, of course). At 21, Dumbledore was able to predict that Sirius would turn out to be a 'bad influence'? That doesn't make sense to me at all. One thing Dumbledore should have worked out in many, many years at Hogwarts is that irresponsible kids grow up. > Alla: > > Basically what I am trying to say is that I agree with your last > sentence - we dont know what doctrine applies in WW and before you say > it, yes, I know that JKR is British :) and that a lot of things in > Hogwarts are done based on how British private schools are run or were > run. However, having said it, I maintain that we cannot be sure what > inspired the artist to write any specific thing in her stories. Yes, > Hogwarts could mostly be done based on British private schools, but it > is not a documentary about how British school was run, right? Shaun: No, but Hogwarts is a very close match for a certain type of British school in many ways. It's very clear to me that JKR had a particular model of school in mind in her design of Hogwarts. Houses, Prefects, Masters - it virtually all rings true to that model, *except* when it comes to the specific things that need to differ for her magical world to work. I've read my share of fanfiction written by Americans and it really jars when an American writer puts something they are used to in American education that doesn't really exist in the same way in traditional British education (typical American cheerleaders, for example) because the model is so close. And, the doctrine of in loco parentis is a very large part of why those schools have developed the way they have. I'd need to write a large essay to go into that (and I am actually writing a history of education at the moment). Anyway, for now, that's it :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 7 17:21:54 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:21:54 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191720 > > Pippin: > > > As to why Snape hides some of his memories in the Pensieve, he's got to make Voldemort think he's a less accomplished occlumens than he really is, so Snape and Dumbledore are pretending that Snape can't be really sure of protecting his memories without help. > > Alla: > > Could you please remind me the canon for this? Thank you. > Voldemort is the most powerful legilimens who has ever existed and believes Snape can hide nothing from him. Snape's life depends on this being so. HPB ch 2 Every lesson, Snape makes a show of hiding his memories in the pensieve. OOP ch 24 When Harry breaks through Snape's defenses during the lesson, Snape appears to reassure himself that the pensieve is still secure OOP 26 Harry believes the pensieve is being used so that he can't accidentally get through Snape's defenses and see something Snape wants to hide. OOP ch 28 Dumbledore tells Harry of the danger that Voldemort would use the occlumency lessons against the teacher "he would seize his chance to use you as a means to spy on me." Dumbledore wished to discourage this. OOP ch 37 Voldemort never detected the memories which Snape gave to Harry in DH and which were obviously not being protected in the Pensieve at the time. DH ch 32 It then becomes certain that Snape knew how to hide his memories from Voldemort, and by extension Harry himself or Voldemort spying through Harry, without the aid of a pensieve. But it was essential to keep Voldemort from suspecting this. Therefore, by using the pensieve and letting Harry know he was using it, Snape made an obvious show of not relying on occlumency to protect his memories. "Do you think the Dark Lord has not asked me each and every one of these questions? And do you really think that, had I not been able to give satisfactory answers, I would be sitting here talking to you? She hesitated. "I know he believes you, but..." "You think he is mistaken? Or that I have somehow hoodwinked him? Fooled the Dark Lord, the greatest wizard, the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen?" HBP 2 Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 18:30:46 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:30:46 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: <4F07FE65.2060105@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191721 .> > Alla: > > > > I know I am stating the obvious, but I am not obligated to respect the > > opinions of fictional characters, only real people. > > Shaun: > > See, to me, that *isn't* obvious. Because, if fictional characters are > written with any type of insight and accuracy, their opinions will be > opinions shared by at least some real people. I think I've made it > pretty clear over the years that there are occasions where I think I > have the same opinions about certain aspects of the Wizarding World as I > think certain of the characters have. Now, I now understand you see > things differently on this issue and that's fine, but to me, the > distinction you seem to making here is one that would lead me to not > bother discussing the books at all if I shared it - because none of it > would matter at all. Alla: Sorry, I meant to say that I was speaking about the obvious fact that characters were fictional and for me it is obvious that I can freely pick and choose whether to respect their opinions or not. I am going to try to make few more clarifications. Again, please forgive me for snipping major a lot of it, I honestly just do not see the point .. I am not trying to have a last word and maybe out of those clarifications we can talk about some other things, but we shall see how it goes. > > .> Shaun: > > I agree you have the right to think anything you like, even if you > wouldn't act on it in certain cases out of respect for the rights of > others to decide things for themselves, but, where I find that difficult > is when it seems that people assume that if others disagree with them, > it must be because they are 'bad' or 'evil' or 'wicked' or whatever word > people choose to use and based on the assumption extrapolate all sorts > of other ideas from it. Alla: Which people are we talking about here? Characters or real life people? If we are talking about real life people, I would not just not act on it in certain cases, if it were up to me, I would not act on it in ANY case, unless people want somebody else to interfere. But my thoughts are totally different story. Shawn: > Let me try and explain what I mean by that (and please note, I am not > intending to accurately describe your position here - I can't because I > can't know the exact details of it as I can't read minds, I'm just > trying to illustrate a point). > > "Snape uses legilemency on Harry. I think that's an invasion of privacy. > That means he treats Harry with disrespect by invading his privacy. I > will therefore assume from now on that Snape disrespects Harry in all > areas." and from then on every time Snape does something involving Harry > disrespect is assumed. And so every time an incident happens between > Snape and Harry happens, a person looks for a way it could be viewed > through this lens and not surprisingly they find it because they are > looking for it, and it becomes further 'proof' of their position. > > Contrast with > > "Snape uses legilemency on Harry. I think that's an invasion of privacy > - but is that the reason Snape does it? Maybe he does this because part > of his duty as a teacher in loco parentis requires him to maintain a > reasonable level of supervision and Harry is a student we know has a > tendency to do dangerous things and to break rules, and perhaps in > Wizarding society, legilemency of a student by a teacher wouldn't be > seen as a significant invasion of privacy. Snape could just be trying to > protect Harry. > > That latter case doesn't mean the opinion of legilemency changes. The > personal opinion of it remains the same ("I think that's an invasion of > privacy") . But the second case allows for the fact that other people > may see it differently and that therefore their motivations in using it > may be quite different. > > People are fully entitled to believe legilemency is a violation of > privacy. But *unless* Snape sees it that way as well, there's no reason > to assume his use of legilemency is intended to do something 'bad' to > Harry. His intentions may be good. Alla: I here what you are saying, but no you are not describing my position correctly. I think here is how I would describe it - Legilimency is a violation of privacy, which I think is an evil method to use and I would consider it an evil method to use, no matter *who uses it on whom* and no matter how those characters see it. It just so happens that two of my most hated characters use it often, but I take an issue with an action, not with the character, even though I have plenty of issues with these two characters. It certainly adds up to the list of their evil deeds for me, but again, I see what they *do* as evil, not - "I would characterize their actions as evil, just because I already think of them as evil". >.> > Shaun: > > Harry Potter *is* the chosen one. Dumbledore didn't make him so. He > *has* to put all his hopes in the fact that Harry will be willing to die > to get rid of Voldemort because that is what the prophecy requires. And > what he actually does in the long term is equip Harry to fulfil the > prophecy in a way that does allow him to live. Alla: Not in my opinion, especially due to his wavering stance on how much faith he put in prophecies. How many percents of those prophecies in the Department of mysteries came true? Dumbledore cant seem to pick whether prophecy is a relevant tool, or not, but even if the prophecy is relevant and 100% reliable, it does not say in the prophecy that Harry is not allowed to be helped, it does not say that others in meantime cannot hunt Voldemort, raise a war on him in order to very least kill his Death eaters. Shawn: > Severus Snape is a teacher who, even if he does hate the sight of Harry > Potter, is also committed to protecting the boy. A teacher doesn't have > to like their students to teach them. A student doesn't have to like > their teacher to learn from them. Alla: And I would say that he is not only committed to protect Harry Potter's life but also committed to humiliate, mock and abuse him every second of that life. I do not consider protecting his life in that situation (as I see it of course) an action worthy of respect. I would considered Snape much worthy of respect if he refused Dumbledore and thus forced Dumbledore to choose another protector. Shawn: > We know that the wizarding world does regard certain spells as off > limits. Forbidden. Use of them leads to a life sentence in Azkaban. It > does regulate spells it considers beyond the pale. Three of them - > Imperio, Crucio, and Avada Kedavra. It doesn't place Legilemency in that > league. Alla: Even Lexicon speculates that Legilimency must be tightly regulated, while not in league with these three spells, I do not see it as such unreasonable speculation. .> Shaun: > > And yet, we are then presented with a epilogue that shows no sign that > in two decades *anything* at all has changed. To me, the epilogue shows > that everything has continued more or less as it was. Alla: And I do not see the sign that nothing changed either - except that Houses still exist. Now, I know that interviews are not canon, and of course what is not on page did not happen, but I think it is very relevant that the intent to write significant change (which trio mostly provided according to JKR) was there, but of course I wish she would put it in the book. .> Shaun: > > No, that's not what I said. Whether Snape would have forced him or not, > is, in my view irrelevant. Just because a teacher doesn't *force* a > student to obey when they are disobedient, doesn't mean the student > wasn't disobedient. There are numerous reasons why it may not be worth > forcing the issue. > > The situation in this case is serious enough that I suspect further > efforts would have been made to make Harry attend the lessons. > Personally, if I was Dumbledore, in that case I would get McGonnagall to > carpet Harry and make it very clear he's expected to do this, and I > would have expected that to work. Alla: Sure, your scenario could be right. .> Shaun: > > No, to make sure he doesn't sneak out again *in the future*. Not right > now. When I get a boy to turn out his pockets so I can check if he has > cigarettes, I'm rarely worried about him smoking in the next two > minutes. I'm worried about something more long term than that. > > As has been pointed out (and I've also mentioned above) there is the > additional risk that Sirius Black might use this method to get into the > school, but that one hadn't occurred to me and wasn't part of my > thinking until I read it. What I was thinking was working out how to > stop Harry sneaking out of the school again in future. Alla: I agree with that additional reason, I definitely do not see how it would stop Harry from sneaking out in the future, I see him wanting to do it again to do it to spite Snape. .> > Alla: > > > > I dont know. Maybe he did not have time to dive too deep, but more > > likely to me is that he was toying with Lupin, because whether he knew > > that this was a map, he certainly seemed to be very familiar with the > > nicknames. > > Shaun: > > Except he doesn't find out the nicknames until after he's already > started his investigation. Alla: So? You mean when they showed up on Map? Of course, my point is that he knew the nicknames already. Sorry, confused again. .> Shaun: > > Sirius was about 21 when James and Lily died (as were they, of course). > At 21, Dumbledore was able to predict that Sirius would turn out to be a > 'bad influence'? That doesn't make sense to me at all. One thing > Dumbledore should have worked out in many, many years at Hogwarts is > that irresponsible kids grow up. Alla: Sorry it makes plenty of sense to me, considering the fact that Dumbledore made sure to take Harry away from his very legally appointed guardian, and yes, I know Sirius was about to do a very rash and very irresponsible thing, but could Dumbledore predict that then? No, I think Dumbledore wanted to do everything in his power that Harry would abused and scared and miserable after living with Dursleys and would look at Dumbledore as god and do anything Dumbledore would want him to do and would go and die because Dumbledore raised him to that. > > > Alla: > > > > Basically what I am trying to say is that I agree with your last > > sentence - we dont know what doctrine applies in WW and before you say > > it, yes, I know that JKR is British :) and that a lot of things in > > Hogwarts are done based on how British private schools are run or were > > run. However, having said it, I maintain that we cannot be sure what > > inspired the artist to write any specific thing in her stories. Yes, > > Hogwarts could mostly be done based on British private schools, but it > > is not a documentary about how British school was run, right? > > Shaun: > > No, but Hogwarts is a very close match for a certain type of British > school in many ways. It's very clear to me that JKR had a particular > model of school in mind in her design of Hogwarts. Houses, Prefects, > Masters - it virtually all rings true to that model, *except* when it > comes to the specific things that need to differ for her magical world > to work. I've read my share of fanfiction written by Americans and it > really jars when an American writer puts something they are used to in > American education that doesn't really exist in the same way in > traditional British education (typical American cheerleaders, for > example) because the model is so close. And, the doctrine of in loco > parentis is a very large part of why those schools have developed the > way they have. I'd need to write a large essay to go into that (and I am > actually writing a history of education at the moment). > > Anyway, for now, that's it :) > Alla: And you are most likely right, but I maintain that we dont know what caused her to write any specific thing in the books. As I said I am fully aware that Hogwarts is mostly based on british boarding school, but Potter series are not nonfictional description of those schools. She added and changed things freely as she saw fit. I dont think that to assume inspiration from other sources as well is that unreasonable, personally. To go back to my caning example - if she would not changed a single thing, wouldnt that be more reasonable to assume that Hogwarts kids were still physically punished since at the very least in 19 century it was spread out? She chooses to abandon it, maybe she based it on the schools that do not And Shawn, you know that I did not go to high school or college in America, I grew up within totally different educational system, I am unlikely to suggest that America's educational values are the very best in the world, trust me on that! I already see how the kid of six is being taught and it often makes my teeth cringe and in a very bad way. But I also do not find a lot of things which you are describing about British and Australian educational system worthy of admiration. Work of fiction often has themes that people from different countries are able to relate to and like. What I am trying to say that exaggerating as it sounds, I will not be surprised if for example JKR was inspired by something which she read about happening say in Chinese school. Hope it makes sense. