From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr  1 11:23:08 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:23:08 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2hrm7+11ae4@...>
Message-ID: <d2jaus+3qfo@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> > Kneasy:
> > It's all down to reader perceptions, each is different to a greater
> > or lesser extent - and they mean bugger all without a confirmatory
> > nod from the author. 
> 
> I take it you're not of the "text takes on a life of its own 
> completely independent of what the author may have intended it to 
> mean" group of interpretation, then?  I'm not either.  Lots of people 
> out there are.  Deconstruction isn't totally dead, although Derrida 
> is.
> 

Kneasy:
Hells teeth, no.
Not in the way they mean anyway.
My opinions are regarded as primitive by some. Which is a bit
rich IMO, since I consider that most lit. crit. theory is a con perpetrated
by idle buggers who'd rather sit around thinking up terms like 'eiron' 
and 'Dianoia' than do an honest days work. It's medievalism all over
again - "OK lads, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
And don't forget, never describe the pin or define an angel; it'd
never do for the punters catch on that anybody can do this."

An author can't describe everything in sufficient detail for every
reader to form the same mental image of what is being portrayed.
IMO much of what we get out of a book depends on what we bring
to it - experiences, memories, beliefs, moods. We use these to
colour what the author presents to us. Since no two of us are
exactly the same there'll be differences of detail and of emphasis
in the images the book conjures up. Mostly there'll be a broad
agreement, but there'll never be total unanimity. (This is why
I  hate the films so much, they're stealing my visions and replacing
them with their own.) Sometimes the readers perceptions diverge 
sharply - Molly is a fair example. We've all read exactly the same 
words on the page but perceptions of Molly vary wildly. No matter
that some of the lit. crit. mob may say this proves something or
other, I don't think it does. The Molly character will continue to
act out her part according to the strictures imposed by the author.
To say that "the text takes on a life of its own" is not a valid
description of the varying perceptions that readers construct; IMO
it would be more accurate to say the reader has failed to fully
comprehend the author, aided and abetted by their own inclinations.

An illustration - a colour-blind man sees the world differently,
but he does not see 'truth' - because the filtering/transmission 
mechanism through which he views the world is faulty. Has what
he sees "taken on a life of its own" because it looks different? No,
I don't believe so; what he sees is a misrepresentation, an aberrant
image - and no matter that it may be interesting or informative, it's
wrong.

So it is with readers. The text, the story, will not change, but the
perceptions derived from it will. And their validity is questionable.
Authorial intention supercedes reader comprehension, just as
grass is green and not grey.

Mind you, that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't interpret authorial 
intention according to our every whim. 
That's what the site's about isn't it?
On the parts that Jo hasn't ruled on, anyway. It's a bit of a frost to
launch off into the wide blue yonder and get a response of "But Jo
says..." Huh. Why can't she keep these ex-cathedra dictats until
we've finished playing? She's spoiling the game.







From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr  1 13:20:36 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 13:20:36 -0000
Subject: Joining the posting dots (was Re: Manifesto?)
In-Reply-To: <d2hrm7+11ae4@...>
Message-ID: <d2jhr4+eoha@...>


  I 
> suspect it's rather not your part of the fandom.
> 
> -Nora notes that it isn't hers either, but it's fascinating to 
observe

It is fascinating isn't it?

When I first came to hpfgu I hadn't even thought about SHIPS, I was 
amazed to discover the intensity and popularity of these debates. 
Nor had I contemplated the issues of `abuse' as discussed on the 
site. Considerations on the `science' of magic hadn't entered my 
head. HP as morality tome and religious guide  - not on the radar. 
Psychoanalytic interpretations of character`s (oh alright Snape`s) 
motivations entertained but didn`t thrill me. My reading came 
predominately from a plotaholic perspective, I wasn't disappointed, 
I found posts which focussed on events and hints that I'd missed or 
written off as inconsequential, I found witty, insightful, 
intelligent readers and as a bonus I found creativity and a 
willingness to play fast and loose with the canon for the sheer joy 
of it!

It seems fitting to me that a series of books, for which one theme 
is inclusiveness, has generated such a disparate yet shared 
obsession. The books and the online community reflect, in a largely 
positive way, the western society in which I live. Inherent are the 
problems of that society specifically how to manage, direct and 
adjudicate for the entire community. In other words conflict is just 
another name for a social gathering. Which brings me on to the 
subject of men. More particularly patriarchy. In the 21st century  
hereditary patriarchy has allegedly been replaced by, or at least we 
aspire to, a democratic meritocracy. We will be led by 
representatives of the brightest and the best, whatever their 
origin, gender, race or creed. Yet in HP this transformation is 
(mostly) still to occur. Harry's orphan status is symbolic of the 
need to identify and choose ones own authority figures. The choices 
he makes will reflect JKR's views on what that might be. 

James (the personification of patriarchy) is Harry's actual father 
but is somewhat compromised by virtue of being dead. Note this 
doesn't apply to Lily. Not to say she isn't dead but she is all 
present (virtually divine)  in a way James isn't. Harry's emotional 
and physical health, surviving Voldy and the Dursleys, his ability 
to form meaningful relationships are all attributed, directly and 
indirectly, to Lily's love. JKR's fantasy, in which she encourages 
us to partake, is that in the one year Lily raised Harry plus her 
subsequent sacrifice she managed to protect, nurture, educate Harry 
sufficiently that he becomes the well balanced 11 year old that 
first attends Hogwarts. Credible, no, but integral to Harry's 
character. James on the other hand doesn't feature at all, the one 
time he appears in Harry's life in POA it turns out not to be him 
but Harry himself. In a way this makes him doubly absent. Further 
along in the story James becomes a negative influence (Snape's worst 
memory) whilst Lily's role expands to balance James' flaws. James 
the father is both deceased and a bit of a git.

However, HP is stuffed to the rafters with alternative father 
figures, what of them? I give you, in no particular order:

Voldy: non starter, evil, homicidal, obsessive, may or may not be 
dead, probably will be soon anyway
Lockhart: non starter, vain, foolish, selfish and now addled
Vernon: non starter, bully, muggle, Dudley's dad
Quirrel: non starter, weak, possessee, probably dead
Arthur: contender but geek and somewhat overburdened with kids 
already
Hagrid: contender, cuddly but dumb and lacking judgement
Sirius: contender, caring, supportive but rebellious, egotistical, 
rash, probably dead
Lupin; contender, understanding, educational, supportive but sick 
and conforming and possibly evil
Snape: contender, educating and physically protective but overly 
critical, not overly affectionate, possibly evil

On one hand we could congratulate JKR on the depth and breadth of 
her male characters, on the other we might think she was having a 
bit of a laugh at the expense of the boys.

I leave until last of course the strongest contender, Dumbledore: 
understanding, educating, supportive, caring, talented, respected, 
powerful, wise. Are we to believe then that Harry's search for a 
father will bring us right back to the beginning. The king is dead, 
long live the king! Does JKR really want us to accept that there is 
nothing wrong with benign dictatorship as long as the right dictator 
rules? At the conclusion will Harry inherit DD's (invisible) mantle 
and lead the world forward ever improving but fundamentally 
unchanged? New labour here we come, Hermione tweaking the laws 
against magical creatures (countryside alliance representative 
Lucius Malfoy threatens revolt), Hogwarts Commission for the 
Regulation of Interhouse Competition publishes a two volume draft of 
directives for discussion.

I gather from the posts of Kneasy and Talisman that at least some 
hope not. For them Harry will reveal 
cynical, machiavellian, puppet master!DD and the world will be 
turned on its head. Harry will abolish all school houses, possibly 
the school itself, and send Fawkes to torch the Ministry of Magic. 
At least I think that's what they want
..

Regards
Jo

(who appears to be reading the posts as a living novel)






From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr  1 15:07:37 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:07:37 -0000
Subject: Joining the posting dots (was Re: Manifesto?)
In-Reply-To: <d2jhr4+eoha@...>
Message-ID: <d2jo3p+gslm@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> wrote:

> 
> When I first came to hpfgu [...] My reading came 
> predominately from a plotaholic perspective,

*Anne reads rest of post*
I see you've branched out a bit. ;)


Jo:
> Harry's orphan status is symbolic of the 
> need to identify and choose ones own authority figures. The choices 
> he makes will reflect JKR's views on what that might be. 
<snip>
> James on the other hand doesn't feature at all, the one 
> time he appears in Harry's life in POA it turns out not to be him 
> but Harry himself. In a way this makes him doubly absent. Further 
> along in the story James becomes a negative influence (Snape's worst 
> memory) whilst Lily's role expands to balance James' flaws. James 
> the father is both deceased and a bit of a git.

Anne:
You surprise me a bit.  To begin with, not having ever got "St. James"
from the text, I was not so taken aback by his "downfall" in the
Pensieve.  Just because everybody praised him to the orphan's face
didn't make me assume he had no faults.  Not everybody praised James,
of course, even though I took Snape's words with a barrelful of salt.
 All right, I didn't believe Snape at all.  But then,  McGonagall
called him a troublemaker, too.

But James was very much there in PoA.  He was the source of Harry's
Patronus.  As Dumbledore said, Harry found James within himself that
night. In a way, Harry was right the first time, he did see his dad. 
I think this really does mean that James' part in raising Harry, and
in trying to protect him on his last night on earth, means something.

On the other hand, yes, he is indeed dead, so with the realisation
that Harry does need more fathering, I enjoy the rest of your post:

Jo:
> However, HP is stuffed to the rafters with alternative father 
> figures, what of them? I give you, in no particular order:
> 
<snip>
> Arthur: contender but geek and somewhat overburdened with kids 
> already

Anne:
May I add, principled and even-tempered. Harry seems quite comfortable
with him, too, and doesn't mind asking him questions.  It'd be nice to
see Harry hang around with a father-figure he could relax with (Lupin,
though very kind, carries too much painful history for that), but
sadly, that's not at all likely to be.

Jo:
<snip>
> I leave until last of course the strongest contender, Dumbledore: 
> understanding, educating, supportive, caring, talented, respected, 
> powerful, wise. Are we to believe then that Harry's search for a 
> father will bring us right back to the beginning. The king is dead, 
> long live the king!

Anne:
Actually, I don't think so.  Well, in a way, yes, in that Dumbledore
will do his best by Harry as he attempts to bring about the downfall
of Voldemort.  But if Harry comes right back to the beginning, I think
he will find that his father dies again.  I'm betting Dumbledore
doesn't literally die, but that Harry finds DD can not actually give
him all he needs to vanquish Voldemort.  The son grows up and leaves
the nest, and has to make his own way in the world.

Ew. That sounded trite.  Bet JKR can say it better.

Jo:
> Does JKR really want us to accept that there is 
> nothing wrong with benign dictatorship as long as the right dictator 
> rules? At the conclusion will Harry inherit DD's (invisible) mantle 
> and lead the world forward ever improving but fundamentally 
> unchanged? New labour here we come, Hermione tweaking the laws 
> against magical creatures (countryside alliance representative 
> Lucius Malfoy threatens revolt), Hogwarts Commission for the 
> Regulation of Interhouse Competition publishes a two volume draft of 
> directives for discussion.

Anne:
There's an old quote by JKR somewhere about continuing to fight for
what's right, even when it's impossible to win.  I'll try to dig it
up.  But, no, I think all that will be accomplished is the one grave
threat in the person of LV being removed (at whatever cost), leaving
the wizarding world with nothing more than the chance for each
individual to be decent.






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr  1 21:02:10 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:02:10 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2jaus+3qfo@...>
Message-ID: <d2kcsi+bh1b@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

I'll play devil's advocate a bit here because you undercut yourself 
so nicely here.

> An author can't describe everything in sufficient detail for every
> reader to form the same mental image of what is being portrayed.
> IMO much of what we get out of a book depends on what we bring
> to it - experiences, memories, beliefs, moods. We use these to
> colour what the author presents to us. Since no two of us are
> exactly the same there'll be differences of detail and of emphasis
> in the images the book conjures up. Mostly there'll be a broad
> agreement, but there'll never be total unanimity.

You may find it too fancy, but I like the lit crit term 
of "intersubjective details", which adds up to much the same thing--
which features of a text can be agreed upon by a fairly wide 
community.

> To say that "the text takes on a life of its own" is not a valid
> description of the varying perceptions that readers construct; IMO
> it would be more accurate to say the reader has failed to fully
> comprehend the author, aided and abetted by their own inclinations.

Here's the problem; you seem to be advancing the proposition that 
there is One Thing which the author has put in to be comprehended, 
the 'meaning' of the text, as it were.  However, you've already noted 
that an author can't define everything, but requires the active 
participation of the reader to make a text work.  We fill in any 
number of gaps of various kinds when we read.
 
That seems to be what you're saying with the analogy; the idea that 
the image is 'aberrant' could be taken as stating that there is 
indeed an exact image.
 
> So it is with readers. The text, the story, will not change, but the
> perceptions derived from it will. And their validity is 
> questionable. Authorial intention supercedes reader comprehension, 
> just as grass is green and not grey.

The text as in the printed words upon the page may not change, but 
the story itself is not so fixed a thing as that--unless you want to 
argue that all the different readings of 'the story', all the 
different possible patterns that we as readers pick up on are all 
simply projections and we're all missing the point.  What I can read 
and justify as 'the story' is not the same as what you read as 'the 
story', I suspect.

Authorial intention must be manifested through the text, but the 
supportable possibilities (text-adequate readings) are not 
necessarily limited to the one which has the imprimitur of authorial 
intention.  That one is usually quite well-supported and worth taking 
into consideration, but it's very, very rarely the only one that's 
supported.

On the level of plain fact and events, there is, in a sense, one 
story--X happened and Y did not.  On the level of everything else, 
it's considerably more complex.  I'm frankly a little surprised that 
you elide the reader out to such an extent.  Works of literature are, 
these days, thought of more as things which engage the activity of a 
reader rather than being lectures from author to reader that can be 
reduced down to indisputable meaning.

> Mind you, that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't interpret 
> authorial intention according to our every whim. 

Maybe then I am misreading you, but it seems to me that your 
differentiation between the projections that readers make (naughty 
foolish readers) and (the position you like) interpreting authorial 
intention by our whims is a distinction without a difference.  It's 
not like interpretation isn't a personal thing too.  It can involve 
just as much projection as the above; responsibly relegated, perhaps, 
but the nature of interpretation is that it's not reducable to 
truth.  Don't you resist the idea that there's one true way, after 
all?

-Nora gets back to playing with the Hours







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  2 12:08:00 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 12:08:00 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2kcsi+bh1b@...>
Message-ID: <d2m1v0+ibm2@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> You may find it too fancy, but I like the lit crit term 
> of "intersubjective details", which adds up to much the same thing--
> which features of a text can be agreed upon by a fairly wide 
> community.
> 

Kneasy:
We're  talking about  different things, I think.
By undescribed detail that the reader fills in I'm referring to background 
stuff that no writer bothers with unless they have significance; room 
dimensions, colour schemes, full descriptions of minor characters, for example.
When the name 'Pansy Parkinson' is mentioned readers will form an image
of a person, but because there is minimal detail provided in the text, each
reader will fill in the gaps and form an idea of what they think she may look 
like. It's highly unlikely that any two images so formed will be the same,
even though based on the same few canon details. They're the bits that
don't matter, even if readers disagree about them. 

> 
> Here's the problem; you seem to be advancing the proposition that 
> there is One Thing which the author has put in to be comprehended, 
> the 'meaning' of the text, as it were.  However, you've already noted 
> that an author can't define everything, but requires the active 
> participation of the reader to make a text work.  We fill in any 
> number of gaps of various kinds when we read.
>  
> That seems to be what you're saying with the analogy; the idea that 
> the image is 'aberrant' could be taken as stating that there is 
> indeed an exact image.
> 

Kneasy:
Any author that puts in just one thing isn't much of an author IMO.
To extend my colour-blind analogy - a half-way decent writer weaves
a tapestry, many threads, all of different colours woven into an
harmonious whole - or comprehensible whole, anyway. If we fail to
distinguish (or ignore) subtle changes of tone, decide that we find
one or more of the colours inimical, or decide that we'll dwell on
the red bits, does that change the tapestry?
No, I don't think so.
 
> 
> The text as in the printed words upon the page may not change, but 
> the story itself is not so fixed a thing as that--unless you want to 
> argue that all the different readings of 'the story', all the 
> different possible patterns that we as readers pick up on are all 
> simply projections and we're all missing the point.  

Kneasy:
Yes. I'm saying exactly that.
A written work is an attempt at communication, to transmit ideas
to others. But reception may not be perfect for one reason or
another. To suggest that 'mishearing' produces a valid interpretation
is to argue that a game of Chinese Whispers is a good way to transmit
specific information. 

> 
> On the level of plain fact and events, there is, in a sense, one 
> story--X happened and Y did not.  On the level of everything else, 
> it's considerably more complex.  I'm frankly a little surprised that 
> you elide the reader out to such an extent.  Works of literature are, 
> these days, thought of more as things which engage the activity of a 
> reader rather than being lectures from author to reader that can be 
> reduced down to indisputable meaning.
> 

Kneasy:
Why so? Are you so sure that the apparent complexity isn't a result of 
your own incomprehension? Missed cues, faulty interpretation, incorrect
conclusions drawn?

One of the (to me) unwelcome consequences of the modern fashion of
the individual over just about everything else is the strange idea that
just because someone can form an opinion, then that opinion is worth-
while. Absolute load of cobblers. Most of us, on most subjects, offer
opinions based on information varying from incomplete to totally
without foundation. And yes, I include Kneasy on subjects like this one.
(It's particularly heart-warming when 'experts' make a complete balls-up,
comforting confirmation that we are not alone in our ineptitude.)
That may seem contradictory after doggedly pushing my own ideas so
firmly. In actuality I'm expressing an instinctive belief that a writers
intentions are paramount. A mob of individuals claiming that what they 
see, what they want to see, must be well-founded because their opinion 
is as good as anyone else's, right? - is no more than yet another manifestation
of the cult of pandering to the unknowingly inadequate.

When discussing works most sensible comment is prefaced by, or understood
to be modified by, phrases like "As I see it" or "My take on it" - which
includes the possibility of uncertainty or error on the part of the
speaker. Others may then offer dissent or support. In either case it is,
consciously or unconsciously an exercise to define/determine the guts of
the story. Isn't that the author's intention? For us to ferret out the golden 
thread? But if we don't, if we give primacy to our own individual constructs,
we end up with a stunted (or mutant) offspring that crawls feebly within the 
confines of our own limitations. I read to find out what the writer's
limitations are, not my  own - those're all too evident. 


> > Mind you, that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't interpret 
> > authorial intention according to our every whim. 
> 
> Maybe then I am misreading you, but it seems to me that your 
> differentiation between the projections that readers make (naughty 
> foolish readers) and (the position you like) interpreting authorial 
> intention by our whims is a distinction without a difference.  It's 
> not like interpretation isn't a personal thing too.  It can involve 
> just as much projection as the above; responsibly relegated, perhaps, 
> but the nature of interpretation is that it's not reducable to 
> truth.  Don't you resist the idea that there's one true way, after 
> all?
>

Not quite. In  fact not all -  you're ignoring the fact that the work is 
incomplete. That makes a hell of a difference. No one can at this moment
be totally sure what Jo's intentions are. Right now I can postulate anything
that doesn't conflict with existing canon. Hell, some fans go further,
that Sirius lives, for example. Outside of fanon this will not be possible
once the conclusion is reached. 

Kneasy
who is of the opinion that no opinion is worth a damn unless it's backed
by reproducible experimental results. Doesn't stop him offering them, though.







From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  2 12:54:20 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 12:54:20 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2m1v0+ibm2@...>
Message-ID: <d2m4ls+o4v2@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> Kneasy:
> Why so? Are you so sure that the apparent complexity isn't a result 
> of your own incomprehension? Missed cues, faulty interpretation, 
> incorrect conclusions drawn?

Your argument seems to rest upon the contention that everything will 
be proven out--both plot-wise and in the hazier realm of 
interpretation.  Admittedly, dealing with a WiP, these things can't 
be settled, but I don't get the feeling that she's going to try to 
nail down exactly what we should think about what the actions of any 
character mean, or even the exact details of an arguable action (many 
of which she doesn't see as such, methinks, but are still open, from 
a strictly textual perspective).  We may find out exactly what 
everyone has done, but even if we then say "We have this set of 
objective actions", there are a number (not infinite and not 
unbounded) of potential patterns for reading those actions.  Some 
patterns are better supported than others.
 
> When discussing works most sensible comment is prefaced by, or 
> understood to be modified by, phrases like "As I see it" or "My 
> take on it" - which includes the possibility of uncertainty or 
> error on the part of the speaker. Others may then offer dissent or 
> support. In either case it is, consciously or unconsciously an 
> exercise to define/determine the guts of the story. Isn't that the 
> author's intention? For us to ferret out the golden thread? But if 
> we don't, if we give primacy to our own individual constructs, we 
> end up with a stunted (or mutant) offspring that crawls feebly 
> within the confines of our own limitations. I read to find out what 
> the writer's limitations are, not my  own - those're all too 
> evident. 

Or to rephrase the last line, to find out what the author's horizon 
(a group of things including perspective on the world) is; to read 
something written by someone who thinks differently.

And here we differ in that I do not believe there is ONE golden 
thread, but there are a number of threads running through the book.  
I don't think all of them are absolutely perfect "read the book and 
you will find this and not disagree".

> Not quite. In  fact not all -  you're ignoring the fact that the 
> work is incomplete. That makes a hell of a difference. No one can 
> at this moment be totally sure what Jo's intentions are. Right now 
> I can postulate anything that doesn't conflict with existing canon. 
> Hell, some fans go further, that Sirius lives, for example. Outside 
> of fanon this will not be possible once the conclusion is reached. 

It can be a tricky thing to discern authorial intention even when the 
work is completed, but that's another argument altogether.

So let me throw out a question, here.  It's all about authorial 
intention which is solidly defining.  Does that mean when it comes 
down to it, that your readings uncharitable to Sirius will be 
projections on your behalf rather than canon--assuming that we don't 
find out about his true evil nature but rather get told about what a 
good guy he was?  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we get 
told he's a good guy and he's presented positively.  Does it then 
become invalid to argue against the character being positive, if 
Rowling's 'intentions' are, in the long run, strongly on the positive 
side of the balance?

Snape seems to drop Harry's vial off of the desk in OotP, but it can 
be vociferously argued that Snape did not do anything to it (lacking 
the malicious intent) and it's simply Harry's flawed perception that 
puts the two things together.  If we don't get any followup ("Of 
course I dropped it, you idiot!" or the contrary), does it just hang, 
supporting all arguments?  Or will our picture of Snape's character 
be so complete that we can easily decide on one or the other?

I am in full agreement with you, Kneasy, about the need for evidence 
in both analysis and interpretation.  If you (the general 'you') 
can't ground it in something that we all have access to, there is no 
path for communication and I can't possibly care about it.  There's 
still a difference between analysis and interpretation, and what you 
get out of analysis is still partially dependent upon what you're 
looking for.  I read very differently if I'm thinking large-scale 
thematic issues than if I'm thinking Ron and Hermione's interpersonal 
dynamic.
 
> Kneasy
> who is of the opinion that no opinion is worth a damn unless it's 
> backed by reproducible experimental results. Doesn't stop him 
> offering them, though.

-Nora notes that literature is not exactly the realm of 'reproducible 
experimental results', unless you want to go into cognitive studies 
on it...






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  2 14:46:10 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 14:46:10 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2m4ls+o4v2@...>
Message-ID: <d2mb7i+uv9j@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Your argument seems to rest upon the contention that everything will 
> be proven out--both plot-wise and in the hazier realm of 
> interpretation.  Admittedly, dealing with a WiP, these things can't 
> be settled, but I don't get the feeling that she's going to try to 
> nail down exactly what we should think about what the actions of any 
> character mean, or even the exact details of an arguable action (many 
> of which she doesn't see as such, methinks, but are still open, from 
> a strictly textual perspective).  We may find out exactly what 
> everyone has done, but even if we then say "We have this set of 
> objective actions", there are a number (not infinite and not 
> unbounded) of potential patterns for reading those actions.  Some 
> patterns are better supported than others.
>  

Kneasy:
Everything that *matters* will be, yes. All  the textual signposts that
were emplaced that if followed assiduously lead to eventual enlightenment.
Of course there are all the red herrings too; whether those are explained
or just ignored - ignored would be good; give folk something to talk
about when it's all over.
 
> 
> And here we differ in that I do not believe there is ONE golden 
> thread, but there are a number of threads running through the book.  
> I don't think all of them are absolutely perfect "read the book and 
> you will find this and not disagree".
> 

Kneasy:
Oh, I  agree. the 'golden thread' was an allusion to whatever truth(s) and
meaning(s) the author has been trying to communicate.

> 
> So let me throw out a question, here.  It's all about authorial 
> intention which is solidly defining.  Does that mean when it comes 
> down to it, that your readings uncharitable to Sirius will be 
> projections on your behalf rather than canon--assuming that we don't 
> find out about his true evil nature but rather get told about what a 
> good guy he was?  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we get 
> told he's a good guy and he's presented positively.  Does it then 
> become invalid to argue against the character being positive, if 
> Rowling's 'intentions' are, in the long run, strongly on the positive 
> side of the balance?
> 

Kneasy:
Personal prejudices have little to do with truth.
There are good people who I find absolutely unbearable in real life,
let alone in fiction, so if Jo praises him as an exemplar of caring
compassion then yes, that was his assigned role and I won't argue. 
And I'll continue to cordially dislike the snotty creep.
The two are not mutually exclusive and he's hardly perfect as presented
in canon so I can continue to disparage him as much as I like for all his
many other faults, but I'll probably have to drop the ESE label.
Ah, well. You can't win 'em all.

> Snape seems to drop Harry's vial off of the desk in OotP, but it can 
> be vociferously argued that Snape did not do anything to it (lacking 
> the malicious intent) and it's simply Harry's flawed perception that 
> puts the two things together.  If we don't get any followup ("Of 
> course I dropped it, you idiot!" or the contrary), does it just hang, 
> supporting all arguments?  Or will our picture of Snape's character 
> be so complete that we can easily decide on one or the other?
>

Kneasy:
Or it could be one of those 'add a bit of colour' bits - creating an
atmosphere, perhaps. Included to highlight the developing antipathy/ 
Snape's spite/Harry's willingness to blame Sevvy for everything - his 
paranoia if you will. Did it really happen the way Harry sees it? It
hardly matters, I think. If it was a deliberate action what does it add to 
what we know already? Not much. But the 'atmosphere of mistrust' has 
been highlighted, Harry *and* readers have been wound up and that may
have been its function. 
If no further explication emerges that's how I'll view it anyway.


 
> I am in full agreement with you, Kneasy, about the need for evidence 
> in both analysis and interpretation.  If you (the general 'you') 
> can't ground it in something that we all have access to, there is no 
> path for communication and I can't possibly care about it.  There's 
> still a difference between analysis and interpretation, and what you 
> get out of analysis is still partially dependent upon what you're 
> looking for.  I read very differently if I'm thinking large-scale 
> thematic issues than if I'm thinking Ron and Hermione's interpersonal 
> dynamic.

Kneasy:
The difference being that I don't think about such soppy stuff to start
with. Ugh. I leave that to the SHIPping crew. Can't see that it matters in the 
slightest that Ron is romance-fodder (or a desire for his life to made a
misery by submitting to 'she who must be obeyed'. Same thing really.)
unless it happens that this teenage masochistic fancy impinges on other
plotlines.
Then, with regret, horror and revulsion I'll have to take notice.
 







From stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  2 16:05:31 2005
From: stevejjen at ariadnemajic.yahoo.invalid (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:05:31 -0000
Subject: Joining the posting dots (was Re: Manifesto?)
In-Reply-To: <d2jo3p+gslm@...>
Message-ID: <d2mfsb+o0cr@...>


> Jo:
> <snip>
> > I leave until last of course the strongest contender, 
> > Dumbledore: understanding, educating, supportive, caring,
> > talented, respected, powerful, wise. Are we to believe then that
> > Harry's search for a father will bring us right back to the 
> > beginning. The king is dead, long live the king!
 
> Anne:
> Actually, I don't think so.  Well, in a way, yes, in that
> Dumbledore will do his best by Harry as he attempts to bring about
> the downfall of Voldemort.  But if Harry comes right back to the
> beginning, I think he will find that his father dies again.  I'm
> betting Dumbledore doesn't literally die, but that Harry finds DD
> can not actually give him all he needs to vanquish Voldemort.  The
> son grows up and leaves the nest, and has to make his own way in
> the world.

Jen: I can't see Dumbledore as a contender for the father role 
because of the construction of their relationship. Unlike Arthur or 
Lupin, whom Harry has grown to know and trust gradually, there's a 
limit to how well or how naturally Harry can grow in a relationship 
with DD. Some people call DD's distance neglect or the like, but I 
view it as a necessary function of his role as the one who heard the 
prophecy.

He cannot take the same liberty Arthur or Lupin can to chit-chat 
with Harry, take him into his home, or share personal thoughts and 
feelings; he's not parenting a child in other words. 

The best description I've read of his role with Harry is master and 
apprentice. Dumbledore is there to observe, to offer advice, to 
answer questions (or not) when asked. This form of relationship 
precludes familial intimacy out of necessity, although there is the 
closeness shared of being in an endeavor together that no one else 
can ever completely understand. No one else heard the prophecy and 
attempted to shape this boy's life, and no one else is prophecy boy. 
Their bond is unique.

> Jo:
> > Does JKR really want us to accept that there is 
> > nothing wrong with benign dictatorship as long as the right
> > dictator rules? At the conclusion will Harry inherit DD's 
> >(invisible) mantle and lead the world forward ever improving but
> > fundamentally unchanged? 

Jen: I think you're referring to Plato's idea of the Philosopher 
King or something similar? That a 'divinely' inspired ruler (so to 
speak) has more power than an ineffective ruler elected by the 
people. And can't be ousted from his position as he's not elected.

Even so, if Dumbledore is supposed to be a benign dictator he's done 
a very poor job. He's managed to assemble a motley crew of WW 
outcasts and idealists who, if OOTP is any indication, are hampered 
by personal interest over Order ideals. In the first war there is 
every indication DD & Co. were on the losing side and convincing 
only a handful of witches/wizards to support the cause.

Perhaps Voldemort fears him, and Fudge thinks he's out to get his 
job, but those views don't seem to actually stop either one of those 
guys from getting on with business. And Lucius has no qualms about 
undermining DD at every turn.

Rather than benign dictator, I see one man trying to make a 
difference in a very unusual world where rules & laws are open to 
interpretation for the most part. Dumbledore's opinions and his 
quest carry very little weight in the wider wizarding world. And the 
irony is, most of the people and creatures he's convinced of his 
cause are too independent to blindly follow his lead!

Jen






From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  3 01:54:33 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:54:33 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2jaus+3qfo@...>
Message-ID: <d2nicp+qfb5@...>


Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/1513 :

<< An illustration - a colour-blind man sees the world differently,
but he does not see 'truth' - because the filtering/transmission
mechanism through which he views the world is faulty. Has what
he sees "taken on a life of its own" because it looks different? No,
I don't believe so; what he sees is a misrepresentation, an aberrant
image - and no matter that it may be interesting or informative, it's
wrong. >>

I've heard of color-blind men being specially recruited to see things
whose camouflage deceives the normally-sighted, but can't remember any
details just now. We normally-sighted don't see the markings on flower
petals that bees see, because we don't see in the UV range. 

In a way, all colors are illusions, because the reality is
electromagnetic radiation of different wave lengths. Some people have
a fourth color receptor that the rest of us lack; the rest for that
trait is to find the image hidden in a bunch of green polka-dots; to
them, the green dots are a different color than the blue+yellow dots.

Anyway, it seems to me that some texts have taken on "a life of their
own", separate from authorial intents, because the texts are
widely-read and the author is completely unknown, such as the Iliad.






From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  3 09:32:32 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:32:32 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2nicp+qfb5@...>
Message-ID: <d2od7g+j1tt@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" <catlady at w...> wrote:
> 
> Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
> old_crowd/message/1513 :
> 
> << An illustration - a colour-blind man sees the world differently,
> but he does not see 'truth' - because the filtering/transmission
> mechanism through which he views the world is faulty. Has what
> he sees "taken on a life of its own" because it looks different? 
No,
> I don't believe so; what he sees is a misrepresentation, an 
aberrant
> image - and no matter that it may be interesting or informative, 
it's
> wrong. >>
> 
> I've heard of color-blind men being specially recruited to see 
things
> whose camouflage deceives the normally-sighted, but can't remember 
any
> details just now. We normally-sighted don't see the markings on 
flower
> petals that bees see, because we don't see in the UV range. 
> 
> In a way, all colors are illusions, because the reality is
> electromagnetic radiation of different wave lengths. Some people 
have
> a fourth color receptor that the rest of us lack; the rest for that
> trait is to find the image hidden in a bunch of green polka-dots; 
to
> them, the green dots are a different color than the blue+yellow 
dots.
> 
> Anyway, it seems to me that some texts have taken on "a life of 
their
> own", separate from authorial intents, because the texts are
> widely-read and the author is completely unknown, such as the 
Iliad.

Now Mooseming rambles at length...

Let's not forget the ambient light source. Colours are the 
reflection of light from a given object, the object reflects light 
determined by its properties, some absorb blue light and reflect 
back more red and so appear red etc. The object can only reflect 
available light, our brains are pretty good at calculating 
variations in natural light and so colours remain consistent, 
however, artificial light can undermine those processes and so some 
colours appear very different in natural light than they do in say 
fluorescent light.

One can compare the quality of ambient light with the culture, 
experience and mood of the reader and the author. A reading can 
change with variations in that background noise. The `true' reading 
is dependent on environment just as colours are, it is therefore 
subject to change and not fixed and absolute. All perceptions are 
ultimately personal and variable.

Shared perceptions, like reading a book are a product of the 
author's intentions, her native skill at expressing those, the 
reader's ability to interpret them and that reader's individual, 
unique take on life.

I'd agree with Kneasy and say in that shared space the author is the 
authority, if JKR says something is so, then it is. To extend the 
metaphor, if I'm driving and the traffic cops stop me and say I`ve 
run a red light, I could argue in my reality it appeared green but I 
believe they could quite fairly say `very interesting, you're 
nicked!'. We are not all equal.

That said the debate becomes murkier when we consider the author's 
intentions. If JKR says that Snape is not a vampire, then Snape is 
not a vampire. If she were challenged on all those bat references 
she could argue they were coincidental, part of the atmosphere. Take 
the Snape's worst memory example. She could argue she was trying to 
think of an event that would be humiliating, public, comedic and not 
life threatening. The hanging upside down from a tree was one of a 
number options but she liked it best so used it. Subsequently her 
readers may point out the bat thing and she might acknowledge it as 
a fair interpretation but unintentional. Why then did she choose 
that particular example? Well it's quite possibly subconscious, she 
is not aware of the reasons behind her choices but the choices are 
still informed by her internalised conception of the HP world, not 
necessarily conscious or articulated. In that space there is room 
for something independent from the author, the character and world 
taking on a life of its own. JKR can legitimately say `Er I don't 
think so' to the Snape as vampire concept because whilst she hadn't 
created it that way there is room for it to be so.

