From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid Sat Oct 2 14:05:09 2004 From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:05:09 -0000 Subject: Unforgivable? Message-ID: I had a thought pop in my head the other day, and the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that I am either on to something, or crazy. You make the call. I was thinking about the Unforgivables. The AK and Crucio are unforgivable for obvious reasons. Unless you count Euthanasia, there is no possible good use for the AK, and even that is assuming that it is quick and painless, and one has no moral concerns against it. Crucio has no positive use, unless you are into that sort of thing. Not going there ;o) But what about Imperio? I went back and checked fake Moody's exact words when explaining it to the class. I had wondered if maybe he had said "the use of any one of them *against* another human being...Azkaban", but he said *on* rather than *against*. There went my theory, but I am still wondering. I can think of a good half dozen uses for the Imperious curse that would be for the benefit of a person. The person's permission would be needed, of course, but consider the following commands: "Stop smoking" "Get up when your alarm goes off" "Stick to your diet and like it" "You will no longer crave (insert drug here)" "You will no longer steal" (for a kleptomaniac) "You will no longer attack (pick all that apply) women/children/men/animals" (sexual predators) For the cases of mental illness or disorders, therapy would be needed in conjunction with the Imperious, but it would stop the behaviour until the person could control the problem. It would not be unlike hypnosis, but it would work very well. The person would *have* to do it. As I said, the person's consent would have to be given before it would be ethical, but I have to admit, I'd be the first to sign up if it was offered as a weight loss program. Hypnosis didn't work for me. Also, it would have to be done by trained and bonded persons who have passed a stringent background test so they wouldn't take advantage of it. Any thoughts? Am I missing something? Other than self-control, I mean. Ginger, who is now hungry. From saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid Sat Oct 2 15:41:40 2004 From: saitaina at saitaina.yahoo.invalid (Saitaina) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:41:40 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Unforgivable? References: Message-ID: <00c601c4a896$502e7840$01fea8c0@...> There's too high of a chance for it to go wrong though. Imperious give you complete control over a person, you could make them do anything. How many would not be tempted by that kind of power and just make them do the small stuff? Not to mention I don't think you can just use it for the small stuff. From what we've seen, it takes away almost complete control of the victim, so basically the caster has to tell them to do anything. I could be wrong on this point through because at other points it does not seem this way (it's very confusing in the books). And what happens when control is given back to the person under the curse? With someone else pulling the strings it's easy, but when you return, all your thought impulses are the same, as are the urges. It's pretty much back to square one. Part of curing addiction, it changing the way the brain thinks, which isn't easy when a foreign "impulse" is simply commanding you to do something. You're not changing the way your brain responds, you're just listening to the voice that doesn't belong. But still, complete control over another human...*shivers* Even I wouldn't want that job. I would be too scared of giving in to my own inner little voice and doing things to them, even if it's just making them act like an idiot. Saitaina **** "You don't know my father," Malfoy said. "He'd still kill me. He'd kill me and he'd stuff me, and he'd say, 'Yes, this is Draco. He's my only heir. He's a bit quiet recently, I don't think he likes living in this glass case.'" http://www.livejournal.com/users/saitaina "No, one day I'm going to look back on all this and plow face-first into a tree because I was looking the wrong bloody way. And I'll still be having a better day than I am today." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rynnewrites at rynne_lupin.yahoo.invalid Sat Oct 2 19:43:27 2004 From: rynnewrites at rynne_lupin.yahoo.invalid (Rynne) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:43:27 -0700 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Unforgivable? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ginger: >Crucio has no positive use, unless you are into that sort of thing. >Not going there ;o) Actually, I've thought of a positive use for Cruciatus before, but *only* in the hands of trained medical personnel. Paralysis or stroke victims--their nerves are blocked off from their minds. But my theory is that Cruciatus can reach every nerve in your body, even ones you've never felt before. So, Cruciatus could stimulate nerve endings in paralysis or stroke victims, and once the bridge between mind and nerves has been rebuilt, even if by pain, it seems to me that it would be easier to recover. Not that I have any medical degree at all, but...*shrugs* It could be useful. Also, re the other two Unforgivables, I can see them being used, though again, *only* by trained medical personnel. Avada Kedavra *would* indeed be useful for euthanasia, as we know that it isn't painful--the look of surprise and no trace of pain on Cedric's face seems to point to that. There would always be some sort of moral concern over it, but doctors today face that dilemma as well. And as for Imperius, I don't think the commands you suggested would work. However, for use against such things as phobias...