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 18:46:06 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 18:46:06 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: <4F07FE65.2060105@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191722 > Alla: > > See, I think they were fine and dandy with it. Simply because nobody > said anything about it, nobody questioned it, not even Sirius' guilt > (even though as I said many times that I thought Dumbledore should have > at least tried to check more), but how his case was handled. Of course > the victim of injustice thinks (correctly IMO) that it was wrong and of > course Harry and Ron and Hermione think it was wrong. After all these > three are agents of change, after all high and mighty Dumbledore even > deemed that Harry can share his mission with them, so yes I do not find > it surprising that they think in more progressive terms than most of WW > (maybe couple other people). Shaun: And one of your agents of change modifies her own parents memories. Alla: Sorry, really wanted to reply to that part and snipped out. Of course she does and Harry uses Imperio, I never said that either of them was perfect to put it mildly and before Kings Cross I would not nominate Harry for metaphorical sainthood either, but do I consider them agents of change? Absolutely. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 7 21:24:20 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:24:20 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191723 > > Shaun: > > > > Harry Potter *is* the chosen one. Dumbledore didn't make him so. He > > *has* to put all his hopes in the fact that Harry will be willing to die > > to get rid of Voldemort because that is what the prophecy requires. And > > what he actually does in the long term is equip Harry to fulfil the > > prophecy in a way that does allow him to live. > > Alla: > > Not in my opinion, especially due to his wavering stance on how much faith he put in prophecies. How many percents of those prophecies in the Department of mysteries came true? Dumbledore cant seem to pick whether prophecy is a relevant tool, or not, but even if the prophecy is relevant and 100% reliable, it does not say in the prophecy that Harry is not allowed to be helped, it does not say that others in meantime cannot hunt Voldemort, raise a war on him in order to very least kill his Death eaters. Pippin: That is what the Order does -- although it does not believe in killing Death Eaters unless they refuse to surrender. But they have no reliable way to tell who is a Death Eater and who isn't. Only Voldemort knows who they all are. Even if DE's are caught in the act, they can still get off by claiming to have been under the Imperius curse. It was Voldemort who declared war on Harry by deciding that he was the prophecy child. After that what Dumbledore did or didn't believe about the prophecy was irrelevant. Voldemort would never stop trying to destroy Harry. Harry would have no chance to survive unless Voldemort was destroyed, Voldemort could not be destroyed without destroying the horcrux(es) and, by accidentally allowing a piece of his soul to be embedded in Harry, Voldemort made Harry himself potentially his most powerful enemy. As Eowyn says in LOTR, "It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two" > Alla: > > And I would say that he is not only committed to protect Harry Potter's life but also committed to humiliate, mock and abuse him every second of that life. Pippin: Harry has potions two or three times a week, plus various detentions or other lessons. That's hardly every second of his life. And Snape could not have known when he made his promise that he would still be teaching potions at Hogwarts when Harry arrived ten years later. Snape is clearly not thinking about the prospects of making Harry miserable as he makes his promise. He's concerned about how it would look and feel to have anyone know that he's committed himself to saving James Potter's son. Alla: I do not consider protecting his life in that situation (as I see it of course) an action worthy of respect. I would considered Snape much worthy of respect if he refused Dumbledore and thus forced Dumbledore to choose another protector. Pippin: Why would Snape think there was someone else who could do what Snape can do to protect Harry? If there was a person of comparable courage, power and loyalty who had a more pleasant disposition, don't you think Dumbledore would have asked him instead? It's not like Snape and Dumbledore loved working together so much Should Snape have let Harry go unprotected until someone with sufficiently lofty motives appeared to do the job? > Alla: > > Sorry it makes plenty of sense to me, considering the fact that Dumbledore made sure to take Harry away from his very legally appointed guardian, and yes, I know Sirius was about to do a very rash and very irresponsible thing, but could Dumbledore predict that then? Pippin: Because Sirius had already proved himself unreliable. One way or another, he had allowed Voldemort to discover the Secret. Alla: No, I think Dumbledore wanted to do everything in his power that Harry would abused and scared and miserable after living with Dursleys and would look at Dumbledore as god and do anything Dumbledore would want him to do and would go and die because Dumbledore raised him to that. Pippin: And is there canon that Dumbledore had this in mind? Many children have been rescued from abusive situations. AFAIK, this does not fill them with a desire to save the world or give their rescuers unquestioning obedience. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 7 22:27:50 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:27:50 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191724 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Shaun: > > > > > > Harry Potter *is* the chosen one. Dumbledore didn't make him so. He > > > *has* to put all his hopes in the fact that Harry will be willing to die > > > to get rid of Voldemort because that is what the prophecy requires. And > > > what he actually does in the long term is equip Harry to fulfil the > > > prophecy in a way that does allow him to live. > > > > Alla: > > > > Not in my opinion, especially due to his wavering stance on how much faith he put in prophecies. How many percents of those prophecies in the Department of mysteries came true? Dumbledore cant seem to pick whether prophecy is a relevant tool, or not, but even if the prophecy is relevant and 100% reliable, it does not say in the prophecy that Harry is not allowed to be helped, it does not say that others in meantime cannot hunt Voldemort, raise a war on him in order to very least kill his Death eaters. > > Pippin: > That is what the Order does -- although it does not believe in killing Death Eaters unless they refuse to surrender. But they have no reliable way to tell who is a Death Eater and who isn't. Only Voldemort knows who they all are. Even if DE's are caught in the act, they can still get off by claiming to have been under the Imperius curse. > > It was Voldemort who declared war on Harry by deciding that he was the prophecy child. After that what Dumbledore did or didn't believe about the prophecy was irrelevant. Voldemort would never stop trying to destroy Harry. > > Harry would have no chance to survive unless Voldemort was destroyed, Voldemort could not be destroyed without destroying the horcrux(es) and, by accidentally allowing a piece of his soul to be embedded in Harry, Voldemort made Harry himself potentially his most powerful enemy. > > As Eowyn says in LOTR, "It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two" Alla: Whether Dumbledore believes in Prophecies or not, was *extremely* relevant though to my reply to Shawn. I understood Shawn to argue that Dumbledore had to put all his eggs in Harry's basket, which was something I initially objected to, and Shawn said that Dumbledore had no choice but to do that because prophecy required him to do so. So if Dumbledore does not believe in prophecy, what prophecy requires him to do is irrelevant in my opinion and what matters is what Dumbledore decides to do. Now if you decide to argue that Dumbledore needed to act in response to Voldemort, sure, I have no problem with that, what I disagree with is that Dumbledore needed to act a *certain way*, specifically put all his hopes in Harry's basket and leave him without any help and protection besides his two friends in that idiotic quest IMO. > > > > Alla: > > > > And I would say that he is not only committed to protect Harry Potter's life but also committed to humiliate, mock and abuse him every second of that life. > > Pippin: > Harry has potions two or three times a week, plus various detentions or other lessons. That's hardly every second of his life. And Snape could not have known when he made his promise that he would still be teaching potions at Hogwarts when Harry arrived ten years later. Snape is clearly not thinking about the prospects of making Harry miserable as he makes his promise. He's concerned about how it would look and feel to have anyone know that he's committed himself to saving James Potter's son. Alla: Sure thing, I would be happy to rephrase and say that Snape made Harry miserable a lot of the time. I do not know whether Snape *planned* to still teach potions at the time Harry will arrive to Hogwarts, but it was quite clear to me that when he gave that promise he did not have any good feelings towards Harry already. No, I am not projecting what I know about Snape's behavior towards Harry later on, the reason I am saying it is very simple and very factual, Snape did not care whether Harry lived or died when he came to ask Dumbledore for Lily's life and yes,based on that alone I would expect him to refuse that task. But of course I blame Dumbledore too and I blame him even more for organizing it. > > > Alla: > I do not consider protecting his life in that situation (as I see it of course) an action worthy of respect. I would considered Snape much worthy of respect if he refused Dumbledore and thus forced Dumbledore to choose another protector. > > Pippin: > Why would Snape think there was someone else who could do what Snape can do to protect Harry? If there was a person of comparable courage, power and loyalty who had a more pleasant disposition, don't you think Dumbledore would have asked him instead? It's not like Snape and Dumbledore loved working together so much Alla: I think Dumbledore asked who was in the vicinity at that point, frankly and of course I am sure he knew Snape was talented with Dark arts and he knew that Snape loved Lily. I do not think he cared what feelings Snape had towards Harry at all. Pippin: > Should Snape have let Harry go unprotected until someone with sufficiently lofty motives appeared to do the job? Alla: I think Snape should have known that he does not have at least a mindset to do the job, even if he has skills. I know you think Snape's mindset is unimportant, as long as he did the job, but we just have to agree to disagree on that. > Alla: > No, I think Dumbledore wanted to do everything in his power that Harry would abused and scared and miserable after living with Dursleys and would look at Dumbledore as god and do anything Dumbledore would want him to do and would go and die because Dumbledore raised him to that. > > Pippin: > And is there canon that Dumbledore had this in mind? > > Many children have been rescued from abusive situations. AFAIK, this does not fill them with a desire to save the world or give their rescuers unquestioning obedience. Alla: Well, there is his "not a pampered prince" speech, which tells me that he expected Harry to be abused, there is his talk to Snape to tell Harry about the plan when time arrives, for me I am not making a gigantic leap when I would argue that expecting child to be abused, setting up a "training" task for him (as I see it, based on Harry's words in PS) and sending him to death basically gives us Dumbledore's mindset which I described. But sure, the only direct canon I would cite here is "not a pampered prince" speech, I just think my conclusion here is based on canon. From thedossetts at gmail.com Sat Jan 7 22:31:44 2012 From: thedossetts at gmail.com (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:31:44 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191725 > > Alla: > > > > Ah I see, thanks. In my view, Snape simply stopped doing it. But anyway I was looking at the Lexicon, and I think I found Voldemort using Legilimency on unsuspecting Harry, but I thought I knew of another example, maybe not, anyway, tell me do you think when Voldemort asks Harry to give him a stone from his pocket, has he not using Legilimency here in your opinion? > > > Nikkalmati > > I looked at that passage again. I am reminded that I never understood how the Stone ended up in Harry's pocket even after DD's explanation. Nevertheless, to your suggestion - I guess it is possible because we are not given any other way he could know about the Stone, but I would point out that LV suggests Quirrel use the boy to get the Stone and when Harry says he has won the Quiddich cup, LV says "he lies, he lies". All that was before Quirrel unwraps his turbin, so I think LV had an idea about Harry and the Stone before he had a chance to look at him. I just can't make it all work in my head, but yes this is one possible secret use of Legilemancy. > > I agree with Andy that LV performed Legilemancy on Gregorivich, but probably GG knew what LV was doing and what he was seeing. > > Nikkalmati > Pat: See, in my view, there is no possible way this could be Legilimancy. LV is wrapped up in Quirrell's turban and in the back of Quirrell's head - how could he possibly look Harry in the eye and use Legilimancy on him? This does not agree with how it is used any other time in the story. This has to be more an intuition on LV's part - I think he just intuits when others lie around him. One of those kind of gifts - I know others (my husband among them) that have this ability. And in my husband's case, I can guarantee that he doesn't know how to Legilimance anyone! So, my vote is, no possible way this is Legilimancy. Pat From sigurd at eclipse.net Sat Jan 7 22:29:47 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:29:47 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191726 Dear Alla Alla says: " No, I think Dumbledore wanted to do everything in his power that Harry would abused and scared and miserable after living with Dursleys and would look at Dumbledore as god and do anything Dumbledore would want him to do and would go and die because Dumbledore raised him to that." Otto's response: At peril of agreeing with Pippin on anything, I must say that I find this extremely doubtful on simple logic alone, leaving aside the necessity of any proof from "scripture." It would require a crassness and cynicism that seems completely at variance with the character of Dumbledore through the rest of the book. Dumbledore would in this case be out Voldemorting Voldemort. I found, after only a few chapters of the book, wondering why in the world Dumbledore ever lodged Harry with the Dursleys and questioned what he hoped to achieve. The best I can extrapolate is that Petunia is Lilly's sister and owes him some obligation, and that she (Petunia) knows what is going on, apparently being a squib. I maintain that his judgement in such case was extremely faulty, perhaps foolish, but I cannot concieve of it being the motivation you suggest. Perhaps J.K. Rowling felt that as part of her backstory Dumbledore picked the Dursleys simply because any wizzarding family would be the first place Voldemort would look. Perhaps raising him in Hogwarts rom infancy is not possible, perhaps-- perhaps-- perhaps-- perhaps--- My own belief is that you cannot explain this from the internals of the book, but that JK Rowling was simply assuring marketing success by weaving into the story one of the most powerful tropes that appeals to immature readers, that they are special children with magical mystical powers marooned among a family of boorish toads who do not recognize their greatness and insist on them doing things like homework, shining their shoes, brushing their teeth, studying, and not running with scissors. One note- stylistically the Dursleys start off as opera bouffe figures, too overdrawn in their boorishness to be other than figures of farce. Later on they degenerate to just plain irrelevant mean-ness. Also, in the first books where she cannot assume that everone will have read 1 before 2 after several years of publication, the groundwork must be set again for new readers to understand the "motif' or "theme music" of the Dursleys in the tone poem. This necessarily gets compressed and more overdrawn. Later on, they become more extraneous as it is no longer needed. Everyone knows the story. Otto From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Jan 7 23:28:01 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:28:01 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: > Perhaps J.K. Rowling felt that as part of her backstory Dumbledore picked the Dursleys simply because any wizzarding family would be the first place Voldemort would look. Perhaps raising him in Hogwarts rom infancy is not possible, perhaps-- perhaps-- perhaps-- perhaps--- Geoff: How would you therefore interpret the following quotes from canon? '[Dumbledore speaking] "Hagrid's late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd be here, by the way?" "Yes," said Professor McGonagall. "And I don't suppose you're going to tell me why you're here, of all places?" "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now."' (PS "The Boy Who LIved" p.15 UK edition) '"A letter?" repeated Professor McGonagall faintly, sitting back down on the wall. "Really, Dumbledore, you think you can explain all this in a letter? These people will never understand him! He'll be famous - a legend - I wouldn't be surprised if today was known as Harry Potter Day in future - there will be books written about Harry = every child in our world will know his name!" "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half- moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head. Famous before he can walk and talk! Famous for something he won't even remember! Can't you see how much better off he'll be, growing up away from all that until he's ready to take it?"' (ibid. pp.15-16) Otto: > My own belief is that you cannot explain this from the internals of the book, but that JK Rowling was simply assuring marketing success by weaving into the story one of the most powerful tropes that appeals to immature readers, that they are special children with magical mystical powers marooned among a family of boorish toads who do not recognize their greatness and insist on them doing things like homework, shining their shoes, brushing their teeth, studying, and not running with scissors. Geoff: I'm not convinced that that was her real incentive. JKR has explained how she started writing the book when she was out of work and wanted to pass the time and to develop the story of Harry. She certainly wasn't thinking of publication from the word go and had considerable trouble finding a publisher. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 8 00:43:29 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 00:43:29 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191728 > Alla: > I have no problem with that, what I disagree with is that Dumbledore needed to act a *certain way*, specifically put all his hopes in Harry's basket and leave him without any help and protection besides his two friends in that idiotic quest IMO. Pippin: He didn't put all his hopes in Harry's basket. The Order remained active, with orders to do whatever Harry asked of it. Harry could have asked the Order to kill the snake, to help get the locket from the ministry or the cup from Gringotts, or for that matter to hunt down Mundungus Fletcher, all without violating Dumbledore's instructions. Trying to do it all on his own with just Ron and Hermione to help him was Harry's idiotic idea, not Dumbledore's. As a reader, I wanted to grab Harry by the shoulders and *make* him ask for help from Bill. But noooo, Harry is too noble to ask anybody he cares about to help him. He would rather make a dubious bargain with a goblin he knows doesn't like him very much. Harry was only told not to reveal what he knew from his lessons with Dumbledore. When he finally realized it was everyone else's fight too, he realized he could ask for help in locating or destroying objects without telling people why he wanted it done. Harry gives his reasons for wanting to destroy Voldemort, and it's nothing to do with how he was treated at the Dursleys or thinking Dumbledore is god. "Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest till you've tried! We both know it! Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you have never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now? Think!" Harry watched Dumbledore striding up and down in front of him and thought. He thought of his mother, his father, and Sirius. He thought of Cedric Diggory. He thought of all the terrible deeds he knew Lord Voldemort had done. A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing his throat. "I'd want him finished," said Harry quietly. "And I'd want to do it." That being the case, why not tell Harry what had to be done if he was to have any chance at all to survive? > Pippin: > > Should Snape have let Harry go unprotected until someone with sufficiently lofty motives appeared to do the job? > > Alla: > > I think Snape should have known that he does not have at least a mindset to do the job, even if he has skills. I know you think Snape's mindset is unimportant, as long as he did the job, but we just have to agree to disagree on that. Pippin: It's not that I think his mindset is unimportant. It's just that I don't see that as a rationale for refusing to protect someone when you have the opportunity. The real life person I think of in this regard is Oskar Schindler. In a lot of ways he was a more "deeply horrible person" than Snape could ever be. But he is honored as a righteous Gentile nonetheless. If he had refused to save "his" Jews because he'd exploited their labor and cooperated with their oppression and profited from their captivity, who would that have helped? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 8 01:03:26 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:03:26 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191730 .> > Alla: > > I have no problem with that, what I disagree with is that Dumbledore needed to act a *certain way*, specifically put all his hopes in Harry's basket and leave him without any help and protection besides his two friends in that idiotic quest IMO. > > Pippin: > He didn't put all his hopes in Harry's basket. The Order remained active, with orders to do whatever Harry asked of it. Harry could have asked the Order to kill the snake, to help get the locket from the ministry or the cup from Gringotts, or for that matter to hunt down Mundungus Fletcher, all without violating Dumbledore's instructions. > > Trying to do it all on his own with just Ron and Hermione to help him was Harry's idiotic idea, not Dumbledore's. As a reader, I wanted to grab Harry by the shoulders and *make* him ask for help from Bill. But noooo, Harry is too noble to ask anybody he cares about to help him. He would rather make a dubious bargain with a goblin he knows doesn't like him very much. > > Harry was only told not to reveal what he knew from his lessons with Dumbledore. When he finally realized it was everyone else's fight too, he realized he could ask for help in locating or destroying objects without telling people why he wanted it done. Alla: See, this is IMO taking the blame off Dumbledore's shoulders and taking it where it absolutely does not belong. Harry took Dumbledore's words literally, how else they were supposed to be taking? I would have taken it exactly like that. Share the purpose of your quest only with Ron and Hermione, for me means exactly that. Harry was supposed to realize that he can get around the instructions of Dumbledore and figure out the way not to listen to him? Sorry, I am not buying this at all, I think Dumbledore knew exactly what he was doing and he meant for Harry to fight only with Ron and Hermione. As far as I am concerned Order was worse than useless in book seven till final battle and may have been disbanded. Edited to add: So why do you think Dumbledore told Harry to share his quest only with Ron and Hermione? Because his lessons and Harry's fight in book seven supposed to be the same thing, so if Dumbledore did mean for Harry to get meaningful help, why not to say - ask anybody from the Order for help, share it with them? I know the answer of course - JKR wanted for kids to be heroes without adults' help, but to me this makes Dumbledore look horrible and she to me did not resolve such contradiction credibly. JMO, Alla. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 8 11:34:55 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 11:34:55 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191731 > > Otto's response: > > I found, after only a few chapters of the book, wondering why in the world Dumbledore ever lodged Harry with the Dursleys and questioned what he hoped to achieve. The best I can extrapolate is that Petunia is Lilly's sister and owes him some obligation, and that she (Petunia) knows what is going on, apparently being a squib. I maintain that his judgement in such case was extremely faulty, perhaps foolish, but I cannot concieve of it being the motivation you suggest. Potioncat: We know from canon that DD placed Harry with Petunia because of the Blood Protection. It is very old magic and offers him protection as long as Petunia's home is his. I doubt he had any idea Harry would be abused or neglected--though of course Harry wouldn't be some sort of celebrity in the Muggle World. Afterwards, (imo) DD considered the Blood Magic a more important issue than the Dursleys' treatment of Harry in Harry's placement. > > Otto: > My own belief is that you cannot explain this from the internals of the book, but that JK Rowling was simply assuring marketing success by weaving into the story one of the most powerful tropes that appeals to immature readers, that they are special children with magical mystical powers marooned among a family of boorish toads who do not recognize their greatness and insist on them doing things like homework, shining their shoes, brushing their teeth, studying, and not running with scissors. Potioncat: If you mean the orphan with the cruel relatives is a standard storyline and JKR is using that, I agree. She says as much in her interviews, that for the story to take place Harry needed to be alone and the kids had to be away from parental supervision (hence a remote Hogwarts) It seems you view this as trope while I think of it as an archetype. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 8 12:05:34 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 12:05:34 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: <4F07FE65.2060105@bigpond.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191732 Shaun: > To me, it does seem that it makes most sense that what Snape does is > intended to 'keep Lily Potter's son safe.' That's what Snape has > dedicated his life to doing. He has spied and lied and put himself in > mortal danger. Not because he's a nice man. He's not. He's a nasty piece > of work, and he's done evil in his past - but he has spent his life and > risked his life, and gives his life to protect Harry Potter, since > failing to protect his mother. And so I do tend to look at Snape's > actions in the light of 'how do they protect Harry'? Potioncat: This is the best description of Snape I've seen in many a year. It's all very interesting, how we respond to different characters differently. I found out midway through SS/PS that Snape wasn't the villain. I became curious about his actions before the ending and that affected how I saw him evermore. Along came Rickman!Snape and---what can I say, I'm sure I've defended this character far more than he deserved. The curiosity of "what's he up to--this horrid man who watches over Harry?" caused a bias toward him. Then look at Sirius Black, two sides of the same coin, these two. Sirius ends PoA as a hero, but then is never there for Harry. We learn more about his teenage years that he never outgrows and I began to really dislike him. Maybe it's expectations of what a good man should do. So I find myself forgiving the bad man because of the good he does, yet blaming the good man for not doing enough. What I really like is that JKR could write characters who cause so much conflict within the reader. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 8 17:56:10 2012 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 8 Jan 2012 17:56:10 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/8/2012, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1326045370.84.78709.m13@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191733 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 8, 2012 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 2012 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 8 19:24:37 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:24:37 -0000 Subject: The Dursley's - Blood Protection (was Re: Occlumency ... LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191734 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: > > Dear Alla > > Alla says: > " No, I think Dumbledore wanted to do everything in his power that Harry would abused and scared and miserable after living with Dursleys and would look at Dumbledore as god and do anything Dumbledore would want him to do and would go and die because Dumbledore raised him to that." > > Otto's response: > At peril of agreeing with Pippin on anything, I must say that I find this extremely doubtful on simple logic alone, leaving aside the necessity of any proof from "scripture." ... > > I found, after only a few chapters of the book, wondering why in the world Dumbledore ever lodged Harry with the Dursleys and questioned what he hoped to achieve. ... > > ... > > Otto > Steve: Actually, the books explain very very well precisely why Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys. When Voldemort shed Lily's blood as she defended Harry, that left a degree of magical protection within Harry. That is why Quirrel couldn't touch Harry in the last Chamber in Sorcerer's Stone. This and the part I will explain next have become known among fans as "The Blood Protection". Dumbledore expanded on 'the Blood Protection' by further enhancing it with additional spells. While Harry can call home, the place where his mother's blood dwells, he can not be harmed there. There is, in a sense, a protective bubble around #4 Privet Drive, that not only prevents Death Eaters from coming there, but prevents them from even finding the place. In a sense, the place to Death Eaters, has become 'unplottable', it can't be found on a map. Only two conditions cause these protective spells to break. One, if Harry left the Dursley's forever, and therefore could no longer call that place home. Two, when he became 'of age' in the wizard world. That sounds to me like a very important and positive reason to choose the Dursley, nasty as they might be, was the prefect place to put Harry. There is no other place when he can get such powerful and complete protection. To have Harry so thoroughly protected is certainly worth the inconvenience of putting up with the Dursley's boorishness. Harry is skinny, and not well favored at the Dursley, but on the whole, he is healthy. He is not starving. He is not in poor health. He is not physically damaged, and he seems extremely psychologically resilient. Given all that has happened, Harry seems in pretty good shape to me. And the "Blood Protection" has kept him safe for 10 years. When Harry finally leaves the Dursley's for good, the sky is filled with Death Eaters, why didn't they just attack Harry at the house? Well, as I have explained, despite being in the sky above Privet Drive, they couldn't actually find the house, and they couldn't penetrate the protective bubble. They had to wait for Harry to leave the protective bubble, and in doing so, as he was leaving for good, the protection at that location was broken. Hence the need for the Dursleys to go into protective custody. Again, the level of protection seems a very very good reason to board Harry at the Dursley's. I think Petunia knew of this protection. I think Dumbledore explained in it the letter he left on the doorstep with Harry. When the Dementors attack Harry in Little Whinging, Dumbledore simply send Petunia a letter that says "Remember my last". I also think the Dursley's had further incentive to accept and live up to this bargain as they also benefited from the protection. As long as Harry was there, the DE's, or anyone meaning Harry true harm, could not attack the Dursleys either. Let's not forget that there is no better protected place on earth for Harry. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From sigurd at eclipse.net Sun Jan 8 13:58:51 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:58:51 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191735 Dear Wilsonteam "Trope" or "Archetype"- doesn't matter- I view it as a simple ploy to get young readers interested in reading the book which a more general approach would not do, -- like if she had begun-- "All the world is divided into three parts, the wizzarding, the magic, and the muggle..." Appealing to adolescent fantasy, feeling sorry for ones self, and selfishness, may be crass, may be cynical, but it works. As I said, all adolescents are self-absorbed and narcisstic. Can't blame them, that's all they have-- that's all they have, that's all they know-- their bodies and their immediate friends, and most of them have absolutely no resources or power. Rowling is simply catering to their world view-- at 11 to 18. After 18 when they get jobs, grad school, real work and responsibilities "La Drole du Guerre" (the boredom of war and combat fatigue) takes over and they realize they are nothing special at all-- and the magic world dies. The worth of something like Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings, or Nancy Drew, or Treasure island, or the Leatherstocking tales or any of the grand corpus of Western literature is not what people "read in" in the work, but what they read "OUT." That is having created archetypes and tropes within a story, what conclusions are made or pronounced in the story that the reader having read "in" the story, now reads "out" of the story and adopts as archetypes and tropes in their own life. (Which is where the dangers lay.) For example if one watches John Wayne Movies and resolves to adopt John Wayne as an archetype and be more like him and act in the heroic way, then he does and that is reading "OUT" of a story. All stories (in exactly the same manner of games, the design of which I am heavily involved in) take a certain subset of the rules of reality and reduce them to archetypes and themes, characterizations, and tropes, and pits them against each other to make a point. They are pitted together as antagonist and protagonist, thesis and antithesis to achieve a synthesis and arrive at either comedy or tragedy. (Please note comedy here is as in comedia- journey, not a farce) Not much has changed since Aristotle. From this abstracted subset of reality we draw messages and lessons that may be life-changing or molding. The best example of this is science fiction- There really is no such thing as science fiction. There is only fiction cast into the future to make a point or explore some issue of the present. The science in most science fiction is laughable, and really only Isaac Asimov paid much attention to real science. The first thing is to get them to read. Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, King Arthur-- they're all he same guy. Otto From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 8 20:05:01 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:05:01 -0000 Subject: The Dursley's - Blood Protection (was Re: Occlumency ... LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191736 > Steve: > > Actually, the books explain very very well precisely why Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys. > > When Voldemort shed Lily's blood as she defended Harry, that left a degree of magical protection within Harry. That is why Quirrel couldn't touch Harry in the last Chamber in Sorcerer's Stone. This and the part I will explain next have become known among fans as "The Blood Protection". > > Dumbledore expanded on 'the Blood Protection' by further enhancing it with additional spells. While Harry can call home, the place where his mother's blood dwells, he can not be harmed there. There is, in a sense, a protective bubble around #4 Privet Drive, that not only prevents Death Eaters from coming there, but prevents them from even finding the place. In a sense, the place to Death Eaters, has become 'unplottable', it can't be found on a map. > Alla: I just want to clarify in case somebody may think that I forgot about the protection - I have not, but I also posted many times why I am not convinced that this is the only reason that Dumbledore put Harry with the Dursleys and why I did not think that the whole theme of blood protection was done convincingly and credibly for me. I mean, really and truly I think that a lot of things that Dumbledore did are not because he is that evil and close to evilness in Dumbledore, or at least I did not think that JKR wanted to paint him that way. I get that Harry needed to grew up with Dursleys to love WW so much in comparison because JKR needed him to, I get that Sirius needed to be in prison because JKR indeed needed him to be in prison till PoA, otherwise, well there will be no PoA. However, however and that is why I insist on arguing that Dumbledore is evil manipulator - because the only *other* explanations of those things which make sense to me from within the story is that Dumbledore indeed an evil, horrible manipulator, who had no business being nowhere near Harry. I am unable to suspend disbelief as to how he acted or not acted otherwise. From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jan 8 21:33:46 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:33:46 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191737 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sigurd at ... wrote: Otto: > As I said, all adolescents are self-absorbed and narcisstic. Can't blame them, that's all they have-- that's all they have, that's all they know-- their bodies and their immediate friends, and most of them have absolutely no resources or power. Rowling is simply catering to their world view-- at 11 to 18. After 18 when they get jobs, grad school, real work and responsibilities "La Drole du Guerre" (the boredom of war and combat fatigue) takes over and they realize they are nothing special at all-- and the magic world dies. Geoff: She's damn good at catering to them. I have met few female writers who are as good as JKR at having a handle on the male adolescent mind (and also many rather older guys). Generalisation has crept in again. Not every adolescent is self-absorbed and narcissistic. I don't feel that I went by that path very much and I must say that I didn't suffer from what might better be termed 'ennui du guerre', possibly because I worked professionally with older teenagers for over thirty years. Again, I have done a lot of reading of fantasy fiction at a more sedate(?) age. I did discover LOTR in my teens but other books such as the Narnia series and Alan Garner's two "Alderley Edge" books -"The Weirdstone of Brisingamen" and its sequel I found in my late twenties and I got into Harry Potter at a somewhat more advanced age. Perhaps I should have been checking the stock market or tutting over the state of the economy rather than following the Machiavellian antics of Voldemort and his cohorts in the Wizarding World but the latter makes for more interesting evenings. OK so, as a well-known UK window sticker puts it, I'm a recycled teenager. So? Otto: ...The best example of this is science fiction- There really is no such thing as science fiction. There is only fiction cast into the future to make a point or explore some issue of the present. The science in most science fiction is laughable, and really only Isaac Asimov paid much attention to real science. Geoff: Hmm, well seeing that Arthur C. Clarke, one of the world's leading SF writers predicted satellites just after the war and the communicators in Star Trek looked suspiciously like mobile phones, writers have had their moments of enlightenment. And, of course, Harry's tale is set against the modern world (as are the Garner books) and not in imaginary worlds such as Middle Earth or the imagined culture of the 24th century. From lynde4 at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 21:34:37 2012 From: lynde4 at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:34:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Overarching message (of the HP books) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191738 I learned (from the books) that some people still believe that people can change their ways. I learned (from the books) that some people understand that people are very complex and are a mixture of both good and evil. I learned that, as I have known for awhile, other people also realize that if you hold on to bitterness and hatred it will eat you up from the inside out, but you still might have enough good in you to be of some use toward good in the world. I also learned that some people will never understand these things. I learned it first outside of HP, but HP confirmed it. Lynda From bart at moosewise.com Sun Jan 8 22:42:19 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:42:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0A1BCB.5040301@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191739 nikkalmati: > As I see it, in the WW magic is hard work. In order to perform a spell > - for example turn oneself into a giant - someone has to do the > research to find the spell. Obviously not everyone is going to take > the chance that things won't work out i.e. remember the wizard who > turned himself into a buffalo by mistake? I suppose they do this sort > of work in the Dept. of Mysteries but the average wizard has about as > much chance of learning an experimental spell as I do of producing > stem cells in my basement. Bart: However, there has been indication that there are known theories, and new spells can be created from existing theories. Canon in point: Fred & George. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 08:43:39 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:43:39 -0000 Subject: The Dursley's - Blood Protection (was Re: Occlumency ... LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191740 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > > Steve: > > > > Actually, the books explain very very well precisely why Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys. > > > > When Voldemort shed Lily's blood as she defended Harry, that left a degree of magical protection within Harry.... > > > > Dumbledore expanded on 'the Blood Protection' by further enhancing it with additional spells. While Harry can call home, the place where his mother's blood dwells, he can not be harmed there. ... > > > > Alla: > > I just want to clarify in case somebody may think that I forgot about the protection -...I did not think that the whole theme of blood protection was done convincingly and credibly for me. > > ... I think that a lot of things that Dumbledore did are not because he is that evil ..., or at least I did not think that JKR wanted to paint him that way. I get that Harry needed to grew up with Dursleys to love WW so much in comparison because JKR needed him to, ... which make sense to me from within the story is that Dumbledore indeed an evil, horrible manipulator, who had no business being nowhere near Harry. > > I am unable to suspend disbelief as to how he acted or not acted otherwise. > Steve: You are confusing, or seeming to confuse, the motivations of the author with the motivations of Dumbledore himself. What JKR needed to happen does not influence the character motivations. They have their own internal reasons for acting as they do. Now I think that one could fairly argue that Dumbledore preferred Harry to grow up at the Dursleys so he would appreciate the wizard world even more. The canon is thin for that, but it could be a fair interpretation, and while I don't subscribe to it, I can't go so far as to say it is totally wrong. But JKR already explained a part of this. That is, how Harry could be so very different from Tom Riddle, even though their circumstances were similar. Both Tom Riddle and Harry Potter lead very deprived lives; they were not really loved or nurtured. But there is one big difference, Harry had about a year and a half of loving bonding with his mother and father, and perhaps even family friends. Tom Riddle grew from birth in a cold sterile orphanage, and did not get that bonding, and THAT has made all the difference in the world. Harry, while he generally keeps to himself, can relate to people. Their actions do affect him. There are those he respects, and those he despises. But to Tom Riddle, all his actions and seeming friendships are cold and calculated. Every action and interaction simply serves him in some way. >From the Author's point of view, it was necessary for Harry to live a somewhat Cinderella existance. Life had to be hard for a variety of authorial reasons. But just because JKR needed Harry's life to be hard, that doesn't mean Dumbledore specifically and willfully needed Harry's life to be hard. There are plenty of reasons for the author to need this, but few reason for the characters in the books to also need it. In the books, it just happened. Dumbledore expected more from the Dursley's and was disappointed to learn how poorly Harry was treated. He didn't expect much, but he did expect more than he got. Yet, he accepted it because it was a necessary evil. But a necessary evil is not necessarily an evil of his willful planning or intended. No back to the central topic of Harry at the Dursley's and Dumbledore placing him there. The Dursleys were Harry only living relatives, even with the existance of a Godfather, who just happened to be in prison, Petunia being Lily's sister has some legal standing in both the muggle and wizard world. Second, you can not deny the Protection because we see it working. It would have been very easy for the DE's to attack Harry at Privet Drive, where he has no wizards or witches to protect him. If the protection was not there, a wizard could have entered by stealth one night and easily killed them all. The incentive was low while Voldemort was gone, but once Voldemort returned and commanded his forces, without the protection, that could have easily been accomplished. But then ... no story. We further see the Protection in action the night Harry leaves for good. The DE's were there in the skies above Privet Drive, they obviously knew that Harry live there, or at least that he lived in Little Whinging, though perhaps not the precise location. They could have attacked Harry before the Order arrived. They could have attacked Harry the day before. But they didn't because they couldn't. Harry only became vulnerable once he was outside the bubble of protection, and under the circumstance, once he left the bubble, the protection actually broke. Number 4 Privet Drive was no longer a safe place for either Harry or the Dursleys. Only while he he could call the place where his mother's blood dwelled HOME would he be safe there. When he no longer called it home, the place was no longer protected. So, clearly the Protection is there and it is working, and it is doing precisely what Dumbledore planned for it to do; it protects Harry. It is hard to deny the existance of the Protection or the effectiveness of it, when we can see it working in the story. As to the level of the Durley's mistreatment, while it was not pleasant or fair, I don't think it quite crossed the line into criminal or Social Services, or Child Protective Services would have come to call. The neighbors can see Harry, they can see he is shabby, skinny, and occasionally bruised, but not sufficiently so to warrant a call to Social Services. Neither to our knowledge did any teach call Protective Services. Yes, it was a deprived existance, but Harry survived and within limits thrived. Again, he was not so deprived as to become ill. He was thin but not starving. He got bullied, but apparently not sufficiently so to warrant intervention, or trips to the hospital or doctor to treat injuries. Yes, it was unpleasant, unkind, and unfair, but let's not let our perspective run away with us here. Steve/bluewizard From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 9 14:43:00 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:43:00 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191741 > > Pippin: > > Harry was only told not to reveal what he knew from his lessons with > Dumbledore. When he finally realized it was everyone else's fight too, he > realized he could ask for help in locating or destroying objects without telling > people why he wanted it done. > > > Alla: > > See, this is IMO taking the blame off Dumbledore's shoulders and taking it where > it absolutely does not belong. Harry took Dumbledore's words literally, how else > they were supposed to be taking? I would have taken it exactly like that. Share > the purpose of your quest only with Ron and Hermione, for me means exactly that. Pippin: But Harry doesn't take it exactly like that. Nor should he. Dumbledore is dead, and Harry is an adult in command of the mission. Harry has the authority to decide what Dumbledore's instructions mean -- who else? Harry doesn't have any problem asking help from Kreacher, Griphook and Ollivander and sharing information with them on a need to know basis. So what's wrong with Lupin and Bill? Twice, Harry received an offer of help from a trusted, powerful wizard, and twice he turned it down, preferring instead a weaker ally whom he thought he could control. That sounds familiar -- in fact it's exactly the same mistake his father and Sirius made, trusting Pettigrew instead of Dumbledore to be the Secret Keeper. Harry was only lucky that Griphook betrayed him on his own account and not Voldemort's. Alla: > > So why do you think Dumbledore told Harry to share his quest only with Ron and Hermione? Because his lessons and Harry's fight in book seven supposed to be the same thing, so if Dumbledore did mean for Harry to get meaningful help, why not to say - ask anybody from the Order for help, share it with them? Pippin: Actually, it's Harry who asks Dumbledore for permission to tell Ron and Hermione. (HBP ch 10) Dumbledore gives it to him, and asks Harry to ask them not to repeat it to anyone else. It would not, he says, be a good idea if word got around how much he knows or suspects about Voldemort's secrets. There is a danger from Voldemort to anyone who knows the secrets, but also the secrets themselves are dangerous. Dumbledore absolutely loathes horcruxes. He is uncomfortably aware that not everyone shares his aversion for them. And now Voldemort has pushed the technology further than anyone ever has. Not only did he discover how to make more than one, they can be weaponized. Dumbledore knows Harry, Ron and Hermione well enough to know they will not be tempted. But the Trio themselves have not yet learned to judge character so well. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 15:43:28 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:43:28 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191742 > > Alla: > > > > See, this is IMO taking the blame off Dumbledore's shoulders and taking it where > > it absolutely does not belong. Harry took Dumbledore's words literally, how else > > they were supposed to be taking? I would have taken it exactly like that. Share > > the purpose of your quest only with Ron and Hermione, for me means exactly that. > > Pippin: > But Harry doesn't take it exactly like that. Nor should he. Dumbledore is dead, and Harry is an adult in command of the mission. Harry has the authority to decide what Dumbledore's instructions mean -- who else? > > Harry doesn't have any problem asking help from Kreacher, Griphook and Ollivander and sharing information with them on a need to know basis. > > So what's wrong with Lupin and Bill? > > Twice, Harry received an offer of help from a trusted, powerful wizard, and twice he turned it down, preferring instead a weaker ally whom he thought he could control. > > That sounds familiar -- in fact it's exactly the same mistake his father and Sirius made, trusting Pettigrew instead of Dumbledore to be the Secret Keeper. Harry was only lucky that Griphook betrayed him on his own account and not Voldemort's. Alla: Harry has control to decide whom to ask for help? Harry never violated Dumbledore's instructions where it mattered before, why would he start doing so now? Harry shared information with Kreacher and Ollivander about Horcruxes? I honestly do not remember that. And we really should ask Dumbledore what is wrong with Bill and Lupin. Harry was asked to not share information about Horcruxes with anybody else, and so he did not. And I have to very strongly disagree about "Harry an adult in control of the mission". Was it not Dumbledore who controlled Harry from his grave and made sure that Snape delivered information about Harry needed to be dead just in exact time and exact place. I say Dumbledore played his cards incredibly well and no, Harry was not in control of that mission at all. I mean he was in control of everyday details but not the great plan. Lets forget about Horcruxes and have to go on merry chase after Hallows? Was it Harry's idea too?! I dont know how anyone can argue that Dumbledore did not pull every single strings in book seven (and even his portrait did). Yes, at the end point Harry thought about it and decided that him dying is the best plan to defeat Voldemort, but I maintain that Dumbledore's conditioning during other fifteen years of Harry's life lead to him not even considering any other plan, any other idea. And yes, at that point he still has clear understanding that he was betrayed by Dumbledore (too bad he forgets about it after Kings Cross). Sorry, I wish Harry was in control of something significant in his life, once, but the only person who did that was IMO Dumbledore and Dumbledore only. And yes, despite Voldemort attacking Harry and his parents, I think Dumbledore had much more immediate control and influence. I think Harry showed that he can resist Voldemort pretty well, but sadly not so with Dumbledore. > > Alla: > > > > So why do you think Dumbledore told Harry to share his quest only with Ron and Hermione? Because his lessons and Harry's fight in book seven supposed to be the same thing, so if Dumbledore did mean for Harry to get meaningful help, why not to say - ask anybody from the Order for help, share it with them? > > Pippin: > Actually, it's Harry who asks Dumbledore for permission to tell Ron and Hermione. (HBP ch 10) Dumbledore gives it to him, and asks Harry to ask them not to repeat it to anyone else. It would not, he says, be a good idea if word got around how much he knows or suspects about Voldemort's secrets. > > There is a danger from Voldemort to anyone who knows the secrets, but also the secrets themselves are dangerous. > > Dumbledore absolutely loathes horcruxes. He is uncomfortably aware that not everyone shares his aversion for them. And now Voldemort has pushed the technology further than anyone ever has. Not only did he discover how to make more than one, they can be weaponized. > > Dumbledore knows Harry, Ron and Hermione well enough to know they will not be tempted. But the Trio themselves have not yet learned to judge character so well. Alla: But only those who know the secrets of horcruxes would be really able to help Harry, so to me that is the same as leaving Harry only with his two friends for help. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 10 13:28:13 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:28:13 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191743 > Alla: > > Harry has control to decide whom to ask for help? Harry never violated Dumbledore's instructions where it mattered before, why would he start doing so now? Pippin: You mean, except for the time when Harry decided to leave Hogwarts and rescue Sirius from the Ministry? Because that was the incident that convinced Dumbledore that he *couldn't* control Harry -- that Harry would never be willing to wait out the war while someone else, Sirius and Lupin, for example, fought Voldemort for him. But if I understand you correctly, what Harry would have done, if Dumbledore hadn't messed with his head, is say to himself, "Wait, three kids trying to stop Voldemort is crazy...there's gotta be a better way?" He should have been more like ....wait for it....Slughorn???? Because that's what Slughorn is saying, isn't it? Wait a minute Minerva, there has to be a wiser plan than a handful of teachers and teenagers against the armies of the most powerful Dark Lord who ever existed. But Slughorn looks like a coward in Harry's eyes for even raising the issue, because Harry can't imagine any reason for refusing to fight a losing battle when others are in danger except a selfish one. And Harry never wanted to be a Slytherin -- he not only didn't want to give into his selfish impulses, he didn't even want to *have* selfish impulses. I am sure that if Harry had chosen to be a Slytherin, Dumbledore would have found that only a minor impediment to his plans-- he had little trouble getting Snape, Slughorn or Draco to carry out his wishes. But since Harry had thrown himself heart and soul into being a Gryffindor, Dumbledore knew that when the time came Harry would not need to be persuaded. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 11 02:02:11 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:02:11 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191744 .> > > Alla: > > > > Harry has control to decide whom to ask for help? Harry never violated Dumbledore's instructions where it mattered before, why would he start doing so now? > > Pippin: > You mean, except for the time when Harry decided to leave Hogwarts and rescue Sirius from the Ministry? Because that was the incident that convinced Dumbledore that he *couldn't* control Harry -- that Harry would never be willing to wait out the war while someone else, Sirius and Lupin, for example, fought Voldemort for him. > > But if I understand you correctly, what Harry would have done, if Dumbledore hadn't messed with his head, is say to himself, "Wait, three kids trying to stop Voldemort is crazy...there's gotta be a better way?" He should have been more like ....wait for it....Slughorn???? > > Because that's what Slughorn is saying, isn't it? Wait a minute Minerva, there has to be a wiser plan than a handful of teachers and teenagers against the armies of the most powerful Dark Lord who ever existed. But Slughorn looks like a coward in Harry's eyes for even raising the issue, because Harry can't imagine any reason for refusing to fight a losing battle when others are in danger except a selfish one. Alla: You mean he should have thought about the ways of finding help and coming back to battle like Slugghorn? Thats one possibility, for sure. But mostly what I think Harry could have thought of about if Dumbledore did not mess up with his head was to at least think about how incredibly crazy some of old coot's instructions sounded. Three kids fighting Voldemort? Well, when they are seventeen, I sure do not think it is that crazy when they are *among the fighters" against Voldemort. But when Dumbledore makes them to do it alone, do I think it is crazy? You bet I do, crazy, evil and all kinds of things. Maybe if Dumbledore did not mess up with his head, Harry would have stopped and think about why is it Okay to tell Hermione and Ron about horcruxes, but not Lupin who is an experienced fighter since the first war? Maybe Harry would have realized that Dumbledore's paranoya should not apply to some people. Yes, yes I remember Pettigrew, but I maintain that this only made Dumbledore's paranoia worse and one has to trust somebody or one is bound to loose. I wonder if Harry framing his refusal to accept Lupin's help in the "go home to your baby" terms was another conditioning. Of course Dumbledore all along thought that nobody is nowhere close his level of brilliance and he apparently decided that he can make Harry to be just as alone and desperate, only thank goodness he decided Ron and Hermione deserve to be told. Maybe if Dumbledore did not mess up with his head, Harry would have realized that the less ridiculous notion than not to tell Minerva Mcgonagall about what exactly they were looking for hardly exists and Minerva proved by that time that she is not going to go to Voldemort and tell him Harry's secrets? Maybe they were able to find it faster? But I bet anything that Dumbledore's voice was in Harry's mind (no, before you ask I do not have a canon for that lol, it is my speculation) any time accepting request for help may have entered his mind.) But of course again I know in what genre JKR was writing about and three kids going on suicidal mission and winning looks attractive, but I am convinced that it makes Dumbledore to look terrible. Pippin: > And Harry never wanted to be a Slytherin -- he not only didn't want to give into his selfish impulses, he didn't even want to *have* selfish impulses. I am sure that if Harry had chosen to be a Slytherin, Dumbledore would have found that only a minor impediment to his plans-- he had little trouble getting Snape, Slughorn or Draco to carry out his wishes. But since Harry had thrown himself heart and soul into being a Gryffindor, Dumbledore knew that when the time came Harry would not need to be persuaded. Alla: Hm, may his not wanting to be a Slytherin has something to do with his upbringing at Dursleys? From bart at moosewise.com Wed Jan 11 15:42:23 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:42:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F0DADDF.9020202@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191745 Pippin: > But if I understand you correctly, what Harry would have done, if Dumbledore hadn't messed with his head, is say to himself, "Wait, three kids trying to stop Voldemort is crazy...there's gotta be a better way?" He should have been more like ....wait for it....Slughorn???? > Bart: Except that three kids had a much better chance of stopping Morty than an army of people. It is the Lord of the Rings, and, to a lesser extent, Star Wars strategy: distract the bad guy while a small, relatively weak group sneaks in to destroy his source of power. Morty was unaware that his horcruxes were being destroyed, and, as long as that remained the case, there was still a chance of destroying them. If he was aware that they were being destroyed, he would have put them under protections that would make Bella's vault seem tame by comparison. Bart From doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 11 16:51:15 2012 From: doctorwhofan02 at yahoo.ca (June Ewing) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:51:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Dursley's - Blood Protection (was Re: Occlumency ... LONG) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1326300675.80658.YahooMailNeo@web121301.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191746 > Alla says: > "No, I think Dumbledore wanted to do everything in his power that Harry would abused and scared and miserable after living with Dursleys and would look at Dumbledore as god and do anything Dumbledore would want him to do and would go and die because Dumbledore raised him to that." > Steve: Actually, the books explain very very well precisely why Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys. When Voldemort shed Lily's blood as she defended Harry, that left a degree of magical protection within Harry. Dumbledore expanded on 'the Blood Protection' by further enhancing it with additional spells. While Harry can call home, the place where his mother's blood dwells, he can not be harmed there. There is, in a sense, a protective bubble around #4 Privet Drive, Only two conditions cause these protective spells to break. One, if Harry left the Dursley's forever, and therefore could no longer call that place home. Two, when he became 'of age' in the wizard world. Given all that has happened, Harry seems in pretty good shape to me. And the "Blood Protection" has kept him safe for 10 years. Robbi: Steve you are beating a dead horse here, lol. We have talked about this many times and totally agree with her, but Alla has always felt this way and that's ok too. Everyone sees things differently. Alla is saying that although we understand the reasons Dumbledore should have had for leaving Harry with the Dursleys he also had an ulterior motive. When Alla explains it, it does have some sense to it and although I love Dumbledore we have learned that like the rest of us he has his faults and has made mistakes which he had hinted at through the books. Although I do not agree totally with Alla's sights into Dumbledore, I can understand how these ideas come about and think that while we are discussing the books it is important for everyone to have their own ideas of how things went about. Let's face it, if we all agreed we would have nothing to talk about. From sigurd at eclipse.net Wed Jan 11 18:25:44 2012 From: sigurd at eclipse.net (sigurd at eclipse.net) Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:25:44 -0000 Subject: Trio as ''stealth'' team to take down Voldemort (was Re: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: <4F0DADDF.9020202@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191747 Dear List Bart is correct in the mechanism used by JK. Rowling- the sort of "stealth" team to destroy Voldemort. But again, that's following on the premise of the book. After all, what's the point of attracting little kids to the work by feeding the fiction they have magical mystery powers all out of proportion to their scrawny or fat, funny named or glasses wearing bodies. What's the purpose of telling the story that the kids are "special" if you don't let them be the agents of the big kill. After that's what adolescent fantasies are all about. But I do have to point out a problem with your thesis, Bart. No-- wait-- it's not a problem as I think on it, but a caveat. Tolkein's reasons for using the Hobbits as a means of destroying the Ring is not the same thing, though the tactic is. Destroy the ring and you destroy Sauron. Tolkein chooses the Hobbits because he is using the Hobbits as a metaphor for the every day common-man sort of England, the simple, honest salt-of-the-earth uncomplicated people who willingly went over the top with him in World War I and served dutifully in World War Two and just wanted to get back to their shires and dales and burrow holes. He puts into the mind of Gandalf (who really is a metaphor for Tolkein himself) that the Hobbits hearts are too simple to be perverted by the power of the ring. But it makes sense from Rowling's point of view. Kids think they are invulnerable (doubt me- ask any 18 year old recruit in the army) and will undertake the most impossible tasks out of pretty much adolescent bravado and under-age innocence. That is, they assume the role of a far-older literary theme-- "The Parsival"-- the "poor fool" or the "guileless fool" who is too brave (or too stupid) to be afraid. But at the same time Harry has several other qualities that set him apart and that are going to inevitably draw him and Voldemort into conflict. The one thing is certain-- Voldemort MUST either destroy Potter or be destroyed by him, and to do that Voldemort must be drawn out of hiding. Fafnir must come out of the cave and be slain by Siegfried, or Beowulf must descend into the lair of the mother of Grendel and slay her, "the mother of all monsters." Otto From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 12 18:03:48 2012 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:03:48 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191748 > Alla: > > You mean he should have thought about the ways of finding help and coming back to battle like Slugghorn? Thats one possibility, for sure. > But mostly what I think Harry could have thought of about if Dumbledore did not mess up with his head was to at least think