Part of the fun of creative works, for the author as well as the 
reader, is exploring those unintentional yet significant events 
which can give us a new perspective on what we believe and who we 
are. Works of art are particularly powerful at illuminating and 
challenging received ideas. The act of writing is, in part, a way of 
getting at what you think but don't know you think. The act of 
publishing is to take your thoughts and subject them to a greater 
variety of ambient light, not everyone will see the same colours but 
that will, in turn' highlight differences in environment that we 
might otherwise never notice. A generous author (which I believe JKR 
to be) welcomes and encourages a dialogue around the shared world 
precisely because it creates a greater spectrum of understanding.

Regards
Jo






From ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  3 11:22:03 2005
From: ewetoo at ewe2_au.yahoo.invalid (ewe2)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 21:22:03 +1000
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2od7g+j1tt@...>
References: <d2nicp+qfb5@...> <d2od7g+j1tt@...>
Message-ID: <91d14f32050403042240ab5ad3@...>

I've *really* done it this time, haven't I? Better try to fix some of
this mess...

> That said the debate becomes murkier when we consider the author's
> intentions. If JKR says that Snape is not a vampire, then Snape is
> not a vampire. If she were challenged on all those bat references
> she could argue they were coincidental, part of the atmosphere. Take
> the Snape's worst memory example. She could argue she was trying to
> think of an event that would be humiliating, public, comedic and not
> life threatening. The hanging upside down from a tree was one of a
> number options but she liked it best so used it.

I'd quite forgotten to ask: what do we think of the significance of
the Hanged Snape Man? A Tarot tease, or a clue?
 
> Part of the fun of creative works, for the author as well as the
> reader, is exploring those unintentional yet significant events
> which can give us a new perspective on what we believe and who we
> are. Works of art are particularly powerful at illuminating and
> challenging received ideas. The act of writing is, in part, a way of
> getting at what you think but don't know you think. The act of
> publishing is to take your thoughts and subject them to a greater
> variety of ambient light, not everyone will see the same colours but
> that will, in turn' highlight differences in environment that we
> might otherwise never notice. A generous author (which I believe JKR
> to be) welcomes and encourages a dialogue around the shared world
> precisely because it creates a greater spectrum of understanding.

I think we can agree that it's silly to receive a work of art and
demand the artist reshape it to our wishes; if we want that, we can
always commission an artwork. What is Art then? Superior craftmanship,
or a flowering of the creative soul </sarcasm>? But that is the level
that LL demands of JKR: "I want a _nice_ story, where good people act
goodly and _nice_ !" After that, either JKR is a good nice-person
storyteller or not. That is technique, it isn't art. This is my
objection to the LL Manifesto; I also happen to disagree with his
opinion.

My opinion (being an artist in my own way) is that art is a form of
communication, mediated by the constraints of culture, and the desire
to express a personal vision. Whether you desire a reaction or not,
you'll get one. Despite your ability or that which you are trying to
express, something you weren't conscious of always comes through, and
sometimes you see that and sometimes others do. But once that idea is
out there, it's out there for everyone. That is a good thing, like
this list for example. There's nothing wrong with lit. crit.
dissection as long as you remember that _it_ isn't the object, it's
just another way of looking at the art, or having opinions about the
technique creating the art.

Some people disagree with this idea on the basis that it's relativist
wishy-washy twaddle. I don't know what that's got to do with having an
opinion, I've got an opinion and it's a jolly good one too. It's as
good as any other of the other jolly good ones.

There, that should sort it.

Sean (relatively penguin artist thing)

-- 
Emacs is an alright OS, but it lacks a decent editor.



From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  3 14:31:13 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 14:31:13 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2nicp+qfb5@...>
Message-ID: <d2ounh+rhif@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at w...> wrote:

<snip>

> Anyway, it seems to me that some texts have taken on "a life of their
> own", separate from authorial intents, because the texts are
> widely-read and the author is completely unknown, such as the Iliad.

The author may be unknown, but the culture that the author was in is 
not unknown.  So if you want to understand Homeric epic, even on 
a "what does that word mean?" level, you have to put it into a 
cultural context.  The instant that you agree to do that you have 
violated one of the fundamental ideas of some deconstructionist theory 
(there is only text and they are cut free from their origins) and 
restored some sort of authorial presence.  What that means for JKR is 
a little messier, but "Britpicking" might fall into this category.

-Nora notes that her Greek is rusty, but Homer is fun once you figure 
out the different contractions






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr  3 15:04:30 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:04:30 -0000
Subject: Manifesto?
In-Reply-To: <d2od7g+j1tt@...>
Message-ID: <d2p0lu+7a99@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> wrote:
> 
> Shared perceptions, like reading a book are a product of the 
> author's intentions, her native skill at expressing those, the 
> reader's ability to interpret them and that reader's individual, 
> unique take on life.
> 
> 
> That said the debate becomes murkier when we consider the author's 
> intentions. If JKR says that Snape is not a vampire, then Snape is 
> not a vampire. If she were challenged on all those bat references 
> she could argue they were coincidental, part of the atmosphere. Take 
> the Snape's worst memory example. She could argue she was trying to 
> think of an event that would be humiliating, public, comedic and not 
> life threatening. The hanging upside down from a tree was one of a 
> number options but she liked it best so used it. Subsequently her 
> readers may point out the bat thing and she might acknowledge it as 
> a fair interpretation but unintentional. Why then did she choose 
> that particular example? Well it's quite possibly subconscious, she 
> is not aware of the reasons behind her choices but the choices are 
> still informed by her internalised conception of the HP world, not 
> necessarily conscious or articulated. In that space there is room 
> for something independent from the author, the character and world 
> taking on a life of its own. JKR can legitimately say `Er I don't 
> think so' to the Snape as vampire concept because whilst she hadn't 
> created it that way there is room for it to be so.
> 

Mind you, it could be the product of a mischievious mind - throw
in a few deliberately ambiguous phrases that'll let us work ourselves
into a lather, later to deny any relevance with wide-eyed innocence
whilst chortling inside. Red herrings have been planted, that's been
openly admitted -  and how many have we identified? Hm. Since
we've no idea how many exist, that knowledge is liable to encourage
the more, what? - imaginative? volatile? suspicious? fans to chase
their own tails, eventually to disappear up their own chuff. Entire
edifices of speculation have doubtlessly been constructed on
premises that are not only false, but based on 'information' intentionally
inserted as bait for the unwary.

Then there's the problem of the contrived getting tangled up with the
unintentional - Mark Evans, wand order in GoF, stuff like that. They were
corrected eventually, true - and weren't exactly congruent with existing 
canon, but still, we've enough uncertainties already without the added 
complication of wondering if something is erroneous, inadvertently 
coincidental or planned.
Just pull your hair out and tell yourself it's not meant to be easy.

When we talk of 'authorial intentions' there's a risk of becoming too
portentous by assuming that there *must* be some profound or serious
message or insight that will have the reader nodding sagely when
the final full-stop appears. Jo has said what this tale is not - a
morality story - but she's never said what it is. Could be anything
from therapy to an amusing entertainment - and 'intentions' will
have encompassed a lot more than the content, that's for sure.

Relax, sit back and put yourself in her place.
You get an idea.
What do you intend doing about it?
1st intention. - "Ooh. Looks good. Can I make it work?"
It does - to your own unprofessional eyes, anyway.
2nd intention. - Get it published.
Finally - a yes!
3rd intention. - "Hang on; there might be a few quid in this," recalling
the dictum of old Sam Johnson - "No man but a blockhead ever wrote,
except for money."
There is. Lots.
A significant fraction of the book reading public goes bananas.
Pottermania sweeps civilisation, all sorts of odd-balls speculate on
what will happen to Harry and why.
4th intention. - Suspense. Don't tell 'em. Keep it secret until the bitter 
end. The possibility of a modern-day repetition of Dickens and the crowds
on the New York docks desperate for news of Little Nell doesn't seem
fanciful -  the bookshops are besieged with the publication of each 
volume.
5th intention. - Don't let it go to your head. Taking it too seriously
would be laying out the 'Welcome' mat for Hubris to come calling.
6th intention.  - Enjoy yourself. Engage with the fans, not the literary 
establishment. The fans are more fun and the LE is mostly a bunch
of back-biting wannabes anyway. Come the finale there'll probably be
more of those old weirdies claiming there's a lack of the 'numinous',
or it's badly done or some rubbish or other.
7th intention. - Remind the fans that they're supposed to enjoy it, too.
  
With all this, who's got time for eternal verities?
Those mischievious buggers on the web-sites, that's who. 
Some people are never satisfied.

Kneasy








From dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr  4 17:23:09 2005
From: dk59us at dk59us.yahoo.invalid (Eustace_Scrubb)
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:23:09 -0000
Subject: Naughty, Guilty! DD ( was Connecting the dots
In-Reply-To: <d23htu+57o5@...>
Message-ID: <d2rt5t+tm1l@...>


Neri:
>We know that Herself arranges everything, and she's writing a
>story in which prophecies play a crucial role.

Talisman: 
I do not think the prophecies play a crucial role. I
think the prophecies are fairly meaningless. Perhaps you would like
to tell me who Voldemort's most faithful servant is?

Not Wormtail, that's certain. Do you vote for Barty Jr.? Would that
mean that he was shrugging off the Imperius for the first time
sometime before midnight on that fateful day in PoA? That would
certainly weigh for a very figurative reading (setting out to rejoin
his Master = beginning to shrug off Imperius so Bertha can catch an
earful and head for Albania) and further opens the door to
interpretations. Anyway, why is Barty Jr. more faithful than
Bella? How about Nott, he seems to think it's him (GoF 651)--and
for all we know it is. How has that "prophecy" compelled the plot?


Eustace_Scrubb now (wishing for once he was still shielded within that
darned dragon skin):
Well, I'm sure I have no grand evidence to bolster or pierce the
notion that DD is naughty and/or guilty.  I'm happy to accept the
premise that there's much more to him than a first reading of the
books published thus far would indicate.

But on the matter of Professor Trelawney's first prophecy:  it says
nothing on the subject of who Voldemort's "most faithful servant"
might be, nor even who his "faithful servant(s)" might be.  The word
"servant" is used four times in the prophecy with no such adjectives:

"IT WILL HAPPEN TONIGHT. THE DARK LORD LIES ALONE AND FRIENDLESS,
ABANDONED BY HIS FOLLOWERS. HIS SERVANT HAS BEEN CHAINED THESE TWELVE
YEARS. TONIGHT, BEFORE MIDNIGHT... THE SERVANT WILL BREAK FREE AND SET
OUT TO REJOIN HIS MASTER. THE DARK LORD WILL RISE AGAIN WITH HIS
SERVANT'S AID, GREATER AND MORE TERRIBLE THAN EVER HE WAS. TONIGHT...
BEFORE MIDNIGHT...THE SERVANT...WILL SET OUT...TO REJOIN...HIS
MASTER...."

This doesn't require the same kind of agonized word association
football as does the first prophecy, at least once we've read to the
end of POA.  We're supposed to think it refers to Sirius, who's been
literally chained these twelve years, rather than Peter, who's been in
hiding.  

The question of faithfulness only comes up in the graveyard in GOF,
where Voldemort himself brings up the matter of who had been faithful
in his absence.  As Talisman points out, the stooped Nott tries to
claim the mantle of "most faithful" only to be cut off by his master,
who almost immediately reveals that his "most faithful servant" is at
Hogwarts.  Then he makes the word "most" superfluous by referring to
Barty Jr. as his "my one faithful Death Eater," implying that none of
the others present were worthy of being called faithful.

It's immaterial whether Wormtail is "faithful," let alone "most
faithful."  He is Voldemort's servant, he does break free before
midnight and he does rejoin his master.  Voldemort does rise again
with Wormtail's aid, though frankly it's hard to believe he's "greater
and more terrible than ever he was," yet anyway.  That's all Trelwaney
said.   

Talisman again:
I'll tell you how: it lubed Harry up to take the first prophecy
(which he hears second) seriously... 

Eustace_Scrubb:
Agreed.  But it's because the second one was demonstrably true and
relatively uncomplicated that Harry and we poor deluded readers take
the first one seriously.  The second one may be a trap in that way, a
plot device meant to lead readers astray not merely for the remainder
of POA, but possibly until the end of Harry Potter and the End of All
Things.  

But as to the characters--well those who know about the prophecies
_do_ seem to consider them important, possibly "crucial."  And if the
characters take the prophecies seriously, even if (or especially if)
they "misinterpret" them and act accordingly, then the prophecies are
hardly meaningless.

Cheers,

Eustace_Scrubb






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr  6 14:09:43 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:09:43 +0100
Subject: Out of sight, out of mind?
Message-ID: <ca5e004e9652a28c361196778fd53458@...>

Been doing a bit ceiling gazing.
You know what it's like - everything quiet, mind in neutral, let the 
thoughts drift along. Memories mostly. "Whatever happened to...?" I'll 
let you fill in your own blanks - mine are private.

Anyway, I  was in the same sort of reminiscent mood when I fired up the 
old iMac to see what was new on the board. And I got to wondering .... 
'cos there're characters and items from past HP books that just seemed 
to drop out of sight, too. Some will turn up again, some probably 
won't, some will  have their moment of glory or infamy - and others, 
well, it'll be "I wonder what happened to...?"

So, a little list.
Starts off with some dead certs and gets progressively more fanciful 
the further down you go.

First up, something not from the books.
Remember, oh, about 18 months back? There was a little something from 
Jo to the effect that Harry'd be getting a new pet. Haven't seen it 
mentioned for yonks. Gave it some consideration at the time (post 81563 
  'Pets-U-Like'), but nothing lately. Worth a thought or two as to what 
pet/whose pet (death stalks Hogwarts?) and unless it's a totally new 
beastie the list of potential Black Spotees is pretty limited. And no, 
I don't think you could count Buckbeak as a 'pet' - not when it's 
liable to snack on Figgy's moggies and what with there still being a 
valid death sentence on it.  Can't see that Vernon'd be happy with that 
in the spare bedroom either.  Thought my idea of Nagini was nicely 
perverse, though.

Another nudge from herself, this time round about Christmas time and on 
her website. Peter. It was one of the 'voting' questions (the one that 
won was the "With reference to my last.." question.
Peter didn't appear in OoP and we were offered the opportunity of 
getting a hint of what he'd been doing instead of traipsing round St 
Mungo's and the MoM. IIRC JKR said that the answer would have been 
interesting. We'll see. But the chances are fair that he's no longer 
just Voldy's Igor.

Third - Bagman. Yep, he's my hot favourite, too.

Krum. This book or next?

Fleur  too.

There's a missing Invisibility Cloak - the one Arthur was wearing when 
Nagini put the bite on him. Useful object. Wonder who found it?

Apparating. Harry's 17, he gets to learn to Apparate. Good for a 
fraught moment or two I'd imagine. Who'll teach him? Hmm. How about 
Madam Hooch? She's been very low profile since the first book - and 
since Brooms and Apparating both come under the heading of 
transportation..... (And why the hell is she called 'Hooch?' What's the 
connection?)

Speaking of transport - the FFA and that bloody motor bike.
To be objective, I think FFA has had it (nothing personal, Neil!); if 
it was going to turn up again the logical place would have been in 
place of the Thestrals - what's more natural than  a car on the streets 
of London (though the Nasally-vocal Newt-Fancier obviously intends to 
rectify that ASAP).
The bike, though? Outside chance, I'd think.

Norbert. A fully fledged pissed-off dragon that causes Hagrid to do 
something daft. And possibly fatal. Wishful thinking.

The Hand of Glory. Mmm. Dunno. I get the feeling that we reacted to its 
emphasis in the film more than in the book. Still, it's possible.

The Mirror of Erised seems a useful bit of kit. DD sends images to 
influence a decision of Harry's? Could be work for it yet.

Lastly the individual that characterises the title of the post. 
(There's an apocryphal story about a translating device - they fed it 
the phrase 'out of sight out of mind', translated it to Russian, then 
translated it back to English - and got 'invisible lunatic'.
So what'll Lockhart be up to? Anything?

Decent selection to choose from.
Comments and further suggestions welcome.

Kneasy




From willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr  6 17:09:38 2005
From: willsonkmom at potioncat.yahoo.invalid (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:09:38 -0000
Subject: Out of sight, out of mind?
In-Reply-To: <ca5e004e9652a28c361196778fd53458@...>
Message-ID: <d3154i+102tr@...>


 Kneasy wrote:
And I got to wondering .... 
'cos there're characters and items from past HP books that just seemed 
to drop out of sight, too. Some will turn up again, some probably 
won't, some will  have their moment of glory or infamy - and others, 
well, it'll be "I wonder what happened to...?"

Potioncat:
She hasn't really dropped out of sight. We just met her in OoP, but I 
wonder what's going on with Agnes? Is her son still visiting her and 
does he bring a big box of Droobles to pass around the ward? Or is he 
possibly detained elsewhere? Or worse, is he Mark Evans? 










From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 01:59:01 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 01:59:01 -0000
Subject: DD=Ron is officially sunk
Message-ID: <d32455+9kkq@...>


JKR site was updated (FAQ and Rumors; did I miss anything?), and the
theory that DD is Ron who went back in time is officially sunk. I
suspect most members hated it anyway, but I had a lot of fun playing
with it. My first large contribution to HPfGU was a detailed test
drive of this possibility. I concluded it was technically feasible but
would make DD's situation extremely distressing, as he would have to
watch all the things that he knows are bound to happen with no way to
do anything about it. I'm actually happy too that this is out of the
way, but still...

Funnily, JKR also bothered to debunk the theory about Ron's and
Hermione's son coming back from the future. It might be yours truly
who started that one. Several months ago I suggested, as a completely
outlandish speculation (I never believed it for a second) that the HBP
is Ron's and Hermione's son, coming from the future to help Harry.
This was "based" on Harry's dream in OotP, in which Ron and Hermione
were wearing crowns, and the fact that they are a pureblood and a
muggle-born. I don't know if my post was the first origin of this
theory in the fandom (at least I never saw it before anywhere) but
it's nice to indulge in the thought that Herself actually bothered
responding to my crazy conjectures. 

Also, Nick Flamel is now officially dead <hangs head in silence for
665 milliseconds>

And Flitwick has a touch of Goblin blood in him. Pippin, does this
help? <g>

Herself is also "fine" about the omission of the Marauders' Map
background from the movie. Does this say something about MAGIC
DISHWASHER and the rest of the Marauders theories?

And she still didn't answered the poll FAQ about Neville. #$%@&! Did
she forget about it or is she doing it on purpose?


Neri







From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 09:45:50 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:45:50 -0000
Subject: Out of sight, out of mind?
In-Reply-To: <ca5e004e9652a28c361196778fd53458@...>
Message-ID: <d32vge+ljje@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> Been doing a bit ceiling gazing.
And I got to wondering .... 

I stare at walls and got to wondering 'why ceilings' are you 
horizontal or looking for divine inspiration (or both!

> 'cos there're characters and items from past HP books that just 
seemed 
> to drop out of sight, too. Some will turn up again, some probably 
> won't, some will  have their moment of glory or infamy - and 
others, 
> well, it'll be "I wonder what happened to...?"
> > Decent selection to choose from.
> Comments and further suggestions welcome.
> 
> Kneasy

Out of sight out of mind indeed. This is a product, at least in 
part, of the way JKR has chosen to narrate the books. The restricted 
pov that means essentially we can only learn about characters from 
Harry's activities, including his 'link' to Voldy, or occasionally 
from the somewhat questionable accounts of others as Harry hears 
them. So the possibilities of learning more about, for example, 
goblins and Gringotts (including via Bill) are necessarily limited. 
It has been commented on before how little we really know about the 
other houses in Hogwarts even though that is where the majority of 
the action/information is placed.

In asking who/what we will learn more about or who/what will feature 
more prominently we have to address the how.

My first contender then is Draco, if only because he has a chapter 
title! Best guess is that he takes a detour into Knockturn alley, 
either on an errand for his family or because he will, released from 
his super critical father, finally become proactive. Harry alone or 
with Hermione and/or Ron can tail him thus giving the reader a 
chance to glean valuable plot/character points. Perhaps this is 
where Harry will get his new pet! The Hand of Glory Adamms family 
style per chance.

Next up Lily, because we've been told so. This has to be via someone 
else telling a story or some kind of pensive/occlumency scam. It's 
possible JKR will invent a new type of history revealing device (eg 
Tom's diary), some objects could retain images/recordings, the WW 
equivalent of a video, mirrors maybe?

If we are to learn anything about other non Gryffindor students then 
Harry must extend his circle of friends (Luna) or there has to be 
greater interhouse (non competitive) activity, hence a previous 
thought of mine that we may see students engaging in house 
exchanges. Similarly we may have foreign exchange students from 
Beauxbatons or Durmstrang (though I for one think we've heard the 
last of them). How about inter school quidditch matches and a new 
(professional) coach? Plenty of Baggy possibilities there.

Further afield how are we to `see' what the larger world is up to. 
If the members of the DA continue to meet with school approval, as a 
response to Voldy's return, Susan Bones might be a useful source of 
info. And Peter, how on earth can we follow him? Will Harry discover 
he can spy on the baddies by possessing Nagini?

What about the dearly departed and that veil? I adore Kneasy's Draft 
of Death suggestion, travels beyond seem a strong contender. Perhaps 
this is where Lily's story will be extended.

Closer to home there's the Dursleys, specifically Petunia and her 
secret. Given that this is Harry's shortest stay at Privet Drive can 
we hope to learn anything `big'. Ditto Mrs Figg.

Lastly, old magic, Egypt and runes. Any chance of some info there? 
Christmas in Cairo anyone?


Regards
Jo







From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 10:03:44 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:03:44 -0000
Subject: DD=Ron is officially sunk
In-Reply-To: <d32455+9kkq@...>
Message-ID: <d330i0+jmnm@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> JKR site was updated (FAQ and Rumors; did I miss anything?), and 
the
> theory that DD is Ron who went back in time is officially sunk. I
> suspect most members hated it anyway, but I had a lot of fun 
playing
> with it.

<snip>
> 

> Funnily, JKR also bothered to debunk the theory about Ron's and
> Hermione's son coming back from the future. It might be yours truly
> who started that one. Several months ago I suggested, as a 
completely
> outlandish speculation (I never believed it for a second) that the 
HBP
> is Ron's and Hermione's son, coming from the future to help Harry.
> This was "based" on Harry's dream in OotP, in which Ron and 
Hermione
> were wearing crowns, and the fact that they are a pureblood and a
> muggle-born. I don't know if my post was the first origin of this
> theory in the fandom (at least I never saw it before anywhere) but
> it's nice to indulge in the thought that Herself actually bothered
> responding to my crazy conjectures. 


Congratulations, a theory debunked but acknowledged (applauded) none 
the less, dreams are made of such ....

I'm a crew member on a TBAY vessel(submerged undetected uboat)
christened U-TURN - Utilisation of Timeturner Unleashes Random 
Negativity. The sub never surfaced for fear of all out bombardment 
so I'm grateful to come up for air! 


> And she still didn't answered the poll FAQ about Neville. #$%@&! 
Did
> she forget about it or is she doing it on purpose?
> 
> 
> Neri

When she finally answers it I bet she will leave us more frustrated! 
I'm anticipating something along the lines of 'Neville is only 
significant because of the prophecy but perhaps not in the way you 
might expect'

Standing in honour at Neri's historic achievement.
Jo






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 12:26:12 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 07:26:12 -0500
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Out of sight, out of mind?
References: <ca5e004e9652a28c361196778fd53458@...>
Message-ID: <016101c53b6c$fdab0ec0$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Kneasy:
First up, something not from the books.
Remember, oh, about 18 months back? There was a little something from 
Jo to the effect that Harry'd be getting a new pet. Haven't seen it 
mentioned for yonks. Gave it some consideration at the time (post 81563 
  'Pets-U-Like'), but nothing lately. 

SSSusan:
Hmmm.  Female cat to get all down & dirty with Crookshanks?  Might assuage the Harry/Hermione shippers a bit.


Kneasy:
Third - Bagman. Yep, he's my hot favourite, too.

SSSusan:
Yup, he's GOTTA come back.  I'm still not convinced he wasn't somehow helping BCJ back in GoF, nor that he might not be the coward Voldy referred to.


Kneasy:  Krum. This book or next?

SSSusan:  I vote for this book.  Somehow working with or alongside the Order, but not sure how likely he'd be to be the new DADA professor, as has been proposed by a few.


Kneasy:
Apparating. Harry's 17, he gets to learn to Apparate. 

SSSusan:
Not 'til book 7, I'm afraid.  Harry turned 11 just before school started in SS/PS... which makes him turning 16 just before his 6th year.  IIRC, Hermione will be the first of the three to turn 17 -- in Sept.?--so that raises an interesting question about whether she will learn to apparate months ahead of the guys, or whether she'll wait.


Kneasy:
Lastly the individual that characterises the title of the post. 
(There's an apocryphal story about a translating device - they fed it 
the phrase 'out of sight out of mind', translated it to Russian, then 
translated it back to English - and got 'invisible lunatic'.
So what'll Lockhart be up to? Anything?

SSSusan:
Ugh.  I hope not.  I feel about Lockhart almost as I feel about Grawp.

Siriusly Snapey Susan


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




From josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 14:35:16 2005
From: josturgess at mooseming.yahoo.invalid (mooseming)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:35:16 -0000
Subject: Out of sight, out of mind?
In-Reply-To: <d32vge+ljje@...>
Message-ID: <d33gf4+rlig@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> 
wrote:
> 
> What about the dearly departed and that veil? I adore Kneasy's Draft 
> of Death suggestion, 
> 

oops, my bad, that's clearly my suggestion as Kneasy made the more 
accurate and less fantastical 'Draught of Living Death' suggestion!

the draft of death fyi would render the drinker a little 'gassy' 
creating a combined odorous protective barrier, increased propulsion 
and limited weapons capability, the major ingredient unsurprisingly is 
blast end skrewt!

Regards
Jo
fully paid up member of homophonics four oral writes






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 15:44:12 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:44:12 -0000
Subject: DD=Ron is officially sunk
In-Reply-To: <d32455+9kkq@...>
Message-ID: <d33kgc+2s6s@...>


Neri wrote:
> Funnily, JKR also bothered to debunk the theory about Ron's and
> Hermione's son coming back from the future. It might be yours truly
> who started that one. Several months ago I suggested, as a 
> completely outlandish speculation (I never believed it for a 
> second) that the HBP is Ron's and Hermione's son, coming from the 
> future to help Harry. This was "based" on Harry's dream in OotP, in 
> which Ron and Hermione were wearing crowns, and the fact that they 
> are a pureblood and a muggle-born. I don't know if my post was the 
> first origin of this theory in the fandom (at least I never saw it 
> before anywhere) but it's nice to indulge in the thought that 
> Herself actually bothered responding to my crazy conjectures. 


SSSusan:
Heh heh heh.  I *knew* this sounded familiar.  I dug up #108438 at 
HPfGU, which said:  

Neri:
> --------------------------------
> OotP, Ch. 10:
> Harry had a troubled nights sleep. His parents wove in and out of
> his dreams, never speaking; Mrs Weasley sobbed over Kreacher's
> dead body, watched by Ron and Hermione who were wearing crowns
> --------------------------------
> Ron and Hermione as King and Queen? Hmm. Ron is pureblood and
> Hermione is muggle-born. So their son would be... yep, a half-blood
> prince.
>
> But how would Ron and Hermione's son come to Harry's aid in Book 6?
> This is not a problem either. We have time travel.
>
> Hey, I warned you it's wacko...

vmonte responded:
> I'm going to go along with your train of thought. It's very clever
> by the way and something that never occured to anyone before I bet.

SSSusan adds:
Well...actually.... I wrote this on a different HP list on July 1:

"I'm not buying it [someone else's theory that the HBP is Ron], but
it does add interest to the 'Weasley is our KING' song and Harry's
dream in OoP wherein Hermione & Ron were wearing crowns! Hmmmm--
wait a minute.... This could become R-rated. What if Ron &
Hermione conceive a child.... Couldn't their child be a half-blood
prince if it turns out the Weasleys are royalty?"

Admittedly, I was saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek and hadn't
thought it out far enough to add the time-turning, but.... So if
you're wacko, Neri, I guess I am, too.

Siriusly Snapey Susan


Such fun. :-)
SSSusan






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 18:35:49 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:35:49 -0000
Subject: DD=Ron is officially sunk
In-Reply-To: <d33kgc+2s6s@...>
Message-ID: <d33ui5+ajgq@...>



> SSSusan adds:
> Well...actually.... I wrote this on a different HP list on July 1:
> 
> "I'm not buying it [someone else's theory that the HBP is Ron], but
> it does add interest to the 'Weasley is our KING' song and Harry's
> dream in OoP wherein Hermione & Ron were wearing crowns! Hmmmm--
> wait a minute.... This could become R-rated. What if Ron &
> Hermione conceive a child.... Couldn't their child be a half-blood
> prince if it turns out the Weasleys are royalty?"
> 
> Admittedly, I was saying this somewhat tongue-in-cheek and hadn't
> thought it out far enough to add the time-turning, but.... So if
> you're wacko, Neri, I guess I am, too.
> 

Neri:
Arghh! I guess now we have to fight, which of us is entitled to the 
honor of standing together with the guy who invented Romulus Lupin and 
the guy who came up with the Pillar of Storg?.






From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 18:45:14 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (Susan Albrecht)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 11:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: DD=Ron is officially sunk
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050407184514.56267.qmail@...>

> SSSusan adds:
> Well...actually.... I wrote this on a different HP
list on July 1:
> 
> "I'm not buying it [someone else's theory that the
HBP is Ron], but
> it does add interest to the 'Weasley is our KING'
song and Harry's
> dream in OoP wherein Hermione & Ron were wearing
crowns! Hmmmm--
> wait a minute.... This could become R-rated. What if
Ron &
> Hermione conceive a child.... Couldn't their child
be a half-blood
> prince if it turns out the Weasleys are royalty?"
> 
> Admittedly, I was saying this somewhat
tongue-in-cheek and hadn't
> thought it out far enough to add the time-turning,
but.... So if
> you're wacko, Neri, I guess I am, too.
> 

Neri:
Arghh! I guess now we have to fight, which of us is
entitled to the 
honor of standing together with the guy who invented
Romulus Lupin and 
the guy who came up with the Pillar of Storg.


SSSusan:
Oh, by all means, Neri, YOU go right ahead & take the
honor! ;-)

Siriusly Snapey Susan




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr  7 22:22:51 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:22:51 -0000
Subject: DD=Ron is officially sunk
In-Reply-To: <d32455+9kkq@...>
Message-ID: <d34brr+khfj@...>


Neri:
> And Flitwick has a touch of Goblin blood in him. Pippin, does this
_ help? <g>

Pippin:
Funnily enough, it does <g>. Clearly there are more part humans
 teaching at Hogwarts than one might suspect. It goes to my 
contention that mixed blood is actually a pretty common thing 
in the WW, far more common than some puristas would like to 
think. 

It's also clear that Herself has been paying attention to fandom
rumours for some time now, so the idea that she never even heard
of Vampire!Snape until the book day chat is losing credibility
quickly, IMO.

Those of you who formerly espoused elaborate theories about Mark
Evans and or Ron=Dumbledore ? if JKR had fobbed you off with an
 ?Erm, I don't think so- instead of complimenting you on your 
inventiveness, would you be convinced or would you think
 she might be hiding something? 

Neri: 
> Herself is also "fine" about the omission of the Marauders' Map
> background from the movie. Does this say something about MAGIC
_ DISHWASHER and the rest of the Marauders theories?

Pippin:
Erm, I don't think so <g>. Seriously, when each page of the
script costs millions of dollars to shoot, repeating  an 
unresolved plot point from one movie to another is not a cost 
effective method of story telling unless perchance it's a cliff
hanger. But by the time Book Seven becomes a film, the majority
of the audience is going to know how it ends (shades 
of LOTR) and cliff hangers are going to be a mite 
superfluous in any case.

Pippin






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr  8 13:16:16 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:16:16 -0000
Subject: DD=Ron is officially sunk
In-Reply-To: <d32455+9kkq@...>
Message-ID: <d36070+iop4@...>


Neri wrote:
> 
> JKR site was updated (FAQ and Rumors; did I miss anything?), and 
the
> theory that DD is Ron who went back in time is officially sunk. I
> suspect most members hated it anyway, but I had a lot of fun 
playing
> with it. 

Well, I never for a moment thought it credible (not for any logical 
reason - it just didn't feel like JKR, which is in effect my main 
objection to most of the theories I disagree with) and so I never 
played with it.  For some reason my perception of the likelihood of 
its actually turning out to be 'true' in the context of the 
developing series plays a large part in my interest in any theory.

I have never hated it or any HP theory or character, though, and 
find it hard to understand those who do.

I do have some sympathy, in fact, for the originators of the Knight-
to-king theory, in the way their cherished speculation has been 
dismissed, even if it does show that JKR has been paying attention.  
I would rather get my debunking from the books themselves, even if 
only by silence.

David






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr  8 18:15:25 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:15:25 -0000
Subject: DD=Ron is officially sunk
In-Reply-To: <d36070+iop4@...>
Message-ID: <d36hnt+4755@...>


Combining answers to everybody:

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1537:
Funnily enough, it does <g>. Clearly there are more part humans
teaching at Hogwarts than one might suspect. It goes to my
contention that mixed blood is actually a pretty common thing
in the WW, far more common than some puristas would like to
think.

It's also clear that Herself has been paying attention to fandom
rumours for some time now, so the idea that she never even heard
of Vampire!Snape until the book day chat is losing credibility
quickly, IMO.

Those of you who formerly espoused elaborate theories about Mark
Evans and or Ron=Dumbledore ? if JKR had fobbed you off with an
?Erm, I don't think so- instead of complimenting you on your
inventiveness, would you be convinced or would you think
she might be hiding something?


Neri:
Just to clarify, I was sure for at least a year now that the DD=Ron 
theory is not going to happen. This is why I wrote the "officially" 
in the subject line above. I certainly did not need JKR debunking it 
to know that it's not even a contender. I liked this theory purely 
for its inventiveness, and long before JKR termed it so. But even if 
I would have thought that DD=Ron is a possibility, a "nope, sorry" 
from JKR would have been the end of it for me, regardless of what 
particular words she used.

Regarding JKR knowledge of the fandom, my personal impression is that 
it's rather cursory even today. I can easily imagine that she 
somehow, by pure chance, happened to come across the Ron=DD theory, 
and yet missed vampire!Snape altogether. If her knowledge of the 
fandom had been better she would have known about the issue of the 
Weasley kids' ages, for example, and wouldn't have "corrected" one 
flint with another flint (more than once).


David wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1538
Well, I never for a moment thought it credible (not for any logical
reason - it just didn't feel like JKR, which is in effect my main
objection to most of the theories I disagree with) and so I never
played with it. For some reason my perception of the likelihood of
its actually turning out to be 'true' in the context of the
developing series plays a large part in my interest in any theory. 
<snip>

Neri:
I actually tend to agree with this view. DD=Ron was inventive and had 
a big wow factor (and actually a reasonable support in canon) but it 
just wasn't JKR's style. It has a nostalgic value for me because I 
came across it when I was very new to the fandom and it intrigued me 
with all its possibilities. Since then I learned that the fandom is 
stuffed full with inventive theories like that. I still like to play 
with them, but my true interest is reserved for those theories that I 
think have a good chance to come out "true". 