*that's* where it could have some use. If a phobic person needed to face their fear in order for it to subside, but do to their phobia was unable to make themselves do it, a certified Healer at St Mungo's could, with their permission, make them do it by Imperius. And I understand Saitaina's reservations, but I rather think that once a precedent has been set, it'll help. Especially as confidence can grow with just the knowledge that they've faced it once and came out all right. *shrugs* I'm not a fan of the Unforgivables, but I do think that, in the right situations, they have their uses. --Rynne From akhillin at akhillin.yahoo.invalid Sat Oct 2 21:20:38 2004 From: akhillin at akhillin.yahoo.invalid (Anita Hillin) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2004 16:20:38 -0500 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Unforgivable? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -----Original Message----- quigonginger: I was thinking about the Unforgivables. The AK and Crucio are unforgivable for obvious reasons. [snip - in color, no less! apologies to anyone who doesn't see this in blue] But what about Imperio? I went back and checked fake Moody's exact words when explaining it to the class. I had wondered if maybe he had said "the use of any one of them *against* another human being...Azkaban", but he said *on* rather than *against*. There went my theory, but I am still wondering. akh: I read Rynne's and Saitaina's good responses, and I'm now prepared to weigh in with my own. I think that perhaps the Unforgivables are not used for good because there are other means of achieving good ends. Why use a curse where a potion or a charm will do? We've seen Madame Pomfrey cure an impressive array of ailments with potions and "over-the-counter" treatments, and we've seen cheering charms, among others, practiced in class to aid in behavior modification. The three unforgivables are brutal, and there may have been a time when Imperio was the only solution for keeping recalcitrants at bay. Now, however, with more humane treatments (my speculation only, of course), there is no good reason to use them, so they've been banned. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Mon Oct 4 08:38:22 2004 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (sean dwyer) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:38:22 +1000 Subject: The Bad Guy[tm] Message-ID: <20041004083822.GA20995@...> The main list is getting bizarre these days: what to make of the pro-Snape/anti-Snape lobbies marshalling JKR into their arguments? It's turning into a referendum on whether JKR condones abuse, and there's a borderline tendency to insist that she doesn't understand her own characters. Putting JKR aside for a moment, let's be clear about it: The Bad Guy[tm] is a legitimate tool to drive plots. These days, it's the only way to differentiate The Good Guy[tm] on TV and movies. Snape is the fallback Bad Guy, otherwise Voldemort would be way overused. So he's smart and bitter and twisted. We can relate to this. Uncle Vernon is mean and stupid and twisted. We live with these people in RL. Bad Guys grab our interest in stories, we choose that. Advancing the Snape cause is going a little far though, he's just a Bad Guy. Maybe that's what takes JKR aback, but it's not as if she'll change him. The League for Anti-Bad-Stuff In Potterverses is equally unrealistic, of course we have bad people doing bad things. Not all bad people are going to get caught or go to Hell either. Some people are acting like it's a writer's JOB to make them pay, but it isn't. Or if that's not going to happen, Bad Guys should cease to exist so kiddies don't have sad thoughts. JKR is not responsible for keeping people infantile, that's a parent's problem. -- I come from a LAN down under Where the packets flow and routers chunder From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Mon Oct 4 09:33:00 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:33:00 -0000 Subject: The Bad Guy[tm]/footnote to a rant.. In-Reply-To: <20041004083822.GA20995@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, sean dwyer wrote: > > > The main list is getting bizarre these days: what to make of the > pro-Snape/anti-Snape lobbies marshalling JKR into their arguments? It's > turning into a referendum on whether JKR condones abuse, and there's a > borderline tendency to insist that she doesn't understand her own characters. > Carolyn: The fascination of Snape is certainly nothing new on HPfGU. Currently, the catalogue group has coded up 30 000 posts (including the old Yahoo Group), and Harry and Snape are virtually neck-and-neck in citations, no other character even comes close. My money is on Snape winning hands down by the time we have gone very much further. Perhaps one reason is that we are all adults on these boards, and react most strongly to a complex adult character; there are precious few of them to feed on in the series, after all. But certainly, for some reason, the books have become a lightening rod conductor for debate on many RL issues. Perhaps she will tell us after it's all over whether she had any intention of sparking such controversy - I somehow doubt it, though she may be enjoying it, nevertheless. From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid Mon Oct 4 17:18:43 2004 From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (Nora Renka) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:18:43 -0000 Subject: The Bad Guy[tm] In-Reply-To: <20041004083822.GA20995@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, sean dwyer wrote: > Bad Guys grab our interest in stories, we choose that. Advancing > the Snape cause is going a little far though, he's just a Bad Guy. Speaking as someone who inevitably