about how incredibly crazy some of old coot's instructions sounded. Three kids fighting Voldemort? Well, when they are seventeen, I sure do not think it is that crazy when they are *among the fighters" against Voldemort. But when Dumbledore makes them to do it alone, do I think it is crazy? You bet I do, crazy, evil and all kinds of things. Maybe if Dumbledore did not mess up with his head, Harry would have stopped and think about why is it Okay to tell Hermione and Ron about horcruxes, but not Lupin who is an experienced fighter since the first war? Pippin: Alla, when did Harry have to be brainwashed to get him to act without thinking? Harry expanded his instructions to "Dumbledore didn't want anyone else to know", (DH 6) and that suited Harry just fine because Harry wanted to be the only one who risked himself against Voldemort. You'll remember he didn't even want to cooperate with the seven Potters plan, though if he hadn't he would certainly have been killed. But, at the risk of agreeing with Otto, ;) the story is not about the best way to destroy a horcrux. It is about what weak, seemingly insignificant people can accomplish with courage, stealth, ingenuity and loyalty, in short with the virtues of all four Houses. Alla: > > But of course again I know in what genre JKR was writing about and three kids going on suicidal mission and winning looks attractive, but I am convinced that it makes Dumbledore to look terrible. > Pippin: Humans and chimpanzees share a behavior called raiding. A small party, usually all males, will venture stealthily from their home territory into the territory of a neighboring group and attack isolated members of it. In the chimpanzee's case, they don't seem to recognize the neighboring animals as fellow chimpanzees, even when they've been friendly in the past. Instead they are hunted and killed like prey. And if all the neighboring males can be killed, the surviving females are absorbed into the original group. I'm sure there's a PhD thesis waiting for the scholar who can link this to the Hero's Journey. But seems to me there could be a reason we all feel, somehow, that we were born to go out into the dark places, kill a monster, and bring back a prize. Harry, being a modern hero, chose not to see his enemies as monsters, even if they saw him as one. And as part of that, Harry had to learn that being a hero wasn't about winning. It was about giving things up. > Alla: > > Hm, may his not wanting to be a Slytherin has something to do with his upbringing at Dursleys? Pippin: The test of an explanation is whether it would help you to predict the event in advance. Many people predicted that Harry's upbringing at the Dursleys would make him permanently bitter and angry, even evil -- this seemed to be happening in OOP. It follows that the overall effect of the Dursleys on Harry was simply not knowable in advance, and Dumbledore would have been very foolish to think otherwise. There is no canon that he did, only that he regarded treating a child as a "pampered prince" as equally damaging or even more so. Knowing that a child is subject to abuse allows you to predict he will be damaged -- that's what abuse means. But Dumbledore couldn't predict how the child was going to deal with the damage. There were many factors involved which no one (except JKR) could control. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 19:32:42 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:32:42 -0000 Subject: Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191749 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rtbthw_mom" wrote: > > > > > > > Alla: > > > > > > Ah I see, thanks. In my view, Snape simply stopped doing it. But anyway I was looking at the Lexicon, and I think I found Voldemort using Legilimency on unsuspecting Harry,... > > > > > Nikkalmati > > > > I looked at that passage again. ... I would point out that LV suggests Quirrel use the boy to get the Stone and when Harry says he has won the Quiddich cup, LV says "he lies, he lies". All that was before Quirrel unwraps his turbin, ... > > > > I agree with Andy that LV performed Legilemancy on Gregorivich, but probably GG knew what LV was doing and what he was seeing. > > > > Nikkalmati > > > > Pat: > > See, in my view, there is no possible way this could be Legilimancy. LV is wrapped up in Quirrell's turban and in the back of Quirrell's head - how could he possibly look Harry in the eye ... One of those kind of gifts - I know others (my husband among them) that have this ability. And in my husband's case, I can guarantee that he doesn't know how to Legilimance anyone! > > So, my vote is, no possible way this is Legilimancy. > > Pat > Steve: There was a TV show on not too long ago that was about primarily one man, though he had a gifted team working with him, who could read body language and vocal tones to an extremely high degree. He could tell when some one was lying or being evasive to a far greater degree than anyone else. I think he worked as something of an FBI profiler, of sorts. Though I don't remember, I think the series might have been called "Lie to Me". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235099/ As to Voldemort in this particular scene, I suspect simply on the inflection and tone of Harry's voice, Voldemort could have easily determined he was lying. Further, common logic would tell anyone that in a situation like that that a kid would surely try to bluff his way out of it. Talk to teachers and parents who have to deal with lying kids. It is not that hard to tell. Kids are emotionally immature, and are not as able to read facial expressions as adults are. Hence, reasonably they are also not able to hide those telling facial expressions and vocal inflections. Then there is the intuitive aspect. While Voldemort is the most gifted Legilimens, he must willfully break into someone's mind. But on a lower level, someone with this powerful a gift, is also very likely to have a strong intuitive sense that does not require him to specifically break into people's minds. That is, he can tell when people are lying without having to break into their minds, and directly and specifically use some form or degree of Legilemeny. I think people are looking at this too much as Black and White, when it reality, especially as far as Voldemort is concerned, it is really a wide spectrum of shades of gray. It think this gift can range from the obvious to the intuitive to the willful. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 13 19:59:40 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:59:40 -0000 Subject: Occlumency VERY VERY LONG In-Reply-To: <4F0DADDF.9020202@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191750 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Pippin: > > ... what Harry would have done, if Dumbledore hadn't messed with his head, is say to himself, "Wait, three kids trying to stop Voldemort is crazy...there's gotta be a better way?" ... > > > > Bart: > Except that three kids had a much better chance of stopping Morty > than an army of people. It is the Lord of the Rings, and, to a > lesser extent, Star Wars strategy: distract the bad guy while a > small, relatively weak group sneaks in to destroy his source of > power. ... > > Bart > Steve: In any piece of literature, we can look at the story from two perspectives, one as if we were in the story ourselves, and the other as outside observers. From the outside, JKR has written the classic hero's tale. When in history have old men ever solved a problem. It is always kids we sent to war, while old generals sit back sipping tea and moving toy soldiers around on a map. The classic Hero's Tale is always one young man against overwhelming forces. He doesn't win in the end by sheer strength, but more so youthful cunning and determination. In that external sense, Harry is who he is and does what he does, as well as his being influenced by external characters like Dumbledore, because if he is not that, then we don't have a story. Hero's don't play it safe, in real life war or in fictional legends. Heroes defy all odds, heroes go against the grain, Heroes act alone (more or less), Hereos do not bow to authority or allow the puppet masters to make them dance. While one could say Dumbledore was a puppet master, I think on a grander scale, the true puppet master manipulating the citizens as a whole is the Ministry, which like any political organization is thoroughly corrupt and is primarily protecting its own self interest. Certain on a smaller scale, Dumbledore is a puppet master, he is controlling a small group of people who are unwilling to put their faith in the slow moving and corrupt Ministry. But in an odd twisted way, Dumbledore is the anti-puppet master puppet master. He is not acting out of self-interest in the way the Ministry is. He is actually trying to solve the problem. But Dumbledore knows something that others do not know. Something that he confides in Snape only near the very end. And that is that Harry too is a Horcrux. That means Dumbledore must, to the extent that he can, manipulate people in such a way that a confrontation occurs between Harry and Voldemort, and further, in that confrontation, Harry does not defend himself, that he willfully accepts his fate. It is that act of not defending himself, that is key to actually saving him. Dumbledore is risking a lot on what can only be considered a hunch. He is risking Harry's life and the fate of the wizard world if he is wrong. Of course, in a Hero's Tale, the hero can not truly die until the job is done. Or if he does die, it has to be in a way that allows the job to ultimately be done by others. As a person emotionally wrapped up in the story, I can see to a degree Dumbledore's manipulation. But as an outside analyst, I can also see that it was necessary to the flow of the story. While it seems as if Dumbledore was sending Harry to his death, he was actually allowing Harry to reach a state where he could defeat Voldemort. As Joseph Campbell said, in a Hero's Journey, the hero must die and be reborn several times. When Harry meets Hagrid for the first time and is told he is a wizard, that is a form of the death of the old, living at the Dursely downtrodden and oppressed Harry, and the rebirth of Harry as a powerful wizard. One could say, that every one of the seven stories written about Harry is a broad metaphor for Harry dying and being reborn. And in the end, it was the very act of death and rebirth that allowed Harry to ultimately defeat Voldemort. Give that the story is endless cycles of Harry dying and being reborn metaphorically, we really should have seen this coming. Steve/bboyminn From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 15 17:56:07 2012 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 15 Jan 2012 17:56:07 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/15/2012, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1326650167.12.71788.m11@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191751 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 15, 2012 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 2012 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yutian.mei at gmail.com Sun Jan 15 12:04:06 2012 From: yutian.mei at gmail.com (realjunesun) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:04:06 -0000 Subject: Expecto Patronum Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191752 At the risk of stating the obvious, "expecto patronum" is real. Make a cache of your best memories to be used when sadness, fear and despair attack. Prepare it ahead of time because at the moment of need, you'll only be able to view a loop of your worst moments. My cache contains photos like http://tinypic.com/r/2h3ydsk/5 (a picture I took myself in my hometown), special music, poems and simple words evoking past experiences. realjunesun From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 15 22:19:26 2012 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:19:26 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191753 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. 7: Bagman and Crouch Harry and the Weasleys arrived at their campsite. Mr Weasley managed to pay Mr Roberts with Muggle money for their spot in his field. Once their tents were put up (by hand), the Trio went to get some water. On their way they met Seamus Finnigan and Dean Thomas, and further on they saw moving posters of Viktor Krum. Then they got in line for the water tap behind Archie and his flowery nightgown. Back at the campsite, Arthur pointed out the Ministry wizards who passed by including, intriguingly, the Unspeakables Bode and Croaker of the Department of Mysteries. Ludo Bagman sat down with the Weasleys, and Fred and George bet all their savings and a fake wand that Ireland win, but Krum gets the Snitch. We found out that Bertha Jorkins is lost and has a bad memory. Mr Crouch arrived next in his impeccable suit and severely tamed hair and moustache and called Percy "Weatherby." Ludo dropped hints about a big event to happen at Hogwarts but Crouch cut him off. Questions: 1. Mr Roberts asked a lot of questions about all the strange things he was noticing. Did you think he was nosey, or just reasonably curious? How did you feel when the Ministry wizard Obliviated him? 2. Mr Weasley mentioned that Ludo Bagman has always been a bit lax about security. Does this have any bearing on your opinion of whether Ludo knew Rookwood was a Death Eater when he passed information to him? 3. Archie, who likes a healthy breeze, apparently never wears trousers. Do you think he is typical of wizards or not? 4. Barty Crouch obviously knows Arthur Weasley quite well. And yet he does not know Percy as Arthur's son though he must have been introduced as such. Does this show something about Crouch's character, or is "Weatherby" just a joke? 5. Ali Bashir wants to sell flying carpets in Britain, but Arthur explained to him that the Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects lists carpets as a Muggle Artefact. Given that Muggles have brooms too, do you think the carpet ban is just politics? What do you think of Arthur's part in this? 6. When you first read about the exciting event to take place at Hogwarts, did you think of any possibilities? What were they? 7. Please add any other questions to the list. Annemehr NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "POST DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=33 Next, Chapter 8 of Goblet of Fire coming up soon. If you would like to volunteer to lead a GOF chapter discussion, please drop a note to HPforGrownups-owner@ yahoogroups.com (without the space). From ddankanyin at cox.net Sun Jan 15 22:34:18 2012 From: ddankanyin at cox.net (dorothy dankanyin) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:34:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch References: Message-ID: <8875B858DD8043E6A330798F7D969322@DG22FG61> No: HPFGUIDX 191754 From: "annemehr" Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 5:19 PM > > 1. Mr Roberts asked a lot of questions about all the strange things he was > noticing. Did you think he was nosey, or just reasonably curious? How did > you > feel when the Ministry wizard Obliviated him? Dorothy: I thought it was necessary to obliviate him given the circumstances, but I felt badly for Mr. Roberts, and even more so after he had many "obliviations". > > 2. Mr Weasley mentioned that Ludo Bagman has always been a bit lax about > security. Does this have any bearing on your opinion of whether Ludo knew > Rookwood was a Death Eater when he passed information to him? Dorothy: I didn't think Bagman had any thought about Rookwood being a Death Eater. I thought Bagman was sort of an overgrown teenage athlete type who thought only of fun - and money. > > 3. Archie, who likes a healthy breeze, apparently never wears trousers. Do > you > think he is typical of wizards or not? Dorothy: I think Archie was typical of the older wizard type who might have picked a kilt instead of a nightgown. :) > > 4. Barty Crouch obviously knows Arthur Weasley quite well. And yet he does > not > know Percy as Arthur's son though he must have been introduced as such. > Does > this show something about Crouch's character, or is "Weatherby" just a > joke? Dorothy: I don't think Barty Crouch knew anyone that well. He knew Arthur because they both worked at the Ministry for a long time, but I don't think he paid all that much attention to Percy, or anything at that time. I don't think his not knowing Percy's name had any other meaning. > > 5. Ali Bashir wants to sell flying carpets in Britain, but Arthur > explained to > him that the Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects lists carpets as a > Muggle > Artefact. Given that Muggles have brooms too, do you think the carpet ban > is > just politics? What do you think of Arthur's part in this? Dorothy: I think the flying carpet and it's objection is just one of the "cute" things JKR put in the story to sort of give us an inkling into the wider wizarding world. > > 6. When you first read about the exciting event to take place at Hogwarts, > did > you think of any possibilities? What were they? Dorothy: All I thought of at the time was that there was going to be a contest where the Goblet of Fire would be awarded. I had