Jo wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1531:
When she finally answers it I bet she will leave us more frustrated!
I'm anticipating something along the lines of 'Neville is only
significant because of the prophecy but perhaps not in the way you
might expect'

Neri:

I think JKR chooses the poll FAQs with more care than that. It's not 
likely she'll choose a question that she can't answer at least 
partially. for the previous poll questions she gave honest answers: 
Mark Evans is a nobody and Petunia was in DD's mailing list for some 
time.  Perhaps I should take a risk of a prediction now. JKR recently 
hinted that the Longbottoms weren't attacked because of the prophecy 
(yes, I know, her answer can also be interpreted as if only the 
Lestranges didn't know about it, but they were sent by someone who 
did). What if JKR is going to answer something like: "Neville was a 
possibility, but he is not anymore. I only included him in the 
prophecy in order to show that it was Voldemort, not blind fate, who 
determined by his own actions which would be the One". Or maybe "I 
wanted to show that Voldemort saw himself in half-blood Harry, and 
for this I needed him to choose between Harry and a pureblood option".

This would mean that the Neville thread (including the attack, the 
Lestranges, young Barty and the Bubblegum mystery) is actually not 
directly connected with the prophecy. It is a different thread. Such 
a solution would be a bit inelegant of JKR, since she had implied 
Neville in the prophecy, but it is not unthinkable. We shall find out 
soon, I hope. I'd better check JKR's site again before I send this 
post.


SSSusan wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1536 :
Oh, by all means, Neri, YOU go right ahead & take the
honor! ;-) 

Neri:
Thanks, you don't know how much it means to me :) 


Neri







From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  9 19:37:49 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:37:49 -0000
Subject: Hooch and Flitwick / part-humans
Message-ID: <d39aud+4bb7@...>


Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1527 :

<< (And why the hell is she called 'Hooch?' What's the
connection?) >> 

She has yellow eyes like an Hedwig's. Maybe her name is reminiscent of
owls' cliche hoot "Whooo hooo".

Neri wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1529 :

<< And Flitwick has a touch of Goblin blood in him. >>

*sigh* I was hoping for House Elf, not Goblin. 

And She said : "I must admit, I was taken aback when I saw the film
Flitwick, who looks very much like a goblin/elf (I've never actually
asked the filmmakers precisely what he is), because the Flitwick in my
imagination simply looks like a very small old man." The Flitwick of
MY imagination also simply looks like a very small old man, but notice
the phrase "goblin/elf". We can spin that as Herself hinting that
Goblins and House Elves are related.

Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1537 :

<< Clearly there are more part humans teaching at Hogwarts than one
might suspect. It goes to my contention that mixed blood is actually a
pretty common thing in the WW, far more common than some puristas
would like to think. >>

Or to the theory Dumbledore hires professors out of pity for their
inability to get hired for other jobs due to bloodist bigotry, rather
than their teaching ability.







From carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  9 21:15:37 2005
From: carolynwhite2 at carolynwhite2.yahoo.invalid (carolynwhite2)
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:15:37 -0000
Subject: Hooch
In-Reply-To: <d39aud+4bb7@...>
Message-ID: <d39glp+j56n@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at w...> wrote:
> 
> Kneasy wrote in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1527 :
> 
> << (And why the hell is she called 'Hooch?' What's the
> connection?) >> 
> 
> She has yellow eyes like an Hedwig's. Maybe her name is reminiscent 
of
> owls' cliche hoot "Whooo hooo".
> 

Carolyn:
A few seconds searching our catalogue (which is coming on a treat, 
thanks for asking), turned up the following comprehensive response 
[40667] from Suzanne Chiles:

>>I looked up "hooch" in the OED and have discovered that use of the 
word
hooch in relation to alcoholic beverages is strictly an American 
invention.
Hooch originated in Alaska in the 19th century as a cheap, home-made, 
highly
intoxicating drink made from wheat and sugar. 

As for the prostitute slur, it is also of American derivation. 
Originally it was the name of a Black minstrel performer named 
Hootchy-Kootchy Rice. Over time, "hootchy-kootchy"
came to mean an erotic dance, which is probably how some may have 
interpreted over time to be connected to prostitution. 
<snip>
More likely, however, is the association with the British meaning of 
word, a very old meaning which is " An exclamation of excitement; the 
cry of a dancer of the Highland fling. Hence heuch v. intr., to utter 
this cry."<<<

Carolyn:
Both the hooker slang and Scottish dialect meanings can be confirmed 
on these sites:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/browse.php?word=hooch&x=5&y=11
http://www.scotsmagazine.com/wordsInside.asp

Incidentally, the Lexicon says that the trading cards list Hooch's 
first name as Rolanda, which according to a babyname directory I 
looked up, is a 3-syllable girl's name of Teutonic origin meaning: 
from the land of fame. JKR recently confirmed on her website that she 
wrote the information on the original Famous Wizard cards; whether 
this name was one of those originals, I don't know.

But as I turned up these various bits of info, another post caught my 
eye [24020]:

>>When Madam Hooch is looking at the broom, she mentions that she 
learned to fly on a Silver Arrow broom. Well, Silver Arrows were one 
of the last generation of artisan racing brooms, first made sometime 
between 1901 and 1926. Does that mean that Madam Hooch also dates to 
sometime between 1901 and 1926?<<

To which you replied, Rita [24027]:

>>Why not? <snip>
SS says: "Their teacher, Madam Hooch, arrived. She had short, gray 
hair, 
and yellow eyes like a hawk."

I like for McGonagall and Hooch to be the same age, so either Hooch 
grayed younger or McGonagall IS dying her hair. I like for McGonagall 
to have been born in 1926 like Tom Riddle and therefore been one of 
Tom and Hagrid's classmates. However, Hooch was born in 1926 and the 
Silver Arrow was no longer made after 1926, it would have been an old 
used broom when she learned on it.<<

Well, we obviously can't tell when exactly when Hooch was born, but 
the broom evidence is interesting in placing her in possibly the same 
timeframe as McGonagall, Voldemort and Hagrid. One more person who 
knew exactly who Tom Riddle was, apart from Dumbledore.

Carolyn






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr  9 23:21:32 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 23:21:32 -0000
Subject: A Whisper About Time-Travel
Message-ID: <d39o1s+shsp@...>


Talisman, wanders in looking slightly disheveled and sporting a new 
tattoo (strictly washable):

So, Rowling is in for a round of debunking, eh? And, it seems she's 
heard a bit of whisper about "time-traveing" characters, but she's 
willing to put associated theories to rest by assuring us that "NONE 
of the characters in the books has returned from the future."

Well, does anyone else hear the roar of what she isn't saying?  Why 
not just say that none of the characters (excepting the obvious)in 
the books is a visitor from another time?  Why not rule out someone 
from the past?

Is such a traveler amongst us now? Or, are they yet to appear? 

Sirius? Especially if his demise was contemplated.  Or, how about 
some interesting folks from Godric's Hollow who had a hunch they 
might buy it?  

Not sure I'd like it.  Has sort of a "last message from Jor-El and 
Lara to baby Superman" feel to it.  

I'll have to chew on this later, as it seems I've got a good many 
replies to old posts to get out. 


Talisman, just saying: it's good to hear that Snape likes 
crosswords, too.  (We are "so" right for each other.)






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 10 02:59:21 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:59:21 -0000
Subject: Love That Reveal-O-Chair
Message-ID: <d3a4q9+o9t@...>


I should be getting to back posts, but another point just sank in.  
While Rowling explains that Flamel won't be back, she doesn't say 
anything about  "why would we need a new Potions Master?" 

Oh, yes.  Snape for DADA Prof. (In Books 6 and 7-- as I've been 
banging on about since HPfGU Post # 73715; July 28, 2003.)

T






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 10 03:22:57 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:22:57 -0000
Subject: Love That Reveal-O-Chair
In-Reply-To: <d3a4q9+o9t@...>
Message-ID: <d3a66h+rll4@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> I should be getting to back posts, but another point just sank in.  
> While Rowling explains that Flamel won't be back, she doesn't say 
> anything about  "why would we need a new Potions Master?" 
> 
> Oh, yes.  Snape for DADA Prof. (In Books 6 and 7-- as I've been 
> banging on about since HPfGU Post # 73715; July 28, 2003.)

Maybe my eyes are going on me, but I didn't see anything like that on 
the website.  Full text is as:

*Nicolas Flamel is going to come to Hogwarts to teach potions*

Flamel has now died; Dumbledore explained in `Philosopher's Stone' 
that his old friend was going to choose death rather than allow his 
stone to fall into the wrong hands.

--------

I suppose there's possibly some deeper meaning in this, but the need 
for a new Potions teacher was simply part of the rumor she was 
debunking.  So simple lil' me doesn't see how you get from the 
website text to "why would we need a new Potions Master?".

She has, of course, made comment about why Dumbledore won't give the 
DADA position to Snape, in past interviews.

-Nora gets back to fun with manuscripts






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 10 03:43:58 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 03:43:58 -0000
Subject: Love That Reveal-O-Chair
In-Reply-To: <d3a66h+rll4@...>
Message-ID: <d3a7du+5l54@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" 
<talisman22457 at y...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > I should be getting to back posts, but another point just sank 
in.  
> > While Rowling explains that Flamel won't be back, she doesn't 
say 
> > anything about  "why would we need a new Potions Master?" 
> > 
> > Oh, yes.  Snape for DADA Prof. (In Books 6 and 7-- as I've been 
> > banging on about since HPfGU Post # 73715; July 28, 2003.)
> 
Nora:
> Maybe my eyes are going on me, but I didn't see anything like that 
on the website. <snip>

Well, Nora dear, we must all see by our own light.

Talisman


  






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 10 13:11:17 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:11:17 -0000
Subject: Love That Reveal-O-Chair
In-Reply-To: <d3a7du+5l54@...>
Message-ID: <d3b8ll+f0h8@...>


>> Nora:
>> Maybe my eyes are going on me, but I didn't see anything like that 
>> on the website. <snip>
> 
> Well, Nora dear, we must all see by our own light.

Talisman dear, then those little things like objectively verifiable 
textual details that can be pointed out and explained to everyone are 
important for those of us to realize that you are actually seeing 
something, and haven't been in the sun too long.  Strange spots and 
illuminations from staring at too bright of a blank snowfield do 
occur, after all.  Could you be bothered to fill in your blank for 
the manifestly less illuminated, or is it rather too convoluted of a 
chain to trace the lines of?

[In other words, the rumor includes the supposition that a new 
Potions teacher is needed.  No aspect of the answer addresses that 
component of the rumor, but simply nixes Flamel.  Ergo, no support 
from the author who's writing this stuff for the idea that Snape will 
not be teaching Potions next year.]

-Nora is sure that she could be enlightened further by those who see 
so much more clearly






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 10 16:33:15 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:33:15 -0000
Subject: A Whisper About Time-Travel
In-Reply-To: <d39o1s+shsp@...>
Message-ID: <d3bkgb+do55@...>


Talisman wrote:

> So, Rowling is in for a round of debunking, eh? And, it seems 
she's 
> heard a bit of whisper about "time-traveing" characters, but she's 
> willing to put associated theories to rest by assuring us 
that "NONE 
> of the characters in the books has returned from the future."
> 
> Well, does anyone else hear the roar of what she isn't saying?  
Why 
> not just say that none of the characters (excepting the obvious)in 
> the books is a visitor from another time?  Why not rule out 
someone 
> from the past?

Well, it is a puzzle: but the question is, why debunk anything at 
all?  However she replies she is bound to draw attention to ideas 
that are close to the one she is debunking but not *quite* ruled out 
by her remarks.

We have two ways of looking at it, I think.  One is that the 
debunked speculations are close to the mark and she wants to 
misdirect by getting naive fans to go somewhere else entirely.  In 
that case travellers from the past are possibly something she's 
trying ineptly to draw us away from.

The other is that the speculations are so far from anything in the 
books that she (mistakenly IMO) wants to save fans the bother of 
pursuing them.  In that case the admittedly slipshod deduction that 
time travellers are ruled out completely is probably safe.

Similar reasoning applies to the case of Flamel and the putative 
Potions Master vacancy.

In neither case does JKR come very well out of it.  The best way to 
conceal future developments is simply to remain silent about plot 
matters, and if fans enjoy off-the-wall speculations why should she 
feel responsible for shooting them down?

David, glad that Talisman's tattoo won't get all dirty and smelly






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 10 22:49:26 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:49:26 -0000
Subject: A Whisper About Time-Travel
In-Reply-To: <d3bkgb+do55@...>
Message-ID: <d3cahm+b11i@...>


David:

> We have two ways of looking at it, I think.  One is that the 
> debunked speculations are close to the mark and she wants to 
> misdirect by getting naive fans to go somewhere else entirely.  In 
> that case travellers from the past are possibly something she's 
> trying ineptly to draw us away from.
> 
> The other is that the speculations are so far from anything in the 
> books that she (mistakenly IMO) wants to save fans the bother of 
> pursuing them.  In that case the admittedly slipshod deduction that 
> time travellers are ruled out completely is probably safe.
> 
> Similar reasoning applies to the case of Flamel and the putative 
> Potions Master vacancy.
> 
Pippin:
And the links to vampires.<g>

David:
> In neither case does JKR come very well out of it.  The best way to 
> conceal future developments is simply to remain silent about plot 
> matters, and if fans enjoy off-the-wall speculations why should she 
> feel responsible for shooting them down?


Pippin:
The shoot downs generally contain a mystery or two...why was it 
 important that Mark Evans have a common name? Who "sent" the
 Lestranges?

As for the ambiguous debunkings...
 Jo might feel that those who have taken the trouble to work things
 out deserve a little acknowledgement, at least as much as she can 
offer without giving everything away. She has to do it now.

If she says nothing, the fans who got it right, or almost right, 
will get no recognition for  sleuthing. It isn't so  
difficult to spot  clues once the mystery is revealed.

Pippin






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 11 12:22:39 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:22:39 -0000
Subject: A Whisper About Time-Travel
In-Reply-To: <d3cahm+b11i@...>
Message-ID: <d3dq6f+58q2@...>


Pippin wrote:

> The shoot downs generally contain a mystery or two...why was it 
>  important that Mark Evans have a common name? Who "sent" the
>  Lestranges?

The Lestranges are a good example of your point, but I feel the Evans 
one illustrates mine.  We don't know that it was important that he have 
a common name.  I think JKR is merely describing the process of 
inventing a name for a minor (Muggle or Muggle-born) character: it 
seems she grabs a name at random and uses it, presumably checking for 
clashes with other characters, and perhaps with the thematic use of 
names (e.g. Black).  Names like that tend to be common.

The point being that if you are expecting clues or mysteries, pretty 
well anything she says will contain them.  Personally, I feel the 
Neville quote is teetering on the edge of revelation - she says as 
much - but the Evans one, the Flamel one, and the Time Turner one can 
be taken at face value.

Yes, it *could* have been important that Evans have a common name, but 
we need some way to escape circularity of argument, otherwise we merely 
reproduce the assumptions we bring to the text.

David






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 11 19:01:52 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:01:52 -0000
Subject: A Whisper About Time-Travel
In-Reply-To: <d3bkgb+do55@...>
Message-ID: <d3ehj0+j031@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> Well, it is a puzzle: but the question is, why debunk anything at 
> all?  However she replies she is bound to draw attention to ideas 
> that are close to the one she is debunking but not *quite* ruled out 
> by her remarks.
> 
> We have two ways of looking at it, I think.  One is that the 
> debunked speculations are close to the mark and she wants to 
> misdirect by getting naive fans to go somewhere else entirely.  In 
> that case travellers from the past are possibly something she's 
> trying ineptly to draw us away from.
> 
> The other is that the speculations are so far from anything in the 
> books that she (mistakenly IMO) wants to save fans the bother of 
> pursuing them.  In that case the admittedly slipshod deduction that 
> time travellers are ruled out completely is probably safe.
> 
> Similar reasoning applies to the case of Flamel and the putative 
> Potions Master vacancy.
> 
> In neither case does JKR come very well out of it.  The best way to 
> conceal future developments is simply to remain silent about plot 
> matters, and if fans enjoy off-the-wall speculations why should she 
> feel responsible for shooting them down?
> 

Fair comment.
In fact there are fans who originally welcomed Jo's site but have
developed second thoughts. Whether intentionally or not, the overall
effect has been to narrow the breadth of speculation that existed
previously.

Now it's possible that she's a bit worried that what is to come is not
so BANGy, exciting, convoluted or comprehensive as some of the
ideas that have been bounced around the sites and feels that she
needs to put a damper on things. Let's face it, hundreds of thousands
of rabidly imaginative fans can probably out-plot any author born
given the time they've had to play around with the canon. Ideas appear
and are tweaked, modified and developed over months and years by 
some of the most inventive, devious and off-the-wall minds on the web.
What chance does a poor author have against that lot?
Alternatively - she thinks we've gone bonkers and is luring us back
to sanity.

If you browse the sites and their archives and do a bit of cherry-
picking, you'd probably be able to put together 3 or 4 alternatives to 
books 6 & 7 - in broad outline, anyway. So far as I'm aware this is
the first time in history that so many fans have come up with so many
ideas *and* been able to communicate them to other fans for more
or less instant appraisal and comment, leaving the writer trailing in their
wake. In fact, if the author was someone not so strong-minded as JKR,
they might even start to  wonder if some of the wrinkles on the sites
might be worth incorporating into (or even replacing!) original story-arcs.
If an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters can
produce the works of Stratford Willy, what could the collective rat-like
cunning of a million Potter fans produce?

Kneasy
  






From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 11 23:39:54 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:39:54 -0000
Subject: A Whisper About Time-Travel
In-Reply-To: <d3bkgb+do55@...>
Message-ID: <d3f1sa+6tgd@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> Talisman wrote:

> So, Rowling <snip> heard a bit of whisper about "time-traveing" 
characters, but she's willing to put associated theories to rest by 
assuring us that "NONE of the characters in the books has returned 
from the future." >SNIP< Why not rule out someone from the past? 
>SNIP part where Talisman indicates past travelers are the 
implication of the exchange.<

Dave:
>Well, it is a puzzle: but the question is, why debunk anything at
>all?

Talisman:
Why have a site at all? Why give interviews and answer fan
questions? It would seem that she enjoys it, to some extent. Beyond
that, she is aware of the remarkable phenomenon of her fandom and is
game enough to interact.

Clearly, there are times when she is simply debunking rumors. I
really don't care whether Dr. Murray is still working, but
apparently she feels the needs to tell us. In such cases, there
just isn't anything else to it. Her comments are
unambiguous and raise no useful implications.

In addition to quashing rumors, she uses her site to feed us scraps
from the cutting room floor. Bits of this and that which were no
doubt properly omitted as superfluous, and similarly have no utility
in our mystery solving games. These are in the nature of appetizers
from the not-certain-to-appear Book 8 of lost details.

Ditto the bits of trivia about Rowling, herself, for which some
ardent fans, possibly limited by restraining orders, may yearn.

Finally, among the reasons explicitly stated in her "Welcome," she
says she finds the site a useful place to "give you hints and clues
about what's going to happen to Harry next."

These, however, do not come in a separate category entitled "Hints
and Clues," rather they are sprinkled among all other categories.
Not every item is invested with an operable clue, but many clues are
present in every format in which information is offered. (Or are at 
least possible; the trash heap, so far, is not yielding much fruit.)

Dave:
>However she replies she is bound to draw attention to ideas
>that are close to the one she is debunking but not *quite* ruled out
>by her remarks.

Talisman:
I have to disagree with you here, Dave. By choosing to raise the
issue of time-traveling characters--which is not a current pot-
boiler as far as I can tell--and then choosing to rule
out (emphatically) the possibility that any character has come from
the future, Rowling has simultaneously raised and left hanging only
one other prominent idea: the presence of visitors from the past.

This is not a "forced" implication, nor is it merely one of a
multitude of implications. If you can gin up any other implications
at all, they will not have the weight and immediacy caused by the
underlying proposition that Potterverse time-travel involves
movement from both the future and the past.

Had she chosen to say "None of the characters in the books is there 
because of time-travel," she would have left ground for
contortionists, only. But, she chose to say something else.

Dave:
>We have two ways of looking at it, I think. One is that the
>debunked speculations are close to the mark and she wants to
>misdirect by getting naive fans to go somewhere else entirely. In
>that case travellers from the past are possibly something she's
>trying ineptly to draw us away from.

Talisman:
We have a third way of looking at it: that she is salting a clue in
with the mix. Trying to excite interest in something that has died
off for lack of kindling.

If she were trying to lead us away from the idea of travelers from
the past, she would have to be inept, indeed. It's one thing to
acknowledge a Homeric nod or two, it's a different proposition--and
one I don't think is well taken--to process Rowling's utterances as
if she were incompetent in the English language.

I understand that some readers, especially the ones who think DD
isn't in control and doesn't lie, are in the habit of attributing
every inexplicable bit of evidence contra to authorial error. Once 
you are down that hole, I suppose it is hard to see out. <veg>

Nonetheless, by raising the topic of time-travel, decimating the
possibility of future travelers but failing to address past
travelers at all, Rowling has created what linguists call
a "conversational implicature." Implicature is merely academic
jargon used to describe part of what Paul Grice located as the way
the English language is actually used, by competent communicators.
It is part of what we assimilate during childhood as we learn the
unspoken rules of language.

The short version, relevant to this discussion, is that when a
competent speaker includes too much or too little information in a
reply, the competent hearer understands that additional information
is being communicated by implication, relevant to the context.

Let's say that I inform you that Fleur has invited you to dine
with her a Chez Delacour, you lucky dog. You inquire whether she is
a good cook, and I respond that she has VERY lovely china.

I will be quite disappointed if you don't catch a snack on the way
over. Must keep up one's strength, you know.

I've used the word competent a number of times in this explanation,
and not just to be annoying--really. While lack of it has an
unfortunately pejorative connotation, it's used in linguistics as a
qualifier to indicate how implicature is ineffective for
some communicators. 

Sometimes non-native English speakers fall
into this category. If you've ever studied a foreign language, you
probably appreciate that it is much easier to make or understand a
straightforward statement than it is to understand or use a pun,
idiom or subtle innuendo.

I have a German son-in-law who is very fluent in English. So fluent
that it's easy to forget that it is not his primary language. The
reminder will come when a double entendre, or other joke that hinges
on figurative interpretation, causes him consternation.

But there are also native English speakers, who for various reasons,
process language very concretely. These individuals--no matter how
intelligent, no matter how educated, no matter how capable they are
in other areas--have difficulty "reading between the lines." They
are not likely to feel comfortable with information gathered this
way, even after it's explained to them, and usually believe that
subtext is a figment of the imagination.

You know when you are in the presence of such individuals because
they don't use "playful" language successfully, or at all, and
clearly have difficulty identifying, or grasping the meaning of,
language used in a non-literal manner. Once pried from the shores of 
solid denotation, they are all at sea.

Rowling is clearly not in this category. Because she is competent
with the English language, and because she has clearly raised the
implication, I posit that this is the best "reading" of the matter.

Oddly enough, I'm indifferent to the appearance of time-travelers.
For some reason it doesn't excite me at all. (Though Kneasy could 
probably do somethig about that, by applying his admirable creative 
talents.) Still, I won't be surprised if some turn up.

Dave:
>The other is that the speculations are so far from anything in the
>books that she (mistakenly IMO) wants to save fans the bother of
>pursuing them. In that case the admittedly slipshod deduction that
>time travellers are ruled out completely is probably safe.

Talisman:
Slipshod deductions are never safe, I advise use of a prophylactic.

Dave:
>Similar reasoning applies to the case of Flamel and the putative
>Potions Master vacancy.

Talisman: Ditto, in spades.

Dave:
>In neither case does JKR come very well out of it. The best way to
>conceal future developments is simply to remain silent about plot
>matters, and if fans enjoy off-the-wall speculations why should she
>feel responsible for shooting them down?

Talisman:
The best way to give tantalizing little clues about what is to come
is to sprinkle them amongst the otherwise innocent verbiage. As for
shooting speculations down, that is entertainment of a different
nature, widely enjoyed by the hoi polloi, as well.

>David, glad that Talisman's tattoo won't get all dirty and smelly.

Talisman, aw thanks, but not to worry. It was just a little skull-
and-serpent number that gained me entry to some interesting places.
It's all lathered away now, though I do have a few extra tucked away
for future festivities
 <g>








From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 15 17:54:38 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:54:38 +0100
Subject: Truth or consequences
Message-ID: <17994a633efe35e87bf9127e76db250a@...>

Truth.
It can be slippery stuff.
We're all familiar with "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth" oath or affirmation in a courtroom, though that's rarely what 
the jury gets to hear, what with one counsel or the other doing their 
damnedest to skew any testimony to favour their side and most witnesses 
being directed to stick to answering those questions asked and not to 
volunteer anything else. Add the inevitable differences between 
objective fact and an observers perception of what  happened and .... 
well, it does make you wonder sometimes.

There's an apocryphal tale, repeated I think in Simon Singh's "Fermat's 
Last Theorem" (highly recommended) about standards of truth -
Three lecturers are travelling on a train to Scotland and as they cross 
the border a thick fog descends. A while later there's a clear spot, 
they look out of the window and see a sheep in a field - and the sheep 
is black.
"Oh, look!" says the sociologist, "The sheep in Scotland are black."
"You can't say that," says the biologist, "only that *some* sheep in 
Scotland are black."
In the corner the mathematician raises his eyes to heaven. "All that 
can be said is that in Scotland there is at least one field, containing 
at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

Not many of us adhere to those stringent standards, or not when 
discussing HP anyway. Indeed, it could be counter-productive, what with 
Jo hell-bent on confusing and confounding us to the bitter end. Mostly 
the fans fall into the incomplete truths of the first two lecturers, 
either accepting any statement in canon at face value (very foolish IMO 
- if there are any of that ilk on toc, I've got this gold brick you 
might like to purchase - strictly cash) or those that suspect that what 
you see is not always what you get - we haven't been told everything 
that's relevant and there're probably loopholes around somewhere.

Let's look at a few examples.
"There wasn't a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in 
Slytherin."
Nice straightforward statement. See any ambiguity? No, nor me. But do 
you believe it? Is it the truth? This sort of thing has been the cause 
of many a fan getting their knickers in a twist. They don't like it; it 
implies that Slytherin House is the fount and begetter of all evil; 
that belonging to Slytherin is roughly equal to a species of original 
sin. Yet when Hagrid makes this blanket  condemnation he also believes 
that Sirius, a Gryffindor, went bad and betrayed James and Lily. Some 
of the more devious amongst us may interpret this as a clue "Ah! Sirius 
wasn't Slytherin so he never went bad! He wuz framed. It was Peter."

Yep. Except. We had no idea what House many of the previous generation 
belonged to, and Sirius's affiliation wasn't clarified (and then in a 
web-chat) until after he'd snuffed it. Seems a bit late to be a clue - 
for Sirius, anyway, though not for the current target of opprobrium, 
Peter. Because many believe that Peter was in Gryffindor too. 
Admittedly, this is not 100% certain; the question (same webcast) 
didn't mention Peter's name (or 'The Marauders') though it probably 
meant to. Pity. It'd be nice to have it cleared up, 'cos if he was a 
Gryff and Hagrid is accurate, then Peter is not what he appears to be 
either. But if Gryff!Peter is clean it's highly probable that Sirius is 
dirty. Hum.  Either case would invalidate Hagrid's contention. The 
least likely scenario (IMO) is that both are Gryff, both are clean and 
Hagrid is right. Conversely, the likeliest permutation is that both are 
Gryff, one of 'em is dirty and Hagrid is wrong. With one simple 
statement and a snippet of information Jo has us chasing our tails. It 
really is most provoking.

Another -
"I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because it 
would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to hating 
your father's memory in peace...."
The Snape-ophobics just love this one. Generally they stretch it 
further by claiming it's confirmation that Snape hates Harry too. Can't 
see how. Doesn't say that at all. Poor old Severus. Much maligned. He's 
an old softy really.

Mind you, this statement by DD doesn't look as definitive as Hagrid's. 
Oh no. That "I do believe.." looks a bit dodgy to me, an on-the-spot 
spurious rationalisation that would be acceptable to Harry. Especially 
as later in the series it becomes evident that Sevvy considers himself 
very much the injured party in the 'Prank' and doesn't think he owes 
anybody anything. In fact he wants revenge - lots of it, preferably 
served up with garnishes of Azkaban, Dementors in vacuum mode and a 
bucket or two of blood. (If indeed it's the 'Prank' that DD's talking 
about - is there any proof that he is? Might not be, there are 
suspicions that Snapey was somehow involved in the lead-up to Godric's 
Hollow - and if he was then the whole thing is up for grabs.) No, the 
odds are that if Sevvy is doing it for anyone, he's not doing it for 
James, he's doing it for DD - or for himself. Yep, the old seeking 
vengeance on Voldy for a personal affront and seeing Harry as the best 
way to get it theory.

There's been a fair amount of discussion over the years as to DD's 
veracity. Many accept him as the epitome of truth and justice, that 
what he says can be relied on without question. Not I. He's a conniving 
manipulative cold-hearted duplicitous old axe-grinder as far as I'm 
concerned. He's got to be, otherwise that plan will never come to 
fruition. And in the traditional end of book explication (OoP) he more 
or less admits it:-
"I cared more about your happiness than your knowing the truth ..." and 
on it goes in nauseous self-justification. He seems to have missed the 
fact that Harry hasn't actually been happy anyway; just the opposite 
for most of the time. What is this "truth" that he's on about anyway? 
That Voldy killed Harry's parents? No - that's in book one. That Voldy 
transferred powers? See book two. That so-called friends aren't always 
what they seem? Book three. That Voldy wants Harry  dead? See most of 
the series. No, this ineffable truth that he whitters on about seems to 
be that damn Prophecy, which he interprets as meaning that either Voldy 
kills Harry or vice versa. Bloody brilliant. I'd guessed that as the 
eventual climax halfway through chap. 1, book 1, as did anyone who 
doesn't get a nose-bleed spelling 'c-a-t' - and if Harry hadn't reached 
the same conclusion yonks back then there must be troll blood somewhere 
in the family. One might almost say that it's too obvious to be true. 
Hmm. Do you think...? Nah. Can't be.

Of course since we only see  what Harry sees (except for a couple of 
chapters) then we must have been fed the same load of old tripe as 
Harry. This is not conducive to confident theorising. However, we may 
well have been offered the same garden path to scamper up, but lots of 
fan speculation is opposed to the conclusions that young Potter has 
reached. Snape, Peter, Sirius, Lupin, James, DD, even Voldy and Lily 
have been subjects for contrary analysis. And why? Because many don't 
believe that what they've read is the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth. Naughty, suspicious fans!

No doubt you'll be able to dig out a few more examples of shaky truths; 
I was going to do it myself, but there's this stonking curry that's 
sending out zephyrs of siren scents. And I'm bloody starving.

Kneasy




From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 15 22:32:30 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:32:30 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <17994a633efe35e87bf9127e76db250a@...>
Message-ID: <d3pfdu+9u2m@...>


>Kneasy wrote:

> Truth.
> It can be slippery stuff.

 <heavily snipped>

> Let's look at a few examples.
> "There wasn't a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in 
> Slytherin."

> Another -
> "I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because it 
> would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to 
hating 
> your father's memory in peace...."


Neri:
There are some differences between these two statements. The first 
was made by Hagrid, not one of the brightest characters around, 
during small talk. The second was made by DD immediately after 
mentioning that Truth is "a wonderful and terrible thing" and 
refusing to tell Harry why Voldy had tried to kill him. The first 
statement indeed proved wrong, but in a very unspectacular way: even 
after OotP we didn't know for certain that Sirius and Peter weren't 
Slytherins. We had to be told about that in a chat with JKR. So in 
hindsight this statement wasn't meant to be a clue nor a red herring. 
The second statement gets some good confirmation and elaboration in 
the other books. 

Truth is also a matter of degree. The fact is, until now we know 
about only ONE wizard who turned bad and wasn't from Slytherin. 
Hagrid's statement IS a general (although not categorical) Truth. So 
if the two statements are similar, it means that Snape really feels 
he owes Harry for James saving his life, but there's more to it, and 
indeed we already know that there's more to it, though probably not 
all the more that there is to know.

There are a few general things we do know about "Truth" in mystery 
books (which do not necessarily apply to RL truth). One thing is that 
the majority of the things we are told probably ARE true. Otherwise 
there wouldn't be much meaning to the concept of "a clue", and it 
wouldn't be much of a challenge. If you've built your theory based on 
(say) 10 canon clues, and probability says that about 7 out of these 
10 are actually not true but the author deceiving us, then there's 
not much point to playing this game. I'd estimate that at least 95% 
of canon is "Truth", and the trick is of course identifying which are 
the deceiving 5%. To take PoA as a typical example, the Potters WERE 
hiding in their house, there WAS a Fidelius charm, the secret keeper 
WAS the friend of the family and he WAS a traitior, and the other 
friend DID come after him. The tricky part was only the switch in 
Peter's and Sirius' roles.

This especially applies to a mystery tale that takes place in the 
Potterverse, because as readers we aren't very familiar with its 
realty and rules (much less than we are familiar with RL rules) and 
because these rules are much more easily bent than RL rules. This 
makes it much easier for the author to lie to us. For example, if 
your recent suggestion about Pensieve used for planting memories is 
true, then we can't trust even Harry's firsthand memories of events. 
So what CAN we trust?

(BTW, I actually like that idea of planting false memories with the 
Pensieve, but not in order to deceive Harry. I sometimes imagine 
Snape as a person with two different sets of memories. Before he goes 
to visit Voldy he removes one set and put in the DE set instead) 

In such a story, if the author is a good one and plays fair, she has 
to tell us what are the relevant rules BEFORE she uses them to 
deceive us. Before she could spring Padfoot and Wormtail on us she 
had to tell us that animals might be animagi. Before Crouch!Moody she 
had to tell us about Polyjuice Potion. She even told us that this 
potion works only for one hour, and then she told us that "Moody" 
drinks from his pocket bottle. This is what makes the game 
interesting. Truth is hidden in plain sight, and yet it's hidden.

If DD is a liar, he can deceive us very easily about huge parts of 
the mystery, for which he is our single or main source. DD lying to 
us about many of the important things would go against the 5% - 95% 
rule I suggested above, and IMHO would make JKR a bad mystery writer. 
Another option is that DD tells us the truth MOST of the time, but in 
a few carefully chosen cases he does lie. Again, I think this would 
not be playing fair unless we were given a way to deduce which are 
the lies. We'd have to be able to at least work out a theory about 
DD's motives that would suggest why (other than making it difficult 
to solve the mystery) he tells Harry the truth in most cases but lies 
in other cases. And developing such a theory is again difficult in an 
unfair way because we know so little about DD, and most of what we do 
know about him could easily turn out to be a lie too. As I see it, 
the only way out of this dilemma without developing a serious 
headache is simply assuming that DD always tells us the truth. This 
rule seems to be suggested in the ending chapter of SS/PS, when DD 
promises Harry to tell him the Truth if he can, and then refuses 
answering Harry's first question. It is repeated again in the end of 
OotP when DD refuses to tell Harry why he trusts Snape. The rule 
seems to be: "There are things I can't tell you, but I won't lie to 
you".  