and currently gets drawn into these threads this is, umm, not something that everyone is accepting as 'given'. In fact, there's been many a spirited defense of Snape as completely NOT a Bad Guy, with some Ever So Subtle (ESS?) readings of the books for support. It's going to take some cold, hard, textual revelations to ever make a dent in this never-ending battle. I await the Great Snape Apocalypse with a good bottle of French booze, and the right to be smug if I end up right (and a nice plate of crow if I don't). > Maybe that's what takes JKR aback, but it's not as if she'll change > him. The League for Anti-Bad-Stuff In Potterverses is equally > unrealistic, of course we have bad people doing bad things. An interesting complaint made on the thread is that the bad sides of the good folks have been presented more convincingly and in-depth than the bad sides of the bad folks. I'm not *sure* about that, but to go fandom sociologist for a moment, some people certainly have picked that up and ran with it. I'm thinking of the defenses in which it is argued that Dolores Umbridge is not that bad, and that nothing Draco has ever done has been worse than something that one of the Gryffindors have--so, naturally, there's a complete moral equivalency at work. (I'm too lazy to dig up my links--just trust me that such arguments exist.) > Not all bad people are going to get caught or go to Hell either. > Some people are acting like it's a writer's JOB to make them pay, > but it isn't. Or if that's not going to happen, Bad Guys should > cease to exist so kiddies don't have sad thoughts. JKR is not > responsible for keeping people infantile, that's a parent's problem. Well, certainly not; and I'm not going to speak for others here, but I can almost understand the...desire to have the writer Make the Bad Guys Pay. My own money is actually on this happening in one way- shape-or-form, in part influenced by some of her own comments. But to get proscriptive towards a writer is certainly to miss something of the point, I think. -Nora tries not to get sick, AND to get some work done! From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid Mon Oct 4 21:29:57 2004 From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:29:57 -0000 Subject: Steve! You did it! Message-ID: The Snape open letter question answered on JKR.com! Gee, guess Jo wasn't insulted after all... :) Congrats, man. Anne From ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid Tue Oct 5 01:52:54 2004 From: ewe2 at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (sean dwyer) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:52:54 +1000 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: The Bad Guy[tm] In-Reply-To: References: <20041004083822.GA20995@...> Message-ID: <20041005015252.GC20995@...> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 05:18:43PM -0000, Nora Renka wrote: > Speaking as someone who inevitably and currently gets drawn into > these threads this is, umm, not something that everyone is accepting > as 'given'. In fact, there's been many a spirited defense of Snape > as completely NOT a Bad Guy, with some Ever So Subtle (ESS?) readings > of the books for support. This is what I'm referring to. I don't doubt there's an intentionally grey cast to Snape's character, it's the convoluted arguments forwarded on behalf of his redemption I doubt :) > It's going to take some cold, hard, textual revelations to ever make > a dent in this never-ending battle. I await the Great Snape > Apocalypse with a good bottle of French booze, and the right to be > smug if I end up right (and a nice plate of crow if I don't). I think he could be the Darth Vader of the piece. He's probably Harry's real father, or something. > An interesting complaint made on the thread is that the bad sides of > the good folks have been presented more convincingly and in-depth > than the bad sides of the bad folks. I'm not *sure* about that, but > to go fandom sociologist for a moment, some people certainly have > picked that up and ran with it. I'm thinking of the defenses in > which it is argued that Dolores Umbridge is not that bad, and that > nothing Draco has ever done has been worse than something that one of > the Gryffindors have--so, naturally, there's a complete moral > equivalency at work. (I'm too lazy to dig up my links--just trust me > that such arguments exist.) No no I agree, I've seen plenty of examples myself; and some excellent fanfic is based on such premises. For myself, Umbridge is just a sick puppy given a run by amoral masters. Draco is still portrayed as the kid who mouths his daddy's opinion. Here's hoping we get something more substantial in the next book. > Well, certainly not; and I'm not going to speak for others here, but > I can almost understand the...desire to have the writer Make the Bad > Guys Pay. My own money is actually on this happening in one way- > shape-or-form, in part influenced by some of her own comments. But > to get proscriptive towards a writer is certainly to miss something > of the point, I think. I don't mind Bad Guys paying, nor the desire thereof; I'm disturbed by those who are determined that they really aren't Bad Guys and therefore we don't have to get into the icky business of doing the deed; or so the implications would run. BTW, on a completely different point, I found out the origin of the word 'escapism' the other day. The word escapism is used to laugh at those poor adults like you and I who enjoy fantasy literature (and many other things critics don't like) and it turns out that it was probably invented by...a critic in the mid-1930's to rubbish someone's book. So next time someone calls you escapist, or Potter as escapist nonsense, remember, they're just a sad know-all who can't think of something more intelligent to say. :)) -- I come from a LAN down under Where the packets flow and routers chunder From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid Tue Oct 5 13:44:09 2004 From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:44:09 -0000 Subject: The Bad Guy[tm] In-Reply-To: <20041004083822.GA20995@...> Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, sean dwyer wrote: > > > The main list is getting bizarre these days: what to make of the > pro-Snape/anti-Snape lobbies marshalling JKR into their arguments? It's turning into a referendum on whether JKR condones abuse, and there's a borderline tendency to insist that she doesn't understand her own characters.< Speaking as one of the participants, it's a canon-based list, you know. If we don't cite JKR or her works in our arguments, fire will rain from MEGdom (the list-elves' list) and howlers will fly. There has been an effort to move the general referendum on abuse to OT-Chatter where it belongs. > > Putting JKR aside for a moment, let's be clear about it: The Bad Guy[tm] is alegitimate tool to drive plots. These days, it's the only way to differentiate The Good Guy[tm] on TV and movies. Snape is the fallback Bad Guy, otherwise Voldemort would be way overused. So he's smart and bitter and twisted. < JKR is now on record as saying that Sirius shouldn't have treated Snape as if he didn't have any latent good qualities. So some of us expect to be shown that Snape will respond better if Harry stops treating him as The Bad Guy[tm].That's what the debate is about, IMO. Pippin From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid Thu Oct 14 12:51:54 2004 From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:51:54 -0000 Subject: Jasper Fforde In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Catherine Coleman wrote: > Yes, yes, yes, and I've been meaning to post about him for ages, when I > saw that some people on this list were enjoying his books. (And thank > you to Jeralyn for first bringing him to my attention over on > OT-Chatter). Just wanted to thank you guys for turning me on to Jasper Fforde. I finished The Eyre Affair last night, and can't wait to get my hands on another. So clever and deliciously dorky at times! Laughed out loud when the bookworms began hyphenating all over the place! :: Entropy :: From catherine at catorman.yahoo.invalid Thu Oct 14 13:19:19 2004 From: catherine at catorman.yahoo.invalid (Catherine Coleman) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:19:19 +0100 Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Authors (was Jasper Fforde) In-Reply-To: References: <9UtafeJoQnWBJwh5@...> Message-ID: I've been meaning to reply to Parker's post for ages, but have had my parents here for 10 days and have been playing chauffeur all over the place. Ugh. Thanks for the suggestions, Parker. Some aren't new to me - in particular the Garth Nix trilogy, which I really enjoyed, and I've recently discovered Robin McKinley. I loved "Spindle's End" (obviously Sleeping Beauty), and "Deerskin", but I'm not quite sure why she bothered writing 2 versions of Beauty and the Beast - I really prefer the first one, apart from the ending - I'm betting everyone can guess how the two endings differ. I've never heard of Lynne Flewelling, but "The Bone Doll's Twin" has a really intriguing title. As for Alexander McCall Smith - I've read the first few in the series. I really enjoyed them to start with - as you say, they are very light and easy to read - quite whimsical and gentle on the surface (although some of the events are really very shocking - just not how they're told) but after a while I started to feel a bit uneasy about them - the main reason being that AMS is writing from the perspective of Botswanan (sp?) natives. Their thoughts are on the whole conveyed as being very simple-minded and unsophisticated, to match their speech patterns in English, which is their second language, and I feel as though he is ascribing a naivety and simplicity which I am not sure exists, to the extent that I felt that he was being (unwittingly) patronising. I'd be interested to know if anyone else had similar thoughts - it could be me being over sensitive. Catherine From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid Fri Oct 15 09:11:53 2004 From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:11:53 -0000 Subject: Authors /McCall Smith(was Jasper Fforde) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Catherine Coleman wrote: > > > As for Alexander McCall Smith - I've read the first few in the series. > I really enjoyed them to start with - as you say, they are very light > and easy to read - quite whimsical and gentle on the surface (although > some of the events are really very shocking - just not how they're told) > but after a while I started to feel a bit uneasy about them - the main > reason being that AMS is writing from the perspective of Botswanan (sp?) > natives. Their thoughts are on the whole conveyed as being very > simple-minded and unsophisticated, to match their speech patterns in > English, which is their second language, and I feel as though he is > ascribing a naivety and simplicity which I am not sure exists, to the > extent that I felt that he was being (unwittingly) patronising. I'd be > interested to know if anyone else had similar thoughts - it could be me > being over sensitive. > > Catherine Carolyn: I thought the latest one (The Full Cupboard of Life) tended that way more than the earlier ones, maybe because he couldn't think up a good enough plot this time. Here's a couple of reviews which express similar doubts: http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,6121,1001171,00.h tml http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/story.jsp? story=424869