no clue whatsoever as to the contest itself. Thanks for these interesting questions From bart at moosewise.com Mon Jan 16 21:38:19 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:38:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Expecto Patronum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F1498CB.2080308@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191755 On 1/15/2012 7:04 AM, realjunesun wrote: > At the risk of stating the obvious, "expecto patronum" is real. Bart: I will have to admit that every time I have met one or more dementors, the expecto patronum spell effectively shooed it away. I have yet, however, been able to get a patronus to carry a message; can you give some advice in that regard? Bart From bart at moosewise.com Mon Jan 16 22:03:50 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:03:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F149EC6.1020104@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191756 On 1/15/2012 5:19 PM, annemehr wrote: > 1. Mr Roberts asked a lot of questions about all the strange things he was > noticing. Did you think he was nosey, or just reasonably curious? How did you > feel when the Ministry wizard Obliviated him? Bart: I felt that it was reasonable curiosity. My feeling about the obliviation, or at least the relative lack of concern as to what it was doing to Mr. Roberts' brain, is a wonderful example of why Morty managed to get control of the Ministry later on. I was concerned as to whether or not JKR felt the same way. annemehr: > 2. Mr Weasley mentioned that Ludo Bagman has always been a bit lax about > security. Does this have any bearing on your opinion of whether Ludo knew > Rookwood was a Death Eater when he passed information to him? Bart: It contributed to the concept of Bagman as a screwup. annemehr: > 3. Archie, who likes a healthy breeze, apparently never wears trousers. Do you > think he is typical of wizards or not? Bart: In that wizards seem to have a point of view, possibly making fun by analogy of Western postmodernists, that any standard is valid except Muggle standards, which are ridiculous and incomprehensible. annemehr: > 4. Barty Crouch obviously knows Arthur Weasley quite well. And yet he does not > know Percy as Arthur's son though he must have been introduced as such. Does > this show something about Crouch's character, or is "Weatherby" just a joke? Bart (no relation): This is a standard literary meme in English and American fiction; a shorthand of showing either that the boss is so into himself that he knows nothing about his employees, that the employee is so inconsequential that his boss doesn't even know his name, or, most frequently, both. annemehr: > 5. Ali Bashir wants to sell flying carpets in Britain, but Arthur explained to > him that the Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects lists carpets as a Muggle > Artefact. Given that Muggles have brooms too, do you think the carpet ban is > just politics? What do you think of Arthur's part in this? Bart: I hadn't thought of that, but, given the question, I would say, "grandfather clause"; that the use of brooms for flying in Britain predated the RPCO, but flying carpets, not being in general use in Britain, is considered to be something new. annemehr: > 6. When you first read about the exciting event to take place at Hogwarts, did > you think of any possibilities? What were they? > Bart: I made the mistake of reading the cover jacket. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 17 02:06:30 2012 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:06:30 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > >> Questions: > > 1. Mr Roberts asked a lot of questions about all the strange things he was > noticing. Did you think he was nosey, or just reasonably curious? How did you > feel when the Ministry wizard Obliviated him? Alla: I thought he was reasonably curious, as to how I feel about his Obliviation? Eh, I will be honest, I do not remember whether I felt that way when I just read the book for the first time ( first reactions to some events I remember, but not too many overall), however upon rereads I pretty much feel the same way as I feel about Legilimency. I can kind of sort of excuse it, if the choice would be between killing the person or making person forget, but it will be a lame excuse, I totally realize that. I think it is a horrible violation of the person's self. > 2. Mr Weasley mentioned that Ludo Bagman has always been a bit lax about > security. Does this have any bearing on your opinion of whether Ludo knew > Rookwood was a Death Eater when he passed information to him? Alla: I am not sure if this specific thing had any bearing on my opinion, but overall I always thought that Ludo was a bit daft, thus I never thought that he knew he was passing information to the Death Eater. > 3. Archie, who likes a healthy breeze, apparently never wears trousers. Do you > think he is typical of wizards or not? Alla: No clue and there are sadly not too many wizards where I would have wanted to find out hehe. > 4. Barty Crouch obviously knows Arthur Weasley quite well. And yet he does not > know Percy as Arthur's son though he must have been introduced as such. Does > this show something about Crouch's character, or is "Weatherby" just a joke? Alla: I did not think Barty cared to consider Percy important enough, worthy of his interest. Thanks for the great questions. From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Jan 19 04:54:09 2012 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (Debbie Duncan) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:54:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch In-Reply-To: <8875B858DD8043E6A330798F7D969322@DG22FG61> References: <8875B858DD8043E6A330798F7D969322@DG22FG61> Message-ID: <979877D6-2BAD-42F1-80F7-316B46BF7A31@gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191758 > > 1. Mr Roberts asked a lot of questions about all the strange things he was > > noticing. Did you think he was nosey, or just reasonably curious? How did > > you > > feel when the Ministry wizard Obliviated him? > Debbie: Given the circumstances (weird outfits, cluelessness about money), I think he had every right to try to satisfy his curiosity. On first reading, Obliviation seemed right and necessary, but after seeing the uses made of it by the Crouches, among others, it seemed less benign, and more like Imperious (though I don't think Imperious Curse is on a par with the other Unforgivables). > > 2. Mr Weasley mentioned that Ludo Bagman has always been a bit lax about > > security. Does this have any bearing on your opinion of whether Ludo knew > > Rookwood was a Death Eater when he passed information to him? > > Debbie: Ludo gave Rookwood information in exchange for anticipated future employment at the Ministry, according to his own testimony. At a minimum this indicates a disregard for ethics. I suspect he had a very goo idea what Rookwood was doing with the information but deliberately didn't inquire too closely. > > 4. Barty Crouch obviously knows Arthur Weasley quite well. And yet he does > > not > > know Percy as Arthur's son though he must have been introduced as such. > > Does > > this show something about Crouch's character, or is "Weatherby" just a > > joke? > Debbie: I think the stress of keeping Barty Jr. Under control had gotten to him and he was too distracted to remember Percy's name. Crouch probably only knew Arthur professionally so Crouch may not have known the kids at all. And Weatherby may have been the name of another Ministry employee adding to his confusion. > > > > > 5. Ali Bashir wants to sell flying carpets in Britain, but Arthur > > explained to > > him that the Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects lists carpets as a > > Muggle > > Artefact. Given that Muggles have brooms too, do you think the carpet ban > > is > > just politics? What do you think of Arthur's part in this? > Debbie: While protection of the British broom industry must have been a significant factor in the anti-carpet regulation, given the Arabian Nights carpet folklore, they could probably justify the rule as an anti-detection measure. A flying carpet is a lot bigger than a broom. Debbie > > . > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 19 20:37:08 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:37:08 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191759 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" wrote: > > .... > > GOBLET OF FIRE CH. 7: Bagman and Crouch > > .... > > Questions: > > 1. Mr Roberts asked a lot of questions about all the strange > things he was noticing. Did you think he was nosey, or just > reasonably curious? How did you feel when the Ministry wizard > Obliviated him? > Steve: I should go back and re-read that section, but it seems to me that the Security Wizards were positively frantic. They seem very much understaffed and overworked, and Ludo Bagman is not there providing direction to them. So, they are left to fend for themselves. Consequently, being overstressed and overworked, they felt they had no choice but to apply the most expedient solution, which was Obliviate. Though I felt Mr Robert's curiosity was reasonable. Now if Bagman has been on the ball, he could have made up a good cover story like - we are all descended from the Czech Republic and this is a celebration in which we all dress in traditional Czech garb. I suspect that would have been sufficiently obscure that Mr. Roberts wouldn't have known the difference. That or a similarly obscure cover story. But Bagman was too busy trying to raise gambling money and talk about old times to do his job, so the security wizards were force to make it up as they went along. I suspect even they did not feel Obliviate was the best or the most ethical choice, but when you've got 50 'wildfires' that need putting out, you get this one done quickly and move on to the next. > 2. Mr Weasley mentioned that Ludo Bagman has always been a bit > lax about security. Does this have any bearing on your opinion > of whether Ludo knew Rookwood was a Death Eater when he passed > information to him? > Steve: I think, no offense intended, that Bagman was an airhead jock whose glory days were behind him. He is a great guy to invite to a party to regal the crowd with tails of those glory days, but he is not competent to do any job at all. But he does have some status as a Quidditch player, and he does seem well connected, as well as gifted at butt kissing. So, they found him some job at the Ministry. I don't think Bagman was malicious, in that he did not willfully give away information to the enemy, in fact, Rookwood was deep in the Ministry and Bagman reasonably thought he was giving information to the good guys. But it just shows how clueless and desperate Bagman was. He knew he had no marketable skills, but he also knew he did not want to spend his declining years waiting on tables. So, he curried favor where he could. > 3. Archie, who likes a healthy breeze, apparently never wears > trousers. Do you think he is typical of wizards or not? > Steve: To that I ask, what does a Scotsman were under his kilts? Since the wizard world wears primarily robs, I can see that a lot of people, whether they wear underwear or not, like a healthy breeze around their privates. Obviously though this was simply in the story for comedic effect, and I think in that sense, it worked very well. But in a world where Robes are the standard article of clothing, I do think trousers are rare. > 4. Barty Crouch obviously knows Arthur Weasley quite well. And > yet he does not know Percy as Arthur's son though he must have > been introduced as such. Does this show something about Crouch's > character, or is "Weatherby" just a joke? > Steve: Pardon me while I digress a bit. I'm reminded of celebrities and autograph seeking fans. The fans see themselves as individual in an individual one-on-one encounter with a celebrity. But the celebrity does not see this as a one-on-one encounter, he see it as a one-on-millions encounter. Consequently when the Celeb does not react up to fan expectations, and take a personal interest in the fan, the fan is naturally disappointed. I think that is true of Crouch. Percy see Crouch as one man to adore. But Crouch see the entire Ministry and wizard world as thousands of people to keep track of. A fan will remember a celeb encounter as a once in a lifetime encounter, but to the celeb, it is one of countless millions of such encounters. The same is true of Crouch. Percy only has to remember and adore one person, but Crouch has to keep track of hundreds and he puts effort into remembering based on his perceived priority of the individual. If it is a high dignitary from another country, Crouch is going to remember, but if it is one of hundreds on junior Ministry employees, Crouch is going to give little thought to their name, until such time as that name become significant to him. I think if Mr. Weasley has made it more clear that Percy was his son, it would have stuck a little tighter in Mr Crouch's mind. But, even so, while Crouch was on speaking terms with Mr. Weasley, I don't think he held Arthur in all that high of regard. Notice in the next book, when Percy become Crouch's personal assistant, Percy as an extension of the Weasley clan, and an extension of a close association with Harry Potter, become very significant, and Crouch has no trouble remembering his name. > 5. Ali Bashir wants to sell flying carpets in Britain, but Arthur > explained to him that the Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects > lists carpets as a Muggle Artifact. Given that Muggles have brooms > too, do you think the carpet ban is just politics? What do you > think of Arthur's part in this? > Steve: I think as others have said, the Flying Brooms are a historical objects in Britain, but Flying Carpets are a new foreign objects. Being a new and foreign object, it is harder to get it on the list of acceptably charmable objects. In addition, I think there is a degree of protectionism there. They are trying to preserve the British broom market for falling apart with the introduction of Carpets. The obvious advantage of a Flying Carpet is that it is easier to take your entire family with you on a single flying object. At best, a Broom might accommodate two. I've solved that problem by inventing (in fan fiction) the Comet Rubeus I cargo broom. Harry invents a Hagrid sized broom intended to be a one-off present for Hagrid. (Actually, they made 4 in the first run) But it catches on, and Hagrid adds a carriage that hangs under the boom. This becomes perfect for hauling cargo or families, and the broom become very popular. Sorry for that fantasy diversion. But it shows that wizard ingenuity can, if they try, overcome the apparent advantages of the Flying Carpet. So, I think a significant degree of the prohibition of the Flying Carpet is protectionism for the British Wizard broom industry. > 6. When you first read about the exciting event to take place at > Hogwarts, did you think of any possibilities? What were they? > Steve: I'm not one to stop and analyze in the moment. If a mystery like this comes up, I just keep reading on the assumption that it will eventually be revealed. Certainly I was intrigued by what it might be, but there is no point in speculation in the moment when it will be revealed in the story ... eventually. > 7. Please add any other questions to the list. > Steve: No additional question, but good job on the questions you did come up with. Steve/bboyminn From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 22 17:56:06 2012 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 22 Jan 2012 17:56:06 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/22/2012, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1327254966.10.35813.m11@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191760 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 22, 2012 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 2012 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jan 23 04:51:10 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:51:10 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191761 Nikkalmati > GOBLET OF FIRE CH. 7: Bagman and Crouch > > > 1. Mr Roberts asked a lot of questions about all the strange things he was > noticing. Did you think he was nosey, or just reasonably curious? How did you > feel when the Ministry wizard Obliviated him? > Nikkalmati I thought he was just normally curious and that the wizards and witches were not being as carful as possible, because they were all so excited. When he was Obliviated I felt uneasy, but we did not know much about Obliviation and I assumed they would not do it if it had any ill effects. I am not so sure now. Nikkalmati > 2. Mr Weasley mentioned that Ludo Bagman has always been a bit lax about > security. Does this have any bearing on your opinion of whether Ludo knew > Rookwood was a Death Eater when he passed information to him? > Nikkalmati By lax about security I took it to mean Ludo was carelss. That would mean he did not intend any harm in passing information to Rookwood, but he just didn't give the implications any thought. I think Ludo feels he always has a free pass and he was very alarmed when he