Another thing to remember about Truth is that a GOOD book is meant to 
be reread even after the mystery was revealed. I recently came across 
an old interview with JKR in which she was asked what books she likes 
to read. She mentioned that she reads mystery books if she just wants 
to relax, and that she never rereads them. If JKR wrote the series in 
a way that it will be reread after the solution is known, this means 
that each passage is supposed to feel right both before and after the 
reader knows the Truth. Now read "The Lost Prophecy" chapter and tell 
me if it feels right if DD is lying through his teeth.    

The last thing (for today, anyway) is that different rules apply to 
Truth in the plot level and Truth in the thematic level. In a mystery 
tale, Truth in the plot level will be known only in the last chapter 
or so. OTOH, while a good book doesn't pound on your head with its 
theme, it usually doesn't hide it all the way to the last chapter 
either (although I'm sure those with the literature degrees around 
here would be glad to supply me with some counterexamples). And the 
thematic Truth tends to constrain the plot Truth to a large degree, 
so it's good to have an idea of what are the main themes when trying 
to solve the mystery.   

> Kneasy:
> No, this ineffable truth that he whitters on about seems to 
> be that damn Prophecy, which he interprets as meaning that either 
Voldy 
> kills Harry or vice versa. Bloody brilliant. I'd guessed that as 
the 
> eventual climax halfway through chap. 1, book 1, as did anyone who 
> doesn't get a nose-bleed spelling 'c-a-t' - and if Harry hadn't 
reached 
> the same conclusion yonks back then there must be troll blood 
somewhere 
> in the family.

Neri:
Give the poor lad a break. HE doesn't know he's staring in a mystery 
series with his name on the cover. From his POV the idea that only a 
certain kid can vanquish the Dark Lord is indeed a huge leap. As for 
us, I suspect that the prophecy was meant more as a new mystery than 
a solution to an old one.


Neri







From kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 00:01:37 2005
From: kking0731 at snow15145.yahoo.invalid (snow15145)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:01:37 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <17994a633efe35e87bf9127e76db250a@...>
Message-ID: <d3pkl1+numk@...>




Kneasy snipped:
Three lecturers are travelling on a train to Scotland and as they 
cross
the border a thick fog descends. A while later there's a clear spot,
they look out of the window and see a sheep in a field - and the sheep
is black.
"Oh, look!" says the sociologist, "The sheep in Scotland are black."
"You can't say that," says the biologist, "only that *some* sheep in
Scotland are black."
In the corner the mathematician raises his eyes to heaven. "All that
can be said is that in Scotland there is at least one field, 
containing
at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

Snow:
I guess I'm part mathematician because I agree with all of his 
statements except the last statement of one side of the sheep being 
black. "The sheep is black" sounds like a secure statement, no reason 
to suspect that the sheep was turned sideways so that you could not 
see the other side. 

Kneasy snipped:
There's been a fair amount of discussion over the years as to DD's
veracity. Many accept him as the epitome of truth and justice, that
what he says can be relied on without question. Not I. He's a 
conniving
manipulative cold-hearted duplicitous old axe-grinder as far as I'm
concerned. He's got to be, otherwise that plan will never come to
fruition.


Snow:
Oh but he isn't lying, he is only telling half a truth; just like you 
said about the attorneys' and their brilliant way in which to sway 
the conversation in their favor. (Dumbledore, like his creator, is 
evasive as hell) If you ask an accused if they punched the child in 
his face, and the person slapped the child in the face, a no answer 
can honestly be given by the accused. An attorney must be on top of 
things and ask a question so there is no squeak room for the accused 
to get away with an evasive answer; did you strike this child on any 
part of his body with any object or any part of your body. In the 
situation with JKR you must do one better when asking her a 
straightforward no squeak room type of question because she will give 
you a no comment answer. Dumbledore is the same way. When Harry 
explicitly asks Dumbledore why he thinks Snape is no longer a 
Voldemort supporter, Dumbledore (no squeak room) gives the no comment 
answer of: "that, Harry, is a matter between Professor Snape and 
myself". 

You gave a great example, Kneasy "I do believe he worked so hard to 
protect you this year...." of how evasive Dumbledore speaks. This "I 
do believe" statement is equivalent to the "It certainly seems so" to 
Harry's question of "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me". Both of 
these answers to Harry leave a gaping hole for suspicion as to the 
certainty of Dumbledore's assuredness or completeness of his 
answering. Dumbledore does a lot of "I think so" type statements but 
what is he really attempting to convey? Is it that he doesn't really 
know but just suspects or is it that he does know but is only giving 
a partial answer
 an answer that perhaps is fitting for one so young. 

Kneasy:
And in the traditional end of book explication (OoP) he more
or less admits it:-
"I cared more about your happiness than your knowing the truth ..." 
and
on it goes in nauseous self-justification. He seems to have missed the
fact that Harry hasn't actually been happy anyway; just the opposite
for most of the time. What is this "truth" that he's on about anyway?


Snow:
We are still seeing this through Harry's eyes and Dumbledore is only 
allowing Harry partial knowledge
knowledge fit for the age that Harry 
is in each book. (You can't teach a five-year-old everything there is 
to know about reproduction when they ask were does a baby come from) 
Little by little Dumbledore feeds Harry the information that is 
necessary, and age appropriate, for his next encounter. 

Kneasy snipped:
Of course since we only see what Harry sees (except for a couple of
chapters) then we must have been fed the same load of old tripe as
Harry. This is not conducive to confident theorising.

Snow:
Yep! And that's why we do and have justification for doing so
Harry 
isn't being told everything that old codger knows and therefore nor 
are we the reader. Alas as you say, Kneasy, it does not make for 
confident theorizing. 

Kneasy:
However, we may well have been offered the same garden path to 
scamper up, but lots of fan speculation is opposed to the conclusions 
that young Potter has reached. Snape, Peter, Sirius, Lupin, James, 
DD, even Voldy and Lily have been subjects for contrary analysis. And 
why? Because many don't believe that what they've read is the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth. Naughty, suspicious fans!

Snow:
I think that even the most naughty of fans, that realize this as a 
certain fact, will be turned on edge when JKR is done with them. I 
see her laughing her royal buttocks off with anticipation at the 
unseen look on her readers face when we finally get the next 
installment. I think this is really why she likes this book so much. 
JKR and Dumbledore are indeed one and the same in their likeness of 
spooning information on a need to know basis
and the next spoonful 
may not be sugar
and I have a feeling not at all to the FAITH reader. 







From talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 07:05:02 2005
From: talisman22457 at talisman22457.yahoo.invalid (Talisman)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:05:02 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3pfdu+9u2m@...>
Message-ID: <d3qdeu+7j37@...>



Talisman: Oh, dear.  Now we have anti-attorney propaganda in the 
mix, too.  Tsk, tsk.  Well, there's nothing for it but to go on 
being the evil woman attorney who's trying to take away everyone's 
perfect daddy.

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
>If DD is a liar, he can deceive us very easily about huge parts of
>the mystery, for which he is our single or main source. DD lying to
>us about many of the important things would go against the 5% - 95%
>rule I suggested above, and IMHO would make JKR a bad mystery 
writer.

Talisman:
I am bemused to hear that DD is your single, main, or even 95% 
source for "huge parts" of the HP series mystery.  If others are in 
the same boat, it's no wonder there is so much angst. 

As far as I am concerned, the whole tableau is played out before me, 
for my examination.  I explore every facet, and nobody gets a free 
pass.  Try it, and I think you'll find your reading more fruitful.

Neri:
 <snip> As I see it, the only way out of this dilemma without 
>developing a serious headache is simply assuming that DD always 
>tells us the truth.

Talisman:
Alas, DD never tells me anything.  I can only observe him telling 
things to other characters, and in that context, he most certainly 
does lie.

To repeat what I've noted so often before, there is no difference 
between omissive and comissive lying. Oh, and asking subordinates to 
lie for your purposes? That's culpable, too.  

Certainly there is proof sitting cold on the page that DD lies as it 
suits his purposes.  There will be more proofs coming, but there are 
many instances where we already have everything we can reasonably 
expect. 

Avoiding a treatise on the entire series (which must, perforce come 
in installments) or even the final debriefing in OoP (which warrants 
a longer post of its own) we are clearly shown DD's willingness to 
depart from the "truth," throughout Book 5.

I have a feeling this is part of why some people don't like the 
book.  I'm very encouraged to hear that Rowling expects some people 
to dislike Book 6, because I`m betting she`s referring to the same 
ones who are fussed now. (JKR Site/F.A.Q. /About the Book /"Do you 
Like Half Blood Prince?" )

For the nonce, let's just get on with a few of DD's deceptive 
escapades.

Early on, we get to see DD suborn perjury. (OoP pp 143-145 ) It is 
made plain in the text by Figg's hesitancies and inexactitudes, 
coupled with what we as readers have previously "experienced" of  
Dementors via the narrative, and confirmed by Harry's reaction, as 
well as that of Madame Bones (whom we are introduced to as a fair 
but competent judge).

Nonetheless, the "DD is our perfect Daddy" crowd went all out to 
defend Figg and insist that she really did see the Dementors.

Alas, along came Rowling who told us quite 
unambiguously: "Incidently, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors 
that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical 
knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the 
alleyway." (JKR's Site/Extra Stuff /Misc./SQUIBS.)

Now I suppose the last resort argument contra is that DD didn't know 
that Figg didn't see the Dementors. His formidable knowledge of the 
WW, his penchant for employing squibs, and his advanced abilities in 
Legillimens, notwithstanding.  But, I hope you can see that this 
would be an inferior argument.

Moreover, this event "matches up" with characteristic "mirror 
symmetry" to the scene in DD's office where, with his approval, 
Kingsley prevents a witness for the Ministry (Marietta) from giving 
true testimony regarding DA activities. (OoP 615-16, 612 ) This 
structural completeness is further validation regarding the reading 
of the earlier Figg incident.

I don't believe any further evidence is necessary to show that DD 
suborns both perjury and witness repression in order to achieve his 
ends.  In the (highly)unlikely event that Rowling makes further 
reference to either of these events, it will be to point up another 
such occurrence of DD's  departures from truth. 

Bring on Books 6 & 7, I have no qualms whatsoever predicting that 
there will be no further explanation forthcoming that will change 
the character of these acts.

Again, DD instructs McGonagall "
Minerva, go and head her off--tell 
her ANY STORY--" ( OoP 474, my emphasis)  to prevent Umbridge from 
interrupting before the kids can be transported to Grimmauld Place. 

Any lame suggestion that McG might have been able to tell Umbridge a 
true "story," is both incredulous and beside the point.  The clear 
reading is that DD is quite satisfied that she should lie.  

To instruct a subordinate to lie on your behalf, is equivalent to 
lying for yourself.   

Of course DD also tells Harry to lie.  Back we go to DD's office 
where Harry is on the verge of admitting that he knows why he is 
being brought in front of Fudge, et al.  Harry clearly knew the DA 
meetings had been outlawed, and understood perfectly well that he 
had been busted by the Inquisitorial Squad.  We, the readers, know 
this as well.  

Therefore, when DD caught Harry's attention, and "shook his head a 
fraction of an inch to each side," (OoP 611) Harry understands, as 
we do, that DD has just instructed him to lie.  Harry changes his 
answer in mid-word: "Yeh--no."  In case he, or we the readers, have 
lingering doubts that DD wanted this result, Rowling then has DD 
communicate his approval via  "the tiniest of nods and the shadow of 
a wink." (id.)

Harry goes on blatantly lying to the leader of the British WW, in 
conformity with DD's direction. 

Fast forward: Marietta's testimony is suppressed and finally 
Umbridge produces the list of names entitled "Dumbledore's Army."

Now--in a final blow for those gymnastic enough to hang on to the 
undifferentiated distinctions of lying by ommission, lying by proxy, 
and lying in fine--DD lies flat out.

First, he agrees to confess that the group is his, not Harry's-- 
which is patently untrue. 

Then DD goes on to "admit" that he, himself, organized the DA.  
Again, the reader knows from their own observations that this is not 
true.  

Even if apologists want to give DD's statement a "secret" true 
meaning (which would not negate its status as a dishonest statement 
within the context in which it is given) they can only do so by 
admitting that DD has, in fact, organized the overarching events of 
Harry's fifth year, so as to induce the formation of the club. <veg>

The fibbery goes on:  "Tonight was supposed to be the first 
meeting," said Dumbledore, nodding.  "Merely to see whether they 
would be interested in joining me.  I see now that it was a mistake 
to invite Miss Edgecombe, of course." (OoP 618)

The reader knows from a plain reading of the text that all of these 
statements are unequivocally lies.

If you are hoping that some revelation will be made in either of the 
two remaining books that will change past events so as to make these 
statements true, I fear you are in for bitter disappointment.

Of course, I think DD did the right thing, if that makes you any 
happier.  But, he certainly did lie.

There is lots more, but it will have to be explored later.

Talisman, noting that Rowling catches DD in yet another dissemblance 
when (in reference to the  Atrium scene where Voldmort asks "You do 
not seek to kill me, Dumbledore?") our author allows: "Although 
Dumbledore gives a KIND of reason to Voldemort, it is not the REAL 
reason." (JKR Site/Rumors/Edinburgh interview, my emphasis)

In other words, it is Bullshit. 

Heck no, he's not trying to kill LV; he created the blighter.  











From lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 16:04:34 2005
From: lupinesque at lupinesque.yahoo.invalid (Amy Z)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <1113652929.524.59372.m19@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20050416160434.47277.qmail@...>

Kneasy wrote:

>"There wasn't a single witch or wizard who went bad
>who wasn't in Slytherin."  Nice straightforward
>statement. See any ambiguity? No, nor me. But do 
>you believe it? Is it the truth? 

Not to belabor the obvious, the words are unambiguous,
but the assertion is highly ambiguous--that is, not to
be taken as gospel--for the simple reason that it
comes from a person.  People lie, exaggerate, forget
inconvenient facts, and overstate things for
rhetorical effect.

While HP can be analyzed as a mystery series, the
books are also novels of character and theme, so that
interpreting them purely by the whodunnit
formula--facts, red herrings, clues all mixed in, 'til
they all become clear with the revelation of the final
Truth--doesn't encompass the whole picture.  Hagrid
isn't just a fact-, clue-, or red-herring-delivery
system.  He's a character, inconsistent and flawed the
way human beings are (though fictional characters tend
to be more consistent than real people).

If JKR doesn't reread mysteries, it is probably
because she reads them as puzzles, and redoing a
crossword puzzle is very boring.  She does reread
novels of manners and character--_Emma_, famously--and
mysteries, too, can be read that way, if they are
written that way.  (_Emma_ could even be called a
mystery in the sense that a truth is invisible to the
heroine throughout the book, despite numerous clues
that both she and the reader might miss, and is
finally revealed at the satisfying end.  But it isn't
a whodunnit.)  In novels like HP that are not simply
whodunnits, the truth that is to be discovered by both
the characters and readers is revealed *through
character* and through theme, that is, the meaning
embodied in people's actions.

Part of the truth of the books is that Hagrid is
prejudiced and Dumbledore is (in the good sense)
Machiavellian--two things that make people tell
untruths.  And by "the truth of the books" I don't
mean just "facts that are in the books," but "lessons
we can take from the books"; I for one read books
partly in order to learn some truths that I can apply
to the rest of life.  As Talisman's examples make
clear, one such lesson is that our daddies can lie and
still be good.

Amy Z

------------------------------------------------------
 "Don't you call me an idiot!" said Neville. "I don't
think you should be breaking any more rules! And you
were the one who told me to stand up to people!"
  "Yes, but not to =us=," said Ron in exasperation.
                -HP and the Philosopher's Stone
------------------------------------------------------


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250



From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 16:45:23 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:45:23 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3qdeu+7j37@...>
Message-ID: <d3rff3+5ga1@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...> 
wrote:

<snippity throughout>

> Talisman:
> Alas, DD never tells me anything.  I can only observe him telling 
> things to other characters, and in that context, he most certainly 
> does lie.

Given the oft-asserted proposition that we-the-readers are limited by 
Harry's viewpoint, is it worth considering to whom Dumbledore is 
speaking when he states things or omits them?  I think it is.  

> To repeat what I've noted so often before, there is no difference 
> between omissive and comissive lying. Oh, and asking subordinates 
> to lie for your purposes? That's culpable, too.  

I get the feeling that in the Potterverse, there are indeed 
differences between sins of omission and sins of comission, and that 
is a part of the author's horizon which comes out strongly in the 
treatment of characters.  I have a hunch this will be made more 
manifest, myself.

<snip>

> I have a feeling this is part of why some people don't like the 
> book.  I'm very encouraged to hear that Rowling expects some people 
> to dislike Book 6, because I`m betting she`s referring to the same 
> ones who are fussed now. (JKR Site/F.A.Q. /About the Book /"Do you 
> Like Half Blood Prince?" )

It could be those--but it could just as equally be those fans she has 
slagged on before.  You know the ones, those who love Draco because 
of Tom Felton or Snape because of Alan Rickman.  Or perhaps those who 
*love* Snape in general.  No proof to tilt it to one side or the 
other, no?

<snip long discussion of lying and perjury>

All the situations you have listed here are in OotP, and all are 
directed towards rather similar ends; defending himself and the group 
against those in denial whose agenda is profoundly harmful.
 
> Of course, I think DD did the right thing, if that makes you any 
> happier.  But, he certainly did lie.

JKR is certainly no Kantian, it seems; no noble categorical 
imperative telling the murderer where your friend is for one of her 
most major white hats.  But I ask you--is there any situation where, 
in direct address to *Harry*, Dumbledore has flat-out lied to him?  
In the first book he says he will not lie, so he will be open about 
not telling him.  Not quite lying unless you want to make the 
compression of omission and comission--then what is it to be honest 
about witholding?  In your example of Dumbledore and Tom in the 
atrium, Dumbledore is there--but he's not speaking to Harry, he's 
speaking to Tom Riddle.

This may be too fine of a distinction for some, but given our 
knowledge of how important the audience is in the determinant of both 
content and meaning of a speech-act...take it into consideration.

-Nora wishes she had a copy of PS/SS at hand, but rather has a full 
score for FrOSch 






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 17:55:21 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:55:21 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3pkl1+numk@...>
Message-ID: <d3rji9+e0id@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at g...> wrote:
> 
> Snow:
> I guess I'm part mathematician because I agree with all of his 
> statements except the last statement of one side of the sheep being 
> black. "The sheep is black" sounds like a secure statement, no reason 
> to suspect that the sheep was turned sideways so that you could not 
> see the other side. 
> 

Kneasy:
Should you really be confessing such intimate, nay - devastating 
personal details  on a public site? Most of the mathematicians I've run 
across are mega-LOONs whenever the word 'proof' is uttered. Although 
for mere mortals a black sheep is a black  sheep no matter what angle 
it's viewed from, I'm confident that a true exemplar of the difficult sums
brigade would require submission of a proof showing that the 'class' 
described as 'sheep' never include bilaterally coloured variants, would 
demand to know the frequency of mud patches an animal could lie in 
and the location of recently creosoted fences a  sheep could lean against.

A bit OT this, but it demonstrates the depths of depravity the 
mathematical mind can sink to. Dunno where you're based, but you may
or may not know of a drinking game - Fizz Buzz. (Some of us played 
something a bit less brain-damaging called Cardinal Puff.) It requires a
group of drinkers to sit round a table, pints to hand and in turn number
off, but at 3, 5 and multiples of those numbers to say a word or make a
specific noise instead. Each error requires that the offending player 
downs a pint. Winner is last player upright.

Langford (of whom I've written before) describes the mathematicians 
version which he and his friends developed (as below) over many 
beer-soaked sessions.
At 3 or multiples say "Oink"
     5 or multiples say "Fizz"
     7 or multiples say "Buzz"
     11 or multiples say "Burp"
fairly straightforward, so they decided to liven it up and added:
"Clang" for each prime number
"Pow" for perfect squares
"Zap" for powers of two

Thus 1, 2, 3, 4 would be expressed as "Clang Pow", "Clang Zap", 
"Oink Clang", "Pow Zap".
It's claimed that the first number to be expressed as numerals is 26, 
though I've never  checked it myself.
Consideration was given to adding "Ping" for cubes and "Argh" for 
members of the Fibonacci series,  but they didn't want to complicate things.
The Dept. of Nuclear Physics at Oxford even programmed their computer
to generate all the correct responses up to 10,000.
(There also exists Cantorian Fizz Buzz, played with real numbers between
0 and 1 with special grunts for transcendentals.) 
These are not normal people.

> 
> Snow:
> Oh but he isn't lying, he is only telling half a truth; just like you 
> said about the attorneys' and their brilliant way in which to sway 
> the conversation in their favor. (Dumbledore, like his creator, is 
> evasive as hell) 
> snip>

Kneasy:
Most definitely.
By coincidence there's a book review in today's Daily Telegraph that 
gives an opinion by Cicero, the great grand-daddy of advocates to 
the effect that the trick was to advance points that look like the truth,
even if they didn't correspond exactly. That's not far from Jo's game 
IMO with DD following close on her heels. The way he puts a spin
on the truth obviates the need for lies -  though I have highlighted
a couple of incidences that are contradictions of his own words. To 
be fair, it could have been Jo having trouble plugging loopholes in 
a plot device (it was DD's explanation of why the Mirror didn't work
for Quirrell when plainly it should have done).  

> 
> Snow:
> I think that even the most naughty of fans, that realize this as a 
> certain fact, will be turned on edge when JKR is done with them. I 
> see her laughing her royal buttocks off with anticipation at the 
> unseen look on her readers face when we finally get the next 
> installment. I think this is really why she likes this book so much. 
> JKR and Dumbledore are indeed one and the same in their likeness of 
> spooning information on a need to know basis
and the next spoonful 
> may not be sugar
and I have a feeling not at all to the FAITH reader.

Kneasy:
As Talisman points out in her post JKR believes that there will be 
those who won't like the new book. As with most of her comments this
can be interpreted at least two ways -  either the fluffies will hate it 
(yippee!) or the non-fluffies will hate it (boo! hiss!).

I hope it does take us by surprise -  at least so long as there's some
fairly credible thread that traces back to hints or clues no matter how
arcane or subtle in the previous volumes. And I can't believe book 6 will 
be fluffy (though book 7 might be). Something nasty. Yes please! Deaths,
Harry going off the rails, betrayal, all that good stuff, with a lovely dollop
of clues that'll allow us to keep on speculating until the last book appears.
Not too much, it'd be an absolute tragedy if it gave so much away that 
the final installment looked as if it were a foregone conclusion.







From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 18:34:13 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:34:13 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3rji9+e0id@...>
Message-ID: <d3rlr5+og6i@...>


Kneasy wrote:

> Langford (of whom I've written before) describes the 
mathematicians 
> version which he and his friends developed (as below) over many 
> beer-soaked sessions.
> At 3 or multiples say "Oink"
>      5 or multiples say "Fizz"
>      7 or multiples say "Buzz"
>      11 or multiples say "Burp"
> fairly straightforward, so they decided to liven it up and added:
> "Clang" for each prime number
> "Pow" for perfect squares
> "Zap" for powers of two
> 
> Thus 1, 2, 3, 4 would be expressed as "Clang Pow", "Clang Zap", 
> "Oink Clang", "Pow Zap".

Error.  1 is "Pow zap".

> It's claimed that the first number to be expressed as numerals is 
26, 
> though I've never  checked it myself.

Yes, that is correct.

> (There also exists Cantorian Fizz Buzz, played with real numbers 
between
> 0 and 1 with special grunts for transcendentals.) 
> These are not normal people.

And your point is...?

David, fluffy mathematician






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 18:45:04 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:45:04 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3qdeu+7j37@...>
Message-ID: <d3rmfg+b756@...>


> Talisman: Oh, dear.  Now we have anti-attorney propaganda in the 
> mix, too.  Tsk, tsk.  Well, there's nothing for it but to go on 
> being the evil woman attorney who's trying to take away everyone's 
> perfect daddy.

Neri:
I should perhaps clarify that I don't have much emotional investment
in DD as the "perfect daddy" type. Definitely not even close to the
emotional investment that certain fans have in a certain Potions
master. I've considered the possibility that DD lies to us many times
(especially once when his word was the single hole in one of my
favorite theories) and I'll most probably consider it again in the
future. Right now, however, the counter considerations in this and my
previous post still hold for me. These considerations are not
concerned much with the integrity of DD's character, but more with the
integrity of JKR as a mystery writer.  

> Talisman:
> I am bemused to hear that DD is your single, main, or even 95% 
> source for "huge parts" of the HP series mystery.  If others are in 
> the same boat, it's no wonder there is so much angst. 
> 

Neri:
To clarify, when I said liar!DD would break my proposed 5% - 95% rule,
I didn't mean he is the source of 95% of our information. I meant he's
the source of more than 5%. Lying about these 5% would be enough to
break this rule as I worded it.

Here's a very partial list of things that we know exclusively or
mainly because DD says so:

1. Snape is on our side and trustable.

2. The first prophecy is genuine (rather than, as you suggested
yourself, DD's fabrication).

3. The prophecy (now assuming it's genuine) says it's all down to
Harry and Voldy.

4. Neville is the other boy implicated in the prophecy.

5. There's a great power behind the locked door in the DoM, which
Harry has in quantities and Voldy not at all.

6. The blood-protection of the Dursleys' house.

7. The connection between Harry and Voldy was created by the curse
that failed in GH (well, Snape also said this once, but there's the
suspicion that on the other side of Snape's leash, long or short,
you'd find DD).

8. Voldy passed powers to Harry in GH (we do have the parseltongue as
direct evidence, but that's only one ability, even if rare. It doesn't
have to come from Voldy, and if it did it doesn't mean there has to be
more).

9. Everybody should speak Voldemort's name.


Each of us can make his/her own quantitative estimation, what
percentage the above represents out of the main mystery (this is not
all of it, but I'm not a member of the DD surveillance team). Now try
to imagine what is possible if most or all of the above is Not Truth.
I think you'll find that you are talking about a completely different
series. Grand for fanfiction writers, but not for a theorist.

> Talisman:
> As far as I am concerned, the whole tableau is played out before me, 
> for my examination.  I explore every facet, and nobody gets a free 
> pass.  Try it, and I think you'll find your reading more fruitful.
> 

Neri:
I don't give anybody a free pass. DD got this pass from me only after
the considerations listed above and in previous posts.

> Talisman:
> Alas, DD never tells me anything.  I can only observe him telling 
> things to other characters, and in that context, he most certainly 
> does lie.

Neri:
Well then, perhaps this is your problem. DD tells ME quite a lot, and
I have never imagined I'm special in this. I admit that I frequently
feels the urge to shake him for an additional detail or five, but this
is because he knows much more even than the many things he does tell us.

I can remember only one outright lie DD tells in the whole series, and
this is to Fudge in OotP, when he takes on himself the blame of
personally organizing the DA. But of course, WE know very well he's
lying, although Fudge believes it. This is the difference between
lying to characters and lying to us. 

> Talisman: 
> To repeat what I've noted so often before, there is no difference 
> between omissive and comissive lying. 

Neri:
The fact that a person does a lot of omission to avoid telling an
outright lie suggests that he has something against telling an
outright lie (even the one explicit lie he tells Fudge, he only uses
as the very last resort. In fact, judging by what we know about the
nature of Potterverse magic, I won't be surprised if uttering an
explicit lie makes you vulnerable to some magical attacks ? see
Marietta's punishment). DD's exact words to Harry in the end of SS/PS are:

"The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing,
and should therefore be treated with great caution. However, I shall
answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in
which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie."

The rule seems to be stated pretty plainly here: DD won't tell Harry
(and us) everything he knows. He'll omit a lot, and sometimes he'll
just refuse to answer, but what he does tell Harry (and us) is Truth.
He gives us fair warning that this Truth should be treated with great
caution. We are free to exercise the mathematician's prudence, but at
the very least we can take as Truth that the ONE side of the sheep is
indeed black. BTW, it seems that JKR follows a similar policy in her
answers to fans.   

> Talisman:
> Oh, and asking subordinates to 
> lie for your purposes? That's culpable, too.  
>

Neri:
No, no, no. That's lying to the bad guys in order to save the good
guys. That's OK. Really. I'm sure there's a clause that says so in
"Things That Are Allowed And Not Allowed In Children Books".
 

Neri, who never had much doubt that Figgy lied about seeing the
dementors. 







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 19:44:26 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:44:26 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3rlr5+og6i@...>
Message-ID: <d3rpuq+ljbr@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> Kneasy wrote:
> 
> > Langford (of whom I've written before) describes the 
> mathematicians 
> > version which he and his friends developed (as below) over many 
> > beer-soaked sessions.
> > At 3 or multiples say "Oink"
> >      5 or multiples say "Fizz"
> >      7 or multiples say "Buzz"
> >      11 or multiples say "Burp"
> > fairly straightforward, so they decided to liven it up and added:
> > "Clang" for each prime number
> > "Pow" for perfect squares
> > "Zap" for powers of two
> > 
> > Thus 1, 2, 3, 4 would be expressed as "Clang Pow", "Clang Zap", 
> > "Oink Clang", "Pow Zap".
> 
> Error.  1 is "Pow zap".
> 
> > It's claimed that the first number to be expressed as numerals is 
> 26, 
> > though I've never  checked it myself.
> 
> Yes, that is correct.
> 
> > (There also exists Cantorian Fizz Buzz, played with real numbers 
> between
> > 0 and 1 with special grunts for transcendentals.) 
> > These are not normal people.
> 
> And your point is...?
> 
> David, fluffy mathematician


Oh, dear.
Fortunately it was made clear that after much discussion (a euphemism 
for "You're wrong! You're cheating! Admit it!") it was decided that 2 to the 
power 0 might equal 1 but it would be treated as a special case and didn't
count for the purposes of the game. (Otherwise 1 would have been 
"Clang Pow Zap". As an added complication the order of the words used for
each number also mattered. Brain pain looms.)

Nice to have confirmation of '26' being the first number to be in plain,
though - although I wouldn't be surprised if most of the participants
hadn't succumbed to penalty pints long before that point was reached.
I know I would have done.

My point?
Beware of mathematicians playing alcoholic games.

Kneasy 







From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 21:24:18 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:24:18 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies, and Drinking Games
Message-ID: <d3rvq2+8tmn@...>


Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1548 :

<< As for the ambiguous debunkings...
Jo might feel that those who have taken the trouble to work things
out deserve a little acknowledgement, at least as much as she can
offer without giving everything away. She has to do it now.

If she says nothing, the fans who got it right, or almost right,
will get no recognition for sleuthing. It isn't so difficult to spot
clues once the mystery is revealed. >>

"She has to do it now" if she wants to give you "immediate
gratification". If her morality includes insistence on deferring
gratification, she and you CAN wait until after the mystery is
revealed, when us listies will turn to people who published their
theories in advance and say: "You were right."

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1553 :

<< No, this ineffable truth that he whitters on about seems to
be that damn Prophecy, which he interprets as meaning that either
Voldy kills Harry or vice versa. Bloody brilliant. I'd guessed that as
the eventual climax halfway through chap. 1, book 1, as did anyone who
doesn't get a nose-bleed spelling 'c-a-t' - and if Harry hadn't
reached the same conclusion yonks back then there must be troll blood
somewhere in the family. One might almost say that it's too obvious to
be true. Hmm. Do you think...? Nah. Can't be. >> 

I am a naively trusting reader, but I was quite disappointed in the
Prophecy. I had formed the opinion at the end of PS/SS that DD was
concealing a Prophecy known to LV that LV will die only when HP gives
his life to kill LV. It'd be tough to tell a child that the only way
to save the (wizarding) world is for him to die. If the child didn't
have Harry's heroic nature, he might decide that his life is more
valuable than those of all those other people, and run away to (ahem)
live as a Muggle. 

Neri wrote in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1554 :

<< The fact is, until now we know about only ONE wizard who turned bad
and wasn't from Slytherin. Hagrid's statement IS a general (although
not categorical) Truth. >>

This naive reader thinks that Hagrid's statement was not a truth at
all, but merely Hagrid's opinion. We're had various survivors of VWI
tell us that in those days, you didn't know whom to trust. That means,
you couldn't trust your old friend just because he had never been a
Slytherin. Maybe your old friend sided with Voldemort to be on the
winning side. Maybe your old friend never sided with Voldemort, but
serves LV anyway because he is under the Imperius Curse. Lucius Malfoy
pursuaded the court that he had not served LV voluntarily, but rather
was under the Imperius Curse, and LM couldn't even have used the
argument: "You KNOW I would NEVER have served You Know You voluntarily
-- I was in Gryffindor when I was at Hogwarts!" That argument would
have made an impression on jurors (Wizengamot warlocks?) who shared
Hagrid's opinion, but not on other jurors.

*friendly wave to Amy Z in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1557 *

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1559 :

<< "Clang" for each prime number
"Pow" for perfect squares
"Zap" for powers of two
Thus 1, 2, 3, 4 would be expressed as "Clang Pow", "Clang Zap",
"Oink Clang", "Pow Zap". >>

Is 1 a perfect square? I've heard that 1 has been declared to be not a
prime, because if it were a prime, it would be an exception to some
Theorems about primes.

David wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1560 :

<< Error. 1 is "Pow zap". >>

Is 2-to-the-0 a power of two?

 






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 16 23:33:14 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:33:14 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3qdeu+7j37@...>
Message-ID: <d3s7bq+rv58@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" <talisman22457 at y...>
wrote:
> 
> Talisman:
> Alas, DD never tells me anything.  I can only observe him telling 
> things to other characters, and in that context, he most certainly 
> does lie.
> 
> To repeat what I've noted so often before, there is no difference 
> between omissive and comissive lying. Oh, and asking subordinates
> to  lie for your purposes? That's culpable, too.  

Pippin:
Are we talking semantic, ethical or legal differences? Culpable
according to whom?
 
Not being argumentative, just curious as to your meaning. There is
surely a difference between legally culpable and ethically
blameworthy.

I've only testified once. But I  was instructed that I need only
state what I knew to be true of my own knowledge, and I was not 
required to guess.
Nor need I incriminate myself. 

Ethically, OTOH, is it  blameworthy to lie  in order to save a life?
According to the Talmud, which is the oldest ethical system in
continuous use, one may break any commandment except those 
against murder and idolatry in order to save a life.

(There is no direct scriptural prohibition against lying in general.
The sages considered it covered by the commandment against
stealing, so according to them, a lie is unethical only if  you tell
it in order to get something you would not otherwise be entitled to.
And of course one must not bear false witness against a neighbor.
I'm not sure dementors are neighbors, but in any case, they
weren't on trial. )

Talisman:
> Early on, we get to see DD suborn perjury. (OoP pp 143-145 ) It is 
> made plain in the text by Figg's hesitancies and inexactitudes, 
> coupled with what we as readers have previously "experienced" of  
> Dementors via the narrative, and confirmed by Harry's reaction, as 
> well as that of Madame Bones (whom we are introduced to as a fair 
> but competent judge).
> 

Pippin:
No one in that curious proceeding was placed under oath. Perhaps
Madame Bones thought a few irregularities in procedure
would not be amiss.

What  evidence is there that Dumbledore told Figgy to
lie?  He may, in fact believe that Squibs cannot see Dementors,
but since he was not asked for his opinion, is not, in any case,
an expert on Squibs, and is not an officer of the court, why is
that relevant?

Talisman:
> Alas, along came Rowling who told us quite 
> unambiguously: "Incidently, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors 
> that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical 
> knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the 
> alleyway." (JKR's Site/Extra Stuff /Misc./SQUIBS.)

