Time Travel/Prophecy/Testimony/Sorting Hat/Kreacher/Mentor/Unicorn Blood

[annemehr]

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