was accused of a serious offense. Nikkalmati > 3. Archie, who likes a healthy breeze, apparently never wears trousers. Do you > think he is typical of wizards or not? Nikkalmati Well I am not much of an expert in this regard. :>). I would think many wizards do not wear trousers for whatever reasons. Nikkalmati > > 4. Barty Crouch obviously knows Arthur Weasley quite well. And yet he does not > know Percy as Arthur's son though he must have been introduced as such. Does > this show something about Crouch's character, or is "Weatherby" just a joke? > Nikkalmati Just an author's joke or a joke by Crouch? He does not seem the joking type. I think he knows Arthur from work only and has never met the family. They probably do not move in the same circles. Mr. Crouch hardly notices Percy despite Percy's hero worship and he probably considers he has too much on his mind to learn much about his staff. Nikkalmati > 5. Ali Bashir wants to sell flying carpets in Britain, but Arthur explained to > him that the Registry of Proscribed Charmable Objects lists carpets as a Muggle > Artefact. Given that Muggles have brooms too, do you think the carpet ban is > just politics? What do you think of Arthur's part in this? Nikkalmati Interesting question. I get the impression that although Crouch's grandfather owned a flying carpet, they were banned shortly after that which would mean modern politics was not involved Of course, the English in novels are often portrayed as not liking foreign customs or manners. Still, there might be good reasons to keep people from using flying carpets - they would be more dificult to conceal than brooms, for example. I think it is just here as an interesting contrast between wizarding populations. Apparently, Arthur has some kind of authority to deal with Ali Bashir or Ali thinks Arthur can lift the ban. He went to Arthur's boss to complain, but it does not seem Crouch is trying to get Arthur to approve the sale, or is he? Nikkalmati > > 6. When you first read about the exciting event to take place at Hogwarts, did > you think of any possibilities? What were they? Nikkalmati No, I tried, but I could not come up with anything. I knew we would find out soon anyway. Nikkalmati > > 7. Please add any other questions to the list. > Do you think gallions are really "great gold coins the size of hubcaps"? p. 77 US hardback edition. Is the tent with the peacocks out front the one belonging to the Malfoys? p. 79 US Hardback edition. > thank you, Annemehr > >Nikkalmati From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 23 07:04:31 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:04:31 -0000 Subject: Chapter Discussion: Goblet of Fire Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: Nikkalmati 7. Please add any other questions to the list. Do you think gallions are really "great gold coins the size of hubcaps"? p. 77 US hardback edition. Geoff: No. It is obviously hyperbole - like "I've got a hundred and one things to do before I can go out shopping". When I last had a car with hubcaps, they were about 15 inches in diameter. Try putting those in the pocket of your robes.... I visualise galleons as being around the size of a UK two pound coin, i.e. about an inch across. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 23 07:18:44 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:18:44 -0000 Subject: Chapt Disc: G of F Ch. 7: Bagman and Crouch - Hubcaps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191763 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: > > Nikkalmati > 7. Please add any other questions to the list. > > Do you think gallions are really "great gold coins the size of hubcaps"? p. 77 US hardback edition. > > Geoff: > No. It is obviously hyperbole - like "I've got a hundred and > one things to do before I can go out shopping". > > When I last had a car with hubcaps, they were about 15 inches > in diameter. Try putting those in the pocket of your robes.... > > I visualize galleons as being around the size of a UK two pound > coin, i.e. about an inch across. > Steve: I don't think the coins the size of hubcaps were Galleons. I think they were some foreign wizards currency. My impression of Galleons is consistent the Geoff's. Steve/bboyminn From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jan 28 17:03:43 2012 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:03:43 -0000 Subject: Flowers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191764 How many flower names are there in HP? I have Lily; Petunia; Pansy; Narcissa; Poppy; Lavender; Rose. Have I missed any? Nikkalmati From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jan 28 19:09:51 2012 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:09:51 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191765 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: > > How many flower names are there in HP? I have Lily; Petunia; Pansy; Narcissa; Poppy; Lavender; Rose. Have I missed any? Nikkalmati > Fleur? Myrtle? houyhnhnm From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jan 28 20:03:24 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:03:24 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191766 Nikkalmati > > How many flower names are there in HP? I have Lily; Petunia; Pansy; Narcissa; Poppy; Lavender; Rose. Have I missed any? houyhnhnm > Fleur? Myrtle? Potioncat: Lupin From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sat Jan 28 23:35:40 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:35:40 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191767 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: Nikkalmati > > > How many flower names are there in HP? I have Lily; Petunia; Pansy; Narcissa; Poppy; Lavender; Rose. Have I missed any? houyhnhnm: > > Fleur? Myrtle? Geoff: Being annoyingly technical, isn't myrtle a bush? Potioncat: > Lupin Geoff: Trouble is, i think JKR made a mistake here and meant to call him Lupine, which means "wolf-like". I really do not see Remus as a tall, tapering blue flower... :-( From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 29 14:46:24 2012 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (willsonteam) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:46:24 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191768 > Geoff: > Being annoyingly technical, isn't myrtle a bush? Potioncat: In the US it's a tree and it has a lovely flower. Googling I htink that's true in the UK too? Though it's one the types that has to be pruned or it has lots of little trunks and can be bush-like. (I don't have much of a horticulture vocabulary.) In South Carolina in the summer it's absolutely gorgeous. The one I'm most familiar with is the crepe myrtle--don't know if you have that in England, but it sort of fits our Moaning Myrtle, doesn't it? BTW, Myrtle means love and represents marriage in some cultures. > Geoff: > Trouble is, i think JKR made a mistake here and meant to call > him Lupine, which means "wolf-like". I really do not see Remus > as a tall, tapering blue flower... > :-( Potioncat: I 'knew" someone would insist Lupin was for wolf. I actually think she had Lupine in mind too--but I wonder if she was playing with the word rather than making a mistake. A flower-name makes him seem all the less threatening when we first meet him. Sort of like Quinniu[S.q]uirrell. But I doubt that many US readers thought of the flower or the wolf---anyone out there? Did you wonder at the name before you found out he was a werewolf? From bart at moosewise.com Sun Jan 29 15:19:45 2012 From: bart at moosewise.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:19:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Flowers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F256391.2090806@moosewise.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191769 Potioncat: > > But I doubt that many US readers thought of the flower or the wolf---anyone out there? Did you wonder at the name before you found out he was a werewolf? There was a long-running comic strip in the United States called "(Little Orphan) Annie", where virtually all the names of characters were punnish clues about their real nature (my favorite was when a crook named "Jed Garr" turned out to be an undercover FBI agent; "J. Edgar"). I guess JKR could have been even more obvious, with a name like, say, "Louis Carew", but "Remus Lupin" was obvious enough. Bart From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jan 29 16:33:18 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:33:18 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191770 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "willsonteam" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > Being annoyingly technical, isn't myrtle a bush? > > Potioncat: > In the US it's a tree and it has a lovely flower. Googling I htink that's true in the UK too? Though it's one the types that has to be pruned or it has lots of little trunks and can be bush-like. (I don't have much of a horticulture vocabulary.) In South Carolina in the summer it's absolutely gorgeous. The one I'm most familiar with is the crepe myrtle--don't know if you have that in England, but it sort of fits our Moaning Myrtle, doesn't it? > > BTW, Myrtle means love and represents marriage in some cultures. > > > > Geoff: > > Trouble is, i think JKR made a mistake here and meant to call > > him Lupine, which means "wolf-like". I really do not see Remus > > as a tall, tapering blue flower... > > :-( > > > Potioncat: > I 'knew" someone would insist Lupin was for wolf. I actually think she had Lupine in mind too--but I wonder if she was playing with the word rather than making a mistake. A flower-name makes him seem all the less threatening when we first meet him. Sort of like Quinniu[S.q]uirrell. > > But I doubt that many US readers thought of the flower or the wolf---anyone out there? Did you wonder at the name before you found out he was a werewolf? Geoff: Well, it was the 'Remus' that made me wonder if there was something we ought to know about our friend.... From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 29 17:56:07 2012 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 29 Jan 2012 17:56:07 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/29/2012, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1327859767.32.1378.m16@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 191772 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 29, 2012 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 2012 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Sun Jan 29 19:21:29 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:21:29 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: <4F256391.2090806@moosewise.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: Potioncat: > > But I doubt that many US readers thought of the flower or the wolf---anyone out there? Did you wonder at the name before you found out he was a werewolf? Bart: > There was a long-running comic strip in the United States called > "(Little Orphan) Annie", where virtually all the names of characters > were punnish clues about their real nature (my favorite was when a crook > named "Jed Garr" turned out to be an undercover FBI agent; "J. Edgar"). > I guess JKR could have been even more obvious, with a name like, say, > "Louis Carew", but "Remus Lupin" was obvious enough. Geoff: Well, JKR is renowned for punning names (or wordplays as I would call them). A few years ago, I listed ones that I could list off the top of my head. Just as a reminder, here is my list of JKR's better creations: Diagon Alley , Durmstrang, Grimmauld, Gryffindor, Hogwarts, Knockturn Alley , Kreacher, Pensieve, Remus Lupin, Sprout, Umbridge, Vector and Voldemort. And it's not only persons and places. What about activities like Apparition,and Disillusion? ..not forgetting poor old Pius Thicknesse. With a name like that, no wonder he went bad. :-( From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 30 22:54:36 2012 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:54:36 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191774 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Potioncat: > > > But I doubt that many US readers thought of the flower or the wolf---anyone out there? Did you wonder at the name before you found out he was a werewolf? > > Bart: > >... > > I guess JKR could have been even more obvious, with a name > > like, say, "Louis Carew", but "Remus Lupin" was obvious enough. > > Geoff: > Well, JKR is renowned for punning names (... Just as > a reminder, here is my list of JKR's better creations: > > Diagon Alley , Durmstrang, Grimmauld, Gryffindor, Hogwarts, > Knockturn Alley , Kreacher, Pensieve, Remus Lupin, Sprout, > Umbridge, Vector and Voldemort. > > And it's not only persons and places. What about activities like > Apparition,and Disillusion? > > ..not forgetting poor old Pius Thicknesse. With a name like that, > no wonder he went bad. > :-( > Steve: You forgot one of JKR's more subtle plays on words - Malfoy, or in French - Bad Faith As to Lupine vs Lupin, JKR is hinting at underlying attributes, she is not coming right out and saying it. Plus the addition of "Remus" to "Lupin" only added to the underlying implication. But it was just that, implication. She could have named him Wolfy McWolfWolf, but that is a little too obvious. She wanted enough of a clue that the astute and knowledgeable reader could guess it, but not so obvious that a 5 year old could instantly see the connection. Remus Lupin is subtle, and takes some effort to ferret out. But Wolfy McWolfwolf could be understood by a child. Steve/bboyminn From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Mon Jan 30 23:28:44 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:28:44 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191775 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff" wrote: Geoff: > > Well, JKR is renowned for punning names (... Just as > > a reminder, here is my list of JKR's better creations: > > > > Diagon Alley , Durmstrang, Grimmauld, Gryffindor, Hogwarts, > > Knockturn Alley , Kreacher, Pensieve, Remus Lupin, Sprout, > > Umbridge, Vector and Voldemort. > > > > And it's not only persons and places. What about activities like > > Apparition,and Disillusion? > > > > ..not forgetting poor old Pius Thicknesse. With a name like that, > > no wonder he went bad. > > :-( Steve: > You forgot one of JKR's more subtle plays on words - > Malfoy, or in French - Bad Faith Geoff: Yes, I usually manage to overlook that one! Steve: > As to Lupine vs Lupin, JKR is hinting at underlying attributes, she is not coming right out and saying it. Plus the addition of "Remus" to "Lupin" only added to the underlying implication. But it was just that, implication. She could have named him Wolfy McWolfWolf, but that is a little too obvious. Geoff: Yes but the flower attribute always jumped out at once - it's the only flower I can remember my father growing. Steve: > She wanted enough of a clue that the astute and knowledgeable reader could guess it, but not so obvious that a 5 year old could instantly see the connection. > > Remus Lupin is subtle, and takes some effort to ferret out. Geoff: I expect Draco would have managed in GoF days. :-) From CatMcNulty at comcast.net Tue Jan 31 17:35:40 2012 From: CatMcNulty at comcast.net (catmcnulty) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:35:40 -0000 Subject: Flowers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191776 Hi Folks! I know this is primarily a two person discussion of late but I would like to delurk just a moment, Please. Referring to the discussion specifically about Remus Lupin. When we were first introduced to the character, I was already attuned to the fact that JKR "LOVED" to play with names and hint about a possible hidden aspect of their character with their name. That being said, was blatantly obvious to me that there was definitely something "wolfish" about Remus Lupin. First, Remus along with his twin Romulus were raised by a she-wolf and founded Rome (according to legend). Also, even though Lupin is a flower, it still sounds close enough to Lupine, to make the wolfish connection. :-) Cat >^-.-^< From geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com Tue Jan 31 22:08:13 2012 From: geoffbannister123 at btinternet.com (Geoff) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:08:13 -0000 Subject: Flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 191777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catmcnulty" wrote: Cat: > Hi Folks! > > I know this is primarily a two person discussion of late but I would like to delurk just a moment, Please. > Referring to the discussion specifically about Remus Lupin. When we were first introduced to the character, I was already attuned to the fact that JKR "LOVED" to play with names and hint about a possible hidden aspect of their character with their name. That being said, was blatantly obvious to me that there was definitely something "wolfish" about Remus Lupin. First, Remus along with his twin Romulus were raised by a she-wolf and founded Rome (according to legend). Also, even though Lupin is a flower, it still sounds close enough to Lupine, to make the wolfish connection. :-) Geoff: Which parallels my early comment in 191767.