Pippin:
Figgy's evidence would have been more convincing if she hadn't lied. 
That, I think, is the moral message of the author.

Talisman:
> 
> To instruct a subordinate to lie on your behalf, is equivalent to 
> lying for yourself.   

Pippin:
McGonagall is instructed to lie in order to save a life (Arthur's). I
don't consider that morally culpable to either her or Dumbledore,
though of course you are entitled to think otherwise. I hope you will
make your reservations clear before offering your basement to any
fugitives from injustice.<g>

Talisman:
> Of course DD also tells Harry to lie.  Back we go to DD's office 
> where Harry is on the verge of admitting that he knows why he is 
> being brought in front of Fudge, et al.  Harry clearly knew the DA 
> meetings had been outlawed, and understood perfectly well that he 
> had been busted by the Inquisitorial Squad.  We, the readers, know 
> this as well. 

> 
> Therefore, when DD caught Harry's attention, and "shook his head a 
> fraction of an inch to each side," (OoP 611) Harry understands, as 
> we do, that DD has just instructed him to lie.  Harry changes his 
> answer in mid-word: "Yeh--no."  In case he, or we the readers, have 
> lingering doubts that DD wanted this result, Rowling then has DD 
> communicate his approval via  "the tiniest of nods and the shadow
of 
> a wink." (id.)
>
> Harry goes on blatantly lying to the leader of the British WW, in 
> conformity with DD's direction. 
> 
Pippin:
DD, Harry and Marrietta are  not under oath. DD offers to make an
official statement, but is ignored.

In point of fact, Harry does not know of his own knowledge why he
was busted. He only knows what Dobby told him. He is under no 
obligation to guess the  nature of his offense. He is then asked
to incriminate himself, and is not instructed that he can refuse
to answer.

Talisman:
> Fast forward: Marietta's testimony is suppressed and finally 
> Umbridge produces the list of names entitled "Dumbledore's Army."

Pippin:
Marietta was being asked to incriminate herself also. Besides that
Harry's life would be in danger if he were expelled.  

Talisman:
> First, he agrees to confess that the group is his, not Harry's-- 
> which is patently untrue. 
 
> Then DD goes on to "admit" that he, himself, organized the DA.  
> Again, the reader knows from their own observations that this is
not 
> true.

Pippin:
At least three members of the Order knew about the DA: Sirius, Molly
and Mundungus Fletcher. It can hardly be established that Dumbledore
was ignorant of it, whatever Harry thinks.

Talisman 
> Even if apologists want to give DD's statement a "secret" true 
> meaning (which would not negate its status as a dishonest statement 
> within the context in which it is given) they can only do so by 
> admitting that DD has, in fact, organized the overarching events of 
> Harry's fifth year, so as to induce the formation of the club. <veg>

Pippin:
I don't follow the latter part of your statement. We can only guess at
the depth of Dumbledore's involvement, but let's not forget that
Dobby, who told Harry about the RoR and warned him of Umbridge's
raid, works for DD. 

Talisman:
> The fibbery goes on:  "Tonight was supposed to be the first 
> meeting," said Dumbledore, nodding.  "Merely to see whether they 
> would be interested in joining me.  I see now that it was a mistake 
> to invite Miss Edgecombe, of course." (OoP 618)
> 
> The reader knows from a plain reading of the text that all of these 
> statements are unequivocally lies.

Pippin:
Um,  do we know that Dumbledore wasn't planning to meet 
with the DA for the first time that evening? 

Pippin
not an attorney, or a Talmudic scholar and begs pardon if she has made
any mistakes






From nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 00:47:30 2005
From: nrenka at nrenka.yahoo.invalid (nrenka)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:47:30 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3rji9+e0id@...>
Message-ID: <d3sbn2+haj6@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:


> Kneasy:
> 
> A bit OT this, but it demonstrates the depths of depravity the 
> mathematical mind can sink to. Dunno where you're based, but you may
> or may not know of a drinking game - Fizz Buzz. (Some of us played 
> something a bit less brain-damaging called Cardinal Puff.) It 
> requires a group of drinkers to sit round a table, pints to hand 
> and in turn number off, but at 3, 5 and multiples of those numbers 
> to say a word or make a specific noise instead. Each error requires 
> that the offending player downs a pint. Winner is last player 
> upright.

Heeey, fizz-buzz!  We used to play that, but we played a specifically 
evil mutation.

>From the University of Chicago 2000 ScavHunt ScavOlympics:

14.  Sexadecimal fizz-buzz. Each team fields one counter, who joins 
the other teams in counting up, in sexadecimal. But in this version, 
numbers that are multiples of 5 (base-10) are said as ``fizz'' and 
numbers that are multiples of 7 (base-10) are said as ``buzz.'' If 
you miss a number, miscount, or whatever, then you sit. Full of 
shame. [50 points for first place, 25 points for second place, 10 
points for third place, and 2 points for good-faith participation] 

-Nora ponders suggesting playing that one tonight...






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 02:17:50 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:17:50 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3s7bq+rv58@...>
Message-ID: <d3sh0e+nejh@...>


> Pippin wrote:
> <snip>
> And of course one must not bear false witness against a neighbor.
> I'm not sure dementors are neighbors, but in any case, they
> weren't on trial.

> Pippin
> not an attorney, or a Talmudic scholar and begs pardon if she has made
> any mistakes

Neri:
Just one comment: the commandments originally use the Hebrew word
"re'a", which is generally a poetic term for "friend" or "associate".
The meaning of this word in the commandments is usually said to be
more inclusive, but how inclusive is pretty much open to
interpretation. I never heard it used in the meaning of "neighbor",
though. Perhaps this is King James' fault? In any case it probably
doesn't stretch to dementors <g> 

Judging by your defense of DD, however, I'll be glad to have you as my
attorney if I ever get into legal trouble. 

Neri







From olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 08:55:14 2005
From: olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid (olivierfouquet2000)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:55:14 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies, and Drinking Games OT
In-Reply-To: <d3rvq2+8tmn@...>
Message-ID: <d3t89i+5mgu@...>


 
> << "Clang" for each prime number
> "Pow" for perfect squares
> "Zap" for powers of two
> Thus 1, 2, 3, 4 would be expressed as "Clang Pow", "Clang Zap",
> "Oink Clang", "Pow Zap". >>
> 
> Is 1 a perfect square? I've heard that 1 has been declared to be not a
> prime, because if it were a prime, it would be an exception to some
> Theorems about primes.
> 
> David wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1560 :
> 
> << Error. 1 is "Pow zap". >>
> 
> Is 2-to-the-0 a power of two?

Olivier
I cannot refrain myself from opening my big mouth anymore!
Being a mathematician and a number theorist to boot, I can give you a 100% safe answer 
on these, and also on one-sided black sheep.

Sooooooooooo

1 is a perfect square, 1 is a power of two and 1 is not a prime number.

1 is a perfect square because it is one squared (!). 

1 is a power of true because, well it is really a question of definition, but there is no 
reason to arbitrarily exclude zero from the other natural numbers, so yes it is two to the 
zero power.

1 is not a prime number because if so, the so-called fundamental theorem of arithmetics 
would be wrong, which is bad for a fundamental theorem. The theorem says that any 
natural number greater than 2 can be writtten in an unique way as a an unordered product 
of prime numbers. The key words here are "in an unique way." If 1 was a prime number, 
you could write 6 as 2 times 3 or 1 times 2 times 3 or 1 times 1 times 2 times 3 and that 
would lead to enormous problems.

In fact, failure to notice this fact probably lead Fermat to believe he had a proof of his 
celebrated last theorem, so that he scribbled some words about a margin being not wide 
enough, and the rest is history.

I promise this is the first and last post here about numbers

Olivier

PS: And of course, the most we can say about the sheep, is that it appears black on at least 
one side when seen from a train.






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 10:33:48 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:33:48 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3rmfg+b756@...>
Message-ID: <d3te2c+qkmk@...>


Neri:

> No, no, no. That's lying to the bad guys in order to save the good
> guys. That's OK. Really. I'm sure there's a clause that says so in
> "Things That Are Allowed And Not Allowed In Children Books".

I suspect this is the crux.  One can treat the series as words coming 
in virtual isolation (accompanied or not by JKR's interview and 
website statements), or in the context of a set of generic conventions.

I tend to the latter approach, the problem then being, *which* 
conventions - school story, detective, spy, fairy-tale, fantasy among 
others - apply, and if they suggest conflicting readings how to 
resolve the conflict.

David, in a hurry






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 10:49:38 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:49:38 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies, and Drinking Games OT
In-Reply-To: <d3t89i+5mgu@...>
Message-ID: <d3tf02+c90m@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "olivierfouquet2000" <olivier.fouquet at p...> 
wrote:

> I cannot refrain myself from opening my big mouth anymore!
> Being a mathematician and a number theorist to boot, I can give you a 100% safe answer 
> on these, and also on one-sided black sheep.
> 
> Sooooooooooo
> 
> 1 is a perfect square, 1 is a power of two and 1 is not a prime number.
> 
> 1 is a perfect square because it is one squared (!). 
> 
> 1 is a power of true because, well it is really a question of definition, but there is no 
> reason to arbitrarily exclude zero from the other natural numbers, so yes it is two to the 
> zero power.
> 
> 1 is not a prime number because if so, the so-called fundamental theorem of 
arithmetics 
> would be wrong, which is bad for a fundamental theorem. The theorem says that any 
> natural number greater than 2 can be writtten in an unique way as a an unordered 
product 
> of prime numbers. The key words here are "in an unique way." If 1 was a prime number, 
> you could write 6 as 2 times 3 or 1 times 2 times 3 or 1 times 1 times 2 times 3 and 
that 
> would lead to enormous problems.
> 
> In fact, failure to notice this fact probably lead Fermat to believe he had a proof of his 
> celebrated last theorem, so that he scribbled some words about a margin being not 
wide 
> enough, and the rest is history.
> 
> I promise this is the first and last post here about numbers
> 
> Olivier
> 
> PS: And of course, the most we can say about the sheep, is that it appears black on at 
least 
> one side when seen from a train.


You know, it's really fascinating (and encouraging) that toc has amongst
the membership so many representatives of scientific disciplines. Adds
to the fun no end and there's always a chance that one's abysmal ignorance 
may be abated.

As a humble ex-microbiologist/virologist/geneticist I can only report that
which I have been told and willingly bow to the superior knowledge of the 
cognoscenti. David, Rita and Olivier have the right of it and Langford and his
mob were in error.

Mind you, the speedy responses tends to reinforce my suspicions about 
mega-LOONic tendencies lurking beneath the surface of those with a 
mathematical bent. I reported earlier that the Fibonacci series was considered
for inclusion into the game but was eventually discarded. One of the main
reasons why was that 1 occurs twice in the series and agreement could not 
be reached as to whether "Argh" or "Argh Argh" was the correct designation.
To an outsider it's amazing that in a numbers game there can be so many
contentious issues with the first number to be uttered.
One can only stand bemused and somewhat impressed.

Kneasy






From quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 13:52:32 2005
From: quigonginger at quigonginger.yahoo.invalid (quigonginger)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:52:32 -0000
Subject: OT drinking games
In-Reply-To: <d3rlr5+og6i@...>
Message-ID: <d3tpn0+248i@...>


> > "Pow" for perfect squares
> > "Zap" for powers of two

Ginger asks:  I'm sorry, but I understand perfect squares to be like 
4,9,16,25.  Am I right?  If so, what are powers of two?  I had thought 
that would mean the same thing, but I'm obviously wrong.  Could someone 
explain?

Ginger, who majored in music/psych, and played Fuzzy Duck as a drinking 
game.






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 14:07:41 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:41 -0000
Subject: OT drinking games
In-Reply-To: <d3tpn0+248i@...>
Message-ID: <d3tqjd+mnie@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" <quigonginger at y...> wrote:
> 
> > > "Pow" for perfect squares
> > > "Zap" for powers of two
> 
> Ginger asks:  I'm sorry, but I understand perfect squares to be like 
> 4,9,16,25.  Am I right?  If so, what are powers of two?  I had thought 
> that would mean the same thing, but I'm obviously wrong.  Could someone 
> explain?
> 
> Ginger, who majored in music/psych, and played Fuzzy Duck as a drinking 
> game.


No  sweat, you've got your digits switched round, that's all.

Squares are any number n to the power 2,
i.e. 5, 8, 13, etc. to the power 2.
Powers of two are 2 to the power of any number n,
i.e. 2 to the power 5, 7, 23, etc.

But I could be on the receiving end of a mathematical thunderbolt as a
sign of the displeasure of the gods any time soon.

Kneasy 






From hp at gulplum.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 14:16:36 2005
From: hp at gulplum.yahoo.invalid (GulPlum)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:16:36 +0100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3qdeu+7j37@...>
References: <d3pfdu+9u2m@...>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20050417140744.00982ba0@...>

It's been a while...

I'm replying to Talisman's post with one little point, only as a hook into 
this discussion. After that one point I shall go off at a tangent.

At 08:05 16/04/05 , Talisman wrote:

<snip>

>Early on, we get to see DD suborn perjury. (OoP pp 143-145 )

Surely perjury is by definition "telling a deliberate lie under oath"? No 
oaths were administered during Harry's hearing, so this is over-stating the 
case just a little. The hearing itself was a sham (if not unlawful - we're 
not aware of all the ins and outs of Magical jurisprudence but several 
procedural inadequacies were pointed out), and Dumbledore accorded it 
perhaps more respect than it deserved.

That said, now on to my main points.

JKR portrays a multi-faceted and complicated view of "truth" and "honesty" 
in the series. One thing I noticed quite some time ago is that as far as I 
can tell, both the eventual baddie(s) in each book and those set up as 
potential candidates for the role never actually lie. I'm open to being 
proved wrong on that observation, but Quirrell, Snape, Tom Riddle (and 
Ginny, his tool), Sirius and Peter, the Crouches and Umridge (and the 
authorial voice) all leave us to draw our own conclusions about their 
behaviour, but the unmasking of the evil-doer is never a case of having 
been caught out telling an untruth (which is far from the norm in mystery 
stories).

The only people who ever tell deliberate untruths in the Potterverse are 
the good guys (e.g. Harry pretty continually, Hermione occasionally, and 
Dumbledore rarely but often enough to be noticed), but for us readers there 
is a significant context: we ALWAYS know it's a lie at the moment the 
statement is made. Furthermore, if not always overtly, we are at least 
given some indication as to why in a particular circumstance, honesty isn't 
necessarily the best policy for the character.

I even include Figg's evidence to the hearing and Dumbledore's 
encouragement for her to exaggerate her knowledge and experience, and to 
lie about having seen the Dementors. In PoA, we'd been told that Muggles 
can't see them, and in CoS we're told that Squibs are basically Muggles 
born to Magical parents. So we *know* that she didn't see them, and we can 
assume that Dumbledore knows it (given his interest in and tolerance for 
Muggles and Squibs), while the members of the inquisitorial panel don't. 
But we're also given to understand that without Mrs Figg unambiguously 
identifying the assailants as Dementors, Harry doesn't stand a chance. Yet 
we *know* that two Dementors had been present, so a higher justice is being 
served by her lying.

JKR is a moral relativist, and throughout the story, we're given examples 
of small transgressions preventing larger ones. Whether or not this is an 
ethically sound attitude is for every reader to determine for themselves, 
but within the confines of the story, every lie by the good guys is given 
an excuse, and JKR makes it difficult to argue for absolute honesty in all 
circumstances. Of course, some of Harry's lies (for instance, not telling 
Dumbledore about the "voices" in CoS) are difficult to defend in absolute 
terms, but in the context of a teenager's concerns, are perhaps at least 
understandable.

I'm a big fan of TV drama series about lawyers (my paralegal past probably 
has something to do with it) and something which frequently comes up in one 
US series or another is that police officers and DAs are legally and 
ethically entitled to lie in order to trap suspects into giving themselves 
away (which I assume is a correct statement of real-world procedures). (UK 
law, and its dramatic representation, has a similar attitude except that 
out legal system doesn't include the concept of the DA and suspects are 
only ever interviewed by the police.)

Is it *morally* correct for them to do so? This is an issue which some of 
the better series attempt to raise (usually without actually answering 
either way, but encouraging the viewer to think about it).

Given that we are 5/7ths into the series, I suspect that JKR's 
representation of honesty is unlikely to change, and I for one will feel 
extremely cheated if Dumbledore's character was to hinge on a lie we don't 
yet know about. Of course, there are a few things he has refused to tell 
Harry/us thus far (e.g. what exactly happened at Godric's Hollow, and what 
that infamous "twinkle" was about), but I don't accept the possibility, 
either from within the story or in "meta-thinking" terms, that his 
character will do an about-turn; that everything we've heard from him to 
date is a falsehood.

Dumbledore has three basic roles within the plot, of increasing importance 
to himself: headmaster of Hogwarts (whilst he's an essentially 
inspirational role model for the staff and pupils, let's face it: he's a 
pretty crap administrator), mentor to Harry (one of my major 
disappointments with OotP was that a significant element of the plot hinged 
on the Magical world in general, and Voldemort in particular,  being 
unaware of this, which I find ludicrous) and leader of the Order.

He fulfills the first two roles essentially in order to be able to fulfill 
the third, and that is the basis of every one of his decisions. All his 
statements should therefore be understood through the prism of "what's best 
for the Order?". It's quite clear that his relationship with Harry is a 
means to that end, and although he certainly has a Machiavellian streak 
(which is what makes him a good leader for the Order in the first place!), 
in his relations with Harry, he *appears* to temper this streak with a 
certain affection (as he himself admits at the end of OotP).

On top of that, there is his textual role outside the story as *the 
reader's* guide to what's going on. If his essential personality is 
untruthful, then this purpose is invalidated, and it makes the whole story 
a lie. We can differ in our opinions of how good a writer JKR is and how 
good OotP was, but she has thus far been certainly consistent in her use of 
Dumbledore as the moral compass of the story, for better or worse. Whether 
or not he is 100% truthful in all particular circumstances is only a factor 
of his essential humanity: whilst he may know what's going on, he is 
capable of making mistakes (including some big ones!). Nevertheless, the 
only way for him to carry off all his roles within the story and his role 
as the reader's conscience without, is for him to be essentially honest and 
essentially truthful. The promise he made to Harry at the end of PS/SS was 
also made to us readers: our trust in him is our trust in the author.

Furthermore, discussions of the "big themes" in the series are supported 
and exemplified almost exclusively by Dumbledore quotes. He is not only 
Harry's conscience, he is also the author's. We know that he's got ulterior 
motives for all he does, but the ultimate motive has always been presented 
as the downfall of Voldemort and all he believes in. To introduce a motive 
beyond that at this stage would undermine the very heart of the saga and 
its relevance. And I quite simply don't think JKR is *that* bad a writer.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, not sure if he's making sense



From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 17 22:49:58 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:49:58 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20050417140744.00982ba0@...>
Message-ID: <d3up6m+7nh6@...>


> Gul Plum AKA Richard wrote:
> <snipped>
> One thing I noticed quite some time ago is that as far as I 
> can tell, both the eventual baddie(s) in each book and those set up as 
> potential candidates for the role never actually lie. I'm open to being 
> proved wrong on that observation, but Quirrell, Snape, Tom Riddle (and 
> Ginny, his tool), Sirius and Peter, the Crouches and Umridge (and the 
> authorial voice) all leave us to draw our own conclusions about their 
> behaviour, but the unmasking of the evil-doer is never a case of having 
> been caught out telling an untruth (which is far from the norm in
mystery 
> stories).


Neri:
I think this is a fascinating observation. It's not 100% correct, but
very nearly so. It's surprising how much time it took me to find any
counterexamples. The best I could find is this sentence by Diary!Riddle:


CoS, Ch. 13, p. 241 US: 
"I caught the person who'd opened the Chamber and he was expelled".


Crouch!Moody is extremely difficult to catch in a lie (unless it's
something we already know to be untruth, which according to your rule
doesn't count). A nice example of his (or JKR's) sneakiness is this
sentence:  


GoF, Ch.25 p.476 US:
"Put it this way. Potter, they say old Mad-Eye's obsessed with
catching Dark wizards... but I'm nothing - nothing - compared to Barty
Crouch."


Had he said "they say *I'm* obsessed with catching Dark wizards..." it
would have been a lie. This one certainly was a "close shave" as
Crouch!Moody himself would put it. The clearest untruth I could come
up with for him is rather weak. It's these words he says to Ron:  


GoF, Ch.14 p.211 US:
"Your father got me out of a very tight corner a few days ago"


In the end we discover that Crouch!Moody barely had time to drink the
Polyjuice when Arthur came to find out what was the commotion about.

Pettigrew lies several times in the Shack, but that hardly counts, as
by then he was already exposed and none of us would believe him (well,
except for a few conspiracy theorists). I couldn't catch Quirrell,
Snape, Lucius Malfoy or Umbridge in a single lie. Lupin comes close
but not quite there when he says "I was a bit off-color lately and
this potion is the only thing that helps". 

This can't be a coincidence. JKR must put a considerable effort into
the statements of her suspects. And as Richard wrote, this is highly
unusual for a mystery book. I have two possible explanations: in the
plot level, it could be that there is indeed a magical penalty to pay
for uttering an untruth, and this is going to be a plot point in Book
6 or 7. In the meta level, maybe JKR is trying to compensate us for
the fact that her mystery plot takes place in a world that we as
readers don't know very well. 

Neri







From hp at gulplum.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 18 01:59:56 2005
From: hp at gulplum.yahoo.invalid (GulPlum)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:59:56 +0100
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <d3up6m+7nh6@...>
References: <4.2.0.58.20050417140744.00982ba0@...>
Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20050418003548.0098e6f0@...>

At 23:49 17/04/05 , Neri wrote:

<snip quote from my previous>

>Crouch!Moody is extremely difficult to catch in a lie (unless it's 
>something we already know to be untruth, which according to your rule 
>doesn't count).

I'm not sure what you mean.

First, I haven't insisted on any kind of "rule" that lies in circumstances 
in which we know them to be a lie "don't count" (morally or in plot terms); 
I was merely observing that when the Good Guys lie, we know it's a lie, and 
we're given some kind of extenuating information to make the lie the lesser 
of two evils either from the character's perspective, or from a perspective 
of general ethics.

Secondly, I've just looked through GoF again and have been unable to find 
an example of either of the Crouches coming up with an untruth whether or 
not we know it to be a lie. You seem to be implying that there are 
circumstances in which "Crouch" [which one? :-)] *is* lying, but we know 
this to be the case.

The only dissembling on Barty Snr.'s part is his illness, but we never 
actually have a scene with him explaining his absence directly: it's all 
third-hand information and supposition. And I can't see any dissembling on 
Barty Jnr.'s part at all.

Unless you're talking about the Pensieve trial, and his protestations of 
innocence? I have my own explanation of that (completely independently of 
my theories about honesty) which hinges on the trial's being specifically 
about the attack on the Longbottoms. It is possible that Barty Crouch Jnr., 
for all his sins, was actually innocent of that particular one, and thus 
his protestations would have been perfectly truthful. This would have made 
him doubly-embittered towards the Magical community in general and the 
anti-Voldemort faction in particular: being convicted of a crime one did 
not commit is particularly hard to bear (even if one is guilty of other, 
even more heinous, crimes).

>A nice example of his (or JKR's) sneakiness is this sentence:
>
>GoF, Ch.25 p.476 US:
>"Put it this way. Potter, they say old Mad-Eye's obsessed with
>catching Dark wizards... but I'm nothing - nothing - compared to Barty
>Crouch."
>
>Had he said "they say *I'm* obsessed with catching Dark wizards..." it
>would have been a lie. This one certainly was a "close shave" as
>Crouch!Moody himself would put it.

The whole point, however, is that JKR has him phrase his comment very 
specifically so that he doesn't have to lie. Here's another wonderful one, 
a paragraph earlier (after Harry says he saw Crouch's name inside Snape's 
office on the Map):

"Well, he's not there anymore," said Moody, his eye still whizzing over the 
map.  "Crouch . .. that's very - very interesting... ."

Note that he says "not THERE" rather than "not on the Map" (which 
presumably would have been a lie)!

>The clearest untruth I could come up with for him is rather weak. It's 
>these words he says to Ron:
>
>GoF, Ch.14 p.211 US:
>"Your father got me out of a very tight corner a few days ago"
>
>In the end we discover that Crouch!Moody barely had time to drink the
>Polyjuice when Arthur came to find out what was the commotion about.

So, again, he was in fact telling the truth...

Actually, the greatest (indeed, by my count, *only*) liar in GoF is the 
omniscient Narrator, seeing as Crouch!Moody is regularly referred to as 
Moody. Of course, it is difficult in any book to represent characters 
impersonating one another, and doubly so in mystery stories when the 
denouement revolves around the concept. Although JKR did her best to keep 
narrative references to his name to a bare minimum, there remain instances 
of the reader being lied to, which by my own personal standards is the 
gravest sin in story-telling (and another of the reasons why I'm not keen 
on GoF).

>Pettigrew lies several times in the Shack, but that hardly counts, as
>by then he was already exposed and none of us would believe him (well,
>except for a few conspiracy theorists).

If I do have a "rule" (see above), it is that I always assume that 
characters throughout the saga are telling the truth unless we have 
*immediate* (or prior) evidence to the contrary. Hence my disagreement with 
several theories which assume that one character or another is being 
deliberately dishonest with their statements. JKR is far too careful with 
the way her characters speak and what they say to have the over-all plot 
hinge on a lie (or, in this case, someone we are led to believe is lying 
whist - as the theorists would have it - he is telling the truth).

>This can't be a coincidence. JKR must put a considerable effort into
>the statements of her suspects. And as Richard wrote, this is highly
>unusual for a mystery book. I have two possible explanations: in the
>plot level, it could be that there is indeed a magical penalty to pay
>for uttering an untruth, and this is going to be a plot point in Book
>6 or 7. In the meta level, maybe JKR is trying to compensate us for
>the fact that her mystery plot takes place in a world that we as
>readers don't know very well.

My own view (and I had meant to say this in my previous post, but forgot) 
is that this is part of the "thematic" morality of the books: truthfulness 
is not a virtue in itself (for a childish example, we have an 
"anti-snitching" message in PS/SS). Whilst, as Dumbledore points out, 
"honesty is generally preferable" (I think that's the quote; sorry if I got 
it wrong), there are circumstances in which keeping silent, or even telling 
a small lie, in furtherance of a greater good, is preferable to honesty in 
furtherance of evil.

Oh, and for the record, I don't buy the "Magical penalty for lying" 
explanation: it's too pat, and Harry would certainly have felt the effects 
of this penalty by now if it were true. And please don't try to limit it by 
claiming that it only affects adults. :-)

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, hoping not to fall back into posting at 3am :-(



From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 18 03:52:21 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:52:21 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20050418003548.0098e6f0@...>
Message-ID: <d3vatl+77rj@...>


> > Neri (previously):
> >Crouch!Moody is extremely difficult to catch in a lie (unless it's 
> >something we already know to be untruth, which according to your rule 
> >doesn't count).

> GulPlum:
> I'm not sure what you mean.
> <snip>
> You seem to be implying that there are 
> circumstances in which "Crouch" [which one? :-)] *is* lying, but we
know 
> this to be the case.

Neri:
Yes, this is what I implied. The case I was thinking of is when Crouch
Jnr sees the Marauders' Map on the floor (GoF Ch. 25) and thinks Snape
dropped it. Harry (wearing his invisibility cloak so only Crouch!Moody
can see him) mouths to him "It's mine!" and Crouch!Moody accio-s the
map and tells Snape: "It's mine ? must've dropped it earlier". This is
an outright lie, but the reader already knows it to be lie, and it was
a lie to save Harry. So by the standards you suggested this belongs to
the category of "good guy" lies, although it was made by a bad guy.
The important point, IMO, is that it doesn't assist Crouch!Moody with
fooling Harry and the reader, so I think it "doesn't count".  



> > Neri:
> >The clearest untruth I could come up with for him is rather weak. It's 
> >these words he says to Ron:
> >
> >GoF, Ch.14 p.211 US:
> >"Your father got me out of a very tight corner a few days ago"
> >
> >In the end we discover that Crouch!Moody barely had time to drink the
> >Polyjuice when Arthur came to find out what was the commotion about.

> GulPlum:
> So, again, he was in fact telling the truth...

Neri:
I was thinking too about this interpretation, actually, but I was
trying not to get too deep into attorney mode  <g>.



> GulPlum:
> My own view (and I had meant to say this in my previous post, but
forgot) 
> is that this is part of the "thematic" morality of the books:
truthfulness 
> is not a virtue in itself (for a childish example, we have an 
> "anti-snitching" message in PS/SS). Whilst, as Dumbledore points out, 
> "honesty is generally preferable" (I think that's the quote; sorry
if I got 
> it wrong), there are circumstances in which keeping silent, or even
telling 
> a small lie, in furtherance of a greater good, is preferable to
honesty in 
> furtherance of evil.
> Oh, and for the record, I don't buy the "Magical penalty for lying" 
> explanation: it's too pat, and Harry would certainly have felt the
effects 
> of this penalty by now if it were true. And please don't try to
limit it by 
> claiming that it only affects adults. :-)

Neri:
I'm not sure I buy the "magical penalty" theory either (although I
think it can be made to work) and I also tend more to the thematic
explanation. The thing is that Potterverse magic, especially in "its
deepest, most impenetrable" form, is frequently an embodiment of
"thematic" morality, and we don't know yet where exactly JKR draws the
separating line between magical device and metaphor. For example, did
Lily protect her son by actually performing a specific spell, or
"merely" by the act of sacrificing her life? Does the locked room in
the DoM contain an actual magical device or just "Love" or "Humanity"
or some similar abstract entity? Does saying Voldemort's name have
magical consequences, or is it "merely" a metaphor for courage in the
face of a terror regime? We'll probably have to wait for the end of
the series to find out.  


Neri







From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 18 08:38:49 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:38:49 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20050418003548.0098e6f0@...>
Message-ID: <d3vrmp+mk1s@...>


Richard wrote:

> And I can't see any dissembling on 
> Barty Jnr.'s part at all.

You wha...?  Did I catch that right?  Could you just say that again?

> And I can't see any dissembling on 
> Barty Jnr.'s part at all.

Thank you.

> Actually, the greatest (indeed, by my count, *only*) liar in GoF 
is the 
> omniscient Narrator, seeing as Crouch!Moody is regularly referred 
to as 
> Moody. Of course, it is difficult in any book to represent 
characters 
> impersonating one another, and doubly so in mystery stories when 
the 
> denouement revolves around the concept. Although JKR did her best 
to keep 
> narrative references to his name to a bare minimum, there remain 
instances 
> of the reader being lied to, which by my own personal standards is 
the 
> gravest sin in story-telling (and another of the reasons why I'm 
not keen 
> on GoF).

I feel that we are allowing ourselves to become a little hung up on 
whether the form of words uttered by a character is a literal lie.  
That way madness lies.  Every colourful metaphor then gets 
scrutinised for the possibility that it may, in fact, have a literal 
interpretation.

Lying only has meaning when one considers the intention of the liar 
with respect to the listener.  *Of course* JKR intended we should 
think that Crouch Jr was Moody.  However, the actual references to 
him as 'Moody' are the least of that: they are merely Harry's POV, 
which no reader is obliged to accept as a true description of 
Harry's world.  As the authorial representation of Harry's POV, they 
are entirely veracious, they contain no lie.

Crouch Jr. gives us a whole lot of fun by saying things that take on 
a new aspect of truth when we know who he really is, but there is no 
doubt that he is lying all the time.  Just because we never catch 
him *saying* "I am Alastor Moody" is irrelevant to that.  He knows 
full well that his use of Polyjuice means that everyone around him 
believes him to be Moody, and does everything he can to ensure that 
they continue to believe it.  That's lying.

David






From olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 18 09:24:10 2005
From: olivier.fouquet at olivierfouquet2000.yahoo.invalid (Olivier Fouquet)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:24:10 +0200
Subject: Truth, Lies, and Drinking Games back to HP
Message-ID: <8545f6d8c6b9700844ae5edf7f58de87@...>

 > Mind you, the speedy responses tends to reinforce my suspicions about
 > mega-LOONic tendencies lurking beneath the surface of those with a
 > mathematical bent. I reported earlier that the Fibonacci series was 
considered
 > for inclusion into the game but was eventually discarded. One of the 
main
 > reasons why was that 1 occurs twice in the series and agreement could 
not
 > be reached as to whether "Argh" or "Argh Argh" was the correct 
designation.
 > To an outsider it's amazing that in a numbers game there can be so 
many
 >contentious issues with the first number to be uttered.
 >One can only stand bemused and somewhat impressed.

 >Kneasy

Olivier
Our mega-LOONic tendencies, if proven, probably arise from the very 
special and intimate relationship we feel we have with truth. To us 
alone she is a faithful mistress (or so is our common delusion, Cantor, 
Nash and Grothendieck might have their own insights).

That said, I have been regularly asked if JKR notorious clumsiness with 
numbers and all things math bothered me, as I was supposedly the kind 
of being that immediately compute the relative ages of the Weasley 
children and readily cries foul when Charlie is seen to be either too 
old or too young. Surprisingly enough for my interlocutors though, the 
answer was not at all. Works of fictions, as far as I am concerned, 
have every right to twist and turn math as long as they feel right. To 
me Hogwarts feels right even though it is immediately clear that 
McGonagall cannot possibly teach that many classes.

On the other hand, I must confess some deeply rooted scepticism towards 
theorising. Not that it isn't funny, why would I be here if it wasn't, 
but simply because I'm not sure ordinary methods of inquiry really 
apply when dealing with fictions.

Even the best argued theories, even those that would make good and 
exciting stories, I don't buy. I feel we simply have no way of entering 
JKR's head. Besides, those here who have tried their luck at either 
fan-fiction or original fiction might have discovered that turning a 
plot into a story is no mean feat. And theories, I feel, are basically 
plot lines.

I'll give an example. Take say Vampire!Snape. A nice theory IMHO. 
Explains a lot, plausible, lots of hints, could very well make a good 
story (what with Harry discovering that Snape has dark secrets, 
suspecting him of collaboration with Voldemort only to discover that he 
was in fact trying to hide his vampire nature). Yet I don't buy it if 
only on probabilistic grounds. I feel there are dozens of good story 
lines that could potentially accommodate our dear Severus and I am not 
bold enough to immerse myself in JKR's thoughts and say that she has 
chosen that particular one.

My refusing of theorising does not preclude me for playing some kind of 
guessing game though. But when doing this, I actually rely on very 
broad and general impressions about the books. I would have bet (and 
indeed have on HPFGU) that Ron would enter the Quidditch team and suck 
at it or that the death in OotP would be a direct consequence of 
Harry's failure to do something. That's when general impressions turn 
out to be correct. I also said Hermione would fail in some extent with 
SPEW (a very generous mind could give that one, but I expected a much 
more spectacular failure) and that Sirius would most certainly not die.

Then come truth and lies, and GulPlum's very interesting observation 
that villains don't lie in HP. This seems to me perfectly natural from 
a writer that is trying to play game with her readers. JKR seemingly 
enjoys the fans guessing game, so she plants clue. But it would be 
utterly unfair to write deliberate falsehoods to confuse our poor 
souls. If everything at the end of the book turns out to have been 
false, what is the point in guessing? On the contrary, if everything 
turns out to have been just the way we thought, but not the way we 
interpreted, it is a nicely constructed mystery. I particularly admire 
PoA in that respect. The reader is slowly induced in believing that 
Sirius Black, the black dog,   Crookshanks and Lupin are all in the 
same league, and this is indeed true. So inasmuch as she is writing 
mysteries, JKR has very good reasons to have her culprits tell the 
truth.

That said, I don't believe she is writing primarily a mystery story, 
but then again, I don't believe in anything.

'xcept maybe deux et deux sont quatre, Sganarelle; et quatre et quatre 
sont huit.

Olivier



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




From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 18 15:35:16 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:35:16 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies and GIGO
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20050417140744.00982ba0@...>
Message-ID: <d40k3k+hrtq@...>


Richard AKA Gulplum
> 
> That said, now on to my main points.
> 
> JKR portrays a multi-faceted and complicated view of "truth" and
"honesty"  in the series. One thing I noticed quite some time ago is
that as far as I  can tell, both the eventual baddie(s) in each book
and those set up as   potential candidates for the role never actually
lie. I'm open to being  proved wrong on that observation, but
Quirrell, Snape, Tom Riddle (and  Ginny, his tool), Sirius and Peter,
the
Crouches and Umridge (and the  authorial voice) all leave us to draw
our own conclusions about their   behaviour, but the unmasking of the
evil-doer  is never a case of having  been caught out telling an
untruth 
(which is far from the norm in mystery  stories).

Pippin:
I'm afraid your observation is incorrect.  In fact, the baddies do
lie, and the  reader could conceivably catch them at it, and vault 
them to the top of the suspect list on that basis. Harry often
catches them at it also, but assumes  they have an innocent reason 
or that the lie is unimportant. Then, in future, he assumes
they are being truthful if he doesn't detect a lie -- and time and
again he lives to regret it.

Gulplum Message 1574:
The whole point, however, is that JKR has him phrase his comment very
specifically so that he doesn't have to lie. Here's another wonderful
one, a paragraph earlier (after Harry says he saw Crouch's name inside
Snape'soffice on the Map):

"Well, he's not there anymore," said Moody, his eye still whizzing
over the map. "Crouch . .. that's very - very interesting... ."


Pippin:
Which edition are you quoting from?  Mine (Bloomsbury, 2000) has
:'Well, he's not _here_ any more."(emphasis mine.) That must be a lie,
 underlined a little later on  when Hermione demolishes Ron's theory
 that Krum attacked Crouch and then stunned himself 'And Mr. Crouch
 evaporated, did he?' 

Quirrell lies about the turban: His turban, he told them, had been
given to him by an African prince as a thank you for getting rid of a
troublesome zombie, but they weren't sure they believed this story. 

Voldemort lies to Harry:
"They died begging me for mercy..."
"LIAR!" Harry shouted suddenly. 

This is a half-truth -- Lily did beg for mercy but it was for Harry,
not herself. As far as we know, James did not beg.

Also in PS/SS, Scabbers  appears to fake falling asleep
after being thrown against the compartment window, which
might have raised questions about Quirrell falling in a faint on
Halloween, not to mention Scabbers himself.

In Cos:
Riddle lies to Dippet: 
'Riddle, do you mean you know something about
these attacks?'
'No, sir,' said Riddle quickly.
But Harry was sure it was the same sort of 'no' that he himself had
given Dumbledore.

Riddle lies again, about Hagrid. 
'It was my word against Hagrid's, Harry. Well, you can imagine how
it looked to old Armando Dippet. On the one hand, Tom Riddle,
poor but brilliant, parentless but so *brave*, schoo Prefect, model
student; on the other hand, big, blundering Hagrid, in trouble
every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed, 
sneaking off to the Forbidden Forest to wrestle trolls.'

This is a nest of lies -- not only did Riddle lie to Dippet, he's
also, according to JKR, slandering Hagrid about the werewolves.


In PoA, Peter lies extensively, though he's not convincing at all:
"Don't know...what you're talking about..."said Pettigrew
again,more shrilly than ever. In fact his lack of skill is one of the
things that led me to ESE!Lupin. Lupin, of course, is a skilled
equivocator. Consider his statements in Snape's office:

'It looks to me as though it is merely a piece of parchment that
insults anybody who reads it. Childish, but surely not dangerous?
I imagine Harry got it from a joke shop--"

"It looks like a Zonko product to me--"

"Harry, Ron, come with me, I need a word about my vampire
essay -- excuse us, Severus --"

Whether Lupin was also equivocating in the Shrieking Shack
is yet to be seen, but if so, we can't say JKR didn't warn us.

Moody's lie in GoF is already established.

Kreacher lies also:
Kreacher, it transpired, had been lurking in the attic. Sirius said
he had found him up there, covered in dust, no doubt looking
for more relics of the Black family to hide in his cupboard.
Though Sirius seeemed satisfied with this story, it made Harry
uneasy.

Of course he lies again:
"Where's Sirius,Kreacher?" Harry demanded.
The house-elf gave a wheezy chuckle. "Master has gone out,
Harry Potter."

"What about Lupin? Mad-Eye? Any of them, are any of them
here?"
"Nobody here but Kreacher!" said the elf gleefully and turning
away from Harry he began to walk slowly toward the door at
the end of the kitchen.

And then Kreacher equivocates:
'Master will not come back from the Department of Mysteries!'


Snape is probably lying when he says there is nothing that 
concerns Harry in the Department of Mysteries.

Ginny is lying when she claims she never knew the Diary
was dangerous -- she definitely knew that when she stole
it back from Harry. She lies again in OOP when she tells
her mum that Crookshanks threw the dungbombs against
the door. 

I don't think that there is a magical prohibition against lying,
but I have a suspicion that even a skilled legilimens finds it
harder to detect equivocation than outright falsehood, so the
skilled deceiver may prefer to equivocate when possible.

Pippin






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 18 19:22:44 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:22:44 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20050418003548.0098e6f0@...>
Message-ID: <d411e4+e4sj@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, GulPlum <hp at p...> wrote:
> snip>
> If I do have a "rule" (see above), it is that I always assume that 
> characters throughout the saga are telling the truth unless we have 
> *immediate* (or prior) evidence to the contrary. Hence my disagreement with 
> several theories which assume that one character or another is being 
> deliberately dishonest with their statements. JKR is far too careful with 
> the way her characters speak and what they say to have the over-all plot 
> hinge on a lie (or, in this case, someone we are led to believe is lying 
> whist - as the theorists would have it - he is telling the truth).
>

Kneasy:
The chances that there'll be a big lie somewhere are pretty good I think,
though it may take a form that many would see as acceptable. How about
the Prophecy being an invention (or manipulation) of DD's to tempt Voldy
into a mis-step/deliberate trap? Or what one sees in the Mirror? It's so
difficult in a story like this to draw hard and fast lines, what one sees as a lie
another will consider a justifiable ploy to confound the enemy or as a way 
of guiding Harry or keeping him under control.

How does one differentiate between outright mendacity and misdirection?
Particularly as it seems that a fair few of DD's efforts at stretching the truth
have had Harry as the unwitting recipient. It's playing fair IMO, the idea that
DD should tell a half-trained volatile teenager who doesn't know his ass
from his elbow everything strikes me as a bit naive. It'd also result in a
load of unemployed theorisers cluttering up the boards. Admittedly I'd
be really unhappy if Jo had blatantly lied to us outside canon about the
basic characterisations -  if Voldy was good, DD evil for example, then the 
tar and feather gang would be heading for Edinburgh damn quick.
  

> GulPlum:
> My own view (and I had meant to say this in my previous post, but forgot) 
> is that this is part of the "thematic" morality of the books: truthfulness 
> is not a virtue in itself (for a childish example, we have an 
> "anti-snitching" message in PS/SS). Whilst, as Dumbledore points out, 
> "honesty is generally preferable" (I think that's the quote; sorry if I got 
> it wrong), there are circumstances in which keeping silent, or even telling 
> a small lie, in furtherance of a greater good, is preferable to honesty in 
> furtherance of evil.
>

Kneasy:
I agree, I don't think honesty is held up as a major virtue, nor is adherance
to the rules. As I pointed out in one of the 'Best of Enemies' posts, Harry
and his pals often regard rules as an irrelevance, much more so  than
Malfoy and his Slytherins, which is not what one would expect given
Slytherin's reputation.

No, the major virtue so far as HP  is concerned is loyalty, the greatest sin
betrayal. And we could be looking at it from both sides of the coin - Snape
has betrayed Voldy, after all. It'll be interesting to find out if traitors of
all stripes suffer the same fate - IIRC Dante didn't distinguish between good
or bad causes; betrayal per se was enough to get you to  the innermost 
circle of Hell.

A quick note to  Olivier -

Happy not to theorise, eh?  Ah, the joys you're missing!
However, I was doodling around on the wonderful web and I  came across
a snippet that might explain your stance. One of your heroes, Cantor - 
his doctoral thesis was entitled "In mathematics the art of asking questions
is more valuable than solving problems."

Um. What can one say to that?
 







From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 18 22:06:24 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:06:24 -0000
Subject: Truth or consequences (now way OT)
In-Reply-To: <d411e4+e4sj@...>
Message-ID: <d41b10+lsrp@...>


Kneasy wrote:
> One of your heroes, Cantor - 
> his doctoral thesis was entitled "In mathematics the art of asking 
questions
> is more valuable than solving problems."
> 
> Um. What can one say to that?

Amen, brother, amen.

I am a consultant of sorts.  Most studies I get involved in have a 
fairly common pattern which I am beginning to suspect applies to the 
arc of one's life.  In the early stages the customer wants you to 
verify that his suspected answer to his question is the correct 
one.  After a while you struggle to answer the question.  At the end 
the study can be counted a success if you have successfully 
identified the question at all.

Douglas Adams was a wise man.

David






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Tue Apr 19 01:25:52 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:25:52 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies and GIGO
In-Reply-To: <d40k3k+hrtq@...>
Message-ID: <d41mn0+3bc6@...>


> Pippin:
> I'm afraid your observation is incorrect.  In fact, the baddies do
> lie, and the  reader could conceivably catch them at it, and vault 
> them to the top of the suspect list on that basis. Harry often
> catches them at it also, but assumes  they have an innocent reason 
> or that the lie is unimportant. Then, in future, he assumes
> they are being truthful if he doesn't detect a lie -- and time and
> again he lives to regret it. 

And David wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1576 :
> Crouch Jr. gives us a whole lot of fun by saying things that take on 
> a new aspect of truth when we know who he really is, but there is no 
> doubt that he is lying all the time.  Just because we never catch 
> him *saying* "I am Alastor Moody" is irrelevant to that.  He knows 
> full well that his use of Polyjuice means that everyone around him 
> believes him to be Moody, and does everything he can to ensure that 
> they continue to believe it.  That's lying.

Neri:
I'll let Richard answer regarding his theory, which I don't wholly buy
either, but regardless of the theory I think he had made a very
interesting observation, which you seem to miss or explain away. As I
understand it, he's not talking about ANY lie, but about a specific,
well-defined category of lies. These are lies that the baddies (all of
them, not only Crouch Jnr., and suspects too) *tell* Harry, and
through them JKR tells the readers, in order to fool Harry and us.
Richard suggested that such lies do not exist in the series, which
would have been an extremely odd finding. I already gave examples that
such lies do exist, but they ARE surprisingly rare. So rare that it
can't be a coincidence. JKR must be making a conscious effort to avoid
such lies. This is the observation. Now let's look at Pippin's
counterexamples:

> GulPlum previously:
> a paragraph earlier (after Harry says he saw Crouch's name inside
> Snape's office on the Map):
> 
> "Well, he's not there anymore," said Moody, his eye still whizzing
> over the map. "Crouch . .. that's very - very interesting... ."
> 
> 
> Pippin responded:
> Which edition are you quoting from?  Mine (Bloomsbury, 2000) has
> :'Well, he's not _here_ any more."(emphasis mine.) That must be a lie.

Neri:
My version (Scholastic, 2000) also says "he's not here". However, this
is not a lie if Crouch!Moody is talking about Crouch Snr., and indeed
this is the Crouch that Harry was referring to and the reader was
thinking about (at this point in the book Harry and the reader don't
even know yet that Crouch had a son). Crouch Snr. was not at Hogwarts
at that time, so Crouch Jnr. didn't lie.

> Pippin:
> Quirrell lies about the turban: His turban, he told them, had been
> given to him by an African prince as a thank you for getting rid of a
> troublesome zombie, but they weren't sure they believed this story. 

Neri:
This lie is, IMO, a very weak counterexample, because JKR explicitly
writes that Harry and his friends didn't really buy this story, and
the reader probably doesn't buy it too. So this lie actually makes
Quirrell appear MORE suspicious, not less suspicious. This is not JKR
fooling the reader, it's JKR giving the reader a clue.

>Pippin:
> Voldemort lies to Harry:
> "They died begging me for mercy..."
> "LIAR!" Harry shouted suddenly.

Neri:
This lie is for taunting, not for fooling Harry and the reader about
Voldy's existence or identity. 

> Pippin:
> Also in PS/SS, Scabbers  appears to fake falling asleep
> after being thrown against the compartment window, which
> might have raised questions about Quirrell falling in a faint on
> Halloween, not to mention Scabbers himself.

Neri:
These lies are by action, not by spoken language. If you include them,
then of course Crouch Jnr. was lying just by drinking the Polyjuice
and pretending to be Moody, Peter was lying just by pretending to be
an ordinary rat, Quirrell lying merely by wearing his turban, etc. Of
course all the baddies lie via their actions, but Richard was making a
distinction here.

> Pippin:
> In Cos:
> Riddle lies to Dippet: 
> 'Riddle, do you mean you know something about
> these attacks?'
> 'No, sir,' said Riddle quickly.
> But Harry was sure it was the same sort of 'no' that he himself had
> given Dumbledore.

Neri:
Again, this doesn't count because it was not intended to fool Harry
and us, and it didn't fool Harry, as JKR explicitly wrote. It can't
fool us because at that point Diary!Riddle had already told Harry (and
us) that he did know "something" about the attacks.

> Pippin:
> Riddle lies again, about Hagrid. 
> 'It was my word against Hagrid's, Harry. Well, you can imagine how
> it looked to old Armando Dippet. On the one hand, Tom Riddle,
> poor but brilliant, parentless but so *brave*, schoo Prefect, model
> student; on the other hand, big, blundering Hagrid, in trouble
> every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed, 
> sneaking off to the Forbidden Forest to wrestle trolls.'

Neri:
He's admitting to a lie that he made to Dippet off page, 50 years ago,
but it's not a lie to Harry and us. By the time Riddle says these
words we already know he lied.

> Pippin:
> In PoA, Peter lies extensively, though he's not convincing at all:
> "Don't know...what you're talking about..."said Pettigrew
> again,more shrilly than ever.

Neri:
Precisely. Since now he's not convincing at all, he's free to lie
extensively. The interesting point is: no baddie lies extensively and
convincingly to us BEFORE he/she was exposed. 

> Pippin:
> In fact his lack of skill is one of the
> things that led me to ESE!Lupin. Lupin, of course, is a skilled
> equivocator. Consider his statements in Snape's office:
> 
> 'It looks to me as though it is merely a piece of parchment that
> insults anybody who reads it. Childish, but surely not dangerous?
> I imagine Harry got it from a joke shop--" <snip more>

Neri:
Again, Harry and us know very well that all these statements are lies.
These are what Richard called "good guys" lies, and (unlike the other
kind) these are VERY common.

> Pippin:
> Kreacher lies also <snip> Of course he lies again:
> "Where's Sirius,Kreacher?" Harry demanded.
> The house-elf gave a wheezy chuckle. "Master has gone out,
> Harry Potter."

Neri:
Now THIS is a proper counterexample. However, note that this lie is
made by someone who is already known to be a chronic liar ("Kreacher
is cleaning") and far from being a supporter. And indeed, most readers
didn't buy it, though Harry did. 

BTW, from my quick scan it seems we can add Dobby and Winky to the
list of non-liars, although they both had secret agendas and like
Kreacher they weren't supposed to have any problem lying to someone
who isn't their master.

> Pippin:
> Snape is probably lying when he says there is nothing that 
> concerns Harry in the Department of Mysteries. 

Neri:
Harry was not fooled by this. In addition, this was an admonition
rather than a lie (like: "there's might or might not be something
important in the DoM, but you're not in the need-to-know list", which
was actually true). In any case, Snape was not a suspect at the time.
He was a suspect in SS/PS and again in GoF, but not really in OotP.

> Pippin:
> Ginny is lying when she claims she never knew the Diary
> was dangerous -- she definitely knew that when she stole
> it back from Harry.

Neri:
She says these words after the truth was already known. This is not a
lie to fool Harry and us. During all the year that Ginny WAS fooling
Harry and us she never did it by speaking any explicit lie. 

> Pippin:
> She lies again in OOP when she tells
> her mum that Crookshanks threw the dungbombs against
> the door.

Neri:
Ginny is not a baddie or a suspect in OotP, she's just a girl there,
and we are told she's lying. As Richard mentioned, Harry himself lies
a lot. Ron, Hermione, Fred and George and most of the kids also lie,
especially to parents and teachers. This isn't the kind of lie we're
discussing.

I agree that there ARE some examples of spoken lies that fool Harry
and us to think that the bad guy is actually a good guy. IMO the
strongest is still the one I found by Diary!Riddle in CoS, Ch. 13, p.
241 US: "I caught the person who'd opened the Chamber and he was
expelled". I like this simple example because it shows how EASY it is
to generate lies of this type, and thus how strange it is to find so
very few of them. You may also add Crouch Jnr.'s lies in the Pensieve
trial, although he didn't quite fool Harry and us to believe he's
innocent (both DD and Sirius said they didn't know if Crouch Jnr. was
guilty or not). Still, lies of this kind are extremely rare for a
mystery series that already includes 5 books and had managed to fool
us as readers time and again. So the point is: it seems JKR is making
a conscious effort to avoid this kind of lies. Why? As I wrote, I'm
not sure I buy Richard's theory, but I think his observation cannot be
explained away.

Neri 
 







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Tue Apr 19 23:06:07 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:06:07 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies and GIGO
In-Reply-To: <d41mn0+3bc6@...>
Message-ID: <d442sv+ksnf@...>


> Neri:
> I'll let Richard answer regarding his theory, which I 
don't wholly buy either, but regardless of the theory I 
think he had made a very interesting observation, which 
you seem to miss or explain away. As I understand it, 
he's not talking about ANY lie, but about a specific,
well-defined category of lies. These are lies that the 
baddies (all of them, not only Crouch Jnr., and suspects 
too) *tell* Harry, and through them JKR tells the 
readers, in order to fool Harry and us.
> Richard suggested that such lies do not exist in the 
series, which would have been an extremely odd finding. 
I already gave examples that such lies do exist, but 
they ARE surprisingly rare. So rare that it can't be a 
coincidence. JKR must be making a conscious effort to 
avoid such lies. 

Pippin:



You mean, the Ellery Queen style plot where the perp 
lies to the sleuth, but is found out because of a defect in 
logic or through ignorance of some little known fact
which only the sleuth is clever enough to spot? 

I think such lies are  avoided because they tend to 
spoil the book on future re-readings. You start 
wondering why no  one else noticed that, say, the
artist couldn't have died while out painting on the moor,
because he never would have mixed cadmium yellow 
and lead white.

JKR has said she doesn't like to reread mysteries 
because it's no fun once you know the answer to the 
puzzle, so I'm not surprised she would avoid structuring 
the plot around that style.

The Crouch puzzle is almost a classic fair mystery. If 
we had spotted the lie about Crouch disappearing, put 
that together with the missing polyjuice ingredients, 
and realized from the Tom Riddle grave that father and 
son may have the same name, we might have guessed (but 
not deduced) who the impostor Moody was. But the plot of 
the book doesn't hang on it, since Harry never figures 
it out. 

I do remember wondering why Moody was lying on
first reading, but I thought it was to keep Harry out of it. I
should have rethought that when it became clear he
wanted Harry involved, but by then I'd forgotten about it.


Pippin






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 21 01:24:33 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:24:33 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies and GIGO
In-Reply-To: <d442sv+ksnf@...>
Message-ID: <d46vch+quls@...>


> Pippin:
> You mean, the Ellery Queen style plot where the perp 
> lies to the sleuth, but is found out because of a defect in 
> logic or through ignorance of some little known fact
> which only the sleuth is clever enough to spot? 
> 

Neri:
Well, you are the mystery expert (I rarely read mystery books) so you
know better than I what is the standard. Take a few classic detective
and mystery books of various styles and count how many lies of this
type you can find. Is JKR within the norm or isn't she?

> Pippin:
> I think such lies are  avoided because they tend to 
> spoil the book on future re-readings. You start 
> wondering why no  one else noticed that, say, the
> artist couldn't have died while out painting on the moor,
> because he never would have mixed cadmium yellow 
> and lead white.

Neri:
You mean, the baddies are careful not to lie too much because it might
expose them? I'm not sure I'm convinced. After all, as you and Dave
pointed out, these baddies DO lie. It just that they rarely do it by
telling the lie explicitly. For example, Crouch Jnr. is already
pretending to be Moody, so why wouldn't he say: "they say I'm obsessed
with caching dark Wizards"? Instead he says: "they say old Mad-Eye's
obsessed with caching dark Wizards". This doesn't make him less of a
liar. It just makes him less of a literal liar.

> Pippin:
> JKR has said she doesn't like to reread mysteries 
> because it's no fun once you know the answer to the 
> puzzle, so I'm not surprised she would avoid structuring 
> the plot around that style.
> 
> The Crouch puzzle is almost a classic fair mystery. If 
> we had spotted the lie about Crouch disappearing, put 
> that together with the missing polyjuice ingredients, 
> and realized from the Tom Riddle grave that father and 
> son may have the same name, we might have guessed (but 
> not deduced) who the impostor Moody was. But the plot of 
> the book doesn't hang on it, since Harry never figures 
> it out. 
> 
> I do remember wondering why Moody was lying on
> first reading, but I thought it was to keep Harry out of it. I
> should have rethought that when it became clear he
> wanted Harry involved, but by then I'd forgotten about it.
> 

Neri:
Yes, HP is not a classic mystery. In fact, it is much more than a
classic mystery. Is there a previous example in which the main mystery
lasts over a whole series?

I think somebody would have solved the Crouch puzzle if it were
stretched over more than one book, so we would have had many months to
think about it and discuss it. There were many additional clues, like
Voldy saying in the first chapter that he'll have a faithful servant
at Hogwarts, or all the strange things that happened in the QWC. The
Crouch puzzle was very difficult not because there weren't enough
clues, but because these clues were scattered around with no apparent
connection between them. 

However, concluding about the nature of the whole-series mystery from
the single-book mysteries is an extrapolation. There's really no real
reason at all to think that the whole-series mystery will be similar
to the single-book mysteries.

For example, the single-book mysteries were mostly whodunits, but it
seems that the whole-series mystery is more concerned with "why",
"what" and "how" than with "who". I can think offhand about only one
official whodunit mystery in the series that was not solved in the
same book it was presented. This is of course "who heard half of the
prophecy in the Hog's Head?" and it's really not surprising that it
wasn't solved yet, as it was only presented in the chapter before last
in the last book. It is the "why", "what" and "how" mysteries that
stretch over more than one book, like (counting both solved and
unsolved ones):

1. Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry?
2. What really happened in GH?
3. Why was Hagrid expelled?
4. Why did the Sorting Hat want to put Harry in Slytherin?
5. Why does Snape hate James' memory?
6. Why does Harry's scar hurt when Voldy is angry?
7. What powers (besides parseltongue) were transferred to Harry in GH?
8. What was Trelawney's first true prediction?
9. What was the gleam in DD's eyes about?
10. Why did Snape change sides?
11. How does Snape spy on the Death Eaters?
11. Why can no teacher hold the DADA post for more than one year?
12. What's the story with saying Voldemort's name?
13. (OK, I could go on but you probably got the idea already). 


Neri
   







From susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 21 03:37:48 2005
From: susiequsie23 at cubfanbudwoman.yahoo.invalid (susiequsie23)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:37:48 -0500
Subject: Pet peeve #293 (was: [the_old_crowd] Re: Truth, Lies and GIGO)
References: <d46vch+quls@...>
Message-ID: <00ab01c54623$7d744a20$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>

Neri:
<snip list of series mysteries, solved & still unsolved> 
4. Why did the Sorting Hat want to put Harry in Slytherin?


SSSusan:
This one drives me nuts whenever I see it.  I never understand how it gets phrased this way -- that the Sorting Hat *wanted* to put Harry in Slytherin.  In my reading, the SH offered up the information that Harry would do WELL in Slytherin.  It seemed to me to be more of an invitation for Harry to consider where he wanted to go, what mattered to him the most, perhaps even playing devil's advocate.  But I don't see that it *wanted* to put him there.  

**********************************************************
"Difficult.  Very difficult.  Plenty of courage, I see.  Not a bad mind either.  There's talent, oh my goodness, yes -- and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting....  So where shall I put you?"

Harry gripped the edges of the stool and thought, Not Slytherin, not Slytherin.

"Not Slytherin, eh?" said the small voice.  "Are you sure?  You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that -- no?  Well, if you're sure -- better be GRYFFINDOR!" [US hardback, p. 121]
*****************************************************************

If the SH "wanted" to put Harry into Slytherin, it sure gave up awfully quickly & easily.

Siriusly Pet Peevey Snapey Susan


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




From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 21 13:50:26 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:50:26 -0000
Subject: Hat trick (was: Pet peeve #293)
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c54623$7d744a20$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <d48b32+lh8e@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "susiequsie23" <susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:

> 
This one drives me nuts whenever I see it.  I never understand 
how it gets phrased this way -- that the Sorting Hat *wanted* to 
put Harry in Slytherin.  In my reading, the SH offered up the 
information that Harry would do WELL in Slytherin.  It seemed to 
me to be more of an invitation for Harry to consider where he 
wanted to go, what mattered to him the most, perhaps even playing
devil's advocate.  But I don't see that it *wanted* to put him there.  
>

Ah, yes ...... the Hat.
Trust and truth go hand in hand in an ideal world, but nobody 
claims that the WW is an ideal world.
"Never trust anything that  can think for itself if you can't see where 
it keeps its brain." Old Ma Weasley hands us a clue there, I think. Is it 
a coincidence that there's a fair few artifacts fitting this description 
swanning round the plot?
The Diary
The Marauders Map
The Mirror of Erised
The Pensieve
The Sorting Hat

Although Molly is rightly concerned about evil influences diverting her
proto-Harpy offspring from the straight and narrow, we are in a position
to take a wider view. We can ask the question "Is this item unbiased, or 
can it be subverted?" Always accepting that the subversion may not be 
from evil intentions.

Q. So where does the Hat keep its brain?
A. Between DD's ears. 

Not all the time of course. Mostly it's in default mode, bits of the original
four cooperating in plonking grubby little tykes into Houses best suited 
to their traits or potential.
"There's nothing hidden in your head
The Sorting Hat can't see,
So try me on and I will tell you
Where you ought to be."   (PS/SS)

In this instance the Hat sounds like a Careers Advisor; it'll offer an 
opinion based on insights, but implies that the final decision is open to
discussion. This is in fact what happens with Harry, to a certain extent 
with Hermione (seriously considered as Ravenclaw) and it spent a long 
time considering what to do with Neville. The text gives the impression 
that the other sortees were pretty much cut and dried.

So why the hesitation? 
It's no secret that IMO the Sorting was fixed; DD was subverting its basic
programming. If left to its own devices it would've been Harry Slytherin; 
Hermione Ravenclaw;  Neville Hufflepuff; Ron Gryffindor. Harry is diverted
away from Slytherin (where he could have become "great" in the manner of
Voldy) after DD's gofer enlightens Harry to the fact that it was Slytherin 
Voldy who crunched James and Lily, a real "Hearts and Minds" exercise. 
The fix provides him with a diverse support group that encompasses the 
characteristics of all four Houses - and incidentally adumbrates the Hat's 
call in OoP for a joining together. Many members of the other board have 
wished for a "good" Slytherin to turn up; few consider the possibility that 
Harry might be it.

Might not be the first time, either. If (as it seems) the Marauders were all 
Gryffindors then they too show a remarkable diversity of character - again 
at a time of great danger for the WW. Makes one think.

In later books the Hat changes its tune somewhat, expressing more 
certainty in it's role and placements:
"I've never yet been wrong" (GoF)

"I sort you into Houses
Because that is what I'm for" (OoP)

Yet it *is* Dumbledore's creature:
"...you will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here 
are loyal to me. You will  also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts
to those that ask for it." (CoS)

Dunno about you, but I can't see help arriving if, for example, young Draco
was up to no good and needed a bit of a hand. No, the help is for those who
further DD's agenda. And for Harry that help consists of Fawkes, Gryffindor's
sword and Gryffindor's Hat. "..the  best weapons Dumbledore can give him" 
according to Tom. Mind you, I've never figured out why the Hat was included, 
it never speaks when Harry rams it on his  head. Couldn't Fawkes have 
carried the sword without it? Of course he could. Unless the Hat is checking,
a little judicious mind scan, making sure that Harry is worthy of receiving 
the help requested. DD wouldn't be happy if in the Chamber scuffle the 
transferred powers were showing themselves and instead of good vs evil, 
like was battling like for top dog spot. 

"Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled that (the sword) out of the Hat," 
according to DD. Yet the Hat has never admitted that it was in error. 
Harry may have become what  DD wishes him to be, for the last five books 
anyway. But it'll be interesting if what the Hat saw in Harry shows itself in 
the next book, my word it will. After all, the Hat is never wrong, at least 
it isn't when it's not being nobbled.  

Kneasy









From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 22 13:59:57 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:59:57 -0000
Subject: Pet peeve #293
In-Reply-To: <00ab01c54623$7d744a20$d82cfea9@albrechtuj0zx7>
Message-ID: <d4b00t+2o80@...>


SSSusan:
> This one drives me nuts whenever I see it.  I never understand how 
it gets phrased this way -- that the Sorting Hat *wanted* to put 
Harry in Slytherin.  In my reading, the SH offered up the 
information that Harry would do WELL in Slytherin.  It seemed to me 
to be more of an invitation for Harry to consider where he wanted to 
go, what mattered to him the most, perhaps even playing devil's 
advocate.  But I don't see that it *wanted* to put him there.  
> 
> **********************************************************
> "Difficult.  Very difficult.  Plenty of courage, I see.  Not a bad 
mind either.  There's talent, oh my goodness, yes -- and a nice 
thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting....  So where shall 
I put you?"
> 
> Harry gripped the edges of the stool and thought, Not Slytherin, 
not Slytherin.
> 
> "Not Slytherin, eh?" said the small voice.  "Are you sure?  You 
could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin 
will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that -- no?  
Well, if you're sure -- better be GRYFFINDOR!" [US hardback, p. 121]
> *****************************************************************
> 
> If the SH "wanted" to put Harry into Slytherin, it sure gave up 
awfully quickly & easily.

Yes, me too.

This episode reminds me of those incidents in the (Christian) Bible 
where Jesus confronted sick people and asked them "Do you *want* to 
be well?" (Emphasis mine) or "What do you want me to do?" and make 
me wonder about JKR's supposed Christian influences.

Long ago, Porphyria posted an essay on HPFGU about the parallels 
between Snape and 'the satan' of the Book of Job, and in passing 
posed the question as to which figure in the books most parallels 
God.  My own answer to that question is the Hat.

I have never been able to articulate this answer fully, because to 
do so requires getting specific about God, and I saw that getting 
drowned in a welter of "*that's* not Christian, *this* is" claims 
and counter-claims.  (And of course Porphyria's essay was not even 
Christian.)

That said, I see the dialogue between the Hat and Harry as having 
some of the characteristics of dialogue between God and people 
throughout the Bible, and most especially this use of questioning to 
expose an inner decision.

The later dialogue in COS ("you *would* have done well in 
Slytherin") I see as having in common with Jesus' use of gnomic and 
mysterious sayings to make people question harder in their search 
for meaning.

The statement in OOP about the need for unity confirmed my view, 
with the Hat setting ethical guidelines that are essential for 
ultimate victory.

And, to address a point of Kneasy's, the Hat appears in the chamber 
because God's response to faith (Harry's statement about 'he's not 
as gone as you might think' is blatantly signalled as such, IMO) is 
to provide himself as the essence, as well as things (Fawkes, sword) 
as the accidents, of the answer.  IIRC, the sword appears when 
Harry 'prays' for help to the Hat.

(On a bit of a tangent, I see a link between the chamber, with its 
statue, snake, spirit-filled book, special headgear, winged 
creature, and spilt ink, and the Holy of Holies with its cherubim 
(who had wings), snake-on-a-pole, Torah, priestly clothing and blood 
sacrifice.  Ginny, of course, is Israel, for whose sake the 
sacrifice is made.  IMO.)

David






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 22 15:01:06 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:01:06 -0000
Subject: Mysteries (was: Truth, Lies and GIGO)
In-Reply-To: <d46vch+quls@...>
Message-ID: <d4b3ji+6sf1@...>


Neri wrote:

> It is the "why", "what" and "how" mysteries that
> stretch over more than one book, like (counting both solved and
> unsolved ones):
> 
> 1. Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry?
> 2. What really happened in GH?
> 3. Why was Hagrid expelled?
> 4. Why did the Sorting Hat want to put Harry in Slytherin?
> 5. Why does Snape hate James' memory?
> 6. Why does Harry's scar hurt when Voldy is angry?
> 7. What powers (besides parseltongue) were transferred to Harry in 
GH?
> 8. What was Trelawney's first true prediction?
> 9. What was the gleam in DD's eyes about?
> 10. Why did Snape change sides?
> 11a. How does Snape spy on the Death Eaters?
> 11b. Why can no teacher hold the DADA post for more than one year?
> 12. What's the story with saying Voldemort's name?
> 13. (OK, I could go on but you probably got the idea already). 

Wow!  Convergent thinking!  How deeply subversive of you! ;-)

I would add (or break out some elements of 2, if you want to think 
of it that way):

13: Why did Voldemort lose his powers and nearly die at GH?
14: Why didn't he actually die at GH?
15. What's with the locked room in the Dept of Mysteries, then?
16. Why did the Lestranges attack the Longbottoms?
17. Why didn't Dumbledore (try to) kill Voldemort at the end of OOP?

That still leaves some other GH issues for no. 2 - who was there, 
what happened to Voldemort's wand and so on.

I would categorise this excellent list as follows:

Not a mystery:

4 (see separate posts by SSS and me).

Solved in the eyes of all but the most paranoid:

3, 8.

Apparently solved but there may well be more:

1, 5, 13.

Clearly posed by the text and requiring explanation:

2, 9, 10, 11a?, 12, 14 (confirmed by JKR in a chat), 15, 16 (website 
confirms), 17 (I wouldn't have seen that as a mystery myself unless 
JKR raised it in a chat, but then I assume Dumbledore isn't in 
favour of vigilante justice).

May never be explained, or may turn out to be a red herring, i.e. 
not very clearly posed by the text:

6 ('It's a magical link resulting from the failed curse'),
7 (None, and not mentioned again),
11a (Does he, in fact, spy?),
11b (It just happens that way).

Any more?  Do you agree with the categorisations?

I have excluded (as has Neri, I believe) 'mysteries' such as What is 
the role of House-elves/life-debt/Goblins/Pettigrew's silver 
hand/Draco etc.

David






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Fri Apr 22 15:53:03 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:53:03 -0000
Subject: Truth, Lies and GIGO
In-Reply-To: <d46vch+quls@...>
Message-ID: <d4b6kv+965o@...>


Neri:
You mean, the baddies are careful not to lie too much 
because it might expose them? I'm not sure I'm convinced. 
After all, as you and Dave pointed out, these baddies DO 
lie. It just that they rarely do it by telling the lie 
explicitly. For example, Crouch Jnr. is already
pretending to be Moody, so why wouldn't he say: "they say 
I'm obsessedwith caching dark Wizards"? Instead he says: 
"they say old Mad-Eye'sobsessed with caching dark 
Wizards". This doesn't make him less of a
liar. It just makes him less of a literal liar.

Pippin:
The equivocal lies makes the stories fun to re-read. For 
example, Quirrell's "c-can't t-tell you how p-pleased I 
am to meet you." This is actually true in two literal 
senses, in that Quirrell is not pleased to meet Harry, 
and in that he has physical difficulty in saying the 
words. Of course as the phrase is usually understood, 
it's a lie. Lupin, need I add, is much given to saying 
things that could be interpreted in this manner.

Harry, who seems to be something of a natural legilimens, 
never detects this kind of lie, which makes me think that 
on the story level, the reason the baddies are so given 
to this kind of thing is that as long as they are 
convinced they are telling the truth in some sense, no 
legilimens will  detect that they are lying. That's my 
theory anyway.

Neri:
I can think offhand about only one official whodunit 
mystery in the series that was not solved in the
same book it was presented. This is of course "who heard 
half of the prophecy in the Hog's Head?" and it's really 
not surprising that it wasn't solved yet, as it was only 
presented in the chapter before last
in the last book. It is the "why", "what" and "how" 
mysteries that stretch over more than one book, like 
(counting both solved and unsolved ones):
> 
<snip excellent list>

Pippin:
I am not sure what you mean by "official" whodunnits.
If you mean, things that Harry has explicitly wondered
about, quite a few things on the what, why, how list
don't qualify either.

Here are a few who's you may have overlooked:

1. Who told McGonagall that Dumbledore would be at Privet 
Drive?
2. Who killed the unicorns?
3. Who was the hooded stranger in the Hogs Head?
4. Who passed the Riddle diary to Lucius Malfoy?
5. Who is the half-blood prince?
6. Who was Voldemort's second in command?
7. Who owns the Riddle house?
8. Who removed Voldemort's wand from Godric's Hollow
9. Who sent the Fearsome Four after the Longbottoms?
10. Who told Dumbledore that the time of Harry's
hearing had changed?

Pippin






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 23 01:04:09 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:04:09 -0000
Subject: Mysteries (was: Truth, Lies and GIGO)
In-Reply-To: <d4b3ji+6sf1@...>
Message-ID: <d4c6u9+kon6@...>


Combining posts again


Kneasy wrote in:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1585 :

> Ah, yes ...... the Hat.
> Trust and truth go hand in hand in an ideal world, but nobody 
> claims that the WW is an ideal world.
> "Never trust anything that  can think for itself if you can't see where 
> it keeps its brain." Old Ma Weasley hands us a clue there, I think.
Is it 
> a coincidence that there's a fair few artifacts fitting this
description 
> swanning round the plot?
> The Diary
> The Marauders Map
> The Mirror of Erised
> The Pensieve
> The Sorting Hat
>

Neri: 
Ah, yes... again we are at the question of Truth. The truth is, until
Kneasy brought up this subject I didn't imagine that it's so developed
in the series. This time it's the Truth of magical devices, rather
than of characters. Do they lie?

>From the World Book Day chat
http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20040304.html :

Arianna: Can we believe everything the sorting hat says?

JKR: The Sorting Hat is certainly sincere.


And here's a quote regarding the Marauder's Map, this time from one of
the makers:


PoA, Ch. 18, p. 351 US:
"Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter," said Lupin, nodding. "I
believed it myself ? until I saw the map tonight. Because the
Marauder's map never lies... Peter's alive. Ron's holding him, Harry."


Interesting how he words this, isn't it? He doesn't say "the map is
never wrong" but "the map never lies". Might magical devises in the
Potterverse, like the baddies, be obsessed with Truth?



Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1588

> I am not sure what you mean by "official" whodunnits.
> If you mean, things that Harry has explicitly wondered
> about, quite a few things on the what, why, how list
> don't qualify either.
> 
> Here are a few who's you may have overlooked:
> 
> 1. Who told McGonagall that Dumbledore would be at Privet 
> Drive?
> 2. Who killed the unicorns?
> 3. Who was the hooded stranger in the Hogs Head?
> 4. Who passed the Riddle diary to Lucius Malfoy?
> 5. Who is the half-blood prince?
> 6. Who was Voldemort's second in command?
> 7. Who owns the Riddle house?
> 8. Who removed Voldemort's wand from Godric's Hollow
> 9. Who sent the Fearsome Four after the Longbottoms?
> 10. Who told Dumbledore that the time of Harry's
> hearing had changed?
>

Neri:
Well, I actually used different criteria for solved and unsolved
mysteries. For the solved ones, I mentioned those that were solved in
a spectacular way, making them "official" in hindsight. Of course, you
can claim that some of your whodunit mysteries might achieve such
status in the future, but the point is: they didn't achieve it yet,
because as far as I can remember there simply aren't any whodunit
mysteries that lasted for more than one book and were already solved.

Well, we do have "who is the barman in the Hog's Head" but we don't
know that JKR hoped to solve it in a spectacular way. I hope not <g>.
Anyway I wouldn't classify it as a whodunit although it is a "who"
question.
	
"Who is the Half-Blood Prince?" I don't consider as lasting over more
than one book, since it was not presented in OotP. In fact we don't
even know that it will be a mystery at all. There wasn't any real
mystery who the prisoner of Azkaban was, for example. 

For the unsolved mysteries I used mainly the criterion that Harry
and/or one of the characters explicitly raises this question.
Admittedly, the questions of "what was the gleam in DD's eyes about"
and "what additional powers Harry got from Voldy?" don't fit this
criterion, but I think most fans would agree that they are central
mysteries nonetheless. OK, perhaps we need a better criterion for
considering an unsolved mystery significant. How about this one:
imagine for a moment that by the end of the series it was not solved
in a resounding way. If you'd consider this a major bungle of JKR then
the mystery is significant.

Regarding your mystery "Who sent the Lestranges after the
Longbottoms?" it was only presented after OotP and even then not in an
official way. It all depends on this "sent" word that was brought up
by a fan to begin with.  If using only the information in GoF and OotP
I think most fans would "officially" state this question as a why
mystery (see No. 16 in David's post): "Why did the Lestranges attack
the Longbottoms?" or, if you buy Bella's answer, "why did the
Lestranges think that the Longbottoms know where Vapormort is?" 

Regardless of your criteria, I think you'll find that "what" and "why"
mysteries overtake by far the classic whodunit mysteries in the long
run, while the whodunit mysteries ARE central within each book.

It's really not surprising if we remember one big limitation of
whodunit mysteries: the answer must be one out of a very limited list
of options. If there must be a big ESE then the list of suspects is
quite short, so you can get to the answer by a bit of elimination and
a little luck. Why, What and How mysteries offer a much greater
breadth of possibilities. They take us out of the clich? mystery
formula. This is where both the author and theorist can exercise their
creativity.


David wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1587 :

> Wow!  Convergent thinking!  How deeply subversive of you! ;-)

Neri:
Do you mean to say that I'm following Cantor's advice? It was not
intentional...


> David:
> I would add (or break out some elements of 2, if you want to think 
> of it that way):
> 
> 13: Why did Voldemort lose his powers and nearly die at GH?
> 14: Why didn't he actually die at GH?
> 15. What's with the locked room in the Dept of Mysteries, then?
> 16. Why did the Lestranges attack the Longbottoms?
> 17. Why didn't Dumbledore (try to) kill Voldemort at the end of OOP?
> 
> That still leaves some other GH issues for no. 2 - who was there, 
> what happened to Voldemort's wand and so on.
> 
> I would categorise this excellent list as follows:
> 
> Not a mystery:
> 
> 4 (see separate posts by SSS and me).
> 
> Solved in the eyes of all but the most paranoid:
> 
> 3, 8.
> 
> Apparently solved but there may well be more:
> 
> 1, 5, 13.
> 
> Clearly posed by the text and requiring explanation:
> 
> 2, 9, 10, 11a?, 12, 14 (confirmed by JKR in a chat), 15, 16 (website 
> confirms), 17 (I wouldn't have seen that as a mystery myself unless 
> JKR raised it in a chat, but then I assume Dumbledore isn't in 
> favour of vigilante justice).
> 
> May never be explained, or may turn out to be a red herring, i.e. 
> not very clearly posed by the text:
> 
> 6 ('It's a magical link resulting from the failed curse'),
> 7 (None, and not mentioned again),
> 11a (Does he, in fact, spy?),
> 11b (It just happens that way).
> 
> Any more?  Do you agree with the categorisations?


Neri: 
I think we're already finding that establishing any "official" list
would be very complicate and potentially misleading (although I
personally agree with most of your categorization). There are many
if-then nodes, and the way we choose to state a mystery might lead us
astray when trying to solve it. I wouldn't actually presume to come up
with such a list. My original point was more to demonstrate that with
any reasonable list using any reasonable criteria, the "what" and
"why" mysteries easily overtake the classic whodunit mysteries in the
long run.

Neri







From catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid  Sat Apr 23 20:15:39 2005
From: catlady at catlady_de_los_angeles.yahoo.invalid (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 20:15:39 -0000
Subject: DD's mentorship unknown / The Sorting Hat / Pippin's list of mysteries
Message-ID: <d4eadb+oboh@...>


BTW I'm NOT a scientist and I am NO GOOD at math. I'm a college
drop-out who became a COBOL programmer.

GulPlum wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the
_old_crowd/message/1572:

<< Dumbledore has three basic roles within the plot, of increasing
importance to himself: headmaster of Hogwarts (whilst he's an
essentially inspirational role model for the staff and pupils, let's
face it: he's a pretty crap administrator), mentor to Harry (one of my
major disappointments with OotP was that a significant element of the
plot hinged on the Magical world in general, and Voldemort in
particular, being unaware of this, which I find ludicrous) >>

You wrote a lovely essay on truthfulness and villainy that inspired a
long, thoughtful thread, and my only reply is: please explain how the
plot of OoP hinged on Voldemort being unaware that DD is HP's mentor.
As for 'the Magical world in general', they believed whatever the
Daily Prophet wrote: on Mondays that DD was so senile that he was
inadvertently deceived by a totally loony child's delusions, on
Tuesdays that senile DD was advertently deceived by an evil child's
lies, on Wednesdays that DD wanted to have a coup and become Dictator,
for which purpose he coached a foolish, trusting child to lie, on
Thursdays that DD, desiring his coup, took advantage of the loony
child's convenient delusions, on Fridays that coupmeister DD and the
evil child had planned the whole thing together. (Saturdays and
Sundays being devoted to Quidditch round-up.)

Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/1585 :

<< implies that the final decision is open to discussion. This is in
fact what happens with Harry, to a certain extent with Hermione
(seriously considered as Ravenclaw) and it spent a long time
considering what to do with Neville. The text gives the impression
that the other sortees were pretty much cut and dried. >>

IIRC the Hat spent 'almost a minute' Sorting Seamus. I feel that must
be a clue that Something is Up with Seamus, but I can't figure out
what.

My own baseless certainty is that the Hat wanted right away to be put
Neville in Gryffindor and it was Neville who kept arguing for
Hufflepuff, until the Hat silenced him by pointing out that he had the
courage to argue with an ancient and powerful magical artifact.

It is well known that I agree with SSSusan and Dave that the Hat never
*tried* to put Harry in Slytherin. I go further than they do by
thinking that the Hat never *offered* to put Harry in Slytherin. I
think it was just playfully teasing him, in response to his 'Not
Slytherin!'.

Dave Frankis's explanation of the Sorting Hat representing God in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1586 is quite
wonderful even if my theory that the Hat was just teasing appears to
contradict it.

Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
old_crowd/message/1588 :

<< 1. Who told McGonagall that Dumbledore would be at Privet
Drive?
2. Who killed the unicorns?
3. Who was the hooded stranger in the Hogs Head?
4. Who passed the Riddle diary to Lucius Malfoy?
5. Who is the half-blood prince?
6. Who was Voldemort's second in command?
7. Who owns the Riddle house?
8. Who removed Voldemort's wand from Godric's Hollow
9. Who sent the Fearsome Four after the Longbottoms?
10. Who told Dumbledore that the time of Harry's
hearing had changed? >>

What does this list mean! I can't see how these could *all* be part of
the ESE!Lupin theory. I think that Lupin couldn't have had anything to
do with killing the unicorns (surely Quirrelmort did it?) because he
had not yet been introduced as a character. ESE or ESG Lupin would
have had *motive* to tell DD that the time of HP's heading had
changed, but how would he have known it? He was on no closer terms to
Fudge and Wizengamot members than DD was! 






From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 14:24:51 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 14:24:51 -0000
Subject: Mysteries (was: Truth, Lies and GIGO)
In-Reply-To: <d4c6u9+kon6@...>
Message-ID: <d4ga7j+s445@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:

> Ah, yes... again we are at the question of Truth. The truth is, until
> Kneasy brought up this subject I didn't imagine that it's so developed
> in the series. This time it's the Truth of magical devices, rather
> than of characters. Do they lie?
> 
> From the World Book Day chat
> http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20040304.html :
> 
> Arianna: Can we believe everything the sorting hat says?
> 
> JKR: The Sorting Hat is certainly sincere.
> 
> 
> And here's a quote regarding the Marauder's Map, this time from one of
> the makers:
> 
> 
> PoA, Ch. 18, p. 351 US:
> "Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter," said Lupin, nodding. "I
> believed it myself ? until I saw the map tonight. Because the
> Marauder's map never lies... Peter's alive. Ron's holding him, Harry."
> 
> 
> Interesting how he words this, isn't it? He doesn't say "the map is
> never wrong" but "the map never lies". Might magical devises in the
> Potterverse, like the baddies, be obsessed with Truth?
> 
> 
> 

Hmm. "The Truth shall set  ye Free".
Perhaps.

Like yourself (or so I assume) I'm having increasing reservations about
some of the stuff that these so-called inanimate objects present to us.
So much so that I'm tending to consider them as being capable of being
as truthful or misleading as the Prophecy. They may not lie but the truth
they tell may not be as obvious as it appears at first sight. Interpretation
may well be advisable, especially since we generally are limited to Harry's
view who, let's face it, is pretty good at jumping to conclusions. Add in 
the possibility that there are individuals who have reason to skew  what
Harry and therefore we see and potentially we have a real rat's nest. 
Lovely!  

All in all the centaurs may be the best paradigm for the discerning reader.
"The planets have been read wrongly before now, even by centaurs." 

The Forbidden Forest/Centaur episode in PS/SS gives us the impression
that the centaurs believed that Harry should have been left to the tender 
mercies of Quirrell!Mort (and therefore probably death) because to
interfere would be to thwart the future *as they read it* in the stars. Harry
gives confirmation (as he sees it):

"Firenze saved me, but he shouldn't have done ... Bane was furious ... he
was talking about interfering with what the planets say is going to happen 
... they must show Voldemort's coming back ... Bane thinks Firenze should
have let Voldemort kill me ... I suppose that's written in the stars as well."

(Note that the "they must show Voldemort's coming back" is Harry's making
an assumption (though a  reasonable one). Although we know that Voldy
could probably not have killed Harry - there's that protection that at the
time neither he nor we knew about. Nor did the centaurs. Mm. Would later 
events be significantly altered if Voldy had dis-corporated in the Forest 
rather than in the dungeons?
Far fetched but intriguing. Did Firenze's in some way act *ensure* Voldy's 
return? 
Experts on cause, effect and unintended consequences might like to comment.)

OK. The centaur episode - which way do you want to take it?
1. It's a clue - Voldy will kill Harry at some time in the future even though
characters attempt to deny the inevitable.
2. It's a clue - no forecast or prophecy is an inevitability and the interference
of Firenze (and others in other situations?) has nullified the future as foretold.

If the latter then how many of the 'givens' of the plot can we be confident of?
If the former - it'd be nice to know exactly what the stars said, wouldn't it?

Kneasy








From severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 15:55:24 2005
From: severelysigune at severelysigune.yahoo.invalid (Eva Thienpont)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:55:24 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] Re: Mysteries (was: Truth, Lies and GIGO)
In-Reply-To: <d4ga7j+s445@...>
Message-ID: <20050424155524.67527.qmail@...>



Kneasy wrote:

<snip>


The Forbidden Forest/Centaur episode in PS/SS gives us the impression
that the centaurs believed that Harry should have been left to the tender 
mercies of Quirrell!Mort (and therefore probably death) because to
interfere would be to thwart the future *as they read it* in the stars. Harry
gives confirmation (as he sees it):

"Firenze saved me, but he shouldn't have done ... Bane was furious ... he
was talking about interfering with what the planets say is going to happen 
... they must show Voldemort's coming back ... Bane thinks Firenze should
have let Voldemort kill me ... I suppose that's written in the stars as well."


<snip>

OK. The centaur episode - which way do you want to take it?
1. It's a clue - Voldy will kill Harry at some time in the future even though
characters attempt to deny the inevitable.
2. It's a clue - no forecast or prophecy is an inevitability and the interference
of Firenze (and others in other situations?) has nullified the future as foretold.

If the latter then how many of the 'givens' of the plot can we be confident of?
If the former - it'd be nice to know exactly what the stars said, wouldn't it?

 

Sigune probably states the obvious, as usual:

It certainly would be. Because if HP is anything like the classic stories about prophecies and predictions, it probably means that option 1 is the case, and that Firenze *had to save Harry* in order for Harry to be properly killed by Voldemort - presumably because in PS/SS Voldie was not yet strong enough/in the occasion to destroy Harry, whereas he may in one of the two future books find a means to do so effectively.

Interfering with the intention of avoiding the inevitable usually leads to the dreaded fact occurring precisely because of the interference - at least it does in the Oedipus kind of story.


Needless to say, I would favour a less determinist cause of events :-). 

Yours severely,

Sigune


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

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




From heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 17:13:06 2005
From: heidi8 at heiditandy.yahoo.invalid (heiditandy)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:13:06 -0000
Subject: OT, Personal: New Baby
Message-ID: <d4gk32+n2u7@...>


Some of you already know, but I wanted to post about it here too- on
April 14, Aaron & I welcomed the birth of our third child - Catherine
Sabrina. She was born at 2:42 PM after about 7-8 hours of labour (I
was induced, sigh) and she is incredibly beautiful. I do post photos
on my LJ (heidi8.livejournal.com) sometimes, but I've also uploaded a
picture to the photo album here: 

http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=BabyCatherine.jpg&.src=gr


She was 7lbs 3oz, but has already gained quite a bit from that, and is
about 20 inches long, now that she's uncurled a bit. And she is
completely delicious!

Heidi (off to grab some lunch before she wakes)






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 19:18:59 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:18:59 -0000
Subject: OT, Personal: New Baby
In-Reply-To: <d4gk32+n2u7@...>
Message-ID: <d4grf3+3f3e@...>


Heidi wrote:

> Some of you already know, but I wanted to post about it here too- on
> April 14, Aaron & I welcomed the birth of our third child - Catherine
> Sabrina. 

Congratulations!  She looks lovely.

David






From pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 21:41:53 2005
From: pbnesbit at harpdreamer.yahoo.invalid (Parker Brown Nesbit)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:41:53 -0400
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT, Personal: New Baby
In-Reply-To: <d4gk32+n2u7@...>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F61773CE1C0528B943E060D02F0@...>

Heidi wrote:


>Some of you already know, but I wanted to post about it here too- on
>April 14, Aaron & I welcomed the birth of our third child

(Snip)

Congratulations to *all* of you.  She is absolutely beautiful!

Parker





From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 22:27:34 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:27:34 -0000
Subject: OT, Personal: New Baby
In-Reply-To: <d4gk32+n2u7@...>
Message-ID: <d4h6gm+bnuh@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "heiditandy" <heidi8 at g...> wrote:
> 
> Some of you already know, but I wanted to post about it here too- on
> April 14, Aaron & I welcomed the birth of our third child - Catherine
> Sabrina.

Pippin:
Awwwwww! Congratulations to all ::melts::
Pippin






From pt4ever at pt4ever.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 23:37:17 2005
From: pt4ever at pt4ever.yahoo.invalid (JoAnna Wahlund)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT, Personal: New Baby
In-Reply-To: 6667
Message-ID: <20050424233717.51556.qmail@...>

Congratulations on the new Harry Potter fan!  :)  She is beautiful!

--- heiditandy <heidi8 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Some of you already know, but I wanted to post about it here too- on
> April 14, Aaron & I welcomed the birth of our third child - Catherine
> Sabrina. She was born at 2:42 PM after about 7-8 hours of labour (I
> was induced, sigh) and she is incredibly beautiful. I do post photos
> on my LJ (heidi8.livejournal.com) sometimes, but I've also uploaded a
> picture to the photo album here: 
> 
>
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/vwp?.dir=/&.dnm=BabyCatherine.jpg&.src=gr
> 
> 
> She was 7lbs 3oz, but has already gained quite a bit from that, and is
> about 20 inches long, now that she's uncurled a bit. And she is
> completely delicious!
> 
> Heidi (off to grab some lunch before she wakes)
> 
> 
> 
> 

~JoAnna~ 

 
Elly was born on 01/13/05.
Visit Elanor's website for pictures and updates! 
http://www.geocities.com/j_wahlund







__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From voicelady at the_voicelady.yahoo.invalid  Sun Apr 24 21:15:53 2005
From: voicelady at the_voicelady.yahoo.invalid (voicelady)
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:15:53 EDT
Subject: [the_old_crowd] OT, Personal: New Baby
Message-ID: <id.24042005171553.00000@FPE>

Congratulations on your new joy, Heidi!

-Jeralyn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi wrote:

<Some of you already know, but I wanted to post about it here too- on April 14, Aaron & I welcomed the birth of our third child - Catherine Sabrina.>



From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 25 01:46:53 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:46:53 -0000
Subject: DD's mentorship unknown / The Sorting Hat / Pippin's list of mysteries
In-Reply-To: <d4eadb+oboh@...>
Message-ID: <d4hi6d+acft@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at w...> 
wrote:
>> Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_
> old_crowd/message/1588 :
> 
> << 1. Who told McGonagall that Dumbledore would be at Privet
> Drive?
> 2. Who killed the unicorns?
> 3. Who was the hooded stranger in the Hogs Head?
> 4. Who passed the Riddle diary to Lucius Malfoy?
> 5. Who is the half-blood prince?
> 6. Who was Voldemort's second in command?
> 7. Who owns the Riddle house?
> 8. Who removed Voldemort's wand from Godric's Hollow
> 9. Who sent the Fearsome Four after the Longbottoms?
> 10. Who told Dumbledore that the time of Harry's
> hearing had changed? >>
> 
> What does this list mean! I can't see how these could *all* be part
of
> the ESE!Lupin theory. I think that Lupin couldn't have had anything
to
> do with killing the unicorns (surely Quirrelmort did it?) because he
> had not yet been introduced as a character. ESE or ESG Lupin would
> have had *motive* to tell DD that the time of HP's heading had
> changed, but how would he have known it? He was on no closer terms
to
> Fudge and Wizengamot members than DD was!


Pippin:
The list wasn't all ESE!Lupin, it was loose 
ends with a "who". 

Numbers  7 and  10 are not  part of ESE!Lupin.  I 
haven't a clue who owns the Riddle house, but I 
think Percy tipped off Dumbledore about the hearing.
Number 1 is tricky. McGonagall _says_ Hagrid told 
her that Dumbledore would be at Privet Drive, but if 
that's true, why didn't she know for certain that 
the Potters were dead? Sirius says that he saw the 
bodies, so Hagrid must have seen them too...unless 
the person who  insisted on claiming Harry and 
gave Hagrid the motorcycle, thus placing Sirius 
beyond doubt at the scene of the crime, wasn't 
Sirius at all.

Lupin, although not introduced as a character until 
Book Three, was conceived of earlier. Rowling is on 
record as saying she was looking forward to Book 
Three because Lupin was in it.

 Harry asks if a werewolf could have killed the 
unicorns. I think that's a hint, though the answer 
is negative. Hagrid must be thinking of a werewolf 
in its transformed state when he says "Not fast 
enough", but since there were two slayings about a 
week apart, a transformed werewolf could not have 
been responsible in any case. I suppose Hagrid 
didn't want to point up Harry's ignorance in front 
of his friends.

 Presumably the second slaying was necessary because 
Hagrid found the body of the first unicorn before it 
could be drained of blood. Quirrellmort is heard 
begging Voldemort not to make him do something 
again,  but if he was in such a weakened state that 
he needed to drink unicorn blood to sustain himself, 
how could he have managed to kill such a powerful 
magical creature on his own?

I agree with Neri that at this point it's impossible 
to know which loose ends are inadvertent, which have 
been left dangling to be caught up with a flourish 
and tied in a bow, and which innocent seeming 
strands will prove to be  loose with a loud 
*sproing* and catch the unwary reader by surprise. 

Neri asked about multibook whodunnits.
The multi-part mystery goes all the way back to 
Sherlock Holmes, but for the whodunnit saga
in novelistic chunks I suppose we can blame
George Unwin's (Tolkien's publisher, 
who insisted, Caesarlike, on dividing LOTR into 
three parts) influence on George Lucas. Neri is perhaps
too young to have agonized over whether Ben Kenobi 
or Darth Vader was telling the truth  about who 
murdered Luke's father, but we ancients spent years in 
doubt. 

Pippin






From dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 25 10:23:36 2005
From: dfrankiswork at davewitley.yahoo.invalid (davewitley)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:23:36 -0000
Subject: Unicorn blood
In-Reply-To: <d4hi6d+acft@...>
Message-ID: <d4igf8+89j2@...>


Pippin wrote:

>  Quirrellmort is heard 
> begging Voldemort not to make him do something 
> again,  but if he was in such a weakened state that 
> he needed to drink unicorn blood to sustain himself, 
> how could he have managed to kill such a powerful 
> magical creature on his own?

I have always read this that Voldemort needed the blood, not 
Quirrell.  The mystery to me, therefore, is how to drink with the back 
of your head.

In any case, we need to eat to sustain ourselves, but as long as we 
are prompt about it, we never get weak - why should an additional 
requirement for unicorn blood be any different?

David






From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 25 19:20:44 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:20:44 -0000
Subject: Unicorn blood
In-Reply-To: <d4igf8+89j2@...>
Message-ID: <d4jfuc+evut@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley"
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> Pippin wrote:
> 
> >  Quirrellmort is heard 
> > begging Voldemort not to make him do something 
> > again,  but if he was in such a weakened state that 
> > he needed to drink unicorn blood to sustain himself, 
> > how could he have managed to kill such a powerful 
> > magical creature on his own?
> 
> I have always read this that Voldemort needed the blood, not 
> Quirrell.  The mystery to me, therefore, is how to drink with the
back 
> of your head.
> 
Pippin:
I am not sure how serious you are about this comment, but anyway
Harry saw Quirrell stand up and face him with blood dribbling down
his front. I think Harry would have noticed if Quirrell's knees and
elbows were back to front.

David:
> In any case, we need to eat to sustain ourselves, but as long as we 
> are prompt about it, we never get weak - why should an additional 
> requirement for unicorn blood be any different?

Pippin:
Post GoF, I read it as Quirrell needing to drink the blood for
Voldemort's sake so that he  could survive possession and continue to
host Voldie. According to Firenze, the blood will keep you alive if you 
are "an inch from death" and we saw that Quirrellmort was not up to 
attacking  an unarmed centaur much less a unicorn. I got the 
impression  that the unicorn blood was a last resort. But I could 
be wrong.

Pippin 






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Mon Apr 25 22:09:23 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:09:23 -0000
Subject: Mysteries (was: Truth, Lies and GIGO)
In-Reply-To: <d4ga7j+s445@...>
Message-ID: <d4jpqj+rk9l@...>


Kneasy wrote:
> <snipped>
> All in all the centaurs may be the best paradigm for the discerning
reader.
> "The planets have been read wrongly before now, even by centaurs." 
> 
> The Forbidden Forest/Centaur episode in PS/SS gives us the impression
> that the centaurs believed that Harry should have been left to the
tender 
> mercies of Quirrell!Mort (and therefore probably death) because to
> interfere would be to thwart the future *as they read it* in the
stars. Harry
> gives confirmation (as he sees it):
> 
> "Firenze saved me, but he shouldn't have done ... Bane was furious
... he
> was talking about interfering with what the planets say is going to
happen 
> ... they must show Voldemort's coming back ... Bane thinks Firenze
should
> have let Voldemort kill me ... I suppose that's written in the stars
as well."
> 
> (Note that the "they must show Voldemort's coming back" is Harry's
making
> an assumption (though a  reasonable one). Although we know that Voldy
> could probably not have killed Harry - there's that protection that
at the
> time neither he nor we knew about. Nor did the centaurs. Mm. Would
later 
> events be significantly altered if Voldy had dis-corporated in the
Forest 
> rather than in the dungeons?
> Far fetched but intriguing. Did Firenze's in some way act *ensure*
Voldy's 
> return? 
> Experts on cause, effect and unintended consequences might like to
comment.)
> 
> OK. The centaur episode - which way do you want to take it?
> 1. It's a clue - Voldy will kill Harry at some time in the future
even though
> characters attempt to deny the inevitable.
> 2. It's a clue - no forecast or prophecy is an inevitability and the
interference
> of Firenze (and others in other situations?) has nullified the
future as foretold.
> 
> If the latter then how many of the 'givens' of the plot can we be
confident of?
> If the former - it'd be nice to know exactly what the stars said,
wouldn't it?


Neri:
The dilemma you pointed is actually even worse because of JKR's use,
or rather un-use, of Firenze in OotP. The Firenze subplot in OotP
simply doesn't go anywhere. It's one reason out of many why OotP was a
bit disappointing, a transitional book rather than standing by itself.
Why put a rebellious centaur as a divination teacher at Hogwarts when
he does not alter the plot of the book in any way, nor teaches us
anything substantial? The only reason I can think of is as a
preparation for Books 6 and 7. There are two possible roles that I see
Firenze playing in these books: he can help reinterpreting the
prophecy, and he can help recruit the centaurs as allies if they can
get over their fatalism and separationism.   

Your dilemma is the classic paradox between Fate and Choice: if the
prophecy and the positions of the stars are true, what's the point of
trying to alter them? If they aren't, then they're all just a bunch of
red herrings. Since I doubt JKR believes in Fate and prophecies in RL,
the dilemma here is literary rather than philosophical. You've pointed
yourself at the elegant solution from the literary POV: the positions
of the stars and the prophecy ARE true, and it's only their
interpretation by mere humans (and mere centaurs) that is incorrect.
This is what Firenze suggests when saying "The planets have been read
wrongly before now, even by centaurs" and he repeats and stresses this
in his lesson in OotP: "...and finished by telling them that it was
foolish to put much faith in such things anyway, because even centaurs
sometimes read them wrongly <snip> His priority did not seem to be to
tell them what he knew, but rather to impress upon them that nothing,
not even centaur knowledge, is foolproof". Firenze never says the
signs aren't true, he says the centaurs might be reading them wrongly. 

This is similar to the way the baddies speak literal Truth and let us
interpret it in the wrong way. The magical devices do the same. The
map doesn't lie when saying that "Bartemious Crouch" is in Snape's
office. It just lets Harry and us jump to the conclusion that it's the
Crouch we know. A very smart reader who reads this for the first time,
and remembers Lupin's assertion that "the map never lies" can realize
that this person might not be the Bartemious Crouch that we know, BUT
it must be a Bartemious Crouch. From this realization solving the GoF
mystery would have been possible. OTOH, this hypothetical smart reader
could also say with perfect logic: "well, we have no guarantee that
Lupin didn't lie when he said the map never lies", and he could even
support this with several suspicious canon details about the map (such
as why the twins never saw Peter!Scabbers in the Gryffindor
dormitories or why Lupin didn't see him in Hagrid's hut). But the
conclusion that would be drawn from this is that it might be any
person in Snape's office, or no person at all. This wouldn't be fair
play by JKR, and it wouldn't be a fun puzzle to solve. Assuming the
map can lie would have prevented the hypothetical reader from solving
the GoF mystery because he wouldn't have enough information. In a
similar way, if the prophecy is incorrect, or faked by DD, then
there's probably not enough information to solve the main mystery and
it's not fun. If JKR plays fair then the prophecy is true, but not
necessarily in the sense we think it is.
 
The centaurs represent fatalism, and Firenze is a rebel who made the
Choice to interfere and do what he thinks is right, even if he'd be
banned for it. He interferes not because he has an alternative
interpretation to the stars that he thinks is the correct one. It
seems he doesn't know how to interpret them in a way that would
justify his choice. Nor is he a rebel to the point of thinking that
the stars predict nothing and centaur knowledge is complete rubbish.
Basically he's just doing what's right, and hopes that the orthodox
interpretation is somehow incorrect.

And I'd add: if DD knows (or thinks he knows) what he's doing, why
does he need a baffled centaur as a pet prophet? I suspect DD might be
as baffled as Firenze.

Neri
 







From foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 27 14:12:32 2005
From: foxmoth at pippin_999.yahoo.invalid (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:12:32 -0000
Subject: Firenze in OOP
In-Reply-To: <d4jpqj+rk9l@...>
Message-ID: <d4o6kg+5h8r@...>


Neri:
 The dilemma you pointed is actually even worse because of JKR's use,
 or rather un-use, of Firenze in OotP. The Firenze subplot in OotP
 simply doesn't go anywhere. It's one reason out of many why OotP was
a bit disappointing, a transitional book rather than standing by
itself.
 Why put a rebellious centaur as a divination teacher at Hogwarts when
 he does not alter the plot of the book in any way, nor teaches us
 anything substantial? The only reason I can think of is as a
 preparation for Books 6 and 7. There are two possible roles that I
see Firenze playing in these books: he can help reinterpreting the
 prophecy, and he can help recruit the centaurs as allies if they can
 get over their fatalism and separationism.

Pippin:
Firenze has  a couple of functions in the OOP plot 
besides balancing out Fleur as eye candy <g>. The 
centaurs' attempt to kill him sets us up for their 
attack on Harry and Hermione. His explanations about 
prophecy don't provide Harry much of a practical 
nature but they do establish that though Trelawney is 
a fraud, divination itself, as distinguished from mere 
fortune-telling, is not. This is essential to the reader
accepting that Dumbledore and Voldemort  took the 
first prophecy seriously despite its dubious source. 

Pippin






From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 27 16:33:06 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:33:06 -0000
Subject: Time Travel/Prophecy/Testimony/Sorting Hat/Kreacher/Mentor/Unicorn Blood
Message-ID: <d4oes2+ku40@...>


Talisman noticed:
>>So, Rowling is in for a round of debunking, eh? And, it seems she's
heard a bit of whisper about "time-traveing" characters, but she's
willing to put associated theories to rest by assuring us that "NONE
of the characters in the books has returned from the future."

Well, does anyone else hear the roar of what she isn't saying? Why
not just say that none of the characters (excepting the obvious)in
the books is a visitor from another time? Why not rule out someone
from the past?
<<

Anne:
I did notice the same thing, but I had another thought also.

I can't help but wonder if she had decided that time travel is only
possible to the past; it's an idea I had quite a while back.  From our
point of view, the past is something somewhat concrete that you can
imagine going to, but the future is hazy and undecided yet.  There's
no canon evidence for this at all, of course, but it would explain the
one-sidedness of her statement.

In general, I think she can't always remember the difference between
what she knows about the Potterverse and what we know.  I mean, she
knows the difference *exists,* but it must be hard to keep track
without all those charts and things she plots the chapters with.

Catlady, on the prophecy:
>>I am a naively trusting reader, but I was quite disappointed in the
Prophecy. I had formed the opinion at the end of PS/SS that DD was
concealing a Prophecy known to LV that LV will die only when HP gives
his life to kill LV. It'd be tough to tell a child that the only way
to save the (wizarding) world is for him to die. If the child didn't
have Harry's heroic nature, he might decide that his life is more
valuable than those of all those other people, and run away to (ahem)
live as a Muggle. 
<<

Anne:
Well, judging by Harry's reaction, dying and killing are about as bad
to him, and of course, some readers believe "either" means "both"
anyway.  Still, telling a child he has to kill may have worried DD as
much as telling him he has to die would have.  I wonder how it changes
an eleven-year-old to grow up believing he was destined to kill his
enemy?  Would he grow a bit too used to the idea?  Would he actually
have attempted to AK Bellatrix in the Atrium?  Or have tried to kill
LV in an earlier encounter before he was ready?

About Mrs Figg's testimony:
>>Talisman:
> Alas, along came Rowling who told us quite
> unambiguously: "Incidently, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors
> that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical
> knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the
> alleyway." (JKR's Site/Extra Stuff /Misc./SQUIBS.)

Pippin:
Figgy's evidence would have been more convincing if she hadn't lied.
That, I think, is the moral message of the author.
>>

Anne:
Nobody seems to take into account the nature of the hearing.  This was
a kangaroo court, and Harry was supposed to be railroaded into
expulsion.  In my humble moral opinion, once Fudge had dispensed with
the rules, the rules are off, including whatever the rules are about
lying in court.  Not only is it excusable to lie to protect Harrys'
life, but it's excusable to lie, period, to avoid any and all
consequences of being railroaded.

Figgy's evidence may have been more convincing to an impartial judge
if she hadn't lied.  On the other hand, Fudge's agenda is not to be
convinced of the truth; Fudge's agenda is to wangle a conviction.  Any
excuse for him to impugn the worth of the evidence is dangerous.  It's
a crapshoot: does she lie in case mere feelings aren't enough, or will
the lie be unconvincing enough to ruin her credibility?

SSSusan on Harry's sorting:
>>This one drives me nuts whenever I see it. I never understand how it
gets phrased this way -- that the Sorting Hat *wanted* to put Harry in
Slytherin. In my reading, the SH offered up the information that Harry
would do WELL in Slytherin. It seemed to me to be more of an
invitation for Harry to consider where he wanted to go, what mattered
to him the most, perhaps even playing devil's advocate. But I don't
see that it *wanted* to put him there.

**********************************************************
"Difficult. Very difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind
either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes -- and a nice thirst to
prove yourself, now that's interesting.... So where shall I put you?"

Harry gripped the edges of the stool and thought, Not Slytherin, not
Slytherin.

"Not Slytherin, eh?" said the small voice. "Are you sure? You could be
great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help
you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that -- no? Well, if
you're sure -- better be GRYFFINDOR!" [US hardback, p. 121]
*****************************************************************
<<

Anne:
Exactly.  Apparently, the Hat merely agrees with Dumbledore: "It is
our choices, Harry, that **show** what we truly are, far more than our
abilities."  The Hat first examines Harry's abilities, then his
choice, then sorts him into Gryffindor.  The choice is the more
important part of the input, not something that interfered with the
output.

Face it, he's a Gryff.

Then Kneasy:
>>Q. So where does the Hat keep its brain?
A. Between DD's ears.

Not all the time of course. Mostly it's in default mode, bits of the
original
four cooperating in plonking grubby little tykes into Houses best suited
to their traits or potential.
"There's nothing hidden in your head
The Sorting Hat can't see,
So try me on and I will tell you
Where you ought to be." (PS/SS)
<<

Anne:
I'm not actually worried that Harry's sorting (or any of them, the
Marauders included) was interfered with. "Sometimes, Harry noticed,
the Hat shouted out the house at once, but at others it took a little
while to decide." Apparently, little conversations were not unusual. 
But...

Reading this, I immediately got a mental picture of Dumbledore, back
in his office after the Feast, plunking that Hat on his own head and
picking all the Firsties' brains with it.

Though JKR would probably tell me, "how dare you!"

Neri:
>>I can think offhand about only one official whodunit
mystery in the series that was not solved in the
same book it was presented. This is of course "who heard
half of the prophecy in the Hog's Head?" and it's really
not surprising that it wasn't solved yet, as it was only
presented in the chapter before last
in the last book.
<<

Anne:
Would "Was Kreacher poisoning Sirius" count as a multi-book whodunit?
 There is a lot in the text that is so suggestive.  Granted, it's not
a "who," it's a "did he?" but it has more of the feel of a whodunit
than of a "why" "how" and "what" question.

Catlady responding to GulPlum:
>>You wrote a lovely essay on truthfulness and villainy that inspired a
long, thoughtful thread, and my only reply is: please explain how the
plot of OoP hinged on Voldemort being unaware that DD is HP's mentor.
<<

Anne:
Since it's been a while, I'll presume to give an answer: Dumbledore
explained to Harry at the end that the whole reason he had barely even
looked at Harry all year was that, if LV suspected their relationship
had ever been more than that of Headmaster and student, then LV would
have tried to use the scar link to spy on Dumbledore; he would have
tried to possess Harry earlier.  And of course, DD leaving Harry alone
drives the plot.

However, as far as I can see, DD never was much more than a headmaster
to Harry, at least from Harry's POV.  Maybe Harry is the only student
DD visits and explains things to after an attack, but we and Harry
don't know that one way or another.  I wonder if he ever visited
Colin, Justin, and Hermione after the mandrake potion revived them
from petrification?  In GoF, DD didn't mentor Harry, he debriefed him.
 Even though he let Harry stay for Crouch Jr's Veritaserum interview,
he did as much for Winky.

David:
>>> In any case, we need to eat to sustain ourselves, but as long as we
> are prompt about it, we never get weak - why should an additional
> requirement for unicorn blood be any different?

Pippin:
Post GoF, I read it as Quirrell needing to drink the blood for
Voldemort's sake so that he could survive possession and continue to
host Voldie. According to Firenze, the blood will keep you alive if you
are "an inch from death" and we saw that Quirrellmort was not up to
attacking an unarmed centaur much less a unicorn. I got the
impression that the unicorn blood was a last resort. But I could
be wrong.
<<

Anne:
Perhaps is was just prudence to avoid the centaur.  Attacking the
unicorn was necessary, but merely avoiding the centaur may have been
sufficient.  The unicorn may have been ambushed, but the centaur
nearly ambushed *him.*  Discretion...

***

Finally, more congrats to the Tandy family!  She's gorgeous -- I'd
love to send her a cuddle and a lullaby.

Annemehr








From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 27 17:10:49 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:10:49 -0000
Subject: Hermione's "Hidden" Obsession
Message-ID: <d4oh2p+ol99@...>


Been taking a breather from posting for quite a while now, but with
July 16th looming, I'm ready to get back into the thick of things
again.  So, here goes...

I've been mulling over several themes lately, and the one thing that I
keep coming back to is the use of the concept of "hiding" in OOP. I'm
not just talking about invisibility, here.  It's more specific than
that.  It's about JKR's practice, throughout OOP, of hiding things in
plain sight.  That is, the object is actually right there, in front of
everyone's eyes; if they only knew how to see it, they would.  Of
course, we've seen this sort of thing in other books, but never to the
degree we see it in Book 5. Is this just some overused magical
literary device? Or is JKR trying to tell us something by repeating
the same pattern over and over again?

Here's a quick list of some of the things I could think of off the top
of my head that use this concept of being hidden right under one's nose:

Things hiding in plain sight:

Thestrals
12 Grimmauld Place
Headless hats
Hermione's numbered coins
Hermione's D.A. list of names
Hermione's house elf hats
Harry's Quibbler article
Room of Requirement

Interestingly, every one of these things can be tied to Hermione in
one way or another. And, even more interesting to me, is the fact that
Hermione seems to be absolutely fascinated with the magical workings
of this concept. I've noticed her either oddly mulling over how some
"hiding" has been accomplished, or trying to figure out how she could
hide something.  She's said things like: "How do those hats work,
then?
I mean, obviously it's some kind of Invisibility Spell, but it's
rather clever to have extended the field of invisibility beyond the
boundaries of the charmed object
I'd imagine the charm wouldn't have a
very long life, though
"(OOP, Ch 24)

And

"Well, Sirius, it's just that there were only four of you meeting in
the Shrieking Shack
But there are twenty-eight of us and none of us is
an Animagus, so we wouldn't need so much an Invisibility Cloak as an
Invisibility Marquee ?" (OOP Ch 17)

What is this all about? Why JKR's and Hermione's fascination with
hiding things?  As a supporter of the theory that Sirius' death has
been faked and he's just "hiding out" until things quiet down, I tend
to think that most of this stuff is just one big clue.  But I'm sure
there are lots of other reasons for all of this hiding about; what are
your ideas?

:: Entropy ::








From annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid  Wed Apr 27 17:43:08 2005
From: annemehr at annemehr.yahoo.invalid (annemehr)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:43:08 -0000
Subject: Hermione's "Hidden" Obsession
In-Reply-To: <d4oh2p+ol99@...>
Message-ID: <d4oivc+hg9v@...>


--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "entropymail" <entropymail at y...>
wrote:

> I've been mulling over several themes lately, and the one thing that I
> keep coming back to is the use of the concept of "hiding" in OOP. I'm
> not just talking about invisibility, here.  It's more specific than
> that.  It's about JKR's practice, throughout OOP, of hiding things in
> plain sight.

Anne:
Just mulling along with you...

More hiding, though not necessarily Hermione-related, or not in plain
sight:
Keeping the under-age in the dark
DD having Harry followed by invisibility-cloaked wizards
Lots of invisibility cloaks, in fact
Mrs Figg
Ministry officials who are also Order members
Voldemort
Order members' disguises (Tonks, M.McGonagall's Muggle clothes)

And the flip side, seeking:
Harry and LV seeing through the scar connection
Snape spying (?) on LV
Legilimency and pensieve-snooping
Extendable Ears
Harry using Umbridge's fireplace for the Floo
The Inquisitorial Squad
Umbridge's class inspections
Umbridge trying to use Veritaserum and Crucio on Harry for info
LV's attempts to get the prophecy

I don't know -- maybe it's just the nature of the covert war.

Nice to see you around again!

Annemehr







From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 28 03:16:58 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:16:58 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Prophecy_From_Voldemort=92s_POV_(long)?=
Message-ID: <d4pkja+5cor@...>


It's pretty amazing how many meanings we can read into these seven
lines, but in the last few days I've been thinking about a slightly
different angle. Lets look at the prophecy from Voldy's POV. Try to
forget for a moment that you know the second half, and look only at
the part that HE knows:

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born
to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies..."

To focus things even more, I'll make the (admittedly dangerous)
assumption that the two last subparts of the above are merely
identifiers of "the one". So assuming for a moment both Voldy and DD
correctly identified Harry, the part that Voldy knows all boils down,
in the end, to: 

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches".

Read that again. ALL of Voldemort's strategy since before GH and
throughout the series has been based on this single sentence. And of
course on his guess regarding the part that he doesn't know, which
apparently wasn't a very good guess. 

If we are ready to take DD's word, he tells us several additional
things about Voldemort's view of the prophecy. First, it seems that
before GH Voldy didn't see the prophecy as a threat at all. DD words
are: "He set out to kill you when you were still a baby, believing he
was fulfilling the terms of the prophecy. He discovered, to his cost,
that he was mistaken, when the curse intended to kill you backfired."

Several paragraphs later DD stresses again that, until GH, Voldy
didn't realize that baby Harry could be dangerous: "He <the
eavesdropper> heard only the beginning, the part foretelling the birth
of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort.
Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be
to risk transferring power to you, and marking you as his equal. So
Voldemort never knew that there might be danger in attacking you, that
it might be wise to wait, to learn more. He did not know that you
would have power the Dark Lord knows not." 

DD also tells us about Voldemort's current guess regarding the second
half of the prophecy: "And so, since his return to his body, and
particularly since your extraordinary escape from him last year, he
has been determined to hear that prophecy in its entirety. This is the
weapon he has been seeking so assiduously since his return: the
knowledge of how to destroy you."

I know I'm not the only member who has a problem with these words of
DD, "the knowledge of how to destroy you." The second half doesn't
seem to contain any special knowledge how to destroy Harry. But Voldy
thinks it does.

To summarize the above, it seems that Voldy first treated the prophecy
as a chance rather than a threat. He didn't imagine that "the power"
is something he doesn't know. When he went to GH he believed that he
was actually "fulfilling the terms of the prophecy". He seemed to
think that the other half, the part that he didn't hear, says that the
Dark Lord will kill Harry. After GH and even after the graveyard this
view didn't change much. The difference is only that now he thinks the
other part contains special instructions how to kill Harry, and that
he failed several times just because he didn't follow these instructions.

Now, why would Voldy think that the prophecy is a chance rather than a
threat? There aren't many possibilities here. We're talking about a
single sentence. Look at it again with my added emphasis:

"The ONE with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches".

Of course this is a chance rather than a threat. This is wonderful. We
are talking about a person that his greatest ambition in life is to
become immortal, and now he's told that the only one who can kill him
is a mere baby. Get rid of this single baby, and no one (not even "the
only one he ever feared") will be able to kill him. To Voldy this
prophecy must have sounded like the greatest Christmas present ever.  

But wait a minute. This is too much of a coincidence for me. A man
with a great dream to become immortal, and no qualms about killing
people since he was sixteen, suddenly receives a notice that he can
become immortal if he just kills one additional baby. Nope, this is a
bit too good to happen by chance, or even by the author's hand.
Someone must have made it happen, and the one with the motive is Voldy
himself.

Besides, he seems to rely too much on this single "one". If it said
"the ONLY one with the power" I could understand why he's so sure. But
remember Voldy never heard the part about "either must die by the hand
of the other". So how can he be so certain that only Harry can kill
him? Perhaps because the prophecy didn't come as a great surprise to
him. Because he made it happen. What, after all, were all these
experiments about?

In the Edinburgh Book Festival, 
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80
when JKR presented her famous question why Voldemort didn't die in GH,
she said: 
 
"At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps
that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he
did to make sure that he did not die ? I will put it that way. I don't
think that it is guessable. It may be ? someone could guess it ? but
you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you
know about the prophecy. I'd better stop there or I will really
incriminate myself."

Note this subtle nuance. She didn't say "particularly now that you
know the prophecy" but "now that you know ABOUT the prophecy" I've
been suspecting for some time before the Edinburgh Book Festival that
the important thing about the prophecy is not so much the words
themselves, but what Voldy thinks they are.

So maybe Voldemort's experiments were about binding his death to
people. This can be a way to avoid death: bind your death to a certain
person, so he's the only one who can kill you, then make sure he can't
kill you. Maybe the DEs were Voldemort's first guinea pigs. He binds
his death to one of them, then he makes them unable to kill him, by
installing them with great fear and reverence to the Dark Lord. But
there must have been problems with these early experiments. He
probably found that this binding didn't survive the death of the bound
person (or he would have no qualms killing a DE to ensure his own
immortality). Perhaps these bindings were limited in time. Voldy
needed to find out how to bind his death to a person for good, so that
once he kills this person, he can't die anymore. And perhaps he found
that the only way to do it is to bind his death to a certain unknown
person. Perhaps only to a yet unborn person. The BIG spells always
come with these small, annoying clauses. 

So Voldy conducts this big binding spell that will finally make him
death proof, and the spell succeeds, only he doesn't know who the
bound person is. Until he hears the first half of the prophecy, and
everything becomes clear. Or so he thinks.   

But if Harry is the only person who can kill Voldemort, and this was a
result of an experiment Voldemort had done, why indeed didn't
Voldemort die in GH?

Because the terms of the prophecy (and probably the terms of the
original binding spell) say the Dark Lord can only die by Harry's
hand. Had Voldemort died in GH it would have been by his own hand. So
he didn't.   

Am I making sense?


Neri







From arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 28 09:31:13 2005
From: arrowsmithbt at kneasy.yahoo.invalid (Barry Arrowsmith)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:31:13 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_Prophecy_From_Voldemort=92s_POV_(long)?=
In-Reply-To: <d4pkja+5cor@...>
Message-ID: <d4qah1+mtt1@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:

>snipped>
 
> Besides, he seems to rely too much on this single "one". If it said
> "the ONLY one with the power" I could understand why he's so sure. But
> remember Voldy never heard the part about "either must die by the hand
> of the other". So how can he be so certain that only Harry can kill
> him? Perhaps because the prophecy didn't come as a great surprise to
> him. Because he made it happen. What, after all, were all these
> experiments about?
> 
> In the Edinburgh Book Festival, 
> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80
> when JKR presented her famous question why Voldemort didn't die in GH,
> she said: 
>  
> "At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps
> that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he
> did to make sure that he did not die ? I will put it that way. I don't
> think that it is guessable. It may be ? someone could guess it ? but
> you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you
> know about the prophecy. I'd better stop there or I will really
> incriminate myself."
> 
> So maybe Voldemort's experiments were about binding his death to
> people. This can be a way to avoid death: bind your death to a certain
> person, so he's the only one who can kill you, then make sure he can't
> kill you.  
> So Voldy conducts this big binding spell that will finally make him
> death proof, and the spell succeeds, only he doesn't know who the
> bound person is. Until he hears the first half of the prophecy, and
> everything becomes clear. Or so he thinks.   
> 
> But if Harry is the only person who can kill Voldemort, and this was a
> result of an experiment Voldemort had done, why indeed didn't
> Voldemort die in GH?
> 
> Because the terms of the prophecy (and probably the terms of the
> original binding spell) say the Dark Lord can only die by Harry's
> hand. Had Voldemort died in GH it would have been by his own hand. So
> he didn't.   
> 
> Am I making sense?
> 

Very interesting.
This needs thinking about and I'm up  to my eyeballs in real life stuff at
the moment, which means that it'll be a few days before I can ponder
the possibilities.

However, when I read your post a part of it reminded me of an idea Lyn 
offered in an off-site exchange a few weeks back - that there are traditional
tales where a wizard protects himself by transferring his soul, essence
or whatever you want to call it, to a hiding place outside his own body.
Eliminating the scourge therefore requires more than just knocking off
his corporate form. His hidey-hole must also be found and cleaned out.

And if this hidey-hole is in Harry's head? If the transferred 'powers' are
more than just magical expertise but include something more fundamental
to Voldys existence? Hmm. What a fun idea. And IIRC there a few posts
that offered the idea that Voldy was somehow incomplete and wondering
if the Ministry possession had resulted in making him whole again. But if
he has *deliberately* split himself then this would be the last  thing he wanted,
it would make him more vulnerable, not less. And DD could have ended the
series right there and then by blasting a possessed Harry. 

'Course this line of thought has absolutely no connection to my oft-stated
belief that GH was all about possession not murder. Heavens above, no.
Who would think such a thing, shame on you.

Right. I promise to respond more fully i.e. the post as a whole, not just one
aspect of it, in a few days. 
Meanwhile - Lyn, any expansion on your Voldy-split-himself-for-safety idea?

Kneasy 







From boyd.t.smythe at boyd_smythe.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 28 13:31:27 2005
From: boyd.t.smythe at boyd_smythe.yahoo.invalid (Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA})
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:31:27 -0500
Subject: Firenze in OOP
Message-ID: <FDCCEEC6AAC8DD4AA2DD0C28E41D2832857855@...>

 
Neri wrote:
 The dilemma you pointed is actually even worse because of JKR's use,
 or rather un-use, of Firenze in OotP. The Firenze subplot in OotP
 simply doesn't go anywhere. It's one reason out of many why OotP was
a bit disappointing, a transitional book rather than standing by
itself.
 Why put a rebellious centaur as a divination teacher at Hogwarts when
 he does not alter the plot of the book in any way, nor teaches us
 anything substantial? The only reason I can think of is as a
 preparation for Books 6 and 7. There are two possible roles that I
see Firenze playing in these books: he can help reinterpreting the
 prophecy, and he can help recruit the centaurs as allies if they can
 get over their fatalism and separationism.

Boyd:
Balance. Aside from Firenze, the centaurs are presented as a bit, well,
cruel & unsympathetic. Kill the foals and all that. Firenze is there to
demonstrate that there are good and bad centaurs. Where else have we seen
this?

Giants: we saw the good (~Hagrid and Grawp) and the bad (all the other
giants).
House-elves: good (Dobby), bad (Kreacher).
Goblins: good (they do a respectable job at Gringotts) and bad (the
oft-cited rebellions).

This duality extends to virtually every facet of the WW, as we see good and
bad Hogwarts founders, good and bad (i.e. DE) wizards, good and bad
Quidditch sportsmanship, pureblood families (Sirius v. Bellatrix) and the
list goes on. It is instructive to notice where we have yet to see the yin
to an obvious yang:

* Salazar Slytherin (was he all bad? Evil incarnate? Or misrepresented by
history?)
* Slytherins (no good ones *yet*)
* LV (does Harry 'destroy' him by appealing to some long-lost good within?)
* Snape (all bad from Harry's POV despite mounds of good deeds for the OoP)
* Dursleys (will there be a good side to one of them? Perhaps revealed when
one expresses unexpected magic?)
* DD (good incarnate? Or Machiavellian MD technician?)
* Draco, Crabbe and Goyle; Hermione and Ron (never good? Never bad? Come on,
now, who's going to betray someone first?)

I'm sure I've missed an obvious one, let me know if I have. Anyway, since
JKR loves painting things in black and white from Harry's POV, then showing
us readers the grey, I expect these folks will get greyer soon.

--Boyd



From entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 28 14:03:25 2005
From: entropymail at entropymail.yahoo.invalid (entropymail)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:03:25 -0000
Subject: Hermione's "Hidden" Obsession
In-Reply-To: <d4oivc+hg9v@...>
Message-ID: <d4qqfd+trcj@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "annemehr" <annemehr at y...> wrote:

> More hiding, though not necessarily Hermione-related, or not in
plain sight:
> Keeping the under-age in the dark
> DD having Harry followed by invisibility-cloaked wizards
> Lots of invisibility cloaks, in fact
> Mrs Figg
> Ministry officials who are also Order members
> Voldemort
> Order members' disguises (Tonks, M.McGonagall's Muggle clothes)

> I don't know -- maybe it's just the nature of the covert war.

True, it could just be the nature of things when there's spying to be
done.  But I'm focusing more on the amount of *objects* that are
actually there but cannot be seen, or objects that are hiding
something just behind (your invisibility cloaks fall into this category!).

I seem to have left out the most obvious of these objects: the veil,
of course! So far, we know nothing of the veil.  But we can surmise
(from Harry's thinking he hears voices just beyond it, and from
real-life historical "veil" references) that there is *something*
hiding just behind it. Though he has a full 360 view of the thing,
Harry can't see what's there.  Something seems to be right there, just
beyond his grasp and, like every other "hidden" object in OOP, if he
could just figure out the puzzle of it, he would be able to see.

Many things in Book 5 (headless hats, invisibility cloaks, Room of
Requirement, etc.) seem to me like great big red arrows, just pointing
towards the veil and letting us know that what we see (or don't see)
isn't always what we get.  But why these things also seem to point
directly towards Hermione as well, I can't say.  They are all
connected to her, and not in an accidental or tenuous way -- but I
can't seem to get a grip on why JKR has chosen to tie the veil and
Hermione together?  Well, off to mull this one over for a while...

:: Entropy ::







From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 28 21:01:42 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:01:42 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_Prophecy_From_Voldemort=92s_POV_(long)?=
In-Reply-To: <d4pkja+5cor@...>
Message-ID: <d4rivm+7jlg@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> It's pretty amazing how many meanings we can read into these seven
> lines, but in the last few days I've been thinking about a slightly
> different angle. Lets look at the prophecy from Voldy's POV. Try to
> forget for a moment that you know the second half, and look only at
> the part that HE knows:
> 
> "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... born
> to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month 
dies..."
> 
> To focus things even more, I'll make the (admittedly dangerous)
> assumption that the two last subparts of the above are merely
> identifiers of "the one". So assuming for a moment both Voldy and DD
> correctly identified Harry, the part that Voldy knows all boils 
down,
> in the end, to: 
> 
> "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches".
> 
> Read that again. ALL of Voldemort's strategy since before GH and
> throughout the series has been based on this single sentence. And of
> course on his guess regarding the part that he doesn't know, which
> apparently wasn't a very good guess. 
> 
> If we are ready to take DD's word, he tells us several additional
> things about Voldemort's view of the prophecy. First, it seems that
> before GH Voldy didn't see the prophecy as a threat at all. DD words
> are: "He set out to kill you when you were still a baby, believing 
he
> was fulfilling the terms of the prophecy. He discovered, to his 
cost,
> that he was mistaken, when the curse intended to kill you 
backfired."
> 
> Several paragraphs later DD stresses again that, until GH, Voldy
> didn't realize that baby Harry could be dangerous: "He <the
> eavesdropper> heard only the beginning, the part foretelling the 
birth
> of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort.
> Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would 
be
> to risk transferring power to you, and marking you as his equal. So
> Voldemort never knew that there might be danger in attacking you, 
that
> it might be wise to wait, to learn more. He did not know that you
> would have power the Dark Lord knows not." 
> 
> DD also tells us about Voldemort's current guess regarding the 
second
> half of the prophecy: "And so, since his return to his body, and
> particularly since your extraordinary escape from him last year, he
> has been determined to hear that prophecy in its entirety. This is 
the
> weapon he has been seeking so assiduously since his return: the
> knowledge of how to destroy you."
> 
> I know I'm not the only member who has a problem with these words of
> DD, "the knowledge of how to destroy you." The second half doesn't
> seem to contain any special knowledge how to destroy Harry. But 
Voldy
> thinks it does.
> 
> To summarize the above, it seems that Voldy first treated the 
prophecy
> as a chance rather than a threat. He didn't imagine that "the power"
> is something he doesn't know. When he went to GH he believed that he
> was actually "fulfilling the terms of the prophecy". He seemed to
> think that the other half, the part that he didn't hear, says that 
the
> Dark Lord will kill Harry. After GH and even after the graveyard 
this
> view didn't change much. The difference is only that now he thinks 
the
> other part contains special instructions how to kill Harry, and that
> he failed several times just because he didn't follow these 
instructions.
> 
> Now, why would Voldy think that the prophecy is a chance rather 
than a
> threat? There aren't many possibilities here. We're talking about a
> single sentence. Look at it again with my added emphasis:
> 
> "The ONE with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches".
> 
> Of course this is a chance rather than a threat. This is wonderful. 
We
> are talking about a person that his greatest ambition in life is to
> become immortal, and now he's told that the only one who can kill 
him
> is a mere baby. Get rid of this single baby, and no one (not 
even "the
> only one he ever feared") will be able to kill him. To Voldy this
> prophecy must have sounded like the greatest Christmas present 
ever.  
> 
> But wait a minute. This is too much of a coincidence for me. A man
> with a great dream to become immortal, and no qualms about killing
> people since he was sixteen, suddenly receives a notice that he can
> become immortal if he just kills one additional baby. Nope, this is 
a
> bit too good to happen by chance, or even by the author's hand.
> Someone must have made it happen, and the one with the motive is 
Voldy
> himself.
> 
> Besides, he seems to rely too much on this single "one". If it said
> "the ONLY one with the power" I could understand why he's so sure. 
But
> remember Voldy never heard the part about "either must die by the 
hand
> of the other". So how can he be so certain that only Harry can kill
> him? Perhaps because the prophecy didn't come as a great surprise to
> him. Because he made it happen. What, after all, were all these
> experiments about?
> 
> In the Edinburgh Book Festival, 
> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80
> when JKR presented her famous question why Voldemort didn't die in 
GH,
> she said: 
>  
> "At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps
> that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he
> did to make sure that he did not die ? I will put it that way. I 
don't
> think that it is guessable. It may be ? someone could guess it ? but
> you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that 
you
> know about the prophecy. I'd better stop there or I will really
> incriminate myself."
> 
> Note this subtle nuance. She didn't say "particularly now that you
> know the prophecy" but "now that you know ABOUT the prophecy" I've
> been suspecting for some time before the Edinburgh Book Festival 
that
> the important thing about the prophecy is not so much the words
> themselves, but what Voldy thinks they are.
> 
> So maybe Voldemort's experiments were about binding his death to
> people. This can be a way to avoid death: bind your death to a 
certain
> person, so he's the only one who can kill you, then make sure he 
can't
> kill you. Maybe the DEs were Voldemort's first guinea pigs. He binds
> his death to one of them, then he makes them unable to kill him, by
> installing them with great fear and reverence to the Dark Lord. But
> there must have been problems with these early experiments. He
> probably found that this binding didn't survive the death of the 
bound
> person (or he would have no qualms killing a DE to ensure his own
> immortality). Perhaps these bindings were limited in time. Voldy
> needed to find out how to bind his death to a person for good, so 
that
> once he kills this person, he can't die anymore. And perhaps he 
found
> that the only way to do it is to bind his death to a certain unknown
> person. Perhaps only to a yet unborn person. The BIG spells always
> come with these small, annoying clauses. 
> 
> So Voldy conducts this big binding spell that will finally make him
> death proof, and the spell succeeds, only he doesn't know who the
> bound person is. Until he hears the first half of the prophecy, and
> everything becomes clear. Or so he thinks.   
snip 
> Neri


What has bothered me a bit was when did LV made himself deathproof. 
Do we know for sure it was before his rumble with Baby Harry or 
after. I was thinking after the backfired AV, and that is why it was 
necessary for LV to have some of Harry's blood and not just for the 
protection Lilly bestowed on Harry. Since LV does not know how Harry 
could destroy him, maybe he thinks having Harry's blood puts he and 
Harry both on even ground. I know in the graveyard scene LV makes 
reference to Lilly's protection but I think its more than that.

FRan






From nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 28 23:10:32 2005
From: nkafkafi at nkafkafi.yahoo.invalid (nkafkafi)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:10:32 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_Prophecy_From_Voldemort=92s_POV_(long)?=
In-Reply-To: <d4rivm+7jlg@...>
Message-ID: <d4rqh8+f9nk@...>

FRan wrote:
> 
> What has bothered me a bit was when did LV made himself deathproof. 
> Do we know for sure it was before his rumble with Baby Harry or 
> after. I was thinking after the backfired AV, and that is why it was 
> necessary for LV to have some of Harry's blood and not just for the 
> protection Lilly bestowed on Harry. Since LV does not know how Harry 
> could destroy him, maybe he thinks having Harry's blood puts he and 
> Harry both on even ground. I know in the graveyard scene LV makes 
> reference to Lilly's protection but I think its more than that.
> 
> 

Neri:
OK, what do we know about the steps Voldy took to make himself deathproof?

In the graveyard Voldy says to the DEs (GoF, Ch.33):
"And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not
rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself
against mortal death?"

He also says in the same chapter about why he did not die at GH when
the curse backfired:
"You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it
appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked
for I had not
been killed, though the curse should have done it."

And JKR said in the Edinburgh Book Festival:
"The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been
asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't
Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort
die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't
he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps
that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he
did to make sure that he did not die?I will put it that way. I don't
think that it is guessable. It may be?someone could guess it?but you
should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you
know about the prophecy. I'd better stop there or I will really
incriminate myself."

All this seems to establish the following details:

1. There were several "steps" or "experiments" (which are apparently
the same).

2. They took place before GH (though difficult to say how much time
before).

3. The DEs knew about these steps (or at least about some of them).

4. It appears that Voldy isn't sure which and how many of these
experiments saved him in GH (of course, he might be mistaken and it
was something else entirely that saved him).

5. Something about the prophecy is an important clue to the nature of
these experiments.

6. It would be very difficult to guess what they were.

(which of course, doesn't keep us from trying) 


Neri, 
who has absolutely no idea how he had managed to generate the exotic
characters in the thread's heading. 







From fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid  Thu Apr 28 23:58:34 2005
From: fmaneely at fhmaneely.yahoo.invalid (fhmaneely)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:58:34 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_The_Prophecy_From_Voldemort=92s_POV_(long)?=
In-Reply-To: <d4rqh8+f9nk@...>
Message-ID: <d4rtba+8qe4@...>

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:
> FRan wrote:
> > 
> > What has bothered me a bit was when did LV made himself 
deathproof. 
> > Do we know for sure it was before his rumble with Baby Harry or 
> > after. I was thinking after the backfired AV, and that is why it 
was 
> > necessary for LV to have some of Harry's blood and not just for 
the 
> > protection Lilly bestowed on Harry. Since LV does not know how 
Harry 
> > could destroy him, maybe he thinks having Harry's blood puts he 
and 
> > Harry both on even ground. I know in the graveyard scene LV makes 
> > reference to Lilly's protection but I think its more than that.
> 
> Neri:
> OK, what do we know about the steps Voldy took to make himself 
deathproof?
> 
> In the graveyard Voldy says to the DEs (GoF, Ch.33):
> "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not
> rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard 
myself
> against mortal death?"
> 
> He also says in the same chapter about why he did not die at GH when
> the curse backfired:
> "You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it
> appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked
for I had not
> been killed, though the curse should have done it."
> 
> And JKR said in the Edinburgh Book Festival:
> "The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably 
been
> asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't
> Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't 
Voldemort
> die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why 
didn't
> he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the 
steps
> that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he
> did to make sure that he did not die?I will put it that way. I don't
> think that it is guessable. It may be?someone could guess it?but you
> should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you
> know about the prophecy. I'd better stop there or I will really
> incriminate myself."
> 
> All this seems to establish the following details:
> 
> 1. There were several "steps" or "experiments" (which are apparently
> the same).
Fran: Are these steps hidden in books 1-6?
> 
> 2. They took place before GH (though difficult to say how much time
> before).
Fran:I thinks maybe so, but then again, if he thought of himself as 
being invincible, why bother going after Harry.
> 
> 3. The DEs knew about these steps (or at least about some of them).
> 
> 4. It appears that Voldy isn't sure which and how many of these
> experiments saved him in GH (of course, he might be mistaken and it
> was something else entirely that saved him).
> 
> 5. Something about the prophecy is an important clue to the nature 
of
> these experiments.

Fran: Actually, for some strange reason, I think Diary!Tom is more 
important even though I cannot figure out how. 
> 6. It would be very difficult to guess what they were.
> 
> (which of course, doesn't keep us from trying) 
Fran: Roger that!
> 
> 
> Neri, 
> who has absolutely no idea how he had managed to generate the exotic
> characters in the thread's heading.

Sometimes I cant help feeling that some things might be right under 
our nose!
Fran